Global Warming

Tyrannosaurus Rex Highlights Problems with Global Warming Models

Get the point?

Written on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: Be the first to Comment

I usually rail on global warming models by saying the models are fallible. They can change depending on what variables are plugged in, which are given priority, etc. But I don’t think enough people understand why this is important.

So, let’s take an example of something you figure a computer model could figure out very easily. The running speed of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. We have several complete skeletons of these in museums and for research. Given what is known about the species and dinosaurs in general; you’d think that ascertaining their running speed would be a piece of cake wouldn’t you? Not so.

According to Wikipedia, we have several theories on its running speed. Some people claim its maximum speed was 11 mph. Other sites note that it’s maximum speed would have been up to 45 mph. Quite a difference. Using physics models, in 2002, physicists decided that:

Given the extensive unknowns, the pair hesitate to put a specific upper bound on the maximum speed of T. rex. “Speeds of 11 m/s [25 mph] would be pushing it,” says Hutchinson, “but 20 m/s [45 mph] is not reasonable.”

Improved models today show that the Tyrannosaurus Rex was a slower moving creature, needing to take its weight (for balance) into consideration, probably making it slower - like an elephant - rather than quick and agile - like a bird.

The model results, detailed in the June 21 issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, also showed that T. rex would have had considerable inertia preventing it from turning quickly; a 45-degree turn would have taken one or two seconds — far longer than for a human.

These calculations lend further support to previous research indicating that the large tyrannosaurs could run no faster than 25 mph (and certainly not the 45 mph seen in some movies), because its leg muscles weren’t big enough for fast running.

So, now we will have debate about the top speed of a Tyrannosaurus Rex; one based on computer models and another that is also based on computer models. We have complete skeletons of this dinosaur, so we know -far- more about the T. Rex than we know about our planet and its environment.

But this set of computer models shows distinctly different data than other computer models. Isn’t it safe to say that environmental computer models show the exact same thing? And doesn’t this bring this article into focus just a little bit more?

Paris Hilton: Video Straight from Jail

Shocking!

Written on Friday, June 8th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: Be the first to Comment

The things she is forced to go through. It’s stunning. It really is.

I’m sooo totally robbing the local Macy’s if she is in jail another day. No Justice. No Peace!

Is Sci Fi Channel Killing Sci Fi Movies?

Can they get any worse?

Written on Thursday, June 7th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: 1 Comment so far

Tonight on Sci Fi, “Dark Storm”. The premise of the movie is that a group of scientists discover a device that uses dark matter to eliminate matter, but an accident gives one scientist the ability to control weather. WTF is this about?

Guess who stars in it? Stephen Baldwin. If it’s a bad Sci Fi movie, surely he’ll be in the starring role. He’s the worst actor ever. This time, he has a retarded mustache on his face to make him look smart. Here’s the rub: he’ll look dumb regardless.

He -never- gets eaten by the monster in the movie too. I keep hoping, but nooo. Heaven forbid Sci Fi channel ever give a premise that would make me smile.

But this isn’t about Baldwin (maybe a little) as much as it is about the predictable, stupid story lines.

Guy finds ancient creature. Ancient creature kills guy. Team (consisting of: a black guy, a hot chick with huge boobs - the brains, Baldwin, and an old guy - for credibility) are sent in to deal with it. Black guy is killed first (of course). The old guy is next. The hot chick and Baldwin are trapped somewhere and start to have feelings for each other. She dies. He saves the day. The end.

We get it. We get it. Enough already, okay?

UPDATE: On the positive side; you do know what you are getting with a Sci Fi movie. Next up on Sci Fi, “Ice Spiders”. You want spiders on ice. Sci Fi delivers spiders on ice. Never a doubt as to what you are about to see. ‘Gargoyles’ - yep, its about Gargoyles. I’m still waiting for a Flying Spaghetti Monster movie or something. That’d be a step up from what we are seeing now.

Global Warming Alarmists Hate Kittens!

What’s next? Puppies?

Written on Wednesday, June 6th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: 2 Comments so far

So; this is what it’s all about, isn’t it? At first we thought it was about preserving the environment. But, later, we found out that that’s not correct. So what else could environmentalism be about? Economic control? Oppression? Keeping Al Gore busy?

Nope. It’s kittens. Environmentalists hate kittens! The cutest little creatures on earth and environmentalists want them dead.

“Cats are typically warm-weather, spring-time breeders,” said the group’s president, Kathy Warnick. “However, states that typically experience primarily longer and colder winters are now seeing shorter, warmer winters, leading to year-round breeding.”

So, environmentalists hate kittens. That settles it. If you hate global warming, then you hate kittens too.

I like kittens. Do you?

Ron Paul: 9/11 Truther Supporters

If he’s not a truther, why not condemn these people?

Written on Monday, June 4th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: 14 Comments so far

Here is a video of Ron Paul supporters outside the Democrat debate on June 3rd, 2007. They are of the “9/11 was an inside job” truther crowd. Now, Ron Paul could be a truther or he could just be a truther enabler. He does regularly appear on the Alex Jones radio show. He also has said that he believes JFK was killed by our government. That conspiracy, while easily debunked, does not bother me as much as 9/11. Your beliefs on 9/11 directly affect our national security and our future.

So, as we’ve discussed before, Ron Paul’s support seems to come from 9/11 truthers.

And this is his main problem, with me at least. Ron Paul is terrific on domestic issues - taxes, government spending, regulation, etc. But he is horrible on foreign policy. It’s short sighted. If Ron Paul seriously wanted to be a serious candidate; he could raise his stature among all Republicans (and the country, I’m sure), by denouncing the truthers and coming out and saying what he believes in regards to 9/11.

Will he?

Kyoto: A Story of Corruption and Profit

Are we really surprised?

Written on Sunday, June 3rd, 2007 by lorien1973 :: 1 Comment so far

As we previously discussed, the Kyoto treaty seeks to reduce carbon emissions through a system of carbon credits.

Quite simply, carbon credits is a concept whereby someone (or a company) is allowed to continue their lifestyle unaltered by purchasing someone else’s unused emissions. By this system, you are essentially forcing poor countries and people into a continued cycle of destitude because their ability to improve their lifestyle is hampered because a poor financial decision.

For instance, Canada wants to lower its carbon footprint, so it “buys” 10 million tons of carbon credits from Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe (by signing the Kyoto treaty) is allowed to produce 50 million tons of carbon per year, but currently only produces 40 tons of carbon. It is allowed more carbon than it produces; so it sells its 10 million tons to Canada. Now, Canada has “reduced” its carbon footprint (yay!) and Zimbabwe gets money. It’s the perfect redistribution of wealth system. But, now if Zimbabwe wants to make a power plant to power homes, businesses and improve its economy, it cannot. It is already using all of its carbon credits. To surpass that, would result in hefty fines from the UN under the Kyoto protocol. Zimbabwe is forced into a continual system of destitute because of this. And Canadians feel better about themselves. Isn’t it wonderful?

There have already been many stories about the Carbon credit industry and how its wrought with fraud. Now, we come to know that it’s far worse than expected:

The CDM is one of two global markets which have been set up in the wake of the Kyoto climate summit in 1997. Both finally started work in January 2005. Although both were launched with the claim that they would reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, evidence collected by the Guardian suggests that thus far, both markets have earned fortunes for speculators and for some of the companies which produce most greenhouse gases and yet, through a combination of teething troubles and multiple forms of malpractice and possibly fraud, they have delivered little or no benefit for the environment.

While the CDM is run under the umbrella of the UN, the second market is overseen by the European commission. Before launching, it churned through a mass of figures and produced a maximum number of tonnes of carbon dioxide which could be produced by each nation in the scheme; each nation then handed its big corporations and organisations a set number of permits - EU allocations - defining the number of tonnes of carbon dioxide they could produce between January 2005 and December 2007. But they got their sums wrong.

The carbon market’s leading analysts, Point Carbon, recently calculated that this scheme handed out 170m too many EUAs. In the early days, nobody realised quite how badly the commission had miscalculated, and so the price of the EUAs was quite high, at up to €30 a tonne. But individual companies, particularly energy companies, rapidly saw they had millions of tonnes of EUAs that they didn’t need, and so they sold their surplus, making huge profits. A 2005 report by IPA Energy Consulting found that the six UK electricity generators stood to earn some £800m in each of the three years of the scheme.

A separate report by Open Europe, in July 2006, found that UK oil companies were also poised to make a lot of free money: £10.2m for Esso; £17.9m for BP; and £20.7m for Shell. And behind this profiteering, the environmental reality was that these major producers of carbon emissions were under no pressure from the scheme to cut emissions.

So, in the end Kyoto has become the newest oil for food scandal. A few people making a ton of money, while millions of people suffer (specifically in 3rd world countries) and nothing is gained. Isn’t that typical UN behavior, though? This whole article is worth reading actually, and highlights that the people who are “most concerned” about the environment are really just concerned about making money without actually doing anything to earn it.

But it makes no difference, does it? The carbon credit industry is beset with incompetence and fraud.

One senior figure suggested there may be faults with up to 20% of the carbon credits - known as certified emissions reductions - already sold. Since these are used by European governments and corporations to justify increases in emissions, the effect is that in some cases malpractice at the CDM has added to the net amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

The problems focus on the specialist companies that validate and verify the projects in the developing world which produce the certified emission reductions. Three of those companies have failed spot checks, which revealed a catalogue of weakness.

Separately, one of the CDM’s experts calculates that as many as one third of the projects registered in India are commercial ventures which do not produce any additional cut in greenhouse gases and were wrongly approved.

Hey. But as long as we are helping the environment, its okay if someone makes a few bucks greasing the wheels right?

And, now the Europeans are in a huff because Bush doesn’t want another Kyoto boondoggle for the G8:

But the US president’s apparent about-turn on global warming last week does not fit the bill for the Germans or the EU. Merkel welcomed Bush’s belated acceptance that global warming was essentially caused by humans, but added: ‘‘As far as the concrete issues are concerned, we still have some work ahead of us.”

Above all, she made clear she would not countenance the US hijacking negotiations, insisting they must remain with the UN. That means some kind of agreement must be reached now to kick off the post-Kyoto talks due to begin in Bali in December.

Of course they want the UN involved. The UN gets a lot of money from Kyoto; and the European Commission gets a little piece on the side for its market as well. Guess we know what the real priorities are, don’t we?

Next Entries »