Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real. Full Story
PHD

Overton, TX

#7331 Dec 13, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Should have stayed with the flat-Earth concept.......'here be dragons' beyond.......
The only thing that is flat, why the top of your head.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#7332 Dec 13, 2012
litesong wrote:
Should have stayed with the flat-Earth concept.......'here be dragons' beyond.......
//////////
pududd wrote:
The only thing that is flat, why the top of your head.
//////////
litesong wrote:
pududd follows me around like a puppy dog & copies my ideas, tho he makes them worse in the process. But his copied ideas are better than his original thoughts.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7333 Dec 14, 2012
litesout wrote:
litesong wrote:
Should have stayed with the flat-Earth concept.......'here be dragons' beyond.......
//////////
pududd wrote:
The only thing that is flat, why the top of your head.
//////////
litesout wrote:
pududd follows me around like a puppy dog & copies my ideas, tho he makes them worse in the process. But his copied ideas are better than his original thoughts.
So if I copy your ideas and make them worse your ideas must have by your own words useless. Now that you cleared that up it could be the first step in your recovery. Oh still the only flat thing here is the top of your head.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7334 Dec 14, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry you’re a little behind but my solar panels do an excellent job charging my batteries. Wind the jury is still out but the new tech should make a big change in efficiency.Heck my solar panel works well with a full moon.
Behind? okaaay...
There are over 60 million passenger cars in the US alone. Maybe 1/10th of 1% of those are electric (not counting golf carts, mobility scooters, etc.). At .001 kw generated per square foot and between 1.8 - 2.7 kw and 6-10 hr to charge, how many panels would it take to maintain a mere 60,000 electric vehicles? If the goal is to replace the internal combustion engine altogether, that doesn't count for trucks, buses, landscape, farm and construction equipment, etc. etc. where toting batteries is (at the very least) impractical.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#7336 Dec 14, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
.......toting batteries is .... impractical.
Electric motors are wonderful, in-city pollution freedom(almost no pollution, no where, with hydro, wind or solar power), providing power in small packages, highest torque at lowest rpms, three TIMES the efficiency of 100 plus years of internal combustion engine development, simple, & providing utter quietness & smoothness, compared to ICE.

Work the battery technology & the miracles will follow.



“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7337 Dec 14, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Electric motors are wonderful, in-city pollution freedom(almost no pollution, no where, with hydro, wind or solar power), providing power in small packages, highest torque at lowest rpms, three TIMES the efficiency of 100 plus years of internal combustion engine development, simple, & providing utter quietness & smoothness, compared to ICE.
Work the battery technology & the miracles will follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =369h-SEBXd8XX
Wonderful? Hmm. Okay.
It always comes down to the right tool for the right job. For personal transportation the electric motor is fine. For harvesting a few thousand acres of wheat - not so much.
There are many circumstances where toting batteries is impractical. The car in the video is carrying well over 600 lbs of lead acid batteries to feed its 300 HP motor, and the cost for these was probably around $9,000. A truck battery can easily weigh 6 times as much as the ones used in the White Zombie, and most trucks carry 2 just for the starter. To provide the amp hours to RUN a school bus, dump truck or semi would be off the charts.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7338 Dec 14, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Behind? okaaay...
There are over 60 million passenger cars in the US alone. Maybe 1/10th of 1% of those are electric (not counting golf carts, mobility scooters, etc.). At .001 kw generated per square foot and between 1.8 - 2.7 kw and 6-10 hr to charge, how many panels would it take to maintain a mere 60,000 electric vehicles? If the goal is to replace the internal combustion engine altogether, that doesn't count for trucks, buses, landscape, farm and construction equipment, etc. etc. where toting batteries is (at the very least) impractical.
Inductive charging.Space Solar Power. Not practical but soon will be.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7339 Dec 14, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Inductive charging.Space Solar Power. Not practical but soon will be.
Please don't go there. You'll look as silly as Tina Less Than a Box of Rocks.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7340 Dec 14, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't go there. You'll look as silly as Tina Less Than a Box of Rocks.
You look even sillier keeping yourself limited.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7341 Dec 14, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You look even sillier keeping yourself limited.
I said please, didn't I?
Get back with me after you've rewound a few motors. Inductive charging for high amperage applications? Inverse square law is just one of a half dozen factors against that gimmick - and that's all it is for 99% of applications, a gimmick. If your device is close enough for inductive charging you are better off just to plug it in. Space based power generation for terrestrial consumption? Not feasible for another dozen reasons.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7342 Dec 14, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I said please, didn't I?
Get back with me after you've rewound a few motors. Inductive charging for high amperage applications? Inverse square law is just one of a half dozen factors against that gimmick - and that's all it is for 99% of applications, a gimmick. If your device is close enough for inductive charging you are better off just to plug it in. Space based power generation for terrestrial consumption? Not feasible for another dozen reasons.
I said this is a Free America didn't I? You can limit your thinking if you choose. Henry Ford was called a gimmick with his assembly line and he was able to industrialize the world. Ya that rewind thing you talk about was covered in basic electricity class. Not feasible is because you choose to limit yourself.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7343 Dec 14, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>I said this is a Free America didn't I? You can limit your thinking if you choose. Henry Ford was called a gimmick with his assembly line and he was able to industrialize the world. Ya that rewind thing you talk about was covered in basic electricity class. Not feasible is because you choose to limit yourself.
rewind was covered in electricity class... okay. I guess we're done here. You have a nice day, now.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7344 Dec 14, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
rewind was covered in electricity class... okay. I guess we're done here. You have a nice day, now.
It was basic electricity class.Only if you choose to be done. You have a greater day.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7345 Dec 14, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
rewind was covered in electricity class... okay. I guess we're done here. You have a nice day, now.
www.ehow.com/how_8777580_do-yo urself-winding-electric-motor. html
Maybe this will help.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7346 Dec 14, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only am I capable of learning, I'm also capable of comprehending and extrapolating. Try it.
Greenland is not the only north polar land area.
The southern ARCTIC pole is completely land bound.
Water vapor is a major part of the greenhouse mechanism.
Water that falls on land is not forever bound to stay on land - and pay attentions to this: Even if it falls as snow and becomes glacial ice, it can and probably will eventually melt and flow into an ocean.
I am assuming that you are talking about Antartica and the funny thing is that based on the measurements and other evidence that it is getting thicker. Numerous man made items have been abandoned for one reason or another and quickly buried. Equipment like cranes for example.

So how can you extrapolate that Antartica is shrinking when there is plenty of proof that the sheet is thickening? That if anything the mass of the Antartic ice sheet is if anything growing.

http://www.fogonazos.es/2007/04/recovery-of-a...

http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_B...
PHD

Overton, TX

#7347 Dec 15, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I am assuming that you are talking about Antartica and the funny thing is that based on the measurements and other evidence that it is getting thicker. Numerous man made items have been abandoned for one reason or another and quickly buried. Equipment like cranes for example.
So how can you extrapolate that Antartica is shrinking when there is plenty of proof that the sheet is thickening? That if anything the mass of the Antartic ice sheet is if anything growing.
http://www.fogonazos.es/2007/04/recovery-of-a...
http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_B...
It's Antarctica!!! Yes you do make an ASSumption of your---self again.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7348 Dec 16, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
MTBE doesn't break down in soils and is far, far more toxic than ethanol.
What's the lethal dose to 50% of the subjects exposed? Ethanol is more toxic than water, but maybe less than MTBE. I'd like to see the numbers.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
You do not want MTBE in your aquifer.
I want water in my aquifer and and more alcohol in my beer than in my gas tank. Call me old fashioned; I like gasoline and fossil fuel derivatives. Burn the old and keep the new.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
A better alternative to alcohol or MTBE would be to move toward biofuels that don't originate from food stocks
Just as bad; diverting land, labor and investment from food to fuel increases the price of food. A better alternative to alcohol is fossil fuel, natural gas, oil and coal powered fuel cells.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
and to break from traditional reciprocating engine technology.
Or let the market decide; instead of fool politicians and crony green business buddies. There's nothing wrong with internal combustion that a muffler can't fix.

These environmentalists would prefer transportation by wind powered propellers on beanie caps, to the internal combustion engine.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7349 Dec 16, 2012
The climate change really really means nothing other than a new method for the scare monger AKA "litesout".

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7350 Dec 16, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I am assuming that you are talking about Antartica and the funny thing is that based on the measurements and other evidence that it is getting thicker. Numerous man made items have been abandoned for one reason or another and quickly buried. Equipment like cranes for example.
So how can you extrapolate that Antartica is shrinking when there is plenty of proof that the sheet is thickening? That if anything the mass of the Antartic ice sheet is if anything growing.
http://www.fogonazos.es/2007/04/recovery-of-a...
http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_B...
There has to be moisture in the air to precipitate, and the colder the air, the less moisture it can hold. The Antarctic ice is getting thicker, but this is not despite warmer global temperatures, but because of changing weather. Next, you might say that the area of antarctic sea ice is getting larger - more of the same. It is slightly larger, while the arctic sea ice has been significantly smaller.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7351 Dec 16, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I am assuming that you are talking about Antartica and the funny thing is that based on the measurements and other evidence that it is getting thicker. Numerous man made items have been abandoned for one reason or another and quickly buried. Equipment like cranes for example.
So how can you extrapolate that Antartica is shrinking when there is plenty of proof that the sheet is thickening? That if anything the mass of the Antartic ice sheet is if anything growing.
http://www.fogonazos.es/2007/04/recovery-of-a...
http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_B...
Snow falls on top and buries stuff.

Ice flows out at the sides and melts.

What's important is which happens faster?

The answer is more is melting.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,126,788
Abby 10-24 2 min RACE 16
Abby 10-23-14 8 min pde 7
Emanuel set to outline re-election agenda in fi... 12 min Le Jimbo 7
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 17 min Learn to Read 179,402
Amy 10-24 47 min PEllen 7
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 55 min TRD 68,659
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]