zerostao

climate chaos

Recommended Posts

I made choices Karl.  And I took action based on those choices.  I saved myself money and reduced fossil fuels emissions.  My carbon footprint is less than most people's is.

 

Does it matter to anyone else?  I doubt it but then I don't care either.

 

BTW  I did not ask my government if I could install solar panels.  And I did not ask my government if I could rebuild the solar-assist electric car I have and drive locally for shopping runs.  (I drive that car about once a week and I have not had to recharge the batteries during the past four months because the solar system handles all the demand.  And yes, that saved me money too.)

Right, but these are personal choices that provide you with a benefit and you appeared to be tacitly linking it to some kind of mass collective action in which you were demonstrating a personal resolve.

 

I don't have a car. I gave it up, but not because of carbon footprints, but because I could no longer afford to run it. I'm now poorer by one car, my life hasn't improved. Had I not had road tax, insurance, m.o.t, VAT, fuel duty, then perhaps I would have kept it. If I fitted solar cells it would be the result of trying to save cash. I would happily have an electric car/motorcycle if it fitted my lifestyle, use and pocket. I would do so because it has fewer moving parts and electric motors have better torque and are infinitely more smooth/quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but these are personal choices that provide you with a benefit and you appeared to be tacitly linking it to some kind of mass collective action in which you were demonstrating a personal resolve.

 

Nope.  Just "MY" personal choices.  I do not compare myself with anyone else.

 

I don't have a car. I gave it up, but not because of carbon footprints, but because I could no longer afford to run it. I'm now poorer by one car, my life hasn't improved. Had I not had road tax, insurance, m.o.t, VAT, fuel duty, then perhaps I would have kept it. If I fitted solar cells it would be the result of trying to save cash. I would happily have an electric car/motorcycle if it fitted my lifestyle, use and pocket. I would do so because it has fewer moving parts and electric motors have better torque and are infinitely more smooth/quiet.

 

I hear you.  You have made your choices based on your best interests.  And yes, it requires a lot of money to own/operate a motor vehicle - anything that requires licensing (government control).

 

My electric car is 1980s technology so it's not as efficient as the newer ones but it does what it was designed to do.  (The solar is my design.)  (The car is a 1984 and it was initially converted in 1989.)  (And no, I never have to change oil because there is none. Or radiator water either because there is none.)

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right, but these are personal choices that provide you with a benefit and you appeared to be tacitly linking it to some kind of mass collective action in which you were demonstrating a personal resolve.

 

Nope.  Just "MY" personal choices.  I do not compare myself with anyone else.

I don't have a car. I gave it up, but not because of carbon footprints, but because I could no longer afford to run it. I'm now poorer by one car, my life hasn't improved. Had I not had road tax, insurance, m.o.t, VAT, fuel duty, then perhaps I would have kept it. If I fitted solar cells it would be the result of trying to save cash. I would happily have an electric car/motorcycle if it fitted my lifestyle, use and pocket. I would do so because it has fewer moving parts and electric motors have better torque and are infinitely more smooth/quiet.

 

I hear you.  You have made your choices based on your best interests.  And yes, it requires a lot of money to own/operate a motor vehicle - anything that requires licensing (government control).

 

My electric car is 1980s technology so it's not as efficient as the newer ones but it does what it was designed to do.  (The solar is my design.)  (The car is a 1984 and it was initially converted in 1989.)  (And no, I never have to change oil because there is none. Or radiator water either because there is none.)

 

So the "I do my part, it's up to others to do theirs" was just an off hand comment and that's not what you meant ?

 

I've heard you make some collectivist comments which I ascribed to you taking the part of Devils advocate. Is this a similar instance or do you harbour a degree of that ideology ? You do have this dichotomy of mixed philosophies and this is an area which reveals the conflict which you will often cover by suggesting you are an anarchist.

 

I'm not psychologising here, I'm just trying to understand your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the "I do my part, it's up to others to do theirs" was just an off hand comment and that's not what you meant ?

 

Hehehe.  Yes, please disregard that.  I don't preach.  I'm not a preacher.  I really don't care too much what others do as long as they don't try to do it to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard you make some collectivist comments which I ascribed to you taking the part of Devils advocate.

 

I do that on occasion, don't I?

 

Is this a similar instance or do you harbour a degree of that ideology ?

 

Well, sure, I think that everyone should live responsibly.  But who am I to tell others how to live?  That would be hypocritical.

 

You do have this dichotomy of mixed philosophies and this is an area which reveals the conflict which you will often cover by suggesting you are an anarchist.

 

Yes, I am an Anarchist.  Please don't question that.  And it true that there are many areas in my life such that I have to view some particular concept from more than one point of view.  But I think that I do place limits on the varying views.

 

I'm not psychologising here, I'm just trying to understand your position.

 

If you figure that one out please let me know because I'm not sure I have a position.  Constant change, you know.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've heard you make some collectivist comments which I ascribed to you taking the part of Devils advocate.

 

I do that on occasion, don't I?

 

Is this a similar instance or do you harbour a degree of that ideology ?

 

Well, sure, I think that everyone should live responsibly. But who am I to tell others how to live? That would be hypocritical.

 

You do have this dichotomy of mixed philosophies and this is an area which reveals the conflict which you will often cover by suggesting you are an anarchist.

 

Yes, I am an Anarchist. Please don't question that. And it true that there are many areas in my life such that I have to view some particular concept from more than one point of view. But I think that I do place limits on the varying views.

I'm not psychologising here, I'm just trying to understand your position.

 

If you figure that one out please let me know because I'm not sure I have a position. Constant change, you know.

 

"I think everyone should live responsibly" ? that's quite an empty phrase unless it includes 'how' or 'what' they would act to live that way. Surely you are making a judgement by your standards of what 'responsible' behaviour is ?

 

I certainly understand your refusal of being dictated to by other people and your wish not to impose your will on others, however that would mean you had no view of how others live, yet this is clearly not the case. Your open phrase implies that you do think there is some way that others shoukd live and this includes reducing their environmental impact. It's hard to disagree with that and this goes to my own commentary on micro level sustainability-you don't shit in your nest to borrow a phrase. However, the reason you have acted is to reduce your costs and not some wider environmental collective, most people act that way, they don't give themselves more costs for no reason, therefore, isn't everybody acting responsibly by your definition ?

Edited by Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think everyone should live responsibly" ? that's quite an empty phrase unless it includes 'how' or 'what' they would act to live that way. Surely you are making a judgement by your standards of what 'responsible' behaviour is ?

 

I have never said that I do not judge.

 

I certainly understand your refusal of being dictated to by other people and your wish not to impose your will on others, however that would mean you had no view of how others live, yet this is clearly not the case. Your open phrase implies that you do think there is some way that others shoukd live and this includes reducing their environmental impact. It's hard to disagree with that and this goes to my own commentary on micro level sustainability-you don't shit in your nest to borrow a phrase. However, the reason you have acted is to reduce your costs and not some wider environmental collective, most people act that way, they don't give themselves more costs for no reason, therefore, isn't everybody acting responsibly by your definition ?

 

Yes, I try to do things that are in my best interest most of the time.  I will sometimes do things that are in another's best interest and does no harm to myself.

 

Standard of behavior:  Do no intentional harm.

 

NO, there are a lot of people who do not and don't even know how to live responsibly in my opinion.  Of course, that is only my opinion and it means nothing to them.  But if what they are doing denies themselves of a better life then I would say that they are behaving foolishly.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"I think everyone should live responsibly" ? that's quite an empty phrase unless it includes 'how' or 'what' they would act to live that way. Surely you are making a judgement by your standards of what 'responsible' behaviour is ?

 

I have never said that I do not judge.

I certainly understand your refusal of being dictated to by other people and your wish not to impose your will on others, however that would mean you had no view of how others live, yet this is clearly not the case. Your open phrase implies that you do think there is some way that others shoukd live and this includes reducing their environmental impact. It's hard to disagree with that and this goes to my own commentary on micro level sustainability-you don't shit in your nest to borrow a phrase. However, the reason you have acted is to reduce your costs and not some wider environmental collective, most people act that way, they don't give themselves more costs for no reason, therefore, isn't everybody acting responsibly by your definition ?

 

Yes, I try to do things that are in my best interest most of the time.  I will sometimes do things that are in another's best interest and does no harm to myself.

 

Standard of behavior:  Do no intentional harm.

 

NO, there are a lot of people who do not and don't even know how to live responsibly in my opinion.  Of course, that is only my opinion and it means nothing to them.  But if what they are doing denies themselves of a better life then I would say that they are behaving foolishly.

 

As regards to the environment though ? People can't, or won't 'do their bit' according to you, they maybe are living foolishly but not with respect to some indeterminate collective environmental action, only in their own micro environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As regards to the environment though ? People can't, or won't 'do their bit' according to you, they maybe are living foolishly but not with respect to some indeterminate collective environmental action, only in their own micro environment.

 

I apologize if I gave the impression that all people are like that.  That was never intended.  There are many people who live responsibly and try to not waste resources.  But there are many others who don't.

 

Now true, that is their choice.  If they have more money than they need then there's no problem.  But, if they live their life from paycheck to paycheck and can't make payments on debt because they had to go out on the weekend and party then apparently they are spending more than they have.  (Kinda' like my government.)  I think that's irresponsible.

 

But it's their life so what can I say?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize if I gave the impression that all people are like that.  That was never intended.  There are many people who live responsibly and try to not waste resources.  But there are many others who don't.

 

Now true, that is their choice.  If they have more money than they need then there's no problem.  But, if they live their life from paycheck to paycheck and can't make payments on debt because they had to go out on the weekend and party then apparently they are spending more than they have.  (Kinda' like my government.)  I think that's irresponsible.

 

But it's their life so what can I say?

That's your view of 'wasting resource' and not necessarily theirs, but I know what you mean. The Government is an entirely different beast. It isn't an individual and it employs force directly upon the population. It does misuse resources. It is supposed to protect private property and freedom through law, but instead it bends and breaks the law to benefit some at a great cost too others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.  As previously stated, unless I am quoting someone everything I post here is my opinion and/or understanding.  (I am rarely wrong though.)

 

If we were to add environmental chaos to this discussion we could really talk about all the damage governments around the world are doing to the planet.  And even passing laws allowing it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wind or solar system is fully sustainable. You are talking about replacing reliable power with a gamble. Sometimes there wouldn't be sufficient energy and the grid would be shut down. Hospitals, factories, homes, airports, street lighting, shops, ports, fuel stations would all be at the whim of wind and sun. Each would be forced to run back up generation of diesel or gas. This would increase fossil fuel consumption and the cost and maintenance would be astronomical.

 

Also, coal isn't simply an energy source, it is the origin of valuable chemicals, gases and solid products. It is also used to produce coke for steel manufacture and a huge source of carbon and plastics. Wind and solar won't miraculously produce those products. We would still need to mine and crack coal even if we stopped using it for power.

i wasnt aware of any carbon or plastic shortage and plastics can be made any number of ways actually,  i've heard the argument 25 years ago about how oil and coal are so useful for other things besides burning for energy, and here we are 25 years later still knowing that and yet, still burning them for energy.

i like your "not shitting in your own back yard" comment on a subsequent post of this thread, i take it then, that if your backyard had a coal field--you wouldnt want them destroying your back yard for the coal?

or if it was you next door neighbor had the coal and they allowed the mining for the "greater good" altho it happened to poison you and your family, its fine?

edit> each day the sun rises and the wind blows, that seems fairly sustainable to me

Edited by zerostao
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wasnt aware of any carbon or plastic shortage and plastics can be made any number of ways actually, i digress tho and try not to remember back to the time when my occupation was chemist. i hate that i even brought it up. i've heard the argument 25 years ago about how oil and coal are so useful for other things besides burning for energy, and here we are 25 years later still knowing that and yet, still burning them for energy.

i like your "not shitting in your own back yard" comment on a subsequent post of this thread, i take it then, that if your backyard had a coal field--you wouldnt want them destroying your back yard for the coal?

or if it was you next door neighbor had the coal and they allowed the mining for the greater good altho it happened to poison you and your family, its fine?

edit> each day the sun rises and the wind blows, that seems fairly sustainable to me

 

Industrial hemp can be made into medicine, clothing, paper, plastic, building materials, protein, oil and so forth.

 

La_Roche_Jagu_chanvre_1.JPG

Edited by ralis
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In spite of the potential use of hemp, the government here in the USA has outlawed the production except in a few states.

 

http://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/fiber/industrial-hemp/

 

 

 

Cultivated industrial hemp plants usually consist of a spindly main stalk covered with leaves. Considered a low-maintenance crop, hemp plants typically reach between 6 to 15 feet in height. Depending on the purpose, variety and climatic conditions, the period between planting and harvesting ranges from 70 to 140 days. One acre of hemp can yield an average of 700 pounds of grain, which in turn can be pressed into about 22 gallons of oil and 530 pounds of meal. The same acre will also produce an average of 5,300 pounds of straw, which can be transformed into approximately 1,300 pounds of fiber.

Industrial hemp may be an excellent rotation crop for traditional crops, because it suppresses weeds and decreases outbreaks of insect and disease problems. Hemp may also rebuild and condition soils by replacing organic matter and providing aeration through its extensive root system.

 

 

 

Based on most recent production and price averages, the estimated value of hemp per acre is $21,000 from seeds and $12,500 from stalks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wasnt aware of any carbon or plastic shortage and plastics can be made any number of ways actually,  i've heard the argument 25 years ago about how oil and coal are so useful for other things besides burning for energy, and here we are 25 years later still knowing that and yet, still burning them for energy.

i like your "not shitting in your own back yard" comment on a subsequent post of this thread, i take it then, that if your backyard had a coal field--you wouldnt want them destroying your back yard for the coal?

or if it was you next door neighbor had the coal and they allowed the mining for the "greater good" altho it happened to poison you and your family, its fine?

edit> each day the sun rises and the wind blows, that seems fairly sustainable to me

Did I imply it was fine for someone to damage my property or health. I don't have any instinct for 'the greater good' you should surely be aware of that by now.

 

We burn coal for energy because it is an abundant resource, or in some cases the only resource. Oil is generally used for transport and we have yet to discover a practical alternative to either, other than nuclear.

 

The Sun isn't available when it's night and cloud cover, rain and snow give variable output. The wind does not always blow and when it does blow it has to be at the right speed. As I said previously, the U.K. has a lot of wind turbines and they give less than 1% of the total energy supply-and it should be understood that it does so at an enormous cost and makes it necessary to run short term gas powered plant to make up the shortfall which INCREASES co2 output. It's a huge boondoggle putting money into wind generator manufacturers, solar cell companies and large land owners, it has altered our landscape for the worse and killed millions of native birds.

 

What you probably don't know is that there is a wind quality issue. It's no good just sticking a turbine anywhere, it has to have a wind survey to make sure the wind is pure in order to sustain a steady state of generation and sufficient force. Trees, buildings, landscape, hills or slope of the ground can contribute to eddies and rotors that prevent the turbine running smoothly. Each turbine must be wired into the grid and as the turbines are often remote, then the grid has to be strengthened to enable it to be utilised. The cost of strengthening the grid can be enormous and the upheaval often makes it impractical. You cannot just tap into the super grid either and you need expensive synchronising and control to bring the turbines on/off line. It's a dead end power source suitable only for remote settlements/ farms where it can supplement diesel generator back up/sub standard grid supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zerostao - thanks for that link! Always nice to read about expansions of solar harvesting. I'm in the middle of installing a 3Kw system for our waaay-off-grid cabin up in the mountains. It's twice as big as we 'need' (primarily for the well pump - drilled 200' through solid granite) but this way, if no fuel for rarely used gen backup available, we'll always have water. Everything else can sort itself out, heh ^_^

 

Delighted to see you again.

Edited by rene
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists are not talking about whether climate change is real or not real. What they are saying is that climate change is happening even faster than previously reported.


 



 










 







Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists are not talking about whether climate change is real or not real. What they are saying is that climate change is happening even faster than previously reported.

 

Except it is happening even slower than previously reported. They have been trying to figure out why the model has been spectacularly inaccurate. I can take a guess.

 

In the 1970s they told us we were beginning a new ice age, the science behind that gaff seems to have been quietly disposed of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it is happening even slower than previously reported. They have been trying to figure out why the model has been spectacularly inaccurate. I can take a guess.

 

In the 1970s they told us we were beginning a new ice age, the science behind that gaff seems to have been quietly disposed of.

citations karl

interesting that you bring up the 70's, you were following sxience then?

emmylou changed the line to 21st century and uncle neil sings it that way now too

when emmylou, maryann, and pam sang it thursday night it was niiiiiiiiiiiiice

 

Edited by zerostao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe we have finished the last ice age cycle yet.  There's a lot more ice at the poles than there would be if we were at an ice age minimum.  And Miami is still above water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

citations karl

interesting that you bring up the 70's, you were following sxience then?

emmylou changed the line to 21st century and uncle neil sings it that way now too

when emmylou, maryann, and pam sang it thursday night it was niiiiiiiiiiiiice

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e3m_T-NMOs

 

https://www.mpg.de/8925360/climate-change-global-warming-slowdown

 

 

horses mouth citation. From a warmist website. Of course they state that though it's true, it was expected, but the fact remains regardless of unpredictability excuse, that it isn't warming as fast as the models predicted, at best, if we ignore all the unscientific excuses, then it's warming about the speed they thought, but then they have revised that range downwards several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried to find a good article concerning ice age cycles but haven't found one yet that contains sound data and supportable evidence.  I know that there are some people who study that stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites