BreadmanMike
New member
HippieSmell also runs a beckett skimmer!
How do you power your reef?
- Thread starter virginiadiver69
- Start date
- Status
No that did not answer the questions. They are pretty straightforward. I'm not questioning the science of global warming; I'm questioning the science and practicality of your proposed solutions. If your solutions are based on science then answering those three little questions shouldn't be such a difficult task.
Maybe it will be easier for you to answer the question I brought up earlier. Deforestation of tropical rainforests is pumping about 30% as much co2 into the atmosphere as fossil fuel use annually. It seems to me stopping that deforestation and actually regrowing cleared forests is an easier task than switching the world over to "green" alternative energy sources and would have a greater impact in a shorter amount of time.
So why is it that stopping deforestation and regrowing cleared forest is not as high of a priority to you as me getting solar panels and fluorescent light bulbs? I suspect it is because deforestation is being committed by impoverished undeveloped nations and not people like myself who are "guilty" of having a decent life.
Wanting cleaner energy sources, a cleaner environment, I have no problem with that. The green crowd using GW as an excuse to dictate how people should live is what I have a problem with. Heck, Hippie already wants to raise my taxes to pay for it. Of course, he doesn't make enough to even pay taxes so it's easy for him to say that.
Excuse if there are a few errors, but I will answer to my best knowledge.
1.) Green energy sorces can have a huge impact. But these must be combined with increasing efficency of the entire grid. From production through to the end user. Many of the technologies are available today. As you say Fusion does not exist as a solution today and it may be way too expensive to implement in time as a solution, but research must go on. More research into increasing the efficiency of the production, maintenance and use of power is needed now and we can only do that viably if there is significant demand. If renewable power was a boom industry many more solutions will become viable. That being said, with sxisting technologies we can solve the problem. But it will be expensive.
Increasing the fuel efficiency of cars is an easy step to take and most car companies are already on that path. Some others like Ford and GMH are on the ropes partly because they are not. Buying the car you need instead of buying the car you want is always a good option.
To answer your other question, stopping deforestation can have a very large impact. Much of this is happening in developing countries, however much is still hapening in developed countries like Australia. This obviously must be a priority.
2.) It would change on a country to country basis. But if you take the USA for instance. 70% of the US is powered by fossil fuels. I have seen estimates that by 2025 25% can be powered by renewable energy (not including nuclear). That is a significant saving right there.
3.) These solutions can solve some of the problems that AGW will create. However some problems will occur no matter what now. The global sea temps will increase no matter what. But the final temp can be influenced by our actions right now. Global sea levels will increase no matter what, but agian our actions now will help determine the maximum height it will reach. Other issues will depend on the effects of positive feedback loops and other problems that may start sooner. Either way, every action that is taken now will save lives in the future.
The above only reflects my views and understandings of the topic. There are many better informed people who can answer in a better and more concise fashion.
MC Lighting
New member
you know the funny part about global warming is that it has been happening for billions of years its just another way for the nuts in the EPA and other assciated morons to make more money; do you really think Toyota is complaining about the EPA pushing for the PRias I doubt it. Think about everything the EPA and other idiots that are ou there how much money they have made from all of this and we think they are doing it to save the planet. I just heard they are threating to shut down the California Aquiduct because they are afraid we are endangering some fish so lets threated thousand of lives and crops so we can save the fish; that sure fits into the thinking of the EPA types Anyone ever thought about netting the fish and hatchery rasing them to get the numbers up and find a solution to the problem other than just shutting off Californias water source??? Sorry guys I have had enough of this BS about saving the planet I am all for doing the right thing but as stated above there are a lot more sensable things that could and should be done rather we take the Liberal "do it our way" route and well they have us right where they want us. Ok again I am getting off my soap box Sorry for the rant.
Global warming has not been hapening for millions of years. Maybe thousands of years, with a few dips in between, but not millions.
No one is arguing wether global warming happens naturally. What scientists are worried about is how humans have sped up global warming. That is why it is sometimes called anthropogenic global warming, or AGW.
And just a far out idea, how about you stop calling people morons.
No one is arguing wether global warming happens naturally. What scientists are worried about is how humans have sped up global warming. That is why it is sometimes called anthropogenic global warming, or AGW.
And just a far out idea, how about you stop calling people morons.
MC Lighting
New member
My appologies if you took the genral name personally actually it was not aimed at anyone in this thread you have to understand that I live in northern claifornia where most of the propoganda is focused and to be quite honest I used that word trying to be nice I have much stronger words that are far more fitting but again my appologies if you took it personally. And you may be right that it is thousands of years but last time I checked Cars, electricity and the such have not been around all that long so I have a hard time believing that all of this impact is due to us I think mother nature is just going about her business and we don't like the fact that we are the ones who will be left behind; not that it much matters since we will most likely be wiped out by the astroid headed our way in the next 20 something years....
Last edited:
No problem, I didn't take it personally. More just a general point.
Have a look at the research. There is plenty of evidence for AGW. We have only seen real acceleration in global warming since the middle of last century. The problem with AGW as opposed to natural global warming, is that many species (including humans) will have little chance to adjust to the change. There have been many species already that have been directly affected by GW.
Oh yeah and totally agree with you on getting hit by something from space. There is so little searching going on it that regard. Such a huge risk as well.
Have a look at the research. There is plenty of evidence for AGW. We have only seen real acceleration in global warming since the middle of last century. The problem with AGW as opposed to natural global warming, is that many species (including humans) will have little chance to adjust to the change. There have been many species already that have been directly affected by GW.
Oh yeah and totally agree with you on getting hit by something from space. There is so little searching going on it that regard. Such a huge risk as well.
virginiadiver69
New member
I heard a stat today that maybe someone could clear up for me.
The Co2 produced by humans amounts to about 4% of all Co2 in the atmosphere. Is this true?
The Co2 produced by humans amounts to about 4% of all Co2 in the atmosphere. Is this true?
dragonforce
New member
You guys are still buying the global warming fear propaganda?
I'm pretty sure we all know there is no global warming, power shortages with rolling blackouts:lol: , no oil shortage, the real reasons behind 911/pearl harbor and kennedy was certainly not shot by some lone gunman. I find it really rather hard to believe I'm living in the same country as most of you. Please for the sake of our future, WAKE UP.
Go watch some more fox news.
The only thing that matters and will ever matter is your family and friends. Peace to all you brothermen and women:smokin:
I'm pretty sure we all know there is no global warming, power shortages with rolling blackouts:lol: , no oil shortage, the real reasons behind 911/pearl harbor and kennedy was certainly not shot by some lone gunman. I find it really rather hard to believe I'm living in the same country as most of you. Please for the sake of our future, WAKE UP.
Go watch some more fox news.
The only thing that matters and will ever matter is your family and friends. Peace to all you brothermen and women:smokin:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9607673#post9607673 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dragonforce
You guys are still buying the global warming fear propaganda?
I'm pretty sure we all know there is no global warming, power shortages with rolling blackouts:lol: , no oil shortage, the real reasons behind 911/pearl harbor and kennedy was certainly not shot by some lone gunman. I find it really rather hard to believe I'm living in the same country as most of you. Please for the sake of our future, WAKE UP.
Go watch some more fox news.
The only thing that matters and will ever matter is your family and friends. Peace to all you brothermen and women:smokin:
Oh what a load of BS.
Rosseau
New member
Hybrid technologies coupled with better production methods will prove to eventually streamline the entire process. It's all a big work in progress, as everything always is.
Yes, something like solar panels require great amounts of energy to produce them. However as demand and then the supply increseas, not only will the cost decrease but so will the per unit environmental cost (in many cases, I'm generalizing a bit).
So, lets not all be too cynical of new technologies as start up costs of all varieties will almost always exist.
Yes, something like solar panels require great amounts of energy to produce them. However as demand and then the supply increseas, not only will the cost decrease but so will the per unit environmental cost (in many cases, I'm generalizing a bit).
So, lets not all be too cynical of new technologies as start up costs of all varieties will almost always exist.
I totally agree. Diesel power is underated and over looked in this whole scheme. You are correct, the vw 1.9L turbo motor gets roughly 45-50mpg highway with no special technology. it can also run biodiesel without issue and SVO(straight vegetable oil) with some modifications(most reefers would probably be able to mod theirs no problem). What i like best is that outside of oil changes and basic maintence, diesel is reliable and requires no fancy emissions gear unlike modern day gas engines who may intially put out less emissions but once they age a few years and all the emissions gear that is supposed to be replaced and done during maintence is neglected, they end up polluting a lot more than a diesel. Diesel engines also tend to last longer and are more reliable than gasoline engines.
People need to forget electric cars and hydrogen power. Too complicated and far fetched.The only thing electric cars may solve is that carbon emmisions may be reduced to only the power plants intsead of the mobile vehicles, which maybe then we can improve upon our air scrubbers to make buring fossil fuels alittle cleaner.
