Remember me
▼ Content

Burning Wood Pellets


Burning Wood Pellets27-03-2017 15:08
James_
★★★☆☆
(693)
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions
27-03-2017 18:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions


Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.


The Parrot Killer
27-03-2017 23:53
James_
★★★☆☆
(693)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions


Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.


According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
28-03-2017 00:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions


Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.


According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


And you BELIEVE everything NOAA tells you, don't you? A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2017 03:26
litesong
★★★★★
(2160)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.

An excess 1 trillion+ tons of man-made(man-mad), non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 in our atmosphere PLUS lots of excess man-made CO2 dissolved in the oceans, & the Church of "badnight" bluffs that it has no effect on Earth bio-sphere.
Edited on 28-03-2017 03:28
28-03-2017 20:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.

An excess 1 trillion+ tons of man-made(man-mad), non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 in our atmosphere PLUS lots of excess man-made CO2 dissolved in the oceans, & the Church of "badnight" bluffs that it has no effect on Earth bio-sphere.


More random numbers, Litebeer?


The Parrot Killer
28-03-2017 22:40
James_
★★★☆☆
(693)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions


Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.


According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


And you BELIEVE everything NOAA tells you, don't you? A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.



Into the night,
I've known for years that we need co2, why I found NOAA quoting the IPCC. It is funny if you think about it. Most people who think co2 is causing climate change can't even read a graph. Why there are so many people being abusive when they post.
28-03-2017 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions


Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.


According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


And you BELIEVE everything NOAA tells you, don't you? A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.



Into the night,
I've known for years that we need co2, why I found NOAA quoting the IPCC. It is funny if you think about it. Most people who think co2 is causing climate change can't even read a graph. Why there are so many people being abusive when they post.


The abusiveness is religion inspired. The entire argument of Global Warming and greenhouse effect are circular arguments (in the case of greenhouse effect, it is actually an argument of the Stone).

Circular arguments use no predicate other than themselves to stand. The other name for a circular argument is 'faith'.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument. At least with Christianity, they admit their position is based on faith (at least most of them do). The trouble with the Church of Global Warming is that, like many other religions, anything other than it's own is considered to be the position of an agent of evil.

The Church of Global Warming is made up of those that are trying to 'save' the planet from you. Only they are the 'enlightened' ones that try to bring the message of their God to the world.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus and the Great Goddess Gaia. It uses carbon dioxide as the Holy Gas that reveals Man's sins. It has no problem with redefining words and rewriting history to meet it's goals. It routinely denies science, math, logic, or anything else that might threaten that religion.

It is part of that larger and more encompassing religion, the Church of Karl Marx. It seeks the same basic goals of using government to run your life instead of letting you run your life. It seeks to label any type of capitalism evil, and any kind of socialism as 'enlightened' even as they try to deny the history and misery of socialism.

Fortunately, people in the United States finally woke up. They are beginning to reject both Churches.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2017 23:12
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions


Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.


According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


James, O3 is generated by the UV light from the Sun. The process at one time was thought to be corruptible by other gases but it isn't. The ozone layer is the same now as it was in the time of Christ.

We have more skin cancer cases? Nothing but statistics. The more people you have the more cases you can get. Also white anglo-saxons are more prone to the condition than other races though they can all get it.
08-05-2017 15:32
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions


Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.


According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


So, if it continues to be that nobody can actually cite any sort of significant down side to increased CO2/temperatures then it looks like we have all the best of it.
08-05-2017 16:34
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions


Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.


According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


And you BELIEVE everything NOAA tells you, don't you? A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.



Into the night,
I've known for years that we need co2, why I found NOAA quoting the IPCC. It is funny if you think about it. Most people who think co2 is causing climate change can't even read a graph. Why there are so many people being abusive when they post.


The abusiveness is religion inspired. The entire argument of Global Warming and greenhouse effect are circular arguments (in the case of greenhouse effect, it is actually an argument of the Stone).

Circular arguments use no predicate other than themselves to stand. The other name for a circular argument is 'faith'.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument. At least with Christianity, they admit their position is based on faith (at least most of them do). The trouble with the Church of Global Warming is that, like many other religions, anything other than it's own is considered to be the position of an agent of evil.

