Thread: Venting a dryer indoors

You guys ever hear of this? Seems like a real bad idea to me

How to Vent Dryer Heat Indoors | eHow.com

Similar Threads:

• 3-wire dryer receptacle outlet
• dryer vent
• Dryer Vent Next To Condensing Coil
• Combustion air venting location
• Gas Dryer in Bathroom

Originally Posted by Brian Thomas

You guys ever hear of this?

Nope.

Seems like a real bad idea to me

It is.

The article's author must be a wannabe Darwin Award Candidate.

Originally Posted by Brian Thomas

You guys ever hear of this? Seems like a real bad idea to me

How to Vent Dryer Heat Indoors | eHow.com

.
Not Allowed by Code, Must vent to the exterior of the home.
.
Plus sounds like a Fire Waiting to Happen! * paper bag, heat ( possible spark / ignited material coming off the heating element = Fire!
.
I've seen the Type in Attachment ( still not allowed ) but at least filled with water.
.

Isn’t that author the same guy who claims global warming is an urban myth?
(Just watched Al Gore’s “An inconvenient truth.�)

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

.
Isn’t that author the same guy who claims global warming is an urban myth?

.
Nope But Here's another Insightful Article: By Ms. Braley
.
How to Set a Mousetrap | eHow.com

Global warming is a myth....man made warming. The world temps have not rose since 2002.
Al Gore invented the internet.

Originally Posted by Stephen Houmard

Global warming is a myth....man made warming. The world temps have not rose since 2002.

And what planet do you live on?

Oh, I know ... You belong to The Flat Earth Society.

No one has proven that the world is round, that man went to the moon, all of that is just hype with scenes and movies taken in some secret government studio somewhere to perpetuate the myths.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And what planet do you live on?

Oh, I know ... You belong to The Flat Earth Society.

No one has proven that the world is round, that man went to the moon, all of that is just hype with scenes and movies taken in some secret government studio somewhere to perpetuate the myths.

Now this one i was sure you would have correct Jerry...

No one has proven Global warming is man made. Thats a fact...

The sky is falling

I was in Washington State when Mt. St Helen went off.

Now that thing put some crap in the air.

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

I was in Washington State when Mt. St Helen went off.

And all of MAN'S MAN MADE factories, cars, pollution of the seas, etc., which are all "man made" do not?

I would have thought you would have at least had that one right, Ron.

Granted, there are cyclical weather changes, but man has found a way to speed the current change up - just like man finds a way to speed everything else up.

I find it interesting that all the nay-sayers regarding global warming I’ve not heard from one that actually watched the Gore film on this subject. Maybe I’m over simplifying but in order to disagree with an idea shouldn’t one at least examine a claim, weigh the arguments and then form an opinion? Thank goodness Columbus ignored the members of the "Flat World Society, but I'm sure I would get an argument from our Native Americans on that score.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Isn’t that author the same guy who claims global warming is an urban myth?
(Just watched Al Gore’s “An inconvenient truth.�)

Then you may want to watch this one too.

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

I find it interesting that all the nay-sayers regarding global warming I’ve not heard from one that actually watched the Gore film on this subject. Maybe I’m over simplifying but in order to disagree with an idea shouldn’t one at least examine a claim, weigh the arguments and then form an opinion? Thank goodness Columbus ignored the members of the "Flat World Society, but I'm sure I would get an argument from our Native Americans on that score.

I absolutely agree that claims should be examined and the arguments and evidence weighed.

More food for thought in 4 parts.

Jerry and Jerry yes we have a mess on our hands in areas.

But just the same No one has proven Global warming is man made.
Thats a fact...

The sky is falling show me the facts, just the facts.

Best

Ron.

Michael
The first suggested topic I could not open, but the second I could and will read with interest and return with an opine.
Thank you.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Michael
The first suggested topic I could not open, but the second I could and will read with interest and return with an opine.
Thank you.

Hi Jerry,

It works for me but here it is in eight parts on youtube.
It's over an hour in total length but well worth watching.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Not gonna weigh-in on the global warming subject...but I def. think the dryer vent idea is a little on the dangerous side. I can see why one wants to try and keep as much warm air indoors but lets face it most vacuum bags are made of paper. Doesnt this strike anyone as a fire hazard....I sure hope people don't start doing this after reading that article.

Kind of interesting if you watch the clip, read the letter, that brings out the point that man made global warming has no basis in fact but rather political movements.
The peer reviewed papers all seem to come down on the side of the street that recognizes that climate goes through cycles and at the very time when the earth has the most input of greenhouse gases from man made activity that the global temperature is actually cooling.
Does anyone here but me remember in the 1970's that the scientific theory was that the earth was cooling and there were dire predictions of another ice age?
But if anyone questions the "facts" on global warming or man's hand in global warming that person is ridiculed as a member of the "flat earth society" of some such other name calling?
It is alarming that on the one hand people would look at the facts on the "mold is gold" but on the other hand swallow the political theory of global warming hook, line, and sinker without any proof.
Very enlightening links Michael, no go put on your dunce cap and stand in the corner, because some on the board don't want to be bothered with the facts since their mind is already made up.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Does anyone here but me remember in the 1970's that the scientific theory was that the earth was cooling and there were dire predictions of another ice age?

I guess I am not totally crazy, I did a quick search on "climate 1970's cooling" and the first result showed this. I don't know anything about the reliability of the article or source, but I sounds remarkably similar to what I remember reading and hearing about the time I was in high school.

Climate Cooling, the Other Side of Climate Change Science: Global Cooling

Is the Earth really cooling?
Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru May remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun's face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding theDalton Minimum 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).

Hmmmmm. Global warming. Not sure where to go with this.

Is man dumping untold amounts of crap into the atmosphere. Yup. Is it contributing as a whole on warming/cooling. Don't know. You have to think it has some kind of effect. In the time of massive amounts of volcanoes spewing garbage into the atmosphere you could not have lived on the planet. Some say that had the affect of cooling the planet and such. I know when I was a kid I could go to any lake in New Hampshire or almost anywhere in New England. As population grew and all the garage from the west started raining down on the lakes and rivers and such the waters started getting to a point where you could no longer see 12 feet or more to the bottom and then to the point where you could not see your feet standing just inside the water line.

Yeah. I think it has an affect on the atmosphere and the waters and the lands. Don't know to what point but I don't think any reasonable person can say that there is not some kind of affect.

Different point. Five freekin days and not one phone call again. Last week I had two lined up from the week before and no calls for 5 days and then in 1 hour I landed 4 more. This week, none lined up and no calls for 5 days.

Uh Oh

Edit here. Yes Jim I do remeber that from the late 60's and early 70's

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

I find it interesting that all the nay-sayers regarding global warming I’ve not heard from one that actually watched the Gore film on this subject. Maybe I’m over simplifying but in order to disagree with an idea shouldn’t one at least examine a claim, weigh the arguments and then form an opinion? Thank goodness Columbus ignored the members of the "Flat World Society, but I'm sure I would get an argument from our Native Americans on that score.

I have not seen the Gore film but am intersted to see the obvious spin he puts on it. You suggest this film as fact yet dont you even consider that al gore is obviously extremely biased in this matter?

I have heard many claims on both sides of the matter and my feeling is that earth weather patterns are cyclical and change over time. Do we as humans cause pollution, waste energy and generally take this planet for granted... Absolutely! But are we humans capable of changing the entire planet earth's weather patterns in just a period of a little over a hundred years of major industry? I dont think so and I think its a bit arrogant to think that we have that kind of power.

Ice miles thick once covered a majority of the great lakes region and canada 10000 years ago. All that ice receded and left us with some of the largest lakes in the world Were humans responsible for that warming period too?

Originally Posted by Brian Thomas

Were humans responsible for that warming period too?

Brian,

Compare, what, maybe 10,000 people spread out across the world back then, making fire with flint sparks, if they were making fire back then ...

... to, what, nearly 7 BILLION people, doing what we all do.

I suspect there can be no comparison made.

On the one hand, those first people contributed very little to the overall planet's environment.

On the other hand, the population of today and all the factories, vehicles, and other stuff contribute A LOT to the planet's environment.

Are humans causing the climate to change? Absolutely!

How much change are humans causing to the climate versus natural cycles? Don't know. I suspect that NO ONE KNOWS.

Because NO ONE KNOWS, does that mean that we do nothing about it? Just let it keep getting worse?

It's like the proverbial snowball rolling down the hillside, getting larger as it goes down ... more people and more factories and more vehicles, which beget more people and more factories and more vehicles, which beget ...

Yeah, humans are A CAUSE. THE CAUSE? Don't know. But that does not mean there is no science to it.

Is global warming happening? Absolutely! It can be measured in the Polar ice caps.

Is humankind the cause? ONE OF the causes, for sure. If cyclical, does that mean that humankind is just making it worse faster? If so, humankind THE cause (for making the cyclical change faster).

Not going to affect me, or my children, may likely affect my grandchildren, and most definitely their grandchildren. When do you stop and smell the roses and recognize a problem which can, to some degree, be altered and affected?

When that asteroid is slipping by the moon and Earth is an imminent direct hit? Kinda late then do to anything about it. Need to start planning when you first recognize a danger.

If you are driving down the highway at 80 mph, do you wait until you are on the rear bumper of the car in front of you to decide to go around it, and take a chance on hitting it? Or do you plan ahead when you see that car pull into your lane and begin your evasive action planning?

I can tell you one thing (admitting something foolish from many years ago), when driving at twice the speed of traffic (they are doing 65 and you are doing 130) you have to plan ahead and begin evasive action before you first recognize the danger. Ever looked at telephone poles going by when you are driving along at 65 mph? That's what that 65 mph traffic looks like when when you are doing 130 mph ... only those telephone poles are not alongside the road anymore, they are in your lane, and in the other lane, and in both lanes . And, no, I do not drive like that anymore.

No one has demonstrated that any of the proposals on the table to curb carbon dioxide emissions will have anything other than a negligible effect on the Earth's temperature.

This is not about saving the environment.
It is about massive expenditure of resources that will provide very little if any benefit.

An excellent case can be made that our efforts at reducing CO2 emissions will harm far more than it will help.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Brian,

Compare, what, maybe 10,000 people spread out across the world back then, making fire with flint sparks, if they were making fire back then ...

... to, what, nearly 7 BILLION people, doing what we all do.

I suspect there can be no comparison made.

On the one hand, those first people contributed very little to the overall planet's environment.

On the other hand, the population of today and all the factories, vehicles, and other stuff contribute A LOT to the planet's environment.

Are humans causing the climate to change? Absolutely!

How much change are humans causing to the climate versus natural cycles? Don't know. I suspect that NO ONE KNOWS.

Because NO ONE KNOWS, does that mean that we do nothing about it? Just let it keep getting worse?

It's like the proverbial snowball rolling down the hillside, getting larger as it goes down ... more people and more factories and more vehicles, which beget more people and more factories and more vehicles, which beget ...

Yeah, humans are A CAUSE. THE CAUSE? Don't know. But that does not mean there is no science to it.

Is global warming happening? Absolutely! It can be measured in the Polar ice caps.

Is humankind the cause? ONE OF the causes, for sure. If cyclical, does that mean that humankind is just making it worse faster? If so, humankind THE cause (for making the cyclical change faster).

Not going to affect me, or my children, may likely affect my grandchildren, and most definitely their grandchildren. When do you stop and smell the roses and recognize a problem which can, to some degree, be altered and affected?

When that asteroid is slipping by the moon and Earth is an imminent direct hit? Kinda late then do to anything about it. Need to start planning when you first recognize a danger.

If you are driving down the highway at 80 mph, do you wait until you are on the rear bumper of the car in front of you to decide to go around it, and take a chance on hitting it? Or do you plan ahead when you see that car pull into your lane and begin your evasive action planning?

I can tell you one thing (admitting something foolish from many years ago), when driving at twice the speed of traffic (they are doing 65 and you are doing 130) you have to plan ahead and begin evasive action before you first recognize the danger. Ever looked at telephone poles going by when you are driving along at 65 mph? That's what that 65 mph traffic looks like when when you are doing 130 mph ... only those telephone poles are not alongside the road anymore, they are in your lane, and in the other lane, and in both lanes . And, no, I do not drive like that anymore.

Of course I was being facetious when I asked the question "were humans responsible for the warming period back then" My point being that there have been many many warming and cooling periods in the earths history and none of which were human related.

I also mentioned that humans generally waste energy and contribute pollution to the environment...Do I believe that kind of activity should go on unabated? No I dont. I like the idea of recycling resources and I try to waste as little as I can but that still doesnt mean I believe that humans are the sole reason for the climate change. Are they one of the causes? Its possible but Im not totally convinced!

Does that mean that we as humans should just go on polluting the air and water like there's no tomorrow? Not at all.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Michael
The first suggested topic I could not open, but the second I could and will read with interest and return with an opine.
Thank you.

Bump for WJC

Opine away Jerry.

So then...improperly vented dryers cause global warming??????

I think man has a impact on the temps but worrying about getting to hot will be impossible. Heat moves to cold and space is 2.725 Kelvin. That means the universe is generally just shy of three degrees above absolute zero – the temperature at which molecules themselves stop moving. That’s almost -270 degrees Celsius, or -455 Fahrenheit.

All in all. in every thing posted No one has proven Global warming is man made. Thats a fact...

One says this. the other say this. but no direct fact.

Best

Ron

You beat me to it Kurt.
or is it dryers vented outside are causing global warming.

Let's just cut to the chase here....

Clothes dryers cause global warming, not the way they are vented....

Hang your laundry outside --- if you care about your mother Earth.

Originally Posted by Bob White

Let's just cut to the chase here....

Clothes dryers cause global warming, not the way they are vented....

Hang your laundry outside --- if you care about your mother Earth.

.
Them Sheets &Towels ( Way Too Scratchy !!! ) to Sun , Wind Dry.
plus my Jeans Stand in the corner by themselves.
.

I don't know about global warming but clearly business is slow to get this kind of discussion regarding dryer vents.

Originally Posted by Blue Harriss

I don't know about global warming but clearly business is slow to get this kind of discussion regarding dryer vents.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I started this thread and I think only 5 posts were in relation to the original subject matter. It spun off on a GW tangent and has not returned. GW is a more interesting debate than dryer vents anyway

Good morning, Gents!

Two things – First, back to the dryer thing (after all, isn’t that what this thread’s about?)

1) I’ve seen this bright idea result in fires.
2) I’ve seen this bright idea result in mould growth.
3) I’ve seen this bright idea result in doubling the drying time for clothes thus negating any perceived savings in heating.

Regarding number three – Here’s why. Imagine that a full load of clothes weight 25 pounds wet, and 7 pounds dry; that’s 18 pounds of water the dryer has to remove from the clothes. On what principal does a clothes dryer most efficiently remove that water? On the principal that there is a large difference in water content between the air entering the dryer, and the saturation point of the air leaving the dryer. And where does that water go once saturation is met? It’s supposed to go outside.

But imagine that some bright spark, (such as our genius in the eHow article), decides to put that water back into the house. Now there is a smaller moisture differential between the air coming into the dryer and saturation, which means that the clothes don’t dry as quickly and that means that you have to run the dryer longer (thus consuming more enrgy).

Now, that will make sense to most thinking folks .. however, for those who actually believe in the global warming myth, or who think that Al Gore is a scientist, or that his movie is anything but entertaining (indeed, laughable) bunk, I’m afraid they will take a lot longer to figure it out. In the meantime, we can help those good folk$, by $upplying them with magnet$ for their water line$, and aluminium foil cap$ for the overhead power line$!

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Originally Posted by Bob White

Let's just cut to the chase here....

Clothes dryers cause global warming, not the way they are vented....

Hang your laundry outside --- if you care about your mother Earth.

I remember reading a while back that some giant corporation, like Whirlpool, decided to sell clothes dryers to the Chinese. They didn't have them, and there are billions of Chinese, right? What could go wrong? Like taking candy from a baby.
But, someone didn't do their homework. Turns out the Chinese feel very strongly about putting their clothes out in the sunshine (not a bad idea, if you ask me), and they were revolted by the very idea of drying their washed clothes in a machine.

There is an inline dryer vent box that has a damper with a winter/summer label and
when the damper is closed it stops sending air outside.
There is a nylon sock that comes off at 90 degrees that the air from the dryer passes through. The brand escapes me at the moment.
The sock must be emptied out periodically as the lint catcher in the dryer also does.
This product is usually found in areas where a gas furnace uses an inline rolling drum humidifier, great for an unfinished basement where you have a washer/dryer.
I would, however, want to take out more of the moisture for a main floor application in a drywalled room with a window.
Global warming? Sure you can live in denial about what the cause is, but just stop heating up my backyard.

Originally Posted by Christopher Gorton

There is an inline dryer vent box that has a damper with a winter/summer label and
when the damper is closed it stops sending air outside.
There is a nylon sock that comes off at 90 degrees that the air from the dryer passes through. The brand escapes me at the moment.
The sock must be emptied out periodically as the lint catcher in the dryer also does.
This product is usually found in areas where a gas furnace uses an inline rolling drum humidifier, great for an unfinished basement where you have a washer/dryer...

No way, no how, no sir. What you describe is a terrible product and is not allowed.

Originally Posted by Christopher Gorton

There is an inline dryer vent box that has a damper with a winter/summer label and
when the damper is closed it stops sending air outside.
There is a nylon sock that comes off at 90 degrees that the air from the dryer passes through. The brand escapes me at the moment.
The sock must be emptied out periodically as the lint catcher in the dryer also does.
This product is usually found in areas where a gas furnace uses an inline rolling drum humidifier, great for an unfinished basement where you have a washer/dryer.
I would, however, want to take out more of the moisture for a main floor application in a drywalled room with a window.
Global warming? Sure you can live in denial about what the cause is, but just stop heating up my backyard.

Originally Posted by John Arnold

No way, no how, no sir. What you describe is a terrible product and is not allowed.

Completely agree with John - that just is NOT allowed.

The newer style ventless clothes dryer has an inline dehumidifier and a drain.
Been doing that in Europe for quite some time. (+/- $1500. for a machine)
Someone has figured out that drying clothes with heated indoor air then superheating it with 220 and blowing it outside is just not efficient and costs too much where energy is more expensive expensive to buy.
Where I agree that inline vent boxes cause too much moisture in the home at one time , it would seem to be a usable resource in areas where humidity warrants increasing it.
The opening question was about whether it was a bad idea.
Good concept, bad in that application. (vacuum bag and table fan???!)
Good idea to try and reclaim the heat and also to reuse and control the amount of moisture released at one time.
It would be interesting to read the manufacturers package information from the product in the photograph. Anyone have one to post? Is there a brand name visible?

Hard to believe there are people who will not see that 4 billion people all burning one little piece of firewood each for cooking, heating or boiling water would have little or no effect on the atmosphere. Will you only understand what the ozone layer does after it's gone? Worst case scenario... we are heating the earth during its cooling cycle.
I have not seen Al Gores movie yet
This thread was already hijacked before I got here.

Originally Posted by Christopher Gorton

The newer style ventless clothes dryer has an inline dehumidifier and a drain.
Been doing that in Europe for quite some time. (+/- $1500. for a machine)
Someone has figured out that drying clothes with heated indoor air then superheating it with 220 and blowing it outside is just not efficient and costs too much where energy is more expensive expensive to buy.
Where I agree that inline vent boxes cause too much moisture in the home at one time , it would seem to be a usable resource in areas where humidity warrants increasing it.
The opening question was about whether it was a bad idea.
Good concept, bad in that application. (vacuum bag and table fan???!)
Good idea to try and reclaim the heat and also to reuse and control the amount of moisture released at one time.
It would be interesting to read the manufacturers package information from the product in the photograph. Anyone have one to post? Is there a brand name visible?

Hard to believe there are people who will not see that 4 billion people all burning one little piece of firewood each for cooking, heating or boiling water would have little or no effect on the atmosphere. Will you only understand what the ozone layer does after it's gone? Worst case scenario... we are heating the earth during its cooling cycle.
I have not seen Al Gores movie yet
This thread was already hijacked before I got here.

I havent heard about the ozone layer in years...it seems that the environmental freaks have moved on from that topic and have gone on to bigger things such as global warming. I wonder where it goes from here.

Originally Posted by Brian Thomas

...environmental freaks...

As Bart Simpson might say: "Eat my shorts".

Originally Posted by Christopher Gorton

The newer style ventless clothes dryer has an inline dehumidifier and a drain.

Where I agree that inline vent boxes cause too much moisture in the home at one time , it would seem to be a usable resource in areas where humidity warrants increasing it.

That's the not problem.

The problem is that the code requires the clothes dryer exhaust to be exhausted outdoors unless *the clothes dryer* is listed otherwise.

Taking a clothes dryer *which is listed to exhaust to the outdoors* and dumping it into *anyplace other than the outdoors* is the problem.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

No one has demonstrated that any of the proposals on the table to curb carbon dioxide emissions will have anything other than a negligible effect on the Earth's temperature.

This is not about saving the environment.
It is about massive expenditure of resources that will provide very little if any benefit.

An excellent case can be made that our efforts at reducing CO2 emissions will harm far more than it will help.

Check out the slide show (speakers on)
Global Warming Lite - A Slideshow « A View From the Cheap Seats

Originally Posted by Caoimhín P. Connell

Now, that will make sense to most thinking folks .. however, for those who actually believe in the global warming myth, or who think that Al Gore is a scientist, or that his movie is anything but entertaining (indeed, laughable) bunk, I’m afraid they will take a lot longer to figure it out. In the meantime, we can help those good folk$, by $upplying them with magnet$ for their water line$, and aluminium foil cap$ for the overhead power line$!

AMDG

Well, here's the thing: the underlying atmospheric physics and chemistry of anthropogenic global warming are straightforward and well understood, you can easily explain to a bright high school student who has taken first-year physics and chemistry why increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere ought to increase atmospheric temperatures.

So if you want to contend that AGW not occurring, you have to believe that either:

1) The basic atmospheric chemistry and physics are incorrect, increasing CO2 concentration does not (all other things being equal) increase atmospheric temperature. As far as I know no reputable climate researcher makes this claim.

- or -

2) Atmospheric temperatures ought to be increasing as a result of increased CO2 concentration, however other countervailing factors operating over te last 150 years have been sufficient to prevent most of all of this rise, and some other factor is causing the observed rise in global atmospheric tempeatuers. The difficulty with this argument is that such factors have to be exerting a massive cooling effect to prevent the AGW we would otherwise be seeing, and to be conveniently exerting it only to the correct extent to allow the observed heating trend to occur as though AGW were causing it. No one to date has come up with a convincing explanation of what these factor(s) might be.

Note by the way that this is not an argument the AGW is the only thing that's happening, or that AGW is the dominant factor over longer time spans - climate researchers are aware that many other factors affect global climate, and the longer-term climatological history makes it very clear that some of these factors are almost certainly of greater magnitude than AGW.

But neither of these things are reasons to doubt that a AGW has increasingly been the chief driver of climate change over the last 150 years.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

Well, here's the thing: the underlying atmospheric physics and chemistry of anthropogenic global warming are straightforward and well understood, you can easily explain to a bright high school student who has taken first-year physics and chemistry why increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere ought to increase atmospheric temperatures.

Well I was a once a bright high school student and I;m not buying it.

The predilections of our impending doom are based on very flawed and ever changing computer climate models that have miserably failed in predicting the actual past history of the climate when they where run in reverse.

That''t right, they don't work reliably.

And way too many want to trust these same computer models as justification to expend untold resources to accomplish essentially nothing beneficial while destroying the world economy.

Does anyone have good numbers on how many scientists are participating in this gargantuan global warming conspiracy? I don't suppose it has anything to do with the Masons or the Trilateral Commission? Or, perhaps Al Gore is the anti-Christ? Inquiring minds want to know!

[

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Well I was a once a bright high school student and I;m not buying it.

The predilections of our impending doom are based on very flawed and ever changing computer climate models that have miserably failed in predicting the actual past history of the climate when they where run in reverse.

That''t right, they don't work reliably.

And way too many want to trust these same computer models as justification to expend untold resources to accomplish essentially nothing beneficial while destroying the world economy.

The argument for AGW is not based on "computer models", it's based on very simple atmospheric physics and chemistry - confirmed by laboratory experiment - and AGW was predicted on that basis long before there were computers on which to model it, in 1827.

So you don't just get to say "I don't buy it", you have to have a reason for not buying it, and that reason has to be grounded in some sort of at least reasonably plausible explanation of why the atmospheric physicists and chemists got it wrong.

Otherwise, you are just stomping your foot your foot while putting your fingers in your ears and humming LA, AL, LA at the top of your voice - an act which as far as global warming skeptics are concerned got really old about 15 years ago.

Now, if someone want to argue the cost benefits of some particular program for mediation, or that a AGW is likely to be overwhelmed by other natural phenomena on a longer time frame, those are arguments that deserve to be taken seriously.

But someone's announcing that they "don't buy" the evidence for the basic mechanisms of AWG makes about as much sense as announcing that they "don't buy" the evidence for the basic mechanisms of the oxidation of ferrous metals - the physics and chemistry are about the same level of complexity, and you'd better have a pretty convincing explanation of how the physicists and chemists got it wrong if you intend to convince people that iron doesn't rust.

By Hey, I'm ready not to believe my lyin' eyes... just tell me where they got it wrong:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

[

You don't just get to say "I don't buy it", you have to have a reason for not buying it, and that reason has to be grounded in some sort of at least reasonably plausible explanation of why the atmospheric physicists and chemists got it wrong.

Hey Michael!

One of this biggest reasons "not to buy it" is that the scientists cannot all agree.

The fact that the causes of climate change are debated in the scientific community (which I am not a part of) tells me, that while I may have my own beliefs, that the brightest minds (who get paid to figure these things out) are not all in agreement.

Thus, a definitive reason for climate change is not available at the present, despite what Al Gore (or people who oppose his theory) says.

Originally Posted by Rick Maday

Thus, a definitive reason for climate change is not available at the present, despite what Al Gore (or people who oppose his theory) says.

That is the key part to all of this: "despite what Al Gore (or people who oppose his theory) says", which includes this "(or people who oppose his theory)"

For each person that espouses that Al Gore is wrong "because not all science backs him up", there is science which "does not back them up", yet, there they are, saying he (and everyone else) who disagrees with them "is wrong".

Who is right? I don't know.

*COULD* something happen? Sure. CAN new industries (new economies) be built around making those things *less likely*? Sure.

So, saying that "accomplish essentially nothing beneficial while destroying the world economy" is also a fallacy.

Good CAN BE (and IS) accomplished. It CREATES JOBS, makes economies GROW.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That is the key part to all of this: "despite what Al Gore (or people who oppose his theory) says", which includes this "(or people who oppose his theory)"

For each person that espouses that Al Gore is wrong "because not all science backs him up", there is science which "does not back them up",

Which is why I said we have no definitive answer. I might add - either way.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

yet, there they are, saying he (and everyone else) who disagrees with them "is wrong".

Such is the nature of scientific theory. From what I understand, scientists have some big 'ol egos.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Who is right? I don't know.

