What's new
Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Online forum for sale. Please send Stovebolts PM for details. https://meetchristians.net
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

[__ Science __ ] Climate Emergency or Hot Air?

AIG.com

Answers In Genesis
RSS Feed
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
337
In reality, only a small sampling of climate scientists believes we are facing imminent doom. So why all the insistence on anxiety and panic?

Continue reading...
 

Knotical

Shepherd of the Knotical kid-farm
Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
6,078
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
So they raise taxes under the guise of "saving the planet from imminent destruction."
 

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
11,141
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
So they raise taxes under the guise of "saving the planet from imminent destruction."
What I get a kick out of is the prediction that unless we do something now, the world as we know it is doomed in 10 or 12 years. I believe that if we were truly that close to total disaster or something close to it, there would be nothing we could do right now that would alter that doomed outcome. We think we have so much power and we are so smart but we don't really know much at all.
 

Christ the King

Take up your cross and follow me
Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
658
Gender
Male
We think we have so much power and we are so smart but we don't really know much at all.
By "we" u mean they, right. At least u and I admit we don't know that much.

I find that millenials are insistent on climate change. People over 40yo are wiser from experience, we saw their predictions fail time and time again

When i first heard about climate change i remember thinking how arrogant man is to think we can be like Gods and control our climate. It's absurd really...

how dare you.jpg

But i think the public is starting to catch on, not only to climate change but to the radicalism of the left. In England they had the worse loss in 100 years. In the states and Australia the left lost an election they thought they were going to win.

And the reaction from the left is to just try and shame the countries leader
 

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
11,141
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
I don't think it is foolish to work toward finding alternative cleaner power sources but to use fear mongering to push the agenda is wrong and self-defeating. If we can find efficient and viable ways to harness the sun's energy, I'm all for it so long as we don't destroy ourselves and the environment in the process.

Around here, our local power company is investing huge amounts of money and manpower installing fields of solar collectors. The problem is that it consumes vast amounts of land for a relatively small amount of power. This means that it takes farmland out of production that would otherwise be consuming greenhouse gases, such as CO2, or producing food.
 

Knotical

Shepherd of the Knotical kid-farm
Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
6,078
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Recently, I read an article about how Portland, Oregon is putting turbines in their municipal water lines in strategic positions to generate power off of the movement of the water through the system. Aside from the cost of installing them, it is basically low cost, if not free, power. Quite ingenious really.
 

Christ the King

Take up your cross and follow me
Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
658
Gender
Male
I don't think it is foolish to work toward finding alternative cleaner power sources
Ye same. People tend to think that cos i doubt the climate change rhetoric that i don't care about the environment or pollution. That's not true, we have the same goals just different motivations.

The energy industry is one of the biggest in the world. Gas, electricity, oil, petrchem mining, it encompasses a multitude of industries.

Over the years there have been people that have designed and built alternate energy systems. However such energy systems would spell the end for a lot of those energy industries. So they always get suppressed. The big companies buy them out usually or no one wants to finance the projects.

Take the motor vehicle. It's been around for over 100 years. But it is still the same cylinder combustion engine that was used in the first motorcars.
Better engines have been proposed in the past all vanished.
Only now do we see an emergence of hybrid vehicle, electric powered usually with a traditional engine

Nikola Tesla was the greatest scientist of the 20th century and smartest man in the world at the time according to Albert Einstein. He was such a genius. I strongly recommend watching as doco on him if your interested in that kind of thing

According to Tesla he had figured out how to deliver electricity to everyone in the world not through cables but through the atmosphere, for free he claimed.
So he started building his first tower with the funding he was receiving from a big company. But when they saw that everyone would eventually have "free energy" they stopped funding Tesla.

Unfortunately Nikola wasn't as good a business man as he was a scientist. He should of been rich by then but had made bad choices. Left on the fringes his genius was suppressed and forgotten.

Tesla.jpgdownload.jpg
 

jasonc

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
39,868
Christian
Yes
Recently, I read an article about how Portland, Oregon is putting turbines in their municipal water lines in strategic positions to generate power off of the movement of the water through the system. Aside from the cost of installing them, it is basically low cost, if not free, power. Quite ingenious really.
No,it reduces water pressure,so more pressure must be made .

It would be like installing a gas powered electric motor to be used to assist in moving the gas powered car.

I don't see how at 30 ps1 ,unless it is the fire line Wil generate much
 

Knotical

Shepherd of the Knotical kid-farm
Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
6,078
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
No,it reduces water pressure,so more pressure must be made .

It would be like installing a gas powered electric motor to be used to assist in moving the gas powered car.

I don't see how at 30 ps1 ,unless it is the fire line Wil generate much
The article mentioned they only installed them in downhill runs, so they would not have to add booster pumps.
 

jasonc

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
39,868
Christian
Yes
[QUOTE="Knotical, post: 1548048, membe
The article mentioned they only installed them in downhill runs, so they would not have to add booster pumps.
[/QUOTE]
Then in my,state that wouldn't work .of course with a fire hose I can't see how pressure will be max . .we use pumps just to feed the two hise rises
 

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
11,141
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Take the motor vehicle. It's been around for over 100 years. But it is still the same cylinder combustion engine that was used in the first motorcars.
Actually, it is not the same and neither are the fuels used. The fuels used in the first internal combustion engines was extremely poor compared to today. Engines today are designed with far greater tolerances, run much, much cleaner, produce much higher horsepower, and last many times longer than they did just 50 years ago.

When I was just starting out driving, an automobile that got more than 15mpg was almost unheard of and those that did sacrificed power considerably. Remember the "muscle cars" of the 1970's? One was lucky to have one that got more than about 12mpg. Today, with my 2016 Ford F-150, I get a year-round average of 21mpg. During the winter months it hovers around 20mpg and during the summer months it goes up to about 23mpg. I have realized as high as 30mpg on the highway at 60mph. This was almost unheard of 50 years ago even with the lightest economy car.

It should also be noted that my truck's engine, the 2.7L V6 Ecoboost, also generates approximately 325hp and 375 lb-ft of torque compared to the 1969 Ford 351 Windsor V8 with 2-barrel carb that produced about 250hp and 380 lb-ft of torque. 2.7L translates to only about 162 cu.in. so it is about 1/2 the motor of the 351 cu.in.

With the advancements in technology over the years, synthetic oils and other lubricants are far superior than oils used even just 50 years ago. They are less prone to thermal breakdown and do a better job of suspending particulates, reducing the need for changing oils every 1,000 or 2,000 miles. The recommended oil change interval for normal driving for my 2016 is 10,000 miles which is 5x longer than it was for my 1974 Ford Gran Torino with the 351 Windsor. This means lower maintenance costs and less waste oil to deal with.

Engine tolerances and components are far superior than they were just 50 years ago. When I started driving in the mid 1970's it was a real milestone to get over 100,000 miles on an engine. Today, 100,000 miles is barely broke in and it is a challenge to find a 4-year old vehicle that doesn't already have 100,000 miles on it. It's nothing to get over 200,000 miles without an engine overhaul today but in the 1970's an engine was probably on its last leg after about 85,000 miles, burning oil faster than gasoline. In the 1970's the average life expectancy for spark plugs was about 30,000 miles. Today, we can expect about 100,000 miles due to cleaner burning engines that produce less carbon and soot along with higher voltage coils, hotter spark, and improved spark plug designs.

Cars don't rust out nearly as fast today either. In the 1970's, to find a car that was 10 years old or older and not rusted out was a real treat. The first four vehicles I owned were all less than 10 years old and with every one of them placing things in the trunk was done at your own risk. You could see the ground through the rust holes. I bought my 1974 Grand Torino in 1983 and a buddy and I restored the entire lower half of both sides from the front fender to the trunk due to rust. I got my grandfather's 1967 Ford F100 pickup in 1978 and the first thing I had to do was patch the floor of the cab because it was rusted out. Every time a new hole developed, I would use whatever I could find such as pop cans, or sheet steel from an old washing machine to patch the holes. In about 1983, the cab mounts rusted off and I had to slip in wood blocks to set the cab on so I could keep driving it. Someone once told me that one day I would drive around a curve too fast and the cab would slide off the frame.

People say, "They don't build them like they used to!" I say, "Thank God!"
 

jasonc

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
39,868
Christian
Yes
Im gonna add a caveat because I fix them. Things that didn't wear out then do now .seat belts,cheap calipers ,also I wouldn't ever go 100000 on a tune up,hit that and pay up for a head replacement or repair. Some cars only get 30 grand on a spark plug .
 

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
11,141
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
I wouldn't ever go 100000 on a tune up,hit that and pay up for a head replacement or repair.
Ford had design issues with the earlier 5.4L V8 that caused head problems. But even then, it wasn't a real concern until about 85,000 miles and the dealerships brought it to their customers' attention. When I asked about it, they informed me that there was an issue where the spark plug threaded shaft was too short due to a design problem with the head that could cause the spark plug to strip out of the head. There was a solution to address it before the plugs stripped out. The plugs needed to be replaced and some kind of helicoil type product was installed in the head to secure the new plugs. Had nothing to do with the spark plug getting old or becoming contaminated with soot and/or carbon deposits.
 

jasonc

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
39,868
Christian
Yes
Ford had design issues with the earlier 5.4L V8 that caused head problems. But even then, it wasn't a real concern until about 85,000 miles and the dealerships brought it to their customers' attention. When I asked about it, they informed me that there was an issue where the spark plug threaded shaft was too short due to a design problem with the head that could cause the spark plug to strip out of the head. There was a solution to address it before the plugs stripped out. The plugs needed to be replaced and some kind of helicoil type product was installed in the head to secure the new plugs. Had nothing to do with the spark plug getting old or becoming contaminated with soot and/or carbon deposits.
Actually not true,the idiot engineer ,built a fine course thread that the plug breaks in half ,its still made like that on a 5.4 tri valve .I know I broke one .my,job will not as most won't do any tune ups.

Helicoil that isn't always possible as the plug might not come out and to remove it took,three hours.
 

jasonc

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
39,868
Christian
Yes
Also I have a Tacoma ,its has only,46k put on it since i bought it nearly,4 years ago.

Double that to hit 100k.8 years ,threads might not be easy to loosen
 

1pet2_9

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Messages
84
Gender
Male
We may not be in immediate danger, but a bunch of koalas and kangaroos are, as are polar bears. And fish. Our turn will come up later--after we cross off a few more species off the list first. Once those polar caps melt, bad things happen. It's easier to stop a rock rolling downhill than a 20-ton boulder, and that's what we've got: a big rock rolling downhill, getting bigger, gaining momentum.
 

jasonc

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
39,868
Christian
Yes
We may not be in immediate danger, but a bunch of koalas and kangaroos are, as are polar bears. And fish. Our turn will come up later--after we cross off a few more species off the list first. Once those polar caps melt, bad things happen. It's easier to stop a rock rolling downhill than a 20-ton boulder, and that's what we've got: a big rock rolling downhill, getting bigger, gaining momentum.
once my state was as wild as Australia I have not gone into that tonight with you but unless one suggest population control .few will want to enjoy true florida with malaria ,yellow and scarlet fever plus the panthers,crocs,sharks,gators ,snakes.
 

Christ the King

Take up your cross and follow me
Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
658
Gender
Male
Actually, it is not the same and neither are the fuels used. The fuels used in the first internal combustion engines was extremely poor compared to today. Engines today are designed with far greater tolerances, run much, much cleaner, produce much higher horsepower, and last many times longer than they did just 50 years ago.

When I was just starting out driving, an automobile that got more than 15mpg was almost unheard of and those that did sacrificed power considerably. Remember the "muscle cars" of the 1970's? One was lucky to have one that got more than about 12mpg. Today, with my 2016 Ford F-150, I get a year-round average of 21mpg. During the winter months it hovers around 20mpg and during the summer months it goes up to about 23mpg. I have realized as high as 30mpg on the highway at 60mph. This was almost unheard of 50 years ago even with the lightest economy car.

It should also be noted that my truck's engine, the 2.7L V6 Ecoboost, also generates approximately 325hp and 375 lb-ft of torque compared to the 1969 Ford 351 Windsor V8 with 2-barrel carb that produced about 250hp and 380 lb-ft of torque. 2.7L translates to only about 162 cu.in. so it is about 1/2 the motor of the 351 cu.in.

With the advancements in technology over the years, synthetic oils and other lubricants are far superior than oils used even just 50 years ago. They are less prone to thermal breakdown and do a better job of suspending particulates, reducing the need for changing oils every 1,000 or 2,000 miles. The recommended oil change interval for normal driving for my 2016 is 10,000 miles which is 5x longer than it was for my 1974 Ford Gran Torino with the 351 Windsor. This means lower maintenance costs and less waste oil to deal with.

Engine tolerances and components are far superior than they were just 50 years ago. When I started driving in the mid 1970's it was a real milestone to get over 100,000 miles on an engine. Today, 100,000 miles is barely broke in and it is a challenge to find a 4-year old vehicle that doesn't already have 100,000 miles on it. It's nothing to get over 200,000 miles without an engine overhaul today but in the 1970's an engine was probably on its last leg after about 85,000 miles, burning oil faster than gasoline. In the 1970's the average life expectancy for spark plugs was about 30,000 miles. Today, we can expect about 100,000 miles due to cleaner burning engines that produce less carbon and soot along with higher voltage coils, hotter spark, and improved spark plug designs.

Cars don't rust out nearly as fast today either. In the 1970's, to find a car that was 10 years old or older and not rusted out was a real treat. The first four vehicles I owned were all less than 10 years old and with every one of them placing things in the trunk was done at your own risk. You could see the ground through the rust holes. I bought my 1974 Grand Torino in 1983 and a buddy and I restored the entire lower half of both sides from the front fender to the trunk due to rust. I got my grandfather's 1967 Ford F100 pickup in 1978 and the first thing I had to do was patch the floor of the cab because it was rusted out. Every time a new hole developed, I would use whatever I could find such as pop cans, or sheet steel from an old washing machine to patch the holes. In about 1983, the cab mounts rusted off and I had to slip in wood blocks to set the cab on so I could keep driving it. Someone once told me that one day I would drive around a curve too fast and the cab would slide off the frame.

People say, "They don't build them like they used to!" I say, "Thank God!"
True, true, true.

What i should of said was that motorcars still uses cylinder combustion engines.

The engines have developed over time, yes. They've become more powerful and economical, lighter. And the fuels have become better. The development in technologies in the motorcar industry is a fascinating one. Usually something will be invented for racing before being developed for road cars; fuel injection, turbos, etc.

In the 20's road cars had huge V16 engines, now a 4 cylinder engine would outperform it in every way. So ye the engine and motorcar have come a long way

The point I was trying to make is that the cars have always relied on the oil industry and vice versa which led to my next point being the possible use of alternate propulsion systems
 

Christ the King

Take up your cross and follow me
Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
658
Gender
Male
We may not be in immediate danger, but a bunch of koalas and kangaroos are, as are polar bears. And fish. Our turn will come up later--after we cross off a few more species off the list first. Once those polar caps melt, bad things happen. It's easier to stop a rock rolling downhill than a 20-ton boulder, and that's what we've got: a big rock rolling downhill, getting bigger, gaining momentum.
Coming from Australia, koalas and kangaroos are not in danger at all. Ask any Aussie

The polar caps have melted before and the fossil record is filled with extincted animals. They are not indicators of man made global warming
 

1pet2_9

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Messages
84
Gender
Male
Coming from Australia, koalas and kangaroos are not in danger at all. Ask any Aussie
Oh come on.


And whether global warming is man-made or not--even if it wasn't--is of no consequence. It's whether there is danger. If you want to say, "Animals have gone extinct before, and more will be to come. Humans will go extinct one day. So let's just go along with it...". Maybe YOU can just go with it. I will not. Unfortunately, we both have to live on the same planet.

And I already know that even if I detail out what happens thermodynamically to the earth if the polar caps are gone, that will get dismissed as "fearmongering," so I will save my fingers the workout.
 
Top