On Mar 30, 5:36 am, "
wrote:
On Mar 28, 9:40 am, George wrote:



On 3/27/2013 9:42 AM, wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:03 am, George wrote:
On 3/26/2013 4:13 PM, wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:03 pm, Metspitzer wrote:
The idea of painting roads and rooftops white in order to combat
carbon emissions has been around for years. It is surprisingly simple
and effective and yet has not been implemented much.

A study at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that cooler
pavement and roofs leads to cooler cities and an overall cooler world.

Since buildings with white roofs reflect far more sun than those with
black roofs, these buildings stay cooler. Less air conditioning has to
be used, lowering the overall energy required to run the building.

Also buildings with black roofs heat the space below them and this
heat is carried spread by the wind. This raises the ambient air
temperature in what is known as the urban heat island effect. Black
roofs also radiate energy back into the atmosphere to be absorbed by
clouds. This heat is then trapped by the greenhouse effect.

As such, white roofs is one of the quickest and most cost-effective
ways to reduce our carbon emissions. In an initiative launched by the
Energy Department, the federal government hopes to exemplify the
benefits by using these light roofs on their buildings.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-relea...-roofs-offset-...

I say it's total BS. The best study I saw on roof color was
done in FL. They took a bunch of identical houses, put varying types
and color of roofs on them, fully instrumented
the houses, and measured during AC season.

The conclusion was that if you had a shingle roof, it made
about a 10% difference in energy usage if you had a black
rood or a white roof. And that was the energy usage with
the houses unoccupied. They did another test when they
were occupied and the energy usage difference dropped to
just a few percent. Which makes sense, because when
occupied the energy usage is going to be higher, because
people are opening door, turning on TVs, cooking, etc.

It would also seem to me that it's junk science to suggest
that lighter roofs lead to a cooler world. X amount of solar
radiation is hitting the earth. Almost all of it is going to go
into heating it.
So, it's hard to believe that because something is white
that radiation is going back from earth to outer space.

Maybe thats what Limbagh told you but reradiation into space is an
actual physical phenomena.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...php-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Figures someone would drag Limbaugh into the mix. Does
Rush write and publish Discover Magazine and/or the
cited studies?

Don't know but your ranting sure sounds like the usual stuff from his
groupies who just run with whatever "Rush said".

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...ofs-may...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you sound like the typical lib elitist that drags Rush
into anything and everything, claims he's said all kinds
of things, but actually never listens to him.

Oh, and BTW, a better source for energy that reaches
the earth not making it back into space would be Al Gore.
He's the one telling us green house gases, caused by
man, are trapping all the heat. So, which is it? It's being
trapped or you can just reflect it all back into space from
the ground?

We should develop a car engine that burns
greenhouse gas. That would be a very useful
thing. Or, we could develop a car that runs
on hot air. Al Gore would make a fortune..