Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participant- your reasoning that only extremists are sincere is what’s flawed; you demand that gore build a full on solar power station, demolish and rebuild his home into a studio condo, turn into a far left tree hugging hippie replete with pachuli and a rusty schwinn before you even give him the time of day.
Said no such thing.. find where I said that.. it is you sir, who are quoting out of context. If you had bothered to check the link, you would have found that the person kept the original house, and built the solar array near the house. He also went way overboard. Kenneth Adelman generates more than 45kWh per day, Gore only needs to do half of that per month. There are simple rooftop installations that can cut ones usage down significantly!!
Also you are insulting me!! I love trees, am a little long in the hair and own a rusty schwinn!!!
Participant- Al Gore is God to liberals, ucodegen. Did you see how the audience spoke in tongues on Oscar night? They react the same way to criticism the Muslims react to Muhammad being dispicted in cartoons. They are very self-righteous and intolerant of other views. Hence the spittle.
I know, that is why I wear a hazmat uniform when talking to some of these people.. the raw vitrol spewed when you disagree.. And some of it borders on being contrary to the spirit of freedom of speech!!
Interesting thing, one of my more liberal friends commented on how the Oscars looked like such a Gore a**-kiss fest. She was quite taken aback. (She is a organic grown food, power conservation etc nut — not all conservationists/liberals are rabidly blind).
Participant@dunkle
- your comments were your own, i merely emphasized the fact that you were posting pure supposition and then used your suppositions to support your conclusion. this is what they call a “circular argument”.
I think you need to even check on how to do a circular argument, and why you avoid them..
http://www.essex.ac.uk/myskills/skills/thinking/identifyEvaluateargument.asp#11
Participant- You say: “…the charges are too low per kilowatt ($1359/18414 = $0.0738/kWh). Check your SDG&E bill and see what you pay per kWh (sum it up w/ all the charges)..” – I wonder how Tenessee rates compare to San Diego. Only when you know that relationship any compare is meaningful
Very good statement/question.. The San Diego rates are over $0.10/kWh.. and vary from bill to bill… and SDG&E is not 100% green. I also know that Green energy, on average starts at over $0.07/kWh and that is for Wind(the lower priced). I have seem some quotes of lower numbers but there is nothing backing them.. just claims. Add on top power line usage and maintenance charges (about 0.05/kWh approx).. and you are above 0.10/kWh. On average, I have seen stated that Green power is 0.02/kWh more expensive than renewable. This is also why I conditioned the statement with needs to be checked and I would say that he is not. I am not making the statement unequivocal until proven. This is one of those where someone on the board might be able to check.. I’ll have to see if I can get info from my (distant) relatives.
- I’m not sure you have substantiated this claim. You just say he’s not, but on the same vein I would say he is. Until you can prove he’s indeed not carbon neutral, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt.
I would have to disagree with you on this. Considering that the consumption is 20x, and the position he is pushing with repect to AGW.. I think he (Gore) has to prove it. He has also not told us which offset he is using (there are several).
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htmConsidering the link I posted earlier has someone whose home array can produce up to 45kWh in one day(net).. I think the figurehead of those fighting AGW and rise up to at least part of the challenge. (Solarwarrior also drives electric cars that are charged by his array). This person, in my opinion, is really carbon neutral.
Converting CO2 emissions (I would not consider it a pollution because lack of C02 can kill plants) to trade-able “good” is definitely novel.. but its effectiveness is questionable. How do you measure effective emissions of a trace gas? What percentage of revenues do these offset companies charge to administrative and marketing? How much of your money that you pay them, actually goes to offsetting the CO2 burden? How effective is the mechanism they are using?
I have priced setting up remote power using (generator, wind and solar) and have a fairly good feel on the costs. The amount that is being charged to offset by these companies is low compared to what is actually required to accomplish it.
Wind power is scalable, solar is (there was a large scale generating system near Barstow, CA). The problem is that cost per kWh is higher than burning fossil fuel.(not to mention lobby effects of fossil fuel cos).
The most effective way to reduce carbon footprint for the immediate short term (outside of conservation), is to use rooftop solar cells on corporate buildings (in SoCal). It drops the heat load on the roof during summer, reducing loads on the buildings Air Conditioners and at the same time generates electricity for the building (not the full building’s supply though). The company sees lower costs on their electric bill. One of the problems I have seen is that the producers of the units are still overcharging ($100 for a simple bracket?? my a**!!) Corporate buildings generally have large flat roofs which favor solar arrays.
The company I work in, is also swapping out all CRTs and replacing them with LCDs (for computers). It reduces power consumption at the same time it reduces heat load that the AC has to deal with (CRTs produce quite a bit of heat).
The solutions are generally simple stuff..
Participant@dunkle
It also seems that you like to theatrically quote out of context too.. Initial fragments of full sentences to try to prove things.Participant- how magnanimous of you. oh wait. the name calling started from post 1
I was only hoping it would go away, but it continued.. and it seems you like to continue it..!! I don’t call you self serving, arrogant, bull headed, idiotic or asinine.. or other terms I can think of. No where in any posts do I resort to that, nor do I do it here. It seems though, that you like to name-call.. (NOTE: you did not prove how it was self-serving either – assuming because you said so, it is so? the world operates according to ‘dunkle’s precepts??).
- given your *opinion* of carbon offsets and your ignorance of the facts, your post seems pretty meaningless to me.
You have not proven ignorance of the facts, and simply by stating, assume it is proving.. wrong.
- as if people can only be sincere if they are extremists. and yet, i bet you think islamic extremists are terrorist nutjobs and not “freedom fighters”.
Non sequitur. Does not follow line of reasoning.. try to prove by innuendo or false ‘example’?
ParticipantNow you know why I don’t post much when comments get to this stage.. too much name calling (on both sides of the camp).
That Gore is using green power from a power company, that needs to be checked. Looking at his bill, I would say that he is not because the charges are too low per kilowatt ($1359/18414 = $0.0738/kWh). Check your SDG&E bill and see what you pay per kWh (sum it up w/ all the charges)..
That he is using solar power, considering the bill, I would find that highly unlikely. The link to solarwarrior I posted earlier, shows his net use and the solar array he is using. ‘Solarwarrior’ is a net generator (puts more into the grid than he takes out). That guy is also considered rich (Net worth in excess of $500Mil when I last looked).
I don’t see why Gore, who is holding himself up as an example to follow, is not really walking the walk. The ‘offset’ accounts is a lot of bull crap(where is the money going in the end?? financing Gore’s push on AGW?). (I am not pointing to the anti-AGW crowd because they don’t believe it.. so why should they be expected to act as if they do?) On the other hand, Gore is very strong proponent of AGW, so why can’t he conduct himself accordingly? There are others with fewer resources that have done considerably better than he (most power supplied directly by renewable means). Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
ParticipantOn a previous post, (Global Warming) I was posting that global warming was not significantly due to C02 as many think.. that being said, I don’t think we can ignore energy consumption.
It was previously stated that a rich man’s consumption is intrinsically different. I disagree. If Gore truly believes what he preaches.. he would be ‘walking the walk’ as well.
To back this up.. introduce the website of someone who talks the talk AND walks the walk.. it is the website to his house, and he has it connected to his power controllers. He knows how much he is generating and consuming at any particular time.. and lets you know too!
Negative values means that he is putting that amount of energy back into the grid (net generator).
http://www2.solarwarrior.com/solarstatus.htmlThis guy made his money during the dot com period.. and some of it to literally walk the walk..
ParticipantGold is for inflation, not recession. It does not produce anything, just ‘trys’ to keep a constant value. It is also a commodity that depends upon demand from the commercial side as well.
The real question here.. is what is really safe?? Foreign got hit, US got hit, gold took a hit, US Currency has been taking hits…
Participant- This is the type of article I like. It looks like it attacks the conjecture on the reliability of Cosmic Ray Flux reconstruction, not on the actual possibility of Cosmic Rays effecting the earth’s climate.
Yes, this is how science works. Notice that articles by the cosmic ray crew were in fact published, and have some justification, and other scientists seriously consider them. Solar issues have been looked at for decades now.
I never said they weren’t. Basically it is fundamental to the whole discussion. That is why I asked for the reference.
- Real complexity in clouds was known quite a while ago (note that even with strong cloud feedback reducing temperature you will still change climate and weather enough potentially to be quite significant!)
Disagree (with respect to cloud behavior being ‘known’ enough to accurately quantify). Second sentence is contingent on the first above. Most models I have seen use a constant feedback and don’t take into account energy transport in cloud formation. It is also why I try to watch the modeling community. My opinion is that the science is still evolving. This is also why I asked about center frequency of earth blackbody emissions as measured from space.A quote from James Hansen:
It is uncertain whether the cloud feedback is positive or negative, because clouds can increase or decrease in response to climate change.
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html
Even he admits that factor is unknown. On a planet where the surface is 60% coverd by water, that is a big deal.
More:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/jp/publications/news/no23/eng/04p.html
See third paragraph…
Note: The forth assessment report is the one that just came out.Your ‘solution’ is interesting.. I think there may be quicker interim solutions and non-centralized.. ie. localized solar that will significantly help w/o too serious of an impact on the populace. Of course the established power companies will not like that.. and they are major contributors to both political parties(hedge their bets). I also think that the ‘sequestering’ of C02 is basically a non-starter. Takes energy to do most artificial forms of this.. and where will the energy come from.. more fossil fuel?
Participant- But they have eleven (ELEVEN!) scientists that say so. You seem to forget that modern science is done by voting.
I’m sorry, I’m an old timer.. I don’t get this voting thing. During Stalin’s time, we never had a chance to do the thing called voting. The government told you what to think..
- One of the predicted effects is that with GHG changes for some reason I’m not sure of right now (but it’s basic physics) that increasing GHG will reduce temperature in upper atmosphere (while increasing overall), whereas increasing solar forcing by itself will increase temperature in all the atmospheric components.
I think it was more along the lines of basic thermodynamics. GHGs trapping the heat in the lower atmosphere while helping the radiating in the upper atmosphere. (see 4th para below)http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0406.html
Some problems here, a gasses radiative ability does not depend on altitude, and is band specific. When a planetary body radiates through a gas, you see notches in the blackbody emissions from the absorption by the gases. When an gas absorbs thermal energy it will re-radiate the energy as a blackbody, but not necessarily in the same frequency it was absorbed in. Another problem is that an increase in temperature, decreases density and a decrease in temperature increases density. The least dense gas ‘wants’ to be on top (oversimplification.. but easiest way to state that a less dense gas wants to ‘float’ on a more dense gas). From the above reference:
As the amount of carbon dioxide increases, the upper atmosphere becomes cooler and contracts, bringing lower-density gas to lower heights.
But it also makes it more dense (PV = nRT, Temp in Kelvin). Temp and volume decrease, but number of moles stay constant. Atomic weight is tied to number of moles.. thereby with volume decreasing and weight constant.. increasing the density of the gas that just cooled.I think they may be trying to rely too much on Venus as an example for the process, ignoring that Venus is largely 1 gas.. CO2 (96% in the quote). And that most of the warming is probably due to surface warming (because C02s absorption is band specific and the sun’s direct emissions do not favor energy absorption by C02, but blackbody emissions do favor energy absorption by C02). On Venus, the CO2 is being heated by the surface of Venus, not the sun. As it applies to the Earth, H20 is the wildcard. On Earth, water can move significant amounts of energy through phase changes. It is also less dense than C02 at the same temperature when in a gas phase. H20 also controls the ‘iris’ of the earth. (also why I consider it a wildcard).
On surface warming, I can relate that to a black surface on a sunny winter day (no wind). The air 1 foot away from the surface is very chilly. The air 1/4 inch or less from the surface is quite warm. The transfer of energy (heating) from the surface to the air can be faster than the transfer of energy from one segment of air to the next (air is a pretty good insulator).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thercond.html
On Earth though, because of water, we don’t only have to rely on thermal conductivity of the gases to move thermal energy, we also have phase change to move thermal energy (much much more effective).It also helps that Venus is closer to the sun (in terms of temperature).
- I would like to see why these scientists “say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology.” Do they have a paper showing how the methodology is flawed?
Yes, that’s the whole point. The PR describes the paper published in the journal EOS.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_e…This is the type of article I like. It looks like it attacks the conjecture on the reliability of Cosmic Ray Flux reconstruction, not on the actual possibility of Cosmic Rays effecting the earth’s climate. It attacks the reliability of the data used to form and justify the conjecture. I’ve just gone through the first part of it.. will need to read the rest later. I like these references better than the previous one along the same lines. It argues the point instead of just saying “I’m right you’re wrong.”
As I mentioned before, I look at both sides and take things apart.. (Now where is that gudgeon pin for my 351C.. got to get it back together so I can get to work… honey, were you using my torque wrench for a hammer again?)
Participanthttp://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0405.html
I would like to see why these scientists “say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology.” Do they have a paper showing how the methodology is flawed?
Participant- Unsupported statement. I can use it because it draws upon earlier work. You can’t condemn a publication because you don’t like the publisher. You have to condemn it because it is incorrect.. and have to prove it in the process.
Wanda: To call junkscience.org stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep who could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?
Here we go again.. if instead of addressing the issue, insult the author. So is this new age science? I think someone is ‘trolling’ here.
Participant- The only point is that more greenhouse gases, means more greenhouse effect of infrared radiation coming back down from the atmosphere.
Kind of the definition of greenhouse gases.. I tend to consider them a thermal mass. After absorbing the energy in the bands corresponding to chemical bonds, they re-radiate as blackbodies in all directions.. including back down. Some of that re-radiation (if it is re-radiated in the same wavelength that the gas absorbs in, gets reabsorbed and then yet again re-re-radiated (making the whole process a potential nightmare to project/simulate)). Most of greenhouse gas re-radiation will not be in the exact same band that it was absorbed in (property of blackbody radiation), since the blackbody radiation frequency is temperature driven, and not all atoms within a sample of gas at a specific temperature will have exact same thermal energy.(shouldn’t need to reference this last sentence since it is beginning college chemistry).
-
AuthorPosts