How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Consensus   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Consensus

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


0 posted 09-05-2005 11:47 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Consensus. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

There are, in the world, medical doctors who would like for you to believe that cigarette smoking isn't conclusively linked to lung cancer.  Most of these doctors work for tobacco companies.  The consensus of doctors around the world is that putting the pollutants from the burning of tobacco into our lungs on purpose damages the DNA in the cells thereby causing cancer.  Thus, tobacco is, by consensus, considered to be a carcinogen.

By consensus the scientists of the world, particularly climatologists, meteorologists, and geologists, have determined that there is significant evidence that human activity contributes to global warming. NASA rocket scientists even have plans to terraform Mars using techniques that we've learned from global warming on Earth.

Even though the Bush Administration's own Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Commerce admit and warn about global warming due to human activity -- there are some people who would like to believe otherwise, and so some scientists who disagree with the consensus of world scientists like to go around spouting junk theories so that talk radio show hosts will mention their names.

The EPA's Uncertanties page has a good discussion:

quote:

Like many fields of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of global warming. This does not imply that all things are equally uncertain. Some aspects of the science are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends, while other aspects range from 'near certainty' to 'big unknowns.'

What's Known for Certain?

Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

What's Likely but not Certain?

Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.

As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate's response to changes in the atmosphere.

The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection "would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability."

What are the Big Unknowns?

Scientists have identified that our health, agriculture, water resources, forests, wildlife and coastal areas are vulnerable to the changes that global warming may bring. But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult. This is especially true when one asks how a local region will be affected.

Scientists are more confident about their projections for large-scale areas (e.g., global temperature and precipitation change, average sea level rise) and less confident about the ones for small-scale areas (e.g., local temperature and precipitation changes, altered weather patterns, soil moisture changes). This is largely because the computer models used to forecast global climate change are still ill-equipped to simulate how things may change at smaller scales. [See the U.S. Climate section for more detail on climate models.]

Some of the largest uncertainties are associated with events that pose the greatest risk to human societies. IPCC cautions, "Complex systems, such as the climate system, can respond in non-linear ways and produce surprises." There is the possibility that a warmer world could lead to more frequent and intense storms, including hurricanes. Preliminary evidence suggests that, once hurricanes do form, they will be stronger if the oceans are warmer due to global warming. However, the jury is still out whether or not hurricanes and other storms will become more frequent.

More and more attention is being aimed at the possible link between El Niño events – the periodic warming of the equatorial Pacific Ocean – and global warming. Scientists are concerned that the accumulation of greenhouse gases could inject enough heat into Pacific waters such that El Niño events become more frequent and fierce. Here too, research has not advanced far enough to provide conclusive statements about how global warming will affect El Niño.

Living with Uncertainty

Like many pioneer fields of research, the current state of global warming science can't always provide definitive answers to our questions. There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that these gases tend to warm our planet. This is the basis for concern about global warming.

The fundamental scientific uncertainties are these: How much more warming will occur? How fast will this warming occur? And what are the potential adverse and beneficial effects? These uncertainties will be with us for some time, perhaps decades.

Global warming poses real risks. The exact nature of these risks remains uncertain. Ultimately, this is why we have to use our best judgement – guided by the current state of science – to determine what the most appropriate response to global warming should be.




Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


1 posted 09-05-2005 01:36 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


"By consensus the scientists of the world, particularly climatologists, meteorologists, and geologists, have determined that there is significant evidence that human activity contributes to global warming."


And how many of the 6 billion,
soon, (50 years),  to be 9 billion, humans on the planet
do they propose to kill?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


2 posted 09-05-2005 01:46 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

ah, the old 'let's be sardonic when we can't rebutt' trick
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


3 posted 09-05-2005 03:56 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


Not at all, for that is the central problem: all those
billions, soon to be billions more, 98.6 degree, have not/want now
humans who are consuming without regard and have no interest
in any plan your scientists or anyone else has to curb them.
They are not in the “West” ,(whose native populations are in decline),
but instead in regions that if not hostile are indifferent to your
scientists’ concerns.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


4 posted 09-05-2005 05:24 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I don't see how men that lead a rural life belong in the blame of something that obviously comes from the kind of urban life that urban men today set over themselves and push over the surface of the earth.  
A moderate farmer, or small-village-dweller, cottage-dweller, forestdweller, and any other men that don't partake of the excesses of the city, to me don't belong in the blame for those excesses.  Nor do they belong in the blame for partaking in things that border on being urban.  For the wrong is not in urbanization.  The wrong is in the excess of it.  The man can lead a more natural life, with some technology on the side, is the man that should be praised, not blamed.  But the man that puts urbanization and technology in the center, instead of nature, he is the one that should be blamed.  Because it is his overdoing of his urbanization that makes byproducts and pollution that comes from that the the danger to this world, not the rustic folk that wishes to only complement and edify a more natural life with some technology, held in moderation by a more natural sense, or a more concious care to make sure he keeps it in moderation, in contrast to other life, especially of most cities, that he hears about.  
You simply can't say that this kind of problem, nor many others, comes more from the farming, more rural, more humble dwellings, that maintain a more natural living, than from the kind of urbanizations of the city-structures in the cities we have today that maintain a very unnatural living.  If you do, you are avoiding an obvious truth; and I can't see how you may help solve such problem without acknowledging that truth.
The difference between the past and the future, and some places and this one, in relation to this problem can only be this: the kind of urbanization we live in today. That is the problem; and that is what I believe needs the most change.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


5 posted 09-05-2005 05:25 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So Huan, what's the purpose of that question?  Do you seriously think that any scientists, and if you look at the source material you'll see that I'm talking about a concensus of scientists from all over the globe, have proposed killing people as the solution to global warming?

We see this kind of macabre rhetoric from you all the time.  It may get you traction on some of the blogs you frequent -- but it isn't going to ever win you any points here.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


6 posted 09-06-2005 01:22 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Overpopulation is a serious problem.  But I think it must be a very distinct from this issue.
Animals go into overpopulations too, and they don't cause global warming.  Therefore overpopulation must not be causing our global warming either.  But it is obviously urbanization.  We need to downsize our city-structures.  We need to turn around: look back from where we came from, and go a few steps back that way again: choose away from this "hurry up" and "give me more" life, and to something which is more conductive to wisdom and health.  We made better rights and freedoms in life, and excell the ages behind us with our great justice system, and the ages behind us speed us forth and support us.  But they condemn us for our lack of balance between Nature and Structure in our human life.  They cry forth: "did you come out of a Nature's savagery, only to go into a Structure's savagery, and take all other animals, your fellow earthlings, and all the world to ruin with you? Are you so dull and complex and overdone, that you can't go a few small steps back to be a few measures simplier and few measures less overdone and excessive, for that is all it shall take to solve a thousand problems.  All you may do is move forward upon this chosen road "hurry up" and "give me more"?  Do you know that civilization ceases to be a civilization where it ceases to have balance with Nature?  Nature will shift and rush and roar, and all your carpet of civilization shall be smashed against itself, because you were to selfish to move a few steps back to a simpler and more natural life.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


7 posted 09-06-2005 02:02 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Essorant,

Your good points are nothing to those
burning down natural fields and forests,
(Singapore is under a pall every year),
to feed their ever growing families as well
as make a little on the side.  It is said
you can from space tell when it's meal
time in some parts of India by the smoke
from all the cooking fires.  How are you
going to convince all those growing billions
to live with what they have, even if you
live with less to set an example?

And animal overpopulations are overcome
by Nature, through disease or starvation;
something we’ve  strived to free ourselves from.
We are victims of our own success over
diseases which routinely took one fifth
to one third of an infected population.
The massive increase in human numbers is
traced to that and better practices which
have dramatically reduced infant mortality.

The people of China, India, all of Africa, etc.
don't want to spend their lives behind
a plow.

China, a totalitarian regime,
tried a one child policy; it didn't work.

I have no answer, because though knowing
the consequences of doing nothing
yet the only effective solutions are
too morally repugnant to contemplate.
We, by law, allow an unwanted life to be taken
before it is born, but once it emerges from the womb,
however imperfect, we are bound to do everything
to protect that life.  We may then perish from
our own goodness.  If it must be, then let it
be that way.


................................

P.S.

There is a tone that reminded me of something in Jacob Bronowski’s
“The Ascent of Man:

“We dream the country was idyllic in the eighteenth century,
a lost paradise like The Deserted Village that Oliver Goldsmith
described in 1770.

   Sweet Auburn, loveliest village of the plain,
   Where health and plenty cheared the labouring swain.

   How blest is he who crowns in shades like these,
   A youth of labour with an age of ease.

That is a fable, and George Crabbe, who was a country parson
and knew the villager’s life at first hand, was so enraged by it that
he wrote an acid, realistic poem in reply.

   Yes, thus the Muses sing of happy Swains,
   Because the Muses never knew their pains.

   O’ercome by labour and bow’d down by time,
   Feel you the barren flattery of a rhyme?

The country was a place where men worked from dawn to dark,
and the labourer lived not in the sun, but in poverty and darkness.”

For most of the world outside the West, (outside tractors with
air-conditioned cabs),  country life remains much as it was then,
and there’s little chance you’ll convince anyone with any chance
of getting out to stay on the farm.
  


[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (09-06-2005 02:48 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


8 posted 09-06-2005 04:57 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

It's too morally repugnant to invest in infrasturcures that utilize non-polluting energy sources?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


9 posted 09-06-2005 05:38 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

No, letting people die like deer or rabbits.

As to non-polluting energy sources,
from earthquake prone Japan to France
nuclear energy, which has been around for
decades and isn't concerned with a no
wind or cloudy day, is being used. The
United States doesn't care for it and would
rather continue to rely on oil and coal.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


10 posted 09-06-2005 05:48 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

the former is not the subject of this thread

the latter isn't either.

any energy source that generates waste that is lethal for 14,000 years is hardly clean

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


11 posted 09-06-2005 06:17 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

I don't think we can go back to bicycles and candles. But wait. Candles produce CO2. Nope wouldn't work.

Another one of the major producers or atmospheric methane is bovine flatulance. Does anyone have a proposal as to how we stop all those cows from eating grass and farting?

Oh, and I forgot to mention all those unruly volcanoes!
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


12 posted 09-06-2005 07:12 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

volcanoes are not the issue

neither is bovine flatulence... Rush Limbaugh isn't either, real cute stuff.

Why do people think backwards is the only direction to go?

I, or any other engineer, can build a car for you that will run very cleanly, deliver more torque to the highway than you can use, and carry no onboard fuel -- that's right -- NO ONBOARD FUEL.

You can generate your own electricity in your backyard -- and when you're making more than you can use you can re-supply the grid, and when you're using more than you're making -- you can pull it off the grid.

We can do this by utilizing the power that is free to the planet from solar and wind sources.  It requires a technology shift.

But like all technology shifts -- like going from horses to horseless carriages -- it's always resisted.

So, since you listen to Rush Limbaugh -- quit crying over the buggy whips -- there are better things coming.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


13 posted 09-06-2005 07:26 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

If you can do all that magic then why have youy not already done so and made billions for yourself? The University of Oklahoma solar powered car won some major national recognition in the last couple of years so, yes, it is possible. The money they spent to build it was nearly astronomical though. And it only carried one light-weight person. Hardly practical for thowe of us on a reasonable budget.

Sure I can generate my own electricity and Oklahoma is a first class place to do it. The annual average wind in my backyard is 14.6 m.p.h. Again, I have the same problem though. The cost for the equipment and installation, even including the rebates from my electric utility, is more than I can affor or recover in my lifetime.

So being smart enough to create such future stuff is not enough. It has to be done at a cost that is within reach.

And I am sorry to inform you but volcanoes and cow farts are at least part of the issue. So while I listen to Rush Limbaugh (actually I don't) why don't you go ahead listening to Al Gore?

BTW, you may see this as a "cute comment" but it no no more so than you wise-ass remark above.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


14 posted 09-06-2005 07:35 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

If you're going to come into the thread mocking me -- don't be surprised when I hand it back to you Pete.

In an afternoon you can mount a fan to a common automotive alternator, stick it on a pole and be generating enough watts to run the lightbulbs in six rooms of your house.

The reason I, and all the other engineers in the world -- don't do this 'magic' is because an investment in infrastructure IS required -- but the payoff is immense -- what was all that stuff the President was saying about becoming energy independent and national security???

As I said though -- with no onboard fuel I can give you plenty of torque -- to pull whatever you need... more than an Indy car if you want it -- and without a bunch of solar panels on your vehicle -- and the technology to do it is only about 120 years old..
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


15 posted 09-06-2005 08:44 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The problem with cars is that they shouldn't be common/casual vehicles.  The government should regulate them just as guns because they are just as dangerous.  They are the means thro which thousand of accidents and deaths come a year.  They end up as many junkyards and waste.  And in overpopulated land, they intrude a thousand times worse upon people because those people have less space to move around or away from them, and every potential danger of these vehicles is closer and more dangerous to the people.   People fancy cars like toys but cars make the result and the effect, as if they were weapons against us.  People treat these as common things, and therefore their dangers become more and more common: the damage and death, clutter, the greed for them, and the pollution they send into our lungs, the earth and the heavens.  Not only that but they put us in a foul and wicked haste.  We always expect to be in that mode and motion, to get there so quickly.  We are put into an impulsive rush, not much different than an addiction for a cigarrete or for an alcholic drink.  It is an addiction for that excessive pace.  And it is far from being only on the road.  That pace leaks into life and people are in a disturbing haste all the time.  It is not just the practice of driving cars so often that makes people like that, but it seriously contributes to this haste that let's no man delay for anything very careful and thorough.
I don't see how people continue to enjoy such things.  The progress of these things is no longer a progress, but it is reversed into a plague upon all mankind.  
If it were up to me I would seriously have some laws and changes made, not just to stop the pollution, but to stop a hundred other hazards we inherit from having these so excessivly in our lives.
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


16 posted 09-06-2005 09:03 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Gentlemen...

Get back to the "concensus" of the thread, please.  Thank you.

You all know how to argue and debate intelligently.

In the meantime, I will add that it seems that "nature solar and wind power" are up against a giant - to keep it from being more financially probable - because who can gain ownership?

Ownership will only come to those who wish to cross the lines, and pull down the red flags of ownership on what is below the ground.

Now, please, back to the debate.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


17 posted 09-06-2005 09:22 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

That's a great idea Kari..

If you'll recall a story about a man named Tucker -- all he wanted to do was make cars safe!

Think what happens to people who want to make them clean and eliminate the internal combustion engine?

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


18 posted 09-06-2005 09:47 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Exactly.  How about we all look into the reality of changing how the wheels of the world will go round and round...?

By God/Goddess/goodness...look at what a few here did to help our poets....and others.

There is no diversity here...there is only putting down the argument, and putting up the barn.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


19 posted 09-07-2005 12:02 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

LR, I did not mock you. You made and still make what appears to be preposterous claims. As you, yourself hint, the potential financial gains are enormous. If that is true and if you actually have the ability you claim the, by all means, produce.

Words are cheap and easy. Deads are not. I think most would agree that we are poluting our environment and that we would be better off if it were not so. Yes, those things you predict are likely, 20 or 50 years in the future. As of my lifetime, and probably yours, they are pipe dreams or, at best, future possibilities.

True, the technology is available. But, the cost to produce such Star Trek wonders is well beyond our ability to pay. I believe there are many scientists working feverishly to make all this a reality but all experts still agree that it is still many years in the future.

Until we can harness cold fusion or economically convert sea water into hydrogen fuel, we are simply stuck with fossil fuels as our most practical energy source.

On a side note, how do we really know that harnessing the wind, lightning or sunlight, for that matter, may not be as detrimental to the environment as burning fossil fuels? What if catching the sind to turn turbines slows down the natural weather progression and actually makes huricanes even more devastating? What if capturing sunlight to generate electricity actually prevents some of the energy from reaching and warming the Earth? Could that possibly cause another ice age? I don't think you, or any scientist, has an absolute answer for that.

Oh, BTW, I do know about how much current a modern automotive alternator is capable of. By the time you raise that to the 120 volts our light bulbs require, you can't do much with it. Even if you spent the thousands of dollars required to convert all you household lights to low voltage, you still would get no more light. Also, it would take one hell of a fan to run the alternator with that load on it. Yes, it can be done but it would take a very long time to recover the cost of the pole and that highly efficient fan in just eliminating the monthly utility bill for a couple of light bulbs. It gets hot here in OK. How about we find a way to run my a/c free.

Honestly, Reb, I don't want to start a personal argument. I do feel like you should at least be practical in your claims and propositions.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


20 posted 09-07-2005 12:31 AM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

I still wanna know how to fart into my Toyota's gas tank after eating pinto beans or broccoli and bypass the neighborhood gas pump, cuz no matter what they charge, lately it's too much for my pocketbook!
As long as some people are making a bundle on sucking dry the oil reserves, and they are also the one in charge of the flow of American economy? well, I guess things won't change much until all the oil is gone. as for nuclear power, it is scary. so what if it is efficeient? We still don't know how to bury all that sht safely. I visited a wind farm in northern California 18 years ago, and was very impressed with the possiblities, and the only real problem I saw when I visited that farm? a couple of cows got impelled by a propeller blade that cut loose when a bearing broke. The people there just had a big BBQ and went about their busyness. I wondered what they'd do if a person had gotten impaled, they laughed, and my friend, a meteorologist who worked there, reminded me the world was overpopulated so a few impaled people would be OK. I laughed so hard at that I had to run for their solar power-lit bathroom!
OK, so this strays from the thread. So sue me...isn't that the American way?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


21 posted 09-07-2005 01:27 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Oh, BTW, I do know about how much current a modern automotive alternator is capable of. By the time you raise that to the 120 volts our light bulbs require, you can't do much with it.



