I don’t understand the question??? What was the source of the comments??
And adding a $10 tax per gallon with the money going to the Federal Gooberment to waste on who knows what helps this situation how?
So you’d rather give the money to Exxon to waste on who know what???
See below. He was anxious so he reposted.
Do you think Temperature fluctuation is LINEAR?? It’ll rise and fall and rise and fall from year to year. But the general trend has been that it IS rising. Taken the AVERAGE temperature WORLD WIDE from 50 years ago to now temps have risen at least 2 degrees.
Your questions make it obvious that you’ve never had any formal training in science. If your son really has had training I suggest you ask him what’s wrong with your questions.
One more point…While it’s been a FACT that MOST Scientists world wide who work do studies on Climate agree that temps are rising…MOST also agree that it’s NOT conclusive what the outcome will be. There are some alarmists who make outlandish predictions, but MOST have no idea. The earth is a chaotic system that’s just too complicated to make these kind of predictions. Even the best computer models have completely different predictions based on simple input changes.
This is why we need to keep exploring this global warming issue with analysis and re-analysis of the data we have and to continue to collect new information. We need scientists to seek information without prejudice one way or the other on global warming.
If it didn’t have a converter on it, then why can I purchase a direct-fit converter for the Diesel D250 from NAPA? From 1986-onward even vehicles that are outside of the 8500 GVWR still had to meet certain emissions standards, those standards called for catalytic coverters. And unless he removed it, the 1990 3/4 ton Dodge had one from the factory.
And adding a $10 tax per gallon with the money going to the Federal Gooberment to waste on who knows what helps this situation how?
It would allow us to pay down the record deficits left by Republican party rule.
Liberals are supposed to “tax and spend.” Conservatives just spend so your children can be taxed later.
Mike, I agree and disagree with you at the same time.
I don’t think ok4450’s questions indicate a lack of formal scientific training. He is just posing some questions for debate and I think you are being disrespectful.
I agree that the earth is chaotic and complicated. Just look at the Buffalo, NY area. They get a lot of “lake effect” weather…mostly snow. Lake effect snow happens when the Great Lakes are unfrozen. So global warming could keep the Great Lakes from freezing, which would lead to colder weather and more snow in areas around the Great Lakes.
I always laugh at the guys who look at cold weather and snow storms and say “So much for global warming.” It indicates a lack of understanding.
I agree that the earth is chaotic and complicated. Just look at the Buffalo, NY area. They get a lot of “lake effect” weather…mostly snow. Lake effect snow happens when the Great Lakes are unfrozen. So global warming could keep the Great Lakes from freezing, which would lead to colder weather and more snow in areas around the Great Lakes.
I know all about lake effect snow. I grew up in Pulaski NY. Annual snow fall 250"…MOST from lake effect. Where as Buffalo got their lake effect snow from Lake Erie, we got ours from Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario didn’t freeze so our lake effect snow lasted all winter long.
The first thing I learned in Physics and Chemistry classes was to plot/chart experiments. NEVER EVER was there a linear line when plotting our findings. We were taught to find the AVERAGE line between the points or to determine the pattern. We had to learn this BEFORE we could do any lab experiments. Without it we’d never be able to understand the data we were seeing.
I always laugh at the guys who look at cold weather and snow storms and say “So much for global warming.” It indicates a lack of understanding.
YUP…agree…Many people don’t realize that the Ice-Age was only about 12 degrees colder then what our temps are now. That’s NOT a significant difference. Just goes to show that SLIGHT differences in temps can have a drastic effect.
Much higher gas taxes are fine with me as long as as people who live where there is no mass transit can get it back. My parents have been paying for public transit through their taxes for their entire lives, but have only been able to use it a handful of times.
Actually, Conservatives like to practice “borrow and spend”, rather than tax and spend.
By constantly borrowing, rather than raising money through current taxation, the Conservative philosophy leads to higher expenses in the long run simply because the banks that lend money to the government have to be paid interest on the borrowed money, and that inevitably is much more expensive than simply paying for projects as you go (“Pay-Go”). Of course, if you are…shall we say…“friendly” with the banking sector, this all makes perfect sense.
And, as you know, this greatly increased expense is passed along to the next generation. Just as it would be irresponsible for an individual to borrow money every time that he/she wanted to buy clothing, or groceries, or anything else, it is irresponsible for government to constantly borrow money, rather than paying for projects through current tax collections.
Just as people should not live beyond their means, government should not live beyond its means.This very basic concept seems to escape those who extol the “Conservative” philosophy.
Why is “borrow and spend” considered to be either conservative or responsible?
Since it’s apparent for some reason no one wants to give a simple yes or no answer to those comments I posted, I’ll tell you where they come from.
Lot 1 is from periodicals dated in the year 1900.
Lot 2 is info from the U.S. Weather Bureau (now the Nat. Weather Service) and also dated 1900.
And neither my son nor myself are of the mindset that a major winter storm means “no global warming”.
What’s irritating is that tripe is being palmed off by TV/print media with many of the so-called experts on TV having little or no climatology experience at all.
On one show (Discovery Channel) their field of experts consisted of 2 botanists and a fishing boat captain.
Arctic sea ice becoming less? Not happening.
Antarctic ice going away? No.
And you’re right Mike; I have no formal scientific training in either the meteorology or climatology fields. I admit it - guilty as charged. However I do have access to info and explanations that you do not and I’m also not trying to pass myself off as a climate expert.
As a footnote; my son is currently visiting and he has been tempted to get in here and provide some real non-biased info although he generally tries to stay out of internet discussions. As he puts it; reciting facts and providing charts does not hold quite the allure that TV pictures of Polar bear cubs floating on ice does.
