envelopes2007 wrote: »
Congrats on being carbon neutral
I might also be concerned about the number of deer in your area?
We had way too many grizzlies out here on the West Coast (and salmon) and Fir trees and clean rivers and killer whales, and even Buffalo before that! We got DOF to manage these items for us!!!!
My point is..... when we allow the fox to manage the chicken coupe we really can't expect a happy outcome for the managees!! Its normal for us managers to promote our own agenda first.
In an attempt to manage er, I mean, interupt the natural order of things we skew off populations which affects millions of things which compounds exponentially on other millions of things which creates all kinds of havoc. Managing domestic wildfowl (ckickens) has created a bird flu epidemic....BEEF (CJB and mad cow disease)and they pollute the WATER (don't get me started)......(Salmon farms??)........enuff already!
Have we lost our ability to control just ourselves?
So my point is .. when there is not enough supply then the demand will fade. So? Let them eat the sapplings and undergrowth (they live here too!) and when there is no food they will surely shrink away in numbers that can be supported by the undergrowth community?
I believe each deer has a footprint that is infinitisimally much smaller than ours....gosh, they even contribute to the biosphere out their backsides. I produce nothing good out of my backside and very little out the front!!!
So what GOOD comes from a deers footprint? ....maybe room for other essential life affirming organisms to grow. (BTW: methane is a carbon gas that is also out of control due to the domestic cow populations that have increased to feed us HUMANS)
Lets us cut back on the # of biggest offenders first! the ones we CAN control? Any guesses?
Or am I just misguided?
Energy Use & Conservation Energy conservation tips & news, for solar & non-solar powered homes.
This forum is owned and operated by Northern Arizona Wind & Sun, Inc.
This forum is free and unrestricted usage for all (even our competitors). We do not generally censor or delete any posts, but there are a few ground rules:
1. No commercial ads, solicitations, or links. No Spam or political - special interest causes. Members may post their private property for sale (but NO eBay links! ). Links to manufacturers and our website is OK (yeah, ok, so maybe links to our site are commercial, but after all we DO pay for this board).
2. No pictures of naked iguanas.
3. No posts praising Al Gore for saving the world.
If there are any questions about those policies, contact us or one of the moderators.
envelopes2007 wrote: »
I disagree with this.... you can keep your cave woman and yourself warm with 100% non carbon burning fuel devices like axes and electric chain saws!!! And even you can choose to use an electric tractor? So why not?
The sun provide all the energy we need to heat our world from -1,000 degrees (f) to a balmy average temp of 56'(f). All we have to do is make 14'(F) with our human activity!
Can we not do that without fossil fuels?
Let me know.
now that... is carbon neutral!
BB. wrote: »
Here is a good general purpose calculator for the cost of heat from various sources (hardwood, softwood, pellets, and fossil fuels/electricity).
And here is a list of BTU per lb/cord for various species of wood (apparently properly dried woods all have roughly the same BTU/lb... It is just soft woods are less dense than hard woods).
Finally, then, we come back to Katrina. This storm was a weak (category 1) hurricane when crossing Florida, and only gained force later over the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. So the question to ask here is: why is the Gulf of Mexico so hot at present - how much of this could be attributed to global warming, and how much to natural variability? More detailed analysis of the SST changes in the relevant regions, and comparisons with model predictions, will probably shed more light on this question in the future. At present, however, the available scientific evidence suggests that it would be premature to assert that the recent anomalous behavior can be attributed entirely to a natural cycle.
Katrina might have further downgraded to a strong Category 1 system with 95 mph winds when it punched water through New Orleans' levees, severely flooding most of the city and killing hundreds. The levees were designed to withstand a Category 3 storm. If verified, the wind information compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division could have chilling ramifications.
The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively. The remainders and uncertainties are associated with the overlaps which could be attributed in various ways that I'm not going to bother with here. Making some allowance (+/-5%) for the crudeness of my calculation, the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!).
A key article of faith for the "warmists" is a supposed increase in the incidence of extreme weather events, such as droughts. As [name redact ed per forum rules] claimed to a US Senate committee in March, "droughts are becoming longer and more intense".
But US researchers, led by Gemma Narisma, have now shown that, far from becoming more frequent in recent decades, serious droughts have in fact become rarer than they were a century ago.
In a paper (reported on the website CO2Science.org) they identified the 30 most "severe and persistent" drought episodes of the 20th century.
Seven of these occurred before 1920, seven between 1921 and 1940 and eight between 1941 and 1960, dropping to five between 1961 and 1980.
The last two decades of the century, when the world was supposedly hotting up more than ever, saw just three. The worst drought affecting the developed world was the US Dust Bowl disaster of the mid-1930s.
China, now building a new coal-fired power station every four days, last year added 102 gigawatts of new generating capacity, 25 per cent more than the entire capacity of the UK. As ever more pointed question marks rise up over the global warming thesis, who is to say it is the Chinese who are mad?
envelopes2007 wrote: »
It also takes less calories to drive an SUV... than ride a bike? or operate a chainsaw? or do dishes? So I am not sure if that argument makes sense!!
As I see it..... the issue is to make a smaller carbon footprint on the earth? Renewable energy for sure is the key to this. We do have electric vehicles but just no where to drive them yet? So, why not electric farm vehicles?
Here is my meteorological perspective....When water molecules get excited they are more likely to reach their gaseous phase. If and when, that happens water vapor tends to turn itself back into liquid when certain conditions are met. In otherwords we generally get it back in spades! But it can be in buckets!!!!
The more water vapor we get into our air (above our oceans) the more rain and snow we get.....and the greater the FREQUENCY and INTENSITY of the weather events. The intensity of some weather events can be crucial to the survival of some species on this planet.
Question is how many Katrinas (then) do we really need?
Stopping the sun from warming the oceans surface is one thing! BTW: Did you know that a few years back, all commercial plane traffic was suspended in NA for about 2-3 days. The resulting absence or lack of any vapor trails over the NA skies allowed the earth surface temp to increase by an average of 1' Celsius ! OMG.... Lord, help us if we ever stop flying those jets!!
But my point is this, its not the temperature of the earth that counts its the energy being stored by the sea. One heckuva large (mass) times a little tiny increase in temp (energy) equals one huge lot of potentially devastating destructive power ie: (force). One large PV panel !!
Remember water molecules are first to react to an increase in energy (heat) and water molecules react big time!! Ice storms in Quebec?
icarus wrote: »
With all due respect, I think you missed my point about calories vs work. (NB for thems that may not know, a calorie is just a unit of heat, like a btu only smaller)
My point was that it takes less energy to ride a bicycle or cut wood with a chain saw than walking or cutting by hand. The only activities that I know of that are more efficient than man doing it himself.