Rotary Wing Forum  

Go Back   Rotary Wing Forum > General > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:12 AM
Fly Army's Avatar
Fly Army Fly Army is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Utah/summer Florida/winter
Posts: 1,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C. Beaty View Post
I had a VW Beetle with 6V electrical system and had to keep the battery in the house overnight so that it’d have enough oomph to crank the engine next morning. Even so, it would only turn the engine over with the clutch depressed; transmission in neutral and clutch out, drag of frozen transmission grease was too much.
Back in the 60s my dad had that same VW. When we were stationed at Malmstrom AFB in Montana he would just leave the car running all night.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-10-2017, 05:43 PM
johnrk's Avatar
johnrk johnrk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Wentzville
Posts: 151
Default

Ignorance is bliss

Quote:
The largest human source of carbon dioxide emissions is from the combustion of fossil fuels. This produces 87% of human carbon dioxide emissions. Burning these fuels releases energy which is most commonly turned into heat, electricity or power for transportation. Some examples of where they are used are in power plants, cars, planes and industrial facilities. In 2011, fossil fuel use created 33.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
33.2 Billion tonnes seems like plenty to me - and rising...I like you guys, but I am siding with those science guys with all the letters after their names. I do agree that we are only here for a short stay
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	global_emissions_trends_2015.png
Views:	13
Size:	31.2 KB
ID:	126326  

Last edited by johnrk; 01-10-2017 at 05:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:43 PM
HighAltitude HighAltitude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: South Lake Tahoe
Posts: 49
Default

Please! Then sell your gyro and set the example for us "ignorant" folk. You might want to curb your waste of electricity by chatting here too much. I get pi##ed when I get lectured by people who want everyone else to cut emissions. My entire house is LED lighting. Is yours?

sorry but you struck a chord...

Try being a little more honest by posting the true picture. Just a slight imbalance in the HUGE natural Co2 exchanges dwarfs our human addition of 6 in this depiction.

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-10-2017, 09:42 PM
Jason O Jason O is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 522
Default

I look at that spiffy graphic you provided and I think is shows very well how much 6 is. It would appear to show that if you account for all other exchanges the system balances within 1 or 2 and that 1 or 2 accounts for the gradual changes in temperature we see over long periods of time (natural global temperature changes). We are now going to take that system that is balanced within 1 or 2 and add 6 every time period. The addition of 6 only going one way over 1, 2, 10, 50 time periods starts to add up. The system compensates some (a tree placed in a higher concentration of CO2 will absorb more CO2 but not all additional) but releasing that 6 from its natural storage in the ground over time becomes 6,12,18,24............... Sorry if that strikes a chord but that is exactly what your "honest" "true picture" is saying. Your logic seems to say that if I have a balance and place one pound on one side and two pounds on the other, the side with two pounds will go down. But if I have a balance with 5000 pounds on one side and 5001 pounds on the other, the side with 5001 pounds will not go down because what difference could the 1 pound make. It is unclear to me what your ownership of LED lighting has to do with the point you are trying to make.

FWIW
Jason


Quote:
Originally Posted by HighAltitude View Post
Please! Then sell your gyro and set the example for us "ignorant" folk. You might want to curb your waste of electricity by chatting here too much. I get pi##ed when I get lectured by people who want everyone else to cut emissions. My entire house is LED lighting. Is yours?

sorry but you struck a chord...

Try being a little more honest by posting the true picture. Just a slight imbalance in the HUGE natural Co2 exchanges dwarfs our human addition of 6 in this depiction.

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:33 PM
C. Beaty C. Beaty is offline
Gold Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,975
Default

Should have used one of these things after my tongue-in-cheek comments-
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-11-2017, 12:10 AM
ckurz7000 ckurz7000 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vienna
Posts: 3,280
Default

I once dabbled a bit in atmospheric research and participated at one of their big conferences. The papers I saw presented there baffled me. They had computer models of everything but the input to their models were largely unknown. The non-linear effects and feedback loops inside the system were largely unknown. Potentially huge effects (like, e.g., the ocean's role in the CO2 cycle) is still on very shaky grounds. But the computer model gave numbers and those were published in nice looking graphs.

I don't want to say that we shouldn't minimize our footprint as a species on this our planet. Far from it. Just that climatology is a science which still has a good way to evolve before I would trust their predictions.

-- Chris.
__________________
Read about my trip across the USA in an MT03 gyro here.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-11-2017, 04:21 PM
EI-GYRO EI-GYRO is offline
21st Century Crankhandler
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,029
Default

I haven't read AR5 yet, but when I read AR4, the scientists were quite upfront about the poor level of scientific knowledge and the large gaps in information
and data.

The policy makers, on the other hand, were not.

If in doubt, PANIC !!!

That said, cleaning up our act, and reducing energy wastage, has to be a good idea.

El Nino is the largest weather feature on the planet, but no one seems to know what drives it, except in the vaguest sense.
Even predictions of its arrival, duration and severity are fairly hazy.

I remember when the next Ice Age was imminent, and we only had 5 years worth of gas left.
All said with the same assurance as the current worst predictions.

Relax, folks.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-11-2017, 04:37 PM
Fly Army's Avatar
Fly Army Fly Army is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Utah/summer Florida/winter
Posts: 1,928
Default

All I can offer is my observations as pilot who for five years in a row flew from NYC to Hong Kong via the North Pole (or Polar). I do not draw any conclusions but in those five years I did notice a shrinking of the edges of the ice shelf that I regularly flew over.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-11-2017, 04:39 PM
C. Beaty C. Beaty is offline
Gold Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,975
Default

The missionary zeal of Al Gore’s disciples is so intense that any light-hearted comment about global warming defines a person making such comments as a heretic to be burned at the stake.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-11-2017, 07:09 PM
Rando Rando is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 747
Default

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-11-2017, 11:10 PM
All_In's Avatar
All_In All_In is offline
Gold Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Diego, CA. USA
Posts: 13,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckurz7000 View Post
I once dabbled a bit in atmospheric research and participated at one of their big conferences. The papers I saw presented there baffled me. They had computer models of everything but the input to their models were largely unknown. The non-linear effects and feedback loops inside the system were largely unknown. Potentially huge effects (like, e.g., the ocean's role in the CO2 cycle) is still on very shaky grounds. But the computer model gave numbers and those were published in nice looking graphs.

I don't want to say that we shouldn't minimize our footprint as a species on this our planet. Far from it. Just that climatology is a science which still has a good way to evolve before I would trust their predictions.

-- Chris.
I've studied the reports a great deal!!

I found many error in their source data and we do not have a valid model of how our ocean absorbs CO2.
My biggest complaint then is the time frame.

What we do know is we have had a green house gas extinction event in our past history: = The Permian–Triassic extinction event, known as the "Great Dying". We had 5 mass extinctions in our past.

Permian–Triassic extinction event, which happened 252 million years ago, was cause by greenhouse gases and pollution, the main one being CO2 but ton's of arsenic and other very lethal gases were also found in the soil layer.

90% of all life on earth became extinct during that event.
The source of the pollution, where Siberia is today, was over a million square miles of volcanic activity spewing gasses 24 hours a day for 60,000 years.

It took a million square mile volcano 60,000 years to create the last greenhouse effect and cause the extinction 90% of all species on earth as Al is warning us this will happen any day now.

We also know that man's population is growing exponentially and we know our history of clearing tree's for farms and city. This is the real problem!!!

We know that more than the normal number species are on the endangered lists partly because man keep reducing the size of there habitat and they cannot migrate anymore through cities like LA to get to a better water and food source when drought or over population hits there area.

So man is part of the problem and we need to set aside large area's of land for animals and to offset the greenhouse gas effect.

There will be more extinctions as animals lose habitat but history has already shown us to not hold your breath for 60K years waiting for another greenhouse gas effect!

PS:
My houses are solar powered. The older house I've replaced the windows with new double pain, gas filled, windows and insulated the walls in this last remodel and I'm a non-believer! I don't piss in my bed either and I pack my trash out of the campsite with me. But I resent you global warm mongers pissing on me and tell me it's rain!!!!
__________________
Resistance is futile…… You will be compiled!
Cheers,
John Rountree

PRA- Director
PRA- Volunteer Coordinator

PRA31 - Vice President of S.D. Rotorcraft Club
http://www.Pra31.org

U.S. Agent for Aviomania Aircraft... the most stable gyroplane on the market today.
See: Aviomania USA http://www.AviomaniaUSA.com

OEM Dealer for MGL Avionics - glass cockpit EFIS for Experimental aircraft Ask about DISCOUNTS for PRA MEMBERS

Last edited by All_In; 01-11-2017 at 11:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-11-2017, 11:46 PM
JAL JAL is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckurz7000 View Post
I once dabbled a bit in atmospheric research and participated at one of their big conferences. The papers I saw presented there baffled me. They had computer models of everything but the input to their models were largely unknown. The non-linear effects and feedback loops inside the system were largely unknown. Potentially huge effects (like, e.g., the ocean's role in the CO2 cycle) is still on very shaky grounds. But the computer model gave numbers and those were published in nice looking graphs.

I don't want to say that we shouldn't minimize our footprint as a species on this our planet. Far from it. Just that climatology is a science which still has a good way to evolve before I would trust their predictions.

-- Chris.
I agree with Chris. As an Earth Scientist I can't tell you with any certainty how mineral deposits we mine today are formed and we have all the evidence frozen in time. It beggars belief from a scientific point of view that climate scientists seem so sure.

As a scientist this really worries me as there is no other branch of science make such categorical conclusions even when the conclusions are based on highly controlled experiments with far less variables and far better researched processes. It's hard for me to accept any of their conclusions, it just seems like really bad science.

Just today I read that a new study has dated the moon at 4.51 billion years old. This changes everything about the proposed formation of the moon. IOW we don't even know how the moon formed and it is one of the most studied things known to man, how the hell does a climate scientist be so sure when they are working with a dynamic system with literally millions of variables and all the known unknowns and the unknowns unknowns.

I am not a sceptic either, it is perfectly reasonable assumption that mankind is polluting the environment that could be affecting it in a detrimental way. The problem is that it has become all about co2 and "climate change" which is evolved into one of the biggest political (quasi religious) movement and self interest groups where big corporations are making billions for doing nothing other than adding to the problem.

The solution is local and not global and it should focus on pollution not CO2. We need to be focussing on sustainability at a local scale not climate change on global scale, the latter will never work but former is doable.

By focussing on sustainability you then focus on all the aspects of pollution (and social & environmental impact), there are far more damaging and toxic crap being pumped into the air and water ways that are having much bigger effect than co2. In fact the UN report says that the rise in CO2 will result in increase food production and that will have net benefit on the world's GDP for the next 60 years.

The UN and climate change movement are doing more harm then good by diverting resources from the solution to the problem.
__________________
Jordan

Last edited by JAL; 01-12-2017 at 12:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-12-2017, 12:04 AM
ckurz7000 ckurz7000 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vienna
Posts: 3,280
Default

I want to briefly expound a bit on my view of things concerning sustainability and climatology.

I strongly believe that man is shaping the face of this planet like no other single species before and leaving its scars and marks while doing it. To use John's words, "I don't piss in my bed and do lug out the trash from the campsite", this is what sustainability is about. We observe exponential growth in many areas which require natural resources to sustain. But we live on planet of limited size. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that we need to change this.

Furthermore, the more we realize that resources are limited the more we come up with creative alternatives. Creativity fosters in times of external pressure.

So: sustainability yes.

But I can't for the life of me find a good reason to blame our species for many of the climate changes that are being observed. Yes, our climate is changing. It always has and always will. I have no idea to which extent we are causing this. And the data I have seen presented so far doesn't convince me that we actually know this. However, I am all for erring on the cautious side.

Thereofre, devastating climate changes caused by man: insufficient evidence.

The conclusion I draw from this is that it is in any case a good idea to behave as if we didn't own the planet for ourselves. I take all reasonable measures to conserve energy and reduce waste. And I try to teach my children the same.

-- Chris.
__________________
Read about my trip across the USA in an MT03 gyro here.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-12-2017, 02:47 AM
Jean Claude Jean Claude is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Centre FRANCE
Posts: 1,568
Default

Back to climate balance? When was the climate supposedly balanced? The first lifes on Earth began to its first waste: Oxygen. This fatal waste then became a source for a different lives.
Is instability too fast today?
Satellites (Poseidon) show a "catastrophic" rise in sea level about 3 mm per year. Yet the prehistoric cave "Cosquer" has its entrance 100 ft below the current level of the sea. This shows an average increase of more than 2 mm / year since 20,000 years.
Groenland was verdant less than 15 centuries ago according to the name given by the Vikings.
It is surprising that IPCC is so interested by CO2 while H2O gives a much more effective greenhouse effect. Jet contrails do not interest them. Of course, he also neglects the variations in solar activity , because everyone knows that the sun has no effect on temperature!

Last edited by Jean Claude; 01-12-2017 at 04:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-12-2017, 05:25 PM
eddie's Avatar
eddie eddie is online now
Gold Supporter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Polvadera,nm 87828
Posts: 1,017
Default

I like ALL IN's statement the best,he nailed it. Good job johnny !!!

Now lets get back to flyin Gyros.





Best regards,
__________________
Eddie Sigman,polvadera,nm
(575) 835-4921
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger