Amazon 7 #76 March 31, 2008 QuoteOK, let me ignore the typical liberal response of "when you don't have an argument start name-calling." I'll respond to your post. ,yawn. oh puhleeeeze with your initial responses to what I THOUGHT was going to be actual discussion..I just gave up...there never is going to be any kind of discussion with the TRUE BELIEVERS. Future events will definitely not be in the best interest of bubba land....I told you so's will be saved till then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #77 March 31, 2008 Switch to alternatives. SciAm has a good article on how we could switch to solar and have it supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050. That would eliminate foreign imports completely and greatly stretch our remaining oil supplies. Obviously not cost effective for most of the country or some capitalist pig (like myself) would be trying to make money by doing it. I bike to work, and often get around on an electric bicycle that I built. I generate my own power from a solar array. I generate about twice what I use in my house and donate the rest to the grid. Our hot water is heated by a solar collector. We use recycled water to irrigate our trees and garden. We grow about 10% of our food and get about 30% from a local organic farm. Fantastic, if we could all live in southern California. BTW how big is the solar array, and what was are the aquisition and maintenance costs? How do you generate the income to be able to aford to generate power in this manner? When I do drive I use a Prius that I run on ethanol (E50.) We get 45-48mpg with it.In a new study, David Tilman, a professor of ecology at the University of Minnesota, calculates the amount of carbon-dioxide that is released into the atmosphere by the production of grain for ethanol use. He calculates that “it will take 93 years for the carbon losses from plowing one acre of healthy grassland to equal the carbon savings from corn-based ethanol produced on that land.” In other words, don’t expect ethanol to have any positive impact before the theorized global warming catastrophe has already happened At Otay, I installed an independent solar power system. It has a propane generator that they use for running the air conditioners etc. The solar power component runs the DZ the rest of the time and saves them about 10 gallons of propane a week. I've badgered people at my company to install solar, and as a result of that badgering (and the badgering of many other people) they recently installed half a megawatt of solar power on their main campus. They now have Gold-LEED certification. I'm confused a bit about campus/company. Where is this specifically? What company/university? Again, at what cost vs expected return? At work I am currently working on energy harvesting, basically using environmental energy (sound, light, motion, vibration etc) to keep portable devices charged so they do not need to be plugged in. My watch works like this. Is there another comercially viable product out there that I'm not aware of?The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #78 March 31, 2008 Quote>and a whole lot less land to pollute and breed your misguided offspring in Your one warning. Come on Bill, she said it first.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #79 March 31, 2008 QuoteAn opinion only. Not provable The nature of science is such that things can rarely be absolutely proven, only absolutely disproved. QuoteOh yes, the tried and true "most reasoanble people shut the fuck up argument Are you asserting that most reasonable people ignore available evidence when forming their opinions? QuoteNope, but that is what you want us to believe Are you claiming that those who claim man has not contributed to global warming simply don't want to be bothered with scientific studies, but we should accept their conclusions over those of scientists who choose to subject their papers to peer review? QuoteCorrelation does not move to a causation conclusion in this tipic. Nor is there "concensus" as many would want us to believe. Consensus is a shut the oposition up tactic at best. QuoteWrong again, but when info does come out the left screams they are puppets of big oil. "no reasonable people" could have this opinion What info is that, sir? Certainly if the info is credible it would pass peer review and be published in respected scientific journals. Are you suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy that thousands of scientists are involved in, trying to withhold the truth from people? Why would that be? What do scientists have to gain from such a thing? They will get funding to advance scientific knowledge regardless of whether that funding is granted for studying global warming, its causes and its effects. QuoteI think not. I await your proof we are causeing it As I previously stated, that's not how the scientific method works. QuoteYou do by the laws you want that limit drilling, the building of nuc plants, the forced implimentaion of CFL's and on and on While I'm strangely flattered that you think I have that much power, the reality is that I have only one vote, same as you. QuoteI await your proof but, yo dont need proof because you care, right? Since science is not designed to provide such proof, the best I can do is weigh the evidence, which at this point in time is fairly one-sided, and draw my own conclusion. Feel free to do the same. QuoteSee above, you are trying to force your views on others through bogus law What bogus law would that be, sir? I'm confident that if whatever law you are referring to is bogus, SCOTUS will strike it down. Our Founding Fathers had the foresight to build checks and balances of the three branches of our federal government into the Constitution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #80 March 31, 2008 >Obviously not cost effective for most of the country or some capitalist >pig (like myself) would be trying to make money by doing it. ?? Lots of capitalist pigs ARE making money doing it. Solar production is growing at a pretty fast rate (43% last year) and people around here are making a lot of money installing solar. >Fantastic, if we could all live in southern California. San Francisco and Portland have similar numbers of people on bikes. It's quite doable. In NY, Boston and DC, people take the train instead. There are a lot of solutions. > BTW how big is the solar array, and what was are the aquisition and > maintenance costs? How do you generate the income to be able to aford >to generate power in this manner? Main array is 2100 watts STC DC, secondary array is 1350 watts. I paid about $6000 for the original 1200 watt system; the other half of the cost ($12K total) was covered by the CA buydown program. For the rest of the system I paid about $8000 (over time) by tracking down good deals on Ebay and the like. On a good day I get around 3000 watts peak AC power out of the system. No maintenance costs. Occasionally I hose off the panels. How did I afford it? By being a "capitalist pig." (Going to school, getting a good job, working hard, the usual.) >In a new study, David Tilman, a professor of ecology at the University >of Minnesota, calculates . . . No argument there. A gallon of ethanol currently takes about .75 gallons of oil to generate. A gallon of gasoline takes about 2 gallons of oil to make. (In both cases, there are other usable outputs of the processes.) Ethanol is not ideal; it's just better than gasoline. >Where is this specifically? What company/university? Qualcomm in San Diego. >My watch works like this. Is there another comercially viable product >out there that I'm not aware of? Cellphones are the application. We're working on the commercially viable chargers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #81 March 31, 2008 QuoteOK, let's take the thread in a slightly different direction. Let's assume that EVERY US citizen has pulled their head out and Let's say EVERY scientist agrees the climate is warming, and EVERY scientist agrees that it's the result of human habitation. What do we do about it? What are YOU doing about it? Everybody drives electric cars. No more fossil fuel power plants. All power comes from a mix of wind, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #82 March 31, 2008 Applause, Bill. I don't think that works for all of the country, but you are doing your part. And you can be CP #2.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #83 March 31, 2008 QuoteI generate my own power from a solar array. I generate about twice what I use in my house and donate the rest to the grid. Do you mean, "sell the rest to the grid"? Or do you really give the excess away for free? Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #84 March 31, 2008 QuoteWhere is the lable? You know, one like "denier"? "Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax". To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #85 March 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhere is the lable? You know, one like "denier"? "Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax". To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that? Human activities are pumping some 28 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is approx 5 x 10^15 tons of which 0.03% (and rising) is CO2. So every year human activity is pumping into the atmosphere an additional 1.5% of CO2 above the existing level. WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE that this human activity should happen to coincide with the start of an unpredicted "natural cycle" of planetary warming.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #86 March 31, 2008 Quote Quote Where is the lable? You know, one like "denier"? "Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax". To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that? Labeling people. Denier, is an example. I am talking of a process or topic. Labeling that does not cause one to be squeamish about debate"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #87 March 31, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Where is the lable? You know, one like "denier"? "Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax". To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that? Human activities are pumping some 28 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is approx 5 x 10^15 tons of which 0.03% (and rising) is CO2. So every year human activity is pumping into the atmosphere an additional 1.5% of CO2 above the existing level. WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE that this human activity should happen to coincide with the start of an unpredicted "natural cycle" of planetary warming. As you have stated, even a stuck clock is right twice a day."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #88 March 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhere is the lable? You know, one like "denier"? "Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax". To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that? Human activities are pumping some 28 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is approx 5 x 10^15 tons of which 0.03% (and rising) is CO2. So every year human activity is pumping into the atmosphere an additional 1.5% of CO2 above the existing level. WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE that this human activity should happen to coincide with the start of an unpredicted "natural cycle" of planetary warming. It amazes me how some people ignore that fact that the most common greenhouse in the atmosphere is water vapour. Even the IPCC needs increases of water vapour to cause the amount of warming they predict. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #89 March 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhere is the lable? You know, one like "denier"? "Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax". To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that? Human activities are pumping some 28 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is approx 5 x 10^15 tons of which 0.03% (and rising) is CO2. So every year human activity is pumping into the atmosphere an additional 1.5% of CO2 above the existing level. WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE that this human activity should happen to coincide with the start of an unpredicted "natural cycle" of planetary warming. It amazes me how some people ignore that fact that the most common greenhouse in the atmosphere is water vapour. Who is ignoring it? Quote Even the IPCC needs increases of water vapour to cause the amount of warming they predict. Do you actually understand the concept of equilibrium? How about the Clausius-Clapeyron equation?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #90 March 31, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Where is the lable? You know, one like "denier"? "Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax". To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that? Human activities are pumping some 28 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is approx 5 x 10^15 tons of which 0.03% (and rising) is CO2. So every year human activity is pumping into the atmosphere an additional 1.5% of CO2 above the existing level. WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE that this human activity should happen to coincide with the start of an unpredicted "natural cycle" of planetary warming. As you have stated, even a stuck clock is right twice a day. How come no-one predicted the start of this so-called "natural cycle" until it became expedient for the deniers? If there's a cycle it must have a period, like Halley's comet (86 years) or the sunspot cycle (11 years). So what is the period of your so-called "natural cycle"? When will the next one occur?