Houston we have problem

[gaelic cowboy]

First of all, that 'zombie' is a religious figure of extreme importance to many millions of people. As I have gotten infractions many times for insulting a certain prophet, my guess is saying things like that are against the rules. You may want to show some respect.

The difference between knowledge and wacky magic? lmao, I can't tell you how funny that is. Of course everyone thinks their beliefs are factual. Christians bracing for Armageddon throughout history have also based their beliefs in 'fact'. The corruption in the world around them, the fact that God exists and that the all of secular history bears that out, the fact that current events coincide with prophecy, etc, etc.
Now you may argue that those are facts, but I would argue that the voodoo science of global warming is not factual either. Point is, everyone thinks that the facts back up their wacko apocalyptic beliefs and that everyone else is just a superstitious peasant. Greek 'science' and observation backed up a lot of BS too, so it is not just religion. Don't forget that eugenics and race science was supported by 90% of the scientific community, and if you argued with it, you were arguing with science. They taught it at schools, and had plenty of 'scientific' data and arguments to support it, that were plenty water-tight looking to fool the average bozo college student. Are we forgetting all the science backing up the fact that by 2010 half the landmass on earth would be covered in ice? How did that turn out? People went to college and learned a bunch of BS voodoo science like you have to make it look real, but that did not make it any more factual, did it?

It is all scare tactics. You may not like being compared to those fanatical religious people, but you are no different. Since the beginning of large, organized societies people have profited from end-of-the-world scares. They were orchestrated in Europe a few hundred years ago so that the people behind them could profit, and that is just what is happening now. The only thing that has changed is what they lie about. They used to lie and say that religion supported their arguments (which it didn't), and now they lie and say science does (which it doesn't). Both are very complicated subjects that even the most knowledgeable do not come close to fully understanding, so it is incredibly easy for them to make you believe whatever they want you too. I could argue with you all day about the 'why's', but I am not getting in to that, because I don't have the time and I would not change your opinion anyway. Suffice it to say, I think you should be a little more critical of what you believe.

None of that is even remotely connected to what was put to you in the first place.

The picture below explains what we have being talking about.



The process is affected by the input which then gives an output that then influences the original input by means of feedback.

Basically what people have been trying to get you to understand is that change happens all the time and our very presence has an effect on it.

Incidently this does not have to mean that man is doomed at all, so you can dispence with the theories that we are doompornographers. However we are part of the eco-system that is both caused by and a cause of the climate back on itself.


Naturally this means because we have an outsize effect on our environment we therefore logically affect the climate.

[Fragony]

The only constant is flaggalism. During the medieval warmth, as the name suggests, it was warmer than it is now despite a total lack of a industrial age. Apocalyptic religions are nothing new and charlatans have always benefitted from faith. What happened to the hole in the ozon layer, was it fixed. Of course not people just lost interest because they stopped hearing about it. Enter acid rain. People lost interest because they stopped hearing about it. Enter global warming, people are losing interest because of the financial crisis.

Hoaxes have cycles they come and go. But always, always, down with capitalism

[gaelic cowboy]

Hoaxes have cycles they come and go. But always, always, down with capitalism

My acceptance Climate Change was influenced by my time in college by learning things like engineering science or later on with thermo and fluid dynamics.

Not Doompornography

[Fragony]

My acceptance Climate Change was influenced by my time in college by learning things like engineering science or later on with thermo and fluid dynamics.

Not Doompornography

Sounds fascinating, I would love to hear more but I have been dead since 2000. It was the acid rain that did it, it led to major food-shortages and ultimatily resulted in WW3, the world burned it was a nightmare

[Hax]

First of all, that 'zombie' is a religious figure of extreme importance to many millions of people. As I have gotten infractions many times for insulting a certain prophet, my guess is saying things like that are against the rules. You may want to show some respect.

So basically, you demand respect when someone insults your personal religious figure, but you're not willing to extend the same kind of respect to other religious folks. That's cool. I'm not a Christian, but I don't know, I'm not sure he would have wanted people to go around and insult other people. Might just be me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No such claims were ever put forth.

They most certainly were, about 50 years ago.

I think it's increasingly clear that the Climate-change lobby has basically lost the popular argument, there are several reasons for this, none of which are directly linked to the science.

1. Fatigue: Banging on about something like this year in year out ends up turning people off, you become part of the background noise people just tune out. The fact is, humans can only plan ahead a few years at a time in their own lives, although we can concience of works completed in our children's or grandchildren's day we aren't good with far off danger. This is probably an evolved trait, there's no point worrying about the snow six months from now when you have the current drought.

2. Loss of trust: Scientists have been caught several times fundging figures, and making outlandish claims. I seem to recall that around the year 2000 is was claimed their would be no Northern Ice cap by 2020, that now looks highly unlikely, and in fact the mediun size of the ice cap has been constant for 50 years or so, although it has become thinner in recent decades. Fluctuations during the Roman and Medieval period are still mostly ignored, despite there being ample evidence for previous repaid changes in temperature of several degrees over a few centuries. The problem is further compounded by lack of accurate date even 100 years ago.

3. Lack of any actual plan: This is the big problem, there has been no concerted effort to answer the question of how we will generate energy in the future, Japan showed how precarious Nuclear Power is and right now we have no convincing alternatives to fossil fuel. Instead, we get unrealistic demands for individual users to limit their personal usage when the real issue is industrial and gimmicks like those stupid lightbulbs that don't work properly and contain Mercury.

4. Wrong message: The message currently is, "The End will be Nigh, at some point." In fact, the end has been Nigh several times, several times we have broken supposed temporal or quantative polution limits at which point the whole Earth is supposed to go "Bang", take a look at Sci-Fi 30 years ago and you'll see films about people leaving Earth because Acid Rain, something nobody is all that worried about these days.

On the other hand, pumping loads of crap into the atmosphere is pretty much the definition of a Bad Idea if we want our children to live here. We shouldn't be polluting the environment, but that should a no brainer Climate Change or no.

[Greyblades]

I have found myself unable to sympathise with the enviromentalists when they tell us to "turn off your needless lights" when I am surrounded by shops that keep thiers at supernova after closing time, and even at 3 AM. I have yet to hear anyone propose a nighttime blackout on the highstreets.

[Vuk]

None of that is even remotely connected to what was put to you in the first place.

The picture below explains what we have being talking about.



The process is affected by the input which then gives an output that then influences the original input by means of feedback.

Basically what people have been trying to get you to understand is that change happens all the time and our very presence has an effect on it.

Incidently this does not have to mean that man is doomed at all, so you can dispence with the theories that we are doompornographers. However we are part of the eco-system that is both caused by and a cause of the climate back on itself.


Naturally this means because we have an outsize effect on our environment we therefore logically affect the climate.

I was not arguing against the principle of feedback. I was saying that claiming that if we don't actively try to engineer our environment all life will be wiped out except bacteria in vents is complete BS. Sure, we have an impact, but all the doom and gloom is completely uncalled for. People are making too much of too little. Change will come, but it won't be nearly as drastic as some suppose, and it will happen over a long period of time, giving people plenty of time to adapt.

So basically, you demand respect when someone insults your personal religious figure, but you're not willing to extend the same kind of respect to other religious folks. That's cool. I'm not a Christian, but I don't know, I'm not sure he would have wanted people to go around and insult other people. Might just be me.

No, I am simply saying that if I must respect other people's religious figures (even if I don't want to), then so must he. I have no respect at all for the supposed prophet, but the rules here on the Org rigidly stop me from saying what I think about him (I have gotten infractions even for quoting muslim holy texts and making quite obvious interpretations), even when I am arguing about the history of the religion, and not making value judgments. People on the Org rip apart Christian religious figures all the time with impunity though. I know the mods will do nothing about him, so I am asking him to play by the same rules that those who dislike Islam are forced to.

[Strike For The South]

I'll just move to Des Monies, marry a fat girl, and start farming corn

[CBR]

They most certainly were, about 50 years ago.

Even if we assume that 50 years ago the scientific consensus supported cooling, so what? Better theories backed by new data has a tendency to shift scientific opinions about most stuff.

A survey of studies made from 1965 to 1979 showed a clear majority talked of global warming and not cooling.

A New York Times article from 1956:

According to a theory which was held half a century ago, variation in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide can account for climatic change. The theory was generally dismissed as inadequate. Dr. Gilbert Plass re-examines it in a paper which he publishes in the American Scientist and in which he summarizes conclusions that he reached after a study made with the support of the Office of Naval Research. To him the carbon dioxide theory stands up, though it may take another century of observation and measurement of temperature to confirm it.

He mentions humans adding 30% of CO2 in every century while it is more like 50 or 60% now.

Fluctuations during the Roman and Medieval period are still mostly ignored

They have not been ignored. Global Signatures and DynamicalOrigins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly and here is the public release for a quicker read

[gaelic cowboy]

I'll just move to Des Monies, marry a fat girl, and start farming corn

I will let my cousin know immediately

[Vladimir]

"Lie" is such a harsh, unforgiving word. Couldn't we instead say, "Operated from an alternate factual system wherein causality is inoperative"?

Sorry, late to the game.

Just had to repost this for its brilliance.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have found myself unable to sympathise with the enviromentalists when they tell us to "turn off your needless lights" when I am surrounded by shops that keep thiers at supernova after closing time, and even at 3 AM. I have yet to hear anyone propose a nighttime blackout on the highstreets.

Thats simply answered by a bit of common sense in reality.

How many shops are there where you live and by how much are they outnumbered by residential dwellings.

What year were said residential dwellings and business mostly constructed in the same area.

These two questions will answer a lot of your concerns.

[Vuk]

Thats simply answered by a bit of common sense in reality.

How many shops are there where you live and by how much are they outnumbered by residential dwellings.

What year were said residential dwellings and business mostly constructed in the same area.

These two questions will answer a lot of your concerns.

Questions do not provide answers, they only demand more.
You realize it is all BS don't you? Two of my bros are electrical power engineering technicians, and they told me that when power plants are looking at how much power they need to generate, they do not even take residential usage into account because it is so insignificant. The vast majority (I don't know off-hand how much, but my guess is well over 95%) of power generated is used for industrial purposes, and then stepped-down for residential usage. Have your lights on all day, don't have 'em on at all; it makes no difference. The entire amount of power that is generated for non-industrial use is completely insignificant.

If you wanted to save energy, you would have to do it on the manufacturing and industrial side of things. That is where real power is used, and if you wanted to make any real change, that is where you would start. Of course no one ever tells you that the environmental impact of producing something like a Prius instead of, say, a gasoline powered Focus far out-weighs the difference in environmental impact of running them.
The largest environmental impact is not made by the consumer, but the producer. If you wanted to lessen your impact on the environment, you focus on buying things that were produced with the smallest environmental impact. For instance, over the long term, standard incandescent light bulbs have a lot less impact on the environment than modern ones. Why? The manufacturing. Have you ever taken one of those things apart? Chip boards, diodes, inductors, capacitors, etc, etc. You gotta use your brain. Most of the environmentally friendly BS out there, actually has a much bigger impact on the environment being produced, for small savings being used. They normally do not last as long, and therefore many more have to be produced in the same time period, making them have an even greater environmental impact.

Of course all of this is neither here nor there, as the entire problem we are trying to solve is not a problem. It is amusing, nonetheless, to see idiots running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to solve a none existent problem, and accomplishing the exact opposite of what they intend.

[Ironside]

Questions do not provide answers, they only demand more.
You realize it is all BS don't you? Two of my bros are electrical power engineering technicians, and they told me that when power plants are looking at how much power they need to generate, they do not even take residential usage into account because it is so insignificant. The vast majority (I don't know off-hand how much, but my guess is well over 95%) of power generated is used for industrial purposes, and then stepped-down for residential usage. Have your lights on all day, don't have 'em on at all; it makes no difference. The entire amount of power that is generated for non-industrial use is completely insignificant.

Wiki gives your vast majority to about 25% and shrinking (compare to about 40% in Sweden). Comercial use is only slighty less than residential use though, about 30% compared to 35%.
Your bros might be working in an extremely heavy industrial area, but national data is different.

[Greyblades]

Thats simply answered by a bit of common sense in reality.

How many shops are there where you live and by how much are they outnumbered by residential dwellings.

What year were said residential dwellings and business mostly constructed in the same area.

These two questions will answer a lot of your concerns.

Ok I understand the first one, number of housing and subsiquent power usage far outweighs number of shops but the second confuses me.
Also it doesnt really help much seeing as these 9-5 shops have thier lights on at full blast, all night, for no apparant reason, the only one I could think of is attracting attention for advertisment purposes and that really becomes moot after midnight.

[rvg]

Ok I understand the first one, number of housing and subsiquent power usage far outweighs number of shops but the second confuses me.
Also it doesnt really help much seeing as these 9-5 shops have thier lights on at full blast, all night, for no apparant reason, the only one I could think of is attracting attention for advertisment purposes and that really becomes moot after midnight.

Just because they are wasting energy, it does not obligate you to follow suit. There's really no good reason to burn lights if *you* don't need them.

[Greyblades]

I dont, generally, I feel like somethings gone wrong when I'm yelled at for not turning off my energy saver lightbulb in the livingroom every now and then, when noones commenting on the 200+ mini spotlights lighting up clearly empty shops at the dead of night.

[rvg]

I dont, yet I fail to see the distiction between my energy saver lightbulb in the livingroom I'm constantly reminded to turn off and the 200+ industrial spotlights lighting up clearly empty shops, especially when its me getting yelled at.

You're not getting yelled at. The appeal is made to the public, because public is directly in control of their power usage. There are no CEO, no management to consult with. You are in control of your switch. Your contribution however small *will* make a difference. Gotta start somewhere.

[Greyblades]

Wait, they're buisnesses, there's almost by definition a CEO to consult with. So why arent they getting pettitioned to turned thier lights off?

[rvg]

Wait, they're buisnesses, there's almost by definition a CEO to consult with. So why arent they getting pettitioned to turned thier lights off?

Why does it matter?

[Greyblades]

Well the simple principle of: "I get told off for leaving a light on and those jerks dont, why not? Grr grr"

[rvg]

Well the simple principle of: "I get told off for leaving a light on and those jerks dont, why not? Grr grr"

You're still entitled to burn as much energy as you like, whether you need it or not. The question is, why do it if you don't need it?

[Greyblades]

...What's that got to do with them? I'm not complaining that I should save energy, I've got two sets of blooming solar panels on my roof for that, I'm complaining why buisnesses seem to get a free pass to go unprotested as far as I see.

[rvg]

...What's that got to do with them?

It's not about them, it's about you.

[Greyblades]

...What?

[gaelic cowboy]

Ok I understand the first one, number of housing and subsiquent power usage far outweighs number of shops but the second confuses me.
Also it doesnt really help much seeing as these 9-5 shops have thier lights on at full blast, all night, for no apparant reason, the only one I could think of is attracting attention for advertisment purposes and that really becomes moot after midnight.

I was thinking in terms of what construction techniques were used, is there insulation in the walls or the copper tank, did they follow good plans for natural light etc etc. Is it of brick, block or even massed concrete construction they all have different energy needs to run as a building.

I agree it is annoying to see lights on all night but then your coming to a situtation of work out for energy in, is the energy used properly and has it been used in a way that paid for itself. (efficiently)

[gaelic cowboy]

...What's that got to do with them? I'm not complaining that I should save energy, I've got two sets of blooming solar panels on my roof for that, I'm complaining why buisnesses seem to get a free pass to go unprotested as far as I see.

Well businesses are nowadays a bit more serious about energy use, purely because it is a part of there costs they can change with a bit of effort unlike wages.

[gaelic cowboy]

I dont, generally, I feel like somethings gone wrong when I'm yelled at for not turning off my energy saver lightbulb in the livingroom every now and then, when noones commenting on the 200+ mini spotlights lighting up clearly empty shops at the dead of night.

If I had to guess there probably LED downlights basically only a couple of watts at most. 4 maybe 5 watt instead of 40 or 50 watt halogen

[gaelic cowboy]

Questions do not provide answers, they only demand more.

I trusted that Greyblades had the ability to figure the answer for himself as he was clever enough to spot the inconsistency in the first place.

You realize it is all BS don't you?

IT???? the entire observable universe encompassing all matter and energy created many billions of years ago, or just the idea of climate change or just the human ability to cause any.

Two of my bros are electrical power engineering technicians, and they told me that when power plants are looking at how much power they need to generate, they do not even take residential usage into account because it is so insignificant. The vast majority (I don't know off-hand how much, but my guess is well over 95%) of power generated is used for industrial purposes, and then stepped-down for residential usage. Have your lights on all day, don't have 'em on at all; it makes no difference. The entire amount of power that is generated for non-industrial use is completely insignificant.

Power companies most certainly take residential power into account otherwise no one could have a coffee during the first add break of a new simpsons episode.

If you wanted to save energy, you would have to do it on the manufacturing and industrial side of things. That is where real power is used, and if you wanted to make any real change, that is where you would start. Of course no one ever tells you that the environmental impact of producing something like a Prius instead of, say, a gasoline powered Focus far out-weighs the difference in environmental impact of running them.

Actually they do tell us because it is one of the most quoted facts people spout on the internet in relation to energy use.

Let me be clear here there is NO free energy and certainly no production without some kind of carbon release. Often it's downstream and sometimes it is upstream but somewhere in a products lifecycle there is carbon release.

The largest environmental impact is not made by the consumer, but the producer. If you wanted to lessen your impact on the environment, you focus on buying things that were produced with the smallest environmental impact. For instance, over the long term, standard incandescent light bulbs have a lot less impact on the environment than modern ones. Why? The manufacturing. Have you ever taken one of those things apart? Chip boards, diodes, inductors, capacitors, etc, etc. You gotta use your brain. Most of the environmentally friendly BS out there, actually has a much bigger impact on the environment being produced, for small savings being used. They normally do not last as long, and therefore many more have to be produced in the same time period, making them have an even greater environmental impact.

As a mechanical engineer I am well aware of where large energy use occurs in our society, has it occured to you that consumerism is the cause of overly large industrial footprints. Industry wouldnt need such huge energy if they didnt have to make many of the items we crave, our consumption is the cause of the carbon release by the producer for the consumer.

Your point about the energy saving bulbs while well made misses the point that the aim here is to efficiently use the energy for the same output. This will mean the power company pollutes less for the same amount of lights left on. An incandessant bulb is simple but it is wasteful of energy, that doesnt mean there are not reasons to use incandessant bulbs though.


The point should always be to asses your consumption of energy and draw up a plan and to make changes based on that, select the proper tools or systems of use required to achieve the goal.