Hotel w/ A/C necessary in August?
Apr 28th, 2007, 04:45 AM
#41
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at it this way. If you are going to be hiking the trails in the Cinque Terra during the day in August - then you'll REALLY be hot. By comparison, an open window with a little seabreeze at night will seem like heaven.
While I'm one who would never rent an un-airconditioned apt. or hotel in Paris or Rome at that time -- roughing it in the Cinque Terre is a little different.
While I'm one who would never rent an un-airconditioned apt. or hotel in Paris or Rome at that time -- roughing it in the Cinque Terre is a little different.
Apr 28th, 2007, 05:14 AM
#42
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cincia-I'm going to say this again for the thousandth time- I've been in Italy the last two Augusts, I've been in Venice, on the sea, and I have had to wear sweaters during the day and night both in Florence and Venice for a few days, and then it warmed back up, but the humidity clears out in Venice, particularly around the third week in August, (I was told this by Venetians, and they were right) and although I had a/c, I didn't it turn it on the whole time I was there.
You can obviously never predict what any month's weather, particularly in this area, will be in advance, however, given the unseasonably high temps. for spring in Italy, (and the rest of Europe) my guess is that August could well be rainier and cooler than expected.
You can obviously never predict what any month's weather, particularly in this area, will be in advance, however, given the unseasonably high temps. for spring in Italy, (and the rest of Europe) my guess is that August could well be rainier and cooler than expected.
Apr 28th, 2007, 05:30 AM
#43
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi 1959,
> The USA is the only western country that has not signed the Kyoto declaration. The USA is thus becoming a rogue state within the international community.<
Not accepting an agreement that permits China and India to keep producing billions of tons of CO2; that allows Germany to include the inefficiencies of the GDR in its tally of how much it has "reduced" its CO2 output; that is beneficial to the economies of European states that are lucky enough to have huge resources for hydroelectric power or are almost completely nuclear at the expense of other nations that have to rely on fossil fuels makes us a "rogue state"?
Not that the Kyoto treaty will make a wit of difference anyway.
The IPCC report clearly states that, whether we decrease CO2 emissions or not, the world will continue to get warmer for the next 1000 years.
Which, BTW, it has been doing, almost monotonically, for the last 25,000 years.
>The USA is producing 19.8 tons of CO2 per capita per year, this is twice as much as most European countries produce per capita. Switzerland produces only 6.1 tons.<
The list is available at http://tinyurl.com/yzh39x
Per capita emission is useful only for countries of similar size. For example, Qatar produces 33.6, while China is about 4 (and rising rapidly), and those naughty Hollanders are right up there with the US.
Shall we condemn the Netherlands and Qatar for being so profligate?
I sugget that a better index is CO2 emission/unit of production.
I agree that the US uses too much fossil fuel, and uses too much of it inefficiently.
I agree that the US is too bound to automobiles.
I agree that reducing CO2 emissions won't hurt.
I agree that building more nuclear power plants rather than gas, coal and oil-fired plants in the US would be a good thing to do.
I don't, however, support Kyoto.
> The USA is the only western country that has not signed the Kyoto declaration. The USA is thus becoming a rogue state within the international community.<
Not accepting an agreement that permits China and India to keep producing billions of tons of CO2; that allows Germany to include the inefficiencies of the GDR in its tally of how much it has "reduced" its CO2 output; that is beneficial to the economies of European states that are lucky enough to have huge resources for hydroelectric power or are almost completely nuclear at the expense of other nations that have to rely on fossil fuels makes us a "rogue state"?
Not that the Kyoto treaty will make a wit of difference anyway.
The IPCC report clearly states that, whether we decrease CO2 emissions or not, the world will continue to get warmer for the next 1000 years.
Which, BTW, it has been doing, almost monotonically, for the last 25,000 years.
>The USA is producing 19.8 tons of CO2 per capita per year, this is twice as much as most European countries produce per capita. Switzerland produces only 6.1 tons.<
The list is available at http://tinyurl.com/yzh39x
Per capita emission is useful only for countries of similar size. For example, Qatar produces 33.6, while China is about 4 (and rising rapidly), and those naughty Hollanders are right up there with the US.
Shall we condemn the Netherlands and Qatar for being so profligate?
I sugget that a better index is CO2 emission/unit of production.
I agree that the US uses too much fossil fuel, and uses too much of it inefficiently.
I agree that the US is too bound to automobiles.
I agree that reducing CO2 emissions won't hurt.
I agree that building more nuclear power plants rather than gas, coal and oil-fired plants in the US would be a good thing to do.
I don't, however, support Kyoto.
Apr 28th, 2007, 05:39 AM
#44
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted too soon.
It would be interesting to hear/see some discussion on the effect of destroying the rain forests on atmospheric CO2.
One also wonders if the fact the world's population quadrupled between 1900 and 2000 has any importance.
It would be interesting to hear/see some discussion on the effect of destroying the rain forests on atmospheric CO2.
One also wonders if the fact the world's population quadrupled between 1900 and 2000 has any importance.
Apr 28th, 2007, 09:08 AM
#45
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IPCC has absolutely no idea what the climate will be like 1000, 100, or even ten years from now. Nobody does.
Weather services still cannot predict the weather accurately 24 hours in advance; it amazes me that anyone would think that they could predict the weather a decade or a century from now.
The reality is that nobody really knows. For various reasons, a self-sustaining ball of hysteria is rolling through much of society today that says that fossil fuels are causing global warming—very similar to another ball of hysteria a few decades ago that assured us that pollution was producing a new ice age.
But we really just do not know. All we know is that there is a current warming trend on the planet (and on several other planets in our system, which implies that the real culprit might be increased solar output). We don't know the cause, and we cannot predict how long it will last. We like to think that we're responsible for it, because it makes us feel important, but there's no proof of that. It's just as likely that we are doing something to slow the trend as it is that we are doing something to accelerate it. Our understanding of climate and weather is so poor that it's literally just a roll of the dice. But we refuse to admit that we don't know, for the same egotistical reasons that compel us to believe that it's all our doing.
I do note that the same people who believe whatever the media tells them about climate also tend to have a lot of bizarre beliefs and superstitions about A/C. Some people are content to latch onto something and then cling to it for dear life no matter what the facts seem to say; others like to do research and figure things out for themselves.
Weather services still cannot predict the weather accurately 24 hours in advance; it amazes me that anyone would think that they could predict the weather a decade or a century from now.
The reality is that nobody really knows. For various reasons, a self-sustaining ball of hysteria is rolling through much of society today that says that fossil fuels are causing global warming—very similar to another ball of hysteria a few decades ago that assured us that pollution was producing a new ice age.
But we really just do not know. All we know is that there is a current warming trend on the planet (and on several other planets in our system, which implies that the real culprit might be increased solar output). We don't know the cause, and we cannot predict how long it will last. We like to think that we're responsible for it, because it makes us feel important, but there's no proof of that. It's just as likely that we are doing something to slow the trend as it is that we are doing something to accelerate it. Our understanding of climate and weather is so poor that it's literally just a roll of the dice. But we refuse to admit that we don't know, for the same egotistical reasons that compel us to believe that it's all our doing.
I do note that the same people who believe whatever the media tells them about climate also tend to have a lot of bizarre beliefs and superstitions about A/C. Some people are content to latch onto something and then cling to it for dear life no matter what the facts seem to say; others like to do research and figure things out for themselves.
Apr 28th, 2007, 12:23 PM
#46
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such ignorance on this forum - especially by smug Europeans!
Lets start with some facts:
1. The rate of warming over the past 100 years is estimated at about 0.6 degrees C. That can not explain the warming in Europe which is then called weather, not global warming. One degree Fahrenheit should not cause anyone extra discomfort. Europe has some extra weather patterns going on just as the US had in the 1930's. The fact that Europe has had the warmest April on record proves nothing any more than the US has had one of the coldest Aprils on record.
2. According to the UN report, if all Western nations including the US were to instantly abide by Kyoto, it would make no difference in climate change.
3. Measured by per capita or per GDP, the US has controlled CO2 emissions better than Europe since 2000. (Yes, at a much higher base level) Why does Europe insist measurement start at 1990 when the Kyoto meeting was 1998? There were several unintentional things that happened during that period from which they want to take advantage. It is all politics. Canada DID sign Kyoto and has increased emissions at a far greater rate than the US. Where is the outrage at them?
4. A European building which uses any methods to cool its air IS using air-conditioning. Many new US buildings are high tech and green. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and bigoted.
I live in Ohio and grew up without AC and rarely use it now at home. Many neighbors do not have home AC, though they are converting.
I think cost is one factor in European acceptance of AC, but you can't discount the fact (illustrated by some here) that they also believe it is a moral issue. Conservation has become a new religion in Europe. People rarely question their religion because of facts.
I rarely stay in a place in Europe that has AC, but then I don't go there in August. June and early July is normally bearable if not delightful.
Lets start with some facts:
1. The rate of warming over the past 100 years is estimated at about 0.6 degrees C. That can not explain the warming in Europe which is then called weather, not global warming. One degree Fahrenheit should not cause anyone extra discomfort. Europe has some extra weather patterns going on just as the US had in the 1930's. The fact that Europe has had the warmest April on record proves nothing any more than the US has had one of the coldest Aprils on record.
2. According to the UN report, if all Western nations including the US were to instantly abide by Kyoto, it would make no difference in climate change.
3. Measured by per capita or per GDP, the US has controlled CO2 emissions better than Europe since 2000. (Yes, at a much higher base level) Why does Europe insist measurement start at 1990 when the Kyoto meeting was 1998? There were several unintentional things that happened during that period from which they want to take advantage. It is all politics. Canada DID sign Kyoto and has increased emissions at a far greater rate than the US. Where is the outrage at them?
4. A European building which uses any methods to cool its air IS using air-conditioning. Many new US buildings are high tech and green. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and bigoted.
I live in Ohio and grew up without AC and rarely use it now at home. Many neighbors do not have home AC, though they are converting.
I think cost is one factor in European acceptance of AC, but you can't discount the fact (illustrated by some here) that they also believe it is a moral issue. Conservation has become a new religion in Europe. People rarely question their religion because of facts.
I rarely stay in a place in Europe that has AC, but then I don't go there in August. June and early July is normally bearable if not delightful.
Apr 28th, 2007, 02:46 PM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lessons &Morons
National Post
Published: Saturday, April 28, 2007
Re: Let's call them 'Kyodiots,' letter to the editor, April 26.
Roman Bobak suggests in his letter that advocates of Kyoto be called "Kyodiots." Or perhaps those who have followed the science and seen that CO2 emissions must be dramatically lessened could be called "Lessons" and those who don't, "Morons."
National Post
Published: Saturday, April 28, 2007
Re: Let's call them 'Kyodiots,' letter to the editor, April 26.
Roman Bobak suggests in his letter that advocates of Kyoto be called "Kyodiots." Or perhaps those who have followed the science and seen that CO2 emissions must be dramatically lessened could be called "Lessons" and those who don't, "Morons."
Apr 28th, 2007, 03:07 PM
#48
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ira, you and I think alike. Let me throw one more out to everyone. If we are going to have seas rising up to 21" over a period of years according to the IPCC, then why, oh why, are we rebuilding New Orleans? or are we building it 21+" higher this time???
Apr 28th, 2007, 03:16 PM
#49
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 12,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My home does not have air conditioning. I just tough it out when it's hot, opening windows and doors in the early morning, and still sweltering in the afternoon. Nevertheless the past couple of years have tested my resolve to do without it.
I traveled to Austria and Germany in July with a friend who couldn't wear earplugs. We would have the window open at night so as to get some cool air; however, once the very early morning traffic started, she would close the window because of the noise.
It was miserable. The heat would keep me awake or the noise would keep her awake. AC would have been a godsend.
I traveled to Austria and Germany in July with a friend who couldn't wear earplugs. We would have the window open at night so as to get some cool air; however, once the very early morning traffic started, she would close the window because of the noise.
It was miserable. The heat would keep me awake or the noise would keep her awake. AC would have been a godsend.
Apr 28th, 2007, 03:24 PM
#50
hi, y'all,
I hesitate to get invovled in this debate, [and may well delete my contribution before I post it] but here goes [trying to leave out words like morons and kyiditos which don't really help]
1. virtually all of us in the "west" use too much energy which is generated from fossil fuels.
2. This use may or may not be contributing to the phenomenon known as "global warming" which amy or may not exist.
3. we can't afford to take the risk that our energy use is making the situation worse. therefore it is incumbent upon us all to try to reduce our consumption.
4. it is inevtiable that the chinese and indians will want to improve their living standards - and given the base from which they are starting, it is unfair of us to want to deny them facilties which we regard as absolute basics [such as clean water and a constant electricity supply].
5. we must therefore try even harder to reduce our use of luxuries which are beyond their wildest dreams.
6. what can we each individually do about all of this? - probably very little.
regards, ann
I hesitate to get invovled in this debate, [and may well delete my contribution before I post it] but here goes [trying to leave out words like morons and kyiditos which don't really help]
1. virtually all of us in the "west" use too much energy which is generated from fossil fuels.
2. This use may or may not be contributing to the phenomenon known as "global warming" which amy or may not exist.
3. we can't afford to take the risk that our energy use is making the situation worse. therefore it is incumbent upon us all to try to reduce our consumption.
4. it is inevtiable that the chinese and indians will want to improve their living standards - and given the base from which they are starting, it is unfair of us to want to deny them facilties which we regard as absolute basics [such as clean water and a constant electricity supply].
5. we must therefore try even harder to reduce our use of luxuries which are beyond their wildest dreams.
6. what can we each individually do about all of this? - probably very little.
regards, ann
Apr 28th, 2007, 03:38 PM
#51
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>It was miserable
Given the fact that most Germans and Austrians live their life without A/C day and night, at work and at home and don't feel miserable because of that every morning there must be something wrong with them. Very strange people those Germans indeed
Or maybe it's not them?
Given the fact that most Germans and Austrians live their life without A/C day and night, at work and at home and don't feel miserable because of that every morning there must be something wrong with them. Very strange people those Germans indeed
Or maybe it's not them?
Apr 28th, 2007, 05:00 PM
#52
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't know if what we are doing is making the problem worse or better. There are numerous reasons why pollution is bad, some of which are verifiable, but climate change is not among them. For all we know, the pollution we produce may be slowing the warming trend, rather than accelerating it. Our understanding of climate and weather is so poor that it could easily go either way. We truly have no clue.
The problem with burning fossil fuels is not burning too much per capita, but having too many capitas for which to burn. In other words, the world's real problem is overpopulation, not the use of resources. If the population is small enough, you can waste resources all you want and never run out. Conversely, if the population is large enough, no amount of conservation will suffice to prevent the exhaustion of resources.
The problem now is that too many countries are producing too many people. Everyone has to work at limiting population growth, or we will all be living in dirt one day. And the problem with China and India is not their per-capita use of resources, but their constant population growth (particularly India, which is making virtually no attempt to control population, unlike China). At these rates, everyone is eventually going to starve, no matter what other measures are taken.
The best ways to control population, by the way, are by education and equality of the sexes. Ironically, the higher the standard of living, the lower the rate of population growth tends to be, but very often you must control the latter in order to achieve the former.
The problem with burning fossil fuels is not burning too much per capita, but having too many capitas for which to burn. In other words, the world's real problem is overpopulation, not the use of resources. If the population is small enough, you can waste resources all you want and never run out. Conversely, if the population is large enough, no amount of conservation will suffice to prevent the exhaustion of resources.
The problem now is that too many countries are producing too many people. Everyone has to work at limiting population growth, or we will all be living in dirt one day. And the problem with China and India is not their per-capita use of resources, but their constant population growth (particularly India, which is making virtually no attempt to control population, unlike China). At these rates, everyone is eventually going to starve, no matter what other measures are taken.
The best ways to control population, by the way, are by education and equality of the sexes. Ironically, the higher the standard of living, the lower the rate of population growth tends to be, but very often you must control the latter in order to achieve the former.
Apr 28th, 2007, 05:26 PM
#53
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
logos, why do you consistently run down other people like the Germans? No one was saying there must be something "wrong with them" except you. It's unfortunate that you can't accept when a person says he is miserable, but why do you have to pretend their comment is therefore an attempt to discredit someone else?
Apr 28th, 2007, 05:48 PM
#55
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, when 50-80 million people don't complain at all and one person (or a bunch of foreign? people) do feel miserable... (Do they really?) Oh well, you won't understand and just try to provoke answers to a crystal clear thing 
.
.
Apr 28th, 2007, 05:59 PM
#58
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robespierre, surely you missed MY meaning. Obviously logos meant his comments to put down silly Americans just as he often does, but the way it came across was that he is the only one putting down the Germans, and trying to put words into other people's mouths.
If a person says it's too far to walk 5 miles to get from one point to another, does that really mean they think every person who walks that far every day has something "wrong with them"? And does it mean that there must be something wrong with the person who doesn't want to walk 5 miles when others do it all the time without complaining? Well, it's the same with air conditioning -- and wanting to tolerate the heat.
Why does logos seem to insist that there is something wrong with anyone at all? Just because a person is uncomfortable in heat -- why does he seem to insist that there must be something wrong with him because others can tolerate it without complaining?
It is only crystal clear to you, logos, why you think anyone who makes any kind of complaint must be at fault for being "different".
If a person says it's too far to walk 5 miles to get from one point to another, does that really mean they think every person who walks that far every day has something "wrong with them"? And does it mean that there must be something wrong with the person who doesn't want to walk 5 miles when others do it all the time without complaining? Well, it's the same with air conditioning -- and wanting to tolerate the heat.
Why does logos seem to insist that there is something wrong with anyone at all? Just because a person is uncomfortable in heat -- why does he seem to insist that there must be something wrong with him because others can tolerate it without complaining?
It is only crystal clear to you, logos, why you think anyone who makes any kind of complaint must be at fault for being "different".
