Scientists say they have proved clima...

Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

There are 8138 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Dec 9, 2008, titled Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus.... In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

litesong

Everett, WA

#7355 Dec 16, 2012
phdudd wrote:
.....the scare monger AKA "litesout".
phdudd is a silly goose.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7356 Dec 17, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Snow falls on top and buries stuff.
Ice flows out at the sides and melts.
What's important is which happens faster?
The answer is more is melting.
Stronger snowfall increases future ice discharge from Antarctica. Global warming leads to more precipitation as warmer air holds more moisture – hence earlier research suggested the Antarctic ice sheet might grow under climate change. Now a study published in Nature shows that a lot of the ice gain due to increased snowfall is countered by an acceleration of ice-flow to the ocean. Thus Antarctica’s contribution to global sea-level rise is probably greater than hitherto estimated, the team of authors from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) concludes.

“Between 30 and 65 percent of the ice gain due to enhanced snowfall in Antarctica is countervailed by enhanced ice loss along the coastline,” says lead-author Ricarda Winkelmann. For the first time, an ensemble of ice-physics simulations shows that future ice discharge is increased up to three times because of additional precipitation in Antarctica under global warming.“The effect exceeds that of surface warming as well as that of basal ice-shelf melting,” Winkelmann says.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#7357 Dec 17, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
Gasoline is toxic. Ethyl alcohol is toxic. Methyl tert-butyl ether is toxic. ICE emissions are toxic. Even water is toxic if you drink large enough amounts. You can easily look up the MSDS for almost any chemical you want. Don't ask me to do your homework.
Or admit your ignorance; all mass transportation service creates pollution.

There is no zero emission magic; life means emissions. Get over your fear.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
I don't really care about your love of antique technology. We've been using essentially the same engine for well over a hundred years. It's a new millenia and past time to make good use of that vastly larger database of knowledge we've accumulated since 1876.
Let the customer decide, not the bureaucrat or politician. Get government out of climate, green energy or the environment. We need an energy policy that encourages the production and use of energy and fuel.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7358 Dec 17, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Doesn't help me and doesn't help you. The physics and my point remain. There is the pie in the sky theory, and there is the reasonable application. You can continue attempts to belittle, but it changes nothing.
If you place coils close enough to enable inductive charging, you may as well omit the excess apparatus and plug the battery into the power supply. Faster, cheaper, more efficient. Defending Rube Goldberg "as seen in Sky Mall" devices doesn't make you a futurist.
Who finances a space array? How do you transmit power to a terrestrial receiver? When (if ever? Doubtful.) will the technology make it more practical or economical than many, many other means of generating electricity? Geothermal, hydro-thermal, Hydroelectric, solar, tidal, wind, combustion....
Sorry that you’re stuck behind. As mentioned before they poked fun at Henry Ford. Do tell all your theory. Never belittled just asked a question that you cannot or refuse to answer
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7359 Dec 17, 2012
litesout wrote:
<quoted text>
phdudd is a silly goose.
Not as silly as you goosee.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7360 Dec 17, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are probably correct, but I wonder about transportation ie. roads that induct power to cars.
There are trains using inductive braking, but they already have the ferrous rails to work against. The issue with wireless coupling and linear accelerators is that they require a strong current through induction coils - to build that into all the lanes of over 55,000,000 miles of roads would make the federal debt look like chump change, and the cumulative transmission losses would be phenomenal.

I'm not averse to new ideas or technologies - I think many are long overdue, but as the saying goes (and no offense intended)
"It's great to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7361 Dec 17, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry that you’re stuck behind. As mentioned before they poked fun at Henry Ford. Do tell all your theory. Never belittled just asked a question that you cannot or refuse to answer
I'm neither behind nor beside and being realistic is not a bad thing. I don't recall Ford being made fun of - he was one of a hundred car builders during the time of his company's inception. His assembly line was innovative, but not controversial. Maybe you are thinking of Fulton?
What theory are you referring to? I don't recall proposing any. For that matter - I don't recall that you've asked me any questions, either. You mentioned inductive charging and space stations and I rationally pointed out that those specific technologies are unlikely to become practical.
I could be wrong, but I don't foresee that unless there is some quantum breakthrough - which is unpredictable.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7362 Dec 17, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
There are trains using inductive braking, but they already have the ferrous rails to work against. The issue with wireless coupling and linear accelerators is that they require a strong current through induction coils - to build that into all the lanes of over 55,000,000 miles of roads would make the federal debt look like chump change, and the cumulative transmission losses would be phenomenal.
I'm not averse to new ideas or technologies - I think many are long overdue, but as the saying goes (and no offense intended)
"It's great to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."
I understand that building entire roadways with inductive capabilities would be prohibitive. However, sections of lanes that will inductively charge the batteries in an electric vehicle might be interesting. Especially with the utilization of local solar and/or wind energy.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7363 Dec 17, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm neither behind nor beside and being realistic is not a bad thing. I don't recall Ford being made fun of - he was one of a hundred car builders during the time of his company's inception. His assembly line was innovative, but not controversial. Maybe you are thinking of Fulton?
What theory are you referring to? I don't recall proposing any. For that matter - I don't recall that you've asked me any questions, either. You mentioned inductive charging and space stations and I rationally pointed out that those specific technologies are unlikely to become practical.
I could be wrong, but I don't foresee that unless there is some quantum breakthrough - which is unpredictable.
His mass production lines were not innovative. The application of assembly lines in the manufacturing of automobiles was.

