• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

This is Priceless

IndepCentristMA said:
Hurricanes don't just "sometimes happen"... Hurricanes routinely happen all along the East Coast... and the Gulf Coast... The General Mid-Atlantic NYC Area gets hit with a major hurricane (usually catergory 2-3) every 60-80 years...

Katrina was in 2006... now this CATEGORY 1 hurricane occured in 2012... please name me another destructive hurricane in the 5 years in between...
Click to expand...

Provincial much? You think the U.S. is the only place that hurricanes land?
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Continuing on with the post that accidentally posted...

Here are the lists of the frequent hurricanes that hit this region

List of New York hurricanes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of New Jersey hurricanes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot has been made of the flooding in NJ by this recent storm... as if it was unprecidented...

418px-H52_hurricane_gloria_1985.jpg


That picture is a hellicopter fly over of the damage in Cape May from Hurricane Gloria, from back in 1985...

Oops... guess Obama is going to have to change his meme to say Romney wants to take the weather back to the 1980s... wonder why the climate reverted... must be all those "green cars" on the road... :roll:



A hurricane... aimed at the NYC area could cause damage... who knew...


Oh, wait several people do...

This is an excellent article that puts it into perspective...

A History of Hurricanes in New York

"Statistically, the New York area is hit y one of these monster storms every 75 years or so; “it’s just a matter of time,” says Lee. After Hog Island [1893], the next big one came a little ahead of schedule, the “Long Island Express” of 1938, with 183-mile-per-hour winds. [Sandy was 90mph] At the time, Long Island wasn’t a densely populated suburban sprawl. The same hurricane today would cause incredible havoc. Hurricane Carol, a Category 3 storm that hit eastern Long Island and came ashore in Connecticut in 1954, mostly missed the city (even as it inundated downtown Providence, Rhode Island, under twelve feet of water).

Were another Long Island Express to barrel in, AIR Worldwide Corporation, an insurance-industry analyst, estimates $11.6 billion in New York losses alone. On AIR’s list of “the top ten worst places for an extreme hurricane to strike,” New York City is No. 2, behind only Miami. New Orleans is ranked fifth. "


So let's see...

1821 - (72 yrs) - 1893 - (45 yrs) - 1938 - (16 yrs) 1954 - (58 yrs) - 2012 (which was actually a category 1)...

If you count from the Long Island Express of 1938 to 2012 that's 74 years... statistically it's supposed to come once every 75 yrs...

Oh no... we must change the climate immediately... :roll:


BTW, after Hurricane Carol, New Bedford, MA built a sea wall as a barrier to hurricanes... New Bedford saw the 90 mph wins that other places did... but the sea wall they built held fine, and the inner harbor saw mild chop only... See what a little advanced preparation can do? It boggles the mind that boardwalks and ferris wheels along the water getting downed by a large hurrican is shocking to some people... it was stupid to have them there to begin with... NJ is a swamp... everyone knows that...
Click to expand...

So, you're pretty much the man for this post. Great stuff bro. I love seeing the climate change guys get a smack down. I'm not a climate change denier. I do believe the earth is heating a little. However, I also believe that it is a natural cycle that will trend the other way eventually. Just like global cooling did back in the 70's.
 
AdamT said:
Never you mind. In 10 million or so years we won't be asking such questions. ;)
Click to expand...
LOL. Yeah, hopefully I will have reincarnated as an advanced Sheldon Cooper humanoid at that point.
 
MarineTpartier said:
So, you're pretty much the man for this post. Great stuff bro. I love seeing the climate change guys get a smack down. I'm not a climate change denier. I do believe the earth is heating a little. However, I also believe that it is a natural cycle that will trend the other way eventually. Just like global cooling did back in the 70's.
Click to expand...

No offense, but it was a ridiculously weak denier argument. You start with the strawman argument that anyone claims there isn't natural variation, and that climate hasn't changed in the past. Then, in this case, you ignore the fact that Sandy came extremely late in the season, when cold ocean temperatures would *normally* prevent such a strike. And of course you ignore the fact that Hurricane Irene was barely downgraded to a tropical storm before it hit NY LAST YEAR (not 78 years ago).

I've had so many of these climate change arguments over the years that I really can't stomach them anymore.
 
AdamT said:
Provincial much? You think the U.S. is the only place that hurricanes land?
Click to expand...

No... this was specific evidence regarding the frequency of storms in this regions throughout recorded history, with strong detailing to the the early 1800s...

However, if you want to measure the world effect... HERE YOU GO!!!

World Climate Report » More on New York Hurricanes

NYC_hurricanes_fig2.JPG


"We have presented dozens of reviews of articles that deal with trends in tropical storm activity that could be attributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases. Many of these articles have come from the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea, and in virtually every case, no empirical evidence was found to support the popular predictions for some unusual increase in the frequency and/or intensity of tropical storms. We have covered articles from Asia, Australia, southern Mexico’s Pacific coast, and even Africa, and we continue to see the same basic conclusion – trends in tropical storm activity do not seem out of the ordinary. In two months, two articles have appeared focusing on tropical storms that impact New York, and in both articles, no empirical is found for anything unusual in the wind."



BTW... the best part of that article... is that it was written in 2007... in advance of this storm they already predicted this lame reaction...

"Back in October, we reviewed an article dealing with hurricanes in New York over the past four centuries, and the researchers found that intense Big Apple hurricanes were more common during the much-colder Little Ice Age than today. We noted at the time that any hurricane striking New York will be greeted by the global warming advocates as the final nail in the coffin of the greenhouse scare, when in reality, such storms are relatively common and are possibly more frequent in cold periods, not warm ones."

Ouch... they won the game before it even began...
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
No offense, but it was a ridiculously weak denier argument. You start with the strawman argument that anyone claims there isn't natural variation, and that climate hasn't changed in the past. Then, in this case, you ignore the fact that Sandy came extremely late in the season, when cold ocean temperatures would *normally* prevent such a strike. And of course you ignore the fact that Hurricane Irene was barely downgraded to a tropical storm before it hit NY LAST YEAR (not 78 years ago).

I've had so many of these climate change arguments over the years that I really can't stomach them anymore.
Click to expand...

It still hit as a tropical storm...

the statistical average for Category 3 hurricanes or higher hitting the general NYC is one every 75 years...

the last Category 3 hurricane that hit NYC is 74 years ago... Including Sandy, which was a Category 1...
 
AdamT said:
There's no mystery about what we do about it. We reduce GHG emissions and pressure nations like China to do the same.
Click to expand...

You want to make it more difficult for China to produce Happy Meal toys???

Why do you hate children?
 
wolfman24 said:
You mean BUSH?
Click to expand...
:lamo

Do you have the first clue who the president was when the Kyoto accords were drafted, who the VP was, and what action they did or did not take?

Bush...Priceless dood. ****ing priceless. :lamo
 
wolfman24 said:
Once again a Darwinian Evolution Guy. Sorry but no sensible evolutionary theorist even looks at Darwin any more. Adam is talking about MODERN evolutionary science. Your view is over 100 years behind the times. There are plenty of thread on it maybe you should read some. The anti evolutionary conservative mongers need to get a new script this one is outdated, stupid and boring.
Click to expand...
Guess we should rewrite the script when it affects your handouts and free government cheese. :lamo
 
I was really thinking for a moment the people were laughing at the captain obvious moment. The prevailing weather and environmental conditions of the east coast of the US cause things like hurricanes. So yes climate did cause this, there is no doubt about that unless you are a religious nutbar and think the presence of gays causes natural disasters.

then i read further and realized people were laughing because they think climate has nothing to do with the weather and I almost dented my forehead from the stupidity of denying climate has something to do with weather. Seriously, it is not cool to have failed science so bad you cannot figure out climate has something to do with the weather of a particular area. You guys have illustrated the reasons we cannot let religious fundamentalists destroy science and math in our classrooms. Perhaps romney needs to be made aware that elohim on the planet kolob did not send this hurricane to destroy them evil negros and fags. maybe this is not elohim's wrath because the northeast allows abortion and gay marriage.

It is also clear that anyone who feels that fossile fuels are clean, and there is no pollution problem needs to take a trip to NY and look at the sky. If that doesn't get you go down the Nj turnpike until you hit newark. Brown is not a natural color for a so called clear sky. Newark NJ is actually a place where sucking on a cigarette is cleaner than breathing. Oh and i do know that the glowing green lakes of NJ are a lovely sight at night. No, pollution doesn't do anything, it is all just in the liberal imagination.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
No... this was specific evidence regarding the frequency of storms in this regions throughout recorded history, with strong detailing to the the early 1800s...

However, if you want to measure the world effect... HERE YOU GO!!!
Click to expand...

That is all great and all, but there is an obvious reason to worry about pollution you only need your eyes to see. It is the large clouds of smog and pollution over major cities. Those are not natural, and they effect personal health. I know you may find a smokestack spewing crap out to be a great thing, or sucking the fumes of a ****ty car to smell like roses, but not all of us do. So before you go quoting excuses paid fopr by the koch brothers and the oil companies, use your eyes. All that crap goes into our water systems and the food we eat. Not to mention the air we breathe. Pollution has an effect, and yes we should look toward cleaner sources for energy as the world is using more and more of it, which makes more and more pollution. It is not getting better, it is getting worse.
 
tererun said:
That is all great and all, but there is an obvious reason to worry about pollution you only need your eyes to see. It is the large clouds of smog and pollution over major cities. Those are not natural, and they effect personal health. I know you may find a smokestack spewing crap out to be a great thing, or sucking the fumes of a ****ty car to smell like roses, but not all of us do. So before you go quoting excuses paid fopr by the koch brothers and the oil companies, use your eyes. All that crap goes into our water systems and the food we eat. Not to mention the air we breathe. Pollution has an effect, and yes we should look toward cleaner sources for energy as the world is using more and more of it, which makes more and more pollution. It is not getting better, it is getting worse.
Click to expand...

That's a whole other issue... I am all for renewable energy, non-toxic materials, cleaner indoor environments, etc.

I just don't think we should be legislating it... I think the free market will do a much better job of creating more efficient technologies...

One perfect example of that is the clean diesel car...

US emissions standards prevent the real clean diesel engines from being used.

In Europe, Ford makes a car that gets upwards of 90mpg on diesel... they can't sell that same model here in the US, and the diesel version they sell in the US gets 42mpg... less than half as much...

So... the trade off of far less fuel consumption would be beneficial to slightly more carbon emissions per gallon... but in the US liberal legislation increased emissions standards, and we can't take advantage of that...

So... as someone who wants to see the RIGHT movement towards sustainibility and towards a cleaner environment... I want to avoid the bogus knee-jerk reactions of "we must act now" and "something has to be done"... because that hastily acted upon something can often be the wrong thing...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
That's a whole other issue... I am all for renewable energy, non-toxic materials, cleaner indoor environments, etc.

I just don't think we should be legislating it... I think the free market will do a much better job of creating more efficient technologies...
Click to expand...

If you get to legislate what i put in my body for the greater good in the case of marijuana, then why can't we legislate what fuels we use because that effects our environment also?
IndepCentristMA said:
One perfect example of that is the clean diesel car...

US emissions standards prevent the real clean diesel engines from being used.

In Europe, Ford makes a car that gets upwards of 90mpg on diesel... they can't sell that same model here in the US, and the diesel version they sell in the US gets 42mpg... less than half as much...

So... the trade off of far less fuel consumption would be beneficial to slightly more carbon emissions per gallon... but in the US liberal legislation increased emissions standards, and we can't take advantage of that...

So... as someone who wants to see the RIGHT movement towards sustainibility and towards a cleaner environment... I want to avoid the bogus knee-jerk reactions of "we must act now" and "something has to be done"... because that hastily acted upon something can often be the wrong thing...
Click to expand...

All you want is deregulation so you can pollute as you like. It is great that car gets so many miles per gallon but if it is putting out more pollutants how does that help? the whole reason we want more efficient cars is for less emissions.

But really i am all for you having that car as long as you are taxed at a rate for the cleanup.
 
tererun said:
If you get to legislate what i put in my body for the greater good in the case of marijuana, then why can't we legislate what fuels we use because that effects our environment also?


All you want is deregulation so you can pollute as you like. It is great that car gets so many miles per gallon but if it is putting out more pollutants how does that help? the whole reason we want more efficient cars is for less emissions.

But really i am all for you having that car as long as you are taxed at a rate for the cleanup.
Click to expand...

First off, no one legislated that you have to put marijuana in your body... bad example...

I am for the legalization of marijuana, so if you're gonna go off into some side tangent issue, don't expect an argument from me here...

However, just because faulty legislation exists does not make it okay to create other faulty legislation... you can't be against it on one stance then for it on another...


Secondly... they don't put "more pollutant"s into the atmosphere...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...hIDgAg&usg=AFQjCNFEs6PEXOdaIjmaxMy8jIjUI3dlFg
CO2 Emissions from a gallon of gasoline: 8,887 grams CO2 / gallon1
CO2 Emissions from a gallon of diesel: 10,180 grams CO2 / gallon2

Do the math with me...

If I travel 250 miles per week to and from work...

In a 45mpg hybrid I would use 5.55 gallons of gasoline... at 8,887 grams of CO2 that's 49,322 grams of CO2 emissions from that week...
In a 60mpg diesel car (mixed European-US model) I would use 4.16 gallons of diesel... at 10,180 grams of CO2 that's 42,348 grams of CO2 emissions from that week...
In a 90mpg diesel car (European pnly model) I would use 2.77 gallons of diesel... at 10,180 grams of CO2 that's 28,198 grams of CO2 emissions from that week...

So the diesel car with the ECOnetic technology from Europe actually creates less pollution... yet, doesn't pass the US's legislated emissions standards...

That's using science... not opinion to drive what's important...

Using opinion people have legislated the wrong course of action... we test our carbon emissions and say you can only emit this amount, because we think it's important...

They don't do that in Europe... where they all believe in global warming and taking action on it... yet, they have the clean diesels running...

Lusting for Europe's Illegal 60-MPG Cars | Hybrid Cars
Ford Fiesta gets 90 mpg with ECOnetic diesel engine
Dominance of Diesel - Fiesta TDCi ECOnetic Wins UK MPG Marathon at 90.65 mpgUS - CleanMPG Forums

I'd advise you read more on the topic before forming or borrowing opinions...


Drive Clean - Diesel
Diesel Technology Forum: Clean Diesel Technology & Sustainability
58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI - TDI Truth & Dare - VW.com - Think Blue - VW.com
Volkswagen Jetta TDI: Much More Mileage Than EPA Admits?
84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI - KickingTires

The other thing that's great about these clean diesel engines, is that they can run on biodiesel, too... and from recycled baking oils, and such...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
First off, no one legislated that you have to put marijuana in your body... bad example...

I am for the legalization of marijuana, so if you're gonna go off into some side tangent issue, don't expect an argument from me here...

However, just because faulty legislation exists does not make it okay to create other faulty legislation... you can't be against it on one stance then for it on another...


Secondly... they don't put "more pollutant"s into the atmosphere...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...hIDgAg&usg=AFQjCNFEs6PEXOdaIjmaxMy8jIjUI3dlFg
CO2 Emissions from a gallon of gasoline: 8,887 grams CO2 / gallon1
CO2 Emissions from a gallon of diesel: 10,180 grams CO2 / gallon2

Do the math with me...

If I travel 250 miles per week to and from work...

