Global Warming and Evolution

[True_Blue]

Of course the biggest problem with hydrogen is that it is not an energy source. It is more like a battery, an energy storage means. The energy has to come from somewhere else. Most hydrogen used now is 'cracked' from natural gas (releasing carbon). However, it takes more energy to produce it than you get back when you consume it. Better to use the natural gas directly.

This is a very good point. While there are other ways to get hydrogen than natural gas, those methods are even more expensive. So hydrogen, is a losing proposition. Liquid hydrogen is hugely expensive to liquify--the cost to cool is excessive compared to the value.

The previously mentioned study on CO2, nitrogen, and plants is interesting, but the researchers seemed to have had to adjust too many variables to get the results they wanted. The growth of plants will indeed also depend on nitrogen. But the difference is that while CO2 will generally disburse throughout the atmosphere in equal concentrations, the nitrogen will not. Some soil is nitrogen-rich, some nitrogen-poor, so the study's results may not be generally applicable on land. And the soil-plant study is not at all applicable in the ocean, where a significant percentage of CO2-fixing activity takes place. Moreover, microbes will adapt to a significant degree to varying concentrations of CO2 and nitrogen.

 

[thaumaturgy]

How bad must global climate change be to get the Bush administration to finally come out and say:

US PRESIDENT George Bush's top science advisers have issued a report that, for the first time, endorses what most scientific experts have long argued: that greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion "are very likely the single largest cause" of the earth's warming(SOURCE)

Sharon Hays, deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the report did not represent a changed assessment, but "a rolling-up of a whole bunch of reports on the science, showing that climate change is primarily caused by human activity of the last 50 years".(ibid)

You know, when even the Bush Administration comes around, you have to wonder what these folks are seeing.

 

[True_Blue]

How bad must global climate change be to get the Bush administration to finally come out and say:

You know, when even the Bush Administration comes around, you have to wonder what these folks are seeing.

President Bush and most of the top people in his administration definitely do not buy global warming. The problem was that around 2005, the Democrats embraced global warming en mass. About 20% of Republicans, a small minority, but including people like John McCain, have also accepted it. Most importantly, five of the justices on the SC accepted it. Perhaps uncoincidentally, about 60-65% of climatology scientists have accepted it. Overall, perhaps 90% of liberals accept it, 80% of conservatives oppose it, and 70% of moderates support it. This is consistent with other sorts of political issues, like abortion. That means that politically it is difficult for Bush to oppose.

 

[thaumaturgy]

President Bush and most of the top people in his administration definitely do not buy global warming.

Well, then it's a good thing we aren't a kingdom and W isn't our king, because, as you noted the press release from his administration scientists said:

that greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion "are very likely the single largest cause" of the earth's warming

The problem was that around 2005, the Democrats embraced global warming en mass.

That's probably because of

what most scientific experts have long argued

Perhaps uncoincidentally, about 60-65% of climatology scientists have accepted it

Where did you get that number?

. Overall, perhaps 90% of liberals accept it, 80% of conservatives oppose it

Yeah, when I want science done, I always break it down into "liberal and conservative" political designations.

and 70% of moderates support it. This is consistent with other sorts of political issues, like abortion. That means that politically it is difficult for Bush to oppose.

Oh, so you think that when everyone on the planet finally realizes this is a concern and you are left alone you will simply assume the entire world is following "pressure" from liberal groups?

Good luck with that. That way lies "conspiracy theory".

 

[True_Blue]

Where did you get that number?

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Results of an International Survey of Climate Scientists, by Joseph Bast and James M. Taylor, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois.

"Do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic (man-made) causes?" Slightly more than half (55.8%) agreed.

But as I've continuously said earlier, it's important for intelligent people like ourselves to look at the data, validate the data by going back to first principles, and judge its validity without feeling the urge to consult polls. If global warming is happening on Mars, there's not much chance that SUVs and man-made CO2 emissions are the cause. If global warming preachers always make wrong predictions (e.g. NY under 10 feet of water by 2000), then the failed predictions are a strong indicator the underlying model is invalid.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

But as I've continuously said earlier, it's important for intelligent people like ourselves to look at the data, validate the data by going back to first principles, and judge its validity without feeling the urge to consult polls. If global warming is happening on Mars, there's not much chance that SUVs and man-made CO2 emissions are the cause. If global warming preachers always make wrong predictions (e.g. NY under 10 feet of water by 2000), then the failed predictions are a strong indicator the underlying model is invalid.

Talking about Mars, have you got any data on the apparent warming?

 

[True_Blue]

Talking about Mars, have you got any data on the apparent warming?

I believe the links are earlier in the thread, somewhere in the middle. Or better yet, you can google mars warming icecaps.

 

[Bombila]

It's always a good idea to look at more than one bit of research that supports your own bias, something I thought you would know, TrueBlue:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

from the article:

New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.

During the 1970s Mars experienced several large wind storms that stirred up bright, shiny dust particles and redistributed them around the planet, the team explained.

In the 1980s and 1990s smaller-scale processes like dust devils tidied up the planet, the researchers said, pushing the bright dust aside to expose the darker rocks below. ~

Mars is not Earth.

 

[True_Blue]

It's always a good idea to look at more than one bit of research that supports your own bias, something I thought you would know, TrueBlue:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

from the article:

New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.

Sounds suspiciously like an insignificant, second-order effect to me. In any case, wind is also powered by the sun, so any change in weather phenomena, just like a reduction in ice caps, is directly causally correlated to the sun. At least you can give the National Geographic credit for reporting on the shrinkage of Martian icecaps, and at least weakly trying to discredit the data.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

How bad must global climate change be to get the Bush administration to finally come out and say:




You know, when even the Bush Administration comes around, you have to wonder what these folks are seeing.

Well, getting caught red handed tampering with and trying to burry NASA's findings will cause a little honesty to creep into any creep.

 

[Baggins]

. In any case, wind is also powered by the sin,

The Christian equivalent of the Freudian slip

 

[True_Blue]

The Christian equivalent of the Freudian slip

Funny, but immaterial. I, O, and U are right next to each other on the keyboard.

 

[Baggins]

Funny, but immaterial. I, O, and U are right next to each other on the keyboard.

I was only after funny. I wasn't trying to make a point