The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[Ralf11]

I'm sorry if I hurt your good friend's feelings.

 

However, you are the one who has driven  number of good people away from this site.  People with a lot to contribute too.

[esldude]

26 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

maybe you can ship the collected gas to Pompous Paul

I was upset they were using plastic for the collection bag.  The Germans used cow intestines for the dirigibles.  Seems they should have been using more sustainable material.  

[fas42]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Don't waste that manure.  Here is the answer.  Roofs not needed.  24 hrs runs a car or fridge it says.  Of course the energy use of a car and fridge are dramatically different.  So probably just dramatic info. From Argentina btw.

 

 

He's worrying about the wrong end ... something I was made aware of recently, https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-belching-or-cow-flatulence/.

[Paul R]

 

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

I was upset they were using plastic for the collection bag.  The Germans used cow intestines for the dirigibles.  Seems they should have been using more sustainable material.  

 

How would they filter the methane out of there? It has such a low molecular weight... and if a bag were to get a leak, methane is odorless. Without the mercaptan, it isn’t toxic, but still!

 

This really seems kinda bogus, and harmful to the cows too, with big plastic bags on their backs.  Did someone republish that article from the Onion? 🤪

[esldude]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

He's worrying about the wrong end ... something I was made aware of recently, https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-belching-or-cow-flatulence/.

I think the link you have basically is showing more gas escapes as belches than passing gas at the other end.  Both will be eclipsed by the methane produced by manure in methane digesters.  And I didn't include all the details, but they go into the large intestine for filling the bag.  Which means it need not be belched out. 

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

 

How would they filter the methane out of there? It has such a low molecular weight... and if a bag were to get a leak, methane is odorless. Without the mercaptan, it isn’t toxic, but still!

 

This really seems kinda bogus, and harmful to the cows too, with big plastic bags on their backs.  Did someone republish that article from the Onion? 🤪

No it was a proof of concept project.  Cows and animals with that type digestion produce much more methane.  Humans actually produce not very much as a percentage of flatulence gas.  Some methane and some hydrogen in humans.  

 

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-breathalyze-cows-methane-emissions.html

 

Interesting info about cow methane production.  This indicates a half pound per day per free range cow.  Which is lower than some estimates.  Also interesting that corn fed cows put out less methane than those eating grass.  Considering how methane is produced during digestion that isn't really surprising. 

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

No it was a proof of concept project.  Cows and animals with that type digestion produce much more methane.  Humans actually produce not very much as a percentage of flatulence gas.  Some methane and some hydrogen in humans.  

 

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-breathalyze-cows-methane-emissions.html

 

Interesting info about cow methane production.  This indicates a half pound per day per free range cow.  Which is lower than some estimates.  Also interesting that corn fed cows put out less methane than those eating grass.  Considering how methane is produced during digestion that isn't really surprising. 

 

I must admit, I can’t see a lot of advantage to this method over a standard methane digester. This makes me a little queasy to be honest. 🤢

[esldude]

How many would be in favor of an absolute speed limit of 30 mph on all automobiles, light trucks and SUV's?  As a transition I'd suggest 45 mph for 15 years.  The reason is most gasoline vehicles get their best mileage at 45 mph give or take a couple.  Designing for the future we could build vehicles that get best mileage at 30 mph.  Plus traffic fatalities would drop considerably.  Of course that means more people.  

 

Everything takes longer, but it would make a big, big difference right away.  Maybe not enough, but a big quick difference is possible here.  Plus it makes electric vehicles much more competitive on range issues.  In the near future pulse and glide operation of autonomous gasoline vehicles could run at these average speeds and lower fuel use by yet another 50%. Probably drop the use of gasoline by 60-75% if these were done. 

 

Anyone got an idea that could be put into use right now and make as big a difference? Would buy us a little time for the other things that need doing. 

[shtf]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Yes, I've read a few of the bits of DoD literature.  Always funny to have a Republican administration denying global warming is a thing while its military is planning for exactly that. 

 

Is it mere coincidence that the "the environment" topic and the "conventional wisdom is usually wrong" topic were combined into a single thread?   It makes sense to me since "global warming" er, ummm, "climate change" has been perhaps the most expensive hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.  In fact, on a relative scale and a few drinks under my belt, I could easily equate MQA and high-end audio with Global Warming and the world.

 

Perhaps you should try researching who first invented the global warming concept and when, why they invented it, and why and when they ceased using the term global warming in favor of climate change.

 

Here's a partial hint.  Google "climategate" and you'll see how some "scientists" were caught helping to perpetuate this hoax.

 

Be very leery / wary of conventional wisdom as it "is almost always invariably wrong".  Wherever you find it.  Isn't that the real point of this thread?

 

 

 

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Is it mere coincidence that the "the environment" topic and the "conventional wisdom is usually wrong" topic were combined into a single thread?   It makes sense to me since "global warming" er, ummm, "climate change" has been perhaps the most expensive hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.  In fact, on a relative scale and a few drinks under my belt, I could easily equate MQA and high-end audio with Global Warming and the world.

 

Perhaps you should try researching who first invented the global warming concept, why they invented it, and why and when they ceased using the term global warming in favor of climate change.

 

Here's a partial hint.  Google "climategate" and you'll see how "scientists" helped perpetuate this hoax.

 

Be very leery / wary of conventional wisdom as it "is almost always invariably wrong".  Wherever you find it.  Isn't that the real point of this thread?

 

 

 

So are you saying the global warming concept was invented in the early 2000's?   Or the early 1990's?  And why pray tell was it invented? Do you prefer inadvertent climate modification instead of global warming?

[shtf]

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

So are you saying the global warming concept was invented in the early 2000's?   Or the early 1990's?  And why pray tell was it invented?

 

Interesting.  You laugh at my post and then ask questions.  It would seem you didn't bother to first perform the simple google search I suggested.

 

Why should I answer these new questions?  Haven't you already made up your mind?  

 

I say, why let facts get in the way of your conventional wisdom?

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Interesting.  You laugh at my post and then ask questions.  It would seem you didn't bother to first perform the simple google search I suggested.

 

Why should I answer these new questions?  Haven't you already made up your mind?  

 

I say, why let facts get in the way of your conventional wisdom?

The data is convincing.  I did do your search, and it wasn't clear.  I'd consider your post funny, and not worthy of serious consideration, but I was giving you a chance to show I'd misjudged it.

 

Climategate is presumably about the hacked emails in what 2008 and 2009 from climate researchers.  The 1990's is when the term global warming became rather common.  As data accumulated the more common term among those in the field of inadvertent climate modification swung around to indicate man's actions were headed toward forced warming.  So maybe you could make your point more clearly. 

[esldude]

I have in the past been a regular reader of www.realclimate.org for good informtion (when it was not too far over my head).  Ran into www.climatefeedback.org for the first time doing the search for SHTF's post.  Maybe some here would be interested if they don't know it. 

 

Here is an example discussing a New Yorker magazine article that was a bit over the top about warming making the planet uninhabitable.  Some credible people critique it on the basis of the science and available data. 

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/

 

This was the original article being critiqued. 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html?gtm=top

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

How many would be in favor of an absolute speed limit of 30 mph on all automobiles, light trucks and SUV's?  As a transition I'd suggest 45 mph for 15 years.  The reason is most gasoline vehicles get their best mileage at 45 mph give or take a couple.  Designing for the future we could build vehicles that get best mileage at 30 mph.  Plus traffic fatalities would drop considerably.  Of course that means more people. 

 

You would have a hard time pushing this concept in Australia! A land of "the tyranny of distance", when travelling outside the main urban regions - perfect for EV's, but the number bought is miniscule so far; lack of infrastructure, as in recharging stations.

 

Worries about sources of energy are zero; sun and wind are plentiful - it's guaranteeing continuity of supply that concerns people, pumped hydro is the proposed method.

[shtf]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

...

Climategate is presumably about the hacked emails in what 2008 and 2009 from climate researchers.

...

 

 

Now that's funny.  You won't even iterate what really happened as a result of climategate, i.e. what data and directives the several thousand hacked emails contained.  Nothing quite like an incomplete sentence or thought to perpetuate your false narrative i.e. conventional wisdom, eh?  

 

The reality is that Climategate is about the fact that Russians hacked into the Climate Research Unit's (a UN funded institution) email system and exposed to apparently only those with ears to hear how these scientists at the CRU were taking global cooling data and replacing it with global warming data over extended periods of time like years. 

 

And though the director of the CRU (a "scientist") was fired, it was not for perpetuating this hoax as they continue perpetuating this hoax to this day but rather they needed a scape goat.  And it was within weeks of this exposure that they ceased using the term "global warming" and have since used the term "climate change". 

 

In fact, this incident occurred just 1 week prior to some global summit in Copenhagen where Obama was to deliver a big speech on global warming but as a result of this incident, it was taken out of his speech which in itself is evidence of another topic.  But I digress.

 

Besides climategate substantiating my claims about global warming being a huge hoax, it also demonstrates that those in the scientific community are potentially just as corrupt as any other community.  Maybe more so.

 

Sorry to reign on your conventional wisdom parade.     Would you like to bet I'm right about the rest of global warming too?

 

Hint.  It was started in the 70's in Rome while somebody was on vacation there.

 

 

[esldude]

17 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Now that's funny.  You won't even reiterate what really happened as a result of climategate, i.e. what data and directives the several thousand hacked emails contained.  Nothing quite like an incomplete sentence or thought to perpetuate your false narrative i.e. conventional wisdom, eh?  

 

The reality is that Climategate is about the fact that Russians hacked into the Climate Research Unit's email system and exposed to those with ears to hear how these scientists at the CRU were taking global cooling data and replacing it with global warming data over extended periods of time like years. 

 

And though the director of the CRU (a "scientist") was fired, it was not for perpetuating this hoax as they continue perpetuating this hoax to this day but rather they needed a scape goat.  And it was within weeks of this exposure that they ceased using the term "global warming" and have since used the term "climate change".  In fact, this incident occurred just 1 week prior to some summit in Copenhagen where Obama was to deliver a big speech on global warming but as a result of this incident, it was taken out of his speech.

 

Besides climategate substantiating my claims about global warming being a huge hoax, it also demonstrates that those in the scientific community are potentially just as corrupt as any other community.  Maybe more so.

 

Sorry to reign on your conventional wisdom parade.     Would you like to bet I'm right about the rest of global warming too?

 

 

That is okay.  I can still remember back then. 

 

You do realize after a couple of investigations the CRU director, who stepped aside while this was going on (never was fired), was then reinstated.  

 

I've been given good advice.  If you don't have to deal with a crazy person......then don't. 

 

 

[semente]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

How many would be in favor of an absolute speed limit of 30 mph on all automobiles, light trucks and SUV's?  As a transition I'd suggest 45 mph for 15 years.  The reason is most gasoline vehicles get their best mileage at 45 mph give or take a couple.  Designing for the future we could build vehicles that get best mileage at 30 mph.  Plus traffic fatalities would drop considerably.  Of course that means more people.  

 

Everything takes longer, but it would make a big, big difference right away.  Maybe not enough, but a big quick difference is possible here.  Plus it makes electric vehicles much more competitive on range issues.  In the near future pulse and glide operation of autonomous gasoline vehicles could run at these average speeds and lower fuel use by yet another 50%. Probably drop the use of gasoline by 60-75% if these were done. 

 

Anyone got an idea that could be put into use right now and make as big a difference? Would buy us a little time for the other things that need doing. 

 

In the UK it is an offense to keep your engine running when parked (i.e. deliveries). I would also make it compulsory to turn engine off at traffic lights in places where air-conditioning isn't really essential.

Also taxis in Hong Kong have a floating top over the car which provides shade and ventilation. This should be mandatory in all warm countries.

[semente]

Only 14% of plastics are recycled – can tech innovation tackle the rest?

A new group of companies is innovating on the problem of plastics recycling by tackling everything from styrofoam to Ziploc bags.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/feb/22/plastics-recycling-trash-chemicals-styrofoam-packaging

[Confused]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 If the level of Methane is high enough to be collected, then surely it must also adversely affect the cattle ? 

And the farmer too, especially if he happens to be a smoker.....

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, shtf said:

Sorry to reign on your conventional wisdom parade.   

 

Nice phrasing.

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

How many would be in favor of an absolute speed limit of 30 mph on all automobiles, light trucks and SUV's?  As a transition I'd suggest 45 mph for 15 years.  The reason is most gasoline vehicles get their best mileage at 45 mph give or take a couple.  Designing for the future we could build vehicles that get best mileage at 30 mph.  Plus traffic fatalities would drop considerably.  Of course that means more people.  

 

Everything takes longer, but it would make a big, big difference right away.  Maybe not enough, but a big quick difference is possible here.  Plus it makes electric vehicles much more competitive on range issues.  In the near future pulse and glide operation of autonomous gasoline vehicles could run at these average speeds and lower fuel use by yet another 50%. Probably drop the use of gasoline by 60-75% if these were done. 

 

Anyone got an idea that could be put into use right now and make as big a difference? Would buy us a little time for the other things that need doing. 

 

I do not think it would work well without some kind of high speed point to point transit system. 

[semente]

35 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I do not think it would work well without some kind of high speed point to point transit system. 

An electric train would probably be a good alternative.

[PeterSt]

 

[elcorso]

Maybe some remember when there was a "global warning (not warming)" as "the cows are cooling the world"?

 

Now we have the answer of the cows:

 

It's true !

 

https://www.dietdoctor.com/how-cows-could-green-the-worlds-deserts-and-reverse-climate-change

 

I warn certain scientists in residence in AS, I was in the dairy and agricultural industry for at least 40 years of my life, so I have a lot of experience 😂

 

Roch

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, semente said:

An electric train would probably be a good alternative.

 

I was just googling that. To connect points in the U.S. 100 miles or more apart (roughly a three hour drive time at 30mph)  by train would be a 30 year project roughly equal in cost to the interstate project. (Via Google, Wilkipedia, and only the roughest of rough back of the envelope estimates.) 

 

Assuming that guesstimate is accurate within an order of magnitude or so, I do not think it would be doable. Especially if other expensive climate engineering steps are to be done at the same time. 

 

Note that by interstate, that same 100 mile trip takes about 70-75 mins today, and uses between 3 and 5 gallons of fuel, depending upon the personal vehicle and load. 

 

Back of the envelope calculations say that increasing the fuel efficiency of personal vehicles to 80mpg might have about the same effect as a 30mph speed limit. Agree?  Maybe more if the same efficiency is realized in urban driving.  Urban mass transit has been a bit of a disaster in the U.S. Trips of a couple miles or so — the average to get to a grocery store — are not well served by buses, trains, or even cabs. In most urban areas. Places like NYC are the anomaly here.  Uber? Maybe. 

 

I do not know enough to calculate the effect of small electric vehicles for urban use — even if they were to be 100% solar powered. Energy used in manufacturing and maintenancing them is an unknown to me.  And I came up with meaningless figures trying to factor in any use of biofuel. Anyone have any real numbers about the cost.effect/benefit of burning food for fuel? Maybe a good use of GM plants? Again, no figures easily available.

 

Lots of loudly stated opinions though. 

 

Also, it may be doable in places like Europe, where the distances are much smaller and a tighter human transportation infrastructure exists.