In a 45mpg hybrid I would use 5.55 gallons of gasoline... at 8,887 grams of CO2 that's 49,322 grams of CO2 emissions from that week...
In a 60mpg diesel car (mixed European-US model) I would use 4.16 gallons of diesel... at 10,180 grams of CO2 that's 42,348 grams of CO2 emissions from that week...
In a 90mpg diesel car (European pnly model) I would use 2.77 gallons of diesel... at 10,180 grams of CO2 that's 28,198 grams of CO2 emissions from that week...

So the diesel car with the ECOnetic technology from Europe actually creates less pollution... yet, doesn't pass the US's legislated emissions standards...

That's using science... not opinion to drive what's important...

Using opinion people have legislated the wrong course of action... we test our carbon emissions and say you can only emit this amount, because we think it's important...

They don't do that in Europe... where they all believe in global warming and taking action on it... yet, they have the clean diesels running...

Lusting for Europe's Illegal 60-MPG Cars | Hybrid Cars
Ford Fiesta gets 90 mpg with ECOnetic diesel engine
Dominance of Diesel - Fiesta TDCi ECOnetic Wins UK MPG Marathon at 90.65 mpgUS - CleanMPG Forums

I'd advise you read more on the topic before forming or borrowing opinions...


Drive Clean - Diesel
Diesel Technology Forum: Clean Diesel Technology & Sustainability
58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI - TDI Truth & Dare - VW.com - Think Blue - VW.com
Volkswagen Jetta TDI: Much More Mileage Than EPA Admits?
84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI - KickingTires

The other thing that's great about these clean diesel engines, is that they can run on biodiesel, too... and from recycled baking oils, and such...
Click to expand...

Ok, I see the math, but i have a small problem wrapping my mind around a certain point. Since you have taken the time to explain it so thuroughly perhaps i can ask you to explain it a bit further. If these cars do not pass emissions that means that at the tailpipe more harmful emissions are coming from the burning of the fuel. Now clearly if one car is emitting more harmful emissions during the same run time as another, it would release more pollutants into the air. Now i am going to say that i do believe the problem with your explanation is it does not take into account the effects of the catalytic converter. there is where the true difference lies. your calculations are probably just the burning of the fuels without traversing through a catalytic converter. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the measurements taken at the tailpipe indicating more pollutants are released would imply that for the same amount of run time the diesel produces more pollutants. I would love for you to explain to me how a test that measures the carbon emissions at the tailpipe is wrong when it says that more come from the diesel engine. maybe the test itself is wrong? It just doesn't make sense.

FYI Catalytic converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

these numbers would be irrelevant in the US where the use of catalytic converters is mandatory. I am not saying what you are saying is not true, it is just that i am not understanding how something that is measured to be emitting higher levels of carbon at the emission point is actually releasing less.
 
tererun said:
Ok, I see the math, but i have a small problem wrapping my mind around a certain point. Since you have taken the time to explain it so thuroughly perhaps i can ask you to explain it a bit further. If these cars do not pass emissions that means that at the tailpipe more harmful emissions are coming from the burning of the fuel. Now clearly if one car is emitting more harmful emissions during the same run time as another, it would release more pollutants into the air. Now i am going to say that i do believe the problem with your explanation is it does not take into account the effects of the catalytic converter. there is where the true difference lies. your calculations are probably just the burning of the fuels without traversing through a catalytic converter. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the measurements taken at the tailpipe indicating more pollutants are released would imply that for the same amount of run time the diesel produces more pollutants. I would love for you to explain to me how a test that measures the carbon emissions at the tailpipe is wrong when it says that more come from the diesel engine. maybe the test itself is wrong? It just doesn't make sense.

FYI Catalytic converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

these numbers would be irrelevant in the US where the use of catalytic converters is mandatory. I am not saying what you are saying is not true, it is just that i am not understanding how something that is measured to be emitting higher levels of carbon at the emission point is actually releasing less.
Click to expand...

Nope... those figures were measured from the emissions off the back of tailpipes...

The catalytic converter was included... The catalytic converter has worked better on the gasoline powered internal combustion engines, but recent advances have made the divide smaller, as your link even indicates...


Catalytic converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diesel engines

For compression-ignition (i.e., diesel engines), the most commonly used catalytic converter is the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC). This catalyst uses O2 (oxygen) in the exhaust gas stream to convert CO (carbon monoxide) to CO2 (carbon dioxide) and HC (hydrocarbons) to H2O (water) and CO2. These converters often operate at 90 percent efficiency, virtually eliminating diesel odor and helping to reduce visible particulates (soot). These catalysts are not active for NOx reduction because any reductant present would react first with the high concentration of O2 in diesel exhaust gas.

Reduction in NOx emissions from compression-ignition engines has previously been addressed by the addition of exhaust gas to incoming air charge, known as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). In 2010, most light-duty diesel manufacturers in the U.S. added catalytic systems to their vehicles to meet new federal emissions requirements. There are two techniques that have been developed for the catalytic reduction of NOx emissions under lean exhaust conditions - selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and the lean NOx trap or NOx adsorber. Instead of precious metal-containing NOx adsorbers, most manufacturers selected base-metal SCR systems that use a reagent such as ammonia to reduce the NOx into nitrogen. Ammonia is supplied to the catalyst system by the injection of urea into the exhaust, which then undergoes thermal decomposition and hydrolysis into ammonia. One trademark product of urea solution, also referred to as Diesel Emission Fluid (DEF), is AdBlue.

Diesel exhaust contains relatively high levels of particulate matter (soot), consisting in large part of elemental carbon. Catalytic converters cannot clean up elemental carbon, though they do remove up to 90 percent of the soluble organic fraction[citation needed], so particulates are cleaned up by a soot trap or diesel particulate filter (DPF). Historically, a DPF consists of a Cordierite or Silicon Carbide substrate with a geometry that forces the exhaust flow through the substrate walls, leaving behind trapped soot particles. Contemporary DPFs can be manufactured from a variety of rare metals that provide superior performance (at a greater expense).[15] As the amount of soot trapped on the DPF increases, so does the back pressure in the exhaust system. Periodic regenerations (high temperature excursions) are required to initiate combustion of the trapped soot and thereby reducing the exhaust back pressure. The amount of soot loaded on the DPF prior to regeneration may also be limited to prevent extreme exotherms from damaging the trap during regeneration. In the U.S., all on-road light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles powered by diesel and built after January 1, 2007, must meet diesel particulate emission limits that means they effectively have to be equipped with a 2-Way catalytic converter and a diesel particulate filter. Note that this applies only to the diesel engine used in the vehicle. As long as the engine was manufactured before January 1, 2007, the vehicle is not required to have the DPF system. This led to an inventory runup by engine manufacturers in late 2006 so they could continue selling pre-DPF vehicles well into 2007.[16]


Like I showed you... the difference is so minimal that the better performance from the diesel engine more than makes up for it...
 
I would like to see some proof that these same engines that get 90mph in Europe get 45mph in the US due to emissions equipment. I think I will be waiting a long time....
 
Uzidoesit said:
An inconvient truth will be inconvenient until life as we know it is destroyed. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
Click to expand...

You know, I really find this argument amusing because it presumes that we, as humans - barely-sentient apes who worship books and haven't even learned to take care of ourselves and our fellow man yet - can actually singlehandedly "save the world". And that we'll even try, since observation proves that humankind really isn't big on that selflessness thing.
 
DanielJay said:
You know, I really find this argument amusing because it presumes that we, as humans - barely-sentient apes who worship books and haven't even learned to take care of ourselves and our fellow man yet - can actually singlehandedly "save the world". And that we'll even try, since observation proves that humankind really isn't big on that selflessness thing.
Click to expand...

As cynical as this comment is it's sadly true. We're often blinded to what's best for everyone by self interests.
 
tres borrachos said:
"Climate change".

:lamo:
Click to expand...


You know what I've heard, the real danger isn't "Climate Change", it is "Climate Stagnation!".


Just imagine the horrible consequences to the earth and all that live on it if the Climate ever actually stopped changing!


-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom