To get the truth about climate change, we need to discuss various ideas in a free and open debate, examine the evidence and the logic carefully. This debate is not happening because political forces have decided to focus on a specific solution - carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. If your university wants grant funding to study global warming, the focus must be CO2 or you get zero. We are trying to gather evidence about an elephant using a microscope. Let's back out.
If, as the warmies claim, carbon dioxide is causing global warming, how much is being deposited in the atmosphere and what are its sources? According to NASA, annual CO2 emissions are 168 billion metric tons. 100 BMT are released by the oceans. 30 BMT, generated by the decay of plant and animal matter. 30 BMT are caused by respiration. Nature generates 160 BMT of 168B (95.23%) without the burning of a pound coal, a gallon of gasoline or a cubic foot of natural gas. Deforestation adds 1 BMT. Other industrial processes - fermentation, steel production, industrial use of yeast (bread), manufacture of cement and others - account for 1 BMT. Only 6 BMT of CO2 result from fossil fuels. We could cut CO2 emissions by 3.57% by prohibiting the use of fossil fuel worldwide.
How large a part does carbon dioxide play in the greenhouse effect? According to Dr Reid Bryson, University of Wisconsin, the father of climate science, 80% of the greenhouse warming effect occurs within 30' of the ground and is caused by water vapor. CO2 absorbs only 0.08% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is 1,000 times more important than CO2. Banning fossil fuel would reduce the greenhouse effect by only 0.00286%.
There are other theories about why climate changes occur. Ajacksonian commented on plate tectonics.
A Serbian civil engineer, M. Milankovitch, postulated that ice ages are cyclic, occurring about every 100,000 years, as the result of astrophysics - changes in the earth motion. The eccentricity of our elliptical orbit is affected by the gravitational forces of Jupiter and Saturn at times taking us farther from the sun (e=0.005 to 0.058). Earth's axial tilt varies from 21.5Â° to 24.5Â° shading or exposing the poles to solar energy. The Earth wobbles - precesses - above and below the plane of the planets. The coincidence of these three cycles seem to align with periods of glaciation.
There is a final question we should ask. Can the human race do anything to alter climate change significantly or are we just passengers on the train?
ArchComment Posted By arch On 23.11.2007 @ 12:54
"Is it appropriate to mention that no-one has presented any credible (or even incredible) evidence at all to show that Iran is building a nuclear weapon?"
Whether appropriate or relevant, the statement is clearly false. According to the IAEA, Iran's uranium enrichment is moving far beyond the 4% required to fuel a reactor and closer to the 84% weapons grade. Also, they have acquired machining capabilities to build hemispheres rather than rods.
Their president says they intend to be a "World Power" in the same paragraph he mentions enrichment. If his nuclear intentions were peaceful, why expel the UN inspectors and potentially suffer sanctions? Monthly, Iran burns off more energy in natural gas than a modern reactor generates in a year.
They are building a bomb and the Twelvers don't care about the consequences.Comment Posted By arch On 18.09.2007 @ 13:02
My last trip to Iran was in 1975 when I delivered my third F4E fresh from the factory. At the time, Phantoms were on air defense and nuclear alert in the Far East and in Western Europe. Iran also has KC-135 tankers. If they get a bomb, one of their 60 F4s could deliver it to any target in Europe. A SCUD could easily hit one of our bases Iraq.
Is Ahmadinejad bluffing? Can we afford to gamble that he is? If we do, will the Israelis follow suit? If we strike, will we be able to hit all the necessary sites? Do we even know where they are? What would the IRG do in response? Hezbollah?
Let's hope the diplomats can solve this thing before it gets seriously out of hand.Comment Posted By arch On 18.09.2007 @ 09:07
Just Googled "Mothers Against" and got the following hits:
First, it was Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
Then Mothers Against Videogame Addiction & Violence
Then Mothers Against Methamphetamine
Then Mothers Against Illegal Aliens
Then Mothers Against Misuse & Abuse (of drugs)
Then Mothers Against Sexual Abuse
Then Mothers Against Gang Wars
Then Mothers Against Teen Violence
Then Mothers Against Tolerating Terror
Okay so far.
Then Mothers Against Noise
Then Mothers Against Star Wars Galaxies
Then Mothers Against Circumcision
Then Mothers Against Dog Chaining
Then Mothers Against War
We're getting into grey areas now.
Then Mothers Against the Draft
Then Mothers Against Brain Injury
Then Mothers Against Murder & Aggression
Then Mothers Against Burning Tires
Then Mothers Against School Hazing
Then Mothers Against Senseless Killing
Is there anyone who is For any of the above?
Then Mothers Against (Joe) Arpaio
Then Mothers Against Peeing Standing Up
Then Mothers Against Guns
Then Mothers Against Blogging
Now we've crossed the line!
Soon we'll see Mothers Against Beautiful Women
Then Mothers Against Beer
Then Mothers Against Dogs
Then Mothers Against Single Malts
Then Mothers Against Sports
Then Mothers Against Fun!
Do we need some Father Against organizations?Comment Posted By arch On 17.09.2007 @ 16:14
Maybe the Mullahs have it right:
Fathers Against the Women Against Stuff (FATWAS)
I am a big movie fan. In my den is a 50" plasma HDTV with and a surround sound system. So, rather than racing to pay $50 to see a movie in the theater, I wait and buy the DVD. A rationalization perhaps, but I figure we save $25.
One of my favorite movies is Hunt for Red October. Alec Baldwin did a fair job reading the words Tom Clancey wrote. I also have Mystic River, where Sean Penn plays a Boston thug so well one cannot tell that he is acting. Jane Fonda was the perfect prostitute in Klute.
Actors can be convincing on the silver screen, but when they open their mouths without a good script, it can be career limiting. Maybe more people would watch the Oscars and Emmys if the winners came to the podium and said, "Thank you all very much. I am honored," then smiled and go sat down.Comment Posted By arch On 17.09.2007 @ 10:05
Hillary's first act will be to pardon Hsu.Comment Posted By arch On 13.09.2007 @ 06:54
Fred Thompson has face recognition. He used it in Tennessee and he will use it again. Half the republican base could not recognize Ron Paul if he were wearing a name tag. They are tired of John McCain and trust neither Romney nor Giuliani.
Fred Thompson has an image as an adult. He was a lawyer working on Watergate. He was the mayor on TV. He was the Admiral in The Hunt for Red October. You cannot buy that.
Thompson is tough on terrorism, immigration, crime, has flipped on abortion and supports gun ownership. Most importantly, he is a fiscal conservative. He is the absolute opposite of Hillary Clinton. If he can keep his wife out of his campaign, he will beat Hillary and sweep in with a conservative House.Comment Posted By arch On 12.09.2007 @ 03:38
Mao would tell any aspiring guerilla group that if the local villagers arm themselves and rush to aid the army, the insurgency is in big trouble.Comment Posted By arch On 4.09.2007 @ 00:45
I still have their albums and the turntable to play them. There's a verse in "the patriot game" that is appropriate to the situation today. It's from memory, so please forgive me if I made any mistakes.
"And now as I lay here my body all holes,
I think of the traitors, who bargained and sold.
I wish that my rifle had given the same
to those Quislings who sold out the Patriot game."
Arch ArthurComment Posted By arch On 2.08.2007 @ 16:59
The Liberals need to make up their minds before we put people in harms way. There can be no backing down as they are trying to do now. This waffling is, in my view, political hypocrisy. Considering the anti-Israeli bias among liberals, I do not understand why Jews in America vote Democrat.
My last trip to Iran was Christmas 1974. I was delivering a new F4E to the Imperial Iranian Air Force. The country is very large; the terrain, rough.
The notion that we could successfully conduct a surgical air strike on their nuclear facilities would be difficult if we knew where they all were, which we do not. Also, Iran's recent acquisition of new Russian SAMs will take a toll on the strike forces.
Although the present government is not popular with the people, if the we attack, Iranians will defend their country to the detriment of pro-American sentiment there.
Economic pressures have not worked well against authoritarian regimes. Saddam and Kim both ran their countries into the ground and retained power. Look what the Taliban did in Afghanistan.
However, military operations are still possible. I would be surprised if we do not already have SOF people inside helping dissident groups, of which there are many. Kurds make up 7% of the population and they owe us. There are parts of Iran not under the control of Teheran.
Another option is the Putin or Assad model. Start killing politicians, Imams, nuclear scientists and engineers. The Israelis did it, and it's working in Lebanon.Comment Posted By arch On 19.06.2007 @ 07:49