Farage

[chesters1]

Its not caused by humans but humans are definately not helping once humans have gone the planet will settle down to the natural cycles,unfortunately humans are pretty good at existing and rising temeperatures wont stop humans breeding we already live in low temperatures and pretty high ones and breed.

I have no problem excepting humans are poluting the planet with our waste ,destroying the lungs of the planet aund breeding far more food animals that also polute the planet but climate change itself is natural and the warming we see (possibly faster due to humans) started when the ice started retreating long before man became a problem.

 

Can we help slow it yes we can we can all die or less positively stop all oil based energy and use natural fibers (this means not using oil based polymers) for everything .

No moving about unless by foot but even then the effort of doing so will produce more co2 than standing still .

We are not going to stop anything however much we are taxed under the excuse of doing so so just except its coming and grit your teeth because the masses are the problem excepting everything the manufacturing system chuck at them including the VAST amount of packaging they use we have no control over and then pay far more than it cost to make (in value ,materials ,fuel etc ) to get rid of it.

The major fault is the west and its consumerism but it has spread to everywhere ,everyone wants a bite of the apple but its a poison one but happily sold by those with profit on their minds.

 

I have no problem with global warming (it is and has been since the last ice age) but i do have a problem its caused by man as the only cause as the media will happily tell you as they polute the planet with millions of tons of paper using millions of tons of ink using millions of tons of oil getting it to your living room so you can feel ashamed so you recycle it using millions of tons of oil and dumping millions of tons of residue to polute the ground water ,in essence were shafted by us ,by them by the governments for being in someones pockets but mostly by us

 

Oil isnt at peak yet so oil wars are only minor ,land wars will get worse as more humans travel to take other peoples land (immigration) but all minor to the coming water wars ,we need water but strangely have no problem poluting it on a vast scale

The planet itself will be fine its recovered many times from calamities but yet again the humans think of only the humans nothing else we will breed ourselves out of existance the human race is a tiny blip on the planets time scale but we think of ourselves as some superior being yet are so fragile we commit mass suicide deliberately .

As for me its grab it while i can i have no problem ushering the downfall of man a bit quicker i feel sorry for a few tribes that havent found consumerism and will die anyway

 

Looking back i think the baby boomers may have seen the best we are going to see ,when i was a kid you used probably 3 or 4 things on electric ,now you need more plugs every year just to exist a 'normal' life ,food was scarece in the 50's now we chuck more away than existed then then the few owned cars now the few do not ,its turned on its head but i think the downward slide has started and once oil has gone the humans will decline to medieval levels where we were less bothersome the planet will continue the cycle going hotter or colder like it has for 4 billion years without our help

 

And yes i have used a bit of tech that cannot be recycled and thus have no impact on the planet ,made in a far off country brought here by oil consuming ships and delivered by messy lorries to my door ,those that do not and them only have the right to tax me to 'save' the planet that includes the governments mp's with its two houses each living the highlife tapping away on the free ipads on free electric as the decide how to punish the masses doing exactly the same but bought from their own money not taxes

 

And if cory comes up with some childish retort without countering if you really really want to help global warming leap from your garret and fall on your head ,i will let you work out the miniscule amount of energy and oil you save by not living a long life to you as you have all the answers or is it you use someone elses opinion of answers? That googling uses energy as well you know

Edited June 4, 2017 by chesters1

[Phone]

Chesters1,

 

100% of the argument is found in your first 5 words.

 

The rest of your looong post is just that, a long post.

 

Phone

[chesters1]

Chesters1,

 

100% of the argument is found in your first 5 words.

 

The rest of your looong post is just that, a long post.

 

Phone

Long posts are ok ,my fingers use little oil and are recycled after use naturally

[Vagabond]

Here is a little exercise that may appeal those that advocate "renewable energy"

 

 

Work out the TRUE cost of producing energy from wind farms, a/ in cash terms, b/ in energy terms

 

You need to know, amongst other things, how much energy goes into mining, smelting, fabricating, erecting and maintaining the windmills, (including the machines that make the machines) The total energy produced by a windmill during its lifetime. The man-hours involved in all the above

 

 

The amount of political obfuscation surrounding the projects will make the task harder - which is why I want YOU to do it, rather than try myself.

 

 

 

The answer ? Dunno, but the adage "You can't get energy for nothing" occurs to me.

[Phone]

Vagabond,

 

Doesn't that have something to do with E=MC2? Potential and kinetic energy is what I remember(?) Kinetic energy is converted into mechanical.

 

The solution to your doubts is simple enough. We cannot re-create today's potential energy (coal, gas, oil are examples). I am an advocate of "renewable" energy. The source(s) can not be exhausted (thermal, wave, wind are examples. Since in general terms we have the "conservation of energy" the byproducts of current potential energy sources can and will CONTRIBUTE to a change in the elements required for life as we know it. Whether we can genetically adapt and mutate at an equal pace is a question for you?

 

There is no cost/benefit equation in your question.

 

Your premise stinks.

 

Phone

[corydoras]

Vagabond,

 

Doesn't that have something to do with E=MC2? Potential and kinetic energy is what I remember(?) Kinetic energy is converted into mechanical.

 

The solution to your doubts is simple enough. We cannot re-create today's potential energy (coal, gas, oil are examples). I am an advocate of "renewable" energy. The source(s) can not be exhausted (thermal, wave, wind are examples. Since in general terms we have the "conservation of energy" the byproducts of current potential energy sources can and will CONTRIBUTE to a change in the elements required for life as we know it. Whether we can genetically adapt and mutate at an equal pace is a question for you?

 

There is no cost/benefit equation in your question.

 

Your premise stinks.

 

Phone

E=mc²no not quite. Coal, gas, oil are examples of chemical energy. Conservation of Energy is the rule that energy cannot be destroyed it can only be transformed from one kind to another. Since mass is just "frozen" energy the same rule applies to matter, matter may not be destroyed it can merely be transformed from one kind to another.

 

An example of potential energy might be the energy stored in a wound up clock spring.. or my favourite example : Imagine you walk up the stairs of a very high apartment block, your body would transform chemical energy into potential energy as you slowly mount the stairs. When you leap off the roof gravity will cause you to fall. On the way down that stored, potential energy will be transformed into kinetic energy and thermal energy due to friction of your body against the gas molecules in the atmosphere. The sudden stop at the bottom will transfer the remaining kinetic energy into more heat energy and some will be lost in making sound energy.

 

As for "free" energy we get loads of it from the sun, we just need some smart people to work out how to capture it and distribute it around the globe. Half the earth is always bathed in sunlight.

 

Many buildings in Southampton have "free" geothermal heating from a hole in the ground.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_District_Energy_Scheme

 

In many places in France geothermal heating is an option.

 

http://www.les-energies-renouvelables.eu/conseils/geothermie/fonctionnement-pompe-a-chaleur-geothermique/

[Phone]

Cory,

 

Semantics my friend. I don't believe coal, gas and oil are chemical energy - they are potential energy. I guess you could say "stored" potential energy? Just me - without the aid of Google - I think of "stored" energy as being manufactured for a specific kind of discharge. Like ammunition or a battery. Could be wrong?

 

I'll stick with E=MC2 - why not?

 

Phone

[Vagabond]

Well, there is certainly a lot of wind energy in the above three posts !

 

But note carefully I did not take sides, but asked a question - which is still unanswered.

 

What "premise" stinks, Phone ?

[Vagabond]

 

 

As for "free" energy we get loads of it from the sun, we just need some smart people to work out how to capture it

 

Cory - I'm sure your Scottish education included the advice to "answer the question set"

 

I asked about windmills specifically - no marks for a pontification on direct solar radiation and geothermal energy. and BTW if you "capture" a proportion of the sunlight, what happens to the plants that used to utilise it to photosynthesize the primary production that underlies all food chains ?

 

 

Note I am asking questions, not asserting anything.

 

...and yes, we all know that solar energy drives the winds that drive the windmills - so don't go off on another tangent.

[Phone]

Vagabond,

 

Thin - very thin. You're trying to make a "point" without commitment. No argument is possible. You imply there are alternatives to "renewable energy", an impossible premise. There are NONE

 

With climate science, the deductive principle should really be primary. It is nearly impossible to use inductive science when a trend has to be predicted from flimsy statistical data. What we all do know and agree on is that earth is heading towards 500 ppm of CO2 this century under business as usual. An acceleration on deceleration in climate change provides no basis to falsify the deductive logic. NOT good - extreme intentional muddying of data due to all sides having participants with political agendas which they let override logic of any type (asteroids or comets for example).

 

The point I am making is that you cannot "renew" the preponderance of current energy.

 

Phone