Critical error in federal propaganda release
kdt...@earthlink.net
""-- The average U.S. temperature has risen 2 degrees Fahrenheit over
the past 50 years and might rise more rapidly, between 4 and 11
degrees, before 2100. Temperatures will be nearer the upper end of
this range if global emissions are not cut."""
This is the primary statement from the recent federal report on global
warming.
This is absolutely false. Proper climatology and actual statistics
show less than 1 degF rise in overall world temperatures over the last
150 yrs, (0.3 - 0.6 C ).
A valid representation of US statistics, show that the 1930's were as
warm or warmer than the present decade. There is no way that it is
valid to say temperatures in the US have risen 2F over the last 50 yrs
as depiction of temperature fluctuation.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891
(see graph from Hansen, 1999)
The scientists employed by the federal government, must be confused
and in error of the term, '20th century mean'. This means the
temperature of 1950, not the average of the 20th century.
Obviously they have mistakenly calculated that 0.9C above the mean,
means 50 yrs of 1degC increase which is approximately 2F.
Otherwise they simply made this number up for the psychological value
and to promote the passage of the draconian carbon tax according to
false fear mongering. There is no data to support this figure. None at
all.
These scientists are guilty of the highest level of criminal fraud.
Either from sheer incompetence, or direct and conscious intent to
depict fraudulent data. If this is negligence, it is CRIMINAL
negligence of the highest order and these individuals and those of
peer review which accept this false figure should be severly punished.
It is calculated that now we are 0.9degC above this benchmark
temperature. The temperature of 1950 was abnormally low. So even this
directly proves that the US IS NOT risen 2F in any valid depiction of
temperature fluctuations..
This is blatant fraud. This agency is releasing this false statistic
as Congress votes on laws to impact all Americans. This is a crime of
the highest order against the US. This is directly defined as false
propaganda. The statute of limitations for prosecution shall not run
out on this high crime against the US by publicly paid and truste
civil servants.
Obama should still be held criminnally liable if he repeats this false
statistic. He can only thank his allies for setting him up for this
fall, which he WILL take. If he does nothing in regards to forcing
revision of this statistic, he is complicit in this crime. The
seriousness of which increases as real people's lives are affected.
It is his duty, with the seriousness of this matter, to divulge the
correct statistics and to censure and punish the scientists of this
agency engaged in such blatant and clearly provable fraud.
KD
Hipupchuck
I don't think it is science based. I think it's all political.
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> I don't think it is science based. I think it's all political.-
Clear fact. But the pony that the politico's in search of their
domination and destruction of US society, are riding is LAME.
hahahahahahHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahaha
And because they and the psychotic rejects from mathematics that pass
as climatoligists are such liars, they are believing their own lies
and paddling furrously to get damn smack in the middle of SHIT CREEK,
in their rotten and sinking canoe.
HAHAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahah
Algore get's up and says his only opposition are the corrupt
intentions of the carbon fuel industry that are willing to ignore
scientific facts, and that the debate is over, and his followers and
himself believe his lies,
Pull their string, and they have an algore approved propaganda slogan
to repeat.
HAHAHAHAHhahahahahahHAHAHAHAHahaha
I don't know which of Obama's advisors approved the term
'incontrovertible' in refernce to the science of global warming, but
they will definitely have to define this, especially when they also
throw around terms like, 'national security', and such.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Why don't they submit their normal reference to scientific
justification,,,,
"" 98% of scientists agree"""
Here they submit no support of this statement or define which
scientists, just climatologists or all scientists everywhere? But this
is enough for everyone to bet the farm that they are correct.
It is with this psychological intimidation that they have forced
scientists into submission, and then they refer to this intimidation
and domatic repititon as their scientific basis.
HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAhahahah
Whatever is passed through will be REPEALED eventually by the American
people. Where will their program to save the earth be then? Do they
care? Do they care that even the elimination of all US CO2 right now,
would only delay the same emission into the environment by 5 years,
and any predicted catastrophe?
What will happen to these idiots when people call for an actual review
of their science after the fact of their destruction of American
society and industry by forcing industry to relocate over seas, and
the severe poverty imposed upon the middle class and working class?
KD
The ship of fools of the BELIEVERS in anthropogenic global warming
sails on,,,,
Next stop, the marina on No Paddle Island, up Shit Creek
prometheuspan
What will happen to these idiots when people call for an actual review
of their science after the fact of their destruction of American
society and industry by forcing industry to relocate over seas, and
the severe poverty imposed upon the middle class and working class?
all of those accusations are true in reverse of the global warming
deniers and the fossil fuel industry. Whos destroying america?
fossil fuels and their propaganda dupes and shills.
who are the professional liars, con artists, and ignorant pretentious
pseudoscienitists? the deniers.
In fact, green energy is in every way the wave of the future, and
fossil fuels are in every way bad for the economy, bad for the
environment, and bad for humans and thus bad for the economy.
when you whine and complain about destroying america, what you are
really whining and complaining about is destroying american fossil
fuel companies and stupid, moronic, and evil republic shills and
liars.
kdt...@earthlink.net
So I suppose that right now you are carbon free?
Or perhaps like algore. Preaching this shit while burning 100,000 lbs
of CO2 in a few days on his outdated Lear jet, and increasing his draw
on the electrical grid at his mansion and other houses. The locals
complain that he gets out on the lake on a much oversized boat and
buzzes everybody. But he is interested in CO2 restriction. And makes
most of his money with his company that deals in greenie weenie
stocks.
Otherwise, this is pure idyllic philosophy which is meaningless in
reality of people living their lives.
You have been listening to algore too much, and his propaganda.
You really need to expand your actual visualization of the
circumstance, instead of looking through your tunnel vision of hatred
for the carbon fuel industry.
Otherwise why should we listen to your fake whining about concern for
people against these evil doers you claim the fossil fuel industry is?
Your pretense at 'good for the commune', fails both with actual
sociological concerns and concerns for the environment.
Therefore, your philosophy is merely a hostile attack upon other
people, and without proper burden of proof, and definition of each and
every word and term that you use, these people have the right to self
defense, and to implement the proper laws of the US to eradicated you
from available postiton to conduct your premeditated harm upon them.
At this time, people are merely complacent and do not realize what a
crime and attack upon them your demented philosophy is. Just keep
poking them with your sticks, schoolboys. Propere application of the
law will eventually send your piss poor rhetorical asses to hell.
Of course big industry will rip us off. That is why we have free
market to keep them honest. That is why we now have fuel which we need
to live our lives at affordable prices. Nationalization only means a
government owned monopoly which can dictate price.
The use of carbon fuels is what makes modern civilization possible. If
the market for the incredibly useful coal and petroluem was not there,
such industries would have not been developed.
Modern civilization is freed from the cycles of famine and starvation,
due to the use of fuel. Any modern conivance is based upon the use of
fuels. Without fuel, we would walk everywhere and wash our clothes
down at the river while we were also getting a drink.
All of modern life depends upon these fuels. The only crime that could
be associated with the selling of these fuels is development of a
monopoly where the market in this commodity which is essential for
survival in the modern world, were controlled and therefore to control
the price or restrict availabilty would be extortion, since the
customers for this essential need must have this fuel to survive.
Of course there are polllutants from these fuels. These can be
controlled, whereas carbon dioxide cannot. These pollutants are
harmful can be defined scientifically to be so. To confuse CO2, which
is a natural chemical in the environment and the actual food of plants
and therefore the basis of all life and the food chain, with real and
dangerous pollutants, only will subvert actual efforts of
conservationists and environmentalists.
The concept of global warming from CO2 is mere theoretical science.
a) There is no laboratory evidence for the properties of CO2 to retain
energy and cause increased temperature. For this reason the idea of
greenhouse gases was omitted from chemistry and physics until the
1960's when it was revived by theoretical scientists without any
direct science whatsoever.
b) No analysis of statistics of temperatures in relation to the
statistics of CO2 concentration in the air can show a mathematical
correlation. In the US, temperatures are about the same as
temperatures of the 30's. Yet CO2 is supposedly risen by 30%. No
linear relationship or affect at all of risen CO2 is shown in
statistics,
c) Analysis of ice cores, shows a lag of CO2 of about 900 yrs from
temperature fluctuations and CO2 rise. This is easily explainable with
basic principles of chemistry, such as vapor pressure equilibrium of
the atmosphere and ocean. No effect upon the temperature from the
fluctuations in CO2 can be documented in the valid scientific studies.
In these three areas in which direct science must show evidence if the
theoretical postulate is true, there is absolute failure and evidence
that the postulate of CO2 caused warming to be false.
AGW merely begins their painful pretense of science of inventing
theoretical explanations for why in these critical areas of direct
science, they can derive no evidence to support their postulate.
Science must be distinguished from theoretical science. Science is not
defined as what theoretical scientists believe.
KD
The ship of fools of the BELIEVERS in anthropogenic global warming
sails on,,,
Bear_In_Mind
> And because they and the psychotic rejects from mathematics
> that pass as climatoligists
And what's the highest level of mathematics you've achieved?
Simple arithmetic?
--And your command of English isn't stellar either..
kdt...@earthlink.net
Since you wish to disuss compentency or incompetence, let's take a
look at the definition of pure incompetency of those within their own
SCIENCE.
Consider what an omission it is for the EPA and others to not give an
accurate accounting of US emissions in regards to even to overall
quantities released into the environment. These are public servants
and their incompetency is criminal negligence.
In regards ONLY to relative emission of China and the US.
US emissions are steady and not increasing.
China is increasing emissions at 11% to US each yr.
If the increase by China was 10%, in 10 yrs, this increase results in
the qunatity of 1/2 US emissions for 10 yrs.
IF US EMISSIONS WERE STOPPED NOW, in ten yrs, the emission growth of
China would again create the same rate as today, and still growing.
So if US emissions were cut today, in ten yrs, China's increase would
have increased overall quantities by 1/2.
Without US emissions cut, the increase of the quantities is 1.5 US
emissions when adding China's increasing production, in 10 yrs.
At this point rate would again be the same, since China's increase is
increased as much as US quantity before it was cut..
So in another 5 yrs, or 15 yrs from outset of elimination of US CO2,
total quantity into the environment from China increase is 1.25 US
emissions, or still 0.25 short of same quantity into the environment
for 10 yrs if US input not interupted..
So another 0.125 of 10 yr period results 0.125 of US 10yr quantity,
plus 1/2 or 0.0625 or 0.1875, or total quantity released into
environment after 16.25 yrs of 0.9375 of US emissions.
Within another 0.625 of 10 yr, Quantities from US emsision rate and
the increase from China for 10 yrs will be surpassed.
Same rate is reached in 10 yrs.
Same overall quantity in about 17 yrs.
7 yr lag after US input eliminated until same resulting overall
quantitiy.
So the level that would have been reached in 10 yrs, with US emissions
steady, and China increasing at 10% relative to US per yr, will be
reached in approx. 17 yrs, or 7 years later than the 10 yr quantity if
US emissions completely eliminated.
Complete elimination of US CO2 could not stop climate catastrophe for
no more than 7 yrs,,, at 10% China increase relative to US.
The EPA must release these facts or be found guilty of dereliction of
duty and intent to commit fraud by omission of pertinent and basic
fact of their subject. SIMPLE, PLAIN ORDINARY FACT OF LIFE.
This lag created by complete elimination of US emissions and overall
qauntities released into the environment and any effect they may have
remains in continuing accounting of when actual quantities released
occurs into the future.
The EPA is guilty of criminal negligence in not giving this proper
accounting to the public. Any emission regime is futile and can only
delay the same quantities released by a matter of months. NO possible
mitigation of effects upon climate.
And this does not even include the fact that emissions increase each
yr while concentration increases do not of which the EPA and other
scientists of this field also do not give an valid accounting.
So EPA, how much genocide and destruction of the middle class and
working class is worth 5 yrs of delay of your imagined climate
catastrophe?
What? No answer? Algore and his bribery got your tongue?
KD
BDR529
Applause!
Q
--
Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!
Bear_In_Mind
>
> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com whined/opined impotently:
---
I only asked you what your education was in mathematics..
--Your poor spelling indicates it's about at a GED level..
Bear_In_Mind
>
> Beer_In_Mind was again astounded by the abject stupidity of:
>>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com had just finished his daily bowl of Stupid:
---
>>> And because they and the psychotic rejects from mathematics
>>> that pass as climatoligists
>>
>> And what's the highest level of mathematics you've achieved?
>>
>> Simple arithmetic?
>>
>> --And your command of English isn't stellar either..
>
> Since you wish to disuss compentency
Well, actually I was asking about your math skills..
But, if you'd like to "disuss compentency", I'll try not to laugh..
--Too hard..
kdt...@earthlink.net
capacity to run the value of the effectiveness to cost that ANY
program to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
So far they have ran the calculation out to several hundred zero's
without getting any value at all. Their advisors say that if they keep
running the zero's, they may get a 1 somewhere in several thousands of
zero's.
They say they need this computer in a hurry before the upcoming
greenweenieology fest in Copenhagen. They must have SOME value and
cost benifit for their plan of controling economic function of the
free world, and their plan to intimidate and force India and China to
their knees in compliance with the advice of climatologists.
So EPA, how much is,,
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.0000000^0,,,,,,,,,,,
This is also the value for your valid execution of the primary task of
your job discription.
Your statement of a particular detriment to the environment that will
happen ' if emissions are not cut', means nothing. You have NO PROGRAM
TO EFFECTIVELY ACHIEVE ANY EFFECT WITHOUT GENOCIDE OF 9/10 OF WORLD
POPULATION.
FACE THE FACTS AND REPORT THE FACTS, CIVIL SERVANTS
YOU'RE FIRED
HAHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHhahahahahahHAHAHAHAHA
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
> On Jun 30, 8:27 am, Bear_In_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Perhaps this can be phrased more clearly.
US rate of emissions, steady
China's rate of emissions increasing at 10% relative to US per yr.
US rate of emission, 1.0 over period of 10 yrs,
China's increasing rate, matches US steady rate, after 10 yrs,,, but
continues to increase.
So what is the quantity this rate produces as it is changing from 0 to
1 of US emissions? It is not neccesary to consider the overall Chinese
emissions, but only to consider the relative increase in regards to
how this increase is relevant to US emissions or the elimination of
total US emissions.
If China's rate of emissions is increasing this amount in 10 yr, the
rate changes from 0 to 1 in ten yrs.
0 + 1 divided by 2 = 0.5
divided by 10 = 0.05
so 0.05 is the average rate per yr of emission of the increasing
rate,,
average rate per yr multiplied by number of yrs = quantity
over 10 yrs,,,
10 yrs times 0.05 = 0.5
So US = 1.0,, quantity of emission in 1 yr.
China's increasing emission rate makes the quantity of 0.5 US in 10
yrs ( 1/2 )
So total of these two is 1.5
If US emissions eliminated,, how long until the same quantity is
released into the environment in regards to the increasing China
emission rate?
After 10 yrs, the increasing China rate produces 0.5 the quantity of
US emissions over 10 yrs.
Another 5 yrs, or 15 yrs from outset of elimination of US emissions
produces,,,
0.5 plus 0.25,,,
add this to the 0.5 of the first 10 yrs,,
= 1.25 of the quantity of US emissions of 10 yrs for total of
emisisons in 15 yrs without US emissions
Add another 1.25 yrs which would add,,,0.125 + 0.0625,, or 0.1875,,,
added to 1.25
= 1.4375,,, quantity after 16.25 yrs.
15 yrs + 1.25 yrs = 16.25 yrs
In 16.25 yrs, the quantity which is 1.4375 is reached which is very
near the 1.5 of the combined US and quantity from China increase over
10 yrs.
So if US emissions completely eliminated right now, this would only
cause a delay of about 7 yrs until the same quantity of CO2 were
emitted into the environment. The same qauntity is released in about
17 yrs that would have been released in 10 yrs.
If US emissions are cut slowly and not this drastically, the effect or
any delay becomes negligible and non-existent.
With China increasing CO2 emissions by 10% relative to the US each yr,
any reduction program of the US is meaningless and can have no effect
except a very slight delay in the time until the same quantities are
released into the environment.
Many other factors also make the effect of US emission programs
absolutely negligible. The scientists of the EPA are obliged to do an
accurate accounting of these facts, which at this point they do not
produce.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
The EPA says that the computers that they have now, do not have the
capacity to run the value of the effectiveness to cost that ANY
program to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
So far they have ran the calculation out to several hundred zero's
without getting any value at all. Their advisors say that if they keep
running the zero's, they may get a 1 somewhere in several thousands of
zero's.
They say they need this computer in a hurry before the upcoming
greenweenieology fest in Copenhagen. They must have SOME value and
cost benifit for their plan of controling economic function of the
free world, and their plan to intimidate and force India and China to
their knees in compliance with the advice of climatologists.
So EPA, how much is,,
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.0000000^0,,,,,,,,,,,
This is also the value for your valid execution of the primary task
of
your job discription.
Your statement of a particular detriment to the environment that will
happen ' if emissions are not cut', means nothing. You have NO PROGRAM
TO EFFECTIVELY ACHIEVE ANY EFFECT WITHOUT GENOCIDE OF 9/10 OF WORLD
POPULATION.
FACE THE FACTS AND REPORT THE FACTS, CIVIL SERVANTS
YOU'RE FIRED
HAHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHhahahahahahHAHAHAHAHA
KD
The ship of fools of the BELIEVERS in anthropogenic global warming
sails on,,,
Next stop,, the marina on No Paddle Island, up Shit Creek
Bear_In_Mind
>
> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
> >
>> kdt...@yahoo.com was again whimpering and sniveling:
>>>
>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com whined/opined impotently:
>>>>> And because they and the psychotic rejects from mathematics
>>>>> that pass as climatoligists
>>>>
>>>> And what's the highest level of mathematics you've achieved?
>>>>
>>>> Simple arithmetic?
>>>>
>>>> --And your command of English isn't stellar either..
>>>
>>
>> I only asked you what your education was in mathematics..
>>
>> --Your poor spelling indicates it's about at a GED level..
>
Okay.. You suck at mathematics and science..
--It's that glaringly obvious..
Michael Dobony
From my kolege edukated klimatoligost: Today's high of 76. Present
temperature 79. And the day is still young!
Bear_In_Mind
>
> Bear_In_Mind was again castigating the ambitious ignorance expressed by:
>>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com whined impotently because:
>>>
>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>> >
>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com was again whimpering and sniveling:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com whined/opined impotently:
>>>>>>> And because they and the psychotic rejects from mathematics
>>>>>>> that pass as climatoligists
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what's the highest level of mathematics you've achieved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple arithmetic?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --And your command of English isn't stellar either..
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you wish to disuss compentency or incompetence
>>>>
>>>> I only asked you what your education was in mathematics..
>>>>
>>>> --Your poor spelling indicates it's about at a GED level..
>>>
>>> Perhaps this can be phrased more clearly.
>>
>> Okay.. You suck at mathematics and science..
>>
>> --It's that glaringly obvious..
>
> From my kolege edukated klimatoligost: Today's high of 76
My local weather is 84', heat-index of 87' and a predicted
high temperature of 100'..
--See subject header for details..
kdt...@earthlink.net
> > From my kolege edukated klimatoligost: Today's high of 76
>
> My local weather is 84', heat-index of 87' and a predicted
> high temperature of 100'..
>
I hope you are enjoying your weather since we all know you to be an
ardent global warming kook and would never use air conditioning or
fossil fuels to get around.
My mathematics are perfect, retard. But thanks for PROVING that
mathematics or comprehension of mathematical facts is not required to
be a greenie weenie kook. All part of the definition of WEENIE.
Personally, I'm cranking my AC, so I can feed the plants while
electricity is still affordable. But I know this upsets the holy and
devout.of algore's psuedo religion who are plotting as we speak to
eradicate air conditioning and heating of homes in their desparate
attempt to modify the climate and cool things off before the polar
bears have no ice to play on.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
> Okay.. You suck at mathematics and science..
>
> --It's that glaringly obvious..-
So explain to me the error in this,
yearly average times number of yrs = quantity
So after 1 decade the quantity is 0.5
after 2 decades the quantity is 0.5 + 1.5
after 3 decades the quantity is 0.5 + 1.5 + 2.5...
Calculate the time interval now that the complete elimination of US
CO2, allows before the threshold is reached for CLIMATE CATASTROPHE.
Non-existent.
No benefit whatsoever from any program of Obama or the EPA. Their lack
of any proper analysis of the benifit of their program can be very
clearly documented.
No programs of US reductions will have any actual effect upon actual
CO2 emitted into the environment. No possible effect upon the doomsday
scenario upon which the greenie weenies are counting on for their
control and profiteering, and AGGRANDIZEMENT by publicly paid civil
servants.
The case of AGW is provable fraud.
It's just a matter of time before society rids itself of these
parasites that seek to control and destroy their host.
HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHhhahahahaha
KD
Bear_In_Mind
>
> Bear_In_Mind falsified the usual right-wing drivel posted by::
>>
>> Michael Dobony wrote:
>>>
>>> Bear_In_Mind was again castigating the ambitious ignorance expressed by:
>>>>
>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com whined impotently because:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>>>> >
>>>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com was again whimpering and sniveling:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com whined/opined impotently:
>>>>>>>>> And because they and the psychotic rejects from mathematics
>>>>>>>>> that pass as climatoligists
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what's the highest level of mathematics you've achieved?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simple arithmetic?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --And your command of English isn't stellar either..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you wish to disuss compentency or incompetence
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only asked you what your education was in mathematics..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Your poor spelling indicates it's about at a GED level..
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps this can be phrased more clearly.
>>>>
>>>> Okay.. You suck at mathematics and science..
>>>>
>>>> --It's that glaringly obvious..
>>>
>>
>> My local weather is 84', heat-index of 87' and a predicted
>> high temperature of 100'..
>>
>
Yup. Trouble is, my 'weather' is also yours..
And your next false 'appeal to belief' would be?
> since we all know you to be an ardent global warming kook
Kent, you've got to stop making a fool of yourself with
your immature, ill-thought out gibberish. Your insinuations
are but the symptom of a troubled mind and we both know that
you're simply not in a position to be a critic of the scientific
publications that prove you're simply wrong..
> My mathematics are perfect
Your "mathematics" are but the dabblings of an uneducated
foole, with pretensions of grandeur as regards atmospheric
physics and the behavior of gases in a macroscopic scale..
Example follows..
> But thanks for PROVING that mathematics or comprehension
> of mathematical facts is not required
..to be a right-wing retarded science-illiterate, like you..
Example follows..
> Personally, I'm cranking my AC, so I can feed the plants
> while electricity is still affordable.
You're 'feeding the plants' with your carbon waste?
Don't think so, but let's see what your false generalizations
lead you to falsely 'conclude' next..
> But I know this upsets the holy and devout.of algore's
> psuedo religion who are plotting as we speak to eradicate
> air conditioning and heating of homes
I think you're jumping to desired conclusion that has utterly
no basis in fact, policy or doctrine. I defy you to prove
any of the above with three cites, urls and quotes..
--Otherwise, just STFU, you mathematically-challenged extremist..
Bear_In_Mind
>
> Bear_In_Mind was eliciting another knee-jerk from:
>>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com was squawking like an ambitiously ignorant retard:
>>>
>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>> >
>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com was again whimpering and sniveling:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com whined/opined impotently:
>>>>>>> And because they and the psychotic rejects from mathematics
>>>>>>> that pass as climatoligists
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what's the highest level of mathematics you've achieved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple arithmetic?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --And your command of English isn't stellar either..
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you wish to disuss compentency or incompetence
>>>>
>>>> I only asked you what your education was in mathematics..
>>>>
>>>> --Your poor spelling indicates it's about at a GED level..
>>>
>>> Perhaps this can be phrased more clearly.
>>
>>
>> --It's that glaringly obvious..
>
> yearly average times number of yrs = quantity
You're working the problem bass-ackwards, to achieve
some useless point that has basis in reality, or physics..
> So after 1 decade the quantity is 0.5
Nope, wrong again..
> Calculate the time interval now
Nope, that was already done for you..
And your next false 'conclusion would be?
> No programs of US reductions will have any actual effect
> upon actual CO2 emitted into the environment
That would be incorrect, you're just in denial about it all..
--And you still suck at even simple arithmetic..
Bear_In_Mind
>
> On Jul 2, 9:52 am, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The EPA says that the computers that they have now, do not have the
> capacity to run the value of the effectiveness to cost that ANY
> program to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
You've again chosen to prove you're an idiot..
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> > So after 1 decade the quantity is 0.5
>
> Nope, wrong again..
>
What is your point with this? Are you so stupid that you think you can
change the most basic principle of calculus?
The very first principle of calculus, is that in uniform acceleration,
the quantity is exactly 1/2 the rate.
One finds this average by adding initial velocity to final velocity
and dividing by 2, to find average velocity. If initial velocity is 0,
average velocity is 1/2 of final velocity.
This is because the rate changes. It changes from 0 to 1 in the first
unit. So in the first half of the period, the rate is below 0.5. In
the second half of the period the rate is above 0.5 and grows to the
final rate of 1.0.
At the beginning of the period the rate is low. At the end of the
period the rate is high. The average of the rate throughout this
period is 1/2 of what the rate is at the end of the period.
So if you start off in a car at uniform acceleration, and at the end
of 10 seconds you are going 50 feet per second, this is your final
velocity. The average velocity during this time is 25 feet per second.
The time is 10 seconds.
Average velocity over the time period is 25 feet per second x 10
seconds = 250 feet.
The quantity of the distance for uniform acceleration to 50 ft per
second in 10 seconds, is 250 ft.
If the car were traveling at a constant rate equal to the final
velocity of 50 ft per second, in 10 seconds it would travel 500 ft.
At constant rate of 50 ft per second, 500 ft after 10 seconds.
At uniform acceleration to 50ft per second in 10 seconds. overall
distance is 250 ft.
It is a clear fact that no amount of US emission cuts can have any
actual cost benefit.
Mainly because any cuts ONLY INCREASE THE TIME UNTIL THE SAME QUANTITY
IS REACHED. Thus no actual benefit or aversion of impact upon
environment or climate can be achieved.
My mathematics are correct. Your inability to understand them is
clearly portrayed by you. Your psychotic need to feel like you can
intimidate me and others only shows what a psychological disease AGW
is.
Go get your freaky little pud worked up intimidating the dogs and cats
in your neighborhood and leave the adults of the world alone, ASSHOLE.
KD
CO2Phobia is a dangerous disease like rabies.
DO NOT let a greenie weenie bite you.
Baron_Mind
>
> Bear_In_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com was again shrieking like a right-wing extremist:
>>>
>>> Bear_In_Mind was eliciting another knee-jerk from:
>>>>
>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com was squawking like an ambitiously ignorant retard:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>>>> >
>>>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com was again whimpering and sniveling:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com whined/opined impotently:
>>>>>>>>> And because they and the psychotic rejects from mathematics
>>>>>>>>> that pass as climatoligists
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what's the highest level of mathematics you've achieved?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simple arithmetic?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --And your command of English isn't stellar either..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you wish to disuss compentency or incompetence
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only asked you what your education was in mathematics..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Your poor spelling indicates it's about at a GED level..
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps this can be phrased more clearly.
>>>>
>>>> Okay.. You suck at mathematics and science..
>>>>
>>>> --It's that glaringly obvious..
>>>
>>> So explain to me the error in this,
>>> yearly average times number of yrs = quantity
>>
>> You're working the problem bass-ackwards, to achieve
>> some useless point that has basis in reality, or physics..
>>
>>
>> Nope, wrong again..
>
> What is your point with this?
To prove, yet again, that you're unqualified to even begin
to criticize the mathematical models and underlying physics
that attempt to describe the effects of dumping 27-32 billion
tons of carbon dioxide (among other gases) into the atmosphere..
Your "mathematics" resembles a GED comprehension, too..
Example follows..
> Are you so stupid that you think you can
> change the most basic principle of calculus?
Nope, but that's what you're trying to do, isn't it?
Example follows..
> The very first principle of calculus, is that in uniform
> acceleration, the quantity is exactly 1/2 the rate.
Nope.. You might be thinking of an elementary physics
problem, as regards a over-simplified way to describe
an "acceleration" because of the force of of gravity,
as in..
v = v(o) + (0.5) * g * t^2
> If initial velocity is 0, average velocity is 1/2 of
> final velocity.
*>LOL!<* Like I said, you have but a GED level
comprehension of the math and physics involved..
> My mathematics are correct.
Nope, you're clearly very ignorant of the subject..
> Your psychotic need to feel like you can intimidate me
I have no need to "intimidate" you, as you're so
incompetent at the basic mathematical skills, as
well as the physics, that it makes the task of trying
to explain even the simplest concepts to you hardly
worth the effort, especially when you keep arguing for
your ambitiously ignorant intellectual limitations..
