Slashdot Mirror
"Green" Ice Resurfacing Machines Fail In Vancouver
lurking_giant writes "The Seattle Times is reporting that the Men's 500 meter speed-skating competition was delayed more than an hour Monday evening by the breakdown of the two ice grooming machines at the skating oval. The real story is that the machines that failed were the latest state-of-the-art 'Resurfice Fume-Free Electric Groomers' leased to the Olympics committee. An old, propane-powered Zamboni had to be brought out to fix the ice. This makes two nights in a row with ice resurfacing machine failures. If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs, at least test the things first."
...Stephen Colbert's snow drive! If enough people mail in snow, they should be covered.
If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs ...
From the linked NYTimes article:
Electric resurfacers are also cheaper to run — about 25 cents a flood, Mr. Schlupp said, compared with at least $3 for a propane-powered flood and at least $4 for gasoline. The drawback is the cost of the electric machine, which he said would sell for about $160,000, twice the price of a propane model.
So like a lot of 'green' things they are designed to save you money in the long run. Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill. Granted that's over 29,000 floods you'd need to recoup the eighty grand, it's a bit misleading to say it's more expensive. The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans (you know, where you get your revenues from). I mean, fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row?
... at least test the things first.
Again, from the NYTimes article:
Mr. Hainault said that so far the machines had run, well, smoothly.
Sounds like they tested them to me. The Seattle Times article is either wrong or confusing when they say that the Zambonis also had problems:
It's the second straight day there have been issues here treating the ice between sessions --- yesterday it was the women's 3,000. Problems with that Zamboni left only one available for today, and then that one that began to have problems. The Zamboni left some piles of slush in the turn near where I am sitting --- which is also the front straightaway.
The Resurfice Olympia models appeared to be the electrics with the Zambonis being the gas fed ice resurfacers. So are they saying they had problems with the Zambonis just as much as the Resurfice Olympia models? Or are they using Zamboni in place of "ice resurfacer" like Kleenex and Frisbee?
I would bet they were having problems with temperatures. I've been to Capitals hockey games were breaks between periods went long since the abnormally high temperatures caused problems with the Zambonis.
My work here is dung.
More like Can'tada!
amirite?
Despite the summary's gas-good/electric-bad tilt, there is nothing new or experimental about electric ice resurfacers. The Zamboni company's site claims to have been making them for fifty years now.
For indoor ice rinks they have obvious advantages. Greenhouse gasses are one thing, but CO poisoning is quite another. (Though this could also be ameliorated by ventilation.)
I'm always confused about "green" electrical devices.
I mean, the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries, so aren't you just playing "out of sight, out of mind" games with the pollution ?
So using the figures listed, 25 cents versus four dollars per flood. Flood is apparently a single event tied to resurfacing the ice. Can you make up the $80,000 cost in the lifetime of the machine? If we assume a per hour cost instead you can do 20,000 hours of work using gasoline before the cost is made up, or ten years continuous operation.
I am still trying to determine the justification other than in FGU, Feel Good Units
I guess if convince ourselves its by the minute costs then it might start looking right.
Is my math that bad this morning?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I heard (on TV, so no link) that they weren't allowed to use the old machines because those are not official Olympic partners...
Even the engine (which isn't visible to the audience) had to be made by an Olympic partner.
Anyway, that, plus the fact that the band was only allowed to play 2 songs in the break, showed to me that the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise. The organisation seemed so afraid of problems by unexpected events by people that when the machines broke down, all creativity and initiative was smothered under a blanket of Bureaucracy On Ice.
I think that's the first time I've seen coaches come out and say their athletes wouldn't compete until conditions were improved.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
We were just glad to have ice to skate on at all!--Hans Brinker
The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.
It's really a shame that people believe politics over science. It makes me a cynic. Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment. The problem is they were sold a lie. Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.
Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of. CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease. The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
So, all this seems to be coming from Global Warming, right?
If so, maybe it's time to move Winter Games higher up the
mountains (ie, to places were the snow will stay long enough
to be 'Games friendly)...
OR
maybe invent some totally NEW games, that aren't climate- :-/
sensitive, eg, Geocaching?
(If you don't think that one will "fly" why not come up with
one of your own, eg, as a reply to this post...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
In this interview he admits there has been no statistically significant global warming occurring for the last 15 years.
Are you from India, or some other nation where they don't have arenas, let alone natural ice?
During a single high-level amateur or semi-pro hockey game, the ice will be resurfaced:
1) Before the warm up.
2) After the warm up.
3) After the first period.
4) After the second period.
5) After the third period.
6) If the game is tied, there may be one (or more) over-time periods, during which the ice is resurfaced.
During a typical day, the ice at a single rink will be resurfaced approximately 12 to 15 times, and being specialized facilities they're open year-round. So those 29000 resurfacings will have been done in about 6.5 years.
Most arenas these days have three or more rinks within the same complex, serviced by the same machines thanks to staggered schedules. So those 6.5 years could quickly become two years, or less.
And the fact is saying that human CO2 emissions are "infinitesimal" is to miss the point entirely.
An analogy (that does not involve cars). Imagine the balance between CO2 sources and sinks is like a funnel. Into this funnel, you pour one litre per second of liquid. The funnel can allow up to 1 litre per second to leave, too. Therefore, the level of liquid in the funnel remains the same although 1 litre per second is constantly being added. However, add an infinitesimal increase, let's say, just 0.1% more - just one mililitre extra per second, and as sure as night follows day, the level in the funnel increases and eventually it will overflow. What is more, what we have done is effectively not only added more liquid to the funnel, we have also constricted the exit (by removing carbon sinks). The rate compared to other things is totally irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is - is the CO2 being added at a rate higher than which it is being removed?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Source?
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
I couple of weeks ago, you could have held the Winter Olympics at sea level ... London, Florence, Amsterdam, take your pick. Global Warming my ass.
It's interesting that 15 of the top 16 finishers skated after the breakdown, when the "non-green" Zamboni was brought into service. Only the finisher in pairing 9 (8th place) was before the break. Wonder if this is grounds for a protest from some of the athletes?
http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-speed-skating/schedule-and-results/mens-500-m-race-1-of-2_ssm205101pA.html
propane and propane accessories
No, your math is correct. You also forgot to mention that the propane ones are also "fume free" in terms of producing NO toxic fumes. Someone with asthma is going to be equally effected by the electric one as the propane one.
ALSO, you people are forgetting to mention the carbon footprint the electric one has: is it's power source a petro power station? Or a coal power station? Those cases would make the electric one worse. I love how we are doing a bunch of fancy footwork in the name of "green," but it is just the same old problems all over again (if not worse in the case of CFL bulbs) at twice the cost.
It's really a shame that people believe politics over science.
You are confusing "green marketing" with science. The first one happens to be full of crap, but well, what do you expect from marketing? That however doesn't make the issue they peddle to a non-issue, climate scientist will tell you quite the opposite, CO2 is an issue and current evidence points to a man made climate change, go watch this and educate yourself.
Gah, the whole Olympic speed-skating competition is a giant fail already..
Very poor ice conditions, very high humidity in the stadium, ice that is cleaned/groomed only once a hour (wtf!) during contests, contests that have to be delayed because of machines breaking down, a 2 minute break between each next match.... puhlease....
I expected a whole lot more from the Canadians when it comes to ice-skating to be honest....
Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
Before coming up with convoluted rationalizations, it's best to do a little basic fact-checking first:
"Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year." -- source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
All the people gleefully cheering this news need to remember that one of their own ideology's primary claims is that we don't need to be "environmental" because technology will improve so much through efficiency that improvements will come naturally. So far, as we have seen, it is still all the dirty old crap technologies that are more reliable, so the argument that they will improve through technology has so far failed pretty miserably.
This is blatantly wrong.
From http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
I don't know where you're coming from with the oceans, but these days they act as carbon SINKS.
From http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html
Also, like other people have said, it's better for your HEALTH to not have burning fossil fuels in an enclosed area. Don't believe me? Shut your doors and windows, unplug those carbon monoxide detectors, and fire up a lawnmower next to you.
Don't eat yellow snow.
The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.
Not quite. Read on McDuff. And look, even more refutation.
Are we done with this canard yet?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
It's the Microsoft model: The release is the test.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Yet once again we see "weather" being mistaken for "climate".
The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans. Not quite. Read on McDuff. And look, even more refutation. Are we done with this canard yet?
Yes quite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently measured to be 0.038%. A staggering 0.28% of that is directly attributable to human beings. I can keep this up as long and probably longer than you can...
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Read this and Re-Educate yourself: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
"And the fact is saying that human CO2 emissions are "infinitesimal" is to miss the point entirely."
It is also a complete and total lie.
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"
A Whole Continent for the Winter Games....
I thought this is why Antarctica exists in the first place, hold the games down there, and it is "international" territory so no more country squabbles about who gets to host it.
Last I heard the Ice was growing on Antarctica.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
These machines were not creating any greenhouse gases while they were broken.
Green? *chuckle* They're still fossil fuel powered. The grid is not magic. The electricity doesn't magically come from the hole in the wall. There's a whole infrastructure behind that hole and that infrastructure runs on fossil fuels.
Clean the source and every single electrical device you own becomes green with zero work on your part. You also have to replace nothing. Batteries are horrible for the environment. What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?
Can't we get over this fear of nuclear power yet? Please? For the good of humanity.
I find being offended by me offensive.
"The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans."
Complete and total lie.
Airlifting the replacement Zamboni from Calgary??? Could they not find a propane powered Zamboni in Vancouver to use?
I think the design of the venue is to blame too. The building was designed to acheive a LEED silver rating, which means they probably didn't overbuild their HVAC and ice refrigeration systems as much as in other buildings (or else they would have hurt their LEED score).
The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.
It's really a shame that people believe politics over science. It makes me a cynic. Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment. The problem is they were sold a lie. Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.
Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of. CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease. The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.
The people who bought the electric zams, which are actually pretty common, probably made the decision to reduce the carbon monoxide and particulate emissions that are not so great for the health of spectators in enclosed ice arenas.
Also, you made a blunder in your CO2 rant. The argument that CO2 emissions aren't bad is supposed to be, "increased CO2 doesn't lead to significantly more global warming," not "humans don't significantly affect CO2 levels." The reason for this is that contention 1 may be true, while contention 2 (yours) is demonstrably false. Note the ~25% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last 50 years shown here.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Well, starts like a good analogy.
But to be more accurate, you'd need to have that water comming in anything from doplets to gushes, into a funnel thats unpredictably changing it's diameter, periodically clogging up by freezing (at the exit) while some of the water may evaporate because it's boiling. While walking on a tightrope.
And you know that either spilling or letting the funnel run dry is going to kill you.
And so far, it's only the analogy for the natural CO2.
Now you have to take a lieak and the only possibility for that is said funnel. Blindfolded.
I guess thats closer to the actual state of climate research.
bickerdyke
A dead Luger, broken Zamboni, what's next a near fatal curling accident????
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Yes, only AGW believers are allowed to make this mistake.
Unusually hot or cold weather = evidence for man-made climate change.
Typical weather for the time of year = WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE YOU R'TARDS!!!11!!1!!1!!
Well in this case the games are in BC, Canada. The local power company is "BC Hydro," thusly named because a large portion of power they produce comes from hydroelectric dams.
