finally some sense about global warming

[spyder]

Here ya go stone, I didn't know the other company went out of business, it is Japan so who knows the real reason why... Anyway, here is an article of a guy here that is using HHO gas. http://www.mobilemag.com/2006/05/31/...water-as-fuel/

[cstone]

Apparently Mr. Klein has given up any claims to run an engine solely on water for fuel. His current claim is to use the gas he creates with water and electricity to enhance fuel efficiency and decreased emissions. http://hytechapps.com/products.html#Automotive

I am unconvinced that Mr. Klein has an economically feasible alternative fuel which will get millions of Americans back and forth to work every day and save the world from mankind's gluttonous consumption.

I wish him great luck in his future endeavors and also to all those very bright minds working on solving the problems we face.

When a water powered or even a hydrogen fuel cell car becomes available, and it is a better economic choice for me and my family, I will want to buy one. Sadly, I am getting old and I will probably be driving my Toyota Yaris into retirement.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I learned back in school that the arguement of global warming was about what the warming affect in the warmer months does to the weather patterns, or climate. There was no mention of "climate change" back then. Also, I don't know where you have been, but it has also been noted globally that since the mid 90's, the temperature has gone up, in record numbers. Not new news on that one.

It has been noted by the likes of Gavin Schmidt. On the other hand, if you look at the satellite records from the University of Alabama Huntsville and Dr. Roy Spencer, you'll find that overall trend this decade has been downward. Also check Lucia's Blackboard (Lucia by the way is in the middle of the road on the issue -- she believes the Earth is warming but seems to believe that Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, Mann et al have overstated the strength of their evidence, understated and downplayed evidence against their case and (at least with respect to the Climategate emails) perverted the scientific process. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. is another one like Lucia -- I highly recommend his book, "The Climate Fix." Dr. Robert Carter explains things even you might be able to understand in "Climate: The Counter-Consensus".

I would have to say here that you are wrong. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but if you are going to attack what it is that I said, you should get your info strait. Otherwise, you look like a jack ass. Here is a quote strait from NASA, you know, the people with the satellites lookin down: "Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too."

You can say it all you want -- the facts are that you're incorrect. Just look at the overhead photos and you will see that the Antarctica ice cover has grown overall. The East Antarctica Ice Sheet has grown in mass every year from 1992-2003 (satellite radar measurements) presumably due to increased snowfall. Of course, the detailed situation is more complicated: The areas near the Antarctic Peninsula are warming slightly while the other side of the continent has generally cooled and while one ice shelf has collapsed, other ice shelves have grown. Lots of coverage on this at the Air Vent, Climate Audit, Watt's Up With That, etc. Oh and changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet appear to be due more to changes in the gulfstream flow.

Again, not to point out that you are wrong, but, you are. They are both melting. Actual scientific data proves this.

Not to point out that you are wrong but you are -- actual scientific data proves this. Again, see the satellite record from UAH.

Funny I posted a recent comment about how people shouldn't sound like morons by talking shit. I graduated from Worcester Polytechnic Institure with a degree in Biotechnology. You might be right though, maybe that doesn't make me a good candidate to talk about science... Pull your head out.

You should take your own advice. I'll see your BS in Biotech from WPI and raise you with a MS in Applied Physics from JHU and 20 years of scientific and engineering analysis. Of course, we're both trumped by Dr. Hal Lewis who is only Emeritus Professor of Physics at UCSB and resigned from the APS over their participation in the AGW fraud. You might get some support from Dr. Gavin Schmidt since he's the one who publishes the ivory tower pronouncements about "warmest year in XXXX" but I'll just have to point out his doctorate is in computer science, not physics.

Did I say Carbon was evil? I don't remember saying that...

No but all you can quote are "decarbonization" schemes as if carbon was some evil little element. If you want to talk about a need for sustainable energy, I'll be with you as that's a genuine national security and economic need, but if you keep talking about decarbonization as some magic remedy like Al Gore then you're lumped in with the anti-science Greens in my book.

Fact: The Earth has been much warmer in the past, even the recent past, than it is today. Fact: Your fact is wrong, don't post ignorant shit that is supposed to be used to debunk someone else or make them look stupid, otherwise, you look like the stupid one.

Yeah, I guess looking at the geologic records would be ignorant to you. Archaeological evidence from the vineyards in Greenland and Great Britain would also be "ignorant shit". The Medieval Warming Period has been well-documented for centuries -- until Michael Mann tried to rewrite history. I'll leave it to you to try to grow grapes in Greenland now since you think things are SO warm.

You keep talking about ignorance yet you know NOTHING about the geological or historical records? Just what the heck do they teach "biotechnology" majors these days? You want a good argument but you come into this without having actually looked into the science behind the crap you spout? Guys like you are why Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt have been able to get away with the massive fraud they've been spreading.

You can find copies of the historical record (before Gavin Schmidt "adjusted" it) documented at Climate Audit and The Air Vent.

As you say, if you're going to argue, try to do it intelligently. So far, all you do is spout "False!" "You're ignorant" and other ad hominems. I've given you sources -- now go use that WPI degree and look some of them up.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Here ya go stone, I didn't know the other company went out of business, it is Japan so who knows the real reason why... Anyway, here is an article of a guy here that is using HHO gas. http://www.mobilemag.com/2006/05/31/...water-as-fuel/

I can tell you why they went out of business. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Water-powered car indeed -- just how do you propose to get energy out of that water? Electrolysis to change the water into H2 and O2 for combination in a fuel cell will NOT generate more energy than you used. Now, you can TRANSFORM energy -- like using photonic energy to generate electricity from solar cells which is then used to make H2 and O2 instead of burning fossil fuels but you have to do SOMETHING to generate that electricity.

In theory we could get more energy from water by using fusion but we have yet to build a portable fusion generator with energy efficiency greater than 1.0 (or even equalling 1.0). You HAVE heard of Pons and Fleischmann, haven't you?

Fraudsters have been pushing "water-powered cars" since the Oil Crisis of the 70s. They -- like Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" -- haven't held up to scrutiny.

[Irving]

HHO was debunked before the first time I ever even heard of it. I'll tell you something right now though, I'd rather run out of oil than I would water.


Good luck trying to convince everyone in China to start riding bicycles.

[spyder]

It has been noted by the likes of Gavin Schmidt. On the other hand, if you look at the satellite records from the University of Alabama Huntsville and Dr. Roy Spencer, you'll find that overall trend this decade has been downward. Actually, Schmidt is one of the guys who backs NASA and has, and is arguing the exact opposite. Also check Lucia's Blackboard (Lucia by the way is in the middle of the road on the issue -- she believes the Earth is warming but seems to believe that Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, Mann et al have overstated the strength of their evidence, understated and downplayed evidence against their case and (at least with respect to the Climategate emails) perverted the scientific process. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. is another one like Lucia -- I highly recommend his book, "The Climate Fix." Dr. Robert Carter explains things even you might be able to understand in "Climate: The Counter-Consensus".





You can say it all you want -- the facts are that you're incorrect. Just look at the overhead photos and you will see that the Antarctica ice cover has grown overall. I don't know if you listened last time, but I did look at pictures, you know, from those apparent losers at NASA. God, now do morons get jobs like that... You are completely correct, all the information I have seen is completely wrong. The East Antarctica Ice Sheet has grown in mass every year from 1992-2003 (satellite radar measurements) presumably due to increased snowfall. Of course, the detailed situation is more complicated: The areas near the Antarctic Peninsula are warming slightly while the other side of the continent has generally cooled and while one ice shelf has collapsed, other ice shelves have grown. Lots of coverage on this at the Air Vent, Climate Audit, Watt's Up With That, etc. Oh and changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet appear to be due more to changes in the gulfstream flow. If that last sentence means that you don't know that the oceanic currents are affected by the climate change, you need to stop arguing right now and pick a different subject somewhere else. If I need to explain to you how, this affects it, I mean really? Really? I don't care what major you hold or how long you have worked in any field. Ignorance is ignorance.



Not to point out that you are wrong but you are -- actual scientific data proves this. Again, see the satellite record from UAH. This is where I would have to say that we would compare pictures, yours from the University of Alabama, and the ones I have seen from NASA. I guess that all on why you would want to believe.



You should take your own advice. I'll see your BS in Biotech from WPI and raise you with a MS in Applied Physics from JHU and 20 years of scientific and engineering analysis. Of course, we're both trumped by Dr. Hal Lewis who is only Emeritus Professor of Physics at UCSB and resigned from the APS over their participation in the AGW fraud. Don't forget about Setphen Hawking, if you want to talk about Physics guys, you can't leave out the guy on the top of the food chain. Who, by the way just happens to support climate change. Of course again, this just all goes with who you choose to believe. You might get some support from Dr. Gavin Schmidt since he's the one who publishes the ivory tower pronouncements about "warmest year in XXXX" but I'll just have to point out his doctorate is in computer science, not physics.




No but all you can quote are "decarbonization" schemes as if carbon was some evil little element. Carbon is not, the gas CO2, is bad in large quantities. The more of it there is, the worse the impact will be. If you want to talk about a need for sustainable energy, I'll be with you as that's a genuine national security and economic need, but if you keep talking about decarbonization as some magic remedy like Al Gore then you're lumped in with the anti-science Greens in my book.



Yeah, I guess looking at the geologic records would be ignorant to you. Nope, but, apparently you didn't read what I said earlier, or understand what the arguement of climate change is. Archaeological evidence from the vineyards in Greenland and Great Britain would also be "ignorant shit". The Medieval Warming Period has been well-documented for centuries -- until Michael Mann tried to rewrite history. HHmmm what was the arguement again, was it that climate changes have never happened? Was it that nothing has ever been different in the past and a climate change will be something new? Um, nope. It was that we are changing it faster with our influence. Keep to the actual arguement. I'll leave it to you to try to grow grapes in Greenland now since you think things are SO warm. By the way, making comments like that show how little you must actually know about all of it. You keep to certain points of the climate change arguement and run with it. "Its really cold so climate change must be a fake!" I don't need to tell you comments like that are completely ignorant do I? Or... do I?

You keep talking about ignorance yet you know NOTHING about the geological or historical records? You just don't get the point do you. The climate has changed, yes (have I lost you yet?) it has changed slowly over time (still there?). The arguement is that we are changing it much faster than it would change naturally. Just what the heck do they teach "biotechnology" majors these days? You want a good argument but you come into this without having actually looked into the science behind the crap you spout? With the few things you have spouted out, it is quite the opposite from what I see. Guys like you are why Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt have been able to get away with the massive fraud they've been spreading. You remind me in ways of the people that think the moon landing was a hoax. Your arguements are kinda amusing.

You can find copies of the historical record (before Gavin Schmidt "adjusted" it) documented at Climate Audit and The Air Vent.

As you say, if you're going to argue, try to do it intelligently. <-- I still keep to that and you still didn't get what I said earlier. So far, all you do is spout "False!" "You're ignorant" and other ad hominems. I've given you sources -- now go use that WPI degree and look some of them up. Sad, I exptected someone with a physics degree to have a better understanding of something before he argued.

[spyder]

HHO was debunked before the first time I ever even heard of it. I'll tell you something right now though, I'd rather run out of oil than I would water. How was HHO debunked again? I could literally send you pictures and info on how to get flamable gas out of water. It isn't hard at all.


Good luck trying to convince everyone in China to start riding bicycles. They are'nt gona start riding bikes, but they are flying through designs on eco friendly cars. They are trying to lead the world in eco friendly cars actually. Here is a small article about it: http://www.eponline.com/Articles/201...ndly-Cars.aspx

[Aloha_Shooter]

Since you apparently are so unfamiliar as to not know or recognize that the UAH is one of the leads for analyzing data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on the AQUA satellite (or that Dr. Spencer is in fact the U.S. Science Team Leader for that research), here are some things to keep you busy:

"Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

-- "Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet"
BY D. J. WINGHAM, A. SHEPHERD, A. MUIR AND G. J. MARSHALL
From http://www.goodsearch.com/redirect.a...w-ptrsa364.pdf

"new data derived from satellite-borne radar sensors show the ice sheet to be growing"
-- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2132

Now, you might argue the two studies above were taken nearly 10 years ago, prior to the GRACE satellite launch but the citations below are more contemporary:


http://www.livescience.com/environme...ks-100617.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421101629.htm

"While Arctic sea ice has been diminishing in recent decades, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing slightly."
-- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0816154958.htm

"While sea ice extent has declined dramatically in the Arctic in recent years, it has increased slightly in the Antarctic."
-- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1005141516.htm

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/4418558.cms

If you were REALLY arguing intelligently as you claim -- instead of how you're really behaving, you could have argued that Antarctica ice is growing in area but diminishing in thickness -- at which point we could debate whether ice mass or reflective albedo is more important to the AGW thesis. Instead, you resort to the "so's your mother" arguments of "you want to talk shit".

Apparently your reading skills are as bad as your science education since I specifically responded to your statement, "it has also been noted globally that since the mid 90's, the temperature has gone up, in record numbers" that it had been noted by Schmidt. I also referred you to two different sources that refute Schmidt's statements with published charts -- one of whom isn't (in Schmidt's parlance) a "denier". You should (but probably won't) look into how Schmidt's team has been caught "adjusting" historical records (lots of direct evidence -- by comparing data downloaded from GISS years ago and comparing to what were supposed to be the same substation temperature records more recently -- posted at The Air Vent and Climate Audit about a year ago).

You DO understand that Dr. Hawking is a theoretical physicist? I could counter your citation of Hawking with Dr. Freeman Dyson (who also decries the fraud -- and no, he doesn't design or sell vacuum cleaners) but I don't need to since Spencer and Lewis have direct long term experience with measuring and modeling atmospheric physics and global temperatures. In fact, the strongest skeptics of AGW that I've known are geologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists and engineers familiar with statistical processing of large amounts of data. Most of us would have rightfully been fired for playing fast and loose with data the way Mann and Jones did, whether you're talking about splicing temperature records with proxy assessments (Mann's famous hockeystick chart), selectively deleting samples (Yamal tree cores), or misusing the Tiljander samples (they not only used samples which the primary scientist said were unreliable due to contamination but then turned the chart upside down to make a case for AGW).

See, here's the difference between arguing intelligently and just tossing ad hominems. I've given you specific citations and evidentiary samples above instead of just saying "you're a moron, you believe in water engines."

[cstone]

Wow, way too much science for an old Army Drill Sgt.

Let me rephrase my question, and ask it openly for anyone who is interested in the topic. Based on what you believe to be true, what would you suggest I do to keep the planet from becoming a toasted marshmellow or snowball which no longer supports life?

Whether I agree with the premise of anthropomorphic climate change or not, I do support good stewardship of the gifts I've been given. This planet and it's resources, for ill or good are mankind's responsibility. Some things we have control over, and some we don't. I don't think anyone here is going to suggest that we give up heating our homes in the winter or never using gasoline powered vehicles.

So in your opinion, what is it we should be doing?

[spittoon]

well if these jack asses want clean power . i say we put all of the solar panel and wind turbine in the city every roof ,park so they have to look at it. have you been in Wyoming lately? they are ever where. i would say drill deep Geo therm o ad turn steam lp turbine there are several place in Colorado. hot sulfur, Idaho springs,glen wood springs. what about where the coal seam fire is basalt, free and shallow and has been burning for years. what really makes me mad there is a lot of stuff we don't know about because they can not control it or tax itit is all about control