no scientific basis for forecasting climate

Sludge Factory

RM291946 wrote:

...We also need to start using "grean roofs." It started in Germany in a town full of smog the same as Jersey used to be. It's the only thing they did towards fixing the problem. They have no smog anymore, with that one simple solution. You plant grass, or a garden, on your roof with a trellis structure that prevents the greenery from growing roots into the roof, and allowing for moisture to escape instead of sit and build up mold and rot thru your roof...

Or instead of the crappily styled cardboard cutout devoloper homes that seem to have been the hot item relatively recently we could start by building houses like this:

http://www.earthshelteredtech.com/

http://www.mwnews.net/html/earth_sheltered_homes.html

Probably more expensive up front though, it sounds like the energy savings are quite good. A coworker of mine has one of these and he says that his house maintains a steady 55 degree temp on its own in the dead heat of the summer and the frigid cold of the winter.

DriftingByTheStorm

Sludge Factory wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

...We also need to start using "grean roofs." It started in Germany in a town full of smog the same as Jersey used to be. It's the only thing they did towards fixing the problem. They have no smog anymore, with that one simple solution. You plant grass, or a garden, on your roof with a trellis structure that prevents the greenery from growing roots into the roof, and allowing for moisture to escape instead of sit and build up mold and rot thru your roof...

Or instead of the crappily styled cardboard cutout devoloper homes that seem to have been the hot item relatively recently we could start by building houses like this:

http://www.earthshelteredtech.com/

http://www.mwnews.net/html/earth_sheltered_homes.html

Probably more expensive up front though, it sounds like the energy savings are quite good. A coworker of mine has one of these and he says that his house maintains a steady 55 degree temp on its own in the dead heat of the summer and the frigid cold of the winter.

ALL "earth sheltered" homes use a LOT of concrete.
The ones you linked are NOT "superadobe" (which uses extreme amounts of concrete), but nevertheless they use quite large quantities of poured concrete, which is a VERY energy intensive product, heavily reliant on petrol. I'm not discounting earth shelters outright, i'm just stating one of the major drawbacks. As someone who has been looking in to every possible alternative for home construction, I just thought i'd mention that to anyone considering "earthshelter", "earthship", "superadobe", or other concrete intensive technologies. All building methods have trade offs, so do your homework.

Sludge Factory

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

...We also need to start using "grean roofs." It started in Germany in a town full of smog the same as Jersey used to be. It's the only thing they did towards fixing the problem. They have no smog anymore, with that one simple solution. You plant grass, or a garden, on your roof with a trellis structure that prevents the greenery from growing roots into the roof, and allowing for moisture to escape instead of sit and build up mold and rot thru your roof...

Or instead of the crappily styled cardboard cutout devoloper homes that seem to have been the hot item relatively recently we could start by building houses like this:

http://www.earthshelteredtech.com/

http://www.mwnews.net/html/earth_sheltered_homes.html

Probably more expensive up front though, it sounds like the energy savings are quite good. A coworker of mine has one of these and he says that his house maintains a steady 55 degree temp on its own in the dead heat of the summer and the frigid cold of the winter.

ALL "earth sheltered" homes use a LOT of concrete.
The ones you linked are NOT "superadobe" (which uses extreme amounts of concrete), but nevertheless they use quite large quantities of poured concrete, which is a VERY energy intensive product, heavily reliant on petrol. I'm not discounting earth shelters outright, i'm just stating one of the major drawbacks. As someone who has been looking in to every possible alternative for home construction, I just thought i'd mention that to anyone considering "earthshelter", "earthship", "superadobe", or other concrete intensive technologies. All building methods have trade offs, so do your homework.

Yeah, I know they use alot of concrete, but I think that disadvantage is offset by the fact that they are supposed to last a very long time. Way longer than traditional houses.

Austicman

In australia at the moment the Southern and South eastern states are experiencing temperatures of over 110F for the last week and bit while in North Queenland there has seen flooding that has cover an area one and half times the sizt of Texas. These extremes combined is something I've never even heard of before now.

Besides that don't you want to rid of the smog that covers most cities these days. China during the Olympics was terrible! Plus the dependance on oil as a source of energy. Regardless of the reasons cleaner burning fuel makes sense to me.

NoK

evenflow wrote:

I am tired of all the BS that politicians are spreading including those that you mentioned as well as the stimulus packages, bailout plans, economic justice, and illegal immigration, but that's not what this thread was about. I didn't realize that you needed me to name everything that I disagree with in the world of politics in order to reply to the original post. I'll do better next time.

And you're right, a bike would beat the new Camaro, but I'm willing to bet money (and have on numerous occasions) that 9 out of 10 bikes on the street won't beat my Trans Am (see my avatar pic). As far as comparing the bike to the Camaro though, yeah the bike will be faster, but let's see you walk away from a 20mph wreck on that bike like you would in the Chevy.

Where did I say you had to mention these things? I just said as long as your sick of all the other things then fine. It's always good to do your best.

Why would you need something so fast on the street in the first place? Also, depending on the type of wreck sometimes its safer to skid off your bike than absorb the impact while sitting in your car but yes I know bikes are generally more dangerous.

Flutter Girl

NoK wrote:

Regardless of where we can fit as a species, we are currently spread out all across the globe so these calculations are useless (also, you are forgetting the water bodies in Texas so you need to adjust your calculations). Its been documented that pollution from one local climate can affect another local climate (E.g. China and Australia) so even if humans are not inhabiting one place they may have an effect on its local climate. With the number of different local climates being affected its safe say this is a GLOBAL issue. You may disagree with the Al Gorean definition of global climate change (i.e global warming, global cooling, global whateverthefucktheycomeupwith) but the literal definition of it stands.

see that was what I was getting at with the global climate and how we aren't effecting it..The data coming back actually is showing that we are not having an effect globally. Meaning there is no butterfly effect. They are looking at data such as what they found in Antarctica, as well as cities and the rural areas directly around them. In Antarctica, until recently, the peninsula(sp? I live in one and can't spell it..oy) was melting, while the rest was going thru a massive freezing. same goes with cities..They get hot as hell and have pollution, but if you go even as near as the rural areas right outside the city, tempuratures are far lower, and the environent is not polluted (less cars and other machines, more trees). so to think that a city that does not effect the countryside directly next to them, but can effect someplace half way across the globe...well all the data coming back is showing it is simply not happening. Which means the calculations stand. Actually it goes further that that. The folk in the rural area contribute virtually no pollution. What they do emit, gets quickly and full absorbed by the greenery surrounding them. There is only one exception to that...massive farms with cows and the like (methane)..There are very few of these, however, and the greenery does absorb it in most cases..so really the local climates with pollution comes from cities. And because they are cities, they are not spread out..Meaning the pollution is confined to a very small region in each city. In otherwords our pollution is negligable. And there are simple measures that can be taken to make it non-existant. We'd still pollute some, but all of it would be absorbed.

In re to texas..It was just to show that we can all fit into an area the size of texas.


sludge- It does work. Here in south florida, by law, all homes must be build with cinderblock and cement (or steel..). It does keep the temps under better control. Plus it is becoming extremely popular to get metal roofs here. Particularly the cheapest of them, the plain silver. The roofers always suggest that one or the white one(even tho they get less for them) because they reflect the sun's rays, making for an even cooler home. I definately noticed a huge difference after we got ours..After every hurricane that damages more roofs, more and more people get the metal ones..not so much cos of the energy savings, but because they withstand hurricanes. They are costly, but in the long run, a one time cost, paid largely with hurricane insurance money, is far better than paying for repairs (or a new one altogether when a tree falls on it) over and over..savings in energy is a bonus. so we're "going green" without it even being our goal LoL