In his book, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, Adam Smith had discussed the idea of dividing labor—giving a single task to each worker to perform.

In 1798 Eli Whitney built a firearms factory near New Haven. The muskets his workmen made by methods comparable to those of modern mass industrial production were the first to have standardized, interchangeable parts.

It is noteworthy to learn that Henry Ford was not always open to new ideas. He doggedly held onto mechanical, or cable, brakes for automobiles until 1939, even though hydraulic systems were superior and used by all the other major companies.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7364 Dec 17, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that building entire roadways with inductive capabilities would be prohibitive. However, sections of lanes that will inductively charge the batteries in an electric vehicle might be interesting. Especially with the utilization of local solar and/or wind energy.
I never said it was impossible, just impractical. To generate electricity all you need to do is pass a coil across magnetic flux lines - you could do that simply by installing strong magnets on the roadway and having fine wire coils on the underside of the vehicle. Sure, an external power supply might be nice, supercooled or (near) room temperature superconductors would be great. However, as Heinlein stated, TANSTAAFL.(There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7365 Dec 17, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it was impossible, just impractical. To generate electricity all you need to do is pass a coil across magnetic flux lines - you could do that simply by installing strong magnets on the roadway and having fine wire coils on the underside of the vehicle. Sure, an external power supply might be nice, supercooled or (near) room temperature superconductors would be great. However, as Heinlein stated, TANSTAAFL.(There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.)
It takes at least as much power to pass the coils across the magnets as the gain in electric power to the batteries. That is unless you have invented perpetual motion.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7366 Dec 17, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm neither behind nor beside and being realistic is not a bad thing. I don't recall Ford being made fun of - he was one of a hundred car builders during the time of his company's inception. His assembly line was innovative, but not controversial. Maybe you are thinking of Fulton?
What theory are you referring to? I don't recall proposing any. For that matter - I don't recall that you've asked me any questions, either. You mentioned inductive charging and space stations and I rationally pointed out that those specific technologies are unlikely to become practical.
I could be wrong, but I don't foresee that unless there is some quantum breakthrough - which is unpredictable.
People said Ford had a bad idea that a low-priced car would be a success. Only the rich could afford the horseless carriage. Henry said, "No, the car will some day be a poor man's necessity."
Some ads read, "If you buy a Ford car you buy a lawsuit."
The theory would be ( your words)"I rationally pointed out that those specific technologies are unlikely to become practical".
This would be your theory.All we read from you is I don't,I could be I,I,I. So if it isn't your idea or theory it couldn't be true.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7367 Dec 17, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes at least as much power to pass the coils across the magnets as the gain in electric power to the batteries. That is unless you have invented perpetual motion.
Of course, and a vehicle may as well be equipped with regenerative braking over installing magnetics on downgrades and prior to stop signs. Perhaps inductive charging panels would be best located at traffic lights during which the charge would be timed to the light and a vehicle would be at rest over the coil(s) anyway. Otherwise, they could be built into parking spaces and the cost defrayed by the meter or parking fee. The field strengths would by necessity be considerable, and there would have to be consideration that the frequency/resonance not interfere with other devices.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7368 Dec 17, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, and a vehicle may as well be equipped with regenerative braking over installing magnetics on downgrades and prior to stop signs. Perhaps inductive charging panels would be best located at traffic lights during which the charge would be timed to the light and a vehicle would be at rest over the coil(s) anyway. Otherwise, they could be built into parking spaces and the cost defrayed by the meter or parking fee. The field strengths would by necessity be considerable, and there would have to be consideration that the frequency/resonance not interfere with other devices.
So what brought on your positive attitude? I had to read your post twice no I,I,I in it.
litesong

Everett, WA

#7369 Dec 17, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
Gasoline is toxic. Ethyl alcohol is toxic. Methyl tert-butyl ether is toxic. ICE emissions are toxic.
topix AGW deniers are toxic.
cunune

Masontown, PA

#7370 Dec 17, 2012
youtube.com/watch .I dunno?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7371 Dec 17, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>So what brought on your positive attitude? I had to read your post twice no I,I,I in it.
"I" can only speak from my own knowledge and experience, and I should not post if all I can say is you, you, you.
It might regarded as negativity, but the first step toward a solution is to identify a problem, and before implementing a new system, make sure it isn't a worse devil than you already have.
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Inductive charging.Space Solar Power. Not practical but soon will be.
Why do you say "it soon will be"? What is "it" - inductive charging or space solar power? What new applicable science, technology, program or venture is making "it" pragmatic?- No offense intended. You didn't really provide much of a pro before I launched into cons.

Remember that Ford's good friend Edison was adamantly - even violently opposed to AC current, but look what we use. "Never say never", but I also don't try to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
I've not offered any "theories", but then it doesn't take a modern Faraday to understand that the inherent losses to resonant inductive charging are completely irrelevant to direct conduction. Of course, that doesn't mean wireless charging might not have practical applications. Pneumatic tires cause terrific loss of mileage, but the benefits far and away outstrip that drawback. All the same, there are reasons not to put Goodyears on a locomotive or a snowmobile. Form follows function, and I didn't just make up that theory, either.

I'll offer this "theory" of mine, since you've asked for one. I think that our energy sources need to be diversified and decentralized. I don't think the public is safe or that the economy is secure to place them almost entirely into the hands of a half-dozen corporations, and I think that the systems of power usage and distribution we currently employ actively resists energy alternatives and independence.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7372 Dec 17, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
topix AGW deniers are toxic.
Tsk, tsk. You should know not to so broadly label people.
It's only the ones that post, the ones that don't and the ones who aren't on Topix at all....
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7373 Dec 18, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"I" can only speak from my own knowledge and experience, and I should not post if all I can say is you, you, you.
It might regarded as negativity, but the first step toward a solution is to identify a problem, and before implementing a new system, make sure it isn't a worse devil than you already have.
<quoted text>
Why do you say "it soon will be"? What is "it" - inductive charging or space solar power? What new applicable science, technology, program or venture is making "it" pragmatic?- No offense intended. You didn't really provide much of a pro before I launched into cons.
Remember that Ford's good friend Edison was adamantly - even violently opposed to AC current, but look what we use. "Never say never", but I also don't try to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
I've not offered any "theories", but then it doesn't take a modern Faraday to understand that the inherent losses to resonant inductive charging are completely irrelevant to direct conduction. Of course, that doesn't mean wireless charging might not have practical applications. Pneumatic tires cause terrific loss of mileage, but the benefits far and away outstrip that drawback. All the same, there are reasons not to put Goodyears on a locomotive or a snowmobile. Form follows function, and I didn't just make up that theory, either.
I'll offer this "theory" of mine, since you've asked for one. I think that our energy sources need to be diversified and decentralized. I don't think the public is safe or that the economy is secure to place them almost entirely into the hands of a half-dozen corporations, and I think that the systems of power usage and distribution we currently employ actively resists energy alternatives and independence.
Yes maybe you do speak from your own knowledge and experience, but that doesn’t necessary make it so. No you should not post if you only say I,I,I. Now include you, you, you. Werner Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle. Masanao Ozawa theorizes Heisenberg’s limit of uncertainty could be lower. The energy distribution actively resists cost. Half a dozen corporations more like politician’s hands. Oh soon could be in the next 5,10,20 years. It may not be soon for some of us older folks but soon to arrive.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7374 Dec 18, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Yes maybe you do speak from your own knowledge and experience, but that doesn’t necessary make it so. No you should not post if you only say I,I,I. Now include you, you, you. Werner Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle. Masanao Ozawa theorizes Heisenberg’s limit of uncertainty could be lower. The energy distribution actively resists cost. Half a dozen corporations more like politician’s hands. Oh soon could be in the next 5,10,20 years. It may not be soon for some of us older folks but soon to arrive.
Uh-huh, I see. "..you should not post if you only say I,I,I. Now include you, you, you." Good luck with that.

Theoretically lowering the Heisenberg limit does not directly translate to higher efficiency in matter waves stimulating electron flow. The Laws of Thermodynamics are not on the Supreme Court docket. Soon? The US went from Kitty Hawk to the moon in 60 years, and from the moon to earthbound in 40. ASTONISHINGLY, in a mere 104 years we've gone from the Model T running on gasoline(!) to the Veyron running on - gasoline. Efficiency might improve, but the fundamentals remain.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Scary Obituary 32 min The Shadow Knows 8
I think she is pissed. From a few years ago. 38 min AlGores LockBox 3
Look at Minn. Maine & Michigan. 1 hr Dude 7
Jonny's Towing is Chicagoland's Most Crooked Co... 2 hr Nutso 46
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr UidiotRaceMakeWOR... 1,520,286
Adulttoyfunshop.com 3 hr Peter Dragon 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr Kid Rocker Panel 240,283

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages