Very true, but with mass production comes less cost.
A lower cost for that item, not necessarily a lower cost versus competing technologies.
Quote:
Fact is, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have less moving parts than combustion engines, and while expensive now if in mass production hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would cost thousands less.
And you would end up with a less expensive (but still more expensive than an ICE) mass produced item that still would be unreliable, have only a fair power:weight ratio and have a short lifespan...in comparison to an ICE. As such, its lifecycle cost will be much higher. Overall, I understand the sentiment that you're trying to express, but fuel cells are also an example of how you simply can't push a technology until its clearly ready.
Overall, the best way to make a consumer willing to buy your "greener" producdt is to drive down its adoption costs to keep it competitive versus the less green, and if you can, then offer it with new features that make it more desirable than the traditional, which sometimes can overcome some part of a cost premium.
Quote:
We just need to make the initial change, we have to WANT it. Sadly, humanity doesn't tend to want to change their ways until it is too late...
As a general rule of thumb, this is shortsightedness brought on by competitive pressures. The general solution for this problem for these "good for us" (but unglamorous) product characteristics are those that get imposed on Industry through Government regulation for the public good. Examples are easily found in automobiles, from pollution standards and fuel economy standards to safety equipment.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ronbo
"And then, when this press release came out, Greenpeace completely failed to do the honorable thing and admit they'd criticized Apple unfairly."
I applaud Desarc for making some excellent points against the general disdain for environmental issues that seems prevelant here. It makes me sick when I read pompous comments about how unimportant environmental issues are and that destroying a community that attempts to improve the way of life for generations to come is seen as humor. It's ignorant and sad.
Keep in mind, humanity is just a spec on the timeline of this planet, and nature can flick us off any time she wants. The Tsunami in Indonesia and the rapidly increasing hurricanes and global climate change is just a taste of what's to come from man's disrespect of the only planet they call home. Think about that fact very carefully before you anonymously reply with pompous comments. If attitudes similar to what has been displayed here continue, it's only a matter of time...
It would be nice if reality were that easily polarized. I have very rarely seen anyone say that being mindful of the environment is unimportant. I have more often seen environmenalists claim that that argument has been made so that they can feel justified in becomming impassioned to promote their point of view.
It would be nice if reality were that easily polarized. I have very rarely seen anyone say that technology is a sin and we need to eradicate all industry from the face of the earth. I have more often seen anti-environmentalists claim that that argument has been made so that they can feel justified in becomming impassioned to promote their point of view.
There is a fine line between defending or promoting a particular point of view, and fabricating an imaginary conflict so that you can manipulate people's emotions. Stop with the cheep shots. That is one hallmark of Greenpeace and every other special interesst group like them, no matter what their position may be on whatever topic interests them. Lets act like intelligent people here, and recognize that we CAN discuss things without getting impassioned about them. All it really takes to change someone's mind is one good point, and them feeling certain that you are not attacking them. Shall we try to keep the discussion intelligent and open then?
One point on Global Warming: There is a book writen by a guy (I'm sorry, I don't recall the book title or the author, and haven't read through it myself)
***EDIT***
I found the source I was thinking of. Talbot, D., (2006). CO2 and the "Ornery Climate Beast" (Side bar). Technology Review, 109(3), pp. 40-41.
The source is actually an article in MIT's Technology Review magazine, and the person I was thinking of was NASA's Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr. Jim Hansen. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics, with B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction, and an M.S. in Astronomy. Jim's Wikipedia profile.
***/EDIT***
who did a lot of research and showed that the Earth experiences a warming and cooling cycle, going from peak temperature to ice age, and back again. If I recall correctly, he used geological records to show this. I recall seeing a graph that covered, I think, four such previous cycles. His research showed that we are currently (over the next 15k years or so, I think) in the warm up portion of the cycle. Once we hit peak, global temperatures will start going back down again. Now, lets assume for a moment that his findings are correct. The wrong approach is to try to discredit this guy because "He's saying that global warming isn't real". That's just silly. The correct approach, I feel, is to ask, "If this warming cycle is real, then does human influence appear to be changing that regular cycle in any meaningful way? Are we accelerating or slowing down the warming cycle, or is what we see as Global Warming simply the cycle in action, and nothing more?" Please, no knee jerk reactions to that. Probably no one in this room can honestly answer that question without doing some considerable research. Well, if we can't use that to further our position, then what good is the question? It tells us where we SHOULD be spending our time, rather than meaninglessly arguing with someone else about claims they didn't make.
And with that my attention span has expired, and my Train of Thought been derailed.
In other words, please don't assume that everyone here holds a particular opinion simply because one person posted it. Please also do not assume that anyone here holds a particular opinion simply because of how you've interpreted a single, or multiple, posts. DON'T PUT WORDS IN PEOPLE'S MOUTHS.
The Sun is the only thing (ignoring the core) keeping the Earth from being as cold as Pluto, which is -238c. The average temperature of the Earth is 15c. The atmosphere contributes 33c to the Earth's heat so the Sun is responsible for 238+15-33 = 220c of heating compared with the atmospheres 33c (without the sun there would be no contribution from the atmosphere so I am being kind). So which factor is the most significant one for contributing to the overall warmth of the Earth ?
The rise in temperature of the Earth over the last 100yrs is:
a) 5 c
b) 2.5 c
c) 0.6 c
So which is the correct answer - given that you imply there has been a significant rise.
I never said the planets were warming at the same rate - they have different orbits and atmospheres so I wouldn't expect them to warm at the same rate. I just said they are warming.
Why are you again asking for a link supporting the idea of general planetary warming? I gave it in my previous post. What did you think those links were for - decoration?
This is a rather confusing post, I think.
Quote:
The Sun is the only thing keeping the earth from being as cold as pluto
Not true. The DISTANCE of the Earth from the Sun is what is responsible for that difference. Pluto has no indpenent heating mechanism that I am aware of, and relies on the Sun also. The distance is the difference.
Quote:
The average temperature of the Earth is 15c.
At what elevation? At what longitude and latitude? Need more specifics, please. That's like saying that my GPA is 4.0. Is that cumulative, or only one semester? What classes was I taking? It matters.
Quote:
The atmosphere contributes 33c to the Earth's heat...
What? The atmosphere is more or less chemically inert. It only stores heat. It does not generate heat. It works as an insulating layer. The original source of that heat is predominantly, I THINK (I'm just a Physics major, not a Geophysics major) the Sun. I'm not sure how much the heat generated by gravitational compression of the Earth's core contributes. I'm pretty sure that the solar radiation dwarfs it.
Quote:
... so the Sun is responsible for 238+15-33 = 220c of heating compared with the atmospheres 33c (without the sun there would be no contribution from the atmosphere so I am being kind)...
No. While math may work like this, science does not. Heating is done by energy transfer, which is measured in Joules. You cannot measure energy simply by using temperature. Temperature cannot be added as if it were a thing. It is only a description of an atribute of an object. If we wish to measure energy contribution of certain sources, then we have to use Joules, Btu, or some other unit of energy, rather than a unit of temperature. We must use the correct units. Temperature is the measure of how much random movement is occuring at the molecular level within a substance. Temperature does not equal heat, nor energy content, nor energy transfered. And again, the Sun is the primary source, and the atmosphere acts as an insulating layer. Where are you going with this, anyway?
Quote:
... So which factor is the most significant one for contributing to the overall warmth of the Earth ?...
Wrong question. Think of the moon. Almost no atmosphere. On the dark side, the teperature drops to around 40 Kelvin (that's about -387°F or -233°C. 0 Kelvin is Absolute Zero, where all vibrational and rotational motion at the molecular scale ceases..(*Side note: Absolute Zero is not really reachable, actually, but we've gotten darned close... look up Bose Einstein Condensates if you're curious*) ). On the light side, it peaks around 396 Kelvin (253°F, or 123°C). The moon is subject to the same electromagnetic radiation that the Earth is (actually, think for a moment about how the difference in size might affect this), but the difference is that the Earth has an atmosphere to mellow out, if you will, the Sun's effect. The atmosphere both contributes to the warmth and the cooth (yeah, fake word there. ) of the Earth. So really, if you're asking how much of an effect the atmosphere has on the surface temperature of the Earth, the answer is A HUGE effect.
The rise in temperature of the Earth over the last 100yrs is:
a) 5 c
b) 2.5 c
c) 0.6 c
So which is the correct answer - given that you imply there has been a significant rise.
I'm having trouble finding the numbers, but I've read that even as little as a 5°C change in average temperature IN THE FUTURE is enough to have a significant impact on the size of the Polar Ice Caps and glaciers. Too much temperature rise could completely melt them. However, even if the ice caps and glaciers all melted completely, the mean seal level would rise by just 0.5 meters.
But what was the point? I think we need to define 'Significant' here.
As a side note, an excellent source for all things climactic is The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If yall are really interested in the environment, then a logical first step is to read through the IPCCs reports. They break down the complex issues surrounding global warming into stuff that most reasonably intelligent people can digest. Disclaimer: No, I haven't read through it all myself yet.
Comments
Very true, but with mass production comes less cost.
A lower cost for that item, not necessarily a lower cost versus competing technologies.
Fact is, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have less moving parts than combustion engines, and while expensive now if in mass production hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would cost thousands less.
And you would end up with a less expensive (but still more expensive than an ICE) mass produced item that still would be unreliable, have only a fair power:weight ratio and have a short lifespan...in comparison to an ICE. As such, its lifecycle cost will be much higher. Overall, I understand the sentiment that you're trying to express, but fuel cells are also an example of how you simply can't push a technology until its clearly ready.
Overall, the best way to make a consumer willing to buy your "greener" producdt is to drive down its adoption costs to keep it competitive versus the less green, and if you can, then offer it with new features that make it more desirable than the traditional, which sometimes can overcome some part of a cost premium.
We just need to make the initial change, we have to WANT it. Sadly, humanity doesn't tend to want to change their ways until it is too late...
As a general rule of thumb, this is shortsightedness brought on by competitive pressures. The general solution for this problem for these "good for us" (but unglamorous) product characteristics are those that get imposed on Industry through Government regulation for the public good. Examples are easily found in automobiles, from pollution standards and fuel economy standards to safety equipment.
Originally posted by Ronbo
"And then, when this press release came out, Greenpeace completely failed to do the honorable thing and admit they'd criticized Apple unfairly."
Amen.
-hh
... do we really need a huge hard plastic case to package a matchbook sized ipod? aren't there 100 million of those in landfills now?
I kept mine... pretty plastic... mmmmmm
I applaud Desarc for making some excellent points against the general disdain for environmental issues that seems prevelant here. It makes me sick when I read pompous comments about how unimportant environmental issues are and that destroying a community that attempts to improve the way of life for generations to come is seen as humor. It's ignorant and sad.
Keep in mind, humanity is just a spec on the timeline of this planet, and nature can flick us off any time she wants. The Tsunami in Indonesia and the rapidly increasing hurricanes and global climate change is just a taste of what's to come from man's disrespect of the only planet they call home. Think about that fact very carefully before you anonymously reply with pompous comments. If attitudes similar to what has been displayed here continue, it's only a matter of time...
It would be nice if reality were that easily polarized. I have very rarely seen anyone say that being mindful of the environment is unimportant. I have more often seen environmenalists claim that that argument has been made so that they can feel justified in becomming impassioned to promote their point of view.
It would be nice if reality were that easily polarized. I have very rarely seen anyone say that technology is a sin and we need to eradicate all industry from the face of the earth. I have more often seen anti-environmentalists claim that that argument has been made so that they can feel justified in becomming impassioned to promote their point of view.
There is a fine line between defending or promoting a particular point of view, and fabricating an imaginary conflict so that you can manipulate people's emotions. Stop with the cheep shots. That is one hallmark of Greenpeace and every other special interesst group like them, no matter what their position may be on whatever topic interests them. Lets act like intelligent people here, and recognize that we CAN discuss things without getting impassioned about them. All it really takes to change someone's mind is one good point, and them feeling certain that you are not attacking them. Shall we try to keep the discussion intelligent and open then?
One point on Global Warming: There is a book writen by a guy (I'm sorry, I don't recall the book title or the author, and haven't read through it myself)
***EDIT***
I found the source I was thinking of. Talbot, D., (2006). CO2 and the "Ornery Climate Beast" (Side bar). Technology Review, 109(3), pp. 40-41.
The source is actually an article in MIT's Technology Review magazine, and the person I was thinking of was NASA's Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr. Jim Hansen. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics, with B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction, and an M.S. in Astronomy. Jim's Wikipedia profile.
***/EDIT***
who did a lot of research and showed that the Earth experiences a warming and cooling cycle, going from peak temperature to ice age, and back again. If I recall correctly, he used geological records to show this. I recall seeing a graph that covered, I think, four such previous cycles. His research showed that we are currently (over the next 15k years or so, I think) in the warm up portion of the cycle. Once we hit peak, global temperatures will start going back down again. Now, lets assume for a moment that his findings are correct. The wrong approach is to try to discredit this guy because "He's saying that global warming isn't real". That's just silly. The correct approach, I feel, is to ask, "If this warming cycle is real, then does human influence appear to be changing that regular cycle in any meaningful way? Are we accelerating or slowing down the warming cycle, or is what we see as Global Warming simply the cycle in action, and nothing more?" Please, no knee jerk reactions to that. Probably no one in this room can honestly answer that question without doing some considerable research. Well, if we can't use that to further our position, then what good is the question? It tells us where we SHOULD be spending our time, rather than meaninglessly arguing with someone else about claims they didn't make.
And with that my attention span has expired, and my Train of Thought been derailed.
Celemourn
...Blah blah blah blah...
In other words, please don't assume that everyone here holds a particular opinion simply because one person posted it. Please also do not assume that anyone here holds a particular opinion simply because of how you've interpreted a single, or multiple, posts. DON'T PUT WORDS IN PEOPLE'S MOUTHS.
The Sun is the only thing (ignoring the core) keeping the Earth from being as cold as Pluto, which is -238c. The average temperature of the Earth is 15c. The atmosphere contributes 33c to the Earth's heat so the Sun is responsible for 238+15-33 = 220c of heating compared with the atmospheres 33c (without the sun there would be no contribution from the atmosphere so I am being kind). So which factor is the most significant one for contributing to the overall warmth of the Earth ?
The rise in temperature of the Earth over the last 100yrs is:
a) 5 c
b) 2.5 c
c) 0.6 c
So which is the correct answer - given that you imply there has been a significant rise.
I never said the planets were warming at the same rate - they have different orbits and atmospheres so I wouldn't expect them to warm at the same rate. I just said they are warming.
Why are you again asking for a link supporting the idea of general planetary warming? I gave it in my previous post. What did you think those links were for - decoration?
This is a rather confusing post, I think.
The Sun is the only thing keeping the earth from being as cold as pluto
Not true. The DISTANCE of the Earth from the Sun is what is responsible for that difference. Pluto has no indpenent heating mechanism that I am aware of, and relies on the Sun also. The distance is the difference.
The average temperature of the Earth is 15c.
At what elevation? At what longitude and latitude? Need more specifics, please. That's like saying that my GPA is 4.0. Is that cumulative, or only one semester? What classes was I taking? It matters.
The atmosphere contributes 33c to the Earth's heat...
What? The atmosphere is more or less chemically inert. It only stores heat. It does not generate heat. It works as an insulating layer. The original source of that heat is predominantly, I THINK (I'm just a Physics major, not a Geophysics major) the Sun. I'm not sure how much the heat generated by gravitational compression of the Earth's core contributes. I'm pretty sure that the solar radiation dwarfs it.
... so the Sun is responsible for 238+15-33 = 220c of heating compared with the atmospheres 33c (without the sun there would be no contribution from the atmosphere so I am being kind)...
No. While math may work like this, science does not. Heating is done by energy transfer, which is measured in Joules. You cannot measure energy simply by using temperature. Temperature cannot be added as if it were a thing. It is only a description of an atribute of an object. If we wish to measure energy contribution of certain sources, then we have to use Joules, Btu, or some other unit of energy, rather than a unit of temperature. We must use the correct units. Temperature is the measure of how much random movement is occuring at the molecular level within a substance. Temperature does not equal heat, nor energy content, nor energy transfered. And again, the Sun is the primary source, and the atmosphere acts as an insulating layer. Where are you going with this, anyway?
... So which factor is the most significant one for contributing to the overall warmth of the Earth ?...
Wrong question. Think of the moon. Almost no atmosphere. On the dark side, the teperature drops to around 40 Kelvin (that's about -387°F or -233°C. 0 Kelvin is Absolute Zero, where all vibrational and rotational motion at the molecular scale ceases..(*Side note: Absolute Zero is not really reachable, actually, but we've gotten darned close... look up Bose Einstein Condensates if you're curious*) ). On the light side, it peaks around 396 Kelvin (253°F, or 123°C). The moon is subject to the same electromagnetic radiation that the Earth is (actually, think for a moment about how the difference in size might affect this), but the difference is that the Earth has an atmosphere to mellow out, if you will, the Sun's effect. The atmosphere both contributes to the warmth and the cooth (yeah, fake word there.
SOURCE: NASA's Solar System Exploration: Planets: Earth's Moon: Facts & Figures
The rise in temperature of the Earth over the last 100yrs is:
a) 5 c
b) 2.5 c
c) 0.6 c
So which is the correct answer - given that you imply there has been a significant rise.
I'm having trouble finding the numbers, but I've read that even as little as a 5°C change in average temperature IN THE FUTURE is enough to have a significant impact on the size of the Polar Ice Caps and glaciers. Too much temperature rise could completely melt them. However, even if the ice caps and glaciers all melted completely, the mean seal level would rise by just 0.5 meters.
But what was the point? I think we need to define 'Significant' here.
SOURCE:IPCC 2001 report.
As a side note, an excellent source for all things climactic is The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If yall are really interested in the environment, then a logical first step is to read through the IPCCs reports. They break down the complex issues surrounding global warming into stuff that most reasonably intelligent people can digest. Disclaimer: No, I haven't read through it all myself yet.
Celemourn