Philips calls for a simple switch to reduce energy consumption

By partnering with The Alliance for Climate Protection and the global
Live Earth concerts on July 7th 2007, Philips aims to inspire more
than two billion people to take simple steps, such as changing a light
bulb, to lead a more energy efficient life. I saw the details at

http://theanalystmagazine.com/pr/841.htm

 

i was talking to a customer of mine friday and he works for exxon and we
got talking global warming and how much crap is made from oil and one
thing we agreed on in our talk was how no one is doing anything about
asphalt usage and what it does to air temp. and ground water
he tells me the exxon threw in some temp figures in a study they did on
global warming in relation to asphalt verses concrete! concrete met
ambient air temp 1.10 hours after sunset were asphalt did not for 4.4
hours after sunset
directly resulting in higher inner city temps by10 degrees on the average
but it's funny u never hear of this in global warming propaganda

 

Um, note that the higher 10 degrees is also present in the winter. The
city also has buildings which reduce the cooling effect of high winds.
All of this helps reduce energy usage in people's furnaces in the winter.
Your people at Exxon didn't plug ALL of the side effects in to the model,
if they had done so they would have found that while the higher summer
temps might increase fuel usage for cooling they were offset by the savings
in the winter.

In addition, all the sun's energy would still be hitting the ground whether
asphalt or concrete was present. That energy has to go somewhere. Since
concrete is lighter than asphalt more of the energy is reflected, that is
why concrete runs cooler. However, it's reflected as long waves to the
atmosphere
which are absorbed and so heats up the atmosphere. In other words net
energy input is still the same.

Ted

 

People don't like to hear that kind of stuff, Ted, because it doesn't
add to the warming hysteria.

What the greenies also ignore is that for every death on a given
temperature increase from heat exposure, there is a net greater decrease
in death from cold exposure (planetwide). But people only like to
divulge information that supports their cause or the latest hysteria and
ignore/hide facts that balance it out or even overwhelm it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I thought that was called something like 'albedia' or something similar,
and actually reflected out into space?

Years ago, maybe in the early 70's, I remember seeing a paper on
the thermal impact of putting solar collectors in the desert, and one
of the 'solutions' (or at least, one of the pieces to a solution) to
balancing things to maintain the status quo of the desert was to paint
the framework of the structures certain colors.

 

In many cases, asphalt also includes some recycled tires and such,
rather than just asphaltic items and rock items. Some asphalt will even
allow water to migrate through it, lessening rain runoff and such. I
remember reading that Bill Ford had many of the parking lots at Ford
plants paved with that sort of asphalt, as an environmental thing,
before he was running the company this last time. Same with planting
grasses on the plants' rooftops.

The issue of urban vs. suburban heating and ambient temperatures has
been known for many decades. Nothing new there. It's also been
observed that concrete "masses" (as in freeways and highways) can affect
some weather patterns just as new (large) man-made lakes can and have
done

Satellite photographs of the larger cities in China indicate a high
degree of "grunge" in the air over these cities. Their main
fuel-of-choice is coal. Atmospheres over the outlying areas show much
less "grunge", so much less that you can see the city itself.

I suspect the basic "global warming" thing is a cyclical situation for
the planet. How much of what they're now charting is directly
attributable to mankind is still debateable--to me. Of course, we
exhale "greenhouse gases" as a normal situation, not to forget about
"methane" expulsion, too.

Just where the "tipping point" of no return is has YET to be determined,
but is still being debated intensely. In that discussion, there does
not seem to be a "right" answer, just speculation of where "wrong"
starts.

Enjoy!

C-BODY

 

Of course it is.
The Northern Hemisphere has been on a warming trend for over 10,000
yrs., with ups and downs. About 1,000 yrs ago NE Canada was warmer than
it is now. The Vikings knew that.
About 20,000 yrs ago Canada was almost totally covered with ice, which
extended down into the northern USA.
About 8,000 yrs ago Churchill. Ma emerged from the ice sheet. The land
at Churchill is rising in relation to the rising ocean about 1 meter per
100 years, based on boat cleats in the shore rock from the 1770s.
The Canadian permafrost line still is far south of Churchill.

Canada's Baffin Island in the far north had the climate of the Carolinas
not that long ago geologically; based on the remains of swamp cyprus
found there.

That's the big question, but our ever increasing population of energy
users will have a impact. IMO we should minimize our impact.

Cows are much worse than us.
Swamps are very bad. At some swamps you can see the methane bubbling up
to the surface. There is low delta land near my house where you can
smell the methane on a still summer night.
Swamps we need, but cows and people should be reduced to reduce
pollution. <

BTW IMO carbon offsets are a con, that achieve little.

 

Swamps make methane from rotting plant material. Plants grow very
well in swamps when lots of pollution comes into the swamp, carrying
high mineral and chemical content.

Keep in mind though you can almost completely dismiss all biological
sources of carbon emissions. Where do cows get the carbon they emit
in farts? From plants. Where do plants get it? From carbon dioxide in
the air. It's a nice little cycle that doesen't put any more carbon into
the atmosphere than what it takes out.

The only real sources of carbon that we need to care about are
those from oil and coal and natural gas. Because, what happened is
that the carbon in those materials was put into them millions of
years ago when the plants took it out of the atmosphere.

What people who cite the existence of things like "ancient swamp
cypress" as proof that the earth was warmer a long time ago don't
seem to understand is that they are merely solidifying the proof of
the global warming hypothesis, even then they think they are
detracting from it. The reason is that the carbon we are worrying
about putting into the atmosphere now from fossil fuels and such
had to come from somewhere. Since those fuels came from plants
the plants had to get it from somewhere. So they got it from the
ancient atmospheres. What this proves is that if the earth was warmer
in the past, as the detractors claim it was, then since all that extra
carbon was present then, it is likely that it did in fact make the ancient
earth warmer. As plant growth accellerated in the warmer periods it
pulled that carbon out of the atmosphere, allowing the earth to cool
to current temperatures. As carbon levels went down plant growth
had less carbon dioxide and the earth got cooler and plant growth
was then retarded.

Ted

 

This information MUST be suppressed!! (jk)

What do you think or know about the graphs that people like Al Gore show
about temperatue rise always being accompanied by increased carbon
dioxide? I have read that the actual un-faked data shows the
temperature increase always preceeding the temp. rise, yet when these
people present their data, they time shift the two parameters relative
to each other to make it look like the opposite happens (i.e, that the
temp. rise follows the CO2 rise).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Not really, you're falling into the trap that a warmer earth is created
by carbon (CO2) in the atmosphere.
What the cyprus swamp trees on Baffin Island say is the north has been
much warmer previously, at least once. Man didn't cause it and likely
carbon didn't either, as there is no proof of that.

Where I live there was 2,000 ft plus of ice cover 20,000 yrs ago.
Last Wednesday the temperature reached a record 37°C.
Thank goodness it has been warming for over 10,000 yrs. else I'd be
living somewhere else.

As Bill P. says the GW activists fake the data, so they in error see
carbon rising before the temperature.

IMO the GW activists are a con promoted by big business which hopes to
profit from this GW scare.

 

IMO the GW activists are a con promoted by big business which hopes to profit

While they are using that pointer in one hand, going all over the globe,
pointing out the 'clues' to further this stupid agenda, watch closely where the
other hand is. Usually, it's in your pocket.

'Why if we throw money at it, it'll go away!'

Then we'll end up with mercury reclamation programs because people won't pay to
throw them away. When you toss an incandescent, it get's ground up into sand and
a bit of aluminum. Toss one of these green bulbs and mercury is released that
can get into the water.

 

Bill,
You responded as if Ted was attacking greenies. Unless Exxon has joined the
green movement your interpretation of his post is incorrect.

Art

 

As far as cow farts are concerned, I believe that the issue is that they
consist mostly of methane which contributes much more to global warming than
carbon dioxide.

The part of global warming that concerns me is the amount of vegetation
under the ice caps. Millions of years of dead vegetation has been kept
refrigerated by the ice caps. Once that begins to thaw and decompose
producing carbon dioxide, slowing down the natural production of carbon
dioxide will be pretty much impossible.