Freeman Dyson smacks down global warming

[C'DaleRider]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

very interesting read. i enjoyed the comments about how the modeling is incomplete and crude.

The most "interesting" part of that "read" is how incomplete and crude his unsbustantiated opinion is.

let er rip boys!!

Why bother? You already posted this fart of a thread. The most significant and accurate thing he said is:

Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.

Assuming for the moment that there really is any debate about the subject, it gets down to an argument similar to whether there's a god. Specifically, if you assume there isn't, and you're wrong, you could be doomed to an eternal hell, while, if you assume there is, and you're wrong, you haven't lost anything. There are differences:

1. If you similarly dismiss predictions of the catastrophic consequenses resulting from man made contributions to global warming, the odds are much greater that the realizations of those consequenses will occur in your lifetime.
   
2. There is NO question that we human beings are altering the environment by dumping significant quantities of pollutants into it. The only questions are whether those pollutants are affecting the Earth's climate and ecosystem, how long it will take to happen and whether there is anything we can do about it.
   
3. If you're wrong about the existence of a deity, you are the only one who will suffer the alleged consequences. If you're wrong about man made global warming or any other ecological destruction, continuing your selfish, destructive behavior affects all of humanity.

There's plenty we can do, and have already done, about these problems. Business interests have been far too slow to pick up on it, but they are beginning to act. Hybrid cars, alternative energy systems, wide scale recycling by cities and states and cleaner industrial production facilities are just a few examples of what can be accomplished once human beings put their minds to it.

I think doing nothing and ignoring the possible consequenses is well beyond the tolerable ego limits for any one human being. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

Freeman Dyson, the author of the article at your link, is a professor of physics who freely acknowledges he isn't qualified to do more than venture his less than qualified opinion on the subject. Did they teach you anything in heart surgery school that qualifies you as any more of an authority? :roll:

Excellent post! Love the "heart surgery school" comment!

If he were truly a heart surgeon, he'd have put "cardiothoracic surgeon" in his sig. Heart surgeons are what the lay people call them.....much like he is.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Unless the radical righties, specifically the one that posted the OP in this case, can prove this math professor has not been paid as an anti-Global Warming shill by the GOP and the Bush Administration I have a hard time believing the so called learned opinion of the Princeton Professor or the OP and their groupies.

You need to watch your fucking mouth sometimes Dave. Freeman Dyson is an extremely well respected individual in scientific circles, and even though I don't agree with him on this point, your unfounded implied accusations are ridiculous and arrogant.

Prove me otherwise.

What is his affiliations besides a Princeton Math Professor?

That's not enough IMO.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: HarveyHybrid cars, alternative energy systems, wide scale recycling by cities and states and cleaner industrial production facilities are just a few examples of what can be accomplished once human beings put their minds to it.

Except pretty much all of those things are currently very bad for the environment. The lifetime environmental footprint of a Prius is larger than that of a Hummer. Recycling a paper cup takes three times the energy (and thus three times the carbon emissions) of making a new styrofoam one. People like to wrap themselves in these feel-good solutions without actually knowing anything about them.

And people like to shoot down alternative solutions before thinking about them because it interferes with their opinion that "everything is fine exactly the way it is". Hybrid cars are still a new technology, their manufacturing process will become more efficient, and in any case, environmental footprint is a pretty vague concept (and the folks who did that study won't release their methodology)...if the goal is to use less gasoline, I think the Prius does that pretty nicely. Recycling a paper cup might take more energy than making a new styrofoam one...but energy usage does not have to mean carbon emissions. The energy required for recycling can come from cleaner sources like solar or wind (or even nuclear), while a styrofoam cup can't do anything but clog up a landfill.

Even if we're not completely there yet, "green" is where we're going. You're going to have solar power for your house, and fossil fuel plants will slowly go away, you're going to recycle, you're going to drive a vehicle powered by something other than fossil fuels. The technology is almost there yet, and technology always improves. I don't get the knee jerk reaction of people like you against this stuff...do you really think we can keep going the way we are forever?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: HarveyHybrid cars, alternative energy systems, wide scale recycling by cities and states and cleaner industrial production facilities are just a few examples of what can be accomplished once human beings put their minds to it.

Except pretty much all of those things are currently very bad for the environment. The lifetime environmental footprint of a Prius is larger than that of a Hummer. Recycling a paper cup takes three times the energy (and thus three times the carbon emissions) of making a new styrofoam one. People like to wrap themselves in these feel-good solutions without actually knowing anything about them.

And people like to shoot down alternative solutions before thinking about them because it interferes with their opinion that "everything is fine exactly the way it is". Hybrid cars are still a new technology, their manufacturing process will become more efficient, and in any case, environmental footprint is a pretty vague concept (and the folks who did that study won't release their methodology)...if the goal is to use less gasoline, I think the Prius does that pretty nicely. Recycling a paper cup might take more energy than making a new styrofoam one...but energy usage does not have to mean carbon emissions. The energy required for recycling can come from cleaner sources like solar or wind (or even nuclear), while a styrofoam cup can't do anything but clog up a landfill.

Even if we're not completely there yet, "green" is where we're going. You're going to have solar power for your house, and fossil fuel plants will slowly go away, you're going to recycle, you're going to drive a vehicle powered by something other than fossil fuels. The technology is almost there yet, and technology always improves. I don't get the knee jerk reaction of people like you against this stuff...do you really think we can keep going the way we are forever?

I agree with everything except the recycling part. Excluding aluminum and other metals recycling is a huge waste of energy and resources and don't result in any gains, imo.

It uses much more energy to recycle paper than it does to create new paper. Trees are not the problem either as the vast majority of the trees used to make paper comes from "tree farms". Putting it in a landfill isn't an issue anymore either. Modern landfills are extremely safe for the environment. They are sealed air tight so biodegradation slows almost to a halt (no bad gases or contaminants for the environment), some actually promote biodegration to produce methane which they then use to generate energy, and when a modern landfill has reached the end of its lifespan they seal it up, cover it with dirt, and put a park on top of it.

Or.... we can burn three or four times the (mostly) fossil fuels to generate the energy to recycle them WHILE hugely subsidizing the recycling companies because it is not profitable (excluding most metals). Basically, we are doing more harm to the environment right now by recycling instead of just throwing it in the landfill. That will change in the future but thats the way it is right now as far as I understand it.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I believe my credentials are irrelevant to the discussion

Your credentials probably are irrelevant.

Vivien Thomas, is that you? Next you will be telling us you were in on the blue baby operation and pioneered TOF repair, lol, you are silly

What are your credentials sport? Guadalajara?

Heart surgeons are what the lay people call them.

Gee, I didn't know you kids all physicians too!!

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Unless the radical righties, specifically the one that posted the OP in this case, can prove this math professor has not been paid as an anti-Global Warming shill by the GOP and the Bush Administration I have a hard time believing the so called learned opinion of the Princeton Professor or the OP and their groupies.

You need to watch your fucking mouth sometimes Dave. Freeman Dyson is an extremely well respected individual in scientific circles, and even though I don't agree with him on this point, your unfounded implied accusations are ridiculous and arrogant.

Prove me otherwise.

What is his affiliations besides a Princeton Math Professor?

That's not enough IMO.

You're the one making outrageous claims, the burden of proof lies with you.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I believe my credentials are irrelevant to the discussion

Your credentials probably are irrelevant.

Yep! I've got two patents, several copyrights and a history of successful product designs, and I already acknowledged that none of that qualifies me to dispute the concensus of the vast majority of those who ARE qualified to discuss the causes and effects of global warming.

You're the one who bragged about his so-called "credentials," but you still chickened out of telling us what they taught you at Johns Hopkins University and the Mayo Clinic, or what you've learned as a heart surgeon, that makes you anymore qualified than I am with a background in electronic engineering, and you still haven't explained why Professor Dyson's credentials in physics do, either.

You, I and he all have scientific backgrounds, which means we probably have less difficulty following technical discussions in fields other than our own. At least the good professor and I acknowledge that we're not experts in climatology or meteorology.

What's your excuse? :roll:

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
What are your credentials sport? Guadalajara?

Did you get your degree from some midwestern meat packing plant? The only times we know you cut the heart out of anything is when you're butchering the truth. :laugh:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: HarveyHybrid cars, alternative energy systems, wide scale recycling by cities and states and cleaner industrial production facilities are just a few examples of what can be accomplished once human beings put their minds to it.

Except pretty much all of those things are currently very bad for the environment. The lifetime environmental footprint of a Prius is larger than that of a Hummer. Recycling a paper cup takes three times the energy (and thus three times the carbon emissions) of making a new styrofoam one. People like to wrap themselves in these feel-good solutions without actually knowing anything about them.

And people like to shoot down alternative solutions before thinking about them because it interferes with their opinion that "everything is fine exactly the way it is". Hybrid cars are still a new technology, their manufacturing process will become more efficient, and in any case, environmental footprint is a pretty vague concept (and the folks who did that study won't release their methodology)...if the goal is to use less gasoline, I think the Prius does that pretty nicely. Recycling a paper cup might take more energy than making a new styrofoam one...but energy usage does not have to mean carbon emissions. The energy required for recycling can come from cleaner sources like solar or wind (or even nuclear), while a styrofoam cup can't do anything but clog up a landfill.

Even if we're not completely there yet, "green" is where we're going. You're going to have solar power for your house, and fossil fuel plants will slowly go away, you're going to recycle, you're going to drive a vehicle powered by something other than fossil fuels. The technology is almost there yet, and technology always improves. I don't get the knee jerk reaction of people like you against this stuff...do you really think we can keep going the way we are forever?

I agree with everything except the recycling part. Excluding aluminum and other metals recycling is a huge waste of energy and resources and don't result in any gains, imo.

It uses much more energy to recycle paper than it does to create new paper. Trees are not the problem either as the vast majority of the trees used to make paper comes from "tree farms". Putting it in a landfill isn't an issue anymore either. Modern landfills are extremely safe for the environment. They are sealed air tight so biodegradation slows almost to a halt (no bad gases or contaminants for the environment), some actually promote biodegration to produce methane which they then use to generate energy, and when a modern landfill has reached the end of its lifespan they seal it up, cover it with dirt, and put a park on top of it.

Or.... we can burn three or four times the (mostly) fossil fuels to generate the energy to recycle them WHILE hugely subsidizing the recycling companies because it is not profitable (excluding most metals). Basically, we are doing more harm to the environment right now by recycling instead of just throwing it in the landfill. That will change in the future but thats the way it is right now as far as I understand it.

Fair enough, and actually I think recycling does not have the positive impact we think it does right now. It's certainly not worth the singular focus people are putting on it.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Fair enough, and actually I think recycling does not have the positive impact we think it does right now. It's certainly not worth the singular focus people are putting on it.

i wonder about any recycling that does not "pay for itself"

where I live, the local municipality is having a hard time paying for all its recycling needs, because commercial dumps are accepting trash at a lower costthan the municipal dump. this has reduced the revenue from the dump available to pay for "recycling costs".

we, that makes no sense to me..that means it's more expensive to recycle "trash" than it is to throw it away...

well, that extra expense represents money that was earned driving to work (using gas), working in a airconditioned building (using electrictity)...

i mean if recycling doesn't generate extra money that makes it more economical (or at least the same in cost) as throwing something in a landfill...how can that be good in any sense?

any extra cost represents the use of resources to process that trash....

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: HarveyHybrid cars, alternative energy systems, wide scale recycling by cities and states and cleaner industrial production facilities are just a few examples of what can be accomplished once human beings put their minds to it.

Except pretty much all of those things are currently very bad for the environment. The lifetime environmental footprint of a Prius is larger than that of a Hummer. Recycling a paper cup takes three times the energy (and thus three times the carbon emissions) of making a new styrofoam one. People like to wrap themselves in these feel-good solutions without actually knowing anything about them.

And the answer is,, use mass transit, ride a bike or walk and don't use throw-a-way beverage containers. TA DA!

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Fair enough, and actually I think recycling does not have the positive impact we think it does right now. It's certainly not worth the singular focus people are putting on it.

i wonder about any recycling that does not "pay for itself"

where I live, the local municipality is having a hard time paying for all its recycling needs, because commercial dumps are accepting trash at a lower costthan the municipal dump. this has reduced the revenue from the dump available to pay for "recycling costs".

we, that makes no sense to me..that means it's more expensive to recycle "trash" than it is to throw it away...

well, that extra expense represents money that was earned driving to work (using gas), working in a airconditioned building (using electrictity)...

i mean if recycling doesn't generate extra money that makes it more economical (or at least the same in cost) as throwing something in a landfill...how can that be good in any sense?

any extra cost represents the use of resources to process that trash....

The trouble is the municipal "dump" cannot close, declare bankruptcy and let the toxic pollutants {which they were not supposed to accept but took the money for it anyway) leaking from their landfill become someone else's problem.

 

[GoPackGo]

can we just rename this thread Heartsurgeon vs Harvey?

 

[piasabird]

Even if global warming is a problem, can we make enough of a difference? This is a global problem and if countries like China and India dont want to cooperate nothing we do will work or have any major effect.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Even if global warming is a problem, can we make enough of a difference? This is a global problem and if countries like China and India dont want to cooperate nothing we do will work or have any major effect.

That is the $64000 question.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Darwin333



I agree with everything except the recycling part. Excluding aluminum and other metals recycling is a huge waste of energy and resources and don't result in any gains, imo.

It uses much more energy to recycle paper than it does to create new paper. Trees are not the problem either as the vast majority of the trees used to make paper comes from "tree farms". Putting it in a landfill isn't an issue anymore either. Modern landfills are extremely safe for the environment. They are sealed air tight so biodegradation slows almost to a halt (no bad gases or contaminants for the environment), some actually promote biodegration to produce methane which they then use to generate energy, and when a modern landfill has reached the end of its lifespan they seal it up, cover it with dirt, and put a park on top of it.

Or.... we can burn three or four times the (mostly) fossil fuels to generate the energy to recycle them WHILE hugely subsidizing the recycling companies because it is not profitable (excluding most metals). Basically, we are doing more harm to the environment right now by recycling instead of just throwing it in the landfill. That will change in the future but thats the way it is right now as far as I understand it.

Fair enough, and actually I think recycling does not have the positive impact we think it does right now. It's certainly not worth the singular focus people are putting on it.

Not only is it not worth the focus, it is not worth the tons of public funding that is pumped in to it. Those resources could be shifted to projects that actually work.

You know, I think the main problem with this debate is that it seems neither side is willing to compromise.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Unless the radical righties, specifically the one that posted the OP in this case, can prove this math professor has not been paid as an anti-Global Warming shill by the GOP and the Bush Administration I have a hard time believing the so called learned opinion of the Princeton Professor or the OP and their groupies.

You need to watch your fucking mouth sometimes Dave. Freeman Dyson is an extremely well respected individual in scientific circles, and even though I don't agree with him on this point, your unfounded implied accusations are ridiculous and arrogant.

Prove me otherwise.

What is his affiliations besides a Princeton Math Professor?

That's not enough IMO.

Well he's a physicist for one. He is also a brilliant futurist and has written many books on what "might be". One in particular called "The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet" is about a society of green technology.

One of his arguments that I like is that the models used for climate change don't predict El Nino, therefore the models are insufficient, and their predictive value is nothing. This is a pretty standard concept in physics, and the world is a physical system.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Unless the radical righties, specifically the one that posted the OP in this case, can prove this math professor has not been paid as an anti-Global Warming shill by the GOP and the Bush Administration I have a hard time believing the so called learned opinion of the Princeton Professor or the OP and their groupies.

You need to watch your fucking mouth sometimes Dave. Freeman Dyson is an extremely well respected individual in scientific circles, and even though I don't agree with him on this point, your unfounded implied accusations are ridiculous and arrogant.

Prove me otherwise.

What is his affiliations besides a Princeton Math Professor?

That's not enough IMO.

Well he's a physicist for one. He is also a brilliant futurist and has written many books on what "might be". One in particular called "The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet" is about a society of green technology.

One of his arguments that I like is that the models used for climate change don't predict El Nino, therefore the models are insufficient, and their predictive value is nothing. This is a pretty standard concept in physics, and the world is a physical system.

That's all well and good but I take issue with anyone that denies the ice is melting.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
can we just rename this thread Heartsurgeon vs Harvey?

Le chirurgien du c?ur est plein de la merde.

Originally posted by: piasabird
Even if global warming is a problem, can we make enough of a difference? This is a global problem and if countries like China and India dont want to cooperate nothing we do will work or have any major effect.

The United States is less than 5% of the world's population but produces more than 25% of the man-made carbon discharged into the atmosphere each year.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . . . 5.43 metric tons of carbon per capita
CHINA (MAINLAND) . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.86 metric tons of carbon per capita
INDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.33 metric tons of carbon per capita

Ranking of the world's countries by 2003 per capita fossil-fuel CO2 emission rates

And in honor of Freeman Dyson for those that did not read the third heresy:

The United States has less than a century left of its turn as top nation.

I give you Game Over: Thirty-Six Sure-Fire Signs That Your Empire Is Crumbling

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Unless the radical righties, specifically the one that posted the OP in this case, can prove this math professor has not been paid as an anti-Global Warming shill by the GOP and the Bush Administration I have a hard time believing the so called learned opinion of the Princeton Professor or the OP and their groupies.

You need to watch your fucking mouth sometimes Dave. Freeman Dyson is an extremely well respected individual in scientific circles, and even though I don't agree with him on this point, your unfounded implied accusations are ridiculous and arrogant.

Prove me otherwise.

What is his affiliations besides a Princeton Math Professor?

That's not enough IMO.

Well he's a physicist for one. He is also a brilliant futurist and has written many books on what "might be". One in particular called "The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet" is about a society of green technology.

One of his arguments that I like is that the models used for climate change don't predict El Nino, therefore the models are insufficient, and their predictive value is nothing. This is a pretty standard concept in physics, and the world is a physical system.

That's all well and good but I take issue with anyone that denies the ice is melting.

"The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger.[21]"

Looks like he's okay with saying the arctic is getting warmer...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Looks like he's okay with saying the arctic is getting warmer...

Then the whole thread is moot since he is not putting the "smack down" on Global Warming as the OP claims.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: heyheyboobooThe United States is less than 5% of the world's population but produces more than 25% of the man-made carbon discharged into the atmosphere each year.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . . . 5.43 metric tons of carbon per capita
CHINA (MAINLAND) . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.86 metric tons of carbon per capita
INDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.33 metric tons of carbon per capitaI give you

Kind of stupid to compare America on a per capita basis with two countries where the majority of the population does not even have what most others would consider as requirements for a standard of living.

Meaning, out of China's entire population how many are served with electricty, water, and the like? Same for India.

Maybe if America started counting Buffalo they would have the same per capita, after all our Buffalo have a similar effect and usage of resources as most of the people in china and india - meaning they don't count except when needed to make per capita look better.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: heyheyboobooThe United States is less than 5% of the world's population but produces more than 25% of the man-made carbon discharged into the atmosphere each year.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . . . 5.43 metric tons of carbon per capita
CHINA (MAINLAND) . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.86 metric tons of carbon per capita
INDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.33 metric tons of carbon per capitaI give you

Kind of stupid to compare America on a per capita basis with two countries where the majority of the population does not even have what most others would consider as requirements for a standard of living.

Meaning, out of China's entire population how many are served with electricty, water, and the like? Same for India.

Maybe if America started counting Buffalo they would have the same per capita, after all our Buffalo have a similar effect and usage of resources as most of the people in china and india - meaning they don't count except when needed to make per capita look better.

That would be incorrect.

Solutions to the man-made carbon loading in the atmoshere acknowledge the need of the developing world with the primary objectve of slowing the rate of increase - in an attempt to stablize the total amount of carbon in the atmoshere in the next 50 years.

And thank you for taking my information out of context by clipping the following quote from my post:

Originally posted by: piasabird
Even if global warming is a problem, can we make enough of a difference? This is a global problem and if countries like China and India dont want to cooperate nothing we do will work or have any major effect.

Quite Rovian of you . . .

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Not only is it not worth the focus, it is not worth the tons of public funding that is pumped in to it. Those resources could be shifted to projects that actually work.

There's far more to recycling than consumers' bottles, cans and plastic items. Building codes can be (and are being) updated to require more efficient designs. For example, beyond better insulation, there are technologies that re-use heat from both heating and cooling systems that would otherwise be exhausted into the environment to produce electricity.

Companies should be encouraged, or even mandated, to make their new product designs as energy efficient as possible. Here's an example I'd guess very few in this thread have considered -- By now, you've probably heard of CPU coolers that use heat pipes. The interesting thing about how heat pipes work is, the heat from the CPU vaporizes the liquid in the pipes, which condenses at the other end and returns down the center of the pipe.

In other words, they use some of the otherwise wasted thermal energy from the CPU itself to power the cooling system. Even better, it's completely passive. It requires no moving parts beyond the fan that's needed, anyhow, and to the extent that the heat is used to power the heat pipe action, less heat is exhaused as waste.

Another conceptual example is in braking systems in cars. An electric motor and an electric generator are essentially the same devices. The difference is only that a generator converts mechanical motion into electricity while a motor converts electiricty to mechanical motion. If you turn the rotor of an unpowered electric motor, you will read an electric charge on the power terminals. Furthermore, that action creates a drag on the rotor.

The same principle can be applied to the braking system that controls the descent of an electric elevator car that harnesses the energy provided by gravity, instead of wasting energy trying to counter it.

Want to prove it, yourself? A dynamic speaker is a motor. A dynamic microphone is a generator. In fact, there are cheap intercom systems that use a speaker as both speaker and microphone. Connect a volt meter across a good size speaker, and tap on the cone. You should be able to read the voltage it generates on the meter.

That principle can be applied to use an electric motor that both drives the wheels and acts as a braking systems that uses the stored energy of the car's motion (powered by already expended energy) to generate power to charge a battery.

This is not science fiction. Such systems already exist. The savings may be small on each unit, but multiplied across millions of consumer and industrial products, it would be substantial. There's no reason why this kind of thinking can't be applied to other products and systems, and, in fact, it's already being done by some forward thinking companies.

You know, I think the main problem with this debate is that it seems neither side is willing to compromise.

"Compromise" is NOT an option when it means failing to taking adequate steps to avoid the destruction of the environment that supports human existence.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Not only is it not worth the focus, it is not worth the tons of public funding that is pumped in to it. Those resources could be shifted to projects that actually work.

There's far more to recycling than consumers' bottles, cans and plastic items. Building codes can be (and are being) updated to require more efficient designs. For example, beyond better insulation, there are technologies that re-use heat from both heating and cooling systems that would otherwise be exhausted into the environment to produce electricity.

Companies should be encouraged, or even mandated, to make their new product designs as energy efficient as possible. Here's an example I'd guess very few in this thread have considered -- By now, you've probably heard of CPU coolers that use heat pipes. The interesting thing about how heat pipes work is, the heat from the CPU vaporizes the liquid in the pipes, which condenses at the other end and returns down the center of the pipe.

In other words, they use some of the otherwise wasted thermal energy from the CPU itself to power the cooling system. Even better, it's completely passive. It requires no moving parts beyond the fan that's needed, anyhow, and to the extent that the heat is used to power the heat pipe action, less heat is exhaused as waste.

Another conceptual example is in braking systems in cars. An electric motor and an electric generator are essentially the same devices. The difference is only that a generator converts mechanical motion into electricity while a motor converts electiricty to mechanical motion. If you turn the rotor of an unpowered electric motor, you will read an electric charge on the power terminals. Furthermore, that action creates a drag on the rotor.

The same principle can be applied to the braking system that controls the descent of an electric elevator car that harnesses the energy provided by gravity, instead of wasting energy trying to counter it.

Want to prove it, yourself? A dynamic speaker is a motor. A dynamic microphone is a generator. In fact, there are cheap intercom systems that use a speaker as both speaker and microphone. Connect a volt meter across a good size speaker, and tap on the cone. You should be able to read the voltage it generates on the meter.

That principle can be applied to use an electric motor that both drives the wheels and acts as a braking systems that uses the stored energy of the car's motion (powered by already expended energy) to generate power to charge a battery.

This is not science fiction. Such systems already exist. The savings may be small on each unit, but multiplied across millions of consumer and industrial products, it would be substantial. There's no reason why this kind of thinking can't be applied to other products and systems, and, in fact, it's already being done by some forward thinking companies.

You know, I think the main problem with this debate is that it seems neither side is willing to compromise.

"Compromise" is NOT an option when it means failing to taking adequate steps to avoid the destruction of the environment that supports human existence.

Um, your idea of heatpipes isn't quite accurate. A copper rod would have the exact same effect, albeit not as good. A diamond rod would probably work as good as, or possibly better than a heatpipe. All heatpipes do is transport heat to be dissipated, something any conductor does. They don't take the place of something motorized and reduce greenhouse gases or anything.

Recycling waste heat is something that only really make sense in huge gas turbine power stations. The efficiency of using waste heat to power something depends on the difference in temperature between the hot element and the environment. Most things you have in your house aren't nearly hot enough to warrant the effort, manufacturing cost (in both dollars and energy), or the energy required to run the reclamation device. Again, it's using 3 units of energy to save 1.

More efficient building codes are great... thicker insulation, double paned windows... but these have nothing to do with recycling.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: silverpig

Looks like he's okay with saying the arctic is getting warmer...

Then the whole thread is moot since he is not putting the "smack down" on Global Warming as the OP claims.

No. Did you read the article?

He's saying that there is so much we still don't know about the climate, and that the models are completely useless for the purposes of prediction. Thus, they can not be used to prove that factor x causes effect y to this degree.

An interesting argument I saw in the article is that the warming of the arctic ice could CAUSE the next ice age. Here's the gist of the argument:

-Over past 800 000 yrs we have had cyclic ice ages in periods of 100 000 yrs
-90 000 yrs of ice age in the northern hemisphere, 10 000 yrs of warmth
-Today is 12 000 yrs of warm cycle, peak of warm cycle was 6000 yrs ago
-Overdue for another ice age
-Europe is warmed by the gulf stream, a warm surface current which transports heat from the Caribbean to Europe
- This is countered by a cold deep water current which flows from Greenland to the Caribbean and is caused by salty water in the north Atlantic sinking
-Addition of melting freshwater to the arctic sea could stop the sinking salty water current
-Cold water current to Caribbean dies
-Gulf stream dies
-Ice age


Whether or not this is the cycle of what happens is unknown, but it is plausible, and a cycle has happened in the past.