Global Warming, now Water Shortage

[BrooklynJon]

Greenhouses work by preventing Convection-based heat loss into the atmosphere. But the Earth cannot gain or lose heat by convection since it is in space, which has precious little mass. It can't gain or lose heat by conduction either, for the same reason. If the global temperature is changing, it is necessarily due to a change in the balance between heat absorbed from the sun and heat lost to space.

There are certainly things that humans could potentially do to alter that balance (i.e. changing the infrared absorbance of the atmosphere), but mother nature is mighty powerful in shoving things back into balance (e.g. with cloud cover), assuming there isn't a wholesale change in the radiation output of the sun.

Are there powerful forces that want us to ignore the spectre of global warming? Of course!

Are there powerful forces that want us to gut our economy in the name of reducing our CO2 output? Of course!

Should we be taking reasonable precautions that are also beneficial in other ways (e.g reducing smog, reducing our dependence on other countries)? Of course!

Should we take precautions that will have other damaging effects (e.g. diverting the resources that regenerate our country's topsoil, building more dams that wreak havoc on natural areas, chopping down the rainforest in the name of making more biofuel)? I think not, particularly when the whole hypothesis (I refuse to call it a theory at this stage of the game) is so unproven.

As for me, I will continue to burn my quart of gasoline a day commuting to work, gloriously illuminate my house with electric (flourescent) light, and strongly encourage everyone to let science - unencumbered by politics and monied interest - to sort it all out.

[Mikey]

If the global temperature is changing, it is necessarily due to a change in the balance between heat absorbed from the sun and heat lost to space.

That is indeed the bottom line. Does an increase in sunspot activity increase the incoming energy? Apparently. Does an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere decrease the heat lost to space? Theoretically. Are these two processes independent? Who knows? Ask why Mars and Venus are the temperatures they are -- no human activity there (well, not much) to corrupt the data.

Right now I'm happy with sunspot activity explaining the bulk of historic temperature change, and increasing CO2 as cause for caution, if not alarm, going forward. Believing that global warming is an excuse for repression of 3rd-world growth is somewhat of a stretch for me. Wish there were more time to devote to resolving the issue to my satisfaction, but the truth is it won't matter to me in the end, unless the GW extremists are right...

[Cookie]

I shopped for 8 hours today Mark, lol.

Grumpy, I was not at the malls, I hate malls. Infact, I hate shopping... but, I love sales, lol. so, I recycled alot, but, I bought my son a Xmas present too, lol.

Now, what does this have to do with the topic here? NOTHING, ha ha ha. What is global warming??

Also bought a book on Anzio. Any vets from there perhaps? ( working on a project here) A tribute to my dad.

[GrumpyPlumber]

Greenhouses work by preventing Convection-based heat loss into the atmosphere. But the Earth cannot gain or lose heat by convection since it is in space, which has precious little mass. It can't gain or lose heat by conduction either, for the same reason. If the global temperature is changing, it is necessarily due to a change in the balance between heat absorbed from the sun and heat lost to space.

There are certainly things that humans could potentially do to alter that balance (i.e. changing the infrared absorbance of the atmosphere),

My point exactly.

...
If the sun alone were the only contributor to heat retention, ......

A greenhouse vs an open structure.
The "structure" in this case is greenhouse gas.
I'd seen someone make an assertion that reducing our dependancy on foreign oil could cause even worse environmental strife.
That one lost me.

Driving a hybrid vehicle doesn't seem like third world to me...for that matter I've been cut off in traffic lately by a few
Shifting away from Oil/coal to nuclear, hydro, solar & wind power doesn't either.
Venus is alot closer to the sun, almost 30% closer, it's predominently co2 atmosphere doesn't help cool it's 900+f temps either.
Mars is thought to have lost most of it's atmosphere gradually as it's magnetic field died off...solar winds (cosmic energy, as Cookie says - the suns "atmosphere") slowly ripped it away.
When a mere several thousand miles in change of distance of the Earths axis can completely change seasons, I don't get the warm n' fuzzies about trying to gauge anything about our planet based on those two.
I don't care if you vote for Gore, Bush or Alfred E Newman...I have utterly no clue why politics should have any part in the facts, aside from potential "special interest".

[Dunbar Plumbing]

What kills me is that I believe this has been a marketing campaign of sorts to develop new products that generate tons of revenue by public influence.

For example, when the Prius, the vehicle with the hugest battery known to a automobile, do you know what that introduces to the enviorment when that vehicle encounters a wreck, a defective battery, a short life, any of the above??? It's bad enough that regular batteries (AAA,AA,D,C and any other I missed) are designed now to not last as long.

But now you've introduced a vehicle that poses hazards on a totally different level. A rear end collision with a major electrical hazard, chemical spill no matter which way you spin the logic. It's going to require a whole different set of circumstances and the possibility for death is given through the hazardous chemical equation.

The vehicle is a lunch box; you put your hand out the window the vehicle will actually turn direction. LOL!!! And what kills me are those who before didn't own this vehicle, drove the same vehicles we ALL did and now they think it's special that their carbon footprint is a little smaller. Let's ignore the fact that the 100 pound battery that erodes away into the earth, contaminating the soil and changing the physical chemistry of the earth's PURE water source. It's a 2 edged sword and no website link, no personal opinion and NO personal belief strays from that actual fact, jack.

Eeeeeeeeeeveryone went to these flourescent light fixtures. They suck!! They are expensive, don't last as long, when it's cold they start off not as bright, when they break it is a poison control situation due to it's level of contaminates providing mercury exposure as a complimentary gift since you want to save the world, one kilowatt at a time. Why don't your dumb *** walk around with a flashlight in your house if you want to save the world? Better yet, why don't you remove the electrical system from your home and work off of solar panels? I guess that eludes to more battery packs to harvest that "natural" power that has to be conserved until you use it.

There's a lot of you that are sheep following the flock on many counts because "Global warming affects me, so therefore I must react." But all the time before you still threw garbage away, you went to restaurants and ate food that produced paper waste, you still read a newspaper delivered to your driveway that HAS to be the end result of tree removal when you could of read the info on the net, you buy new products everyday that creates cardboard waste, you have multiple lines of credit, mortgages, subscriptions to all those eco-friendly magazines indirectly that pump your head full of the most glorious fruit of ideas.....and involved a diesel motor or chainsaw, electrical power so you can read it from your armchair in your home, thanks to the mailman in their not-so-friendly gas consuming vehicle.

But you're the problem opposite thinking. The trees that were destroyed so you can sit in your leather chair, the carpet you so enjoy, the computer you sit at that you so gloriously fire comments that "I'm the one making a difference" one huge *** car battery at a time.

Justification standards is what I'm talking about. Do as I say and not as I do. If your going to spout it, do the full circle and don't make it sound like your special. Instead of flying to see family, get on the internet, IM, email, set up video camera capability. That's how the jet engines don't turn and burn massive fuel. IF your family moved all across the earth because of career motivation, YOUR CARBON footprint is HUGE. You are the problem. Justifying flying because "I got frequent flyer miles and I can travel for $89" is bad thinking. Feeling you deserve to visit what you saw on a postcard because you can, you're part of the problem. You justify burning tons of fuel because of my personal situation, that I have friends and family all over the world. I'm going to Greece, nevermind that black smoke roaring from the 4 jet engines trailing behind us, that's just okay.

"Oh but I'll drive, save like $$$ amount of dollars and save the world" Well good for you. It wouldn't be such an irony if people had that attitude from the go, therefore we are ALL guilty of the same implied thinking, and no one is special for doing otherwise.


At least try to be part of the equation of sensible thinking before you read it in a magazine or heard it on the news, followed the mindset of the others you so share the same follow the flock thinking.

If you're going to counter my thinking, do it without website url's, do it without "recent personal choice" changes in your life that brought you to change your thinking and for the life of sam, do not justify your huge *** car battery that you've read somewhere that it isn't that bad. It is and you won't spin the seriousness of what it does to the enviorment. It's a bad end product that doesn't leave the good GREEN mother earth. Do as I say, not how I do. Al Gore can attest to that thinking when everyone found out how many thousands of dollars is spent in his personal home. Such an irony of someone who spouted to the world. But just ignore me and my personal actions, this all applies to YOU.

[master plumber mark]

Things are defientley changeing before our eyes....

wether we like them or not.....

glaciers melting,
binary messages found in crop circles, ect ect.....

I suggest that if we all

just keep stareing into those headlights..

it will all go away.........

[GrumpyPlumber]

Now, what does this have to do with the topic here? NOTHING, ha ha ha. What is global warming??

Figuratively, we can't seem to discern convenience from necessity.
Did you drive there in an SUV?
We rationalize indifference with distorted fact, misinformation or political objective.
I'm not saying driving around in an electric powered tin can will save the world, I'm saying I don't know enough to say it won't.
I'm saying I can't just turn away from the fact that we spew more CO into the atmosphere now than at any point in Earths history, and many of us are rationalizing it as normal, that it can't have anything to do with global warming, therefore no guilt need be felt driving to the mall in an SUV instead of a slower, less convenient hybrid.
I'm not educated enough to know, apparently neither are those who are educated, but erring on the side of caution doesn't seem like a bad idea.

[Dunbar Plumbing]

electric powered tin

Here's mine! Are we going to stop that carbon footprint? I don't think the entertainment industry will hold still though.


I can see it now; all the green followers are going to stop this, stop all the nascar racing (do you realize how hard it would be stop them?)


Buying a light bulb, driving a battery won't stop the out of control train. Argue it till the cows come home but I believe the cows got blamed for that as well, something about cow manure and flatuence was contributing to ozone depletion........!


Gubbament! Stop Him!

[cwhyu2]

That was riged deisl too

[leejosepho]

Figuratively, we can't seem to discern convenience from necessity.

Once experienced, a convenience seemingly becomes a necessity!

I'm not saying driving around in an electric powered tin can will save the world, I'm saying I don't know enough to say it won't.

I have read and heard that the energy thus saved and pollution reduced actually get spent and released elsewhere in order to make that savings possible. In other words, it takes what it takes to do whatever we do and we do not run on perpetual motion.

[Mikey]

...a slower, less convenient hybrid.

Slower? Al Gore Jr was stopped for speeding at 100mph in a Prius in California recently.

Less convenient? It's very much like a Camry in terms of performance and passenger-carrying capability, except it gets about 49mpg (my 3-year average). I can carry 10-foot lengths of pipe and 8-foot 2x4s in it, more conveniently than with a short-bed pickup. I must admit, though, it's a real bitch getting a sheet of drywall in it .

[Cookie]

Grumpy, no SUV here. And, it was an absolute necessity to go. Big sales, lol.

[BrooklynJon]

Funny, I can't get a sheet of drywall in my Prius, either. But it does accelerate like a M.F. from a dead stop, which works for me in my urban environment. On a road trip to South Carolina, I got 48 mpg for the trip while cruising at 90 mph (with my three ladies and all their stuff in the car). Not bad, IMHO.

As to the comments about the batteries, those are potentially legitimate criticisms. I don't know enough about the manufacturing and recycling processes to know if they offset the reduced pollution, etc. It may be that I'd be better off in a garden variety Honda Civic.

[Cookie]

Mikey, B. Jon,

I carry drywall on TOP of my car. Works well, acts like a sail, too, and saves on gas.

[Dunbar Plumbing]

Toyota's Green Problem


Prius gets 48 mpg < > Tundra gets 14 mpg

This equates to the same strategy as the tobacco companies

They will help you get hooked on smoking

AND

They will help you to quit now as well.

Either way, they got you right where they want you, spending money no matter what your personal choices are.

So...wouldn't this mean that if you buy a toyota, you are also supporting a company that defies the regulations of gas conservation?

Seems to me that would be true.