It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Instead you have to look at ALL glaciers worldwide.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SilentKillah
Okay, so you have a Hybrid house. Let me ask you this, if you don't mind. How much was the total turn-key cost of the system you're seeing those reductions in utility bill for? That's the figure that put me in shock a couple years ago when I had an inheritance to play with a bit and looked at this myself. 20-30 years for payoff on investment to something that wasn't even warranty beyond 10 wasn't feasible to me. The state offered some credits back which took some pain off...but on a house I paid $63,000 for, it represented 1/3 of my overall purchase price just to reduce ..not eliminate...an electrical demand from the Utilities (Who have one coal plant on the edge of town with a smaller one nearby).
I'm sure you probably figured all that in your own cost/benefit analysis though, so I figure it's worth asking. Whats payoff time in years?
* On a different note.... I really get my fur up at the mere suggestion of "forced to do" or "forced to buy". Totalitarian nations 'force' their people to do things by law and force of the State behind it. America, until recently, has followed it's literal CORE values of personal responsibility stemming from personal choice and no "force" to do anything but live and pay taxes. Markets were determined when people stopped buying and bankrupted old tech....not watched Government save it to redefine it themselves. So.. On that? I'm with the OP. They can take "Forcing Change" to other nations. Stalin and Mao required 60 million to die in their efforts for social change.edit on 26-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
In the area of climate change, the leaked documents revealed that the group funds vocal climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month),
and New Zealand geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month).
They've also pledged $90,000 to skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts, who blogs at WattsUpWithThat.com.
The documents also reveal a communications strategy aimed at "keep[ing] opposing voices out" of publications such as Forbes Magazine, where the audience is "reliably anti-climate."
On the education front, Wojick would be paid $5,000 per module, or $25,000 per quarter, according to the report's tentative estimates, to produce the Heartland climate curricula. The Institute's anonymous donor has pledged $100,000 to the project, which the Institute hopes to match from other donors.
Source
The Gowanus Canal, in Brooklyn, New York, is bounded by several communities including Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens and Red Hook. The canal empties into New York Harbor. Completed in 1869, the Gowanus Canal was once a major transportation route for the then separate cities of Brooklyn and New York City. Manufactured gas plants, mills, tanneries, and chemical plants are among the many facilities that operated along the canal.
As a result of years of discharges, storm water runoff, sewer outflows and industrial pollutants, the Gowanus Canal has become one of the nation's most extensively contaminated water bodies. Contaminants include PCBs, coal tar wastes, heavy metals and volatile organics. The contamination poses a threat to the nearby residents who use the canal for fishing and recreation.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SilentKillah
There was one story in California about a homeowner who had a solar panel on his roof, and a neighbor had large trees that blocked the sunlight from the solar panel so there was a lawsuit on that.
Trees — redwoods, live oaks or blossoming fruit trees — are usually considered sturdy citizens of the sun-swept peninsula south of San Francisco, not criminal elements. But under a 1978 state law protecting homeowners’ investment in rooftop solar panels, trees that impede solar panels’ access to the sun can be deemed a nuisance and their owners fined up to $1,000 a day. The Solar Shade Act was a curiosity until late last year, when a dispute over the eight redwoods(a k a Tree No. 1, Tree No. 2, Tree No. 3, etc.) ended up in Santa Clara County criminal court.
www.nytimes.com...
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by neformore
I think for me and my reaction against the "Global Warming Movement" is that I've seen this as little more than a sham and scam to start with.
From day 1, this has been about grand things and saving whole planets ...
Originally posted by neformore
I've never understood why people find doing something different with less harmful polluting affects to be a bad thing that illicits so much vitriol.
So in some respects, I can see his thinking. "We do it this way because its the way we do it" doesn't really help anyone.
I'd rather breathe air that has less particulates in it, thanks
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
They're burning down with $1 Bic Lighters and $10 fire torches. No need for billion dollar Carbon Credit markets to make NEW billionaires out of current millionaires. Just get the $1 Bic from the farmer before he burns down 10's or hundreds of acres of old growth rain forest or even timber ...never to be replaced in our lifetime.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
Abstract
Since the early 1960s, the declining phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle has advanced by approximately 7 days in northern temperate latitudes, possibly as a result of increasing temperatures that may be advancing the time of occurrence of what may be called ‘climatological spring.’ However, just as several different phenomena are thought to have been responsible for the concomitant increase in the amplitude of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 oscillation, so too may other factors have played a role in bringing about the increasingly earlier spring drawdown of CO2 that has resulted in the advancement of the declining phase of the air’s CO2 cycle. One of these factors may be the ongoing rise in the CO2 content of the air itself; for the aerial fertilization effect of this phenomenon may be significantly enhancing the growth of each new season’s initial flush of vegetation, which would tend to stimulate the early drawdown of atmospheric CO2 and thereby advance the time of occurrence of what could be called ‘biological spring.’ Working with sour orange (Citrus aurantium L.) trees that have been growing out-of-doors in open-top chambers for over 10 years in air of either 400 or 700 ppm CO2, this hypothesis was investigated by periodically measuring the lengths, dry weights and leaf chlorophyll concentrations of new branches that emerged from the trees at the start of the 1998 growing season. The data demonstrate that the hypothesis is viable, and that it might possibly account for 2 of the 7 days by which the spring drawdown of the air’s CO2 concentration has advanced over the past few decades.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
1. The sun has indeed been more active, going through a solar high point in its sunspot cycle. Which is why global warming has also been observed on planets such as Mars and Saturn. Are you saying that aliens on those planets are cruising around in SUVs pumping out CO2 as well? Unlikely. What Earth, Mars, and Saturn all have in common is the sun. That's the first place I would look.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
They're burning down with $1 Bic Lighters and $10 fire torches. No need for billion dollar Carbon Credit markets to make NEW billionaires out of current millionaires. Just get the $1 Bic from the farmer before he burns down 10's or hundreds of acres of old growth rain forest or even timber ...never to be replaced in our lifetime.
We can't dictate to south American governments how to enforce thier own laws. And when we suggest it, it is hypocracy given the amount that we pollute. They burn rainforrests, we drive cars and don't have rainforrests to burn...except in NW WA State and Oregon.
Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by neo96
I find it odd that the worlds largest capitalist society can find no profit in refitting the world with greener technology. The possibilites are mind boggling.