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.
Excuse me, but I've seen the "hate of humanity" little thingie all over this thread. Pray tell, where are you getting this idea that global warming has anything to do with "hate of humanity"????
Using the "hate" word just seems inflammatory, IMO!
Excuse me, but did you miss the posts blaming humanity for global warming? The indication being that the best way to reduce this fiction is to reduce humanity? I would wager that those whining the loudest would not be willing to give up their ammenities. Example: your prophet Gore not reducing his "carbon footprint" but attempting to buy carbon credits instead. Really ethical of him and his kind.
In 1975 the US Government scientists were worried about a global ice age comming. Now they are worried about global warming....
....once they figure out how thermometers work, I'll listen to them.
Let it snow? Cold front pushes through south central Texas
by James Muñoz / KENS 5
Posted on December 1, 2009 at 3:53 AM
Updated Wednesday, Dec 2 at 8:13 AM Related:
The National Weather Service said San Antonio may see its first freeze sometime this week, perhaps Friday night or Saturday morning.
Tuesday afternoon, the area may see some cold rain. Some areas
Tuesday afternoon, the area may see some cold rain. Some areas in the Hill Country may have to deal with some isolated flooding. Right now, surface temperatures and ground temperatures appear too warm to allow snow or ice to accumulate.
Anytime you deal with ice or snow in the Hill Country, there is the threat for slick spots on roads and bridges.
The colder weather is also drawing the homeless indoors. The Samm Ministries had to open up extra space Monday night after the shelter reached its capacity.
The cold weather typically brings in hundreds of homeless this time of year.
BTW, what happens to our plants if we destroy all their food (co2)? I guess they just die and stop producing oxygen.
you do realize that we produce more co2 than the atmosphere can handle right? Its called parts per million and it can only be handled at a certain level. You also realize it is a gas and at the current levels it is dangerous??
you do realize that we produce more co2 than the atmosphere can handle right? Its called parts per million and it can only be handled at a certain level. You also realize it is a gas and at the current levels it is dangerous??
Who's telling you this garbage? Can you explain why when the co2 level was thousands of times higher in percentage than it is now the Earth was at it's peak of life forms?
It's not bias and it's not my opinion, it's fact. If it were cheaper than coal we wouldn't be having this discussion because legislation like Cap and Tax, the mandates for renewable energy usage and all the subsidization wouldn't be necessary. Investors for this technology would be forming a conga line out the front door of these comapnies. That's the way business works, when you can make the same product for the same cost.
Show me one example that even remotely would suggest it's even close to be competitive with coal. You won;t find any because they don't exist.
Take for example my calculations on what it would cost for solar panels installation, I'm using solar industry numbers and all you have done is flap your lips I'm wrong...
Saying "I would guess it would add 20-30k extra" is not data.
And once again your only issue is the $$$$. Not the fact that coal is dirty, will continue to pollute and will run out. Its finite. The sun is not. There is bigger up front costs associated with solar but not long term. If its not in the ball park why in the state of oregon are there huge solar productions going on? Have you ever heard of large scale solar?? the future isn't in individual houses with panels
Organick , you want to see an eye popping figure to see how far off solar is compared to coal. I use anthracite which is about double the cost of soft coal used in power plants. I get it delivered for $160 per ton and use ten tons in heating season for house that is almost 4000 sq. foot and doesn't include the basement which is semi heated. Before you go off about the big house there's 8 people and two dogs living here. I'll also note this 100 year old home and although insulation has been placed in most of the walls and new windows we still have a few areas to go so it's little on the high side.
So my total heating costs in year are $1600.
1 ton of anthracite has 24,000,000 BTU's and after we adjust for efficiency it's probably about 20,000,000 to almost 22,000,000 depending on the model furnace/boiler.
1 kWh can produce 3,412 BTU's of heat, to produce enough heat per month to equal my ten tons of coal using a number of 20,000,000 BTU per ton:
((20,000,000 * 10) / 3412) /12 = 4,884kWh per month
If I were to use electric supplied from the street at $0.13/kWh it would cost me about $7,300 per year to heat my home.
Now this is where it gets interesting and you really get to see some jaw dropping numbers. So if we go back to my post here on what it would cost for for the panels to meet these needs:
Using that formula I would need 44,789 watts of solar panels.
Using the US cost as $4.31 per watt this month it would cost me $193,000 dollars to purchase enough solar to heat my house and that's just the cost for the panels.
Now if you wish to dispute that number please provide some references and your work as to why I'm wrong.
------edit------
I'm wrong!
That's using a yearly average but since I would need heat in the winter when the sun is at it's lowest the formula changes to this when we exclude May through August:
The Daily Bell
News
& Views
12/5/2009 - by Staff Reports (ARBP)
Getty Image
For the fourteenth straight day, the three broadcast networks have failed to report on the great and growing ClimateGate scandal on their weekday morning or evening news programs. How to explain this? Perhaps it is that ABC, NBC and CBS have not yet heard of the story, despite two weeks of non-stop reporting on and discussion of ClimateGate in a whole host of media outlets. Perhaps the broadcast networks only trust their fellow liberal press outlets, like the New York Times. Perhaps they don't realize the Times exhibited journalistic diligence on ClimateGate, with a front page story the day the story broke. In the event that ABC News, NBC News and CBS News missed the news, the Media Research Center (MRC) is today rushing each of them a copy of the Times story, in the hopes that armed with this new information, they will finally report a story that has been roiling nearly everywhere else for a fortnight. So as not to offend the networks' pro-global warming sensibilities, MRC President Brent Bozell is looking to have the stories delivered by bicycle messenger. - MRC
The Media has become so corrupted it can't be trusted anymore
thats why you why you only watch fox right? the fair and balanced news guys
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.
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.
I'll also note this 100 year old home and although insulation has been placed in most of the walls and new windows we still have a few areas to go so it's little on the high side. 
