A few serious questions for the global warming crowd,

[RickO]

Originally Posted by Gary - K7GLD

And HOW does that scenario match up with the wild Al Gore and follower's predictions of melted Arctic glaciers, rising oceans and submerged San Francisco and Los Angeles (no big loss, either of them...)?

Hey, hey, hey. LA can take a dunk but go easy on San Francisco.

Rick

[Gary - K7GLD]

Originally Posted by RickO

Hey, hey, hey. LA can take a dunk but go easy on San Francisco.

Rick

We moved up here from Vacaville 6 years ago - we woulda been under water too...

We're covered now - 425 miles from the Pacific ocean, and 3000 ft elevation...

[rough road]

RickO, China is bringing online about one coal plant per week what we should have done in the '70's was commit to commissioning one new nuclear plant per year, the last statistic I read showed that we get less than 20% of our power from squeeky clean nuclear plants, Europe on the other hand gets about three times that from nukes'
We have the oil, we have the natural gas, and we really have the clean coal-too bad Clinton made the largest known reserve off limits by putting a National Park on top of it, would anyone care to guess where the next largest known reserve of super clean coal is, if you were to say China, you would be correct; does anyone know what US President made China MFN?

As for keeping the politics out of any serious discussion on the silly notion of made made global warming, it isn't possible because this topic is nothing more than pure politics, its not about saving the planet, its about destroying the United States and the democrat party controlling every aspect of the lives of Americans, nothing more, nothing less.

[a k]

Buy coal stocks

[Midniteoyl]

Originally Posted by Gary - K7GLD

And HOW does that scenario match up with the wild Al Gore and follower's predictions of melted Arctic glaciers, rising oceans and submerged San Francisco and Los Angeles (no big loss, either of them...)?

Thats why he won the Nobel.. smartest man in the world!

[Hudsoner]

Originally Posted by rough road

We have the oil, we have the natural gas, and we really have the clean coal-too bad Clinton made the largest known reserve off limits by putting a National Park on top of it, would anyone care to guess where the next largest known reserve of super clean coal is.

I think you are misusing the terminology "clean coal". One cannot mine clean coal! The word clean coal refers to a technology that captures the Co2 during firing of the coal and deposits said Co2 in safe enclosures (mostly under ground)

Clean coal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

In fact if my information on this subject is correct, the coal out west is a rather "dirty" coal because it contains a lot of sulfur.

[Hudsoner]

Originally Posted by Gary - K7GLD

And HOW does that scenario match up with the wild Al Gore and follower's predictions of melted Arctic glaciers, rising oceans and submerged San Francisco and Los Angeles (no big loss, either of them...)?

The polar icecaps are indeed getting smaller, and so do most of the glaciers around the world.
This picture shows a Glacier in Switzerland. The red lines show the size of it at about 1920. The Glacier continues to loose ice mass!

[Midniteoyl]

The theory:

Tempertures rise, melting the caps.. the water from the ice goes into the oceans, diluting them (less salinity). This causes the currents known as the 'conveyor belt' (thermohaline circulation) which bring warm water to the poles and cool water to the equatorial regions to slow, if not stop altogether. When that happens, we will enter another ice age..Now, the caps melting also accelerates the warming 'cause there is less 'white' to reflect the suns rays and heat back into space, so it starts slow then snowballs..

That said, no one has been able to tell me that if the new ice age means increased polar caps, does that mean it will self arrest itself by making the oceans more salty again and reflect more heat to space and then reach another equalibrium and everything will be ok again?

Dunno.. No one does.

Here's a fun fact... People have known about 'global warming' for a long time. Its nothing new. In the mid to late 1800's it was thought that by pumping out tons and tons of smoke stack gasses, we would warm the world enough to give 'paradise to all mankind'.

[Hudsoner]

Originally Posted by Midniteoyl

The theory:

Tempertures rise, melting the caps.. the water from the ice goes into the oceans, diluting them (less salinity). This causes the currents known as the 'conveyor belt' which bring warm water to the poles and cool water to the equatorial regions to slow, if not stop altogether. When that happens, we will enter another ice age..Now, the caps melting also accelerates the warming 'cause there is less 'white' to reflect the suns rays and heat back into space, so it starts slow then snowballs..

That said, no one has been able to tell me that if the new ice age means increased polar caps, does that mean it will self arrest itself by making the oceans more salty again and reflect more heat to space and then reach another equalibrium and everything will be ok again?

Dunno.. No one does.

Here's a fun fact... People have known about 'global warming' for a long time. Its nothing new. In the mid to late 1800's it was thought that by pumping out tons and tons of smoke stack gasses, we would warm the world enough to give 'paradise to all mankind'.

You are correct, everything we know are the present facts and the results from various computer models. However, a fact is that the current global warming heats up the earth faster than ever before (we know that from deep core boring on the poles and the big glaciers), and a lot of independent simulations point to similar outcomes. Will it happen? We don't know, but it would be wise to act rather safe than sorry! Besides the global warming, using less of the fossil energy supplies of the world wisely would not be a bad thing. It is specifically important to use as little as possible oil, because this stuff is to valuable for burning it rather inefficient in a combustion engine. A better use would be to reserve it for the chemical industries, because it is the base material for a lot of important things, including medications! (of which I seem to need more and more every year).

I hope that we see the hydrogen fuel cell becoming mainstream in the not to far future. I have seen a few running prototypes at my employer. The amount of energy one can squeeze out of those things is just amazing!

[Midniteoyl]

Oh I agree.. I would love to get off an engine system that only uses 20% of whats put in...

[rmmpe]

Actually, I find this an odd topic when considering that most, if not all, of us have RVs that are a little heavy on fossil fuel consumption.

[94-Newmar]

Hydrogen technology will die out like the all-electric car craze did. Hydrogen is more expensive to process than fossil fuels - most all our hydrogen now comes from processing crude oil...

[dieselclacker]

Originally Posted by rmmpe

Actually, I find this an odd topic when considering that most, if not all, of us have RVs that are a little heavy on fossil fuel consumption.

Bob, , Good point!!

Dieselclacker

[Hudsoner]

Originally Posted by 94-Newmar

Hydrogen technology will die out like the all-electric car craze did. Hydrogen is more expensive to process than fossil fuels - most all our hydrogen now comes from processing crude oil...

I would not bet about that! My employer is one of the largest corporations in the world, and they are working with other very large companies in a consortium to bring this technology to market.

You are correct, hydrogen is currently produced with the help of electricity (not necessarily coming from Oil), but there are quite a bit of efforts under way, to make it solely with solar or wind energies. The currently biggest problem is the infrastructure to get the stuff to the consumer. Sadly enough, the G. W. Bush government (being in the pockets of big oil) stopped all federal funding for further research on this version of energy, and my employer alone had to scale back its research effort from over 500 scientists and engineers working on this program to a mere 50. Similar situations were present in other companies of the consortium. I fully believe that we would see the fuel call already in practical applications if the research could have continued in full scale.

Presently the work is picking up again, since the Obama government has increased the funding again.

In the meantime it would be nice to see more efforts given to LP gas conversions for the US market. LP gas is very cheap and burns way cleaner than oil products and the US and Canada have large resources of this fuel.

Any motorist in Europe can convert their vehicle to use LP gas (or order it from the factory like this) and the vehicles can be filled at any gas station. In Europe the stuff is more than 50% cheaper than oil based fuels. Why don't we see this in the US?