Friday, March 27, 2009
Which companies are specifically inpacted seriously by alturnative energy sources? how?
only those who fall for the lies of the greens. Utilising coal, gas, electricity and coke are good old fashioned ways of energy for production.
What was the Temperature today where you are?
Here:-
43 with rain.
03/26/09 7:51p
Temp: 42.2F
Dew Point: 35.5F
Humidity: 77%
Temp Out H: 56.2F / 03/26/09 2:07p
Temp Out L: 26.9F / 03/26/09 6:25a
Barometer: 29.976 inHg
Barometer Trend: Steady
Wind Dir: 202 Deg. or SSW
Wind Spd: 2.0 mph
Wind Gust: 6.0 mph
Wind High Gust Today: 15.0 mph / 03/26/09 3:11p
Rain Today: 0.03 inches
Heat Index: 41.8F
Wind Chill: 40.8F
High Heat Index: 52.8F / 03/26/09 2:10p
Low Wind Chill: 26.9F / 03/26/09 6:40a
Station Elevation: 180 ft
Bandung, Indonesia
30 degrees celcius.
Light rain.
At my house in Southern California it%26#039;s currently 62.3 and sunny, a fairly cool spring day. The high was 64.8 F.
Cairns Northern Queensland
31c (88F)
High of 70somethin (FAr not centigrade)
Mesa Arizona
Had the same as you, 43 with rain.
75 with rain in Texas!!!!!!!!
57 and SUNNY!!!! First really nice day in michigan
Shouldn%26#039;t you be asking this in %26#039;weather%26#039;?
64 with lots of sun. whooo surf city USA!
it%26#039;s tennessee... what do you think?
%0D%0A
43 with rain.
03/26/09 7:51p
Temp: 42.2F
Dew Point: 35.5F
Humidity: 77%
Temp Out H: 56.2F / 03/26/09 2:07p
Temp Out L: 26.9F / 03/26/09 6:25a
Barometer: 29.976 inHg
Barometer Trend: Steady
Wind Dir: 202 Deg. or SSW
Wind Spd: 2.0 mph
Wind Gust: 6.0 mph
Wind High Gust Today: 15.0 mph / 03/26/09 3:11p
Rain Today: 0.03 inches
Heat Index: 41.8F
Wind Chill: 40.8F
High Heat Index: 52.8F / 03/26/09 2:10p
Low Wind Chill: 26.9F / 03/26/09 6:40a
Station Elevation: 180 ft
Bandung, Indonesia
30 degrees celcius.
Light rain.
At my house in Southern California it%26#039;s currently 62.3 and sunny, a fairly cool spring day. The high was 64.8 F.
Cairns Northern Queensland
31c (88F)
High of 70somethin (FAr not centigrade)
Mesa Arizona
Had the same as you, 43 with rain.
75 with rain in Texas!!!!!!!!
57 and SUNNY!!!! First really nice day in michigan
Shouldn%26#039;t you be asking this in %26#039;weather%26#039;?
64 with lots of sun. whooo surf city USA!
it%26#039;s tennessee... what do you think?
%0D%0A
Where can i recycle my cans for money?
I have been saving aluminum cans for a long time and want to recycle them for money but do not know where i can go to do that. Anyone know where i go to do that?
"Http://www.awca.shutterfly.com" Today's rate was 30 cents a pound if you've got 100 lbs, otherwise it was 25 cents a pound at this recycling center. They're located on Hwy 98 in Gulf Breeze one mile east of the zoo. Good people up there.
go to your local recycling center. There are also recycling centers in front of some markets if you can find them.
there should be a couple of local depots around your town. and if there isn't then that is just messed up
"Http://www.awca.shutterfly.com" Today's rate was 30 cents a pound if you've got 100 lbs, otherwise it was 25 cents a pound at this recycling center. They're located on Hwy 98 in Gulf Breeze one mile east of the zoo. Good people up there.
go to your local recycling center. There are also recycling centers in front of some markets if you can find them.
there should be a couple of local depots around your town. and if there isn't then that is just messed up
Should Canada
i think so!
Why not, it would be great if parks were made to preserve more nature.
why not. more forrests should be made national parks to preserve them
Why not, it would be great if parks were made to preserve more nature.
why not. more forrests should be made national parks to preserve them
Is this a cruel joke?
Where in the heck did spring time go? We go from 70's and 80's to SNOW today and tonight. I think I need to hire a hit person, someone to take our that stupid Poxatonie Phil ground hog out. It's all his fault, he is the one that is responsible for this weather. Who else thinks this is a cruel joke? Just when you put away the coats and get out the shorts, aaargh!
Its 85 degree's here and its 9am..you live in the wrong town my friend.
I have been accusing the UPS delievery guy of being the one not delivering the sun like the weather man said we are suppose to have. They just smile and push that thingy that you have to sign at me. *sigh* I want to know who I am suppose to file a complaint to, really!
I don't believe in that whole groundhog thing. Not a cruel joke, just a stupid theory. Hilarious question though...seriously it is. But it's definitely the affects of Global Warming which I think is God's way of saying that Judgment Day is coming...but maybe I'm just cynical.
I dont think that its creul, its just silly. Global warming has its effects. Nobody can predict the effects
But yet people still buy the whole global warming idea, it's crazy!
it's the effect of global warming...
What's life without a few unknowns?
Its 85 degree's here and its 9am..you live in the wrong town my friend.
I have been accusing the UPS delievery guy of being the one not delivering the sun like the weather man said we are suppose to have. They just smile and push that thingy that you have to sign at me. *sigh* I want to know who I am suppose to file a complaint to, really!
I don't believe in that whole groundhog thing. Not a cruel joke, just a stupid theory. Hilarious question though...seriously it is. But it's definitely the affects of Global Warming which I think is God's way of saying that Judgment Day is coming...but maybe I'm just cynical.
I dont think that its creul, its just silly. Global warming has its effects. Nobody can predict the effects
But yet people still buy the whole global warming idea, it's crazy!
it's the effect of global warming...
What's life without a few unknowns?
Are you going to participate in Earth Hour this Saturday from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m.?
Turning your lights off for one hour. Why or why won't you participate?
why not?
what's the down side?
at the very least,i'll save a few cents on my light bill.
peace
Absolutely not. This is one of the dumbest things I have heard of and it is to Sydney, Australia's everlasting shame that it was cooked up there.
Nobody who has a clue of how coal fired (or oil fired) power stations actually run could have dreamed this rubbish up. It is utter twaddle and typical of the deep greens, who ignore all physical realities if they conflict with their pet ideas.
How many turbines will be shut down for this hour? Exactly none. It takes hours to get a turbine up to operating temperature to avoid wrecking the thing due to thermal shock. So they will have to leave the things running on part load and the same with the boilers that have to be kept up to temperature, typically around 800 -1000 centigrade.
This nonsense may even contribute to global warming because of the inefficiency of using power stations at less than full load.
I plan on making sure we turn on all the lights and everything else that uses electricity. This is the most outrageous idea I have had the privilege to hearing in my lifetime. We have so much huge corporations that abuse our natural resources and the people who make the laws are the worse offenders.
Yes of course I am going to do it. I am going to save the energy. You know by switching off the lights throughout the entire world will save loads and loads of energy. And i am gonna save the energy. I advice everyone to switch off the lights atleast for the person I love the most.
know it is very very stupid, don't do it, an hour is not enough for how much power america wastes
Nope. It's pointless, stupid, and hypocritical.
yes dear..i am going to participate...because i know doing something good is better than nothing....
For sure - why not?
why not?
what's the down side?
at the very least,i'll save a few cents on my light bill.
peace
Absolutely not. This is one of the dumbest things I have heard of and it is to Sydney, Australia's everlasting shame that it was cooked up there.
Nobody who has a clue of how coal fired (or oil fired) power stations actually run could have dreamed this rubbish up. It is utter twaddle and typical of the deep greens, who ignore all physical realities if they conflict with their pet ideas.
How many turbines will be shut down for this hour? Exactly none. It takes hours to get a turbine up to operating temperature to avoid wrecking the thing due to thermal shock. So they will have to leave the things running on part load and the same with the boilers that have to be kept up to temperature, typically around 800 -1000 centigrade.
This nonsense may even contribute to global warming because of the inefficiency of using power stations at less than full load.
I plan on making sure we turn on all the lights and everything else that uses electricity. This is the most outrageous idea I have had the privilege to hearing in my lifetime. We have so much huge corporations that abuse our natural resources and the people who make the laws are the worse offenders.
Yes of course I am going to do it. I am going to save the energy. You know by switching off the lights throughout the entire world will save loads and loads of energy. And i am gonna save the energy. I advice everyone to switch off the lights atleast for the person I love the most.
know it is very very stupid, don't do it, an hour is not enough for how much power america wastes
Nope. It's pointless, stupid, and hypocritical.
yes dear..i am going to participate...because i know doing something good is better than nothing....
For sure - why not?
If we
No...they'd be too busy pushing to ban the use of horses in heavy metropolitan areas. The use of horses would increase to meet the needs of a growing population unable to purchase automobiles in a co2 capped world.
One alarmists claim that skeptics are pushing us toward dependence while they are the ones that try to gut our domestic supplies and independence. Another says there is a lag in effect for CO2. It would be pretty humorous if they weren't so damaging to America. What ever happened to the good old days when wackos were simply put on ignore.
Of course they will take credit for it as they have with the hole in the ozone. I remember Dana (not him personally) taking credit for stopping the global cooling in the 1970s after sulfur emissions were restricted.
NO. There is no "global cooling"--and all the fake propaganda (lies) of the right wing extremists wont change the scientific facts.
You do realize, of course, that ehese people are anti-American? They are doing everything they can to block America from moving toward advanced technology and energy independance.
Whanting us to remain hostage to two-bid foreign governments for our energy is pretty unpatriotic, if you ask me. Maybe if they like the Saudis so much, we should just round them up and deport them.
Of course. It will be like the Y2K bug where nothing happened, and everyone patted themselves on the back for doing such a great job.
When the cooling cycle moves back, the believers will have no shame to tell us that their endless blogging, caring, and Earth hour is what really saved the planet.
Good question, but no, they cannot without killing their souse of income. It is all about the money.
No, the evidence is that any change in CO2 has a lag of decades before the climate consequences are obvious (and even then it won't be obvious to the cheap fuel and over-consumptive lifestyle addicts).
hence the need to stop wasteful selfish people sabotaging our lifesupport systems now (and save ourselves money) - the climate is going to carry on warming because of the CO2 already there, and we are getting close to the tipping point when a runaway starts, eg permafrost melt forest die back releasing their stored CO2.
One alarmists claim that skeptics are pushing us toward dependence while they are the ones that try to gut our domestic supplies and independence. Another says there is a lag in effect for CO2. It would be pretty humorous if they weren't so damaging to America. What ever happened to the good old days when wackos were simply put on ignore.
Of course they will take credit for it as they have with the hole in the ozone. I remember Dana (not him personally) taking credit for stopping the global cooling in the 1970s after sulfur emissions were restricted.
NO. There is no "global cooling"--and all the fake propaganda (lies) of the right wing extremists wont change the scientific facts.
You do realize, of course, that ehese people are anti-American? They are doing everything they can to block America from moving toward advanced technology and energy independance.
Whanting us to remain hostage to two-bid foreign governments for our energy is pretty unpatriotic, if you ask me. Maybe if they like the Saudis so much, we should just round them up and deport them.
Of course. It will be like the Y2K bug where nothing happened, and everyone patted themselves on the back for doing such a great job.
When the cooling cycle moves back, the believers will have no shame to tell us that their endless blogging, caring, and Earth hour is what really saved the planet.
Good question, but no, they cannot without killing their souse of income. It is all about the money.
No, the evidence is that any change in CO2 has a lag of decades before the climate consequences are obvious (and even then it won't be obvious to the cheap fuel and over-consumptive lifestyle addicts).
hence the need to stop wasteful selfish people sabotaging our lifesupport systems now (and save ourselves money) - the climate is going to carry on warming because of the CO2 already there, and we are getting close to the tipping point when a runaway starts, eg permafrost melt forest die back releasing their stored CO2.
Is
Look at Jello's question, or Ashley Cole.
Yes, the alarmists go to great lengths to try to convince others that the science is "settled." Their incessant appeal to the consensus argument (bandwagon fallacy) is not only a clear attempt to shape peoples perception of what is known, but evidence of their misunderstanding of how scientific progress is accomplished.
The global warming proponents would do well to temper their dire predictions, pull them back into the realm of plausibility, and be forthcoming about the uncertainty. As it stands the predictions are so grossly overstated that even people with no science education can see that there is a political agenda in play here. Especially when the only solutions offered are higher taxes, greater government control, and loss of personal freedom. The general public is also exceptionally keen at smelling a rat, and has spotted the politicization of the science that favors an anti-capitalism agenda.
Yes. An example would be trying to correlate "global warming" with a "record 2008 hurricane season" when
a) "hurricanes" refers only to Atlantic Ocean storms, while Pacific Ocean storms are referred to as "cyclones," and the 2008 cyclone season was mild by any measure; so globally, on a net basis, the 2008 storm season wasn't extraordinary.
b) 2008 was a "record" hurricane season in the Atlantic only by a new parameter: not number of storms, number of named storms, or number of severe storms, but the fact that there was one per month. It's an interesting stat but it's not the metric previously used to define a "record" season. It's a bit like when Dan Duquette used to argue that under his leadership, the Red Sox "spent more days in first place" than was the case under subsequent leadership - it was true at the time but that's not the metric that is used.
and
c) the oceans stopped warming in 2003, and the theory connecting storms to global warming relied on warming oceans
I don't think it is a problem. Without it there would be nothing here at GW of Y!A
Yes, the alarmists go to great lengths to try to convince others that the science is "settled." Their incessant appeal to the consensus argument (bandwagon fallacy) is not only a clear attempt to shape peoples perception of what is known, but evidence of their misunderstanding of how scientific progress is accomplished.
The global warming proponents would do well to temper their dire predictions, pull them back into the realm of plausibility, and be forthcoming about the uncertainty. As it stands the predictions are so grossly overstated that even people with no science education can see that there is a political agenda in play here. Especially when the only solutions offered are higher taxes, greater government control, and loss of personal freedom. The general public is also exceptionally keen at smelling a rat, and has spotted the politicization of the science that favors an anti-capitalism agenda.
Yes. An example would be trying to correlate "global warming" with a "record 2008 hurricane season" when
a) "hurricanes" refers only to Atlantic Ocean storms, while Pacific Ocean storms are referred to as "cyclones," and the 2008 cyclone season was mild by any measure; so globally, on a net basis, the 2008 storm season wasn't extraordinary.
b) 2008 was a "record" hurricane season in the Atlantic only by a new parameter: not number of storms, number of named storms, or number of severe storms, but the fact that there was one per month. It's an interesting stat but it's not the metric previously used to define a "record" season. It's a bit like when Dan Duquette used to argue that under his leadership, the Red Sox "spent more days in first place" than was the case under subsequent leadership - it was true at the time but that's not the metric that is used.
and
c) the oceans stopped warming in 2003, and the theory connecting storms to global warming relied on warming oceans
I don't think it is a problem. Without it there would be nothing here at GW of Y!A
Losing the Rainforest will change world climate?
I'm doing an essay for geography, and I have a hint list of what to discuss... I don't get this bit... Any help please? And description too please.
Pyro - it's carbon dioxide!
Wood is made of cellulose which is made from five parts carbon dioxide and one part water, which combines through photosynthesis to create cellulose, which is a stable form of carbon. In the end, it rots away and releases some of the carbon dioxide back, but much is kept as topsoil, which traps moisture there where it can feed plants and make rain, rather than being lost to sea.
The great forests of Siberia and Canada grow slowly, but the rainforests grow fast as long as there is adequate rain, and lock up vast amounts of carbon.
There was a bushfire in the Amazon for the first time in history last year. It is drying out, and a large part of South America could in time become a desert. The same is true for Indonesia where former president Suharto sold all the nation's forests to foreign loggers to make money for him and his cronies. It would be true for the Congo, as soon as the civil war there stops, corrupt people will sell the trees there to foreign loggers.
The blanket of carbon dioxide is heating the world up enough to melt the permafrost in Siberia. The loss of reflective covering there from white to brown absorbs sunlight further and increases the warming of Siberia. The thawing peat bogs there also release methane, locked up for many thousands of years, which is a far more potent greenhouse blanket gas than carbon dioxide.
The great frozen rivers release fresh water into the Arctic Ocean which dilutes the salt concentration. Around Greenland, this would prevent the sinking of water to the sea bed and could reduce or stop the Gulf Stream which warms Western Europe and cools the Caribbean.
Australia is on a knife edge, with a vast area of desert, and only the coastal areas habitable, especially in the south and west. Any reduction in rainfall would dry up the Murray River and make places like Adelaide unable to support its population. If summer temperature exceeds 40C, then the eucalyptus trees release vapour which is as inflammable as petrol.
Even in my corner of England, I noticed the removal of willow trees changed the amount of moisture being in the air, released through the leaves of these water-loving trees. All other plants were more stressed quicker than before, taking more water from the soil. It seemed to be baking hard even after a few days without rain, and garden plants needed watering far sooner than was necessary when the willows were putting moisture in the air.
The rainforest is the great stabilizer for carbon dioxide. It "sinks" five to seven times as much/fast as do forests in here in the US. Even if we planted 5 times as many trees here, it would not balance out. The trees there are larger and grow faster and absorb more through their leaves than our trees can.
At a certain point, when enough trees there are removed, the carbon dioxide sink (or loss) will become a net gain, that it when we are in deep trouble. This can not be overstated.
well the trees help keep the temp. the same. the amazon rain forest alone absorbs two billion tons of carbon monoxide from the atmosphere every year. carbon monoxide increases heat.
Pyro - it's carbon dioxide!
Wood is made of cellulose which is made from five parts carbon dioxide and one part water, which combines through photosynthesis to create cellulose, which is a stable form of carbon. In the end, it rots away and releases some of the carbon dioxide back, but much is kept as topsoil, which traps moisture there where it can feed plants and make rain, rather than being lost to sea.
The great forests of Siberia and Canada grow slowly, but the rainforests grow fast as long as there is adequate rain, and lock up vast amounts of carbon.
There was a bushfire in the Amazon for the first time in history last year. It is drying out, and a large part of South America could in time become a desert. The same is true for Indonesia where former president Suharto sold all the nation's forests to foreign loggers to make money for him and his cronies. It would be true for the Congo, as soon as the civil war there stops, corrupt people will sell the trees there to foreign loggers.
The blanket of carbon dioxide is heating the world up enough to melt the permafrost in Siberia. The loss of reflective covering there from white to brown absorbs sunlight further and increases the warming of Siberia. The thawing peat bogs there also release methane, locked up for many thousands of years, which is a far more potent greenhouse blanket gas than carbon dioxide.
The great frozen rivers release fresh water into the Arctic Ocean which dilutes the salt concentration. Around Greenland, this would prevent the sinking of water to the sea bed and could reduce or stop the Gulf Stream which warms Western Europe and cools the Caribbean.
Australia is on a knife edge, with a vast area of desert, and only the coastal areas habitable, especially in the south and west. Any reduction in rainfall would dry up the Murray River and make places like Adelaide unable to support its population. If summer temperature exceeds 40C, then the eucalyptus trees release vapour which is as inflammable as petrol.
Even in my corner of England, I noticed the removal of willow trees changed the amount of moisture being in the air, released through the leaves of these water-loving trees. All other plants were more stressed quicker than before, taking more water from the soil. It seemed to be baking hard even after a few days without rain, and garden plants needed watering far sooner than was necessary when the willows were putting moisture in the air.
The rainforest is the great stabilizer for carbon dioxide. It "sinks" five to seven times as much/fast as do forests in here in the US. Even if we planted 5 times as many trees here, it would not balance out. The trees there are larger and grow faster and absorb more through their leaves than our trees can.
At a certain point, when enough trees there are removed, the carbon dioxide sink (or loss) will become a net gain, that it when we are in deep trouble. This can not be overstated.
well the trees help keep the temp. the same. the amazon rain forest alone absorbs two billion tons of carbon monoxide from the atmosphere every year. carbon monoxide increases heat.
Why do the democrats over all care about the environment than the republicans?
Except that we need a certain amount of electricity and Dems are the reason why we, unlike the UK and France, haven't built nuclear plants in 30 years. Nuclear plants' only emission is water.
One needs to care - one also needs to think.
why do you spread lies and are such a bigot?
It is a roumor that Demcrates are stopping anything more than they are destroying elsewhere. You need to buck up facts and not blogs.
Why did Obama take the Grey Wolf off the endangered spices list?
Why did Nixon start the green movement by starting a group now called the EPA? Oh, Nixon is a republican.
You confuse balance versus absolutes. Democrates see only in Black and White, Republicans can see all colors including green. The mountain top issue is not even blip on the radar screen in the scheme of life. It's like the Polar Bear scam, or havesting baby seals.
most dems tend to lean to the liberal side which views the environment as an issue and most reps lean to the conservative side which views the environment as an obstacle to stop economic growth but yet want to continue the same ol' tactics
Because Republicans are all old and senile, and they figure why waste time worrying about the earth, we'll be dead soon anyways!
One needs to care - one also needs to think.
why do you spread lies and are such a bigot?
It is a roumor that Demcrates are stopping anything more than they are destroying elsewhere. You need to buck up facts and not blogs.
Why did Obama take the Grey Wolf off the endangered spices list?
Why did Nixon start the green movement by starting a group now called the EPA? Oh, Nixon is a republican.
You confuse balance versus absolutes. Democrates see only in Black and White, Republicans can see all colors including green. The mountain top issue is not even blip on the radar screen in the scheme of life. It's like the Polar Bear scam, or havesting baby seals.
most dems tend to lean to the liberal side which views the environment as an issue and most reps lean to the conservative side which views the environment as an obstacle to stop economic growth but yet want to continue the same ol' tactics
Because Republicans are all old and senile, and they figure why waste time worrying about the earth, we'll be dead soon anyways!
Are you gonna actually turn the lights off on March 28th?
you seen the commercial ?
I've seen it, but I most likely wont do it...
What about you?
Yes I will! I even stuck posters around my school to promote it :)
It's only an hour at 8.30
I don't use lights much anyway >.>
i have not seen the Commercial, what is turning the lights off mean?
I will....when i go to bed
hell no! then i cant see!
I've seen it, but I most likely wont do it...
What about you?
Yes I will! I even stuck posters around my school to promote it :)
It's only an hour at 8.30
I don't use lights much anyway >.>
i have not seen the Commercial, what is turning the lights off mean?
I will....when i go to bed
hell no! then i cant see!
Is there anyone that will come remove/save a bee swarm before its to late?
First off i'd just like to say im sorrt and I wish i had thought of this earlier...But A swarm of bee's desided to land in my tree this morning. I have 4 dog that have to remain separated and the two that are supposed to be in the front have not pee'd yet due to the swarm. As they first started to settle I tried to discurage them with the water hose. It didnt work. I amsad to say that after serveral hours the swarp is fairly depleted. but there is still a mass of about 1foot by 5 or 6 inches around...that i can see, and part of that might be branch girth, from the branch thier on. it totally just dawn'd on me that bee's around the world are dieing off and someone might want to save this very strong resiliant swarm. Im talking water smoke fire BB gun, i eep droping them in plies and they just keep flying back up there.
So, leave me your phone number if your interested in salvaging this swarm that Im sure will thrive under the proper setting. If not Im going to kill them in the next few hours...dogs gotta pee!
Im in reseda california, Remember to leave your phone number in writer words so yahoo doesnt block it.
Im sorry bees! i really am....:(
Bee Professionals - www.beeprofessionals.com
24600 Kittridge St, West Hills, CA - (805) 496-2728
1 review, directions, and more
Bee Professionals Inc - www.beeprofessionals.com
23320 Burbank Blvd, Woodland Hills, CA - (818) 710-9929
Directions and more
Bee Professionals - www.beeprofessionals.com
Pasadena, CA - (626) 683-8884
If they are Honey Bees call a beekeeper he will gladly collect them for free and i think it's against the law to kill honeybees especially since they are endangered now. If they are Yellow Jackets call an exterminator. Look in the yellow pages for a local beekeeper in your area or google a beekeeper for your state or area.
So, leave me your phone number if your interested in salvaging this swarm that Im sure will thrive under the proper setting. If not Im going to kill them in the next few hours...dogs gotta pee!
Im in reseda california, Remember to leave your phone number in writer words so yahoo doesnt block it.
Im sorry bees! i really am....:(
Bee Professionals - www.beeprofessionals.com
24600 Kittridge St, West Hills, CA - (805) 496-2728
1 review, directions, and more
Bee Professionals Inc - www.beeprofessionals.com
23320 Burbank Blvd, Woodland Hills, CA - (818) 710-9929
Directions and more
Bee Professionals - www.beeprofessionals.com
Pasadena, CA - (626) 683-8884
If they are Honey Bees call a beekeeper he will gladly collect them for free and i think it's against the law to kill honeybees especially since they are endangered now. If they are Yellow Jackets call an exterminator. Look in the yellow pages for a local beekeeper in your area or google a beekeeper for your state or area.
What can I do about these birds?
So before you judge me just know that I love all animals and I hate the thought of hurting them. However, there are several bird nests built outside my dorm room. Recently baby birds have been hatched. Now they cry all day and night. I would assume for food. I don't know what to do. It is so loud. It makes it nearly impossible to sleep. And I know I am not exaggerating because my roommate who can sleep through anything hears it and is going crazy too. What should we do? I mean I feel horrible even thinking about hurting the baby birds but this is day three of little or no sleep and it is starting to affect us. What should we do?
Hi:
The only way to to complain to the superintendent at the dorm.
Maybe he could put them up on the roof. If not go to the drugstore and buy spongy ear plugs.
Once birds are hatched they will leave their nest in about 3 weeks.
Good Luck
The only thing that any authority figures are likely to do is destroy the birds. And, while one hatch of birds will be gone in 3 weeks, the parents will have hatch after hatch all summer, as long as they find this a safe place to raise young. This will repeat year after year forever.
They need to be provided a safe place to nest away from your dorm, and of course you then need to make the dorm building inaccessible to birds. Moving this hatch to the new safe haven will not likely work. This is a case for ear plugs for 3 weeks, then eviction to a better place.
Please do not hurt them. Try calling animal control to see if they can move the nest safetly to a better place. If that does not work try putting on ear plugs for your ears till they get older and stop crying. Maybe the Mother abanoned them. You need a wildlife expert to access this. You could ask the humane society on what to do also.
I think you should wait because ot doesn't take them long to leave or you should call animal control and they will probably take them some ware safe
Hi:
The only way to to complain to the superintendent at the dorm.
Maybe he could put them up on the roof. If not go to the drugstore and buy spongy ear plugs.
Once birds are hatched they will leave their nest in about 3 weeks.
Good Luck
The only thing that any authority figures are likely to do is destroy the birds. And, while one hatch of birds will be gone in 3 weeks, the parents will have hatch after hatch all summer, as long as they find this a safe place to raise young. This will repeat year after year forever.
They need to be provided a safe place to nest away from your dorm, and of course you then need to make the dorm building inaccessible to birds. Moving this hatch to the new safe haven will not likely work. This is a case for ear plugs for 3 weeks, then eviction to a better place.
Please do not hurt them. Try calling animal control to see if they can move the nest safetly to a better place. If that does not work try putting on ear plugs for your ears till they get older and stop crying. Maybe the Mother abanoned them. You need a wildlife expert to access this. You could ask the humane society on what to do also.
I think you should wait because ot doesn't take them long to leave or you should call animal control and they will probably take them some ware safe
Friday, March 13, 2009
Whats the energy transformation of an electric & solar water heater?
Whats the energy transformation of an electric & solar water heater?
is it solar to thermal for solar?
is it electric to mechanic to thermal for electric answers, answer, answers please.
Best Answer
Solar heat is radiation from the sun. It is absorbed by a surface and conducted through the surface usually metal to the water.
Electricity flows through a resistive heating element where it generates heat. The heat conducts from the element into the water.
is it solar to thermal for solar?
is it electric to mechanic to thermal for electric answers, answer, answers please.
Best Answer
Solar heat is radiation from the sun. It is absorbed by a surface and conducted through the surface usually metal to the water.
Electricity flows through a resistive heating element where it generates heat. The heat conducts from the element into the water.
Is global warming the the population's fault or is it the natural cycle of the earth like the Iceage?
Is global warming the the population's fault or is it the natural cycle of the earth like the Iceage?
Which do you believe and what facts support your standing on the issue?
OK here goes AGAIN
There is an underlying NATURAL cycle of warming/cooling that the planet undergoes.
BUT
Global Warming, in the context it is currently being used, refers to the ADDITIONAL warming caused by the greenhouse gasses we have pumped into the atmosphere in the last 150 or so years.
EDIT: Would CLINT like top produce a link to his claim that most scientists believe it's just a natural cycle. 97% of climatologists, and those in related fields, would disagree with that comment.
That same 97% would also accept that there is a natural cycle, but that we have disrupted it, which also takes out the anwer aboutthe planet never reaching a stable state.
AGW isn't about the planets natural cycles, it's about disrupting them.
The implication that Global Warming is a cycle implies that there is something that will remove Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from the air. That is, the amount of CO2 removed from the air by plants and vegetation will, somehow, increase, or, that the oceans will renew their absorption of CO2.
The facts are that the Oceans reached saturation in 2007 and the number of forest fires and wildfires continues to increase. Surely you know about the fires in Europe, California, Florida, Australia, etc.
Since there is nothing known that will make CO2 split up into Carbon and Oxygen, other than plants, how can its concentration be cyclical?
If you know what will bring down the CO2 concentration, I would be eager to know what that may be -and the world too.
If you think that "because it happend before it will happen again" you may want to know if there were volcanoes or meteors hitting the earth at that time.
To repeat: the question is what is there that will REMOVE the CO2 from the air?
The fact that it happened before may only mean that the ocean water was far from being saturated from CO2 concentration.
----
Meteors and volcanoes can produce gigatons of Carbon and sulphur compounds, including CO2, that lead to an increases. albeit temporary, in concentration of Global Warming gas CO2
The fact that gasses seem to have gone away can be explained by the absorption of the oceans and vegetation.
The big meteor that hit Yucatan and the Krakatoe volcano eruption have been studied the most, you will find their studies interesting. The meteor is thought to have even produced the effect of "Nuclear Winter", the dust clouds reduced light and temperature on Earth for a while.
Benjamin Franklin reported on a "Year without summer".
The situation now is different than that, the oceans were found to have reached saturation over a year ago.
Did you read that there is something that all scientists missed and do not know, that will remove CO2 from the air?
The answer: "Somehow, it happened before and will happen again!" lacks credibility. In a thousand years, the forest were once able to remove CO2, long ago. What, do you think, made the vast oil fields and coal concentrations and natural gas found in huge amounts all over the world? They are the remnants of huge forests that absorbed the CO2 from the air.
If not that, what put all that Carbon and hydrocarbons there?
I don't think it matters if it is or not. We are destroying the world in many ways that we know for certain are our fault (pollution, environmental destruction, etc.). By taking action on GW we are both providing insurance against the possibility that it is our fault as well as instituting policies that solve problems that we know are our fault. Fighting GW has benefits beyond that of fixing GW.
The following chart is from climate proxies without tree rings. Tree rings proxies are unreliable obviously since cold wet might equal warm dry for a tree ring width.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warmi...
We didn't cause the fluctuations from previous centuries and it is ignorant assigning human blame on the recent warming which isn't out of line with the past. About the best alarmists can say is that Additional CO2 should increase the temperature slightly. They have to include all sort so various feedback mechanisms and poorly understood assumptions to come up with their worst case scenarios which are nothing short of political fear tactics
natural. they say thats its never been like this and trace it back like 2 thousand years and OH MY GOD but guess what? the earth has been here for 7.5 Billion years, im sure it has gone through stages like this. Im sorry, ive said it.
I believe it is natural with humans contributing slightly. The hole in the ozone layer above africa probably was mostly human made but we've eliminated most cfc's which destroys the ozone layer, so the hole shouldn't get bigger.
I believe it is both. We are a large contributer to Global Warming. But I think that it is also something that happens every now and then
What we are seeing is just natural. I am 78 years old and the climate is not doing anything to make me think it is any thing else.When we have GW or GC we will start breaking 100 year records.
Natural. The geologic record is abundantly clear on this topic. The Earth has never achieved a steady state.
the climate is always changing- just ask a dinosaur.but cleaning up the environment is a good idea.
It has been debated a lot but most scientist agree that is a natural cycle that Earth goes through.
We wouldn't be able to live on this planet without global warming but, human has made this worse
Which do you believe and what facts support your standing on the issue?
OK here goes AGAIN
There is an underlying NATURAL cycle of warming/cooling that the planet undergoes.
BUT
Global Warming, in the context it is currently being used, refers to the ADDITIONAL warming caused by the greenhouse gasses we have pumped into the atmosphere in the last 150 or so years.
EDIT: Would CLINT like top produce a link to his claim that most scientists believe it's just a natural cycle. 97% of climatologists, and those in related fields, would disagree with that comment.
That same 97% would also accept that there is a natural cycle, but that we have disrupted it, which also takes out the anwer aboutthe planet never reaching a stable state.
AGW isn't about the planets natural cycles, it's about disrupting them.
The implication that Global Warming is a cycle implies that there is something that will remove Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from the air. That is, the amount of CO2 removed from the air by plants and vegetation will, somehow, increase, or, that the oceans will renew their absorption of CO2.
The facts are that the Oceans reached saturation in 2007 and the number of forest fires and wildfires continues to increase. Surely you know about the fires in Europe, California, Florida, Australia, etc.
Since there is nothing known that will make CO2 split up into Carbon and Oxygen, other than plants, how can its concentration be cyclical?
If you know what will bring down the CO2 concentration, I would be eager to know what that may be -and the world too.
If you think that "because it happend before it will happen again" you may want to know if there were volcanoes or meteors hitting the earth at that time.
To repeat: the question is what is there that will REMOVE the CO2 from the air?
The fact that it happened before may only mean that the ocean water was far from being saturated from CO2 concentration.
----
Meteors and volcanoes can produce gigatons of Carbon and sulphur compounds, including CO2, that lead to an increases. albeit temporary, in concentration of Global Warming gas CO2
The fact that gasses seem to have gone away can be explained by the absorption of the oceans and vegetation.
The big meteor that hit Yucatan and the Krakatoe volcano eruption have been studied the most, you will find their studies interesting. The meteor is thought to have even produced the effect of "Nuclear Winter", the dust clouds reduced light and temperature on Earth for a while.
Benjamin Franklin reported on a "Year without summer".
The situation now is different than that, the oceans were found to have reached saturation over a year ago.
Did you read that there is something that all scientists missed and do not know, that will remove CO2 from the air?
The answer: "Somehow, it happened before and will happen again!" lacks credibility. In a thousand years, the forest were once able to remove CO2, long ago. What, do you think, made the vast oil fields and coal concentrations and natural gas found in huge amounts all over the world? They are the remnants of huge forests that absorbed the CO2 from the air.
If not that, what put all that Carbon and hydrocarbons there?
I don't think it matters if it is or not. We are destroying the world in many ways that we know for certain are our fault (pollution, environmental destruction, etc.). By taking action on GW we are both providing insurance against the possibility that it is our fault as well as instituting policies that solve problems that we know are our fault. Fighting GW has benefits beyond that of fixing GW.
The following chart is from climate proxies without tree rings. Tree rings proxies are unreliable obviously since cold wet might equal warm dry for a tree ring width.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warmi...
We didn't cause the fluctuations from previous centuries and it is ignorant assigning human blame on the recent warming which isn't out of line with the past. About the best alarmists can say is that Additional CO2 should increase the temperature slightly. They have to include all sort so various feedback mechanisms and poorly understood assumptions to come up with their worst case scenarios which are nothing short of political fear tactics
natural. they say thats its never been like this and trace it back like 2 thousand years and OH MY GOD but guess what? the earth has been here for 7.5 Billion years, im sure it has gone through stages like this. Im sorry, ive said it.
I believe it is natural with humans contributing slightly. The hole in the ozone layer above africa probably was mostly human made but we've eliminated most cfc's which destroys the ozone layer, so the hole shouldn't get bigger.
I believe it is both. We are a large contributer to Global Warming. But I think that it is also something that happens every now and then
What we are seeing is just natural. I am 78 years old and the climate is not doing anything to make me think it is any thing else.When we have GW or GC we will start breaking 100 year records.
Natural. The geologic record is abundantly clear on this topic. The Earth has never achieved a steady state.
the climate is always changing- just ask a dinosaur.but cleaning up the environment is a good idea.
It has been debated a lot but most scientist agree that is a natural cycle that Earth goes through.
We wouldn't be able to live on this planet without global warming but, human has made this worse
Has popular support for man-made warming theory reached its high water mark in the US? If so, why?
Has popular support for man-made warming theory reached its high water mark in the US? If so, why?
That is really quite ignorant. I can't believe that 60% could possibly think it wasn't exaggerated. Most probably just didn't know some of the outlandish claims of the alarmists. That sounds like one of those stupid push polls of the left but they didn't lecture at the end. Maybe that is a sign that they will stop carrying the water for the radical left.
Nothing's really changed. The poll isn't counting who "supports" Global Warming or who believes in it, it's measuring who believes the consequences are being exaggerated. Nice try. The vast majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate so asking them to gauge the possible outcomes of climate change is like asking them if they support the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. People vote their pocketbooks. Times are bad. Believing in Global Warming means hard work ahead and we'll have to sacrifice. Considering that we are notoriously short sighted and ignorant of global issues it's not suprising that GW is down a few notches on the concern meter. As soon as people realize environmental problems are real and it will cost more to ignore them - public opinion will change. The trouble is, the longer we wait the harder and more expensive the solutions become.
Not yet as more and more is going to be invested in hard sciences
Maybe then the US will have proportionally as many own people graduating in physics as other developed countries.... and come to the same conclusions.
Also educating people in fact checking and information source tracking will help.
Source(s):
The only way of reaching the truth is to bring people in labs and show to them some simple experiences on the interaction between CO2 and infrareds.
sort of.. see they have changed what they poll on now.. before they would poll on do people believe...... wanting to show people what idiots they are for discounting it...
that didn't work so well.. so now they are simply polling on how many think it is exaggerated.. this IMPLIES that everyone already believes... just another way of trying to force the believe on everyone.
I'm one of the 4 in 10.
That is really quite ignorant. I can't believe that 60% could possibly think it wasn't exaggerated. Most probably just didn't know some of the outlandish claims of the alarmists. That sounds like one of those stupid push polls of the left but they didn't lecture at the end. Maybe that is a sign that they will stop carrying the water for the radical left.
Nothing's really changed. The poll isn't counting who "supports" Global Warming or who believes in it, it's measuring who believes the consequences are being exaggerated. Nice try. The vast majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate so asking them to gauge the possible outcomes of climate change is like asking them if they support the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. People vote their pocketbooks. Times are bad. Believing in Global Warming means hard work ahead and we'll have to sacrifice. Considering that we are notoriously short sighted and ignorant of global issues it's not suprising that GW is down a few notches on the concern meter. As soon as people realize environmental problems are real and it will cost more to ignore them - public opinion will change. The trouble is, the longer we wait the harder and more expensive the solutions become.
Not yet as more and more is going to be invested in hard sciences
Maybe then the US will have proportionally as many own people graduating in physics as other developed countries.... and come to the same conclusions.
Also educating people in fact checking and information source tracking will help.
Source(s):
The only way of reaching the truth is to bring people in labs and show to them some simple experiences on the interaction between CO2 and infrareds.
sort of.. see they have changed what they poll on now.. before they would poll on do people believe...... wanting to show people what idiots they are for discounting it...
that didn't work so well.. so now they are simply polling on how many think it is exaggerated.. this IMPLIES that everyone already believes... just another way of trying to force the believe on everyone.
I'm one of the 4 in 10.
How will the 2009 hurricane season differ from the 2008 hurricane season?
How will the 2009 hurricane season differ from the 2008 hurricane season?
Please be specific - don't just say "worse" - explain whether that means more hurricanes, more severe hurricanes, a longer hurricane season, all of the above..... And don't just say "better" - explain whether that means fewer hurricanes, fewer storms, weaker storms, fewer storms hitting land, etc....
You're better off asking for next week's Powerball numbers. The modeling isn't that accurate. The NWS has been predicting 'worst year ever' for every year since 2005, and yet 2005 was far worse, but by no means the worst year, itself.
The number of hurricanes is not important. It is how they effect the areas that they land.
Example: Hurricane Isabel hit Virginia after a wet period with 80 mph winds and knocked down millions of trees but did little property damage. Hurricane Charlie hit the gulf coast of Florida and caused sever property damage but only in a small area. Hurricane Katrina was short on wind damage but caused massive property damage due to flooding.
Moral of the story is, a hurrican season can only be judged after the fact.
Source(s):
Did clean up after each of them and others.
"How important is the AMO when it comes to hurricanes - in other words - is it one of the biggest drivers? Or Just a minor player?
During warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many. Since the AMO switched to its warm phase around 1995, severe hurricanes have become much more frequent and this has led to a crisis in the insurance industry."
http://www.72ba.com
Based on what is called "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation", the trend is heading downwards. So we should have fewer, but this is based on a trend and will fluctuate from year-to-year. I think there will be a normal amount of "weaker" hurricanes and maybe 2 strong hurricanes.
If you plot the number and size of hurricanes and then apply simple statictical analysis, you will find that hurricanes are stable, yet random events that happen. You will find a well shaped bell curve with no trends over time. (except in very early years because we didn't have go data gathering systems.)
We don't know. Probably fewer hurricanes. We should pay close attention to John Gray, he's been the most accurate, but he's still usually wrong.
Hi:
No one knows way ahead of time about the storms,hurricanes etc.etc
But I believe most people are better prepared if it happens.
Who knows!
...and what would this years hurricane season prove either way?
A more useful question might be 'Are there more/stronger hurricanes these days than there were 50 years ago'?
Please be specific - don't just say "worse" - explain whether that means more hurricanes, more severe hurricanes, a longer hurricane season, all of the above..... And don't just say "better" - explain whether that means fewer hurricanes, fewer storms, weaker storms, fewer storms hitting land, etc....
You're better off asking for next week's Powerball numbers. The modeling isn't that accurate. The NWS has been predicting 'worst year ever' for every year since 2005, and yet 2005 was far worse, but by no means the worst year, itself.
The number of hurricanes is not important. It is how they effect the areas that they land.
Example: Hurricane Isabel hit Virginia after a wet period with 80 mph winds and knocked down millions of trees but did little property damage. Hurricane Charlie hit the gulf coast of Florida and caused sever property damage but only in a small area. Hurricane Katrina was short on wind damage but caused massive property damage due to flooding.
Moral of the story is, a hurrican season can only be judged after the fact.
Source(s):
Did clean up after each of them and others.
"How important is the AMO when it comes to hurricanes - in other words - is it one of the biggest drivers? Or Just a minor player?
During warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many. Since the AMO switched to its warm phase around 1995, severe hurricanes have become much more frequent and this has led to a crisis in the insurance industry."
http://www.72ba.com
Based on what is called "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation", the trend is heading downwards. So we should have fewer, but this is based on a trend and will fluctuate from year-to-year. I think there will be a normal amount of "weaker" hurricanes and maybe 2 strong hurricanes.
If you plot the number and size of hurricanes and then apply simple statictical analysis, you will find that hurricanes are stable, yet random events that happen. You will find a well shaped bell curve with no trends over time. (except in very early years because we didn't have go data gathering systems.)
We don't know. Probably fewer hurricanes. We should pay close attention to John Gray, he's been the most accurate, but he's still usually wrong.
Hi:
No one knows way ahead of time about the storms,hurricanes etc.etc
But I believe most people are better prepared if it happens.
Who knows!
...and what would this years hurricane season prove either way?
A more useful question might be 'Are there more/stronger hurricanes these days than there were 50 years ago'?
Will 2009 be warmer or cooler than 2008?
Will 2009 be warmer or cooler than 2008?
more importantly will the RIGHT numbers ever be revealed ...
every other month it seems like we here that some data they are basing models on was faked.. or is suspect to doubt.. i no longer wonder if it will be hotter.. i just wonder if we will ever hear the truth!
It is likely to be warmer due to solar cycle and to a lesser extent the La Ninya ending IMO. That in no way indicates a long term trend nor does it indicate that CO2 has suddenly begun to drive the climate. Why is it that alarmists spring up in every generation and think (no feel) that their generation is different, that their generation walks on water, that suddenly previous natural laws will part and make way for their pet theories? Their lack of historical knowledge and natural history is breathtaking as is their claims for knowledge when all they do is continually reveal that they do not learn from history.
As La Nina is supposed to come to an end it should be warmer.
But does that really matter, deniers like yourself will just claim that it's a blip in your global cooling arguments.
Flip a coin. That'll be about as accurate as the models they make their guesses from.
more importantly will the RIGHT numbers ever be revealed ...
every other month it seems like we here that some data they are basing models on was faked.. or is suspect to doubt.. i no longer wonder if it will be hotter.. i just wonder if we will ever hear the truth!
It is likely to be warmer due to solar cycle and to a lesser extent the La Ninya ending IMO. That in no way indicates a long term trend nor does it indicate that CO2 has suddenly begun to drive the climate. Why is it that alarmists spring up in every generation and think (no feel) that their generation is different, that their generation walks on water, that suddenly previous natural laws will part and make way for their pet theories? Their lack of historical knowledge and natural history is breathtaking as is their claims for knowledge when all they do is continually reveal that they do not learn from history.
As La Nina is supposed to come to an end it should be warmer.
But does that really matter, deniers like yourself will just claim that it's a blip in your global cooling arguments.
Flip a coin. That'll be about as accurate as the models they make their guesses from.
Is the kangaroo, koala bear, panda bear, and polar bear on the endangered species list?
Is the kangaroo, koala bear, panda bear, and polar bear on the endangered species list?
The Tasmanian Forester Kangaroo - Endangered Species
Koala - Endangered Species
Giant Panda - Endangered Species
Polar Bear - Threatened Species status at last check. Polar Bears are currently being considered for the Endangered Species list, but at this time it has not been made official. If the Polar Bear is moved too the endangered species list it will be the first animal to be placed there due to a changing environment attributed to Global Warming.
enviro wackos want to circumvent the CAA by naming the polar bears as endangered. If they do this, there will be a civil war in the US and all of the congressmen in place will be impeached and a new congress with brains will be seated.
not sure about the kangaroo and koala but the pandas and polar bears are. I adopted a giant panda from www.wwf.org.uk for £3 a month.. You shoulod do that because there is onnly 1600 left of them !
the panda bear is ... polar bear is getting close to making it in the list
No its only the panda
P.S. koalas are not bears
The Tasmanian Forester Kangaroo - Endangered Species
Koala - Endangered Species
Giant Panda - Endangered Species
Polar Bear - Threatened Species status at last check. Polar Bears are currently being considered for the Endangered Species list, but at this time it has not been made official. If the Polar Bear is moved too the endangered species list it will be the first animal to be placed there due to a changing environment attributed to Global Warming.
enviro wackos want to circumvent the CAA by naming the polar bears as endangered. If they do this, there will be a civil war in the US and all of the congressmen in place will be impeached and a new congress with brains will be seated.
not sure about the kangaroo and koala but the pandas and polar bears are. I adopted a giant panda from www.wwf.org.uk for £3 a month.. You shoulod do that because there is onnly 1600 left of them !
the panda bear is ... polar bear is getting close to making it in the list
No its only the panda
P.S. koalas are not bears
Are you full of the joys of Spring?
Are you full of the joys of Spring?
yes indeed I am ,can't wait for lighter nights xxx
Yes definitely, the daffs are starting to come out, crocuses and snowdrops are all over the place and the birdsong is glorious.
Sort of. Not really into when its raining and really chilly but when its nice with a good breeze, i feel so antsy that i have to go outside and do something!!
Have JOY on activities but not joy for money to spend.......not having income for the last 2 years.......living on insurance only.
Yes, I'm very anxious for spring & to be able to drive with the window down. x
no d i need a new bed
yes ive started jumping about a bit more now baa baa lol~]
Not yet, but I'm getting there.
yes indeed I am ,can't wait for lighter nights xxx
Yes definitely, the daffs are starting to come out, crocuses and snowdrops are all over the place and the birdsong is glorious.
Sort of. Not really into when its raining and really chilly but when its nice with a good breeze, i feel so antsy that i have to go outside and do something!!
Have JOY on activities but not joy for money to spend.......not having income for the last 2 years.......living on insurance only.
Yes, I'm very anxious for spring & to be able to drive with the window down. x
no d i need a new bed
yes ive started jumping about a bit more now baa baa lol~]
Not yet, but I'm getting there.
Best survival kit....?
Best survival kit....?
My husband is really into the hiking/ backpacking/ camping thing.
The only thing is he does it for usually 1 week at a time and in nature. Like nature nature. Backwoods holy crap I'm lost nature. -__- It scares the crap outta me!! So just in case I/ we get lost . What are the best things to have?!...oh and his rules is no cell phones :'(
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Here is a list of other items you’ll need in your survival kit:
A compass - this may seem unnecessary for a light day hike, but this small, lightweight item can help if you become lost or disoriented.
First aid kit - fill a small zippered, waterproof pouch, bag, or daypack pocket with band-aids, moleskin, first-aid tape and ointment, an ace bandage, mosquito repellent, a snake bite kit, and aspirin.
Flashlight or headlamp and extra bulbs/batteries - you may get caught on the trail after dark or need to signal for help.
Food - for an all day hike, you’ll need a lunch, plus several snacks. Energy bars and gels are lightweight and keep you going. Other options that don’t weigh a lot or take up a lot of room in your pack are tortillas or pita bread, dry salami or jerky, string cheese, fruit leather, small bags of baby carrots, and small boxes of raisins or other dried fruit.
A map - even if you know the trail, a map is a lightweight item that can help you locate water sources, and an exit route or place to camp in case of an emergency.
Rain gear and extra clothing - the weather can change rapidly, particularly at high elevations. Lightweight rain gear can be stuffed in a pack (the best folds up into itself to make a compact “package"). Long underwear (capilene or another high-tech, fast drying, sweat-wicking fabric) is lightweight but adds warmth. A fleece or other lightweight hat keeps body heat from escaping through your head.
Sunscreen, sunglasses, and a sun hat - again, the weather can change. Plus, you can get sunburned on a cloudy day - especially at high elevations and where there is snow. Sunglasses are especially important in snowy areas to prevent snowblindedness. A well-ventilated, lightweight sun hat with a brim can provide enough shade to keep you from overheating and provide further protection against sunburn.
A swiss army knife or multi-purpose tool - the best ones have scissors, tweezers, small screwdriver, can opener, and knives in various sizes.
Waterproof/windproof matches in a sealed container or ziploc bag - in an emergency, a fire can prevent hypothermia and can be used to signal for help.
Water/water filter - hiking guides recommend a minimum of one liter per person per day of hiking. However, the minimum is increased to up to one gallon per person in hot, dry areas and during the summer months. Carrying a gallon of water in heavy water bottles is cumbersome; options include a hydration system that you wear like a backpack with a tube that you drink from while walking, or you can carry a water filter if there are water sources on your route and purify drinking water along the way. Never drink untreated water even if it looks clean.
These other items are optional, but can be useful if you have room in your pack and/or don’t mind the extra weight:
Binoculars.
Camera/video camera.
Extra socks - a fresh pair of socks can energize you for the return trip.
Field guides - bird books, wild edible plant guides, tree guides, etc.
Gaiters - these can be useful if your hike takes you through snow, especially on a warm day when you are wearing shorts.
Gloves - a pair of lightweight, capilene or wool gloves can come in handy if the weather turns cold.
Mosquito netting - a piece of netting to wear over your head and cover your face can mean the difference between a miserable day and a tolerable one.
Notebook and pen or pencil.
A tarp - this can be used to sit on if the ground is wet, to build a shelter to sleep under, and as additional protection from bad weather.
Trekking poles - these provide added stability and balance. Telescoping poles are fairly lightweight and can be stored in your pack when not needed.
Ziploc bags - a couple of these thrown into your pack always come in handy for packing out trash, storing leftover food, and a number of other uses.
Source(s):
http://www.72ba.com
My husband is really into the hiking/ backpacking/ camping thing.
The only thing is he does it for usually 1 week at a time and in nature. Like nature nature. Backwoods holy crap I'm lost nature. -__- It scares the crap outta me!! So just in case I/ we get lost . What are the best things to have?!...oh and his rules is no cell phones :'(
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Here is a list of other items you’ll need in your survival kit:
A compass - this may seem unnecessary for a light day hike, but this small, lightweight item can help if you become lost or disoriented.
First aid kit - fill a small zippered, waterproof pouch, bag, or daypack pocket with band-aids, moleskin, first-aid tape and ointment, an ace bandage, mosquito repellent, a snake bite kit, and aspirin.
Flashlight or headlamp and extra bulbs/batteries - you may get caught on the trail after dark or need to signal for help.
Food - for an all day hike, you’ll need a lunch, plus several snacks. Energy bars and gels are lightweight and keep you going. Other options that don’t weigh a lot or take up a lot of room in your pack are tortillas or pita bread, dry salami or jerky, string cheese, fruit leather, small bags of baby carrots, and small boxes of raisins or other dried fruit.
A map - even if you know the trail, a map is a lightweight item that can help you locate water sources, and an exit route or place to camp in case of an emergency.
Rain gear and extra clothing - the weather can change rapidly, particularly at high elevations. Lightweight rain gear can be stuffed in a pack (the best folds up into itself to make a compact “package"). Long underwear (capilene or another high-tech, fast drying, sweat-wicking fabric) is lightweight but adds warmth. A fleece or other lightweight hat keeps body heat from escaping through your head.
Sunscreen, sunglasses, and a sun hat - again, the weather can change. Plus, you can get sunburned on a cloudy day - especially at high elevations and where there is snow. Sunglasses are especially important in snowy areas to prevent snowblindedness. A well-ventilated, lightweight sun hat with a brim can provide enough shade to keep you from overheating and provide further protection against sunburn.
A swiss army knife or multi-purpose tool - the best ones have scissors, tweezers, small screwdriver, can opener, and knives in various sizes.
Waterproof/windproof matches in a sealed container or ziploc bag - in an emergency, a fire can prevent hypothermia and can be used to signal for help.
Water/water filter - hiking guides recommend a minimum of one liter per person per day of hiking. However, the minimum is increased to up to one gallon per person in hot, dry areas and during the summer months. Carrying a gallon of water in heavy water bottles is cumbersome; options include a hydration system that you wear like a backpack with a tube that you drink from while walking, or you can carry a water filter if there are water sources on your route and purify drinking water along the way. Never drink untreated water even if it looks clean.
These other items are optional, but can be useful if you have room in your pack and/or don’t mind the extra weight:
Binoculars.
Camera/video camera.
Extra socks - a fresh pair of socks can energize you for the return trip.
Field guides - bird books, wild edible plant guides, tree guides, etc.
Gaiters - these can be useful if your hike takes you through snow, especially on a warm day when you are wearing shorts.
Gloves - a pair of lightweight, capilene or wool gloves can come in handy if the weather turns cold.
Mosquito netting - a piece of netting to wear over your head and cover your face can mean the difference between a miserable day and a tolerable one.
Notebook and pen or pencil.
A tarp - this can be used to sit on if the ground is wet, to build a shelter to sleep under, and as additional protection from bad weather.
Trekking poles - these provide added stability and balance. Telescoping poles are fairly lightweight and can be stored in your pack when not needed.
Ziploc bags - a couple of these thrown into your pack always come in handy for packing out trash, storing leftover food, and a number of other uses.
Source(s):
http://www.72ba.com
I please to make acquaintance with people but them reject.?
I please to make acquaintance with people but them reject.?
Brouhaha ensues! Lol!
What kind of question is this? It doesn't make any sense.
Brouhaha ensues! Lol!
What kind of question is this? It doesn't make any sense.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Solar panels does a 90 watt solar panel produce 90 watts per hour &?
Solar panels does a 90 watt solar panel produce 90 watts per hour &?
Concerning solar panels does a 90 watt solar panel produce 90 watts per hour? During sunlight hours I think I know that part of it. And let us just say I need 50kw per hour KWH correct? How many of the 90 watt panel would one need. Is there a simple formula that someone could tell me how to calculate this?
Sorry if these questions may seem stupid or perhaps they do not.
Thanks in advance for your help
Vince
Pat J is right on the first part. In perfect conditions a 90watt panel will produce 90 watts in one hour. But it's less than that once you include losses from converting it to AC (if you're doing that), transmission losses, weather too hot or cold, etc etc.
The 90watts would be a Laboratory BEST case. In the real world about 80 watts would be more accurate.
With the second part of the question, I think you've got it mixed up a bit, if you're talking about a house supply (which I'm not sure about). But you DEFINITELY wouldn't need a 50kw system for a house. You might need 50KWH per day for your house, but even this is very high. An average house uses between 15 and 30 KWH per day. To work out how big the system would need to be you need to find out what your location's sunlight hours are, and work it out from there. For example if you have 5 hours of sunlight per day you'd need 5 hours of a 10KW system to get 50KWH.
Or.. if you're NOT talking about a house and really DO need a 50kw system, then Pat's answer is fine, but don't forget to work in some buffer for the losses.
A 90 watt panel will produce 90 watts in one hour if the right amount of sunlight hits it for an hour. If you have a meter hooked up and it reaches 90 watts that means if the power of the sun stays the same for one hour then you would have put 90 watts in to your battery. We measure power by the hour.
To answer the other part of your question. One kilowatt is a thousand watts so you need to divide 50,000 by 90 to give you the number of panels you need.
They would if the sun was always shining 24 hrs. a day but if that happened we'd all be dead. Only works when full sunlight hits the panels luckily don't happen 24-7.
First of all do not feel bad, most people do not completely understand this.
The 90 watt panel will produce 90 watts at a time just like a light bulb with a 60 watt rating uses 60 watts. If your panel is in direct sunlight for an hour it will make 90watt hours of electricity or if it has 5 hours of direct sun it will make 450 watt hours of electricity. If you think about kw hours like miles per hour for your car it might make more sense, drive at 60mph for 3 hours and you will have gone 180 miles.
If you noticed when I did the calculation for the panel I said watt hours and not kilowatt hours 1kwh is like having the 90watt panel in direct sun for just over 11 hours or 11 of those panels for 1 hour. Just multiply the watts by the time and then divide watts by 1000 to get KW. Or in this case watt hours by 1000 to get KWH. This is how the power company charges you, how many kw times how long you used it to come up with the KWH you used during the month.
A 50kilowatt load is a huge amount of power. So I think we are not talking the right terms here 50 kw would be like running about 30 hair dryers at one time or 500 of the old 100watt incandescent light bulbs.
Here is a formula:
L * T = KWH
L is for the load in KW (if your load is in watts and not kilowatts you can skip the divide by 1000 later because you are already in W)
T is for the length of time that you need it for each day
Then to find what we need for production
KWH / SH = KW
KWH is the kilowatt hours you need per day
SH is the hours of usable sun per day (probably about 5)
KW the number of kilowatts of solar panels you need
Convert to like terms
KW * 1000 = W
1000 watts to make a KW
Now the # of panels
W / 90 = P
90 is your watts per panel
P is the # of panels
I make my own electricity with a wind turbine.
Concerning solar panels does a 90 watt solar panel produce 90 watts per hour? During sunlight hours I think I know that part of it. And let us just say I need 50kw per hour KWH correct? How many of the 90 watt panel would one need. Is there a simple formula that someone could tell me how to calculate this?
Sorry if these questions may seem stupid or perhaps they do not.
Thanks in advance for your help
Vince
Pat J is right on the first part. In perfect conditions a 90watt panel will produce 90 watts in one hour. But it's less than that once you include losses from converting it to AC (if you're doing that), transmission losses, weather too hot or cold, etc etc.
The 90watts would be a Laboratory BEST case. In the real world about 80 watts would be more accurate.
With the second part of the question, I think you've got it mixed up a bit, if you're talking about a house supply (which I'm not sure about). But you DEFINITELY wouldn't need a 50kw system for a house. You might need 50KWH per day for your house, but even this is very high. An average house uses between 15 and 30 KWH per day. To work out how big the system would need to be you need to find out what your location's sunlight hours are, and work it out from there. For example if you have 5 hours of sunlight per day you'd need 5 hours of a 10KW system to get 50KWH.
Or.. if you're NOT talking about a house and really DO need a 50kw system, then Pat's answer is fine, but don't forget to work in some buffer for the losses.
A 90 watt panel will produce 90 watts in one hour if the right amount of sunlight hits it for an hour. If you have a meter hooked up and it reaches 90 watts that means if the power of the sun stays the same for one hour then you would have put 90 watts in to your battery. We measure power by the hour.
To answer the other part of your question. One kilowatt is a thousand watts so you need to divide 50,000 by 90 to give you the number of panels you need.
They would if the sun was always shining 24 hrs. a day but if that happened we'd all be dead. Only works when full sunlight hits the panels luckily don't happen 24-7.
First of all do not feel bad, most people do not completely understand this.
The 90 watt panel will produce 90 watts at a time just like a light bulb with a 60 watt rating uses 60 watts. If your panel is in direct sunlight for an hour it will make 90watt hours of electricity or if it has 5 hours of direct sun it will make 450 watt hours of electricity. If you think about kw hours like miles per hour for your car it might make more sense, drive at 60mph for 3 hours and you will have gone 180 miles.
If you noticed when I did the calculation for the panel I said watt hours and not kilowatt hours 1kwh is like having the 90watt panel in direct sun for just over 11 hours or 11 of those panels for 1 hour. Just multiply the watts by the time and then divide watts by 1000 to get KW. Or in this case watt hours by 1000 to get KWH. This is how the power company charges you, how many kw times how long you used it to come up with the KWH you used during the month.
A 50kilowatt load is a huge amount of power. So I think we are not talking the right terms here 50 kw would be like running about 30 hair dryers at one time or 500 of the old 100watt incandescent light bulbs.
Here is a formula:
L * T = KWH
L is for the load in KW (if your load is in watts and not kilowatts you can skip the divide by 1000 later because you are already in W)
T is for the length of time that you need it for each day
Then to find what we need for production
KWH / SH = KW
KWH is the kilowatt hours you need per day
SH is the hours of usable sun per day (probably about 5)
KW the number of kilowatts of solar panels you need
Convert to like terms
KW * 1000 = W
1000 watts to make a KW
Now the # of panels
W / 90 = P
90 is your watts per panel
P is the # of panels
I make my own electricity with a wind turbine.
Do you think we could use water in our car changed to hydrogen to power our car?
Do you think we could use water in our car changed to hydrogen to power our car?
or would we have to have home hydrogen machines using electrolysis.i know the oil companies would complain
You can't start with water, make hydrogen and oxygen, to combine back into water without adding energy to the entire system. Especially not if you intend to use the energy of combining hydrogen and oxygen to power your vehicle. This is simple thermodynamics.
If we are to use hydrogen to power our car, that supply will have to come from outside of our cars. You suggest a home electrolysis machine.
While such a machine is feasible, there are some design considerations:
- The resulting hydrogen will need to be dried, cooled and liquefied for easy storage. This will take even more energy, which will be lost, making hydrogen even more costly.
- Hydrogen atoms are small, and so readily leak through many rubber gaskets, just as helium (which is bigger) escapes from a balloon without a hole in it. This makes storage challenging
- Your garage would need to be equipped with hydrogen detectors, lest you turn it into another Hindenburg. Homeowner insurance rates will rise.
The oil companies wouldn't complain. They'd just get into the hydrogen manufacturing business, to save you the hassle / danger. Most already have some kind of chemical manufacturing division already.
Oil refineries already make the equivalent of millions of gallons per day of hydrogen and they hold a lot of the patents on plants
Yes you can. Can you do it in a feasible energy efficient fashion? No!(unless you have your own private fission reactor)
or would we have to have home hydrogen machines using electrolysis.i know the oil companies would complain
You can't start with water, make hydrogen and oxygen, to combine back into water without adding energy to the entire system. Especially not if you intend to use the energy of combining hydrogen and oxygen to power your vehicle. This is simple thermodynamics.
If we are to use hydrogen to power our car, that supply will have to come from outside of our cars. You suggest a home electrolysis machine.
While such a machine is feasible, there are some design considerations:
- The resulting hydrogen will need to be dried, cooled and liquefied for easy storage. This will take even more energy, which will be lost, making hydrogen even more costly.
- Hydrogen atoms are small, and so readily leak through many rubber gaskets, just as helium (which is bigger) escapes from a balloon without a hole in it. This makes storage challenging
- Your garage would need to be equipped with hydrogen detectors, lest you turn it into another Hindenburg. Homeowner insurance rates will rise.
The oil companies wouldn't complain. They'd just get into the hydrogen manufacturing business, to save you the hassle / danger. Most already have some kind of chemical manufacturing division already.
Oil refineries already make the equivalent of millions of gallons per day of hydrogen and they hold a lot of the patents on plants
Yes you can. Can you do it in a feasible energy efficient fashion? No!(unless you have your own private fission reactor)
I'm confuised with life!!!!?
I'm confuised with life!!!!?
I have a boyfriend and I dont like him.(his name is brian) I like this other guy very very much and his name is JORDAN! but i still don't know wat to do with brian because I dont know how to dump him and tell JORDAN how I feel about him! I NEED HELP PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!
Break up with him. Don't lead him on anymore because its flat out not fair to him or you. If you like Jordan let him know. If he doesn't feel the same fu*k him.
you can't be with brian anymore if you don't like him
you're gonna end up hurting him if you don't break up with him soon
Well you have to get rid of one before you can take another if not you could have trouble on your hands.
go with the flow Try not being 13? live and learn,
I have a boyfriend and I dont like him.(his name is brian) I like this other guy very very much and his name is JORDAN! but i still don't know wat to do with brian because I dont know how to dump him and tell JORDAN how I feel about him! I NEED HELP PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!
Break up with him. Don't lead him on anymore because its flat out not fair to him or you. If you like Jordan let him know. If he doesn't feel the same fu*k him.
you can't be with brian anymore if you don't like him
you're gonna end up hurting him if you don't break up with him soon
Well you have to get rid of one before you can take another if not you could have trouble on your hands.
go with the flow Try not being 13? live and learn,
What percent of pollution comes from car emissions?
What percent of pollution comes from car emissions?
i am writing a paper on global warming and was wondering what percent of pollution comes from the exhaust from cars? Thanks!
in the US, about 1/3, counting commercial trucking, or so the charts would indicate.
http://www.72ba.com
Leave your car at home two days a week (walk, bike or take public transportation to work instead)
CO2 reduction = 721 Kgs/year
we gotta stop the democrats by any means...
http://www.72ba.com
i am writing a paper on global warming and was wondering what percent of pollution comes from the exhaust from cars? Thanks!
in the US, about 1/3, counting commercial trucking, or so the charts would indicate.
http://www.72ba.com
Leave your car at home two days a week (walk, bike or take public transportation to work instead)
CO2 reduction = 721 Kgs/year
we gotta stop the democrats by any means...
http://www.72ba.com
What does global warming change?
What does global warming change?
global warming is bad
If global warming were real and not just a big hoax put on by envirnmental extremestists, it could actually be looked at as a good thing. But, once again, it is NOT REAL. We have only kept records of global climate for about 150 years. The earth has been around for MILLIONS of years BEFORE people.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and the oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century, and natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century. The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing climate sensitivity, and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. Some other uncertainties include how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to continue beyond 2100, even if emissions have stopped, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including an expanse of the subtropical desert regions. Other likely effects include Arctic shrinkage and resulting Arctic methane release, shrinkage of the Amazon rainforest (already very damaged by deforestation from logging and farming), increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and changes in the ranges of disease vectors.
Political and public debate continues regarding the appropriate response to global warming. The available options are mitigation to reduce further emissions; adaptation to reduce the damage caused by warming; and, more speculatively, geoengineering to reverse global warming. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Global temperatures have increased by 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) relative to the period 1860–1900, according to the instrumental temperature record. This measured temperature increase is not significantly affected by the urban heat island effect. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age
i have forgotten if it was mentioned, but global warming can melt the ice caps and flood basically the whole world. global warming can more or less become the apocolypse as everything would be underwater. just imagine atlantis.
now imagine the whole entire world like that, with the exception of highly elevated regions.
for further information go to www.wikipedia.org and type in global warming in the search bar.
hope this helped
good day ;)
global warming actually isnt as bad as everyone is making it out to be-- politicians make it seem like global warming is our fault; in reality, the earth goes through certain stages in its life... every 600-800 years, the earth heats up a certain amount-- there is scientific evidence of this. (other scientists claim that the intevarls are 100,000 years) however, obviously, our co2 output is also adding to this.... search it online
global warming is the increase in temperature of earth . this causes the melting of ice of south and north poles. which will cause the rise in water level of the sea. this rise in water level will reduce the land available to us.
because of rise in sea level the small islands and the cities close to the seashore are going to be droned. this will cause a massive problem to our ecosystem. many of the spices which lives of ice of south or north pole will die. due to increase in sea level and increase in temperature our climatic conditions would be unstable and will lead to extinction of species which do not adapt them rapidly to these conditions and thing would be out of over control.
Global Warming is just a way that the governments of the world can tax the hell out of us, The Oceans of the world create more carbon than we ever could, The Tree's absolutely love Carbon Dioxide, The more of it in our atmosphere the quicker and more healthy they grow :)
The sun is the cause of our recent heat pattern, Even the polar ice on Mars are melting, Look it up, The past year and a half the earth has actually cooled!!
It thins the ozone layer which protects us from the suns radiation.
it causes the temperatures to go out of wack, not just up, but also down
it's changing habiats, which are effecting animals
its melting the polar ices caps which is cause polar bears to drown
its polluting our oceans, rivers, lakes etc and poisining the fish we eat
the polar ice caps are melting, causing flood, and more rain fall.
acid rain
etc
Everything, for one it doesnt snow in Denver anymore, in the 80s in March? I live in Georgia now, and its way too hot for March. Its too late now to do anything, we might as well say the hell with it.
it causes the temperature to rise and melts the polar ice caps
global warming is bad
If global warming were real and not just a big hoax put on by envirnmental extremestists, it could actually be looked at as a good thing. But, once again, it is NOT REAL. We have only kept records of global climate for about 150 years. The earth has been around for MILLIONS of years BEFORE people.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and the oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century, and natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century. The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing climate sensitivity, and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. Some other uncertainties include how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to continue beyond 2100, even if emissions have stopped, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including an expanse of the subtropical desert regions. Other likely effects include Arctic shrinkage and resulting Arctic methane release, shrinkage of the Amazon rainforest (already very damaged by deforestation from logging and farming), increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and changes in the ranges of disease vectors.
Political and public debate continues regarding the appropriate response to global warming. The available options are mitigation to reduce further emissions; adaptation to reduce the damage caused by warming; and, more speculatively, geoengineering to reverse global warming. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Global temperatures have increased by 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) relative to the period 1860–1900, according to the instrumental temperature record. This measured temperature increase is not significantly affected by the urban heat island effect. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age
i have forgotten if it was mentioned, but global warming can melt the ice caps and flood basically the whole world. global warming can more or less become the apocolypse as everything would be underwater. just imagine atlantis.
now imagine the whole entire world like that, with the exception of highly elevated regions.
for further information go to www.wikipedia.org and type in global warming in the search bar.
hope this helped
good day ;)
global warming actually isnt as bad as everyone is making it out to be-- politicians make it seem like global warming is our fault; in reality, the earth goes through certain stages in its life... every 600-800 years, the earth heats up a certain amount-- there is scientific evidence of this. (other scientists claim that the intevarls are 100,000 years) however, obviously, our co2 output is also adding to this.... search it online
global warming is the increase in temperature of earth . this causes the melting of ice of south and north poles. which will cause the rise in water level of the sea. this rise in water level will reduce the land available to us.
because of rise in sea level the small islands and the cities close to the seashore are going to be droned. this will cause a massive problem to our ecosystem. many of the spices which lives of ice of south or north pole will die. due to increase in sea level and increase in temperature our climatic conditions would be unstable and will lead to extinction of species which do not adapt them rapidly to these conditions and thing would be out of over control.
Global Warming is just a way that the governments of the world can tax the hell out of us, The Oceans of the world create more carbon than we ever could, The Tree's absolutely love Carbon Dioxide, The more of it in our atmosphere the quicker and more healthy they grow :)
The sun is the cause of our recent heat pattern, Even the polar ice on Mars are melting, Look it up, The past year and a half the earth has actually cooled!!
It thins the ozone layer which protects us from the suns radiation.
it causes the temperatures to go out of wack, not just up, but also down
it's changing habiats, which are effecting animals
its melting the polar ices caps which is cause polar bears to drown
its polluting our oceans, rivers, lakes etc and poisining the fish we eat
the polar ice caps are melting, causing flood, and more rain fall.
acid rain
etc
Everything, for one it doesnt snow in Denver anymore, in the 80s in March? I live in Georgia now, and its way too hot for March. Its too late now to do anything, we might as well say the hell with it.
it causes the temperature to rise and melts the polar ice caps
Are you excited spring/summer is coming?
Are you excited spring/summer is coming?
Are you excited spring/summer is coming?
I am, but my friend is not because of her allergies.
This winter has been so long.. Im so ready to put on a cute sun dress and go outside.
Are you excited spring/summer is coming? You must be very young to say that.
I have seen many, many summers come and go. I like the spring and summer but it sure is not something to get excited over.
yes, and no, because of the hot summer, but school is out
Spring and summer are going to be the best! im sick of the snow where i live!
oh yeah,i am tired of all this snow we have been getting.come on spring
YES!!! I'm sick of winter and cold weather and not seeing anything green outside.
Oh, yes!
Are you excited spring/summer is coming?
I am, but my friend is not because of her allergies.
This winter has been so long.. Im so ready to put on a cute sun dress and go outside.
Are you excited spring/summer is coming? You must be very young to say that.
I have seen many, many summers come and go. I like the spring and summer but it sure is not something to get excited over.
yes, and no, because of the hot summer, but school is out
Spring and summer are going to be the best! im sick of the snow where i live!
oh yeah,i am tired of all this snow we have been getting.come on spring
YES!!! I'm sick of winter and cold weather and not seeing anything green outside.
Oh, yes!
Will global warming mitigation result in a net economic gain?
Will global warming mitigation result in a net economic gain?
Obviously, there will be a strong positive environmental impact to moving towards low carbon energy and improving land use. Will such actions also be a net economic gain over the long haul?
2 days ago
Additional Details
A non-partisan study by the DoE last year analyzed the Lieberman-Warner Act. On the surface, there is a slight total economic cost of 0.1% to 0.8% of GDP over 20 years.
"http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerp...
However, such an analysis doesn't take into account the GDP saved from helping to mitigate the worst effects of global warming - a benefit seen especially in the 2nd half of the century, creating a cleaner environment, the social benefits of green industries, and the economic benefits of less dependency on foreign sources of fossil fuels.
http://72ba.com/
2 days ago
Braz,
Actually, the biggest supporter of corn ethanol was George W. Bush. He's a bit of an alarmist, I suppose, with regards to other issues. Most scientists and environmentalists see corn ethanol as a poor solution.
2 days ago
Obviously, scientists do not believe global warming will be beneficial. The net costs will be severe.
http://www.72ba.com
That depends what you compare it to. If you're comparing the economic impacts of global warming mitigation vs. a scenario with no mitigation and no global warming effects, the net result will be an economic loss. But this is not a realistic scenario.
If you're comparing it to a realistic scenario where there is no mitigation and we do experience the effects of global warming and climate change, the result is a huge net economic gain.
The damage from unabated climate change might eventually cost the global economy 5-20% of GDP each year, every year, according to a 2006 British government report.
In comparison, one recent plan to address global warming would just cost less than 3% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 to meet its lowest targets — or 0.12% annually. The IPCC suggests similar annual mitigation costs of 0.2-3.5% of current world GDP. That compares favorably to global economic growth that every year has averaged almost 3% since 2000.
In fact, Florida and California have recently performed studies regarding the economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Florida concluded that a 50% cut in the state's greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025 would save the state $28 billion. California similarly concluded the economic savings from its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions would outweight the costs.
It isn't obvious at all that it will be positive for the environment. To change the temperature less than a tenth of a degree, the alarmists would have us plant millions of extra acres of corn. Thousands of square miles of rain forest will be destroyed planting palm oil tree. People will cut down any sort of tree for fuel to burn in their houses which will cause millions to die. There is nothing good about the global warming movement to the environment. It is highly destructive to both the prosperity of man and the natural environment. The degree of extra warming would be beneficial. It seems highly unlikely at this point that you would get even that so I wouldn't bet the farm on any harm ever coming from global warming. Mitigation is just a waste of time and resources.
If Obama were truly against reliance on fossil fuels, he wouldn't be reneging on oil and gas leases, he wouldn't be rescinding approvals of coal-fired power plants, and he'd open up coastal drilling.
Obviously, there will be a strong positive environmental impact to moving towards low carbon energy and improving land use. Will such actions also be a net economic gain over the long haul?
2 days ago
Additional Details
A non-partisan study by the DoE last year analyzed the Lieberman-Warner Act. On the surface, there is a slight total economic cost of 0.1% to 0.8% of GDP over 20 years.
"http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerp...
However, such an analysis doesn't take into account the GDP saved from helping to mitigate the worst effects of global warming - a benefit seen especially in the 2nd half of the century, creating a cleaner environment, the social benefits of green industries, and the economic benefits of less dependency on foreign sources of fossil fuels.
http://72ba.com/
2 days ago
Braz,
Actually, the biggest supporter of corn ethanol was George W. Bush. He's a bit of an alarmist, I suppose, with regards to other issues. Most scientists and environmentalists see corn ethanol as a poor solution.
2 days ago
Obviously, scientists do not believe global warming will be beneficial. The net costs will be severe.
http://www.72ba.com
That depends what you compare it to. If you're comparing the economic impacts of global warming mitigation vs. a scenario with no mitigation and no global warming effects, the net result will be an economic loss. But this is not a realistic scenario.
If you're comparing it to a realistic scenario where there is no mitigation and we do experience the effects of global warming and climate change, the result is a huge net economic gain.
The damage from unabated climate change might eventually cost the global economy 5-20% of GDP each year, every year, according to a 2006 British government report.
In comparison, one recent plan to address global warming would just cost less than 3% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 to meet its lowest targets — or 0.12% annually. The IPCC suggests similar annual mitigation costs of 0.2-3.5% of current world GDP. That compares favorably to global economic growth that every year has averaged almost 3% since 2000.
In fact, Florida and California have recently performed studies regarding the economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Florida concluded that a 50% cut in the state's greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025 would save the state $28 billion. California similarly concluded the economic savings from its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions would outweight the costs.
It isn't obvious at all that it will be positive for the environment. To change the temperature less than a tenth of a degree, the alarmists would have us plant millions of extra acres of corn. Thousands of square miles of rain forest will be destroyed planting palm oil tree. People will cut down any sort of tree for fuel to burn in their houses which will cause millions to die. There is nothing good about the global warming movement to the environment. It is highly destructive to both the prosperity of man and the natural environment. The degree of extra warming would be beneficial. It seems highly unlikely at this point that you would get even that so I wouldn't bet the farm on any harm ever coming from global warming. Mitigation is just a waste of time and resources.
If Obama were truly against reliance on fossil fuels, he wouldn't be reneging on oil and gas leases, he wouldn't be rescinding approvals of coal-fired power plants, and he'd open up coastal drilling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)