The average automotive alternator produces about 50-75 amps.  At 12 volts that's 600 to 900 watts.  Plenty to run 6 light bulbs Pete.  1 horsepower = 1000 watts.  So, you're talking about .6 to .9 horsepower.  Easily produced by an average man or woman on a bicycle -- you could run a belt to your exercise bike and light your house.  An 88-inch turbine can produce 10 watts at less than 2mph wind.  A 64 inch blade will produce close to 900 watts at 33mph.  You can buy one already built for less than $500 -- if you don't want to spend the afternoon doing it yourself.

quote:

True, the technology is available. But, the cost to produce such Star Trek wonders is well beyond our ability to pay.



Is the technology available or are they Star Trek wonders?  Beyond whose ability to pay?  For what?

When you were a kid I bet you used a magnifying lens to burn a hole in a piece of paper.  I've seen an awful lot of satellite dishes in people's yards for the last 25 years -- they seemed to be able to afford them.  If you track the sun with a reflective dish and pass water through the focal point you can boil it.  You know what you can do with boiling water besides make tea?

quote:

Yes, those things you predict are likely, 20 or 50 years in the future. As of my lifetime, and probably yours, they are pipe dreams or, at best, future possibilities.



Only if we don't demand it.

quote:

Until we can harness cold fusion or economically convert sea water into hydrogen fuel, we are simply stuck with fossil fuels as our most practical energy source.



We don't need cold fusion.  There is a huge, safe, fusion reactor up in the sky that gives us plenty of power.  Petroleum is stored solar energy.  That's what fuel is -- energy storage -- where did the energy come from to make dinosaurs?  

Hydrogen technology would similarly be an energy storage device.  It's very simply produced through electrolyses.  The same process that's been used to put all the chrome on the bumpers of all the cars that have ever been made.  

But we don't even need to make that much hydrogen because of one of those Star Trek miracles called 'induction'.  

quote:

What if capturing sunlight to generate electricity actually prevents some of the energy from reaching and warming the Earth? Could that possibly cause another ice age? I don't think you, or any scientist, has an absolute answer for that.



The sun emits 3.8 x 10^23 kilowatt-hours every hour.  That's plenty.  And I wouldn't want to pay the bill.

quote:

You made and still make what appears to be preposterous claims.



By all means.  Enumerate them.  Along with your proof of what makes them preposterous.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


22 posted 09-07-2005 02:01 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh.  BTW  -- at 3.8 x 10^23 kilowatt-hours every hour -- E=mc2... that's about 15 billion metric tons of matter lost every hour -- it's been doing it for four and a half billion years.

It isn't going to run out any time soon.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


23 posted 09-07-2005 01:22 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

To me it shouldn't be based on potentiality right now.  It must be based on actuality.  If the boasted potentiality to meet a much greater standard is met then our judgement and the way we bear our life shall serve that actuality when that actuality comes.  Right now though that potentiality is not met, nor is anything proven that it shall be met any time soon.  The Government and people need three things: Laws to moderate the population of vehicles better, laws to minimize the present dangers better, and laws to command that carmakers make cars under the strictest standard for health and enviroment.   On the parts of the public there needs to be exhoration and support for such directions and laws, and they need take better choices into their lives along similar lines: moderation, downsizing, and health-needs. The more the dangers threaten and smite the world, and the more people know we need to do something to ward off the danger, the less we shall have  choices.  We may do it while we have more latitude in our choices or when we have only narrowness of need in a far worse furture if we don't make such changes now.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


24 posted 09-07-2005 02:12 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Again, lest we forget, all those breathing and burning
breeding billions who aren’t citizens to be ruled by any American laws
and have no wish to be part of any plan that keeps them on the farm.

I remember decades ago in the West the big scare was overpopulation
and all the ills it would bring.  At that time the pressure was internal
as if the rest of the world somehow wasn’t part of the problem.  
And either because it listened, or lost faith, the West’s native populations
are in decline.  Meanwhile, the rest of the world has added billions
and is adding more.  And we still pretend as if they really don’t exist
much less anything else.

Here’s an idea, the West seals it’s borders,
the borders within which it can with laws,
coupled with technology, do all the wishful things regarding
global warming; create an enclave of the environmentally
sensitive.  Will that work?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Consensus   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors