|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 8, 2017 9:17:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 8, 2017 9:25:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Aug 8, 2017 15:34:21 GMT
Careful. This sounds suspiciously like "climate denialism", and a very touchy political subject. There have been several recent bits of news on the subject, and depending on who you listen to, it's a scandal either in promoting a hoax (denialism) or refusing to see the truth about the threat (anti-denialism). My main complaint on the issue is that the underlying data is often doctored in ways that may be unacceptable, and these ways are often not revealed to the public at large. A recent example from Australia: BoM opens cold case on temperature data
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 8, 2017 18:26:26 GMT
I think most people will readily agree on things like "we need to recycle more and find ways to use less of things."
The issues come when we get to things like various European countries banning combustion engines, things that look good in front of the media but will massively impact the day-to-day lives of the people affected by the rulings.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 9, 2017 5:58:53 GMT
I think most people will readily agree on things like "we need to recycle more and find ways to use less of things." The issues come when we get to things like various European countries banning combustion engines, things that look good in front of the media but will massively impact the day-to-day lives of the people affected by the rulings. Banning "New" infernal combustion engines by 2030 or something like that, yes, I can agree with, but banning "All"?.. When Lord Simon Tyrone Wilhelm Fontleroy-Bowler-Baggage the 9th wants to take his classic Daimler down the London to Brighton run, or take the classic D-Type Jaguar out for a spin, you can hear the clause "Built after" on that ban?.. I suspect all "New" cars built after 2030 will have to be at least Hybrid, but they cant ban all infernal combustion unless they are willing to buy all older vehicles. If its just "New" cars, I can live with that. By the time they trickle down this far to us mortals, the price will have dropped so much we can afford them.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2017 13:45:15 GMT
I think most people will readily agree on things like "we need to recycle more and find ways to use less of things." The issues come when we get to things like various European countries banning combustion engines, things that look good in front of the media but will massively impact the day-to-day lives of the people affected by the rulings. Banning "New" infernal combustion engines by 2030 or something like that, yes, I can agree with, but banning "All"?.. When Lord Simon Tyrone Wilhelm Fontleroy-Bowler-Baggage the 9th wants to take his classic Daimler down the London to Brighton run, or take the classic D-Type Jaguar out for a spin, you can hear the clause "Built after" on that ban?.. I suspect all "New" cars built after 2030 will have to be at least Hybrid, but they cant ban all infernal combustion unless they are willing to buy all older vehicles. If its just "New" cars, I can live with that. By the time they trickle down this far to us mortals, the price will have dropped so much we can afford them. while I really think fire engines should be some form of plug in hybrid (I favor diesel hydraulic, which would take an electric hydraulic pump to precharge the accumulator) I am really skeptical of the idea of an electric fire engine.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 9, 2017 14:13:16 GMT
While New York City's ambulances aren't in themselves hybrid, all equipment in the ambulance, including the heating and air conditioning, both in the patient box and in the cab, can be operated from batteries for up to six hours with the engine off. The reason they do this is because NYC ambulances have no "home base." They are on the street 24-7 and if the crew isn't responding to a call, they have a designated wait spot where they sit in the ambulance waiting for the next call. When they are waiting, they are told to turn off the engine and run everything, including the A/C, from battery power. My company makes the electronic controls for this system. Austen Texas uses the same system.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2017 14:45:13 GMT
While New York City's ambulances aren't in themselves hybrid, all equipment in the ambulance, including the heating and air conditioning, both in the patient box and in the cab, can be operated from batteries for up to six hours with the engine off. The reason they do this is because NYC ambulances have no "home base." They are on the street 24-7 and if the crew isn't responding to a call, they have a designated wait spot where they sit in the ambulance waiting for the next call. When they are waiting, they are told to turn off the engine and run everything, including the A/C, from battery power. My company makes the electronic controls for this system. Austen Texas uses the same system. here they have specific places they post up - and some are in apparatus bays, but others are in wide spots in the road.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 10, 2017 7:22:21 GMT
Banning "New" infernal combustion engines by 2030 or something like that, yes, I can agree with, but banning "All"?.. When Lord Simon Tyrone Wilhelm Fontleroy-Bowler-Baggage the 9th wants to take his classic Daimler down the London to Brighton run, or take the classic D-Type Jaguar out for a spin, you can hear the clause "Built after" on that ban?.. I suspect all "New" cars built after 2030 will have to be at least Hybrid, but they cant ban all infernal combustion unless they are willing to buy all older vehicles. If its just "New" cars, I can live with that. By the time they trickle down this far to us mortals, the price will have dropped so much we can afford them. while I really think fire engines should be some form of plug in hybrid (I favor diesel hydraulic, which would take an electric hydraulic pump to precharge the accumulator) I am really skeptical of the idea of an electric fire engine. Unless the property you are extinguishing has an outdoor "Three phase" industrial supply hookup, how the heck would a fire engine draw enough power to empty one tank, let alone draw enough water from mains supply to keep up a 12hr attack on a sizeable fire... You would need another engine of the same size just to carry the batteries?. However, TNT Global, inside London boundaries, are congestion/pollution free, because they run a fleet of local delivery 7.5 ton vehicles. Has enough power to do an average 8hr shift, and then home to recharge overnight.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 10, 2017 14:19:25 GMT
while I really think fire engines should be some form of plug in hybrid (I favor diesel hydraulic, which would take an electric hydraulic pump to precharge the accumulator) I am really skeptical of the idea of an electric fire engine. Unless the property you are extinguishing has an outdoor "Three phase" industrial supply hookup, how the heck would a fire engine draw enough power to empty one tank, let alone draw enough water from mains supply to keep up a 12hr attack on a sizeable fire... You would need another engine of the same size just to carry the batteries?. However, TNT Global, inside London boundaries, are congestion/pollution free, because they run a fleet of local delivery 7.5 ton vehicles. Has enough power to do an average 8hr shift, and then home to recharge overnight. my thoughts, exactly. you would be removing the onboard water tank and replacing it with batteries. I guess you could make your city install a separate 200PSI hydrant system and replace the pump with a hydroelectric turbine.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 30, 2017 7:44:05 GMT
I don't get climate change deniers... I mean, just apply a little sense.
What happens if you light a camp fire in your living room, you don't have a chimney and you keep the doors and windows closed? The room gets hot and smokey and unpleasant to be in.
The Earth's atmosphere is everyone's ceiling. There are no chimneys and no windows and doors. Almost everything we let into the atmosphere stays a part of the planet's cycle. A small part of it will be taken into space by the solar wind and whatnot (compare that to small cracks in the ceiling in the camp fire analogy), but most of it can't escape. It can stay in the atmosphere, or it can go back into circulation via oceans and living things breathing it in and that's it.
The climate has been relatively stable for thousands of years, but then we humans started digging things up out of the ground and burning them. Things that had been there for millions of years and hadn't been in circulation for that entire time, meaning the system wasn't geared towards handling it. How people can't see that putting such massive amounts of stuff back into circulation will upset the balance of things is beyond me.
Think of it like a factory that produces and packages some sort of product. The entire line of machines doing the manufacturing and packaging is timed to do a certain amount in a certain time frame. Speed up the production machines without also speeding up the packaging machines to match it and you'll have a backload of product clogging up your factory floor, waiting to be packaged. Keep doing that for long enough and you eventually won't have room to run the packaging machines at all.
That's pretty much what we're doing here. The ecosystem was balanced to take a certain amount of carbon, methane and other gases and "package" them at a certain rate through the water cycle, plants and minerals. We started speeding up the production, but the packaging system didn't follow suit. It's that simple, really.
And to those saying, "The climate has changed on its own before," yes. You're right. It has. Many times. No climate scientist is denying that. What's different here is the rate at which it's happening. There are no natural phenomena going on right now or in the recent geological past that can explain why the planet is heating so rapidly. When you've ruled out all other possible causes, only one is left. Us.
Even if you don't believe the climate is changing because of all the stuff we're letting into the atmosphere, you can't seriously believe it's in any way healthy for us to breathe all that crap. Most people accept that lighting a stick of dead plant matter on fire and inhaling the smoke is a health hazard, but some of those same people are having a hard time believing it's bad for us to burn billions of tonnes of oil, coal and gas every year? They understand that it's dangerous to stick your head in a chimney and inhale the smoke, but they can't wrap their heads around the idea that having billions of chimneys let all that stuff into the air we all breathe every day is equally bad? They get that poogas from a single person in a single bathroom can turn that room into a place you certainly don't want to be, but can't fathom that letting billions or even trillions of farm animals let the exact same types of gases loose in our atmosphere every day might turn our entire planet into a place we wouldn't want to be?
It boggles the mind...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 30, 2017 14:32:57 GMT
I don't get climate change deniers... I mean, just apply a little sense. What happens if you light a camp fire in your living room, you don't have a chimney and you keep the doors and windows closed? The room gets hot and smokey and unpleasant to be in. The Earth's atmosphere is everyone's ceiling. There are no chimneys and no windows and doors. Almost everything we let into the atmosphere stays a part of the planet's cycle. A small part of it will be taken into space by the solar wind and whatnot (compare that to small cracks in the ceiling in the camp fire analogy), but most of it can't escape. It can stay in the atmosphere, or it can go back into circulation via oceans and living things breathing it in and that's it. The climate has been relatively stable for thousands of years, but then we humans started digging things up out of the ground and burning them. Things that had been there for millions of years and hadn't been in circulation for that entire time, meaning the system wasn't geared towards handling it. How people can't see that putting such massive amounts of stuff back into circulation will upset the balance of things is beyond me. Think of it like a factory that produces and packages some sort of product. The entire line of machines doing the manufacturing and packaging is timed to do a certain amount in a certain time frame. Speed up the production machines without also speeding up the packaging machines to match it and you'll have a backload of product clogging up your factory floor, waiting to be packaged. Keep doing that for long enough and you eventually won't have room to run the packaging machines at all. That's pretty much what we're doing here. The ecosystem was balanced to take a certain amount of carbon, methane and other gases and "package" them at a certain rate through the water cycle, plants and minerals. We started speeding up the production, but the packaging system didn't follow suit. It's that simple, really. And to those saying, "The climate has changed on its own before," yes. You're right. It has. Many times. No climate scientist is denying that. What's different here is the rate at which it's happening. There are no natural phenomena going on right now or in the recent geological past that can explain why the planet is heating so rapidly. When you've ruled out all other possible causes, only one is left. Us. Even if you don't believe the climate is changing because of all the stuff we're letting into the atmosphere, you can't seriously believe it's in any way healthy for us to breathe all that crap. Most people accept that lighting a stick of dead plant matter on fire and inhaling the smoke is a health hazard, but some of those same people are having a hard time believing it's bad for us to burn billions of tonnes of oil, coal and gas every year? They understand that it's dangerous to stick your head in a chimney and inhale the smoke, but they can't wrap their heads around the idea that having billions of chimneys let all that stuff into the air we all breathe every day is equally bad? They get that poogas from a single person in a single bathroom can turn that room into a place you certainly don't want to be, but can't fathom that letting billions or even trillions of farm animals let the exact same types of gases loose in our atmosphere every day might turn our entire planet into a place we wouldn't want to be? It boggles the mind... their contention is that we don't really produce that much pollution, and besides it is far too late to do anything about it, so we might as well just keep on staying the course. the ones that get me is the ones that are saying we don't need to slow ou population growth because we are finding faster ways to strip mine resources.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 30, 2017 16:05:35 GMT
Should have banned fire in the 1800's. Would have cut down on pollution and the population would be 1/10 what it is today. Of course, nobody would be living north of the 40º latitude.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 30, 2017 17:11:48 GMT
Should have banned fire in the 1800's. Would have cut down on pollution and the population would be 1/10 what it is today. Of course, nobody would be living north of the 40º latitude. Or we could just take the evidence seriously, accept what's done is done and decide to not keep doing it because we now know better and have the tech to do better.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 31, 2017 0:28:58 GMT
Should have banned fire in the 1800's. Would have cut down on pollution and the population would be 1/10 what it is today. Of course, nobody would be living north of the 40º latitude. Or we could just take the evidence seriously, accept what's done is done and decide to not keep doing it because we now know better and have the tech to do better. naah, that would be sensible.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 31, 2017 10:17:18 GMT
I have never denied climate change. Unfortunately, I am educated beyond the inconvenient truth. I accept the planet Earth is a "Living object" as a whole and it in its self will go through several stages of evolution.
I accept that we as Humans are but short term tenants with a full repairing lease.
But in the scale of the universe?.. until we know more about what we are fighting evolutionary wise in our own solar system, and onwards to Galaxy, as long as we try to tidy up our own problems, we are "Doing something", and I am trying to not waste. I waste as little as possible... but I must use some.
On the planetary scale, the whole planet must act.
Telling ME that I "Must" use LED lights and not use my outside lights on my own property "Unless its absolutely necessary" and then watch Vegas in all it glory and realise comparative that my own electricity bill is less than maybe one tenth of a million percent of whats going on there in one hour.....
Blackpool Lights, burn more in one hour of just one day than I use in the whole of one year, or could ever hope to in this property, even if I left my oven on at 90degree ALL DAY.
Yeah, I do my part, I also grow trees to offset my own carbon footprint...etc... we recycle to the max, we do use LED instead of halogen, we have insulation, efficient electronics, the whole works that we can afford to do. How much more do I need to do?. When is enough enough?
And then I get "Taxed" on pollution for my vehicle, on fuel, whatever I drive. Hey Numpty in the council, maybe if you didnt tax me so much I could afford to buy a cleaner vehicle?.
On the scale of worldwide problems, one family of five trying their best is going to do what?. Until ALL countries in the world sign up and do what they promise, I am flogging the greasy spot where and old boiler once died.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 31, 2017 14:02:21 GMT
I have never denied climate change. Unfortunately, I am educated beyond the inconvenient truth. I accept the planet Earth is a "Living object" as a whole and it in its self will go through several stages of evolution. I accept that we as Humans are but short term tenants with a full repairing lease. But in the scale of the universe?.. until we know more about what we are fighting evolutionary wise in our own solar system, and onwards to Galaxy, as long as we try to tidy up our own problems, we are "Doing something", and I am trying to not waste. I waste as little as possible... but I must use some. On the planetary scale, the whole planet must act. Telling ME that I "Must" use LED lights and not use my outside lights on my own property "Unless its absolutely necessary" and then watch Vegas in all it glory and realise comparative that my own electricity bill is less than maybe one tenth of a million percent of whats going on there in one hour..... Blackpool Lights, burn more in one hour of just one day than I use in the whole of one year, or could ever hope to in this property, even if I left my oven on at 90degree ALL DAY. Yeah, I do my part, I also grow trees to offset my own carbon footprint...etc... we recycle to the max, we do use LED instead of halogen, we have insulation, efficient electronics, the whole works that we can afford to do. How much more do I need to do?. When is enough enough? And then I get "Taxed" on pollution for my vehicle, on fuel, whatever I drive. Hey Numpty in the council, maybe if you didnt tax me so much I could afford to buy a cleaner vehicle?. On the scale of worldwide problems, one family of five trying their best is going to do what?. Until ALL countries in the world sign up and do what they promise, I am flogging the greasy spot where and old boiler once died. here, it's not so much individuals not doing their share, but people who individuals listen to, some of whom are encouraging people to not do their share, or worse, encouraging them to do the opposite of doing their share. yes, I'm talking about the ones who feel entitled to not only water their lawn in a water shortage, but the storm drains as well, or not only drive an inefficient vehicle, but to wreck the tuning of the engine so it wastes even more.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 1, 2017 8:18:06 GMT
TLW, "Wreck" the tuning of the vehicle?.
Tuning here gets you maximum horses per drop of fuel, thats the ultimate goal, with the uSA cars that barely hit double figures in MPG, WTF?... are they aiming for an engine that catches up with the fuel pump even on tickover at the filling station?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 1, 2017 13:53:35 GMT
TLW, "Wreck" the tuning of the vehicle?. Tuning here gets you maximum horses per drop of fuel, thats the ultimate goal, with the uSA cars that barely hit double figures in MPG, WTF?... are they aiming for an engine that catches up with the fuel pump even on tickover at the filling station?. keep in mind that with this level of soot in the exhaust, I am usually having to feather the throttle in MY truck to keep from rear ending them.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 1, 2017 22:09:15 GMT
I have never denied climate change. Unfortunately, I am educated beyond the inconvenient truth. I accept the planet Earth is a "Living object" as a whole and it in its self will go through several stages of evolution. I accept that we as Humans are but short term tenants with a full repairing lease. But in the scale of the universe?.. until we know more about what we are fighting evolutionary wise in our own solar system, and onwards to Galaxy, as long as we try to tidy up our own problems, we are "Doing something", and I am trying to not waste. I waste as little as possible... but I must use some. On the planetary scale, the whole planet must act. Telling ME that I "Must" use LED lights and not use my outside lights on my own property "Unless its absolutely necessary" and then watch Vegas in all it glory and realise comparative that my own electricity bill is less than maybe one tenth of a million percent of whats going on there in one hour..... Blackpool Lights, burn more in one hour of just one day than I use in the whole of one year, or could ever hope to in this property, even if I left my oven on at 90degree ALL DAY. Yeah, I do my part, I also grow trees to offset my own carbon footprint...etc... we recycle to the max, we do use LED instead of halogen, we have insulation, efficient electronics, the whole works that we can afford to do. How much more do I need to do?. When is enough enough? And then I get "Taxed" on pollution for my vehicle, on fuel, whatever I drive. Hey Numpty in the council, maybe if you didnt tax me so much I could afford to buy a cleaner vehicle?. On the scale of worldwide problems, one family of five trying their best is going to do what?. Until ALL countries in the world sign up and do what they promise, I am flogging the greasy spot where and old boiler once died. Couldn't agree more. You and I doing each our own tiny bit won't save humanity from climate change. And I say "save humanity" instead of "save the planet" on purpose, because the planet will be just fine without us. It actually doesn't give a rat's hind quarters that we're even here. Yes, what needs to be done is on a much larger scale, but we individuals can actually make a difference in that as well. We can vote. And we can affect how others vote by helping to make the evidence available and understandable to those who either don't have access to it or don't understand it yet. We can't force the willfully ignorant to learn, but if we can just reach the ones that are more misinformed than stupid and stubborn, I believe we can turn the willfully ignorant into a powerless fringe minority and get things done. We've done it before. Remember that hole in the ozone layer a couple of decades ago? We got the people in power to understand the severity of that problem and create the legislation that would eventually lead to the ozone layer getting closer and closer to normal with every year that passes. All I can say is stop voting only for the world you want next year and start voting for the world you want your grandchildren to live in a couple of decades from now. History has proven we can change the world if the majority decides to do it together.
|
|