Prev: See how Time Inc. controls your brain <sic>
Next: Calculation of Soldner
From: kdthrge on 24 Jul 2010 10:55
On Jul 24, 9:32 am, "kdth...(a)yahoo.com" <kdth...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> The quantity produced by the rising rate of China would be 1/2 this or
> the 1/2, therefore the quantity for US rate of 1 decade.
> This combined quantity therefore would be 3 times that of 1 decade in
> 2 decades.
>
> 3 x 2 = 6
> Square root of 6 = 2.4
>
> Therefore with only considering the quantities produced by China's
> increasing output, with the complete elimination of US CO2 today,
> after 20 yrs, there would only be the savings of 2.4 years until the
> same event of quantities emitted into the envrionment were the same.

Sorry but my math here is not correct.

If China were increasing it's rate by 100% that of the US in 1 decade,
In the first decade in would produce the quantity of 1/2 the US output
for 1 decade.

At this rising rate, during the second decade it would produce the
quantity of 1.5 that of the US, for a combined total of the quantity
being 2 times that of the US in 2 decades. 0.5 quantity in the first
decade. 1.5 quantity in the second decade for a total of 2.

Add this to the quantity of a steady rate of the US for 2 decades, and
one has the value of 4 times that of US quantities of emission for 1
decade.

4 times 2 = 8
square root of 8 = 2.82

So the same quantity that would be reached in 20 yrs, would be reached
in 28 yrs,
In the first decade, the time is delayed for 7 yrs to the same
quantity,
In the second decade, the time is only delayed 1.82 yrs,
for a total of 8.2 yrs savings after 2 decades.

See how easy that is to admit an error in search of the truth.

The self impressed fools of theoretical science and climatology should
try it before we do it for them on their war to prison.

KD
From: Dawlish on 24 Jul 2010 13:37
On Jul 24, 3:55 pm, "kdth...(a)yahoo.com" <kdth...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:32 am, "kdth...(a)yahoo.com" <kdth...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The quantity produced by the rising rate of China would be 1/2 this or
> > the 1/2, therefore the quantity for US rate of 1 decade.
> > This combined quantity therefore would be 3 times that of 1 decade in
> > 2 decades.
>
> > 3 x 2 = 6
> > Square root of 6 = 2.4
>
> > Therefore with only considering the quantities produced by China's
> > increasing output, with the complete elimination of US CO2 today,
> > after 20 yrs, there would only be the savings of 2.4 years until the
> > same event of quantities emitted into the envrionment were the same.
>
> Sorry but my math here is not correct.
>
> If China were increasing it's rate by 100% that of the US in 1 decade,
> In the first decade in would produce the quantity of 1/2 the US output
> for 1 decade.
>
> At this rising rate, during the second decade it would produce the
> quantity of 1.5 that of the US, for a combined total of the quantity
> being 2 times that of the US in 2 decades. 0.5 quantity in the first
> decade. 1.5 quantity in the second decade for a total of 2.
>
> Add this to the quantity of a steady rate of the US for 2 decades, and
> one has the value of 4 times that of US quantities of emission for 1
> decade.
>
> 4 times 2 = 8
> square root of 8 = 2.82
>
> So the same quantity that would be reached in 20 yrs, would be reached
> in 28 yrs,
> In the first decade, the time is delayed for 7 yrs to the same
> quantity,
> In the second decade, the time is only delayed 1.82 yrs,
> for a total of 8.2 yrs savings after 2 decades.
>
> See how easy that is to admit an error in search of the truth.
>
> The self impressed fools of theoretical science and climatology should
> try it before we do it for them on their war to prison.
>
> KD

Sit down in your ragingly stupid seat and don't get up again would be
my advice.
From: spudnik on 24 Jul 2010 15:19
"Dawlish," when did you stop working for BP's cap&trade regime?

the voluntary market in carbon credits is huge in the USA,
mostly via the Chicago Board of Trade -- and the reform does
not do anything to control derivatives til much later.

thus:
haven't got to the "last sentence before the supplement," but
the first footnote shows the problem with Newton's "theory"
of emmission.

> You have this:http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
> Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson
> detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s.

thus:
sorry, Gauss said, the Queen of sciences, which has
been supposed to imply that there was a King,
to be physical economy -- at least as important
as numbertheory (big chunk of _Cranks_).

thus:
I like Dudley's books, not particularly _Cranks_, but he misses the
boat
in the second paragraph, because he emphasizes mere arithmetic *and*
the subjects that are not quite *mathematica*, or *quadrivium*, and
this is the self-same problem of all primary or "elementary" ed. in
math,
a sort of glorification of Euclid's encyclopedia, addended to the
trivium (or,
the three Rs .-) http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf

thus: maybe, if they stopped listening to alt.deism,
they'd start funding you, instead; either way,
definitely a New Age soundtrack a.k.a. Muzak TM.
> "Listening"?... http://en.wookiepoopya.org/wiki/Synesthesia

thus: Hawking's got a new set of fairy tales?... well,
he's a part of the Trinity on STreKtheNGeneratioN, so,
He can do that!

thus: Liebniz's *vis viva* is half of mvv;
compare to Galileo's linear ideal, but
don't try to disprove his relativity,
til you've gotten off of the boat!

--les ducs d'oil!
http://wlym.com

--BP's next bailout of Wall St. and "the City"
(of London, gated community & financial district), or
the last, if nothing is left of the USA.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/
http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/
From: Man_of_Mind on 25 Jul 2010 10:52
On 7/24/2010 3:17 PM, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com writhed in denials:

> If you had more intellectual capability beyond repitition of dogma

*>LOL!<*

--You're just drowning in the irony today, aren't you?
From: spudnik on 25 Jul 2010 20:56
problem is, it may be being "instituted" around us,
as with the President's (2003) CCX, and the 2005 ICE,
both of which are based in "the City" of London (although
the latter is HQd is Atlanta, it is based *juridicially*
in England).

the only answer, that I can see, is a tariff on all imported froms
of energy, esp. "renewables," because it is a sic joke
to "import renewables," in the first place -- and
I include the so-called Fossilized Fuels (TM), because
there is little difference between diesel & biodiesel e.g.,
other than the bouquet -- child-tested on film!

> C) The US Congress will not pass this legislation this year. It is
> clear that the liberals will lose many seats in the upcoming election
> and prospects for passage in the future are nill.

thus:
<deletia impletum>

I have no idea what (N-k) is supposed to do, and
I don't googol ****, partly because of a restraining order;
unfortunately, I'm using their front-end for these NGs.

thus:
3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-)
yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but
why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ??

thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say,
Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner!
>   Iff ... then ...

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

--Stop BP's cap&trade looting!
http://wlym.com
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: See how Time Inc. controls your brain <sic>
Next: Calculation of Soldner