System after system after system...

This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.

Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia

BoostedNihilist

Re: System after system after system...

Post by BoostedNihilist »

it's supply and demand. if we demand things that are better for the world instead of worse, it's what we will get. and the more people start to buy into it the cheaper it will be.
umm, not quite.

First of all, when you own the means of production then you make the products of which the demand exists for. I.E. there is nobody who makes a perfectly efficient vehicle, there is demand for it, but with no product to fill the void the demand which exists is for the products we have available to us now.

The more people who start to buy a product doesn't always equate to lower prices. In fact, as we can see with gas, when the demand is high the price rises. This is because generally speaking, those who control the production of those products which are in demand also control the profit margin of those products. More often than not they will choose to keep their margins and the price will reach a certain point and stay the same. This is because people like money more than they like earth
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Embraer190
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Embraer190 »

BoostedNihilist wrote:
Did you even think when you came up with this gem? Where do you put that power?
The grid.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BoostedNihilist

Re: System after system after system...

Post by BoostedNihilist »

The grid.
:smt043
Really? Did you read beyond the first sentence?

The car is USELESS unless it has power. There are only two ways I know of to have a car powered by electricity

1. extension cord. If you can't see the logistical nightmare this would cause then you are pretty damned stupid.

2. battery If you can't see the logistical nightmare this would cause then you are pretty damned stupid.

It is clear that you should not have posted this
Are you serious?

Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Nuclear, Wave, Hydro... should I go on?

Better question is where do get all the friggin oil to run those cars?
because you clearly have no clue and the matter of which you speak is clearly above your understanding of the subject.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Embraer190
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Embraer190 »

You're right BoostedNihilist, I has very little knowledge on the subject, so what did I do? Research.

You claim the best and only way to store energy is in a battery? I can now firmly tell you that I beg the differ.

Capacitors or Ultracapacitors are the best way to store electricity and are safe, unlike batteries.
Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory wrote:An ultracapacitor, also known as a double-layer capacitor, polarizes an electrolytic solution to store energy electrostatically. Though it is an electrochemical device, no chemical reactions are involved in its energy storage mechanism. This mechanism is highly reversible, and allows the ultracapacitor to be charged and discharged hundreds of thousands of times.

Once the ultracapacitor is charged and energy stored, a load (the vehicle's motor) can use this energy. The amount of energy stored is very large compared to a standard capacitor because of the enormous surface area created by the porous carbon electrodes and the small charge separation (10 angstroms) created by the dielectric separator. Since the rates of charge and discharge are determined solely by its physical properties, the ultracapacitor can release energy much faster (with more power) than a battery that relies on slow chemical reactions.
I don't appreciate you insinuating that I'm an idiot. Obviously you are not mature enough to handle an adult discussion and obviously you know less about this subject that you made us think.

:smt038
---------- ADS -----------
 
BoostedNihilist

Re: System after system after system...

Post by BoostedNihilist »

ou're right BoostedNihilist, I has very little knowledge on the subject, so what did I do? Research.

You claim the best and only way to store energy is in a battery? I can now firmly tell you that I beg the differ.

Capacitors or Ultracapacitors are the best way to store electricity and are safe, unlike batteries.
you still has very little knowledge. what you has is access to google and a quick scan of some key phrases. But alas, true research is not a quick skim of good catch phrases but requires a little digging. I will help you out since obviously you will take whatever biased information you can find as fact. Here is what an ultra capacitor is actually made out of, you tell me if you still think it is safe.

An ultracapacitor is comprised of a few things. First, you start with activated carbon, and then what do you do? You add heavy metals. What kind of heavy metals? Well, ruthenium oxide, lead oxide, manganese dioxide, nickel oxide, the list goes on and on. Sure there is no acid in there but go ahead and use your friend google. Put in any of those elements and add the word MSDS after it and get back to me. Sealed lead acid batteries are 'safe' as in they won't spill acid all over the place, but these ultracapacitors do not have an indefinite lifespan and will have to be put somewhere when one of their components fails rendering them useless.

Furthermore, to obtain these chemical elements requires mining of some sort just as obtaining oil requires drilling. This is a very environmentally unfriendly process. To add to the above, these chemicals, though classified as safe by an obviously biased agency, are extremely hazardous to the health and well being of well, anyone who might come into contact with a compromised cell, such as when a car comes into contact with a stationary object.

Here is a snippet of what I found when I quickly googled lead oxide coupled with msds...
3. Hazards Identification

Emergency Overview
--------------------------
POISON! DANGER! MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. OXIDIZER. CONTACT WITH OTHER MATERIAL MAY CAUSE FIRE. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. NEUROTOXIN. AFFECTS THE GUM TISSUE, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, KIDNEYS, BLOOD AND REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM.
This one was precious, comes from the MSDS for Manganese dioxide...
Heat, shock, friction, or contact with other materials may cause fire or explosion. Harmful if swallowed. Avoid breathing vapor or dust. Use adequate ventilation. Avoid contact with eyes, skin or clothes. Wash thoroughly after handling. Keep closed.
Here is what I found when I dictionary.commed the word safe
safe
   /seɪf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [seyf] Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective, saf⋅er, saf⋅est, noun
–adjective
1. secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk: a safe place.
2. free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk: to arrive safe and sound.
3. involving little or no risk of mishap, error, etc.: a safe estimate.
4. dependable or trustworthy: a safe guide.

I have googled all of the elements involved in ultracapacitor construction and they all read pretty much the same in their MSDS.

Perhaps it is the fact that I know what a battery and what a capacitor is, I deal with them every day. In this application to distinguish one from the other is essentially the splitting of hairs. They still have the same ultimate downfall, they are difficult, intrusive and harmful to obtain and produce, they take massive amounts of energy to deal with when they are finished, and if compromised are dangerous to anybody in the vicinity. In short, when they have outlived their usefulness they are toxic waste.

So perhaps you should reevaluate your 'safe' paradigm because clearly it is not rooted in reality.

lol
---------- ADS -----------
 
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Re: System after system after system...

Post by xsbank »

Quote:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

This article clearly shows that the climate has recently gotten much warmer. Oh wait, this statement is from 1912.

Then, in 1961, the New York Times had this to say:
Quote:
SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder...

Follow this link to see other climate related Chicken Little headlines over the last 150 years: http://newsbusters.org/node/11640


Congratulations, Algoreans, you can all line up to be the first to pay the carbon taxes. Good thing you guys are all pilots cause I'd sure hate for you to be let out of your cockpits on an unsuspecting world.

Stir up the populace and frighten them badly and you can manipulate them into any sort of claptrap you can dream up. I particularly like Homeland Security and the gun laws - doesn't somebody out there have a working brain?
---------- ADS -----------
 
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
User avatar
Embraer190
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Embraer190 »

BoostedNihilist wrote: So perhaps you should reevaluate your 'safe' paradigm because clearly it is not rooted in reality.

lol
There are so many things wrong with your logic.

Okay, let's get back on track here. The whole idea of alternative energy is to replace existing CO2-emitting sources (Such as coal) with new sustainable sources. Ergo, all this talk about storing energy is garbage. Energy gets produced, goes to the grid, gets used up. Just like it does now. Any energy that needs to be stored will be stored like it is now. No change to the grid, but rather what we put into the grid.

The problem with you BoostedNihilist (and you admitted it, which is good) is that you're one of those people who just doesn't give a shit. You're in your own little bubble and you think that any alternatives are nonsense. The only time you'll leave your bubble is when the pollution from CO2 gets so bad inside that you'll be gasping for air. It will be too late.

Don't get me wrong, fossil fuels are awesome, but we have to make sacrifices... I doubt that an electric car is going to give me the same euphoric feeling that 2005 V12 Mustang would give me. We just have to accept that we're gonna run out eventually.

Wanna learn about how we're REALLY gonna power electric cars? Go to http://www.opg.com/index.asp

And FYI, this is not a biased source, this is a link to Ontario Power Generation... I think we can leave the energy storing issue to them, okay?

Get your head out of your arse, this is the 21st century.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Carrier
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:48 am
Location: Where the job is!

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Carrier »

From the Daily Telegraph:

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 18/07/2004

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

advertisement
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
---------- ADS -----------
 
Carrier
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:48 am
Location: Where the job is!

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Carrier »

Fraser Forum 06/08
www.fraserinstitute.org

Environmentalists’ wild predictions

Walter E. Williams

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let’s look at some environmentalists’ predictions that they might prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” And in 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the United States and that “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and that the US population would have declined to 22.6 million by 1999. Ehrlich’spredictions about England were even gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome, warning that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, and petroleum, copper, lead, and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book, The Doomsday Book, wrote that Americans were using 50% of the world’s resources and that “by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them.” In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The world as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”
Further, in 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald warned, “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Senator Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Latter-day doomsayers are not the only environmentalists who have been wrong. Doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the US Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas.
In 1939, the US Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of US oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974, the US Geological Survey advised us that the United States had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, is that there is a 1,000 to 2,500-year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists predicted man-made global cooling and a coming ice age, and warned us that millions of Americans
would starve to death, what kind of government policy should the United States have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the US Department of the Interior warned that Americans only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally,
what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct today, now that environmentalists have switched their tune to man-made global
warming?
Here are a few facts: Over 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapour in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average
temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of the Earth and variations in the sun’s output. In addition, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined. 
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Driving Rain
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2696
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
Contact:

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Driving Rain »

What are you and your family doing to curb your impact on the planet?

I've reduced my household fresh water consumption to 1 cubic meter per week. That's 1/3 of a typical Canadian household. 1 Cubic meter = 220 imp/ gal. or 1000 litres.
I drive a car that gets advertised 64 mpg/ imp.
I compost and recycle. I've reduced my household garbage to 1 bag every two weeks.
In the summer I run around town on an ebike, I never ever use a drive-thru window.
I don't have or use household air conditioning. I plant trees to keep my house cool.
When I moved recently I purchased all new enerstar appliances, washer, dryer, fridge, stove, dishwasher.
I take my responsibilities very seriously. I've been 28 years of environmental soldering as a water bomber pilot. I know I can look myself in the mirror on this issue. I can do more we all can with just a little thoughtfulness.
I'd like to hear from like minded people on what they're doing. Sorry Mario if this is a hijack of your thread.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Four1oh
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2448
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:24 pm

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Four1oh »

This thread should be in the political forum. Nuff said. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Drinking outside the box.
Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Meatservo »

The "scientific" evidence presented by the "climate is not changing" people reminds me of the pseudo-science that is trotted out by creationists. You can fool all the fans and half the players with big-sounding words and you can screw around with scientific theory in a short rhetoric-laced article and make it back up almost any stupid made-up wishful-thinking theory.

There needs to be far fewer people in the world. All the environmental, and resource-based troubles we have would be easier to figure out if there weren't so many people. Maybe someone could come up with a renewable energy source for electric cars if there weren't so many cars in the first place. The oil wouldn't be running out so fast and there would be less pollution, more agricultural land would be available for biofuel crops, we wouldn't need to keep building houses in the few remaining places the animals have to live and we could put up some windmills for power without taking up all the world's free space and changing the flow of air over the land, etc, etc. I know this is pedantic. Like all other animals, when conditions are favorable, people will keep breeding until they've filled their ecological niche, and then they will consume all their readily available resources or contaminate their closed system with waste products, and then there will be a massive die-off. The natural world is full of examples of animal populations cycling between big boom phases and big die-offs. People are the same, just like bacteria in a petri dish, or yeast in a corn mash for that matter. Or locusts or the huge swarms of mice in Australia. I'm worried that what we're looking at here is the beginning of a big die-off. The environment isn't the benign place it was 200 years ago, there are so many people starting to infringe on each other's territory that wars are becoming inevitable, and people actually do seem to be getting stupider. Or maybe when the population was one-tenth the size it is now, the ratio of smart people to stupid ones was higher or something. I just looked it up, the population in 1900 was EIGHT TIMES smaller than it is now. So one genius then was worth eight of today's.

I digress. You're never going to convince someone who lives in a nice condo in the city to move into a straw house and walk to work, and you're never going to be able to convince the hillbilly dickholes of the world to stop having families with four or five or six kids, so that leaves, I guess, a big epidemic, or mass starvation, (already started in some places) or some global cataclysm to return the population to something approaching reasonable. Or maybe global sperm counts will decrease due to the feminizing effects of some environmental pollutant. It's pretty much hopeless. When the birth rate decreases in a particular country, the government usually starts up some breeding-incentive programs to get it back up there because a declining population is bad for the GDP. Personally I'm hoping for a giant asteroid. While my friends and I are away on a disco planet of course.
---------- ADS -----------
 
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
Check Pilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:26 am

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Check Pilot »

Perhaps a good place to look at some of this is here: http://community.channel4.com/groupee/f ... 9250037634

Climate change is real. It happens all the time. The global warming alarmists are just that - alarmists. Humans don't have any relation to the changes that take place. It's part of a natural change that goes on. Just think, in a few billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen, expand and swallow up the earth. What should we be doing now to prevent that?

"The Andromeda galaxy is headed our way and could gravitationally rip our solar system to shreds in a few hundred million years or so, and we'll all be killed off then, if not sooner...
Any nearby star could nova at any time and we might only have time to see the shockwave coming before we're all toast..." (quoted and shamelessly put here compliments of Mitch on another forum). Oh yeah, don't forget about the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva that is gonna make a tiny black hole that will swallow the earth. Discussed here, a lot: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=24024 And this one: http://www.snopes.com/science/volcano.asp

I know that I'm going to get bashed for this, but to me, it's just a bunch of BS for hidden agendas by alarmist guys like Algore and Suzikins to extract money from me.

Alarmists - Bah!

Yeah, I'm a "denyer".
---------- ADS -----------
 
Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Meatservo »

The thing is, you don't have to believe in the greenhouse effect or holes in the ozone or mercury contamination if you don't want to. There is nothing that wouldn't be improved by having a smaller total population, regardless of what is causing climate change.

We could fix this in a couple of generations if it somehow became fashionable to only have one or two kids each.

If nothing else, it means you don't have to build as many spaceships to get away when the andromeda galaxy comes to visit. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
jetmech
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:32 pm

Re: System after system after system...

Post by jetmech »

Check Pilot wrote:Perhaps a good place to look at some of this is here: http://community.channel4.com/groupee/f ... 9250037634

Climate change is real. It happens all the time. The global warming alarmists are just that - alarmists. Humans don't have any relation to the changes that take place. It's part of a natural change that goes on. Just think, in a few billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen, expand and swallow up the earth. What should we be doing now to prevent that?

"The Andromeda galaxy is headed our way and could gravitationally rip our solar system to shreds in a few hundred million years or so, and we'll all be killed off then, if not sooner...
Any nearby star could nova at any time and we might only have time to see the shockwave coming before we're all toast..." (quoted and shamelessly put here compliments of Mitch on another forum). Oh yeah, don't forget about the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva that is gonna make a tiny black hole that will swallow the earth. Discussed here, a lot: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=24024 And this one: http://www.snopes.com/science/volcano.asp

I know that I'm going to get bashed for this, but to me, it's just a bunch of BS for hidden agendas by alarmist guys like Algore and Suzikins to extract money from me.

Alarmists - Bah!

Yeah, I'm a "denyer".
Thank Christ, finally a voice of reason
---------- ADS -----------
 
Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2581
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Meatservo »

Well, I guess you sleep better at night than the "alarmists".
---------- ADS -----------
 
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Rockie »

Image

Image
The white stuff is cloud of course. The brown stuff is air pollution.

Image
Beijing one year ago.

Image
And again.

Image
Eastern China

The science is real. Anyone who has been to Southern Ontario, or Beijing, or Germany, or India, hell, anybody who has ever been outside their house has seen the effects of humanity on our atmosphere. Denying that we have a detrimental influence on our environment or that we are damaging it is deliberate blindness.
---------- ADS -----------
 
old metal
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:02 pm

Re: System after system after system...

Post by old metal »

I dont' think anyone could deny that changing our ways only when we have no alternative would royally f**k up everyones economies. Nor could anyone argue that the world isn't over populated.

Infrastructure is definately the answer, government has to have some vision, north america is politically lacking in vision. Vancouver is building a new mass transit system, are they doing it because the people want it or as a necessity so the world won't be watching rush hour traffic during the olympics? It's time we are shamed into progress.

I love the fact that the price of gas is going down but I hope there isn't a decrease in research and development of green technologies.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Check Pilot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:26 am

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Check Pilot »

And the sun remains silent so far. - No climate change this year so far.

Latest image: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/rea ... i_igr/512/

When's the climate change/global warming gonna start now? The sun has been this way for a few months now. Global cooling soon?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Intentional Left Bank
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:31 am

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Intentional Left Bank »

Do you guys mind taking this into the Miscellaneous forum? This topic in my opinion is a perfect fit for that section.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Embraer190
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Embraer190 »

old metal wrote:I dont' think anyone could deny that changing our ways only when we have no alternative would royally f**k up everyones economies. Nor could anyone argue that the world isn't over populated.

Infrastructure is definately the answer, government has to have some vision, north america is politically lacking in vision. Vancouver is building a new mass transit system, are they doing it because the people want it or as a necessity so the world won't be watching rush hour traffic during the olympics? It's time we are shamed into progress.

I love the fact that the price of gas is going down but I hope there isn't a decrease in research and development of green technologies.

Harper is working on building infrastructure for the "hydrogen economy" - I look forward to seeing how that works out. Germany already has hydrogen cars and pumps and apparently the cars running on hydrogen perform very similar to gas cars, except they emit H2O and are quitter.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: System after system after system...

Post by Hedley »

I am a BIG fan of eco-consciousness! I think everyone
should reduce, reuse, recycle - so there's more left
over for me :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
pontius
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:22 am
Location: Norway

Re: System after system after system...

Post by pontius »

Embraer 190 said................



"The global aviation sector only makes up about 3% of total CO2 emissions"




Wrong.


Man-made CO2 emissions are perhaps 5% of total C02 emissions; global aviation sector about
3% of that.
One must be extremely careful with statistics, especially when they are used to support or contradict propaganda.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Esse quam videre.
tiny
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:54 am
Location: somewhere on a river looking for dropped tools

Re: System after system after system...

Post by tiny »

I've been 28 years of environmental soldering as a water bomber pilot
To bad its so hard on the bush when the forest fires are put out prematurely. Ruins the natural cycle and we end up with such things as the mountain pine beatle. Also, if we don't allow small fires, that is when we end up with huge out of control wildfires.

I do appreciate the work done to control forest fires, but I wouldn't call it environmental soldering.
---------- ADS -----------
 
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Re: System after system after system...

Post by xsbank »

Agreed. You allow some fires to burn as they occur and the 'duff' on the forest floor is consumed, most of the fires stay on the ground and the cones of various trees are cracked and propagate. The new growth in the forest encourages animals and the heat from the fires kills insects. If you fight all the fires, the duff builds on the forest floor and eventually you get a situation like you have in the Rocky Mountain Trench where the duff is so thick, a fire occurs and burns right to the treetops, killing the trees instead of allowing them to propagate. You also get over-mature forests that are vulnerable to disease and insects like in the centre of BC where we did such a good job fighting fires that the trees are all dead because of beetles; plus it never gets cold enough to freeze the little bastards anymore.

Fires are good for the forest. Take a look at Yosemite where that huge fire was considered a disaster - it is a healthy, thriving forest full of woodland creatures and fuzzy bunnies and bambis and a great tourist attraction again.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Locked

Return to “The Water Cooler”