Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[lazs2]

retro... How do I... me... "switch to a renewable source of fuel"???   You realize that oil is a renewable resource right?  that it isn't dead dino's like your scientists told us in the not to distant past?    What renewable source of fuel do you want me to tank up with?   alcohol.. methanol... takes more oil to make a gallon of that stuff than it saves...  

maybe you want me to use nuke power?  I don't make those calls.  The left here  has pretty much banned nuke plants and exploration for oil... they won't be happy till we are back in the dark ages... like a big rennisaince fair but with more dirt and disease and death and starvation.

You have no solution do you?

You have suggested nothing that I can recall.   You are the one who should stop being "silly" and start giving some hard numbers and some real solutions if you believe we can do something about how the sun warms the planet.

And yes... the man made global warming scare is a lefty socialist scare...here and in the rest of the world.  The biggest liar and promoter of "do something now before we all fry" is the UN...

You aren't going to tell me that the UN is not a power grabbing socialist organization are you?

lazs

[lazs2]

angus... please.. use whatever search and source you like.. the LA basin would have poor visibility and "smog" if only indians and their bonfires were there.. it is not a good place for clean air.

lazs

[Angus]

Well, you could begin with Dirty, then Dirtier, and then Dirtiest
And how about Frankfurt then ? The place has a sphere of smog. Like many others, may I add...it's by no means being close to the worst...

[Jackal1]

The earth has been constantly............constan tly changing from day one of recorded history.
THIS JUST IN: It is expected to do so in the future.
That is all.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by lazs2
And yes... the man made global warming scare is a lefty socialist scare...here and in the rest of the world.  The biggest liar and promoter of "do something now before we all fry" is the UN...

You aren't going to tell me that the UN is not a power grabbing socialist organization are you?

Now there is something that is scary if you live in the U.S...............well anywhere actualy.
You won`t something to sink your teeth into, then try this-->Get the UN to hell out of the U.S.

[Angus]

Lazs, what have you been smoking:
"retro... How do I... me... "switch to a renewable source of fuel"??? You realize that oil is a renewable resource right? that it isn't dead dino's like your scientists told us in the not to distant past? What renewable source of fuel do you want me to tank up with? alcohol.. methanol... takes more oil to make a gallon of that stuff than it saves... "

It is only renewable if there is the equal (calibrated) amount of biomass of the right sort disappearing into the ground.
For that, you need a lot of wildland. Much more than we have today.
As for alcohol or methanol I can dig up the figures, but you're dead wrong.
I'll bring you some ineffective numbers from my rogue days as a brewer.
From 5 kg's of sugar you would get 20 ltrs of ca 12% brew. That's about 20.000 kcal turning into 2.5 ltr's clear alcohol, - ethanol calibrated as 90%+
20.000 kcal are some 12 kg's of Barley. A good field up here, in ICELAND, will give some 5 tonnes, - that is the energy of 412 times what you had in the bucket, or roughly 1.000 litres of clear ethanol.
That also leaves the straw, on a good field that would be 3-4 tonnes of burnable material, but you have to be insane to think that the combined energy to grow and harvest one ha of Barley tops 1,000 litres energy worth of 90% moon....

As for what counts into as minus, is the fertilizer, the seed, and the work.
The diesel you'd burn would perhaps be 50 litres. The fertilizer is 600 kg's, worth of an unknown part, but it can be found out, and then there is some energy cost for the machinery, but I doubt that one will pitch up against just the straw.
1000 vs 50 is what we have. And there comes the bone, barley is nothing good for maximum efficiency, Methanol gives a lot more than ethanol, and Iceland is NOT the place for macimum efficiency. In short, my numbers are but a friction of what can be done in other places.
What's in your head? What's wrong with an organic way of growing fuel for combustion engines? Because THAT is a renewable source, and NOT pumping out the fossile fuels of old.

[Angus]

Oh, and as a sidenote, about the lefties, - It also pisses me off when they are against everything. Against fossil fuel, against Hydro plants, and against nuke plants. Kind of like yourself with one excption. Against any other outcome than pumbing out all the fossil fuel there is, polluting the planet for counterbalance and then as the final straw to lock yourself in with your handgun. Bahhh!:furious

[Hap]

Old pic, huh?

Still funny, sad, and maddening.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Jackal1
The earth has been constantly............constan tly changing from day one of recorded history.
THIS JUST IN: It is expected to do so in the future.
That is all.

And it will. But because of that, it's not necessary to screw it up now is it?

[Excel1]

Originally posted by Angus
Yeah, I think the next in the spotlight is somewhere outside Canada.
As for the carbon neutrality, my first thought on it was that it's buyng peace. Not every nation is in on it, and those who are going to be listed as the "environmental pigs" are countries producing cheap goods for those that go "neutral". Your thought on that?

It's not only the consumption of imports that makes a nonsense of it, but the exports do as well. how a country like nz can claim it can become carbon neutral for example, when it exports craploads of coal to china is mind boggling stupid.

even if it was possible for a country to achieve carbon neutrality it's going to have to do it from out side of the global economy. i.e. no imports - no exports.. hello stone age.

carbon neutrality is nothing more than out right lies and feel good rhetoric. it's nothing but a hijacking of the natural and increasing environmental awareness shown by people these days, by the power hungry, dishonest and greedy.. aka as politicians

[Angus]

True as it is, - you export loads of C to china, and then you import steel. China gets the yellow card.
One positive side though is that there is at least an attempt to reduce emissions, - or is it?
The solution is not there at least.

[McFarland]

Originally posted by lazs2
angus... please.. use whatever search and source you like.. the LA basin would have poor visibility and "smog" if only indians and their bonfires were there.. it is not a good place for clean air.

lazs

Ok, according to your reasoning on this, a place has clean air as long as the smog is blown somewhere else? Did it occur to you that the smog has to go somewhere? Where it does go, it is worse for them. And if it blows out of the place, it can blow right back in from somewhere else. Good air flow doesn't neccessarily mean good air.

[Excel1]

the biggest problem with it apart from the political manipulation is that there is no real logic to it. It's more about appearances than anything else. using the example of nz coal - we sell it to the chinese knowing that it will be burnt and produce co2. what's the difference if we keep the coal and burn it ourselves.. absolutely none. It's all the same atmosphere, the co2 is just emitted from different parts of the globe. if there was any real substance to the carbon neutral claims we would walk the talk and not sell the coal to china. of course we probably wont do that , we are a trading nation and need the export $$. It's a good example of why the cabon neutral concept is so fundamentally flawed that it's bogus.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
And it will. But because of that, it's not necessary to screw it up now is it?

Exactly my point.  It is also not necessary to rob ourselves. Thanks.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by RetroVirus
The earth has been heating up at an unprecedented rate in the last 100 years. THIS JUST IN: This just happens to coincide with an unprecedented level of fossil fuel combustion in the industrialized world during the same period.
 

Time wise, when discussing the earth, 100 years is like a chigger on an elephants back.