Example follows..
> Go get your freaky little pud worked up
No thanks, I'm not a registered sex offender like yourself..
> leave the adults of the world alone, ASSHOLE
I suggest that you take your own advice first..
--And quit espousing your ignorance as some kind of 'natural laws'..
>>> Calculate the time interval now
>>
>> Nope, that was already done for you..
>>
>> And your next false 'conclusion would be?
>>
>>> No programs of US reductions will have any actual effect
>>> upon actual CO2 emitted into the environment
>>
>> That would be incorrect, you're just in denial about it all..
>>
>> --And you still suck at even simple arithmetic..
>
kdt...@earthlink.net
Any valid facts I present here are independent of myself. Something
you weirdos never seem to understand about facts and the continual
personal attacks upon which you base your science.
You are so weird in that you strive here to attain some sort of
intellectual superiority of which you have no hope to achieve except
in your own eyes. You are unable to speak in specifics about any idea.
You can only achieve your intellectual superiority with specifics, but
you fail to realize this and spout a bunch of shit which you think has
any one fooled, even the other greenie weenie kooks like yourself..
Just because you think you are justified in hating people because they
emit CO2 and know that you are wrong in saying that if they quit it
will cause cooler climates, does not give you a valid superiority from
which to squall your indeterminate and generalized antagonism,
Your generalized comments only serve your antagonism and fear of facts
which subvert your insepid wish to dominate other people which you
think you deserve from your pretended concern for the environment and
your pretended compatibility with other idiots like yourself who very
much enjoy the pretense of concern for common benefit of strangulation
to prevent climate catastrophe.
> > The very first principle of calculus, is that in uniform
> > acceleration, the quantity is exactly 1/2 the rate.
>
> Nope.. You might be thinking of an elementary physics
> problem, as regards a over-simplified way to describe
> an "acceleration" because of the force of of gravity,
> as in..
>
> v = v(o) + (0.5) * g * t^2
>
Gravitation is merely a form of uniform acceleration. The increasing
China emissions at 10% a yr is mathematically identical. A uniform
increase of 10% pr yr. Maybe you should look for some stock phrases
from greenieweenieology for proper to better understand.
Intitial velocity + final velocity divided by 2, gives the average
velocity. This works in any analysis of velocity.
If one drives a car around at different speeds, for 1 hour, and then
reads the odometer that says 20 miles, then despite all the changing
speed, it has traveled at an average velocity of 20 miles an hour.
The reality is that China is increasing emissions at the rate of 10%
per yr relative to the US.
This is an increasing rate, which mathematically can be analyzed as
uniform acceleration for the very basic outline. Of course a fuller
outline only shows at every step a greater futility in any effect from
reduction of US emissions.
I have only described a very basic point to start this analysis. The
EPA will be held criminally liable for not provided a complete and
accurate analysis of this matter.
The fact is that there is no benifit to cost in any program from the
EPA. If they do not acknowledge this fact, which can be proved, they
are guilty of high crimes against the US. Congress will be pleased to
know of the pertinent facts which the EPA omits, after the fact of
their actions for which they will be held responsible.
KD
Bear_In_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind again restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com was attempting to delete and bleat around:
>>>
>>> Bear_In_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>>>
>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com was again shrieking like a right-wing extremist:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was eliciting another knee-jerk from:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com was squawking like an ambitiously ignorant retard:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>>>>>>> I only asked you what your education was in mathematics..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Your poor spelling indicates it's about at a GED level..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps this can be phrased more clearly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay.. You suck at mathematics and science..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --It's that glaringly obvious..
>>>>>
>>>>> So explain to me the error in this,
>>>>> yearly average times number of yrs = quantity
>>>>
>>>> You're working the problem bass-ackwards, to achieve
>>>> some useless point that has basis in reality, or physics..
>>>>
>>>>> So after 1 decade the quantity is 0.5
>>>>
>>>> Nope, wrong again..
>>>
>>> What is your point with this?
>>
>> To prove, yet again, that you're unqualified to even begin
>> to criticize the mathematical models and underlying physics
>> that attempt to describe the effects of dumping 27-32 billion
>> tons of carbon dioxide (among other gases) into the atmosphere..
>>
>> Your "mathematics" resembles a GED comprehension, too..
>>
>> Example follows..
>>
>>> Are you so stupid that you think you can
>>> change the most basic principle of calculus?
>>
>> Nope, but that's what you're trying to do, isn't it?
>
When will you be posting some of those "valid facts"?
> You are so weird
You should see the view from here..
F'rinstance..
> you strive here to attain some sort of intellectual
> superiority of which you have no hope to achieve
My last Stanford-Benet score was over 165, with a Joe Walsh
induced hangover running alongside, and then there's that
funny thing called a BcSci, which I earned in Physics. I
will admit that trying to earn a MS in Engineering Physics
was a little beyond my grasp, while working two jobs and
raising a family of four children, but at least I tried.
Can you say the same? I doubt it, from looking at you..
You keep trying to downplay others that clearly understand
the subjects of math, physics and atmospheric sciences,
so it would seem more likely that it is *YOU* who is
trying to project a "some sort of intellectual superiority"
of which you clearly "have no hope to achieve"..
Examples follow..
> You are unable to speak in specifics about any idea.
That would be a false generalization, especially since
I have no obligation to explain to you how most of your
premises, on which you base your 'conclusions' upon, are
but distortions of the simple concepts you clearly choose
to 'conveniently forget' whenever it suits your pseudoscience..
F'rinstance..
> but you fail to realize this and spout a bunch of shit
> which you think has any one fooled
That would be yourself, Kent. You're 'projecting' like
a sociopath, with lies and distortions clearly more about
yourself than anyone else..
Example follows..
> Just because you think you are justified in hating people
What is there to "hate" about you, Kent? You're ambitiously
ignorant, you've avoided most of what I've mentioned above,
and you keep piling lies upon lies, expecting me to show
why they're lies, just so you could avoid answering one simple question..
"And what's the highest level of mathematics you've achieved?"
From this, you've projected still more unimaginative lies,
and this is but another example of your sociopathy..
> Your generalized comments only serve your antagonism and fear of facts
Nope, I'm simply refuting your pseudoscience and lies
with the facts, science and math, that you clearly haven't
begun to comprehend, nor master.. You're simply trying to
bolster your frail little ego diaper with what little you
can support your fictional understanding of global warming..
>>> The very first principle of calculus, is that in uniform
>>> acceleration, the quantity is exactly 1/2 the rate.
>>
>> Nope.. You might be thinking of an elementary physics
>> problem, as regards a over-simplified way to describe
>> an "acceleration" because of the force of of gravity,
>> as in..
>>
>> v = v(o) + (0.5) * g * t^2
>
> Gravitation is merely a form of uniform acceleration
I see you're still clueless..
"Gravitation, in a strictly local sense (eg here on Earth)
presents an example of "uniform acceleration", but by no
means should you confuse the "merely a form of uniform
acceleration with the phenomena called "gravitation"..
What else about your deliberate wrong-headedness would
you like devastated next?
> The increasing China emissions at 10% a yr is
> mathematically identical
No, Kent.. You've again confused a constant for some
kind a 'acceleration', which a second ordered derivative
in your simple minded misunderstanding..
> Maybe you should look for some stock phrases
*>LOL!<* That, of course, would be what you'd do..
Example follows..
> Intitial velocity + final velocity divided by 2, gives the
> average velocity. This works in any analysis of velocity.
Only in the simplest examples, which is all you can do
with that. Bear in mind, you're simply knee-jerking out
some of the crudest misunderstandings of math and science
that I've ever been appalled to reply to..
But, that's usually the case with you "denialist" retards..
Example follows..
> If one drives a car around at different speeds, for 1 hour, and then
> reads the odometer that says 20 miles, then despite all the changing
> speed, it has traveled at an average velocity of 20 miles an hour
And, the same amount of "work" is "done" too..
And your feeble point was?
> The reality is that China is increasing emissions at the
> rate of 10% per yr relative to the US.
Okay, and the source for your 'data' is from where?
You didn't say, and I'm scientist enough to question
how and where you arrived at the figure. The "conclusion"
that you've based upon that number is also suspect..
> This is an increasing rate
No, it's a rate of increase.. Linear too, unlike
gravitation, as you've frequently mis-stated now..
> I have only described a very basic point
Because, that's all you're capable of..
By the way, you've still not answered my question,
what's the highest level of mathematics you've achieved?
Oh, and this last one..
> The fact is that there is no benifit to cost in any program
> from the EPA
That would again be a false generalization, on your
behalf, substantiated by precisely *NOTHING*, again..
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> > The reality is that China is increasing emissions at the
> > rate of 10% per yr relative to the US.
>
> Okay, and the source for your 'data' is from where?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
"""China's emissions were 2% below those of the US in
2005.,,,,,,,,"Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] ""
>
> You didn't say, and I'm scientist enough to question
> how and where you arrived at the figure. The "conclusion"
> that you've based upon that number is also suspect..
>
I know that greenieweenieology only likes the facts that suit their
corrupt agenda, but one would think a blowhard like yourself would be
up on some PERTINENT FACTS.
Just call me the busdriver,
Cause I'm gonna take you to school
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> > This is an increasing rate
>
> No, it's a rate of increase.. Linear too, unlike
> gravitation, as you've frequently mis-stated now..
>
You are insane.gravitaiton is a uniform acceleration. Meaning the rate
of increase is linear, asshole. The function of the distance is
parabolic.
You only prove that you have absolutely no capability of mathematics
by arguing against me here.
You must be some idiot born really rich like, algore, to believe and
exist in the world with the level of mental masturbation which you
spiel out and which you think no one notices.
Notice that my rendering for uniform rate increase is Newton's
formula.
10% per yr rate increase means the rate increases 10% each year, or
100% in 1 decade,,
200% in 2 decades,,,,,,300% in 3 decades,,,,
The overall quantities being produced by this rate which is
increasing,,, is a fuction of a square,,,
After 1 decade, 0.5
After 2 decades, 0.5 + 1.5 = 2
after 3 decades, 0.5 + 1.5 + 2.5 = 4.5
after 4 decades, 0.5 + 1.5 + 2.5 + 3.5 = 8
So,, at the rate of 3 which is reached in 3 decades, the overall
quantity produced at this time is 4.5
Reaching the rate of 3 at exactly 3 decades, has within this time the
average rate of 1.5, since 3 divided by 2 is 1.5,, multiplied by the
number of years,,3,, equals 4.5
This is denoting a parabolic fuction which is a function of a square
since it can also be denoted by,,
3 squared, divided by 2 = 4.5
4 squared divided by 2 = 8
5 squared divided by 2 = 12.5
This is as in Newton's formula for kinetic energy where one has the
expression of velocity squared divided by 2
1/2mv^2.
If you can stick to the topic which is the function here described of
a 10% increase in the rate of emissions of Chica relative to US
emissions.
KD
leona...@gmail.com
> On Jul 4, 6:35 pm, Bear_In_Mind
>
> > > The reality is that China is increasing emissions at the
> > > rate of 10% per yr relative to the US.
>
> > Okay, and the source for your 'data' is from where?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
•• Regardless of the quality¿ of the source, it is all irrelevant.
.o0o.
Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis is a process that converts carbon
dioxide into organic compounds, especially
sugars, using the energy from sunlight.
In plants photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and
water, releasing oxygen as a waste product.
Photosynthesis is vital for life on Earth. As well
as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the
atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it
directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as
the ultimate source of the energy in their food.
The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis
is immense, approximately 100 terawatts: which
is about six times larger than the power
consumption of human civilization.
As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the
source of the carbon in all the organic compounds
within organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic
organisms convert around 100,000,000,000
tonnes of carbon into biomass per year.
- -
"Global warming is a false myth and every serious
person and scientist says so. IPCC is not a
scientific institution; it's a political body, a sort of
non-government organization of green flavour."
"Other top-level politicians do not express their
global warming doubts because a whip of political
correctness strangles their voice."
* Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.
kdt...@earthlink.net
> kdth...@yahoo.com sniveled in terror when:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Bear_In_Mind was again castigating the ambitious ignorance expressed by:
>
> >>>> kdth...@yahoo.com whined impotently because:
>
> >>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>
> >>>>>> kdth...@yahoo.com was again whimpering and sniveling:
>
> >>>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>
> >>>>>>>> kdth...@yahoo.com whined/opined impotently:
> ---------
. I defy you to prove
> any of the above with three cites, urls and quotes..
>
> --Otherwise, just STFU, you mathematically-challenged extremist
Hey Barely Mind,
Say hello to algore the next time you stop by in your Lear jet so you
two can finger eachother in the butt as you are dreaming and planning
your claim to profit and control behind the pretense of concern for
the environment.
You proceed to this ambition of the spoiled little rich boy clique
that pretends as liberalism regardless of the scientific facts. As
such, your conspiracy is no more than an attack upon innocent people
and the nation of the US which at some point will be recognized as
such.
Thanks again for portraying your insidious little mind and the fact
that you and greenieweenieology are mathematically illiterate. As
such, this never stopped you in your attacks and lawsuits against
honest people and scientists. Who knows if your attempts to bribe and
intimidate congress to pass the illegal agenda of climate change will
work. At some point, you and your elitist little fascist clique should
definitely have to face the music.
Liberalism means liberilization of the status quo in favor of the
lower classes. Not handing over control to elitist and self serving
control freaks who have no actual concern for the any of the classes
or the environment.
KD
Last Post
> Liberalism means liberilization of the status quo in favor of the
> lower classes. Not handing over control to elitist and self serving
> control freaks who have no actual concern for the any of the classes
> or the environment.
>
•• BULLSHIT
Liberalism = socialism = fascism
BIG government, tight controls, high taxes to pay all the czars
Baron_Mind
>
> Bear_In_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings given to:
>>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com sniveled in terror when:
>>>
>>> Bear_In_Mind falsified the usual right-wing drivel posted by::
>>>>
>>>> Michael Dobony wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bear_In_Mind was amused by the sociopathic denial exhibited by:
>>>>>>> >
---------
>> any of the above with three cites, urls and quotes..
>>
> Say hello to algore the next time you stop by in your Lear
> jet so you two can finger eachother in the butt
Sorry, I'm not a sexually repressed little kink like you..
Hrmm, CF-1994-1746, Indecent exposure, sex offender..
Right-winger, anti-science.. Yup, that figures..
> You proceed to this ambition of the spoiled little rich boy
Nope, you're just making up lies for your usual personal
attacks, because your comprehension of math and science
simply sucks, hard vacuum, like 10^11 torr..
> Thanks again for portraying your insidious little mind
You're the one that's doing that, my little sociopath.
I'm simply point out that you're wrong, and incapable
of defending your opinions with facts and actual science.
That you're trying to make that out to be some kind of
a conspiracy is but another example of how ambitiously
ignorant you've let yourself become..
--Oh, and gullible too..
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind again restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com deleted and bleated, again:
>>>
>>> Baron_Mind again restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>>>
>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com was attempting to delete and bleat around:
>>> rate of 10% per yr relative to the US.
>>
>> Okay, and the source for your 'data' is from where?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
Wow, you've got two whole data points, Kent..
Could you cherry-pick your data in more obviously?
>> You didn't say, and I'm scientist enough to question
>> how and where you arrived at the figure. The "conclusion"
>> that you've based upon that number is also suspect..
>
> I know that greenieweenieology only likes the facts
> that suit their corrupt agenda
You're projecting again, and because you're so scared of
what you don't know (yes, it can hurt you!), you're again
projecting your intentional ignorance onto others that do
not share your invincible narrow-mindedness..
Example follows..
> Just call me the busdriver,
> Cause I'm gonna take you to school
*>LOL!<* Any time you feel up to the task, Kent.. We could
get together some afternoon, and I could tutor you in basic
calculus-based physics for a few hours, just to help you
improve your carpentry skills..
Until then, please try not to act so humiliated again..
Example follows..
>>> This is an increasing rate
>>
>> No, it's a rate of increase.. Linear too, unlike
>> gravitation, as you've frequently mis-stated now..
>
> You are insane.
Nope, I'm educated.. I've studied physics for several
years longer than you have, and I'm pretty certain that
my graduate-level classes in that subject alone dwarfs
your comprehension. It took a lot of effort on my part
and there weren't any excuses like yours to stand in my
way..
> gravitaiton is a uniform acceleration
In most instances, but not always.. See neutron stars
and 'black holes' for examples..
> Meaning the rate of increase is linear, asshole.
> The function of the distance is parabolic.
Nope, you're just guessing now, based on your child-like
GED understanding of the subject. By the way, you never
answered my question..
What's the highest level of mathematics you've completed?
> You only prove that you have absolutely no capability
> of mathematics by arguing against me here.
*>LOL!<* And you continue to prove that you're a simpleton
right-wing zealot, that's dislikes any formal knowledge
because it makes you afraid of how little you understand..
> You must be some idiot born really rich
Nope, just worked my ass off to get a BcSci in Physics so
I could put some other stuff to paper that I'd been thinking
about for several decades.. Why are you so envious of that?
Oh, you're stupid.. Welp, I can't fix that..
Example follows..
>>> The fact is that there is no benifit to cost in any program
>>> from the EPA
>>
>> That would again be a false generalization, on your
>> behalf, substantiated by precisely *NOTHING*, again..
>
> If you can stick to the topic which is the function here described
Off hand, I'd say that you're arithmetically challenged..
--And an excellent example of mathorexia..
Baron_Mind
> Liberalism = socialism = fascism
Thanks for again proving my point about you frightie-righties..
--See subject header for details, eh?
kdt...@earthlink.net
> kdth...@yahoo.com deleted and bleated, again like a right-wing coward:
>
> Example follows..
>
> >>> This is an increasing rate
>
> >> No, it's a rate of increase.. Linear too, unlike
> >> gravitation, as you've frequently mis-stated now..
>
> > You are insane.
>
> Nope, I'm educated.. I've studied physics for several
> years longer than you have, and I'm pretty certain that
> my graduate-level classes in that subject alone dwarfs
> your comprehension. It took a lot of effort on my part
> and there weren't any excuses like yours to stand in my
> way..
>
> > gravitaiton is a uniform acceleration
>
> In most instances, but not always.. See neutron stars
> and 'black holes' for examples..
>
> > Meaning the rate of increase is linear, asshole.
> > The function of the distance is parabolic.
>
> Nope, you're just guessing now, based on your child-like
> GED understanding of the subject. By the way, you never
> answered my question..
>
You seem to have difficulty understanding that we were calculating at
how many years would emission qunatity be the same if US emissions
were cut right now completely in relevance to the increasing rate of
China, Barely MInd.
The correct answer of course is derived by,,,
The square root of, 1.5 x 2,,, or the square root of 3,,,
1.732 decades after US emissions cut, will the quantity of 1.5 US
emissions for 10 yrs, will againg be reached. Without even calculating
overall factors of delay, this means that only 7.32 yrs could be saved
from any point of CATASTROPHE that you crazy shits are harping on in
your invalid science.
'''''''''''
> >> No, it's a rate of increase.. Linear too, unlike
> >> gravitation, as you've frequently mis-stated now
'''''''''''''''
So you are saying that Newton was wrong when he derived his formula
for kinetic energy?? Where do you support your idea that he
mathematics for the uniform increase of CO2 emission is different than
the mathematics for uniform acceleration?
In this formula, the kinetic energy is a function of the velocity.
If an object is accelerated to a specific velocity, and then allowed
to coast, the quantity of kinitic energy is then the velocity squared
divided by 2,, times the mass. Since of course KE is the capability to
do work,, which is defined as,, force x distance of applied force,, x
cosine of theta. In this formula, cosine is 1.
From this, one can see that the formula, 1/2mv^2, is derived from the
formula for uniform acceleration. An object falling is subject to the
uniform force of gravity. This increases the rate of fall uniformly
throughout the fall. The velocity increases at a constant rate, such
as 10 meter/sec. That means that in 5 seconds the velocity increases
by 50 meter/sec. This means that precisely at the end of 5 seconds,
the velocity will be 50 meter sec.
In each second it will have a higher velocity according to this
uniform increase in the rate of distance to time, it will travel a
farther distance which will be a parabolic function. Exactly the same
mathematics for a uniform increase in the rate of CO2 emission.
Perhaps you should SUE, whoever took your money for those degrees in
science which you claim here in the etherworld where your facts are
what you choose? Even now with the mathematical facts before you, you
wither in a state of DENIALISM about how stupid you are.
You seem to be more of a half assed lawyer than a scientist, since you
completely think you can change reality to whatever you wish, and
always jerk on the veil of accreditation for your support when you
have nothing direct. You even make up your own accreditation and then
try to use this false accreditation here to get the jury to believe
bullshit.
HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahahaaha
KD
CO2Phobia is a dangerous disease like rabies
DO NOT let a greenieweenieologist bite you
Bear_In_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind again restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com deleted and bleated, again like a right-wing coward:
>>>
>>> Baron_Mind again restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>>>
>>>> kdt...@yahoo.com deleted and bleated, again:
>>> gravitaiton is a uniform acceleration
>>
>> In most instances, but not always.. See neutron stars
>> and 'black holes' for examples..
>>
>>> Meaning the rate of increase is linear, asshole.
>>> The function of the distance is parabolic.
>>
>> Nope, you're just guessing now, based on your child-like
>> GED understanding of the subject. By the way, you never
>> answered my question..
>>
>
> calculating at how many years would emission qunatity
> be the same if US emissions were cut right now completely
You seem to be using a faulty initial premise, per usual..
BTW, what's the highest level of mathematics you've completed?
>>>>> The fact is that there is no benifit to cost in any program
>>>>> from the EPA
>>>>
>>>> That would again be a false generalization, on your
>>>> behalf, substantiated by precisely *NOTHING*, again..
>>>
>>> If you can stick to the topic which is the function here described
>>
>> Off hand, I'd say that you're arithmetically challenged..
>>
>> --And an excellent example of mathorexia..
>
> So you are saying that Newton was wrong when he derived
> his formula for kinetic energy??
No, I'm saying that you don't know enough about kinetic
energy to say much of anything..
> Where do you support your idea that he mathematics for
> the uniform increase of CO2 emission
That wasn't my "idea", my little mathorexic right-wing coward..
Here's another of your faulty premises..
> From this, one can see that the formula, 1/2mv^2, is derived
> from the formula for uniform acceleration
Nope..
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1c.cfm
--While you're waiting for the school bus again..
What A. Fool
<kdt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>From this, one can see that the formula, 1/2mv^2, is derived from the
>formula for uniform acceleration. An object falling is subject to the
>uniform force of gravity. This increases the rate of fall uniformly
>throughout the fall. The velocity increases at a constant rate, such
>as 10 meter/sec.
Sorry, you need to read a book, or drop a rock.
>That means that in 5 seconds the velocity increases
>by 50 meter/sec.
Try again, all objects fall according to the series
1,3,5,7
each quarter second at nominal sea level.
>This means that precisely at the end of 5 seconds,
>the velocity will be 50 meter sec.
I can't believe your antagonist didn't call you
on this, don't either of you know the formula for
falling objects is g = ~32 feet per second per second?
That is what acceleration means, per unit of
time per unit of time increase, the stupid shorthand
notations are making idiots out of would be students.
>In each second it will have a higher velocity according to this
>uniform increase in the rate of distance to time, it will travel a
>farther distance which will be a parabolic function. Exactly the same
>mathematics for a uniform increase in the rate of CO2 emission.
More garbage, even if CO2 has any effect at all,
the increase would be an inverse function, exactly
opposite of acceleration.
>Perhaps you should SUE, whoever took your money for those degrees in
>science which you claim here in the etherworld where your facts are
>what you choose? Even now with the mathematical facts before you, you
>wither in a state of DENIALISM about how stupid you are.
>
>You seem to be more of a half assed lawyer than a scientist, since you
>completely think you can change reality to whatever you wish, and
>always jerk on the veil of accreditation for your support when you
>have nothing direct. You even make up your own accreditation and then
>try to use this false accreditation here to get the jury to believe
>bullshit.
>
>HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahahaaha
>
>KD
>
>CO2Phobia is a dangerous disease like rabies
>DO NOT let a greenieweenieologist bite you
Have you caught something from Hanson?
Bear_In_Mind
>
> Kent Deatherage <kdt...@earthlink.net> writhed in denials:
--
>> [..] The velocity increases at a constant rate, such
>> as 10 meter/sec.
>
> Sorry, you need to read a book, or drop a rock.
C'mon, 9.8 m/s is close enough to 10 m/s for a framing carpenter..
>> That means that in 5 seconds the velocity increases
>> by 50 meter/sec.
>
> Try again, all objects fall according to the series
> 1,3,5,7
Nope, you're again simply guessing, both of you.. *>LOL!<*
Neither one of you is capable of even 'table-top' physics,
so where did you either of you get the grandiose notion
that anything you might have to say about climate and
anthropogenic CO2 effects had any merit?
> I can't believe your antagonist didn't call you on this
The both of you don't know enough for me to even to explain
this to you, so often, I just don't bother wrestling with
a pig in the mud.. I know how that story turns out..
> That is what acceleration means, per unit of
> time per unit of time increase
Speaking "stupid shorthand notations", you just posted another..
--Which doesn't surprise me at all. Now, run 'bravely' away again..
kdt...@earthlink.net
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 04:20:17 -0700 (PDT), "kdth...@yahoo.com"
>
You are full of shit. I have had enough training in basic astrophysics
to know that for a fact.
Go cash that check from algore now
You are just the idiot who pretends to be against global warming in
order to foil the real antagonists while you pander to those with no
pertinent education.
You have in no way addressed the issue, only the alternate issues your
buddy Barely Mind wishes to detract the discusion.
The only pertinent idea here is that at China's rate of increasing
emissions, in very basic calculas, would equal 1.5 US emissions, if it
began at zero, in 1.73205050808 decade, if it maintained a steady
increase of rate of 10%.
Your pretenses are so cute. You can't even comprehend or discuss the
fact that this is correct. After that one must consider the the
overall rate, and how much elimination of US CO2 would change the time
until the same quantity is reached.
Hope Obama has fun with this, with advisors like the IPCC, Hansen, and
all the others willing to dish up some numbers out of the hat for him
to bank on.
Right now they have a number of degrees of warming they are going to
save the world from with their projected cuts.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
KD
Baron_Mind
>
> Lot O. Fstool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>
>> "Kent Deatherage <kdt...@yahoo.com> whimpered and whined:
--
>>> This means that precisely at the end of 5 seconds,
>>> the velocity will be 50 meter sec.
>>
>> I can't believe your antagonist didn't call you
>> on this, don't either of you know the formula for
>> falling objects is g = ~32 feet per second per second?
>
I doubt it, entirely..
--And now, it's eternally September..
Last Post
> What will happen to these idiots when people call for an actual review
> of their science after the fact of their destruction of American
> society and industry by forcing industry to relocate over seas, and
> the severe poverty imposed upon the middle class and working class?
> ----------
> all of those accusations are true in reverse of the global warming
> deniers and the fossil fuel industry. Whos destroying america?
> fossil fuels and their propaganda dupes and shills.
>
•• Can you provide proof for your bullshit
NO!! I thought not
The game for all of you alarmists is put up or shut up.
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
kdt...@earthlink.net
> "Kent Deatherage <kdth...@yahoo.com> whined piteously when:
>
>
>
> > Lot O. Fstool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
> --
> >>> This means that precisely at the end of 5 seconds,
> >>> the velocity will be 50 meter sec.
>
> >> I can't believe your antagonist didn't call you
> >> on this, don't either of you know the formula for
> >> falling objects is g = ~32 feet per second per second?
>
> > You are full of shit. I have had enough training in basic astrophysics
>
> I doubt it, entirely..
>
> --And now, it's eternally September..
Well at least I have the capability to look at even Wikipedia and see
that they agree that gravity is a uniform acceleration.
'''''''''
Gravity causes an object to accelerate at a constant rate of 9.8 m/s/
s. Making it uniform acceleration because it increases speed at a
constant rate
''''''''''''''''
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_uniform_acceleration_related_to_acceleration_due_to_gravity
Increases speed at constant rate.
This makes the graph of distance in freefall a parabolic function, or
the function of a square.
Distance = intitial velocity + final velocity / 2, multiplied by time.
So between 1 and 1.732 decades,,,
1.0 + 1.732 = 2.732 / 2 = 1.366 average rate
1.366 x 0.732 (time interval) = 0.999912
So the funtion is,,, rate squared, divided by 2,,, for the parabolic
function.
Or to find the time that this rate produces a particular quantity,,
Square root of,, quantity x 2
So if the rate of 10% per yr produces the quantity of 1/2 US emissions
of 10 yrs in 10 yrs,, another 7.32 yrs produces the quantity of
0.999912, added to 0.5 = 1.5
Increasing speed at a constant rate means exactly what I said,
although it is obviously not in line with the book of
greenieweenieism.
Increasing velocity of 10 m/s
At the end of 1 sec velocity will be,,10 m/s
2 sec 20m/s
3 sec 30m/s.....
The calculas of uniform increase in the rate of emissions is not
different, and not difficult to understand for those with more than
Barely a Mind.
You are soooo Barely,
KD
prometheuspan
>
> So I suppose that right now you are carbon free?
>
> Or perhaps like algore. Preaching this shit while burning 100,000 lbs
> of CO2 in a few days on his outdated Lear jet, and increasing his draw
> on the electrical grid at his mansion and other houses. The locals
> complain that he gets out on the lake on a much oversized boat and
> buzzes everybody. But he is interested in CO2 restriction. And makes
> most of his money with his company that deals in greenie weenie
> stocks.
-----------
I a much closer to that goal than most people.
I don't own a car, I don't pay utilities.
------------
>
> Otherwise, this is pure idyllic philosophy which is meaningless in
> reality of people living their lives.
---------
No, whats pure stupid idyllic ideology is denialism.
--------
> You have been listening to algore too much, and his propaganda.
----------
No, I know more than Al Gore by orders of magnitude on the subject,
more than enough
to appreciate what a mess he made with his presentation.
-
>
> You really need to expand your actual visualization of the
> circumstance, instead of looking through your tunnel vision of hatred
> for the carbon fuel industry.
------------
lol. I don't hate an industry, i know it to be a wrong and primitive
pig headed means by which to derive energy.
Thats not emotional, its knowledge there is a difference.
Further more, My capacities for lucid visualization are far above the
abilities of mere muggles to even imagine.
-------------
>
> Otherwise why should we listen to your fake whining about concern for
> people against these evil doers you claim the fossil fuel industry is?
--------
You should listen because i am telling the truth, not whining, while
you are spinning bs and running in circles.
-----------
> Your pretense at 'good for the commune', fails both with actual
> sociological concerns and concerns for the environment.
----------
Says an ignorant scam artist or a dupe. Which are you?
------------
>
> Therefore, your philosophy is merely a hostile attack upon other
> people,
------------
No, there is no philosophy, there is only understanding. Even the
people who are evil
and trying to cling to fossil fuels would in fact be better off with
green energy, so i am in service
to them whether they understand that or not.
------
and without proper burden of proof,
----------
The burden of proof is on the crackpot denialists.
-----------
and definition of each and
> every word and term that you use, these people have the right to self
> defense, and to implement the proper laws of the US to eradicated you
> from available postiton to conduct your premeditated harm upon them.
------------
oh please, don;t make me giggle.
--------------
>
> At this time, people are merely complacent and do not realize what a
> crime and attack upon them your demented philosophy is.
-------------
i love this projection/ accidental confession bs. These things are
true of the deniers, and not true of me at all.
-------------
Just keep
> poking them with your sticks, schoolboys. Propere application of the
> law will eventually send your piss poor rhetorical asses to hell.
-----------
The people going to hell are the deniers.
--------------
>
> Of course big industry will rip us off. That is why we have free
> market to keep them honest.
----------
and when has the free market ever kept anything honest?
----------
That is why we now have fuel which we need
> to live our lives at affordable prices.
-----------
whereas electric cars and geothermal power could have you buzzing
around for thousands of miles to the penny.
your duped by exxon and fighting for them to keep making you into
their cash cow.
-------------
Nationalization only means a
> government owned monopoly which can dictate price.
----------
who said anything about nationalization?
you did.
And thats funny, because its another projection and thus accidental
confession.
We have in fact nationalized the auto industry and gas and oil and
coal, with the result being
government own monopolies and fixed prices.
-----------
>
> The use of carbon fuels is what makes modern civilization possible.
---------
you call this modern? the use of fossil fuels is what traps humanity
in the technological dark ages.
-----------
If
> the market for the incredibly useful coal and petroluem was not there,
> such industries would have not been developed.
----------
if they had not been allowed to force out other options, natural
market forces would have driven
such fuel use into obscure history by now.
------------
>
> Modern civilization is freed from the cycles of famine and starvation,
> due to the use of fuel. Any modern conivance is based upon the use of
> fuels. Without fuel, we would walk everywhere and wash our clothes
> down at the river while we were also getting a drink.
----------
You forget the possibility of electric cars or exclude it
intentionally.
also, theres bikes.
----------
>
> All of modern life depends upon these fuels.
---------
No, it doesn't.
-----------
The only crime that could
> be associated with the selling of these fuels is development of a
> monopoly where the market in this commodity which is essential for
> survival in the modern world, were controlled and therefore to control
> the price or restrict availabilty would be extortion, since the
> customers for this essential need must have this fuel to survive.
-----------
no, in fact we don't need the fuel to survive, we could do fine with
other forms of energy.
-----------
>
> Of course there are polllutants from these fuels. These can be
> controlled, whereas carbon dioxide cannot. These pollutants are
> harmful can be defined scientifically to be so. To confuse CO2, which
> is a natural chemical in the environment and the actual food of plants
> and therefore the basis of all life and the food chain, with real and
> dangerous pollutants, only will subvert actual efforts of
> conservationists and environmentalists.
------------
even oxygen can become a pollutant in too high a quantity, your words
demonstrate you don't understand the basics
of toxicology. On 100 percent oxygen, you will almost certainly die
unless you are allready having trouble breathing,
or unless you are smart enough to take only short shallow breathes.
-----------
>
> The concept of global warming from CO2 is mere theoretical science.
------------
no, its not theoretical at all, its well understood and well proven.
----------
>
> a) There is no laboratory evidence for the properties of CO2 to retain
> energy and cause increased temperature.
-----------
There are thousands of experiments which have been done and if you
were interested we could tell you how to set one
up for yourself for under a few thousand bucks using fish tanks.
-------------
For this reason the idea of
> greenhouse gases was omitted from chemistry and physics until the
> 1960's when it was revived by theoretical scientists without any
> direct science whatsoever.
----------
simply another lie dependent upon reader ignorance.
------------
>
> b) No analysis of statistics of temperatures in relation to the
> statistics of CO2 concentration in the air can show a mathematical
> correlation.
---------------
again, another lie.
----------
> In these three areas in which direct science must show evidence if the
> theoretical postulate is true, there is absolute failure and evidence
> that the postulate of CO2 caused warming to be false.
-----------
simply untrue and total nonsense.
----------
>
> AGW merely begins their painful pretense of science of inventing
> theoretical explanations for why in these critical areas of direct
> science, they can derive no evidence to support their postulate.
-------------
again, lies, bs, ignorant stupid pathetic nonsense.
-----------
>
1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the
environment
3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits
4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.
5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gas, Biofuels
(a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind,
Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydrolic, Zero Point, Nuclear.
6. Oils relationships with the environment are
a. oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological
processes.
b. oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from
the Earth.
c. oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create
the energy.
d. burning it creates smoke. the smoke is toxic. it is multiply toxic
to the ecosystem in multiple ways.
e. its causing global warming
f. it causes cancer
g. it causes acid rain
h. thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in
these different ways.
7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth,
depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.
8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well
as to transport.
9. The pros of oil are that ;
a. it is accessible with very primitive levels of technology
b. our current energy infrastructure is based on oil
c. oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.
d. oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the
perspective of economics alone.
10. The cons against oil are
a. oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other
forms of energy in which initial
costs render yields not limited by physical quantities. Solar power
stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which
are simply cheaper over the long term.
b. oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis
above.
c. that pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we
know it should it continue.
d. we have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the
global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to
greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.
e. thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our
civilization is doomed.
11. Coal. The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient
organic substance exposed to geological processes, mut be burned, and
thus
contributes to pollution and global warming.
12. oil Shale and coal Shale. Similar to oil and coal or extensions of
them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from.
thus it costs more to process.
13. Biofuels. The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that
biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather,
similarly effecting technological processes.
a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes
to global warming
b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food
shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d
c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global
poverty
d. Biofuels make food more expensive.
14. Solar Power
a. solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.
b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive
energy whenever the sun shines.
c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental
costs.
d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research
is actually required.
e. assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like
to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.
Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support
employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked
and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.
f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of
the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the
amount of
sunlight available.
g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less
atmospheric interference.
h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order
to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car,
and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to
panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances.
i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy
strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind
power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.
j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis
almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This
surface area
has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10
miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.
h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us
that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy
strategy.
i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.
15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a
much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating
at a much simpler technology level.
a. about 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar
paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.
b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials
costs and lower materials environmental impact.
c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates
energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.
16. Wind Energy.
a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind
mills.
b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.
c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to
its overall material cost.
d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger
windmills are cheaper.
e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.
f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for
perhaps a dozen homes.
g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind
power, if we invested heavily also in enormous
distribution network infrastructure.
h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the
earth.
i. the problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.
j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due
to no sun.
k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two
extremes of climate, and should thus be employed
alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy
for.
l. for instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona,
California, Texas, And sunny places.
J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey,
Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.
k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an
eye sore to look at.
l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.
m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like
Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,
but not usually at the same time except for when it is.
This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with
solar and in the winter months with wind.
17. Tidal Power
a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement
of water instead of air.
b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is
denser.
c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches ,
probably in large fenced
areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from
the systems.
d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or
very large bodies of water such as lakes.
e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.
f. the cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because
its a mostly unexplored technology.
g. however, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very
simple.
h. tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water
and erosion.
i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.
j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.
k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at
sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out
you go to get the power back to land.
l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which
don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions
be too intense,
pulling windmills down.
m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third
leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations
where
geothermal power would be too expensive.
18. Geothermal Power
a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.
b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.
c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and
every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters
of the surface.
d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost
the larger the plant is.
e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact
competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.
f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy
yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or
advisable, due to
potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create.
g. in the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a
nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which
would have
virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.
h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal
power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be
ignored for
caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in
danger due to tectonic stresses.
i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power
station, and only one which this author supports. This is called
double circuit closed system geothermal power.
j. double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and
the steam comes up on the other.
k. closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system,
because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered
container
L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs
M. of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest
over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the
highest level of
permanency.
N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small
amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It
has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.
O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on
the surface of the earth.
P. current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.
Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to
meet all of our energy needs.
R. where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is
deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not
deeper than 4 miles.
S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power
might be as deep as 20 miles.
Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.
19. Hydrogen power;
a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect
to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.
b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a
way to store energy, not create it.
c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth
metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short
out the binding force.
d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself
a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both
create toxic
substances as side effects.
e. the problem with the latter is containment of the field and what
happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of
electricity.
f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which
continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.
g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for
very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats
20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.
a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water
to drive a turbine.
b. this is incredibly damaging to the ecology.
c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro
electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which
doesn't destroy an entire
ecosystem per power plant.
d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient
quantities to meet all of our energy needs.
e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way
around, not even as useful as nuclear power.
21. Nuclear power
a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals
in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into
energy.
b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in
the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.
c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active
wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident
of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire
continents worth of our descendants.
d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with
much promise and much potential.
e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.
f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non
radioactive fuels,
finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and
finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes.
g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs,
especially over the long term.
h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive,
gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely
dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run
out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal
power.
i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our
solar system and our galaxy.
j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use
considering the other much better alternatives.
22. Zero point energy
a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations
where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation
of mass and
energy.
b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become
realistic within the next 100 years.
c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be
conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to
the unforseeable
nature of potential dangers.
d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum
phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces
literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.
e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of
quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum
holographics.
23. Summary of findings.
a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together
provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.
b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic
green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.
c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80
percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5
percent from
Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.
d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and
viable technology.
e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science
fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that
oil companies
and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public
with propaganda and misinformation.
f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy
resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation
of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for
energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy
infrastructure would provide
extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would
be the death of the energy industry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
:ymalien:
No, ... really... its true. If only you knew how true. briefly, lets
put it in context.
I'm an aspie. I have 3 out of eight types of IQ in the 180 range and 3
out of eight in the
low nineties. The cognitive differences between me and AVERAGE"(?) are
thus skewed away
from average both directions; extreme high intelligence and a lot of
graceless stupidity.
So there I am; alienated and alienating;
studying your civilization just so that i can adjust to its strange
social customs;
And thus existing in a very awkward matrix of perceptions about that
civilization
most of its participants can't have.
To think of it in more literal terms, its like the common persons view
versus the birds eye
view of civilization to be in my head. Imagine, then, what this is
doing to me, as TORI AMOS
once asked" Don't you know what this is doing to ME? Here? In my
HEAD?"
Quote:
I was alive and I waited waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history
I saw the decade in, when it seemed
the world could change at the blink of an eye
And if anything
then there's your sign of the times
I was alive and I waited waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now
I was alive and I waited waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history
Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history
Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/jesus-jon ... yrics.html
_________________
prometheuspan
Edit | Quote
#2
Wed 03 Dec, 2008 15:50
Post subject: Re: THREE POSSIBILITIES??? Post There are three main
timeline paths diverging in yonder woods, and i say, lets take the
path less travelled
in a sharp less turn and fix this path that we are on.
The first possibility is that we will invest in nuclear and biofuels
and miss our chance to convert the economy in time to prevent the
meltdown that would happen due to the increased strain on the
biosystem to grow fuel and global warming. So in possibility one, Joe
president is hanging out in NEW DENVER. Its the turn of the next
century, thats right, 2100. And Joe is sitting there in the
superbasements above and below and next to NORAD, and the news is
grim. Because the planet is covered in super cell storms, and the
atmosphere and the ocean have hit their tipping points where the
balancing system kicks in; Earth is auto healing her atmosphere by
flushing it with more water;
the increased heat is simply evaporating more water. All the land life
has died on the surface from radiation and heat, or 700 mile per hour
winds. And they are thinking and talking mostly regretfully about
how they mismanaged the earth. But the good news is that theres a lot
of biological activity still left in the oceans. Sure they are acidic,
and almost all fish life died, but there are lots of bottom dwelling
creatures and flora which won't even notice. The big happy news in
fact is that our colonies on the sea floor are going well, almost
finished in their construction.
And then the bad news hits. The systemic destruction of the top layers
of the ecosystem have triggered an evolutionary biopanic in the
primitive strains which survived. Evolution which has stayed at a very
slow rate or pace has now been accelerated geometrically foreward as
the very primitive strains are adapting to the new conditions we
created as a test of their adaptive ability. We are forcing
an evolutionary event, in which we just created hyperplagues; billions
of them.
The good news is surface life is showing back up, in tiny little
clumps hidden under rocks and in caves;
as new clustering biogroups of simple life which has only just now
evolved are popping up everywhere.
The spins on that get progressively worse and worse and worse as time
goes on, until in 2105 or so at the very end of the large novel i can
write in my head, joe president learns that a species of newly evolved
ants has found NEW DENVER and breached its security barriers. En
masse.
While hes in an interior zone which is remote from the larger easier
to access tunnels, the ants are
incoming from every direction, and they are the size of infant kittens
and enormously toxic with their bites.
They use acids to dissolve even metals, and they are coming,
inevitably, like the new ecologies
grim reaper, it descends into new denver with a fatal inevitability,
and with sounds of gunfire and screams heard in the distance, that
possibility ends.
#2
Wed 03 Dec, 2008 16:02
Post subject: Re: THREE POSSIBILITIES??? Post The second possibility
is a much more grand scheme in which joe is sitting as president at
cruithne station. Realizing in the 2020s that the moon and mars would
be silly and impossible to colonize, we finally got ourselves up to
cruithne, and hollowed her out and spun her. The main population
center
is now cruithne, with thousands of smaller craft distributed out to
colonize over time the rest of the solar system. The story centers on
the discovery of warp drive and our subsequent quest for a new planet
to
replace the one we just wore out, as well as the strengths and
weaknesses of being a species with nothing to cling to and everything
to gain from any found found conflict with a species that just happens
to have a nice planet we admire.
In this story there are only 42 species in the whole galaxy; that
being the entire reason for the answer douglas adams computer so
eloquently provided. 42 total sentient and space faring (in the warp
drive sense.) However, we have just entered that arena and some of
those species have been planet shopping for millenia, so the 300,000
planets which are earth sized and in an earth like orbit have all been
taken in the galaxy and all the ones with life on them of any kind
have alien colonies already there.
The only way to gain turf is to take it. While we are not by any means
the most powerful species in the galaxy, half of the galaxy is running
on technology we can duplicate or better.
Guess who the "BORG" are?
Guess who the "Grox"? are?
They are only that side of shadow projected into an amusement;
a symbol of something we all know we may become.
The unfortunate unseen end to this tragic novel is that while there
was easy prey to start with, 3 different civilizations in the galaxy
have technology so advanced above ours that they end us as a minor
annoyance one day when they notice, in horror, what we have done.
Its a long and banal novel in my mind, a war story all about conquest
that only takes a very surprising twist in the last five minutes of
reading.
_________________
Image
Image
The opposite of bravery is not cowardice but conformity.
Image
Image
Where is it written that all of our dreams must be small ones? -B5-
"Theres a place out beyond right and wrong; I'll meet you there" RUMI
**== (%) =:) :angelic-blueglow: :angelic-cyan: :angelic-
flying: :angelic-green: :angelic-yellow: :happy-sunny: :happy-
sunshine: :violence-swords: :violence-bowandarrow:
The greatest achievement is selflessness. The greatest worth is self-
mastery. The greatest quality is seeking to serve others. The greatest
precept is continual awareness. The greatest medicine is the emptiness
of everything. The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds
ways. The greatest magic is transmuting the passions. The greatest
generosity is non-attachment. The greatest goodness is a peaceful
mind. The greatest patience is humility. The greatest effort is not
concerned with results. The greatest meditation is a mind that lets
go. The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances. - Atisha
Profile Send private message E-mail Post details
Online Report this post Delete post
#2
Wed 03 Dec, 2008 16:24
Post subject: Re: THREE POSSIBILITIES??? Post The third possibility,
and the point of this board is that we are here for the purpose of
creating that third possibility, is joe president on cruithne station
is now inaugurating the Zenterprise. Its 10 thousand meters long,
carries a fleet of 1000 100 meter long and wide fighter/lander/cargo/
atmospheric craft,
And looks suspiciously like the enterprise D except that theres 4
nacelles instead of only two, and theres
a large aftward hull which houses the bays.
This is inauguration day for a dream brought to life; a science
fiction story made no longer science fiction,
not by one single planet earth; but by the will and collective
knowledge of all the 42 sentient species of the galaxy. She is a
million times faster than any known previous ship, and a thousand
times better armed, and she is staffed not by a crew of 300 humans and
50 aliens, but by a crew of 42 different slots,
each in exact proportion, for a crew total of say 8400, or 20
individuals per species. (did i miss a zero somewhere? It barely
matters one way or the other.)
We discovered warp in 2035, or, to put it a different way, we
engineered it first successfully. The limits
of it are its node to node gravity well hopping, just like with spode.
Unlike spode it gets about 100 light years of range to hop inside of
the galaxy, or fine range to hop towards whole galaxies. The main
consideration is gravitic interference, its hard to fly through
complicated gravity fields.
The problem with hopping towards a galaxy is its still some ratioized
stretched proportion for the time
distortion, and the journey towards the nearby galaxies takes months
and farther quickly years.
Whereas hopping star to star is virtually instantaneous.
The difference in limitation between our first ships, then the
Borgmobiles, and then this Zenterprise?
The Borg Mobiles will make it to ten times the speed and ten times the
range, about 1000 light year hops in galaxy .
The Zenterprise will give us whole galaxy wide leaps to any star in
the whole galaxy, and fly 100 times faster than the Borg Mobiles
between galaxies.
This opens up the near cluster of galaxies about the same as
multiplying it by a whole galaxy;
IE at least thousands of realistic destination galaxies and millions
of galaxies accessible to long range trips.
so this Zenterprise reality will actually be far more powerful than
Picards Enterprise and an order of magnitude larger. Rather than
phasers, she will be armed with grasers, gravity beams. There won't be
any transporter beam tho.... Lol.
This novel in my head begins with the inauguration day, with the
president of the united states and the president of the united
federation of planets transfering authority of the ship over to its
human Admiral and commander. (since it runs a small fleet of ships,
the Zenterprise is commanded by an admiral who commands 1000
captains.)
_________________
Edit | Quote
#2
Wed 03 Dec, 2008 16:27
Post subject: Re: THREE POSSIBILITIES??? Post The unrealistic part of
this simulation is warp speed. Into our own galaxy, it might well be
that we would be looking to find earth 2 at merely .4 the speed of
light, and that the Zenterprise would be capable merely of .9 of the
speed of light. Which means the story would play out over a very slow
period of time as a novel, but other than that not much changes.
:D
_________________
#2
Wed 03 Dec, 2008 16:30
Post subject: Re: THREE POSSIBILITIES??? Post The difference between
wether or not we get one or the other of the first two novels to live
out as a species or wether we get the last option depends on wether or
not this makes it to obamas Desk.
Quote:
1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the
environment
3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits
4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.
5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gas, Biofuels
(a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind,
Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydrolic, Zero Point, Nuclear.
6. Oils relationships with the environment are
a. oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological
processes.
b. oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from
the Earth.
c. oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create
the energy.
d. burning it creates smoke. the smoke is toxic. it is multiply toxic
to the ecosystem in multiple ways.
e. its causing global warming
f. it causes cancer
g. it causes acid rain
h. thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in
these different ways.
7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth,
depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.
8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well
as to transport.
9. The pros of oil are that ;
a. it is accessible with very primitive levels of technology
b. our current energy infrastructure is based on oil
c. oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.
d. oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the
perspective of economics alone.
10. The cons against oil are
a. oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other
forms of energy in which initial
costs render yields not limited by physical quantities. Solar power
stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which
are simply cheaper over the long term.
b. oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis
above.
c. that pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we
know it should it continue.
d. we have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the
global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to
greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.
e. thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our
civilization is doomed.
11. Coal. The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient
organic substance exposed to geological processes, mut be burned, and
thus
contributes to pollution and global warming.
12. oil Shale and coal Shale. Similar to oil and coal or extensions of
them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from.
thus it costs more to process.
13. Biofuels. The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that
biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather,
similarly effecting technological processes.
a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes
to global warming
b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food
shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d
c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global
poverty
d. Biofuels make food more expensive.
14. Solar Power
a. solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.
b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive
energy whenever the sun shines.
c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental
costs.
d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research
is actually required.
e. assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like
to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.
Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support
employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked
and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.
f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of
the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the
amount of
sunlight available.
g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less
atmospheric interference.
h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order
to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car,
and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to
panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances.
i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy
strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind
power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.
j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis
almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This
surface area
has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10
miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.
h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us
that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy
strategy.
i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.
15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a
much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating
at a much simpler technology level.
a. about 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar
paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.
b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials
costs and lower materials environmental impact.
c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates
energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.
16. Wind Energy.
a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind
mills.
b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.
c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to
its overall material cost.
d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger
windmills are cheaper.
e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.
f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for
perhaps a dozen homes.
g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind
power, if we invested heavily also in enormous
distribution network infrastructure.
h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the
earth.
i. the problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.
j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due
to no sun.
k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two
extremes of climate, and should thus be employed
alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy
for.
l. for instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona,
California, Texas, And sunny places.
J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey,
Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.
k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an
eye sore to look at.
l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.
m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like
Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,
but not usually at the same time except for when it is.
This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with
solar and in the winter months with wind.
17. Tidal Power
a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement
of water instead of air.
b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is
denser.
c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches ,
probably in large fenced
areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from
the systems.
d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or
very large bodies of water such as lakes.
e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.
f. the cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because
its a mostly unexplored technology.
g. however, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very
simple.
h. tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water
and erosion.
i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.
j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.
k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at
sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out
you go to get the power back to land.
l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which
don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions
be too intense,
pulling windmills down.
m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third
leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations
where
geothermal power would be too expensive.
18. Geothermal Power
a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.
b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.
c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and
every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters
of the surface.
d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost
the larger the plant is.
e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact
competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.
f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy
yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or
advisable, due to
potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create.
g. in the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a
nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which
would have
virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.
h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal
power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be
ignored for
caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in
danger due to tectonic stresses.
i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power
station, and only one which this author supports. This is called
double circuit closed system geothermal power.
j. double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and
the steam comes up on the other.
k. closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system,
because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered
container
L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs
M. of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest
over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the
highest level of
permanency.
N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small
amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It
has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.
O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on
the surface of the earth.
P. current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.
Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to
meet all of our energy needs.
R. where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is
deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not
deeper than 4 miles.
S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power
might be as deep as 20 miles.
Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.
19. Hydrogen power;
a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect
to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.
b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a
way to store energy, not create it.
c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth
metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short
out the binding force.
d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself
a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both
create toxic
substances as side effects.
e. the problem with the latter is containment of the field and what
happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of
electricity.
f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which
continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.
g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for
very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats
20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.
a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water
to drive a turbine.
b. this is incredibly damaging to the ecology.
c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro
electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which
doesn't destroy an entire
ecosystem per power plant.
d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient
quantities to meet all of our energy needs.
e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way
around, not even as useful as nuclear power.
21. Nuclear power
a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals
in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into
energy.
b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in
the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.
c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active
wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident
of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire
continents worth of our descendants.
d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with
much promise and much potential.
e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.
f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non
radioactive fuels,
finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and
finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes.
g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs,
especially over the long term.
h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive,
gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely
dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run
out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal
power.
i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our
solar system and our galaxy.
j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use
considering the other much better alternatives.
22. Zero point energy
a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations
where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation
of mass and
energy.
b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become
realistic within the next 100 years.
c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be
conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to
the unforseeable
nature of potential dangers.
d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum
phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces
literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.
e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of
quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum
holographics.
23. Summary of findings.
a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together
provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.
b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic
green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.
c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80
percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5
percent from
Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.
d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and
viable technology.
e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science
fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that
oil companies
and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public
with propaganda and misinformation.
f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy
resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation
of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for
energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy
infrastructure would provide
extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would
be the death of the energy industry.
_________________
Image
Image
The opposite of bravery is not cowardice but conformity.
Image
Image
Where is it written that all of our dreams must be small ones? -B5-
"Theres a place out beyond right and wrong; I'll meet you there" RUMI
**== (%) =:) :angelic-blueglow: :angelic-cyan: :angelic-
flying: :angelic-green: :angelic-yellow: :happy-sunny: :happy-
sunshine: :violence-swords: :violence-bowandarrow:
The greatest achievement is selflessness. The greatest worth is self-
mastery. The greatest quality is seeking to serve others. The greatest
precept is continual awareness. The greatest medicine is the emptiness
of everything. The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds
ways. The greatest magic is transmuting the passions. The greatest
generosity is non-attachment. The greatest goodness is a peaceful
mind. The greatest patience is humility. The greatest effort is not
concerned with results. The greatest meditation is a mind that lets
go. The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances. - Atisha
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind was again exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>
>> "Kent Deatherage <kdth...@yahoo.com> whined piteously when:
>>>
>>> Lot O. Fstool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>>>
----
>>>>> This means that precisely at the end of 5 seconds,
>>>>> the velocity will be 50 meter sec.
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe your antagonist didn't call you
>>>> on this, don't either of you know the formula for
>>>> falling objects is g = ~32 feet per second per second?
>>>
>>> You are full of shit. I have had enough training in basic astrophysics
>>
>> I doubt it, entirely..
>>
>> --And now, it's eternally September..
>
> Well at least I have the capability to look at even Wikipedia
Big whoop.. Your 'google scholarship' is to laugh at..
> The calculas of uniform increase in the rate of emissions
In that case, tell us what the first derivative does..
--As if..
kdt...@earthlink.net
> ------------
>
> > Otherwise, this is pure idyllic philosophy which is meaningless in
> > reality of people living their lives.
---------
> No, whats pure stupid idyllic ideology is denialism.
> ------------
Yours is a psychological disease. The fact about emissions is that no
reduction regime can affect quantities going into the enviroment
besides delaying the same quantity by several months. Therefore, no
beneficial result can occur from any reduction regime.
You and yours make the presumptions:
a) CO2 retains heat inordinately
b) If emissions are not cut, warming will ensue
c) If we make cuts, we can stop warming
d) Those that resist this program of economic strangulation are guilty
of not having concern for the catastrophe you predict out of PURELY
THEORETICAL SCIENCE.
If this is your view, and you wish to impose upon other people not
only your beliefs and draconian actions enforced by criminilization of
CO2 and required enforcement and penalities, you are required to show
that any program you adopt can actually reduce atmospheric
concentrations in such an extent that it will be effective in
alleviating the the global warming you postulate to be occuring or to
occur.
If the complete US CO2 were cut RIGHT NOW. It would only delay same
concentrations into the environment by several months or years. I CAN
BACK UP THE MATHEMATICS ON THIS.
If the cuts are made slowly by major countries, 80% in 2050,, there
will be no delay gained by the cuts. This is especially true if China
and India and other developing countries continue to EXPAND their CO2
emissions. US emissions are not growing. China and India have stated
clearly that they will not participate in any emission reduction
program.
If you were not in denial of the pertinent scientific facts, being
obsessed with your wish to enforce controls on other people and
dominate their lives, you would rationally understand that it is time
for plan B. No futile tax strangulation of carbon fuels, and lot's of
AIR CONDITIONING.
In such a case, we need fuel to be as economical as possible.
You are blowing it out your ass to say that other forms of energy are
viable to replace carbon fuels. The best alternative fuel would be
gaseous or liquified fuel made from coal. These fuels are not
economically viable now, but these fuels could also be made to be
ultra clean fuels with the contaminants and pollutants removed.
----------------------------
> > Therefore, your philosophy is merely a hostile attack upon other
> > people,
>
> ------------
> No, there is no philosophy, there is only understanding. Even the
> people who are evil
> and trying to cling to fossil fuels would in fact be better off with
> green energy, so i am in service
> to them whether they understand that or not.
> ------
>
> and without proper burden of proof,
> ----------
l> The burden of proof is on the crackpot denialists.
l> -----------
Now this is the joke of the century. Even when we produce the proof,
your psychological obsessions and envisioned monetary gains exclude
you from acknowledging the facts.
Such as in this discusion. You write all of this but are unwilling to
view or incorporate the absolute proof I have given of the futility of
emisison cuts in regards to even affecting overall emissions into the
environment, much less atmospheric concentrations.
If world CO2 is 30 billion tons per yr, in 20 yrs this is 600 billion
tons. If US portion of this were exactly 5 biilion tons per yr,
removing this completely right now would result in delaying the same
quantity into the environment by 4 yrs. The quantity of 600 billion
tons is reached in 24 yrs instead of 20.
This is just one factor. After all factors are considered, this delay
until the same result becomes negligible and non-existent. Especially
when considering that China is passed the US now, and growing at 10%
per yr relative to the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
So where is the climate catastrophe or effect alleviated?
You don't care. You just want to dominate people with your futile
cuts.
Yours is the state of denial which is incorporated into a false belief
in the rightousness of your merely hostile attacks upon innocent
people.
> ------------
>
> > Modern civilization is freed from the cycles of famine and starvation,
> > due to the use of fuel. Any modern conivance is based upon the use of
> > fuels. Without fuel, we would walk everywhere and wash our clothes
> > down at the river while we were also getting a drink.
>
> ----------
> You forget the possibility of electric cars or exclude it
> intentionally.
> also, theres bikes.
> ----------
These all have to manufactored with fuel. Suppose you can smelter iron
with green energy and not coke?
KD
Baron_Mind
> Yours is a psychological disease
You're projecting again, Kent..
kdt...@earthlink.net
> Kent Deatherage <kdth...@yahoo.com> writhed in denials:
>
> > Yours is a psychological disease
>
> You're projecting again, Kent..
>
> --See subject header for details..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies
'''''''''''''''''
The term is derived from the Latin rabies, "madness".[2] This, in
turn, may have come from the Sanskrit rabhas, "to do violence". The
Greeks derived the word "lyssa", which is derived from "lud" or
"violent", this terminology is used in the name of the genus of rabies
lyssavirus.[3]
'''''''''''''''''''
The thing about rabies and hydrophobia, is that the animal has
constriction of the throat in the later stages of the disease. This
causes the symptom of foaming at the mouth. This causes the animal to
have the fear of water. But it also causes the animal to die of
dehydration.
This compulses the animal to bite into other animals seeking the
liquid of the blood. The virus is spead through the saliva.
This is a very dangerous disease and farmers know they must keep a
shotgun on hand in defense from rabid dogs and wild animals.
KD
CO2Phobia is a dangerous disease like rabies
DO NOT let a greenie weenie bite you
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind was again amused by the moving goal-posts presented by:
>>
>> Kent Deatherage <kdt...@earthlink.com> writhed in denials:
>>
>>> Yours is a psychological disease
>>
>> You're projecting again, Kent..
>>
>> --See subject header for details..
>
Evasion noted..
--What was the highest level mathematics you've achieved, Kent..
kdt...@earthlink.net
> Kent Deatherage <kdth...@earthlink.com> whined impotently at:
>
>
>
> > Baron_Mind was again amused by the moving goal-posts presented by:
>
>
> >>> Yours is a psychological disease
>
> >> You're projecting again, Kent..
>
> >> --See subject header for details..
>
> > The term is derived from[..]
>
> Evasion noted..
>
> --What was the highest level mathematics you've achieved, Kent..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies
'''''''
Soon after, the symptoms expand to slight or partial paralysis,
cerebral dysfunction, anxiety, insomnia, confusion, agitation,
abnormal behavior, paranoia, terror, hallucinations, progressing to
delirium.[25]
'''''''''''''
Here is an interesting quote from the article.
I may have left out a reference for my terminology,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophobia
KD
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind was again amused by the moving goal-posts presented by:
>>
>>>
>>> Baron_Mind was again amused by the moving goal-posts presented by:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yours is a psychological disease
>>>>
>>>> You're projecting again, Kent..
>>>>
>>>> --See subject header for details..
>>>
>>> The term is derived from[..]
>>
>> Evasion noted..
>>
>> --What was the highest level mathematics you've achieved, Kent..
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org
Evasion noted, again..
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> --What was the highest level mathematics you've achieved, Kent
Being born and bred from good solid hillbilly stock from the sticks
who had to scratch their survival out of the dirt with their
fingernails during the dust bowl, I did not have a rich and powerful
daddy for which my professors would give me a grade regardless of my
performance as a student, or if I cheated.
My dogs can't breath with shoes on. So I had very little interest (or
money) to continue school, after I did at least pass my basic
astrophysics class in which all forms of higher mathematics are used
in mathematical analysis of the physics of virtually anything in
space.
So I quit school to chop wood which I still do and am pretty good at
it. And which I very much enjoy as a vocation.
Personally wish I had devoted myself more to my studies when I had the
chance to be taught elementary astrophysics by the brilliant
mathematician and scientist that was my professor.
One thing I remember that he said specifically, is that 'if the
conditions cannot be replicated in the laboratory, it is theoretical
science and cannot be considered to be direct science or accepted as
fact'. In astrophysics, conditions are often so great, such as
temperatures, velocities, etc, that the conditons cannot be replicated
on earth.
In this good advice of a scientist, one can see the fallacy of
beleiving in AGW outright or acting on unproved postulates, since
there is absolutely no direct science for the beliefs of the
theoretical scientists, or even the property of CO2 for which algore
and his psuedo religion seek complete economic restructuring and
control.
KD
z
If only the IPCC folks had the benefit of your lack of higher
education; but sadly, they're stuck with all those embarassing PhDs
representing years of study resulting in productive work, not to
mention the curse of years of experience in the field, competing for
scarce grant money.
Last Post
•• ROTFLMAO~~ Zucker - you do not know your ass
from your elbow. The grant money was not scarce but
billions were wasted trying to prove that mankind was
causing global warming. You are a typical AGW
alarmist nudnick lying all the way.
•• Get a life, kid.
Let’s break down the case for human-caused global warming logically:
1) There is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occurring
recently.
2) There is ample evidence that carbon dioxide emissions causes
warming and
that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing.
3) But there is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the main
cause of
the recent global warming.
The alarmists focus you entirely on the first two points, to distract
you from the third.
The public is increasingly aware of this misdirection.
Yes, every emitted molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) causes some warming
—but the
crucial question is how much warming do the CO2 emissions cause? If
atmospheric
CO2 levels doubled, would the temperature rise by 0.1°, 1.0°, or by
10.0° C?
We go through the usual ―evidence‖
offered by alarmists, and show that in each case
either it:
Is not evidence about what causes global warming. Proof that global
warming
occurred is not proof that CO2 was mainly responsible.
Is not empirical evidence; that is, it is not independent of theory.
In particular
models are theory, not evidence.
Says nothing about how much the temperature would rise for a given
rise in
CO2 levels.
Despite spending $50bn over the last 20 years looking for evidence of
point (3) above,
the alarmists have found none. In two instances they expected to find
it, but in both
cases they found only evidence of the opposite—and they have kept
awfully quiet
about those cases. If they just had some evidence of (3) they could
just tell us what it
was—and end the debate.
We note that there used to be some supporting evidence, but better
data later reversed
that evidence. Instead there are now at least three independent pieces
of evidence that
the temperature rises predicted by the IPCC due to carbon dioxide
emissions are
exaggerated by a factor of between 2 and 10, primarily due to the
assumption of overly
positive water vapor feedback in the climate models. Finally, we
discuss some
examples of what would constitute evidence.
What is Evidence?
―Evidence‖ in this document means observations that
prove or suggest that human emissions of CO2 are the
main cause of the recent global warming. Evidence
includes the following information:
Who made the observations?
When were they made?
What did they observe? (In general terms,
we don't have to see the raw data.)
How do the observations support the idea that rising
CO2 levels are the main cause of the recent global
warming?
The evidence must of course be empirical, meaning
that it is independent of theory.
- -
[IPCC report]
"This report is not what it appears to be - It is
not the version that was approved by the
contributing scientists listed on the title page."
Fredrik Seitz
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> If only the IPCC folks had the benefit of your lack of higher
> education; but sadly, they're stuck with all those embarassing PhDs
> representing years of study resulting in productive work, not to
> mention the curse of years of experience in the field, competing for
> scarce grant money
Science and mathematics are entirely independent of any individuals or
organizations which retain the title of 'science'.. This is entirely
inductive logic you propose from which we are supposedly to derive the
truth?
If the IPCC were valid scientists, they could break down their science
into simple terms at each and every step.. They would not have to
continually pull out their degree and demand that you believe what
they say according to their accreditation.
McIntyre had to virtually drag the basic facts and methodology from
Hansen for the GISS statistics. Hansen has always dominated the IPCC.
I know that this is how the decrepit lawyers attack science and
intimidate valid scientists, by reference to decrepit idiots with
accreditation, but at some point this house of cards will fall.
What is really funny, is that now they got Obama spouting out figures
on how much temperature rise they are going to alleviate according to
the recent agreement of theorists that temperature rise and CO2
emissions are a direct proportionality and can be calculated directly
from supposed emissions reductions, without any consideration to
actual quantities released or the atmospheric concentrations which are
incured.
Just a number from the amount of CO2 supposedly not released. No
accounting for the later date when this quantity is reached, or
consideration for any theory of the effect of CO2 concentrations in
the air.
This is the bogus piece of shit of the century, directly from the IPCC
and endorsed by all of the prominent idiots in the scientific
organizations, and acceptd by Obama and his advisors.
NOW THAT IS FUNNY.
Let's see,,,, should we cut back the temperature 3.8 degrees or 4.2.
Your choice, the economy pick or the luxury pick. The economy pick
will only cost 23 trillion dollars. But we will reach the same point
of quantity released into the environment in only 2 yrs later, 2052,
after the effort and sacrifice and cost.
Why don't we ask the IPCC to make our decision for us instead of
Obama. I don't think his education is in greenieweenieology either.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHhahahhahahahahHAhahahah
This bullshit will be repealed in the US. It is only a matter of time,
and the level of crimes that are committed before people lose their
complacency with these provable lies and false science from a bunch of
rabid idiots..
KD
What A. Fool
wrote:
>On Jul 11, 1:54 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> My dogs can't breath with shoes on.
>>[snip]
>> KD
>
>If only the IPCC folks had the benefit of your lack of higher
>education; but sadly, they're stuck with all those embarassing PhDs
>representing years of study resulting in productive work, not to
>mention the curse of years of experience in the field, competing for
>scarce grant money.
http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/co2/climatepanel.htm
"Climate Panel Charged with Conflict of Interest
An expert UN panel on climate change is guilty of "intellectual
corruption" for telling diplomats that it is scientifically legitimate
to use tree-planting as a substitute for cuts in fossil fuel use,
charges the World Rainforest Movement.
The World Rainforest Movement (WRM) says that many of the authors and
editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "Special
Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry" (LULUCF) -- unveiled
in June before international climate negotiators -- were businesspeople
in a position to profit financially from the tree-planting schemes
likely to follow in the report's wake."
[Unquote]
What A. Fool
I could sure use that $1000 energy rebate for the
coming winter;
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>
> Being born and bred
I'm also an Oklahoman, so that's not an answer..
> I did not have a rich and powerful dad
Nor did I.. Now, answer my question..
> after I did at least pass my basic astrophysics class in
> which all forms of higher mathematics are used
Evasions noted..
Thanks for again proving what a cowardly imbecile you really are..
Baron_Mind
>> education; but sadly, they're stuck with all those embarassing PhDs
>> representing years of study resulting in productive work, not to
>> mention the curse of years of experience in the field, competing for
>> scarce grant money
>
You're again expressing your inexperienced opinion as a false absolute..
--Would you like another glass of STFU?
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> Evasions noted..
>
> Thanks for again proving what a cowardly imbecile you really are..
You are really something. Me thinks that you don't even have enough
math to understand how stupid I made you look for saying that
gravitation is not a linear increase of velocity, and that the
calculas for an uniform incrase in an emission rate is not the same as
the math for a uniform acceleration.
I made this so simple, that anyone can understand and follow the math.
AND KNOW WHAT AN IDIOT YOU ARE.
You simply determine the values at the integers, find the function,
and then any calculation for any value is available. The function
being, rate squared, divided by two. Just as in Newtons formual for
kinetic energy. Or,, square root of,,, quantity x 2.
But of course you also stated that I am wrong in calculating the
quantity at 1.0 of emission rate being 1/2 of the quantity for a
steady emission rate over the period.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gp ahead and continue with your illogical personal attacks upon me.
You are mathematically illiterate. You have proved this yourself. But
don't worry, Ztarded hasn't given up on you. He still thinnks you've
got a really cute ass.
Shine on asshole. You are worth no more effort of discusions.
KD
>
Well at least I have the capability to look at even Wikipedia and see
that they agree that gravity is a uniform acceleration.
'''''''''
Gravity causes an object to accelerate at a constant rate of 9.8 m/s/
s. Making it uniform acceleration because it increases speed at a
constant rate
''''''''''''''''
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_uniform_acceleration_related_to_acce...
Increases speed at constant rate.
This makes the graph of distance in freefall a parabolic function, or
the function of a square.
Distance = intitial velocity + final velocity / 2, multiplied by
time.
So between 1 and 1.732 decades,,,
1.0 + 1.732 = 2.732 / 2 = 1.366 average rate
1.366 x 0.732 (time interval) = 0.999912
So the funtion is,,, rate squared, divided by 2,,, for the parabolic
function.
Or to find the time that this rate produces a particular quantity,,
Square root of,, quantity x 2
So if the rate of 10% per yr produces the quantity of 1/2 US emissions
of 10 yrs in 10 yrs,, another 7.32 yrs produces the quantity of
0.999912, added to 0.5 = 1.5
Increasing speed at a constant rate means exactly what I said,
although it is obviously not in line with the book of
greenieweenieism.
Increasing velocity of 10 m/s
At the end of 1 sec velocity will be,,10 m/s
2 sec 20m/s
3 sec 30m/s.....
The calculas of uniform increase in the rate of emissions is not
different, and not difficult to understand.
You are soooo Barely,
KD
CO2Phobia is a dangerous disease like rabies.
kdt...@earthlink.net
Baron_Mind
>> This bullshit will be repealed in the US. It is only a matter of time,
>> and the level of crimes that are committed before people lose their
>> complacency with these provable lies and false science from a bunch of
>> rabid idiots..
Speaking of "rabid idiots", you sound just like one..
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind again restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>
>> Thanks for again proving what a cowardly imbecile you really are..
>>
>
So I'm told..
> Me thinks that you don't even have enough math to understand
> how stupid I made you look for saying that gravitation is not
> a linear increase of velocity
I think your meager comprehension of math and physics is even
more glaringly obvious than you'll ever want to admit to yourself..
> and that the calculas for an uniform incrase
You can't even spell "calculus", much less perform any of it..
> in an emission rate is not the same as the math for a uniform
> acceleration.
You presented two data points, and then assumed the rest, Kent..
> I made this so simple
That's because you only have a simple grasp of the subject..
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> read more »
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Etymology
The term is derived from the Latin rabies, "madness".[2] This, in
turn, may have come from the Sanskrit rabhas, "to do violence". The
Greeks derived the word "lyssa", which is derived from "lud" or
"violent", this terminology is used in the name of the genus of rabies
lyssavirus.[3]
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Soon after, the symptoms expand to slight or partial paralysis,
cerebral dysfunction, anxiety, insomnia, confusion, agitation,
abnormal behavior, paranoia, terror, hallucinations, progressing to
delirium.[5]
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
CO2Phobia is a dangerous disease like rabies
DO NOT let a greenie weenie bite you
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
;>
;> > Or perhaps like algore. Preaching this shit while burning 100,000
lbs
;> > of CO2 in a few days on his outdated Lear jet
Yours is a psychological disease. Looking down from your cloud of
psychological superiority at all those dumb cows that need to be
herded to their proper destiny, free from CO2 and methane emission.
You are critically insane.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THOSE THAT POSTULATE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL
WARMING.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Etymology
The term is derived from the Latin rabies, "madness".[2] This, in
turn, may have come from the Sanskrit rabhas, "to do violence". The
Greeks derived the word "lyssa", which is derived from "lud" or
"violent", this terminology is used in the name of the genus of rabies
lyssavirus.[3]
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Soon after, the symptoms expand to slight or partial paralysis,
cerebral dysfunction, anxiety, insomnia, confusion, agitation,
abnormal behavior, paranoia, terror, hallucinations, progressing to
delirium.[5]
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
CO2Phobia is a dangerous disease like rabies
DO NOT let a greenie weenie bite you
KD
, and increasing his draw
> e. thus we need solutions to ...
>
> read more »
Ouroboros Rex
> On Jul 10, 4:39 am, prometheuspan
> ;<prometheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ;> > So I suppose that right now you are carbon free?
> ;>
> ;> > Or perhaps like algore. Preaching this shit while burning 100,000
> lbs
> ;> > of CO2 in a few days on his outdated Lear jet
>
> Yours is a psychological disease. Looking down from your cloud of
> psychological superiority at all those dumb cows that need to be
> herded to their proper destiny, free from CO2 and methane emission.
>
> You are critically insane.
>
> THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THOSE THAT POSTULATE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL
> WARMING.
Proven, sorry.
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is a symptom of weenieism to make such unsupported statements.
Although theoretical physics accepts the notion that CO2 is a
greenhouse gas, no one can submit the formal scientific documentation
of the laboratory analysis which makes this determination scientific.
The childs exhibit from Tyndell of the CO2 encased in glass and
submitted to visible light cannot be done in formal scientific manner
to demonstrate valid scientific proof. This is why the formal
scientific documentiation does not exist.
There are many factors as to why the high energy visible light may
cause the difference in rate of temperature increase, one of these
being non-chain reactive oxidation of present carbon monoxide
This exhbit is a hoax, being dependent upon the visible light and it's
immediate conversion to infrared. I
Induction of infrared radiation of the proper spectrum of the proper
temperatures does not show the property of CO2 that is claimed, of
inordinate absorption of energy that causes an effect upon
temperature.
No direct science. Invalid theoretical science. And only anecdotal
evidence behind the desparate push to criminalize CO2 as harmful to
the environment.
Enjoy greenie weenies. Someday the question will be,, 'nylon or hemp',
when it comes to choosing the ropes by which you will all be hanged.
HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahaHAHAHAH
hahahahgreeniehahahahweenieshahahahsuckhahahaha
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
Rabies is also called, 'hydrophobia', because it causes a constriction
of the throat which causes the animal to be unable to swallow. This
causes the characteristic syptom of the foaming of the mouth.
It is believed that this causes the compulsion of the animal to bite
into other animals seeking the liquid of the blood as it is dying of
dehydration. The virus is spread through the saliva and this
compulsion to bite.
Animals which are rarely seen in the wild, such as coyotes and wild
cats, will come out of the woods towards humans and will attack and
bite them. Luckily they tend to walk very slowly in these stages of
the disease.
This disease is very dangerous and almost always fatal. Farmers know
they must keep a shotgun at hand for defense against rabid wild
animals and dogs.
KD
Ouroboros Rex
> On Jul 16, 9:39 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 10, 4:39 am, prometheuspan
>>> ;<prometheus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> ;> > So I suppose that right now you are carbon free?
>>> ;>
>>> ;> > Or perhaps like algore. Preaching this shit while burning
>>> 100,000 lbs
>>> ;> > of CO2 in a few days on his outdated Lear jet
>>
>>> Yours is a psychological disease. Looking down from your cloud of
>>> psychological superiority at all those dumb cows that need to be
>>> herded to their proper destiny, free from CO2 and methane emission.
>>
>>> You are critically insane.
>>
>>> THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THOSE THAT POSTULATE ANTHROPOGENIC
>>> GLOBAL WARMING.
>>
>> Proven, sorry.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> This is a symptom of weenieism to make such unsupported statements.
I have an idea. When I need science word salad from a schizophrenic liar
with zero knowledge of the subject, I'll let you know. lol
(unbroken string of lies snipped)
kdt...@earthlink.net
Normal expostulation of your true weenie spirit.
Attack the source of the information which dispels your enjoyment of
your hostile fantasy against innocent people of AGW, and ignore any
facts while you enjoy also your favorite word, 'denialists', towards
those that review the actual science and refuse to simply 'believe' in
the fantasy which you demand.
SHOW SOME DIRECT REFERENCE TO LABORATORY DATA FOR THE PROPERTY OF CO2
AS A GREENHOUSE GAS. OTHERWISE THIS LACK OF DIRECT SCIENCE IS ACTUAL
PROOF OF THE FALLACY OF YOUR BELIEF, ALTHOUGH YOU REFUSE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THIS VERY REAL SCIENTIFIC FACT.
THEOREDTICAL INTERPRETATION IS NOT SCIENCE.
So you think it is okay that the federal government releases a report
just as the climate bill is coming to vote in which it blatantly
states a completely and provably false statistic that temperatures in
the US have risen by 2F degrees in the last 50 yrs. And then it states
that emissions reductions can in any way affect supposed warming.
These lies are criminal but are acceptable to a diseased mind like
yours.
This is truely the definition of a psyschological disease which
directly threatens other peoples lives.
That the scientific community and Hansen do not condemn and revoke
this report, means that they are completely DEFUNCT, and cannot be
counted on to refer valid science for any law making. They are also
criminally and civilly liable.
MEET THE REAL WORLD, WEENIE SUCKS.
And because your psychological disease demands that you interfere and
control other people's lives, you can very well be defined as the
'aggressor' in law, and in the omission or refusal to acknowledge
actual scientific fact, can be, and will be directly prosecuted for
your crimes and complicity in crimes against the US and humanity.
Although theoretical science has chosen in recent years to refuse the
term, 'proof', or 'burden of proof', the time will come when a clear
burden of proof will be met of the crimes against the US and the
crimes of the continuing fraud of the science of climatology and
theoretical physics which allows this fraudulent science of
anthropogenic global warming.
KD
Baron_Mind
>
> Ouroboros Rex was laughing at the contemptible ignorance exhibited by:
>>
>> "Kent Deatheredge" <kdt...@yahoo.com> was writhing in denials:
>>>
>>> This is a symptom of weenieism to make such unsupported statements.
>>
>> I have an idea. When I need science word salad from a
>> schizophrenic liar with zero knowledge of the subject,
>> I'll let you know. lol
>>
>> (unbroken string of lies snipped
>
> Normal expostulation of your true weenie spirit.
Kent, you are an ignorant right-wing moron, such that your
ambitious ignorance will continue to run aground of actual
scientific facts, no matter how you try to deny it..
Example follows..
> Although theoretical science has chosen in recent years to
> refuse the term, 'proof', or 'burden of proof'
*>LOL!<* As if you possessed the critical reasoning skills
to be able to say so, authoritatively, you shambling imbecile..
--See subject header for details, you craven cretinous coward..
I M @ good guy
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Kent Deatheredge" <kdt...@yahoo.com> was sniveling again because:
>>
>> Ouroboros Rex was laughing at the contemptible ignorance exhibited by:
>>>
>>> "Kent Deatheredge" <kdt...@yahoo.com> was writhing in denials:
>>>>
>
>>>> This is a symptom of weenieism to make such unsupported statements.
>
>>> I have an idea. When I need science word salad from a
>>> schizophrenic liar with zero knowledge of the subject,
>>> I'll let you know. lol
>>>
>>> (unbroken string of lies snipped
>>
>> Normal expostulation of your true weenie spirit.
>
>Kent, you are an ignorant right-wing moron, such that your
>ambitious ignorance will continue to run aground of actual
>scientific facts, no matter how you try to deny it..
Only a leftist creep would think right wing has
anything to do with it.
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind pointed out and ridiculed the false claims uttered by:
>>
>> "Kent Deatheredge" <kdt...@yahoo.com> was sniveling again because:
>>>
>>> Ouroboros Rex was laughing at the contemptible ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> "Kent Deatheredge" <kdt...@yahoo.com> was writhing in denials:
>>>>> This is a symptom of weenieism to make such unsupported statements.
>>>>
>>>> I have an idea. When I need science word salad from a
>>>> schizophrenic liar with zero knowledge of the subject,
>>>> I'll let you know. lol
>>>>
>>>> (unbroken string of lies snipped
>>>
>>> Normal expostulation of your true weenie spirit.
>>
>> Kent, you are an ignorant right-wing moron, such that your
>> ambitious ignorance will continue to run aground of actual
>> scientific facts, no matter how you try to deny it..
>>
>>
>>> Although theoretical science has chosen in recent years to
>>> refuse the term, 'proof', or 'burden of proof'
>>
>> *>LOL!<* As if you possessed the critical reasoning skills
>> to be able to say so, authoritatively, you shambling imbecile..
>>
>> --See subject header for details, you craven cretinous coward..
>
Only a "foaming true believer" and right-wing zealot would
resort to such false 'black_or_white" dichotomies..
--Nice sockpuppet, let see you dance around the subject some more..
I M @ good guy
There is no right wing, there is only the leftist control
freaks, and the rest of us trying to stay free.
Note that I didn't disagree with you, I only remarked
about your suggestion that political leaning has anything
to do with people discussing physical processes.
Baron_Mind
>
> Baron_Mind was amused by the knee-jerk reactions exhibited by:
>>
>> IM@too_gay writhed in denials when it was pointed out by:
>>>
>>> Baron_Mind pointed out and ridiculed the false claims uttered by:
>>>>
>>>> "Kent Deatheredge" <kdt...@yahoo.com> was sniveling again because:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ouroboros Rex was laughing at the contemptible ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kent Deatheredge" <kdt...@yahoo.com> was writhing in denials:
>>>>>>> This is a symptom of weenieism to make such unsupported statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have an idea. When I need science word salad from a
>>>>>> schizophrenic liar with zero knowledge of the subject,
>>>>>> I'll let you know. lol
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (unbroken string of lies snipped
>>>>>
>>>>> Normal expostulation of your true weenie spirit.
>>>>
>>>> Kent, you are an ignorant right-wing moron, such that your
>>>> ambitious ignorance will continue to run aground of actual
>>>> scientific facts, no matter how you try to deny it..
>>>>
>>>> Example follows..
>>>>
>>>>> Although theoretical science has chosen in recent years to
>>>>> refuse the term, 'proof', or 'burden of proof'
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* As if you possessed the critical reasoning skills
>>>> to be able to say so, authoritatively, you shambling imbecile..
>>>>
>>>> --See subject header for details, you craven cretinous coward..
>>>
>>> Only a leftist creep would think right wing has anything to do
>>
>> Only a "foaming true believer" and right-wing zealot would
>> resort to such false 'black_or_white" dichotomies..
>>
>
That would be incorrect, as it's you insecure right-wingers that
are the 'control freaks', as well being sexually repressed and
usually sexually deviant..
> Note that I didn't disagree with you
Yes, you did, and this isn't the Argument Clinic..
> I only remarked about your suggestion that political leaning
> has anything to do with people discussing physical processes.
I doubt the veracity of your claim, owing to a paucity of
discussion, usually by right-wing foaming true believers,
of the actual physical facts in an objective manner..
--Got physics? I'm fluent..