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #91 March 31, 2008 QuoteLabeling people. Denier, is an example. So is 'Hoaxer'. GW cannot be a hoax without hoaxers. By calling GW a hoax you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers. In case you are still confused, here is the definition of hoax: Something intended to deceive or defraud. You are calling pro GW climate scientists people with intention to deceive or defraud and yet you are claiming that you haven't labled anyone? What planet are you from?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #92 March 31, 2008 Quote Quote Labeling people. Denier, is an example. So is 'Hoaxer'. GW cannot be a hoax without hoaxers. By calling GW a hoax you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers. In case you are still confused, here is the definition of hoax: Something intended to deceive or defraud. You are calling pro GW climate scientists people with intention to decieve or defraud and you are claiming that you haven't labled anyone? What planet are you from? He's from IOWA - you have to make allowances. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #93 March 31, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Where is the lable? You know, one like "denier"? "Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax". To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that? Human activities are pumping some 28 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is approx 5 x 10^15 tons of which 0.03% (and rising) is CO2. So every year human activity is pumping into the atmosphere an additional 1.5% of CO2 above the existing level. WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE that this human activity should happen to coincide with the start of an unpredicted "natural cycle" of planetary warming. What a coincidence that the temperature rise in the last 50 years on OTHER planets is due to solar forcing, but the concurrent temperature rise on Earth is due to man and CO2... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #94 March 31, 2008 Shakespeare must have been thinking about gloabal warming when he came up with the play titled, "Much ado about nothing." Our world, as we know it now, may implode but it won't be due to ice ages or global warming.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #95 March 31, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where is the lable? You know, one like "denier"? "Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax". To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that? Human activities are pumping some 28 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is approx 5 x 10^15 tons of which 0.03% (and rising) is CO2. So every year human activity is pumping into the atmosphere an additional 1.5% of CO2 above the existing level. WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE that this human activity should happen to coincide with the start of an unpredicted "natural cycle" of planetary warming. It amazes me how some people ignore that fact that the most common greenhouse in the atmosphere is water vapour. Who is ignoring it? You In another thread where I corrected a statement that said CO2 was the most abundant greenhouse gas, you went of at a tangent talking about equilibrium. So I assumed you had a quibble about my correction. Quote Even the IPCC needs increases of water vapour to cause the amount of warming they predict. Do you actually understand the concept of equilibrium? How about the Clausius-Clapeyron equation? Oh yes. Do you have any concept of percentages? I think you are reading more into my comments than what I am actually saying. That's the difference between an alarmist and a climate scientist. The climate scientist would just agree with me and say my comment is not in dispute. The alarmist has to scream, "don't you understand? we are all going to die" Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #96 March 31, 2008 >Do you mean, "sell the rest to the grid"? >Or do you really give the excess away for free? I give it away for free. I could work on a cogeneration contract (they're not that hard to get) but I'm happy getting my bill to zero and just donating the rest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #97 March 31, 2008 QuoteIt amazes me how some people ignore that fact that the most common greenhouse in the atmosphere is water vapour. Even the IPCC needs increases of water vapour to cause the amount of warming they predict. Basically, water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but because CO2 will cause heating independently of water vapor, as man-made CO2 increases global heating, water vapor will increase too, boosting the amount of warming with a positive feedback loop. How much exactly is up for debate, and there’s not a long enough data series on water vapor in the atmosphere to know everything. But just because humans can’t increase or decrease water vapor in the air directly doesn’t mean that CO2 heating of the air won’t do so indirectly.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #98 March 31, 2008 > Shakespeare must have been thinking about gloabal warming when he > came up with the play titled, "Much ado about nothing." In Shakespeare's time, "nothing" was slang for "vagina" - so it was a play on words, and the play itself was about how women manipulate men by holding out the possibility of sex. ("Nothing" to do with climate change, I just thought that was a funny example to use.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #99 March 31, 2008 Quote What a coincidence that the temperature rise in the last 50 years on OTHER planets is due to solar forcing, but the concurrent temperature rise on Earth is due to man and CO2... Images of Mars suggest that between 1999 and 2005, some of the frozen carbon dioxide that covers the south polar region turned into gas (sublimated).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #100 March 31, 2008 Quote Even the IPCC needs increases of water vapour to cause the amount of warming they predict. Do you actually understand the concept of equilibrium? How about the Clausius-Clapeyron equation? Oh yes. Do you have any concept of percentages? I think you are reading more into my comments than what I am actually saying. That's the difference between an alarmist and a climate scientist. The climate scientist would just agree with me and say my comment is not in dispute. The alarmist has to scream, "don't you understand? we are all going to die" OK, so I guess it's the concept of feedback that you don't understand, since you are thoroughly familiar with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)