Nor do I.
I have my opinion (man has little to do with it). But I don't know for certain.

Edit:

I mean, seriously, here I am, a simple home inspector talking global warming on a thread started about indoor dryer venting (a bad idea).

Originally Posted by Rick Maday

Which is why I said we have no definitive answer. I might add - either way.

Rick,

I was agreeing with you, and directing what you said, and what I said, toward others, such as the quote I posted, which was from 'another' or those "others".

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

[

The argument for AGW is not based on "computer models", it's based on very simple atmospheric physics and chemistry - confirmed by laboratory experiment - and AGW was predicted on that basis long before there were computers on which to model it, in 1827.

Did the scientists know about AGW when they warned of the impending ice age in the 70's?

So you don't just get to say "I don't buy it", you have to have a reason for not buying it, and that reason has to be grounded in some sort of at least reasonably plausible explanation of why the atmospheric physicists and chemists got it wrong.

They are wrong because their constructed models contain variables of unknown quantities. Again, when run backwards the models fail to predict what already has happened. The most potent green house gas in water vapor, should we limit that as well?

Otherwise, you are just stomping your foot your foot while putting your fingers in your ears and humming LA, AL, LA at the top of your voice - an act which as far as global warming skeptics are concerned got really old about 15 years ago.

And you are putting complete faith in scientist looking for a paycheck via grant money to study global warming.

BTW- the planet has been cooling since 1998. What do you do with that data?

Now, if someone want to argue the cost benefits of some particular program for mediation, or that a AGW is likely to be overwhelmed by other natural phenomena on a longer time frame, those are arguments that deserve to be taken seriously.

And that is exactly what I advocate for. We would be foolish to waste resources on something we cannot control. Thank you for recognizing the issue.

But someone's announcing that they "don't buy" the evidence for the basic mechanisms of AWG makes about as much sense as announcing that they "don't buy" the evidence for the basic mechanisms of the oxidation of ferrous metals - the physics and chemistry are about the same level of complexity, and you'd better have a pretty convincing explanation of how the physicists and chemists got it wrong if you intend to convince people that iron doesn't rust.

See above. The experiments you mention are repeatable in the lab. They are only unverified theory as far as the climate.

By Hey, I'm ready not to believe my lyin' eyes... just tell me where they got it wrong:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html

At least you have recognized that it is belief via your faith in teh scientists that is driving your opinion.

Too many facts are not available to us as of now.

The question remains: Where would our resources of people and money best be spent?

Until there is an honest discussion about that question we are at the mercy of the special interests that are promoting AGW,

[quote=Michael Larson;61969]The question remains: Where would our resources of people and money best be spent?[quote]

Define "best".

Until there is an honest discussion about that question we are at the mercy of the special interests that are promoting AGW,

And those special interests promoting ignoring signs of global warning.

[quote=Jerry Peck;61974][quote=Michael Larson;61969]The question remains: Where would our resources of people and money best be spent?

Define "best".

Most efficacious use while doing the most good.


And those special interests promoting ignoring signs of global warning.

Climate change happens.
Let's not ignore it but we should act wisely instead of behaving stupidly when there is no proof we can do anything about it.

Let's not burden our children and grandchildren with wasteful spending on unproven climate control measures.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

[

The argument for AGW is not based on "computer models", it's based on very simple atmospheric physics and chemistry - confirmed by laboratory experiment -

reasonably plausible explanation of why the atmospheric physicists and chemists got it wrong.

Otherwise, you are just stomping your foot your foot while putting your fingers in your ears and humming

By Hey, I'm ready not to believe my lyin' eyes... just tell me where they got it wrong:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html

.
Pan Evaporation ( done in the field ) not laboratory test have been conducted for over 100 years.

Pan of water in direct Sun light and measure how much is left.

Last 50 year results have shown Less evaporation not more.

Hotter to me would mean More not less evaporation.

The Spin Now is global Dimming ( justifies / skews ) field result to match Global Warming Theory.
.
YouTube - Best Bob Hope movie line

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Let's not burden our children and grandchildren with wasteful spending on unproven climate control measures.

And let's not burden our children and grandchildren with the potential for rising ocean levels. Let's address the issue while there is plenty of time to address the issue.

If, over time, the issue becomes a non-issue, look at all of the new technology which will have been created along the way.

Just like was done for the space program.

Were you one of those saying that the space program was a 'waste of money' and 'what to heck do we need to go to the moon for anyway'?

I'm guessing you are, and, if that is correct, maybe we should save a cave for you so you can read by the light produced by your fire - oh, and you would have to give up your computer, would not be here except for all the technological advances which were 'a waste of time and money'.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.Last 50 year results have shown Less evaporation not more.

Hotter to me would mean More not less evaporation.

Until one adds in the effect of increased humidity caused by the warming, with increased humidity, the air can hold less 'additional' moisture than before.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Until one adds in the effect of increased humidity caused by the warming, with increased humidity, the air can hold less 'additional' moisture than before.

Rainfall & humidity were All Ready factored into the Pan Evaporation tests conducted over The Last Century and are part of The Standard Test.
.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And let's not burden our children and grandchildren with the potential for rising ocean levels. Let's address the issue while there is plenty of time to address the issue.

Al Gore's predictions of massive sea level rise in his movie have no basis in fact or theory. They are meant for one thing. To scare you. I guess it worked.

If, over time, the issue becomes a non-issue, look at all of the new technology which will have been created along the way.

Just like was done for the space program.

Let the technology advance without the silly and dangerous carbon reduction schemes.

Were you one of those saying that the space program was a 'waste of money' and 'what to heck do we need to go to the moon for anyway'?

No I wasn't but in hindsight we spent far too much.
It was one of the weapons of the cold war so it served it's purpose.

I'm guessing you are, and, if that is correct, maybe we should save a cave for you so you can read by the light produced by your fire - oh, and you would have to give up your computer, would not be here except for all the technological advances which were 'a waste of time and money'.

You must enjoy being wrong Jerry.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

You must enjoy being wrong Jerry.

No, but I knew that would get a rise out of you and Billy ... and it did.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No, but I knew that would get a rise out of you and Billy ... and it did.

.
You was Just Fun in Us. .

The decrease in the earths ability to put moisture in the air from the pan evaporation test
is a positive indicator for warming. Decreased cloud cover means decreased reflectivity of the earth. The protection from the suns rays diminished with ozone holes also over the poles are combining to melt the polar ice caps.
The burning of fossil fuels byproducts combine with other elements in the upper atmosphere to eliminate ozone.
Refrigerant use around the globe, rainforest deforestation, the rise in sea temperature and some of you don't find those things that we are doing to affect our climate?
Rectal cranial inversion.
PS dryer vent

Originally Posted by Christopher Gorton

The decrease in the earths ability to put moisture in the air from the pan evaporation test
is a positive indicator for warming. Decreased cloud cover means decreased reflectivity of the earth. The protection from the suns rays diminished with ozone holes also over the poles are combining to melt the polar ice caps.
The burning of fossil fuels byproducts combine with other elements in the upper atmosphere to eliminate ozone.
Refrigerant use around the globe, rainforest deforestation, the rise in sea temperature and some of you don't find those things that we are doing to affect our climate?
Rectal cranial inversion.
PS dryer vent

Thank you for the chicken little sky is falling report. You forgot to add, because Al Gore said so.

Now read the article below and tell me again why should initiate these climate change fighting measures.

Climate Action Plans Fail to Deliver

Around the country, localities, states and multi-state regions are convening Climate Change Task Forces aimed at developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As the name suggests, these groups have been created to develop Climate Action Plans that are intended to lessen the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change around the world in general, but more particularly, in each state.

In every case, the Action Plans include a lengthy list of cookie-cut, prescribed actions spread across all segments of society, and that are aimed towards reducing future emissions of greenhouse gases to a level below some arbitrarily set target. In no case do any of the Plans lay out what quantified effects their recommended emissions cuts will have on local, regional or global climate. The reason why not? None of the Climate Action Plans will have any meaningful effect on the climate – or any change in future temperatures or sea levels.

Here’s why:

Putting an even finer point on it, were the entire U.S. to close down its economy completely and revert to the Stone Age, without even the ability to light fires, the growth in emissions from China alone would replace its entire emissions in a little less than a decade. In this context, mere emissions restrictions enacted by any locality, state, or multi-state region would be extravagantly pointless.

Sorry, no Al Gore quotes or references from me, Haven't followed much of that or seen the movie. Been listening to the marine biologist renting my house and the polar expedition crews findings that my family have done.
The sky isn't falling right up until it does. I also realize there are those that cannot recognize a trend until after it's happened.
You make a good point about China.
As a so called developed nation the US has already gone through that industrialization phase and can now sit around saying why should I get rid of my 2 stroke gas lawnmower when across the world they fire up 10,000 coal fired power plants?
Clean air costs money, having cleaner waste air than we produce now has only a small percentage of global benefit.
All well and good to point the finger somewhere else, we've already done our
(dryer vent) part to start the ball rolling.

Originally Posted by Christopher Gorton

Been listening to the marine biologist renting my house .

.
Oh Well in That Case.
*wonder where his Funding is coming from?
.