I don't disagree that government may be one of the few organizations with adequate resources to research this issue; that doesn't mean they should do it. This is really a separate topic, but the role of government has been seriously warped over time. I'll say no more so as not to get things sidetracked. One other point though: many people don't understand the difference between correlation and causality. Just because humans may have increased CO2 output and global temperatures may have risen doesn't mean there's any relationship between the two. We have a correlation. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the percentage increase of CO2 presently in the atmosphere is tiny. Some studies suggest that elevated temperatures cause CO2 release trapped in ocean waters...
I'm all for research, but determining causality with absolute certainty requires control of all other factors. I'm skeptical humans are even remotely close to having this capability for a system so large as the earth. The primary reason there are so many conflicts for what is the best "diet" is failure to be able to control for all factors.
Many well meaning organizations never solve problems because that would mean an end to their funding stream...
The only one that I can remember that actually screwed up and solved or helped solve a problem was the old March of Dimes for polio. Remember those little cards with slots that all us kids filled with dimes?
sidious6688 who cares whether humankinds's impact on global temperatures is unknown. It doesn't take very much common sense to realiize that burning fossil fuels, not knowing what to do with extremely toxic waste, etc is not good for the planet.
This generation is tired of the nonsense and "dirty stick" that our ancestors have left for us and people like you that don't want to help clean up the mess and prevent future messes.
Thats not quite the same topic. I'm all for non polluting clean electric vehicles and a "clean" environment. I just got back from a national park and love nothing better than a pristine environment. I'm talking about Global Warming! I never said I advocate pollution. I'm just tired of all those brainwashed by the media to think that GW caused by humans is a fact. I agree totally about past generations causing future generations problems, but sadly this is nothing new.
The people like me comment is putting me in a category without any merit. The fact that I'm not convinced humans are the primary cause of GW or may not even be able to influence it does not mean in any way that I advocate trashing the planet. Also humankind's impact on global temperatures is the the topic at hand. if you don't care why read the forum?
It doesn't take very much common sense to realiize that burning fossil fuels, not knowing what to do with extremely toxic waste, etc is not good for the planet.
I have been waiting for solutions that are practical for decades. The Tax payers have tossed Billions at the problems with little to show for it. Much of what is developed does not see the light of day. Fossil fuel is still the least expensive way to do all the things we like to do. When the supply gets nearly depleted in the next 200-400 years we may or may not have an alternative. We have learned to burn fossil fuel with a lot less damage to the air. That is progress.
I'm on the side that says Climate Change is inevitable and man probably has little to do with it. And even if we do the larger populations in China and India are not going to squelch progress to avoid additional GHG. Taxing carbon as is proposed is just another government scam to screw the working man. Corporations just pass any higher cost of doing business to you and I. The wealthy could care less if their utility bills double. For those of US lower on the food chain it can be financial disaster.
that our ancestors have left for us and people like you that don't want to help clean up the mess and prevent future messes.
Be careful now; the computer you're typing on is probably THE WORST product for creating toxic waste during the manufacture of its parts, and its recycling. I believe our junk electronics get sent to 3rd world areas, where villagers strip these parts and melt down the metals over open coal fires.
Indeed that is the vicious, vicious, secret. It is even more pollutive than the manufacture of cars! Another issue, but is also common knowledge are the computers, screens ,etc. are built literally to be obsolete before you even BUY them !!!! Yet even the environmental types do viciously fast cycle upgrades. I mean really how many of those environmental advocates have 10 year old computers? :lemon:
The heat from the sun does not penetrate very far into the planet. It is not what is keeping the core hot. The earth did not freeze because of radioactive material.
"Radioactive potassium, uranium and thorium are thought to be the three main sources of heat in the Earth's interior, aside from that generated by the formation of the planet. Together, the heat keeps the mantle actively churning and the core generating a protective magnetic field." ..."Gradually, however, the Earth would have cooled off and become a dead rocky globe with a cold iron ball at the core if not for the continued release of heat by the decay of radioactive elements like potassium-40, uranium-238 and thorium-232, which have half-lives of 1.25 billion, 4 billion and 14 billion years, respectively. "http://www.physlink.com/News/121103PotassiumCore.cfm
" The Sun is the original source of all energy that has, is and will be used on Earth."
"Today here in upstate NY we are expecting a foot of snow. What's up with that? Where is all that wonderful GW I've been hearing about? "
Climate refers to the temperature, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological factors in a region over long periods of time, as opposed to the term weather, which refers to current activity.
The heat from the sun does not penetrate very far into the planet. It is not what is keeping the core hot.
The article does not particularly state it - but the "given" is the physical environment now - which is thwe Sun keeps the outer surface 500F hotter then it otherwise would be. This is the differenc ebetween storing something in the oven at 500F or your freezer. Now if you're saying this makes no difference, then I'll ask you where you took your thermodynamics. Without the Sun the Earth freezes solid. Very little of the Earth's elements are radioactive. Iron will freeze solid.
Energy is not created from nothingness. The Sun is responsible for all gravitational energy, motion, and surface warming, which allows the core to stay molten.
It is the formation of the Sun that created the gravity that then allowed further dust to accumulate and form the planets. Thus the Sun is the source of the Earth and any geothermal energy. The Sun will also end all life on Earth in about 1 billion when it expands (Red Giant Stage) and it gets hot enough to boil away the oceans. That's about the time our Milky Way (galaxy, not candy) will be meeting up with the Andromeda Galaxy - could be a fun time - maybe we'll get caught in a second star's gravity and be a binary system?
That was and is, how much a factor the Sun is.
A great sun song - "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd
Do you know why they were doing the research? I wonder if they were doing the research because of some government requirement.
I would imagine some of the research was paid for as a result of government arm twisting. You can apply to companies like BP for research grants. It most likely is in their best interest. No other good reason for them to spend the money. I would not expect any company to pay for research without potential gain. The government is the only entity that throws money away on worthless research. The last spending bill is loaded with those kind of wasted earmarks.
You being a scientist would not consider spending on most things as frivolous. As a tax payer I find the following pork unacceptable.
Representative Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) for $211,509 in olive fruit fly research in Paris, France.
Hope he and his family had a wonderful vacation :sick:
When you are freezing your fanny off, you don't care.
Yep, my climate is too cold also. I have no need for an AC, but heat my house for up to 9 months a year. This type of condition goes on year after year. There's vast stretches of land in Canada, Asia, and Alaska which could become habitable if it warmed a little, and most of the rest of us could enjoy a little added warmth each day.
That's why everyone moves south and west when they retire because the vast majority of people prefer the warmer weather. When I retire, I'm either moving to Hawaii, or maybe Costa Rica if the cost and politicics is right then.
MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."
The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.
All that says is that we still know nothing about the root causes of the warming we have observed.
Which we already knew. Which other people have already said before.
This was in response to those that still believe there is a consensus. If you find the MIT study boring so be it. It is still a part of the puzzle and further evidence that we know very little about Climate Change. For sure not enough to shut down life as we know it and try to go back to 1990.
Yawn? Come on Larsb, why would you attempt to belittle and yawn at a scientific study from MIT? Where is that open and well read mind of yours? :surprise:
I think disappearing ice in the artic is indisputable as well. However, while the Ross Ice sheet in the Antartic may also be shrinking, the total amount of ice in Antartica is increasing. Antartic ice contains over 90% of the world's fresh water.
OK, I am not disputing your claim that Antarctic ice contains over 90% of the world's fresh water, but...where in the heck did all that ice come from during the ice age when glaciers covered so much of the globe?
If you already knew about the methane distribution, why didn't you let MIT know? That would have saved them a lot of time and money. We are here to determine if the automobile is the cause of GW/CC. That was just one more bit of evidence to the contrary. I do not remember you or anyone else posting that information before. If any evidence that does not confirm your belief in man made GW bores you, maybe you should join Al Gore's team. There is always room for one more zealot that will blindly follow his THEORIES.
Glaciers come from snowfall. Summer and winter temperatures are insufficient to allow for snow melt and so build up year after year. In time the weight of the snow on the snow beneath it turns to ice from the pressure. The continually building pressure and gravity cause the ice to "flow." Antarctic ice is miles thick at this point.
“ The government is the only entity that throws money away on worthless research.”
Just because you do not see a value in research doesn't make it worthless. Do you think other countries will stop doing research. Within a decade or two of us stopping research the U.S. would become nothing more than a banana republic.
“China's Spending on Research and Development Growing Faster than U.S. ... While the United States still has a bigger share of the global R&D market, second-ranked China is gaining ground.” http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200610/china.html
Companies throw money away on useless research and products all the time. Sometimes their research is second to none as in the case of Bell Labs. Do you think AT&T would have gotten were they did if they had stopped basic research? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs
“As a tax payer I find the following pork unacceptable. ...Representative Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) for $211,509 in olive fruit fly research in Paris, France. “
Basic research is important. Research into climate is also important. How much money we can spend is certainly open to debate, but if we stop doing research we will be in trouble. The rest of the world will not stand still.
Molten Earth core vs Solar contribution of energy "The simple answer is that the temperature of the earth's core has nothing to do with the presence of the sun. " http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=29757
Neutrino flux measurements from the Earth's core (see kamLAND) show the source of about two-thirds of the heat in the inner core is the radioactive decay of 40K, uranium and thorium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env087.htm "As you guessed, the earth's interior would have cooled off by now if there weren't some source of energy. That source happens to be radioactive decay of elements such as uranium. This process continually heats the earth, and does not defy the second law of thermodynamics."
“Electric lighting consumes 19 percent of the world's electricity grid production. If all the incandescent light bulbs in the United States were replaced with CFLs, the country would avoid 158 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to an industry estimate, the equivalent of removing more than 30 million cars off the road.” http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/38545
Great, now everybody quick change all your light bulbs. We got this GW problem licked. But wait........
“GROWTH RATE Growth of world fleet: World car fleet is growing at about 6.5%/year or 55 million net additional cars/year (car production 2007: about 70 million, 15 million scrapped in year). Fast growth in China, India, East Europe, Africa, Mid East and Latin America easily counterbalances the slight contraction (about 1% to 2%/year since 2005) in a few western EU countries and declining growth of car fleet in USA.” http://www.serendipity.li/fe/car_fact_sheet.htm
Crazy, even if we could somehow get everybody to change to CFLs tomorrow, the increase in the world car fleet would wipe that out in 6 months....BUT... the bigger problem is not GW....the problem will be the fight over oil and resources as the world population creeps ever upward....
Just because you do not see a value in research doesn't make it worthless.
I think you are mistaken. If I give you a million dollars to prove the earth is flat I have wasted my money. If the government gives you a million dollars to prove water is bad for us the government has wasted our tax dollars. The difference is I have the right to waste my money on research. The Federal Government does not have that right. They have taken liberties with our tax dollars that would not hold up to the scrutiny of the Constitution if we had a court that was accountable.
Spending my tax dollars on research would be acceptable if it was not researching a predetermined conclusion. Man Made Global Warming being one of the biggest scams we have had to deal with.
I'm not sure your point on industrial R&D. That is necessary and not all will produce results that are useful. Just the cost of doing business.
If all the incandescent light bulbs in the United States were replaced with CFLs
While I did replace the 56 incandescent light bulbs in my home. It was because I am cheap I was trying to cut my electric bill. Which it did. This mandate will further erode our trade imbalance with China. ALL CFLs I have found in our stores are made in China. I bought the 76 cent ones from SDG&E as again I am frugal. They are Lights of America (made in China).
I do agree that cutting GHG to 1990 levels is not going to happen. No signatory of the Kyoto have complied with that failed document.
Your links miss the point, as they do not apply to the situation I mentioned. Your one link applies to the earth-sun system as it is today, with many, many billions of KJ/sec of sun energy insulating the Earth (keeping the air and oceans a relatively warm blanket).
And the other link I can agree with that the Earth would have froze w/o the radiation, and would be in equilibrium with the surface.
Consider that even with the Sun providing so much energy, the earth's oceans once froze over. Now take away the Sun and take the air to -458F (near absolute zero), and that freezing moves inwards probably at 0.5 - 1 mile / year. Whether rock is a good insulator or not, it will conduct heat away. There is not enough radioactive elements in the Earth to stop this, and many of the elements have long-halflives, meaning they're not radiating much anyway. There is nothing that will stop that -458F temperatures from conducting the heat away, from hundreds of thousands of sq. miles of rock.
What has kept this from occurring is the heat from the Sun for the last 4 billion years. Do a calculation of how much energy the Earth has received over its history from the Sun, and compare that to the amount of radioactive material in the Earth and how much energy that has been. Which is larger? It is simple that the Sun puts much more energy into the Earth's system, and keeps the planet from freezing.
Great, now everybody quick change all your light bulbs. We got this GW problem licked. But wait........
Why would I want to cut down on my electricity usage, when it replaces my heating with oil? I'm buying 1500W electric space-heaters for my house this year. And I switch to incandescent light bulbs in the colder months to provide more heat.
I agree with your points though, that lead to the fact that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Now that we know how to get oil and such, and the benefits, someone, somewhere is going to us eit.
The uniformity of distribution of your light bulb heat source is pretty inefficient. Even if the bulb and the radiant heater both produce 100 watts of heat, the device designed to furnish heat instead of light will be more economical.
Right tool, right job.
Like, say, commuting in a gas miser and saving the dually for towing the horses to the trailhead on the weekend.
The uniformity of distribution of your light bulb heat source is pretty inefficient.
What? If I use 20W CFC + 80W from a heater is more efficient than a 100W incandescent? 100 is not < 100 ! Law of Conservation of Energy, my friend. 100W is 100W no matter how it's obtained and used. Whether your coffee pot, iron, light bulb ... is drawing the energy which is all converted into heat (kinetic energy is also converted to heat), it's the same.
The added expense of CFC's and extra heaters do not make sense during heating season, when compared to the inexpensive, great heating incandescent.
Substituting light bulbs for a heating source over a radiant heater is still inefficient in spite of the thermodynamics argument.
The bulb could be in a can in the ceiling, mostly heating your attic. The bulb could be in a lamp near a wall, and could induce thermal conduction away from the place where you want the heat to be (hot spot on a wall, conduction through the wall, increasing heat loss of the room).
The only problem with those new light bulbs is that they contain mercury. Don't drop them.
I know they are dangerous. I have had two pop the first time they were turned on. I took them back for exchange. I handle with light leather gloves. I also get way back when I turn them on the first time. Mercury is nasty stuff. It will present problems in the future for disposal.
The problem I have found with CFLs is that they don't reach peak brightness as quickly as the old bulbs. You end up fumbling around in twilight for a few minutes while the bulbs ramp up.
I worry that when the commies invade I'll have trouble finding my gun. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
"substituting light bulbs for a heating source over a radiant heater is still inefficient in spite of the thermodynamics argument..."
I got my little sister's Easy-Bake Oven right here that says different.
A non-CFL bulb IS in effect a radiant heater because most of the radiation it gives off is infrared waves (heat). That's the reason it's not so good as a light source, most of the energy inputs make heat, not light.
Because a light bulb does emit light it is not QUITE as good as a purpose built radiant heater which has a fan to circulate the warm air.
So you are both right...and both off topic. :P
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
OldTimer says, "The problem I have found with CFLs is that they don't reach peak brightness as quickly as the old bulbs."
Actually, that's not true for EVERY SINGLE CFL out there. It is true for most though. Just something to adapt to in your life, like higher and then lower gas prices.
There are models which come to full power almost instantly.
See this page for a Popular Mechanics lab test rundown:
There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.
The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.
This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.
With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.
Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."
Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.
To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.
It's a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it's one that's working.
Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States. That's because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world's next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.
The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.
"Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day. First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm's registered lobbyist, and Gore's former top Senate aide," wrote EIR.
"Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers' cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.
"With Al Gore's Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal's stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers--including Maurice Strong--sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996--a Sunday--the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.
"On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong's role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.
In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.
My questions. Why didn't Al Gore and Maurice Strong end up in jail for insider trading and defrauding the DOE? Oh I forgot he was VP under Clinton at the time.
Now Obama is looking at Gore as his Energy Czar. What a corrupt government we have. And it is getting worse by the day.
I'm not leaving. I still have freedom to complain don't I? None of the countries you named will allow you to complain about whatever you feel like. I refuse to put my head in the sand and act like everything is honky dory in our government. It is corrupt from top to bottom and I will vote each election to try and get out the incumbents that make it corrupt.
I am happy I can drive my SUV most places without fear of having it burned by GW cultists such as ELF or Gaia.
Just because the other governments are corrupt is not an excuse for ours to be the same. I know you are in denial about cap & trade laws. Our next President has said he will implement them to bankrupt Coal generation.
It is corrupt from top to bottom and I will vote each election to try and get out the incumbents that make it corrupt.
Here! Here!! And I will argue and fight against any increase in $ and power going to the government.
Larsb: Speaking of FREE, I wish we were. But I'm doing major work just to feed the wheels of government. Let's see after my income taxes and social security, I just got hit with a 10% increase in property tax, even though the house value went down 15%, I don't see where I'm FREE. I guess even a prisoner can delude himself into believing he's free, as he has some freedom - he can decide where to sit in his cell, or who to fight with ....
The real problem I have with people who serve the public, is that the vast majority live better than the public!
Comments
One other point though: many people don't understand the difference between correlation and causality. Just because humans may have increased CO2 output and global temperatures may have risen doesn't mean there's any relationship between the two. We have a correlation. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the percentage increase of CO2 presently in the atmosphere is tiny. Some studies suggest that elevated temperatures cause CO2 release trapped in ocean waters...
I'm all for research, but determining causality with absolute certainty requires control of all other factors. I'm skeptical humans are even remotely close to having this capability for a system so large as the earth. The primary reason there are so many conflicts for what is the best "diet" is failure to be able to control for all factors.
The only one that I can remember that actually screwed up and solved or helped solve a problem was the old March of Dimes for polio. Remember those little cards with slots that all us kids filled with dimes?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
This generation is tired of the nonsense and "dirty stick" that our ancestors have left for us and people like you that don't want to help clean up the mess and prevent future messes.
Thats not quite the same topic. I'm all for non polluting clean electric vehicles and a "clean" environment. I just got back from a national park and love nothing better than a pristine environment. I'm talking about Global Warming! I never said I advocate pollution. I'm just tired of all those brainwashed by the media to think that GW caused by humans is a fact. I agree totally about past generations causing future generations problems, but sadly this is nothing new.
The people like me comment is putting me in a category without any merit. The fact that I'm not convinced humans are the primary cause of GW or may not even be able to influence it does not mean in any way that I advocate trashing the planet. Also humankind's impact on global temperatures is the the topic at hand. if you don't care why read the forum?
I have been waiting for solutions that are practical for decades. The Tax payers have tossed Billions at the problems with little to show for it. Much of what is developed does not see the light of day. Fossil fuel is still the least expensive way to do all the things we like to do. When the supply gets nearly depleted in the next 200-400 years we may or may not have an alternative. We have learned to burn fossil fuel with a lot less damage to the air. That is progress.
I'm on the side that says Climate Change is inevitable and man probably has little to do with it. And even if we do the larger populations in China and India are not going to squelch progress to avoid additional GHG. Taxing carbon as is proposed is just another government scam to screw the working man. Corporations just pass any higher cost of doing business to you and I. The wealthy could care less if their utility bills double. For those of US lower on the food chain it can be financial disaster.
State rejects PG&E contract for wave energy.....
link title
So does anybody REALLY want to get off fossilized fuels?
Be careful now; the computer you're typing on is probably THE WORST product for creating toxic waste during the manufacture of its parts, and its recycling. I believe our junk electronics get sent to 3rd world areas, where villagers strip these parts and melt down the metals over open coal fires.
Companies will do research, however, they have a tendency to focus on issues that effect them. Government research would be broader in scope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_(geology) and
"Radioactive potassium, uranium and thorium are thought to be the three main sources of heat in the Earth's interior, aside from that generated by the formation of the planet. Together, the heat keeps the mantle actively churning and the core generating a protective magnetic field." ..."Gradually, however, the Earth would have cooled off and become a dead rocky globe with a cold iron ball at the core if not for the continued release of heat by the decay of radioactive elements like potassium-40, uranium-238 and thorium-232, which have half-lives of 1.25 billion, 4 billion and 14 billion years, respectively. "http://www.physlink.com/News/121103PotassiumCore.cfm
" The Sun is the original source of all energy that has, is and will be used on Earth."
Nope.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/905866177.Es.r.html
Climate refers to the temperature, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological factors in a region over long periods of time, as opposed to the term weather, which refers to current activity.
Focus people, focus..... :shades:
The article does not particularly state it - but the "given" is the physical environment now - which is thwe Sun keeps the outer surface 500F hotter then it otherwise would be. This is the differenc ebetween storing something in the oven at 500F or your freezer. Now if you're saying this makes no difference, then I'll ask you where you took your thermodynamics. Without the Sun the Earth freezes solid. Very little of the Earth's elements are radioactive. Iron will freeze solid.
Energy is not created from nothingness. The Sun is responsible for all gravitational energy, motion, and surface warming, which allows the core to stay molten.
It is the formation of the Sun that created the gravity that then allowed further dust to accumulate and form the planets. Thus the Sun is the source of the Earth and any geothermal energy. The Sun will also end all life on Earth in about 1 billion when it expands (Red Giant Stage) and it gets hot enough to boil away the oceans. That's about the time our Milky Way (galaxy, not candy) will be meeting up with the Andromeda Galaxy - could be a fun time - maybe we'll get caught in a second star's gravity and be a binary system?
That was and is, how much a factor the Sun is.
A great sun song - "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd
When you are freezing your fanny off, you don't care. Get in your SUV and start reving.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I would imagine some of the research was paid for as a result of government arm twisting. You can apply to companies like BP for research grants. It most likely is in their best interest. No other good reason for them to spend the money. I would not expect any company to pay for research without potential gain. The government is the only entity that throws money away on worthless research. The last spending bill is loaded with those kind of wasted earmarks.
You being a scientist would not consider spending on most things as frivolous. As a tax payer I find the following pork unacceptable.
Representative Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) for $211,509 in olive fruit fly research in Paris, France.
Hope he and his family had a wonderful vacation :sick:
Yep, my climate is too cold also. I have no need for an AC, but heat my house for up to 9 months a year. This type of condition goes on year after year. There's vast stretches of land in Canada, Asia, and Alaska which could become habitable if it warmed a little, and most of the rest of us could enjoy a little added warmth each day.
That's why everyone moves south and west when they retire because the vast majority of people prefer the warmer weather. When I retire, I'm either moving to Hawaii, or maybe Costa Rica if the cost and politicics is right then.
Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
There goes Big Al's Carbon Credit Bonanza :sick:
http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113-text.html
More study
Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."
The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.
All that says is that we still know nothing about the root causes of the warming we have observed.
Which we already knew. Which other people have already said before.
YAWN
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I was YAWNing Gary's posting something that declared something we already knew......that we don't know what's causing the warming.......
Duh.
YAWN.........
And the CONCLUSION is what I was yawning, not the data or the method.
"One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. "
That's the big DUH.
I think larsb wants us back to 1790. Anyone up for a little plague?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Just because you do not see a value in research doesn't make it worthless. Do you think other countries will stop doing research. Within a decade or two of us stopping research the U.S. would become nothing more than a banana republic.
“China's Spending on Research and Development Growing Faster than U.S. ... While the United States still has a bigger share of the global R&D market, second-ranked China is gaining ground.”
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200610/china.html
Companies throw money away on useless research and products all the time. Sometimes their research is second to none as in the case of Bell Labs. Do you think AT&T would have gotten were they did if they had stopped basic research?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs
“As a tax payer I find the following pork unacceptable. ...Representative Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) for $211,509 in olive fruit fly research in Paris, France. “
You are kidding right? :surprise: $211K, a General in the Military sneezing would spend more money than that. Have you heard the expression penny wise and pound foolish? Try this link:
http://sarahpalintruthsquad.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/memo-to-sarah-palin-fruit-f- ly-research-has-led-to-advances-in-understanding-autism-video/
Basic research is important. Research into climate is also important. How much money we can spend is certainly open to debate, but if we stop doing research we will be in trouble. The rest of the world will not stand still.
Molten Earth core vs Solar contribution of energy
"The simple answer is that the temperature of the earth's core has
nothing to do with the presence of the sun. "
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=29757
Neutrino flux measurements from the Earth's core (see kamLAND) show the source of about two-thirds of the heat in the inner core is the radioactive decay of 40K, uranium and thorium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env087.htm
"As you guessed, the earth's interior would have cooled off by now if there weren't some source of energy. That source happens to be radioactive decay of elements such as uranium. This process continually heats the earth, and does not defy the second law of
thermodynamics."
http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/38545
Great, now everybody quick change all your light bulbs. We got this GW problem licked. But wait........
“GROWTH RATE
Growth of world fleet: World car fleet is growing at about 6.5%/year or 55 million net additional cars/year (car production 2007: about 70 million, 15 million scrapped in year). Fast growth in China, India, East Europe, Africa, Mid East and Latin America easily counterbalances the slight contraction (about 1% to 2%/year since 2005) in a few western EU countries and declining growth of car fleet in USA.”
http://www.serendipity.li/fe/car_fact_sheet.htm
Crazy, even if we could somehow get everybody to change to CFLs tomorrow, the increase in the world car fleet would wipe that out in 6 months....BUT... the bigger problem is not GW....the problem will be the fight over oil and resources as the world population creeps ever upward....
I think you are mistaken. If I give you a million dollars to prove the earth is flat I have wasted my money. If the government gives you a million dollars to prove water is bad for us the government has wasted our tax dollars. The difference is I have the right to waste my money on research. The Federal Government does not have that right. They have taken liberties with our tax dollars that would not hold up to the scrutiny of the Constitution if we had a court that was accountable.
Spending my tax dollars on research would be acceptable if it was not researching a predetermined conclusion. Man Made Global Warming being one of the biggest scams we have had to deal with.
I'm not sure your point on industrial R&D. That is necessary and not all will produce results that are useful. Just the cost of doing business.
While I did replace the 56 incandescent light bulbs in my home. It was because I am cheap I was trying to cut my electric bill. Which it did. This mandate will further erode our trade imbalance with China. ALL CFLs I have found in our stores are made in China. I bought the 76 cent ones from SDG&E as again I am frugal. They are Lights of America (made in China).
I do agree that cutting GHG to 1990 levels is not going to happen. No signatory of the Kyoto have complied with that failed document.
And the other link I can agree with that the Earth would have froze w/o the radiation, and would be in equilibrium with the surface.
Consider that even with the Sun providing so much energy, the earth's oceans once froze over. Now take away the Sun and take the air to -458F (near absolute zero), and that freezing moves inwards probably at 0.5 - 1 mile / year. Whether rock is a good insulator or not, it will conduct heat away. There is not enough radioactive elements in the Earth to stop this, and many of the elements have long-halflives, meaning they're not radiating much anyway. There is nothing that will stop that -458F temperatures from conducting the heat away, from hundreds of thousands of sq. miles of rock.
What has kept this from occurring is the heat from the Sun for the last 4 billion years. Do a calculation of how much energy the Earth has received over its history from the Sun, and compare that to the amount of radioactive material in the Earth and how much energy that has been. Which is larger? It is simple that the Sun puts much more energy into the Earth's system, and keeps the planet from freezing.
Why would I want to cut down on my electricity usage, when it replaces my heating with oil? I'm buying 1500W electric space-heaters for my house this year. And I switch to incandescent light bulbs in the colder months to provide more heat.
I agree with your points though, that lead to the fact that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Now that we know how to get oil and such, and the benefits, someone, somewhere is going to us eit.
Right tool, right job.
Like, say, commuting in a gas miser and saving the dually for towing the horses to the trailhead on the weekend.
What? If I use 20W CFC + 80W from a heater is more efficient than a 100W incandescent? 100 is not < 100 ! Law of Conservation of Energy, my friend. 100W is 100W no matter how it's obtained and used. Whether your coffee pot, iron, light bulb ... is drawing the energy which is all converted into heat (kinetic energy is also converted to heat), it's the same.
The added expense of CFC's and extra heaters do not make sense during heating season, when compared to the inexpensive, great heating incandescent.
The bulb could be in a can in the ceiling, mostly heating your attic. The bulb could be in a lamp near a wall, and could induce thermal conduction away from the place where you want the heat to be (hot spot on a wall, conduction through the wall, increasing heat loss of the room).
Where's Tidester this morning?
Good discussion of the question here:
Physics Forum
I know they are dangerous. I have had two pop the first time they were turned on. I took them back for exchange. I handle with light leather gloves. I also get way back when I turn them on the first time. Mercury is nasty stuff. It will present problems in the future for disposal.
Ahh, a man after my own heart.
The problem I have found with CFLs is that they don't reach peak brightness as quickly as the old bulbs. You end up fumbling around in twilight for a few minutes while the bulbs ramp up.
I worry that when the commies invade I'll have trouble finding my gun. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I got my little sister's Easy-Bake Oven right here that says different.
A non-CFL bulb IS in effect a radiant heater because most of the radiation it gives off is infrared waves (heat). That's the reason it's not so good as a light source, most of the energy inputs make heat, not light.
Because a light bulb does emit light it is not QUITE as good as a purpose built radiant heater which has a fan to circulate the warm air.
So you are both right...and both off topic. :P
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Actually, that's not true for EVERY SINGLE CFL out there. It is true for most though. Just something to adapt to in your life, like higher and then lower gas prices.
There are models which come to full power almost instantly.
See this page for a Popular Mechanics lab test rundown:
CFLs tested
And as far as the danger of breaking one? CFLs contain less only 1% of the mercury found in the average home thermometer.
The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.
This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.
With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.
Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."
Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.
To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.
It's a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it's one that's working.
Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States. That's because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world's next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.
The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.
"Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day. First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm's registered lobbyist, and Gore's former top Senate aide," wrote EIR.
"Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers' cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.
"With Al Gore's Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal's stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers--including Maurice Strong--sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996--a Sunday--the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.
"On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong's role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.
In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
You might conclude that these two are men of many scams.
Now Obama is looking at Gore as his Energy Czar. What a corrupt government we have. And it is getting worse by the day.
Why don't you haul your clan up to Canada then. Or Mexico. Or Cuba. Or China. Or Russia.
There are far WORSE places and far more problematic guvmints. Be happy we are FREE.
I am happy I can drive my SUV most places without fear of having it burned by GW cultists such as ELF or Gaia.
Just because the other governments are corrupt is not an excuse for ours to be the same. I know you are in denial about cap & trade laws. Our next President has said he will implement them to bankrupt Coal generation.
Why cap and trade could backfire
Ha Ha Ha that's funny.......................................
How do you think "the incumbents" got corrupted in the first place?
By the political machine.
And changing the people going into the machine does not affect the mechanization of the machine.
Face it - just like in any society, there are 5 or 10 percent of the populace who make the rest of us look bad.
Guvmint is just a microcosm of society, so there will always be bad apples.
Lucky for us, he good apples outrank the bad by a LONG shot.
Here! Here!! And I will argue and fight against any increase in $ and power going to the government.
Larsb: Speaking of FREE, I wish we were. But I'm doing major work just to feed the wheels of government. Let's see after my income taxes and social security, I just got hit with a 10% increase in property tax, even though the house value went down 15%, I don't see where I'm FREE.
I guess even a prisoner can delude himself into believing he's free, as he has some freedom - he can decide where to sit in his cell, or who to fight with ....
The real problem I have with people who serve the public, is that the vast majority live better than the public!
I thought that was the point in the first place!!!????
If this were not a car forum and were a political forum, you'd get a great education-based tongue lashing from me right about now.