The Church of Global Warming is made up of those that are trying to 'save' the planet from you. Only they are the 'enlightened' ones that try to bring the message of their God to the world.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus and the Great Goddess Gaia. It uses carbon dioxide as the Holy Gas that reveals Man's sins. It has no problem with redefining words and rewriting history to meet it's goals. It routinely denies science, math, logic, or anything else that might threaten that religion.

It is part of that larger and more encompassing religion, the Church of Karl Marx. It seeks the same basic goals of using government to run your life instead of letting you run your life. It seeks to label any type of capitalism evil, and any kind of socialism as 'enlightened' even as they try to deny the history and misery of socialism.

Fortunately, people in the United States finally woke up. They are beginning to reject both Churches.


And as an even more mentally deranged part of their religion they are allowed to break all their own rules while others are not.

Al Gore flies around the country giving $100,000 speeches about how fossil fuel is evil, then boards his private jet and flies home to his 24 room mansion with full air conditioning.

Each of the "enlightened" buys a new car whenever they can afford one and puts in 35,000 miles a year in it with the heater or air conditioner full on.

They will deny all of the science and history that contradicts their religion and then call you a "denier" for pointing out discrepancies in their logic.

When they aren't saying "denier" they claim you are in the employ of the "fossil fuel industry" when these companies are all publicly owned and all of their goings on are a matter of public record.

So not only is this a religion but it is also a mental derangement.

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/04/14/no-one-expects-the-climate-inquisition/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

http://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-prosecuted-378652

http://www.cfactcampus.org/?p=6579

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/02/david-suzuki-stephen-harper-jailed-climate_n_9143278.html

Look at our fellow posters here who are more than ready to deny ANY science. To misrepresent themselves and their supposed abilities and educations in order to support the Church of Global Warming as True Believers.

Ask yourself - how did this happen? How could free speech and science be completely forbidden even in the seat of the free speech movement?
08-05-2017 19:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This is actually in use as being carbon neutral. And this seems to agree with the IPCC's statements that we need to reduce CO2 emissions while we need CO2 to support the ozone layer.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions


Typical Yale Church of Environment doctrine.

You do not need CO2 to support the ozone layer. CO2 is not involved in the ozone layer. There is no carbon in ozone.


According to the IPCC record levels of both CO2 and methane are preventing the ozone layer from becoming further depleted. In my first post / thread "The Complexity of Climate Change" I posted both the quote and the link.


Jim

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


And you BELIEVE everything NOAA tells you, don't you? A priest of the Church of Global Warming TOLD you so.



Into the night,
I've known for years that we need co2, why I found NOAA quoting the IPCC. It is funny if you think about it. Most people who think co2 is causing climate change can't even read a graph. Why there are so many people being abusive when they post.


The abusiveness is religion inspired. The entire argument of Global Warming and greenhouse effect are circular arguments (in the case of greenhouse effect, it is actually an argument of the Stone).

Circular arguments use no predicate other than themselves to stand. The other name for a circular argument is 'faith'.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument. At least with Christianity, they admit their position is based on faith (at least most of them do). The trouble with the Church of Global Warming is that, like many other religions, anything other than it's own is considered to be the position of an agent of evil.

The Church of Global Warming is made up of those that are trying to 'save' the planet from you. Only they are the 'enlightened' ones that try to bring the message of their God to the world.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus and the Great Goddess Gaia. It uses carbon dioxide as the Holy Gas that reveals Man's sins. It has no problem with redefining words and rewriting history to meet it's goals. It routinely denies science, math, logic, or anything else that might threaten that religion.

It is part of that larger and more encompassing religion, the Church of Karl Marx. It seeks the same basic goals of using government to run your life instead of letting you run your life. It seeks to label any type of capitalism evil, and any kind of socialism as 'enlightened' even as they try to deny the history and misery of socialism.

Fortunately, people in the United States finally woke up. They are beginning to reject both Churches.


And as an even more mentally deranged part of their religion they are allowed to break all their own rules while others are not.
That stems from the Church of Marx. Is also appears in the Church of Global Warming. They can break any rule because they are the 'enlightened elite' trying to save the 'ignorant masses' from themselves.
Wake wrote:
Al Gore flies around the country giving $100,000 speeches about how fossil fuel is evil, then boards his private jet and flies home to his 24 room mansion with full air conditioning.

