Environmentalism: Religion for the Godless
2Cdo @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:48 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Brenda Brenda:
JetBoy JetBoy:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
But don't you think things would work better if the environment and econmics were aligned? Pay for insurance based on the miles you actually drive. Pay for your water based on how much you use. Pay someone to take your garbage away (not the city).
Sounds good to me.
we already do that here. You don't? (this is a serious question!)
Nope. Water's the same price (i.e. part of your municipal taxes) whether you use one gallon or twenty thousand. Not much incentive to conserve. Want to recycle--good for you. But you don't have to--the city will haul off your garbage anyways. Not much incentive to recycle. For car insurance you get a bit of a discount for "personal use only." But bascially you pay the same if you drive a hundred miles or ten thousand.
Maybe that's the case out west but in Kingston we do have two tiered billing for both water and electricity. One rate up to a point and the rate then increases for everything above that. I don't know what it is for natural gas but I suspect it is similar.
We also have water rationing and timing restrictions during the summer, resulting in big fines for repeat offenders!(One freebee warning)
Zipperfish @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:13 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
You still deny that carbon dioxide emits infrared radiation.
CO2 emits infrared radiation? Since when?
It re-emits absorbed solar infrared radiation but it does not independently generate such energy. If it did it would be a tidy little energy source.
You two are both wrong. What CO2 does is absorb the IR coming up from the ground. It works like this:
The surface of the sun is 5778K. This means that the wavelength at which it's brightest is in the middle of the visible spectrum. CO2 is effectively transparent to this wavelength, so it passes to the surface of the Earth relatively easily. The Earth absorbs this radiation, and heats up. Since the Earth reflects some of it right back into space, and because we're at quite a distance from the Sun, it doesn't warm up to anything close to the Sun's temperature, only reaching about 300k, and emitting most strongly in the infra-red. CO2 is partially opaque in this rage, and as such absorbs some of the Earth's radiation and heats up, trapping the heat. It then moves this heat around through conduction and convection, but not so much by radiation.
This is the greenhouse effect.
from the wikipedia entry for Greenhouse Gas (emphaisis mine)
$1:
When sunlight reaches the surface of the Earth, some of it is absorbed and warms the surface. Because the Earth's surface is much cooler than the sun, it radiates energy at much longer wavelengths than does the sun. The atmosphere absorbs these longer wavelengths more effectively than it does the shorter wavelengths from the sun. The absorption of this longwave radiant energy warms the atmosphere; the atmosphere also is warmed by transfer of sensible and latent heat from the surface. Greenhouse gases also emit longwave radiation both upward to space and downward to the surface. The downward part of this longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere is the "greenhouse effect." The term is a misnomer, as this process is not the mechanism that warms greenhouses.
I'm looking at it mostly from a quantum sense (as opposed to bulk phenomena such as convection). My understadning of conduction is that energy is transferred through the emission and absorption of photons. Though admittedly, I only ever studied atomic quantum mechnics. The math got too weird for molecular quantum physics.
sasquatch2 @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:08 pm
Zipperfish
$1:
I'm looking at it mostly from a quantum sense (as opposed to bulk phenomena such as convection). My understadning of conduction is that energy is transferred through the emission and absorption of photons. Though admittedly, I only ever studied atomic quantum mechnics. The math got too weird for molecular quantum physics.
Quantum sense?---how about common sense?
The temperature curve opposes the CO2 curve proving once and for all, this fantastic theory that this mystical, magical molecule called CO2 does not drive climate.
Stick to science fiction----but then it is now obvious that not just Michael Mann's science is science fiction but also NASA's James Hansen's science is science fiction,.....
Ergo CO2 AGW is now just an urban myth, only supported by pompous lefties who continue to flog a dead horse.
CO2 may absorb or reflect infared but noway JOSE does it EMIT infared.
I do not engage in obscenities but if you continue I can make all sorts of remarks about your sexual preferences, ancestry, personal hygene, lack of intelligence, knowledge, sophistocation and manners in good old plain english........
Extraordinary debator?-----you are just another ignorant, pompous, rude troll.
Omega @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:33 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
I simply don't understand the counterrevolution to environmentalism. It seems as though no matter how many benefits can be derived from going green, some people simply entrench themselves against the idea, deny all science and publicly mandate their intention to nullify the good done by conservation with blatant wasting. Why somehow do some people need to express themselves by pointedly wrecking the environment?
For those that deny the changes that environmentalists want to make vis a vis global warming. Does it really matter if the science behind the reasons to change is shaky, according to you. For the record, I think those that deny global warming are flat-earth society-goin', pin-headed gibbletards in need of a swift kick in the teeth. Moving on, my point becomes: If man isn't responsible for the warming on the planet, does that really mean we should continue to dump sludge in rivers, burn as much coal and oil as possible and generally treat the planet like our personal trashbin?
Our collective health is at stake anyway. If the planet is warming naturally, does that honestly mean somebody would take great pleasure in standing behind a bus' exhaust, knowing the planet wasn't warming because of it? No, sucking down bus exhaust causes cancer, emphysema and most likely retardation. So if we can curb those exhausts, regardless of the effect on the planet's temperature, isn't that a good thing? If we can curb the amount of pesticides sprayed all over crops, such that they don't seep downwards and into the water-table, isn't that a good thing? Would everybody be so cavalier about continuing to use fossil-fuels if you had a gas-engine in the middle of your living room powering your television, spewing about as you watch Dancing with the Stars? Or would you start to inquire about electricity in a big fat hurry?
Do some people take environmentalism too far and want me to drive a hemp bicycle? Yup. I'm quite accustomed to luxury and I don't want to unnecessarily dispense with my big tv or cars either, nor do I want to burn down Zellers because Duff-Stuff has too many unfriendly chemicals.
But I recognize that if I expect to be able to continue on doing what I'm doing, I'm going to have to make sacrifices along the way. Maybe gasoline shoots up to $1.50 a litre and I curtail my driving. Maybe bottled-water goes bye-bye and we save the plastic on all those fucking bottles. Maybe electricity costs go up as we switch to nuclear and green and I up the thermostat in the summer to compensate.
Believing in that doesn't make me Godless. Believing in that makes me a realistic, resonsible person.
For those that deny the changes that environmentalists want to make vis a vis global warming. Does it really matter if the science behind the reasons to change is shaky, according to you. For the record, I think those that deny global warming are flat-earth society-goin', pin-headed gibbletards in need of a swift kick in the teeth. Moving on, my point becomes: If man isn't responsible for the warming on the planet, does that really mean we should continue to dump sludge in rivers, burn as much coal and oil as possible and generally treat the planet like our personal trashbin?
Our collective health is at stake anyway. If the planet is warming naturally, does that honestly mean somebody would take great pleasure in standing behind a bus' exhaust, knowing the planet wasn't warming because of it? No, sucking down bus exhaust causes cancer, emphysema and most likely retardation. So if we can curb those exhausts, regardless of the effect on the planet's temperature, isn't that a good thing? If we can curb the amount of pesticides sprayed all over crops, such that they don't seep downwards and into the water-table, isn't that a good thing? Would everybody be so cavalier about continuing to use fossil-fuels if you had a gas-engine in the middle of your living room powering your television, spewing about as you watch Dancing with the Stars? Or would you start to inquire about electricity in a big fat hurry?
Do some people take environmentalism too far and want me to drive a hemp bicycle? Yup. I'm quite accustomed to luxury and I don't want to unnecessarily dispense with my big tv or cars either, nor do I want to burn down Zellers because Duff-Stuff has too many unfriendly chemicals.
But I recognize that if I expect to be able to continue on doing what I'm doing, I'm going to have to make sacrifices along the way. Maybe gasoline shoots up to $1.50 a litre and I curtail my driving. Maybe bottled-water goes bye-bye and we save the plastic on all those fucking bottles. Maybe electricity costs go up as we switch to nuclear and green and I up the thermostat in the summer to compensate.
Believing in that doesn't make me Godless. Believing in that makes me a realistic, resonsible person.
Exactly.
Zipperfish @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:39 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Zipperfish
Quantum sense?---how about common sense?
The temperature curve opposes the CO2 curve proving once and for all, this fantastic theory that this mystical, magical molecule called CO2 does not drive climate.
Stick to science fiction----but then it is now obvious that not just Michael Mann's science is science fiction but also NASA's James Hansen's science is science fiction,.....
Ergo CO2 AGW is now just an urban myth, only supported by pompous lefties who continue to flog a dead horse.
CO2 may absorb or reflect infared but noway JOSE does it EMIT infared.
I do not engage in obscenities but if you continue I can make all sorts of remarks about your sexual preferences, ancestry, personal hygene, lack of intelligence, knowledge, sophistocation and manners in good old plain english........
Extraordinary debator?-----you are just another ignorant, pompous, rude troll.
$1:
I'm looking at it mostly from a quantum sense (as opposed to bulk phenomena such as convection). My understadning of conduction is that energy is transferred through the emission and absorption of photons. Though admittedly, I only ever studied atomic quantum mechnics. The math got too weird for molecular quantum physics.
Quantum sense?---how about common sense?
The temperature curve opposes the CO2 curve proving once and for all, this fantastic theory that this mystical, magical molecule called CO2 does not drive climate.
Stick to science fiction----but then it is now obvious that not just Michael Mann's science is science fiction but also NASA's James Hansen's science is science fiction,.....
Ergo CO2 AGW is now just an urban myth, only supported by pompous lefties who continue to flog a dead horse.
CO2 may absorb or reflect infared but noway JOSE does it EMIT infared.
I do not engage in obscenities but if you continue I can make all sorts of remarks about your sexual preferences, ancestry, personal hygene, lack of intelligence, knowledge, sophistocation and manners in good old plain english........
Extraordinary debator?-----you are just another ignorant, pompous, rude troll.
Well, Samsquanch, after a while it becomes apparent that arguing with you is a perfect waste of time, since you don't even concede the most elementary points of science (such as, for example, the spectral properties of a carbon dioxide molecule). Nor do you understand much about the concept of science itself, including the importance of uncertainty, the meaning of proof and how the scientific method works.
Since there is no room for intelligent debate on the subject with you, I have to entertain myself with laughing at how ignorant you are. But you're right, it's not very nice. Fun, but not nice.
PluggyRug @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:42 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Nail hit dead center. 
I guess when all you got is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.
What else is needed, simplicity is the means to enlightenment.
Sorry pinhead, there's a difference between "blissfully ignorant" and "enlightenment."
Yes but my pin is sharp, can I sell you a grindstone.
What else are you bereft of?
Zipperfish @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:44 pm
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
What else are you bereft of?
You, I hope!
Blue_Nose @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:50 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
CO2 may absorb or reflect infared but noway JOSE does it EMIT infared.
It absorbs and then emits radiation, obviously
If it simply absorbed radiation, the energy would be trapped and there'd be no heat for us down here.
It it only reflected radiation, the energy would simply bounce back out into space.
So yeah, a greenhouse gas EMITS radiation.
Zipperfish @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:52 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
CO2 may absorb or reflect infared but noway JOSE does it EMIT infared.
It absorbs and then emits radiation, obviouslyIf it simply absorbed radiation, the energy would be trapped and there'd be no heat for us down here.
It it only reflected radiation, the energy would simply bounce back out into space.
So yeah, a greenhouse gas EMITS radiation.
Nice Post No. 11,000 BlueNose!
PluggyRug @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:09 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
What else are you bereft of?
You, I hope!
Sorry sunshine I will still be here when AGW BS is fully exposed as a tit on a bull.
and
I DO know the climate is cocked up , but to say man is the sole cause is an example of climactic arrogance.
and YES I do know that CO2 reflects long(er) wave radiation.
and yes I do know that AGW is mainly based upon computer models which cannot possibly include ALL the variables requires to furnish ACCURATE predictions.
So I will go away now and sharpen my pins.
Zipperfish @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:19 pm
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
What else are you bereft of?
You, I hope!
Sorry sunshine I will still be here when AGW BS is fully exposed as a tit on a bull.
and
I DO know the climate is cocked up , but to say man is the sole cause is an example of climactic arrogance.
and YES I do know that CO2 reflects long(er) wave radiation.
and yes I do know that AGW is mainly based upon computer models which cannot possibly include ALL the variables requires to furnish ACCURATE predictions.
So I will go away now and sharpen my pins.
Well, if you already know everything, then further discussion on the point would seem futile.
I don't think humankind is the sole cause of climate change. Something in common there.
BartSimpson @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:32 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
What else are you bereft of?
You, I hope!
Not terribly Zen of you.
Scrappy @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:04 pm
On a side note: I long for the day we can have a conversation on pollution and the toxicity of petro products and the danger they pose to our health. I can't even walk into a Crappy Tire without getting ill, the stench of oil based products is overwelming.
Anyone interested in a conversation on Pollution and chemicals??? Start one, I have had enough of global warming.
Resume normal programing on Global Warming and the hundred different agendas.
sasquatch2 @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:50 pm
Scrappy
$1:
I can't even walk into a Crappy Tire without getting ill, the stench of oil based products is overwelming.
Yeah well I used to think it was a psychological thing.....I got these splitting headaches shopping for clothes with a woman.
It's not pschological, it's that overpowering stench of "sizing" on new clothing.
I was shopping alone seeking shoes and was downwind from clothing....an epiphany.....
Damn!!!!!!!!!