Forums | MacLife

obtuse wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

obtuse wrote:

you tell me.

I asked you first, don't throw this back on me.

No, actually I asked you first.  Back when I said "What greenhouse gases, besides CO2, do volcanoes emit?"

And I gave you a list of all gases they emit... now the only reason I didn't state which one is a greenhouse gas is because it matters who you talk to...sort of like taxes.  Matters who you talk to, some thing as it's too much others too little.

Cyberpawz wrote:

obtuse wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

I asked you first, don't throw this back on me.

No, actually I asked you first.  Back when I said "What greenhouse gases, besides CO2, do volcanoes emit?"

And I gave you a list of all gases they emit... now the only reason I didn't state which one is a greenhouse gas is because it matters who you talk to...sort of like taxes.  Matters who you talk to, some thing as it's too much others too little.

Pick a standard source.  I don't particularly care.

Freezer mac wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

obtuse wrote:

No, actually I asked you first.  Back when I said "What greenhouse gases, besides CO2, do volcanoes emit?"

And I gave you a list of all gases they emit... now the only reason I didn't state which one is a greenhouse gas is because it matters who you talk to...sort of like taxes.  Matters who you talk to, some thing as it's too much others too little.

hmm "H20, then CO2, then OS2, then H2, then CO, then H2S, HCI, and finally in some cases HF"

water... carbon dioxide... <i think you mean SO2(sulphur dioxide), not OS2 (ester sulphur) >... hydrogen... cobalt???<are you sure about this one?>... hydrogen sulphide... Hydrochloric acid.... Hydrofluoric Acid



and according to the department of energy, greenhouse gases are "carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, HFC's, PFC's and FS6"
(figure 3)

so... id say that only one on your list that is a green house gas is CO2. also, if you notice, that site has the 25% figure stated.

CO is carbon monoxide.  Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but because it precipitates out of the atmosphere, volcanic emission of h2o is not a great source of water vapor causing warming.

And let us not forget that the issue supposedly up for discussion is if mt st helens is the largest source of greenhouse gases in the state, which is resedit's claim.

Last edited by obtuse (2005-02-19 10:52 pm)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

obtuse wrote:

otter wrote:

Next time, read the entire post.  Then you won't seem so stupid.

I'm gonna get in trouble for this but....

You're new here, and as a word of advice, its not a matter of CP seeming stupid.  He's genuinely stupid.


(as a side note to oatmeal before you delete this post, this is a good example of why PM's can be good.  I don't want to send an email to someone I don't know to convey this sort of thing, but it needs to get sent somehow.  It would be worth a PM)

Yet you never fail to debate him.

I say enough already.

touch

The New Guy wrote:

A 1991 resource study by the DOE said that putting wind farms in North Dakota, Kansas and Texas would provide enough electrical power for the entire nation.

And a single point of failure - not to mention that wind power requires more maintenance than any other kind of power generation.

Wind power may be a workable solution in some areas, but I would prefer my power source be generated within the same state I live in.

obtuse wrote:

You're new here, and as a word of advice, its not a matter of CP seeming stupid.  He's genuinely stupid.

Ha ha, thanks for the comment, but I'm not actually new here.  I just don't live here   I spend long stretches where browsing forums is not a real doable thing.

And for the record, I'd already noticed that about CP.

Honestly, I really hate these pointless arguments, but I have a near impossible time allowing a blatantly wrong statement, one easily destroyed with facts, to go unchallenged.  As I see it, that's the source of America's, and the world's for that matter, problems.  Too many wrong premises go uncorrected.

Like this argument that global warming might be a natural climate phenomenon, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Or debating who in the world today is the most culpable for the problem (we all are).  Or this argument, over who has the largest ability to do anything to mitigate the problem.

Like it or not, the US is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and, when you factor in our population size, and look at the matter as a per capita problem, then it's pretty obvious that we do.  China's emissions are lower than ours, by approximately 35%, and yet their population is nearly 5 times ours!  So, pretty self evident to me.

Also, consider that the US is, theoretically anyway, the most technologically and technically advanced nation in the world (some would argue that Japan, at minimum, has us beat, and I'd tend to agree).  This technical ability gives us the power, and arguably the responsibility to use that power, to solve this problem!  Both for our own good and for the good of the entire planet.  But every time we avoid acknowledging our responsibility in this matter, we abrogate those responsibilities.

And the problem isn't going to go away.

See, that's why I am glad that I don't have kids.  I don't have to be ashamed as a parent to say to them "I, and every generation before me, smurfed up the world entirely, and I didn't love you enough to fix it."  And people really should be ashamed, because that's bad custodianship.  The world doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the future generations.

The attitude of "There'll always be more.  That's what more means."  is deplorable.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

A 1991 resource study by the DOE said that putting wind farms in North Dakota, Kansas and Texas would provide enough electrical power for the entire nation.

In fairness, how much has energy consumption increased since then?

"The electricity needs of the entire United States could be met by panels in a 100-by-100 mile area in the Southwestern United States." Rep. James L. Oberstar, 2001

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Freezer mac wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In fairness, how much has energy consumption increased since then?

"The electricity needs of the entire United States could be met by panels in a 100-by-100 mile area in the Southwestern United States." Rep. James L. Oberstar, 2001

Yes, the electricity needs of the entire United States as it was in 1991. Those energy needs have increased dramatically in the fourteen years since then.

Not trying to be a dick, just keepin' it real.

umm... no. that is as of 2003.
not 1991.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.c … nergy.html
"The solar energy radiating on an area of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide can produce about 50 times more electricity in a day than all of California consumes in a 24-hour period. For example: If California uses an average of 38,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per hour over a 24-hour period, then 24 hours x 38,000 megawatts = 912,000 megawatt-hours per day. And if all fifty States consumed the same amount of electricity as California, then 50 x 912,000 = 45,600,000 megawatt-hours. Which is 864,000 megawatt-hours less than the 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity that 10,000 square miles of solar energy could produce."

Don't forget to add in the storage facilities and their space requirements.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Freezer mac wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Yes, the electricity needs of the entire United States as it was in 1991. Those energy needs have increased dramatically in the fourteen years since then.

Not trying to be a dick, just keepin' it real.

umm... no. that is as of 2003.
not 1991.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.c … nergy.html
"The solar energy radiating on an area of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide can produce about 50 times more electricity in a day than all of California consumes in a 24-hour period. For example: If California uses an average of 38,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per hour over a 24-hour period, then 24 hours x 38,000 megawatts = 912,000 megawatt-hours per day. And if all fifty States consumed the same amount of electricity as California, then 50 x 912,000 = 45,600,000 megawatt-hours. Which is 864,000 megawatt-hours less than the 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity that 10,000 square miles of solar energy could produce."

What happens when its cloudy?

Maybe they set aside another 10,000 square miles for big-ass batteries.

Steyr AUG wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

What happens when its cloudy?

Maybe they set aside another 10,000 square miles for big-ass batteries.

But batteries are bad for the environment.

Er ... how about putting homeless people in treadmills?

Tallgeese wrote:

Food costs would be prohibitive.

We can grind 'em up when they wear out and feed them to the ones who are still productive.

Come on, people! Where there's a will, there's a way.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Food costs would be prohibitive.

We can grind 'em up when they wear out and feed them to the ones who are still productive.

Come on, people! Where there's a will, there's a way.

Feeding the poor? YOU smurfing COMMUNIST. You want a welfare state!