Effort underway to suspend California's global-warming law

[Tom Kirkham]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5959308.story

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Tom Kirkham

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5959308.story

Imagine how bad the D.C. areas weather this past weekend would have been without global warming!

[Ralphy]

I am a skeptic about warming. However snow does not equal temp changes.

Originally Posted by Dan40

Imagine how bad the D.C. areas weather this past weekend would have been without global warming!

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Ralphy

I am a skeptic about warming. However snow does not equal temp changes.

OK, Sorry, I din't know it snowed in hot weather. Lern sumtin nu ever day!

[Ron61]

I certainly like the way Brown saved paper by changing the Title.

The official wording of the initiative, however, lies in the hands of Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, an outspoken advocate of AB 32 and a presumptive Democratic candidate for governor. On Wednesday, his office discarded the "jobs initiative" title in favor of the unwieldy: "Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year

Ron

[Wes Tausend]

...

Normally, the oceanic evaporation on earth occurs at a steady state as some heat from the Sun stays and some is radiated away. That means that we always have the same overall rainfall, but if one area has excess, another will experience drought.

The greenhouse effect interferes with, and restricts, radiation, keeping more heat in the lower atmosphere, near the ocean.

As the surface temperature of the planet warms, it will increase the amount of oceanic evaporation. This will result is more precipitation, more rain, more snow and probably more violent physics, something like a kettle of water boiling faster as the heat is turned up.

The overall precipitation will not only rise. It may also cause a snowball effect as increased water vapor in the atmosphere adds to the greenhouse effect. The eventual resultant ice age is a real condition, unless one were to believe that it, too, is a contrived hoax. Nobody is sure how fast it will procede, or which factor is most important, but procede it will. The contention is that humans don't or do cause some of it.

Has anyone thought to ask why it is so important that the public not reduce use of carbon products besides empowering the middle east? Who is endlessly funding this anti-science campaign?

What a dry and humorless post I have made.
Sorry.

Wes

...

[Scott S]

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

What a dry and humorless post I have made.
Sorry.

Wes

...

I figured somebody from North Dakota would like a bit of GW, isn't it true the only thing between Bismark and the North Pole is a barb wire fence and it's down in most places?

Scott S

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by Scott S

I figured somebody from North Dakota would like a bit of GW, isn't it true the only thing between Bismark and the North Pole is a barb wire fence and it's down in most places?

Scott S

That's the absolute truth, Scott. And thanks for adding a bit of humor and saving such a sorry post.

In spite of the wire being mostly down, a lot of folks around here are calling it the Iron Curtain because, to walk across the wire now, we need a $100 passport. It's crazy, we all know each other by first name up here, for free, either side of the wire. Eh.

Snow coming out our wazoo. But not much to mention, compared to some parts of the country. Work is up. Everybody needs more coal.

Wes

...

[mdmull]

& in ten senteces or so explains how the warming will create more snow - how about the fact that that increased evaporation also creates more cloud cover that reflects more sumlight. Sunlight by the way is the by far main element (factor, contributor) to global warmth.

[Ralphy]

Wes where have you read this?

"Has anyone thought to ask why it is so important that the public not reduce use of carbon products besides empowering the middle east?"

[Ralphy]

OK, answer this, why do we not have hydrogen cars? I'm leading this somewhere.

My point in asking was to hopefully get a answer such as, portability. Which then I was going to ask, so why can we not use hydrogen for our homes, not needing portability. However I have found answers.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/4199381.html

[bomelia]

We don't have hydrogen cars because of two main problems. One, hydrogen does not exist in nature as a singular product. Its mostly hooked up to oxygen (water) and lots of carbon (hydrocarbons). Releasing it is expensive and at the highest efficiencies means it is a good battery or energy storage material (the energy balance in electrolysis and combustion is conserved minus inefficiencies).

Energy density is low unless very high pressures are used (making it dangerous) and at those pressures, container permeabilities are an enormous problem making container weight an even bigger problem. I am not sure I would be comfortable riding around in a vehicle with a 12,000 psi container of hydrogen under me!

But when these and other problems are solved, maybe someone can figure out how to exceed advanced batter energy densities (and do so at lower weights) and make hydrogen fuel cells the battery of the future. Really, in electric vehicles is how hydrogen will be used (not combustion engines).

Mike

[Ralphy]

Bomelia,
My point was, forget cars what about using it for our homes. All the talk negative I have heard was portability. But your house need not. In the PM article, it's stated that it must be chilled. There are even more obstacles if you read it.

Ralphy

[Ralphy]

Loved this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml54UuAoLSo

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

...

Normally, the oceanic evaporation on earth occurs at a steady state as some heat from the Sun stays and some is radiated away. That means that we always have the same overall rainfall, but if one area has excess, another will experience drought.

The greenhouse effect interferes with, and restricts, radiation, keeping more heat in the lower atmosphere, near the ocean.

As the surface temperature of the planet warms, it will increase the amount of oceanic evaporation. This will result is more precipitation, more rain, more snow and probably more violent physics, something like a kettle of water boiling faster as the heat is turned up.

The overall precipitation will not only rise. It may also cause a snowball effect as increased water vapor in the atmosphere adds to the greenhouse effect. The eventual resultant ice age is a real condition, unless one were to believe that it, too, is a contrived hoax. Nobody is sure how fast it will procede, or which factor is most important, but procede it will. The contention is that humans don't or do cause some of it.

Has anyone thought to ask why it is so important that the public not reduce use of carbon products besides empowering the middle east? Who is endlessly funding this anti-science campaign?

What a dry and humorless post I have made.
Sorry.

Wes

...

While true that alternative "clean" sources should be explored, we also have to realize that right now they are fantasies (like global warming) that don't exist. However our energy needs are very real and like it or not burning fossil fuels has no equal at this time. Putting everything on hold while we wait for some "magic" to happen, or worse subsidizing non-viable solutions like ethenol in gasoline needs to stop, now.

Hydroelectric and geo-thermal is about the only viable "clean" source but it's geographically limited in use. Nuke power was regulated to death by idiots like Jane Fonda.

People also never consider where all this plastic we now use comes from.... OIL!

Bring back glass bottles, wash and re-use them...
Bring back paper grocery bags...
Have people burn the trash that doesn't need to go to the land fill...
Walk to the neiborhood corner store instead of driving to the Mega mart...
Build stuff that can be repaired again...

Funny how today's "enviromentally concerned" crowd generates ten times the mess previous generations did. "Re-use it" has been replaced with "Recycle it". No wonder financial resposibility dissapeared with the current crowd.

[Ron61]

I watched a show on TV last night about geothermal power production. I never realized that Reno gets a lot of it's electricity from thermal power plants. Also they showed where some guy after World War 11 bought a big warehouse full of left over steam turbines from the Navy and stored them and many of them are now being used in a big power plant there. They have done three studies that i know of up in Lassen Park where the steam vents out of the ground all the time and would never build a power plant there for some reason. I believe in the show they said they had to drill from 200' to 1,000' to get the steam, but in Lassen they shouldn't have to drill hardly any in some places. If they areas serious about this as they claim, why haven't they did anything about building more of the geothermal plants. Look at a map of the Pacific Rim and it will show the whole thing has a lot of heat and pressure that could be tapped into. Also they have now developed better turbines than the old ones and they are more efficient and any waste product is just water as they showed where they let the waste water flow out in the big power plant near Reno. Nuclear would be a good way to go if they did it right and quit cutting corners to make money, but that won't happen in this state unless all of the power happy people suddenly don't have electricity.

Ron

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by bomelia

We don't have hydrogen cars because of two main problems. One, hydrogen does not exist in nature as a singular product. Its mostly hooked up to oxygen (water) and lots of carbon (hydrocarbons). Releasing it is expensive and at the highest efficiencies means it is a good battery or energy storage material (the energy balance in electrolysis and combustion is conserved minus inefficiencies).

Energy density is low unless very high pressures are used (making it dangerous) and at those pressures, container permeabilities are an enormous problem making container weight an even bigger problem. I am not sure I would be comfortable riding around in a vehicle with a 12,000 psi container of hydrogen under me!

But when these and other problems are solved, maybe someone can figure out how to exceed advanced batter energy densities (and do so at lower weights) and make hydrogen fuel cells the battery of the future. Really, in electric vehicles is how hydrogen will be used (not combustion engines).

Mike

A simplification of the process true. The bottom line is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and that the creation of hydrogen for fuel will consume more energy than it produces. The source of the consumed energy is most likely electricity. So you have to account for a huge electricity generation infrastructure that is probably as big as the one we currently have (whose only possible source is nuclear).

People envision cars that convert "air and water" to hydrogen on the fly. Ain't gonna happen...

The creation of energy is a nasty business. It took a lot of energy to create the crude oil (which had huge losses in the process). What makes it all tidy is we weren't around to see it happen.