100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Update on Global Warming 2011 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Just some food for thought. There are three schools of speculation about how fast the Ice Age came on. The first group are the 'gradualists' who believe that the ice age took anywhere from 10 to 100 years to fully come on. Then there are researchers who with ice core evidence from Greenland AND Siberia feel that it came on in the course of a few days as in COLDER, COLDER, BLAM you are frozen. Then there is a sub faction of this group that looked hard at the evidence and said, "NOPE! It hit suddenly, everything froze damn near overnight, and it came suddenly and without warning at all!" So far the gradualists have lost the argument based on current evidence but the argument goes on as to exactly how fast it happened. So far it is vassalating hard between the 'very fast' and the 'sudden no warning' crowds! The reason behind this is more than one mammoth was found frozen on its feet literally! Most of the finds do not indicate any animals fleeing anything. Likewise they do find other animals besides mammoths frozen in the ice from time to time. A different side argument also emerged based on the evidence both from cores and frozen animals. The Ice Age did not hit in winter but came during SPRING! So if everything suddenly starts getting colder its man's fault? Global Cooling as it may be called? Elephants and Mammoths I think, don't lay down to sleep. And I question how old the mammoths found really are. I don't know the particulars but can they prove those mammoths are as old as they should be? Perhaps they came up from the Hollow earth.  I'm wondering if they just assumed they were old. Can meat stay that fresh, even if frozen, for thousands of years? Millions of years? How old are the mammoths assumed to be?
If so, why is there a shelf life on the meat in my freezer? Actually there was two mammoth finds where both animals had food in their mouths when frozen. One was sitting and the other was standing when found. Both were encased in thick ice. Another find the animal was in a laid down posture like it was hunkering down. There also have been frozen Caribou and Reindeer found also with food in their mouths. You cannot convince me that these animals even had a chance to flee south. Usually they do have some sense of weather changes enough to know to move south if a freeze was impending. I'm not committed to any particular idea of how fast the ice age came on - but I don't see a few individual frozen mammoths with food in their mouths as definite evidence of a sudden ice age. To think so is to discount extraneous circumstances that could be at play. Those individuals might have been denied the chance to flee south because of a mudslide that traps them on one side of a mountain range, or a river that change its course, or a land bridge that became submerged... they could have survived, barely for generations in an less-than-ideal environment before a sudden (but local) event brought on their death. I'm not arguing against a sudden ice age, in fact I knew climate researches who said their models supported this possibility (thought their concept of 'sudden' wasn't 'in the spring time' but simply over the course of a few years rather than hundreds of years). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I don't think the debate is all that important to me, but it can't hurt to clean up the air and take care of the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm remaining 50/50 about this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you see someone post on a website that "global warming isn't true" or "the sky is falling" or any number of other comments designed to show their contempt that a massive problem identified and studied by the vast majority of the world scientists involved in that type of work, it shows the effectiveness of the misinformation campaign that has been waged for years. Significant changes to our lifestyles and economy to adjust for global warming hurts some big businesses. The National Academy of Science, NASA, the top oceanographic institutes like Woods Hole and Scripts, NOAA, and hundreds of major universities are not saying the same thing because they are stupid. A very very small percentage of "experts" (and many are not) say this overwhelming group is wrong about Global Warming because they are paid do so. When you see posted data that "proves" global warming is not happening it always contains data for a small part of the problem, like just the land temperature. The oceans are the Earth's heat sink and, not only are they warming, their chemistry is changing. The oceans' warm energy is released in the form of warm moist air which is what cause severe unstable weather. We are having a lot of that. The cures for production of greenhouse gasses have been known for years but the technology hasn't caught up yet. Politics always plays a major role in the solution or failure to solve the problem. If, for example, the US would build 100 nuclear power plants and switch a majority of it's cars to electric and plug-in hybrid, there would no longer be a need for foreign oil imports but the 300 to 500 billion dollar cost is viewed as prohibitive. After Japan's recent experience, I doubt any new nuclear plants will be built. The US has long had the technology to run cars on compressed natural gas instead of gasoline. Honda even produced the Civic CRX ready to go and congress never mandated the change. Many utilities have run their trucks on compressed natural gas for years. This one change alone would greatly reduce the need for foreign oil but would not reduce the burning of fossil fuel. The technology was developed recently to clean up the smoke stacks of coal fueled power plants by two different methods. The first separates and liquefies the CO2 to be pumped underground for permanent storage. This method is easy but isn't free so it increases the cost of electricity produced by coal. The other method bubbles the stack exhaust through sea water causing the CO2 to react with the minerals in sea water to produce cement, which we need and produce in huge quantities anyway. I understand a pilot plant is being built. If you remove the evils of coal power and automotive fuel from the majority (not all) of the CO2 production, the problem is greatly minimized, perhaps to the point where natural processes can catch back up. The biggest problem with global warming is disinformation. We do not have enough information to make a evaluation whether or not man kind is contributing to global warming. It is exactly like Chicken Little running around freaking out cause an acorn bonked him on the head. No I am not in total disagreement BUT there is not anywhere near enough evidence to prove it yet either. Everyone blows CO2 emission up our skirts like we are facing a recurrence of the black plague. ON top of that CO2 is consumed by plant life. METHANE IS NOT! You want a real problem to face, try our use of Nuclear power. At least with an oil spill we can clean that up. We cannot effectively clean up after a melt down. How about being worried about a pollutant with a half life of MILLIONS OF YEARS? Sorry but weather patterns change. The Earth constantly changes. Look at Japan. 1/4 of their eastern coastline on the main island sunk 2 feet and moved 13 feet to the North in that last earthquake! So are we going to blame mankind for increased Vulcanism too? Ozone depletion by CFCs was proven and experiments likewise confirmed the evidence. That was more than just data accumulation. There are FAR too many variables the propeller heads do not take into account, solar activity, geological activity, historical evidence (geological and written), and other factors they seem to overlook or interpret to fit what THEY think is going on. Global warming instigated by man does not have enough concrete proof to have me believe in it. Change is the only constant in life. Your post is one of of absolute ignorance. One of many I might add. It is quite similar to your posts on why compact florescent lights should not be used. Every intelligent source knows better. There is abundant concrete proof of everything the National Academy of Science report says. (That is their point!) Too bad you never read the updates from NASA. However, your comment about "propeller heads" says it all. You don't have the ability to understand science so you prop up your ego by bashing those who do and make up your own science to look "big". All of the actual geological and historical evidence backs up the real science of global warming. It is you who don't understand. My such bitter and biting words from someone who boasts to be educated? Please, put the pretense aside. You ACT like you know everything acting like this. Don't call me ignorant. I am in the business of cleaning up smarter people's messes! Do you think tank maintenance is all about a little scrubbing and a water change, toss in some chems and everything is all good? PLEASE! I too have a college education. And among circles in my profession the people with degrees have more than once been forced to bow to MY intellectual Kung Fu. It is hard to shut my mouth when I am right. Note I did not say when I THINK I AM RIGHT! There are times I KNOW I am right. And others I know I may not be right but I am right to not except speculative data. ANY AND ALL DATA CAN BE TAILORED TO MEET A RESULTANT CRITERIA BEFORE THE EVIDENCE IS FULLY IN! So in calling me ignorant you just branded yourself as the ignorant person here. Not once did I say I wholly disagree but I have not seen enough information and experimentation to prove the effect as it is being presented. As a man made phenomenon goes we might be partially contributory but NOT WHOLLY no matter how much you want to try to use words with passion and anger to prove your argument. So are you ready to come down from your panic attack enough to constructively debate this or are you going to go the rout that people tried to pull on me in the Political forums? I can get jiggy with that too! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you see someone post on a website that "global warming isn't true" or "the sky is falling" or any number of other comments designed to show their contempt that a massive problem identified and studied by the vast majority of the world scientists involved in that type of work, it shows the effectiveness of the misinformation campaign that has been waged for years. Significant changes to our lifestyles and economy to adjust for global warming hurts some big businesses. The National Academy of Science, NASA, the top oceanographic institutes like Woods Hole and Scripts, NOAA, and hundreds of major universities are not saying the same thing because they are stupid. A very very small percentage of "experts" (and many are not) say this overwhelming group is wrong about Global Warming because they are paid do so. When you see posted data that "proves" global warming is not happening it always contains data for a small part of the problem, like just the land temperature. The oceans are the Earth's heat sink and, not only are they warming, their chemistry is changing. The oceans' warm energy is released in the form of warm moist air which is what cause severe unstable weather. We are having a lot of that. The cures for production of greenhouse gasses have been known for years but the technology hasn't caught up yet. Politics always plays a major role in the solution or failure to solve the problem. If, for example, the US would build 100 nuclear power plants and switch a majority of it's cars to electric and plug-in hybrid, there would no longer be a need for foreign oil imports but the 300 to 500 billion dollar cost is viewed as prohibitive. After Japan's recent experience, I doubt any new nuclear plants will be built. The US has long had the technology to run cars on compressed natural gas instead of gasoline. Honda even produced the Civic CRX ready to go and congress never mandated the change. Many utilities have run their trucks on compressed natural gas for years. This one change alone would greatly reduce the need for foreign oil but would not reduce the burning of fossil fuel. The technology was developed recently to clean up the smoke stacks of coal fueled power plants by two different methods. The first separates and liquefies the CO2 to be pumped underground for permanent storage. This method is easy but isn't free so it increases the cost of electricity produced by coal. The other method bubbles the stack exhaust through sea water causing the CO2 to react with the minerals in sea water to produce cement, which we need and produce in huge quantities anyway. I understand a pilot plant is being built. If you remove the evils of coal power and automotive fuel from the majority (not all) of the CO2 production, the problem is greatly minimized, perhaps to the point where natural processes can catch back up. The biggest problem with global warming is disinformation. We do not have enough information to make a evaluation whether or not man kind is contributing to global warming. It is exactly like Chicken Little running around freaking out cause an acorn bonked him on the head. No I am not in total disagreement BUT there is not anywhere near enough evidence to prove it yet either. Everyone blows CO2 emission up our skirts like we are facing a recurrence of the black plague. ON top of that CO2 is consumed by plant life. METHANE IS NOT! You want a real problem to face, try our use of Nuclear power. At least with an oil spill we can clean that up. We cannot effectively clean up after a melt down. How about being worried about a pollutant with a half life of MILLIONS OF YEARS? Sorry but weather patterns change. The Earth constantly changes. Look at Japan. 1/4 of their eastern coastline on the main island sunk 2 feet and moved 13 feet to the North in that last earthquake! So are we going to blame mankind for increased Vulcanism too? Ozone depletion by CFCs was proven and experiments likewise confirmed the evidence. That was more than just data accumulation. There are FAR too many variables the propeller heads do not take into account, solar activity, geological activity, historical evidence (geological and written), and other factors they seem to overlook or interpret to fit what THEY think is going on. Global warming instigated by man does not have enough concrete proof to have me believe in it. Change is the only constant in life. Your post is one of of absolute ignorance. One of many I might add. It is quite similar to your posts on why compact florescent lights should not be used. Every intelligent source knows better. There is abundant concrete proof of everything the National Academy of Science report says. (That is their point!) Too bad you never read the updates from NASA. However, your comment about "propeller heads" says it all. You don't have the ability to understand science so you prop up your ego by bashing those who do and make up your own science to look "big". All of the actual geological and historical evidence backs up the real science of global warming. It is you who don't understand. And speaking of ignorance, do you have any clue how thermal dynamics works and do you know what a refrigeration cycle is? I could go into lengthy explanations for weeks about the mechanics of weather and terrain but what would you care? You got NO clue what you are up against arguing with me like this! Bring it civilly please! This is not politics! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is quite similar to your posts on why compact florescent lights should not be used.
They shouldn't be used until someone starts making them in America. They are all made in China. I buy American. Plus there are a lot of other reasons. They have mercury, they are not safe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is abundant concrete proof of everything the National Academy of Science report says. (That is their point!) Too bad you never read the updates from NASA.
Nasa? NASA who covers up and air brushes out UFOs ? You have faith in them? It seems like you have chosen your religion. And you have so much faith in it! And you preach with such passion. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About CFL lights. Let us review how environmentally friendly they are.
First of all they require a ceramic base or porcelain base to work. Why, it has to house electronic circuitry built into the bulb. Ceramics must be fired in an oven to harden them. It takes a LOT of BTU's to effect firing ceramic. Why MUST ceramic be used? PLASTIC CANNOT TAKE THE HEAT GENERATED BY THE CIRCUIT NEEDED TO POWER THE BULB FROM 110 VOLTS! Next is the fact they need a circuit to energize (start) the bulb in the first place and to maintain the high internal voltage to maintain the light. It may use very little wattage BUT the circuit still generates a lot of heat converting 110VAC to over 30,000V at less than 25mA. The circuit needs epoxies, lead, and a number of other heavy metals to make up the circuit board. Now for the bulb itself. The Phosphors are made up of a number of toxic elements and the bulb contain Mercury! Now lets compare an Incandescent bulb. The base is a metal socket with an insulator typically cork or something else between the base and glass envelope. I have seen a pseudo ceramic used as well as epoxy. Nothing fancy. The bulb itself is glass with a Tungsten wire in it and the glass is filled with VACUUM! Incandescent bulbs ARE CHEAP AS HELL to manufacture. What so many screws who preach environmental responsibility seem to forget that cost of manufacture is not included in cost of Operation! In essence it is like saying that it is OK to have a Plutonium powered TV because it powers itself and does not need to be plugged in, yet forgetting you are housing a nuclear bomb and a potential life threatening substance in your house in the name of efficiency. MERCURY IS BAD STUFF! It is toxic in trace amounts. It is gaseous in the bulbs and when broken they release mercury exposing any in the room to it. There is a reason why we don't make CFL lights here, our own environmental laws prevent it! Why? MERCURY IS POISONOUS AND DANGEROUS! Incandescent bulbs are not as environmentally unfriendly as people think they are and you can always downgrade the bulb wattage to conserve power. We also make them in America and dirt cheap too. It is not efficient when a technology requires huge amounts of power to go into the production of something that uses less power. The savings later are lost up front in manufacture. So argue all you want about this. My points are valid as they get! On top of that they (CFL Lights) are made only in China now. So we pay through the nose for over priced light bulbs to make some tree hugger happy? PISHAW! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What so many screws who preach environmental responsibility seem to forget that cost of manufacture is not included in cost of Operation! There are all kinds of environmentalists, including wingnuts and some very sensible, intelligent, well informed people. There are many aspects to the issue of CF vs incandescent, and while it is important to look at 'manufacturing energy cost' vs 'lifetime energy savings', CF bulbs that are used for their entire lifespan definitely win in this area. Remember, individual CF bulbs last about 10 times longer than comparable incandescent bulbs - so we must compare the manufacturing costs not of 1 CF and 1 incandescent, but of 1 CF vs 10 incandescents. MERCURY IS BAD STUFF! This is true, but this raises the question of which do you value more? Avoiding the harm of mercury, or avoiding the harm of a myriad of other negative aspects of energy production? Either answer can be defended. In a region that has a lot of 'clean' energy, that subjective decision may play out differently than those that live in coal country. IIRC, burning coal releases trace amounts mercury into the air, mining coal releases mercury into our water. Incandescent bulbs are not as environmentally unfriendly as people think they are and you can always downgrade the bulb wattage to conserve power. We also make them in America and dirt cheap too. I think they are awful. You have only to look at the heat they produce to see immediately how inefficient they are. I think they are expensive, given the frequency with which you have to replace them. My room is lit exclusively with LED lights. So we pay through the nose for over priced light bulbs
I don't know why you keep saying that CFs are expensive. A while back, before I switched to LED, I got them for about a $1 each. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndyBgood
on
Wed 05/04/11 06:14 PM
|
|
My room is lit exclusively with LED lights. And why we don't do more research in better LED lighting is way beyond me! LEDs are horrendously more efficient and less expensive to make! AND THEY ARE SAFER! So we pay through the nose for over priced light bulbs
I don't know why you keep saying that CFs are expensive. A while back, before I switched to LED, I got them for about a $1 each. They are about $4 each here. Right now LED lighting is more expensive up front but they last for years and use so much less power per lumen! BUT BUT BUT I can get LED lighting that has a remote control to change colors! SHOW ME A CFC LIGHT THAT CAN DO THAT! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is quite similar to your posts on why compact florescent lights should not be used.
They shouldn't be used until someone starts making them in America. They are all made in China. I buy American. Plus there are a lot of other reasons. They have mercury, they are not safe. You really buy only American! You might be surprised what it really means to buy American because we don't have much textile industry here and here, in fact almost all the wool from America is exported and then we buy back cotten in bolts to assemble here. Your computer and monitor and your cell phone and many other products are not safe in our landfills either. In fact they need to be disassembled and handled safely. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm We waste so much of our limited natural resources. In Scotland they have a new energy plant - it runs on whiskey. I wonder how much energy goes into making the whiskey?? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is very interesting and I think if we let them, these young people may have a chance for a better future than the one we seem bent on leaving them.
http://climate.the-environmentalist.org/2011/05/defending-atmosphere-part-1.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateOnTheEnvironmentalist+%28Climate+on+THE+ENVIRONMENTALIST%29 Defending the Atmosphere
The Environmentalist - Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 2:15 by William S. Becker PART I Last February, three Republican leaders in Congress filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that when it comes to global climate change, judges and Justices should mind their own business. The courts are about to get a different message. Starting on May 4, young people in the United States and several other countries will file petitions and lawsuits in an effort to force public officials into protecting us all from climate change. The international legal intervention – the sponsors call it guerrilla law – is believed to be the first of its kind. It is being organized by Our Children’s Trust in Eugene, Oregon. It’s part of a broader campaign that will include “iMatter” marches by young people around the world May 7-14, the brainchild of 16-year-old Alec Loorz of California. Behind these demonstrations and legal actions is a principle that goes back to Roman law: the “pubic trust doctrine”. The doctrine holds that government officials are “trustees of the commons” with a fiduciary responsibility to protect critical natural resources on behalf of present and future generations. Attorneys working on the campaign will ask the courts to rule that the atmosphere is one of those critical resources. More concretely, the lawsuits will ask that public officials be required to create plans to return atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million, the level scientists such as NASA’s Jim Hansen say is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. The court action is meant to empower young people who have the most to lose from climate change but are too young to vote. Loorz explains it this way: Young people will be affected most by decisions that are made today and yet we can’t vote and we don’t have money to compete with lobbyists. We do, however, have the moral authority and the legal right to insist that our future be protected. A more technical explanation of the atmospheric trust idea is included in a book being written by the author of the concept, University of Oregon law professor Mary Christina Wood. She argues: The legal foothold for Atmospheric Trust Litigation (ATL) is the ancient public trust doctrine, which imposes a strict fiduciary obligation on government to protect natural resources in trust for the citizens. As a legal doctrine, the public trust compels protection of those ecological assets necessary for public survival and community welfare. The judicial branch should hold government to its legal responsibilities. So far, however, though many lawsuits have been filed, none have forced the carbon reduction needed to curb runaway atmospheric heating… What power do judges have to enforce the doctrine? Through injunctive powers, Wood says, courts won’t tell government how to lower carbon emissions, but they can insist that governments show they are meeting their bottom-line responsibility to the citizens. Which brings us back to the U.S. Supreme Court and the three Republicans. The high court is considering American Power v. Connecticut, a lawsuit by several states and organizations that contend major emitters of carbon dioxide are a “public nuisance”. The claim was upheld by the Court of Appeals, but energy companies and the federal government have asked the Supreme Court to rule that climate policy is a “political question” that must be resolved by Congress and the President. The parties argued the case before the Justices on April 19. The “public nuisance” and “public trust” lawsuits are different approaches to the same basic goal: to get the courts to act where policy makers and lawmakers have failed on the most important intergenerational issue of our time. We can expect an aggressive counter-offensive by the fossil energy lobby and by members of Congress, who will claim their opposition to court intervention is a matter of principle rather than vested-interest politics. In Part 2, I’ll anticipate and offer a reality check on some of those arguments. PART II Part II is interesting too that’s why I posted the url. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right now LED lighting is more expensive up front but they last for years and use so much less power per lumen! BUT BUT BUT I can get LED lighting that has a remote control to change colors! SHOW ME A CFC LIGHT THAT CAN DO THAT! Yeah, I'm not sure how LED fares for total cost over lifetime - I just like them because they are super efficient. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 05/04/11 09:53 PM
|
|
It is quite similar to your posts on why compact florescent lights should not be used.
They shouldn't be used until someone starts making them in America. They are all made in China. I buy American. Plus there are a lot of other reasons. They have mercury, they are not safe. You really buy only American! You might be surprised what it really means to buy American because we don't have much textile industry here and here, in fact almost all the wool from America is exported and then we buy back cotten in bolts to assemble here. Your computer and monitor and your cell phone and many other products are not safe in our landfills either. In fact they need to be disassembled and handled safely. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm We waste so much of our limited natural resources. In Scotland they have a new energy plant - it runs on whiskey. I wonder how much energy goes into making the whiskey??
Lets just say that I TRY to buy American when I have a choice. I read labels. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am building a gas powered bicycle. The engine is Japanese (Honda GXH50) and the transmission is American (EZM Q-Matic). The Chinese engine is LESS than half the price of the Honda engine and the Chinese engine is called a Honda Clone. It really is ta boot. The Chinese Transmission is also less than half the price. What I paid for is known durability. I don't like getting stuck on the road. I spent close to $800 on the power plant alone not counting needed peripheral parts. That is a little over another $400. Only the headlights on the bike are Chinese.
The Chinese engine does have comparable performance up front and also has been proving to be fairly durable BUT MY ENGINE IS COMPLIANT WITH CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS, THE CHINESE ENGINE IS NOT! So I spent extra money to be environmentally complaint. Of all the Gas Bikes out there I am one of the few sporting a real California Compliant engine. So in all reality what I paid more for was being ahead of the curve on Environmental compliance. Why? I don't want to give any fuel to the eco-weenies who want to wave Global Warming in our faces. Likewise I don't want to find out the hard way some hidden law can get me screwed for money for having some kind of polluting vehicle on the road. I could have also built a 2 stroke for MUCH cheaper but reliability and having to mix oil in my fuel were two issues. Another is that this state HATES 2 stroke engines. Many lakes here in California will not even allow boats with 2 stroke engines on them thanks to our Environmental laws. I agree with the idea we need to clean things up but decreasing engine size is one way of cutting down on pollution! What sucked is I had to order MOST of my parts from out of state! You do not just slap an engine on a bicycle. California's EPA laws prevent the sale of Gas Bike Parts here and the real SUCKY thing is to add insult to injury there are three outfits in California selling Gas bike parts and they DON'T sell to California! there is one who will sell anything but the 2 stroke engine kits! NO BIGGIE! California lost sales tax revenue thanks to their own damn laws! Jerry Brown can suck it! 
This just illustrates the counter intuitive logic that is associated with Global Warming. That and I also am not a cheap bastard when it comes to building a real road worthy vehicle! A gas powered bicycle does not need to be insured or registered as long as it is under 49cc. But the fact is we all have to cut back before we cut ourselves completely off. Heck, back in the 1960's Firestone tires had a tire guaranteed to get 100,000 miles a set. They did get that. But Firestone also found out their sales dropped because their tires lasted too long. To me CFL lights are an intermediate answer to a real problem where the real money should be spent on LEDs we spend on the more dangerous and not as efficient solution. Take my Mag Light flashlight for example. I replaced a $6 25 watt incandescent light bulb out for a $12 1 watt LED bulb. My batteries should last for two days continuous on 6 D cells where the incandescent would get me only 6 hours continuous use. I am also getting almost three times the light from a 1 watt LED bulb! And the bulb is expected to last YEARS!
There is no way 6 d cell batteries could power a 20 watt CFL and it would take at least a 15 watt CFL to give off equivalent light. My Mag light is painfully bright now with 1 watt of power!!! I can get a bulb that is 3 watt and make my Maglight a damn light saber! With LED lights the force IS with you. CFL is the Dark SIDE! Yes it is powerful but not as powerful as an LED! And also Global Warming is not proven enough yet to be taken as a reason to freak out and panic and make all these knee jerk changes. besides, China is polluting like hell. Who is convincing them to clean up? The AQMD? How about the EPA? <------Rubbing chin-------  !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OP, you got your buzzword wrong. You're supposed to say "Global Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming" because the former hasn't withstood rigorous scientific tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OP, you got your buzzword wrong. You're supposed to say "Global Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming" because the former hasn't withstood rigorous scientific tests.
The earth's climate has always changed. Sea levels have risen and fallen. Heck, there was a time on this planet when animal life did scurry on the surface but the atmosphere would be completely unbreakable by our standards today. Why? It was so humid that you would have literally drown in a few hours breathing the air. It was the precursor to the age of the Great insects where dragonflies were three feet across, spiders were the size of small pigs, and millipedes were 12 feet long. By the age of great insects the air had dried out, sea levels rose, but the O2 content was through the roof supporting huge insects. These changes were over the course of millions of years, granted BUT periods of ice and intense super drought also have happened for very very long periods of history but came on suddenly n some cases. Also China and other industrial (2nd and 3rd world) nations have no environmental policy what so ever. For our changes to work it takes all the other nations to work with us but since there is no real cooperation well, its only a matter of time before something snaps and I think Yellowstone going BANG will be a very defining moment in human history! Wonder if we have it in us to survive a disaster of that caliber? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many trees did you plant this year? I planted 20 trees. That's my contribution to CO2. So far about 80 in the past 7 months, I have another 10 arriving this week...but I am greedy....each tree is either edible by humans,insects or animals, or create habitat for all.. I also have a huge carbon footprint to compensate for, in the moving of this house, the renovations...each element of it...so I am not some altruistic saint, far from it!...I greedily want food forests, and to somehow tread a little lighter on the planet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Save a tree...
EAT A BEAVER! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you see someone post on a website that "global warming isn't true" or "the sky is falling" or any number of other comments designed to show their contempt that a massive problem identified and studied by the vast majority of the world scientists involved in that type of work, it shows the effectiveness of the misinformation campaign that has been waged for years. Significant changes to our lifestyles and economy to adjust for global warming hurts some big businesses. The National Academy of Science, NASA, the top oceanographic institutes like Woods Hole and Scripts, NOAA, and hundreds of major universities are not saying the same thing because they are stupid. A very very small percentage of "experts" (and many are not) say this overwhelming group is wrong about Global Warming because they are paid do so. When you see posted data that "proves" global warming is not happening it always contains data for a small part of the problem, like just the land temperature. The oceans are the Earth's heat sink and, not only are they warming, their chemistry is changing. The oceans' warm energy is released in the form of warm moist air which is what cause severe unstable weather. We are having a lot of that. The cures for production of greenhouse gasses have been known for years but the technology hasn't caught up yet. Politics always plays a major role in the solution or failure to solve the problem. If, for example, the US would build 100 nuclear power plants and switch a majority of it's cars to electric and plug-in hybrid, there would no longer be a need for foreign oil imports but the 300 to 500 billion dollar cost is viewed as prohibitive. After Japan's recent experience, I doubt any new nuclear plants will be built. The US has long had the technology to run cars on compressed natural gas instead of gasoline. Honda even produced the Civic CRX ready to go and congress never mandated the change. Many utilities have run their trucks on compressed natural gas for years. This one change alone would greatly reduce the need for foreign oil but would not reduce the burning of fossil fuel. The