http://www.ruthfullyyours.c...an-ruthrford-plimer/

quote PLIMER: “Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland , … Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you. Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. I know….it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids’ “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs…..well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY. I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it. Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario. Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ Anymore, but just ‘Climate Change’ - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure. But, hey, relax……give the world a hug and have a nice day!”

Obviously not a "valid" source since it doesn't support the Green Initiative™.
I blame Bush for volcanoes.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-11-2013).]

"The bottom line? Annual anthropogenic CO₂ emissions exceed annual volcanic CO₂ by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO₂ output of one or more super-eruptions. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO₂ emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint."

-- Terry Gerlach is retired from the U.S. Geological Survey where he was a volcanic gas geochemist. The views expressed are his own.

http://www.realclimate.org/...s-anthropogenic-co2/


Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (EOS Transactions American Geophysical Union, 14 June 2011)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-10-2013).]

I think we'll mess up the planet just enough to help her wipe away most of us. then, it'll balance itself out, and maybe some humans will still be around... Hope they take notes.

quote Originally posted by TheDigitalAlchemist: I think we'll mess up the planet just enough to help her wipe away most of us. then, it'll balance itself out, and maybe some humans will still be around... Hope they take notes.

Yes the planet seems to purge us every few thousand years. It knows what it is doing.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I blame Bush for volcanoes.

I blame Busch for EVERYTHING !!!....Ya ever drank that stuff ? NASTY !

Not apparent that this Ian Rutherford Plimer has published any peer reviewed papers corroborating his claims about CO₂ and volcanoes. Nothing obvious surfaces with Google.

As far as this claim:

quote I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

He said "greenhouse gases", not carbon dioxide. Not sure what to make of this. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and I would guess that a big volcanic eruption puts a lot of water vapor into the atmosphere, but--as I have been posting here lately on some other threads--that would not affect anything as far as global warming. If he means "more CO₂ than the entire human race had emiited in all its years on earth", I think that would have been detected and reported as such (volcanic) by the various atmospheric monitoring stations, including the best known such monitoring station in Hawaii.

I suspect he's nothing more than a 100 percent B.S. artist. At least as far as climate and greenhouse gases.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-10-2013).]

Nature will win every time.

Ah, screw it! I'm gonna' see if I can build a 2-stroke Fiero.........

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Nature will win every time.

Those who choose to fight Mother Nature almost always lose to Father Time.

Our efforts to control the climate are little more than a fart in a hurricane.

So, a scientist makes a brief, inexact and not well qualified statement--not a peer-reviewed publication or finding of any kind with any visible evidence to support it. His views on this topic make him an outlier (statistically speaking) among the number of scientists who have addressed this topic. But if you like what he said, and like the implications of it--go with it. Why not?

Not well qualified statement: Was he talking about carbon dioxide? Other greenhouse gases? Aerosols and particulate matter? (He is quoted as referring to "volcanic ash" in part of his statement.) What's MIA here: Any of the metrics and qualitative distinctions that would be required to parse his statement and determine its validity in a scientific review.

But "I" will just post it without further consideration and frame it as the truth that's been struggling to reveal itself amidst a network of "liberal" or "progressive" conspiracies.


Gullible, much?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint."

That is a logical statement which I ... would have agreed with, if you did not insinuate humanity's carbon footprint as if it is a demon.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Gullible, much?

We climbed out of the ocean. We have dealt with climate change before.
When someone tries to sell me with doom and gloom, ... salesmen lie.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Gullible, much?

Gotta attack anyone who doesn't believe what you believe?

Thank you for being the example proving my first post,

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Obviously not a "valid" source since it doesn't support the Green Initiative™.

I guess I'm just a bad person for not giving up my cars and air conditioning and electricity like you have.

I didn't attack anyone for disagreeing with the anthropogenic explanation for global warming.

I questioned why anyone would attribute any particular credibility to that ramble (that's really what it is), which came out as an Internet post or column based on something said in a non-scientific vein by the geologist Ian Rutherford Plimer.

I made a few posts (above) to explain the technical fault that I find with that statement about carbon dioxide and volcanos. I explained why that post or blog entry (subject of your OP) impresses me not--as just an illogical ramble, and I explained why I found that statement about volcanos from Dr. Plimer (as regurgitated in the OP) to be unimpressive, in terms of scientific methodology.

I know by your many other "Formula88" posts that you don't blindly accept any thinly supported bromides from a liberal or progressive perspective, about economic issues, or gun legislation, or "race stuff" (like the Zimmerman case). But I think that you are now showing kind of a blind spot about these climate science arguments. An unfairly closed mind. (At least, with this latest thread.) Opposite to, but otherwise not unlike the "green" zealots that go overboard in the other direction with impractical and even idealogical motivated agendas.

I have staked out a position, that I think the latest evidence keeps coming down on the side of the anthropogenic explanation for global warming.

I never said that anyone should give up their vehicles or turn off their air conditioners. Or disconnect from the electrical grid.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-11-2013).]

No but you try and cram this crap down our throats every time a cow farts, somehow its just not right.

Now is it.

We are all gonna die eventually, The planet will survive.

I do my part, I eat the cows so they don't fart.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 08-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I never said that anyone should give up their vehicles or turn off their air conditioners. Or disconnect from the electrical grid.

So if everyone were to agree with the position you have staked out - then what? If you're not willing to give up your vehicles, AC or electricity - what are you willing to give up to fix the problem?
Pointing out a problem is one thing. What's the fix? Carbon credits? It's crap like that that make me not buy into the AGW line. That's a huge cash cow. Even a UN IPCC official has said it intends to use Climate Change to redistribute wealth from wealthy nations to poor nations.

quote (NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies. (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all. (NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know. (EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil. (NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy. (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

http://newsbusters.org/blog...ealth-climate-policy
http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/s...moegen-neu-1.8373227
http://www.thegwpf.org/ener...-at-stake-in-cancun/

So yeah, I see that and I see the profit motive and that makes me very skeptical of any "science" that goes to such great lengths to suppress any dissent. When so frequently personal attacks are used to silence anyone who isn't fully on board with the Green Initiative that suggests to me it doesn't stand on the strength of the science alone.

When I read about engineers like Burt Rutan and his skepticism of global warming, I'm given pause to think. He's outside "the establishment." He's not a climate scientist, but he IS an engineer who knows how to read and analyze data. Using Climate Change scientist's own data he says their data doesn't support their own conclusions. That makes you wonder why there's such a scientific consensus, and then you look back and see the profit motive again.

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_...n_Climate_Change.htm

Interesting links and material from Formula88 (immediately above).

I think there is a widespread perception that the current U.S. administration in all of its branches and departments is in lock step with the United Nations and the IPCC on these issues--a perception that needs to be brought into sharper focus.

The National Research Council, operating within the framework of the National Academy of Sciences, just released a report under the rather unprovocative title Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

I have not attempted to study this report (itself), but FOX News reported about it under the heading Billions spent in Obama climate plan may be virtually useless, study suggests.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I think there is a widespread perception that the current U.S. administration in all of its branches and departments is in lock step with the United Nations and the IPCC on these issues--a perception that needs to be brought into sharper focus.

I think that doesn't matter. Whether 1 administration or another the issue that it's not all about the climate is still there. There are other motives driving the "science."

I realize the Burt Rutan video is very long, and the links go to other works even longer.
One point that I don't see the AGW crowd mentioning is that while CO2 emissions have gone up, they are still at historically low levels and far lower than what is "optimum" for diverse plant and animal growth. The earth was far greener when our atmosphere had FAR more CO2 in it and runaway warming didn't occur.

That's where my various analogies of comparing man's contribution being akin to a fart in a hurricane or peeing in the ocean. You can scientifically measure the difference, but it would be otherwise unnoticeable.
Even AGW scientists agree the earth has been much warmer and much cooler than now, with CO2 levels much higher than we have now. We could completely remove mankind from the equation and CO2 and temperatures would continue to fluctuate FAR more than what the anthropogenic contribution accounts for.

