What's new

It's the Climate, stupid

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Montana de Oro with its eucalyptus groves is one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever been. Non native, Tall and straight. I think they were brought in to be harvested as telephone poles. I’ve never seen a fire there, other than on the beach.
The leaves burn hot and fast. The trunks don’t burn. Not very easily anyway. Red euc was brought in as a coal alternative. Hard on your chainsaw, it makes for the best carna asada..
Actually the native chaparral is a greater fire danger. The trees do provide a habitat. Mainly a good example of our impact. I’ve always enjoyed them even if they weren’t ecologically pure.
Perhaps the tree doing the most damage was planted by the thousands in the 70’s. That’s the tamarisk.
had to look that one up. Were the planted as ornamentals? Not to be confused with Tamarack - fabulous trees,
 

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
I always heard that they were brought over after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake fire as a fast growing lumber, but the wrong variety was brought over which makes poor lumber. I would love for these to be removed in California! Interestingly, the monarch butterflies (nominee for Endangered status) like to congregate on these non-native trees during their migrations.
 

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
The GPGP is not affecting the climate because it is not having an impact on the weather as measured over 30 years or more. You are the one who said that the GPGP is affecting the climate. Why wont you explain to us how it is doing so?

Let me play it your way, now...

How is weather modification technology (weaponry) not affecting the climate?
Still waiting for @Rico Swazi to explain how the Great Pacific Garbage Page affects the climate. (?)

And, Also, of course, how weather modification over the past 5-6 decades does not affect the climate. (?)
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
"And, Also, of course, how weather modification over the past 5-6 decades does not affect the climate. (?)"

I already told you, as posted in the great slackening thread - It is being controlled by the bubble and cone people.

Buzz has personally run testing on this with profound results. His observations were also uploaded to the aforementioned thread. :cool:
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
"And, Also, of course, how weather modification over the past 5-6 decades does not affect the climate. (?)"

I already told you, as posted in the great slackening thread - It is being controlled by the bubble and cone people.

Buzz has personally run testing on this with profound results. His observations were also uploaded to the aforementioned thread. :cool:
@Hempy McNoodle
 

h.h.

Active member
Veteran
had to look that one up. Were the planted as ornamentals? Not to be confused with Tamarack - fabulous trees,
had to look that one up. Were the planted as ornamentals? Not to be confused with Tamarack - fabulous trees,
The railroads used tamarisk as windbreaks. My dad put in a lot of them for the conservation service. Also known as salt cedar. They grow well in harsh conditions. Very invasive.
 

mexcurandero420

See the world through a puff of smoke
Veteran
Before you want to buy a Tesla car

20220509_102757.jpg
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Before you want to buy a Tesla car

View attachment 18131176
I'm thinking that this statement is not accurate and I'm surprised that you would post this. Plus, it is clearly marked on the machine 998 [the other lettering being unclear] and the obvious spelling error....

I have a little experience with some heavy equipment from excavation work and riparian weir construction. Such a poor efficiency as is stated in this post would soon eliminate purchase of this equipment. Please bear in mind that, dependent on bucket size and material composition that each scoop would be about 32 tons (64,000 pounds) meaning the amount required to be moved would be completed in about 8 scoops. A good operator would accomplish this in 3 minutes or less.
Figure that out for 12 hours and do a cost estimate. On some heavy equipment forums, operators report the 994H as using 5 gallons per hour. My excavator which was puny in comparison used about 1 gallon per hour running with a good ole Detroit diesel.

Mind that I am not quarreling with the impetus of the point being made. Certainly energy storage poses a large hurtle to be surmounted. The way research and progress is being pushed in this area (I know personally some players) I'm pretty confident good solutions are close at hand.

Here, you may look up the specs on the machine. I do take note that they do not attempt a fuel use estimate, saying only that it uses 10% less fuel than its predecessors.

https://machine.market/specification-23388
 

mexcurandero420

See the world through a puff of smoke
Veteran
Figure that out for 12 hours and do a cost estimate. On some heavy equipment forums, operators report the 994H as using 5 gallons per hour. My excavator which was puny in comparison used about 1 gallon per hour running with a good ole Detroit diesel.
Look it up, but one guy mentioned about 55-65 US gallons/hr for the 994H.He found 150 US gallons/hr BS.
 

Doctor M

Active member

Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity​


 
Top