hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 3, 2008 11:31:38 GMT -5
Austin wrote:
In Texas, my electric provider would be required by law to compensate me for any KWH I put back into the grid at the same rate they currently charge me for electricity. However, in order to produce enough electricity to make money off an investment in solar panels or turbines, I would have to spend about what an average GU grad makes in his/her first year of employment. The systems I was looking at would cut last month's energy bill by about 2/3rds, but I probably would still have been forced to purchase some power from the grid during the summer. If I want to increase my energy efficiency, it is probably going to be more cost-effective to install new windows and insulation in my 1940's-built home.
What about doing both? It sounds like your first problem is that the house simply isn't very efficient. Replacing windows with double pane glass is a relatively simple procedure that will almost always pay for iteself rather quickly. Also, if you are in one of the desert plains type of areas, then you can get two way windows. They are essentially double pane windows to begin with. For those that don't know, air is a very good insulator while glass is not. So if the barrier between the inside of the house and the outside is merely a piece of glass, then there is little insulation. With double pane windows, there is a chamber of air between two panes of glass. The air serves as a very good insulator. They now have that style of windows but with reverse tinting on them. The interior pane has a mirror-like tint which reflects sunlight, while the exterior does not. In the summer, the idea is to keep both panes down to keep as much undesired sunlight/heat outside. But in the winter, the idea is to raise the interior panel during the day, allowing any potential heat from the sun in. Then at night you lower the interior pane, and have effectively received the best of both worlds.
In any case, simple things like changing to more efficient windows, replacing weather strips and caulking around doors and windows and more obvious things like adusting and insulating your hot water heater can make surprising differences. Austin, from what you said, those types of steps might help enough so that with the adddition of solar panels you might actually become an energy provider rather than a consumer. At that point, I would probably start searching high and low for additional panels and places to put them.
In an ideal sense, think how cool it would be to answer the question "what do you do for a living?" with I go horseback riding, throw the football/baseball, swim, fish etc... with my kids.
If Texas is forced by law to pay you what they charge everyone else for energy then I think there are some serious opportunities here.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 3, 2008 13:17:06 GMT -5
"ed, even though I think you and I are fairly closely aligned with regard to this issue, I must admit that an anecdotal example such as one particular event in one particular location is certainly far from convincing evidence. I expect that if someone wanted to search deeply enough, he could probably find a record high and a record low somewhere on many a day. "
I completely agree but I get pleasure poking fun at "the sky is falling" crowd.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 3, 2008 16:08:21 GMT -5
touche'
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 8, 2008 14:31:16 GMT -5
The title on this link is not representative. If you hurry & go to Cnn.com the headline for this article is Climate change makes island kids bony, stunted. This headline is coming from "climate experts" also known as aid workers. Quote: Maria is fighting to live, wasting away in her remote village where aid officials say climate change has brought on a severe drought in recent years. It's nearly impossible for residents to live off the land like they have for generations. That's pretty pathetic even for CNN. The story is sad & heartbreaking, but please. www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapc...ren/index.htmlTo clarify, what I find somewhat informative is that the title for the problem keeps changing to fit the agenda de jeur. In the 70's "global cooling" was the problem. We were largely to blame because of our use of excessive aerosals and the sort. More recently "global warming" was the buzz word. Al Gore won awards for excessive amounts of relatively unsubstantiated hypotheses. Now that it looks like we are actually in a cooling cycle again, the buzz word is now "climate change." My stance has been the same all along. I think it is both prudent and wise to invest resources into renewable/sustainable energy sources. I also think it is wise to develop more efficient machines which consume energy. I also think it is wise to cut back on emissions which could be harming the ozone. But the certainty with which assorted hypotheses are presented is little short of laughable. Not so mysteriously, the conclusions and resulting suggestions always seem to follow those with a certain political agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 15:14:06 GMT -5
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 8, 2008 15:38:21 GMT -5
Cam, I agree that a "news agency" ought to be just that. However, we both know that isn't the case. The exact degree of bias in a particular direction would be debated, but there is little argument as to its presence to begin with. From those particular photos, there certainly appears to be noticeable differences. If your suggestion (or that of the author of the piece you linked) is that the journalists of the opposing views were made to look less attractive or more vidictive then I would probably agree. I don't know how much significance to put into that, but I wouldn't argue it in substance. There are other possibilities however. I do know that if you film footage in widescreen and then play it back in a 4:3 format, similar effects will happen. We have probably all seen movies played back in such a fashion. Additionally, most modern TVs have video playback modes such as "zoom" or "wide," the purpose of which is to more closely match the original image while still filling up the entire screen without the use of horizontal or verticle black bars. I don't know if that played into this particular footage or not. In any case, I will accept the theory that the photos were shown in a less than positive light. Now the question is so what? That happens all the time. I am sure that you are familiar with the term "file photo." For any that aren't, it refers to earlier pictures of people or things that are widely recognized and somewhat commonly shown; at least that is what they are in usage. All it really means is a photo of the person or thing that is on file, rather than a particular photo directly related to the particular event in discussion. The reason I bring this up is because of the quite conspicuous choices of file photos for Hillary and Barrack. I don't know how many times I have seen the picture of Hillary in that rumpled turtleneck shirt. It is very unflattering -- not that pictures of her in general are flattering to begin with. Conversely the Barrack file photo that I saw overwhelmingly more than any other was that optimstic, slightly upward turn to the heavens with an almost inner peacefulness showing from his expression. I don't in any way think that was a coincidence. Not surprisingly, now that Hillary has pulled out officially, that file photo of her has been mysteriously shelved. My point is that, as you suggest, such artistic additions/subtractions are not unique.
In any case, although I see your suggested parallel to a degree, I do see a significant difference between tinkering with pictures of known celebreties and manipulating the words of so called "experts" to fulfilll a political agenda.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 8, 2008 15:55:47 GMT -5
No one has the moral high ground on this issue. Fox clearly doctored these photos & called it routine to do so for "humorous effect." The NYT has doctored photos of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity in the past -- calling it "conceptual." (I don't recall Media Matters making much of an issue out of those cases, however).
Even doctoring aside, the Washington Post is routinely criticized for which photos is chooses to publish of political figures, depending on their ideology.
Not sure what it has to do with global warming, but pretty much all news organizations have an agenda (I daresay Fox is pretty well outnumbered on that front though) & photo doctoring is far more common than it should be, on all sides.
Back to the subject at hand, one of my recent favorites was John Kerry trying to blame Midwestern tornados on climate change. In fairness, meteorologists & climatologists were pretty vocal about discrediting that accusation, for the most part, so good for them on that one. Bad for Kerry for watching "The Day After Tomorrow" and believing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 16:04:36 GMT -5
Bad for Kerry for watching "The Day After Tomorrow" and believing it. Silly Boz...if you haven't bothered to case the NY Public Library for places to stash your canned goods, that's your problem...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2008 8:12:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 10, 2008 7:34:30 GMT -5
Dick Cheney is a d-bag. At this point little else can be said.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,381
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 17, 2008 17:12:14 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 17, 2008 18:18:22 GMT -5
What's said in this article is well and good but I still don't understand how it agrees with the fact the earth's temperature has not risen in the last decade - all during the period of enormous growth of dirty industry in China and elsewhere. Or the hottest year on record was 1934. Or the fact the temperature of Mars is rising, absent any man-made greenhouse gases. Damn the data; there's a consensus!
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,381
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 18, 2008 12:02:05 GMT -5
The Pope as environmentalist: What do we discover? Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption. Some of you come from island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising water levels; others from nations suffering the effects of devastating drought. God’s wondrous creation is sometimes experienced as almost hostile to its stewards, even something dangerous. How can what is “good” appear so threatening? www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080717_barangaroo_en.html
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 18, 2008 13:38:02 GMT -5
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 18, 2008 13:39:45 GMT -5
Research to Watch
Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.
His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 18, 2008 13:42:05 GMT -5
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
Wow, how come the general tone among the media is that "all scientific evidence" points to major impacts of man made global warming?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 18, 2008 15:17:23 GMT -5
What? No comments from the Al Gore for man of the year crowd? Why am I not surprised ... It is kind of funny when all of those who supposedly only pay attention to the facts suddenly find themselves on the other side of the fence, peering through the links at the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 18, 2008 18:11:02 GMT -5
Um, or maybe some of us were not on HoyaTalk today, hifi.
Besides, your characterization of the quotes you provide makes several logical leaps. For example, pointing out that Kyoto won't have much of an effect on temperature speaks to the magnitude of the problem and the relative weakness of the Protocol, not the strength of evidence for climate change.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 18, 2008 18:20:24 GMT -5
HiFi, you're annoyingness is matched only by your lack of knowledge on how science works. In your first example, you're taking Broeckter (who for the record, is part of the current scientific consensus and believes in reducing carbon emission) completely out of context and misunderstanding vapor's role as well. Simply stating that water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2 does not mean that CO2 emissions are not a problem! Here's a good rundown of water vapor's role in climate change, and I'm sure Coast2Coast or one of the others really involved in this sort of thing can give you a better rundown of the science and mechanics than I can. Needless to say, though, arguing from your own ignorance is a bad strategy that you should avoid in the future. In your second post, Dr. Singer is not disagreeing with the science, he's disagreeing with a policy. In fact, it sounds that he thinks the Kyoto protocol does not go far enough, which undercuts your argument a little, no? The general tone of the media is "all scientific evidence points to man-made global warming" because that is indeed the case. A much better resource for anyone interested in this issue is Real Climate. HiFi, it's plain that you know very little about science or how it operates, and all you do know is how to deny and cherry pick your way to ideological nirvana.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 19, 2008 11:41:42 GMT -5
Bando, I will ignore your personal attacks and address your points. With regard to Dr. Singer's quote, I didn't take it out of context. That was the entire quote in the article. Did someone else take it out of context? Perhaps. Neither you nor I know. As for your interpretation of what he meant when he said it: that's a possibility. Fair enough?
As for your initial point, I don't agree. The significance of the relationship of CO2 compared to water vapor is that even "dramatic" changes to the CO2 levels are statistically insignificant. Only by disregarding water vapor can you make statistically significant conclusions about CO2 levels. To blanketly dismiss that point denies the very scientific basis that you are presumably using to support emissions control theory.
Once again, I am not saying that with certainty there is no global warming. What I am saying is that with certainty we do not know for sure. That being said, like I have said all along, that doesn't mean that we should disregard effiency. Nor does it mean that we shouldn't research alternative and cleaner fuels.
|
|