From: Gregory Morrow on 25 Jul 2006 20:39 nobody wrote: > One more thing: > > many office buildings provide insufficient ventilation and air exchange > rates. So while they may reduce temperature and humidity levels, the > concentration of gases , particles emitted by people, furniture, carpets > etc make this a very unhealthy place to spend many hours per day. This > is even worse for those buildings that shut down ventilation after work > hours to save money. There are plenty of ways to overcome this... > Compare to those, one can be more productive in a building that has > windows that can open and you use a good old fashioned ceiling fan. It's simply not practical from a cost standpoint because opening and closing windows is a *very* ineffecient way to "control" the temperature and humidity. Plus which you are going to have a *real* problem with dirt, etc. entering...for a large building opening windows is simply not on. There is a reason why most large modern office buildings have central air conditioning and sealed windows, these practical factors have been taken into consideration. -- Best Greg
From: Tchiowa on 25 Jul 2006 21:22 The Reid wrote: > Following up to Tchiowa > > >> Good, so even you cannot totally shut out reality. > > > >Apparently you can. Or at least you try. > > Er, no, you are confsuing me with you. I'm not the one pretending > the majority of scientists have got it wrong. If you go back > thruogh the posts I'm sure you will find it was fairly obvious > the we are discussing the effects of man made global warming. No, the statement was global warming, period. You were completely wrong in your statement. If you made an unwarranted assumption as to the topic then simply acknowledge it and move on. Your repeated attempts to justify your incorrect statement are kind of, well, childish. See below. > >> >But none, I repeat *NONE*, argue that global warming has not been going > >> >on for over 10,000 years. > >> > >> so what? > > > >So what??? When I said "Weren't you aware that global warming has been > >going on for over 10,000 years?" you responded "do you ever wonder why > >the worlds scientists think otherwise?" > > sigh, youre playing with the words. Using my exact words and your exact words is "playing with words"????? > The *point* is that *man* *made* global warming is accepted to be a fact by most > scientists. You are only muddying the water because you dont want > to accept the fact. Your statement is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. Let's just simplify: There is a general consensus among scientists that there is a "man made" *COMPONENT* to the existing natural phenomenon of global warming. There is of course no consensus as to whether it is a major or minor component or just what the effect is. And as all of this is based on computer models and these same computer models were predicting and impending *Ice Age* back in the 70s and 80s then there is also a consensus among scientists that the models are not completely reliable. > >> Are you so locked into arguing blacks white that you > >> want "man made" added to every mention of warming or you will > >> start stamping your feet? > > > >Are you or aren't you aware that there is a difference? > > of course I am, numbnuts. Ah, your maturity level showing through. > I am pointing to the concensus that man made global warming is happening. > You are nit picking words. When you want to talk about science, nit-picking is mandatory. The problem with the Global Warming discussions is that people want to inject their political beliefs into science and don't want to try to describe things accurately. Often because they can't. Let's make it clear again: there is a difference between natural global warming, which is proven scientific fact, and a potential man-made component adding to that process, which is a different topic altogether. > That says a lot. Yes, it says I'm trying to be scientifically correct rather than politically correct.
From: mrtravel on 25 Jul 2006 22:49 Mxsmanic wrote: > Keith W writes: > > >>Do you deny 50 is hotter ? > > > Once it's beyond 22 C or so, it's too hot, and exactly how hot isn't > very important. So, it doesn't make a difference to you if it is 23 or 50?
From: Mxsmanic on 26 Jul 2006 01:26 Gregory Morrow writes: > There are plenty of ways to overcome this... List them. > There is a reason why most large modern office buildings have central > air conditioning and sealed windows, these practical factors have been > taken into consideration. That's one way (and the only way that springs immediately to my mind). Unfortunately, Europeans seem to have a problem with it. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 26 Jul 2006 01:29
mrtravel writes: > So, it doesn't make a difference to you if it is 23 or 50? Neither temperature is really acceptable. A temperature of 23 C is more survivable, but survivability is not the only criterion that must be satisfied. It's rather like asking whether 2 feet of water or 4 feet of water are preferable in the streets of New Orleans. The only acceptable level of water is zero. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |