forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index
forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index
forum.dwylbtzle.info
FREE-RANGE FLOYD-FREAK ASYLUM
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Global Cooling Next
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index -> Everything Else
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

been seeing a lot of good stuff about wave power

no emissions
great for a country like america
or britain
or ireland
or indonesia
OR BORNEO! Evil or Very Mad
etc
that has a lot of shoreline

works even if the sun doesn't shine

works at night

they showed a graphic:
a tiny little block of generators
off the island of great britain
could run the whole country

I imagine they last a damn long time

you might have to replace a few
or maintain them
after a big storm

but they don't blow up
like nuke reactors
and nuke reactors cost huge amounts when you de-commission them

and they GOTTA be cheaper to make than nuke plants
and probably even cheaper than solar panels

seems like if they got REAL SERIOUS
they could invest some nominally huge initial amount in stuff like this
and get it done fairly fast

I bet we could get independent of oil
if we tried

very quickly
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Brian



Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 125
Location: Stevensville, Michigan USA

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That would be something although what is reliant upon oil is quite a lot of everything
that was designed and constructed during the iron and/or industrial age.

Now that there is synthetic oil(s) etc and computerized operations it would seem more possible,
however some things will always be in need of fossil oil due to friction and corrosion.

What about corruption?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well
you gotta GREASE THE WHEELS! Laughing

******
anyway
right now we have this HUGE dependence on fossil fuels
with a tiny bit of renewable energy
on the fringes
we COULD reverse that
right now
with stuff that already exists
with NO new discoveries
but it would take a big initial investment
and concerted world-wide will

and some kinda (more than feeble) leadership
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://lakeminnetonkaliberty.blogspot.com/2008/04/seven-environmental-catastrophes.html
seven environmental disasters liberals don't want you to know about...because they helped cause them

turns out the really stupid one is bio-fuels
ends up starving tons of people

they COULD do it with bark and leaves and straw and stubble
but they use corn Rolling Eyes
they should AT LEAST switch to making ethanol from SUGAR
not corn
because it's more efficient than corn
and corn is needed as food for people
and livestock
and sugar is just bad for you
this guy says that it costs 2 dollars and 50 cents, per gallon, (gasoline equivalency), here, to make ethanol from corn
but gasoline still only costs $1.50 to make
so it's being heavily sunsidized by the government
but, in Brazil, RIGHT NOW
they can make it from sugar
for 81 cents
so we keep it out with huge tarrifs
and I heard they have tons of land they COULD use to grow sugar
without even chopping down more trees
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=iain+murray+seven+catastrophes+liberals+don%27t+want+you+to+know+about&btnG=Search
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.ismurray.com/
Really Inconvenient Blog Razz Laughing

http://www.reallyinconvenienttruths.com/offers/offer.php?id=RIT001
free chapter of his book
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=outthere21
RUN YER CAR ON WATER!

actually
this just claims to use water to make the car run 40% more efficiently
have no idea if it's real or not
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WOBBLES

as the earth circles the sun
the orbit ocsillates, over time, from perfectly circular
to eliptical

an elongated, stretched-out elipse

ALSO
at the same time
you have to factor in
the fact
that
as the earth spins on its axis
it wobbles like a top
so north rotates around in a circle
(this is called the cycle of the equinoxes)

depending on the relation between these two variables
the earth could be warming or cooling
at any point in time

it's possible that we are coming to some peak warming period
AND WE MAY BE ADDING CO2 AT EXACTLY THE WRONG TIME

or there MAY never be any way to figure out whether we are or not

BUT THIS IS WHY IT DOESN'T MATTER:
gas will probably hit 4 dollars a gallon
this summer
next year it could be nine dollars a gallon Shocked

if china keeps growing, economically
at the rate it is now
in ten years it will require ALL OIL OUTPUT THERE IS ON EARTH!

ANWR wouldn't even make a DENT in that!
we HAVE to get off fossil fuels
and we HAVE to go on as hard a crash program as possible
right now
whatever it is
nuke
wave
wind
solar
hydrogen
WHATEVER

arguing about whether we need to do it or not
because of global warming
is utterly moot

we HAVE to do it
and we have to start right now
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prince Charles as reported by at least two articles states that we are losing 20,000,000 hectares of rainforest every year.

"He called on Governments to act within 18 months or risk causing a catalogue of natural disasters.

“We will end up seeing more drought and starvation on a grand scale. Weather patterns will become even more terrifying and there will be less and less rainfall,” he said."

from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/1957806/Prince-Charles-urges-climate-action-to-prevent-%27drought-and-starvation-on-a-grand-scale%27.html

Quoting the same article;

"He said that every year, 20 million hectares of forest – equivalent to the area of England, Wales and Scotland – were destroyed and called for a "gigantic partnership" of governments, businesses and consumers to slow it down."

In the context of his talk I assume he uses "rainforest" and "forest" interchangeably, maybe I am wrong. But let's assume I am correct and look at that anyway and a little deeper.

I googled the amazon rainforest and found out the forest is 5,500,000 square kilometers (km2). Also that the South American forest is 60% of the world's total.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest

If that is true, let's have some fun and do a few simple calculations to find out how many years until the rainforest is gone, if things stay the same. They won't but let's just look.

Line 1 of my chart says that if the Amazonian Rainforest is 5,500,000 km2 and is 60% of the total rainforest of the world, then dividing 5,500,000 by .6 gives us 9,166,667 km2 of rainforest.

Line 2 says there are 1 million square meters in 1 square kilometer. In 1 hectare is 10,000 square meters (m2). the Total rainforest of the world is 9,166,667 km2. And according to Bonnie Prince Charlie in 1 year we lose 20,000,000 hectares of said rain forest. Because we are multiplying all these fractions and factors together every thing in the numerator (top line) is associative with everything else in the numerator. The associative law says we can rearrange everything in the numerator without changing anything. For those needing a slight refresher, a fraction also means divide whatever is in the top by what's on the bottom.

In line 3 I have rearranged everything, being careful to keep all of the numerator stuff in the numerator, and ditto for the denominator. The associative law demands that also. Anything divided by itself is 1. 2 divided by 2 is 1, etc. Maybe you'll just have to trust me on this but the same is true for units. Your algebra teacher wasn't lying to you, units are important. So m2/m2 is 1, km2/km2 is one, hectare/hectares is one. so when we multiply and divide the remaining numbers correctly, we'll be left with how many years the rainforests have until every last twig is gone.

And in Line 4 we see that we have 45.8 years until we kill (actually according to the prince it's poor little farmers desparate to earn a living doing it) the rainforest off. Just for drill I converted the world's total today to 3,539,270 square miles if that helps you with a feel for the size of the thing. A lot of leaves and twigs.

Now why 18 months? I tried googling several different things and couldn't come up with why that's the magic number, the point of no return. Can you? I am not trying to argue with the good prince, yet. I just want to know why 18 months is the magic number. I already know he's implying that at that point the rainforest will not moderate the weather and carbon and all of that. I just want somebody to show the math why that is so. How many acres of rainforest or any number of trees does it take to sustain and improve the carbon levels so we don't all fry in global warming? Because also implied in that 18 month warning is at that point the number of trees left won't, somebody somewhere figgered that out already or else he's just chatting like the rest of us. Somebody somewhere said each tree converts so much carbon per year, so to sustain the earth and save us from global warming we need some number of acres of trees, rainforest et al.

What's the magic number of trees until it's too late?

I really want to know.


Well I can't get my excel sheet to work here, I'll re-post it when I can.
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dwylbtzle wrote:
Old Geezer wrote:


Al Gore owns a sizable chunk of an investment firm with "green holdings"


that's too easy
a person COULD legitimately think that's the futire
and people should invest in it
and that wouldn't be JUST self serving



