2007-world record DROP in temps.

<p>As USA once had a modern factory base and infrastructure, how long will the US have a such a advantage?</p>

<p>I would hazard a wager that most of the CC’ers have a foreign branded automobile, although possibly manufactured in the USA. Why is that? Did this hurt the US economy? Certainly the purchase hurt the domestic worker and manufacturer. But what do I care, I am in this for myself and not for you or for anyone else. </p>

<p>In the mean time, GE, IMHO, knows that the US economy stinks, that the US will not spend for its future infracture, that it doesn’t need to spend capital nor manpower in debating a topic that is anyway controversial. I would guess that such plants that GE builds will be definitely state-of-art, efficient, and better that what we have in the USA. [Free</a> Preview - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120516472551724375.html?mod=myyahoo_module]Free”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120516472551724375.html?mod=myyahoo_module)</p>

<p>As for ozone, adds a certain amount of clarity to the sky. (I had the problem presented to me in organic chem in '79-dang final, prof thought it important, I didn’t) </p>

<p>As for CO2, dangit again. Vegetable matter just keeps getting higher. Had a early agricultural burn day yesterday. Lots of Btu’s and CO2. Wish I could bottle the stuff. </p>

<p>Pruned neighbors, prune trees. I’m gonna have nice prunes in 2 years. </p>

<p>Eat more head cheese, at least you can identify the meat.</p>

<p>“Do you have some kind of legitimate evidence (peer-reviewed journal articles, or some such) for your claim, or is it just your personal opinion?”</p>

<p>Post 25 listed a number of scientists who have not only disputed the fundamental creed of the IPCC but have recently changed their views from believer to skeptic - thus countering kluge’s views that the only migration is that from skeptic to believer. Of course, kluge dismissed this list by the wave of a hand (as he is so often inclined to do if it doesn’t mesh with his beliefs) but never actually countered why these scientists are wrong.</p>

<p>If you want a list of more peer-reviewed papers that cast doubt or completely refute the IPCC see:
[nzclimatescience.net</a> - MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING BITES THE DUST](<a href=“Welcome to Our Blog Discussing Climate Change”>Welcome to Our Blog Discussing Climate Change)

Of course, these people have been “scientifically” refuted in the same manner used by kluge - just disparage them. Here’s what James Hanson says about his fellow scientists:

A very “scientific” refutation indeed.</p>

<p>FF, are you sure you want to rely on a paper which says “Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated” as “proof” that “global warming bites the dust”? And if you weren’t being constantly exhorted to hate “algore” and his “cronies”, do you think that you would greet this handful of recent letters - among the hundreds you can find at [Published</a> in Geophysical Research Letters](<a href=“http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewJournalContents.do?journalCode=GL&viewBy=date&year=2008&month=all&sortBy=pubDate]Published”>http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewJournalContents.do?journalCode=GL&viewBy=date&year=2008&month=all&sortBy=pubDate) with such glee? And are you aware that between the couple of letters to the AGU cited by your New Zealand bloggers there are literally dozens which discuss, confirm, refine and corroborate the consensus theory? Check it out for yourself.</p>

<p>Absolutely. </p>

<p>I wonder who is putting in solar cells. I wonder who owns the factories that make the solar cells. The leapfrogging of technologies will leave those countries with legacy technology with the burden of its debt with no fundemental way to resolve the issue of efficiency. Someone will gain and someone will lose. The questions will be who will be the gainers and losers, and how big will the differential will be. </p>

<p>BTW: Should the US mandate the use of compact fluorescent lights immediately?
How many incandescent bulb manufactureres are there in the USA? Should we wait until 2014?</p>

<p>BTW: Should the US mandate the use of tankless water heaters? Why is it that only in North America can you buy a tanked water heater?</p>

<p>Because we don’t like to wait 5 minutes to wash our hands in hot water.</p>

<p>Even in Western Oregon, in the rain, I have to be careful with water usage (well). </p>

<p>I had the same problem with the electric WH. Took 1.5 gals (40 ft of half inch copper) of running the hot tap before hot water got to my hands. I installed a small instant electric WH at the point of use.</p>

<p>barrons; I’m not a big supporter of the “Mankind is destroying the world” mentality, but for technology and environmental sake, there are a lot of things that do make sense. The tankless water heater is most definitely one. I lived in Amsterdam in the late 70’s early 80’s. I had a tankless water heater. I can honestly say that the hot water reached your hands. back, butt, or whatever just as fast as from a water tank. It was most definitely instant on. It just took the 30 or so feet of copper tubing to get to you. Just like the take type water heater. And that was 25 years ago technology. I’m sure it’s even better now.</p>

<p>But; as far as the doom and gloom proof of mankind’s contribution being the biggest cause of climate change and the one pushing us over the line towards threatening our existence, I just don’t see the proof. Some say that the “Expert” opinions is all the proof they need. That’s cool. That’s all the followers of Jim Jones needed too. The problem I have however is; just about every single scientist and expert; even the ones who preach that mankind is the major cause of greenhouse gases; ALL ADMIT that much of their position is a hypothesis and theory based on certain assumptions in truth. Sometimes those assumptions aren’t correct. MOST scientists believe that it took millions of years for the colorado river to carve out what we now call the Grand Canyon. However, after Mount Saint Helens blew it’s lid and the after math of it’s destructive power, many scientists started rethinking the possibility that maybe the grand canyon didn’t take millions of years to form. Based on fissures, heat, magma, lava, and water, a lot of possibilities arise. That isn’t the only thing that they are readdressing. </p>

<p>The point is; the experts don’t have all facts to work with. They are giving us their “BEST GUESS”. Yes, their best guess is probably better than many people’s “Facts”. But believing in their preaching and having such faith just because they are the “EXPERT” is a blind faith I can’t follow. I may not ever know as much as they do, but they will explain to me the hows and whys of everything they preach if they want me to buy off on it. Based on the whats, hows, and whys I’ve seen, I’m just not convinced yet. Yes, the climate is changing. Just not sure to what extent we are affecting it.</p>

<p>“do you think that you would greet this handful of recent letters - among the hundreds you can find at Published in Geophysical Research Letters with such glee? And are you aware that between the couple of letters to the AGU cited by your New Zealand bloggers there are literally dozens which discuss, confirm, refine and corroborate the consensus theory?”</p>

<p>OK, so I checked it out. Now what? About the only thing that a layman like you or I can conclude from this is that there are a lot of papers published by this organization. However, the sheer number of papers published would only be significant if they were all related to global warming and if they overwhelmingly supported the concept of the manmade global warming that would lead to serious negative impacts and that these trends can be reversed or mitigated in such a way that the cure is not worse than the disease. They clearly are not. The vast majority of these papers have nothing to do with global warming.</p>

<p>From a quick perusal, I found one paper that downplays the usefulness of models in predicting climate changes and another that tends to support them. So, what do we conclude from this other than the science is not yet complete and that there are a lot of unknowns. To risk our economic future to pursue a still murky science is folly in my opinion. You, however, are willing to take that risk. So, we differ.</p>

<p>When I looked into the tankless models even the saleman said it took longer to get some hot water–that and the price of 5 times the normal tank made me buy the old fashioned kind which are far more efficient than they used to be. It takes many years to get back the cost of the tankless models.</p>

<p>Any entering freshman and parent of college students know that the benefit if college is not immediate but in the future. It is an investment with some type of risk. </p>

<p>A tankless waterheater is such and investment. The immediate benefit is that the unit is really cheaper than you think (federal, state tax (oregon), possibly utility incentives ) that really make the unit cheaper than a tank heater with the feature of never running out of hot water or never have to worry about turning off the utility on prolonged absences. </p>

<p>The longterm benefit is that tankless can pay itself off sooner than you think and thereafter a plus in the cashflow column. </p>

<p>The self-fish side of the equation is that it is in my benefit that you convert to tankless because that puts less demand on energy dependence and consequently keeps my energy rates down, longer. You do believe in W’s energy independence program? </p>

<p>The question, any RE person should be aware of, how much is the salesperson gonna make on the sale,what are the competing products, and the cost/benefit. Bottom line, you got a uninformed salesperson.</p>

<p>The bad part is that the US manufacturers and retailers will loose out because they still manufacture high material cost/high labor/shorter lifespan, units. </p>

<p>Inefficient, Old Technology. </p>

<p>Every year you put off converting, means that your competition (neighbor or nation) will be that much further ahead.</p>

<p>

Then you didn’t do a very good job of looking, FF. I found numerous articles whose abstracts mention anthropogenic climate change as a part of the issues discussed just in the first two and a half months of this year. Here’s a tip: Look for the word “aerosols”.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>source: kgo, San Fransciso</p>

<p>And this is a surprise???</p>