Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-19-2014, 05:09 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,174,590 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former Hockey Player View Post
If there is .05% less oxygen in the atmosphere, we will die, forests will die, fish will die en masse. Animals will shrink because there is less oxygen for energy.

Yes, it is minute changes by percentages, but it only takes a little change to make a big effect.
Which is why no one lives in places like Leadville Colorado, where the elevation is so high, no oxying exists and everyone who goes there dies.

oh wait, people indeed do live there, despite less oxygen in the atmosphere
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2014, 05:10 PM
 
1,152 posts, read 1,279,477 times
Reputation: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Former Hockey Player View Post
If there is .05% less oxygen in the atmosphere, we will die, forests will die, fish will die en masse. Animals will shrink because there is less oxygen for energy.

Yes, it is minute changes by percentages, but it only takes a little change to make a big effect.
You're going to have to back that one up

See, percentages are funny things - you have to be specific as to what you're talking about is a percent of.

At sea level, the local air is 21% oxygen.

At 10,000 feet elevation, the local air is 14.2% oxygen. Plants still grow at this elevation, animals live, and healthy people feel only an annoying shortness of breath.

Taken as a percent of the atmosphere, the difference is 6.8% obviously. Taken as a reduction in the total amount of oxygen it is 32% less at 10,000 feet.

Since these figures are localized, you could maybe get such an alarmingly small percentage by taking it as a percentage of the entirety of the atmospheric volume, but that would be rather misleading. It would be misleading because you'd be including a huge volume where there is hardly any oxygen anyway - that would be diluting your statistic to lead the casual reader to an inaccurate conclusion.

So I'm kinda wondering what the 0.05% less oxygen in the atmosphere is talking about.

Last edited by prosopis; 08-19-2014 at 05:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 05:11 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,174,590 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Former Hockey Player View Post
What, so wanting pollution out of my environment is now a bad political agenda? Even if the skeptics are proven right, that AGW is not caused by humans, I still don't want pollution in my skies or drinking water.
False argument unless you are now arguing that conservatives want polluted air and water..

yeah, you mgiht make that stupid statement as well..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 05:11 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,977,451 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I made no such argument....
Of course. But it was implied in your argument you had with me, where you tried to tell me I didn't understand radiative transfer.

Go back and read where your argument implies that I should not consider total irradiance, but only longer wavelengths in the IR spectrum in terms of energy inputs to the earth's surface.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 05:14 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,977,451 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Former Hockey Player View Post
What, so wanting pollution out of my environment is now a bad political agenda? Even if the skeptics are proven right, that AGW is not caused by humans, I still don't want pollution in my skies or drinking water.
You living, breathing, and then dying, pollutes your environment.

So, your argument is invalid, if you wish to remain alive, and not sacrifice yourself for the "good of the planet".

So, I'd suggest withdrawing that argument and instead, try to come up with a good proposal for what's considered "acceptable" levels and why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,800,664 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis View Post
Cool! Going to wander egregiously off topic and ask how the bulbs are holding up? I tried one in a metal shaded lamp (no hole at the top) and after a short while the bulb part broke at the base - obviously a heat problem. I've been thinking of getting a few more and being more careful about location or modifying lamps to better suit the bulb's limitations.

Modern LED's are about the coolest thing to arrive in my lifetime. Maybe I should start a thread about that and people can dispute it all they want - since there are tons of cool things that have arrived in the last 45 years
We are addressing the notion of cutting down Co2, so I don't see how this is off topic.

With that said: Actually, I've not had a single failure. I started small, buying just a few, until I felt I had figured out which worked best.

The best bulbs (so far) are:

Dimmable

G-Power LED BR-30 for can lights (1 was damaged on delivery, but none have failed) True dimmables even with stabdard mechanical dimmer switches.

Kobi Electric K2L1 15-watt (75-Watt Equivalent) A19 LED 5000K Cool White(these rock and are truly dimmable to about 20%)

Standard
Lighting EVER 10 Watt A19 LED Bulb, Brightest 60 Watt Incandescent Bulbs Replacement, 810lm, High Performance Samsung LED, Warm White (these are really good bulbs with high efficiency)

G7 Power G7A21930 900 Lumen LED Light Bulb, 9-watt, Warm White <<This is by far the most efficient high lumen to watt bulb on the market (if you can find them) and the warm output imitates a standard 100w incandescent bulb on just 9 watts.

I've changed out more than 100 bulbs (we have cans in every room), and this has lowered my electric bill by 35%. We were using 1400-1500kw hours per month on CFLs, now 900-1100.

Note: CFL's are perfectly safe, unlike the mercury alarmists would have us believe, though they are so inefficient compared to LED's that it is a total waste of money investing in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 05:23 PM
 
1,152 posts, read 1,279,477 times
Reputation: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Of course. But it was implied in your argument you had with me, where you tried to tell me I didn't understand radiative transfer.

Go back and read where your argument implies that I should not consider total irradiance, but only longer wavelengths in the IR spectrum in terms of energy inputs to the earth's surface.
You sure that wasn't me? I did tell you that (first line), but did not mean to imply the second line.

He may have had the same discussion with you, I wasn't following every post in that thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 05:27 PM
 
1,152 posts, read 1,279,477 times
Reputation: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h View Post
Actually, I've not had a single failure. I started small, buying just a few, until I felt I had figured out which worked best.

The best bulbs (so far) are:

Dimmable

G-Power LED BR-30 for can lights (1 was damaged on delivery, but none have failed) True dimmables even with stabdard mechanical dimmer switches.

Kobi Electric K2L1 15-watt (75-Watt Equivalent) A19 LED 5000K Cool White(these rock and are truly dimmable to about 20%)

Standard
Lighting EVER 10 Watt A19 LED Bulb, Brightest 60 Watt Incandescent Bulbs Replacement, 810lm, High Performance Samsung LED, Warm White (these are really good bulbs with high efficiency)

G7 Power G7A21930 900 Lumen LED Light Bulb, 9-watt, Warm White <<This is by far the most efficient high lumen to watt bulb on the market (if you can find them) and the warm output imitates a standard 100w incandescent bulb on just 9 watts.

I've changed out more than 100 bulbs (we have cans in every room), and this has lowered my electric bill by 35%. We were using 1400-1500kw hours per month on CFLs, now 900-1100.
Sweet, I'll look for some of those. One reason I was interested is for several cans - after the one from Home Despot broke on me in a shaded lamp, I figured that a can might not be a good place to put a $12 bulb if heat is going to be a problem. I'll certainly try one or two of these as I don't care for CFL's that are currently in the cans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,567 posts, read 37,175,863 times
Reputation: 14021
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Of course. But it was implied in your argument you had with me, where you tried to tell me I didn't understand radiative transfer.

Go back and read where your argument implies that I should not consider total irradiance, but only longer wavelengths in the IR spectrum in terms of energy inputs to the earth's surface.
I made no such statements, and have no idea what you are talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 06:32 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,977,451 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis View Post
You sure that wasn't me? I did tell you that (first line), but did not mean to imply the second line.

He may have had the same discussion with you, I wasn't following every post in that thread.
Well, it may well have been you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top