Green Nonsense

[stevekaden]

eli....sadly I could not aggree more. I too have been to China and seen the dark clouds spewing forth...and if we can aggree that burning coal is either dirty or a greenhouse gas polluter - China is hugely contributing to the problem and it sure seems we have no chance.

To answer the articles put forth...mbownman's link refers to an article about how life supporting CO2 is, that it is not a pollutant. So is water, till it is over your head. It is not said to be a toxic gas - it is a greenhouse gas. If I have it correctly, it was found to be so about 150 years ago. As for low CO2 now vs. world history. Absolutely, but when it was very high, the planet could not support much of the animal, and non of the human life we have now. The core microbe (some tiny life form) that consumes CO2 and converts it to Oxygen - the key part of plant life - developed, and over millions of years, it packed the carbon in to the ground and our planet became liveable. So that article is just a silly diversion that does not address the Greenhouse question at all.

As for the link about power supplies - so, some things cost more for benefit. You can ride a motorcycle on a freeway, or a car. The car cost lots more but you will more likely survive an accident in the car. E.g. disk brakes, airbags, crush zones etc. You have to take greenhouse gas as a cost of energy generation in order to do a cost benefit analysis. Solar generate the energy and other than the manufacturing of the panels, their is no benefit. Do it with coal and there is, and perhaps enough to be worth it when it is considered there are millions and millions of the bricks out there.

The link about Gore. I can't see what the point was. That Gore's precise words were slightly off - big deal. The key point here is that the problem is happening MUCH sooner than anyone predicted until very recently. So shoot them their models were too conservative. We still have the issue of water now absorbing heat and not reflecting light back off the planet. The artic has twice the warming. The only 'controversy' in the article is whethere the ice is mostly gone in summer in 5 or 10 years. But that is something that has not occurred for a very very long time (I think millions of years, but I am not sure).

I was intrigued with the Rural ground tempuratures being stable. I will have to research that more. But in no way does that change the world scientific view that encompasses the whole world, oceans, atmosphere, poles, ice trends, life form effects and so on. That the US might be the least affected being farily far north is only a point, not the complete picture.

That the ocean worldwide is getting hotter, is probably the most significant driver of climate change, but that is my opinion only.

[akirby]

The issue isn't whether we should reduce air pollution or even greenhouse gases. The issue is whether we should spend a gazillion dollars and take drastic steps to do it.

The only logical explanation (in my mind) is the simplest one - the sun. We know the sun's heat fluctuates and just think how your temp changes as you move closer to or away from a fire or as the fire dies down.

Look at the difference in heat between the equator and the poles. The difference has to be at least 80 degrees F, probably a lot more - due to nothing more than the difference in the way the sun's heat reaches the surface. And you want me to believe that a 1-2 degree change is because of some gas in the atmosphere and not due to a change in the sun's heat output?

[BobDiaz]

> There is a scientific consensus that global climate change is real and man made.

I think it's only fair to point out that at one time there was a strong scientific consensus that the sun went around the Earth. Then along came some "denier" who had the gall of contradicting the consensus. Science is NOT about taking a vote by the scientists, it's about presenting the data, analysis, and seeing which theory best fits the observations.

Thus, science has to be open, transparent, and allow others to review the results. Unfortunately, the source data for the CRU was tossed and no one can verify it. The software the adjusts the numbers was studied and found to have an artificial adjustment to the numbers. As far as the NASA data, a scientist has been trying for 2 years to see the source data and now has to sue to get access to it. This type of hiding of the data is NOT real science.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... mate-data/

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Getting back to the topic that this thread was about, the CEC and TVs. The CEC is doing all sorts of stupid things that cause problems and bother people. Now the if one really wants to cut down on energy usage, switch from standard light bulbs to CFL bulbs. A single 100 watt bulb takes less than 25 watts with a CFL bulb; that's a 75+ watt savings per light bulb. Even just 4 lights, running 4 hours every night, results in a savings of 1.2 KWh per day. That's a lot more than any TV uses.


Bob Diaz

[stevekaden]

You can claim it is too expensive to act - act against a win-win on many fronts that also include reduction of greenhouse gases - but then you have simply said our lives are not worth it.

Regardless of the causes, the heating and the polluting and the exporting of our money are all issues. Buying a more efficient TV is not going to break the bank. Staying status quo ultimately will.

[Roger Halstead]

Remember that California has what is probably the most heavily utilized power grid in the country and the highest prices. There are many things we can do to reduce energy consumption although poorly worded the California limitation on TV set power consumption could easily be met if they'd just use power supplies that actually turn off. Remember those things are on 24 hours a day unless the power is turned off externally, or by unplugging. Although not much per individual, if every home in the nation (120 million according to the last census) converted incandescents to CFLs (an average of about 10 lights) that would be the equivalent of the output of about 2 power stations.

Two of the biggest energy wasters in existence are TV and Computer power supplies that are on all of the time. They may be switching supplies, but they don't need to be on all of the time. The power they use at idle with the TV off compared to the power the TV uses while on just might make up that power savings CA is going to require. My satellite receiver has to be on in the middle of the night to get updates. They even charge me extra if the phone line to it doesn't work, which it wouldn't with the power off. One of my large computers which has an 850 watt power supply and a 375 watt video card doesn't even have a switch on the power supply and the other 4 have switches that are unreachable. With 5 of those things even the power used when they are off adds up.

Now as for the Anthropogenic global warming which is way OT, news papers and netzines are not exactly reliable, or unbiased sources of information for science or politics. Go to the NOAA, NASA, or IPCC sites for reliable information. Another site with up-to-date news recommended by NOAA is http://arcserver4.iagt.org/climate1stop/ Don't use the actions of a couple of individuals to paint the whole of science.

[BobDiaz]

In terms of per capita electricity use, California is the lowest on the list.

http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electri ... _2005.html

IF California were near the top of the list, I could see the major push to lower our usage, but no other state is lower than California.



The problem is that the information from NOAA, NASA, and IPCC sites is that it may not be as reliable information as one thinks. The 1930s saw warmer temperatures than today, but those numbers were reduced, why? The year 1998 was the warmest year in the last 20 years, but now 1998 was changed and 2006 is tied with 1998 for the warmest year, why is the data changed? The middle ages saw temperatures higher than today, but once again the data is changed, why?

As I said before, the science has to be open for review, but it's not. Please see the link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... mate-data/

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

It's not unreasonable to demand that the data be open for all scientists to review the source data, the calculations, and reasons for these changes. "Thrust us" just doesn't cut it.


Bob Diaz

[stevekaden]

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the article from the Washington Times - a right wing rag of dubious credibility given it's extreme bias and essentially fundamentalist ownership.

Chris Horner is a lawyer, a gamer. He has no real credibility. He just speaks and in this reference sues, but neither means there is any basis to what he says or the lawsuit - harassment suites are common.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is yet another 'let corporate america run rampant with no accountability' appologist group. From their site:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government. We believe that the best solutions come from people making their own choices in a free marketplace, rather than government intervention. Since it was founded by Fred L. Smith, Jr. in 1984, CEI has grown to a team of over 40 policy experts and staff.

Yeah, like the banking system last fall. Fell right off the cliff with their freedom to destroy us all.

An open definition of the Competitive Enterprise institute:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... _Institute

Bottom line, funded by hard core right wingers - lets just call them classic fascists - and the Oil and tobacco industry. Hardy an un-biased group.

Once again, virtually all denial ends up with big money insterests who care nothing about us.

[BobDiaz]

I can play the name calling game too and point out the connections between ultra zealous environmentalists and the IPPC, how left wing government officials provide grants to scientists who produce research that gives them the justification to increase taxes and add new regulations (controls) on the people... NONE of this either way proves or disproves the CO2 theory, but if we both engage in name calling, it will get the thread locked.

Thus, going into a rant of, "a right wing rag of dubious credibility given it's extreme bias ..." is really pointless. That is your opinion, not mine; nor do I accept your view of the world. I respect that you have a different view, but I hold a different view.

Mars has "global warming" too, is that from our excess CO2 on Earth?

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report
Data coincide with increasing solar output
Environment & Climate News > November 2005

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... eport.html

Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html


There are some real questions here and the fact that the source data is NOT open for inspection from either the CRU or NASA does raise some red flags. Maybe you are satisfied with the conclusion and are willing to sacrifice your freedoms, but I'm not. Nor do I buy into the fears that try to shove on us by telling us all the bad things that might happen...


In the case of the thread, the CEC is a little thing, but it bug me that it keeps growing bigger and bigger...


Bob Diaz

[stevekaden]

The Sun heats the earth....we learned that a long time ago - and it is the provider of light and energy that in the end becomes trapped in the atmosphere.

It has been disproved that the variances in the sun have caused this problem. Repeatedly. On a quick search I found:

http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html (from Carnegie Mellon Univ.)

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on ... -warm.html (Stanford Univ, NASA-Goddard)

Key quote: While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global warming are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009)


While I may have more mature to call the Washington Times a rag, but hardly is anything if not a heavily biased right wing tool. Like Glenn Beck, that is not just fact, it is their whole reason for being.

Please, do us all the favor and document "left wing government officials that provide grants to scientists who produce" - biased research. And then pleae, present some modicum of a connection to increated taxes and loss of freedom.

Then maybe you will do us the favor of enlighting us on how that actually impacts us and our freedoms in any way relative to the Patriot Act, and the extortion of the American people by the banks. After all, there is probably not much more lack of freedom than being out of a job and financial collapse.

(And just where is all this cry of freedom in reaction to that disaster...as compared to a itty bitty tiny regulation of TV energy use. In that I am rather non-respective to the whinings of freedom in relation to the attempt to save the planet.)

As for Mars, well, who cares. Proves nothing - it is an utterly different set of parameters.

[Roger Halstead]

I'm not sure why this drifted off into the "save the planet", but the main point seems have been ignored by most.

Regardless of having the lowest use per individual, CA still uses too much power, with a power grid at max a good portion of the time. CA has the luxury of a great climate which helps reduce the electrical use to what it is. However there is little room for increased use so regulations limiting power "on new TV sets" doesn't seem like a loss of freedom, it seems more like a frantic try to reduce the electrical use a little bit here and there. Otherwise it's going to be a huge expense for more power lines to increase the grid capacity.

Wait until the "plug in" electric cars hit the road in force. Only a few will be using natural power on those and they are going to have to get the power from some where.
What are the rates per KWh out there? Here in the frozen north where (where it's a presently a balmy 9 degrees) we spend as much or more for gas to heat our homes as we do for electricity, we have no where near the population density. Actually Michigan is only one of two states losing population due to unemployment almost double the national average due to our dependence on the automotive industry. Our electrical rates? bout 10 cents per KWh and that is a rate based only on how much we use, not when.

Here the power companies have been trying to build some new plants, but as they have to show they are needed they can't get permission. In many areas the power usage is down by 12 to almost 20% and that makes it difficult to show a need for more power plants even if they could build ones that are much more efficient.