dmr
Registered Abuser
I wish those so-called "experts" and irresponsible media would quit sensationalizing the price of motor fuel! They are doing nobody a favor by doing that!
dave lackey
Veteran
whatever
Established
Robklurfield, I have a iron clad answer to your long winded dissertation. There is only one thing that can change the earths temperature, it’s called the sun. I know that may seem to simple to understand but can you prove it wrong in two sentences, ok maybe three? I don’t know if you have noticed but places on the earth where daylight is shorter it gets a lot colder. Any person that believes humans have the ability to change the earths climate have a god complex.
dave lackey
Veteran
Hmmm...now you have really opened it up, whatever! Can't wait to see the responses to your assertion that ONLY the sun can affect the termperature of the earth.
Back on topic, what are YOU doing to prepare for the inevitable, meaning higher prices for energy?
Back on topic, what are YOU doing to prepare for the inevitable, meaning higher prices for energy?
ebolton
Number 7614
If the payback was reasonable for solar electricity and windpower, I'd have both hooked to a battery bank and inverters here. And a fuel cell too. I guess eventually the payback will get reasonable.
The sun is the only significant root cause of global temperature rise. It's effect is magnified by green house gasses which change what fraction of solar radiation is re-radiated back to space, much as camera lenses use specific glasses and coatings to manipulate reflection and refraction.
The sun is the only significant root cause of global temperature rise. It's effect is magnified by green house gasses which change what fraction of solar radiation is re-radiated back to space, much as camera lenses use specific glasses and coatings to manipulate reflection and refraction.
robklurfield
eclipse
LOL. As an avowed atheist, the last thing I'd expect to suffer from is a god complex. As to temperature, there are variables that affect what sunlight does when it reaches the earth. If you don't believe, for example that the atmosphere doesn't sometimes absorb or reflect sunlight, then you are missing out on part of the equation. Without our atmosphere, we'd be in big trouble. The composition of the gases in the atmosphere has not been a constant. If the earth were in an inert, gases smooth, perfectly round featureless ball, then there wouldn't be so many variables. If you don't believe in this stuff, have you ever noticed that Betty Crocker includes different directions on her cake-mix boxes for cooking at high altitudes. Ever wonder why?
I'm no expert on climate and I'm no scientist, but I've read enough to know that weather AND climate are incredibly complex systems.
Can I prove that something other than the sun alter the earth's temperatue in two sentences? I'm not sure but here's a try:
Are you aware, by any chance, that major volcanic eruptions have sometimes altered the average global temperature, sometimes for years, by throwing particulate matter into the atmosphere. So, even the earth can alter its own temperature. Two sentences.
Quite possibly, by throwing 150 years of soot into the air, we've had a similar effect.
I'm no expert on climate and I'm no scientist, but I've read enough to know that weather AND climate are incredibly complex systems.
Can I prove that something other than the sun alter the earth's temperatue in two sentences? I'm not sure but here's a try:
Are you aware, by any chance, that major volcanic eruptions have sometimes altered the average global temperature, sometimes for years, by throwing particulate matter into the atmosphere. So, even the earth can alter its own temperature. Two sentences.
Quite possibly, by throwing 150 years of soot into the air, we've had a similar effect.
I guess if I were to prepare for an oil shortage, I'd buy oil futures.
whatever
Established
Right
Right
Solar flairs make green house gases look like a tinker toy.
As a mater of fact, the sun can and has completely knock out electric power girds including cell systems with just a single 10 second supper flair, and you think man made gases can change our climate. Just imagine one day without the suns energy.
Right
Solar flairs make green house gases look like a tinker toy.
As a mater of fact, the sun can and has completely knock out electric power girds including cell systems with just a single 10 second supper flair, and you think man made gases can change our climate. Just imagine one day without the suns energy.
whatever
Established
Robklurfild, Sorry, but you are only saying that filtering the atmosphere can stop the single source of our heat, the sun. Every body knows that a filter can reduce heat. A filter is just resistance just like a resistor in electrical circuit will reduce current. A increase in the solar flairs can easily overcome atmospheric resistance. You have not proven that the sun is the only real means of the earth temperature. Without the sun there is no atmosphere. It’s really that simple.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
That is actually the point. Coming up: not two sentences, but four short ones.
Why is a greenhouse warmer than the open air? Because it 'traps' sunlight (stops it being re-radiated). Why does a white box (think 'cloud layer') stay cooler than a green or blue one (think 'no clouds')? Because it reflects more light.
But to respond to the OP, I've already done most of what I can readily do. Diversified energy; low energy use (except the Land Rover); and (which people tend to forget) buying things to last, and keeping them until they wear out. The energy cost of making and transporting STUFF (whatever STUFF may be -- new cars, new fitted kitchens, a new mobile 'phone every year...) is commonly very big indeed. Our newest vehicle is 20 years old; the others are 37, 38 and 44.
Why do it? Partly beng a responsible adult (I never thought I'd describe myself that way) and partly because I can live better on less.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
B.J.Scharp
Still developing
I haven't owned a car for nearly 4 years and I've got 12 big solar panels on the way to power my house...
And my M3s don't need power either
And my M3s don't need power either
btgc
Veteran
Guys, you have a plenty of room for price adjustments. We here pay little less than $2/liter and at certain hours traffic still jams.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I haven't owned a car for nearly 4 years and I've got 12 big solar panels on the way to power my house...
And my M3s don't need power either
You don't live out in the country, then? When I lived in Bristol, I didn't need a car, either.
Public transport works fine in towns and ciries, but is of limited use where the typical settlement pattern is villages and hamlets of 50-1000 people, typically 3-5 km (2-3 miles) apart. From our village (900 people) I go through two villages without shops on the way to the nearest supermarket, and that's true of both of the supermarkets I use, on different roads leading to different cities, 16 and 20 km (10 and 12 miles) away.
And finally, our village is a site classé (conservation area) and not outstandingly suitable for solar panels on the roof. My house is among the newer ones in the village centre. The main rooms (with walls 2-3 feet thick, 60-90 cm) are probably late 18th/early 19th century; the stables are probably late mediaeval, or renaissance at the latest.
Cheers,
R.
ebolton
Number 7614
It's a very bad idea for you to try and tell me what I think. IN this case, you are right however. Man made gasses can easily change our climate. Solar radiation, a form of heat energy, is the driving factor. The temperatures that result from that also depend on the rate of heat transfer out of the system, and a lot of thermodynamics and chemistry. Knowledge of these highly technical subjects is sorely lacking in the US now, and especially so among climate change deniers.
The problem with this 'climate change' stuff, is that it's all based on computer models. Elaborate guesses, but not science. And the data behind those models was soundly discredited last year ("Climategate." Leaked emails...it wasn't all over the news like Wikileaks...wonder why? No one in the press could have an agenda, right?)
Global warming/cooling/climate change is really nothing more than politics and money, specifically the redistribution thereof. It is not science in any way, shape, or form.
Now, I'm off to start getting ready for the next crisis. I don't want to miss the next one, like I did the global cooling of the 70s.
Global warming/cooling/climate change is really nothing more than politics and money, specifically the redistribution thereof. It is not science in any way, shape, or form.
Now, I'm off to start getting ready for the next crisis. I don't want to miss the next one, like I did the global cooling of the 70s.
Last edited by a moderator:
ebolton
Number 7614
"nd the data behind those models was soundly discredited last year ("Climategate." Leaked emails...it wasn't all over the news like Wikileaks...wonder why?"
Wrong, and wrong. 1) After the dust settled, and the segments of the peer review process that had been taken out of context was put back into the whole, climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gasses is still the predominate theorey. 2) It was all over the news, at least in my corner of the USA.
"Global warming/cooling/climate change is really nothing more than politics and money,"
The denial of climate change is funded in large part by the energy companies, making sure the political power that contributes to their wealth stays where it is.
"It is not science in any way, shape, or form."
Clearly wrong. Pretty much an undefendable statement, I think. There is as much science in climate change as their is in evolution. Of course, some of the same people deny both!
Wrong, and wrong. 1) After the dust settled, and the segments of the peer review process that had been taken out of context was put back into the whole, climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gasses is still the predominate theorey. 2) It was all over the news, at least in my corner of the USA.
"Global warming/cooling/climate change is really nothing more than politics and money,"
The denial of climate change is funded in large part by the energy companies, making sure the political power that contributes to their wealth stays where it is.
"It is not science in any way, shape, or form."
Clearly wrong. Pretty much an undefendable statement, I think. There is as much science in climate change as their is in evolution. Of course, some of the same people deny both!
Maybe I'll go back to working on Nuclear Fusion Reactors.
But that was way back in the 70s. Been a while.
But that was way back in the 70s. Been a while.
Take it from one who knows: AGW has nothing to do with science. It is simply redistribution of wealth:
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
Ottmar Edenhofer is the deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the joint chair of the IPCC's Working Group 3.
He was a co-chair of "Mitigation of Climate Change" at the recent summit in Cancun.
Full interview here:
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-i...licy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
Ottmar Edenhofer is the deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the joint chair of the IPCC's Working Group 3.
He was a co-chair of "Mitigation of Climate Change" at the recent summit in Cancun.
Full interview here:
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-i...licy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
Roger Hicks
Veteran
What is science if not an elaborate guess?
'Soundly discredited'? No. Read the emails; listen to the people who sent and received them.
Politics and money? Of course -- but if you think there's nothing else to it, you'd find plenty who disagree with you.
Agendas and the press? Again, of course -- but different papers have different agendas. Read reports from left and right, gutter-press and broadsheet, and even the occasional scientific paper, and you'll see that there is genuine disagreement among those who actually do know what they're talking about.
Actually, read the quote you posted. He's talking about policy, not science; he's making the cynical point that most policy is indeed divorced from science, as evidenced by the words 'any more'.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited: