Waste Based Society

[agelbert]

Renewable Energy cheaper than fossil fuels in Africa WITHOUT subsidies!

Transforming Business Waste Streams to Evironmentally Friendly Products that also Reduce Costs

• Tweet

[agelbert]

Leave the Forests Alone!

In 2013, for the 37th consecutive year, global temperatures were higher than average

Camelina Based Biofuel For Airliners At $3 Per Gallon   

Nissan LEAF Global Sales Reach 100,000

• Tweet

[agelbert]

Predatory Capitalism Fueling Pollution Defending Orwellian Circular Logic in China

Thousands of tons of radioactive waste into Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New Jersey FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS!

Stranglove Stanley Fischer is the POINT MAN for this NUCLEAR WAR! STOP HIM!

• Tweet

[agelbert]

Largest Power Company in U.S. Joins ALEC in Plot Against One State’s Solar Revolution

• Tweet

[agelbert]

CIIRAD was created in 1986 because the government of France claimed that there was no contamination in France from Chernobyl.

Since then that contamination, the contamination from 20 closed uranium mines tapped out in France and the horrendous uranium mine contamination going on to this date in Australia (and every place else on earth that there are uranium mines) has been discovered by this bold, truthful organization.

Watch this video and learn all you have never been told about the TRUTH about Uranium mining contamination of the environment even before this poison gets to the nuclear power plant.

The tailings at them mines are hundreds of times greater in mass than the yellow cake produced. They are also 80% as radioactive as they were before U-308 was pulled out of them. As usual, the mining companies refuse to remediate the land, as they are allegedly required to do by law, while claiming there is NO contamination or hazard to the environment from the tailings.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/LztHWpFpT4g#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/LztHWpFpT4g#&fs=1</a>

• Tweet

[agelbert]

My Favorite Hydrocarbon

How to recycle a wrecked Tesla Model S

Don't Believe the Dirty Lie

While Abengoa's parabolic concentrating plant in Arizona is more than twice the size, Solana can only store energy for six hours. Chili's plant will be able to produce energy without sunshine for a very impressive 17.5 hours.

IT'S ABOUT TIME Homo SAP started using and storing energy like the biosphere does (i.e. releasing all electron charges stored in the sugar solution slowly step-by-step by using an enzyme cascade)!

The Door to Hell

Bud Nip is BAD FOR YOU...

• Tweet

[agelbert]

U.S. Army Put a Nuclear Reactor in Greenland

Melting Point

Waste to Energy (Video)

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

TRUE, But the total anomoly over the entire period shown does not exceed 0.8C and it IS declining

The ANOMALY is not the temperature reading. In order for the sequential, year after year temperature to be flattened (not rising from year to year) the ANOMALY MUST BE ZERO, not 0.8 C as is the REALITY.

... 0.8C and it IS declining

The ANOMALY (departure in degrees C from the median temperature) MUST BECOME NEGATIVE in order to justify the claim that the TEMPERATURE has stopped increasing and instead is decreasing as a justification for the hypothesis that global cooling is taking place.

Here is what you are attempting to do. You say, correctly, that correlation is not causation. GOOD! That's why scientists use a lot more inputs than just CO₂ in their models. You neglect this truth and fixate on any trend in a number of years to say, AHA!, looky here, the CO₂ is going up and the temperature is going down! At this point you flip the "correlation is not causation" logic on its head and say LACK of CORRELATION proves CO₂ doesn't have beans to do with global temperatures!

Ya CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, Snowleapard. Which is it going to be? The correct scientifically objective answer is to look at other GHG correlation, the granularity of the graph and the time scale. Mathematical models are used to design engines, aircraft, consumer goods, cars, houses, time and motion studies, integrated circuits, computers and many other technologically demanding and high number crunching applications.

Yet you want to disparage the accuracy of incredibly complex mathematical climate models (spreading DOUBT about NOT KNOWING in order to justify DOING NOTHING is DISPARAGING the science, whether you will ever admit it or not) based on the belief that some negative feedback mechanisms were left out.

Well, I've got news for you, Guy McPherson, a scientist in his own right, has listed FIVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISMS that ARE NOT in the models. That means the IPCC global temperature increases projected in the models are STILL TOO CONSERVATIVE.

The Arctic is defrosting as warm Atlantic waters rush through the Fram Strait instead of skirting the southern coast of Greenland. This is an important event, regardless of the deafening silence exhibited by the mainstream media.

How important? First consider the background, from the perspective of long-time climate scientist James Hansen and colleague Makiko Sato, who report the disaster awaiting us at just a couple of degrees warmer is truly catastrophic (although they downplay the likelihood we’re already committed to this outcome.)

Suffocating lifestyle

At the same time Arctic ice is melting, the planet is losing its lungs. Catastrophic drought in the Amazon has it emitting carbon dioxide more rapidly than the United States.

Simultaneously, permafrost is thawing and methane stored in eastern Siberia is venting into the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

Methane, by the way, is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Against this background, it’s easy to foresee a rapidly and profoundly warming Arctic as a trigger for accelerated responses such as the release of more methane hydrates and fewer reflective white surfaces, such as ice sheets and areas covered with snow.

These extremely dangerous feedbacks, which forecasters did not expect until the planet becomes a couple of degrees warmer than the baseline, could trigger runaway greenhouse. In other words, any of these events — never mind all of them at once — could lead directly and quickly to the extinction of you, me and everyone in between.

Is that important enough for you? Or do you still want to debate it with the likes of these guys?

- See more at: http://transitionvoice.com/2011/03/extinction-event/#sthash.CNHssq6f.dpuf

We know Earth’s temperature is nearly one degree Centigrade higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. And 1 C is catastrophic, as indicated by a decades-old cover-up. Already, we’ve triggered several positive feedbacks, none of which were expected to occur by mainstream scientists until we reached 2 C above baseline global average temperature.

We also know that the situation is far worse than indicated by recent data and models (which are reviewed in the following paragraphs). We’ve known for more than a decade what happens when the planes stop flying: Because particulates were removed when airplanes were grounded, Earth warmed by more than 1 C in the three days following 11 September 2001.

In other words, Earth’s temperature is already about 2 C higher than the industrial-revolution baseline. And because of positive feedbacks, 2 C leads directly and rapidly to 6 C, acidification-induced death of the world’s oceans, and the near-term demise of Homo sapiens.

We can’t live without life-filled oceans, home to the tiny organisms that generate half the planet’s oxygen while comprising the base of the global food chain (contrary to the common belief that Wal-Mart forms the base of the food chain). So much for the wisdom of the self-proclaimed wise ape.

With completion of the on-going demise of the industrial economy, we’re there:

We’ve crossed the horrifically dire 2 C rubicon, as will be obvious when most of the world’s planes are grounded. Without completion of the on-going demise of the industrial economy, we’re there: We’ve crossed the horrifically dire 2 C rubicon, as described below. Joseph Heller, anybody?

I’ve detailed the increasingly dire assessments. And I’ve explained how we’ve pulled the trigger on five positive-feedback events at lower global average temperature than expected, while also pointing out that any one of these five phenomena likely leads to near-term human extinction. None of these positive-feedback events were expected by scientists until we exceed 2 C warming above the pre-industrial baseline.

http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/item/8363-guy-mcpherson-were-done








The above charts tell the story that you simply do not want to deal with. They are EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS, not mathematical model predictions, even though ALL those readings and many more have been incorporated in the multiple  terabyte size data bases of the climate models (that continue to grow in complexity and prediction accuracy because of this).

Fine. Do your thing.

The ANOMALY is not the temperature reading.

I didn't say it was.  It is the amount of departure from the 100 year average.

In order for the sequential, year after year temperature to be flattened (not rising from year to year) the ANOMALY MUST BE ZERO, not 0.8 C as is the REALITY

NOT TRUE: It can flatten anywhere.  And if it stays there long enough the anomaly will eventually be zero by definition.

The ANOMALY (departure in degrees C from the median temperature) MUST BECOME NEGATIVE in order to justify the claim that the TEMPERATURE has stopped increasing and instead is decreasing as a justification for the hypothesis that global cooling is taking place.

NOT TRUE:  If it can't decrease before going negative, then (other than massive decline) it would be unlikely to get from it's current moving average of  0.6C to ZERO, if it can't decline before it gets there!

Here is what you are attempting to do. You say, correctly, that correlation is not causation. GOOD! That's why scientists use a lot more inputs than just CO₂ in their models. You neglect this truth and fixate on any trend in a number of years to say, AHA!, looky here, the CO₂ is going up and the temperature is going down! At this point you flip the "correlation is not causation" logic on its head and say LACK of CORRELATION proves CO₂ doesn't have beans to do with global temperatures!

Ya CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, Snowleapard. Which is it going to be? The correct scientifically objective answer is to look at other GHG correlation, the granularity of the graph and the time scale. Mathematical models are used to design engines, aircraft, consumer goods, cars, houses, time and motion studies, integrated circuits, computers and many other technologically demanding and high number crunching applications.

I can't have it both ways...but you can...HUH??  YES i know it is complicated, that's not the point.  I've been focused on two things here.  ONE that warming has stalled, (which BTW is generally accepted) and TWO that CO₂ is unlikely to be a major cause of the mild warming before that. (which is not yet generally accepted, but true).

Both MKing and Snowleapard have it exactly backwards by claiming the models exaggerate the risk and the predicted temperature rise. But they have that CIGAR they want to smoke and think I am a killjoy for wanting to take away their fun, regardless of their protestations to the contrary or claims of boundless, 'let the chips fall where they may', slavish devotion to truth, objective scientific data, Apple pie and Wildebeest hunting. 

 
 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/kfdpcrOgUp4?feature=player_detailpage" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/kfdpcrOgUp4?feature=player_detailpage</a>

• Tweet

[RE]

For the last 3 days, my next door neighbor has had this TV out in front of her door looking for a home.

Details TV obsolete

TV obsolete

Sadly, nobody has dropped by to adopt this TV at no cost.  It lies abandoned and cold, A Crippled Old Tube Unit Freezing to Death on the Streets of Palmer, Alaska. 

My heart goes out to this old TV as another old cripple from the same era, but I cannot adopt it.  The last thing I need is another piece of electronic junk from the Jurassic Period in my digs!  If I wanted a fucking TV, at Wally's a couple of days ago they had a flat screen Sanyo 50" model ON SALE for $370!!!  When I bought my 45" big screen to use in my Homeschool classrom as a monitor for the students to see, the sucker cost me $800!  Wally's also has some truly MASSIVE theater size screens over 60" selling under $1000!  I would buy one as a monitor, except my neck would give out as I had to turn it from side to side to read the posting on the Diner Forum.

I wonder if they even bring this Tube over to Goodwill if anyone will take it home?   

Methinks the Land of Away will be getting another deposit here soon.

RE

• Tweet