Mount St. Helens Glacier

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm just waiting for the first flight to the mars colony Shipping to get parts is going to be a bi*** though
 
The only good tree is a dead tree!

Time out for a little treehugging levity...
 

Attachments

  • treehugger compressed annotated.JPG
    51.5 KB · Views: 315
Last edited:

It's being blown out of proportion as a motivator for a good cause. If everyone were to junk all the inefficient or pollution generating gadgets, with in the time frame Al Gore states that we must act, it's going to create one huge pile of crap. Automobiles can be crushed and remelted, all the plastic, oil, grease, rubber and crap just burns off, releasing what into the atmosphere. So much cleaner then just driving them... Jump blindly if you want, many do, but will we die because we might have caused or accelerated a natural phenomenon, or we die by our own junk and garbage we created, trying to buy a few more years. Regardless of the cause, we are all going to die eventually, no one lives forever. People have been searching for a magic elixir to prolong life, for a very long time, and willing to pay any price.




I'm not too clear on the ozone issue, just remember it was on the news a lot, and the grown ups discussed it frequently. I wasn't even in my teens, and had little interest. Pretty sure Ice Age was involved though.
 
crashsite said:
...Are you absolutely certain that, "hugging" is the only thing he's doing to that poor tree?
Click to expand...
That's not "him", that's me! We all know that hugging can be the first step on the road to perdition. That's all I'm gonna say.
 
Had to look that up.
per·di·tion (pr-dshn)
n.
1.
a. Loss of the soul; eternal damnation

lol
 
Okay, ok, back to your idea of shading the poles. Would not these shades have to be some 2Km high, or maybe even higher, and span some great distances? Who could build such a thing, and how would you make it to withstand the forces of mother nature? And who knows what kind of impact this would have on the overall climate. I understand what you are saying, but I just don't think so.
 
Reflecting the solar radiation will have some effect (although it'd be very small) as not all the radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.

What's the bet thing we can do to benfit the environment?

We should burn all our rubbish to generate electricity rather than putting it in landfill.

  • Landfill is extreemely damaging to the environment - the ground water can be poisoned from chemicals leaching out into the soild, ecosystems are destroyed when the land is cleared for landfill.
  • Energy is required to bury the waste which is wasteful.
  • A large proportion of the waste consists of paper, wood and food which are all carbon neutral.
  • The energy source will displace fossil fuels.
  • Modern incineration technology is very clean - nearly all heavy metals and sulpher/nitrous oxides can be removed from the exhaust fumes.
  • Inorganic elements found in the ash can be reclaimed and recycled.
I can't think of a single reason not to burn waste to generate electricity - it's just common sense. I don't understand why it hasn't totally replaced landfill.
 
Last edited:
I can't think of a single reason not to burn waste to generate electricity
Click to expand...

Umm, cause we need to breathe. Also, let us not forget "Acid Rain"

Although Sulfuric acid does wonders for making my hair look blond, I would rather do it the natural way and use bleach
 
Last edited:
You've missed the point that modern incineration technology is very clean and the sulpher which causes acid rain is removed.
 
Hero999 said:
You've missed the point that modern incineration technology is very clean and the sulpher which causes acid rain is removed.
Click to expand...

I agree, but burning still releases carbon. As in "carbon footprint"
 
3v0 said:
I agree, but burning still releases carbon. As in "carbon footprint"
Click to expand...

Carbon comes in many forms. I think it's only one or two isotopes that might be causing the 'greenhouse effect' attributed to mankind, but since it's almost imposable to just measure these, the eco-guys just lump all carbon emmisions together as bad. Larger, more impressive numbers...

I have to agree that building walls to provide shade for glaciers wouldn't be a great idea. It would interfere too much with the natural flow. Just too intrusive, and you'd have to keep building it higher. Would also block the wind. I think the time and resources would be better spent on preparing for the warmer climate. Perhaps a different sort of shelter, underground/water. Indoor food production. Seems hydroponics is a more efficient way to grow crops, and easier to control pests, molds and fungus. No flooding to destroy crops either, which will be a real plus when the oceans rise 20 or so feet.

Instead of wall for the glaciers, how about walls to hold back the seas. Some countries already have huge walls, well guess Germany tore their's down, but there's China, and the USA is building one. Guess ours won't hold back the sea, any better then it stops the illegal aliens...
 
With current technology it would be an impossible undertaking, but I like the idea of placing solar shades in space to deflect energy away from the earth. Perhaps if we could manufacture needed material in space from what is already there.

If the shades could be manipulated to provide shade over the most troubled parts of the earth it would be a good start. With some work we could direct rain to where is is needed. A step in the direction of a climate controlled earth.

To the tree hungers who think mother nature is our friend.
 
Well...it's something to at least try...

HarveyH42 said:
...Perhaps a different sort of shelter, underground/water. Indoor food production. Seems hydroponics is a more efficient way to grow crops, and easier to control pests, molds and fungus....
Click to expand...

So, let me see here. Essentially, we would become the Morlocks. I guess we could only hope that there would be some temptingly delicious Elois roaming the surface for when we get a hankering for a little con carne to go with our hydroponically grown frijoles?

3v0 said:
With current technology it would be an impossible undertaking, but I like the idea of placing solar shades in space to deflect energy away from the earth. Perhaps if we could manufacture needed material in space from what is already there.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that it would take kilometer high structrues (perhaps 4 or 5 meters). Especially true in higher latitudes, the sun casts long shadows. The Google earth placemark referenced shows a small, relatively shallow valley (only about a mile ling) where the ice is probably pretty close to being permanent. It's improper procedure here but, I figure Google Earth is probably commonly used around these parts so am referencing an external .kmz file

**broken link removed**

The feature is near the edge of the Greenlandic ice cap, just east of the Thule airbase.

The idea is not to shield all the ice from the sun...just a little of it and to do so in such a way as to affect the rest. Sort of analogous to a catalytic reaction.

The shield (essentially fencing) would only need to shield light. It would be beneficial for it to be porous to airflow and to have many gaps so the local fauna would not be impeded (polar bears, penguins, arctic foxes and hares, etc.). The fencing would also have to be simple to place and move since moving it would be pretty much a full-time job for several crews.

The Earth "Umbrella"

Regarding the, Earth Umbrella. Big problem is the solar wind. What do you anchor the umbrella to? You can't just leave it flapping in the solar breeze. That would be like trying to fly a kite without a string.
 
Last edited:
crashsite said:
The Earth "Umbrella"

Regarding the, Earth Umbrella. Big problem is the solar wind. What do you anchor the umbrella to? You can't just leave it flapping in the solar breeze. That would be like trying to fly a kite without a string.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah.
Like going to the moon was not a problem.

So far it is the only thing mentioned that is not a bandaid.
 
3v0 said:
I agree, but burning still releases carbon. As in "carbon footprint"
Click to expand...
But a lot of the carbon in rubbish is from plants (carbon neutral) and that the energy would have only been produced from fossil fuels anyway. I'm not proposing this as an alternative to greener technologies such as wind, hydroelectric and solar but as a replacement for coal, oil and gas fired power stations.
 

I agrre with you. What I was trying to say is that garbage is better than carbon neutral. It has tied up carbon that was once in the air. Burning brings it back to carbon neutral. Which is not as good, since we seem to have an execess of carbon. But much better then buring fossile fuel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
electrical grid project for students in middle school
Replies
1
Views
4K
Mr RB
J
What's more efficient, storage / direct feed
Replies
14
Views
3K
tcmtech
F
  • Locked
Stanley Meyers and Zero-Point energy
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
60K
Nigel Goodwin
F
Stanley Meyers
Replies
1
Views
5K
blueroomelectronics
I
Some interesting stuff
Replies
0
Views
2K
irisd
I
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…