|
Post by papilio28570 on Dec 2, 2019 18:49:46 GMT -8
Glad to help. Donation sent.
|
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Sept 25, 2019 21:39:10 GMT -8
CO2 has increased approximately 130 parts per million over the past 150 years or so. While that may be about a 45% increase in CO2, if the number 1 represented a million molecules of atmosphere, it is only a .000130 increase and I do not believe an additional 130 molecules of CO2 per million molecules of atmosphere or a shift of .000130 is going to dramatically change the long term weather of the planet.
Ice has been melting on the Earth for the past 12,000 years. There is no firm knowledge about what starts or ends an ice age and the Earth has had more than a few. But, as ice melts, the ratio between its volume and its square surface area change and this affects the melt rate. This explains the acceleration observed in global ice melt. The less ice there is the less influence the ice has on effecting its preservation. A natural climate process that began roughly 12,000 years ago is progressing along a natural feedback loop. Ice core data reveals a rough regularity to the occurrence of ice ages, so the planet has been "here" before. Animal species died, the planet's surface was reshaped by glaciers, bla, bla, bla. But just stop for a moment and think about an ice pack one and a half miles thick sitting upon what is now Boston. It took thousands upon thousands of years for that to melt all the way back to Greenland or wherever.
The 97% consensus among scientists is a load of crap. Read John Cook's paper for yourself! But most are to lazy to do that. Out of the 29,000+ authors of the 11,944 peer reviewed papers, 8000 authors of roughly 4500 papers were asked to self rate there own papers. Just 14% or only 1120 authors responded and out of those 97% agreed with their own work. What the hell kind of a review process is that??? That 97% of the 14% respondents is actually 3.7% consensus. Plus to begin with, 67% of the 11,944 peer reviewed papers gave no opinion on whether the warming was caused by humans.
Yet everyone missed the whole point. Cook is/was a human behavioral researcher in Australia whose research found that if you can build consensus, you can change people's minds. He admitted this in a 2012 interview. The 97% consensus report came out in 2013 and was later followed up with a consensus on the consensus report in 2016. So everyone running around promulgating the 97% myth is simply a part of the Cook lie. He played a numbers game hoax on everyone and hyped it as fact and the ignorant swallowed it. This is no different really from political astro-turfing or orchestrating social subversion.
I could go on and on but just about everyone is stuck in the position they staked out a long time ago on the global climate change subject matter. Show me one paper and I'll show you one to refute it. Real science has been hijacked by the government. Its all about the Benjamins baby.
And oh, BTW Bill, "market forces" did not lead "our country into the 2008 abyss". It was government interference with market forces that led to the housing market collapse and all that followed.
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Sept 25, 2019 19:46:35 GMT -8
I just tell folks I am doing an insect survey and the net is used to help in positive identification.
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Aug 10, 2019 15:55:42 GMT -8
Perhaps the image format is not supported on this web server. Is the photo in JPEG or what. Try converting it
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Aug 10, 2019 4:33:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Aug 10, 2019 4:25:24 GMT -8
I used cyanide years ago and discontinued after the first year. I quickly learned that even in a well ventilated area, even out in the field while collecting, the slightest whiff of the vapor from the jar would produce an instant sharp headache. It is extremely dangerous and I wonder that long term exposure to sub-symptomatic levels over years may also be problematic. I do not encourage anyone to use it.
That said, here in the USA, obtaining a commercial ground applicators pesticide license in any state will allow you to purchase restricted use chemicals in the state that issued you the license. Apply for the training through your county Agriculture Extension Agent.
|
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on May 20, 2019 19:38:28 GMT -8
Papilio, When I first read your post David Berrebys book came to mind. Here is a link iif you haven’t read the book. It discusses the very aspect of us and them division mentioned by yourself. www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/things-that-divide-us/Have you read the book? Seems as you may have. It’s difficult to find book readers now in days with the internet and our constantly busier lifestyles. No, I had not previously read the article or the book and just now had time to review the NatGeo article. I was unaware of research projects to reprogram group think. Interesting, but also realize that lab results do not always translate well to real world environs. I'll be very interested in how the various Ohio police departments experiment turned out.
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on May 19, 2019 23:50:00 GMT -8
I mentioned some time ago that Germany was abandoning wind energy projects only to be denied here by the "true believers". Here is an update and seems solar is also on the chopping block now: Germany has belatedly but finally come to the realization that renewable energy is a failure, that it cannot power Germany or the German civilization. The reason is very straight forward: renewable energy wasn’t designed to power modern civilization.
Writing about Germany’s renewable energy transition, the Energiewende, as an environmental model for the world, four reporters for the German newspaper Der Spiegel said in a lengthy article earlier this month that Germany acknowledged last year that it was delaying its phase-out of coal and that it would not meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitments for 2020.
Because its renewable energy emissions have flat-lined since 2009.
Announcing last year that it was delaying its phase out of coal, the reporters also said Germany would bulldoze an ancient church and forest to get the coal underneath.
Titled “A Botched Job in Germany,” the reporters said the Energiewende — Germany’ biggest political project since reunification — has cost Germany $36 billion annually, and opposition to renewable energy is growing in the German countryside.
“The politicians fear citizen resistance,” they said. “There is hardly a wind energy project that is not fought.”
Reporting the Der Spiegel story, Michael Shellenberger, a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award winner and president of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization, said the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables have meant the end of Germany’s rush to renewable energy.
“Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants,” he said, “and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells to produce the same amount of energy.”
Of the 7,000 new kilometers of transmission lines needed in Germany, only 8% have been built, while large scale electricity storage remains inefficient and expensive. “A large part of the energy used is lost,” the Der Spiegel reporters said, noting a much hyped hydrogen gas project, “and the efficiency is bellow 40%. … No viable business model can be developed from this.”
As the German government’s subsidies to wind, solar and biogas since 2000 end in 2020 — without which none of the country’s renewable energy would have been built because they’re too expensive — the renewable energy idea in Germany is over.
Pointing out that the Energiewende has become an excuse for the destruction of natural landscapes and local communities, Mr. Shellenberger said: “Tragically, many Germans appear to have believed that the billions they spend on renewables would redeem them. He quoted a reporter who wrote: “Germans would than at last feel that they have gone from being world destroyers in the 20th century to world saviors in the 21st.”
“Many Germans will claim the renewable transition was merely botched,” Mr. Shellenberger continued, “but it wasn’t. The transition to renewables was doomed because modern industrial people, no matter how Romantic [when Germany’s society was agrarian] they are, do not want to return to pre-modern life.
“The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to.” He added: “One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they would.”
It’s a question begging for an answer. Particularly in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on May 17, 2019 18:17:29 GMT -8
Never saw one episode
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on May 10, 2019 23:31:47 GMT -8
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I don't recycle. It is a complete waste of my time because the folks that pick up my trash sort through it and separate the recyclables. Thus I am ensuring job security for the sorters. I spend roughly $600 monthly on gasoline and about as much on cigars. My electric bill is around $400 monthly and my wife generates a full bag of trash every day. My carbon footprint is large but it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, IMO. I don't believe in man-caused global warming. The 97% consensus video was pure crap because it was based on a pure crap study by Cook which I read a long time ago. Cook narrowed his study down to 11,944 peer reviewed papers (with over 29,000 authors) that dealt with climate change. 30 odd % of them argued that is was anthropogenic related while roughly 62% did not attribute the warming to being caused by humans. Out of this, he emailed 8000 authors of about 4500 studies (most papers had multiple authors) and asked them to self rate their work. Only 14% or 1120 authors replied and 97% of them agreed with their original findings. That is where the 97% consensus number came from. There was no mention of which which authors of which papers were emailed. But the whole consensus myth is based on replies from only 4% of the original 29,000+ authors. As I said, it was a pure crap study. What is 97% is the amount of funding provided to universities by the various governments. There are vast amounts of money to be made by universities and big business to perpetuate the anthropogenic hoax. There is very little pure scientific inquiry left. Science had been overtaken by government and government now drives science in the direction it chooses and government is driven by campaign finance. Nonetheless, the USA is making strides in reducing carbon emissions...largely by switching to natural gas (thanks to Leptraps) vs coal fired electric plants. According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that time span and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union. By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons. Australia, BTW, is the worlds largest emitter of CO2 per capita The Paris Accord allows China to increase CO2 emissions until 2030 while India said they would think about it. Interestingly, The Sahara desert is shrinking despite all scientific predictions to the opposite. www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdfAs written earlier in this thread, human population growth and the resultant loss of biodiversity is the greatest danger to the planet. In the 1960s Paul Ehrlich predicted global famine by the 1980s due to population growth. He was wrong by probably a century. (I do have two signed copies of his butterfly book though.) We won't die of famine though.
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on May 5, 2019 23:12:59 GMT -8
I also collected Papilio glaucus maynardi just below Jacksonville in Orange Park. As I previously wrote, there is a blend zone in northern Florida where you can collect both and also hybrids.
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on May 3, 2019 17:37:19 GMT -8
P. glaucus maynardi is a darker yellow. There is a blend zone in northern Florida so to get true maynardi venture south below Orlando
|
|
|
Hawaii
May 3, 2019 17:31:57 GMT -8
Post by papilio28570 on May 3, 2019 17:31:57 GMT -8
Spent two weeks in Hawaii on vacation with my wife back in the 80s when we were still young. We were both ready to leave after a week. A boring tourist trap. Only fun part was climbing Diamond Head. The vertical landscape was visually stunning but having traveled the globe I had seen similar in more exotic lands. Over the two weeks I saw a couple of grass skippers and one P. xuthus.
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Apr 12, 2019 18:12:58 GMT -8
I saw people making an honest living off of a renewable resource. Where are the videos of whole ecosystems being destroyed for timber or minerals?
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Apr 11, 2019 19:28:36 GMT -8
quick internet search:
Why does UV light not pass through glass? Glass that is transparent to visible light absorbs nearly all UVB. This is the wavelength range that can cause a sunburn, so it's true you can't get a sunburn through glass. However, UVA is much closer to the visible spectrum than UVB. About 75 percent of UVA passes through ordinary glass.Dec 4, 2018.
also:
windshields are specially treated to block UVA as well, but a car's side and rear windows allow UVA to penetrate.
and:
How much UV do LED lights emit? LEDs do produce a small amount of UV, but they emit even less. That's because the amount that is produced is converted to white light by the phosphors inside the lamp. Mostly because UV radiation occupies that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that forces us to slather on sunscreen in periods of peak sunlight.
Lastly:
An additional concern with UV output is color degradation. CFL and HID lamps have been known to cause damage to shades, carpets, painted surfaces, and more due to UV emissions. This has been another motivating factor for places like museums to retrofit to LED.
|
|