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

You're just not in the habit of allowing yourself to be cornered by your own beliefs.

I dare you.

Put it out there for everone to see.

1) Your account of how the flood went down.
2) The evidence to support your belief.
3) Your sources.

Meanwhile, on the more pressing issue of AGW, I believe spendius asked about shortening workdays and making work days shorter to save electricity.

While a novel attempt, I'm fairly positive that the product would be worse. This would be because the people with more off days would be consuming more electricity during peak hours, and for longer periods of time. To be sure, I'd have to find out what uses more electricity in 8 hours: A factory, or the combined useage of the factory worker's households during daylight hours. I'm pretty comfortable hypothesizing that the factory would lose.

With personal energy (<--keyword, not specifically electricity) consumption and in effort to be more eco friendly, I'd try to do the following as often as possible.

1) walk or use mass transit when possible
2) if your finances allow it, purchace locally grown produce
3) don't purchace seasonal produce out of season
4) roll your window down instead of using your airconditioner while driving.

I don't ask for perfection, but there are so many ways to be better. It's just sad that that we put such a high premium on convieniance.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

4) roll your window down instead of using your airconditioner while driving...

The more recent car AC systems are efficient enough that having windows rolled down uses MORE energy (aerodynamic drag) than the AC does in most cases.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

4) roll your window down instead of using your airconditioner while driving.

Good old 255 A/C. Works fine as long as it is below 70 or so outside, and you are under age 30, after that, fuggetaboudit.

0 Replies

My guess is that TKO is CDK's sociopathic little brother.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

My guess is that TKO is CDK's sociopathic little brother.

Lusatian? And to be honest: why exactly do YOU call him sociopathic? Because he's in Iraq/Afghanistan and you were too stupid to be accepted by the forces?

0 Replies

Because of his behaviour on other threads.

0 Replies

I don't know who Lusatian is and the part of your post that you added after you initially posted is uncalled for.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I don't know who Lusatian is and the part of your post that you added after you initially posted is uncalled for.

Lusatian is CDK's brother.

0 Replies

Woopdeedoo you totally missed my point and now you're just going after me like you always do. I have a few choice words for ya' Walt but it's Christmastime and I'll hold off (for now).

0 Replies

I've only responded to this:

cjhsa wrote:

My guess is that TKO is CDK's sociopathic little brother.

But do go on threatening.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

4) roll your window down instead of using your airconditioner while driving...

The more recent car AC systems are efficient enough that having windows rolled down uses MORE energy (aerodynamic drag) than the AC does in most cases.

Untrue. You would have to be going incredibly fast to have the force of drag affect engine performance. Rolling the windows down would only effect paracite drag, not your profile drag. Profile drag is what the majority of your drag comes from.

cjhsa - My age does not effect the drag on my car, or yours. Rolling Eyes

T
K
O

0 Replies

According to: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

From 1850 to 1910, the highest average annual global temperature occurred in 1878, and was 15.023C or (32+27.041) = 59.041F.

In 1911 the average annual global temperature was at a low of 14.419C or (32+25.954) = 57.954F.

In 1998, the average annual global temperature was at a high of 15.546C or (32+27.983) = 59.983F.

The 1998 high was a 2.029 degrees Fahrenheit increase since 1911, but only a 0.942 degree Fahrenheit increase since 1878.

For the 11 month period January 2007 to November 2007, the average global temperature was 15.414C or (32+27.745) = 59.745F, a 0.238 degree Fahrenheit decrease over the first 11 months of 2007.

MORE FACTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND THE SOURCES OF THESE FACTS
My conclusion that between 1911 and 1998 the 2.029 degrees Fahrenheit increase in the average annual temperature of the earth's surface (includes both the earth's liquid and solid surfaces) , is caused primarily by other than human beings, is based on ten facts:

FACTS:
(1) Sea water evaporats into the atmosphereis and is the primary source of 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 (1), (2) and (3) have been occurring for millions of years.
(5) Since 1911 and up to 1998, the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun has been increasing.
(6) Since 1911 and up to 1998, the intensity of the radiations from the sun to the earth have been increasing.
(7) Since 1911 and up to 1998, the average annual temperature of the earth's surface has increased 2.029 degrees Fahrenheit.
(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 upto 12/1/2007, the average annual temperatures of the earth's surface have decreased 0.238 degrees Fahrenheit).

SOURCES:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
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

0 Replies

You can do your own searches on 'ac vs windows down', there's no shortage of hits. At least in the case of driving at highway speed you're better off using the AC; driving around town it becomes problematical, nonetheless nobody's going to be driving around town on really hot days with the AC off one way or another.

0 Replies

Like I said, I dont' expect perfection, just an improvement. Sure on a really hot day, roll up your window and turn on the AC. However, there are people who will use the AC in pretty mild heat.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Like I said, I dont' expect perfection, just an improvement. Sure on a really hot day, roll up your window and turn on the AC. However, there are people who will use the AC in pretty mild heat.

T
K
O

What exactly will be improved by following the procedure you recommended here?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Like I said, I dont' expect perfection, just an improvement. Sure on a really hot day, roll up your window and turn on the AC. However, there are people who will use the AC in pretty mild heat.

T
K
O

What exactly will be improved by following the procedure you recommended here?

If we are not so reckless with the small ways we use energy, the sum of those smal efforts can add up to great savings. That and concidering where our energy comes from, it will have less of a negitive impact on our ecology and climate.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Like I said, I dont' expect perfection, just an improvement. Sure on a really hot day, roll up your window and turn on the AC. However, there are people who will use the AC in pretty mild heat.

T
K
O

What exactly will be improved by following the procedure you recommended here?

If we are not so reckless with the small ways we use energy, the sum of those smal efforts can add up to great savings. That and concidering where our energy comes from, it will have less of a negitive impact on our ecology and climate.

T
K
O

How does reducing the gasoline my car and everyone else's car burns have less of a negitive impact on our ecology?

How does reducing the gasoline my car and everyone else's car burns have less of a negitive impact on our climate?

0 Replies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Learjet_25_der_NASA.jpg

This is a Learjet 25. At or above 41,000 feet it travels at over 500 mph and burns petroleum product Jet A for its fuel at the rate of 300lbs per hour.

I like it! I like it very much!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Like I said, I dont' expect perfection, just an improvement. Sure on a really hot day, roll up your window and turn on the AC. However, there are people who will use the AC in pretty mild heat.

T
K
O

What exactly will be improved by following the procedure you recommended here?

If we are not so reckless with the small ways we use energy, the sum of those smal efforts can add up to great savings. That and concidering where our energy comes from, it will have less of a negitive impact on our ecology and climate.

T
K
O

How does reducing the gasoline my car and everyone else's car burns have less of a negitive impact on our ecology?

How does reducing the gasoline my car and everyone else's car burns have less of a negitive impact on our climate?

It's not my job to educate you. You're obviously a skeptic when it comes to AGW. I'm not going to play games with you.

I took me forever to find it, but here...

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html

Ican711nm thought this article (actually just the graph) was a good enough source to disprove AGW, too bad he didn't read the whole thing. Selective truth isn't truth at all.

Refutte this. I believe the author did and excellent job accounting for all factors in climate change.

T
K
O

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

This is a Learjet 25. At or above 41,000 feet it travels at over 500 mph and burns petroleum product Jet A for its fuel at the rate of 300lbs per hour.

I like it! I like it very much!

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/testfacilities/learjet.html

What's your point? It's a research aircraft. You probably liked the picture because it has a nice NASA logo.

T
K
O

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know