Solution for Avoiding Green House Effect.

How on Earth can you state,

"You clearly have a government mentality"

If you read my statement

"The only way for serious change to take place is for the masses to put social and political pressure on our, chosen or otherwise, leaders to get of their procrastinatorial obese posteriors and do something constructive."

You're not making a lot of sense. By the way statements like

"Look how the Wright brothers did it. Langley got his $70,000 government contract for his piece of junk that could not have flown, while the Wrights did the entire thing to first flight for around $2500, freezing their butts off in a wood shack in December."

clearly shows you have never bothered to find out how the Wright brothers were actually able to design the aircraft they did. The engine they used was a concept developed by others, the concept of lift was developed by Otto Lilienthall, a German, and their aircraft was based on designs of kites developed by Lawrence Victor Hargreaves, an Australian. The only new thing the Wright brothers did was the wing warping to control lateral stability. Everything else was technology developed by others and even the wing warping was later ditched and replace with the aileron. Without all the previous work that they drew on they would only ever have been bicycle makers. Whilst it may appear that during history there are individuals that have made quantum leaps in technology, closer inspection will nearly always reveal that the so called quantum leap was actually brought about by combining the ideas of may others that came before.

"I say we need to be "Wright" about this and not take the "WLong" ley approach with committee designs that never seem to quite work."

Isn't that exactly what we are doing at CR4, bringing together the ideas and work of those that came before in a attempt to build a better solution. After all, that is exactly what the Wright brothers did.

"There are massive lakes underground. Read the Bible, or talk to a geologist, think a little. Think of the ground as a sponge…squeeze it and the water level goes up."

Even if you allow for the land being capable of absorbing the same amount of water as the ocean it would only reduce the rise in sea level by the ratio of land to ocean which is considerably less than 50% and still leaves us with a serious problem.

"The "masses" must be equal, but the animals in charge are more "equal" and need their mansions to boot. Rent animal farm and watch it ten times, please. One person's mansion is another person's waste of drywall."

I've done better, I have read the book, several times and it is a satirical look at Stalinism and the way power corrupts. It also ends with a second revolution with the powers to be suffering a similar fate to their oppressive masters. The climax is the statement

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

and seems to be a philosophy to which you subscribe. By the way this is call fascism and I seem to remember your nation, along with mine and many others, going to war against this ideology. Are you now saying this was a mistake?

I have wasted enough time looking at your argument and have seen nothing that convinces me that global warming is a fallacy. Quite the contrary in fact, the arguments that Roger and others have put forward leads me to believe that the problem is even worse than I had originally envisaged. You can continue with you ostrich philosophy but I would suggest you learn to use a snorkel as the hole your head is buried in is likely to fill with water when the ice sheets melt.

PS You still havn't answered all the questions I posted in #52 over a week ago now.

Mr. Masu,

If you were to have taken the time like I have to actually go to Kitty Hawk, talk with the designer of the 1905 replica from the USU that flew, and learned about aerodynamics like I have to understand the flight characteristics of the Wright flyer like I have (very few people in the USA actually know these details, by the way), you would realize that YOU don't have a clue why the Wrights succeeded and failed. Your statement is at the core incorrect and misrepresents what the Wrights did. Again you make statements without the facts and you assume what you were told was true by some, even considering the massive "conspiracy" against the Wrights by the Smithsonian and other government officials. The Wrights basically made the government fools look very foolish and it was pay back, all paid by we the taxpayers. Ya got to love a government that works against their own people, and it happens today. Make a government fool look like an idiot and he will go to no end to destroy you at taxpayer's expense. The Clintons were good at that type of thing.

This is why you continually get the WRONG conclusions about Global Warming and in the end believe in the Global Warming Hoax. One must actually look into the details and put the picture together. Granted, it is not easy, and it takes time, but truth comes at a price, which you seem to not be willing to pay.

As for the Wright flyers, the reason they were successful was due in part to their use of wind tunnel data, scale models and gliders, along with a systematic engineering approach driven by data. They, like most people, had incorrect beliefs, and big egos that kept them from moving on past their initial success. They did not understand ground effect, or lift effects in the 500,000 Re number range. Their low speed wind tunnel data actually lead them to incorrect leading edge designs, which when installed on a canard was likely fatal (do you know why?). They believed that it had to be unstable, which is not correct.

My point, though, about the 2k vs 70k cost difference was a fact of history. Anybody who has worked in government knows what I am talking about. Yes, we all work on the work of others, but some are willing to take the risks and some are not.

I doubt, for example, that one person in CR4 would take the "risk" to go after the Ansari Prize and build an engine that could get 100-250 mpg. I am. Are you? In fact, I am going to put a post up about the Ansari Prize just to see if there is a person out there. I hope I am wrong.

No, you want government to steal from taxpayers and then give that money to "friends" of well connected idiots to try their pet projects, just like Langley. If you think politics is now corrupt, just wait when you get your idea of how things should be done. This is central to why politics has become more and more nasty and bitter. Government has no business in funding your pet project any more that they did in funding Langley's piece of junk.

As for comment #52, that was by Mr. Pink. Are you saying you and Pink are the same person? Hmmm I thought I went through all your comments and answered them. Sorry if I missed it. Please restate your question.

If you are more convinced in GW then you are truly a hopeless case. Fear, Fear and more Fear. Sky is falling, water levels are rising, magnetic pole shifts, snow, heat, change…oh no, government save me. Wake up.

The common theme of libs is there inability to realize that life is non linear and dynamic. They first don't have the math background to know what non-linear or dynamic means. It all sounds just so, well, technical. Numbers, data, …all so confusing. The same idiots who argue for a static model of taxation (Clintons, for example) are the same people who are arguing a static model for the earth's climate without all the feedbacks (what's that???). They all love Marx, even though he was wrong all the time.

The bottom line is nothing must change for a liberal, except what they want to change. They hate competition because it may upset their ideal world or cash flow, drug related or not. They hate climate change because they may have to change or move. They live by fear. They think if they are in control then there is nothing to fear, yet their lives are usually totally out of control and they are on their 3-4 marriage. Same old game. Now that they (boomers) are in control they now want to ban everything. In the sixties it was free love this and that, but now it is ban this and that, as long as they are in charge. We used to call them spoiled little brat(wurst)s, now we call them libs.

You, my friend, have libs disease. It is usually a fatal disease to those around you. It affects other people's wallets, their freedoms and hopes and dreams. It will likely kill a billion or two people if not stopped. Yes, it resembles a mental disorder. It is supported by useful idiots who want to save the world. One usually catches it from those infected posing as professors at propaganda centers masquerading as universities. The more ivy there is around campus the worse the infection can be. But, of course, correlation is not causation…and CO2 does not cause the Globe to Warming any more than ivy causes liberals to become idiots.

There is nothing I could have said that would convince you. Your mind, like a Islamo NAZI, is made up. Don't let the facts confuse you. You have your scriptures from the Imams (Mann et el.). You will continue in fear, just like the Islamos will continue in hate. Reality does not matter, only your beliefs in the Global Warming hoax…Where are your 99 attributes of Global Warming? 5 Pillars or what that 6? Pilgrimage? Ah, and the taxes on those who are disbelievers in Global Warming. Are you going to gore people who don't believe in Al the Gore, prophet of Global Warming. Will you cut my head off if I say he is a fricken idiot? Ah, I guess things don't change…

It seems you prefer to bury your head in the sand and await developments.

Well, the next thing you will feel is someone lossening your belt,...prepare yourself, reality is girding it's loins

Aurizon,

You obviously have not "read" or comprehended anything I have said. I am actively developing each day. I worked on the intake injection this week. Going skiing tomorrow, but I work on it while I go up and down the slopes and ski lifts, all the time worried about global cooling...

Actually sand is quite enjoyable on a nice warm beach on an island that has no access except by seaplane...

Ah yes, I have read it all, all those anguished words of support of the global oil powers, and now your fantasy of a car that gets 250 MPG. I assume this car seats 4 and weighs 2000 pounds or so?

I can hardly wait

Aurizon,

I already explained how to get 100 mpg. 250 mpg is a little harder. You have to get the engine right. Actually I was thinking of an 8 passenger van, but that is just a detail...

I can hardly wait too. I am working as fast as I can...

well, with a well streamlined body and 250 PSI narrow tires and a top speed of 50 KPH and very slow acceleration (or battery surger to get you to speed) you will find it easier

Seaplaneguy you accuse me of not knowing what the Wright brothers did or didn't do. If you had ever bothered to go to the Power House Museum, you would have see a replica of the Wright flyer next to the some of the work Lawrence Hargraves did. You would be amazed at the similarity. Sorry, havn't you been there because it's on the other side of the world, pity? Have a read on what he did

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/hargrave_bio_large_print.html

http://www.design-technology.org/hargraves.htm

Dose any of this look familiar? I wonder where the Wright brothers got the idea for their flyer from? In fact Hargraves was one of the very first people to hang glide, a sport that to this day is very popular at the very spot he first fly.

The Wright brothers were not the first people to leave the ground in a heavier that air craft. What they did was to marry a number of technologies and solve two major problems. The frost problem was lateral stability and the second was a power plant that was powerful and light enough to be supported by the airframe. If you had read enough you would have know that they initially wanted to use an existing power plant but couldn't afford one. They were forced to get one of their employees to build their one based on an existing design.

I am not taking anything from the Wright brothers, their work was brilliant and as you pointed out they looked at the problems and through a series of logical steps moved towards the development of a solution. My point was that without all the work done and freely shared by many others beforehand they wouldn't have ever gotten off the ground.

You have accused others of not reading everything you have posted and of not comprehending what they say then make a statement like

"As for comment #52, that was by Mr. Pink. Are you saying you and Pink are the same person? Hmmm I thought I went through all your comments and answered them. Sorry if I missed it. Please restate your question."

I said post #82 and I even provided a link in several previous posts when I reminded you of the questions no less than 3 times. Not only did you not read everything but you didn't read it correctly and couldn't be bothered to follow a link.

"I doubt, for example, that one person in CR4 would take the "risk" to go after the Ansari Prize and build an engine that could get 100-250 mpg. I am. Are you? In fact, I am going to put a post up about the Ansari Prize just to see if there is a person out there. I hope I am wrong."

And you are probably correct but for the wrong reason.

· Firstly the Ansari prize has already been won.

· Secondly what has going into space got to do with an engine that gets 100 to 250 mpg.

· Thirdly trying to tinker with a dead end technology like a reciprocating internal combustion is a dead end project. What we need is a completely new concept, not an old one that has been tinkered with.

Your last post seems to have degenerated in barrage of name calling, for your information I have a very simple philosophy and that is

· You can do whatever you like provided that it dose not impinge on somebody else's right to do anything they like.

· We exist for one reason and that is the gathering and dissemination of knowledge.

So please fee free to go ahead and do what you like but just stop and look at how it effects others. We all live on the same lump of rock, breath the same air and are surrounded by the same water. Yes you have the right to do as you wish but so do the other 5,999,999,999 and if you get all of them off side don't ask me to come and bail you out.

Ignoring the government, Because It's corrupt, will limit the effectiveness of any of your "solutions". Just like any technical problem, Fixing the symptoms will not solve the actual problem! Be part of a comprehensive solution, sitting on your pile of loot, will only get you so far.

Garthh,

Sitting on a pile of loot? I am actively looking for solutions that can progress over a 20-30 year period, or as long as I can work. You don't tare down a building because you have a leaking roof, you fix it, and then design a new one, line upon line, precept upon precept. Fusion is not the next step, my engine is...

The articles you post Seaplaneguy seem to be all over place and often contradict themselves. Some claim the whole thing is a myth while others claim warming and rising levels of CO₂ are good and some claim that there is really no warming at all and we are just measuring things incorrectly. I will give you an example. One article states

"There is little doubt the air's CO₂ concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution;"

and another

"But is a little rise in the air's CO₂ content really that big a problem?"

But we have seen by direct measurement of trapped pockets of air in ice cores from Antarctica that the current levels of atmospheric CO₂ are the highest they have been in the last 800,000 years and are currently rising almost 60 times the rate than they have over the same period.

It is becoming confusing what you are actually claiming, so I would pose the following questions:

Do you or do you not believe that the atmospheric levels of CO₂ are currently rising and rising at a rate hitherto unrecorded?

If you don't think atmospheric CO₂ levels are rising what would convince you that they are?

If atmospheric CO₂ levels are in fact rising at what point would you become concerned? For example would you be happy if levels remained below current short term exposure toxicity levels, or would you become concerned if the levels rose above that of stuffy room, which is when you start to feel the effects and show symptoms like drowsiness, lack of concentration and impaired vision?

Do you believe that the planet is warming and if it is, is this a positive or negative effect? What would you say were the positive and negative effects of global warming and when would you become concerned?

If you don't deliver the planet is warming what would it take to convince you that it is?

Masu,

I answered this directly and indirectly in several posts. The stuffy room issue is not a factor of co2, but of body odor and methane gas (farts), and perfumes, usually French in origin.

Not recorded? Rate? Earth has been there and done that. They have been up to 7000 as far as I know. A classroom in France was recorded at 4000+. Maybe it was a really an old classroom with lots French hot air, don't know. Maybe that lack of concentration is why the French are so clued out and why our universalities are filled with insane liberals. Just a guess…

I would be very concerned when temperatures got say 5 maybe 6, no 2, no 10 degrees K, no C, no F. Gee actually I would never be concerned because co2 has no effect (see article below) and is not the cause of temperature rise. Hmmm. Funny how facts blow a grand canyon sized hole in your case. Maybe I would break out a sun worshiping device and sing a few hymns to the sun god telling it to chill out. Maybe a moon god or two; maybe there are a few pagan rocks in the Ka'abba shed, a few sister pet rocks, you know that might get the sun jealous. A little sun and Moon worship competition would go a long way to solving GW, throw a few babes in there, do a few touches and goes with my seaplane. Yah, great idea.

Your impaired vision is likely from too much French "kissing" Monica Style. Something to do with confused feedback loops. Just another guess (Ask Bill about that).

Positive effect for sure! Baby, it is 0 F where I am now, and not expected to get above 20 F tomorrow. A little GW would be a nice thing indeed. I prefer to ski at 40 F.

Search under co2 concentration and start reading, there's a lot there.

Look, I think you are big enough to read the many articles on co2 concentration and come to the right conclusion, namely that co2 does not cause global warming, and that "co2 is a good thing." Now go take a drive and feed a plant. They are starving for co2.

"Now go take a drive and feed a plant. They are starving for co2."

Sorry I can't. All the plants died due to lack of water during the current never before seen drought and I can't afford the extortionate $1-16 a liter your conspiring pro fossil fuel mates are charging for petrol.

Just a little thing for you to think about. The current shift in climate has resulted in the worst drought that Australia has seen. Unless there is a serious shift in the weather pattern Sydney has 560 days of water left. Do you understand that? That's the middle of 2008 not 50 or 60 or 100 years down the track it's 18 months away. There is no where for us to move because the entire continent is in the same situation. Melbourne will run out of water in 20 months, Adelaide in 12 months. Your solution is for us to move so get the spare room cleaned out there will be 1,000,000 arriving for new years eve 2007 then 4,000,000 more for the 4^th July 2008 and finally 3,500,000 for Christmas 2008.

This is becoming a waste of time as you refuse to see the reality of the situation and that the current shift in climate is disastrous. Yes the climate has shifted in the past but it has never changed so drastically in such a short time during our presence and we just aren't prepared for it.

I will be starting a new series of threads in the new year looking at possible solutions to our energy needs. You are welcome to participate but the idea is for a constructive discussion on future technologies so please keep politics and the denial that we have a problem out of it.

You've just shown your true colors, seaplaneguy.

Now look what's happened.

I have gone blue in the face and my eyes are all bloodshot.

It must be the rising levels of atmospheric CO₂.

The again maybe it from talking till I am blue in the face to somebody that doesn't want to listen,

Masu, I've been getting worried about you over the last week...

Your avatar has been getting more and more 'ill' by the day.... At first I thought it was the lectures you were giving to a none listening poster on another thread about his energy from nothing machine...

Now I'm certain you should go and lie down in a darkened room for a few days with a selection of tranquilesers...

John.

I think that's an excellent idea Electroman. My new telescope has arrived from the USA and I pick it up today. Now all I need to do is figure out how to use the darn thing. Anyway is 4:40am so I am going to find that dark room and get some shut eye.

Masu,

If you keep it up you will go blind. Give the joy stick a rest...

I think everyone is missing some important information. The earth has warmed and cooled over it's conception and we humans, in our "infinite" intelligence, can log weather tempuratures to the past 100 years. Everything further past is mere scientific guessing from the evidence at hand (which may easily be incomplete). Solar radiation hits the planet with hot and charged particles reaching the earth all the time. We humans dont experience the full brupt of this because of earth's magnetic field. Lose the magnetic field and hot and charged solar particles hits the earth full force. It has been documented that the past 10-15 years has seen a slight change in the earth's magnetic field. The year 1990 was the year a start in the rise in temperatures could be decidedly noticed. Could the these radioactive heat particles from the sun, passing through the magnetic field, be causing the harn to ice caps and to human skin? It could take 300-3000 years for the magnetic fields to change, according to scientists. whether CO2 is a culprit or not, if the magnetic field changes, we're all in a world of hurt. Solar radiation is a light bulb compared to what could happen to us during this magnetic flip. Australia is near the pole and the rise in heat could be linked to the lessening of the magnetic field near the south pole. High CO2 couldn't harm humans as much as the full force of solar radiation hitting human skin. Some thoughts to those at the caps (including Australia).

- simpleton

ps...Time magazine did an article talking about "the next ice age" back in the 70's, the height of poor vehicle efficiency and belching of smoke from crappy american cars. What happened then that the "scientist's" were talking about a cooling trend, now 30 years later a warming trend. Science needs to get it's head out of political ass and talk facts, not philosophy.

Guest, I quote you;

"The earth has warmed and cooled over it's conception and we humans, in our "infinite" intelligence, can log weather tempuratures to the past 100 years. Everything further past is mere scientific guessing from the evidence at hand (which may easily be incomplete)."

Whilst we may not be able to directly measure the temperature from more than a couple of centuries ago we can directly measure the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere as far back as 800,000 years ago. When snow fall it traps tiny pockets of air in it and in Antarctica the ice sheet has been steadily trapping pockets of air for hundreds of thousands or years. So far it has been possible by drilling ice cores to extract the air from these trapped pockets and analyze their composition. This clearly shows that the level of atmospheric CO₂ is not only higher now than it has been for at least the past 800,000 years but the rate the level is rising is almost 60 times faster than it has ever risen in the past 800,000 years.

The question begs that since the current rate of CO₂ increase is unique to the last 17 years what could be causing it that was never there before? There is only one possible answer to this question and that is us. Put simply the human race's activities can be the only thing that is driving the massive increase in atmospheric CO₂ levels.

Again I quote you;

"It has been documented that the past 10-15 years has seen a slight change in the earth's magnetic field. The year 1990 was the year a start in the rise in temperatures could be decidedly noticed. Could the these radioactive heat particles from the sun, passing through the magnetic field, be causing the harn to ice caps and to human skin? It could take 300-3000 years for the magnetic fields to change, according to scientists. whether CO2 is a culprit or not, if the magnetic field changes, we're all in a world of hurt."

The earths magnetic field has switched polarity many times in the past and the last change was about 780,00 years ago. Since we have samples of the atmosphere from 800,000 years back we can look at what the atmosphere was like during the last change. Since the Ice cap in Antarctica is older than the last reversal of magnetic poles then I would postulate that since it survived the last reversal a future reversal would not result in its melting. I would further postulate that the current rise in CO₂ levels could also not be linked to the potential reversal of magnetic poles as during the last change there was no evidence of such a rapid increase of or levels as high as we are now seeing.

I further quote you;

"Time magazine did an article talking about "the next ice age" back in the 70's, the height of poor vehicle efficiency and belching of smoke from crappy american cars. What happened then that the "scientist's" were talking about a cooling trend, now 30 years later a warming trend. Science needs to get it's head out of political ass and talk facts, not philosophy."

This can also be used to theorize that our activities are having an even bigger impact on the natural cycles of the planet. We may indeed have been heading towards a period of global cooling in the 1970s but human activity has not just caused earth to warm but has reversed a natural cooling trend.

Finally you stated;

"Australia is near the pole and the rise in heat could be linked to the lessening of the magnetic field near the south pole. High CO2 couldn't harm humans as much as the full force of solar radiation hitting human skin. Some thoughts to those at the caps (including Australia)."

Firstly I would ask you to go an look at either a map of the world or a globe. Australia is no where near the south pole. The tropic of Capricorn runs slap bang through the middle of the continent. By contrast the tropic of Cancer doesn't even come close to continental USA let alone cross it. To reiterate what I said earlier the Antarctic ice cap appears to have survived the last reversal so if the poles are indeed reversing why wouldn't it survive another?

Finally the hole in the ozone layer, which I would hazard to say was hard to deny was the result of human activities, is causing such an increase in UV radiation in Australia, that every person on the continent now has a 50% chance of developing a melanoma during their life time. Would not this, considering Australia's distance form the south pole, indeed be a serious concern and indictment of our destructive activities?

We have scientific ways of determining weather and global climate back several millions of years at least. We have ways of knowing the greenhouse gas levels of the past several million years. We have ocean current data, sedimentation data, glacial data, salinity of the oceans data. Rainfall and weather patterns data, blah, blah, blah.

I just look out the window. Two huge icebergs that broke off of Antarctica just floated past recently, and where has our fox and Franz Josef glaciers gone! Scientests are saying that summer temperatures may hit 40 degrees C (about 10-15 degrees higher than previous averages).

Somethings certainly afoot.

I suspect seaplane guy is in the pay of the fuel and refrigeration lobby. Explains a lot..

I note that you still havn't answered the questions I asked in post #82and #86. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't receive notification of the first post but now since you have returned to the thread it's clear you don't intend to answer the questions.

That poses the further question of why will you not answer some simple questions that would clarify you position and clear up the inconsistencies that are raised by the articles you put forward as proof that global warming in a conspiracy.

I will withhold my comments and give you a further chance to respond to the questions I have posed but patience can only be stretched so far.

Ok Seaplaneguy, its been almost a week since I posted the questions that would have clarified your position and whether or not it could be you that is the victim of a conspiracy. You have returned to this forum on at least 3 occasions since then and I have given you the benefit of the doubt over notification twice but you have steadfastly refused to answer some simple questions.

Therefore the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is the answers would undermine and irreparably damage you argument. Subsequently I would postulate that;

You are in fact wrong, global warming is a reality, the unregulated burning of fossil fuels and the associated discharge of CO₂ into the atmosphere is a major contributing factor and it is in fact you that is the victim of a conspiracy to pervert the truth and reality on the subject of global warming.

My client, Seaplaneguy, pleads guilty through ignorance and begs the court's mercy

Masu,

I must have missed this post. Excusssssssse me.

Ah, conspiracy? NOT.

Seaplaneguy is right. Repeat it 1000 times...

Global Warming is a hoax and CO2 is a good thing. We need to triple concentrations if it were possible. You cannot be "green" and be against the clean burning (only co2 and h2o as products, no NOx, CO, and HCLs) of "fossils" fuels. Plants depend on us to get the co2 concentrations up. So, go take a drive and feed a tree...

There are thousands of people conspiring to get gain and power over people. You and Mr. Pink might be considered conspirators....scary as that may seems. How do I know you are not a commi liberal wanting to destroy the USA economy to subjugate us to the will of the likes of Kofi Anon? Have you been listening to "coast to coast am" on the radio too much??? hmmm. Maybe the Aliens are coming,yes, that's it. Little green men that are envious of our greening planet...they want to stop us from greening the planet with more co2. Yes, and Al Gore really has Spock ears, can't you tell.

Masu, you need to take some time off, open some presents under the Christmas tree, kiss a few people under the (nuclear) missile toe, and chill out...or "they" will come and get you and...dare I say more...

The shift away from imported oil and towards enzymatic ethanol from waste cellulose that will take place over the next 50 years will invigorate the US economy. Do you have any idea how badly the economy is drained by high priced oil that is simply burned while others take the $$ and buy the USA and ROW cheap.

The same companies that now sell oil are going into ethanol. Read latest Scientific American www.sciam.com