He is curious about where you get your info about “most” scientists though. He wants to see a link, poll, anything at all.
A couple of questions I will pose are these.
Do you, or anyone else, actually know how temperatures are checked and averaged?
Do you, or anyone else, actually have any knowledge of the Kyoto Protocol and the U.N. IPCC report; and the scientists involved with them?
“Back in 1985, I analyzed the data for the midwestern city where I live. I had the average daily temperature for every day for a 150 year period. I fit both a Box-Jenkins time series and a specral time series analyses to the data looking for a warming trend.”
The average increase is not very much; just a few degrees over a long period. And looking at the climate in a temperate area is not as telling as the climate at the extremes, such as the hottest or coldest areas. Note that polar ice is melting at an alarming rate. It may not be long until the Northwest Passage is a reality - unthinkable for the centuries it has been sought.
A time series calculates what is called a moving average. All I stated was that there were trends, but no discernable increase over the 150 years of data that I had available. This was data from one location–it would be great to be able to apply the same analysis to similar data in different regions of the world. My only conclusion is that I found no warming trend in the 150 year period ending in 1985 for which I had data for one midwestern location.
He is curious about where you get your info about “most” scientists though. He wants to see a link, poll, anything at all.
My daughter who’s a Junior in MIT majoring in Chemical Engineering. She does research with a couple very respected Chemical Engineers and have studied extensively the Global Warming problem. She’s been to several conferences and personally met many Scientists from around the world. She has yet to meet the scientist who doesn’t believe that the world is getting warmer.
One of the professors she’s worked with doesn’t believe that humans have much of a hand in Global Warming. The other is pretty convinced it does. But they both know that it the earth IS getting warmer. The cause and outcome are the major part of the debate. This is where all new research is being applied. And I’ll agree that MOST scientists don’t agree on the cause or the outcome. But they all pretty much agree the earth IS getting warmer.
One theory that my daughter and one professor is working on is this new study of Global Dimming. Pollution levels in certain parts of the world are so great that they are reflecting the suns rays back into space. This reflecting is actually causing a cooling effect. This is only a fairly recent phenomenon. In 10 years it may actually start cooling the earth…As I said in my earlier post…the earth is a chaotic system. Too many variables in place to predict accurately what is going to happen.
I know my Daughter knows how the earth’s temps are measured. I’m NOT a physicist or chemical engineer or climatologist. Just a Software Engineer with a BS in Computer Science and a MS in applied Mathematics. What I do know is there are many methods of determining what the average temps were and what they are now. These include tree-rings, Core samples (which my daughter works with), documented readings on land and the Ocean.
What I know about Kyoto is that the U.S. government says it accepts it but Congress will not ratafie the treaty (check my spelling on ratafie,wasn’t in my dictionary)The issues for not signing the treaty deal with how China is affected or not affected by the treaty,most if not all of Europe is on board,phase out of all R-12 R-134 (CFC’s?) and limits on carbon dixoide output,probably much more I don’t know about Kyoto. You are probably looking for what it really means that the U.S. will not sign,I have only speculation.
Leaving aside all the political hoo-ha, OP has a valid point–at least W/R/T gasoline and catalytic converters.
At roughly the stoichiometric point, exhaust temps are “too high,” requiring the engine to be run “rich of peak” or “lean of peak.” LOP ops produce fewer CO and HC emissions, but the remaining O2 in the exhaust is toxic to the cat, forcing ROP ops–and an O2 sensor to make sure of it!
Now, if we took off the cats and ran our cars LOP, we’d be putting out more pollutants, but saving 20-ish% in fuel. Is that in our long-term interest or not? Prolly depends where you live.
Oh, I just wanted to add, it’s a shame that the car co’s won’t spec better metal for sturctural parts.
If, for instance, you kept the car the same and just substituted 7075-Al for the heavy, lo-strength, non-tempered steel, you’d have a car that a. Got better mileage b. better acceleration and handling c. fewer emissions, including CO2.
(Oh, and I wouldn’t particularly want a CF car, due to delamination issues.)
This issue is a huge one and it’s impossible to get into details on something like this on a public forum.
I will throw out a few things for consideration though in regards to temperature readings, etc. I won’t go into how this “averaging” is done but will simply point out that it’s flawed.
Point 1. Temps around the world are averaged and back in the mid 90s a change was made in how the readings were done. What was this change? The GW scientists decided that Siberia, the coldest place on Earth, should not be averaged in.
As an analogy, consider average temps of TX, NM, AZ, and AK. Now take out AK. What happens? Temps up, right?
Point 2. There is a certain method for taking temp readings (won’t go into detail on that) but will only say that these same scientists decided to install some of their thermometers ABOVE or near heat sources. (Examples; one under an eave and above a central air unit, another on a commercial building next to a 10 ton A/C unit, another near the windshield of a junked car to catch the sun’s reflection, etc.)
Hard to believe a thermometer above an A/C condenser would register hotter, huh?
Point 3. Regarding Kyoto, of the approx. 1500 scientists involved in this almost 90% were Sociologists, Political Scientists, etc. Very few with actual climatic experience.
Point 4. U.N. IPCC report. 52 scientists signed on to the GW theory (and there’s a real hatchet job behind the scenes on that one) and 650 did not sign on to it.
In regards to the IPCC, some of should do some internet research on one of the lead authors on that report (Dr. David Karoly), post back, and let me know if you consider him a scientist of integrity. Yes, there’s more to the story. I just want to hear some reaction about one of the leading guys behind the GW theory.
Matter of fact, to make it easier I’ll even provide a link. Read it and let me know what you think.