So if you flip a coin once each year for 150 years you would expect to get 75 heads and 75 tails,
Both sides of a penny aren't really flat, and the trend will be more heads than tails, unless you catch the coin in midair. (link)
Before you make a long range bet on how the quarter is going to land, you may want to keep collecting lots of data, compile lots of models, and test those theories thoroughly.
I really didn't mention a penny; I was talking about the theoretical perfectly balanced coin. But then that coin does have an edge and I have seen flipped coins land and stay on their edge - believe it was a nickel. So there goes the 50%-50% split. The "edgeability" of a coin is a factor of its width and diameter and of course how much rotational energy was put into the flip.
Likewise consider that in reality there is no such thing as a circle or a square, they are only theoretical. We may call things circular or square but that is only because we are not measuring something precisely enough, or if doing it optically - we're not magnifying it enough. Maybe the only thing in the universe close to be a true sphere is a Black-hole. Similarly when temperatures are compared I realize that a 78.4F reading may be off due to what is considered acceptable when calibrating it, the calibration method can affect the reading, and the location of the thermometer - what's around it. And then when we start comparing temperatures from 100+ years ago to today's, I just don't think a <1F degree rise is outside the range of error. If the temperature difference being reported was 5F then I could say yes that's not the error of the technology, methods, and thermometer environment.
Also consider this - if GW is occurring, let's say it is, and if CO2 buidup is responsible for a significant amount of GW, then as the CO2 level gets higher, the temperature rise should be accelerating higher each year. So if the temp. rise were 0.05 this year you would expect the temp. rise to be 0.052 next year. That means that each year the probability of the temperature dropping is less! So we really shouldn't be seeing any drop in the temperature as we go along. The temperature should behave just like dropping a rock from the top of a 100 foot cliff. The buildup of CO2 which is occurring regularly should drag the temperature higher each and every year, just as gravity increases the speed. If temperatures don't go up each and every year, then CO2 is not a significant factor to any GW that may be occurring.
As of now, there are a plethora of opinions, both scientific an political, on both sides
On that statement we agree. I think you need to look at all the countries that jumped on the Kyoto treaty. NONE have come close to their commitment to cut CO2 emissions. Yet the USA is the country that gets the bad press for not signing onto a treaty that clearly cannot be lived up to. There is no way possible for US to go back to 1990s levels. Even Japan with their very closed society has not come close. So when you say we would be idiots to not take action. You really mean that we should maintain the status quo. Even that is not going to happen in an industrial nation that is growing. The two majors that come to mind are India and China. They have already said they would be glad to comply if they did not have to stifle growth. Australia signed on with their new Prime Minister using GW as an election gimmick. He is waffling now that it is clear to comply his people will have 25% higher energy bills. SO no matter how stupid you think people are. They are not going to go sacrifice their lifestyle, to satisfy a few talking heads. Most of whom are living in luxury, proclaiming we are going to destroy the polar bear population if we don't quit driving our cars or heating and cooling our homes.
Where is Al Gore now and his whole Global Warming ordeal? Probably some where in Hawaii enjoying the sun, seeing as how this is the coldest winter in years.
On a separate note, California emissions are very strict compared to the other states in our Union, we're certainly not producing as much; however, we do have a lot more drivers than most other states.
I do not see ANY GW advocates investing in R&D for C02 "USING technologies!! This is disingenuous and EXTREMELY short sighted at ALL levels; as the message is SLASH C02 use. This meaning longer term, even they expect we will still be generating exponentially higher gobs of C02!!??
(This is of course assuming they believe their own "convictions," some might call it (aka) propaganda)
By now it should be apparent why ethanol (corn) is probably NOT a good idea, but this has an environmental GREEN light!!!??
Indeed cultivating algae in/near ocean waters (near the source?) for bio diesel is/will be on the environmental hit list for being " environmentally unfriendly. This is the ultimate irony, for algae eat gobs of C02, produces a few less GOBS of OXYGEN as a by product, food, and 15,000 gals of bio diesel per acre!!! (look at ANY crop and almost all are DISMAL in comparison!!! ) Hydrogen according to our local rag compared on mass transportation buses are 1.12 vs 51.25 PER MILE driven, so easily 45 x more expensive. !!??
It is ironic how GW advocates LOVE to live in ... globally warm /ed places. It is further ironic when they need to so called "get off the island", they need to generate MASSIVE amounts of the very stuff (C02) they rail against and consider poison, to get back to the mainland. Last I checked, not many folks take the SAIL boat option.
No. Not convinced the Global Warming scare is any more legitimate than the Zero Population Growth crisis was when I was an adolescent. Clearly, we are not yet eating each other for food. Therefore, I drive my carbon based autos with pride and abandon.
That IS one option. Indeed that is the real option being done by 98% of the population!? (AKA) NO CHANGE.
But really, say they are correct (they arent) it doesn't take a rocket scientist to suggest doing the R&D to better utilize C02. makes sense. It is really the when life gives you lemons-MAKE lemondade "principle."
..."it doesn't take a rocket scientist to suggest doing the R&D to better utilize C02. makes sense. It is really the when life gives you lemons-MAKE lemondade "principle." ...
Actually my quote is PC, all is REALLY takes is "CRAP" science. The side benefit, if you want to be optimistic, this "raw stock" natural resource can be produced daily from multiple sources, but here is one:
..."Algaculture Main article: Algaculture From 1978 to 1996, the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory experimented with using algae as a biodiesel source in the "Aquatic Species Program".[54] A self-published article by Michael Briggs, at the UNH Biodiesel Group, offers estimates for the realistic replacement of all vehicular fuel with biodiesel by utilizing algae that have a natural oil content greater than 50%, which Briggs suggests can be grown on algae ponds at wastewater treatment plants.[30] This oil-rich algae can then be extracted from the system and processed into biodiesel, with the dried remainder further reprocessed to create ethanol.
The production of algae to harvest oil for biodiesel has not yet been undertaken on a commercial scale, but feasibility studies have been conducted to arrive at the above yield estimate. In addition to its projected high yield, algaculture — unlike crop-based biofuels — does not entail a decrease in food production, since it requires neither farmland nor fresh water. Some companies[4][5] are pursuing algae bio-reactors for various purposes, including biodiesel production.
On May 11, 2006 the Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation in Marlborough, New Zealand announced that it had produced its first sample of bio-diesel fuel made from algae found in sewage ponds.[25] Unlike previous attempts, the algae was naturally grown in pond discharge from the Marlborough District Council's sewage treatment works."...
Algae is about as green as it gets. I know my two partners forgot to add chlorine to our pool in Lake Havasu and there was enough algae to power Al Gore's plane for a year. I can tell you the stuff grows fast in the right environment.
I imagine some environmentalist group will have some reason to block algae ponds.
LOL! I did forget that at times I used to grow algae in 2 pools, I have owned over the years One located in the tropics, (Miami, FL) one in a suburb ( Atherton, CA).
Operatively @ a counter intuitive level, environmental interests seem to line up with auto (big union's) and oil companies'. One for sure, needs the other to justify itself.
Here's an article that explains the costs and financial risks to creating coal to liquid fuel. But take note of the comment which I have said in the past. "We're going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there's three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves," said Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. "Guess what? We're going to burn coal."
We are SO abnormally rich in coal that literally ALL of us can walk around like Arab Shieks!! I bet most folks don't know most Alaskan resident receive monthly royalty checks from oil . Then on the other side of the coin, we wonder why many foreign nation can't resist tweaking our nose!!??? As we worry about the sub prime mortgage mess with a large portion of US homeowners being kicked out of their homes.
We claim poverty about a 5 billion dollar plant investment and yet go out and spend what 640 billion to over a TRILLION dollars for "police actions" (has Congress really declared WAR???) in the middle east? For 640 BILLION we could now have appropriations for 128 such NEW plants. Seems like police actions have precedence over energy self sufficiency?
The Alaska Permanent Fund dividends come from invested oil money I think, not (Usibelli) coal royalty payments. I think the Alberta Heritage Fund is all oil too.
And the Alaska dividend is paid once a year. Last year every qualifying resident got $1,654.
Cars have burned oil made from coal in the past, haven't they (during the WWII years?). Clean coal is still an oxymoron to most folks. "Mining coal is easy. Getting to it is the hard part." (link)
Last I heard most of the coal in Alaska is sold to Korea. I think they offload it into ships in Whittier from the Alaska Railroad. It is small potatoes compared to oil revenues. Probably even less than tourism. If they can develop small facilities to convert coal to diesel that would be a good industry for Alaska. The State is booming now with $100 oil. That was the reason for the largest Permanent Fund check to date. Alaska is usually on a different economic cycle than the rest of the USA.
"And the Alaska dividend is paid once a year. Last year every qualifying resident got $1,654. "
I will have to stand corrected on the monthly vs yearly, as I recall my neighbor stated monthly. (they are of course a few years ago FORMER Alaskan residents) I did ask why they chose to come to "couldn't find a tax increase we didn't like" CALIFORNIA.
But I think you get and understand the point I was making?
Glad you put current #'s to it. Further $1,654. per year@ $4 per gal, D2 would STILL buy 413.5 gals of D2. At 50 miles per gal, that is still 20,675 miles per year!!!!!!!!! $ wise that would take me "off the grid" so to speak. Shoot if I troll the local chinese & japanese and too numerous fast food restaurants to name, for used cooking oil, I'd be an energy producer!! :shades:
One of the advantages to big nukes as opposed to Toshiba's little nuke, is safety. Setting aside long term disposal issues, you have fewer sites to guard, and economies of scale should permit you to have ample redundant systems and staff around.
And environmental issues of siting, cooling water, whatever can be focused on one area, with appropriate remediation efforts. In theory you could wind up with some cleaner electrical power to run plug in cars.
Dean Kamen lobbied and got permission in most cities to let his Segway run around on the sidewalks. Big flop but the marketing effort to sway most city council people and legislators was outstanding.
Meanwhile if I want to run an electric golf car two miles to the grocery on surface streets, I'll get busted. I think it's about time to enlist Kamen to make electric golf cars viable for most 40 mph urban and interurban roads.
Meanwhile if I want to run an electric golf car two miles to the grocery on surface streets, I'll get busted.
Same thing in CA. I had a great offer on a GEM a few years ago. Not Legal on any road posted over 35 MPH. The dealer had to truck them from their store that sits on a 40 MPH street.
I will have to stand corrected on the monthly vs yearly,
Alaska used to have a senior dividend of $250 per month. You had to have lived in the state for 30 years and be 65. That is no longer offered. I think the ones that are grandfathered still get it. You only got it the months you were actually in Alaska. There was a lot of cheating with seniors spending the winter out of Alaska and still getting the checks.
..."I will have to stand corrected on the monthly vs yearly, "...
..."Alaska used to have a senior dividend of $250 per month. You had to have lived in the state for 30 years and be 65. That is no longer offered. I think the ones that are grandfathered still get it. You only got it the months you were actually in Alaska. There was a lot of cheating with seniors spending the winter out of Alaska and still getting the checks. "...
Actually I am glad for the correction to the correction of the orginal correction, etc. One spin off:I really did listen to what she was saying at the time. :shades: If indeed they got 250 per month (again I did not get the exact details) the yearly "stipend" or whatever the technical term for this was/is etc, puts it at 3,000 per year. When you add to that D2 was WAY cheaper, effectively 2x the mileage would have been a can do easy SWAG: for 40,000 PLUS miles per year !!(for discussion purposes). Truthfully the following numbers show me to be wildly depressive. :lemon: :shades:
Pick a year any year and google the below link, i.e., (2003 year diesel prices @1.51 per gal year average/$3000=1987 gals* 50 mpg= 99,338 miles! )
So for example 2000 year D2 prices were 1.50 average. The government comment @ the time was the D2 prices were ABNORMALLY HIGH. link title / $3,000= 2000 gals * 50 mpg=100,000 miles !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"One of the advantages to big nukes as opposed to Toshiba's little nuke, is safety. Setting aside long term disposal issues, you have fewer sites to guard, and economies of scale should permit you to have ample redundant systems and staff around.
And environmental issues of siting, cooling water, whatever can be focused on one area, with appropriate remediation efforts. In theory you could wind up with some cleaner electrical power to run plug in cars.
Dean Kamen lobbied and got permission in most cities to let his Segway run around on the sidewalks. Big flop but the marketing effort to sway most city council people and legislators was outstanding.
Meanwhile if I want to run an electric golf car two miles to the grocery on surface streets, I'll get busted. I think it's about time to enlist Kamen to make electric golf cars viable for most 40 mph urban and interurban roads. "...
Nukes? OH PLEASE- that would be way too logical!!
I am sure you see the enormous disconnects here!? Sure wave the magic wand and 100% of the passenger vehicle fleet is now plug in (electrical) This would be an absolute DISASTER!!! All we need do is google and most estimates of environmental pollution comes from "power requirements" of HOUSING! Just start off with the fact that with literally NO% electrical passenger vehicle fleet, the electrical grid is catastrophically broken and is totally inadequate( under capacity). Some estimates claim trillions of dollars is needed for infrastruture adequacy!! The environmentalists literally(by way of the legal system) jam up any new capacity and CA for example is MANDATED to switch power plant operations from coal fired to nat gas which we again have.... surprise! NO supplies.!!!
To listen to the environmentalists and anti diesel forces you'd think that a 2% passenger diesel fleet is capable of triggering the end times; let alone GROW the diesel fleet from there! Keep in mind diesel consumes 20-40% less than the RUG to PUG they do advocate. They also advocate using LESS also. :sick: :lemon: :shades:
CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return. Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
More doom and gloom for the GW cult to absorb. Who will they be able to sell those truckloads of Carbon Credits to?
Saturday March 22, 2008, 4:59 PM
It's just as you suspected - this has been the snowiest winter ever in the Ann Arbor area, or at least since 1880 when record-keeping started.
And it's not over yet.
That's because we're not even into April, a month that normally averages almost 2.5 inches of that pesky white stuff.
If this winter continues the way it's been going, we could be in store for more than that.
Consider this month.
Normally in March, we get about 8.3 inches of snow, said Dennis Kahlbaum, a University of Michigan weather observer. So far in March, with more than a week to go, we've seen 16.7 inches of fluffy precipitation.
A good chunk of that came Friday night and early Saturday morning.
The storm - a narrow band across southern Michigan - dropped 7.5 inches of snow in Ann Arbor, Kahlbaum said.
That was enough to send this winter into the record books and shove the 2004-05 winter aside.
In 2004-05, 83.9 inches of snow fell. This year, we're sitting at 85 inches. That's a lot of shoveling.
Interviewer: The surface record, however, continues to go up.
Scientist: The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites.
If GW is a fact not a theory, then yes, car would be a significant source of CO2 emissions. But that depends on how much CO2 natural sources generate and the conversion rate/capacity of natural occuring processes that breakdown CO2 into carbon and oxygen compounds.
Personally, don't think we understand or have isolated all of the vairable. Our data is mainly temperature change and CO2 levels. A direct correlation to sources produced my man cannot be readily made since the impact of naturally occuring sources cannot easily be qualtified.
It's like trying to use binoculars to map out the surface of the moon. You're mostly guessing because your data is limited to only what you can resolve at that level of magnification.
He agrees with me Cities are the problem. We should encourage folks to move away from the cities. Much healthier lifestyle. I think this is what I have said all along about using conventional weather reports.
For example the local airport weather station in Santee, has been off line for over a year. So do we leave that out of the equation?
As far as I am concerned big cities bring out the worst in people. Unless you like being in a crime infested environment, move to the country or at least the suburbs. Cities like Phoenix are really one huge suburb.
I thought it was resolved. The earth is getting cooler and we all need to buy a BIG SUV and try to help warm our fellow Americans in the Midwest and East.
Sounds like Austin wasted $20 grand. If they had done the survey in Houston it would have been nearly the opposite percentages. Though Austin residents will not do anything that costs money to cut CO2.
Eighty-nine percent of respondents believe that Austin residents will be affected by climate change, higher than national surveys.
Austinites said they were more likely to change home air conditioning filters, reuse bottles and containers, and make sure their automobile tires were properly inflated than they were to drive a hybrid car, install solar panels or use rainwater collection barrels or electric lawn mowers.
There are several negatives to making houses tighter, that I think city of Austin or any other government should keep their non-scientific and ignorant noses out of.
For instance many of the materials that go into new homes - the carpeting, the plastics, the paints/stains and the glues amongst the largest, outgas for a few weeks to a few years. So if you tighten the house you are going to increase the level of these chemicals in the air in the house. Already there are hundreds of reported cases of people having allergies due to these issues, and it would certinly go much higher.
The second indoor pollution item is radon, which many of us have. Tighten the house and again you will have higher levels. You're risk of lung cancer could approach that of a smoker!
Do you really want government officials who may or may not be aware of these issues making decisions for you on what risk you should accept, to reduce your energy a little ("well we've had a scientist evaluate the effect and at most 8 more people in Austin will die/year, and we think that's acceptable to prevent emitting 5,000 tons of CO2"). I certainly don't think this , and I certainly don't want the government telling me what to set my thermostat at.
Similarly I don't want the government to insist people have a lower safety level than they could otherwise purchase, all for the sake of saving a little fuel. There is no amount of fuel savings worth the risk to people's lives (mine especially) if that savings comes from increasing exposure to radon or a smaller, less safe car.
If politicians were held civically and legally responsible for damages, injuries, and deaths that their laws cause, you'd see a lot less written, and people could have the freedom back - to make their own decisions.
We should not accept totalitarian or majority edicts which make our society accept increased risks, because like a lottery you probably won't be affected. I don't agree we should force people to do things because we say it is acceptable that only 0.01% willl be negatively affected. Government should put the information out, and let people make their own individual decsions - not group collectivism.
I don't think Austin is a voice in the wilderness - this stuff is initially driven by the Feds (most recent legislation is the Energy Policy Act of 2005 I think). Idaho has had a statewide energy code since '90, with a significant update implemented by '05. Lots of counties with radon here, so they aren't sweeping that issue under the rug either.
But the legislators are mostly adopting UBC type stuff that the pros present to them every 3 years or so.
I do agree about new houses and outgassing - I'm even careful about remodeling around my '75 era ranch because my wife has some allergies. We finally got rid of the last bit of carpet here a few months ago. Another good reason to buy a used car too, assuming that the...
If the board approves the changes, said Ze'ev Drori - chief executive of Tesla Motors, the San Carlos company that put its $100,000 electric roadster into production this month - it would "make a mockery of CARB itself."
Where has this guy been? CARB is a gigantic JOKE. If they were at all interested in cutting GHG they would have set a time table for diesel cars to get up to the SULEV emissions level. Instead they arbitrarily block the sales which takes away most of the incentive for automakers to sell them in the USA at all.
Of course the sad part is this guy from Tesla is just looking at his own greed. His funding will be cut as a result of these realistic changes.
Tesla's Drori said the changes to the ZEV mandates would "needlessly weaken" the program.
Tell me again how Tesla is going to be good for US. Did I read right that they are being built in the UK? The first production 2008 Tesla Roadster arrives in America from England
I don't think Austin is a voice in the wilderness - this stuff is initially driven by the Feds (most recent legislation is the Energy Policy Act of 2005 I think).
Yes I'm sure it is. I'm surprised they haven't gotten around to legislating how thick your toilet paper can be and how many squares you can use/day in the name of the environment and GW.
I'm glad to hear you could remove your carpet and help your wife. What if the building code in your town mandated carpets because it was more energy efficient? A building code should be concerned with safety - heating, electrical, and whether the building will stand; insulation, # and type of windows ... is up to the buyer. And don't even get me started about towns that require people to paint their houses certain colors ...
Our governments need to provide us information; not force-feed us their decision which 1) may or may not be good for most, or 2) thought good (and will later be proofed false).
I'm sure the Pentagon's procurement rules about TP buying are lengthy, lol.
The pros are always talking about improving the nation's housing stock, and I don't remember seeing a lot of opposition from the home and commercial builders about building code stuff.
The AGC promotes “green” construction practices (which would reduce GW) but they don't want the codes to be limited to one solution to a problem, so mandating carpet would be out. link
Sort of back on topic, the AGC also is trying to get funding from Congress to help contractors retrofit diesel equipment to help emissions.
>Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Pat Robertson, Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks, and Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich.
Al Sharpton can save the planet from warming if he just quit producing so much hot air!
Who are the Dixie Chicks? Someone living in Al Gores rundown house on some of his land from long ago in the news--remember how it was like a plantation worker home? Was that while he was in office?
As for Nancy Pelosi I'm still waiting or the Democrats 2006 plan for lowering gas prices as she promised in April 2006. Has it had time to work yet? :P It might be like the Bill Clinton tax cut for the middle class from his first campaign...
Reading the CBS link, I found the posts after the smoothly written story were most interesting of the whole thing. The believers have really convinced themselves the faux science explanation is it. If only the true science were so simple.
And I used to think Newt Gingrich was a smart guy. I guess the very elect can be deceived. The rest of that group are not high on the IQ chart from where I stand.
>Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Pat Robertson, Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks, and Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich.
Anyone who listens to this group on a science issue, surely must have jumped on board the weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq case that Bush, Powell, and the various security agencies gave us.
Maybe we should ask for some proof before raising the flag and yelling charge? And if and when we get proof we should ask whether that change is necessarily bad? As I'm sitting here watching it snow again, as it has been off and on for the last 5 months.
California's Air Resources Board voted Thursday, March 27, to require that fewer zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) be offered for sale in the state starting in 2012. The board said that between 2012 and 2014, major automakers must produce a total of either 7500 ZEVs for sale in the state or 12,500 "battery electric vehicles," which, by our reading of the ARB's decision, would include fuel-cell electric vehicles.
The new decision also says automakers have to make 66,000 plug-in hybrids, unless they make 25,000 ZEVs.
It's a little confusing.
Environmentalists wanted more, carmakers less. But it's still far fewer than would have been required before Thursday's vote.
The original mandate 18 years ago required that 10 percent of cars sold in the state be ZEVs, with ever-increasing percentages following that. That mandate was revised several times and then successfully challenged in court by the automakers that had to meet it.
Other states are expected to follow California's lead. While exact figures will vary, suffice it to say Californians and eventually others should have a lot of battery-powered cars available in the not-too-distant future.
link title Good decision I think. Puts more clean cars on the road without breaking the carmaker's bank accounts.
Well the Tesla OEM's (electric) will still have a market (status statement- aka Prius statement) @ 100,000 a copy? Interesting they build it in the UK and use massive amounts of oil resources to get it here to the US market, even as the headquarters is 20-30 mins up the highway from me.
Comments
Both sides of a penny aren't really flat, and the trend will be more heads than tails, unless you catch the coin in midair. (link)
Before you make a long range bet on how the quarter is going to land, you may want to keep collecting lots of data, compile lots of models, and test those theories thoroughly.
I really didn't mention a penny; I was talking about the theoretical perfectly balanced coin. But then that coin does have an edge and I have seen flipped coins land and stay on their edge - believe it was a nickel. So there goes the 50%-50% split. The "edgeability" of a coin is a factor of its width and diameter and of course how much rotational energy was put into the flip.
Likewise consider that in reality there is no such thing as a circle or a square, they are only theoretical. We may call things circular or square but that is only because we are not measuring something precisely enough, or if doing it optically - we're not magnifying it enough. Maybe the only thing in the universe close to be a true sphere is a Black-hole.
Similarly when temperatures are compared I realize that a 78.4F reading may be off due to what is considered acceptable when calibrating it, the calibration method can affect the reading, and the location of the thermometer - what's around it. And then when we start comparing temperatures from 100+ years ago to today's, I just don't think a <1F degree rise is outside the range of error. If the temperature difference being reported was 5F then I could say yes that's not the error of the technology, methods, and thermometer environment.
Also consider this - if GW is occurring, let's say it is, and if CO2 buidup is responsible for a significant amount of GW, then as the CO2 level gets higher, the temperature rise should be accelerating higher each year. So if the temp. rise were 0.05 this year you would expect the temp. rise to be 0.052 next year. That means that each year the probability of the temperature dropping is less!
So we really shouldn't be seeing any drop in the temperature as we go along. The temperature should behave just like dropping a rock from the top of a 100 foot cliff. The buildup of CO2 which is occurring regularly should drag the temperature higher each and every year, just as gravity increases the speed. If temperatures don't go up each and every year, then CO2 is not a significant factor to any GW that may be occurring.
On that statement we agree. I think you need to look at all the countries that jumped on the Kyoto treaty. NONE have come close to their commitment to cut CO2 emissions. Yet the USA is the country that gets the bad press for not signing onto a treaty that clearly cannot be lived up to. There is no way possible for US to go back to 1990s levels. Even Japan with their very closed society has not come close. So when you say we would be idiots to not take action. You really mean that we should maintain the status quo. Even that is not going to happen in an industrial nation that is growing. The two majors that come to mind are India and China. They have already said they would be glad to comply if they did not have to stifle growth. Australia signed on with their new Prime Minister using GW as an election gimmick. He is waffling now that it is clear to comply his people will have 25% higher energy bills. SO no matter how stupid you think people are. They are not going to go sacrifice their lifestyle, to satisfy a few talking heads. Most of whom are living in luxury, proclaiming we are going to destroy the polar bear population if we don't quit driving our cars or heating and cooling our homes.
I would suggest doing what Al Gore and myself do... use a two headed coin. :P
On a separate note, California emissions are very strict compared to the other states in our Union, we're certainly not producing as much; however, we do have a lot more drivers than most other states.
(This is of course assuming they believe their own "convictions," some might call it (aka) propaganda)
By now it should be apparent why ethanol (corn) is probably NOT a good idea, but this has an environmental GREEN light!!!??
Indeed cultivating algae in/near ocean waters (near the source?) for bio diesel is/will be on the environmental hit list for being " environmentally unfriendly. This is the ultimate irony, for algae eat gobs of C02, produces a few less GOBS of OXYGEN as a by product, food, and 15,000 gals of bio diesel per acre!!! (look at ANY crop and almost all are DISMAL in comparison!!! ) Hydrogen according to our local rag compared on mass transportation buses are 1.12 vs 51.25 PER MILE driven, so easily 45 x more expensive. !!??
But really, say they are correct (they arent) it doesn't take a rocket scientist to suggest doing the R&D to better utilize C02. makes sense. It is really the when life gives you lemons-MAKE lemondade "principle."
But only on the Spring Equinox, right? :shades: link
Al's finally discovered videoconferencing courtesy of Cisco. He got to talk about global warming without leaving Nashville.
Actually my quote is PC, all is REALLY takes is "CRAP" science. The side benefit, if you want to be optimistic, this "raw stock" natural resource can be produced daily from multiple sources, but here is one:
..."Algaculture
Main article: Algaculture
From 1978 to 1996, the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory experimented with using algae as a biodiesel source in the "Aquatic Species Program".[54] A self-published article by Michael Briggs, at the UNH Biodiesel Group, offers estimates for the realistic replacement of all vehicular fuel with biodiesel by utilizing algae that have a natural oil content greater than 50%, which Briggs suggests can be grown on algae ponds at wastewater treatment plants.[30] This oil-rich algae can then be extracted from the system and processed into biodiesel, with the dried remainder further reprocessed to create ethanol.
The production of algae to harvest oil for biodiesel has not yet been undertaken on a commercial scale, but feasibility studies have been conducted to arrive at the above yield estimate. In addition to its projected high yield, algaculture — unlike crop-based biofuels — does not entail a decrease in food production, since it requires neither farmland nor fresh water. Some companies[4][5] are pursuing algae bio-reactors for various purposes, including biodiesel production.
On May 11, 2006 the Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation in Marlborough, New Zealand announced that it had produced its first sample of bio-diesel fuel made from algae found in sewage ponds.[25] Unlike previous attempts, the algae was naturally grown in pond discharge from the Marlborough District Council's sewage treatment works."...
link title
I imagine some environmentalist group will have some reason to block algae ponds.
Let's see Lake Havasu: natural desert.
LOL! I did forget that at times I used to grow algae in 2 pools, I have owned over the years
Operatively @ a counter intuitive level, environmental interests seem to line up with auto (big union's) and oil companies'. One for sure, needs the other to justify itself.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-03-22-airforcecoal_N.htm
We claim poverty about a 5 billion dollar plant investment and yet go out and spend what 640 billion to over a TRILLION dollars for "police actions" (has Congress really declared WAR???) in the middle east? For 640 BILLION we could now have appropriations for 128 such NEW plants. Seems like police actions have precedence over energy self sufficiency?
And the Alaska dividend is paid once a year. Last year every qualifying resident got $1,654.
Cars have burned oil made from coal in the past, haven't they (during the WWII years?). Clean coal is still an oxymoron to most folks. "Mining coal is easy. Getting to it is the hard part." (link)
I will have to stand corrected on the monthly vs yearly, as I recall my neighbor stated monthly. (they are of course a few years ago FORMER Alaskan residents) I did ask why they chose to come to "couldn't find a tax increase we didn't like" CALIFORNIA.
But I think you get and understand the point I was making?
Glad you put current #'s to it. Further $1,654. per year@ $4 per gal, D2 would STILL buy 413.5 gals of D2. At 50 miles per gal, that is still 20,675 miles per year!!!!!!!!! $ wise that would take me "off the grid" so to speak. Shoot if I troll the local chinese & japanese and too numerous fast food restaurants to name, for used cooking oil, I'd be an energy producer!!
And environmental issues of siting, cooling water, whatever can be focused on one area, with appropriate remediation efforts. In theory you could wind up with some cleaner electrical power to run plug in cars.
Dean Kamen lobbied and got permission in most cities to let his Segway run around on the sidewalks. Big flop but the marketing effort to sway most city council people and legislators was outstanding.
Meanwhile if I want to run an electric golf car two miles to the grocery on surface streets, I'll get busted. I think it's about time to enlist Kamen to make electric golf cars viable for most 40 mph urban and interurban roads.
Same thing in CA. I had a great offer on a GEM a few years ago. Not Legal on any road posted over 35 MPH. The dealer had to truck them from their store that sits on a 40 MPH street.
Alaska used to have a senior dividend of $250 per month. You had to have lived in the state for 30 years and be 65. That is no longer offered. I think the ones that are grandfathered still get it. You only got it the months you were actually in Alaska. There was a lot of cheating with seniors spending the winter out of Alaska and still getting the checks.
Are these guys saps? (Kingston Whig-Standard)
..."Alaska used to have a senior dividend of $250 per month. You had to have lived in the state for 30 years and be 65. That is no longer offered. I think the ones that are grandfathered still get it. You only got it the months you were actually in Alaska. There was a lot of cheating with seniors spending the winter out of Alaska and still getting the checks. "...
Actually I am glad for the correction to the correction of the orginal correction, etc.
Pick a year any year and google the below link, i.e., (2003 year diesel prices @1.51 per gal year average/$3000=1987 gals* 50 mpg= 99,338 miles! )
link title
So for example 2000 year D2 prices were 1.50 average. The government comment @ the time was the D2 prices were ABNORMALLY HIGH. link title / $3,000= 2000 gals * 50 mpg=100,000 miles !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
link title
And environmental issues of siting, cooling water, whatever can be focused on one area, with appropriate remediation efforts. In theory you could wind up with some cleaner electrical power to run plug in cars.
Dean Kamen lobbied and got permission in most cities to let his Segway run around on the sidewalks. Big flop but the marketing effort to sway most city council people and legislators was outstanding.
Meanwhile if I want to run an electric golf car two miles to the grocery on surface streets, I'll get busted. I think it's about time to enlist Kamen to make electric golf cars viable for most 40 mph urban and interurban roads. "...
Nukes? OH PLEASE- that would be way too logical!!
I am sure you see the enormous disconnects here!? Sure wave the magic wand and 100% of the passenger vehicle fleet is now plug in (electrical) This would be an absolute DISASTER!!! All we need do is google and most estimates of environmental pollution comes from "power requirements" of HOUSING! Just start off with the fact that with literally NO% electrical passenger vehicle fleet, the electrical grid is catastrophically broken and is totally inadequate( under capacity). Some estimates claim trillions of dollars is needed for infrastruture adequacy!! The environmentalists literally(by way of the legal system) jam up any new capacity and CA for example is MANDATED to switch power plant operations from coal fired to nat gas which we again have.... surprise! NO supplies.!!!
To listen to the environmentalists and anti diesel forces you'd think that a 2% passenger diesel fleet is capable of triggering the end times; let alone GROW the diesel fleet from there! Keep in mind diesel consumes 20-40% less than the RUG to PUG they do advocate. They also advocate using LESS also. :sick: :lemon: :shades:
CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Saturday March 22, 2008, 4:59 PM
It's just as you suspected - this has been the snowiest winter ever in the Ann Arbor area, or at least since 1880 when record-keeping started.
And it's not over yet.
That's because we're not even into April, a month that normally averages almost 2.5 inches of that pesky white stuff.
If this winter continues the way it's been going, we could be in store for more than that.
Consider this month.
Normally in March, we get about 8.3 inches of snow, said Dennis Kahlbaum, a University of Michigan weather observer. So far in March, with more than a week to go, we've seen 16.7 inches of fluffy precipitation.
A good chunk of that came Friday night and early Saturday morning.
The storm - a narrow band across southern Michigan - dropped 7.5 inches of snow in Ann Arbor, Kahlbaum said.
That was enough to send this winter into the record books and shove the 2004-05 winter aside.
In 2004-05, 83.9 inches of snow fell. This year, we're sitting at 85 inches.
That's a lot of shoveling.
Interviewer: The surface record, however, continues to go up.
Scientist: The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites.
Personally, don't think we understand or have isolated all of the vairable. Our data is mainly temperature change and CO2 levels. A direct correlation to sources produced my man cannot be readily made since the impact of naturally occuring sources cannot easily be qualtified.
It's like trying to use binoculars to map out the surface of the moon. You're mostly guessing because your data is limited to only what you can resolve at that level of magnification.
Then's there's the whole "it was filmed in Craters of the Moon National National Monument & Preserve crowd." :shades:
For example the local airport weather station in Santee, has been off line for over a year. So do we leave that out of the equation?
As far as your comment "encourage people to move out of the cities"
You said that tongue in cheek, right?
Let me know if not................
"Senator Patrick Leahy says violent crime in Vermont rose nearly 10 times the national average."
Didn't realize Vermont was so urban. :P
Leahy, Specter take testimony on problems of rural crime
Now, maybe we can get back to the topic?
I thought it was resolved. The earth is getting cooler and we all need to buy a BIG SUV and try to help warm our fellow Americans in the Midwest and East.
As soon as I have the 20 grand in hand, I'll let you know how it shakes out. I'll even check your tire pressure for that kind of dough.
Eighty-nine percent of respondents believe that Austin residents will be affected by climate change, higher than national surveys.
Austinites said they were more likely to change home air conditioning filters, reuse bottles and containers, and make sure their automobile tires were properly inflated than they were to drive a hybrid car, install solar panels or use rainwater collection barrels or electric lawn mowers.
Heck, I have done all those things for YEARS.
For instance many of the materials that go into new homes - the carpeting, the plastics, the paints/stains and the glues amongst the largest, outgas for a few weeks to a few years. So if you tighten the house you are going to increase the level of these chemicals in the air in the house. Already there are hundreds of reported cases of people having allergies due to these issues, and it would certinly go much higher.
The second indoor pollution item is radon, which many of us have. Tighten the house and again you will have higher levels. You're risk of lung cancer could approach that of a smoker!
Do you really want government officials who may or may not be aware of these issues making decisions for you on what risk you should accept, to reduce your energy a little ("well we've had a scientist evaluate the effect and at most 8 more people in Austin will die/year, and we think that's acceptable to prevent emitting 5,000 tons of CO2"). I certainly don't think this , and I certainly don't want the government telling me what to set my thermostat at.
Similarly I don't want the government to insist people have a lower safety level than they could otherwise purchase, all for the sake of saving a little fuel. There is no amount of fuel savings worth the risk to people's lives (mine especially) if that savings comes from increasing exposure to radon or a smaller, less safe car.
If politicians were held civically and legally responsible for damages, injuries, and deaths that their laws cause, you'd see a lot less written, and people could have the freedom back - to make their own decisions.
We should not accept totalitarian or majority edicts which make our society accept increased risks, because like a lottery you probably won't be affected. I don't agree we should force people to do things because we say it is acceptable that only 0.01% willl be negatively affected. Government should put the information out, and let people make their own individual decsions - not group collectivism.
But the legislators are mostly adopting UBC type stuff that the pros present to them every 3 years or so.
I do agree about new houses and outgassing - I'm even careful about remodeling around my '75 era ranch because my wife has some allergies. We finally got rid of the last bit of carpet here a few months ago. Another good reason to buy a used car too, assuming that the...
emissions are up to snuff. :shades:
STATE PANEL'S STAFF SUGGESTS TARGET OF JUST 2,500 VEHICLES
By Matt Nauman
Mercury News
link title
Where has this guy been? CARB is a gigantic JOKE. If they were at all interested in cutting GHG they would have set a time table for diesel cars to get up to the SULEV emissions level. Instead they arbitrarily block the sales which takes away most of the incentive for automakers to sell them in the USA at all.
Of course the sad part is this guy from Tesla is just looking at his own greed. His funding will be cut as a result of these realistic changes.
Tesla's Drori said the changes to the ZEV mandates would "needlessly weaken" the program.
Tell me again how Tesla is going to be good for US. Did I read right that they are being built in the UK?
The first production 2008 Tesla Roadster arrives in America from England
Yes I'm sure it is. I'm surprised they haven't gotten around to legislating how thick your toilet paper can be and how many squares you can use/day in the name of the environment and GW.
I'm glad to hear you could remove your carpet and help your wife. What if the building code in your town mandated carpets because it was more energy efficient? A building code should be concerned with safety - heating, electrical, and whether the building will stand; insulation, # and type of windows ... is up to the buyer. And don't even get me started about towns that require people to paint their houses certain colors ...
Our governments need to provide us information; not force-feed us their decision which 1) may or may not be good for most, or 2) thought good (and will later be proofed false).
The pros are always talking about improving the nation's housing stock, and I don't remember seeing a lot of opposition from the home and commercial builders about building code stuff.
The AGC promotes “green” construction practices (which would reduce GW) but they don't want the codes to be limited to one solution to a problem, so mandating carpet would be out. link
Sort of back on topic, the AGC also is trying to get funding from Congress to help contractors retrofit diesel equipment to help emissions.
I actually have a pretty funny story. (frustrating and sad really, but funny if you take the lighter side)
Going to be some interesting characters hitting the airways next week.
Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics (CBS News)
Al Sharpton can save the planet from warming if he just quit producing so much hot air!
Who are the Dixie Chicks? Someone living in Al Gores rundown house on some of his land from long ago in the news--remember how it was like a plantation worker home? Was that while he was in office?
As for Nancy Pelosi I'm still waiting or the Democrats 2006 plan for lowering gas prices as she promised in April 2006. Has it had time to work yet? :P It might be like the Bill Clinton tax cut for the middle class from his first campaign...
Reading the CBS link, I found the posts after the smoothly written story were most interesting of the whole thing. The believers have really convinced themselves the faux science explanation is it. If only the true science were so simple.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Anyone who listens to this group on a science issue, surely must have jumped on board the weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq case that Bush, Powell, and the various security agencies gave us.
Maybe we should ask for some proof before raising the flag and yelling charge? And if and when we get proof we should ask whether that change is necessarily bad? As I'm sitting here watching it snow again, as it has been off and on for the last 5 months.
The new decision also says automakers have to make 66,000 plug-in hybrids, unless they make 25,000 ZEVs.
It's a little confusing.
Environmentalists wanted more, carmakers less. But it's still far fewer than would have been required before Thursday's vote.
The original mandate 18 years ago required that 10 percent of cars sold in the state be ZEVs, with ever-increasing percentages following that. That mandate was revised several times and then successfully challenged in court by the automakers that had to meet it.
Other states are expected to follow California's lead. While exact figures will vary, suffice it to say Californians and eventually others should have a lot of battery-powered cars available in the not-too-distant future.
link title
Good decision I think. Puts more clean cars on the road without breaking the carmaker's bank accounts.