Morons. Hope they get max penalites allowed by law.
Global warming ? pffffft. Same "world is ending" hysteria clowns that screamed y2k would be the end of the world, have latched onto this gem.
I wonder what they'll come up with next, when the global warming balloon bursts.
Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory. Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge. ... a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).Wayne Yes, but not this theory. If somebody comes forward with new information that challenges this theory, they will be told that the debate is over.
sfcouple wrote: Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory. Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge. ... a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).Wayne
Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory. Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge.
... a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).
Wayne
Yes, but not this theory. If somebody comes forward with new information that challenges this theory, they will be told that the debate is over.
Not necessarily, at least in the scientific community. Theories are always being challenged, modified and changed---it is the very essence of scientific research. Einstein challenged Newton's theory of Gravity and as a result we have a new understanding of our universe. And there are times when this is not just an intellectual exercise: Einstein's theory of relativity is needed everytime one uses a GPS system.
What needs to be kept in mind regarding the theory of climate change is that it has been challenged and has always been shown to be correct. A true scientific study is a very rigorous exercise with many checks and balances. Is this current theory of global warming absolutely 100% correct? Of course not. But instead of quoting politicians how about naming a scientific study, that has refuted the current theory? A scientific study that has withstood the pressure of peer review, that has made verifiable predictions, and that has the capacity to be proven false. It is one thing to have opinions, but we all have to deal with the same set of facts.
Let's all try to imagine what our country would be like if we had no air pollution laws in effect. If cars had no pollution controls of any kind, if industries could discharge anything they wanted into the air and into our drinking water supplies. In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote a book "Silent Spring" vividly demonstrating how indiscriminate use of DDT can have a disastrous effect on our environment. She was right then, and those who study climate changes are probably right today.
Something I have never understood is why this discussion and debate on climate change is divided along political lines. For me, that is troubling because someone is probably really wrong. And I for one will trust a Nobel Prize winning scientist over a politician any day, anytime.
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
sfcouple wrote: Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: . Something I have never understood is why this discussion and debate on climate change is divided along political lines. For me, that is troubling because someone is probably really wrong. And I for one will trust a Nobel Prize winning scientist over a politician any day, anytime. Wayne
Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote:
sfcouple wrote:
.
so...Al Gore getting a Nobel ...counts him as an award winning scientist?
sfcouple wrote: Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory. Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge. ... a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).Wayne Yes, but not this theory. If somebody comes forward with new information that challenges this theory, they will be told that the debate is over. Not necessarily, at least in the scientific community. Theories are always being challenged, modified and changed---it is the very essence of scientific research. Wayne
Not necessarily, at least in the scientific community. Theories are always being challenged, modified and changed---it is the very essence of scientific research. Wayne
I hear what you are saying about the discipline of science. And maybe the scientific community is as open-minded as that discipline demands. But nearly all news media and politicians are telling us that the debate is over. I have heard it a hundred times. They tell us that it is settled science or a scientific consensus, and therefore, there can be no challenge to the theory. They brand skeptics as deniers, hoping to stigmatize them with all the sinister baggage that word implies. That does not sound like science to me.
You say the theory of MMGW has been challenged and always been shown to be correct. But is it shown to be correct based on a scientific refutation of the challenge, or is it shown to be correct by the declaration that it is beyond questioning?
J. Edgar wrote: sfcouple wrote: Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: . Something I have never understood is why this discussion and debate on climate change is divided along political lines. For me, that is troubling because someone is probably really wrong. And I for one will trust a Nobel Prize winning scientist over a politician any day, anytime. Wayne so...Al Gore getting a Nobel ...counts him as an award winning scientist?
Come on, I wasn't speaking about Al Gore and you know it. I was referencing respected scientists and not retired politicians. But if I were you I'd be very reluctant quoting from the likes James Inoke and John Coleman.
Mr. Inoke is a Senator from Oklahoma with extreme views on most anything relating to scientific research. He is an ardent supporter of creationism (aka: Intelligent Design) and would like to revisit the dark ages by banning the teaching of evolution in schools.
And your favorite weatherman John Coleman is just that, a weatherman. A weatherman in San Diego where predicting weather is something even I could do. Yes, he was the founder of the Weather Channel but has no credentials on long term studies of global climate change. I would love to see Mr. Coleman, or you, reference just one peer review article refuting what most main stream scientists feel about climate change. To add insult to injury, John Coleman has been refuted by the organization he belongs to, "The American Meteorological Society." This organization has , on more than one occasion, stated that "The evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."
So, I'm not asking for much...just name one peer review article on global warming that refutes what I've mentioned in this thread. Not something you may have read on a blog, or something a friend may have told you, or something you may have heard on a talk show somewhere. The name of the article, the Journal and the date of publication would be fine.
And yes sir, the chemistry of global warming is rock solid whether you want to believe it or not. And no sir, my last paragraph does not need re-wording. However, you are seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet.
What was in my post that suggested in any way that I had any doubt that the "chemistry of global warming is rock solid", that is, that the mechanism by which increases in the amount of atmospheric CO2 at the current levels of concentration indeed increase the amount of heat input to the climate system? I referred to those who had doubts about this mechanism as being "on the fringes." What makes you say that I am believing or even agnostic about that view?
I also wrote that the computer models were forcasting much larger increases in temperature for years forward than the amount of temperature increase observed to date, and that the computer model forecasts were based on the hypothesis of one or more positive feedback mechanisms amplifying the effect of CO2 alone in trapping heat.
These feedback mechanisms relating to changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover, I had reasoned, were more speculative than the "rock solid" science of CO2 radiation bands. In the past two years, in fact, I had attended a seminar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in Atmospheric Sciences, where the speaker addressed these feedback mechanisms, presented a "back of the envelope" atmospheric model based on the Hadley tropical, temperate, and polar circulation bands, and presented evidence that the amount of 21st century warming could be at the low end of the prevalent forecasts, and what warming would occur would be tempered by increased wind circulation transfering that heat to higher latitudes. This talk was received in a friendly spirit from a small classroom full of weather and climate scientists.
So when I speak of uncertainty in the assumptions regarding fluid mechanics, cloud formation, and water vapor saturation in the tropical zone, how is it that I am outside the mainstream of scientific knowledge on this matter?
You claim that your last paragraph that the world oil economy is "treating the planet as a giant garbage pit" does not require rewording. This is a popular forum, and I was speaking to the separation between the more free discussion here and the more carefully-worded discourse of scientific publication. Do the editors and reviewers of the journals you publish in allow sweeping, emotionally-laden generalizations to go unchallenged? Have you published anything of a scholarly nature where you were not politely, or even forcefully, been asked to change the wording of anything?
My response on this forum indicated I was "seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology." What fallacy of logic or fact did I make? You suggest I need remedial courses in biology and ecology. Why? The global warming concern is largely based on the "rock solid" foundation of physical chemistry, something on which we are in agreement. You are by your assertion an analytic chemist and missing from your list is that I need remedial courses in physical chemistry, thermodynamics, and fluid mechanics, which are at the foundation of scientific understanding of global warming.
I did make a remark that had relied on biology and ecology, and I was referencing Freeman Dyson's recent remarks that the peak rate of CO2 uptake by the biosphere was large compared to the rate of fossil fuel and other emission, and that Dr. Dyson was of the opinion that there was hope that CO2 emissions were not overwhelming the Earth's carrying capacity. Freeman Dyson is a mere mathematician with some reputation for performing derivations in support of theories of the electron that merited other scientists the Nobel Prize. I don't know if he actually received a Nobel Prize, and his mathematics was in support of work in physics recognized that way.
He is not a biologist, ecologist, or atmospheric scientist, although he had spent part of his career working on the global warming problem by his admission at Oak Ridge some years before it became fashionable. You made a remark about how statistics can be manipulated. They can also be interpreted, and Dr. Dyson showed genius as a young man in service of his British government, determining that the Germans had a type of weapon to down British planes, purely by force of statistical inference. It was only many years later it was revealed to him that the Germans had an angled gun mount on their fighters named "Slant Music", the German word for Jazz, that allowed attack of the British planes from their blind spot. The same man is an octagenarian scientist drawing on a lifetime of scientific, mathematical, and statistical experience to express the hope that the global warming problem is not as grim as some believe.
Is Freeman Dyson disqualified from expressing such views owing to lack of qualifications or political bias? Does the same critique apply to Paul Milenkovic, an electrical engineer who has taken personal action to demonstrate that drastic reductions in household electric power are possible, yet supports coal fired electric power plants as an interim step to allow people to stay warm in their houses in the face of high oil prices?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Looks like Wayne and I are in the minority...
I may be wrong, but I seem to be the only person here (unless there are any other teens) who'll live long enough to see any of these changes affect the world. Call it what you like; but even if global warming isn't actually caused by humans, it still doesn't mean we should just keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if it's not causing all of the glabal warming, it certainly isn't "good", is it?
That's my final post on this thread; it's doomed to be locked/deleted soon anyway...
All the changes that are propsed are all GOOD things in and of themselves (global warming or not). Using less electricty (through knickknack lights and more green homes and buildings) and saving money is good. Throwing less pollutants into the air is good. Can anyone argue with that?
As far as the weather channel? They are just prostitues to their advertisers. Of course they'll say global warming is a myth - either that or risk losing sponsors like Chrylser and their Dodge Rams....
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
So this is now a global warming post....
When I was a kid growing up in Western New York in the 1980s and 1990s, we had snow that would stay. I could build a snow fort with my dad that would last a month and get taller by the end of March.
In 1985 or 1986, all the snow melted for a day and it turned 80 degrees, in MARCH!
In 1995, I didn't have any snow in my backyard for three weeks in January. It only rained.
In 2005, I could walk through my neighborhood with only a light jacket, on Christmas Day.
This year, one week in February was as cold as I could ever remember -- four days with single digits and sub-zero windchill.
In the 1660s there was a mini Ice Age in which the Swiss thought their homes would be swept away by glaciers and many important food crops failed.
In the 1930s, the Great Plains of the U.S. faced the longest, dryest period in the past 200 years, we had the "Great Dustbowl."
And what ever happened to the hole in the Ozone layer?
You know, this is all anecdotal evidence. No one is going to be able to prove or disprove global warming or its causes any more than the same team of scientists can prove the existence of God. It will take decades to accumulate the evidence to "prove" anything.
I'm not saying it isn't so, I'm just saying it does sure seem different out there and I don't know why.
Well, I think it is good that we can have these discussions. I don't think any of us, or many of us, would disagree that it is important enough to get a solid handle on the matter...even if it is just to laugh at the end and say we had it all wrong. The fact is that we are all in it together, and we'll all experience what comes to pass. So, we should try to be kind to one another and think hard and learn all we can. It would be better for everyone of us if we have a large core of "doers" who help us to overcome whatever problems befall civilization. If it it to be global warming and its after-effects, then let's work together, not at cross purposes.
I do worry, seriously, about getting locked into a mindset. If any of you are interested, go to http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/ and look for this Wednesday's episode of "How to think about science". The entire series, now several months long, is devoted to interviewing luminaries who have cautioned us to question where science is going these days. For this week, Leo Smolin of the Pyramid Institue for Theoretical Physics worries, quite articulately, that we seem to be towing a familiar, perhaps facile, line in physics these days, and that we seem to be quelling the iconoclasts who actually further our understanding. It gets campy, once politics drives something, to talk a certain talk, but it shuts out the great leaps of vision that Einstein had over Newton for example. Any great advance we have made has some from a lone voice that gets it, not from the legions of naysayers.
To all of you, even though this thread has taken an off-topic cant, it doesn't have to go bad, or get personal. Let's be courteous and enjoy some banter, maybe some real education from someone with the learning, and try to keep it friendly and ongoing. I don't want to have to be a participant and a bug squasher at the same time. It is uncomfortable for me. And as much as it may seem silly to say it, I like all of you. Based on what I read in this thread, you are a lot of nice, interested, interesting, and learned people. We, on each side of this, have some real fears. Lets try to help each other out.
-Crandell
However the small energy conservation measures (often called tips on being green) are indeed knickknack remedies when compared to the size of the goal,
As you indicated by the 24" of fiberglas in your walls, reduction in heating needs are hard to achieve without either drastic remodeling of existing houses or change from house-based to tenement-apartment based living patterns.
Even the tips for "green driving" are perhaps of marginal, maybe 10 or 20 percent saving for the most conscientious practitioner.
But my tips for reducing electric use -- I have demonstrated electric use of about one third of a median value -- these are perhaps knick-knacky things, but they really work. Some of the things, like weighing baskets of clothes to determine optimal dryer settings, constant monitoring of indoor and outdoor humidity gauges to control the A/C, constant monitoring of dehumidifiers to see that their humidistats are working and that the units are not stuck in constant on until they become blocks of ice, hacking the microprocessor on a high-efficiency furnace to make sure it is high electric efficiency, these are engineering freak things today that will become standard features on appliances tomorrow.
In the face of this, I support increase in electric transmission and coal-fired generation capacity to the displeasure of my "green" compatriots. We are in a crisis situation with regard to oil, and affordable electric power is a direct substitute for sky-high oil in home heating. The current "green" agenda is to drive electric conservation with ever higher electric rates.
ignatius wrote:So this is now a global warming post.... And what ever happened to the hole in the Ozone layer?
Unfortunately it is still there; however, the science studies for 2007 show that the hole has actually shrunk in size from 2006, which is a bit of good news. Perhaps the reduction in use of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) has helped.
sfcouple wrote: J. Edgar wrote: sfcouple wrote: Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: . Something I have never understood is why this discussion and debate on climate change is divided along political lines. For me, that is troubling because someone is probably really wrong. And I for one will trust a Nobel Prize winning scientist over a politician any day, anytime. Wayne so...Al Gore getting a Nobel ...counts him as an award winning scientist?Come on, I wasn't speaking about Al Gore and you know it. I was referencing respected scientists and not retired politicians. But if I were you I'd be very reluctant quoting from the likes James Inoke and John Coleman.Mr. Inoke is a Senator from Oklahoma with extreme views on most anything relating to scientific research. He is an ardent supporter of creationism (aka: Intelligent Design) and would like to revisit the dark ages by banning the teaching of evolution in schools. And your favorite weatherman John Coleman is just that, a weatherman. A weatherman in San Diego where predicting weather is something even I could do. Yes, he was the founder of the Weather Channel but has no credentials on long term studies of global climate change. I would love to see Mr. Coleman, or you, reference just one peer review article refuting what most main stream scientists feel about climate change. To add insult to injury, John Coleman has been refuted by the organization he belongs to, "The American Meteorological Society." This organization has , on more than one occasion, stated that "The evidence for human modification of climate is compelling." So, I'm not asking for much...just name one peer review article on global warming that refutes what I've mentioned in this thread. Not something you may have read on a blog, or something a friend may have told you, or something you may have heard on a talk show somewhere. The name of the article, the Journal and the date of publication would be fine.Wayne
one final thought though.....i do relish the fact we CAN express our personal views and look forward to sharing ideas and thoughts with you all in the future....now im going to increase my "carbon footprint" before im told to turn off the AC
My employer consumes up to five 100 ton hopper carloads of coal per day in a district heating plant, and I am told as much as 70 percent of that goes to the makeup air in lab fume hoods, you know, the kind analytical chemists rely on so they are not poisoned by their workplace. The "greens" are in an uproar that this dirty, profligate use of coal must stop, but it does many useful things, like work on effective treatment for childhood cancers, discovery of the next generation of antibiotics, the study of stem cells to treat degenerative diseases and yes, provide office, lab space, and cooling of computers for internationally-renowned atmospheric scientists at the forefront of global warming. Of course many people fail to see the connection from that ugly central heating plant, with the Wisconsin and Southern blocking their drive home switching blocks of coal hopper cars, and all of the wonderous "discovery and knowledge industry" things taking place here.
Funny thing, our Faculty Senate has organized a Gaia Project for the whole faculty to get involved on all levels on the Global Warming problem. I was on an unrelated tour of a new research building and noticed unused lab fume hoods with doors partially open. If it were me, I would have big signs plastered all over the place, "Thou Shalt Close the Glass Doors on the Fume Hood When Not in Use So We Don't Pollute the Biosphere with the Coal Smoke Used to Heat the Warm Air Going Up Out the Vent on the Roof of the Building." I asked the scientist hosting the tour about this, politely as it were, being that I am just a dumb engineer and I am
seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet.
This scientist didn't know the right way to leave fume hood doors when the hoods were not in use. I bounced this off the head person of the Gaia Project (remember, the 500 tons of coal per day that Wisconsin and Southern switches to our district heating plant), was refered to the head guy of facilities, and haven't gotten a response in 6 months.
The problem of the coal usage will probably get "solved" by a mass natural gas conversion, the State of Wisconsin taxpayers will foot the fuel bill, and homeowners like me who work at conserving will take it on the chin with yet more expensive gas owing to higher demand.
Yes, outline the state of uncertainty in global warming, an I get called
Engage in the practice of leaving the doors wide open on idle fume hoods, with no one among this vast collection of PhDs being able to answer about the proper state doors on fume hoods not in use (what do I know, maybe they need to be open a crack for circulation for residual fumes, but no one seems to know), and you get called a leading research university with scientists leading the consensus on global warming.
Throwing fewer pollutants into the air is a good thing, but is CO2 a pollutant? We exhale it. We know that man's use of fossil fuels creates CO2, which is added to the atmosphere. Volcanoes do the same. Plants consume CO2 and reduce its total atmospheric quantity. And an increase in CO2 causes the growth of more plants that want to consume it.
Most of the world's CO2 is a component of ocean water. A natural warming cycle warms the oceans, which releases additional CO2 from ocean water into the atmosphere, so how do we know whether the CO2 is increasing because of what man is adding and thus causing warming; or whether natural warming is causing the oceans to release CO2, which then shows as an atmospheric increase?
Considering this ever changing, complex system of CO2 production and consumption, do we really know the total quantity of CO2 in the earth's ecosystem and whether it is increasing or decreasing?
Paul Milenkovic wrote: I asked the scientist hosting the tour about this, politely as it were, being that I am just a dumb engineer and I amseriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet.. Yes, outline the state of uncertainty in global warming, an I get called seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet..Engage in the practice of leaving the doors wide open on idle fume hoods, with no one among this vast collection of PhDs being able to answer about the proper state doors on fume hoods not in use (what do I know, maybe they need to be open a crack for circulation for residual fumes, but no one seems to know), and you get called a leading research university with scientists leading the consensus on global warming.
I asked the scientist hosting the tour about this, politely as it were, being that I am just a dumb engineer and I am
Touche....
Regarding the use of fume hoods: We were always instructed by engineers to leave the doors open an inch or two when not in use. This provided a small draft within the lab to reduce the concentration of potentially harmful vapors. Did this in turn pollute the outside air? Yes. I am as guilty as anyone for not always following recommended environmental practices.
Although this may surprise you, I too support the use of coal and would welcome new nuclear plants in our State. My brother was an engineer (Pacific Gas & Electric) and helped design the Diablo Canyon nuclear site near San Luis Obispo, and no he wasn't responsible for reversing the blueprint design. Anyway, he has always spoken quite highly of the safety and redundant safety designs in US nuclear power plants.
Bucyrus wrote:Throwing fewer pollutants into the air is a good thing, but is CO2 a pollutant? We exhale it. We know that man's use of fossil fuels creates CO2, which is added to the atmosphere. Volcanoes do the same.
Throwing fewer pollutants into the air is a good thing, but is CO2 a pollutant? We exhale it. We know that man's use of fossil fuels creates CO2, which is added to the atmosphere. Volcanoes do the same.
Someone help me think deeply for a moment. Wasn't there an urban myth (and possibly true) that a man petitioned a California small town to ban "di-hydrogen oxide" because a person surrounded by it without a special breathing apparatus would suffocate?
Carbon dioxide, like all materials, exist in balance. Chemotherapy drugs are merely poisons which don't kill us in small doses, they kill cancer. In too great of a quantity, the human life is snuffed also.
So, with carbon dioxide, the debate should not be about banning it, but what is the appropriate balance of it to everything else out there, so that Earth sustains the maximum potential vitality of life -- whatever that means.
~Ignatius
My 2 cents worth. At least the protesters did not figure out how to open the bottom (?) gates to dump the coal on the track.
I think it kind of comical that a group of protesters would try to stop a train load of coal & then try to dump the coal with shovels. Before the protesters could do signifigant amounts of disorder I would think they might hurt their backs.
rgds ign
ignatius wrote: Bucyrus wrote:Throwing fewer pollutants into the air is a good thing, but is CO2 a pollutant? We exhale it. We know that man's use of fossil fuels creates CO2, which is added to the atmosphere. Volcanoes do the same. Someone help me think deeply for a moment. Wasn't there an urban myth (and possibly true) that a man petitioned a California small town to ban "di-hydrogen oxide" because a person surrounded by it without a special breathing apparatus would suffocate?Carbon dioxide, like all materials, exist in balance. Chemotherapy drugs are merely poisons which don't kill us in small doses, they kill cancer. In too great of a quantity, the human life is snuffed also. So, with carbon dioxide, the debate should not be about banning it, but what is the appropriate balance of it to everything else out there, so that Earth sustains the maximum potential vitality of life -- whatever that means. ~Ignatius
I'm not sure who, but someone once coined the phrase: "The dose makes the poison." You are so right about carbon dioxide, we just need to find the appropriate balance and level, and I'm confident that we will.
Exploring the production and consumption of CO2 to seek answers to questions of balance is fine and reasonable. My concern, however, is the widespread, if not near universal acceptance of dogma that says that manmade global warming is a fact of settled science that requires a worldwide average reduction of manmade CO2 by 80% within the next eight years in order to prevent the otherwise certain destruction of the planet. This is the issue that is on the table here.
People say that, for the sake of our children, we can't afford to take a chance that this might not be accurate. What about taking the chance that all the sacrifice that an 80% reduction will require might not be necessary? I would like some of the believers to tell us how they intend to provide their share of the 80% reduction. You are not going to get there by caulking your windows, using less air conditioning, changing light bulbs, and buying bamboo flooring.
Actually, that is useful advice and it makes sense. That you would want to have an "idle" fume hood open a small amount to maintain air circulation to capture any residual fumes, either in the hood or in the room. My concern is not polluting the air with the low levels of VOC's that the hood is drafting out into the outdoors -- my concern is more along the lines of the large fuel bill and coal consumption of the district heating plant. Campus-wide education on fume hood operation could result in large dollar and CO2 savings.
My engineering mind has all manners of interesting questions. If you want to have a certain minimum draft through a hood for a lab work station, could you draw a red mark and tell people to "park the glass door" at the red mark when the hood is not in use? Or perhaps put a mechanical stop that the hood door does not close all the way? Or is there a reason to close the hood completely, as when initiating a chemical reaction that generates lots of fumes? Or maybe there should be an "idle draft port" to allow the needed bypass air when the hood is not in use, and the scientists and their students should be told to simply close the doors?
This almost gets into the science of steam locomotive firing, but firing a steam locomotive was an art taught to the union guys, so those university professors with advanced degrees should be held to comparable standards. The "tallow pots" were warned there were consequences to leaving the fire box doors open too much, and so on. Operating those hoods is exactly like economical firing of a steam locomotive. On another thread I mentioned that a Big Boy at max power went through 40 tons of (low grade Western) coal an hour. The collection of fume hoods on campus can go through a similar (although proportionately smaller amount of Illinois) coal per hour. Think of it, running the research labs at the University of Wisconsin is like firing a Big Boy . . .
John Colman the weather man says there in no such thing as global warming caused by man and I'm with him.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Regarding the use of fume hoods: We were always instructed by engineers to leave the doors open an inch or two when not in use. This provided a small draft within the lab to reduce the concentration of potentially harmful vapors. Did this in turn pollute the outside air? Yes. I am as guilty as anyone for not always following recommended environmental practices.Actually, that is useful advice and it makes sense. That you would want to have an "idle" fume hood open a small amount to maintain air circulation to capture any residual fumes, either in the hood or in the room. My concern is not polluting the air with the low levels of VOC's that the hood is drafting out into the outdoors -- my concern is more along the lines of the large fuel bill and coal consumption of the district heating plant. Campus-wide education on fume hood operation could result in large dollar and CO2 savings.My engineering mind has all manners of interesting questions. If you want to have a certain minimum draft through a hood for a lab work station, could you draw a red mark and tell people to "park the glass door" at the red mark when the hood is not in use? Or perhaps put a mechanical stop that the hood door does not close all the way? Or is there a reason to close the hood completely, as when initiating a chemical reaction that generates lots of fumes? Or maybe there should be an "idle draft port" to allow the needed bypass air when the hood is not in use, and the scientists and their students should be told to simply close the doors?This almost gets into the science of steam locomotive firing, but firing a steam locomotive was an art taught to the union guys, so those university professors with advanced degrees should be held to comparable standards. The "tallow pots" were warned there were consequences to leaving the fire box doors open too much, and so on. Operating those hoods is exactly like economical firing of a steam locomotive. On another thread I mentioned that a Big Boy at max power went through 40 tons of (low grade Western) coal an hour. The collection of fume hoods on campus can go through a similar (although proportionately smaller amount of Illinois) coal per hour. Think of it, running the research labs at the University of Wisconsin is like firing a Big Boy . . .
You are correct that leaving a fume hood open certainly increases energy consumption...it is similar to leaving a window open 24/7. Your ideas regarding laboratory fume hoods seem reasonable and logical, and hopefully improvements in their design have already been implemented.
It has been my experience in general laboratory work, that procedures generating harmful or dangerous vapors are conducted in a fume hood with the door completely closed and the exhaust fan turned on. Every laboratory is different with their own set of protocols, and I've seen laboratories where the exhaust fans in fume hoods are never turned off except for needed repair work. I have zero experience working with bio-hazards or radiological compounds, but can imagine their laboratory requirements are far more restrictive than anything I've ever encountered.
Expresslane wrote: John Colman the weather man says there in no such thing as global warming caused by man and I'm with him.
May I suggest the following web site for your consideration: realclimate.org
There is a link on top labeled "Start Here." Click on this link and you will be given numerous options, depending upon your own level of expertise, that will explain climate and global warming in what is considered an objective manner exclusive of politics. Give it a try and make an honest effort to pursue this topic with an open mind. All anyone can do is become educated and fact check claims that don't seem reasonable.
Thank you,
Fine I will refuse to pull a coal train again, No more steam OUTLAW IT NOW!! Save the earth ban locomotives, Ban humans We produce more CO2 by breathing thant any machine. So Ban us. Hey I am overweight therefore I use more O@ and produce more CO2 cause of heavy breathing when exerting myself. That means I need to be taxed more by golly.
Get a grip 25 years ago you heard Global Ice Age, now its global warming????? Make up your mind. The Earth runs in patterns, cold some years hot others. Fact of life. In the time of the dinosaurs the CO2 levels were wayyyyy higher than the greenies are saying will happen maybe 50 years from now. Why is it always 50 years?So no one can refute them when they scream about what we need to do.
Go green no more toilet paper for you. Live in a wood houes FOR SHAME!!!Your online that means you have electircity how dare you use resources like this wasting energy on a forum about trains!!!!!!Think of all the coal you save by shutting of your computer and not perusing these forums.
Anyway I am going to do my part. I am going to g do some situps, I am going to refuse to pull coal trains I will run in only notch 1 to save fuel and lower emissions. So whos going to pay my bills once my RFE fires me for delaying trains?
Send check or money order to me please Id like to make at least what I am making now so give generously. Thanks
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
route_rock wrote: Fine I will refuse to pull a coal train again, No more steam OUTLAW IT NOW!! Save the earth ban locomotives, Ban humans We produce more CO2 by breathing thant any machine. So Ban us. Hey I am overweight therefore I use more O@ and produce more CO2 cause of heavy breathing when exerting myself. That means I need to be taxed more by golly. Get a grip 25 years ago you heard Global Ice Age, now its global warming????? Make up your mind. The Earth runs in patterns, cold some years hot others. Fact of life. In the time of the dinosaurs the CO2 levels were wayyyyy higher than the greenies are saying will happen maybe 50 years from now. Why is it always 50 years?So no one can refute them when they scream about what we need to do. Go green no more toilet paper for you. Live in a wood houes FOR SHAME!!!Your online that means you have electircity how dare you use resources like this wasting energy on a forum about trains!!!!!!Think of all the coal you save by shutting of your computer and not perusing these forums. Anyway I am going to do my part. I am going to g do some situps, I am going to refuse to pull coal trains I will run in only notch 1 to save fuel and lower emissions. So whos going to pay my bills once my RFE fires me for delaying trains? Send check or money order to me please Id like to make at least what I am making now so give generously. Thanks
Maybe you are correct, although I respectively disagree with you. I can and do understand the misunderstanding, confusion and passionate viewpoints on this subject.
I am far from being an expert on this subject; however, an effort is made to become well informed. I guess one problem is trying to find someone or something whose information you can trust. Not an easy task, but it can be done. In many cases it is not that difficult to fact check something being touted as gospel. And once something has been checked then it is up to you whether or not you want to trust that source in the future. It is on your shoulders and it is your responsibility to discover, as best as one can, the truth behind rumors, innuendos, and just out right lies. You won't always be able to succeed but you owe it to yourself to at least try.
Why dont you see Al Gore and his cronies or anybody else that believes that Global Warming is happening debate the "facts" other than with the main stream media like. Why dont they go on the awesome show of The O'Reilly Factor (we know how much San Fran loves O'Reilly, Rush, Savage, FOXNews). Or be a guest on Rush Limbaugh? Go on FOXNews? Why be in bed with all the other networks? Do they have something to hide or just be in bed to further their cause.
It was stated earlier that many that say that Global Warming isnt caused by man signed their reputations saying that man isnt causing it, but yet Gore and his cronies wont put their reps on the line.
Interesting thought, look up on how much energy Gores house uses and then look up President Bush's house.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
sfcouple wrote: So, I'm not asking for much...just name one peer review article on global warming that refutes what I've mentioned in this thread. Not something you may have read on a blog, or something a friend may have told you, or something you may have heard on a talk show somewhere. The name of the article, the Journal and the date of publication would be fine.
I love it when folks like Wayne walk right into it.....
Wayne, there are thousands of peer-reviewed articles that refute the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Rather than list them all, here's just a few for starters. PS - When you're done reading these, I'll link up some more!
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ice%20factsheet.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ResourcesGlobalWarm.html
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/ipcc_letter_14april08.pdf
Graph below shows CO2 (green line) continues upwards while temperature (the other two lines) fluctuates, dropping recently; offering compelling evidence against the belief that CO2 drives global temperature.
Lot's of peer-reviewed skepticism here...
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
Or, how about this one...
"Pseudoscientific elements in climate change research" - Dr. Arthur Rörsch; Spil, February 2008
Link: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/rorsch_climate_change.html
While we're at it, take a look a a side by side comparison of solar/temp and CO2/temp correlative graphs...
Ready to cry "uncle" yet?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.