LoudProudNPunk
New member
is a 12 gallon to small for a tang??
Another sad article on our ocean's health...
- Thread starter mrkalel
- Start date
- Status
BigJay
New member
Better description: More american snake-oil peddled to the ill-educated american masses who don't understand basic science. Sorry mate, but the only "ingenious" thing here is the successful marketing of something that doesn't work to people who should know better - but don't.
The private sector is almost as good as the government at taking advantage of others.
Sadly our long list of "freedoms" includes the right to be a moron, and many are more than happy to exercise it.The only technology I'm aware of that really improves gasoline vehicle mileage is hybrid technology. Hybrid versions of large SUV's get in the low 20's MPG (EPA est), where the non-hybrid versions get between 8-12 MPG (EPA est). It works, but it's a bit costly.
Phillycsi
New member
Where I do not wish to "jump" into this debate, it was only in the mid-70's, a mere 30 years or so which is such a miniscule amount of time for the planet, that scientists thougt another ice age was coming :lol:
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Newreeflady
New member
Wow, right here on a reef forum, total ignorance. I guess I thought people on this forum were closer to science than "God."
I guess my Atmospheric Chemistry professor was right... oh the sadness of right-wing ignorance!
-A
aslavatortin
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12918442#post12918442 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BigJay
Better description: More american snake-oil peddled to the ill-educated american masses who don't understand basic science. Sorry mate, but the only "ingenious" thing here is the successful marketing of something that doesn't work to people who should know better - but don't.
The private sector is almost as good as the government at taking advantage of others.
The only technology I'm aware of that really improves gasoline vehicle mileage is hybrid technology. Hybrid versions of large SUV's get in the low 20's MPG (EPA est), where the non-hybrid versions get between 8-12 MPG (EPA est). It works, but it's a bit costly.
If they don't work, then why are there so many sites with people telling you how well theirs works, as well as how to make them all on your own without giving them a dime? What would the motivation be for all of these people to waste their time lying if they aren't going to profit at all from the lie?
Twz
New member
Heyy, i just thought of something and i think this thread would be the best thread to ask;
we have been told over and over again that we are destroying are ozone layer
but isn't Ozone a very unstable molecule?
So how is it that are ozone layer has been fine until we come along?
We use it as a method of filtration in you're aquariums so wouldn't it do the same outside?
Meaning it would loose it's third oxygen particle.
Is it just me or dose this not make very much sense?
( Oh and on a side note; Any one have the actuall spelling for Chloral floral carbons?
need the spelling for a paper but can't find it =S)
we have been told over and over again that we are destroying are ozone layer
but isn't Ozone a very unstable molecule?
So how is it that are ozone layer has been fine until we come along?
We use it as a method of filtration in you're aquariums so wouldn't it do the same outside?
Meaning it would loose it's third oxygen particle.
Is it just me or dose this not make very much sense?
( Oh and on a side note; Any one have the actuall spelling for Chloral floral carbons?
need the spelling for a paper but can't find it =S)
aslavatortin
New member
chloroflourocarbons
greenbean36191
Premium Member
No, the trend for the last 10 years has been flat. That's pretty telling given that that period includes the highest temperatures of the decade at the beginning and the coldest of the decade at the end, yet the trend is still flat. That trend does not mean that temperatures have returned to normal. They're still significantly higher than the middle of the last century. There have been well over 1,000 peer-reviewed articles projecting warming and 1 recent one, which is widely disputed, projecting a short cooling period followed by more warming. That paper is only a few months old but so far its projection has consistently underestimated temperatures.
No one is arguing that this isn't the case. Anthropogenic warming does not assume that humans are THE cause of warming or any other climactic phenomenon unlike deniers that assume that nature is THE cause. There are multiple causes that can all be responsible for the same trend at the same time. If you're kitchen is hot it could be because it's summertime, because the heater is turned up, because the oven is on, or any combination of the three. Just because it's summer doesn't mean the heater or the oven don't heat up the room too.
I work on the reefs. I've seen the reality of the situation. I don't have to rely on the word of other people. My only agenda and vested interest is to get people to realize that their actions DO affect other people and poor stewardship of resources has huge economic repercussions. Regardless of which way the warming or reef situations go, my job and pay isn't in any jeopardy. Even in the worst case scenario I'll still have reefs to study until after I'm ready to retire.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Another excellent idea of how media misrepresents scientific opinions. From 1965-1979 there were 7 peer-reviewed articles (by 12 authors) projecting cooling. None predicted a coming ice age. During that same time period 44 peer-reviewed articles projected warming. It's an outright lie to pretend that cooling was a widely accepted hypothesis.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Yes, it's unstable and is constantly breaking down. UV from the sun is constantly reacting with oxygen to produce more though. The same thing happens in UV sterilizers which is why they're often used to induce spawning in some organisms.
Eh, hydrogen fuel cells are European ingenuity that took help from NASA, a government agency, to become anywhere close to practical.
There's no need to gloss over the historical record. The instrumental record is actually about 200 years long. Beyond that we have a few hundred proxy records that overlap with the instrumental records and go on to about 5,000 years. Many go on for several thousand years more. A handful go beyond 250,000 years and one goes on almost 750,000. The closer and closer you get to modern times the more and more overlap you get between records. Given that modern humans are about 250,000 years old, have been civilized for about 8,000 and have have been using large amounts of fossil fuels for about 200, the record we have is pretty significant. The processes driving the climate in the recent past are not the same as the ones 4.5 billion years ago. The surface isn't molten, we have a thick atmosphere, we aren't being bombarded by asteroids, we have large water oceans, and we have aerobic organisms. There is no reason to study what was going on a few billion years ago and it really doesn't contribute to our understanding of how we've changed things.
aquaman67
Active member
Here's more fuel for the fire...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2008071...80710180715;_ylt=AhZXn5__Nzee0hAT24vSCL7QOrgF
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2008071...80710180715;_ylt=AhZXn5__Nzee0hAT24vSCL7QOrgF
virginiadiver69
New member
It sounds like you are trying to say they have never been wrong
I guess your right about the ignorance. :rolleye1:
aslavatortin
New member
That's nice, but I was referring to the hydrogen-booster that a good-old boy figured out on his 3rd-generation camaro, not hydrogen fuel cells.
By the way, read the following. The system these guys have is the only one like it in the world and it comprises the most accurate and complete dataset we have to date. It also clearly states that CO2 emissions have LITTLE TO NO EFFECT IN THE TROPICS!! UAH Climate Report
virginiadiver69
New member
Last edited:
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Eh, it's far from the most accurate or complete. I think it was about two years ago they published data about disputes between their satellites and the instrumental record. The result? They discovered an error in the way the satellite was measuring things. Last year he had another. It only narrowed things down to the tropics, not the globe (i.e., not complete). By the time it was published the satellite readings had already been adjusted again because they discovered another measurement error.
Still there is some disagreement between the satellite measurements and what is expected, but the difference is within the margins of error and is shrinking with every revision of the UAH data.
aslavatortin
New member
Then what is the most accurate and complete? I provide links to the stuff I cite because I assume everyone else is like me in that I want to review things myself before I believe them; please extend that courtesy to me.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Eh, it's far from the most accurate or complete. I think it was about two years ago they published data about disputes between their satellites and the instrumental record. The result? They discovered an error in the way the satellite was measuring things. Last year he had another. It only narrowed things down to the tropics, not the globe (i.e., not complete). By the time it was published the satellite readings had already been adjusted again because they discovered another measurement error. These data also center on the upper atmosphere, not down here.
Still there is some disagreement between the satellite measurements and what is expected, but the difference is within the margins of error and is shrinking with every revision of the UAH data.
On the other hand we have thermometer measurements people have been taking continuously at thousands of stations and from thousands of ships around the world for 200 years. That's pretty complete and unless all of their thermometers are reading incorrectly in the same ways, it's pretty accurate.
The average temp from 1961-1990. I'm not sure what the value is.
....or because it wasn't tested against past data. It fails that test. It also hasn't had any success so far with recent trends. Why do those damn facts always have to get in the way of conspiracy theories?
Because there is no way to account for the magnitude of change within the recent past without accounting for human forcings. You can add up orbital changes, sun spots, changes in volcanism, clouds, and every other known natural cycle. and the line matches up with the temperature up until about the middle of the last century. Then when you add up the effects of land use change, use of fossil fuels, aerosols, etc. that humans have altered, things suddenly come back into line.
- Status
Similar threads
