50,000 Physicists don't agree with Al Gore

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by roofeditor

Invited to see the largest private solar install in Florida (Ft. Lauderdale) and one on Publix Palm Beach and Publix Boca Raton.

Next time I'm down that way I just may swing by to take a peek.

What's the addresses of the Publix's?

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

Next time I'm down that way I just may swing by to take a peek.

What's the addresses of the Publix's?

Glades road

PGA Blvd

But you can't walk up with no invite. Site rules don't allow me to link to my site but photos are on the net. The publix units are not big units 26 kw each but hey it's a start!!!

[AK_Gandy]

I'm confused.

I can't walk up to a grocery store without an invite?





BTW - The solar panel monitor is a nice touch.

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by JoeVacs

Well sure. I agree with that. It's not that simple though. I love the earth. It's a great place to live. I love being outdoors. I hate it when people ltter and trash everything. That's not the point though.
The people I refer to as greenies are the ones that want "Cap and Trade". They want to limit my freedoms, and tax me excessively for my freedoms.

Somewhat true but remember that even though you have individual freedoms that you are part of a country. That country needs to stay strong in order for you to maintain those freedoms and energy independence will help increase that strength.


This polarization of "Greens" VS everyone else simply doesn't exist. We are all consumers that are using energy, wood products and enjoying little luxuries that consume energy like owning powerboats, sunday drives, making what we think are useful posts on internet forums and such.

What aggrevates most people is hypocrisy from the preachers. Gore is sitting there like an asshole pointing the finger at everyone else while sucking down coal by the traincar load to power his mansion. It doesn't bother me that he has a big house until he starts telling everyone else they can't do the same things he is doing because well, we aren't him.

This is where the vile hatred for Gore and "Greens" stems from. You have people running around chicken-littling about C02 who then get into their F150's and drive off or you go over to their house and they have a heater running in their bedroom because they are cold while their spouse runs the household air-conditioner or they leave lights, TV's etc on.

It's Psuedo-Environmentalism. Gore is simply using people ("Greens") who are hypocrites like him who have little emotional control or self-awareness in order to forward his money-making agenda at your expense.

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

I'm confused.

I can't walk up to a grocery store without an invite?

Yes you can walk in the store but the hatch to the roof is locked and only the Publix manager (and our guys) have the roof key.

Publix Opens 2nd GreenWise Market

May 30, 2008
Publix Super Markets Inc. yesterday opened its second Publix GreenWise Market, in Boca Raton, Fla., with offerings very much like the first GreenWise that opened in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. in September 2007.

The new 37,819-square-foot store has an extensive selection of health-related, earth-friendly, all-natural, and organic products, augmented by top-selling conventional items, Publix said. In addition, the store will feature more than 3,500 feet of prepared foods.

Publix also said yesterday that the third Publix GreenWise Market is set to open in Tampa, at the northeast corner of Armenia & Azeele streets, in late 2008.


We face 2 major challenges.

1. We met with Governor Crist (and Rudy, and McCain, and Martinez, and McCollum) who promised to step up the Florida/FPL subsidy to the program. The Governor has not made good on his promise.

2. The 30% ITC (Investment Tax Credit) expires December of 2008. Pelosi and Reed are blocking it's renewal because they want it to be on Obamas watch not on Bushes. Sooooooo this effectively is blocking solar installations until investors know if they are going to get the ITC or not.

Right now New Jersey, Colorado, California, Oregon have the best support. Canada is very good. Germany is the best!!! Spain with us is installing 12 megawatts as we speak. The largest in the world.

GM to build world's biggest rooftop solar station in Spain - Yahoo! News


BTW - The solar panel monitor is a nice touch.

Some good links for ya and you can do some yahoo searching!

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

I'm confused.

I can't walk up to a grocery store without an invite?

BTW - The solar panel monitor is a nice touch.

Only 2 KW???? It's only 7:30 AM but usually we are doing about 10 KW by 8 AM. Must be very cloudy or raining in Ft. Lauderdale.

We do have special Dual spectrum technology that allows us to get LESS peak power at height of the day BUT more power in the AM and late afternoon.

Our competitors post peak power statistics at 1 PM and they beat us by 10-15%......however we post statistics of total KW over a one month period and over a month because of our dual spectrum low light technology we actually beat them in (by 10-15%) KW(H) over the entire month. Our cost per KWH is less!!!!


Just checked the North Carolina site........13KW at 7:50 AM now thats not bad at all!!!

Update 8 AM Ft. Lauderdale 3 KW North Carolina 18 KW!

Update 9 am Ft. Lauderdale 12 KW North Carolina 14 KW. Sun coming up in Florida clouds in NC?

Update 10:30 am 32 KW in Ft Lauderdale 34 in NC Note: the NC site is a 107KW unit

Update: almost 6 PM and still making 24 KW in Ft. Lauderdale and 20 KW in NC.

I'll post in an hour as we approach 7 PN.

8 PM Ft. Lauderdale off NC still making 2 KW.....I know 2kw isn't much but the sun is about gone and it's 8pm

Both sleeping. 600 KWH for the day!!

[roofeditor]

Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers which exposes the golbal warming myth.

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by Greasy_Dually

Roofeditor..

Since some may think I was arguing... A positive number times itself always equals a positive number, a negative number times itself always equals a positive number...Therefore negative one can have no square root...?

Moderator Superdutyjohn's son is working on getting in to the Naval Academy and I have been pushing him to have Advanced Calculus under his belt BEFORE he gets to engineering school.

First explain the square root of negative one....lol

Obviously there is not a real number and AK/Rick is correct (I) the imaginary number comes in to play. The EXPLAIN is the how, why, and relevance. Hint: If not for the imaginary number this site and the net and your computer would not exist!

[skiingislife725]

Trying to get back on the original topic here, I just had a few questions for NBHunter80. Since you are a scientist as well, I know that you'll understand why I am asking where you are getting your sources from.

You see, when you list off the reasons why CO2 is supposedly cooling the earth and how humans are not the cause, you don't give any links to where it says that. And who on this forum is going to go and search for that. I've spent the last hour looking for ANYTHING on CO2 having a cooling effect and have found nothing. But has anyone else searched for it? I, for one, have never heard of that. Does that mean CO2 doesn't cool the earth, of course not. Hence why I'm asking for a credible source.

Also, I too, have a degree in biology and environmental science...but that doesn't make me a climatologist. It's the same as a family physician claiming he knows how to perform brain surgery, a diesel mechanic claiming he knows how to work on an electric car, or a chemist claiming he knows the ecology of succession in a forest after a wildfire. My point is that just because someone is in a field related to another, doesn't make him an expert in the other field. Don't you agree?

QUOTE:
"First off, I will say that I am an environmental biologist and I am currently working in the nuclear health-physics field. I will also add another vote to the group of scientists that don't agree with Al Gore's global warming theory."
-------------------------------------------------------
"1st: Global warming IS happening at this moment; however, it is not primarily caused to human activity."

Kind of a strong statement, no? You REALLY know that humans aren't a cause of this? Because if you do, I think everyone would like to know.

--------------------------------------------------
"Global temperatures were far warmer when dinosaurs ruled the earth than they are now. In fact, are current temperatures are sitting below the average temperature of the earth since the beginning of time."

Antarctic ice cores measuring CO2 in parts per million and temperature fluctuations only go back 400000 years (from what I could find). Where are you getting the temperature estimates going back to the beginning of time? I could care less if it showed the world was hottest back then, I just want to know if it's true or not. Link?

--------------------------------------------------------------

"The main thing in Al Gore's global warming theory (which is also shared by many other so-called "scientists") that I do not agree with is the statement that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming. That is total B.S. in my opinion. First, CO2 is by far the LEAST abundant major compound in the earth's atmosphere (making up less that 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere). Second, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that actually has a net COOLING effect on the earth."

This is what I'm most curious about. Where is the source of this information? I've spent over an hour looking for information on this. Can I get a link to something on the subject? Here is a quote explaining why CO2 helps WARM up the earth.

Not All Gases Are Alike

Mr. Hutchinson makes the mistake of assuming that nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) behave the same in the atmosphere because they are all "colorless, odorless gases". The observation that they are colorless occurs because they do not absorb visible light. However, CO2 can also absorb infrared light (IR for short, such as you would get from a heat lamp). O2 and N2 cannot.
The physics behind this difference is not quickly explained (it has to do with the way that molecules absorb IR radiation), but suffice it to say that this is well understood and can easily be measured. And because of this difference, IR that is emitted from the earth's surface, light which would normally travel unabsorbed into space, can be absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere, and some of this will be re-emitted back down to earth. The net effect is that the earth stays warmer.

CO2 is a very minor component of the atmosphere compared to N2 and O2. Thus, emissions into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel can measurably change the CO2 concentration. And such increases have been measured. As to the relative contributions of man-made vs. natural sources, and whether or not recent climate changes are caused by this, are subjects for another discussion.
(Does CO2 contribute to global warming? | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist)

-----------------------------------------------------------

"the endothermic reactions that occur between CO2 and other materials, the net warming effect of CO2 is MUCH less than that of other greenhouse gasses such as Methane and even Water vapour."

While methane may have a stronger effect on warming up the Earth than CO2 does, CO2 is about 668 times more abundant than methane! This is why there is so much focus on it.

------------------------------------------------------------

"Global warming will happen at a GREATER rate if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is reduced."

Source?

Hey, I just want to be clear, I'm not attacking anyone at all. I just want to be sure that if things are claimed (such as CO2 cooling the earth), that people get some sources behind such a claim. If global warming isn't from us, great! The pressure is off. But if it is from us, I want to do as much as I can to make it so my kids and their kids don't live in a sh@thole because I was too self-centered to think of them and their future.

All I want are some sources so EVERYONE can form an opinion. Lack of information is dangerous. Just look at the media versus the peer-reviewed scientific journals.

QUOTE:

"A University of California at San Diego scientist, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, published in Science magazine a massive study of every peer-reviewed science journal article on global warming from the previous 10 years."

"Number of peer-reviewed articles dealing with "climate change" published in scientific journals during the previous 10 years: 928.

Percentage of articles in doubt as to the cause of global warming: 0%."

YET,

Articles in the popular press (NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, and Wall St Journal) about global warming during the previous 14 years: 636.

Percentage of articles in doubt as to the cause of global warming: 53%."

What do the majority of citizens read? A scientific journal that scrutinizes every article for accuracy or a newspaper article from a reporter who has a degree in JOURNALISM and NOT science of any sort! Do you see why that seems dangerous to me?

What is it? 80% or so of the major news media is owned by 5 conglomerates? Just something to think about when you read a newspaper.

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by skiingislife725

If global warming isn't from us, great! The pressure is off. But if it is from us, I want to do as much as I can to make it so my kids and their kids don't live in a sh@thole because I was too self-centered to think of them and their future.

Although your entire post is excellent, these three sentences succinctly sums up what a lot of us feel.

Good job.

[skiingislife725]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

Although your entire post is excellent, these three sentences succinctly sums up what a lot of us feel.

Good job.

Thank you. And I don't mean to make it seem like I think anyone doesn't care about their future generations, but it just ticks me off when the major media says it's half-half and then the scientific journals (whose job it is to study global warming and other topics), say that it is our fault. It just seems really skewed is all. Like if the media said 50-50 and the scientific community said 40-60 that'd be one thing.

But it just really throws the regular joe off who doesn't have time to sift through the crap or go to the local university to read a scientific journal. It's just not fair...and now I'm going to get one of my homebrews to cool me down, lol

[AK_Gandy]

My point has always been that the ramifications/consequences of being wrong by those who say humans have nothing to do with it and that it is a cyclical phenomena.................is catastrophically greater than the other viewpoint.

And then of course there are those that think that the earth is soon to end anyway (because a book they believe every word of, says it)............. so..............why screw with their current standard of living?

[skiingislife725]

And I think that outlook is the most logical. We DON'T know one way or the other. But why tempt fate? The evidence is building in what seems like one direction. We'll see. But first it was if it's happening...now it's if it's us (or has that already been concluded?)...and some are now saying "so what...nothing we can do".

As for the second point...I figured I'd stay out of that one. I've dealt with that before. Had an ex that was so believing yet didn't really know what about. I'd quote from her book and she never knew it said that. Even said she read it 3 times. Like my girlfriend says, it's like being in a book club without reading the book. It just doesn't make sense and it can't work. BUT, if you still believe after reading it all, then so be it. But there's just too many contradictions for me...just my opinion though. To each their own.

By the way...what part of AK are you from AK_Gandy?

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by skiingislife725

By the way...what part of AK are you from AK_Gandy?

I spent a total of 32 years in Anchorage but..... have been gone for 5 years (took an early retirement) and am now in Jacksonville FL.

I'm back working again but, at least down here I can play golf all year.

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

Although your entire post is excellent, these three sentences succinctly sums up what a lot of us feel.

Good job.

QUOTE:

"A University of California at San Diego scientist, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, published in Science magazine a massive study of every peer-reviewed science journal article on global warming from the previous 10 years."

"Number of peer-reviewed articles dealing with "climate change" published in scientific journals during the previous 10 years: 928.

Percentage of articles in doubt as to the cause of global warming: 0%."

YET,

Articles in the popular press (NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, and Wall St Journal) about global warming during the previous 14 years: 636.

Percentage of articles in doubt as to the cause of global warming: 53%."

What do the majority of citizens read? A scientific journal that scrutinizes every article for accuracy or a newspaper article from a reporter who has a degree in JOURNALISM and NOT science of any sort! Do you see why that seems dangerous to me?

What is it? 80% or so of the major news media is owned by 5 conglomerates? Just something to think about when you read a newspaper.

OK now first there are many published articles from major universities but you rarely see them and universities in general are pretty controlling. Controlling in that if you go against the grain you don't get grant money anf they basically run you out!

So his statement is not accurate.

Second, to concentrate only on CO-2 is often conterproductive to other pollutants.

At issue also is how much CO-2 can we really emit in the grand scope of the world? How does that compare to say the fires in California the last month?


A few noted scientists say:

Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at <