Please do some research before you post silly statements.
Production equals demand, there is no magic place where extra electricity goes to have a nap. The generating load at power plants is adjusted to match the demand on the grid.
Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Production equals demand, there is no magic place where extra electricity goes to have a nap. The generating load at power plants is adjusted to match the demand on the grid.
In the grand scheme, all of the 'facts' that are being bandied-about are suspect for a variety of reasons, one being how skewed are the stats relative to the position of the 'presenter' and secondly, if there is no real understanding of the entire system (ie global climatological, meteorological systems), the entire discussion is then based on speculation at best (regardless of the position taken).
In terms of the reference to volcanoes, I find your assertion a little hard to swallow considering that there are hundreds if not thousands of active volcanoes that are emitting constantly (not necessarily erupting). Factor-in all form of natural CO2 sources and the contribution of humanity is minuscule in comparison.
regardless of either opinion represented by yourself or myself, the reality is that the global system has offered multiple examples of massive global swings in mean temps (ice-ages and consequent warming() long before humanity was existing let alone a factor.
That alone is the biggest hurdle that the global warming/climate change alarmist position are unable and unwilling to explain.
None of the phenomenon that parallel past events are present in today's data except man. Care to explain?
That was exactly my point. How many unplugged their Power Supplies that were not in use and saved up to 11% extra power last night. How many left them in while turning off the lights in the house.
To show total Power Consumption at Zero, one would have to turn off the main power switch.
I think my point of doing the turning off of Lights on a regular basis is much more important and if this made people aware it is even more important to make them aware of things that burn electricity that we do not think of.
It is much more important of that there is no question. But why do you turn them off? What was it that clued you in to the two important apsects, {not wasting it and getting along just fine when they are out}?
It is about awareness. We need to find clean power that is sustainable and unintrusive on the environment and we need to try and use only what we need when we need it which in the end will result in lower generation.
I think Earth Hour is about education and the first thing to know about education is you have to have the students attention.
Hey - here is an idea - ban incadescent bulbs and replace them with mercury laden flourescents - that way in 5 - 10 years we will have a bigger problem then global warming to worry about.
Man's major contribution to global climate change began with the industrial revolution. Since the start of that industrial revolution we have pumped something like eight trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and CO2 is only one of a number of greenhouse gasses. Emission from volcanoes is miniscule by comparison.
I won't get into whether or not the world is warming because that should be obvious to anyone.
That's the point. You haven't reduced production because you haven't reduced consumption. They won't be shutting down generators on the grid because there was a 3% drop in consumption for an hour. People have turned their lights back on and everything is as it was. This action has had no effect other than making a political statement.
Go read my EneryStar savings postings and link to see what bigger and better things can be brought to student attention.
Do you go to your mechanic for advice regarding your dental health?
It's absurd to listen to someone just because they're a specialist in something. It doesn't mean they can't know something and make meaningful contributions, but that is not at all what Dyson has done.
His idea is to produce genetically altered carbon eating trees.
Newsflash, trees already utilize carbon, as fast as they can. They can't handle the excess carbon dioxide because carbon dioxide is not a limiting nutrient in the biosphere...nutrients like phosphorous are. You can't produce sugars and grow as a plant unless you have a steady supply of inorganic phosphorous for one.
But, the ignorant folk don't know that, because the simple photosynthesis reaction doesn't show the complex biochemical pathways involved: glycolysis, the pentose phosphate pathway, TCA cycle, electron transport, and many, many more.
So yeah, why not go to your mechanic next time you need dental advice. He'll tell you to brush your teeth and floss. That should be good enough for you.:roll:
I disagree... All of the terrestrial based phenomena are in play today as they were hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago... Volcanic activity, polar migration, massive disasters (Australia's recent fires?), loss of plant life (for whatever reason) that convert CO2 and therefore alter the ambient CO2 levels, alterations in the air/water currents, sun-spots, solar flaring, etc., etc., etc..
The solitary variable that is non-terrestrial are impacts via meteors.
If we are talking strictly about electricity yes but this discussion is about CO2 emission. Sorry I did'nt make that clear for you. I thought this was self evident.
I'll explain it to you so there won't be anymore confusion. Producing power requires two things, a power system and a generator. The output of the generator fluctuates but the generator does not produce CO2. The power system that drives the generator is what may or may not produce CO2. If the power that turns the generator comes from...say...a river that turns a turbine, how much is the production of CO2 reduced. What about natural gas or coal driven turbines.
Activity related to humanity absolutely contributes to the system. The issue here whether humanity is a significant component within the system, more so than the natural drivers, the cyclical potential of the system itself, or outside elements like solar input.
The industrial revolution is an excellent example. I believe that it hit it's heights in the early 1800's, but was underway and developing momentum decades prior to that... If that is considered to be a starting point, I ask why the ambient temps decreased marginally or remained steady for well over a century? Further, guys like Suzuki were speaking quite specifically about 'the new ice age' back in the late '70's.. Surely, the system hasn't swung 180 degrees in 20-30 years to go from drastic cooling to dramatic warming?
All this points to the reality that we don't understand the system and as such, pointing fingers at any form of causation is fool's errand.
The question isn't IF it's warming. The question is WHY is it warming?
I called you anti-environmentalist based upon what you said abut earth hour, nothing more. I don’t know what else you do or do not do to preserve environment, and I have no way of knowing it. But I do know what you said abut earth hour, and based upon the content and the tone, I come to the conclusion that you are an anti-environmentalist.
Similarly, if you want to form an opinion about me, form it from what I am saying here about earth hour, not what I may or may not claim to be doing for environment (which very well could be a lie anyway, you have no way of knowing).