Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I'm cool!
Joined
·
14,062 Posts
And Erik claims to know more than an endowed chair in Atmospheric Sciences from MIT:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Nope, I dont claim to know much about it, but I do know the number of scientists (including the the science acadamies for the US, Great Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Canada, India, China, Brazil and NASA) that believe in it far outnumber the cherry pickers you will use to support your side
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,432 Posts
In a speech a coupla days ago, the President was touting development of Hydrogen fueled vehicles in an effort to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming. Wonder what wackos he's listening to?
 

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I'm cool!
Joined
·
14,062 Posts
[Q]captaingeorge originally wrote:
In a speech a coupla days ago, the President was touting development of Hydrogen fueled vehicles in an effort to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming. Wonder what wackos he's listening to?
[/Q]

Where do you think that hydrogen comes from - a hydrogen mine?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
[Q]captaingeorge originally wrote:
In a speech a coupla days ago, the President was touting development of Hydrogen fueled vehicles in an effort to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming. Wonder what wackos he's listening to?
[/Q]

Apparently companies like Daimler Chrysler, BMW, GM and Ford are a bunch of wackos.
 

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I'm cool!
Joined
·
14,062 Posts
Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a means of storing and carrying energy. No matter how you use hydrogen, you have to make it from something. You can make it chemically from oil and gas, or you can make it by breaking water, electicrically. The only way hydrogen is really "cleaner" than gasoline is if the energy used to make the hydrogen comes from a "clean" source like nuclear, hydro, solar or wind. If you have a hydrogen powered car, and the hydrogen comes from plant that burns coal, oil or gas to produce it (as most of ours does in the US), all you've done is moved the emission of the CO2 from the car to the plant.

Hydrogen is not a "cure" for CO2 production, but it is a popular myth, so it's not surprising that politicians come out for it. While I favor development of any reasonable alternative to gasoline, I don't think that hydrogen is likely to be a long term solution to the crisis.

Did you know that a gallon of gasoline contains more hydrogen than a gallon of liquid hydrogen?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
[Q]captaingeorge originally wrote:
[Q]LinMar originally wrote:
[Q]captaingeorge originally wrote:
In a speech a coupla days ago, the President was touting development of Hydrogen fueled vehicles in an effort to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming. Wonder what wackos he's listening to?
[/Q]

Apparently companies like Daimler Chrysler, BMW, GM and Ford are a bunch of wackos.
[/Q]By Fritz's standards, I suppose they are.
[/Q]
I have no idea what that means? I was refering to your comment about GWB listening to "wackos". All the above companies have working hydrogen cars already and are actively persuing this technology.
 

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I'm cool!
Joined
·
14,062 Posts
Global warming as such is not BS. The globe has warmed, starting in about 1840. The issue is why. The extreme global warmingists try to pin it all on increased CO2 in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic sources. However, the globe has warmed and cooled many times before without such interference. The world experienced a warm period in the early medieval period known as the "medieval climate optimium" that was approximately as warm as it is now (our knowledge is somewhat limited by the lack of thermometers in the old castles and all, but judging from historical snow lines and vegetation). That was followed by the "little ice age", a cold period which saw glacial advances, and snow and ice in places that weren't accustomed to them). That appears to be what ended in about 1840. At the heart of the "little ice age" lies the Maunder minimum, a period during which sunspot activity all but stopped, a period of low solar activity. Today, we are at the highest period of sunspot activity ever recorded. It is pretty well established that solar cycles have a big role in earth's climate.

While increases of CO2 have occurred due to man, they have occurred primarilly from 1900 on, in an expontial (upward) curve, while increases in global temperature have been generally linear, with occasional wiggles (like a downward trend from 1940-1970, which sent the alarmists into predicting an oncoming ice-age, triggered by, you guessed it, human burning of fossil fuels, with the recommendation of, you guessed it, de-industrialization of the West). So the rise in CO2 doesn't match the rise in global temperatures very well, while the rise in solar activity has (even the bigger wiggles).

Predicitions of global warming from CO2 are based on enormously complex computer simulations of climate. While I respect the power of computers as a research tool, it is fair to point out that computer programs tend to reflect the expectations of the people who write them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,432 Posts
You're such a bonehead sometimes, Fritz. I was attacking no one. Merely pointing out that the President clearly didn't agree with you and your "cut and paste" sources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,432 Posts
[Q]Fritzer originally wrote:
[Q]captaingeorge originally wrote:
You're such a bonehead sometimes, Fritz. I was attacking no one. Merely pointing out that the President clearly didn't agree with you and your "cut and paste" sources.
[/Q]

By your usual beliefs, shouldn't that make me right?
[/Q]You're just full of disinformation today, Fritz. As you know, my only major beef with GWB is Iraq. I haven't slammed him much otherwise.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top