General discussion


The Data are Clear - - We MUST act NOW

By maxwell edison ·
Over the past ~140 years (the same period of time the global warming zealots, I mean activists, have mentioned), over which fossil fuels have been burned, thereby causing the proven 1 degree rise in the earth's temperature (not including the 1 degree margin of error, of course), resulting in the planet destroying phenomenon we know as global warming, cities have sprung up, not only in the United States, but all over the globe, that have used almost exclusively concrete and steel, two materials that absorb heat at very impressive rates. A new scientific and engineering study will debunk that myth, and suggest instead that global warming is not caused by the burning of fossil fuels, but rather the overuse of common construction materials, particularly concrete. And "big concrete", one of the biggest industries in the United States, has actually taken steps to keep this astonishing study from being made public. In fact, I am being silenced as we speak!

This scientific and engineering study, undertaken by scientists and engineers working under a 4 billion dollar grant from the federal government (but needing more, much more), has provided conclusive and commonly accepted data that has clearly shown the thermal conductive properties of concrete generate 12 BTUs of heat, per hour, per square foot/inch thick slab of concrete; the thermal conductive properties of steel are 325 BTUs per hour; and the thermal conductive properties of aluminum are an astounding 1500 BTUs per hour. When used in construction, these materials act as global heat-sinks, dispersing an unprecedented amount of heat energy into the atmosphere. And its impact on the fragile atmosphere, which was designed (by nothing or nobody, by the way) to absorb ONLY the heat entering the atmosphere as generated by the sun, not the reverse flow caused by these man made heat-sinks, and generated by greedy, selfish, and disgusting human beings.

During the daylight hours, WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING, these materials, world wide, absorb hundreds of trillions of BTUs of heat, which is energy that would have otherwise gone unused and unradiated. At night, when the temperature of the earth drops significantly, the properties of those materials start releasing all that absorbed heat. Engineering studies that used infrared sensors have actually documented this heat release, and have proven conclusively that heat from these materials radiates upwards into the atmosphere, thereby causing an increase in the overall atmospheric temperature. Culminated over decades upon decades of abuse and overuse, the damage is obvious. In fact, in 10 more years, the heat generated will have caused irreversible damage. We must act now. The future of the planet is at stake!

Consider this. In the United States alone, the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, otherwise known as the Interstate Highway System, has over 46,000 miles of paved surface; and considering the construction dimensions of the average slab of Interstate Highway, one can estimate that over 685 BILLION square feet/inch thick of concrete is absorbing heat every day. (And that doesn't even consider the millions of tons of STEEL wire mesh embedded into the concrete.) At 12 BTUs per hour, per square foot/inch thick slab of concrete, one can conservatively document that the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, otherwise known as the Interstate Highway System, alone releases 8.2 TRILLION BTUs (685 billion Sq. Ft. times 12 BTU) of heat each and every night, after the sun goes down. This is heat energy that, before the construction of the Interstate Highway System, would never have been captured, and would never have subsequently been released into our fragile atmosphere.

And that's just the Interstate Highway system in the United States. Let's calculate all the other highways in the world, AND all that steel and aluminum used in those massive buildings in hundreds of cities all over the world, but particularly the United States, of course. (Oh no, let's not; my scientific calculator is misplaced at the moment.) Suffice it to say, however, that hundreds, if not thousands of trillions of BTUs of heat, released by concrete and steel every day, are clearly the cause for the 1 degree rise in average global temperature over the past 140 years (not including the 1 degree margin of error, of course). This is heat energy that was not absorbed and subsequently released ~140 years ago, but it is today. The data is clear. Please try to prove these data calculations -- BASED ON FACTS -- wrong, or admit to the obvious conclusion.

I propose the following: I, Maxwell Edison, call to order a meeting of government and heating engineers around the world, to meet in Desoto, Kansas to discuss what the world must to do prevent this heat-loss from our highways and cities from heating the atmosphere, thereby causing global warming. The temperature has, after all, increased 1 degree (not including the 1 degree margin of error, of course), and this heat-loss from the construction materials is the cause, as commonly agreed upon by reputable scientists and engineers. I suggest that we write a treaty that all industrialized nations of the world will sign, to not only stop, but to reverse this heating trend. We will call it the Desoto Treaty, or perhaps even the Toto Treaty in case people don't understand that Desoto really is a town in Kansas.

The treaty will outline the obvious solution. We must implement an immediate moratorium on all new construction, whether that be roads or buildings, which uses concrete, steel, or aluminum. Moreover, we must force all these industrialized nations of the world to replace all those building materials currently in use with more environmentally friendly materials. We should further call upon the leaders of these nations, especially the President of the United States, to provide funding for research and development of new technology for these environmentally friendly building materials, and phase out the use of ALL current materials. The United States is, after all, the biggest abuser -- all those highways and skyscrapers; it's consumption, construction, and overbuilding run amok, if you ask me. Of course, to avoid becoming a burden on less affluent nations, we can devise a scheme, I mean a plan, to trade construction material credits. But those details, of course, can be worked out by our good-intentioned friends at the United Nations.

Okay, why am I posting this message? Well, I have one question. What sounds better, the Desoto Treaty or the Toto Treaty?

------------ Edited as follows ------------

This message was edited ONLY to make Neil happy. Neil, you're welcome.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

390 total posts (Page 4 of 39)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by lvyoung In reply to Volcanic carbon dioxide

I would need sources for this claim.

Collapse -

Well, you could look for your own.

by neilb@uk In reply to ???

I admit, the 100x was a little hyperbole. It is, in fact, closer to 30x but what the **** - I couldn't be bothered to do the maths for this thread. Who would care?

As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^14g of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^18g. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^15g of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^18g of CO2.

Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources.

Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.

Now go and do some work for yourself.

Collapse -


by tryten In reply to Volcanic carbon dioxide

Cows...Cow flatulence is the one of the leading cause of greenhouse gasses in the world right now. Factory style dairies in California emit ungodly amounts of greenhouse gasses. More than most industrial complexes because they are not regulated by the government at all. Then again how do you regulate cow farts.

Collapse -

Can you say Krakatoa?

by X-MarCap In reply to How about the Tar Treaty ...

Europe didn't have much of a summer that year. Most of the Earth got record lows...


Collapse -

Taken on average

by TonytheTiger In reply to Can you say Krakatoa?

Humans provide a little over 7 gigatons of CO2 per year, volcanoes about 150 megatons. That's about 50 times as much. Or, taken another way, humans account for approximately 20% of the carbon in the atmosphere; Volcanoes, less than half a percent.

Collapse -

Yes but I was speaking of the one that was

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Can you say Krakatoa?

about 80 years before for that - damned if I can remember its name. Went off as bad as Krakatoa but was the year before the big famine in Europe and is now believed to be the cause of it.

Collapse -

Krakatoa, late 18xx

by rob mekel In reply to Can you say Krakatoa?

wasn't that because the sun was blocked due to the dust.


Collapse -

Tambora volcano in Indonesia, in 1815

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Krakatoa, late 18xx

was the one I was trying to think of, not Krakatoa.

BTW talks about volcanic gas emissions thus ".. The sulfate aerosols also promote complex chemical reactions on their surfaces that alter chlorine and nitrogen chemical species in the stratosphere. This effect, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from chlorofluorocarbon pollution, generates chlorine monoxide (ClO), which destroys ozone (O3). As the aerosols grow and coagulate, they settle down into the upper troposphere where they serve as nuclei for cirrus clouds and further modify the Earth's radiation balance. .."

Another important apsect of global warming is to note that the ice cores have shown the earth has gone through many stages of warming and cooling, thus showing that it naturally has temperature variations. Man does have an effect, as do all animals - just think about all that methane from farts - but it is wrong to attribute all the faults on man's activities as some do.

Collapse -

Quantitative, not qualitative

by kpotter In reply to Tambora volcano in Indone ...

<p>"Man does have an effect, as do all animals - just think about all that methane from farts - but it is wrong to attribute all the faults on man's activities as some do."</p>
<p>Yes, the temperature varies but the amount and timescale are what's important. The timescale is typically on the order of 10,000 years (probably due to orbital mechanics) with at least one instance where we saw a significant temperature spike occur over 1000 years (which preceded/occurred during a massive extinction event).</p>
<p>Volcanic ash from an erruption can significantly reduce temperature (as can any increase in particulate matter), however the time scale until it is removed from the atmosphere is on the order of decades if not years. CO2 is closer to 1000's of years to remove naturally.</p>
<p>Taken from a post on "I've seen a slightly different "98%" argument made by climate skeptics (e.g., U. Berner in various popular brochures and articles): "98% of the greenhouse effect is natural and only 2% anthropogenic".
This is because the anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing (~2.4 W/m2 until now, here IPCC is cited) is only ~2% of the total ("natural") greenhouse forcing.
What these people usually leave out, of course, is that the natural greenhouse effect warms the surface temperature by ~33 ?C (all else being equal, notably albedo).
A rough and linear back-of-envelope estimate of how large the 2% anthropogenic change in greenhouse effect might be: 2% of 33 ?C is ~0.7 ?C, very similar to what the more detailed and correct calculation gives.
So, there is nothing wrong with this version of the 2% argument - except that it is often used in a context and in a way designed to mislead the public, i.e., it is used to suggest to a lay audience that "global warming is 98% natural", so we are not responsible and can't do anything about it."</p>

Collapse -

I still think that fossil fuels are our biggest concern

by mjwx In reply to The Data are Clear - - We ...

I think that the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor. More significant than concrete, which has been in use since the roman days. Large structures exist in nature too, take Ayres rock in Australia for example. Its one giant rock (One single object embedded in the ground rather than part of it, firmly embedded). Besides this WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL (see below).

The Oil companies must be made to pay for research into alternate energy sources and for their implementation. Two reasons 1. They have the money (gained from raping our natural resources) 2. I like the idea of these kind of people (truly soul-less and I think even max could agree with this point) digging their own grave.

If you aren?t scared enough you should look at look at Life After The Oil Crash.

Spreading mass fear and looking for suitable post-apocalyptic leader?s world wide.

<edit: fixed link>

Back to Community Forum
390 total posts (Page 4 of 39)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums