Select to expand quote

Surfer62 said..
Probably should start another thread titled the "the great pro green corporate lie" but these are related findings to the theme of the post

Direct quotes from the Patagonia website:

Quote "The automobile is a wondrous tool, but it comes with some serious downsides: air pollution, including carbon dioxide, traffic and parking congestion, oil spills, etc"

So Patagonia create plastic (oil) bumper stickers to put on automobiles so numptees can drive around being an environmental warrior while conversly polluting Oz and creating free advertising for Patagonia, great business model.

But surely Patagonia don't manufacture in China, the world's greatest polluter ? um sorry believers yep they do

Quote "Of the 43 factories we currently contract with to make Patagonia products, 13 are in China and nine are in the U.S. . Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price"

Other 20 or so factories located in India and sth east asia, so Patagonia manufacture in the world's top 2 greatest polluter countries, China and India, because it's cheaper, is that not corporate profits before environment, lol, how else could Yvon become a billionaire.

Still proud to have that sticker on your car ?

Pretty thin argument tho. By that logic you can't buy anything from China.....because it's china, even if it's an electric car or a nuclear power plant or new solar tech..... bit silly

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

FormulaNova said..
Macro, this is another one of your ideas. Good on you.

But, where does the salt go? Is it clogging the misting tubes? Is it sprayed out in the mist and drops to the ground? Does it carry with the mist and settle on whatever is in the way? Does it impact the formation of water vapor/cloud?

I know, so many questions, but unless you have done a trial with seawater, what is the validity of this approach.

You are absolutely right. This salt could be our another precious resource. Evaporated salt is very popular commodity that we could then sell. This is mix of very precious minerals and we don't need to wait another 10 millions of years to create deposit that we could mine later.Maybe thanks to this left over- we could fund whole projects to recover money ? Lets also remember that evaporating water takes a lot of heat / energy . I could imagine that even 1 km long trial spray line made for testing purposed could create significant microclimate change in area.At the mid day there is 1 GigaWatts of sun energy falling onto 1 square km of land. Now we could take all this energy back and make good use. we need to find out exact amount of energy and water now needed for our pumps to deliver and spray this sea water.
Now we could do simple calculation how many liters of water do we need for 1kn2 to complete disperse this energy.
Lets take 2500kJ/ to evaporate 1 liter
and 6 GWatts hours per 1km - convert this into energy in J.
Done.

No, you misunderstood. They were actual questions, and I was hoping that you understood the challenges and had solutions. These were not meant to boost your faith in an idea drawn on the back of a napkin.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Surfer62 said..
Probably should start another thread titled the "the great pro green corporate lie" but these are related findings to the theme of the post

Direct quotes from the Patagonia website:

Quote "The automobile is a wondrous tool, but it comes with some serious downsides: air pollution, including carbon dioxide, traffic and parking congestion, oil spills, etc"

So Patagonia create plastic (oil) bumper stickers to put on automobiles so numptees can drive around being an environmental warrior while conversly polluting Oz and creating free advertising for Patagonia, great business model.

But surely Patagonia don't manufacture in China, the world's greatest polluter ? um sorry believers yep they do

Quote "Of the 43 factories we currently contract with to make Patagonia products, 13 are in China and nine are in the U.S. . Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price"

Other 20 or so factories located in India and sth east asia, so Patagonia manufacture in the world's top 2 greatest polluter countries, China and India, because it's cheaper, is that not corporate profits before environment, lol, how else could Yvon become a billionaire.

Still proud to have that sticker on your car ?

Pretty thin argument tho. By that logic you can't buy anything from China.....because it's china, even if it's an electric car or a nuclear power plant or new solar tech..... bit silly

It would be hypocritcal to support a ban on Ivory and then go and purchase products made from Ivory, demand of the product is the real driver behind illegal poaching.

If you want a ban on fossil fuels then stop using them and everything made using them. Stop creating the demand.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Macroscien said..

FormulaNova said..
Macro, this is another one of your ideas. Good on you.

But, where does the salt go? Is it clogging the misting tubes? Is it sprayed out in the mist and drops to the ground? Does it carry with the mist and settle on whatever is in the way? Does it impact the formation of water vapor/cloud?

I know, so many questions, but unless you have done a trial with seawater, what is the validity of this approach.

You are absolutely right. This salt could be our another precious resource. Evaporated salt is very popular commodity that we could then sell. This is mix of very precious minerals and we don't need to wait another 10 millions of years to create deposit that we could mine later.Maybe thanks to this left over- we could fund whole projects to recover money ? Lets also remember that evaporating water takes a lot of heat / energy . I could imagine that even 1 km long trial spray line made for testing purposed could create significant microclimate change in area.At the mid day there is 1 GigaWatts of sun energy falling onto 1 square km of land. Now we could take all this energy back and make good use. we need to find out exact amount of energy and water now needed for our pumps to deliver and spray this sea water.
Now we could do simple calculation how many liters of water do we need for 1kn2 to complete disperse this energy.
Lets take 2500kJ/ to evaporate 1 liter
and 6 GWatts hours per 1km - convert this into energy in J.
Done.

No, you misunderstood. They were actual questions, and I was hoping that you understood the challenges and had solutions. These were not meant to boost your faith in an idea drawn on the back of a napkin.

You are not serious? to worry about this salt we have for free? I do expect more serious concern like : what would happen to sea level once we starts to extract water from oceans ? Should we become worried about dropping ocean levels now ? The good outcome could be such that we could then drive to New Zealand on dry land instead of sailing or flying. If don't want to Kiwi land than at least Tasmania could join continent due to our evaporating efforts.

this is the most current weather reading for my farm place. You could not have possibly less moisture then that anywhere on Earth.


I hear that water was discovered on the Moon and Mars. I may better to move my cattle to graze there.Ok your engineering napkin blue print for evaporation station may looks like that. You reserve area 10 km long x 100 meter wide.Even, level the surface and cover with waterproof membrane. Place tha misting nozzles above on pontoons . Saturated water and salt will now will be securely deposited on the membrane once sea water will evaporate partly from misting nozzles. You could create this salt level layer to any height to securely take salt without risking membrane- for example leave at least 1 meter. Thanks to membrane you avoid sinking salt water into ground or returning high salinity product to the ocean. Our barges floating on our artificial lake will remove the salt deposit and sell it at profit.I think that Aussie will not be first to make use of this technology , but arab countries may benefit , have funds and vision. I should rather talk to Arab sheik not to Formula that will not pay me a cent for my napkin plans.

No, I think the idea of misting is not a bad one, but I wonder what engineering problems are going to arise because of the salt?

Is it going to block everything up?

Is it going to affect to ability to form vapor?

Is it going to kill plant life for kilometres because of the salt content?


If this plan was a goer, I would be all for it. Install huge solar arrays along the great australian bight and blow mist inland when the wind is in the right direction. Sounds good to me.

Despite my cynicism, I think there is some future in turning salt water into fresh water using solar, and it will probably just be a matter of time as technology catches up with the idea.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
No, I think the idea of misting is not a bad one

If I am not selling my ideas but giving them for free doesn't necessarily means there are all wrong.It may meas as well that I did land in wrong place and time.

Select to expand quote

Surfer62 said..
Probably should start another thread titled the "the great pro green corporate lie" but these are related findings to the theme of the post

Direct quotes from the Patagonia website:

Quote "The automobile is a wondrous tool, but it comes with some serious downsides: air pollution, including carbon dioxide, traffic and parking congestion, oil spills, etc"

So Patagonia create plastic (oil) bumper stickers to put on automobiles so numptees can drive around being an environmental warrior while conversly polluting Oz and creating free advertising for Patagonia, great business model.

But surely Patagonia don't manufacture in China, the world's greatest polluter ? um sorry believers yep they do

Quote "Of the 43 factories we currently contract with to make Patagonia products, 13 are in China and nine are in the U.S. . Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price"

Other 20 or so factories located in India and sth east asia, so Patagonia manufacture in the world's top 2 greatest polluter countries, China and India, because it's cheaper, is that not corporate profits before environment, lol, how else could Yvon become a billionaire.

Still proud to have that sticker on your car ?

And to think this man used to live in a teepee on the great ocean road, now an official Patagonia ambassador, I'm shattered.

That's a pretty vapid critique. Maybe you should start another thread.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..


It would be hypocritcal to support a ban on Ivory and then go and purchase products made from Ivory, demand of the product is the real driver behind illegal poaching.

If you want a ban on fossil fuels then stop using them and everything made using them. Stop creating the demand.

"Participating in the world as it is does not disqualify you from trying to improve it"

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

log man said..

Surfer62 said..
Probably should start another thread titled the "the great pro green corporate lie" but these are related findings to the theme of the post

Direct quotes from the Patagonia website:

Quote "The automobile is a wondrous tool, but it comes with some serious downsides: air pollution, including carbon dioxide, traffic and parking congestion, oil spills, etc"

So Patagonia create plastic (oil) bumper stickers to put on automobiles so numptees can drive around being an environmental warrior while conversly polluting Oz and creating free advertising for Patagonia, great business model.

But surely Patagonia don't manufacture in China, the world's greatest polluter ? um sorry believers yep they do

Quote "Of the 43 factories we currently contract with to make Patagonia products, 13 are in China and nine are in the U.S. . Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price"

Other 20 or so factories located in India and sth east asia, so Patagonia manufacture in the world's top 2 greatest polluter countries, China and India, because it's cheaper, is that not corporate profits before environment, lol, how else could Yvon become a billionaire.

Still proud to have that sticker on your car ?

Pretty thin argument tho. By that logic you can't buy anything from China.....because it's china, even if it's an electric car or a nuclear power plant or new solar tech..... bit silly

It would be hypocritcal to support a ban on Ivory and then go and purchase products made from Ivory, demand of the product is the real driver behind illegal poaching.

If you want a ban on fossil fuels then stop using them and everything made using them. Stop creating the demand.

So are all sorts of electricity off limits for people who want to do something about climate change?

if I have my own solar panel, is it permissible for me to use that power...... even though some small amount of carbon has been used to make the panel?

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

FormulaNova said..
No, I think the idea of misting is not a bad one

If I am not selling my ideas but giving them for free doesn't necessarily means there are all wrong.It may meas as well that I did land in wrong place and time.

No, it means that you are normal and come up with ideas like the rest of us. You are neither ahead of your time or behind it.

I am trying to recall the name of the book, but there was a book published a decade or more ago that shows that most 'leaps' are really just evolutions of common ideas at the time and hardly giant leaps.

Even the discoveries of Tesla are thought to be just evolutions of existing thinking, and not something ground-breaking.

It stands to reason that you wouldn't be thinking of solar powered pumps for misting setups if someone before you had not invented solar cells, and then multiple people after that improved their efficiency and then multiple people after that made their manufacture more economical.

A 42,a 40,a 38 all in the next six days.

www.bom.gov.au/wa/forecasts/perth.shtml

Greta and her programmers may well be right.

42,40,38! Don't dismiss the 1-2mm of rain for Saturday. Got some catching up to do in the next 3 weeks. 250 mm behind average.
www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply/rainfall-and-dams/rainfall

Select to expand quote

log man said..
So are all sorts of electricity off limits for people who want to do something about climate change?

if I have my own solar panel, is it permissible for me to use that power...... even though some small amount of carbon has been used to make the panel?

So according to your logic, there is a level of carbon emission that is acceptable to you, so long as you can turn on your computer or phone and make ill-informed comments on the internet. Small amount isn't zero.

Care to share just how much carbon we're allowed to pump out before we get screeched at?

I mean, if you're going to join Greta in condemning people for riding on planes that are already going that way any way and bang on about lifecycle carbon footprints...

Or are we just doing the cherry-picked science thing again?




Oh look -- nuclear at nuclear way down there...

The number one factor that influences the climate - the sun

The number two factor that influences the climate?

And you all guessed correctly I hope










Geoenginnering

The folks in Rockingham may well be a lot smarter than they are given credit for.

By early afternoon it's like 10 degrees cooler than most parts of Perth including Fremantle.


www.weather.com.au/wa/rockingham/current

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
So are all sorts of electricity off limits for people who want to do something about climate change?

if I have my own solar panel, is it permissible for me to use that power...... even though some small amount of carbon has been used to make the panel?

So according to your logic, there is a level of carbon emission that is acceptable to you, so long as you can turn on your computer or phone and make ill-informed comments on the internet. Small amount isn't zero.

Care to share just how much carbon we're allowed to pump out before we get screeched at?

I mean, if you're going to join Greta in condemning people for riding on planes that are already going that way any way and bang on about lifecycle carbon footprints...

Or are we just doing the cherry-picked science thing again?




Oh look -- nuclear at nuclear way down there...

Doesn't matter how many tons of co2 nuclear emits. It still emits something so by Camms logic it can't be used by people who care about climate change.
so cross that off the list.....actually cross every means of generating electricity off the list as they all have some co2 embedded somewhere.

I was pretty specific, I said people that want a ban on a product should not use that product, not just people who care, everyone cares.

but you are correct if you want a ban on fossil fuels, if your that extreme then pretty much cross everything off the list.

Select to expand quote

whippingboy said..
I've outsourced my comment

Rob Lowe's climate luv child

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
So are all sorts of electricity off limits for people who want to do something about climate change?

if I have my own solar panel, is it permissible for me to use that power...... even though some small amount of carbon has been used to make the panel?

So according to your logic, there is a level of carbon emission that is acceptable to you, so long as you can turn on your computer or phone and make ill-informed comments on the internet. Small amount isn't zero.

Care to share just how much carbon we're allowed to pump out before we get screeched at?

I mean, if you're going to join Greta in condemning people for riding on planes that are already going that way any way and bang on about lifecycle carbon footprints...

Or are we just doing the cherry-picked science thing again?




Oh look -- nuclear at nuclear way down there...

Doesn't matter how many tons of co2 nuclear emits. It still emits something so by Camms logic it can't be used by people who care about climate change.
so cross that off the list.....actually cross every means of generating electricity off the list as they all have some co2 embedded somewhere.

Rather than just doubling down on your stupid argument, why don't you tell us what the acceptable output of CO2 is according to you?

Camm's point was (I assume) if you're serious about cutting CO2 emissions why are you not championing the least polluting method of power generation.

Or is the fact that solar isn't as green as nuclear by half upsetting your apple cart?

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Surfer62 said..
Probably should start another thread titled the "the great pro green corporate lie" but these are related findings to the theme of the post

Direct quotes from the Patagonia website:

Quote "The automobile is a wondrous tool, but it comes with some serious downsides: air pollution, including carbon dioxide, traffic and parking congestion, oil spills, etc"

So Patagonia create plastic (oil) bumper stickers to put on automobiles so numptees can drive around being an environmental warrior while conversly polluting Oz and creating free advertising for Patagonia, great business model.

But surely Patagonia don't manufacture in China, the world's greatest polluter ? um sorry believers yep they do

Quote "Of the 43 factories we currently contract with to make Patagonia products, 13 are in China and nine are in the U.S. . Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price"

Other 20 or so factories located in India and sth east asia, so Patagonia manufacture in the world's top 2 greatest polluter countries, China and India, because it's cheaper, is that not corporate profits before environment, lol, how else could Yvon become a billionaire.

Still proud to have that sticker on your car ?

Pretty thin argument tho. By that logic you can't buy anything from China.....because it's china, even if it's an electric car or a nuclear power plant or new solar tech..... bit silly

Not at all, its about the hypocrisy of allegedly pro green corporations and the sheep that prescribe to their trendy greenie advertising led ethos, yes i buy from China and other manufacturing countries, I just don't drive around with environmental stickers on my car pretending to care about the environment while polluting it or buy from hypocritical companies like Patagonia. Patagonia apparently gives 1% of profit back to environmental causes, define causes, I'd give them more credit if it was more like 20%, he's a billionaire how much does he need when he claims to live a modest self sufficient lifestyle. Have a deep look into their website, they are blinded by their own contradictions and bull****e.

I'm a closet greenie and do the best I can when I can, but yes I'm a consumer and as such a polluter, I restored a few cleared acres on my last property back to bush by planting a few thousand local indigenous flora linking two old growth areas, that's doing a bit for the environment not yapping about it at protests and then driving home.

I found this quite interesting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#/media/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg





Seeing that average global temperatures have risen less than 0.25 degrees since 1950, it is clear we are nowhere near a "crisis" point. In fact, the climate has been quite benign for the last 600 - 700 years.

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..
I found this quite interesting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#/media/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg





Seeing that average global temperatures have risen less than 0.25 degrees since 1950, it is clear we are nowhere near a "crisis" point. In fact, the climate has been quite benign for the last 600 - 700 years.

So what temperature in GREENLAND tell us about global temperatures? Most likely nothing at all unless chart is supported by some other connections/ correlations.BTW what the stupid name for the land with average temperature at negative 30 celsius. Greenland? ! WTFAny greenlander wish possibly that we could pump 10x more gases to warm this poor island quicker.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

psychomub said..
I found this quite interesting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#/media/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg





Seeing that average global temperatures have risen less than 0.25 degrees since 1950, it is clear we are nowhere near a "crisis" point. In fact, the climate has been quite benign for the last 600 - 700 years.

So what temperature in GREENLAND tell us about global temperatures? Most likely nothing at all unless chart is supported by some other connections/ correlations.BTW what the stupid name for the land with average temperature at negative 30 celsius. Greenland? ! WTFAny greenlander wish possibly that we could pump 10x more gases to warm this poor island quicker.

Uhh, last time I checked, Greenland was part of the global system.

I thought global warming and CC would affect the whole planet.

Perhaps it's only the parts of the planet where the data fits the narrative??

Select to expand quote

psychomub said..

Greenland was part of the global system.

nonsense. Temperature in Greenland may reflect / correlate to global temperature on Earth or not at all."Green Island" temperature may depend on sea currents that do change from time to time directions. Picking one remote polar location doesnt tell a bit what temperature was in Australia over same period.Once you start picking smartly you could prove any thesis you like.


Now quiz for those smart ases. Show on this global map land that remind you something green.
Now you call this Greenland?


Once you start lying about colors why not about anything else?

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

psychomub said..

Greenland was part of the global system.

nonsense. Temperature in Greenland may reflect / correlate to global temperature on Earth or not at all."Green Island" temperature may depend on sea currents that do change from time to time directions. Picking one remote polar location doesnt tell a bit what temperature was in Australia over same period.Once you start picking smartly you could prove any thesis you like.


Now quiz for those smart ases. Show on this global map land that remind you something green.
Now you call this Greenland?


Once you start lying about colors why not about anything else?

Uhh, hate to burst your bubble, but Greenland was once green - well, much greener than it is now - in the Medieval Warm Period. At this same time, China has records of their ships regularly using the NW passage.

It was much warmer than it is today.

Further, you may want to note that many of the historical climate records have been obtained from Polar ice cores , so scientists don't differentiate between regions when discussing GLOBAL climate.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/?fbclid=IwAR3kcxvM14dfMxgUc3htribedGrfWbz9Mt52Ms14hLKwMGf3nYbJ3Dtjt-0

So conclusion could be such that we either:
1.Need to learn to live at higher temperature world, and adjust accordingly
2. Reverse released CO2 to pre industrial level ?? If that is even possible ? Can we dump this all coal and gas extracted over a century - back to Earth, where is was?
For realistically thinking person the second option is very doubtful, regardless of amounts of solar panels and wind turbines, or level of taxes introduced by governments on people.
The most scary scenarion is still to happen soon when deposits of frozen methane will be released from the bottom of the ocean.

I would say we better be prepared, not constantly surprised ( like with our bushfires that pop up unexpected ?)

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/?fbclid=IwAR3kcxvM14dfMxgUc3htribedGrfWbz9Mt52Ms14hLKwMGf3nYbJ3Dtjt-0

So conclusion could be such that we either:
1.Need to learn to live at higher temperature world, and adjust accordingly
2. Reverse released CO2 to pre industrial level ?? If that is even possible ? Can we dump this all coal and gas extracted over a century - back to Earth, where is was?
For realistically thinking person the second option is very doubtful, regardless of amounts of solar panels and wind turbines, or level of taxes introduced by governments on people.
The most scary scenarion is still to happen soon when deposits of frozen methane will be released from the bottom of the ocean.

I would say we better be prepared, not constantly surprised ( like with our bushfires that pop up unexpected ?)

Uhh, 60 parts per million of a minute trace gas warms the whole planet?

Utter BS.

The planet has been much, much hotter than it is today.

Here are two of many average temperature graphs I have - raw data.








Ups and downs, but no major change in average.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Frost_of_1709
Been much colder to .Fun times.

Extinction coming to Perth from Wednesday thru to Sunday. 38,39 40,41 and 38.


www.bom.gov.au/wa/forecasts/perth.shtml