[fizzissist]

I stand happily corrected.

[debogus]

Oh darn I'm late for earthday(nuts)

So in my feeble effort to do my part to help with the earths fever
I will turn on the ac and open my doors for this hour.

Already wearing a sweater because its cold

But hey what do I know ,I guess it needs to be colder.

Thanks for keyping us stoopid peaoples set streight mr X vp egore.


while Im at it I should open the fridge too huh ?

[xyzdonna]

XYZ,

Excerpt: .....that translates to 57031.25 sq miles. That should be easy to do. Just pump a little sea water into Death Valley,....

1) Your math is OK but there may be a little problem coming to terms with the magnitude of the numbers.
2) Why is every pipe dream situated in the Desert Southwest?

You said you are going to Atlanta and I believe you live in Chattanooga? If so, this is fortuitous. I got a map of the Southeast, imported it into Autocad, used the scale provided on the map to draw a 135 mile radius circle whose area is 57,000 square miles. I'm calling it "XYZmodanna's Algae Bog of The Eternal Stench", and in your honor, placed it's center in Chattanooga.

As you drive to Atlanta, you should get a feel for just how large an area 57,000 square miles really is. You get to Atlanta and you are still within the periphery of The Algae Bog. Go north from Chattanooga and you are in Kentucky before you reach solid ground again. Other directions take you into Alabama, North and South Carolina before your feet are dry.:-)

The drive should impress you with the enormity of what you propose. Think of it centered where you live, not where I live. Algae has a stench, you know.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
No I didn't know algae had a stench. I also didn't realize just how big 57,000 sq. mi. would be. Maybe it wouldn't seem so big if you laid it out in a square or rectangle instead of a circle. Good points you make Mariss. I guess we'll have to start with smaller areas and work up. Maybe as the algae farms become more efficient we can make them bigger. The reason we have to do it in your neck of the woods is that's where the "skies are not cloudy all day".
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

Here is an "original" thought! Rather than trying to "grow" our fuel in the food belt or ship our woes off to "fly over country" in the form of salt water cesspools, why don't we just use the fuel that God provided for us. Like the remaining petroleum, oil shale, oil sand, coal, natural gas and even methane hydrates? There is no energy shortage, there is a BRAIN shortage. We need to use what we have while preparing for the future (maybe nuclear? maybe cold fusion?) by the investment in REAL energy rather than swamp gas?

Hi jhowelb,
What's wrong with swamp gas? That's just methane isn't it? But seriously, we can grow our own biodiesel. Regular diesel is going for over $4/ gal. The price is getting up to the point that it makes economic sense. That's been the stickler all along, it was cheaper to use petroleum. At some price point it will no longer be cheaper to use petroleum.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

Dear Geof and fizzissist,

A long time ago, I was told that it made no sense to turn off flourescent lighting tubes for brief periods because the energy needed to re-start was greater than that saved by the off period.

Do you have any opinions about how long that period might be?

Obviously, it will depend on the type of tube. If you have compact , "planet-saving", compact flourescents , it may take some considerable time for you to grope your way through the gloaming to the keyboard.

Best wishes,
Martin

Hi Martin,
The fluorescent bulbs used for signs are rated at 800 ma. That's almost an ampere. Approximately 96 watts. The elevated inrush current would only be for a very short time, probably less than a second before it reached a steady state. That's not going to be a big influence on the total power used. The inrush current does take a toll on the filaments though. This would affect the longevity of the bulb.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

Mythbusters tested this a while ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBus...ights_On.2FOff

Hi PeeJay,
As an aside you can greatly increase the life of a filament light bulb by turning it on with a dimmer. This ramps the current up more slowly putting a lot less stress on the filament. If you stop short of maximum voltage you will keep the light bulb for ever. When the bulb is operating at less that capacity it will last so much longer.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[jhowelb]

Hi jhowelb,
What's wrong with swamp gas? That's just methane isn't it? But seriously, we can grow our own biodiesel. Regular diesel is going for over $4/ gal. The price is getting up to the point that it makes economic sense. That's been the stickler all along, it was cheaper to use petroleum. At some price point it will no longer be cheaper to use petroleum.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Your problem is this. You have an answer (potential, sorry tho it is) looking for a question. No need to grow diesel, just mine, drill, pump and distill what we have. It is an artificial "shortage caused by reluctance to recover resources we have in abundance.

In a word or two: biofuel is a SCAM!

[jhowelb]

How much fuel has Petro Sun, Inc sold to date on the open market?

Donna, you side stepped this question and I will keep throwing it in your face till I get an answer!

[xyzdonna]

Donna, you side stepped this question and I will keep throwing it in your face till I get an answer!

Hi jhowelb,
To quote from this press release on yahoo's website:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080310/0372495.html
PetroSun, Inc announced today that its initial commercial algae-to-biofuels farm is scheduled to commence operations on April 1, 2008. The farm is located on the Texas Gulf Coast near Harlingen, Texas.
So it would seem that they are just now getting started with production. So your point would be?
Take care,
xyzdonna

[jhowelb]

Hi jhowelb,
To quote from this press release on yahoo's website:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080310/0372495.html
PetroSun, Inc announced today that its initial commercial algae-to-biofuels farm is scheduled to commence operations on April 1, 2008. The farm is located on the Texas Gulf Coast near Harlingen, Texas.
So it would seem that they are just now getting started with production. So your point would be?
Take care,
xyzdonna

So the answer is "NOTHING"! They have produced NOTHING but they want MONEY! YOUR money or OUR TAX money and they want government subsidies! THAT is a scam! They have nothing but pie in the sky projections, will produce a smelly hole in the ground that consumes money for no other reason than producing a place to spend more (tax) money. Charliton's like this are a dime a dozen thru history and have always had snake oil, rain or just plain sunshine to sell. They have something in common with those who want to sell the human caused global climate/ original human sin routine. They are criminals a heart!

[martinw]

Lamps,

Here is something from Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...you-leave-room

My only problem with compact flourescents is that I would rather my home was not lit with the colour rendition of an autopsy room.

Best wishes,

Martin

[xyzdonna]

Hi everybody,
Did ya'll just catch Leslie Sthall's interview with Al Gore on 60 minutes? Really fascinating. He allows that GW is happening, which obviously it is. Any thoughts?
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

Lamps,

Here is something from Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...you-leave-room

My only problem with compact flourescents is that I would rather my home was not lit with the colour rendition of an autopsy room.

Best wishes,

Martin

Hi Martin,
Having been involved with the sign business and neon for many years gives me some experience in this regard. "Neon" which isn't neon is very similar to compact fluorescents. By this I mean that the tubes aren't pumped with neon gas but with argon with a slight amount of mercury added. The clear glass tubes that burn with an orange/red light are the actual neon tubes. Most of the rest are argon/mercury with some exceptions. It is possible to pump the phosphor coated tubes with neon or other inert gases (krypton, xenon) to obtain other colors. If memory serves, blue pumped with neon gives turquoise for instance. There is a wide variety of phosphor coatings available to give a huge assortment of colors. The argon mercury mix gives a pale blue light if it's in a clear tube. I think most of light emitted is in the ultra violet range. This ultra violet light excites the phosphors and they emit light in the visible spectrum.
The point being that it is possible to manufacture compact fluorescents that don't remind one of a morgue. Why this isn't being done, I have no idea. I could go down to my local neon shop and have them make me some straight tubes about 4 or 8 feet long and use these to light my house. They could order phosphor coated tubes in a shade that would be pleasing. This at a cost of about $2.50 per lineal foot. If the shop is using good vacuum techniques the tubes can last from 50 to 100 thousand hours. They also have no filament to burn out which helps them to be so long lived.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

So the answer is "NOTHING"! They have produced NOTHING but they want MONEY! YOUR money or OUR TAX money and they want government subsidies! THAT is a scam! They have nothing but pie in the sky projections, will produce a smelly hole in the ground that consumes money for no other reason than producing a place to spend more (tax) money. Charliton's like this are a dime a dozen thru history and have always had snake oil, rain or just plain sunshine to sell. They have something in common with those who want to sell the human caused global climate/ original human sin routine. They are criminals a heart!

Hi jhowelb,
You must remember that it has only recently become economically feasible to produce biodiesel. By this I mean the cost of petroleum derived diesel is now around $4 gal. At this price point the synthetic fuels start to make sense without government subsidies. I think the thing the government should do is remove the vagaries of the market place by increasing taxes if market prices should drop. This will give the developers of biodiesel a form of price protection so that as they ramp up production, prices won't fall below their cost of manufacturing.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[GORDYKD]

Hi jhowelb,
To quote from this press release on yahoo's website:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080310/0372495.html
PetroSun, Inc announced today that its initial commercial algae-to-biofuels farm is scheduled to commence operations on April 1, 2008. The farm is located on the Texas Gulf Coast near Harlingen, Texas.
So it would seem that they are just now getting started with production. So your point would be?
Take care,
xyzdonna

How appropriate, beginning operations on APRIL FOOL'S DAY.

[jhowelb]

Hi everybody,
Did ya'll just catch Leslie Sthall's interview with Al Gore on 60 minutes? Really fascinating. He allows that GW is happening, which obviously it is. Any thoughts?
Take care,
xyzdonna

Positive proof that insanity IS contagious!

[GORDYKD]

Just a little reading to make one wonder about the true legitimacy of all that is "Global Warming"



Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".
Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.
It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.
THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.
The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"
The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.
Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

[Rekd]

Hi everybody,
Did ya'll just catch Leslie Sthall's interview with Al Gore on 60 minutes? Really fascinating. He allows that GW is happening, which obviously it is. Any thoughts?
Take care,
xyzdonna

:sigh:

He "allows" that GW is happening? Isn't that special.

Is he "allowing" it to happen on Mars too?

Did he "allow" it to happen several times over that last several hundred thousand years?

Did he "allow" the internet to happen too?

Seriously, Donna, he's a tool. He couldn't cut it as a politician so he invented man made global warming so he could sell carbon credits to unsuspecting fools who are all to willing to jump on each and ever band-wagon that rolls buy to separate the ignorant from their dollar. Very reminiscent of the plight of the Star Bellied Sneech's when Sylvester McMonkey McBean came by with his star adding/removing machines.

"You're a Star-bellied Sneetch,
you suck like a leech.
You want everyone to act like you."

Besides, I thought you were leaving?

[MIKE JEFFERS]

petrol at $4 a gallon oh happy days

its over £5 a gallon here thats about 10 bucks

[jhowelb]

petrol at $4 a gallon oh happy days

its over £5 a gallon here thats about 10 bucks

The sad part of that is that 60 to 80 % (my own rough estimate made from 66 years of watching the government thugs!) is tax either open, covert or otherwise included by mandate. (ie: no new refineries for thirty years, no drilling or exploration off shore, Alaska, the Rockies or just anywhere likely to produce. "Economically feasible" means that they have artificially inflated the price of a given product to the point of being able to sell any line of crap to the public for the purpose of shearing the sheeple!

Stated differently, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!