Politics > Politics-USA > Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2006 10:57:59 PM |
| Object: |
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
A year after Hurricane Katrina and other major storms battered the
U.S. coast, the question of whether hurricanes are becoming more
destructive because of global warming has become perhaps the most
hotly contested question in the scientific debate over climate change.
Academics have published a flurry of papers either supporting or
debunking the idea that warmer temperatures linked to human activity
are fueling more intense storms. The issue remains unresolved, but it
has acquired a political potency that has made both sides heavily
invested in the outcome.
Paradoxically, the calm hurricane season in the Atlantic so far this
year has only intensified the argument.
Both sides are using identical data but coming up with conflicting
conclusions. There are several reasons.
Using different time periods to chart hurricane patterns can influence
the results. Different academic backgrounds also affect how
researchers interpret the data. Climate scientists tend to test
hypotheses and examine the underlying causes of climate variability
over time, which makes them more comfortable identifying broad climate
trends. Hurricane forecasters tend to be more focused on predicting
the intensity and paths of individual storms, and often focus on
factors such as wind shear and water temperature that can cause a
storm to shift within a matter of days or hours, so they tend to
emphasize natural variability over long-term climate shifts.
Inevitably, the scientific debate has spilled into the policy arena.
Former vice president Al Gore took up the issue in his recent film "An
Inconvenient Truth," suggesting that Katrina and other severe storms
reflect a broader trend clearly traceable to global warming. Last
week, environmentalist Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy
Institute, released a report that called the quarter of a million
Katrina evacuees who will not return home "the world's first climate
refugees."
On the other side, Myron Ebell, energy and global warming policy
director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said these
pronouncements amount to political opportunism. In contrast to
activists who quickly attributed last year's hurricanes to climate
change, he said, his side is not ready to claim victory just because
this year has brought fewer intense storms.
"I don't think that says much one way or another about whether global
warming causes hurricanes," said Ebell, whose group receives funding
from the fossil-fuel industry.
Scientists who doubt a link with global warming say this year's
average Atlantic hurricane season simply shows how variable weather
can be. Christopher Landsea, who works in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division, published an
opinion piece in the journal Science late last month in which he
argued that data indicating that recent hurricanes have been more
intense than those in the 1970s and '80s may be based on flawed
information. Measurement technologies were less sophisticated then and
may have underestimated the strength of earlier storms, he said.
"We're woefully underestimating how strong hurricanes were back then,"
said Landsea, who wrote that five tropical cyclones that were
originally classified as Category 3 would be rated as Category 4
today. "I'm sure it's confusing to the general public, since you have
different scientists saying different things. We're all trying to
figure out the same thing: What's going on with our climate?"
In contrast to the Atlantic, the Pacific is experiencing a much more
active than usual storm season this year. Earlier this month, Typhoon
Saomai, the strongest to hit China in half a century, crashed into the
country's southeast coast and flattened tens of thousands of homes. It
killed more than 300 people and prompted the evacuation of more than
1.5 million.
A number of factors might account for the fact that this year's
Atlantic season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 1, has so far produced
far fewer named storms than last year's record-breaking season, and
not a single hurricane. Sea surface temperatures are not as warm this
year -- the ocean needs to be at least 79 degrees Fahrenheit to
sustain a hurricane -- and the atmosphere is more stable because of
clouds of Saharan dust that have swept across the Atlantic.
Studies supporting a link between global warming and storm intensity
keep coming. The latest will be published this week by Florida State
University geography professor James B. Elsner in the journal
Geophysical Research Letters. Elsner found that average air
temperatures during hurricane season predict the Atlantic Ocean's
surface temperatures, not vice versa, which he said means it is "much
more likely the atmosphere is warming the ocean" and helping create
more severe storms.
And Judith A. Curry, of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, who co-authored a paper last year suggesting that rising sea
temperatures have been accompanied by more intense hurricanes, has
challenged Landsea's critique. She said Landsea and like-minded
researchers have not "done the hard work" to reanalyze the entire
historic hurricane database to determine whether it really is skewed.
She does not go as far as Elsner, however, saying his paper identifies
"an interesting statistical relationship" but does not physically
explain how warmer air might be heating the Atlantic.
Curry's work, in turn, has been challenged by Phil Klotzbach, a
research associate at Colorado State University, who published a paper
in May suggesting that, since 1986, there has been no global trend in
hurricane intensity. Klotzbach's paper, in Geophysical Research
Letters, looked at a 20-year period rather than the 35-year period
Curry and others examined, which explains how he reached different
conclusions.
"At this point, we haven't seen any significant correlation" between
hurricanes and climate change, he said.
MIT professor Kerry Emmanuel -- who helped spark the debate with a
paper in the journal Nature a year ago suggesting that warmer sea
surface temperatures had spawned more destructive storms -- has made
an effort to correct for measurement biases in his studies.
He is still criticized by researchers such as Landsea, but Emmanuel
responded in an interview that the bias in the underlying data "isn't
very large." He added that he and other researchers in Europe have
found such a strong link between warming sea surface temperatures and
more intense hurricanes that, "You literally have to argue that the
correlation is an accident. That to me is improbable."
Curry noted that the hurricane question has focused Americans on
global warming far more than other climate-related developments, such
as melting glaciers in Greenland. "Katrina was sort of the 9/11 of
global warming," she said in an interview. "It was a lot more real and
immediate. It had more of a real socioeconomic impact in the way the
melting of glaciers doesn't."
Many environmental groups have seized on the public's concern, arguing
that 2005's brutal hurricane season highlights the dangers of global
warming. The advocacy group Environmental Defense has a new Web site
devoted to "Hurricanes and Climate Change," including "11 Facts That
Will Blow You Away."
Meanwhile, William Hooke, who directs the American Meteorological
Society's policy program, said that whatever the answer turns out to
be, "We ought not to lose sight of the fact that we're doing a poor
job of protecting ourselves against the hurricanes we have now."
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data,Different Conclusions |
20 Aug 2006 04:05:41 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
20 Aug 2006 02:00:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data,Different Conclusions |
20 Aug 2006 02:17:23 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
20 Aug 2006 10:23:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data,Different Conclusions |
21 Aug 2006 03:09:53 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
21 Aug 2006 11:17:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data,Different Conclusions |
21 Aug 2006 09:27:54 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
22 Aug 2006 12:23:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data,Different Conclusions |
22 Aug 2006 03:01:30 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
click to http://www.evworld.com/ for the latest on EV's (electric cars).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
22 Aug 2006 10:14:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:01:30 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
click to http://www.evworld.com/ for the latest on EV's (electric cars).
AC Propulsion eBox Specifications:
Range: 140-180 miles
Good for local not California inter city.
Acceleration: 0 to 60mph in less than 7 seconds
OK
Top Speed: 90 mph
OK
Charge Rate: 30 minutes for 20-50 miles
Full Charge: 2 hours (fast), 5 hours (normal)
Poor
Battery Pack: Li Ion, 39kWh, 580 lb
Curb Weight: 3050 lb
Not yet there. The problem is battery technology.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data,Different Conclusions |
23 Aug 2006 02:31:59 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:01:30 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
click to http://www.evworld.com/ for the latest on EV's (electric cars).
AC Propulsion eBox Specifications:
Range: 140-180 miles
Good for local not California inter city.
Acceleration: 0 to 60mph in less than 7 seconds
OK
Top Speed: 90 mph
OK
Charge Rate: 30 minutes for 20-50 miles
Full Charge: 2 hours (fast), 5 hours (normal)
Poor
Battery Pack: Li Ion, 39kWh, 580 lb
Curb Weight: 3050 lb
Not yet there. The problem is battery technology.
Not bad though, for a commuter car.
Most people don't do over 70 miles one way (charge at work), so they'd
work fine and would be cheaper to operate.
For delivery, garbage, and busses, use the the governments hydrolic
transmission...
And add some light rail here and there along commuter routes ...
And, help things along with the tax system ...
And suddenly, we're using 1/2 the gasoline we used to... which is not a
bad start.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mycos" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
26 Aug 2006 03:21:59 AM |
|
|
My wife bought one of those Insights back in 03.(?), It gets 60 mpg. We
drove up from Texas on 3 tanks of gas!! (Fort Worth to Kamloops, BC).
I tell ya, those border guards weren't too anxious to go poking around
in the back of the car once they opened the battery hatch/access. Must
have been something about the red and yellow lightening bolts, Severe
Shock,etc, etc plastered all over in there. Heh!
Actually is a little intimidating the first time one goes in there with
a screwdriver or something similar.
Mycos
PagCal wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:01:30 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
click to http://www.evworld.com/ for the latest on EV's (electric cars).
AC Propulsion eBox Specifications:
Range: 140-180 miles
Good for local not California inter city.
Acceleration: 0 to 60mph in less than 7 seconds
OK
Top Speed: 90 mph
OK
Charge Rate: 30 minutes for 20-50 miles
Full Charge: 2 hours (fast), 5 hours (normal)
Poor
Battery Pack: Li Ion, 39kWh, 580 lb
Curb Weight: 3050 lb
Not yet there. The problem is battery technology.
Not bad though, for a commuter car.
Most people don't do over 70 miles one way (charge at work), so they'd
work fine and would be cheaper to operate.
For delivery, garbage, and busses, use the the governments hydrolic
transmission...
And add some light rail here and there along commuter routes ...
And, help things along with the tax system ...
And suddenly, we're using 1/2 the gasoline we used to... which is not a
bad start.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
23 Aug 2006 10:36:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:31:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:01:30 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
click to http://www.evworld.com/ for the latest on EV's (electric cars).
AC Propulsion eBox Specifications:
Range: 140-180 miles
Good for local not California inter city.
Acceleration: 0 to 60mph in less than 7 seconds
OK
Top Speed: 90 mph
OK
Charge Rate: 30 minutes for 20-50 miles
Full Charge: 2 hours (fast), 5 hours (normal)
Poor
Battery Pack: Li Ion, 39kWh, 580 lb
Curb Weight: 3050 lb
Not yet there. The problem is battery technology.
Not bad though, for a commuter car.
Most people don't do over 70 miles one way (charge at work), so they'd
work fine and would be cheaper to operate.
For delivery, garbage, and busses, use the the governments hydrolic
transmission...
And add some light rail here and there along commuter routes ...
And, help things along with the tax system ...
And suddenly, we're using 1/2 the gasoline we used to... which is not a
bad start.
Most people could get by with a large extended range golf cart. But
getting me and my fishing buddies and all our stuff to our favorite
fishing hole would take two days instead of 6 hours.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data,Different Conclusions |
23 Aug 2006 09:43:39 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:31:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:01:30 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
click to http://www.evworld.com/ for the latest on EV's (electric cars).
AC Propulsion eBox Specifications:
Range: 140-180 miles
Good for local not California inter city.
Acceleration: 0 to 60mph in less than 7 seconds
OK
Top Speed: 90 mph
OK
Charge Rate: 30 minutes for 20-50 miles
Full Charge: 2 hours (fast), 5 hours (normal)
Poor
Battery Pack: Li Ion, 39kWh, 580 lb
Curb Weight: 3050 lb
Not yet there. The problem is battery technology.
Not bad though, for a commuter car.
Most people don't do over 70 miles one way (charge at work), so they'd
work fine and would be cheaper to operate.
For delivery, garbage, and busses, use the the governments hydrolic
transmission...
And add some light rail here and there along commuter routes ...
And, help things along with the tax system ...
And suddenly, we're using 1/2 the gasoline we used to... which is not a
bad start.
Most people could get by with a large extended range golf cart. But
getting me and my fishing buddies and all our stuff to our favorite
fishing hole would take two days instead of 6 hours.
Load your golf cart on a car-train then head down to the 'bar car' for
some liquid refreshments.
No punishing 6 hour drive.
No worry about getting nailed by some moron on the highway.
No wearing out your car when you don't have to.
---
If we think about 'integrated transportation', we'll come up with better
solutions than just driving a car on a highway as the answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
23 Aug 2006 10:28:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:43:39 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:31:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:01:30 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
click to http://www.evworld.com/ for the latest on EV's (electric cars).
AC Propulsion eBox Specifications:
Range: 140-180 miles
Good for local not California inter city.
Acceleration: 0 to 60mph in less than 7 seconds
OK
Top Speed: 90 mph
OK
Charge Rate: 30 minutes for 20-50 miles
Full Charge: 2 hours (fast), 5 hours (normal)
Poor
Battery Pack: Li Ion, 39kWh, 580 lb
Curb Weight: 3050 lb
Not yet there. The problem is battery technology.
Not bad though, for a commuter car.
Most people don't do over 70 miles one way (charge at work), so they'd
work fine and would be cheaper to operate.
For delivery, garbage, and busses, use the the governments hydrolic
transmission...
And add some light rail here and there along commuter routes ...
And, help things along with the tax system ...
And suddenly, we're using 1/2 the gasoline we used to... which is not a
bad start.
Most people could get by with a large extended range golf cart. But
getting me and my fishing buddies and all our stuff to our favorite
fishing hole would take two days instead of 6 hours.
Load your golf cart on a car-train then head down to the 'bar car' for
some liquid refreshments.
No punishing 6 hour drive.
No worry about getting nailed by some moron on the highway.
No wearing out your car when you don't have to.
You are assuming that there will be lots of rails going where you want
to go.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data,Different Conclusions |
25 Aug 2006 01:34:01 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:43:39 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:31:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:01:30 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
click to http://www.evworld.com/ for the latest on EV's (electric cars).
AC Propulsion eBox Specifications:
Range: 140-180 miles
Good for local not California inter city.
Acceleration: 0 to 60mph in less than 7 seconds
OK
Top Speed: 90 mph
OK
Charge Rate: 30 minutes for 20-50 miles
Full Charge: 2 hours (fast), 5 hours (normal)
Poor
Battery Pack: Li Ion, 39kWh, 580 lb
Curb Weight: 3050 lb
Not yet there. The problem is battery technology.
Not bad though, for a commuter car.
Most people don't do over 70 miles one way (charge at work), so they'd
work fine and would be cheaper to operate.
For delivery, garbage, and busses, use the the governments hydrolic
transmission...
And add some light rail here and there along commuter routes ...
And, help things along with the tax system ...
And suddenly, we're using 1/2 the gasoline we used to... which is not a
bad start.
Most people could get by with a large extended range golf cart. But
getting me and my fishing buddies and all our stuff to our favorite
fishing hole would take two days instead of 6 hours.
Load your golf cart on a car-train then head down to the 'bar car' for
some liquid refreshments.
No punishing 6 hour drive.
No worry about getting nailed by some moron on the highway.
No wearing out your car when you don't have to.
You are assuming that there will be lots of rails going where you want
to go.
Yep.
And, if we as a nation put money into rail, instead of airports, they'd
take over short and medium range transportation needs.
Lots of countries do it. Take the train from Muchen to Geneve, for example.
We'd get equal or shorter transport times.
They'd be safer - try hijacking one and driving it into a building.
No long lines at the 'airport'.
Freight would be cheaper and have better schedules for business.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data, Different Conclusions |
25 Aug 2006 10:32:22 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:34:01 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:43:39 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:31:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:01:30 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to hold 4 passengers and their luggage.
Need power generation from US sources. Coal, Nuclear, hydroelectric.
click to http://www.evworld.com/ for the latest on EV's (electric cars).
AC Propulsion eBox Specifications:
Range: 140-180 miles
Good for local not California inter city.
Acceleration: 0 to 60mph in less than 7 seconds
OK
Top Speed: 90 mph
OK
Charge Rate: 30 minutes for 20-50 miles
Full Charge: 2 hours (fast), 5 hours (normal)
Poor
Battery Pack: Li Ion, 39kWh, 580 lb
Curb Weight: 3050 lb
Not yet there. The problem is battery technology.
Not bad though, for a commuter car.
Most people don't do over 70 miles one way (charge at work), so they'd
work fine and would be cheaper to operate.
For delivery, garbage, and busses, use the the governments hydrolic
transmission...
And add some light rail here and there along commuter routes ...
And, help things along with the tax system ...
And suddenly, we're using 1/2 the gasoline we used to... which is not a
bad start.
Most people could get by with a large extended range golf cart. But
getting me and my fishing buddies and all our stuff to our favorite
fishing hole would take two days instead of 6 hours.
Load your golf cart on a car-train then head down to the 'bar car' for
some liquid refreshments.
No punishing 6 hour drive.
No worry about getting nailed by some moron on the highway.
No wearing out your car when you don't have to.
You are assuming that there will be lots of rails going where you want
to go.
Yep.
And, if we as a nation put money into rail, instead of airports, they'd
take over short and medium range transportation needs.
Lots of countries do it. Take the train from Muchen to Geneve, for example.
We'd get equal or shorter transport times.
They'd be safer - try hijacking one and driving it into a building.
No long lines at the 'airport'.
Freight would be cheaper and have better schedules for business.
Europe is a little place with high density population centers. The USA
is very large with fewer population centers. Paris to London is 257
miles. About the same distance from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Paris to
Rome is 952 miles or Los Angeles to Denver.
What little rail travel there is in the US is scanty and highly
subsidized. Local rail such as LA Metrolink or BART in SF are little
better.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming Same Data,Different Conclusions |
26 Aug 2006 04:10:32 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:34:01 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:43:39 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:31:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:01:30 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:27:54 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:09:53 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 05:05:41 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; A03
All this is irrelevant to the now established facts; that global warming
is happening and that it's from man-made CO2.
Established fact eh?
***** hoc ergo propter hoc.
"With this, therefore because of this."
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve". -- Karl Popper
[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also
make very poor observations. -- Claude Bernard
Agree, disagree - right now, with oil so expensive, alternatives are
cheaper.
Further, alternatives are more reliable than oil. I put up a solar panel
to heat my hot water, and I know that the sun will rise every day. If I
heat the water with oil from unstable regions, the oil might not be
there some day.
As a national energy policy, don't you think it makes sense for the US
to become independant of Middle East oil? We can you know, just do a few
simple things, such as put up solar arrays or raise CAFE - thing that
would really cause no sacrafice to no one.
Why should we sacrafice our young in the Middle East, to 'protect' oil
supplies, when we can switch fuels?
You need fuel that will power the existing base of 150,000,000 cars,
trucks, planes, trains, ships etc. I do believe that the US could do
without middle east oil if push came to shove. I don't believe that
much of the rest of the world could.
Brazil seems to be doing fine on Ethanol.
Will your car run on 100% ethanol? Brazil is tearing up the rain
forest to fuel their cars.
Race cars run on pure ethanol.
But my car wont.
Tecnically, why do they mix in 15% gas? Lubrication? Easy starting?
Pure ethanol burns with a colorless flame. Bummer when you want to
rescue a crashed driver. The gas adds a little color to the flame.
As for tearing up the rain forest, they've been doing that for years for
all sorts of reasons.
The only sane solution for cars is to go pure electric. Already, in the
US, someone announced one with a 250 mile range, 0-60 in four seconds,
135 equivalent mpg ...
I've no problem with electric. They have to go at least 250 miles. You
should have to be able to recharge or swap out batteries in 10 minutes
or less. You should be able to h | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
