Jump to content

The 'Lefts' answer to Global Warming


sprinter

Recommended Posts

Mustang, I have 13 years of post secondary education. I can very confidently tell you that advanced degrees do not trump the basic laws of physics, that used to be taught to children in high-school.

 

Using your esteemed education, you should be able to, at a bare minimum. tell why nitrogen is not a "green house" gas, and CO2 and H2O are. If you can do this, then you are well on your way to understanding why the term green house is a misnomer.

 

And while you are at it tell us which law of physics allows heat from the atmosphere to move towards the warmer surface, you know, the way it works on those "green house" illustrations... (Hint: Heat always moves toward ____, so maybe hot moving towards hotter might be a stretch)

 

And you should be ashamed of your self if you don't know that one good observation defeats 100 years of theory. Exactly how many experiments do you need to prove a scientific theory false?

 

The number of people who BELIEVE a certain thing, has NO merit in science. NONE.

 

And you are right there is a lot more money behind the global warming scare than there ever will be behind common sense. Just ask any researcher: what is the key to funding? Just add the two words climate change to your proposal and watch the money pour in. Squirrel mating habits in Central Park; never... The effect of Climate Change on Squirrel mating habits in Central Park: Show me the money. There is nothing better than a crisis of unimaginable but undefinable dimensions to drive the money to research. If you have indeed left school, this should soon be very clear.

 

And don't be so obtuse as to think that pissing away our quality of life is a good trade for what "might" happen. The current administration advocated reduction of energy consumption by 80%. And even that is not considered adequate to move the global temperature by even a half degree.

 

If you would read the IPCC, and I have, you would realize that the recommendations, written by the politicians do NOT match the science in the report. If you would read the science you would find that almost no one really believes that there is a single lever that controls the climate, that that lever is labeled CO2, and that it is within our capacity to control it. What you have is bunch of people that want to see the western developed societies knocked down to third world status unless they transfer most of their wealth to the "developing" countries. Then you have the environmental extreme that essentially see humans as an invasive species that has infested the planet, and needs to be exterminated in large numbers.

 

So put the kool aid down, use the education you have been blessed with and think for yourself for a change. Do you agree with every thing you have been told about Climate change? How about this: why have the short term predictions, from 1990 and now from 1999, not been accurate? What does that say about the accuracy of longer term predictions?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mustang, I have 13 years of post secondary education. I can very confidently tell you that advanced degrees do not trump the basic laws of physics, that used to be taught to children in high-school.

 

Using your esteemed education, you should be able to, at a bare minimum. tell why nitrogen is not a "green house" gas, and CO2 and H2O are. If you can do this, then you are well on your way to understanding why the term green house is a misnomer.

 

 

again, i used the term "trap heat". CO2 in the atmosphere causes more of the incident solar energy to be trapped in the atmosphere as heat. What is the problem here?

 

The number of people who BELIEVE a certain thing, has NO merit in science. NONE.

No, but if 10,000 people have all studied the same thing, 9950 have come to one conclusion, and 50 have come to another, don't you think that overwhelming majority might be worth considering?

 

 

And you are right there is a lot more money behind the global warming scare than there ever will be behind common sense. Just ask any researcher: what is the key to funding? Just add the two words climate change to your proposal and watch the money pour in. Squirrel mating habits in Central Park; never... The effect of Climate Change on Squirrel mating habits in Central Park: Show me the money. There is nothing better than a crisis of unimaginable but undefinable dimensions to drive the money to research. If you have indeed left school, this should soon be very clear.

 

So let me get this straight, 4 of the top 5 revenue companies in the world are oil companies, and you think there's more money backing university and government labs?? You've got to be kidding. Yes, "common sense", other wise known as "business as usual", or "the people who have lots of money now don't want things to change". Common sense tells me that money will always lead to this kind of inertia, and you're playing right into that game now.

 

And don't be so obtuse as to think that pissing away our quality of life is a good trade for what "might" happen. The current administration advocated reduction of energy consumption by 80%. And even that is not considered adequate to move the global temperature by even a half degree.

 

If you call REDUCING AIR POLLUTION "pissing away our quality of life", you've got a severely backwards way of thinking. Do you know how many people die of respiratory problems exacerbated by poor urban air quality? Have you ever been warned that it's not a good idea to go outside on a given day? I have many, many times, every year, and I don't even live in that big a city. When I think of the quality of my life, fresh air is pretty damn high up there. Don't tell me I don't think for myself.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Mars, the Martian planet has an atmosphere made up of approximately 95 % carbon dioxide. If the CO2 was such a great 'reflector of heat', why does the summer surface temperature change 113 degrees F between night and day? That's not 95 ppm either.

 

 

http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/mars_data-information/temperature_overview.html

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the CO2 was such a great 'reflector of heat', why does the summer surface temperature change 113 degrees F between night and day? That's not 95 ppm either.

Atmospheric density. Mars' air is thin; there's a lot of CO2 relative to other gases, but not enough to reduce heat loss. :).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you call REDUCING AIR POLLUTION "pissing away our quality of life", you've got a severely backwards way of thinking. Do you know how many people die of respiratory problems exacerbated by poor urban air quality? Have you ever been warned that it's not a good idea to go outside on a given day? I have many, many times, every year, and I don't even live in that big a city. When I think of the quality of my life, fresh air is pretty damn high up there. Don't tell me I don't think for myself.

 

CO2 is now air pollution?

 

Please identify the respiratory disease that is caused by atmospheric CO2? (Hint: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is millions of times less than the concentration of CO2 in every exhaled breath.)

 

You are failing these simple tests... Once you understand the precise mechanism of how CO2 generates heat in the atmosphere, you will begin to grasp the actual mechanism.

 

Atmospheric density. Mars' air is thin; there's a lot of CO2 relative to other gases, but not enough to reduce heat loss.

 

Edstock, you do realize that CO2 is heavier than air... because it is MORE dense. (Hint: there is another green house gas that is common here, and much more responsible for the temperature of our atmosphere than CO2, and not found in the atmosphere on Mars. If you don't get this one you are all wet.) By the way, you are correct in calling the atmosphere on Mars thinner, which is to say it is not a deep, as the atmosphere on Earth.

Edited by xr7g428
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading safe, reliable incandescent lightbulbs for mercury-laden CFLs (made in China, which now has more CO2 emissions than the USA, btw) is what I'd call severely backwards.

 

The mercury released by a coal-fired power plant to power an incandescent light bulb over it's life time is greater than the amount in a replacement CFL. Furthermore, if the CFL is disposed of properly, that mercury never enters the environment, whereas mercury emitted by a power plant is pumped right into the atmosphere. Do the numbers yourself if you don't believe me.

 

This happens way too often:

"Here's a solution!"

"It's not perfect, there's still this problem!"

"Okay then, forget about it, lets keep doing things the old way."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CO2 is now air pollution?

 

Please identify the respiratory disease that is caused by atmospheric CO2? (Hint: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is millions of times less than the concentration of CO2 in every exhaled breath.)

 

You are failing these simple tests... Once you understand the precise mechanism of how CO2 generates heat in the atmosphere, you will begin to grasp the actual mechanism.

 

If you hadn't noticed the same mechanisms that are called for in reducing CO2 output (burning fewer fossil fuels for example) would also impact the emissions of other more immediately harmful emissions like SO2 and NOx. What I'm trying to say is that the benefits of reducing our fossil fuel consumption go far beyond GHG reductions.

 

Presuming a lack of intelligence in your opponent in an argument is not very elegant. I don't know why you think I don't understand how CO2 generates heat in the atmosphere, that's not even a point of discussion here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mustang, I don't have to presume anything; you've taken care of that for us.

 

If you understand the mechanism whereby CO2 can cause warming, then it should become obvious that the green house scenario (trapped heat) is not plausible. CO2 simply does not do what is being claimed. If you read the science in the IPCC you will learn that about 3/4ths of all the heating that CO2 can contribute tot he atmosphere, has already occurred. You would also learn that the "forcings" or positive feed-backs, needed to create the majority of the projected warming are not occurring in the way the models predicted. You might have noticed the scarcity of hurricanes this past year. The prediction was that hurricanes would increase in frequency and intensity. You might have noticed that sea levels have not been rising according to the models. There is mounting evidence that the theory is faulty. All it takes is one good experiment to prove a theory false.

 

You do show your true colors at last:

 

he same mechanisms that are called for in reducing CO2 output (burning fewer fossil fuels for example) would also impact the emissions of other more immediately harmful emissions like SO2 and NOx. What I'm trying to say is that the benefits of reducing our fossil fuel consumption go far beyond GHG reductions.

 

In other words, you support the global warming hoax in order to achieve some other objective. Reducing air pollution is a great thing. Trying to achieve it through deception is not.

 

And please, the most fundamental principal of science is that the facts triumph over beliefs every-time. Millions believed the Earth was flat and located at the center of the universe. In each case the popular opinion was wrong. Probably the strongest indictment against global warming "science" is this insistence on consensus. I guess they decided to take a page out of the "creation science' play book: if enough people believe a thing to be so, then it must be so...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mercury released by a coal-fired power plant to power an incandescent light bulb over it's life time is greater than the amount in a replacement CFL. Furthermore, if the CFL is disposed of properly, that mercury never enters the environment, whereas mercury emitted by a power plant is pumped right into the atmosphere. Do the numbers yourself if you don't believe me.

Fine. I'm an engineer (ChE), too.

 

"Disposed of properly" is a big assumption on your part. In the liberal "Green" California, "local governments estimate only about five to ten percent of (compact) fluorescent bulbs are being properly recycled". The last statistic reported by the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation was a 10% rate for NiCd batteries (another common household item).

 

Given these statistics, I'll be generous and assume that 10% rate for proper disposal.

 

According to the DOE, U.S. coal-fired power plants emitted 48 tons of mercury (in 1999). This is equal to 4.355e10 milligrams.

 

In 2007, U.S. coal-fired power plants produced 2,118,000 Gwh of electricity. This is equal to 2.118e15 watt/hours.

 

This translates to a mercury emission rate of 2.056e-5 millgrams of mercury per watt-hour.

 

Comparing a 100-watt bulb and a 27-watt CFL.................

 

The 100-watt bulb will equal 0.00205598 milligrams of mercury emitted per hour it is used.

The 27-watt CFL will equal 0.00055511 millgrams of mercury emitted per hour it is used.

 

The EPA says the typical CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury. Correcting for the 10% recycle rate, I'm saying each bulb contains 4.5 mg of mercury.

 

Based on the mercury emission rate (mg Hg/Whr) multiplied by hours used AND adding 4.5 millgrams of mercury introduced into the environment because it's NOT recycled, a 3000 hour CFL usage would equal 6.16 milligrams of mercury introduced into the environment.

 

For the 100-watt bulb, based on a 3000 hour usage (0.00205598 * 3000) is--you guessed it--6.16 milligrams of mercury introduced into the environment.

 

The point of this exercise is to establish the mercury "break even" point. (3000 hours)

 

Now many CFLs are rated at a greater lifespan than 3000 hours, however there have also been studies indicating that many CFLs don't last that long (and in one study, 1 in 7 didn't last 2000 hours)

 

In my personal experience, the CFLs don't last nearly as long as advertised. I've had CFLs that I'd installed a little over a year ago, and have since failed; and other incandescents (in high use areas like the bathroom and kitchen) that haven't failed since they were installed in 2006. (they're 60-watt bulbs, if you care).

 

Not that my personal experience proves anything, however given my personal experience, I have two observations......

 

1. The CFLs cost more

2. The CFLs don't last as long as advertised (particularly if installed in areas where they are turned on and off frequently)

 

Based on that, I can decide whether I want my Chinese CFLs with mercury, or my (cheaper) incandescents without. It's an easy decision for me.

Edited by RangerM
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edstock, you do realize that CO2 is heavier than air... because it is MORE dense.

XR7, you do realize that Mars has almost 0 magnetic field . . . and because of that, there is no protection against solar wind which, over a couple of billion years, knocks the CO2 molecules out of the atmosphere.

(Hint: that's one of the reasons that radiation shielding is of such concern for manned habitat on Mars.) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now many CFLs are rated at a greater lifespan than 3000 hours

 

That's a bit of an understatement. The one's i get are rated to 15,000 hours.

My personal experience is very different from yours. I still use the very first CFL I ever bought. That was in 2005. It's used once a day for about 2 to 3 hours. I put in a CFL for my parent's kitchen light back in 2006 and it hasn't died yet either. That one gets used more like 4-7 hours every day, depending on the time of year. Where they don't fare well is rooms like the bathroom where they get turned on and off many times, but for places which you generally keep lit up for most of the evening they make a lot of sense. I'm not at all a fan of this plan to ban incandescents outright. Tax them if you want, but banning them causes a real inconvenience for certain applications where you actually want heat. I used them a lot for experimental reasons at school, and apparently EasyBake Ovens are having to switch to some non-lightbulb setup which is pretty lame. It's a toy oven!!

 

Disposal of CFL's is only going to improve as people are educated, but it is a shame that so few are dealt with properly now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now many CFLs are rated at a greater lifespan than 3000 hours, however there have also been studies indicating that many CFLs don't last that long (and in one study, 1 in 7 didn't last 2000 hours)

DUDE! talk about taking out of context. For christ's sake, do you always do this??

 

The test results showed that the disparity in life span of some of the tested samples was quite significant. The actual life span among 20 tested samples of the same model varied and the discrepancy could be as high as 8,000 hours. At least one sample of 7 tested models recorded actual life span of less than 2,000 hours while at least 5 samples of 3 tested models recorded actual life span falling short of 50% of their claims.

 

The test results showed that the average life span of 18 CFL models exceeds 10,000 hours. The performance is satisfactory. However, the average life span of one model was only 6,058 hours, a shortfall of about 4,000 hours (39%) than its claimed life span of 10,000 hours.

 

Since the test samples were purchased in 2008 before the implementation of the Mandatory Energy Efficiency Label Scheme for CFLs, the test results may not reflect the performance and average life span of those models which are currently available in the market. Consumers are advised to take note of the energy efficiency rating and the luminous efficacy before purchasing the CFLs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, you support the global warming hoax in order to achieve some other objective. Reducing air pollution is a great thing. Trying to achieve it through deception is not.

 

You can call it deception if you want. For me, it's pretty basic. There are a bunch of immediate problems caused by burning fossil fuels, like poor urban air quality, excessive urban heat, and acid rain. There is a possible very serious and long term problem as well - there's uncertainty as to whether it's gonna happen, but if it does, it could be downright catastrophic. In light of all of this, your suggestion is to do what? Just keep on truckin'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DUDE! talk about taking out of context. For christ's sake, do you always do this??

t-t-totally-dude.jpg

 

(you are correct though. I did misinterpret what I'd read. Out of 20 samples of 20 models, 7 had at least one that didn't last 2000 hours. Certainly better than 14%)

Edited by RangerM
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the important point that Edstock was making is that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is puny, like less than a kPa?

The entire premise of the Mars thing is change. The polar caps are receding on Mars, but the composition of the atmosphere (and the population) hasn't changed. The change is likely caused by an external influence. The most likely is the most obvious--the Sun.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. I'm an engineer (ChE), too.

 

"Disposed of properly" is a big assumption on your part. In the liberal "Green" California, "local governments estimate only about five to ten percent of (compact) fluorescent bulbs are being properly recycled". The last statistic reported by the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation was a 10% rate for NiCd batteries (another common household item).

 

Given these statistics, I'll be generous and assume that 10% rate for proper disposal.

 

According to the DOE, U.S. coal-fired power plants emitted 48 tons of mercury (in 1999). This is equal to 4.355e10 milligrams.

 

In 2007, U.S. coal-fired power plants produced 2,118,000 Gwh of electricity. This is equal to 2.118e15 watt/hours.

 

This translates to a mercury emission rate of 2.056e-5 millgrams of mercury per watt-hour.

 

Comparing a 100-watt bulb and a 27-watt CFL.................

 

The 100-watt bulb will equal 0.00205598 milligrams of mercury emitted per hour it is used.

The 27-watt CFL will equal 0.00055511 millgrams of mercury emitted per hour it is used.

 

The EPA says the typical CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury. Correcting for the 10% recycle rate, I'm saying each bulb contains 4.5 mg of mercury.

 

Based on the mercury emission rate (mg Hg/Whr) multiplied by hours used AND adding 4.5 millgrams of mercury introduced into the environment because it's NOT recycled, a 3000 hour CFL usage would equal 6.16 milligrams of mercury introduced into the environment.

 

For the 100-watt bulb, based on a 3000 hour usage (0.00205598 * 3000) is--you guessed it--6.16 milligrams of mercury introduced into the environment.

 

The point of this exercise is to establish the mercury "break even" point. (3000 hours)

 

Now many CFLs are rated at a greater lifespan than 3000 hours, however there have also been studies indicating that many CFLs don't last that long (and in one study, 1 in 7 didn't last 2000 hours)

 

In my personal experience, the CFLs don't last nearly as long as advertised. I've had CFLs that I'd installed a little over a year ago, and have since failed; and other incandescents (in high use areas like the bathroom and kitchen) that haven't failed since they were installed in 2006. (they're 60-watt bulbs, if you care).

 

Not that my personal experience proves anything, however given my personal experience, I have two observations......

 

1. The CFLs cost more

2. The CFLs don't last as long as advertised (particularly if installed in areas where they are turned on and off frequently)

 

Based on that, I can decide whether I want my Chinese CFLs with mercury, or my (cheaper) incandescents without. It's an easy decision for me.

 

You don't need Chinese made CFLs with Mercury when you can have American made Mercury Free Halogens that are more efficient than incandescents, provide better light and are dimmable.

 

 

http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProducts/New+Products/HALOGENSuperSaver/

Edited by Mark B. Morrow
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need Chinese made CFLs with Mercury when you can have American made Mercury Free Halogens that are more efficient than incandescents, provide better light and are dimmable.

 

http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProducts/New+Products/HALOGENSuperSaver/

Hadn't heard of those. I'll look at them next time I'm at the store

 

One of my other objections to CFLs is I don't like the light they put out; much preferring the yellow light of incandescents. Those might be ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hadn't heard of those. I'll look at them next time I'm at the store

 

One of my other objections to CFLs is I don't like the light they put out; much preferring the yellow light of incandescents. Those might be ok.

 

 

I dislike the CFLs too. The bright white light is ok for the office but I don't like it at home. I have dimmers on several of my light fixtures and the CFLs don't dim. It is nice to know that there are alternatives made in the USA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dislike the CFLs too. The bright white light is ok for the office but I don't like it at home.

 

That used to be true, but these days they come in a wide range of colour temperatures, and I find I can get a really nice warm light out of them if you choose the right ones. Especially if you have a nice way to diffuse it, through a lamp shade or reflecting it off of a wall or something. I keep cooler white lights for the kitchen and the bathroom, and then warmer lights in the living room and bedroom. I also have a dim-able CFL over my dining room table.

 

I've got two friends doing research on lights. One doing his PhD on fluorescents that don't use mercury at all, and then the other guy is working for GE on LEDs, so there are even better options coming down the road.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the earth has been warmer than now.

The earth has been cooler than now.

It has ALWAYS warmed and cooled.

When the planet warms, more crops grow.

When c02 goes up plantlife thrives

More plantlife means animals thrive.

 

These are the greenhouse gases;

 

Water Vapor H2O 36 – 72 %

Carbon Dioxide CO2 9 – 26 %

Methane CH4 4 – 9 %

Ozone O3 3 – 7 %

 

As you can see, WATER vapour makes up approx 75% of the gases.

Note too, that the total of 9-26% for CO2 is the amount produced (or retained in the atmosphere) by ALL OF THE EARTHS OUTPUTS including man.

 

Mans percentage of total CO2 output is approx 9%.

9% of 9-26% = about 2% we'll say?

 

SO YOUR TELLING ME THAT THE EARTHS TEMPERATURE IS BEING EFFECTED BY MANS 2% INFLUENCE???

And, on top of that, if we completely destroy our way of life (remove all cars/trucks/busses/planes/trains/factories/power generation/etc/etc/etc) that we will GUARANTEED save the planet from doing what it has done long before man ever showed up?

 

SERIOUSLY?

 

Common sense seems to be lacking in some of these discussions. And the "I'm a scientist, your not, so believe me) really smacks of elitism/arrogance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, on top of that, if we completely destroy our way of life (remove all cars/trucks/busses/planes/trains/factories/power generation/etc/etc/etc) that we will GUARANTEED save the planet from doing what it has done long before man ever showed up?

China already puts out more CO2 that the U.S. (and the gap is growing) and has already said they would not hinder their economy. You could send the U.S. back into the 1700s and it wouldn't make any difference.

china-co2-emissions.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'd like to expand on what I wrote;

 

"So, the earth has been warmer than now.

The earth has been cooler than now.

It has ALWAYS warmed and cooled.

When the planet warms, more crops grow.

When c02 goes up plantlife thrives

More plantlife means animals thrive."

 

The reason I specifically said that is because this was the EXACT argument the "climate scientists" were arguing pre-'75. See, back then, the earth was cooling (49-75) even though CO2 was increasing, or, more specifically, "it was cooling BECAUSE CO2 was increasing".

At that time, if we didn't stop our CO2 output, the earth would be in an ice age by the year 2000.

Or more specifically, CO2 is causing the earth to cool. A cooler earth has a shorter and harsher growing seasons and coupled with that is a population that is increasing by X amount per year. By the year 2000 there will not be enough food to feed the planet as the amount of crops will not be able to grow on such limited land.

 

Of course the answer was to....you guessed it, FUND MORE RESEARCH and of course get rid of cars.

 

Of the numerous problems they had with their "forecasting" was that during the 50-60's yes people did have 7 kids per family, now we're at what 1.8 per household?

Their "model" was wrong. Gee, imagine that!

 

When you use the exact same "facts" and hypothosis to argue both sides of an argument.....kinda brings into question the validity of the "facts" don't you think?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...