So the odds were long and the fall-out? Oh, it must be with the BP oil, lost in the gulf.

Wait, the sky is falling, now you can duck.

What is "quite a bit"? You mean the relatively few that live in the desert and the fewer that bath. Forget the fact that only 5% of the energy used in this country goes to domestic residential use.

I make the distinction between preservationists (think pickles) and conservationist (a group to which I belong).

Conservation is good, since all agree that waste is a bad thing, but more will be helped by affordable solutions. Until the rest of the world gets on board, a "Green" house here and there will not have a measurable effect on the environment.

I thought the real threat, and the cause of "global warming" was CFC's and that big hole in the Ozone layer...no wait, the "hole" is gone...in the gulf perhaps?

If the threat de jour is our old friend CO2, maybe we all should breath a little less...or at least cut back on the hot air.

Posted By BadgerBoilerMN on 28 Jul 2012 12:34 PM 
...snip...
 Forget the fact that only 5% of the energy used in this country goes to domestic residential use.
...snip...

Where does the 5% figure come from for the percentage of total energy use in this country (presumably U.S.) come from?  Accoriding to http://energyfuture.wikidot.com/us-energy-use, the figure is 28.6% for 2009 in the U.S.  I see other figures like 20.9% http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/gbstats.pdf  Please provide a reference for the 5% figure. 
 

I am so grateful for the correction on my typos. 50%, 5-0, off the top of my head but I accept your figures and conclude roughly half that total on HVAC.

I argue a balanced approach in energy policy - both generation and conservation - will win more hearts and informed minds than trying to predict the next ice age. It will take us generations to replace low efficiency buildings. Clearly cheap, clean fuel is the answer. Modular nuclear power could head off the truly detrimental effects of the current industrial revolutions in China, India, et al.

The US is doing an excellent job of managing pollution by comparison and we are paying for it. Instead of speculating on weather "models" we should be perfecting a nearly flawlessly US nuclear energy program. If we want to think on a grand scale, master the atom and feed the world.

Posted By BadgerBoilerMN on 28 Jul 2012 12:34 PM
...snip...

I thought the real threat, and the cause of "global warming" was CFC's and that big hole in the Ozone layer...no wait, the "hole" is gone...in the gulf perhaps?

...snip...

Hopefully you understand that the concern about CFC's was related to ultraviolet light reaching the earth's surface, causing an increase in skin cancer and cataracts, and NOT global warming.  Understanding the relationship between CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer was a great success story for the United Nations and the scientists of the world.  The Montreal Protocol of 1987 alerted the world to the problem, and proposed a schedule to achieve a solution.  I have a colleague who works for a company sells A/C equipment to Walmart, and I understand that Walmart required their suppliers to meet the goals for CFC substitution well ahead of the guidelines provided in the Montreal Protocol.  Suddenly to meet the market demand, a lot of engineers and scientists figured out how to find substitutes for CFC's, and the goals were met well before the guidelines in the Protocol.  Some scientists project that by 2080, the upper atmospheric levels of ozone will return to their levels of the 1950s (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-25-years/), so the problems with the ozone layer are not yet healed, and the hole in the ozone layer did not disappear into the gulf.  At this point, it appears that the problem is on track toward a solution, a great success story for scientists and the governments of the world with help from commercial operations as well.   

Many of your stated "facts" are so erroneous like "...Britain (zero natural resources)..." and "...only 5% of the energy used in this country goes to domestic residential use" that it makes it difficult to tell when you are trying to be facetious and when you do not understand the problem being discussed.  Let us try to move these discussions to a level of documented observations and projections by reliable independent sources.   

I beg your pardon;

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/earth/strong-storms-threaten-ozone-layer-over-us-study-says.html?pagewanted=all

So was it violent storms or CFCs that made the hole?

I am serious, and only pose these questions in this forum to get the folks who buy, all things Green, to think before they spend/or vote for that matter.

Saying you are Green or practicing convergent thinking does not make you smarter than everyone else. Is is a good way to make money.

The main part of my work is specifying and installing NG fired condensing boilers. The effect is immediate and verifiable, carbon foot print half of oil and no low NOx and SOx, sources of acid rain. CO2 a world threat...

Posted By BadgerBoilerMN on 28 Jul 2012 12:34 PM
...snip...

I thought the real threat, and the cause of "global warming" was CFC's and that big hole in the Ozone layer...no wait, the "hole" is gone...in the gulf perhaps?

The New York Times article that your quote (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/s...wanted=all) does not support your statement that the cause of global warming is CFCs.  Rather, it suggests that global warming and the resulting violent storms might contribute to a reduction of high-altitude ozone (as do CFCs).  The introductory paragraph to the NY Times articles states: "Strong summer thunderstorms that pump water high into the upper atmosphere pose a threat to the protective ozone layer over the United States, researchers said on Thursday, drawing one of the first links between climate change and ozone loss over populated areas. "

What is "quite a bit"? You mean the relatively few that live in the desert and the fewer that bath

Germany is not in the desert. Many other countries have a much higher utilization rate than the US.

CO2 a world threat...

Actually, I think that might be one of the first statements you've gotten correct.

NG fired condensing boilers. The effect is immediate and verifiable, carbon foot print half of oil

What do you think the carbon footprint of PV panels or wind turbines is? Solar thermal panels?

I am serious, and only pose these questions in this forum to get the folks who buy, all things Green, to think before they spend/or vote for that matter.

Given that you operate under a substantial burden of incorrect information and premises, does that seem like the sort of thing you should be doing? Maybe you should just stick to the boiler stuff which you seem to know well.

Climate change skeptic and physicist Richard Muller co-founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project three years ago to debunk global warming fears, even getting a $150,000 grant from the conservative Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation for his work, today writes in the New York Times: "Call me a converted skeptic... humans are almost entirely the cause. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."

Obviously my references go unnoticed or deliberately ignored.

But if you would like to talk about Germany, and you suppose my arguments lack the "facts". Lets start with your Germany. (Not a desert or high desert plains, such as Albuquerque, where solar can be marginally effective at both DHW and space heating and where I actually worked on solar systems including primitive but effective black rooftop water "heaters", more a desert of honesty, froth with self-promoting industrialist and engineers).

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/07/19/13253/

I prefer to sell people Green, rather than coerce them through gov't. intervention and the predictable collapse of industries as you now witness with the highly questionable wind power industry.

While your at it, you can get another opinion on Wind Power...just guessing your drinking their cool aide too.
http://windpowerfacts.info/

Posted By BadgerBoilerMN on 29 Jul 2012 09:01 PM 
...snip...
 
...such as Albuquerque, where solar can be marginally effective at both DHW and space heating

...snip...

Why do you think solar is only "marginally effective" in Albuquerque.  The solar insolation in Albuquerque is 5.92 kWh/m^2/day annual average, higher that what we have here in south-central Colorado that is 5.78 kWh/m^2/day annual average.  I have demonstrated net-zero source energy here with a modest size PV system (3.15 kW DC rated), a small (25 ft^2 collector) solar thermal system, limited passive solar, and a well insulated house.  It should be even a bit easier in Alguquerque, so I would rate solar a LOT better than "marginal" there.       

Obviously my references go unnoticed or deliberately ignored.

I tend to pass on utter foolishness, but if you really thought you had something and are sure it isn't another "typo" or something, then feel free to point it out.