It's the same idea here: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/102007.html
The "science" may be valid but the effective impact may be negligible.

In the end, it still comes back to the question - what are YOU (each individual) willing to do without to fix this problem if what you believe is true?

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-11-2013).]

Not this **** again

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I think that doesn't matter. Whether 1 administration or another the issue that it's not all about the climate is still there. There are other motives driving the "science." I realize the Burt Rutan video is very long, and the links go to other works even longer. One point that I don't see the AGW crowd mentioning is that while CO2 emissions have gone up, they are still at historically low levels and far lower than what is "optimum" for diverse plant and animal growth. The earth was far greener when our atmosphere had FAR more CO2 in it and runaway warming didn't occur. That's where my various analogies of comparing man's contribution being akin to a fart in a hurricane or peeing in the ocean. You can scientifically measure the difference, but it would be otherwise unnoticeable. Even AGW scientists agree the earth has been much warmer and much cooler than now, with CO2 levels much higher than we have now. We could completely remove mankind from the equation and CO2 and temperatures would continue to fluctuate FAR more than what the anthropogenic contribution accounts for. It's the same idea here: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/102007.html The "science" may be valid but the effective impact may be negligible. In the end, it still comes back to the question - what are YOU (each individual) willing to do without to fix this problem if what you believe is true?

These are all good points for further discussion. I need a timeout, but odds are, I will come back (at some point) to talk about these particular observations from Formula88.

Thanks in large part to the Internet, this has become an ongoing global discussion, reaching out into nations and societies, far beyond what used to be the relatively confined hallways inhabited only by scientists.

I expect that these kinds of discussions about climate and how that should (or should not) map to the engineering of changes to all large scale human activities, from energy to transport to agriculture to the construction industry (etc.) and to government policies (beginning but not ending with changes to taxation and regulatory schemes) will be going on long after my demise. And your demise too--across the boards here, even for the youngest members. Maybe for the next hundred years.

To the "snipers": I have started some different threads in this (climate agendas) category from time to time, but I think that my habit lately has been to cast my posts onto discussions that were already underway. Discussions where somebody else was the OP, and several others were involved. Should I not feel free..?

Maybe there should be a new set of topic checkboxes to use when anyone becomes an OP--a "global warming" checkbox? Along with an "Islam and Muslims" checkbox, a "government overreach checkbox", an "Obama still sucks" checkbox--maybe this (new checkboxes) warrants a separate discussion, in and of itself? Seriously.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-12-2013).]

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: Not this **** again

YES, this s*** again, brought to you by the same people who never met a tax they didn't like. They tried to do an "energy tax" back in the 90s, before global warming was a twinkle in Al Gores eye.

This sound familiar? (BTW, the article is PRO energy tax. I present it simply as evidence that it isn't and never was about global warming)

Clinton Btu Tax (1993)
http://www.carbontax.org/pr...-energy-tax-efforts/

In 1993, the Clinton Administration proposed a general tax on all energy forms, as part of a broader deficit-reduction plan and also to promote energy conservation. The tax was to be levied on coal, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gases, gasoline, nuclear-generated electricity, hydro-electricity, and imported electricity, at a base rate of 25.7 cents per million Btu, with an additional 34.2 cents per million Btu on refined petroleum products. Opposition was broad-based, ranging from oil companies and farmers to major energy-users such as aluminum corporations and their advocates at the National Association of Manufacturers. The "Transportation Fuels Tax" became law on Oct. 1, 1993, but not as the broad-based tax originally proposed. As enacted, the law imposed an average tax of 13.814 cents per gallon on gasoline, diesel, and special motor fuels. See TED Case Study.

Perhaps the most important legacy of the 1993 Btu tax proposal has been to discourage elected officials from seriously considering higher levies on fuels or even fuel-based emissions. Indeed, as Gristmill’s Dave Roberts reported, Bill Clinton himself, addressing the National Clean Energy Summit in August 2008, said he supports pricing carbon via a cap-and-trade system because "I tried [a carbon tax] once. It didn’t work for me." Unfortunately, the former president passed up an opportunity to draw lessons from the 1993 failure. One evident lesson is that any carbon tax proposal should be revenue-neutral. A second is that a tax must be comprehensive and not allow the smorgasbord of exemptions that weighed down the 1993 proposal.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-12-2013).]

Man made pollution is not helping, regardless of what a volcano eruption has done, mankind's continual abuse of his environment is going to make population levels and lifestyles (particularly western lifestyles) untenable. I think of what we have caused : smog and air pollution, garbage islands in the ocean, oil spills, ozone depletion through irresponsible usage of gases and hydrocarbons, mishandling of radioactive materials.. and a whole lot more..

The Earth will be here long after we make our environment toxic to ourselves. Yea a volcano eruption is bad for the environment, but those kinds of things are inevitable, but you only need look around to see we have damaged the environment unnaturally and that could be the proverbial straw on top of natural factors that will eventually change it and make it unsustainable.

We can't prevent a Volcano, but does that mean we should give up trying to cut down other man made factors that add to the damage it does?

I get it, some of you don't like the political association with man made environmental issues, but that does not mean they do not exist.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Man made pollution is not helping, regardless of what a volcano eruption has done, mankind's continual abuse of his environment is going to make population levels and lifestyles (particularly western lifestyles) untenable. I think of what we have caused : smog and air I get it, some of you don't like the political association with man made environmental issues, but that does not mean they do not exist.

CO2 is the subject, and it isn't pollution.

If CO2 were pollution, we'd ideally want to limit it as much as possible. If we did that, we'd end up destroying all plant life on the planet.
We're already below the "optimal" level of atmospheric CO2 for diverse plant and animal life.

The world was much greener when CO2 and temps were higher. Growing seasons were longer and crop yields were higher. So why aren't we trying to raise the CO2 level in the atmosphere?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: If CO2 were pollution, we'd ideally want to limit it as much as possible. If we did that, we'd end up destroying all plant life on the planet. We're already below the "optimal" level of atmospheric CO2 for diverse plant and animal life. The world was much greener when CO2 and temps were higher. Growing seasons were longer and crop yields were higher. So why aren't we trying to raise the CO2 level in the atmosphere?

Some greenhouse growers increase CO2 levels up to about 1,500 PPM, which increases plant growth. Current ambient levels are just under 400PPM.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Man made pollution is not helping, regardless of what a volcano eruption has done ...

Are you trying to insinuate that a volcano pollutes ?
Damn Mother Nature for volcanoes and humans.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: ... you only need look around to see we have damaged the environment unnaturally and that could be the proverbial straw on top of natural factors that will eventually change it and make it unsustainable. We can't prevent a Volcano, but does that mean we should give up trying to cut down other man made factors that add to the damage it does?

WE damaged the environment unnaturally when we first learned how to make fire. Fire was a good thing.
WE ain't gonna stop mankind from producing CO². The scam is to sell carbon credits to others.

quote Originally posted by TheDigitalAlchemist: I think we'll mess up the planet just enough to help her wipe away most of us. then, it'll balance itself out, and maybe some humans will still be around... Hope they take notes.

Good chance that you're right!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Some greenhouse growers increase CO2 levels up to about 1,500 PPM, which increases plant growth. Current ambient levels are just under 400PPM.

I have made that argument before. Ironically the left wing doesn't want to hear about a cyclical history dating back millions of years while insisting the right doesn't believe anything happened before the age of the Bible.

and, for how many days will the sulfuric oxide & ash be in the atmosphere? yes - they got spewed forth - but they also "wash out". The earth has dealt with volcanos for a long time now. If this stuff didnt "wash out", we wouldnt be having this chat. CO2 doesnt wash out. it requires plant life, so we may enjoy our existance. the "natural" state of earth is lots of CO2, with little oxygen (but, still mostly nitrogen). It took a long long time for plant life to make the earth fit for us. and we are setting fire to that very progress.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: and, for how many days will the sulfuric oxide & ash be in the atmosphere? yes - they got spewed forth - but they also "wash out". The earth has dealt with volcanos for a long time now. If this stuff didnt "wash out", we wouldnt be having this chat. CO2 doesnt wash out. it requires plant life, so we may enjoy our existance. the "natural" state of earth is lots of CO2, with little oxygen (but, still mostly nitrogen). It took a long long time for plant life to make the earth fit for us. and we are setting fire to that very progress.

Actually, CO2 is "washed" out of the atmosphere. H₂O + CO₂ = H₂CO₃ (Carbonic Acid)

The carbonic acid dissolves rock to form carbonate rocks.

There is a new hypothesis that the Himalayan Mountains are the cause of the ice ages in the last 40 million years because of this process.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nov...cripts/2320crac.html

quote MAUREEN RAYMO: You can do two things to a rock: you can break it up and you can dissolve it. When you start dissolving it, what you're doing is taking, ultimately what you're doing is taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere dissolves in rain water, makes a very dilute acid, and you know, attacks, etches the rock. And when it dissolves bits of the rock, the elements recombine to form new minerals and in the process, the CO2 that was in the atmosphere ultimately ends up in a carbonate rock. So basically the rivers are the conveyor belt, taking the carbon from the land to the ocean where it's effectively removed from the atmosphere. ... MAUREEN RAYMO: The Himalayas are unique because they're so huge, they're so high, so much crest has been thrust up into the atmosphere, so much of it has been eroded that an enormous amount of mechanical and chemical weathering has gone on in this mountain range. It's like a huge sponge pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. I think these mountains are in large part responsible for all of the global cooling of the last forty million years.

quote Originally posted by dratts: You and Burt Rutan are both brilliant people, but I don't know if either of you are scientific references on AGW. I will stay with the 95% of scientists until other proof emerges

Neither of us ever claimed to be. The interesting thing is you say you'll stay with the Climate Change position "until other proof emerges" and when "other proof" is offered, you dismiss it out of hand.

I don't dismiss the 5%. I weigh it against the 95%.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I weigh it against the 95%.

And George Zimmerman was guilty of being a racist, ... NOT !
You are hearing an agenda. Even Hitler looked good at first.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: And George Zimmerman was guilty of being a racist, ... NOT ! You are hearing an agenda. Even Hitler looked good at first.

I must be getting too old. I don't get your point. My point is that if it's twenty to one I'm going to pick the twenty until I find out otherwise.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 08-12-2013).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: I must be getting too old. I don't get your point. My point is that if it's twenty to one I'm going to pick the twenty until I find out otherwise.

But you're saying anything "otherwise" doesn't agree with the 95%, so you ignore it.
So what it would really take is for all the Global Warming proponents to change THEIR minds, not another interpretation from anywhere else. You might as well be saying you'll vote Republican when the DNC endorses the GOP candidate.

I hope that this doesn't sound like I'm trolling, or just looking for an argument. I still don't get you. I can't ignore the odds. I'm not saying that there are no arguments from the 5% that have validity. If it were 50% AGW and 50% climate deniers I would be pretty confused. I'll be listening to both sides at this point and the preponderance of evidence so far has convinced me that there is a 95% chance that the AGW people are right. I will view the 95% with a skeptical eye and a willingness to change my opinion on presentation of facts or disproof of previous theories. Same thing for the 5%. I'll be watching what they come up with too and ready to accept a change of view. I don't consider climate science as a finished state. There are so many variables. Kind of reminds me of my days balancing heating and cooling systems in large buildings. Every time you change one area it has an effect on the rest. Kind of like squeezing a balloon. You make one part smaller only to make another part larger. We have a lot to learn about our climate.