Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IT'S CURTAINS FOR GLOBAL WARMING
The Jerusalem Post ^ | 28 June 2002 | BRET STEPHENS

Posted on 07/03/2002 11:39:30 PM PDT by Mike Darancette

As it turns out, God really is in the details.

In 1994, David Schmidt, a young Ph.D. candidate in engineering at the University of Wisconsin, was asked by his examiners to explain why thin shower curtains "suck in" whenever the water is turned on.

The solution to the riddle, like Fermat's last theorem, proved remarkably elusive. According to one theory, "curtain suck" is the product of the Bernoulli principle, which holds that pressure drops as air, water and other fluids accelerate, leading to lift. (This same principle explains how planes fly.) Yet another theory - the bouyancy theory - holds that curtain suck is the result of a disequilibrium between the hot air inside the shower space and the cold air without, which pushes in the shower curtain. But this theory fails to account for the persistence of curtain suck when the shower is run cold.

Intrigued, Schmidt, now at the University of Massachusetts, pressed ahead with the investigation. He designed a $28,000 piece of software that allowed him to model the flow of air and water within a simulated image of his mother-in-law's bathtub. He then filled the "tub" with 50,000 tetrahedral cells, which can detect velocity and pressure. Following that, he turned on a virtual shower that flooded his virtual tub with four gallons of virtual water over a period of 30 seconds. Then he let his computer crunch the numbers.

Two weeks and 1.5 trillion calculations later, Schmidt had his answer. Aerodynamic drag causes water droplets to decelerate, transferring energy to the air and creating air currents akin to a tiny hurricane. Low pressure in the eye of that hurricane then tugs on the lower end of the shower curtain. Voila! It sucks in.

WELCOME TO the curious world of climate modeling. As Schmidt's experiment makes clear, simply to understand shifting climate patterns in the space of a bathtub is no small matter. Yet today, huge political controversies have been stirred on the basis of climate forecasts for the entire globe, stretching decades into the future. According to the Worldwatch Institute, in the 21st century "the climate battle may assume the kind of strategic importance that wars - both hot and cold - had during the 20th."

THE REST OF THE ARTICLE


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; kyoto; margaretthatcher; republican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
Long article but shows why the premis of CO2, Global Warming and Kyoto is terribly flawed.
1 posted on 07/03/2002 11:39:30 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Argh, broken link.
2 posted on 07/03/2002 11:42:58 PM PDT by ECM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Link is bad here is full article.

IT'S CURTAINS FOR GLOBAL WARMING

>From The Jerusalem Post, 28 June 2002

By BRET STEPHENS

As it turns out, God really is in the details.

In 1994, David Schmidt, a young Ph.D. candidate in engineering at the University of Wisconsin, was asked by his examiners to explain why thin shower curtains "suck in" whenever the water is turned on.

The solution to the riddle, like Fermat's last theorem, proved remarkably elusive. According to one theory, "curtain suck" is the product of the Bernoulli principle, which holds that pressure drops as air, water and other fluids accelerate, leading to lift. (This same principle explains how planes fly.) Yet another theory - the bouyancy theory - holds that curtain suck is the result of a disequilibrium between the hot air inside the shower space and the cold air without, which pushes in the shower curtain. But this theory fails to account for the persistence of curtain suck when the shower is run cold.

Intrigued, Schmidt, now at the University of Massachusetts, pressed ahead with the investigation. He designed a $28,000 piece of software that allowed him to model the flow of air and water within a simulated image of his mother-in-law's bathtub. He then filled the "tub" with 50,000 tetrahedral cells, which can detect velocity and pressure. Following that, he turned on a virtual shower that flooded his virtual tub with four gallons of virtual water over a period of 30 seconds. Then he let his computer crunch the numbers.

Two weeks and 1.5 trillion calculations later, Schmidt had his answer. Aerodynamic drag causes water droplets to decelerate, transferring energy to the air and creating air currents akin to a tiny hurricane. Low pressure in the eye of that hurricane then tugs on the lower end of the shower curtain. Voila! It sucks in.

WELCOME TO the curious world of climate modeling. As Schmidt's experiment makes clear, simply to understand shifting climate patterns in the space of a bathtub is no small matter. Yet today, huge political controversies have been stirred on the basis of climate forecasts for the entire globe, stretching decades into the future. According to the Worldwatch Institute, in the 21st century "the climate battle may assume the kind of strategic importance that wars - both hot and cold - had during the 20th."

The international fracas over US President George W. Bush's rejection last year of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change indicates that the battle is, indeed, a real one. But the question is, is the phenomenon over which the battle is being fought also real? And is it worth the agony, or even the ink?

You'd be forgiven for thinking that it is. According to Christine Todd Whitman, current head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, global warming is "one of the greatest environmental challenges we face, if not the greatest." US News & World Report has offered that "by midcentury, the chic Art Deco hotels that now line Miami's South Beach could stand waterlogged and abandoned. Malaria could be a public health threat in Vermont. Nebraska farmers could abandon their fields for lack of water." And then president Bill Clinton (in a televised, ABC News Earth Day interview with movie star Leonardo DiCaprio, no less) sketched out scenarios in which "the polar ice caps will melt more rapidly; sea levels will rise.... island nations could literally be buried."

Making the situation all the more deplorable, and giving it political edge, is the belief that changing climate patterns are largely the result of increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from man-made sources - cars, planes, factories and so on. According to CNN's Michelle Mitchell, leading climate scientists have reached "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

>From this, it follows that what men have wrought, men must undo. The Kyoto Protocol calls on industrialized nations to hold their CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, principally by placing draconian limits on all energy releasing activities and by investing massively in such alternative fuel sources as wind power and solar cells. Anything short of this, says the conventional wisdom, all but guarantees an uncomfortably hot future for posterity. Asks Bob Herbert of The New York Times: "Do you think, maybe, we should be paying more attention to this?"

THE SHORT answer is no.

If there is one thing more remarkable than the level of alarm inspired by global warming, it is the thin empirical foundations upon which the forecast rests. According to Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, the best available evidence shows that global mean temperatures have risen by a mere 0.5 degrees Celsius over the past century, and that global concentrations of CO2 over a century have also increased by a statistically insignificant percentage, to 0.036% from 0.028%.

There is abundant evidence showing significant variations in past global mean temperatures, including a spike that took place around the year 1000, long before the advent of the internal-combustion engine. (And right around the time the Vikings settled Iceland and Greenland and briefly reached North America.)

There is no evidence whatsoever showing that man-made emissions are the principal source of global warming; cyclical radiation effects caused by sunsposts make for an equally plausible cuplrit. And where there is evidence of global warming, it appears to be happening in cooler places, thereby making temperatures more mild, not more insufferable.

All this stands to reason. Currently it is impossible - and it may yet prove fundamentally impossible - to make sound predictions about global weather patterns. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, an erstwhile Greenpeace activist who turned skeptic after putting his own assumptions to the test, writes that "faithfully modeling all the important factors in the climatic system involves representing everything from the entire planet down to individual dust particles," and is therefore beyond the reach of current computational capabilities.

Adds Lindzen: "We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them."

Then, too, anecdotal evidence of global warming turns out, on closer inspection, to offer ambiguous lessons. Earlier this year, for example, came news that the massive Larsen B Antarctic ice shelf, three times the size of Hong Kong, had abruptly disintegrated, ostensibly furnishing further evidence of global warming. But then came word that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was growing at a rate of 26.8 gigatons per year, and that overall temperatures in Antarctica had declined by around 2.0 degrees Celsius.

"Continental Antarctic cooling," say researchers from the University of Illinois, "poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change."

Put simply, when it comes to climate change, much more is unknown than known, and what we do know suggests neither that mankind is on course to catastrophe, nor indeed that we could do much about it if we were. In fact, the only thing upon which climate scientists reliably agree is that the world emerged from a "little ice age" around 1880, and things have been warming, albeit slightly, with dips and variations, ever since.

Where it all might lead is anyone's guess. But simply to draw the most apocalyptic scenarios and then insist on drastic action hardly seems the most sensible way to move forward.

YET THAT is precisely what all of Europe, the Democratic party, a significant segment of the scientific community, and most other ordinarily sophisticated people seem to be doing. It's worth asking why.

Again, a little history is in order. Throughout the 1970s, the scientific consensus held that the world was entering a period of global cooling, with results equally catastrophic to those now predicted for global warming. Then, in 1988, Margaret Thatcher established the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research, largely to push the global warming theory.

The reason? Thatcher wanted to break the power of the coal miners' union and promote (non-CO2 emitting) nuclear power, and one way of doing so was to emphasize the dangers a hydrocarbons-based economy posed to the environment.

It was, however, a too-clever gambit, which the Left was bound to seize on. How could they not have? By 1988, every other fashionably leftist article of faith had proved a bugaboo. Oil was not running out. Overpopulation was not causing famines. Nuclear winter was not around the corner. But what global warming amounted to was the perfect doomsday forecast: an environmental catastrophe caused mainly by the overpolluting industrialized West, universal in its dimension, requiring massive social engineering. Global warming, like much of today's feminism, simply became another vehicle to impose the old left-wing social prescriptions. As the International Panel on Climate Control has itself admitted, debate over climate policy concerns "a wide range of issues, including development, equity, sustainability, and sustainable development."

Look at what the Kyoto Protocol proposes. Though every country is meant to be a signatory, only developed countries must abide by the Protocol's terms. The US, which by some calculations is said to emit five times as much CO2 as all of Europe combined, would bear the brunt of the treaty's costs. Meanwhile, China - the second largest emitter - would be under no obligation to make similar efforts. Countries that adopted Kyoto would need to raise gas and diesel taxes by as much as 25% in order to achieve called-for cuts in overall consumption. Electricity prices wold also have to rise by an estimated 100%.

The economic effect? The Japanese minister of environment estimated that it would likely shave off 1% of her country's GDP per annum. A study by the energy and economic consultancy DRI-WEFA estimated the costs of Kyoto to Germany and Britain at about 5% of GDP and an overall job loss of 2.8 million. Matters would only be worse if these countries also phased out nuclear power, as Germany is slated to do in the coming years.

Yet for all this, the effects of Kyoto on atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would be negligible, with temperature increases reaching "business as usual" levels by 2100, rather than by 2094. And Kyoto would just be the beginning: Jerry Mahlman of Princeton believes it would take 30 Kyotos to curb the projected rate of global warming, at a projected cost of $4 trillion per Kyoto.

EVER SINCE Malthus predicted that population growth would quickly outstrip mankind's ability to feed itself, the modern world has been routinely beset by scientific predictions of doom no less frightening, indeed more so, than what's on offer in the Book of Revelations. None yet has come to pass. Like the itinerant circus troupe in Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, humanity as a whole has always outwitted the Grim Reaper. There's no reason not to think we won't do so again, even if every grim weather forecast proves true. We are an ingenious and adaptive species, that has survived everything nature has thrown in our way. We shall do so again.

The real question is - has always been - can we survive the traps we lay for ourselves? Or will the ghosts of our mind, from which we spend so much time running, eventually consume us?

© 1995-2002, The Jerusalem Post

3 posted on 07/03/2002 11:51:28 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM
See reply #3 - sorry about that.

4 posted on 07/03/2002 11:56:47 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Thanks for the full post. Climate models are notoriously bad, and yet, we will continue to see articles predicting catastrophies based on some model or another. The real problem is that enviro-catastrophy has become a business in academia and politics.
5 posted on 07/04/2002 12:02:18 AM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Many thanks :)
6 posted on 07/04/2002 12:06:12 AM PDT by ECM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette; *Global Warming Hoax; Stand Watch Listen; RightWhale; Free the USA; Carry_Okie; ...
Then, in 1988, Margaret Thatcher established the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research, largely to push the global warming theory.

Isn't this possibly a false premise with regard to why Mrs Thatcher established the Hadley Center? Anyone have some comments on that?

Global Warming Hoax :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Global Warming Hoax , click below:
  click here >>> Global Warming Hoax <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



7 posted on 07/04/2002 12:14:03 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
"The real problem is that enviro-catastrophy has become a business in academia and politics."

It's more than a business. It's a tool to justify the relieving of your freedom based on the sky is falling and if you don't do as we say you are doomed. A lot of suckers fall for it. I don't. It wasn't that long ago that the doomsayers claimed industrial advancement was going to usher in an ice age. They can't have it both ways.

8 posted on 07/04/2002 12:17:31 AM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
fyui
9 posted on 07/04/2002 12:19:55 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
Have you noticed that every issue with the dumbocrats is a "crisis"? If it's not the "global warming crisis," it's the "AIDS crisis" or the "racial profiling crisis" or the "corporate welfare crisis." When everything is a crisis, nothing is a crisis.
10 posted on 07/04/2002 12:23:45 AM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
What the article fails to point out is that climatology is as scientific as "scientific socialism" and that the people promoting global warming have an agenda. Their goal is nothing less than the destruction of capitalism and democracy. A way to push globalism.

It is an interesting dichotomy that democracy cannot exist without capitalism while capitalism can exist without democracy.

Junk Science is nothing more than the continued promotion of the flat earth concept promoted by these ignorant utopians who see in global warming the snake oil they need to destroy capitalism and shakle us once again with failed socialism.

11 posted on 07/04/2002 12:25:32 AM PDT by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
I find it ironic as he11 that we can predict global weather patterns well into the future, but the same folks can't tell us with any degree of regulaity what the weather is going to do next week.
If we want to destroy the economy of this country all we have to do is buy into this trash science.
12 posted on 07/04/2002 12:29:40 AM PDT by dtel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
"Have you noticed that every issue with the dumbocrats is a "crisis"? If it's not the "global warming crisis," it's the "AIDS crisis" or the "racial profiling crisis" or the "corporate welfare crisis." When everything is a crisis, nothing is a crisis."

Good point. They can't hold power without a dragon to slay. If the dragon doesn't exist they make one up. Can you imagine Al Gore, Tiny Tom or Hillary slaying any dragon real or not? I can't.

13 posted on 07/04/2002 12:37:28 AM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks for throwing another log onto the Global Warming Fraud Fire.

One of these days, the funding trails and inner politics trails of these Enviral Groups will be finally nailed down.

When that happens, don't be surprised to find the Opecker Princes funding these enviral organizations world wide to prevent drilling for natural gas and oil in places like Alaska to increase the dependence on Opecker oil.

Then, don't be surprised to see all of the old commies from Russia, Europe, the UK and of course the USA/Canada writing and driving the Watermelon agendas/policies even before the USSR collapsed.

Watermelon enviral organizations = Green on the outside and very red on the inside. Add Opecker Petro dollars and you get oily and slippery Watermelon Enviral Organizations.
14 posted on 07/04/2002 5:46:10 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks for throwing another log onto the Global Warming Fraud Fire.

One of these days, the funding trails and inner politics trails of these Enviral Groups will be finally nailed down.

When that happens, don't be surprised to find the Opecker Princes funding these enviral organizations world wide to prevent drilling for natural gas and oil in places like Alaska to increase the dependence on Opecker oil.

Then, don't be surprised to see all of the old commies from Russia, Europe, the UK and of course the USA/Canada writing and driving the Watermelon agendas/policies even before the USSR collapsed.

Watermelon enviral organizations = Green on the outside and very red on the inside. Add Opecker Petro dollars and you get oily and slippery Watermelon Enviral Organizations.
15 posted on 07/04/2002 5:46:10 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Ernest_at_the_Beach
Sorry about the double post! Gee I just added to the problem of Dire Global Warming with Double Posting.
16 posted on 07/04/2002 5:47:53 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ECM
Link is working now

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S atellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPAr ticle/Full&cid=10237165624 36

(Should not be a space after S in Satellite, but it still works???)

TIP: If you have a broken link or a web page that has been pulled, take it to the WayBack Machine.

Internet Archive back to 1996

http://www.archive.org

17 posted on 07/04/2002 6:39:42 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freefly; .30Carbine; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; Ace2U; Alas; alphadog; amom; Anonymous2; ...
ping
18 posted on 07/04/2002 6:42:36 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: madfly
BTTT!!!!!
19 posted on 07/04/2002 6:48:36 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio; blackbart.223
I hate to say this, but making a crisis out of nothing is not confined to the left. We conservatives have our own set who see the end of the world just around the corner in immigration, government conspiracies of all kinds, aspartame, children's vaccines, cell phones,and on and on. Maybe people need to create crisis in order to avoid facing their boring, mundane lives. It's similar to Christians concentrating on the future "what ifs" of the last days to avoid the tougher job of daily repentance and living the Christian life.

Just a thought.

20 posted on 07/04/2002 7:10:53 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
Hillary is a dragon!
21 posted on 07/04/2002 7:57:54 AM PDT by Schatze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Global warming is a silly controversy that should have faded long ago. But gullible youth, a corrupt bureaucracy and biased media may keep it alive for years to come.
22 posted on 07/04/2002 8:01:06 AM PDT by hammerdown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks for the Ping Ernest. There are so many reasons why the "issue of" global warming is an idiot's delight, they almost equal the reasons why we earthlings have nothing to do with it. All this hysteria is is evidence that most people simply cannot manage complex concepts so revert to "the sky is falling".
23 posted on 07/04/2002 8:10:54 AM PDT by Lady Jag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Every time the Social weather prophets get all their ducks in a neat row, some dumb butterfly in Africa flaps his wings and causes a tornado in Oklahoma. "What fools we mortals be".
24 posted on 07/04/2002 8:19:15 AM PDT by Uncle George
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Making the situation all the more deplorable, and giving it political edge, is the belief that changing climate patterns are largely the result of increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from man-made sources - cars, planes, factories and so on.

This is the crux of the issue.
The extrapolations and inferences of global disasters may be right on, but it takes a huge leap in junk science faith to assert this conclusion is fact.

Did we have a global mobilization to prevent Mt. St Helens from exploding? Makes as much sense.
And Mt. St Helens was a pinprick in comparison to the energy involved in "managing" global climate.
The arrogance of the people involved in protecting the world's population from natural processes which have had infinite variability for millions of years (with no help whatsoever from humans) is beyond belief.

Can you cay controlling twits?

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C. S. Lewis

25 posted on 07/04/2002 8:50:36 AM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
I've always seen the global warming lie the same as the ESA lies.

The weatherman can hardly get todays weather right and these guys want you to believe they can predict the weather years away.

I believe there are problems that are man made. But it's due more to an elite having whole forests destroyed for quick profit,or dumping their hazradous waste in the ocean, or destructive mining, then it is a guy grilling in his back yard.

But it's the guy cooking in the back yard that gets stuck with the bill and the blame.

With education most all of the worlds problems could be solved, but we are not allowed to control that either.

26 posted on 07/04/2002 9:11:28 AM PDT by Eustace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
"...Scientific Socialism" bttt!

It's all about power; always was, always will be.

Heads on pikes! ;^)

27 posted on 07/04/2002 9:14:01 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
Have you noticed that every issue with the dumbocrats is a "crisis"?

Thomas Sowell, in "The Vision of the Anoited" points out several situations where the left manufactured a "crisis" out of thin air to drum up support for their cause. For example, before the "war on poverty" the poor people were actually acheiving gradual improvement in their situation year over year. The democrats made this a crisis when left alone, the problem was solving itself.

28 posted on 07/04/2002 9:29:34 AM PDT by KC_for_Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
thanks for the ping
29 posted on 07/04/2002 9:39:11 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Good article. Thanks! Bump.
30 posted on 07/04/2002 9:55:16 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
When that happens, don't be surprised to find the Opecker Princes funding these enviral organizations world wide to prevent drilling for natural gas and oil in places like Alaska to increase the dependence on Opecker oil.

Good point. I'd never even considered that possibility. I would be interested to see where these enviro-organizations funding comes from.

31 posted on 07/04/2002 10:07:42 AM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan; BOBTHENAILER; madfly; brityank; CedarDave
After we boot a lot of Rat senators out of office, a nice 2003 bill would be to ban any non profit from political contributions without a look back at past contributions, present and future contributions if they have contributed or plan to contribute to any political campaign. If they contribute even a $ to any future political campaign, they would have to open up their books for 20 years and future years re who is contributing to their cause.

When Da$$hole et al stopped any drilling in ANWR, Alaska, who were the winners when we did nothing to decrease our dependence on Opecker Oil? Do the elite super rich rats of the senate ever do anything without getting paid. So would the likely suspects be, if they block drilling for new oil in Alaska to lower our dependence on Opecker Oil?

Since the days of Jimmy Carter, the envirals have worked 24/7/365 to decrease our own oil productions, which has increased our dependence on Opecker Oil. Who or what group has benefited from the increased dependence on Opecker Oil?
32 posted on 07/04/2002 10:19:39 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
And they file frivilous lawsuits for the price of a postge stamp.
33 posted on 07/04/2002 10:28:27 AM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
They actually raise a lot of their money with those so called frivolous law suits. Just part of their charm and tie in with the Federal Card Carrying Druids.
34 posted on 07/04/2002 10:35:27 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
...but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences....

I love it.

35 posted on 07/04/2002 11:21:31 AM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom
Thomas Sowell, in "The Vision of the Anoited"

That is a great book!

36 posted on 07/04/2002 12:40:32 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette; madfly
Over the past several years, I have read several SCIENTIFIC, such as yours, and global warming is just a lie hoisted on us by libs. Next it will be the "sky is falling."
37 posted on 07/04/2002 3:14:12 PM PDT by Angelique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angelique
Next it will be the "sky is falling."

Actually, there is probably a higher risk of large numbers of people being killed by things falling from the sky than by the increase of man made CO2.

38 posted on 07/04/2002 3:30:14 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Aerodynamic drag causes water droplets to decelerate, transferring energy to the air and creating air currents akin to a tiny hurricane. Low pressure in the eye of that hurricane then tugs on the lower end of the shower curtain. Voila! It sucks in.

Possibly. I'd opt for a simplier explanation myself. The water rushing out of the shower head pushes the air down and under the shower curtain. Most people hang the curtain inside the tub to channel drippage. The air pushes the curtain in instead of sucks it in.

If that's true curtainsuck shouldn't be noticable with the curtain out side the tub. My curtain's too thick, but I notice a tiny bit of inward movement. When I hang it outside the tub I see none at all.

But, with a thick curtain, it's hard to tell. Maybe some out here with a thin nylon curtain would try it?

39 posted on 07/04/2002 3:56:57 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I don't know about the Hadley Center, but when I worked at Lamont on theoretical meteorology many years ago the problem, if there was one to single out, was that of a data shortage. These days, with satellites taking remote sensing readings in every way imaginable and then some, there is still a shortage of data. The planet can be modeled, but it is only a model. A Cray or mini-Cray can process an astounding amount of data compared to the old racks of computer hardware in the 60s, but the problem is still there. While meteorology isn't sexy like some other branches of physics, it has always attracted some funding. With this "crisis" approach, it is getting more funding, which is sexy, but it's neither fair nor scientific to favor a branch of physics in this way.
40 posted on 07/04/2002 4:25:27 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
LOL I think you are right. Maybe they will make pigeons an endangered species.
41 posted on 07/04/2002 4:28:09 PM PDT by Angelique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Maybe some out here with a thin nylon curtain would try it?

Preferably people with way too much free time on their hands . ;-)

42 posted on 07/04/2002 4:39:28 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: madfly
bttt
43 posted on 07/04/2002 8:16:20 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Now, that wasn't sweet. Scientific discovery supposed to be a joy in itself, well worth investigating until bankrupt and homeless.

44 posted on 07/04/2002 9:20:02 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Theres also a front page article in Discover - claiming the core of the earth is a nuclear reaction - giving off plenty of heat. The global warming model assumes a core which is cooling with time.
45 posted on 07/05/2002 5:01:30 AM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
I think the hot water coming out of the shower head quickly rises, creating a slight vacuum which pulls the shower curtain inward. (Would be interesting to try it with COLD water and see what happens...)
46 posted on 07/05/2002 1:19:00 PM PDT by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
(Would be interesting to try it with COLD water and see what happens...)

I think that was mentioned in the article. I stand on my theory, until somebody with a thin, nylon shower curtain shows up with negative results.

47 posted on 07/05/2002 3:32:53 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
>I think that was mentioned in the article.

Sorry, I should have read it more slowly.

>I stand on my theory

OK everybody, all freepers to the showers and report back here with the shower curtain results. --ggg--.

48 posted on 07/05/2002 4:49:26 PM PDT by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
You are correct. There is no flapping curtain effect if the shower stall is sealed to keep the warm air from escaping out the top.

On another note, Bettles, Alaska got a record cold 40 degrees today, and it also snowed, which is unheard of in July. June or August, sure, but not July.

49 posted on 07/05/2002 4:53:39 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
> Bettles, Alaska got a record cold 40 degrees today, and it also snowed, which is unheard of in July.

Gotta be all that global warming running around loose thats doing it. --gg--.

50 posted on 07/05/2002 6:42:18 PM PDT by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson