The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction
in [Physics]
|
Prev: weight
Next: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
From: mmeron on 18 Apr 2007 18:57 In article <pan.2007.04.18.21.44.45.514073(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes: >On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:10 +0000, mmeron wrote: > >> In article <pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill >> Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes: >>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:16:25 -0900, Big Glob wrote: >>> >>>> On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <Alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: l> >>>>>Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed l> >>>>>Rainforests", then point them out to me. l> >>>>>> Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot >>>>>> more than any piddling little forest. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the >>>>>> solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them >>>>>> subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly. >>>>>> >>>>>> IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and >>>>>> do >>>>>> some thinking on your own? >>>>> >>>>>CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. I >>>>>apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one can >>>>>show the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give even >>>>>an accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as they >>>>>likewise fudge and falsify each point of their theory. >>>> >>>> The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is >>>> available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the Goofy Whackos >>>> inconveniently ignore truth. >>>> >>>>>CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as it >>>>>is a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to energy >>>>>conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality. >>>> >>>> Tearing down and building all new has been a >>>> common agenda of the far left for long before the AGW hoax was thought >>>> up, they fail to appreciate the value and amount of work, materials and >>>> energy required to rebuild. >>>> This is evident in all aspects of the economy, >>>> from low income federally funded apartment buildings that tenants trash >>>> within 10 years which the liberal lawmakers have torn down and rebuilt >>>> instead of training maintenance men to keep them in condition; >>>> to public transport, where they rationalize having >>>> right of way and equipment worth thousands of times what personal >>>> vehicles cost to carry the same number of people. >>> >>>Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money. Leftists >>>always know how to spend your money better than you do, so they feel >>>obligated to take it from you for your own good. But they always say >>>they'll take it only from the rich, which is defined as everyone who >>>makes more money than you do, and split the loot with you, if you'll vote >>>for them. >>> >> Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy votes >> using voters money. >> >> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >> meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > >Did you ever stop to wonder why politicians spend millions of dollars >to get elected to a job that will never pay that much salary? My hunch >is that the government has too much power, and they're selling it off to >the highest bidder. > Well, of course they do, that's inevitable. What we've is a simple case of "gradient flow" (lets get some physics into it). In old fashioned government systems, such as feudalism, absolute monarchy and the like, the situation was quite simple and natural, the people who had most of the wealth also had most of the power. Straightforward. Now, with democracy we're trying to achieve the impossible and decouple wealth and power. Well, it doesn't really work. What we manage to achieve is to create a gradient of wealth and of power. On one side we've a group of people who (to begin with) have great power but little wealth while on the other side we've the opposite. Once the gradients are established, you get flow, where wealth flows one way and power the other, meaning those in power trade some of this power in exchange for some of the wealth. When a flow like this becomes exaggerated, you get, naturally, calls for more regulation. But, in the words of Mencken (at least I think those are his words), "where buying and selling is regulated, the first thing bought and sold are the regulators". Mind you, while I'm not a naive idealist I'm not totally cynical either and I do recognize that there are people who get into the power structure not to enrich themselves but in order to effect "some change in the world". However: 1) They are a minority. 2) Once they find themselves within the system they're mostly forced to play by its rules. 3) If they're really sincere, they can be very dangerous. Throughout history people who sincerely believed in their mission caused way more damage than plain crooks. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: kdthrge on 18 Apr 2007 19:23 On Apr 18, 12:20 pm, Lloyd <lpar...(a)emory.edu> wrote: > > Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the > > solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them > > subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly. > > Please explain how people died in China yesterday if a college student > didn't shoot them. Gee, can something have one cause in one place and > another cause in a different place, do ya think? Is that kind of like the cause of the medieaval warming period and any current warming?? The point is that the record shows fluctuations. Normal fluctuations entirely within anything of present. This means that there is no scientific means to attribute any warming to anthropogenic effects. With their false graphs, they do not meet the burden of proof that should be needed to reorganize society according to their belief. In the interglacial periods, it is normal to reach 2C above the mean. We are still below 1C, above the mean. Nothing unnatural at all about the warming that the IPCC and the AGW fanatics concentrate on. The understanding of natural temperature fluctuations is the most basic principle of climatology. Obviously, the IPCC and the AGW fanatics have never learned anything within the science of climatology. They only understand the need to promote their agenda of their superstition, that they should be given executive control over the use of energy. The IPCC is well aware of the need to eliminate the medieaval warm period, and to ignore the geological record and any valid science of climatology. They are guilty of this deliberate fraud. This fraud as submitted into federal hearings, should damn sure be prosecuted for the crime that it is. The more actual success this AGW movement has, the greater the level of this crime becomes. Enjoy, deranged psycho freaks of AGW. Deatherage CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help and buy an air conditioner.
From: Bill Ward on 18 Apr 2007 19:40 On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:57:56 +0000, mmeron wrote: > In article <pan.2007.04.18.21.44.45.514073(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill > Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes: >>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:10 +0000, mmeron wrote: >> >>> In article <pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, >>> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes: >>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:16:25 -0900, Big Glob wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <Alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: l> >>>>>>Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed l> >>>>>>Rainforests", then point them out to me. l> >>>>>>> Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot >>>>>>> more than any piddling little forest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the >>>>>>> solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them >>>>>>> subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just >>>>>>> silly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> some thinking on your own? >>>>>> >>>>>>CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. >>>>>>I apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one >>>>>>can show the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give >>>>>>even an accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as >>>>>>they likewise fudge and falsify each point of their theory. >>>>> >>>>> The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is >>>>> available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the Goofy Whackos >>>>> inconveniently ignore truth. >>>>> >>>>>>CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as >>>>>>it is a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to >>>>>>energy conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality. >>>>> >>>>> Tearing down and building all new has been a >>>>> common agenda of the far left for long before the AGW hoax was >>>>> thought up, they fail to appreciate the value and amount of work, >>>>> materials and energy required to rebuild. >>>>> This is evident in all aspects of the economy, >>>>> from low income federally funded apartment buildings that tenants >>>>> trash within 10 years which the liberal lawmakers have torn down and >>>>> rebuilt instead of training maintenance men to keep them in >>>>> condition; >>>>> to public transport, where they rationalize having >>>>> right of way and equipment worth thousands of times what personal >>>>> vehicles cost to carry the same number of people. >>>> >>>>Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money. Leftists >>>>always know how to spend your money better than you do, so they feel >>>>obligated to take it from you for your own good. But they always say >>>>they'll take it only from the rich, which is defined as everyone who >>>>makes more money than you do, and split the loot with you, if you'll >>>>vote for them. >>>> >>> Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy votes >>> using voters money. >>> >>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >>> meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the >>> same" >> >>Did you ever stop to wonder why politicians spend millions of dollars to >>get elected to a job that will never pay that much salary? My hunch is >>that the government has too much power, and they're selling it off to the >>highest bidder. >> > Well, of course they do, that's inevitable. What we've is a simple case > of "gradient flow" (lets get some physics into it). > > In old fashioned government systems, such as feudalism, absolute monarchy > and the like, the situation was quite simple and natural, the people who > had most of the wealth also had most of the power. Straightforward. Now, > with democracy we're trying to achieve the impossible and decouple wealth > and power. Well, it doesn't really work. What we manage to achieve is to > create a gradient of wealth and of power. On one side we've a group of > people who (to begin with) have great power but little wealth while on the > other side we've the opposite. Once the gradients are established, you > get flow, where wealth flows one way and power the other, meaning those in > power trade some of this power in exchange for some of the wealth. > > When a flow like this becomes exaggerated, you get, naturally, calls for > more regulation. But, in the words of Mencken (at least I think those are > his words), "where buying and selling is regulated, the first thing bought > and sold are the regulators". > > Mind you, while I'm not a naive idealist I'm not totally cynical either > and I do recognize that there are people who get into the power structure > not to enrich themselves but in order to effect "some change in the > world". However: > > 1) They are a minority. > 2) Once they find themselves within the system they're mostly forced to > play by its rules. > 3) If they're really sincere, they can be very dangerous. Throughout > history people who sincerely believed in their mission caused way more > damage than plain crooks. > > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" Well put, Mati. I've sometimes wondered if we should choose our political representatives randomly like we do juries. And anyone who sincerely wanted the job would be automatically disqualified. Stochastocracy, anyone? Bill Ward
From: mmeron on 18 Apr 2007 20:06 In article <pan.2007.04.18.23.40.15.840224(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes: >On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:57:56 +0000, mmeron wrote: > >> In article <pan.2007.04.18.21.44.45.514073(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill >> Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes: >>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:10 +0000, mmeron wrote: >>> >>>> In article <pan.2007.04.18.18.07.41.853195(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, >>>> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> writes: >>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:16:25 -0900, Big Glob wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <Alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: l> >>>>>>>Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed l> >>>>>>>Rainforests", then point them out to me. l> >>>>>>>> Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot >>>>>>>> more than any piddling little forest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the >>>>>>>> solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them >>>>>>>> subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just >>>>>>>> silly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>> some thinking on your own? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. >>>>>>>I apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one >>>>>>>can show the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give >>>>>>>even an accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as >>>>>>>they likewise fudge and falsify each point of their theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is >>>>>> available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the Goofy Whackos >>>>>> inconveniently ignore truth. >>>>>> >>>>>>>CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as >>>>>>>it is a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to >>>>>>>energy conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tearing down and building all new has been a >>>>>> common agenda of the far left for long before the AGW hoax was >>>>>> thought up, they fail to appreciate the value and amount of work, >>>>>> materials and energy required to rebuild. >>>>>> This is evident in all aspects of the economy, >>>>>> from low income federally funded apartment buildings that tenants >>>>>> trash within 10 years which the liberal lawmakers have torn down and >>>>>> rebuilt instead of training maintenance men to keep them in >>>>>> condition; >>>>>> to public transport, where they rationalize having >>>>>> right of way and equipment worth thousands of times what personal >>>>>> vehicles cost to carry the same number of people. >>>>> >>>>>Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money. Leftists >>>>>always know how to spend your money better than you do, so they feel >>>>>obligated to take it from you for your own good. But they always say >>>>>they'll take it only from the rich, which is defined as everyone who >>>>>makes more money than you do, and split the loot with you, if you'll >>>>>vote for them. >>>>> >>>> Well, that's the basic operating principle of democracy, you buy votes >>>> using voters money. >>>> >>>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >>>> meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the >>>> same" >>> >>>Did you ever stop to wonder why politicians spend millions of dollars to >>>get elected to a job that will never pay that much salary? My hunch is >>>that the government has too much power, and they're selling it off to the >>>highest bidder. >>> >> Well, of course they do, that's inevitable. What we've is a simple case >> of "gradient flow" (lets get some physics into it). >> >> In old fashioned government systems, such as feudalism, absolute monarchy >> and the like, the situation was quite simple and natural, the people who >> had most of the wealth also had most of the power. Straightforward. Now, >> with democracy we're trying to achieve the impossible and decouple wealth >> and power. Well, it doesn't really work. What we manage to achieve is to >> create a gradient of wealth and of power. On one side we've a group of >> people who (to begin with) have great power but little wealth while on the >> other side we've the opposite. Once the gradients are established, you >> get flow, where wealth flows one way and power the other, meaning those in >> power trade some of this power in exchange for some of the wealth. >> >> When a flow like this becomes exaggerated, you get, naturally, calls for >> more regulation. But, in the words of Mencken (at least I think those are >> his words), "where buying and selling is regulated, the first thing bought >> and sold are the regulators". >> >> Mind you, while I'm not a naive idealist I'm not totally cynical either >> and I do recognize that there are people who get into the power structure >> not to enrich themselves but in order to effect "some change in the >> world". However: >> >> 1) They are a minority. >> 2) Once they find themselves within the system they're mostly forced to >> play by its rules. >> 3) If they're really sincere, they can be very dangerous. Throughout >> history people who sincerely believed in their mission caused way more >> damage than plain crooks. >> >> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >> meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > >Well put, Mati. I've sometimes wondered if we should choose our political >representatives randomly like we do juries. And anyone who sincerely >wanted the job would be automatically disqualified. Stochastocracy, >anyone? > I think the idea has merit, especially the part about automatic disqualification of those who seek the job. Beyond this, two observations: 1) There is a fable by the French writer La Fontaine, where you've a wounded soldier lying on the battlefield, awaiting treatment. In the meantime his friend sits down next to him and, trying to comfort him, tries to chase the flies away from his wounds. "Leave them alone" says the wounded soldier, "they are quite gorged already. If you chase them away they'll be replaced by new ones who'll be hungry". So, while it sounds counterintuitive to some, I would argue that you'll get a less corrupt government if membership will be limited to wealthy people, in fact just to "old wealth" (second generation at least) since they're not hungry anymore. There is a common public belief that if we elect people "more like us", i.e. like the general public, then they'll be more sypathetic to our problems. sounds nice but empirical evidence doesn't appear to support it. 2) All else aside, the more we ask the government to control and regulate, the more corruption we'll get. Mencken's point and it is inevitable. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: kdthrge on 18 Apr 2007 20:56
On Apr 18, 12:16 pm, Big Glob <b...(a)glob.al> wrote: > On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: l> The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is l> available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the > Goofy Whackos inconveniently ignore truth. > This data could be organized to where it is comprehesible. With units people could understand, and not lost in long complex and meaningless dialogue. And it should be presented primarily and clearly which it is not. They are now getting congress to argue and think of all kinds of numbers on CO2, without presenting the basic analyses of natural CO2, quantities of human input, the actual quantification of industrial contribution. That is completely their plan. To get their bullshit passed when no one is looking or when they strong arm the debate. The american people will find out the complete truth on this matter. Even if they only get their attention when they begin to push them into poverty and sub modern conditions which is their plan. Because of this avoidance of actual data, they also avoid the very important point of what the effiacy of their program will be. How much of a guarantee is there that the most intensive degradation of our economy will have any effect on temperature? The fact is, if we all roll over and die, it will have little or no effect on increasing CO2, much of this which is natural increase in CO2 according to the geological record. Also it is a very important and cumulative effect, the intensive deforestation in the tropics. ABC News should have to look this data up. They specifically repeat the propaganda of the corrupt IPCC. They state the findings that global warming is predominately caused by the emissions from industrialization and automobiles. Give us some valid numbers to go with the crafted false propaganda slogan. Plants convert 440 billions tons per yr. The oceans absorb and release 200 billion tons per yr Anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels and cement is about 20 billion tons per yr. Anthropogenic CO2 from the burning trees is about 7 billion tons per yr. The ice core shows 328 ppm in 1890. Now it is about 390. The preindustrial CO2 has been fraudulently manipulated by the IPCC. http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm Volcanoes release considerable CO2. It is not cumulative in the environment. If the increase is about 1.5 ppm per yr, what fraction of this from the US industrialization? You must subtract China and India from the 1.5ppm. Their contributions amounts to about half of the human contribution. Deatherage CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help and buy an air conditioner |