Post by thread:[OT]:: Oh no, not again <- Re: ADMIN: Question abo

> The OT and EE stuff however is generally interesting > enough in a geeky > sort of way to keep subscribed to the list (perhaps > excepting global > warming debates ;-P, debate how to fix it sure, but not if > it exists. > (Lets assume it does and hope it doesn't)) I am not a GW denier, but I would be so labelled by all the GWicionados. I am a GW don't knower. AND I want to know BECAUSE I think it's important that we know The problem is, IF it does exist (ie anthropogenic effects are a major factor and are pushing us towards imminent disaster = AGW) then we need to be dealing with the subject really well and really seriously. And, we're not. What we are doing instead is giving the green-crazies an excuse to promote their green-craziness. And the your-money-is-mine-(or-will-be-any-time-now)-crazies yet another excuse to ... . There are many greens who are far from crazy, and some who are acceptably crazy (I may resemble that in fact) and there are many people making an honest capitalist buck. BUT the great AGW bandwagon is more about either carbon trading your way to riches or saving the planet through any excuse you can find, than about really knowing what is happening. And much of what is being done is all paper pushing and rubbish equivalencies and ... . When eg China could, should it wish, sell the US enough carbon credits to make the US carbon neutral, then, if you've seen the Chinese skies any time lately, something is rotten in the states of Denmark, Shenzen, Washington and more. By "assuming it exists" and bowing to the great carbon credits trading scheme we are possibly destroying the world we should be trying to save. By all means take urgent action, but it should be the right urgent action. And what the right urgent action is isn't yet known. And we should be finding out as about THE major international task. Instead of pretending that what we are doing instead is the most effective thing we can do. While we find out we should be doing the best we can in the interim. And it's not what we are doing now. It matters not a whit to Gaia whether China is a developing nation and so therefore exempt from certain carbon restrictions - the smog that spreads in a near continuous sheet from Hong Kong to Urumqi* is mute evidence of the paucity of that position. Meanwhile, we may quite possibly be Meaundering towards another mini ice-age, or maybe even the now 2000 years overdue next full 8000 year odd iceage. If the latter does in fact prove to be on its way you'll be seeing people nuking Methane Clathrates in the ocean deeps and spreading soot over the arctic tundra, possibly before the century is out. And carbon in any form will again be valuable - but as a product with net worth. Here we see the red lines earnestly urging the sun to kick into gear and get sunspot cycle 24 going. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html The last black dot was added a few days ago (monthly update) and the red prediction lines did not budge an iota. If it does, finally, start tracking up the red lines then all may be "well" - enough. If it keeps on going in the direction it seems to be at present then skating on the Thames may again be possible, as it was at the Maunder minimum in the "little ice age". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age The mechanisms are less than wholly transparent but there's reasonable evidence that they are there. It's not just solar insolation per se, which can be measured and therefore "accounted for" and dismissed, but the magnetic field which correlates with sunspot activity. Less field, more incoming cosmic rays. More cosmic rays some say / some don't - more clouds. More clouds ... . AGW may be a welcome alternative :-) Russell * Furthest city on earth from the sea. And in winter very very VERY cold. And you still get your clothes dirty from the air!

Why, why, WHY, why did you went to engineering when you was so good for politics, poetry, philosophy. Definitely your spare time is infinite. :) BTW, there is no "honest capitalist buck", or is the same honest as "wild ex-comunist buck" Vasile On 6/5/08, Apptech <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > The OT and EE stuff however is generally interesting > > enough in a geeky > > sort of way to keep subscribed to the list (perhaps > > excepting global > > warming debates ;-P, debate how to fix it sure, but not if > > it exists. > > (Lets assume it does and hope it doesn't)) > > I am not a GW denier, but I would be so labelled by all the > GWicionados. > > I am a GW don't knower. > AND I want to know > BECAUSE I think it's important that we know > > The problem is, IF it does exist (ie anthropogenic effects > are a major factor and are pushing us towards imminent > disaster = AGW) then we need to be dealing with the subject > really well and really seriously. And, we're not. What we > are doing instead is giving the green-crazies an excuse to > promote their green-craziness. And the > your-money-is-mine-(or-will-be-any-time-now)-crazies yet > another excuse to ... . There are many greens who are far > from crazy, and some who are acceptably crazy (I may > resemble that in fact) and there are many people making an > honest capitalist buck. BUT the great AGW bandwagon is more > about either carbon trading your way to riches or saving the > planet through any excuse you can find, than about really > knowing what is happening. And much of what is being done is > all paper pushing and rubbish equivalencies and ... . When > eg China could, should it wish, sell the US enough carbon > credits to make the US carbon neutral, then, if you've seen > the Chinese skies any time lately, something is rotten in > the states of Denmark, Shenzen, Washington and more. > > By "assuming it exists" and bowing to the great carbon > credits trading scheme we are possibly destroying the world > we should be trying to save. By all means take urgent > action, but it should be the right urgent action. And what > the right urgent action is isn't yet known. And we should be > finding out as about THE major international task. Instead > of pretending that what we are doing instead is the most > effective thing we can do. While we find out we should be > doing the best we can in the interim. And it's not what we > are doing now. It matters not a whit to Gaia whether China > is a developing nation and so therefore exempt from certain > carbon restrictions - the smog that spreads in a near > continuous sheet from Hong Kong to Urumqi* is mute evidence > of the paucity of that position. > > Meanwhile, we may quite possibly be Meaundering towards > another mini ice-age, or maybe even the now 2000 years > overdue next full 8000 year odd iceage. If the latter does > in fact prove to be on its way you'll be seeing people > nuking Methane Clathrates in the ocean deeps and spreading > soot over the arctic tundra, possibly before the century is > out. And carbon in any form will again be valuable - but as > a product with net worth. > > Here we see the red lines earnestly urging the sun to kick > into gear and get sunspot cycle 24 going. > > http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html > > The last black dot was added a few days ago (monthly update) > and the red prediction lines did not budge an iota. If it > does, finally, start tracking up the red lines then all may > be "well" - enough. If it keeps on going in the direction it > seems to be at present then skating on the Thames may again > be possible, as it was at the Maunder minimum in the "little > ice age". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age > > The mechanisms are less than wholly transparent but there's > reasonable evidence that they are there. It's not just solar > insolation per se, which can be measured and therefore > "accounted for" and dismissed, but the magnetic field which > correlates with sunspot activity. Less field, more incoming > cosmic rays. More cosmic rays some say / some don't - more > clouds. More clouds ... . > > AGW may be a welcome alternative :-) > > > Russell > > > > > * Furthest city on earth from the sea. And in winter very > very VERY cold. And you still get your clothes dirty from > the air! > > > > > > > > > -

> Why, why, WHY, why did you went to engineering when you > was so good > for politics, > poetry, philosophy. Definitely your spare time is > infinite. > :) What I wrote is ALL engineering. Engineers MUST redeem GW from the PC brigade if we are to save the world :-). I have a carbon sequestration idea that would almost certainly work on a large scale and probably win Branson's? challenge BUT I wouldn't dream of really doing it. Far too nasty on the overall system :-). Politics I have no time for at all. I don't care very much who is in 'power' here as long as they TRY to do well by a largish majority of the people. BOTH our major parties hate the poor - but with quite different perspectives, and I've given up voting for either. (Our "Labour" party are notionally left wing greenish socialistish - aka democrats ish BUT they bind the poor in a morass of state aid and being unable to help themselves out of the mess. Nanny state as it were. Our right wing National are more traditionally Republican in their poor hating. Neither works. > BTW, there is no "honest capitalist buck", or is the same > honest as > "wild ex-comunist buck" Just trying to make the point that I was not trying to slang any very broadly centrist aspirations. All have good and bad points. Half of US voters get an indiot for a President every time and the other half get a shining hero. Towards the end ot erm 2 more have an idiot than ahero but next election it's back to 50/50. ie lest it be unclear, most can't see the merit in the other sides candidate - if he/she wins they are anathema. I find all have some good points but have given up voting for any mainstream party. Russell

Carbon trading isn't worth the carbon spent in sending this email. The goal is to reduce the amount of carbon emitted, *and* to suck up as much as you can. Saying if you suck it up you don't need to cut back is just silly, you need to do both. Basically I feel that putting time and energy into using renewable resources and efficiency pays off in the longer term because a) you will run out of oil/coal so your best off investing in whats going to work the longest and b) using less stuff has to be better for the planet. Generally industries that "go green" tend to save money in the longer term because they use less "stuff", or the stuff they do use is stuff that other people no longer want. The difficult part is convincing people to invest money now to pay off in the future. Personally I think governments around the world should be spending big on fusion power, its the only answer that gives you the same dependability and infrastructure as traditional power systems. Give anybody who has a modest chance of achieving it a grant of a hundred grand, (phase 2 funding) So what you blow 100 million in grants, a billion even. You only need one nutball idea that has actual working equipment to succeed and you solve a whole bunch of the worlds problems as fast as you can build power plants. (which given how china is going probably means if your motivated enough you could nerf pretty much all carbon emmiting power plants in 10 years or so (of not 5)) Then for bonus points build absofriggnloutly huge fusion plants, suck Co2 out of the air, Add hydrogen (water) and assloads of energy, stir and get nice long chain hydrocarbons and oxygen as your end products. Renewable gasoline, still has that same lovley smog flavour but its greener than it would otherwise be. Apptech wrote: {Quote hidden}>> The OT and EE stuff however is generally interesting >> enough in a geeky >> sort of way to keep subscribed to the list (perhaps >> excepting global >> warming debates ;-P, debate how to fix it sure, but not if >> it exists. >> (Lets assume it does and hope it doesn't)) >> > > I am not a GW denier, but I would be so labelled by all the > GWicionados. > > I am a GW don't knower. > AND I want to know > BECAUSE I think it's important that we know > > The problem is, IF it does exist (ie anthropogenic effects > are a major factor and are pushing us towards imminent > disaster = AGW) then we need to be dealing with the subject > really well and really seriously. And, we're not. What we > are doing instead is giving the green-crazies an excuse to > promote their green-craziness. And the > your-money-is-mine-(or-will-be-any-time-now)-crazies yet > another excuse to ... . There are many greens who are far > from crazy, and some who are acceptably crazy (I may > resemble that in fact) and there are many people making an > honest capitalist buck. BUT the great AGW bandwagon is more > about either carbon trading your way to riches or saving the > planet through any excuse you can find, than about really > knowing what is happening. And much of what is being done is > all paper pushing and rubbish equivalencies and ... . When > eg China could, should it wish, sell the US enough carbon > credits to make the US carbon neutral, then, if you've seen > the Chinese skies any time lately, something is rotten in > the states of Denmark, Shenzen, Washington and more. > > By "assuming it exists" and bowing to the great carbon > credits trading scheme we are possibly destroying the world > we should be trying to save. By all means take urgent > action, but it should be the right urgent action. And what > the right urgent action is isn't yet known. And we should be > finding out as about THE major international task. Instead > of pretending that what we are doing instead is the most > effective thing we can do. While we find out we should be > doing the best we can in the interim. And it's not what we > are doing now. It matters not a whit to Gaia whether China > is a developing nation and so therefore exempt from certain > carbon restrictions - the smog that spreads in a near > continuous sheet from Hong Kong to Urumqi* is mute evidence > of the paucity of that position. > > Meanwhile, we may quite possibly be Meaundering towards > another mini ice-age, or maybe even the now 2000 years > overdue next full 8000 year odd iceage. If the latter does > in fact prove to be on its way you'll be seeing people > nuking Methane Clathrates in the ocean deeps and spreading > soot over the arctic tundra, possibly before the century is > out. And carbon in any form will again be valuable - but as > a product with net worth. > > Here we see the red lines earnestly urging the sun to kick > into gear and get sunspot cycle 24 going. > > http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html > > The last black dot was added a few days ago (monthly update) > and the red prediction lines did not budge an iota. If it > does, finally, start tracking up the red lines then all may > be "well" - enough. If it keeps on going in the direction it > seems to be at present then skating on the Thames may again > be possible, as it was at the Maunder minimum in the "little > ice age". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age > > The mechanisms are less than wholly transparent but there's > reasonable evidence that they are there. It's not just solar > insolation per se, which can be measured and therefore > "accounted for" and dismissed, but the magnetic field which > correlates with sunspot activity. Less field, more incoming > cosmic rays. More cosmic rays some say / some don't - more > clouds. More clouds ... . > > AGW may be a welcome alternative :-) > > > Russell > > > > > * Furthest city on earth from the sea. And in winter very > very VERY cold. And you still get your clothes dirty from > the air! > > > > > > > > >