Ok, so I'm older than 26 years old. Still, the idea of global warming and cooling has been passed on to us through education systems, the media, and sometimes government entities and the United Nations.
Ok, apparently, the global cooling thing has been proven to be false, so they say, but they might say that with the global warming thing too.
I can see where reducing emissions might be a good thing, all in all, for the WHOLE world, not just those countries that have worked to reduce it in the first place.
But I still have an actual reservation on the science of measuring "global temperature", and I feel that it destroys the information that I hear touted all over.
So, temperatures are measured all over the world, blah, blah, blah. Fine. First, it's only been done for a relatively short period of time.
Next, they are measuring what temperatures?
I'm sure they are measuring outside temperature. And that's my problem with this.
As all nations develop, populations increase, and the availability of certain items becomes more common place in parts of the world that couldn't afford certain luxuries, things change.
Regardless, someplace in the world, it is hot. And with the advent of technology, buildings are built for shelter, electricity comes, and air conditioning can be installed. So, in areas where it was once 110 degrees in the summer, large shelters now exist that have air conditioning.
Air conditioning removes hot air from one place and puts it someplace else. Outside, no less.
Thus, I contribute the idea of global warming to the continued development of shelter and air conditioning moving warmer air to the outside where it increases the overall global temperature.
When they start measuring cold movie theaters and factoring it into the temperature, I won't think they are so full of crap.
:pop:
Not to mention that when the air is expelled from the AC unit it is even hotter! :lmao:
No, they are measuring the fact that glaciers are melting, the polar ice caps are melting and Antarctica is spawning icebergs into shipping lanes like there's no tomorrow. (Which there may not be)
The scientific community is in accord that global warming does indeed exist, and that it is the media double speak that says it does not is where the bullsh*t lies. Pick up some back copies of Scientific American. The weather patterns are changing drastically. FYI: even though weather stats have only been kept for just over 100 years, the ice that is rapidly melting is where the scientists are getting their info for research on what the climate was like 200, 1,000, and even 10,000 years ago. If those out there think that the earth can handle the pollution, landfills, carbon emissions that industry and consumers make, and then go to rape the land of all of the natural resources available and not have any major impact, I'm just glad I probably only another half a century on this planet.
Our kids and grandkids can deal with and pay for the clean -up, right? No, we need to deal with it now as a legacy to those who will be left here after we are gone.
Dave....you have a gift.
( stir stir stir )
Well, during Jurassic period ice caps were pretty much none existent. Not really any land at the poles either. How'd that happen? Must've been the overpopulation of dinosaurs breathing out too much CO2 and causing the greenhouse effect. And don't forget the massive amounts of flatulence released by 100-ton herbivores. Can you imagine a Brontosaurus fart? :biggrin: And then there were all the volcanoes too and everything was nice and toasty keeping the big lizards happy.
Clearly none of that mattered, everything ended up freezing anyways.
The information and temperatures are gathered and tracked as averages. What we get on the news as an "average temperature" for a particular time of year is typically the average from over the past 3 to 5 years. The really smart scientists figure it up for the past 100 or so years.
But to add to Super Dave's theory; The fact that the polar ice caps are melting may be having a huge impact on the warmer weather because there is less ice to cool the air over all.
I personally think it has a lot to do with the penguins sliding on it so much and jumping from the edges of the ice into the water. Just imagine the amount of snow and ice they've knocking into the water and the water they have splashed onto the ice (subsequently cause it to melting) over the years. And that's not counting the friction from sliding on ice. One should also take the penguin's body heat into account as well.
And all of this is totally ignoring the Snow Walrus, the Polar Bear, and those damn baby seals. They're all out there walking on, sliding on, peeing, and crapping on the polar caps. I for one, blame the melting ice caps on the animal kingdom.
Next season my leathers will be made from baby seals.
There's stats here.
Science Errors (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)
Mafia man, another crude attempt at gaining in the smite war,eh :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :pop:
can't be too bad. i think i was at 69 this morning :ass: :ahhh: :kicknuts: :thumb: :kissy: :cheers:
hooo-boy....
you can really tell winter has set in....topics are gettin' deeeep.....
come on - we need more global warming - then we all could ride/race all year round :thumb:
This is like jailhouse lawyers debating Constitutional Law..... :err:
Quote from: PJ721 on January 31, 2007, 08:39:32 PM
hooo-boy....
you can really tell winter has set in....topics are gettin' deeeep.....
come on - we need more global warming - then we all could ride/race all year round :thumb:
Uh, no you wouldn't. If global warming continues, it'll be too hot to even be outside. You'll burn up LITERALLY!!! :ahhh: :biggrin:
Global warming is a fact because glaciers are melting?
Hate to tell you but they have been melting and re-frezing for millions of years without our help. Nature is all about change and fluctuation, how do we identify what we caused and what is more of the natural cyclical events that make up the enviroment itself?
The entire debate is an interesting exercize in certain factions using select data to justify their own position. Lying with statistics is pretty easy to do.
If you want some entertainment while learing about the subject, Michael Crichton's book titled State of Fear is a pretty good read. Crichton's prior work is good entertainment while showing the fruit of a lot of good research. He is generally pretty anti-technology and science (see his prior works in Jurasic Park and Prey to show how he highlights the riskiness of new technology) - one would think he would be on the pro-warming side. I found the book fairly surprising in the position he takes.
Beyond anything else - remember it was a well know scientific FACT that the earth was flat at one time. Then it was also a FACT that the earth was the center of the universe.
Me thinks that the narrow minded people need to take another look at the data that supports their FACTS before we put in place a lot of international laws and agreements aimed at preventing ships from sailing over the edge of the flat earth.
George
I love a good debate.
The fact the the world was flat was not scientific, but an accepted assumption based on the what mapmakers and scholars thought they knew. Scientists were the ones that postulated the world was not only round, but that the sun was the center of the universe. Which was alos incorrect, but moving in the right direction. Current astronomy and physics shows that the universe is a much more complex space and we are constantly learning new things on a daily basis.
As far as global warming, wait for the report due out tomorrow. The scientific community is in accord. It's the economic and political communities that are questioning the science. Last time I checked, economists weren't required to take atmospheric science as part of their degree.
Also, why is it a big deal to reduce emissions on cars? China has a better record than we do on auto emissions, why is that? Why is foreign oil better than relying on solar energy or other alternative energy? Yes, it is expensive initially to put resources into new technology, but once it is widely used, the cost is reduced.
Why should we take a cavalier attitude, just because it's convenient, rather than becoming proactive stewards of the planet?
Yup, let's keep throwing crap into the atmosphere just because we're not sure. Let's keep supporting governments of the Middle East, some of them that support terrorism. Let's not develop these technologies in America, creating with it, a changing, growing economy based on moving science and the country forward.
Oh yeah, E-85 can produce more horse power than fossil fuels. Good for racing. :biggrin:
Quote from: spyderchick on January 31, 2007, 03:52:39 PM
................
The scientific community is in accord that global warming does indeed exist, ........
Quote from: spyderchick on February 01, 2007, 12:15:55 PM
...The scientific community is in accord. It's the economic and political communities that are questioning the science....
Actually that's not entirely true. The scientific community still has many members who disagree with the information being published as entirely misleading and is therefore somewhat divided on the subject. NASA even has meteorological experts who state flatly that it is pure bunk, especially as it is being represented by the eco-alarmists.
In fact it is precisely because it is a highly politially charged subject that it is impossible in this country to get both sides reported fairly and accurately. Do you actually believe that the liberal media reports facts? I can tell you from a great deal of first hand experience that they do not. Nor do they even try to publish complete and accurate information. Their sole objective is always to publish the story that they want told and to cause everyone to believe what they want them to believe. And they therefore deliberately publish only bits and pieces of facts in order to achieve that goal. If that all sounds "Big Brotherish," blame the media, cause it's true.
And you only have to do a very cursory search to find fun articles like these:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=212
http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/new_page_3.htm
And there's other books too... like these...
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Other-Myths-Environmental/dp/0761536604
Bottomline is, if it's contrary to the prevailing political agenda, you will never get the whole truth and you will never hear contrary arguments fairly represented.
(Now we got a show!)
Quote from: George_Linhart on February 01, 2007, 11:21:25 AM
Beyond anything else - remember it was a well know scientific FACT that the earth was flat at one time. Then it was also a FACT that the earth was the center of the universe.
George
you mean it's not any more??? :ahhh:
i guess if we cared that much we would all sell out bikes and by electic cars :jerkoff:
global warming is NOT bull....didnt anyone see al gore's new movie? he invented the internet in case you dont know who he is :lmao:
Actually I agree that when ANY subject is politicized, it becomes muddied.
However, I happen to be a science junky, and I've been reading about the issue for longer than I can remember. Scientic American, National Geographic are the more 'mainstream' publications, but also some others thrown in here and there, from both sides of the argument. A curious thing to remember about the scientific community, always look to see where source funding for studies initiates. NASA gets it's money from, SURPRISE! Uncle Sam and corporations, so I take what they have to say with a grain of salt. If they do not tow the party line, funding gets cut. I love NASA, and space exploration, so I understand their predicament.
It's the independent scientific community, that becomes the credible source. However, that said, it's difficult to cull the wheat from the chaff within that whole quagmire.
If you look historically at the government vs science, they have always been at odds until it serves a mutual purpose. If you've noticed, BP, Shell, and Exxon-Mobil have all been researching and funding alternative sources for energy. Why? Because they know that we have a finite amount of fossil fuels, and that which is still available is becoming more difficult and costly to extract. It is in their fiscal interest to explore all avenues available to them to keep their grip on the global energy market.
This is a complex subject, one that can be argued from many angles. However, it comes down to one simple thing: Why is change so difficult or perceived to be a bad thing? Let's argue that global warming is not a dire threat. Economically, it makes sense to move the technology forward. If technology was a bad thing, we wouldn't have smaller batteries, cell phones, smart cars, plastic, pharmaceuticals, etc.
There is a scientific basis for global warming, however the theories predicting the outcomes are imprecise. As one pundit put it, 'we can't predict the weather 5 days out, how will we know with a certainty what will happen 50 years out?' But even he admitted that GW may not be the larger issue. Why would you refuse beneficial change just because someone had a flawed theory? To me, that's stubborn and foolish. You need to look at an issue from all sides, and find a common ground for achieving positive result.
Quote from: Court Jester on February 01, 2007, 01:15:24 PM
i guess if we cared that much we would all sell out bikes and by electic cars :jerkoff:
I gave up racing so I could work on dead animal skin. I guess I'm not a very good hippy. :biggrin:
WELCOME Catfight :cheers:
I think lower emissions are fine. Chinese cars have lower emissions? I guess I'd like to see where that information is. That technology would have been developed by previous developers of cars, which would be from our economic boat. We paid for it.
I know that the UN, saying that they are helping "global emissions", has different standards for the US, European, and other developed contries, but "more open" emissions for other less developed countries.
Honestly, that's scientific BS, along with political BS. Just goes further to prove the point that some in positions of policy are full of "emissions".
If lower emissions are good for the earth, then they are good for the earth. Additionally, the developed countries have paid good sums of money to develop these opportunities to reduce emissions. As a result, the technology available to others is less expensive. Just like those that bought HD TV's before the recent reductions in their cost; it was more expensive for that technology because it was new. Now, it's more common and the cost has come down through the efficiency of manufacturing and so on.
Additionally, the more developed contries are the consumers of many items made by the countries that make these items. As a result, lower cost items are causing more emissions?
It's BS. Standards, if they are really for the good, and if they are really a cause, need to be across the board rather than delegated by a non elected entity that has no rights over my soverien nation.
If Gore's movie were something more than entertainment, one would have been able to see it for free.
More fuel for the emissions fire.
:pop:
Quote from: spyderchick on February 01, 2007, 12:15:55 PM
Oh yeah, E-85 can produce more horse power than fossil fuels. Good for racing. :biggrin:
E85 only has 80k BTU's. Gasoline has 124k. Hard to find gasoline as it is since the EPA has mandated blends spiked with oxygenates that dilute the BTU's. More BTU's, more ability to do work. Need to do more work with so many BTU's? You've got to add more product.
Quote from: Super Dave on February 01, 2007, 03:13:13 PM
E85 only has 80k BTU's. Gasoline has 124k. Hard to find gasoline as it is since the EPA has mandated blends spiked with oxygenates that dilute the BTU's. More BTU's, more ability to do work. Need to do more work with so many BTU's? You've got to add more product.
Car Craft Magazine, Nov or Dec issue. You'll use more fuel, but you can use it to get more ponies. :biggrin:
So there you go. Global warming is indeed just another theory and there are alternative theories that have completely different implications. Each theory uses a different set of data measuring different things to support the underlying hypothesis.
I have noticed that if you question the data that supports global warming to its proponents it is almost like you have kicked their lovable pet dog. The supporters like to call their theory a fact and if you question any of their data you get personally attacked. If you present data that shows anything counter to the crisis theorists your credibility is called into question and it it automatically assumed that you are at the behest of big oil.
Hmmm...politics+cars+gas+E85=a mess
Politics; Our GM factory management removed the U.S. flags from the production floor over Christmas shutdown. Why?, I asked. The answer, "We're streamling the production area and getting rid of the clutter. If an item did not have GM content it was non-conforming."
I'm still in shock 3 weeks later. Even more shocking is the general rank and file is taking it laying down.
Oh yeah, some of the Tahoe/Suburbans we build are E85. :kicknuts:
The Globe is not warming it's just hot IN here.
Quote from: 61Ex on February 01, 2007, 05:50:38 PM
Politics; Our GM factory management removed the U.S. flags from the production floor over Christmas shutdown. Why?, I asked. The answer, "We're streamling the production area and getting rid of the clutter. If an item did not have GM content it was non-conforming."
Todd, ya should call into the Gazettes shout thing in the editorial about that. No names are printed like the letters to the editor.
first off E85 is a waste of time, until they figure out how to use the stalks than it is less efficiant as far as cost and oil consumption goes.
and for the global warming, its kind of hard to ignore the facts, within the same year we had record high 6 month averages in northern Africa, as well as record smashing 6 month low average temperatures in russia, south especially. I see where you are coming from on the air temperature issue Dave, but some of the most compelling evidence I have seen has been readings of both large bodies of water as well as small bodies and large rivers.
OK then,
As dave stated Alchol has much less energy than gasoline. In an engine designed to operate purely on alchol you can develop significant horsepower but none of the E85 caars are designed that way. Ther is much more to it than a little chippin.
Next, although E85 is not going to give you as many ponies in your new car it is far from a waste. Yes you do use more of it, and yes it costs more to operate the same number of miles. That is not the issue, it burns cleaner thus reducing emissions and it is renewable and does not come from the middle east. It is for this reason that I actually support the idea of increasing the taxes on gasoline. Until you can save money doing it most Americans will refuse to do the responsible thing when it comes to renewable resources and cleaning up.
As far as global warming, yes it is real, did man cause it? NO! If man was the cause of global warming then we have been roaming the planet since the last ice age. Think about someting, if we were'nt there to end the last ice age what did end it? Global warming, and we had NOTHING to do with it! Are we accelerating global warming? Probably, but IF you could get every one in every country to reduce their quality of life to the stone age you still could not stop global warming. The only thing that is going to stop global warming is when the planet reaches a critical temperature and the ice caps melt to a certain point and a certain ammount of land is under water and a number of other certain specification that scientists haven't got a clue about are reached the the planet will enter a Global Cooling phase and we will enter another ice age. How many of you doom sayers that feel me MUST STOP mans contribution to global warming have car? A furnace in your house? Use a lawn mower (gas powered)? Take warm showers? Use lights in your house? Any car made since the mid 80's creates 10 to 100 times less emissions than pre 1980's cars. That information alone says that we did MOST of the damage 30 years ago.
Think about what you are really willing to give up and do the math on what you will be doing to help and what you will still be doing to hurt and see where you really are.
Quote from: Woofentino Pugrossi on February 01, 2007, 06:26:21 PM
Todd, ya should call into the Gazettes shout thing in the editorial about that. No names are printed like the letters to the editor.
I'll take it to the Union mtg next weekend. The Vets Committe can hand management their asses. Career suicide I tell ya, but I felt the same way about E85. In '09 we'll get the 4 ltr "clean diesels" for the Tahoe/'burban line. Day late and a dollar short...
No matter whose science or politicians say what, with who's money, the icecaps are melting fast. That's an undeniable unmuddied fact of life today. Is it from warming? Well, how else does ice melt fer christ's sake!!
Quote from: Hawk on February 01, 2007, 07:08:28 PM....Any car made since the mid 80's creates 10 to 100 times less emissions than pre 1980's cars. That information alone says that we did MOST of the damage 30 years ago.
Not sure if you know why unleaded fuel was 1st implemented? In the late 60's there was great concern as to why lead was getting into childrens bodies, so the Governmet set out to find the culprit. What the 'EXPERTS' at that time came up with was that the lead in fuel was the cause, so they started researching alternatives to leaded fuel and once found implemented federal laws requiring new vehicles to phase in unleaded fuel based vehicles in the 70's. Along with all this change came a massive change in the refining process to make unleaded fuel, this was also required by the government and fuel companies had to comply in order to sell fuel in this country.
Then as the auto and fuel industries had already done all their research and development work and started manufacturing the new unleaded fuel and vehicles there was a new finding that said that the lead getting into childrens blood wasn't from fuel, it was from the lead in house paint! The automotive and fuel industries were pissed no less, but said they were going forward with unleaded due to the massive amount of money they had already invested. Now most people have seen the black exhaust emitting from older vehicles, and the lack of it from newer vehicles, so they automatically ASSUME that the 'CLEANER' exhaust is better and that there has been so much improvement. What has been kept quiet is that the black exhaust coming from the older vehicles is very carbon based and it's something that the Earths atmosphere and eco-system can break down easier, even if it causes more visible smog. The invisible exhaust being emitted from the newer vehicles that so many Global Warming advocates drive is actually far more deadly. Why? Because a main byproduct of a Catalytic Converter used on Unleaded vehicles is Nitrous Oxide, a gas that has been determined to be one of the most ozone destroying gases there is! OOOPS!!!!!!! When the Government, fuel companies, and auto manufacturers found out about this they tried as hard as possible to keep that information as quiet as possible and start researching alternatives to slow down the damage they have been doing to the Ozone Layer over the last 30 years!
It's true that visible smog in many portions of the country has been reduced from what it was prior to Unleaded fuel, but that's not an accurate way to judge air quality because all that invisible Nitrous Oxide the so-called 'CLEANER BURNING' cars are pumping into the air is far worse as far as Ozone depletion goes. Just thought you might want to know.
Screw gasoline powered vehicles. Bring back horse and buggy. :biggrin:
Quote from: Woofentino Pugrossi on February 01, 2007, 09:45:25 PM
Screw gasoline powered vehicles. Bring back horse and buggy. :biggrin:
Don't even get me started on horse flatuence! LOL
Quote from: GSXR RACER MIKE on February 01, 2007, 09:47:26 PM
Don't even get me started on horse flatuence! LOL
Damn, you beat me to it! :biggrin:
Quote from: GSXR RACER MIKE on February 01, 2007, 09:14:52 PM
Not sure if you know why unleaded fuel was 1st implemented? In the late 60's there was great concern as to why lead was getting into childrens bodies, so the Governmet set out to find the culprit. What the 'EXPERTS' at that time came up with was that the lead in fuel was the cause, so they started researching alternatives to leaded fuel and once found implemented federal laws requiring new vehicles to phase in unleaded fuel based vehicles in the 70's. Along with all this change came a massive change in the refining process to make unleaded fuel, this was also required by the government and fuel companies had to comply in order to sell fuel in this country.
Then as the auto and fuel industries had already done all their research and development work and started manufacturing the new unleaded fuel and vehicles there was a new finding that said that the lead getting into childrens blood wasn't from fuel, it was from the lead in house paint! The automotive and fuel industries were pissed no less, but said they were going forward with unleaded due to the massive amount of money they had already invested. Now most people have seen the black exhaust emitting from older vehicles, and the lack of it from newer vehicles, so they automatically ASSUME that the 'CLEANER' exhaust is better and that there has been so much improvement. What has been kept quiet is that the black exhaust coming from the older vehicles is very carbon based and it's something that the Earths atmosphere and eco-system can break down easier, even if it causes more visible smog. The invisible exhaust being emitted from the newer vehicles that so many Global Warming advocates drive is actually far more deadly. Why? Because a main byproduct of a Catalytic Converter used on Unleaded vehicles is Nitrous Oxide, a gas that has been determined to be one of the most ozone destroying gases there is! OOOPS!!!!!!! When the Government, fuel companies, and auto manufacturers found out about this they tried as hard as possible to keep that information as quiet as possible and start researching alternatives to slow down the damage they have been doing to the Ozone Layer over the last 30 years!
It's true that visible smog in many portions of the country has been reduced from what it was prior to Unleaded fuel, but that's not an accurate way to judge air quality because all that invisible Nitrous Oxide the so-called 'CLEANER BURNING' cars are pumping into the air is far worse as far as Ozone depletion goes. Just thought you might want to know.
Alright, first of all the reason for unleaded fuel was not lead polution, it was the fact that lead poisons the platinum plated ceramic catalyst in catalytic converters. That is the reason for the unleaded fuel only stickers that came on all your catalyst equiped cars starting in the mid 70's. Second the primary emission of catalyc converters is CO2 not NO2. The NO2 emissions increase was the result of the higher operating temperatures of engines that started in the early 80's. In the early 80's the automotive engineers raised the operating temperatures (thermostats went from 180 to 210) to reduce some of the other emissions and it soon came to light that the NO2 emissions had gone out of sight. Lastly the CO (carbon monoxide, a clear ordorless gas) emissions of the cars from the 60's and early 70's was typicalaly on the order of 2-6% while the cars of the early 80's had numbers in the .01-.1% range. Finally the damage to the ozone layer is primarily the result of florocarbon emissions hence the banning of florocarbon propellents in aerosol cans and R12 refrigerants.
I run maple syrup in my race bike! Does that have high emisions? If so Im switching to corn syrup!
Quote from: loc_dogg on February 02, 2007, 12:18:49 AM
I run maple syrup in my race bike! Does that have high emisions? If so Im switching to corn syrup!
Actually they are both variable emission fuels, they start high but within the first few minutes they go to zero emissions. Of course the performance drops off at the about the same time as the emissions.
Think about the benefits of buying solar or Hydrogen products to replace usually gas fueled equipment. No more gas to carry or buy!! More money to buy other stuff for your bikes!!
Hydrogen Portable Air Generator (http://fuelcellstore.com/products/ballard/airgen.html)
Honda Hydrogen Car (http://corporate.honda.com/environmentology/index.aspx?ef_id=1097:1:5286c22acd5c4aef711ea89591eb8a16:DbFY70NIYXsAAEBOUV8AAAAH:20070201213852)
Search Portable Solar Energy Equipment (http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=portable+solar+generator&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE&go.x=10&go.y=7)
Convert your car to Hydrogen (http://www.hydrogenvehiclesystems.com/hydrogencarconversion.php)
If you want to see how Hydrogen works on cars, here is a toy car model,
World's Smallest Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car (http://www.hammacher.com/publish/73595.asp?source=MSN&keyword=hydrogen+car&cm_ven=NewGate&cm_cat=msnppc&cm_pla=GiftPreview06&cm_ite=hydrogen+car&creative=14322)
My opinion, we can't keep using resources that the earth needs to sustain itself. I believe Global Warming is created by us.
This was just on the news - Global Warming will continue (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change)
Forgot this link,
Hydrogen Motorcycle (http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/06/15/hydrogen-motorcycle-for-6000/) :biggrin:
hey dave, have you ever thought about the idea that rising sea levels are caused by boats? its came to me when i was watching some show on mega ships last night...just think, all of those large ship (which displace huge amounts of water) just cruising around. its like taking a bath, the tub could be half full (or empty...pick your poison) but when you get in, the water level rises. crazy :ahhh:
anyway, did anyone else hear about the orange/reddish color snow falling in siberia?
Quote from: cold on February 02, 2007, 05:07:27 PM
anyway, did anyone else hear about the orange/reddish color snow falling in siberia?
Scientists said not to worry.
Our eyes have different pigmented cones in groups that are most sensitive to one of three ranges of color and the rod and the cones (...they comfort me...oops, too much Sunday school) contain an organic molecule with conjugated double bonds (get 'r done) and light that matches the resonance frequency of the electrons in the conjugated (damn, I love that word) double bonds (woo hoo) is absorbed briefly breaking one of the rigid double bonds (called a double bond block, I hate it when that happens) allowing the molecule to rotate so the newly shaped molecule interacts with a much larger opsin (which naturally happens when they get older and we're not allowed to point it out) setting off a series of chemical reactions (don't go there either) and signal processing which transmit an electrical polarity signal along the surface of an optic nerve to the brain.
So the scientists say the snow is really
white, not orange, grey, rusty, etc. and they were edumicated by a grant from Exxon, Royal Dutch and Dupont so they should know.
Not to worry, you can eat it since it's not yellow. :kicknuts:
Quote from: dylanfan53 on February 02, 2007, 09:31:27 PM
Not to worry, you can eat it since it's not yellow. :kicknuts:
:lmao:
Quote from: Hawk on February 02, 2007, 12:05:19 AM
Alright, first of all the reason for unleaded fuel was not lead polution, it was the fact that lead poisons the platinum plated ceramic catalyst in catalytic converters. That is the reason for the unleaded fuel only stickers that came on all your catalyst equiped cars starting in the mid 70's. Second the primary emission of catalyc converters is CO2 not NO2. The NO2 emissions increase was the result of the higher operating temperatures of engines that started in the early 80's. In the early 80's the automotive engineers raised the operating temperatures (thermostats went from 180 to 210) to reduce some of the other emissions and it soon came to light that the NO2 emissions had gone out of sight. Lastly the CO (carbon monoxide, a clear ordorless gas) emissions of the cars from the 60's and early 70's was typicalaly on the order of 2-6% while the cars of the early 80's had numbers in the .01-.1% range. Finally the damage to the ozone layer is primarily the result of florocarbon emissions hence the banning of florocarbon propellents in aerosol cans and R12 refrigerants.
Lead in humans is indeed the primary reason they have been phasing out lead in fuel since the US did so in the early 70's, I just read a dozen different articles online about the phase out of lead in Africa, Australia, and other countries in very recent past. In almost every article they spoke of the health aspect being such a huge reason for countries to eliminate leaded fuel due to the effects it has on people, especially children. It's very true that going to unleaded fuel greatly reduced certain emissions from leaded fuel which caused other health concerns, but this is a very double edged sword as I said before. Now you step into a different arena because it now deals with what this topic was about in the 1st place, global warming. With the switch to unleaded fuel based vehicles that use catalytic converters there has been a spike in NO2 emissions, though these emissions don't pose the same immediate health risks that the leaded fuel exhaust did, they do cause significant Ozone depletion when looked at from the massive scale of how many vehicles are producing them constantly.
Also, your backwards in your thinking about why lead was discontinued, it wasn't because catalytic converters can't handle lead (which is 100% true), it was because of the health impacts of lead both directly and indirectly (thru both lead getting in people's systems and the added exhaust emmisions from lead in fuel as well). This whole situation is a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of thing, either you die from poisoning from lead and exhaust emissions or you fry the Ozone layer and reap the results of that!
Quote from: GSXR RACER MIKE on February 02, 2007, 09:47:39 PM
Lead in humans is indeed the primary reason they have been phasing out lead in fuel since the US did so in the early 70's, I just read a dozen different articles online about the phase out of lead in Africa, Australia, and other countries in very recent past. In almost every article they spoke of the health aspect being such a huge reason for countries to eliminate leaded fuel due to the effects it has on people, especially children. It's very true that going to unleaded fuel greatly reduced certain emissions from leaded fuel which caused other health concerns, but this is a very double edged sword as I said before. Now you step into a different arena because it now deals with what this topic was about in the 1st place, global warming. With the switch to unleaded fuel based vehicles that use catalytic converters there has been a spike in NO2 emissions, though these emissions don't pose the same immediate health risks that the leaded fuel exhaust did, they do cause significant Ozone depletion when looked at from the massive scale of how many vehicles are producing them constantly.
Also, your backwards in your thinking about why lead was discontinued, it wasn't because catalytic converters can't handle lead (which is 100% true), it was because of the health impacts of lead both directly and indirectly (thru both lead getting in people's systems and the added exhaust emmisions from lead in fuel as well). This whole situation is a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of thing, either you die from poisoning from lead and exhaust emissions or you fry the Ozone layer and reap the results of that!
Alright here is some help on the catalytic converter. As I stated earlier the nitros oxide emissions are the result of higher engine temps, the catalytic converter actually REDUCES nitros oxide emissions
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm
As far as fuel the health benifits were an afterthought. The Unleaded fuel was developed to protect the catalytic converter and sold ALONGSIDE leaded fuel for another 20 years. Leaded fuel was not 'banned' until 1995 but that is not even correct as it is still available for off-road and aviation use. Once the unleaded fuels were available and the engine technology was develoved to cope with it the epa saw it's chance to reduce the health risks by phasing it out.
You do know that Catalytic Converters were NOT used on leaded fuel vehicles correct?
I'm also curious why you think Unleaded fuel was introduced in the 1st place since it was cheaper to produce Leaded fuel and it made more power than Unleaded?
I'll cut this to the chase.
"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance." (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0)
While, I don't disagree that reducing emissions is a bad thing, the sun is much bigger and plays the biggest role in our temperatures, period.
The real science of solar warming is unavoidable because we cannont control the sun. The global emissions warming, what ever. Again, if the UN, in their "talk" of saving the globe, actually had real science behind their people, it would follow that emissions everywhere would be of the greatest concern.
Because their motivations are political rather than scientific, those standards apply to some and not to others.
And, we should remove those boats before it's too late. :biggrin:
Quote from: GSXR RACER MIKE on February 03, 2007, 12:37:37 AM
You do know that Catalytic Converters were NOT used on leaded fuel vehicles correct?
I'm also curious why you think Unleaded fuel was introduced in the 1st place since it was cheaper to produce Leaded fuel and it made more power than Unleaded?
Alright one more time, Catalytic converters were developed to reduce emissions, unleaded fuel was developed as leaded fuel would poison catalytic converters.
Step outside today and show me global warming. :lmao:
Quote from: Super Dave on February 03, 2007, 10:41:51 AM
I'll cut this to the chase.
"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance." (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0)
While, I don't disagree that reducing emissions is a bad thing, the sun is much bigger and plays the biggest role in our temperatures, period.
Here's a scientist that says that the statement above is not accurate....
There will be always someone to say you're wrong (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192)
My take on the whole thing.....
Who really cares if it is the sun, people, cows, etc.... Why not do whatever you can to take care of the planet? It called being a good steward of God's gifts.
Dawn
I agree with that, Dawn. But the Godless keep pushing their ideas saying it's science.
Weather chick thinks that if you don't believe in "global warming", then you should not be certified by the America Meteorlogica Society (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611117.shtml).
I guess she could hang out with the Catholic Church when they kicked out Galileo. At least the church wasn't basing their ideology on science.
But, again, if reduced emissions were good, then shouldn't they be applied world wide?
Quote from: Super Dave on February 04, 2007, 10:49:35 AM
But, again, if reduced emissions were good, then shouldn't they be applied world wide?
It is. (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-14-voa52.cfm?CFID=30860072&CFTOKEN=14894108)
alright this is kind of a stretch but since the discussion has dipped into religion i thougfht id bring it up. has anyone here seen the documentary 'Jesus Camp'? Basically what it is is an evangelical camp for younger kids in north dakota who go there to train to be in god's army. but anyway, there was a short clip about how they thought that global warming was bull. saying the amount of temperature increase over the years is insignificant therefore we dont need to take care of the earth. dont jump the gun and blame this one on the godless quite yet....
Quote from: spyderchick on February 04, 2007, 11:41:22 AM
It is. (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-14-voa52.cfm?CFID=30860072&CFTOKEN=14894108)
"The Protocol calls for industrialized nations to cut their emissions by an average of five percent by 2012. Each country has its own targets, depending on their level of industrialization. Developing countries are exempt from targeted cuts."
Doesn't seem like everyone has the same rules at all. So, they don't apply to everyone.
here's why... my ride in this AM
-18F here in the sticks. But I don't think that is necessarily an indication of global warming or not. Certainly doesn't tell us a cause.
Sucks when you can't get your bike to ride on the ice to start. :wtf: :biggrin:
I know Dave... it was just obscenely cold today...
When I look at my new Triumph, I get all warm and fuzzy inside. Does that have an effect on the Global Warming trend?
:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:
Dave I have 2 observations:
1-I agree with you on so-called 'global warming'
2-I did not realize you were the President of the Czech Republic :lmao:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/02/12/20070212_161315_flash.htm
:cheers:
"False myth" would imply that it is not a myth. :biggrin: Czechs should learn how to speak English! :rollseyes: :lmao:
Global warming is a crock, imho...it was only 58 deg F here today, and it should be, like, 68, dudes. So, you know, I say, burn it up, man, if that's what it's gonna take to get the Bay area back up to normal. Cuz, like, it's too cold to go mountain biking for me - I might pull a muscle or something. :lmao: And it was raining last week up at Tahoe, so the skier and boarder dudes and dudettes couldn't really ride, man, because it was all, you know, slushy. That's just soooo messed up.
But - had a great ride through Sonoma wine country all weekend - and it felt GREAT!! :ass:
Time to resurrect this topic?
:pop:
Yeah, I was reading in the local Milwaukee paper where the UN is saying that Spring is getting earlier and earlier every year.
But why isn't that the case in Wisconsin. Weather vs climate. What scares me is that the Supreme Court made a ruling about the EPA too in favor of the EPA.
Court Jester... Are you drunk again???
Quote from: Super Dave on April 12, 2007, 07:00:51 AM
Yeah, I was reading in the local Milwaukee paper where the UN is saying that Spring is getting earlier and earlier every year.
But why isn't that the case in Wisconsin. Weather vs climate. What scares me is that the Supreme Court made a ruling about the EPA too in favor of the EPA.
Based upon the last 28 springs, on average I have been able to ride everyday earlier in the year for about the last decade. I have started riding daily (no snow) as early as 1st and 2nd week in March. Definitely by April 1. This is the first year I can remember for quite some time that it snowed in April.
Quote from: tzracer on April 16, 2007, 02:10:17 PM
Based upon the last 28 springs, on average I have been able to ride everyday earlier in the year for about the last decade. I have started riding daily (no snow) as early as 1st and 2nd week in March. Definitely by April 1. This is the first year I can remember for quite some time that it snowed in April.
May 9th or 10th in 1990, we had 10 inches of snow in the Fox Valley.
Why do I remember? Because I was in the insurance industry and everyone forgot their winter driving skills that day.
Dawn
Has anyone done a taste test on the ice cubes? :lmao: If it's pollution, they would be really foul tasting and nasty looking right? Even in Al Gooru's video, they still appeared white and beautiful! We can stop this whole non-sense by eliminating the things that may cause cancer! Re-read that last question and you'll get my point here. Good luck. All you can do is try and be heard, it's your responsibilty!
Big Ronny