ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

I replaced over 400 light bulbs in my house with LEDs last year.

I looked at solar last year too, but I could not make the economics work out. The break-even point was 20 years - so I would be financing something that only starts to save money after 20 years - which is the point where it will be well beyond obsolete and require replacing with a new system. The math does not work. And that was with govt subsidies. I am sure it makes more sense where there is more sun.
 
rsilvers said:
I replaced over 400 light bulbs in my house with LEDs last year.
I looked at solar last year too, but I could not make the economics work out. The break-even point was 20 years - so I would be financing something that only starts to save money after 20 years - which is the point where it will be well beyond obsolete and require replacing with a new system. The math does not work. And that was with govt subsidies. I am sure it makes more sense where there is more sun.
Click to expand...
See also wind generators maybe?
 
Wind has been a failure around here.

3x the rate of existing power in MA, and 6x as much as power in AL.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/395991/end-massachusetts-offshore-cape-wind-project-jillian-kay-melchior

Also read about the The disaster of the Fox Islands Wind Project in Maine. I studied it at the Harvard Business Extension School.
 
rsilvers said:
I replaced over 400 light bulbs in my house with LEDs last year.
Click to expand...

I have maybe 20-25 sockets in my whole house. Are you counting a long string of Christmas lights?

In California there was a program where you put nothing down, you just continued to pay an average months electric payment until it was paid off. Only problem was you had to have an average $150/month bill, which those of us that were careful about it didn't have.

Mr. Moose brought this up once, they were giving away wind power overnight in the Texas hill country. They might be still.
 
I looked up my old notes and it is 376 bulbs that I wanted to replace.

I took a photo of some of the ones that I removed (this is one day's worth of removals):

10293832_10153095214763662_466650782248692277_o.jpg
 
Wow.
It's my experience that to make alternative power economical one must also go with more natural sources of energy when possible. IE direct solar passive systems to heat water and houses, and getting away from electric stoves and dryers. In fact, things end up being very economical. Many slaves to the system could find some much needed freedom.
Once you figure out how to comfortably modify the 'norm' (energy hoggish) ways we're all taught are reasonable and acceptable, I found a solar system for the rest of powered devices was very economical.

It's hard enough, or nearly impossible to heat a normal traditional house with just passive solar though, so it obviously depends on house build, size, and whether you have high power requirements (like alot of lights in leu of some suntunnels/skylights)

No judgment here, but wow 400 bulbs must be one helluva shack lol. People deserve credit for all the things they do to help out, from big to small.
 
carbon-emissions-537x358.jpg


The oceans stalled global warming, but they’re about to unleash the heat

http://inhabitat.com/the-oceans-stalled-global-warming-but-theyre-about-to-unleash-the-heat/

Last two paragraphs:
What exactly will happen when the heat is released is still up in the air, but a new paper published in the journal Nature, says there is an 85 percent chance the “pause” phase will end within the next five years, and will be followed by a “burst of warming” likely made up of about 10 years of warm ocean oscillations.

The rate of warming would be about twice the background rate for at least five years and potentially longer, with the majority of warming expected to happen in the Arctic, where results could be devastating.
Click to expand...

:cry:
 
I believe in global warming but I also believe people should do whatever they want...whether that be trying to stop a pipeline or whether it be burning the fuels from the pipelines.
After spending 5 years researching the subject and reading hundreds of books, it makes me think its a mental block that prevents people from seeing what's happening.
It's not from a lack of evidence. To be honest there's no way we can reduce our carbon emissions to below the required 0.5 Gt a year that nature can sustain.
So do whatever you want, whether it be building pipelines or protesting them.

Lovelock: Enjoy life while you can, in 20 years it will hit the fan
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
Potential for methane relesase:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.ca/p/potential-for-methane-release.html
 
Even if most of us do reduce our levels.....

Only 1.5% of people in India own a car. Are we going to tell them they cannot have cars? They cannot have air conditioning going forward? They don't have cars because they cost a lot relative to their income. Even the $3000 Nano car has proven too expensive with only 70,000 sold a year. Are we going to force them to use electricity generated in a way that costs 3x as much?

It is a fantastic waste of money to move this quickly (already spent over a trillion dollars) trying to solve this probable problem rather than just let technology progress at a more natural (non-subsidized) course.
 
"We don't have to do anything because technology will save the day" is a classic warming denialism.

Your argument about developing world living standards is interesting. It's not wrong to be concerned that others have a lower standard of living than yourself, but it's faulty to use that concern as a justification for everyone in the west to continue unfettered consuming and polluting. FWIW "India/China aren't doing anything, so it's pointless us trying" is another classic denier line ;)

I'm afraid a "head in the sand" approach isn't going to solve this one.
 
rsilvers said:
I took a photo of some of the ones that I removed (this is one day's worth of removals):
Click to expand...

I---I---I Yai yiiiiii. . . .

Dang, you must be the one that started the energy crisis with all those lamps burning. No wonder the globe is warming. But it's okay now that this has been straightened out, right?
 
Punx0r said:
"FWIW "India/China aren't doing anything, so it's pointless us trying" is another classic denier line ;)
Click to expand...
I don't think you can just point to a list of lines that people have said many times and say "Look, it is on a list of something said before, so you shouldn't use it." I am saying there is a long list of things we should not be doing. Cash for Clunkers is on that list.
 
It's a rephrasing of "he's not doing the right thing, so why should I?". It's fallacious reasoning. Two wrongs make a right.

I agree that car scrapage schemes were probably not helpful. It requires a careful examination of the embodied energy in new and old cars. However reducing local air pollution is a separate issue that might warrant it. The scheme in the UK was mostly implemented as a stimulus for the motor industry. It didn't work well because many of the new cars bought under the scheme were cheap imports. It was widely regarded as a waste of usable cars while supporting the Korean automotive industry.
 
Punx0r said:
It's a rephrasing of "he's not doing the right thing, so why should I?". It's fallacious reasoning. Two wrongs make a right.
Click to expand...
I think it is fair to calculate it into a cost-benefit analysis. For example, is it worth it to spend $10,000 to better-insulate my house when my son keeps leaving his bedroom windows open?
 
wasted all day yesterday studying the anatarctic circumpolar current and how the eocene had this major event in the middle after the ice cap began forming on antarctica about 45 million years ago. there was this major event about 24 million years ago where the temperature climbed really rapidly and melted the ice cap off of antarctica as is gonna happen again now. they called it a phase of rapid melting that occurred when the indian land mass collided with the asian subcontinent to create the himalayas and a lot of CO2 was released during the volcanic events that followed with it. and then 10 million years later the australian tie to antarctica was severed and the tasmanian seaway was opened.

this allowed the circumpolar winds to push the ocean current into the gyre that still exists to this day and that was when the ice cap on antarctica developed as it is today with the southern ocean isolating the antarctic land mass from the ocean currents which would otherwise melt the ice cap.

the entire process of evaporative cooling of the southern ocean from the constant winds leading to the cooling of the water next to the frozen land allows the ice to be formed which excluded the brine along with the cold water which also was dense that led to the development of the 'ocean conveyor' which sinks this huge mas of cold water to the bottom of the ocean trenches and it flows away northward towards the atlantic and pacific oceans.

just very educational. i recommend it to anyone who doesn't already know that global warming is a hoax by scientists who are all paid off to lie about the science they do. that secret pot of money used to corrupt the scientists must come from the mexican gangs or it would have been discovered by now i would expect.

anyway, go to wikipedia: search 'antarctic ice cap', it is well worth the look. there is a picture of the land form underneath the ice cap and discussions that lead off to understand the entire basis for the future sea level rise and how it is gonna happen faster than anyone has so far predicted. scientists are very conservative by nature so only a few are really crying out in fear of how fast it will be. but look at the picture, and the little diagram showing the temperature as related by the oxygen 18 isotope reading, all the way back to the beginning of the eocene. really a well wasted day. made the current and future world a simpler place to understand.
 
dnmun said:
just very educational. i recommend it to anyone who doesn't already know that global warming is a hoax by scientists who are all paid off to lie about the science they do. that secret pot of money used to corrupt the scientists must come from the mexican gangs or it would have been discovered by now i would expect.
Click to expand...
It is more complex than that.

Here is an example. I recently became aware of groups of products on Amazon where the seller builds up a mailing list of willing people, and then at a certain time, announced that they can go buy their product on Amazon for 10 cents if they write a fair and honest review. These people, since they purchased the product, are not listed as "verified buyers."

So there will be some crazy product, like a gladiator hat, that has 178 5-star reviews. Then at the bottom of the page where Amazon says "Customers who bought this product, also bought these products."

Every one of the other random products listed (crazy stuff, like beads and garlic presses, and spatulas) also has an unrealistic number of 5-star reviews. Read the reviews, and they all say "I was provided this product at a discount for my fair and unbiased opinion."

Clearly there are people who add themselves to these mailing lists and get all sorts of stuff in exchange for their reviews. They are not forced to write positive reviews.

I am not saying they are lying in their reviews, but certainly there is bias, as the group is pre-selected as being predisposed to wanting to keep on writing reviews.

Likewise, I don't think climate scientists are lying, but they are like these reviewers - they are pre-selected as to be biased toward a certain outcome. They also get rewarded for supporting the concept of man-made climate change being an urgent issue. They get grants to do research, and they are not going to get grants to prove that man-made-climate change is something that we have a few hundred years to plan for and can take some time to find new forms of energy in a more cost-effective way.
 
Yes, 'steered'!

It's easy to harness people, and they don't even have to be taking a payout. (well, they kinda are when it's their 'job'- that's a pretty good payoff for any possible cognitive dissonance imo)
Peer pressure is useful, but if you really want loyalty, you indocrinate before people can identify it. Then the seed is planted. This is the most important with scientists, because the scientific mind must be steered to question and formulate on only what is 'approved'.
 
rsilvers said:
dnmun said:
just very educational. i recommend it to anyone who doesn't already know that global warming is a hoax by scientists who are all paid off to lie about the science they do. that secret pot of money used to corrupt the scientists must come from the mexican gangs or it would have been discovered by now i would expect.
Click to expand...
It is more complex than that.
Click to expand...

It's not: it's sarcasm...

I'm not sure what the Amazon product review system has to do with AGW or Antarctic ice melt, but it's clear you are a GW denier.

Nutspecial, I'm waiting for the internet police to confiscate your modem.
 
Lol, the sarcasm trick to draw 'em out? :lol:

Yeah, call people 'denier', unworthy of internet, unworthy of life/freedom right?? Nice

Guess what??? I have another post coming up on geoengineering, so maybe you should do some research. How ridiculous is it to be scared of viewing and commenting on stuff that's freely being talked about on the normal internet.
 
well then go start your own thread about how you are so smart and global warming doesn't exist because it is not something you are capable of understanding.

what gives you libertarian republicans the right to go trash other peoples threads? why don't the insiders stop you from trashing something we created to share information and instead you are allowed to come here and shit all over our thread. because the insiders think just like you that's why and they feel they can come here and trash the thread too and if someone complains then they get banned. well up yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top