Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Watts Up With That)   Want to combat global warming? Don't use a green roof. Want to improve the environment? A white roof might not be where it's at   (wattsupwiththat.com) divider line 96
    More: Interesting, Berkeley, thermoelectric cooling  
•       •       •

3692 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jan 2014 at 10:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-31 07:39:48 PM  
So this is a blog advertising that the author has no reading comprehension?

"...changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming." -Jonathon Moseley, American Potato

I see. Submitter's an idiot.
 
2014-01-31 07:44:23 PM  
i257.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-31 07:56:13 PM  
The Psychedelic Shack

that's where it's at.
 
2014-01-31 08:11:07 PM  
Wait, it's just a cost-effectiveness study. The bit about white roofs being better for global warming, which is what the headline is about, and which interested me enough to click the link, is completely glossed over.

Boo this article. Boo!
 
2014-01-31 09:44:40 PM  
I think AGW is largely a farce, but I'm not against improving things, so...
Want to mandate white roofs on all new construction? Fine by me.
Outlaw lawnmowers? I like trees better anyway.
Want a carbon credit exchange? Go to hell you greedy market rigging farknuggets
 
2014-01-31 09:45:05 PM  
I've been assured by a number of Fark Independents(tm) and their graphs that global warming is a hoax.
 
2014-01-31 10:11:24 PM  

Triumph: I think AGW is largely a farce, but I'm not against improving things, so...
Want to mandate white roofs on all new construction? Fine by me.
Outlaw lawnmowers? I like trees better anyway.
Want a carbon credit exchange? Go to hell you greedy market rigging farknuggets


Now, here's the thing I just can't comprehend. Energy corporations and industries that pollute have a clear incentive to disprove AGW, they have unimaginably vast resources of wealth and influence, and they have actually been caught making attempts to corrupt and undermine the science supporting AGW.

But *they're* not the hoaxers?

But the 97% of scientists who concur that global warming is real and man made... They've all been bought off by some OTHER cabal of rich and powerful illuminati that stands to, what, enslave us all with cleaner air and water?

Who is it manipulating the data, how did they do it, and what to they stand to gain?
 
2014-01-31 10:24:35 PM  

QU!RK1019: But *they're* not the hoaxers?


No, they ARE the hoaxers. Remember when CNN did the whole big "Planet in Peril" series in 2007? The entire thing was paid for by Conoco Phillips. It's like when the Federal Reserve was formed, all the major banks acted like they fiercely opposed it, even though they thought up the scheme. They had to pretend the Fed was against their interests.
 
2014-01-31 10:30:27 PM  

Triumph: QU!RK1019: But *they're* not the hoaxers?

No, they ARE the hoaxers. Remember when CNN did the whole big "Planet in Peril" series in 2007? The entire thing was paid for by Conoco Phillips. It's like when the Federal Reserve was formed, all the major banks acted like they fiercely opposed it, even though they thought up the scheme. They had to pretend the Fed was against their interests.


Whoa... That's a new one for me. What's their endgame here?
 
2014-01-31 10:41:15 PM  

QU!RK1019: Whoa... That's a new one for me. What's their endgame here?


The Fed is owned by the big banking interests. They lend the government money through it and backstop all their risk via bailouts like TARP. What the banking and oil interests (the same - think Rockefeller) want with a carbon exchange is a way to insure their own profit margins in a world of collapsing energy prices. Read Engdahl's book Myths, Lies and Oil Wars to get the history. The problem for the energy companies is that energy is getting less scarce and hence less profitable. They've been able to rig the supply from the 70s until now through the oil cartel and wars that disrupt the Middle East, but very soon most American energy will come from this hemisphere.
 
2014-01-31 10:44:07 PM  

QU!RK1019: Triumph: I think AGW is largely a farce, but I'm not against improving things, so...
Want to mandate white roofs on all new construction? Fine by me.
Outlaw lawnmowers? I like trees better anyway.
Want a carbon credit exchange? Go to hell you greedy market rigging farknuggets

Now, here's the thing I just can't comprehend. Energy corporations and industries that pollute have a clear incentive to disprove AGW, they have unimaginably vast resources of wealth and influence, and they have actually been caught making attempts to corrupt and undermine the science supporting AGW.

But *they're* not the hoaxers?

But the 97% of scientists who concur that global warming is real and man made... They've all been bought off by some OTHER cabal of rich and powerful illuminati that stands to, what, enslave us all with cleaner air and water?

Who is it manipulating the data, how did they do it, and what to they stand to gain?


Carbon credit exchange.  The stock market wasn't good enough, so the jokers who run it found a new way to ruin things for their own personal gain.
 
2014-01-31 11:06:50 PM  

Triumph: I think AGW is largely a farce


All those joker scientists ... they're hilarious!!
 
2014-01-31 11:09:42 PM  
If you want to help the environment, I suppose committing suicide in a non toxic way would be for the best.
 
2014-01-31 11:10:26 PM  
Green roofs are a nice idea but the payback on them is about 1,000 years. They consume way more resources in infrastructure to support and nourish them than they'll ever save and in most places they need replanting every time there's a bad winter.
 
2014-01-31 11:15:17 PM  
So we're linking academic articles on Fark now?

I'll give this thread a couple hours to get hot. All these conscientious Farkers are certainly reading the article first.
 
2014-01-31 11:23:38 PM  

fusillade762: I've been assured by a number of Fark Independents(tm) and their graphs that global warming is a hoax.


It is a hoax.  One perpetrated by the UN in order to gain control of the United States government through environmental regulations.

/This is something my step-brother actually believes.
 
2014-01-31 11:24:55 PM  
First I was like:

4.bp.blogspot.com

Then I saw the source of the article.
 
2014-01-31 11:36:32 PM  
Maybe so.. but think of all the carbon credits I'll rack up having my 3rd world houseboy cut the lawn with scissors
 
2014-01-31 11:37:01 PM  

Triumph: QU!RK1019: Whoa... That's a new one for me. What's their endgame here?

The Fed is owned by the big banking interests. They lend the government money through it and backstop all their risk via bailouts like TARP. What the banking and oil interests (the same - think Rockefeller) want with a carbon exchange is a way to insure their own profit margins in a world of collapsing energy prices. Read Engdahl's book Myths, Lies and Oil Wars to get the history. The problem for the energy companies is that energy is getting less scarce and hence less profitable. They've been able to rig the supply from the 70s until now through the oil cartel and wars that disrupt the Middle East, but very soon most American energy will come from this hemisphere.


So, where does the data come into all this? Is the overwhelming evidence corroborating AGW all faked? Or is it real, but the energy interests are playing it up?
 
2014-01-31 11:52:07 PM  
If you are going to refer to colors in the same headline as color euphemisms, put the euphemism in quote marks; there is a difference between a green roof and a "green" roof.

/stupid hippies
/also, all food is organic, you twats
 
2014-01-31 11:55:47 PM  
Goddamnit, stop linking Watts. He's deleted more than a third of his blog posts when someone has called him out on his lies. He's barely a certified meteorologist and has no climatology background.
 
2014-02-01 12:05:52 AM  
What about a silver roof?
 
2014-02-01 12:11:54 AM  
Gee, I haven't visited a Watts page since I started to really use my brain, about four years ago. Not about to start now.
 
2014-02-01 12:12:18 AM  
Umm, you don't build green roofs to save the world. You build them, especially in cities, to have pleasant outdoor spaces with limited access. Or because you're a hobbit.
 
2014-02-01 12:13:28 AM  

QU!RK1019: So, where does the data come into all this? Is the overwhelming evidence corroborating AGW all faked? Or is it real, but the energy interests are playing it up?


What does the data really show? That the climate is changing? The climate is always changing. The only constant to climate is change. I don't doubt that man has some impact on the planet, but deforestation is probably a bigger deal than oil burning. It's certainly a bigger problem on habitat for animals. Where are the enviromentalists in that fight? It's all about "making a market" out of CO2. Prince Charles was making a big CO2 fuss just today, pretending he's a populist. Anybody who thinks that guy speaks for the 99% is naive beyond belief.
 
2014-02-01 12:15:12 AM  

captainktainer: Goddamnit, stop linking Watts. He's deleted more than a third of his blog posts when someone has called him out on his lies. He's barely a certified meteorologist and has no climatology background.


Big ol' pile of lies who likes lying.  Fun set of what to expect from WUWT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeTGBwr_6rU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCoi94n0aJg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neH50KofxL0
 
2014-02-01 12:16:53 AM  

fusillade762: I've been assured by a number of Fark Independents(tm) and their graphs that global warming is a hoax.


I want to believe they're paid shills.  I really want to.

Because they alternative is that they're being that obtuse for free.
 
2014-02-01 12:19:24 AM  

Bondith: fusillade762: I've been assured by a number of Fark Independents(tm) and their graphs that global warming is a hoax.

I want to believe they're paid shills.  I really want to.

Because they alternative is that they're being that obtuse for free.


FTFM

What the hell is it with me and making typos that turn out to be correctly spelled different words?
 
2014-02-01 12:22:18 AM  

Bondith: Bondith: fusillade762: I've been assured by a number of Fark Independents(tm) and their graphs that global warming is a hoax.

I want to believe they're paid shills.  I really want to.

Because they alternative is that they're being that obtuse for free.

FTFM

What the hell is it with me and making typos that turn out to be correctly spelled different words?


Clearly you have a brain tumor.
 
2014-02-01 12:23:08 AM  

wildcardjack: Bondith: Bondith: fusillade762: I've been assured by a number of Fark Independents(tm) and their graphs that global warming is a hoax.

I want to believe they're paid shills.  I really want to.

Because they alternative is that they're being that obtuse for free.

FTFM

What the hell is it with me and making typos that turn out to be correctly spelled different words?

Clearly you have a brain tumor.


That's the only logical flapjack.
 
2014-02-01 12:27:15 AM  
So far I kinda like global warming
 
2014-02-01 12:33:21 AM  

wildcardjack: Umm, you don't build green roofs to save the world. You build them, especially in cities, to have pleasant outdoor spaces with limited access. Or because you're a hobbit.


Well, they do help to reduce storm water runoff for places that have combined sewer system overflows.
 
2014-02-01 12:38:28 AM  

Triumph: QU!RK1019: So, where does the data come into all this? Is the overwhelming evidence corroborating AGW all faked? Or is it real, but the energy interests are playing it up?

What does the data really show? That the climate is changing? The climate is always changing. The only constant to climate is change. I don't doubt that man has some impact on the planet, but deforestation is probably a bigger deal than oil burning. It's certainly a bigger problem on habitat for animals. Where are the enviromentalists in that fight? It's all about "making a market" out of CO2. Prince Charles was making a big CO2 fuss just today, pretending he's a populist. Anybody who thinks that guy speaks for the 99% is naive beyond belief.


Wait... Where are the environmentalists on deforestation and habitat loss? Are you kidding me? I don't even know how to begin to respond to something that ridiculous.

As a matter of fact, your assumption that all there is is the same amount of change there has always been is absurd too.

Sorry I'm getting insulting here, but I guess I'm just kinda surprised by the sudden swerve into ignorance this conversation has taken.
 
2014-02-01 12:39:42 AM  

wildcardjack: Umm, you don't build green roofs to save the world. You build them, especially in cities, to have pleasant outdoor spaces with limited access. Or because you're a hobbit.


You build them to get LEED credits, feel good and demonstrate what a responsible developer you are. They are by no means outdoor spaces and aren't designed to walk on or even around,
 
2014-02-01 12:44:04 AM  

Triumph: QU!RK1019: Whoa... That's a new one for me. What's their endgame here?

The Fed is owned by the big banking interests. They lend the government money through it and backstop all their risk via bailouts like TARP. What the banking and oil interests (the same - think Rockefeller) want with a carbon exchange is a way to insure their own profit margins in a world of collapsing energy prices. Read Engdahl's book Myths, Lies and Oil Wars to get the history. The problem for the energy companies is that energy is getting less scarce and hence less profitable. They've been able to rig the supply from the 70s until now through the oil cartel and wars that disrupt the Middle East, but very soon most American energy will come from this hemisphere.


Um, I thought we already got the near totality of our energy from the western hemisphere.  There is no reason why we should ever import uranium or coal from the eastern hemisphere, and we produce quite a bit of oil ourselves, and we import quite a bit from Canada and Mexico... and South America.

Our interests in middle eastern oil are much more about trade and strategy than supplying ourselves.  Which is why it's completely bullshiat when a war in the middle east jacks up our gas prices, but that traces back to speculators.
 
2014-02-01 12:47:33 AM  
The fact that anyone gives "Watts up with that" even a second glance after repeated failings is exactly what's wrong with the world.
 
2014-02-01 12:51:02 AM  

Triumph: QU!RK1019: So, where does the data come into all this? Is the overwhelming evidence corroborating AGW all faked? Or is it real, but the energy interests are playing it up?

What does the data really show? That the climate is changing? The climate is always changing. The only constant to climate is change. I don't doubt that man has some impact on the planet, but deforestation is probably a bigger deal than oil burning. It's certainly a bigger problem on habitat for animals. Where are the enviromentalists in that fight? It's all about "making a market" out of CO2. Prince Charles was making a big CO2 fuss just today, pretending he's a populist. Anybody who thinks that guy speaks for the 99% is naive beyond belief.


Is there a name for a scattershot of shiatty talking points? Argument via am radio?
 
2014-02-01 12:52:32 AM  

cthellis: captainktainer: Goddamnit, stop linking Watts. He's deleted more than a third of his blog posts when someone has called him out on his lies. He's barely a certified meteorologist and has no climatology background.

Big ol' pile of lies who likes lying.  Fun set of what to expect from WUWT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeTGBwr_6rU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCoi94n0aJg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neH50KofxL0


Forgot this one in the middle of them:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpRypD23Kik
 
2014-02-01 12:59:05 AM  

electricjebus: Um, I thought we already got the near totality of our energy from the western hemisphere.


Yeah - you're right, it's past "most" and heading for "all".

electricjebus: Our interests in middle eastern oil are much more about trade and strategy than supplying ourselves.  Which is why it's completely bullshiat when a war in the middle east jacks up our gas prices, but that traces back to speculators


The key is that OPEC continue to price oil in dollars. Petrodollars help the U.S. dictate policy and is a windfall for banks/energy companies to recycle the flow of dollars.
 
2014-02-01 01:10:05 AM  

Triumph: What does the data really show? That the climate is changing? The climate is always changing.


The data shows that the climate is changing at a rate and in a direction that is not explained by the natural causes (solar irradiance, Milankovitch Cycles, etc.).

The data shows that the most likely reason for this atypical rate and direction of climate change is, by far, anthropogenic (i,e, man-made) via the greenhouse effect.

Projections of what the impact of this climate change strongly suggest that the weather patterns will become more chaotic and more energetic. That there will be significant ocean rise which will threaten many key population centers. That there will be climate shifts that will happen faster than the flora and fauna can adapt ... we are already seeing it.

So we can listen to you, random uneducated, unqualified internet poster and say "Bah! The climate is always changing. Let's do nothing." Or we can listen to the experts in the fields with their PhD's and decades of experience, their equipment and data, and the fact that it is their full time jobs to figure all this stuff out.

Call me crazy but I'm going to go with the scientists over a political pawn regurgitating tired old talking points and pushing the "do nothing" agenda.
 
2014-02-01 01:13:07 AM  

Farking Canuck: The data shows that the climate is changing at a rate and in a direction that is not explained by the natural causes (solar irradiance, Milankovitch Cycles, etc.).

The data shows that the most likely reason for this atypical rate and direction of climate change is, by far, anthropogenic (i,e, man-made) via the greenhouse effect.

Projections of what the impact of this climate change strongly suggest that the weather patterns will become more chaotic and more energetic. That there will be significant ocean rise which will threaten many key population centers. That there will be climate shifts that will happen faster than the flora and fauna can adapt ... we are already seeing it.

So we can listen to you, random uneducated, unqualified internet poster and say "Bah! The climate is always changing. Let's do nothing." Or we can listen to the experts in the fields with their PhD's and decades of experience, their equipment and data, and the fact that it is their full time jobs to figure all this stuff out.

Call me crazy but I'm going to go with the scientists over a political pawn regurgitating tired old talking points and pushing the "do nothing" agenda.


My god, someone who manages the "there are easily predicted and understood levels of serious harm that do not correspond to sudden disaster" point of being essentially correct.  I'd throw in some points about probability curves with regard to localized phenomena, but you have outlined the basic science pretty much dead on.
 
2014-02-01 01:16:52 AM  

QU!RK1019: Wait... Where are the environmentalists on deforestation and habitat loss? Are you kidding me?


What's the ratio of deforestation media stories to climate change stories? The media effort to demonize CO2 is extraordinary. You would think it was the world's worst pollutant.
 
2014-02-01 01:20:54 AM  

Triumph: What's the ratio of deforestation media stories to climate change stories?


That's a media decision, not an conservationist's. The rate at which forests are being destroyed is alarming.
 
2014-02-01 01:21:51 AM  

Triumph: QU!RK1019: Wait... Where are the environmentalists on deforestation and habitat loss? Are you kidding me?

What's the ratio of deforestation media stories to climate change stories? The media effort to demonize CO2 is extraordinary. You would think it was the world's worst pollutant.


Local deforestation leads CO2 emission.  Climate change leads to habitat loss in locales all over the planet - the problems aren't clear cut and separate (well, OK, maybe the deforestation is a clearcut).

Climate change affects everybody and every habitat, so yes, CO2 is the world's worst pollutant.  More toxic things suck tremendously for whichever organism gets exposed to them, but it's a localised effect.
 
2014-02-01 01:30:12 AM  

Farking Canuck: Triumph: What does the data really show? That the climate is changing? The climate is always changing.

The data shows that the climate is changing at a rate and in a direction that is not explained by the natural causes (solar irradiance, Milankovitch Cycles, etc.).

The data shows that the most likely reason for this atypical rate and direction of climate change is, by far, anthropogenic (i,e, man-made) via the greenhouse effect.

Projections of what the impact of this climate change strongly suggest that the weather patterns will become more chaotic and more energetic. That there will be significant ocean rise which will threaten many key population centers. That there will be climate shifts that will happen faster than the flora and fauna can adapt ... we are already seeing it.

So we can listen to you, random uneducated, unqualified internet poster and say "Bah! The climate is always changing. Let's do nothing." Or we can listen to the experts in the fields with their PhD's and decades of experience, their equipment and data, and the fact that it is their full time jobs to figure all this stuff out.

Call me crazy but I'm going to go with the scientists over a political pawn regurgitating tired old talking points and pushing the "do nothing" agenda.


I'm on board with you so far, but the issue is what we do about it, I'd say we immediately begin phasing out coal and natural gas facilities in favor of alternative energy where practical, and nuclear where practical... and this is the problem with environmentalism today, and why politically it will never be treated as anything but a wedge issue with lip service being paid to or against it.

The people that figure we need to change our current practices are largely the same people that oppose the nuclear industry... and a non nuclear option to any kind of drastic carbon minimization effort doesn't mesh with reality too well.
 
2014-02-01 01:40:58 AM  

electricjebus: The people that figure we need to change our current practices are largely the same people that oppose the nuclear industry... and a non nuclear option to any kind of drastic carbon minimization effort doesn't mesh with reality too well.


The people who recognize that we need to change our current system are right.

But we're shallow, short-sighted mammals who look 10-20 years ahead rather than thinking about the big picture. As long as we have enough toys, the problems of the world are someone else's. We're way better than Asia or Africa, so who cares?
 
2014-02-01 01:51:01 AM  
Baryogenesis:

Is there a name for a scattershot of shiatty talking points? Argument via am radio?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
 
2014-02-01 02:30:20 AM  

QU!RK1019: Wait, it's just a cost-effectiveness study. The bit about white roofs being better for global warming, which is what the headline is about, and which interested me enough to click the link, is completely glossed over.

Boo this article. Boo!


White roofs have two benefits.

1 is that they reflect sunlight, keeping your house cool, resulting in you using less electricity to keep the house cool, along with all of the side "costs" of electricity from the generation to the brownouts, as well as having to recharge you nasty A/C less often.

2. Not only do dark roofs trap heat and make it harder to cool, the Heat they trap gets released at night with all of the other roofs, the concrete and the asphalt. Because of this; Phoenix is now the world's largest urban heat Island. Starting about 10 years ago, the monsoons were really starting to kiss PhD, then pound the hell out of Cash Grand, about 45 miles away. It turns out that the storm would hit Phx, break up into a ring, go around the city, and come back together on the other side. You could watch it happen in the animated radar on the news, and they talked about how the bug bubble of heat was causing this. I've seen nights there that didn't go below 100°.

The green roofs are still going to work the same way, and while they might not have th e reflective capabilities of the white roof, the plants produce oxygen, and trees can make it cooler as they loose moisture. Can't remember what this phenomenon is called, exactly. It's not like one rooftop garden is going to offset the entire building, but helping is better than making thanks worse, IMHO.

I was also wondering about solar panels when I was down in AZ at Xmas. Not for power generation, but the fact of how they work. They take some of the sunlight and convert it into electricity. If they absorb heat the same way, and use it, then it would be another way to chip away at the heat island. I was seeing a lot of new parking awnings in lots with solar panels covering them and was wondering if it was cooler shade as a result also. Every little bit of shade in Phx is precious, that's a bankable fact. You really WILL walk across the grocery store parking lot to get your car underneath that One tree...
 
2014-02-01 02:33:48 AM  

Unbearlike_Fooltoast: Baryogenesis:

Is there a name for a scattershot of shiatty talking points? Argument via am radio?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

From that link:

Argumentum ad tl;dr


I lol'd.
 
2014-02-01 03:17:55 AM  
Mikey1969:

I was also wondering about solar panels when I was down in AZ at Xmas. Not for power generation, but the fact of how they work. They take some of the sunlight and convert it into electricity. If they absorb heat the same way, and use it, then it would be another way to chip away at the heat island. I was seeing a lot of new parking awnings in lots with solar panels cov ...

WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

sorry, solar panels are generally reflective, but they're not very efficient at turning light into electricity, some solar technology reflects and focuses light to heat up water, and uses that to either produce electricity, inefficiently, or just provide hot water for your house, efficiently *in AZ anyway*, but that has the same effect of creating a heat island.  As the problem with asphalt and concrete is that it retains the heat throughout the day, same as water, and radiates it at night... same as water.

So far as breaking up the heat island goes, without causing other problems, I'd stick with white paint.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report