Where's Global Warming when they need it? Mongolia has just seen its harshest winter in 50 years.

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
At least the ones that light themselves on fire let go of their CO2 in one shot. Just saying.
Teach a man how to make a fire, and he'll be warm for the night... Light a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.... :eek::ROFLMAO:

Have you ever lit your farts? That's mostly methane I think. So is it better or worse for the environment to light them or not? :unsure:
 
G8, No. For all / any of your or other's personal pokes, I'm not back. Just making an occasional flyby these days and looking for another RV forum. Life is just too short to spend much more time doing things that are not fun. And I've found little of that here lately.
If you find any interesting forums, please send me the link(s). Thanks.
 
Teach a man how to make a fire, and he'll be warm for the night... Light a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.... :eek::ROFLMAO:

Have you ever lit your farts? That's mostly methane I think. So is it better or worse for the environment to light them or not? :unsure:
I'll have to do some scientific research on that last part. But if it's better to light them on fire, I have a business idea.

A saddle type contraption you attach to cows. When they fart, a sensor detects it and sends an ignition spark about 1' diagonally north and back of their, uh, tail.

It could solve two problems at once. The cows get exercise, and we save the world! And just think of the cow tipping deterrence.

What could go wrong?
 
.
a)
The cost of anything must include costs of transportation.
Actually, cost of transportation does not include the cost of carbon (and cost of measures necessary to deal with the consequences climate change), and THAT is a problem.
The chinese fornicated themselves into needing massive constant continual *non-sustainable* imports of food and goods.
Not my problem.

Actually, after 40 years of single-child policy, population of China is collapsing. Birth rate per woman is around 1, while 2.1 is necessary to stabile population. In big cities, rate is below 0.5. All that growth is senior citizens. Average are in China is higher than in USA, way over 50.

If you listen/watch Peter Zeihan (on Zeihan on Geopolitics youtube channel), he claims that within 10 years China will collapse, because young people will not be able to support the retirees, and manufacturing is being moved to countries with better demographics, like eMexico. And Chine's prosperity relies on US Navy protecting China's imports and Exports.

Watch or listen to Zeihan, he is excellent presenter and speaker.
 
OK, I'll stick my toe in here a bit more.

I agree that if we all just shop for news and opinions we agree with, we'll miss a lot. That applies to both (all) sides of politics and or issues we face today. It's unfortunate that so many of us have accepted tribalism. There are some on this forum that have "knee jerk" responses to certain ideas and people. Happy makes a good point about finding opposing opinions. I try to find sites that are as moderate and fact based as possible. There are fairly impartial bias rating sites that I check with when I see something that seems a bit questionable. IMO, just listening to two extremes which cannot even agree on basic scientific facts is NOT a recipe for clear thinking. If anything, it makes us more likely to choose one of the two extremes rather than look for agreement and compromise.

It''s not all us, either. The internet is also at fault. The algorithms are designed to show us more of what we have already looked at. That gets us even more biased information and opinion. The net isn't trying to educate us, Its currency is "eyeballs" leading to eventual sales. Unless we take heroic measures we never even see the news being feed to people with different interests and history. I've found that in some cases, like YouTube, it helps to clear history fairly often. But, anyone that thinks we all see the same "facts" is sadly mistaken.

My final observation on these forums, is we fail to appreciate these are real living and breathing people we are talking to. When we are face to face we tend to try a bit harder to see possible agreement or compromise. But, just words on a screen? That's not real people we can sympathize with. I see far more effort to see the other side when we are discussing things around a campfire. That is why I plan to check here much less often and do more of my talking "out there."

Add: This is also why I have chosen to include my actual picture in my profile. I thought it might help a little. shrug...
Very clear thinking and well expressed as usual. If you find an interesting forum, share it please by regular
email. Thanks. Hope the projects are going well.
 
Apparently they are making quite some strides on storage, too, though not nearly enough yet.
https://royalsociety.org/news-resou...gy-programme/large-scale-electricity-storage/
Some key points I noticed:

-There are many storage methods that could be viable. One they are currently using, pumped hydro, will likely not be expanded much due to flatish geography.
-The projected cost of wind+solar+storage is not that bad in the their analysis of the UK. The cost of nuclear is projected to be higher.
-It would probably take at least 25 years to build the infrastructure.

If the UK can do it, I think the US could manage it. We certainly have better solar and wind resources anyway in select locations, and pumped hydro should work well in the Rockies and Adirondacks.
 
I'll have to do some scientific research on that last part. But if it's better to light them on fire, I have a business idea.
"Unambiguously, it is better that methane be burned rather than released into the atmosphere. Methane by itself is a potent greenhouse gas that, despite its shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, has a 100 year average potential for warming about 4X that of carbon dioxide. In addition, it increases the retention of atmospheric water vapor, which increases its actual 100 year average to about 34 times that of carbon dioxide. Thus carbon dioxide emissions from burning are always preferable to methane emissions. This is why flaring is considered to be an environmental protection measure and is required in many places methane is produced in high concentration."

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-worse-f...-is-released-normally-or-burned-when-released
 
But if it's better to light them on fire, I have a business idea.
How about this... forget cows, maybe a device that humans can discretely wear that will automatically light their own farts, convert the energy to electricity, and charge their cells phones... :eek::unsure:
 
Very clear thinking and well expressed as usual. If you find an interesting forum, share it please by regular
email. Thanks. Hope the projects are going well.
I have found a couple RV Forums that might interest me more. Tine will tell. But, while I might not be happy with one or two moderators here, I am not so upset as to encourage anyone else to leave this forum. Nor do I think such a post would last long anyway. :)
 
Here's another one for the techies. (There seems to be a rash of electricity-related articles recently!) Main point seems to be that, aside from storage (as @rruff mentioned), transmission is a huge bottleneck --- and expanding that is really hard in our economic and regulatory system --- and here's this clever thing called "advanced reconductoring" that allows people to get more use out of the current grid (instead of just waiting endlessly for permission to expand it).
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/...e_code=1.jE0.LEew._t0Gb2GLTnU8&smid=url-share
 
.
*Actually*.
Irrelevant.
.
a)
The Evidence:
Americans are bankrupt.
Their military relies on antiques, their military workers managed by incompetent career bureaucrats (significant overlap).
The American navy cannot avoid crashing their rust-buckets onto protected sanctuary reefs.
Why?
Because the inexperienced 'captain' got in a hissy-fit with the inexperienced navigator, and the two ladies refused to talk to each other.
Are you certain these are the American crews the chinese plan to protect their ships?
.
The Evidence:
The American military is stuck, planning to fight World War One in 1914.
What are they conveniently ignoring?
One word -- drones.
.
The Evidence:
Ex-bureaucrat o'bama used drones to murder thousands during weddings.
He also murdered journalists and their families and neighbors.
Just in the last few days, zionist drones murdered Aid Workers delivering food.
The goal of each incident -- terror.
.
Will swarms of $200-drones kill irreplaceable multi-billion fedbux military ships?
And, perhaps, the occasional chinese cargo-ship?
Count on it.
.
.
b)
The Evidence:
Tomorrow's global transportation relies on yesterday's price of cheap fuel.
What lunatic is going to invest a billion fedbux in building a new ship to be launched in five years if today's fuel availability is questionable?
.
The Evidence:
That fuel needs to be shipped -- using global transportation -- from the worst destabilized areas on this particular planet -- Arabia and Venezuela.
.
Believing, despite all the evidence to the contrary, every corner gas-station will have full pumps?
And the gas-station credit-card readers work perfect every time, forever?
[le sigh]
.
The Evidence:
Global transportation relies on competent crews relying on competent equipment.
How many Dali crashes into Baltimore bridges will it take to completely freeze all global transportation?
Three?
Oops -- merely cohencidentally -- we had three in one week.
.
If a kid with a computer can command-control a late-model car to alter its speed and direction, do you suppose a kid with a computer could command-control a ship, a cargo plane, a train traveling near East Palestine, Ohio?
.
I think reliance -- at any level -- on technology is destroying us.
I see the degradation of our species quickly leading to a Real-World version of the movie IDIOCRACY.
.
But you go ahead and play with your cute little theories.
Don't bother the adults.
We are planning on dealing with thirty million low-IQ illegals with zero occupation skills, but incredibly unbelievable reproduction abilities.
.
And that 'thirty million' illegals was the volume as of last month.
I think we can safely say, by the end of this month, we could be looking at forty million illegals.
Each looking for a bed and a meal.
.
Where is an easy place to find a bed and a meal?
The American military.
And you are still saying the chinese will see that mob -- with a thousand different languages -- as the protector of their shipping?
.
[edited to add]
Sure.
Somebody got up on the wrong side of the truck bed this morning!
 
Here's another one for the techies. (There seems to be a rash of electricity-related articles recently!) Main point seems to be that, aside from storage (as @rruff mentioned), transmission is a huge bottleneck --- and expanding that is really hard in our economic and regulatory system --- and here's this clever thing called "advanced reconductoring" that allows people to get more use out of the current grid (instead of just waiting endlessly for permission to expand it).
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/...e_code=1.jE0.LEew._t0Gb2GLTnU8&smid=url-share
Sounds good. Just depends on how long they'll it'll take to negotiate who pays for what. And who is liable, etc.

And the lawsuits, of course.
 
Geoengineering Is Not a Quick Fix for the Climate Crisis, They are modifying the weather & causing all sorts of crazy things, earthquakes, tornado's, extreme cold & heat, snow & rain storms, even volcano's & maybe wars. Read up on it!
https://etcgroup.org/content/warning-overshoot-commission-report
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/02/27/geoengineering-security-war/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ix-for-the-climate-crisis-new-analysis-shows/
Don't take personal offense to this please.

But the person or people that wrote the article in the first and third links doesn't bother to explain what "solar Geoengineering" actually is. Or what means in the context of the article.

If they can't get the basics correct, I can't bother to read after five paragraphs. Generally when this happens, it's someone preaching to the choir, and assumes everyone reading knows what the hell they are talking about. That is propaganda, not journalism. Or hubris.

They finally add in the notes to editor what it actually is. But at that point it is irrelevant.
 
That's why I said READ UP ON IT. I can't post all the info so if interested YOU need to explore it as there's vast info pro & con available. I just posted a fair take on it IMHO. I can verify it's been done 30+ years as my flight instructor got a job in the middle of my training flying weather mod out west seeding thunderstorms to make the hail soft & small as to not damage crops. I had to fly my 3 hrs of night flying & my long solo cross country in the same day in 2 different planes. I flew 12 hrs that day but flying right over the golden dome at Notre Dame landing at South Bend was a great site. He sent me a picture shot from the plane of a tornado less than a mile away. No offense just do your own homework, fair enough?
 
Last edited:
Don't take personal offense to this please.

But the person or people that wrote the article in the first and third links doesn't bother to explain what "solar Geoengineering" actually is. Or what means in the context of the article.

If they can't get the basics correct, I can't bother to read after five paragraphs.
So if this is the wrong definition (below), could you link to a better definition? From the Scientific American link Gr8ful shared:

The public may not realize the scope of a commitment solar geoengineering — or its risks, including the need for long-term international cooperation.

“If we have to keep up a system like this for such a long time, that just increases the possibility of something bad happening,” Baur said.

Solar geoengineering refers to a kind of climate geoengineering aimed at manipulating the amount of solar radiation that hits the planet. The most commonly discussed strategy involves spraying special reflective aerosols into the atmosphere to beam sunlight away from the earth, lowering global temperatures.

It’s just an idea for now. And it’s highly contentious. Solar geoengineering risks and side effects range from possible damage to the earth’s ozone layer to inadvertent changes in global precipitation patterns.
 
So if this is the wrong definition (below), could you link to a better definition? From the Scientific American link Gr8ful shared:

The public may not realize the scope of a commitment solar geoengineering — or its risks, including the need for long-term international cooperation.

“If we have to keep up a system like this for such a long time, that just increases the possibility of something bad happening,” Baur said.

Solar geoengineering refers to a kind of climate geoengineering aimed at manipulating the amount of solar radiation that hits the planet. The most commonly discussed strategy involves spraying special reflective aerosols into the atmosphere to beam sunlight away from the earth, lowering global temperatures.

It’s just an idea for now. And it’s highly contentious. Solar geoengineering risks and side effects range from possible damage to the earth’s ozone layer to inadvertent changes in global precipitation patterns.
The first article explains it after the article as I mentioned before.

The other two are behind a wall for me. So I was only able to read the first. And from what I saw one of the articles I couldn't access was a copy and paste of the first one. I'm glad they added in that explanation.

I'm glad the scientific American article referenced it in the article apparently. The more actual info the better.

I'm only opposed to not giving complete information to sway to the writers point. And apparently the third link didn't. Good for them and good for us.
 
Just search Geoengineering I didn't get any paywalls but I just have a Chromebook & run AdBlock Plus & Privacy Badger, both free but I donate $10/year ea but don't get ads before You Tube either but still get ads built into the YT Vids.
 
I do all of my Internet related things on my phone at this point.
 
Top