old man emu Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 (OME - I wish your theory was correct - wouldn't feel so guilty when I go flying, but the science seems to point otherwise in terms of the effect of Volcanoes)) If a man does not propose a theory, and allow it to be tested, he can rightly be called a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 Volcanoes 20 dead in NZ spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 I wouldn't be too worried about volcanoes in the big scheme of things but there are some places where I would not wish to live because of them.. The SUN will eventually expand and include us in it's mass. We are only about 1/2 way to that happening. We will stuff it up one way or another well before then. The sun is so large if you chucked the earth into it you would be flat out to see it entering it..( Hypothetically from somewhere safe about as far way as we are now.) OUR sun is a medium sized sun and we are lucky as "they" last longer.. It's a 'Goldi locks sun and a goldilocks earth. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 If a man does not propose a theory, and allow it to be tested, he can rightly be called a fool. I really did mean it when I said I wish your theory was correct... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 What if it's foolish theory that's already been debunked in a past age, like a steam car for instance ? You can prove without ever making even ONE that it won't be efficient. No point in reinventing the WHEEL. or reviving past catastrophic concepts either If they FAILED for a good reason. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 I would have thought that the theory that volcanoes produced more CO2 than Mankind in relation to the Global Warming discussion was relatively recent and also accurate measurements by qualified persons had shown that theory to be incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 I would have thought that the theory that volcanoes produced more CO2 than Mankind in relation to the Global Warming discussion was relatively recent and also accurate measurements by qualified persons had shown that theory to be incorrect. Pretty well established that volcanoes contribute far less CO2 than industry. https://deepcarbon.net/scientists-quantify-global-volcanic-co2-venting-estimate-total-carbon-earth https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/#61ee2c4c5cbf https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/volcano-co2-humans-emissions-16102017/ [ATTACH]50599._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 Pretty well established that volcanoes contribute far less CO2 than industry. Now I concur. Your research has shown my theory to be incorrect. Next questions: Where are temperatures being taken that show an increase in atmospheric temperature? Compared to the Northern Hemishpere, there is precious little indistrial activity in the Southern Hemisphere for we Southerners to share equal blame with the Northerners. I think it is unfair to quote "per capita" production of CO2 as a comparison when we should be looking at the gross production of each country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 Steam cars, even if inefficient, by comparison with the new age IC cars, Would still be here. IF The government's hadn't imposed a weight tax on them. Conspiracy with the Fords I think. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 Plenty of reasons why they wouldn't be satisfactory. Risk and slow to get ready would be a couple as well as water use IF it's not a sealed system. . Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 Look for Gentleman’s steam bicycle on YouTube to see the alternative to an ebike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 A few years ago I saw a steam car at a field day in Sheffield in Tassie. Rather like a big pram on 4 wheels with a silent engine. Very quick to get going it was oil powered. Useful as a town car I would suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 A few days ago, this excellent analysis of our national leadership situation was published: https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/nation-just-kind-of-accepts-albo-unofficially-taking-over-prime-ministerial-duties/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 WE can't allow publications like that to continue. People will get the wrong ideas and vote us out. (And Ruppee said they are bad as well.). Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 SFM (Scotty From Marketing) is a reasonably apt label for him. Another would be SMF, I'll leave that one to your imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Scott My Friend??? Never. just imagine HIM being your neighbour . I'd rather put out my own garbage bins, thanx. and someone else can look after his mother. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 Scotty doesn't like his new nickname. https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/scott-morrison-rejects-scotty-from-marketing-nickname/news-story/505913dfa62b8e6441b5ecc90c129ab7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Don't always agree with this bloke, but he nailed it this time: https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/our-pearl-harbour-could-become-our-port-arthur-moment-20200121-p53t9x.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Gadzooks! For a moment I thought you were agreeing with the bloke from Advertising. I was watching a video on Youtube a day or so ago, and the presenter went through all the different ways we produce electricity - fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear. Part of his presentation was presenting the numbers of death directly attributable the various means of generation. Nuclear was the lowest. He also spoke of the third party deaths (usually pollution related). Again, nuclear was the lowest. He discussed the relative efficiencies and changes that needed to be made to the local environment of the various methods. Finally he spoke of the use of Thorium as a fuel. A lot of research was carried out in the USA which showed thorium was better than uranium. While thorium has been shown to be an efficient heat source, it has one major drawback - you can't make make atomic bombs from its residue. Naturally, the World's Peacekeeper killed off thorium powered electricity generation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Part of his presentation was presenting the numbers of death directly attributable the various means of generation. Nuclear was the lowest. I'm sorry, wind and solar have more deaths directly attributable to them than nuclear??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 As I understood it, I think he was probably referring to industrial and construction deaths, not so much as deaths due to the operation of the generation process. I wish I could find that video again, it would make things clearer if you could see it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Hydro has by far the highest deaths. Tens of thousands from dam failures, particularly in China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Have there been any fatalities from dam failures in Australia? Maybe there's a reason why China sends so many engineering students to our universities..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 There have been dam failures in Australia, but the one I am thinking of was an irrigation dam. Another in Qld is drained well down, due to fears about its stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 There have never been any fatalities from dam failure in Australia that I'm aware of. In fact, dam failure events in Australia are very rare and confined to smaller dams that were built many decades ago and which have not had adequate engineering design input. We have virtually no dam failure problems (or potential problems) in Australia because we have: 1. Good engineering standards for dam construction 2. Mostly earthen-bank construction dams that are more robust than pure concrete dams 3. A lack of severe earthquakes, or potential for major landslips into dam reservoirs Most people imagine a dam burst as an explosive burst of a dam wall, as shown in the movies. In practice, this type of event is extremely rare (except when your dam is bombed, a la 617 Sqdn.) The largest percentage of dam failures are caused by exceptionally high and prolonged rainfall events causing severe overtopping of the dam wall, or spillway failure due to the spillways inadequate size, to be able to cope with massive downpours that are outside the calculated rainfall events (generally a "1 in 100 year" flood). Even at that, dam failures usually give adequate warning of impending failure and time to evacuate people in danger. However, there have been some spectacular dam failures in places such as America, often as a result of poor engineering coupled with a high rainfall event. The most spectacular American dam failure was the Teton Dam, in 1976. It collapsed in broad daylight over a period of hours, as it was being filled for the first time. The failure was due entirely to an appalling choice of unsuitable construction material, and positioning of the dam over porous ground. 11 people still died in the Teton Dam failure, despite warnings to evacuate - but the dam collapsed faster than evacuation could be carried out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teton_Dam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now