What did you think of him when Al Gore for the first time in American history took his hanging chads all the way to the supreme court? When every recount showed him losing?
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

as I understand it
gore only wanted to re-count primarily demo dominated districts
and that's what the state of florida turned him down on
and then the supreme court upheld that decision

if he'd asked for a state-wide re-count
they might have given it to him

i don't understand the 18 month thing

but only 45 years till the rainforest is gone sounds pretty horrible
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think it's like population increase:
the richer countries have curtailed their population explosions

the poor countries haven't


same with trees:
richer countries are gaining trees

if yer only hope in life consists of having kids
to be farm-hands
and chopping down trees to do subsistance farming
no tree has much of a chance

the prince of the limies should invest in south american stock markets
and build schools for engineers and computer geeks there
and buy them all some computers

then they can work on the computers
and make money
and store the data in cyberspace instead of paper

then the population would stablize
and people would value the forests for being forests
not as mere trees
that are in the way of prime turnip patch ground

THIS would be the most environmentally sound policy

you'd get more non-tree-death bang for the buck that way
than any other, probably
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

just saw a show about farming in the amazon

apparently, the way the locals survive, now
is to slash and burn off a patch, to farm on
so they get ONE crop
and then the rain comes and washes the nutrients out of the soil
or washes the soil completely away
and then the next crop is too crappy to survive on
so they have to chop and burn another patch, immediately

but they have discovered that the ancient indians used to take the trees they chopped down, to clear an area
and CHAR it into charcoal, rather than burning it to utter ashes
and then they would use the charcoal to fertilize the ground they were preparing to farm on
and this holds moisture in the soil
instead of letting it wash away or turn into brick-like clay

and the charcoal retains a lot of nutrients from the original wood it is made from
and holds nutrients for hundreds of years

so, apparently there is some kinda program now going on
to try and get people to use this method, again

the show didn't say how widespread or rapidly growing this program is yet

but, at least the problem,
and the solution
has been identified

this knowledge was lost by the native people
because
though they had an advanced civilization
at one time
in that area
with millions of people
the entire population was almost completely wiped out
in a mere coupla decades
by european diseases
when the spanish arrived
(mostly small pox, measles, and influenza)
and the indigenous civilization collapsed
reducing the few remaining people to having to revert back to a strictly hunter-gatherer society
for the last 500 years
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

also
if you have a patch of land that produces crop after crop
instead of just ONE CROP
you can keep it surrounded by forest
instead of having to chop and burn the adjacent patches in the next, immediate, years
and the leaves that fall from the trees replenish the soil in THAT patch

in the tv show, they showed how SOME people
instead of actually farming
just sell their soil to other farmers
who have already ruined THEIR soil
and then
after a certain amount of time
the soil replenishes itself
because the leaves, from the surrounding forest, fill the holes back up
and they turn back into nutrient and nitrogen-rich soil again! Shocked Smile

top soil, in that region
is, apparently so rare and valuable
these people essentially have become pure soil farmers

DIRT FARMERS!

actually it's like they are MINERS
with a mine that replenishes itself
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dwylbtzle wrote:

i don't understand the 18 month thing


Prince Charles is saying that the rainforest is shrinking and at the rate it is, in 18 months it will lose it's ability to keep up with the rate that we humans are creating carbon. Then your carbon doomsday will not only happen it will be inevitable.

I am looking for evidence that backs him up. I can't find it. I was wondering if anyone else knows where that came. Because otherwise, as Libby might say, the 18 month time line is just chat.

I had read that the farmers were doing the strip logging and run thing, but not the details you found.
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dwylbtzle wrote:
as I understand it
gore only wanted to re-count primarily demo dominated districts
and that's what the state of florida turned him down on
and then the supreme court upheld that decision

if he'd asked for a state-wide re-count
they might have given it to him

i don't understand the 18 month thing

but only 45 years till the rainforest is gone sounds pretty horrible


Ok he also had the write in votes of the service men and women blocked and not counted as I recall. It's also vastly more complex than I realized. States do NOT have to have elections, to elect the electoral college dudes. The states have the authority to just straight up chose them, without an election.

This is really interesting: http://www.re-quest.net/g2g/politics/election-2000/supct-1212.pdf

I think what it says (I could only stand 9 of the 65 pages) is where Gore got screwed (from his point of view) was that the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount that not indifferent to the voter, ie the recount cared about Demo vs Repub rather than intent of the voter.

OK then what, if anything does Gore's NOT greening up his own house until the issue attracted national attention like this:

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

Does that tell you anything about him?
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index -> Everything Else All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 11 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group