1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Looks like 2010 wasn't the hottest year on record after all

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Lord Vader, Jan 25, 2011.

  1. Jan 26, 2011 #41 of 201
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    To be fair... that statement does work for both sides of the fence. A lot of people perpetuate something that they heard one scientist say one time even if that scientist himself later clarified what he meant.

    There are lots of points of misinformation on the pro and con side of the global climate change discussions.

    That right there is a misstep... because the inference is that any scientist who disagrees is not "legitimate".

    Remember those commercials that said 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest? So... does that mean the 10th Dentist is not qualified? No... rather it means he found something else to recommend likely, and we have lots of brands of toothpaste that work quite well.

    So... taking a scientist that is con towards man-made climate change and inferring that he is not part of the legitimate scientific community is a dangerous thing.

    True... and also true that the sample size of actual temperature measures is rather small... and a lot of conjecture is being used to extrapolate past temperature models.

    Even with that, though, the scientific community recognizes lots of climate shift long before the industrial revolution... so it is quite arguable that a great many things influence the climate more than we do.

    And that is one reason why people should not be going around exclaiming it as proven fact. This is an example of the misquoting you talked about earlier... It doesn't mean we can't make intelligent guesses and propose things that are good for the environment regardless of whether we are responsible for the change... but it does mean we shouldn't present things as known facts that are not.

    On the actual climate change itself... I have not been fully convinced that they have measured a global temperature change... and even if so, their claim is a tenth of a degree in some places I've read... which seems like a bit of a stretch to think that they have that accurate with all the potential to make errors along the way of a study.

    That said... if they can prove a recent temperature rise... they can't prove it is man-made... and more to the point, they can't prove it is specific to any one activity of man.

    So what we mostly end up with are some people and businesses who would profit financially from the new business of "going green" whether or not it actually helps or changes the climate... and then 10+ years from now we will still be having the discussion about some other thing.

    That's invoking the theory of proving a negative. It is much easier to prove A causes B than to prove A doesn't cause B.

    If you do A, and B happens... then you have proven A causes B. (obviously you need to run the test a few times to be conclusive).

    However... if you do A, and B doesn't happen... you haven't proven that A doesn't cause B... you've just proven that it doesn't cause it all the time.

    I can punch the wall and not leave a mark on my hand. That doesn't prove that punching the wall can't hurt you.
     
  2. Jan 26, 2011 #42 of 201
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    531
    23
    Aug 11, 2008
    Within reason, I would add.

    Carbon-based fuels cost about 5 cents a kilowatt hour, versus 30 to 50 cents for wind and solar.

    If the government mandates that you retrofit your home with more insulation, fine. The return on investment on a retrofit as very high. But for the government to mandate that you use solar or wind energy is unconscionable.
     
  3. Jan 26, 2011 #43 of 201
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Mr. Vernon makes excellent points. And all worth thinking about. The problem is, at what point do you accept something as an irrefutable fact? In the case of global climate change, as I said the evidence is somewhat lopsided in favor of the opinion that we are in a period of extreme global climate change. I don't hear anyone arguing that point.

    The real question is, is it man-made, and among scientists, the opinions based on research also seem to be somewhat lopsided.

    What, in my opinion is not open to interpretation, is the simple idea that we cannot simply do whatever we want to the environment. To me it is simple common sense that we at least try to leave the planet the same way we found it, as much as possible.

    Ms. Chavez, you speak only of the cost of actual generation of electricity, as opposed to the attendant cost of pollution cleanup and the military and civilian cost to maintain a stable source of carbon-based fuels. I agree that it's still not cost-neutral, which is why we need continued research so that solar and win can be a win-win.
     
  4. Jan 26, 2011 #44 of 201
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,881
    196
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    A simple solution would be to ration fuel and electricity, with per unit costs on a sliding scale. That way, it would be up to each individual or family to control and determine how much or little they consumed. Such a system would reward low usage and penalize high usage
     
  5. Jan 26, 2011 #45 of 201
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,057
    318
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    There is the philosophical question of when did the activities of humans become "unnatural" so that we could distinguish between "man-made" climate change and "natural" climate change.

    What we all really want to do is not screw up so badly we destroy our species.

    Beyond that it's pretty personal. If I were an owner of property with Arctic Ocean views, "global warming" might sound pretty good.
     
  6. Jan 26, 2011 #46 of 201
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Ding-ding-ding-ding-Cha-CHING!!

    And there you have the core of the whole debate.
     
  7. Jan 26, 2011 #47 of 201
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Many cities have been doing that for years. KWhrs increase in cost with higher usage as you cross each threshold. I've seen it with natural gas too where rates increase per 1000cf with higher usage.

    Industrial Age. I guess some could argue Iron Age when more foundries started firing up.
     
  8. Jan 26, 2011 #48 of 201
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,057
    318
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Those were pretty natural things for Homo sapiens sapiens to do, apparently.
     
  9. Jan 26, 2011 #49 of 201
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    And that's what I can always get behind... There's no need for some of the waste of resources and energy, and we can cut down on that if for no other reason than it is just good not to be wasteful.

    More recyclable products and more convenient ways of recycling are always a good thing... making more energy efficient products and products that require less energy to operate are good too.

    What I don't like are pushes to go one way just because... without full comprehension of what that means. Consider...

    The electric car sounds good from a pollution standpoint and not using fossil fuels to run it... BUT what a lot of people don't factor in are: Batteries for electric cars don't have a good way to be disposed of later in life... and you have to charge the car somehow, with electricity, likely that comes from a coal burning plant that will need to burn more fossil fuels!

    So some bandwagon jumps don't solve problems... they just shift them to another area temporarily so you can wait a few more years.

    What we can do... in the meantime... is carpool, and try to run our cars efficiently, and combine trips as much as possible... try to conserve fuel and use of the cars while we are trying to come up with the alternative.

    I also have a hard time being told how important the electric car and that initiative is when NASCAR and other professional racing are wasting fuel and polluting the environment + encouraging others to drive there to watch said polluting event.

    Anyway, I'm starting on a tangent... but the real point is... I believe in doing what we can for the environment... but I want to be sure that what we decide to do today doesn't cause another problem down the road that we have to clean up.
     
  10. Jan 26, 2011 #50 of 201
    Supramom2000

    Supramom2000 In Loving Memory of Onyx-2/23/09

    3,805
    159
    Jun 20, 2007
    Colbert, WA
    Well said Stewart. Those are what most people call unintended consequences. They occur quite frequently from politically motivated decisions and decisions made from feelings rather than thoughts.
     
  11. Jan 26, 2011 #51 of 201
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    531
    23
    Aug 11, 2008
  12. Jan 27, 2011 #52 of 201
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Mr. Vernon, I wholeheartedly agree. Doing something trendy is nowhere near as important as looking at the big picture. We must not be "falsely efficient," making gains in our own personal efficiency by sacrificing the environmental soundness of another part of the process.

    I would simply add, though, that it is equally unconscionable to do nothing, or act irresponsibly simply out of the belief that "it doesn't matter what I do. ". Yes, replace your appliances. Just don't stop there. Demand increases in efficiency and cost effectiveness in everything.

    And one more thing, don't belittle others who are also genuinely trying to do their part in a way in which you disagree.
     
  13. Jan 27, 2011 #53 of 201
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    :soapbox:

    I'm just glad you didn't mention those CFC bulbs, which happen to be one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated against Man! Damn! I hate those with every fiber of my being.

    First, it is complete BS that they last for "years" or even "thousands of hours" longer than incandescent bulbs. Second, they're exorbitantly more expensive and not worth it. Third, the light they emit is horrible in many settings. Fourth, I prefer to not have to wait 5 minutes before I can frickin' see when I turn on a light!

    A couple years ago I spent $130 to replace all the incandescent bulbs in my apt. with those damn CFC bulbs. Within 6 months they started to burn out. Here a bulb, there a bulb--they'd die off. I was damned if I was going to have to spend another $6 or $8 to replace a bulb every other week, so over time as they all burnt out and I replaced them with incandescent ones (every one of the 20+ bulbs burned out within 12 months), I gathered them up, walked to my complex's trash bin, and one by one tossed them into the bin, smashing them to pieces in disgust.

    I didn't give a rat's patootie if any mercury escaped, either (that's just another BS scare tactic anyway, if you ask me).
     
  14. Jan 27, 2011 #54 of 201
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    Interesting. I bought several 6 paks at Home Depot, over two years ago, and only had one fail. I called the number on the base of the bulb and told them "It didnt last the 7 years you said it would" and the shipped me a new bulb UPS.

    I made a considerable difference in my electric bill. I purchased the "warm" version, not the "cool white", so the light isnt any different than the old bulbs. I use twin 40W tubes in the kitchen and bathroom in an overhead fixture, for the bright white, and the bulbs in lamps and fixtures in the other rooms. Even have one in my outside light fixture, and its been on for 2 yrs (never turn it off).

    Maybe you just got a bad batch, or the manufacturer wasnt very good.
     
  15. Jan 27, 2011 #55 of 201
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    I doubt that, mainly because I had a couple different types from different manufacturers. The bathrooms had marquee lights while the bedrooms had another and two other rooms' ceiling fan lights were yet another different type. All total, I think I had 5 different styles of CFC bulbs, and within a year, they had all burnt out.

    And saving money? People are forgetting that it costs them a ton of money to buy these asinine and totally unnecessary bulbs, so the cost "savings" are negated by the high price to buy the bulbs. (At a Home Depot recently I passed an end cap advertising incandescent bulbs packages. I picked up a pack of 12 60W bulbs for $7! I liked it so much I went back and grabbed 4 more of these packages. For $35 I got sixty 60W bulbs, all of which will last me a lot longer than and be much cheaper than those ridiculous CFC bulbs.)
     
  16. Jan 27, 2011 #56 of 201
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I think we've had some of this discussion about light bulbs before...

    I bought a bunch of LED bulbs a while back. I actually forgot how long ago I bought them. Some, though, have "burnt" out... well before their rated time too. I need to go back and see how long, to see if they at least were in the same cost-per-months-use range as my traditional bulbs.

    Another drawback of the LEDs... they are directional and typically not as bright as they want you to think by reading the package. I was actually fine, though, with sacrificing some of the light levels if they would last as long as advertised.

    I'm actually most impressed with an outside LED floodlight bulb that I bought... and since you want a floodlight to be directional anyway, then that negative turns into a positive.

    The LEDs are WAY down on the scale of sucking power and don't generate any measurable amount of heat. They just aren't ready for prime-time replacement of all your interior lighting yet... but if you are creative then I think they work well for track lighting and floodlights.. probably good for desk lamps too.
     
  17. Jan 27, 2011 #57 of 201
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Agreed. I don't advocate doing nothing (intended double-negative) any more than I advocate knee-jerk reacting.

    If you know you can do better... then do better, even if it isn't the best possible yet.

    Also agreed. I only take exception with the camp that swears they know all the answers. Heck, even the majority of the scientists with whom I disagree with... if you put them to it, they will admit that they don't know all the answers without a shadow of doubt.
     
  18. Jan 27, 2011 #58 of 201
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    The only CFL's I've had burn out are in an outside post lamp that's on dusk-to-dawn and even those lasted 3 or 4 years.

    I don't know where you're getting them ay $6/ea, but I get them at Lowe's in a 6 pack for about $7 or so.
     
  19. Jan 27, 2011 #59 of 201
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    RE: CFL's, I think the original claims were overrated. That's probably true of a lot of technologies. But most of mine are still going, no replacements after 4-5 years. A few burned out, and that has led me to realize that not all my wiring is as good as it maybe should be. I am transitioning to LEDs now, but that will be a slow process as I'm waiting for the CFLs to burn out.

    In terms of environmental impact, the CFL is better than the incandescent on balance, but it is certainly not perfect and it is far less environmentally friendly to throw one in the trash... so don't.
     
  20. Jan 27, 2011 #60 of 201
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,684
    349
    Dec 9, 2006
    Some may know who Michio Kaku is and for those that don't, he's a physics professor at NYU and has some shows on the Discovery Channels.

    He was on the Today show a few mins back.
    Of note: Scientists all agree the earth is warming. They can disagree as to the cause and whether it's man made or not.

    Global warming is better described as global swings.

    His explanations for why there has been so much snow of late in the northeast is because there has been more moisture coming up from the south [warmer] and then hitting the cold arctic air.

    Sometimes it's nice to hear from someone without any agenda other than trying to educate others. :)
     

Share This Page