The climate is warming, the water is rising but by how much? 7 metres... Bullshit.
First it is mostly natural gain, the total energy consumption as heat will not raise the earth that much. So we get a bit of heat entrapped by naturally occurring methane and a raise of 100PPM in Co2some days but not other days? There is something wrong there.
In the arctic most of the ice cap is floating. When it melts, it will contribute nothing to any change in the sea level. Similarly on the sea ice around the Antarctic. Antarctic has 14 x10^6 km^2 of land mass with about 2 meters of ice on average. The oceans have occupies 360 x10^6 km^2 so when the Antarctic melts, the ocean will rise a whopping 8 cms. So that is perhaps only half of the ice. What am I missing here?
The other big factor in water rise is the deltas are consolidating, as these were and are being deposited under consolidated. There is no doubt here, but that has nothing to do with water level rise but subsidence of land. Oh well, shit happens.
Alberta would benefit by trapping spring melt water on the land. It could be used for irrigation and or wetlands, both of which would fix Co2.
Oils sand oil is dirtier than Coal per giga-joule of energy, so what is Notely really shutting down coal for? and where are we going to get fly-ash from?
Notely reminds me of a quote from Genghis ...
Happiness lies in conquering one’s enemies,
in driving them in front of oneself,
in taking their property,
in savoring their despair,
in outraging their wives and daughters.
Genghis Khan
Monday, December 21, 2015
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Notley error
"The global climate summit in Paris forged a landmark agreement on
Saturday, setting the course for a historic transformation of the
world's fossil fuel-driven economy within decades in a bid to arrest
global warming."
But when I wander around this neighborhood there are the wood burners. As our NDP government runs up the price of natural gas and electricity, what are we old hill billies going to switch to? We have three obvious choices, wood, coal and used oil. There is a old dirt mover guy that heats his home and shop with used oil from his scrapers and cats. Hot water boiler and bunker C burner, but what do I know. That is not clean energy.
In the last few years, I have watched a bunch of coal stoker hot water systems go in. I can smell them as I wonder around, so these are not clean. When I drive past the big coal electricity plan there is no smell. So which do you think is cleaner? That coal plant burns powdered coal light with a natural gas flame. High temperature, quick burn, flyash cooling and collection. Very little vapor goes up those stacks. Co2 is clear at least, keeping the particulate down at least.
So if Notley wants clean, natural gas and electric must be cheap, and high temperature coal is as clean as any carbon fossil fuel can be. Renewable fuel like corn oil or canola just not there yet, and the energy balance is not good. Natural gas, CH4 produces Co2 and H2O, while coal produces just Co2 and trace minerals that mostly are collected in the flyash. The energy balance is good on coal, but the Co2 to energy balance is not as good a natural gas, but the cost is much less.
But how are is Notley going to control us wood burners? By government decree? Good Luck. Can the government refuse to let us heat our homes but the available means?
Here adds say the pollution control is good for the economy, but it is not good for the home owner. We are the ones who will be forced to drive the economy with money to buy natural gas. That is bullshit economy, not real economy.
But what do I know?
But when I wander around this neighborhood there are the wood burners. As our NDP government runs up the price of natural gas and electricity, what are we old hill billies going to switch to? We have three obvious choices, wood, coal and used oil. There is a old dirt mover guy that heats his home and shop with used oil from his scrapers and cats. Hot water boiler and bunker C burner, but what do I know. That is not clean energy.
In the last few years, I have watched a bunch of coal stoker hot water systems go in. I can smell them as I wonder around, so these are not clean. When I drive past the big coal electricity plan there is no smell. So which do you think is cleaner? That coal plant burns powdered coal light with a natural gas flame. High temperature, quick burn, flyash cooling and collection. Very little vapor goes up those stacks. Co2 is clear at least, keeping the particulate down at least.
So if Notley wants clean, natural gas and electric must be cheap, and high temperature coal is as clean as any carbon fossil fuel can be. Renewable fuel like corn oil or canola just not there yet, and the energy balance is not good. Natural gas, CH4 produces Co2 and H2O, while coal produces just Co2 and trace minerals that mostly are collected in the flyash. The energy balance is good on coal, but the Co2 to energy balance is not as good a natural gas, but the cost is much less.
But how are is Notley going to control us wood burners? By government decree? Good Luck. Can the government refuse to let us heat our homes but the available means?
Here adds say the pollution control is good for the economy, but it is not good for the home owner. We are the ones who will be forced to drive the economy with money to buy natural gas. That is bullshit economy, not real economy.
But what do I know?
Friday, December 4, 2015
climate change
Much of the energy we consume is converted into low grade heat and dumped to the environment; even much of the motion resistance is low grade heat, all contributing to climate change. But larger than that is the reduction of the heat sink in these parts.
Around here, Northern Alberta somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the land was swam before the farmers cleared and ditched. That was a lot of land, a lot of water providing a major heat sink. Water has a thermal capacity of 1 kilo-calorie per kilogram per degree C, or 4200 joules per kilogram per degree Centigrade. Soil, is much less, some 10 to 20 percent, depending on the moisture content. In addition, mass transfer, circulation, keeps the surface of the water much closer to the water mass temperature, unlike soil where a few inches below the surface will be much cooler in summer.
All this proposed taxation to deter consumption is fine, but what is done with the moneys is important. It can be targeted at keeping mans contribution low, or it could be utilized to deal with the inevitable climate warming. Some of that warming is natural, some is man made. At some point we will enter a cooling cycle, and we humans will freeze out... Oh well, there are too many of us anyway. We need to survive until then. Here, restoring the heat sinks would be a good place to start. And then there is the latent heat of vaporization to also consider. This could add considerable to both the cooling and short cycle rainfall, making farming more durable on the prairies.
Spray that water on the land, and we will capture carbon, cool the climate and generate potential short cycle rainfall. Dump sewage on the land in the fall, and that will act as fertilizer. We will need to watch the salt content though. Too much salt and the land will be destroyed. There are few crops that will grow in salted land, and even less that can be harvested to remove the salt.
But then, I was only a geotechnical engineer, so this is slightly out of my area of specialization, not out of my area of training. I specialized where the work was at the time.
Anyway, what do I know?
Around here, Northern Alberta somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the land was swam before the farmers cleared and ditched. That was a lot of land, a lot of water providing a major heat sink. Water has a thermal capacity of 1 kilo-calorie per kilogram per degree C, or 4200 joules per kilogram per degree Centigrade. Soil, is much less, some 10 to 20 percent, depending on the moisture content. In addition, mass transfer, circulation, keeps the surface of the water much closer to the water mass temperature, unlike soil where a few inches below the surface will be much cooler in summer.
All this proposed taxation to deter consumption is fine, but what is done with the moneys is important. It can be targeted at keeping mans contribution low, or it could be utilized to deal with the inevitable climate warming. Some of that warming is natural, some is man made. At some point we will enter a cooling cycle, and we humans will freeze out... Oh well, there are too many of us anyway. We need to survive until then. Here, restoring the heat sinks would be a good place to start. And then there is the latent heat of vaporization to also consider. This could add considerable to both the cooling and short cycle rainfall, making farming more durable on the prairies.
Spray that water on the land, and we will capture carbon, cool the climate and generate potential short cycle rainfall. Dump sewage on the land in the fall, and that will act as fertilizer. We will need to watch the salt content though. Too much salt and the land will be destroyed. There are few crops that will grow in salted land, and even less that can be harvested to remove the salt.
But then, I was only a geotechnical engineer, so this is slightly out of my area of specialization, not out of my area of training. I specialized where the work was at the time.
Anyway, what do I know?
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Are all religions just... well, bool?
Bool is a new hip term for bullshit. OK. You must believe X,Y, and Z. Because if you do not... well you are sentenced to spend the remainder of eternity in an unpleasant place. Bool. The word will carry on, just like it did before we were. We were not, we were, we will not be, who should care?
All religions are efforts to control people from the grave. What is important is how we live this life. That is all we know that we get.
Treat other people was we would like to be treated. That says would like, not as we expect to be treated. Many of us are so pressured by society that we have come to expect to be treated in specific ways that we do not like, but accept. The people in authority are not in control, but we allow them to treat us like they are. We become to expect it and accept it. It is not right, so treat people like we would like to be treated becomes the first commandment of the atheist creed. Mostly from others, I just want to be left alone to do my thing. This is not saying anything about friends, relatives, but just the general population. We are born to cooperate together to create a great flourishing society without the need to eliminate other people. Telephone solicitors just f-off.
So what should be the second commandment of modern culture? Believe only that which we can demonstrate to be likely true. Some thing are up to us and some are not. That which is up to us are our opinions, our values, our beliefs, our motivations, our motives, our decisions, and our rules of conduct. All else is beyond our direct control, and there is a bunch of stuff that we have some influence over, but not control. We, after becoming adults, have control over our beliefs. We have the power of assent, that is accept or reject any idea. If we have similar beliefs, we can accept the same concepts. The problem arises when people feel trapped in a stone age belief system, that is trapped by stone age beliefs into a stone age belief system. Is that lunatic thinking or what?
So how can one step out of the stone age thinking? Just put down the belief that beliefs are fixed to history. Only some fraction of what I believe is correct, and that is true of all humans. Believing that our beliefs are 100% correct, rather that some of our beliefs are probably correct, some dead wrong, is a delusion created by our ancestors to control the people. Religion is all about control of the masses.
Amsterdam, has the concept of license, regulate, and tax the deviant behaviors. That may be the way to move forward. They banned religions buildings at one point in there history. Churches became meeting halls. Discussion about some of these issues came into the open. They became a open society, rather than the closed segmented society we have today, which often claims to be open. Open societies are ones which are in the process of change, they have few fixed beliefs. Any topic is not forbidden by law, belief is tolerated, no matter idiotic. The prime directive applies, not to interfere in alien life and beliefs.
But then what do I know?
All religions are efforts to control people from the grave. What is important is how we live this life. That is all we know that we get.
Treat other people was we would like to be treated. That says would like, not as we expect to be treated. Many of us are so pressured by society that we have come to expect to be treated in specific ways that we do not like, but accept. The people in authority are not in control, but we allow them to treat us like they are. We become to expect it and accept it. It is not right, so treat people like we would like to be treated becomes the first commandment of the atheist creed. Mostly from others, I just want to be left alone to do my thing. This is not saying anything about friends, relatives, but just the general population. We are born to cooperate together to create a great flourishing society without the need to eliminate other people. Telephone solicitors just f-off.
So what should be the second commandment of modern culture? Believe only that which we can demonstrate to be likely true. Some thing are up to us and some are not. That which is up to us are our opinions, our values, our beliefs, our motivations, our motives, our decisions, and our rules of conduct. All else is beyond our direct control, and there is a bunch of stuff that we have some influence over, but not control. We, after becoming adults, have control over our beliefs. We have the power of assent, that is accept or reject any idea. If we have similar beliefs, we can accept the same concepts. The problem arises when people feel trapped in a stone age belief system, that is trapped by stone age beliefs into a stone age belief system. Is that lunatic thinking or what?
So how can one step out of the stone age thinking? Just put down the belief that beliefs are fixed to history. Only some fraction of what I believe is correct, and that is true of all humans. Believing that our beliefs are 100% correct, rather that some of our beliefs are probably correct, some dead wrong, is a delusion created by our ancestors to control the people. Religion is all about control of the masses.
Amsterdam, has the concept of license, regulate, and tax the deviant behaviors. That may be the way to move forward. They banned religions buildings at one point in there history. Churches became meeting halls. Discussion about some of these issues came into the open. They became a open society, rather than the closed segmented society we have today, which often claims to be open. Open societies are ones which are in the process of change, they have few fixed beliefs. Any topic is not forbidden by law, belief is tolerated, no matter idiotic. The prime directive applies, not to interfere in alien life and beliefs.
But then what do I know?
Monday, November 16, 2015
Realism v. Paris
Any ideology other than realism is just wrong. It is only realism that is right by definition. So how do we convince the world of this, and what is realism.
Realism has the foundation in truth, knowledge and believing nothing that is not real. How can that be wrong? All these old theologys need to be abandoned, and a new real belief system placed into the automatic part of our minds.
Treat other people as we would like to be treated, the though exercise of turning the roles around is likely one of the underlying principals. I have long held the "primary directive", "not to interfere in alien cultures" was helpful in getting along, but no longer. Paris has made this clear. All religions should be abandoned and replaced with realism, and a solid set of moral guidelines and maximums. There is a space between virtuous and wrong. As long as people stay in either virtuous or in that neutral space, all is well. When they fall into the wrong zone, correction must be applied.
I think there is a lot of things religions got right, but for the wrong reasons. Secondly, we have evolved technologically, and now must role this new knowledge into our "automatic thinking" aka "belief system." We each need to clear out the wrongs, and get on with living the good virtuous life voluntarily.
The first wrong that must go is the belief in any supernatural thing like gods, deities, ideologies, and we need to clean philosophies of all garbage. As Marcus Aurelius put it, "we were born to cooperate". That is one of the underlying principles.We can also subdivide important, neutral and damaging concepts. We should endeavor to correct the damaging first, and move on from there. Concepts that block progress, like beliefs in gods, must go first.
Are we, by nature, social creatures or have we just learned that, as a species, we do better when we cooperate? I think that the former was more correct, now our evolution has changed us. Many have learned to get ahead of the group by force, by driving hard, by using people, and other narcissistic methods. When we we not a crowded, we had little, but we were more humanistic behavior, but less understanding. Now, to be equal to average, we need to go hard to make adequate moneys. This is what over population brings. Some choose to take by force or sell drugs that people want for "escape", and are addicting and/or damaging. Some try to impose there idiotic view on others by force, or kill off the non-believers.
But then what do I know?
Realism has the foundation in truth, knowledge and believing nothing that is not real. How can that be wrong? All these old theologys need to be abandoned, and a new real belief system placed into the automatic part of our minds.
Treat other people as we would like to be treated, the though exercise of turning the roles around is likely one of the underlying principals. I have long held the "primary directive", "not to interfere in alien cultures" was helpful in getting along, but no longer. Paris has made this clear. All religions should be abandoned and replaced with realism, and a solid set of moral guidelines and maximums. There is a space between virtuous and wrong. As long as people stay in either virtuous or in that neutral space, all is well. When they fall into the wrong zone, correction must be applied.
I think there is a lot of things religions got right, but for the wrong reasons. Secondly, we have evolved technologically, and now must role this new knowledge into our "automatic thinking" aka "belief system." We each need to clear out the wrongs, and get on with living the good virtuous life voluntarily.
The first wrong that must go is the belief in any supernatural thing like gods, deities, ideologies, and we need to clean philosophies of all garbage. As Marcus Aurelius put it, "we were born to cooperate". That is one of the underlying principles.We can also subdivide important, neutral and damaging concepts. We should endeavor to correct the damaging first, and move on from there. Concepts that block progress, like beliefs in gods, must go first.
Are we, by nature, social creatures or have we just learned that, as a species, we do better when we cooperate? I think that the former was more correct, now our evolution has changed us. Many have learned to get ahead of the group by force, by driving hard, by using people, and other narcissistic methods. When we we not a crowded, we had little, but we were more humanistic behavior, but less understanding. Now, to be equal to average, we need to go hard to make adequate moneys. This is what over population brings. Some choose to take by force or sell drugs that people want for "escape", and are addicting and/or damaging. Some try to impose there idiotic view on others by force, or kill off the non-believers.
But then what do I know?
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Trudeau
A Trudeau is back in power, and now once again, the west will suffer. Since "Trudeau I" gave the Salmon Arm salute, the west has suffered. "Trudeau I" was responsible for the natural energy program, metrication, and human rights policy that places a burden on the working people.
Now "Trudeau II" is in power with his liberal ideas and we will pay the price. Waste of public money. Inquire into native missing women. The real question is why native, not the rest of society. Predators still exist, and harvest the one's they can cut from the herd. Herd mentality, sticking to the known safe group is a cultural imperative for other cultures. It is therefore a native cultural issue / individual personality issue / group personality issue, behavioral issue, dominate in the native population. It is part of the "give me" personality.
Legalization of bud for the damaged, ok, but what about those smoked operators of heavy equipment, iron workers, roofers, labors, drivers for that matter? When you work with the smoke damaged, we often know. Low enthusiasm for the work, no concentration, low effort lay back attitude. Markedly different than the aggression of meth and coke, but both dangerous. Who will support those of us us who will not work with either group? Oh, well, I am retired now.
Is the legislation going to include a "piss in the bottle" after every accident clause? Who will pay? We taxpayers, of course/coarse.
What do I care, I am just doing life without parole, but the door is always open, according to stoic philo.
Is there a standard of social norms among cultures in Canada? I think there is, but it in a state of flux. There certainly is not in France. We see 140 dead out of Muslim attach. Which bunch of Muslims? The "true solution" is to eliminate religion, and live free of delusions.
Also, in this time of unrest, Trudeau II has decreed that there will be no oil shipped from the west coast. Alberta has no way to get our oil out now. Trudeau II has a desire to separate west and east.
But what do I know?
Now "Trudeau II" is in power with his liberal ideas and we will pay the price. Waste of public money. Inquire into native missing women. The real question is why native, not the rest of society. Predators still exist, and harvest the one's they can cut from the herd. Herd mentality, sticking to the known safe group is a cultural imperative for other cultures. It is therefore a native cultural issue / individual personality issue / group personality issue, behavioral issue, dominate in the native population. It is part of the "give me" personality.
Legalization of bud for the damaged, ok, but what about those smoked operators of heavy equipment, iron workers, roofers, labors, drivers for that matter? When you work with the smoke damaged, we often know. Low enthusiasm for the work, no concentration, low effort lay back attitude. Markedly different than the aggression of meth and coke, but both dangerous. Who will support those of us us who will not work with either group? Oh, well, I am retired now.
Is the legislation going to include a "piss in the bottle" after every accident clause? Who will pay? We taxpayers, of course/coarse.
What do I care, I am just doing life without parole, but the door is always open, according to stoic philo.
Is there a standard of social norms among cultures in Canada? I think there is, but it in a state of flux. There certainly is not in France. We see 140 dead out of Muslim attach. Which bunch of Muslims? The "true solution" is to eliminate religion, and live free of delusions.
Also, in this time of unrest, Trudeau II has decreed that there will be no oil shipped from the west coast. Alberta has no way to get our oil out now. Trudeau II has a desire to separate west and east.
But what do I know?
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Bullshit Secrecy v. Unwilling to Communicate
I belong to a archery club. It's purpose is to provide a range and training to promote archery. The reason I belong is indoor shooting in the winter is reasonable exercise. Like many clubs, there is a shortage of participation in volunteering, and a whole list of vacant positions. The question is why and how to overcome this issue?
I think one of the biggest problems is specific volunteers creating issues for the others volunteers through trying to tightly control or limit the activities, the unwilling or inability to communicate effectively, and the inability to delegate and accept the results. The lack of communications or a logical plan is the other issue. A president who is a control freak, or has a inability to effectively delegate, is a real problem. If some control freak will not let the control go, expect disagreement, or more likely, a shortage of volunteers, which later translates into a reduction in the number of members. It all comes down to personalities.
I just came back from the annual general meeting. It has executive meetings where all the business is conducted, and everything is actually decided. The problem is that so much information is secret, that is not available to the members, that I just do not care anymore. Screw it, it just ain't worth the hassle.
There were no financial statements. OK. In the last year several substantial expenditures were made, which on the face make no sense, like a major amount of money spent on floor finishing in the fourth year of a five year lease; but we coaches cannot get a white board and a line buzzer mounted on the wall. Oh well.
There is a communication problem. Look on the web site to find out about the annual general meeting. Can You find it?
So they depend on email from a list of members. The default on firefox is any email with multiparty addresses above ten is spam. Out it goes. So now I need to hand filter CRAC out of spam.
How about issues the club members have with the club? How about the process of bringing up something to the executive? Find an executive member and if he thinks it is worthwhile, it may come up? How about light small targets for the traveling show? More than one year and nothing? So why do I care? The executive meetings should have a new business section where anyone from the membership can bring up anything and have it resolved. If you do not respond, you will likely lose the member. How many members can we afford to lose?
How about the decisions made at the executive level? Are these ever made public? Consider the moneys spent on that floor. What does the membership think? It looks nice, granted, but at what cost? How many members left because of that decision? How many members will go to our competition because of the decision, if they knew the amount spent?
Control to the point of killing desire to cooperate or just secrecy for the sake of control?
It is my opinion and just my opinion that open communications is absolutely necessary for an volunteer organization to operate.
How about what happens at the coaches meetings?
There is a policy committee. Who beside the executive is on it?
Members need to be part of the decision making process. If we are not, why are we members?
I think one of the biggest problems is specific volunteers creating issues for the others volunteers through trying to tightly control or limit the activities, the unwilling or inability to communicate effectively, and the inability to delegate and accept the results. The lack of communications or a logical plan is the other issue. A president who is a control freak, or has a inability to effectively delegate, is a real problem. If some control freak will not let the control go, expect disagreement, or more likely, a shortage of volunteers, which later translates into a reduction in the number of members. It all comes down to personalities.
I just came back from the annual general meeting. It has executive meetings where all the business is conducted, and everything is actually decided. The problem is that so much information is secret, that is not available to the members, that I just do not care anymore. Screw it, it just ain't worth the hassle.
There were no financial statements. OK. In the last year several substantial expenditures were made, which on the face make no sense, like a major amount of money spent on floor finishing in the fourth year of a five year lease; but we coaches cannot get a white board and a line buzzer mounted on the wall. Oh well.
There is a communication problem. Look on the web site to find out about the annual general meeting. Can You find it?
So they depend on email from a list of members. The default on firefox is any email with multiparty addresses above ten is spam. Out it goes. So now I need to hand filter CRAC out of spam.
How about issues the club members have with the club? How about the process of bringing up something to the executive? Find an executive member and if he thinks it is worthwhile, it may come up? How about light small targets for the traveling show? More than one year and nothing? So why do I care? The executive meetings should have a new business section where anyone from the membership can bring up anything and have it resolved. If you do not respond, you will likely lose the member. How many members can we afford to lose?
How about the decisions made at the executive level? Are these ever made public? Consider the moneys spent on that floor. What does the membership think? It looks nice, granted, but at what cost? How many members left because of that decision? How many members will go to our competition because of the decision, if they knew the amount spent?
Control to the point of killing desire to cooperate or just secrecy for the sake of control?
It is my opinion and just my opinion that open communications is absolutely necessary for an volunteer organization to operate.
How about what happens at the coaches meetings?
There is a policy committee. Who beside the executive is on it?
Members need to be part of the decision making process. If we are not, why are we members?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)