I also don't get why the united states is so damn focused on ethenol production while creating biodiesel is much easier and less energy intensive(as in it may yield a net gain of energy), and we could use biotech to develope a better crop which could produce high oil yields, grows fast, insect and drought resistant, etc etc not to mention the co2 created when burned in the engines would be reused in theory by the plants that are being grown as fuel.
And finally, life style/living changes should be made. Space is limited. Cities are more efficent than the suburbs, where one gets into their SUV getting 15mpg and has to drive 5 or 10 miles to get to a wawa or to a food store...to the post office. Cities offer high density meaning less distance to travel (bikes and walking and mass transit become more favorable). Logistically its easier for power grids and plumbing and delivery of goods, etc etc. I think the fedual style city planning may be what we should be considering with xtremely tall scapers and dense living areas surrounded by outlying rural area used to farm crops for food and fuel. A bit radical maybe, but w/e. You have to think radically when it comes to these sorts of things. Electricity, planes, physics, nuclear power, etc were all radical ideas for their times, but are now common place.
I don't want to force people to live a certain way, but there is a lot of room to improve upon efficency. I wish people would just place trash trashcans really. Nothing i hate more than when i am on the water at crew practice in the morning and see trashbags and bottles and potato chip foil floating and stuck on shore.
People need to forget electric cars and hydrogen power. Too complicated and far fetched.The only thing electric cars may solve is that carbon emmisions may be reduced to only the power plants intsead of the mobile vehicles, which maybe then we can improve upon our air scrubbers to make buring fossil fuels alittle cleaner.
I also don't get why the united states is so damn focused on ethenol production while creating biodiesel is much easier and less energy intensive(as in it may yield a net gain of energy), and we could use biotech to develope a better crop which could produce high oil yields, grows fast, insect and drought resistant, etc etc not to mention the co2 created when burned in the engines would be reused in theory by the plants that are being grown as fuel.
And finally, life style/living changes should be made. Space is limited. Cities are more efficent than the suburbs, where one gets into their SUV getting 15mpg and has to drive 5 or 10 miles to get to a wawa or to a food store...to the post office. Cities offer high density meaning less distance to travel (bikes and walking and mass transit become more favorable). Logistically its easier for power grids and plumbing and delivery of goods, etc etc. I think the fedual style city planning may be what we should be considering with xtremely tall scapers and dense living areas surrounded by outlying rural area used to farm crops for food and fuel. A bit radical maybe, but w/e. You have to think radically when it comes to these sorts of things. Electricity, planes, physics, nuclear power, etc were all radical ideas for their times, but are now common place.
I don't want to force people to live a certain way, but there is a lot of room to improve upon efficency. I wish people would just place trash trashcans really. Nothing i hate more than when i am on the water at crew practice in the morning and see trashbags and bottles and potato chip foil floating and stuck on shore.
Rosseau
New member
I wish that N.A. would start building roundabouts like in the UK and much of Europe. Starting and stopping not only causes noise pollution, wears down your breaks and other components but is terribly inefficient as far as fuel consumption is concerned.
I think a simple idea to push on people is to drive fuel consciously. Simple driving techniques can really cut down the consumption. This is a way that doesn't affect your life much, you save money on fuel and use less.
Agreed about the diesel. Maybe not a long term viable solution, but a great option that should be explored further in the meantime.
I think a simple idea to push on people is to drive fuel consciously. Simple driving techniques can really cut down the consumption. This is a way that doesn't affect your life much, you save money on fuel and use less.
Agreed about the diesel. Maybe not a long term viable solution, but a great option that should be explored further in the meantime.
virginiadiver69
New member
Follow the money! Just like the global warming evangelist, there are a lot of pockets to fill.
I guess you have never traveled cross country and stared out at the vast openness. Yes, technically...land is not infinite but certainly not limited.
If that's the way you want to live "knock yourself out" but I grew up on in NYC and have had my fill of "efficiency". I live about 25 miles into the rural countryside of Virginia and would not trade it for the world.
Keep in mind, natural human migration is cyclical. "Sprawl" is nothing new, it has been happening since humans were dragging there knuckles on the ground. It goes from city center to suburbs to ex-burbs(countryside) then starts all over again.
virginiadiver69
New member
And it was not for fuel efficiency, it was for road safety. Remember the whole "It saves lives" campaign?
- Status
Similar threads