It's amusing to me that the world sees Vancouver as promoting these "green" olympic technologies, but we here in Vancouver are not fooled by the greenwashing (well, at least some of us). It's been nice and warm here lately, as is usual in Vancouver in the winter, so in order to keep snow on the local mountain where some of the skiing and snowboarding events are, they have to truck it in from another mountain that's quite some distance away. Then they use helicopters to bring the snow from where the dump trucks are, to the event location. The snowboarding halfpipe is actually constructed using hay bales stacked like lego blocks, and then they apply snow on top like icing on a cake. Any idea what the carbon footprint is of a helicopter bringing snow to the top of a mountain is? or the mining trucks used to haul it around?
Then there are the ~100,000 trees cleared for olympic venues, the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games, the construction of huge buildings for various events at a time when homelessness has been increasing for years. The whole thing is a big PR scam, but for the past few weeks it seems like most of the vancouverites on facebook have been abuzz about how silly the whole thing is....except the opening ceremonies for some reason...everyone got all weirdly patriotic about that, which is unusual for Canadians.
"The value of a man resides in what he gives,
and not in what he is capable of receiving."
--Albert Einstein
Global Warming does not mean the entirety of the Globe will always be warm, or that some places won't get cold spells during Winter. If anything, the imbalance caused by Global Warming may in fact cause these local shiftings during winter to be exacerbated.
The failures appeared to me to be of a mechanical nature... nothing to do with the "green" aspects.
Vancouver gets its power primarily from hydro electricity, dumbass.
Real scientists will laugh at you for claiming CO2 is an issue,
Where can I read their papers? If they are real scientists they must have published their findings, right?
I'll see your enlightened video link and raise you one.
Sorry, but videos made by people that fabricated their data and misquoted scientists in a fraudulent way don't impress me much. They even tried to sue the misquoted scientist with the notorious UK libel laws after he complained, great way to react to criticism...
Just go watch the video I linked and the other ones in the series, they do a great job of explaining many common climate myth, both from the skeptics side as well as the believers. And if you have any info explaining the errors in the video I linked I would love to read them.
"The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans." Complete and total lie.
Funny how the scientists don't agree.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Real scientists will laugh at you for claiming CO2 is an issue,
Where can I read their papers? If they are real scientists they must have published their findings, right?
I'll see your enlightened video link and raise you one.
Sorry, but videos made by people that fabricated their data and misquoted scientists in a fraudulent way don't impress me much. They even tried to sue the misquoted scientist with the notorious UK libel laws after he complained, great way to react to criticism...
Just go watch the video I linked and the other ones in the series, they do a great job of explaining many common climate myth, both from the skeptics side as well as the believers. And if you have any info explaining the errors in the video I linked I would love to read them.
Oh I know, the guys that resigned their positions at the IPCC are still credited by the IPCC as belonging to the 2500 scientists. I mean clearly the guys in the video I linked to are idiots, I mean, who the hell would listen to multiple university professors anyway right? Let alone the countless sources they referenced in the interviews.
I too found it humorous that the one professor had to sue the IPCC to get his name removed from their list after they refused to present his findings (which were contrary to their position that AGW is real), and tried to claim he supported their lies.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
You do know that the proportion of professional historians who deny that the holocaust happened is larger than the number of professional scientists who disagree with the claim that the current warming event we are experiencing is anthropogenic.
The problem is that we are altering both ends of the CO2 cycle. We are increasing the amount of CO2 being released while simultaneously decreasing the ability of nature to act as a carbon sink.
Oh, and you know that famous model thrown about by climate change deniers that shows CO2 levels trailing behind temperature increase? That was absolutely true for every climate change event before this one. The current event is the only one that shows CO2 levels climbing before temperature, indicating that CO2 is the forcer rather than a feedback in this event... supporting the hypothesis that AGW is a real phenomenon.
Now, there is some truth in your statement. Many companies do sell blatant lies about their products being "green friendly" or whatever while they actually have a much higher risk profile.
-Compact fluorescent lights... sure, they use less electricity over the course of their lifetime, but the mercury in them is hella toxic once that lifetime is over. Proper disposal or recycling is never included in the risk or cost profiles.
-The green push for hybrid or even full electric vehicles leading to an immense increase in demand for lithium... the mining of which is horribly water intensive and polluting. Not to mention, lithium itself is highly toxic and corrosive, so would also need special handling at end of life. For a rough estimate... replacing the current fleet of cars with hybrids using lithium batteries would require the mining of a minimum of one order of magnitude more lithium than has ever been mined. Replacing that fleet with battery only electrics would require about two orders of magnitude more lithium than has ever been mined. And then you'd have to replace the batteries in 5-10 years when they wear out. Sure, some of them can be recycled, but the process is too toxic to do economically in a country with environmental protection laws, so we're back to poisoning poor people like we currently do with our electronic waste.
-Consumer solar panels? They're filled with toxic sludge at end of life.
-Biodiesel? It still takes more than one barrel of regular diesel to make one barrel of biodiesel. And that's not including the water used in farming, the environmental damage from fertilizer and pesticide runoff, the habitat destroyed by converting to farmland, and so on. Sure, a city with a million people produces enough waste grease to run a small handful of cars driven by hippies, but the economics of the situation requires that number of people to stay small, otherwise we're back to destroying habitat to grow the corn oil to make the biodiesel.
And don't even get me started on the hydrogen economy... that's just pure fail from the get go.
Here's the real kicker: unless we find a way to get massive amounts of power cheaply, safely and soon, we are going to start running out of cheap fossil fuels. Then global society is going to have to find a way to shed about 6 billion people when we revert to a subsistence agriculture way of life. Historically that would have been achieved through starvation and violence. Anyone have a better idea? I suppose we could at least end the population increase by getting everyone in the world on Slashdot.
Clearly, no matter what sort of machine the Olympic Committee obtained, if they just bought them new and kept them, they would have wasted a huge amount of money. One of two things is going on here: either a) they bought these machines and intend to resell them, or more likely b) they've leased them for some limited term. In either case, SOMEBODY is going to be using them long enough to where the investment to buy them will pay off. It's not like they're going to be scrapped after the Olympics. And either way, the net cost to the Olympic Committee != the purchase price.
And I'm with the other commenters on the underlying cause: I'll bet the real problem is with the refrigeration of the ice itself, not the Olympia/Zamboni machines. There's no way they're ALL failing.
... they get a huge proportion of their power from hydroelectric. So it probably really is pretty green.
THIS! There's a lot of half-baked "well, all the pollution is in one place with a powerplant" posts here that miss the point completely: the laws of thermodynamics are on the side of powerplants. If you burned a ton of gasoline in a car or a ton of gasoline in a powerplant, you'd release the same amount of CO2 but get at least twice as much useable energy from the powerplant.
And that's coupled with the added benefit that you can use the same electric infrastructure to deliver power from sustainables like hydro and solar.
People talking about CO2 sequestering and other science fiction apparently can't see the forest for the trees.
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
Green? *chuckle* They're still fossil fuel powered. The grid is not magic.
Maybe not magic,
But according to several posters, Canadas grid is hydroelectric (somewhere between 60%-98%)
So only half of your statements aren't true :-)
bickerdyke
A hotter atmosphere dumps heat faster.
The funnel is not a static thing.
(This doesn't mean that CO2 emissions are not (potentially) problematic, it would be best to keep the environment 'comfortable' for as many humans as possible, it just points out the problem with any sort of facile analysis of the situation)
((potentially) because the results really aren't in on the long term consequences (especially when various control measures are factored in))
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
...what's next a near fatal curling accident????
The mind wobbles...
I don't live in Vancouver. I do not, repeat not live in Vancouver. I live in Burnaby, a suburb of Vancouver. A quiet leafy green residential cul-de-sac, where you would never know anything was happening. The daffodils are coming up.
With that said, I feel the Olympics have lost their way. The athletics have become secondary to money and hype. I also feel that it's completely unfair to expect the entire province to assume financial responsibility for the Olympics, when only Vancouver residents were consulted on holding them.
A major part of the weather issue is all the media pundits being from back east, not really understanding what winter means in Vancouver. How quickly they forget what else goes with the snow in Edmonton or Winnipeg. I was born here, one of the few. I understand rain.
...laura
who the hell would listen to multiple university professors anyway right?
People who fall for a argument from authority. Science isn't done by people posing with impressive titles in front of the camera, but by publishing peer reviewed research. And as said, go watch the movie I linked, its not hard and it answers plenty of your misconception by looking at the actual science.
They didn't use a Zamboni to do the ice with, so the gods demanded the return of the Zamboni by destroying the infidel machine.
Everyone knows you always use a Zamboni, or you insult the gods of the ice by using anything else.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Zamboni has had electrics for a long time.
I've been watching US College hockey for a long time. Most rinks have a Zamboni. They last a long time. I've seen a few new ones and usually the go electric because the propane ones generate CO2 and that's not good indoors. I've seen rinks add a 2nd Zamboni for faster resurfacing between periods too.
Zamboni isn't the only maker of ice resurfacers. I bet most rinks in the US are Zamboni though. I remember Union College in Schenectedy had another brand.
FWIW Clarkson University gave Mr Zamboni and honorary degree in 1988 in recognition of his engineering achivement in creating the ice resurfacer.
I'm from the mid-Atlantic and the hockey teams I've heard about only play 82 games in a season, not the 365 that you considered. So does that push the recoupe time to 28.9 years. I'd be interested to see the life expectancy of the average Zamboni. Also, is the purchaser of the propane Zamboni storing the $80K under their matress or investing in something a little more lucrative.
Finally
Another
Industrial
Leap!
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
[citation needed]
Plus, we're talking about Olympic-scale ice events, vs. Semi-pro/Pro hockey. More resurfacing required, at a higher standard.
For the hockey events, the host arena is GM Place, which presumably has its own fossil-powered Zambonii, leaving the Richmond Oval as the sole justification for electric Zamboni-like ice resurfacing machines.
It's a large oval, with a hollow center, so there's a lower percentage of ice surface/sq.m., but I would wager the resurfacing counts and overall to be higher, with the machines only able to perform arena hockey level duty.
The 1970's "global cooling" myth has been debunked quite soundly. It's basically a talking point for people who deny climate change by saying "we've been through all this before". The actual prevailing science through the 1970's is that the planet was actually experiencing global warming, but was carelessly misreported by some news outlets, which happened to catch because of the alarmist tone taken by the articles.
A single weather event does not make climate. That's as stupid as saying that tonight, when the sun goes down it will always be dark because there's no sun.
I don't wonder why there are so many skeptics. Many people can't be bothered to actually look into things that might be concerning to them because it is so much easier to find a website that supports their view. Your like my dad who doesn't believe in the whole climate change because he doesn't believe it. Nothing more. Have you talked to a scientist who works in climate research? I have. I'm betting that you haven't.
What, a citation needed that the grid isn't magic?
who the hell would listen to multiple university professors anyway right?
People who fall for a argument from authority. Science isn't done by people posing with impressive titles in front of the camera, but by publishing peer reviewed research. And as said, go watch the movie I linked, its not hard and it answers plenty of your misconception by looking at the actual science.
My scientists say your scientists are full of shit. Now what?
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
...
OR
maybe invent some totally NEW games, that aren't climate- :-/
sensitive, eg, Geocaching?
(If you don't think that one will "fly" why not come up with
one of your own, eg, as a reply to this post...)
I, for one, can't wait to see Downhill Swimming finally get the recognition it deserves.
NOTE: In the latest TV episode (available on http://www.kusi.com/ on global warming, done by the guy who founded weather.com; a scientist points out that we will BENEFIT from additional CO2 in the atmosphere because it will increase plant yields by 25-55%; meaning more food per acre of plants... Just a thought.
You don't want to be "arrogant&naive" do you?
Here in BC where the Olympics are being held we just finished the warmest January recorded. February is shaping up the same way.
Just because the gulf stream seems to be slowing down and those places are getting the kind of weather that is expected so far north means very little.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Before coming up with convoluted rationalizations, it's best to do a little basic fact-checking first:
"Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year." -- source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
I don't think you could have misunderstood the GP's point more if you had tried.
Let me simplify it: A system in equilibrium is being displaced from that equilibrium. Since that equilibrium is what our entire species and civilization and economy are based on, do you really think it's an unambiguously good thing?
The much ballyhooed ice machines which failed, were Olympia-brand machines made in .... CANADA! They are reasonably proud of their home grown ice machines. It's something like having American baseballs or something.
Zamboni machines are made in... hockey-free Los Angeles. Seriously. Ice machines from SoCal. And they are GOOD ice machines.
It has long been a sore spot north of the border that the national sport of Canada has been so dependent on a machine made elsewhere. And while that may be OK for a mere hockey game, it's not OK for the grandest winter sports event of all time. That one has to have national pride attached at every point and that means Vancouver has a native Canadian machine which conveniently has an Olympic name too. (Surprised the IOC hasn't sued them for that actually).
It does not matter if the green machine actually, you know, WORKS and stuff. It's national pride dammit! You get the Canadian machine.
And keep an old reliable Zamboni in the pocket for the rescue.
Sig for hire.
You also have to replace nothing.
Except all the devices that don't run off of grid power. Which is what they're doing here. After you've switched to using electricity for power, then any environmental improvements to the grid are automatically incorporated into your electric devices.
This is why switching to electric vehicles makes sense even in the context of electricity that currently comes from unclean sources. Not that it does in Vancouver, apparently. ;)
Batteries are horrible for the environment. What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?
All manufacturing involves damage to the environment, and if we weren't making batteries it'd be something else. We can work on making manufacturing less damaging, but it's not going away.
Anyway, you should be recycling your batteries, not disposing of them.
The enemies of Democracy are
As said, you look at the published peer reviewed literature (referenced plentiful in the video I linked to in my first post), not some random quote from an individual scientist in a propaganda movie.
Also note that being an university professor doesn't make you an expert in climate science. You can be expert in one field and have no clue about another.
You must be American.
If by "debunked" you mean "handwaved away by revisionists".
Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania ha always been allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia.
We're all paid by the oil companies. I get a check for $500 from XOM every month. It couldn't have anything to do with the outright lies of the "consensus", nor their tactics, nor the fact that the only ways they can make a testable prediction that will actually be borne out are to predict something everyone knew anyway, or to have so many different models covering so many scenarios that one of them will be near the target.
Except, as has been noted repeatedly here, most of the electric power in British Colombia is hydroelectric.
oh, let us look at it.
there is a lot of deep time data around co2 and temperature. co2 varies and there is a correlation with temperature. given the labatory effects of co2, you might think causation. and on this data set you probably do not much hsve to worry about the genocidialists getting a data fraud.
of course, if the buy causation, you are not getting to the lag time with this data. insolation has increased 25% but there seems to be a lag time in excess of billions of years :-)
best i can tell, if there was something like awg and the data was actually good, there is not a clue on the lag time.
on size of the co2 input by humans, which is really what I wanted to comment on, the big thing here is kind of the emotional reaction to how the numbers are stated.
Well, I guess we also have to note that figuring out by direct measurements global co2 load is tricky. You might think the measurements are easy and i suppose it is, but the numbers bounce all over the place.
so 25% increase in co2 recently. In terms of percent of atmosphere the difference is not impressive. In terms of the total co2 in the co2 cycle, it is not impressive. I seem to recall a claim that suggests to me the 25% increase is a 2% increase in the cycle load. not impressive, but it might be important but it is not obviously important
in just a simple minded way, the awg machine is over. science types who had feared to buck the party line are speaking up. two major governments have cslled foul on the "science". more interesting is why just now.
awg as a strategic element was crushed at copenhagen. this is a big battle won. but with, oh, vaguely, the collapse of the eurozone, the war is pretty much over. the bad guys were always going to lose, but now it is highly likely the good guys will win. so be happy.
a Zamboni!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Hell, we could have had the Winter Olympics 6 months ago in Australia... What does that have to do with global warming?
"Ice Time" is a very valuable commodity in Canada. People will drive for hours on a Sunday night just to get half an hour on the ice. The rink schedules are simply packed. I go to a "free skate" (basically just around the rink in a circle) for two hours on Sunday nights at 9pm. When we're walking out at 11pm, the hockey teams are taking to the ice for a game, which will take 2-3 hours to play.
I was talking to a parent at the free skate while they were resurfacing the ice (they resurface before and after the skate, and once in the middle) and he was saying that he would be back at 6am for his kid's hockey practice. 6am - 2am, resurfacing at least once an hour.
Frankly, I think the 12-15 times a day estimate was conservative, and that the number is probably closer to 20.
ALSO, you people are forgetting to mention the carbon footprint the electric one has: is it's power source a petro power station? Or a coal power station? Those cases would make the electric one worse.
In Vancouver we live near the mountains, so we have excess amounts of snow melting and running down the mountains into damns. We get our power from hydro electric damns and still have enough left over to sell to California. So technically, electric alternatives in Vancouver would be greener then in other places where you are just shifting the fossil fuel burn.
Mod parent up.
This is the best analogy I've seen for climate science. I myself am a scientist, and any branch of science that relies on computer models, closed source data sources, closed source algorithms, and funding from politicians isn't a branch of science at all. It's a branch of Goldman Sachs!
"Except all the devices that don't run off of grid power."
So what do the zambonies run on? Pixie dust?
"Anyway, you should be recycling your batteries, not disposing of them."
Oh yeah I forgot that recycling uses no hazardous chemicals and 100% of the components are
You are aware that with the exception of aluminum recycling uses more energy and thus fossil fuels than creating a new product right?
I'm just trying to point out that we need to take a closer look at these things. Making something electric or recycled does not *waves hands* magically make it better.
I find being offended by me offensive.
I think the part that gets me is. . . who CARES (from an environmental standpoint) if ice resurfacers put out a little CO2 (there might be concerns about CO/CO2 accumulation in an indoor environment, which might be relevant). Why should Zamboni's be green?
I don't know how many ice resurfacing machines there are on Earth, but I can't imagine it could possibly be more than 100,000, and would expect it's probably closer to 15,000 or 20,000. There's not all that many Ice Rinks in the world.
Making Ice Resurfacers 'green' will have a mathematically insignificant impact on our CO2 emissions. You know, I'm all for 'greening' our automobiles, ships, industrial equipment, factories, Semi-Trucks, etc - things for which there are millions upon millions of them deployed on Earth. Things which can be changed on a massive scale.
Worrying about Ice Resurfacers is an expensive waste of time.
The bigger issue causing the 1.5 hour delay was when the back up was brought out, the ice crews forgot to remove the studs from the tires, which caused it to take chunks out of the ice. After fixing that issue, it caused a unfair advantage to the first half of the skaters (they got a lot longer break than the 2nd half would have) so the IOC had to determine if they should cancel the 2nd run, or delay or what to do about it.
The Zamboni was only the issue for about 30 minutes. The teams coaches were causing the issue for the majority of it.
Source: watching the event on TV.
"The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans." Complete and total lie.
Before anyone else mods this guy up without doing any reading at all, I would like to point out that this guy is a liar, and is quoting lies. You can read here to see why. I'll quote the relevant section:
Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropgenic. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. In 1997, Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[6][7][8] The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, but modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 teragrams (0.13-0.23 gigatonnes or 145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[9] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities.[10]
Emphasis mine.
Which maths are the liars using to turn 5% into the majority? Multiple people have lied here claiming that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes and the ocean. It's clear after some very minor investigation that that is a lie, and in fact nature itself puts 95% of the CO2 into the air; leaving humble man responsible for a meager 5%.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
There aren't many inelastic systems in nature like the example you have given.
We know that water and plants will absorb co2 faster if there is more available.
Please state examples of how we have removed 'carbon sinks'
love is just extroverted narcissism
The terms green and CO2 are being tossed around as blatant lies to convince people to spend more to get the the same, or in cases like this, to get nothing at all.
It's really a shame that people believe politics over science. It makes me a cynic. Someone obviously decided to buy these "green" ice resurfacing machines because it made them feel like they were doing "their part" to help the environment. The problem is they were sold a lie. Not only were they sold a lie, but a non-functioning lie as well.
Seriously people, CO2 emissions are nothing to be afraid of. CO2 emissions are nothing you should be paying extra to decrease. The fact is that the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere is infinitesimal compared to volcanoes and the oceans.
Since the liars seem intent on modding all my posts on this thread troll, I'm replying to myself in the hopes that some truth gets through to the skeptics.
Nature itself is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emissions, and humans get to claim responsibility for 5%. Anyone saying that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes or the ocean is lying to your face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#Sources_of_carbon_dioxide
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Thank god it wasn't a Blue Ice machi!
Why is it that everyone loves to rag on the Olympic games? During such a big event it is inevitable that mistakes are made and things don't work as they are supposed to. But why does every little mistake have to be inflated to represent some kind of major moral or technical failure? Lets in stead try to focus on the amount of work and effort that people have put into making these games possible.
So what do the zambonies run on? Pixie dust?
No, they run on propane, which is why they need to be replaced before "cleaning the source" will result in them being equally clean.
Oh yeah I forgot that recycling uses no hazardous chemicals and 100% of the components are
No, you just forgot that batteries are a recycling issue, not a disposal issue. Recycling minimizes the amount of hazardous chemicals that are put into the environment. The battery components you're worried about entering the environment are exactly what recycling recovers.
You are aware that with the exception of aluminum recycling uses more energy and thus fossil fuels than creating a new product right?
I thought we were expanding our consideration beyond simple energy usage and looking at general environmental consequences. Not having to mine more nickel or lithium has benefits beyond the numbers of Joules involved.
I'm just trying to point out that we need to take a closer look at these things. Making something electric or recycled does not *waves hands* magically make it better.
Sure, well, if you want to look at things in a more nuanced manner then fine. You'll find that in most cases when you replace *waves hands* with what actually happens, then it is better. You can't just flip the bit from "recycling doesn't use hazardous chemicals" to "recycling doesn't not use hazardous chemicals" and call that a closer look.
The enemies of Democracy are
Read what you quoted again. It says humans are releasing 100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes. It's more like saying the funnel can normally handle a trickle, but then you go and turn on a firehose.
"These natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants during the photosynthesis.
During the 100,000 year ice age cycle, CO2 varies between a low of approximately 200 ppm during cold periods and a high of 280 ppm during interglacials. Recent human influences have increased this to above 380 ppm. There is a large natural flux of CO2 into and out of the biosphere and oceans. In the pre-industrial era these fluxes were largely in balance. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans.[11] The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitted CO2 is known as the airborne fraction (Keeling et al., 1995); this varies for short-term averages but is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods."
From the next paragraph. Also, you said oceans and volcanoes NOT rot and fire. Also you did say I was a liar and then quoted the exact same thing as me. That [10] citation from the wiki is what I linked you before...
If you are actually concerned or surprised by the mods, I suggest you focus on being more accurate/truthful in your statements.
For example: Anyone saying that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes or the ocean is lying to your face.
Now from the source you cite: modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 teragrams (0.13-0.23 gigatonnes or 145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[9] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities
So, is your source lying? If you had stuck with the accurate statement "Nature itself is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emissions, and humans get to claim responsibility for 5%" you would have been better off.
Agreed that ice resurfacers are a drop in the bucket compared to cars and trucks and other forms of transport, but:
I don't know how many ice resurfacing machines there are on Earth, but I can't imagine it could possibly be more than 100,000, and would expect it's probably closer to 15,000 or 20,000. There's not all that many Ice Rinks in the world.
According to www.arenamaps.com, there are more than 2650 arena facilities in Canada. That's facilities, not rinks; some of those facilities have up to a dozen separate rinks. That list doesn't appear to include curling rinks, just hockey/skating rinks. I would be willing to bet large amounts of money that the database above doesn't list them all. That puts the number of rinks close to, if not over, your lower limit, just for one under-populated country.
Now I know we Canucks really like our hockey and figure skating as compared to you Yanks, but you have ten times our population. And then there are all those densely-populated northern European countries (after all, much as we might like to think so, we Canucks did not invent skating).
I think you need a better imagination.
This is not handwaving away. If you cannot be bothered to read...
As for your last comment, why should the oil companies pay you anything as willful ignorance is so easy to cultivate?
And that's the one thing that continually puzzles me about Slashdot. You would think that a site that actually talks about science would be supportive of the science that's out there. But then there's loads of people like you who find it easier to believe that there's a cabal of scientists who are bending the numbers of their research in order to...what exactly? Fat science grants? Certainly then you've not been exposed to any scientists doing work.
Perhaps it would be better if you saw this which is a list of those who have come forward and said that climate change is real. You may be surprised by the list. I'm not kidding myself though as it is much, much easier to look out the window and make your decisions rather than looking at a bigger picture.
As you are from Vancouver, you would know this is the warmest stretch of weather on record. Usually there is skiing on the local mountains well into late February.
The highway expansion up to whistler was way overdue, and getting the federal government to pay for part of it was a nice bonus. Yes, it's still our money, but I'd rather see it used here then keeping Quebec happy for once (No offense to anyone in Quebec, but it's true). Same with the Richmond SkyTrain. I'm sorry to say that a 100,000 trees means nothing to me, this is BC after all.
Homelessness sucks here, and the city/province/federal government should be doing more about, but this is a never ending problem, as soon as people are off the streets, there will be an influx from back east ('cause it's cold). It's a no win situation, and were this any other city the east side would have been bulldozed and gentrified many years ago. It would be nice to get some support from the federal government on this, rather then trying to shut down Insite over and over again.
On a related note - anyone know if there is a breakdown somewhere of how much cities (not just in canada) spend on things like homelessness, crime, etc.
"Oh Marge, anyone could miss Canada on the map, all tucked away down there..."
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
propane ones as backups! The whole green thing is a farce. The hydrogen fuel for the buses is shipped from Quebec. Shipping H2 via petroleum fuel is blatantly stupid.
Am I the only one who cares for the Olympic games so much, ;)
that he would have never known, were it not for this “article”?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
What matters in science is not what someone with a fancy degree says. What matters is what evidence is provided. I have seen a few climatologists say that the Earth is not warming, but I do not accept that statement because the evidence is that the oceans are warming, and the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are melting. I have seen some people say that human activities are not increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but the Keeling curve and the ratio of carbon isotopes show that the increase is due to burning fossil fuels.
Science is not a matter of he said, she said. It is about evidence. If you have some evidence to back up your claims, providing it would be far more convincing than an appeal to authority.
The cabal exists, of that there is no doubt, certainly since the leaked emails. That they are bending numbers there is IMO little doubt. Of course, the existence of the cabal is independent of the truth of the matter, but it does cast a lot of doubt on the evidence.
Actually, I have. Not in climate research, however.
The cabal exists, of that there is no doubt, certainly since the leaked emails.
Ridiculous. They had access to years of the CRU's communication and the mere shreds of emails they could come up with were bits and pieces of infighting and revealed them not as conspirators, but human beings. And what was the result of those emails passed within the CRU? Nothing, really. No FOIA request turned down (or evidence gone missing), no papers withheld from publication, no worldwide cabal. Again, I'll provide another link.
Two further points I want to make here. Among all the uproar of the CRU hack, where is the outrage that their server was compromised? Apparently thuggery is quite acceptable. Pity they couldn't find anything over a span of thirteen years that was more damning than bickering between scientists. Secondly, the timing of the emails is very curious considering the approaching summit in Copenhagen.
You said that you have dealt with scientists. That's good. It is too bad though that they aren't climate researchers as they could probably articulate climate change far better than I can.
All manufacturing involves damage to the environment, and if we weren't making batteries it'd be something else. We can work on making manufacturing less damaging, but it's not going away.
Not going away? In the US it mostly has, already. Oh sure, all we did was move to somewhere else where lower labor costs are. But the whole point of making do with less is less manufacturing, less consumption and less waste.
You'd be surprised how few manufactured products a Bandledeshi farmer uses in a year. Or even sees. So there are people living on the planet that are getting along fine without lots of manufactured stuff.
As Al Gore how much closer Americans should be getting to the lifestyle of a Bangledeshi farmer. Think about it - no more obesity, no more Type II Diabetes, no more smog. Maybe a lot more horse manure, but as the cities shrink that won't be much of a problem. And the cities will shrink because (a) no more immigration - who'd want to come here then? and (b) who wants to bring children into a world like that?
... that you have to flush three times in a row, and clog more often regardless.
(Note: I've seen some low-flow designs that work better than others. But as a reflexive "if you don't get this $thing, it's because you hate mother earth" often overlooks the long-term picture. Making, transporting, installing household appliances -- or Zambonis, for that matter -- in good working order may have some worthwhile benefits, including psychic, but it means of degree of waste in itself.)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Mod parent down - factually incorrect (I probably got trolled).
1. Computer Models - widely used in all branches of science and engineering. Also we don't have any copies of Earth to study, which makes it hard to conduct hands on experiments. /. not all of them are closed.
2. Closed source data sources - This has been covered before on
3. Closed source algorithms - The algorithms are published in papers, you just need to implement it in your own code if you want to run it.
4. Funding from politicians - So NASA doesn't do real science? How about government funded medical research, not real enough for you? Government funding does not imply bias or lack of hard science. Also there are many more scientist than positions available and they don't do it for the money as the pay is much better working for business (or shilling for big oil).
Which is consistent in an El-Nino year.
What a surprise, climate is following climate models made by climate scientists.
Not directed at the GP, you have a clue that the polar jet stream had moved, it was ENSO that caused it.
NOAA predicted that DC and the southern US states would have a colder winter when an ENSO event was observed.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I assume you mean the nontroversy that surrounds the lack of understanding around a common statistical technique for combining different datasets and code comments in code that was never used.
But then again, when have you ever needed evidence to prove a conspiracy. After all, cherry picked quotes taken out of context is irrefutable evidence.
Yes, we call it a community and anyone is welcome to join and debate.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
davester, you really should put more effort into your writing. Errors like "it's" and "looses" are mistakes for 12 year olds. AFTER you bristle at my comment, realize that I'm posting AC and won't ever see your reply. So put that angry energy into learning to write better. Tip: read a real newspaper, like the NYT, WaPo, WSJ ...
That is already taken into consideration. Basically, the worst case scenario is better than the best case ICE situation. The motors do not require transmissions and run at near 100% efficiency. Batteries have a high efficiency, though they are economically expensive. The biggest loses in electricity is transmissions, but that is still 7% or so. And THAT will be changed over the next decade (in the west) to be less.
OTH, ICE OPERATE BELOW 40% (typically 25%) with a lose of 60-75%. That does not include the loses in areas such as moving the fuel around, vapors, etc. The loses of moving the fuel and vapors alone are more than 5%.
So the answer is, that fossil fuel can never improve much even if using Natural Gas, Diesel or hydrogen (of which more than 95% is from Methane because it is much cheaper). OTH, Electricical devices WILL continue to improve because of cost of Storage and Transmission will drop.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Electric Vehicles using 100% Coal, even with its issues is about the same as using Gas, Diesel, or Natural Gas. I am NOT advocating using that. I am saying that the WORST that it will be is about the same. Now, as to the SO2 and NO(x), we scrub the majority of that out. Hg is a different story. Because of the scrubbers on the west, as well as mostly using "cleaner" coal (as in from the ground), the west pollutes less than countries like China. Right now, China puts out about 1/2 of the Hg that is emitted. Worse, it is growing, not slowing down. Japan is suffering big from it. So is the pacific.
In the end, Electricity will come from many sources. Even in the US, we only use 48% Coal (and dropping) and 20% NG. That means that WORST CASE for electric vehicles is that they are about 70% of the pollution of ICE. That is a HUGE improvement.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ahhh, so my documentary is propaganda, but yours is not?
Mine isn't a documentary, but a simple look at the science and actual facts behind the issues. As said, please point me to the errors in the video series I linked, I'd love to read them. I already pointed you to the Wikipedia article with plenty of errors in your documentary.
Sorry, I should have specified.
Credible source?
I'll give you that a bunch of companies are jumping on the "green" bandwagon for the hell of it, but you're going to need at least a little proof for the idea that these particular machines are faulty specifically because they're junk with a "green" label on it, since logic would dictate that they would do at least a little evaluation and testing on the machinery they were going to use for an event with national attention.
Also, you're really going to need a soucre for that bit about "human-generated CO2 is nothing to worry about", since a huge number of credible sources say the exact opposite including the IPCC which you cited as a source for the opposite claim.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Yes, computer models are used elsewhere IN CONJUNCTION with empirical observation. Climate scientists screw around with the models to make them match their own pre-conceived ideas of how it should be, which is why they failed to predict the "pause" in the warming trend of the last 15 years, rather predicting skyrocketing temperatures.
Sure there are some open data sources, but most of them are closed and obfuscated. They don't allow anyone they don't like to have access. This is unscientific. I know, as I have had to open up data sources to people I don't like as well. The difference is that I don't try to get their papers blackballed from industry publications. I let the data do the talking, and I don't throw away my original measurements for God's sake. I've got original measurements going back to my first day as a chemist file away neatly in a lab book, and I have filing cabinets in my lab with data going back 50 years. NEVER THROW AWAY DATA.
Show me the algos. I haven't seen any.
You're right, NASA doesn't do real science. They waste money on stupid crap like circle-jerk space stations and unworkable launch systems, and wind up outsourcing to private industry anyways, rather than exploring, like they are supposed to. They USED to do real science, but now all they do is play politics, but at least they aren't asking that we plunge our civilization into darkness to prevent some future catastrophe that may or may not be coming, with any attempts to stop it having no chance of success by their own admission. When you are funded by a government organization that is ITSELF BIASED, then your research is indeed questionable, but if you have all of your data available for review, along with all of the steps you took to reach your conclusion, then and only then is your funding source irrelevant. But when you get your funding from a biased agency, AND you keep your data and methods secret, then you aren't doing science. Period. You are just generating propaganda. Whether it turns out to be true or not. When you stray from the scientific method and corrupt the peer review system as the climatologists have, there is no way to derive meaningful conclusions. You might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.