Global Warming Watch

Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by Tao_Equus, Jul 22, 2007.

  1. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    SG, the Buddha tailored his messages according to the person's ability to absorb it. So I don't see any discrepancy between my being a Buddhist and understanding why this issue needs to be simplified for mass consumption. The Buddha would have done the very same thing.


    Why don't you start with the scientists advising our world leaders? You can tell them about you points of skepticism and watch them as they all smack themselves on the forehead and ask in astonishment, "Well, why didn't we ever think of that before?!"

    Think of all the wasted money and effort you'll save the world. You might even make the cover of Time Magazine. ;)
     
  2. seattlegal

    seattlegal Mercur├Žn Buddhist Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,614
    Likes Received:
    81
    I'm planting seeds, citizenzen. I'm not looking to get onto the cover of Time. :)
     
  3. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    If thought I had a seed that I thought might end world hunger I wouldn't just plant it my back yard.
     
  4. shawn

    shawn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that some pollutants have an effect on ozone to some degree.
    Ozone is flammable, right.
    So what is the effect of driving a flaming rocket through a layer of flammable gas?
    How many rockets have punched through the ever shifting ozone layer?

    Listen.
    I am against pollution as well and have done lots in my life to do something about it.
    I am PO'd about how toxic things are becoming.
    I am not some oil company propagandist who is trying to protect some fat b@st@rd's financial interests.
    But, I am convinced that blaming human's for climate change is bad science and will set legal precedent's for future issues which will be bad for everyone.
     
  5. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I like to view possibilites for the future and not just current data. Now let's take in a few nuclear bombs going off and/or a depleted ozone layer from chemicals because no one was paying attention. I feel to completely rule out humans not being able to impact climate change in either direction is a mistake.
     
  6. ciberpy

    ciberpy Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've had a similar sentiment.

    Cars are not enough like horses. They both eat fuel and exhale CO2. It is not for exhaling CO2 that a vehicle causes pollution. If it is, then we might as well shoot the animals and ourselves for being daily polluters; an idea some have essentially embraced. It is for NOT evaporating enough H2O. Cars pollute not because they emit CO2, but because they do not evaporate enough H2O to cool and serve the planet. With evaporative cooling the vehicle can be made more efficient, but with the corresponding increase in complexity and energy to serve out H2O at gas stations. With evaporative cooling there is less energy required to cool the engine. Even adding water to the combustion is proven to increase mileage. Water is a required carrier of entropy off the planet, and if we don't evaporate water off the hot body where the energy is consumed, then it has to be evaporated somewhere else. A hot body like an engine will evaporate water even where there is a very high humidity.

    As water is evaporated, it is better than a solar collector... without putting solar cells on top of a vehicle, every vehicle can be turned into a solar collector. After evaporation the sun takes the water from there... the water will absorb infrared sunlight in the day and be driven higher in the atmosphere. As the H2O condenses and forms a cloud, it releases infra-red above the atmosphere, not below it. Right now the car releases entropy below it, and demands the rest of nature to make up for it. In the night when conditions are good for water to condense, it also releases infra-red at an opportune time. Hot air by itself does not get rid of entropy in the same manner because the molecules are not little electrical dipoles. That is why the car needs to evaporate H2O, because for all the light that arrives to the planet, light must leave the planet or things will warm up. The goal is to get the entropy off the planet. Rain also filters and cleans, and it would be nice to have the electricity from hydro but to keep the rivers too. The car that evaporates water also helps capture energy.

    A person might ask how there is not enough evaporation when most of the surface area of the planet is ocean. The trees have had far greater surface area than the ocean. They too have been trimmed. In terms of capturing solar energy, the air-water interface of the ocean is not exactly efficient for evaporating water. Over land is better at evaporating water. Evaporative cooling does not necessarily have to be clean potable water either... I can easily imagine designs that use dirty water with some sort of reverse osmosis, but then our vehicles will have to pee when they get to the gas station. You can take a horse to a gas station, but you can't make it pee there. Perhaps cars and horses will never be entirely alike, but lets make them a step closer.
     
  7. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is really good. All of it I had not thought about the energy being sucked up like that. I am also glad you keep bringing up the forests being removed because we know that has an impact on the absortion of light and water as well. The interface of the ocean will not do it the same way the forest will.

    That was a well thought out post and I enjoyed it very much. I wonder if we have had any impact on the center of the earth like we have done with the surface?
     
  8. shawn

    shawn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is Gorezo the clown's point of view.
    On one hand, I see that using the climate change rhetoric can be useful in forcing industry to comply with being less polluting.
    But on the other hand, I don't see the using of a lie being all that productive on so many levels.
    If we keep polluting we will not survive very well either.
    Already so many foods are very toxic with cumulative poison.
    I see that the anti-pollution angle is the most important.
    Pollution is bad and will kill us eventually, but we can do something about it.
    If we have the will.
    Climate change is another story altogether.
    Sure, it may wipe out most of humanity or a goodly portion, but what can we do about it?
    very little, if anything at all.
    One big volcano pumps more pollutants into the air that people ever have.
     
  9. ciberpy

    ciberpy Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    A volcano comes and goes. We are not still breathing Mount St. Helens ash today.
     
  10. shawn

    shawn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    See how quickly people jump on bandwagon's.
    The propagandists/spin-doctors have connected the dots of pollution with climate change and now that is all some people will talk about.
    "lets change the climate"
    reminds me of don quixote, let's all tilt at some windmills shall we.
    In several decades no one was able to stop the do-able goal of remediating our foul nest problem , but hey, let us not be deterred, let's move on from a possible goal to an impossible goal.
    Reminds me of the utterly stupid movie where the people rekindle the dying sun with some kind of nuke.
    I am disturbed that people buy into such notions.

    Can't people talk about cleaning up our act without stooping to gore-ism's.
     
  11. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    $20 says you're wrong.
     
  12. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    I feel humans are more than capable of controling the way the climate goes just as they are capable of making animals, bees & fish extinct. A volcanoe is a natural release into earth. depleting the ozone, removing the forests, destroying the waters with chemicals & making nuclear bombs are not.

    My views have nothing to do with gore or gorezo the clown but based on my own observations of the death & the destruction humans are in fact capable of.


    yes. but ignoring possibilites is not cleaning up our act.
     
  13. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    What exactly is a gore-ism?

    The man is doing what he can to raise awareness of a very serious issue.

    What is wrong with that?
     
  14. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,279
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Inconvenient truth was inconveniently not the whole truth and nothing but the truth....

    Same problem we have with Michael Moore and his movies...one sided.

    Just like the old drug war... when you try to tell folks you are telling the truth and then they find out you lied...you don't provide awareness...you provide distrust.

    Somebody has to start telling both sides, and the fact that there are holes in what we know... and then folks can start to believe the rhetoric.
     
  15. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    would you rather have bush & cheney who discard global warming as not an issue? gore didn't lie about climate change.
     
  16. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    right. he is the one who made us aware and that is a not a bad thing.
     
  17. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,279
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    nah, he invented the internet, he handles hundreds of millions of dollars of the families oil money...a company that kicked native peruvians off sacred land to drill...has a house that consumes more power than the bushes ranch...

    No I was not impressed with Bush and Cheney...nor am I impressed with Gore. I would be impressed by someone or some group that is truly no spin and truly fair and balanced.

    Unfortunately politics, like religions, everyone has an agenda and no one is willing to let the cards fall where they may, as they have dollars involved and profits at stake.
     
  18. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    There will always be holes. Look at evolution. Every time a hole gets filled in the "other side" is not satisfied. Even when the preponderance of evidence points to one side, the other demands an equal say. It isn't a scientific debate, it's intentional obfuscation and it only serves to hinder progress towards a solution.

    Look at what the "other side" brought us while Bush was in power: eight years of inaction, eight years of catering to the oil and coal industry, eight years of redacted and rewritten "scientific" reports, eight years of international stonewalling.

    So please wil, what is the "other side" that you're advocating for? What information am I and the scientific community overlooking?
     
  19. seattlegal

    seattlegal Mercur├Žn Buddhist Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,614
    Likes Received:
    81
    Yep. It doesn't look like those danged Republicrats are going to develop honesty and integrity anytime soon.
     
  20. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    By The Associated Press 12/14/2007

    Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

    Gore has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He replaced incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or LED bulbs, even on his Christmas tree.

    "Short of tearing it down and starting anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

    Gore's improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30 percent more electricity during the same period because of a record heat wave.

    Shinn said Gore's renovations are impressive because his home, which is more than 80 years old, had to meet the same rigorous standards as new construction.
     

Share This Page