We are adding the heat of 4 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs per second to our climate. http://4hiroshimas.com/#Science http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/07/asi-2014-update-5-low-times.html#more http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/07/piomas-july-2014.html
Blah, Blah,......Blah......................................Blah.......................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oh wait I need to get my jacket out of moth balls. I am glad I didn't put it in the garage sale. Record low temperatures in July.
I need a whole house system, so unfortunately those won't work, unless I got a six-pack or more. I declined the $$$ upgrade to a 20-SEER central unit and settled on 16 as a good medium option.
Actually world wide - which is what we are talking about - the last three months have been the hottest on record. If you are going to ignore reality, that is your own problem.
Unfortunately the global warming activists have shouted so loudly that politicians have taken notice. There's so much politics going back and forth on both sides that I believe precisely none of what anyone says about it and pretty much tune it out. Both sides have established records of the kind of lying, bad mouthing, and exaggeration that happens when issues are carried into the political arena. I carry on as normal in the meantime.
Don't get sucked into the false equivalency. Science is our best understanding of reality. Politics and FUD are coming only from the anti-science folks.
Thanks for the SEER ductless systems. Quick eyeball the 27.2 has an EER of 16/15 The EER seems to be a better indicator of how much power it actually uses Guessing the SEER is just a gimmick to "trick" us into thinking AC's are suddenly 2x what they were. Who dreamed up SEER- ? Some GOV based entity in the pocket of the industry? EER BTU/POWER IMPUT seemed just fine to me? Thanks Charlie
Well, that's what I am trying to say. I don't even believe there is any serious science going on in terms of this subject.
No there is - the serious science says global warming is happening. The politicians are trying to say it isn't to protect their interests. It's really that simple. Sadly.
I still don't buy it. I see those of a certain persuasion demagogueing, saying all is 100% terrible, while those of the other persuasion cherry pick weather data as opposed to climate data to provide a counterpoint. Most of it is aimed at the more extreme parts of their bases as some kind of play to keep their own jobs rather than any real concern for the subject. In the interest of full disclosure, I pretty much feel that way about politicians in general, and do not subscribe to either of the main parties. Anyway, at the I do not feel any truth coming from anybody on any side of the subject. So as I said, I will continue to enjoy incandescent light bulbs and burning dead dinosaurs.
Well played, sir. My only addition is this: I don't yet know that it's a scam. The truth is buried under too much brush to be discernible.
Whether or not its man made, or just a natural temperature cycle of the Earth, I don't know. I do know that both dominant political parties in the US distort the data for their own political agendas.
Yah that's what gives me the most pucker about the whole anthropogenic warming thing. Being scientifically trained, the further I dig into the data, the more guilty little secrets I find. For instance, in the 50s and 60s, it was realised a number of recording stations were situated in "frost hollows" those super low temps they recorded some nights, didn't "really" happen in the more general vicinity, they were basically doing a poor job of measuring cosmic background. (i.e. somewhat above a handful of kelvin due to local thermal noise, but in effect a "salad bowl" reflector pointed at space with a thermometer in the middle.) Anyway, I have failed to find adequate corrections for things like that. Also as environmental science became an actual discipline, in the last few decades of the last century, it didn't exactly attract students with scientific detachment. It got some of the same crowd that extremist environmental orgs attracted, i.e. the "ends justifies the means" types.... and knowing and meeting, and having some shared courses and lectures with several cohorts of environmental science intake, I can tell you that they weren't very good at science either. Anyway, such things conspire to make me skeptical of the whole caboodle. Don't get me wrong, I think continuing to rely on fossil fuels so heavily is a spectacularly bad idea long term, and I recognise that pollution should be minimized, or better, eradicated, but I'm having a hard time accepting the supposed evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is pollution, or that it's doing anything that wouldn't be happening anyway. The real problem with renewable fuels is finding one that someone will make enough money off, so as to pay the right politicos, so as to actually gain any traction. Methanol for example, is the perfect renewable fuel, far less fussy with feedstock than ethanol, you can basically use waste... that's the problem... nobody gets a payday, doesn't need to be drilled or farmed. It needs reasonable care in use, but the problems are far more surmountable than Hydrogen (Which isn't renewable, just a storage medium, Hindenburg anyone?) or even mundane old propane which every redneck can hook up to a BBQ without incident 9 times out of 10. The other problem is that no maker/distributor can get a payday for very long, because renewable methanol will be undercut by fossil methanol right off the bat, it's super easy to make from natural gas... but only while there's natural gas. Renewable would be carbon neutral, fossil would not be. But no renewable methanol for us, the politicians aren't going to get paid to plug it. Greenies won't back it because of the fossil competition problem, fossil won't back it because they make more money on the oil, farmers won't back it because it takes no skill to grow a field of weeds and then they won't sell for much, when the competition for feedstock could be yard waste, or road allowance trimmings. Independent entrepreneurs won't back it because they'll get their ass handed to them by the fossil crowd. So there we go, methanol the perfect renewable fuel that nobody wants. So yah, is there a problem, is there more to be gained by prolonging the problem? It's all a circus. RW222
Road warrior What is the current price of bulk Methanol? It would have to be just 65% of the the current wholesale price of gasoline to make sense?? Is it well under $2/gallon?? and this methanol would be as you say -mildly oxidized methane probably Now your air temperature measurement complaints-fair enough but air temps-tough to measure and get a GLOBAL AVERAGE AIR TEMP Much much easier to just measure sea level liquid water expands when heated and land ice raises water levels So just stick a stick in the ocean Sure folks who don't "want" to believe will immediately claim you "can't accurately measure sea level changes because the land is sinking" but it really isn't that hard-find s stable bit of land-use ancient surveying methods-just like George Washington would have done-just using lasers etc-but same same. In any case-fossil fuel-not a great idea since we have "safer" ways-but they cost more-wind nukes solar maybe 4X coal and 3X oil NG Current "biofuels" corn ethanol-a bit of a bust GREEN WISE-great for mid west farming interests-DEMS and REPs both love it-if they are "corn interests"-drives up the price
Seeing various quoted rates from 1.08 to 1.45 a gallon. Supplier http://www.methanex.com/products/methanolprice.html Proponents.. http://www.methanol.org/energy/resources/alternative-fuel/methanol-flexible-fuel-vehicles.aspx http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/methanol-as-an-alternative-to-gasoline.html?_r=0 Half the problem is that it "almost works" as is, in that you can temporarily run a car on it at lower power output and higher thirst. But it can corrode and damage some metals and rubbers commonly used in vehicles. Mind you, straight gasoline might be just as bad without it's substantial additive packages. So you get the sitch where opponents are saying it will damage cars, but completely re-engineering them for H2 or something else is acceptable, whereas minor changes for methanol aren't??? Bear in mind also that methanol is the best known and studied fuel for fuel cells, methanol doesn't have to be IC. Then also if you engineer for methanol off the bat, you can have MUCH higher compression ratios bumping IC efficiency way up, such that the consumption of a methanol engine vs a gasoline engine is comparable. It seems that all and any substantial changes are "allowed' for anything under consideration other than methanol.
Yeah methanol-can take serious compression- maybe NASCAR type 13/1 14/1 Guessing that $1 or so a gallon-would disappear if it developed SERIOUS gasoline type demand and it is made from methane?? I guess- from "bio stuff" it would be much more expensive?? Yeah-no free lunch
World breaks monthly heat record 2 times in a row The globe is on a hot streak, setting a heat record in June. That's after the world broke a record in May. http://news.msn.com/science-technology/world-breaks-monthly-heat-record-2-times-in-a-row
