tooldtocare
Active Member
I am sorry that the image is so large. If I could cut the size in half then we would have a model we could discuss.
Climate Change is real
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I am sorry that the image is so large. If I could cut the size in half then we would have a model we could discuss.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
No it won't. That will not generate enough force.
Just like water turbines are used on rivers and streams because the water flow has the force to turn the blades.
You are trying to reinvent the wheel.
Tidal Power
Phoneman777
Well-Known Member
- Jan 14, 2015
- 8,121
- 2,764
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I wonder if all can adapt. Have you ever seen a movie called C
e And Theo? It was very thought provoking. :)
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,082
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
Wadr you seem to be ignoring that your handlers seem to be deliberately leading you to Armageddon, and you are a willing participant? Aren't you worried even a little about
Time to destroy those who destroy the earth?
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,082
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
Ha we've had those for a hundred years bro; try mass-marketing one and see what happens lol
It's somehow against the law here in FL for me to put solar on my roof!
tooldtocare
Active Member
You are just wrong. In a water wheel only one (1) water blade is using the force of the water at any one point in time.
In my model there are twelve (12) buckets full of air pulling up at any one point in time. This magnifies the energy of one lifting bucket to twelve (12).
It is the multiplying effect that generates the energy.
FYI
In December 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in Hawaii. In February, 3 months later, a Japanese submarine surfaced off the coast of California and lobbed a number of shells into an oil field near Santa Barbara and immediately adjacent to the Los Padres national forest. interestingly, the commander of that submarine, a certain Kozo Nishino, was the captain of an oil tanker who visited that same refinery to load up a few short years previously. On the way to an official welcome with a number of his officers and crew, he tripped, fell off the footpath, and landed in a bunch of prickly pear. This proud Japanese captain then had to expose his butt to his crew who then went about extricating said prickles. If that wasn't bad enough, several employees of the refinery spotted this ignominious state of affairs and found it to be highly amusing, much to the chagrin no doubt of the poor captain. Revenge? Partly maybe, but certainly he had knowledge of those waters and tides, and was likely the most experienced naval commander to carry out the attack. The Japanese had come up with the idea that setting fire to the forests was a great weapon. (Look up fire balloons on Google)
Anyway, shortly thereafter, on the back of public concern for the integrity of their forests and national fervour in the wake of that attack upon their homeland, there began a public service advertising campaign promoting fire safety in wilderness areas. Walt Disney studios loaned the new cartoon character “Bambi” and the campaign took off. This loan arrangement however was for only one year, so the promoters had to find a new mascot. They settled on a black bear, and named him “Smokey”. This was in 1944, and the series still runs today. Smokey Bear is so ingrained into the American psyche, 95% of people can recite the motto “Only you can prevent forest fires” with very little prompting.
Run in conjunction with this campaign was a United States Forest Service (USFS) policy which detailed how the forest service would use whatever resources, technology and manpower available to extinguish any and all wild-fires as quickly and as efficiently as possible. This was the ‘green’ version of zero tolerance on crime. Worldwide interest in the last several decades on all matters ecological and the determination to conserve resources and potentially ‘save the planet’, ensured that the American Federal government along with the state governments provide all resources, money, support and backing that was required to implement that policy. Included in this was an influx of returned service men to add to the Forest Service personnel numbers. The result of all this was that the USFS became very very good at putting out fires. Prior to the year 2000 95% of all wild-fires were extinguished before they had affected 300 acres. 4% of the remainder were dealt with within certain allowable limits and deemed acceptable. The USFS had became a highly skilled and professional organisation. However, what appeared on the surface to be an excellent statistical record in the year 2000, the remaining 1% developed into a major problem.
From the year 2000 on there were a number of major fires throughout the United States and the expression ‘mega-fire’ became a household term even in my own country, New Zealand. Permit me to provide some numbers.
Those fires in 2002 were of special interest to me as they were headline news in our country for months. Note that all those fires were raging at the same time, and affecting a total of over 6 million acres. Smaller fires however were also sprouting at that time all over the country, from Florida all across the Midwest and beyond, as well as those places mentioned above. TV news showed black barren landscapes and exhausted fire-fighters covered in black ash, many injured and burnt. Because fire-fighters from the Pacific NW had travelled to the more southern mid-west states to assist, when the full extent of the fires in Oregon and Nth. California became known, everyone realised they were desperately short of manpower, and Australia, Canada and New Zealand sent contingents of our own forest service personnel to assist.
When rain finally accomplished what man could not, questions were being asked of the USFS as to why and how such a catastrophe could take place despite all the precautions and resources that had been delegated to avoid that very thing from happening. Also, one may wonder why for 50 years or so only one major glitch in the numbers, then chaos breaks loose since 2000? In an interview on TV news here, a reporter asked that very question, and a FS spokesman gave a very honest and succinct answer, which being an ex forest service employee myself, I immediately understood. The answer was: “Because we’ve been too good at putting fires out in the past.”
In December 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in Hawaii. In February, 3 months later, a Japanese submarine surfaced off the coast of California and lobbed a number of shells into an oil field near Santa Barbara and immediately adjacent to the Los Padres national forest. interestingly, the commander of that submarine, a certain Kozo Nishino, was the captain of an oil tanker who visited that same refinery to load up a few short years previously. On the way to an official welcome with a number of his officers and crew, he tripped, fell off the footpath, and landed in a bunch of prickly pear. This proud Japanese captain then had to expose his butt to his crew who then went about extricating said prickles. If that wasn't bad enough, several employees of the refinery spotted this ignominious state of affairs and found it to be highly amusing, much to the chagrin no doubt of the poor captain. Revenge? Partly maybe, but certainly he had knowledge of those waters and tides, and was likely the most experienced naval commander to carry out the attack. The Japanese had come up with the idea that setting fire to the forests was a great weapon. (Look up fire balloons on Google)
Anyway, shortly thereafter, on the back of public concern for the integrity of their forests and national fervour in the wake of that attack upon their homeland, there began a public service advertising campaign promoting fire safety in wilderness areas. Walt Disney studios loaned the new cartoon character “Bambi” and the campaign took off. This loan arrangement however was for only one year, so the promoters had to find a new mascot. They settled on a black bear, and named him “Smokey”. This was in 1944, and the series still runs today. Smokey Bear is so ingrained into the American psyche, 95% of people can recite the motto “Only you can prevent forest fires” with very little prompting.
Run in conjunction with this campaign was a United States Forest Service (USFS) policy which detailed how the forest service would use whatever resources, technology and manpower available to extinguish any and all wild-fires as quickly and as efficiently as possible. This was the ‘green’ version of zero tolerance on crime. Worldwide interest in the last several decades on all matters ecological and the determination to conserve resources and potentially ‘save the planet’, ensured that the American Federal government along with the state governments provide all resources, money, support and backing that was required to implement that policy. Included in this was an influx of returned service men to add to the Forest Service personnel numbers. The result of all this was that the USFS became very very good at putting out fires. Prior to the year 2000 95% of all wild-fires were extinguished before they had affected 300 acres. 4% of the remainder were dealt with within certain allowable limits and deemed acceptable. The USFS had became a highly skilled and professional organisation. However, what appeared on the surface to be an excellent statistical record in the year 2000, the remaining 1% developed into a major problem.
From the year 2000 on there were a number of major fires throughout the United States and the expression ‘mega-fire’ became a household term even in my own country, New Zealand. Permit me to provide some numbers.
- 2000 Arizona, New Mexico 47,650 acres. May 5-25
- Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho 6.5 million acres.
Later the same year…New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington
7.2 Million acres.
- 2002 Colorado 137,760 acres June 8-July 18
- New Mexico 92,522 acres June 2-June 19
- Arizona 468,638 acres June 18-July 2
- Oregon 499,965 acres July 13-Sept. 5
- California 150,969 acres July 21- Aug 28
- 2003 California 739,596 acres Oct. 21-Nov 10
- 2004 Alaska 6,300,000 acres June-November
- 2006 Texas March/ 190,000 December/ 3.7 million acres
Those fires in 2002 were of special interest to me as they were headline news in our country for months. Note that all those fires were raging at the same time, and affecting a total of over 6 million acres. Smaller fires however were also sprouting at that time all over the country, from Florida all across the Midwest and beyond, as well as those places mentioned above. TV news showed black barren landscapes and exhausted fire-fighters covered in black ash, many injured and burnt. Because fire-fighters from the Pacific NW had travelled to the more southern mid-west states to assist, when the full extent of the fires in Oregon and Nth. California became known, everyone realised they were desperately short of manpower, and Australia, Canada and New Zealand sent contingents of our own forest service personnel to assist.
When rain finally accomplished what man could not, questions were being asked of the USFS as to why and how such a catastrophe could take place despite all the precautions and resources that had been delegated to avoid that very thing from happening. Also, one may wonder why for 50 years or so only one major glitch in the numbers, then chaos breaks loose since 2000? In an interview on TV news here, a reporter asked that very question, and a FS spokesman gave a very honest and succinct answer, which being an ex forest service employee myself, I immediately understood. The answer was: “Because we’ve been too good at putting fires out in the past.”
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
Taken
Well-Known Member
What's new is the increase in numbers of fires and other Acts of God.
Earthquakes, storms and other Acts of God have occurred for thousands of years...
Climate "change" has occurred for thousands of years according to Gods Acts and design of SEASONS.
Nothing man can do to Stop Gods Acts or God INCREASING in numbers or strength His Acts.
....Not by numbers of men, Laws of men, or any Governments compulsion of conficating the world's Dollar as a Pseudo ploy to overcome Acts of God.
Glory to God,
Taken
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 6,076
- 7,471
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
Air pressure would need to be 260psi to overcome the static head of water. Haven't done the calc, but the air compressor must take more power than you would get out of the system.
Conservative Christians know that climate change is real and than humans have contributed to it or even caused it, but they simply do not care because Jesus is coming back to destroy it and make a new earth. I just wish they would be honest about their fatalism
Human beings are not responsible for climate change (so-called global warming), and over 100 scientists have already declared that this is a bogus issue, and a total hoax, to divert attention from the real issues. And no one is going to get Russia, China and India to clean up their act, so there goes all the malarkey about climate change.
'November 6, 2018 (American Thinker) – About 10 years ago, the brand name global warming was changed to climate change. The reason was simple: the Earth was failing to warm. An additional benefit of the climate change slogan was that everything that goes wrong with the weather can be blamed on climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels. The 2012 Hurricane Sandy, which flooded parts of New York and New Jersey, is routinely blamed on climate change. The great New England hurricane of 1938 struck the same area and was vastly worse, killing more than 600 persons. That could not be blamed on climate change caused by CO2, because CO2 was not an issue in 1938. Blaming Sandy on CO2-caused climate change is simply a made up story without scientific foundation. Just because there are plenty of scientists making a connection between climate change and Sandy, that does not mean that a scientific foundation exists. It does mean that plenty of scientists are eager to benefit from natural disasters...'
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/global_warming_and_fake_science.html
Triumph1300
Well-Known Member
Who are you speaking for?
You watch to many weird socalled christian television?
Many are false teachers in my opinion.
BTW I believe climate change is happening all through history, nothing new under the sun.
I believed it before I became a Christian and after I came to Christ.
Just saying.
Where I live there was about 1 mile or more of ice.
When that started to melt THAT was global warming, a normal process.
Yet, it has accelerated greatly since the industrial revolution. We are no longer simply experiencing a natural global warming, scientists are calling it the beginning of a period of extinction
A hundred huh? Compared to the rest of the scientific community? Please. I guess you found a few scientists funded by the oil companies - I am sure there are a few scientists that still believe smoking doesn’t cause cancer too
Triumph1300
Well-Known Member
Depends which scientists you are listening to.
I think you listen to the radical left wingers who have an agenda. :-)
- Aug 10, 2012
- 6,076
- 7,471
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
IMHO people worrying about climate change is demonstative of their abundant hubris. First that they have such an significant impact on climate in the first place, that they can do anything meaningful about it, and that their prognostications about a future climate disaster will occur as predicted. But more than any of this, and what drives my apathy towards climate issues, is the political party backing this fearmongering.
Similar threads
