[lug] Anyone else hate to get rid of old equipment?

[Nate Duehr]

On 5/25/2010 11:50 PM, Maxwell Spangler wrote:
> I mean no insult to you Nate, but your are a computer professional and
> not a climatologist so I can't put much faith in the ideas you describe
> above.   Very interesting ideas, but ideas, not facts.
>    

I agree.  I am not a climatologist.  :-)

The point of my ridiculously over-simplified idea, was to point out that 
there ARE alternative ideas about that particular topic out there and 
that if climatologists know better, they need to work harder on 
convincing the computer professionals of the world that X will happen if 
computer professional does Y.

The indirect motivation for my little list, is that it makes people 
think.  And we all get more ideas from the thoughts of others.

I loved the comment about reflectivity vs. absorption with ice vs. 
water.  Great thought.  Not sure if ice reflects more or less net energy 
than water absorbs, but that's measurable/knowable, and that's the kind 
of data/info I really like.  :-)

The basis for my idea is much more simply stated; It's a closed system.  
The water with either be in ice, liquid, or water vapor form... 
*somewhere* on or over the globe... and the scenario was built off of 
that.  Obviously the scenario is flawed.  But is the concept behind it?

As I mentioned, we can't even tell yet with any more than about 3 days 
accuracy where water will precipitate out and fall... but we state that 
"science knows" about Global Climate Change?

How about getting prediction of "backyard climate change" right first? :-)

I think we have a LONG way to go before we can accurately prove how much 
"Climate Change" is brought about by us "burning things", and how much 
is other natural causes.

(There's another fun definition: Natural Causes.  Are humans and human 
activities un-natural?  Heh.  That could lead indirectly to a discussion 
of religion... best leave that question alone!)

Our current generations are starting to think the automobile is an 
"ecological disaster".

What we have to realize is that the horse as transportation was also 
considered an "ecological disaster" in big cities at the previous turn 
of the century, and the automobile was the "advanced tech" that saved us 
from piles of horse manure 2 stories high in New York City, and rotting 
horse corpses in the street, where they fell.

There's a reason those "charming" Brownstones have steps up to the front 
door...

The next technology after the automobile will probably look cleaner and 
better to us, and will be an "ecological disaster" for the generations 
100 years after us, too.  ;-)  (Thus my thoughts about solar panels... 
just how bad are the side-effects of solar panels? I for one, won't be 
installing any unless I can quantify it in some way... or the price 
becomes "too cheap to ignore"...)

Nate