A way to reduce oil usage.

[Anonymous]

I like that time machine commercial when the guy has the big cardboard box in his garage and his little kid is watching. The kid is in goggles and such. The guy tries to go back 100 years and get a harley or something. Funny!

m

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

Toyomantrains has put the fundamental problem with hydrogen very well: overall cycle efficiency ('source to wheel') is the techical term. If your hydrogen source is water (the most plentiful) you cannot possibly (one of those dang laws of physics!) get more energy out (by burning the hydrogen or using it in a fuel cell) than you put in (by separating the hydrogen from the water). In fact, (another of those dang laws of physics!) you can never get as much out as you put in. Thus, if your source is a fossil fuel using facility, you will use more fossil fuel to move a given load a given distance if you use the energy to create hydrogen, and then burn the hydrogen, than you would if you burned the fossil fuel directly -- assuming that the engines burning the fossil fuel have similar efficiencies themselves, which they can. If you use the fossil fuel directly in a fuel cell system (the most commonly discussed is natural gas), the process still involves splitting the hydrogen off... the advantage of hydrogen as a fuel, and the only real advantage, is that it is a portable fuel which, in principle, can be used without creating much air pollution AT THE VEHICLE. However, if a fossil fuel is your energy source, the overall amount of pollutants will be slightly greater -- just produced in a different place. Hybrid vehicles -- particularly hybrid diesels -- have been shown (I regret I don't have the reference to the study immediately to hand) to have an overall cycle efficiency and pollutant mass equal to, or better than, any other means of using fossil fuels in transportation.

But what if your energy source is not a fossil fuel? Such as nuclear, solar, or wind? Then the best approach is to use the electricity directly, for those applications such as electrified rail lines which can do so. Otherwise, with some loss of efficiency, you can use hydrogen with some advantages. Nuclear, solar, and wind all have some rather severe problems as energy sources, however. Solar and wind both take large amounts of land, and are not dependable for base power, as has been said before. In addition, construction of solar cells is not the most environmentally friendly process in the world. They have other environmental problems as well. Nuclear has some environmental problems, although the technology for handling waste is well understood and proven. The main problem with nuclear is political.

As Big_boy_4005 said -- in large type! -- solutions to all of our problems exist. The question, however, isn't just 'can we find them' but also: are we willing, politically, to apply them?

Thanks Jchnhtfd, the politically willingness is a real issue. I'm afraid that if we don't start applying some of this technology on a large scale soon, our children and grand children will have to deal with the real problems that we created.

I think that it should be noted here that the creation of an urban landscape, is also detremental to the environment, but we don't seem to bat an eye when it comes to paving. At least energy collection by wind and solar are non polluting, and serving a greater purpose, so perhaps the environmental sacrifice would be justified.

Perhaps the reason that it appears that it takes so much electricity to make the hydrogen needed to power a car is, we don't realize how much energy is in the fossil fuel we are consuming. We just step on the gas and go, all according to Newton's laws. We create heat, sound and motion in the process, all of which make up the total energy. We throw the heat away, because we don't want it (except for some of it in the winter) and the sound we try to suppress. We use the motion, then throw that away too when we step on the brakes and convert that to useless heat as well. But, that's what we like to do.

The biggest problem in electric cars are our expectations. We have become so accustomed to the internal combustion engine, and it's power and mobility, that we will find it difficult to use straight electric for the same purpose. So, between low power, heavy storage batteries, and low range between recharge, electricity may not be the best energy source for presonal transportation. Add to that rough roads, weather, and the need to not follow a set path, and it becomes clear that few people will want an electric car.

Railroads on the other hand have none of these problems, and could thrive on electricity, if we were of the mind to make the change.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mehrlich

I still think we're basing our ideas and answers here on known technology. In a generation of two they'll laugh at how inefficient we are now.

Nuclear, magnets, guar, methanol(?)

When I get my time machine working, I'll zip ahead and see what they are doing in 100 years.[:o)]

Oops it worked, but when I wena ahead 1/2 hour I couldn't get back. I'm afraid to try for 100 years.[:o)][:o)]

[Anonymous]

I still think we're basing our ideas and answers here on known technology. In a generation of two they'll laugh at how inefficient we are now.

Nuclear, magnets, guar, methanol(?)

[DSchmitt]

Well said jchnhtfd[:D], In my posts I've been try to say the same thing in my many posts onthis subject.

[jchnhtfd]

Toyomantrains has put the fundamental problem with hydrogen very well: overall cycle efficiency ('source to wheel') is the techical term. If your hydrogen source is water (the most plentiful) you cannot possibly (one of those dang laws of physics!) get more energy out (by burning the hydrogen or using it in a fuel cell) than you put in (by separating the hydrogen from the water). In fact, (another of those dang laws of physics!) you can never get as much out as you put in. Thus, if your source is a fossil fuel using facility, you will use more fossil fuel to move a given load a given distance if you use the energy to create hydrogen, and then burn the hydrogen, than you would if you burned the fossil fuel directly -- assuming that the engines burning the fossil fuel have similar efficiencies themselves, which they can. If you use the fossil fuel directly in a fuel cell system (the most commonly discussed is natural gas), the process still involves splitting the hydrogen off... the advantage of hydrogen as a fuel, and the only real advantage, is that it is a portable fuel which, in principle, can be used without creating much air pollution AT THE VEHICLE. However, if a fossil fuel is your energy source, the overall amount of pollutants will be slightly greater -- just produced in a different place. Hybrid vehicles -- particularly hybrid diesels -- have been shown (I regret I don't have the reference to the study immediately to hand) to have an overall cycle efficiency and pollutant mass equal to, or better than, any other means of using fossil fuels in transportation.

But what if your energy source is not a fossil fuel? Such as nuclear, solar, or wind? Then the best approach is to use the electricity directly, for those applications such as electrified rail lines which can do so. Otherwise, with some loss of efficiency, you can use hydrogen with some advantages. Nuclear, solar, and wind all have some rather severe problems as energy sources, however. Solar and wind both take large amounts of land, and are not dependable for base power, as has been said before. In addition, construction of solar cells is not the most environmentally friendly process in the world. They have other environmental problems as well. Nuclear has some environmental problems, although the technology for handling waste is well understood and proven. The main problem with nuclear is political.

As Big_boy_4005 said -- in large type! -- solutions to all of our problems exist. The question, however, isn't just 'can we find them' but also: are we willing, politically, to apply them?

[wallyworld]

Only two hundred years have passed since mainstream science has reached a consensus that meteorites enter the earth’s atmosphere. It was said that upon hearing that a meteorite exploded in the air above New England, one of the greatest presidential proponents of science and a revered founder of our country said in 1807 that he; Thomas Jefferson “would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven .“ On the Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica, recently a section of the ice cap broke free and fell into the sea that is equal to the size of the State of Rhode Island. The year 2002 had the highest recorded average temperature only to be exceeded in increase the following year in 2003. If we are dependant on scientific consensus to verify the causes, let alone the reality of global warning, be prepared in the future to see an SD40 floating along the right of way on pontoons while the politicians, corporations and technological science try reach an acceptable official spin on what I can see with my own eyes. In 1947, the Russian mathematician, P.D Ouspensky said; “ Are we able to observe in life a preponderance of the best the strongest and the most courageous elements?
Nothing of the sort. On the contrary we see a preponderance of vulgarity and stupidity of all kinds.
Are we able to say that aspirations toward unity, towards unification can be observed in life? Nothing of the kind of course. We only see new divisions, new hostilities, new misunderstandings. So that in the actual situation of humanity, there is nothing that’s pointing to evolution proceeding.
On the contrary when we compare humanity with a man we quite clearly see a growth of personality at the cost of essence, that is the growth of the artificial, the unreal and what is foreign at the cost of the natural, the real and what is one’s own. Together with this we see the growth of automatism. Contemporary culture requires automatons…..” All I need to self-verify the accuracy of this observation made some 50+ years ago, is to flip through the programs available on tv.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by toyomantrains

As far as hydrogen goes (at least in the auto industry) Toyo has 'sidelined' this and put more of Its efforts into hybrids. The amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen needed to effectivelly produce power for an automobile negates the benefit gained- at this time. What I mean is dollar for dollar its much cheaper to burn fossil fuel (let alone the infrastructure cost of hydrogen refueling). It takes great amounts of energy to produce the hydrogen required which comes from coal or nuclear energy plants.

Well it is nice to know that they are thinking about hydrogen. This makes me really wonder if my idea would really make a difference.

Here it is again:

Maybe the secret for hydrogen is not to try and seperate large quantities and then distribute it. Maybe what we really need is a small portable hydrogen generator. Imagine adding water to your car, then plugging it into an electrical source. Then as you drive some of the engines motion would go back into re-generating hydrogen by supplying electricity to the hydrogen generator. The exhaust, which is pure water could also be collected and reused.

Everyone keeps thinking that large quantities of hydrogen have to be transported to a central location for distribution as is true for gasoline. This is the downfall of conventional thinking.[;)]

Now combine this with rooftop solar PV, and you get a very interesting result. You are taking wasted solar energy, and converting it to electricity, and then turning that into hydrogen, and then driving your NON POLLUTING car!!!

Solutions to all of our problems exist, the question is can we find them?

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Allen Jenkins

I look at global warming, like, If the Bible says burn, consumed with fire, as with fervent heat, and the event is in the future of the planIt, wouldn't there be something left to judge? How do you have a habitat that is not habitable? Why would God do that to Ma-maw? How can this happen to people, unworthy as they may seem, if He inspired the race to have His Christmas, His resurrection, "The Passion Of The Christ"? Don't you think that the One who called the creation into existance, using the provable, mathamatical, laws of physics, who has given to the "prudent, the knowledge of witty inventions", wishes we would worry about more pertinent things, like trashing the environment(garbage), thugs, would-be neighbors, who act far worse than the Talabon, who at least would send the enemy to be with his creater, not withstanding, really, not who is god, but whose god is God?

wow.....now that is realy comeing from out of left field..... i have read it about 5 times now..and i still cant make any real sence of it......
all i can say is....????????????????????/
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

What-what??? Ohhhh.....no really- what-what?????

[Allen Jenkins]

I look at global warming, like, If the Bible says burn, consumed with fire, as with fervent heat, and the event is in the future of the planIt, wouldn't there be something left to judge? How do you have a habitat that is not habitable? Why would God do that to Ma-maw? How can this happen to people, unworthy as they may seem, if He inspired the race to have His Christmas, His resurrection, "The Passion Of The Christ"? Don't you think that the One who called the creation into existance, using the provable, mathamatical, laws of physics, who has given to the "prudent, the knowledge of witty inventions", wishes we would worry about more pertinent things, like trashing the environment(garbage), thugs, would-be neighbors, who act far worse than the Talabon, who at least would send the enemy to be with his creater, not withstanding, really, not who is god, but whose god is God?

[Anonymous]

As far as hydrogen goes (at least in the auto industry) Toyo has 'sidelined' this and put more of Its efforts into hybrids. The amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen needed to effectivelly produce power for an automobile negates the benefit gained- at this time. What I mean is dollar for dollar its much cheaper to burn fossil fuel (let alone the infrastructure cost of hydrogen refueling). It takes great amounts of energy to produce the hydrogen required which comes from coal or nuclear energy plants.

[Anonymous]

chicago is so congested with rails it takes a day for some trains to get through . the city state and federal govt. are reducing the gridlock by installing overpasses underpassesand other means in which to move freight passengers faster through the windy city. = fuel savings. also better dispatching of trains can help save petro.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by leftlimp

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

All I can say to those who use a second-rate Hollywood disaster flick or take a Pentagon "just in case" briefing (which by the way they also have for alien space attacks, giant asteroids, et al) as the basis for instituting radical environmental policy, take stock in two things: Re-read Chicken Little from your grade school days and ask yourselves if such an analogy is applicable today. Secondly, take a look at the historic temperatures of the MIddle Ages, which were much higher than they are today, and ask yourself what man did to cause THAT period of global warming?! If wine grapes were being cultivated in Britian in those days, why can't we grow grapes in Britain now? It's simple: THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS STILL TOO COLD! Why is Greenland called Greenland? Because when it was discovered in the MIddle Ages it was verdant, i.e. GREEN! Now it is one giant ice cap.

If man-caused CO2 is the major cause of Global Warming, where did the CO2 in the MIddle Ages come from? How many coal fired power plants were operating at that time? How many SUVs were clogging the byways of the time? Hmmmm. Maybe, just maybe, the warming of that period WASNT caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. If it was something else such as solar activity or slight deviations of the earth's orbit, isn't it logical to ascribe todays warming to those more likely phenomena?

So what if 200 or so "scientists" have leapt on to the whole man-caused global warming bandwagon. There are well over 15,000 scientists worldwide who have resisted that urge, due to the inarguable fact that there is no hard physical evidence to support the whole man-caused global warming models. Look at the global warming computer models today and you will find a lot of "assumed" variables being plugged into these models used to support these radical theories. Hardly an excuse for instituting economically disasterous environmental policies.

If we refer to our basic laws of physics, we will find that it is more likely that global warming is the cause of increased atmospheric levels of CO2, not the other way around. It's all part of the global carbon cycle, as temperatures increase, plant growth also increases, and these plants will need to take up more CO2 from the atmosphere for sustainability, thus more natural sources of CO2 are triggered.

Back to the original subject at hand: If oil prices are projected to stay above $40 a barrel for the long term, look for market forces to allow for new coal powered locomotion in the transportation market, whether it be new steam or the stringing of new cantenary over the nation's rail grid.

very well put..i tried to say just that..but my articulation isnt as good as yours....you got the points i wanted to make..and worded them much better...thanks
csx engineer

[DSchmitt]

I just remembered New York City used generate power from virtually all the burnable garbage collected in the City. I think it was used in steam plants, not for electricty. They may have operated as late as the 1960's. They fell victim to air pollution regulations. also up to tha time almost everything that was not burned was recycled. Now I think the garbage is hauled out to sea.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by leftlimp

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

All I can say to those who use a second-rate Hollywood disaster flick or take a Pentagon "just in case" briefing (which by the way they also have for alien space attacks, giant asteroids, et al) as the basis for instituting radical environmental policy, take stock in two things: Re-read Chicken Little from your grade school days and ask yourselves if such an analogy is applicable today.

OHHH BOOOY![sigh]

Ah, my point was only that there is a movie about to be released that is relevant to this topic and i thought it would be something others might find the trailer amuzing.....[:-^]

I did not use it in any way to pu***he argument one way or another, just "have a look, this is cool"... [:p]

The reference to the premis is just that, a reference. The movie takes a real theory and uses it for the FX extraviganza, I even pointed out that it would be more schmaltz and less science, I guess you missed that point[D)]

So everyone relax,

take a deep breath,

go for a walk,

watch TV,

then come back here....



...and FLAME the heck out of everyone else.

[(-D][(-D][:D][;)][%-)][censored][X-)][D)][alien][banghead]

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin



What about garbage incineration, is that not soon possible to do clean and efficient and generate electricty from that?

They already are in places like Florida where the ground water is too high for landfills. Its a good idea, but not a cure-all, but just another piece in the Big Picture.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin
[What about garbage incineration, is that not soon possible to do clean and efficient and generate electricty from that?

Probably worth doing. Would sightly reduce the need for coal and oil and also reduce the need for landfills.

I don't like the idea of windmill farms or solar farms. They both are expensive, inefficent, work in at all well only in a few areas, and take a lot of land. I said earlier that small scale individual use of windmills can be worthwhile as a supplement to the grid and vsmith pointed out that we should be placing solar panels on our buildings.

[TH&B]

jesus; large heavily loaded conventional box cars close coupled with reduced slack would be more efficient than the roadrailers wich have little capacity by weight and cary around lots of spare tires, what a drag.

general;
Global warning or not, do you like smog? What would you prefer, smog or windmill farms? Where do you think smog comes from??

But I do beleive newer coal plants can be built to opperate cleaner than old ones, that is a start. Add some wind power here and there.

What about garbage incineration, is that not soon possible to do clean and efficient and generate electricty from that?

[Anonymous]

one way rrs can save on fuel is make rr cars out of aluminum or plastic ect. also the most fuel efficient way to hual truck trailers is ROAD RAILER. ns does it great. right?double track more = less delays faster safer make the wheels on locomotives larger.does sf or up still own lots of oil wells? diesel fuel is going down 50 cents gal at election pres. Bush said. 20 years out of oil some say.

[Big_Boy_4005]

All scientists believed a lot of things througout history, until they were proven wrong by another scientist. Once upon a time it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat, or that there were only six planets in our solar system. Nobody could figure out realtivity until Einstein came along.

All of this global warming stuff is pure theory, anyone can make the data say what they want. In the meantime get on with life, because the Earth's temperature is well within normal limits.

Personally, I'm beginning to think that our government is constantly on the look out for new ideas to tell people to worry about. This gives them something to talk about in the campaign. Environmental issues are the domain of the democrats, and the republicans like forign policy.

So what if there is global warming.

What are YOU going to do about it??

Please don't tell me about NASA's plan to drop ICE CUBES in the sun.[swg]

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

New Scientist is one of the 2 most respected peer reviewed science journals. They put together a portal www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/ with a FAQ www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatefaq.jsp it’s brief, here’s a sample:

"So does this mean there are some scientists who don't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming?
No, this is a myth. All scientists believe in the greenhouse effect. Without it the planet would be largely frozen. And all scientists accept that if humans put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it will tend to warm the planet. The only disagreement is over precisely how much warming will be amplified by feedbacks. And there is a growing consensus that the average global warming of 0.6 °C seen in the past century - and particularly the pronounced warming of the past two decades - is largely a consequence of the greenhouse effect. "

www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/img/spread-2-2.jpg is a graph showing 8 centuries of steady CO2 levels then a hyperbolic increase starting with the industrial revolution.

www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/img/spread-2-8.jpg is a graph showing a 5 degree rise in earth’s average temperature since 1860

1860 to the present is too short of a time to predict a trend on a global time scale. Their dramatic projection beyond the present is pure speculation.

In the long term, there is a stronger correlation between global temperature and the activity of the sun than between global temperature and the activities of man. If the sun cools slightly the whole global warming game is off.

I do agree that we should control pollution, including greenhouse gases. I do not believe that we need to destroy the enonomy of the "developed nations" and in particular the United States, as has been proposed, (the Kyoto Treaty) to do so. The Treaty wound require that the US reduce emmisions to allow "developing countries" to continue using "dirty" older technology. This would give them some competative advantage by reducing their costs, but in the long run would hurt the people who would have to live with the pollution.

[Anonymous]

New Scientist is one of the 2 most respected peer reviewed science journals. They put together a portal www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/ with a FAQ www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatefaq.jsp it’s brief, here’s a sample:

"So does this mean there are some scientists who don't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming?
No, this is a myth. All scientists believe in the greenhouse effect. Without it the planet would be largely frozen. And all scientists accept that if humans put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it will tend to warm the planet. The only disagreement is over precisely how much warming will be amplified by feedbacks. And there is a growing consensus that the average global warming of 0.6 °C seen in the past century - and particularly the pronounced warming of the past two decades - is largely a consequence of the greenhouse effect. "

www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/img/spread-2-2.jpg is a graph showing 8 centuries of steady CO2 levels then a hyperbolic increase starting with the industrial revolution.

www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/img/spread-2-8.jpg is a graph showing a 5 degree rise in earth’s average temperature since 1860

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

Help me understand how people who aren’t highly paid by oil and coal companies still believe global warming is a hoax? The Pentagon is planning for global warming caused wars, insurance companies are raising rates in areas that will be flooded by global warming. NASA is planning to terraform Mars with greenhouse gasses.

Google on “global warming” with some of these phrases “famine”, “hurricanes”, “gulf stream”, “mass extinction”, “sea level”, “glaciers”. It’s enough to ruin your day.

In the 1970's many of the people now predicting global warming including a couple of its leading advocates were predicting an ice age because temperature measurements showed the Earth was cooling. When temperatures starting increasing the change to global warming. These "reasearchers" generate grant money for themselves by predicting diaster so they can study the problem. Their latest may be the theory that global warming will cause an ice age although I assume it is possible if global warming is real, which is the premise they started from, and since it is based on more solid science (the study of ocean currents) than the global warming speculation is.

I am not convinced that 1) global warming is real, 2) that if it is real, man is the cause, 3) that if it is real, it is bad.

Warmer periods in the Earth's past have been good times for mankind, times of abundence, in which there was advancement in Civilization. For instanse England has a flourishing wine industry (it's now too cold) and the Vikings had a settlement in Greenland for several hundred years. The Greenland settlement failed because of the "Little Ice Age", but the Earth is still cooler now than when it was founded.

One of the major components of the global warming disaster is rising sea level due to melting of the ice pacts. The majority of the north polar ice is floating on the sea. Its melting would have minimal impact on the sea level. The south polar pact melting would
have an affect because it is mostly on land. Some laymen do calculations including both. The possible increase in sea level is often exagerated in the popular press, popular books, and in children's textbooks. One elementry school text book I heard about was off by hundreds of feet (I don't remember the details) because of some confusion between metric units and english units.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

All I can say to those who use a second-rate Hollywood disaster flick or take a Pentagon "just in case" briefing (which by the way they also have for alien space attacks, giant asteroids, et al) as the basis for instituting radical environmental policy, take stock in two things: Re-read Chicken Little from your grade school days and ask yourselves if such an analogy is applicable today. Secondly, take a look at the historic temperatures of the MIddle Ages, which were much higher than they are today, and ask yourself what man did to cause THAT period of global warming?! If wine grapes were being cultivated in Britian in those days, why can't we grow grapes in Britain now? It's simple: THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS STILL TOO COLD! Why is Greenland called Greenland? Because when it was discovered in the MIddle Ages it was verdant, i.e. GREEN! Now it is one giant ice cap.

If man-caused CO2 is the major cause of Global Warming, where did the CO2 in the MIddle Ages come from? How many coal fired power plants were operating at that time? How many SUVs were clogging the byways of the time? Hmmmm. Maybe, just maybe, the warming of that period WASNT caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. If it was something else such as solar activity or slight deviations of the earth's orbit, isn't it logical to ascribe todays warming to those more likely phenomena?

So what if 200 or so "scientists" have leapt on to the whole man-caused global warming bandwagon. There are well over 15,000 scientists worldwide who have resisted that urge, due to the inarguable fact that there is no hard physical evidence to support the whole man-caused global warming models. Look at the global warming computer models today and you will find a lot of "assumed" variables being plugged into these models used to support these radical theories. Hardly an excuse for instituting economically disasterous environmental policies.

If we refer to our basic laws of physics, we will find that it is more likely that global warming is the cause of increased atmospheric levels of CO2, not the other way around. It's all part of the global carbon cycle, as temperatures increase, plant growth also increases, and these plants will need to take up more CO2 from the atmosphere for sustainability, thus more natural sources of CO2 are triggered.

Back to the original subject at hand: If oil prices are projected to stay above $40 a barrel for the long term, look for market forces to allow for new coal powered locomotion in the transportation market, whether it be new steam or the stringing of new cantenary over the nation's rail grid.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

Hey Vic, I really liked the movie "Volcano" with Tommy Lee Jones. That could happen too!!! So stay away from the Tar Pits.[:O][banghead][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][swg]

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

I've seen a documentry on this theory. Is it a real possibility? I don't know. I do know the Earth has been both warmer and colder as has been shown by geological, Archeological and historical evidence. I do not believe that in the big picture mankind's activities have much effect on the tempature of the Earth.

I am more worried about pollution and the devastation of the land and their effects on us, our quality of life and on other creatures and plants than I am about global warming. However, too much of the Environmental Movement bases its agenda on feelings not on fact. Too many of our decisions are made based on what sounds like it is good or bad. Bad decisions hurt us and do not protect the Environment.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

Help me understand how people who aren’t highly paid by oil and coal companies still believe global warming is a hoax? The Pentagon is planning for global warming caused wars, insurance companies are raising rates in areas that will be flooded by global warming. NASA is planning to terraform Mars with greenhouse gasses.

Google on “global warming” with some of these phrases “famine”, “hurricanes”, “gulf stream”, “mass extinction”, “sea level”, “glaciers”. It’s enough to ruin your day.

Gary, let's face it, our government is so entrenched in old thinking, and set in it's ways, that it wouldn't know a good idea if it came up and bit them in the you-know-where.
They run around spewing this nonsense to the public to keep the people afraid and keep them in office. This is not a political argument, because both sides do the exact same thing, just slightly different tactics.

After a while away from the stink, your nose will recover, and you will be able to smell BULLS__T before you step in it.[swg] And stop reading and worrying about that garbage!

They like to scare you , it's good for their business!!!!!! This information age is a dangerous time!

[vsmith]

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com