technology was developed recently to clean up the smoke stacks of coal fueled power plants by two different methods. The first separates and liquefies the CO2 to be pumped underground for permanent storage. This method is easy but isn't free so it increases the cost of electricity produced by coal. The other method bubbles the stack exhaust through sea water causing the CO2 to react with the minerals in sea water to produce cement, which we need and produce in huge quantities anyway. I understand a pilot plant is being built. If you remove the evils of coal power and automotive fuel from the majority (not all) of the CO2 production, the problem is greatly minimized, perhaps to the point where natural processes can catch back up. The biggest problem with global warming is disinformation. We do not have enough information to make a evaluation whether or not man kind is contributing to global warming. It is exactly like Chicken Little running around freaking out cause an acorn bonked him on the head. No I am not in total disagreement BUT there is not anywhere near enough evidence to prove it yet either. Everyone blows CO2 emission up our skirts like we are facing a recurrence of the black plague. ON top of that CO2 is consumed by plant life. METHANE IS NOT! You want a real problem to face, try our use of Nuclear power. At least with an oil spill we can clean that up. We cannot effectively clean up after a melt down. How about being worried about a pollutant with a half life of MILLIONS OF YEARS? Sorry but weather patterns change. The Earth constantly changes. Look at Japan. 1/4 of their eastern coastline on the main island sunk 2 feet and moved 13 feet to the North in that last earthquake! So are we going to blame mankind for increased Vulcanism too? Ozone depletion by CFCs was proven and experiments likewise confirmed the evidence. That was more than just data accumulation. There are FAR too many variables the propeller heads do not take into account, solar activity, geological activity, historical evidence (geological and written), and other factors they seem to overlook or interpret to fit what THEY think is going on. Global warming instigated by man does not have enough concrete proof to have me believe in it. Change is the only constant in life. Your post is one of of absolute ignorance. One of many I might add. It is quite similar to your posts on why compact florescent lights should not be used. Every intelligent source knows better. There is abundant concrete proof of everything the National Academy of Science report says. (That is their point!) Too bad you never read the updates from NASA. However, your comment about "propeller heads" says it all. You don't have the ability to understand science so you prop up your ego by bashing those who do and make up your own science to look "big". All of the actual geological and historical evidence backs up the real science of global warming. It is you who don't understand. My such bitter and biting words from someone who boasts to be educated? Please, put the pretense aside. You ACT like you know everything acting like this. Don't call me ignorant. I am in the business of cleaning up smarter people's messes! Do you think tank maintenance is all about a little scrubbing and a water change, toss in some chems and everything is all good? PLEASE! I too have a college education. And among circles in my profession the people with degrees have more than once been forced to bow to MY intellectual Kung Fu. It is hard to shut my mouth when I am right. Note I did not say when I THINK I AM RIGHT! There are times I KNOW I am right. And others I know I may not be right but I am right to not except speculative data. ANY AND ALL DATA CAN BE TAILORED TO MEET A RESULTANT CRITERIA BEFORE THE EVIDENCE IS FULLY IN! So in calling me ignorant you just branded yourself as the ignorant person here. Not once did I say I wholly disagree but I have not seen enough information and experimentation to prove the effect as it is being presented. As a man made phenomenon goes we might be partially contributory but NOT WHOLLY no matter how much you want to try to use words with passion and anger to prove your argument. So are you ready to come down from your panic attack enough to constructively debate this or are you going to go the rout that people tried to pull on me in the Political forums? I can get jiggy with that too! Your ignorance is absolute. This is a science thread in the science thread section. When you post garbage as fact, you are simply lying. It would appear you have enough education to write but not nearly enough science education to discuss the subject intelligently. Therefore, you simply make up "facts" as you see fit due to an apparent lack of integrity. You don't know how the science was done, you don't know how credible it is, you really don't know anything about global warming at all, but you claim to know it is bunk. Back up your statements with facts instead of garbage. This isn't the political forums. This is exactly like the garbage you posted on the Compact Fluorescent lights. Tell us again how much they harm the environment. |
|
|
|
|
