| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2007 09:32:13 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's really not a viable answer to think of biofuels simply because of the great expanses of area needed to grow the soybeans to convert. It's really not possible as there isn't enough arable land in the world to make up 25% of what the US would use in biodiesel if that's all that we wanted to burn. As nice as it is, it's too little, too late. |
Biofuels aren't *the* answer, but they are a component of the answer. Corn and soybeans are relatively poor sources for biofuel feedstock. Sugar cane is better, algae is far better. Biofuels can also be made from various waste streams, such as whey from dairy processes. Bottom line, as the cost of energy rises, many more options for creation of fuels will be economically viable. Efficient production of biofuels is one way to cut reliance on fossil fuels while reducing carbon emissions. We just need to be truthful with ourselves about the impacts. Biofuels have their downside as well as upside. |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 10:14:18 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you make the scientific community out to be a bunch of morons? |
Yes
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 10:15:39 PM · #28 |
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant Homosapiens are.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 10:46:24 PM · #29 |
Climate will always change. How do you think the transition from ice age to now happened?
What we as humans do can either speed it up or slow it down but never stop it. |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 10:53:48 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Climate will always change. How do you think the transition from ice age to now happened?
What we as humans do can either speed it up or slow it down but never stop it. |
Two words: Nuclear Winter
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 10:53:52 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you make the scientific community out to be a bunch of morons? |
Yes |
An interesting read. But I do wonder from this quote, "Additionally. for other biases, positive and negative there's the buildings, the windows, the shade trees, the wind sheltering, and the lawn sprinkler. There's also the big parking lot to the southwest, and the Stevenson Screen is at the top of a slope and there's a parking lot downslope." what the blogger would consider as being free from bias. While I hear his point, I think it may be difficult to introduce some standard that all sensors across the globe must meet. |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 10:54:26 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by jonejess:
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant Homosapiens are. |
We're the only animal that fouls its own nest.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:02:52 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you make the scientific community out to be a bunch of morons? |
Yes |
An interesting read. But I do wonder from this quote, "Additionally. for other biases, positive and negative there's the buildings, the windows, the shade trees, the wind sheltering, and the lawn sprinkler. There's also the big parking lot to the southwest, and the Stevenson Screen is at the top of a slope and there's a parking lot downslope." what the blogger would consider as being free from bias. While I hear his point, I think it may be difficult to introduce some standard that all sensors across the globe must meet. |
//www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/standard.htm
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:03:26 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by jonejess:
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant Homosapiens are. |
We're the only animal that fouls its own nest. |
No other animal assumes its nest is the entire planet. The use of the word "nest" is misleading. |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:03:35 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by jonejess:
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant Homosapiens are. |
We're the only animal that fouls its own nest. |
Clearly you've never removed a bird nest from a rain gutter...
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:10:43 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's really not a viable answer to think of biofuels simply because of the great expanses of area needed to grow the soybeans to convert. It's really not possible as there isn't enough arable land in the world to make up 25% of what the US would use in biodiesel if that's all that we wanted to burn. As nice as it is, it's too little, too late. |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Biofuels aren't *the* answer, but they are a component of the answer. Corn and soybeans are relatively poor sources for biofuel feedstock. Sugar cane is better, algae is far better. Biofuels can also be made from various waste streams, such as whey from dairy processes. Bottom line, as the cost of energy rises, many more options for creation of fuels will be economically viable. Efficient production of biofuels is one way to cut reliance on fossil fuels while reducing carbon emissions. We just need to be truthful with ourselves about the impacts. Biofuels have their downside as well as upside. |
My point was simply that all too often, we come up with an answer, and then everything else grinds to a halt. If it isn't the miracle-du-jour, and all the cool kids are doing it, it gets sloughed off to the side, while the latest and greatest miracle cure is concocted.
It's like recycling, hybrid cars, solar power, and CAFE requirements. Hybrid cars are a joke.....they're unGodly expensive in the manufacturing process, they're of seriously limited application, and they're a detriment to the environment at end of life.
You hardly hear anything about solar power, and that's seriously good stuff, but it's certainly not accessible by the masses 'cause it's fairly expensive technology. After doing a little research for my own purposes of building, I have also found that the general rule of thumb is 2-4 on the dollar for "Green" construction. That's just nuts.
Recycling is good, but around here in plastic, they only take 1 & 2, and I've seen all the way up to 6 in the stuff I use every day......I used to have a shop where everything I used came in cardboard boxes, and I couldn't get it recycled unless I paid money......what I generally would do was recycle them by distributing them through friends, and I would use the rest of them in shipping parts out that I sold.
I don't even want to get started on the wretched excess that the American public is doing with all these 6000 pound SUVs!!!! What the Hell happened to the CAFE requirements????? There are more gas guzzlers running around now than in 1973! What's up with that?????
So I just do my part to make sure that I'm a part of the solution and not part of the problem and try not to think about how bad it all is in the big picture. But I get pretty disheartened when I look around me and think about it.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:16:15 PM · #37 |
Let's assume that humans are responsible for the environmental changes that lead to the destruction of not only humankind, but the vast majority of all living species on the planet. Assume the "worst case scenario".
What part of that is "unnatural"?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:25:00 PM · #38 |
I'm a very real skeptic. Not enough data and what there is maybe being miss read for political reasons. The meterologist who started the Weather Channel in an interview last week said the data is being miss read and believes that this interpretation is way off.
Also, why is Mars ice caps melting too? CO2?
I am skeptical, and if we are having global warming, are we sure it is bad. Maybe warmer means more crops, more fresh water, the west coast of Colorado, etc..
Mars ice capsare melting too |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:27:05 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you make the scientific community out to be a bunch of morons? |
Yes |
Makes you wonder where all the rest of the official temperature sensors are in the world are mounted and if the have a possibility of skewed results. Gonna have to keep my eyes out for these.
I know that Denver has theirs at the airport, have to find out exactly where it is placed. Not to mention I remember in the news (years ago) about them talking about it, because of where it use to be placed. In the middle of an asphalt jungle.
Found one (Google hybrid maps) in Denver 7news on the roof
A little better, still on gravel road Stapleton Airport
And if this one is within the vicinity...hmmm...Middle of the runways at DIA??
Makes me think more and more
Message edited by author 2007-11-17 23:49:57.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:39:56 PM · #40 |
[/quote]We're the only animal that fouls its own nest. [/quote]
Not true, several species of birds poop on the nests to keep predators off it and to make it stronger. Just some facts :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:49:50 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you make the scientific community out to be a bunch of morons? |
Yes |
Makes you wonder where all the rest of the official temperature sensors are in the world are mounted and if the have a possibility of skewed results. Gonna have to keep my eyes out for these.
I know that Denver has theirs at the airport, have to find out exactly where it is placed. Not to mention I remember in the news (years ago) about them talking about it, because of where it use to be placed. In the middle of an asphalt jungle. |
Those real bad ones came from an audit done by //www.surfacestations.org/
they have audited about 34% of the stations in the US and about 86% of them are within 30 meters of a heat source, 72% within 10 meters of a heat source and 18% are right above a heat source! (note, a heat source could be a patch of concrete or an AC unit)
//www.surfacestations.org/USHCN_stationlist.htm
Per the standards I posted earlier, it should be 100 feet (about 30 meters) from a heat source.
Message edited by author 2007-11-17 23:50:58.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2007 11:56:04 PM · #42 |
I say screw it! Burn tons of stored energy in the ground. Who cares if there is stored carbon in it that took millions of years to build up. Burn it as quickly as possible, heck nothing could happen could it?
Personally, I find it a pointless arguement, people in general are stupid. They couldn't draw their own country on a map stupid. I have learned logic and reason don't come into the equation its "Gods Way."
I say run away from this issue, people don't want to hear what they are doing is bad, they buy at Walmart, they support the local economy leave it alone kinda stuff...
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 12:26:05 AM · #43 |
The longest and arguable "best" data series for global temperature comes from Brohan et al (2006) PDF here. Approximately 8 pages are devoted to error and uncertainty and ways of dealing with it. In case you think you guys are the only ones smart enough to think of the potential problems, there are sections talking about station error, measurement error, homogenization adjustment error, normal error, calculation and reporting error, sampling error, bias error, urbanization effect, and thermometer exposure changes. It is also worth mentioning that the data comes from 4349 stations on land as well as marine data measuring sea surface temperatures measured by ships and buoys (I couldn't find a discreet number for this).
The paper is pretty technical, but it seems a world more "professional" than dude's blog with funny pictures.
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 00:26:53. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 12:54:27 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The longest and arguable "best" data series for global temperature comes from Brohan et al (2006) PDF here. Approximately 8 pages are devoted to error and uncertainty and ways of dealing with it. In case you think you guys are the only ones smart enough to think of the potential problems, there are sections talking about station error, measurement error, homogenization adjustment error, normal error, calculation and reporting error, sampling error, bias error, urbanization effect, and thermometer exposure changes. It is also worth mentioning that the data comes from 4349 stations on land as well as marine data measuring sea surface temperatures measured by ships and buoys (I couldn't find a discreet number for this).
The paper is pretty technical, but it seems a world more "professional" than dude's blog with funny pictures. |
8 pages to say they know there data is flawed because the add stations, move station, repace stations... so they add a fudge factor. Very "professional."
As an engineer of aircraft, I would not let you fly on a plane if I had to add a fudge factor to my data because I knew it was flawed.
As a doctor, would you make treatments based on flawed data that has a fudge factor applied?
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 01:03:48 AM · #45 |
Lets say that global warming is made up by some interest groups.
Are what they saying in any case a bad thing?
Are you happy polluting the earth if it means that it wont lead to our destruction?
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 01:30:49 AM · #46 |
My problem continues to be the "force feeding" of it, the cramming it down our throats. Wait and see, there will be taxes and money coming outta out pockets for all this. Unless you buy carbon credits, then it already is.
As Gore did, I should start my own carbon credits company, so I can pay myself and write it off.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 01:33:40 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
8 pages to say they know there data is flawed because the add stations, move station, repace stations... so they add a fudge factor. Very "professional."
As an engineer of aircraft, I would not let you fly on a plane if I had to add a fudge factor to my data because I knew it was flawed.
As a doctor, would you make treatments based on flawed data that has a fudge factor applied? |
It's VERY professional. I know as an allergist that my skin tests can have both false positives and false negatives. Instead of just ignoring that, I share the data with my patients and give them my expert assessment on the LIKELIHOOD that they are allergic to a certain allergen. Am I right all the time? No. Is this the best data they have available? Yes. Admitting that there is the potential for bias and error in the data and then addressing possible solutions to these errors is exactly how the scientific community works.
What your buddy the blogger is presenting is anecdotal evidence. That is, single exposures of data. Sometimes anecdotal evidence can reveal truths (perhaps there really IS a problem with data collection sites), but it is the weakest form of evidence and easily succumbs to more robust data.
Originally posted by dacrazym:
My problem continues to be the "force feeding" of it, the cramming it down our throats. |
How else do you propose we notify 6+ billion people that difficult changes need to be made?
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Please be careful not to bait or provoke other users.. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 01:33:56 AM · #48 |
I'll join in on the debate in 10 years, when you are all screaming about the coming ice age and global cooling! Until then!
B |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 01:45:10 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by brimac:
I'll join in on the debate in 10 years, when you are all screaming about the coming ice age and global cooling! Until then!
B |
That was done in the 70's :)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How else do you propose we notify 6+ billion people that difficult changes need to be made? |
I put that in that same post...second sentence...You'll be taxed for it.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 02:27:17 AM · #50 |
While you may have nutshelled how the scientific community works, your entire post highlights the possibility that the scientific community may not be correct - which seems to be the exact opposite of what you were trying for (I'm not saying they aren't correct on much of this topic, mind you, but it doesn't make sense to me to deny the possibility that they are wrong - if not with regard to the end result, then perhaps with regard to the cause(s) or magnitude). Indeed, just because the statistical model in the article you linked to attempted to account for numerous identified uncertainties does not mean that it did so accurately, or that it accounted for all uncertainties.
On the other hand, those that argue that the data is so flawed as to prevent its accurate analysis have to concede that the statistical model in question could be underreporting the results. Even so, they may well take solace in the uncertainty provided by the argument, which is neither unfounded nor evidence of ignorance as I see it.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Please assume good faith. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:40:53 PM EDT.