I refer to Al Gore as The Son. Politically crucified, but rises from the dead from time to time to say something stupid.
Wake wrote:
Each of the "enlightened" buys a new car whenever they can afford one and puts in 35,000 miles a year in it with the heater or air conditioner full on.
The heater in a car is essentially free use. The excess heat by the engine is going to have to be discharged either through the radiator or through the cabin. If you want heat in the cabin, feel free. It doesn't cost you gas mileage at all. Air conditioning, on the other hand (including when the defroster often uses the AC pump) is NOT free. It reduces mileage. Many of these idiots live in warmer climates, and so have the AC running much of the time.
Wake wrote:
They will deny all of the science and history that contradicts their religion and then call you a "denier" for pointing out discrepancies in their logic.
Redefinition of words is the core of every true believer. It gets to the point they barely speak English anymore. This is why I tend to stomp on it. Words like 'fact', 'science', 'method of science', 'Truth', 'reality', 'data', 'math', and 'logic' are the most abused and redefined words I've noticed.
Wake wrote:
When they aren't saying "denier" they claim you are in the employ of the "fossil fuel industry" when these companies are all publicly owned and all of their goings on are a matter of public record.
The word 'denier' is their word for an Outsider of their Religion. When they claim anything about the 'fossil fuel industry', I point out that fossils don't burn. That phrase is nothing more than a politically correct way to say 'evil fuel sources'. I insist on talking about individual fuels instead.
Wake wrote:
So not only is this a religion but it is also a mental derangement.

...deleted numerous links to climate denier persecutions...

You *could* call it that, but there is a goal to their madness. That goal is to become the 'elite' controlling every aspect of your life because you are considered an ignorant clod (another way of describing any Outsider).
Wake wrote:
Look at our fellow posters here who are more than ready to deny ANY science. To misrepresent themselves and their supposed abilities and educations in order to support the Church of Global Warming as True Believers.
It is for this reason that credentials really mean nothing here. Everyone is claiming some credential to support their argument. Arguing in this way is actually a fallacy, know as an argument by authority or an appeal to authority. It is a form of Bulverism. The argument stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of its source.
Wake wrote:
Ask yourself - how did this happen? How could free speech and science be completely forbidden even in the seat of the free speech movement?

I'm afraid the 'free speech movement' is the exact opposite. Free speech is only tolerated if it agrees with 'us'. Otherwise it must be 'put down' at any cost. The free speech movement was never about free speech. It has always been about imposing 'my' free speech over 'your' free speech.

This also comes from the Church of Marx.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2017 15:34
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
The heater in a car is essentially free use. The excess heat by the engine is going to have to be discharged either through the radiator or through the cabin. If you want heat in the cabin, feel free. It doesn't cost you gas mileage at all. Air conditioning, on the other hand (including when the defroster often uses the AC pump) is NOT free. It reduces mileage. Many of these idiots live in warmer climates, and so have the AC running much of the time.
[quote]

Many new cars' A/C contains the heater these day so that two separate systems aren't lugged around. So they do absorb energy.
09-05-2017 18:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
The heater in a car is essentially free use. The excess heat by the engine is going to have to be discharged either through the radiator or through the cabin. If you want heat in the cabin, feel free. It doesn't cost you gas mileage at all. Air conditioning, on the other hand (including when the defroster often uses the AC pump) is NOT free. It reduces mileage. Many of these idiots live in warmer climates, and so have the AC running much of the time.
[quote]

Many new cars' A/C contains the heater these day so that two separate systems aren't lugged around. So they do absorb energy.


Heated air is through the heater core. That's just plumbing off the cooling system in your car. It requires no power (other than the fan).

The AC only comes on for the defroster (you can override this on most cars) and when you want cooling. That system must be a separate system and remain so since the cooling medium used is so different between the engine and the AC.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2017 18:58
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
The heater in a car is essentially free use. The excess heat by the engine is going to have to be discharged either through the radiator or through the cabin. If you want heat in the cabin, feel free. It doesn't cost you gas mileage at all. Air conditioning, on the other hand (including when the defroster often uses the AC pump) is NOT free. It reduces mileage. Many of these idiots live in warmer climates, and so have the AC running much of the time.
[quote]

Many new cars' A/C contains the heater these day so that two separate systems aren't lugged around. So they do absorb energy.


Heated air is through the heater core. That's just plumbing off the cooling system in your car. It requires no power (other than the fan).

The AC only comes on for the defroster (you can override this on most cars) and when you want cooling. That system must be a separate system and remain so since the cooling medium used is so different between the engine and the AC.


Didn't you read my posting? Do you think that an A/C only cools? In order to improve gas mileage (mostly in town) you have to reduce the weight of the vehicle. One way is to not have two separate systems for heating and cooling. This not only removes the heater core but all of the plumbing and control mechanisms. New cars are doing this.
09-05-2017 19:16
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.
09-05-2017 19:32
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.


Here is what Tesla did since they have little waste heat. Since this time other cars are also following this example. It reduces weight and complexity. You do not have the modern problem of the owner not using anti-freeze but putting water in the cooling system which fills the heater radiator with sludge and the car heater failing at the most inappropriate times.
11-05-2017 17:45
James_
★★★☆☆
(693)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.


He's talking about a heat pump. Still not sure if the savings are significant. With hybrids and electric cars becoming more common increases the need to convert the same technology used at home for a number of years.
A heat pump is basically an air conditioner that can reverse flow.

https://energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems
11-05-2017 17:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
The heater in a car is essentially free use. The excess heat by the engine is going to have to be discharged either through the radiator or through the cabin. If you want heat in the cabin, feel free. It doesn't cost you gas mileage at all. Air conditioning, on the other hand (including when the defroster often uses the AC pump) is NOT free. It reduces mileage. Many of these idiots live in warmer climates, and so have the AC running much of the time.
[quote]

Many new cars' A/C contains the heater these day so that two separate systems aren't lugged around. So they do absorb energy.


Heated air is through the heater core. That's just plumbing off the cooling system in your car. It requires no power (other than the fan).

The AC only comes on for the defroster (you can override this on most cars) and when you want cooling. That system must be a separate system and remain so since the cooling medium used is so different between the engine and the AC.


Didn't you read my posting? Do you think that an A/C only cools? In order to improve gas mileage (mostly in town) you have to reduce the weight of the vehicle. One way is to not have two separate systems for heating and cooling. This not only removes the heater core but all of the plumbing and control mechanisms. New cars are doing this.


I have not seen such a system yet. If new cars are using the AC as a heat pump (which is what is always was, basically), then yes...you will reduce gas mileage for both heating and cooling.

I recently looked at the 2017 Subaru Outback and Forester. They do not do this.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2017 17:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.


Here is what Tesla did since they have little waste heat. Since this time other cars are also following this example. It reduces weight and complexity. You do not have the modern problem of the owner not using anti-freeze but putting water in the cooling system which fills the heater radiator with sludge and the car heater failing at the most inappropriate times.


Using straight water will corrode the main radiator too. There is nothing special about the heater core, other than the difficulty of getting to it to replace it.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2017 17:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.


He's talking about a heat pump. Still not sure if the savings are significant. With hybrids and electric cars becoming more common increases the need to convert the same technology used at home for a number of years.
A heat pump is basically an air conditioner that can reverse flow.

https://energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems


For electric cars this makes a certain amount of sense. For gasoline power cars, it doesn't make much sense. A few pounds is not a significant weight savings. You would only save weight by losing efficiency (which is why you tried to save the weight!).


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2017 23:18
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't have time to look it up...never heard of this. In the past it's simply heated coolant through a core and fan. The coolant was hot anyway. Are new cars using some kind of electric heat? I don't get how this decreases weight as old systems total weight is about 2 lbs....including a plenum damper.


He's talking about a heat pump. Still not sure if the savings are significant. With hybrids and electric cars becoming more common increases the need to convert the same technology used at home for a number of years.
A heat pump is basically an air conditioner that can reverse flow.

https://energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems


Thanks James - since I had my concussion I sometimes cannot remember proper terms.




Join the debate Burning Wood Pellets:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Burning Earth Bears Witness in California511-12-2017 19:24
Greenhouse Effect and the 1909 Wood's Experiment12128-08-2017 20:34
burning fossil fuels should result in a major cooling factor, here's why713-09-2016 22:36
cost benefit analysis of burning fossil fuels and why fossil fuels should be massively subsidized606-01-2016 22:58
burning fossil fuels is doing God's bidding104-01-2016 16:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact