71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 08:29 am
I already noticed that you are wellinformed, okie.

But I'd never had the idea that it really was only due to your guesses.

Keep your good guessing going on - America needs such well informed people!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 08:30 am
Out of curiosity, I went back and looked at your post closer, and sure enough, I got all 3 increased problems right that I named, plus they have more of course.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 08:34 am
By the way, Walter, how do you explain increasing life expectancy during the past century while temperatures are rising? But never mind, I guess that isn't pertinent I don't suppose?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 08:52 am
okie wrote:
By the way, Walter, how do you explain increasing life expectancy during the past century while temperatures are rising? But never mind, I guess that isn't pertinent I don't suppose?

It must be obvious to a prodigious thinker like you okie.. Warmer weather means that people are less likely to get sick after a bath. Being wet when it is cold is what causes the flu, don't you know?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 09:58 am
parados wrote:
okie wrote:
By the way, Walter, how do you explain increasing life expectancy during the past century while temperatures are rising? But never mind, I guess that isn't pertinent I don't suppose?

It must be obvious to a prodigious thinker like you okie.. Warmer weather means that people are less likely to get sick after a bath. Being wet when it is cold is what causes the flu, don't you know?

Your point sounds almost good enough to get a grant to do more "scientific research," Parados, I would say give it a whirl, the U.N. might pay for it.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:29 am
In other news, snowblowers work better when you put gas in them!!!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:46 am
Well it appears they didn't agree on anything in Bali and we won't be seeing the solution for two more years, but they've apparently solved global warming:

Excerpt
Quote:
The European Union went to the conference demanding that industrialised nations commit to cuts in CO2 emissions of 25-40 per cent by 2020, a stance which was strongly opposed by the US, Canada and Japan.

America's representatives had also been jeered for insisting on firmer commitments from developing countries --despite President Bush's refusal to sign up to the previous targets laid down in the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

In the end, a compromise was reached with a text that did not mention specific targets but acknowledged that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required".

A wave of relief swept the hall as US delegation chief Paula Dobriansky finally declared: "The United States is very committed to this effort and just wants to really ensure we all act together.

"With that, Mr Chairman, let me say to you we will go forward and join consensus."

The resulting treaty, known as the "Bali road map", sets in motion a two-year process of negotiations designed to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Under the deal, a new pact will be agreed at a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009.

By then, members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - the organisation of which de Boer is executive secretary - should have agreed on a comprehensive plan involving wealthy and developing nations.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the Bali deal as "an historic breakthrough" and a "huge step forward" in tackling climate change.

ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:47 am
cjhsa wrote:
In other news, snowblowers work better when you put gas in them!!!


What if its an electric one?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 12:13 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well it appears they didn't agree on anything in Bali and we won't be seeing the solution for two more years, but they've apparently solved global warming.


They agreed on a bad compromise.

It the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, but neither a 'solution' nor the 'solving of global warming' was the aim of that conference, but the "Bali roadmap, which charts the course for a new negotiating process to be concluded by 2009 that will ultimately lead to a post-2012 international agreement on climate change".

I had expected less.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 12:56 pm
Quote:
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the Bali deal as "an historic breakthrough" and a "huge step forward" in tackling climate change.


Heaven spare us from such 'historic break throughs' should we be faced with anything imminently serious.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 01:18 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the Bali deal as "an historic breakthrough" and a "huge step forward" in tackling climate change.


Heaven spare us from such 'historic break throughs' should we be faced with anything imminently serious.


However, your own quote doesn't sound like

Foxfyre wrote:
... they didn't agree on anything ...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 01:20 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the Bali deal as "an historic breakthrough" and a "huge step forward" in tackling climate change.


Heaven spare us from such 'historic break throughs' should we be faced with anything imminently serious.


However, your own quote doesn't sound like

Foxfyre wrote:
... they didn't agree on anything ...


Oh yeah. I did screw up there. It would have been far more accurate to state that they agreed to get together in two years so they could come up with something to agree on.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 01:30 pm
So now, finally, do you global warming sceptics admit that

The phenomenum is real
That its largely anthropogenic
That it requires urgent global remedial action?


Well of course not




we dont classify you as ***holes for nothing.


(I thought a bit about posting that, then I thought "Its true, do it")
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 01:52 pm
This dispute is systematically manipulated by both sides in very self-serving ways.

Steve calls us all assholes because he asserts we deny;
1. the reality of AGW
2. that it is man-made
3. the urgent need for universal action to counter it

In fact the dispute is about none of these issues, except perhaps for questions relating to urgency.

The political impasse at Bali involved EU representatives who assert that Industrialized nations must agree to significant quick reductions in emissions; developing nations, including India and China that reject any limitation on their present or future emissions; and the United States that (wisely in my view) insists that everyone play his part and that extranational authoritarian enforcement is neither aceptable nor practical. This is very different from the issue that Steve describes above.

The general failure of European nations to so far live up to the obligations they have already so loudly assumed at Kyoto gives the lie to their assertions that we should subject ourselves to some extranational authority on this matter. The refusal of developing nations to accept any responsibility for the matter, insisting instead that it is merely the legacy of developed nations should give all serious observers of the matter serious pause. This, in addition, highlights the absurdity of the EU position, and the so far ubnacknowledged wisdom of the U.S. position.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 02:54 pm
Norway's emissions up 80%

Just as Norwegian delegates to the UN's conference on climate change started heading home from Bali, came news that Norway's own carbon emissions rose 80 percent from 1990 to 2004. Statoil's refinery at Mongstad is the biggest contributor.

Environmental group Zero has made a list of the 25 largest generators of emissions in Norway. Not surprisingly, the country's oil and gas industry figures heavily on the list.

The Mongstad refinery on Norway's west coast spews out the most carbon, followed by the new gas power plant Naturkraft at Kårstø in Rogaland County.

Then comes the Statfjord oil platform in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea, now operated by StatoilHydro. Gassco's gas terminal is in fourth place.

The first non-oil offender landed in 10th place, the Norcem Brevik cement plant at Grenland on the coast of Telemark County. Yara's fertilizer plant at Porsgrunn was 12th and Hydro's aluminium plants at Sunndalsøra and Karmøy in 14th and 15th place respectively.

Erik Solheim, the government minister in charge of environmental issues who was in Bali last week, admits that Norway's own high level of emissions is "embarrassing." That's why the government plans to donate NOK 15 billion (nearly USD 3 billion) over the next five years to help preserve the world's rain forests. That's viewed as an efficient way of offsetting carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, some politicians found themselves in embarrassing spots as well. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg had to admit to newspaper Dagsavisen that he still uses an old-fashioned and emission-generating oil heater in his home, even though his own government is strongly encouraging Norwegian households to replace such heating systems.

"We'll see, we haven't made any decisions yet," Stoltenberg said, when asked why he hasn't replaced the oil heater. "I don't really want to say any more about it."

______________________________________________

Good thing they signed the Kyoto Protocol, huh?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 02:59 pm
Face it people, CO2 emissions are not going down, so everybody might as well get over it, and the sky is not going to fall. All of this is nothing more than politics.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 03:35 pm
parados wrote:
I would LOVE to see the source for your "facts" ican.
...

SOURCES
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/2-5-3.html
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/figures/2_3.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/images/sunspotnumbers_jpg_image.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law
http://www.psinvention.com/mixtures.htm

FACTS
My conclusion that the 1.110 degrees Celsius (1.998 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in the average annual temperature of the earth's surface (includes both the earth's liquid and solid surfaces) between 1909 and 1998, is caused by other than human beings, is based on ten facts:

(1) Evaporated sea water is the primary source of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
(2) As the sea water warms it evaporates at a greater rate into the atmosphere, and as the sea water cools it evaporates at a slower rate into the atmosphere.
(3) Whenever it rains in a region, some of the CO2 in the atmosphere of that region is precipitated along with the H2O in the atmosphere of that region.
(4) The events described in (2) and (3) have been occurring for millions of years.
(5) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun has been increasing.
(6) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the intensity of the radiations from the sun to the earth have been increasing.
(7) Since 1909 and up to 1998, the trend in the average annual temperatures of the earth's surface has been increasing.
(8) Since 1998, the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun has been decreasing.
(9) Since 1998, the intensity of the radiations from the sun to the earth have been decreasing.
(10) Since 1998, the average annual temperatures of the earth's surface have decreased 0.125 degrees Celsius (0.225 degrees Fahrenheit).
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 03:48 pm


Let's keep this simple and do one number at a time since you can't answer me clearly. Simply posting a bunch of sites without stating what you think they show doesn't show us anything.

No. 1.
Quote:
(1) Evaporated sea water is the primary source of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Which of your sites shows the science that states that the majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from ocean evaporation? I eagerly await your answer since I have looked at the sites and see no such reference. So.. kindly give us your source for No. 1 of your claims.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 05:03 pm
just watched MSNBC . spokesperson for U.S. departmeny of energy stated that by swiching to LED'S , america can save the power from FOURTY-FOUR power stations .
imo that would be good , but why does it need to take TWENTY years to do the switch ?
many municipalities now give away free led christmas lights . it seems to me that giving away REGULAR led's would bring greater energy savings more quickly since they would be used year-round .
what's the holdup ???
hbg


Quote:
U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EERE News
Karsner Discusses LEDs on NBC
December 14, 2007

December 14, 2007 - Assistant Secretary Alexander Karsner appeared on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams to discuss the advantages of using light emitting diode (LED) lights. LEDs are even longer lasting and more energy efficient than the popular compact fluorescent bulbs that many Americans are switching to. Karsner discussed how the use of solid-state lighting (which uses LEDs) over the next twenty years could replace up to 44 new, standard-size coal-fired power plants. The report went on to detail the many advantages of LED lights for consumers and for the United States.

The use of LEDs has the potential to save American households a lot of energy and money this holiday season. If you run Christmas lights on your tree for 12 hours a day for 40 days with traditional incandescent Christmas lights, you'd pay $23.95 in electricity. With LEDs, you'd only pay $0.54 for the whole 40-day period.

If every home in the U.S. switched to LED holiday lights, we could save $160 million in energy costs this season alone. If every US household switched all their lights from incandescent or compact fluorescent bulbs to LEDs today, the United States would save almost $10 billion a year in our nation's energy bills.

The long term effect is potentially tremendous. By 2027, as described by Assistant Secretary Karsner in the NBC segment, annual energy savings from solid-state lighting would be the equivalent to the annual electrical output of 44 large power plants. At today's prices, that would amount to more than $30 billion in energy savings a year. Furthermore, an active market for LEDs in all lighting uses in the U.S. would decrease the average total electricity consumption for lighting by 33 percent. This means that the amount saved by switching to LEDs would be greater than the total amount of energy used to light all homes in America today.

LEDs have great advantages over ordinary light bulbs: They are longer lasting (they have an operational life span of roughly 20,000 hours, enough to last for 40 holiday seasons); they are cooler than incandescent bulbs (thus reducing the risk of combustion in or around the Christmas tree); and they are more efficient (up to 25 strings of LEDs can be connected end-to-end without overloading your wall socket.)

Used in traffic lights, exit signs, large display screens (like those you see in Times Square), signal and interior lights in automobiles, desk lamps, under cabinet lights, porch lights, and street lights, LEDs are transforming the American landscape.




source :
SWITCH TO LED'S
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 05:05 pm
hamburger wrote:
just watched MSNBC . spokesperson for U.S. departmeny of energy stated that by swiching to LED'S , america can save the power from FOURTY-FOUR power stations .
imo that would be good , but why does it need to take TWENTY years to do the switch ?
many municipalities now give away free led christmas lights . it seems to me that giving away REGULAR led's would bring greater energy savings more quickly since they would be used year-round .
what's the holdup ???
hbg


Quote:
U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EERE News
Karsner Discusses LEDs on NBC
December 14, 2007

December 14, 2007 - Assistant Secretary Alexander Karsner appeared on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams to discuss the advantages of using light emitting diode (LED) lights. LEDs are even longer lasting and more energy efficient than the popular compact fluorescent bulbs that many Americans are switching to. Karsner discussed how the use of solid-state lighting (which uses LEDs) over the next twenty years could replace up to 44 new, standard-size coal-fired power plants. The report went on to detail the many advantages of LED lights for consumers and for the United States.

The use of LEDs has the potential to save American households a lot of energy and money this holiday season. If you run Christmas lights on your tree for 12 hours a day for 40 days with traditional incandescent Christmas lights, you'd pay $23.95 in electricity. With LEDs, you'd only pay $0.54 for the whole 40-day period.

If every home in the U.S. switched to LED holiday lights, we could save $160 million in energy costs this season alone. If every US household switched all their lights from incandescent or compact fluorescent bulbs to LEDs today, the United States would save almost $10 billion a year in our nation's energy bills.

The long term effect is potentially tremendous. By 2027, as described by Assistant Secretary Karsner in the NBC segment, annual energy savings from solid-state lighting would be the equivalent to the annual electrical output of 44 large power plants. At today's prices, that would amount to more than $30 billion in energy savings a year. Furthermore, an active market for LEDs in all lighting uses in the U.S. would decrease the average total electricity consumption for lighting by 33 percent. This means that the amount saved by switching to LEDs would be greater than the total amount of energy used to light all homes in America today.

LEDs have great advantages over ordinary light bulbs: They are longer lasting (they have an operational life span of roughly 20,000 hours, enough to last for 40 holiday seasons); they are cooler than incandescent bulbs (thus reducing the risk of combustion in or around the Christmas tree); and they are more efficient (up to 25 strings of LEDs can be connected end-to-end without overloading your wall socket.)

Used in traffic lights, exit signs, large display screens (like those you see in Times Square), signal and interior lights in automobiles, desk lamps, under cabinet lights, porch lights, and street lights, LEDs are transforming the American landscape.



source :
SWITCH TO LED'S


The holdup is that those 44 power stations wouldn't be making someone money any longer.

Efficiency just isn't the only concern when it comes to new technologies. That's why Popular Science consistently errs in predicting what the future will be like; they can't seem to factor the avarice of man in correctly.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 03:35:35