NOTE: I'm not saying Globel Warming is not happening, I question

>> whether we caused it or could do anything to stop it seeing as
>> it's happened multiple times in the past when there were a lot
>> fewer people on earth to create it..

Yeah, I get that. Use something that has some truth to it in order to

>scare us all into doing something "they" (the government, corporations, or
>some mix of the two) want us to. Pretty sure they've tried multiple times
>with Global Warming/Climate Change. It seems to have worked in some
>countries/regions, too.

Yes, part of it is also that what they want us to stop doing is
still good for the planet, so making it sound like it's much more
important that we do these things has a double benefit to the gov't
and for pollution, although we all pay $ for it..

The world has had a lot more years (twice as many) without polar

>> ice caps as with them and 4000 years ago they could grow crops
>> in England that it is now too Cold to grow..

Global warming or natural correction?

The best explanation I have seen was on a PBS special a few years back.

>They looked at how the northern regions of Canada, currently mostly frozen,
>were once rich with plant life. They were quick to point out that this was
>the case while these lands were mostly in their current position, and not
>from back before the continents shifted to where they are now.

They visited several other areas that used to be much different, showing

>evidence in the rocks and ice cores of where different cycles began and
>ended. The end conclusion was that the Earth has always had these cycles, bu
>that the arrival of man (and more specifically, our adoption of fire,
>urbanization, and industrialization) has caused these cycles to be more
>"compact" -- to change more frequently and with greater speed than they used
>to.

I don't find that difficult to believe.

Yes, they can find proof of what was happening thousands of years
ago if they take the time and money to investigate.

As you said, the Canadian arctic (perma-frost) used to be a vast
grassland plus out prairies where most of our crops are grown
used to be Desert thousands of years ago so for that reason I
always use the term Climate Change rather than Global Warming.

There is an excellent book that looks at all this with references
to the real science they use in the book, but the book itself is
a fictional, entertaining story about eco-terrorists written by
Michael Crichton called State of Fear.

That was written in 2004 so some of it may be somewhat outdated
but one thing I recall, I hope correctly, was them talking about
how the ocean levels were rapidly rising, and he pointed out that
there are some inhabited islands where the highest point is only
a few feet above sea level, and they haven't had any problems yet.

Another part was about how any scientists who didn't say exactly
what the Gov't wanted them to say lost their jobs and/or funding.

What I do find difficult to believe is when supposedly expert people claim

>that shifts that happened *before* the industrial age were mostly/completely
>caused by man and not, say, a string of volcanic eruptions (or other
>natural phenomenon) that were known to have happened at about the same time.

Yes, there have been forest fires as long as there have been forests,
long before people, and a good sized volcanic eruption can add a
huge amount of carbon to the atmosphere as well. The amount from
volcanoes is wildly debated online, some say they put out more than
people do and others say only 1% of what people create..

---
* SLMR Rob * Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Also, there are lots of power plants that use water driven turbines
without heat, so much of that here that our power company is called
Ontario Hydro (or Hydro One).

Not sure about Canada, but in the US I can not think of any new dam projects

>ng approved anywhere, as there has been a big enviromental backlash with the
>truction of natural habitates creating the lake.

Yes, it's much more difficult to get that approved these days. In some
places where you have a large river with a high falls naturally, they
can go in and just add the trubines with minimal damage, but sites
like that are rare. (Think - the power plant at Niagara Falls..)

That's mainly for big ones though. In Parry Sound, the closest small
town to me, they recently added a power turbine to a good sized
river that was already somewhat dammed many years ago to protect the
area from flooding during spring runoff and storms and such, which
adds some power to the grid.

Hmm.. Checking.. Apparently there was a smaller one there since
1919 that was rebuilt and puts out 3.1 megawatts of power, up
from the original 1.2 MW. But it's a quite small unit, not much
bigger than a couple of 2 car garages.

I've also heard about other Hydro electric plants in Canada that
run unattended with people only occasionally stopping in to check
on them to do whatever maintenance is needed. They have been
running virtually non stop for so long the power coming out of
them has to be converted from 25 cycle to 60 cycle before it can
be put back in the system. We haven't used 25 cycle power here
since the mid 1950's..

---
* SLMR Rob * I intend to live forever - so far so good
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

That was written in 2004 so some of it may be somewhat outdated
but one thing I recall, I hope correctly, was them talking about
how the ocean levels were rapidly rising, and he pointed out that
there are some inhabited islands where the highest point is only
a few feet above sea level, and they haven't had any problems yet.

I have noticed some social media "articles" (YouTube) where people are
pointing out that islands that should not longer be there still are.

Another part was about how any scientists who didn't say exactly
what the Gov't wanted them to say lost their jobs and/or funding.

This happens now and is a problem. IMHO, things like this help fuel the anti-science conspiracty theorists. People like to point to them like they
are just stupid but, unfortunately, there are often real events that help
fuel their fears.

What I do find difficult to believe is when supposedly expert people claim

>that shifts that happened *before* the industrial age were mostly/completel
>caused by man and not, say, a string of volcanic eruptions (or other
>natural phenomenon) that were known to have happened at about the same time

Yes, there have been forest fires as long as there have been forests,
long before people, and a good sized volcanic eruption can add a
huge amount of carbon to the atmosphere as well. The amount from
volcanoes is wildly debated online, some say they put out more than
people do and others say only 1% of what people create..

Those that want it to be "us" cannot stand the idea that nature might also
be causing some of the issues, just as much as those who want it to be
"nature" cannot stand the idea that we might also be a cause.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * "It's so cold in the D - this is hard to dance to..."
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Yes, I was going to mention the other day that a system creating so

>> much heat it needs to be water cooled also likely makes so much heat
>> that it couldn't be easily recycled unless there were vast reserves
>> of it. Much simpler to just dump the hot water and bring in fresh
>> cooler water.

While they are not a closed system in that they need to account for

>evaporation, don't many power plants (nuclear and some coal) have cooling
>towers to cool the water and presumably reuse it?

Yes, much higher heat there of course. They use the heat created to
cconvert water into steam which drives the power turbines, cooling
things down somewhat at the same time. That steam is then channeled
away and allowed to cool and reconstitute as water to re-use, as
much as possible..

---
* SLMR Rob * Eagles soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Yes, I touched on that in a previous message.. I wouldn't think that
water used for cooling would be polluted to any great extent, but
you are still pulling it out of fresh drinking water in same cases
and possibly dumping it into the sewage treatment plants.

Even with nuclear power, there should be ZERO polution directly related to th

>ooling system. (but try to get the pulic to buy off on that idea). Now, you
>ght have contamination of the water in the holding ponds or if pulling the wa
> from a slow moving river source, due to increase in water temperature and pa
>genic algea.

Yes, barring other problems it should be fairly clean and is usually
safe. You mainly only hear about the rare accidents that cause big
problems and no one mentiones all the ones working perfectly..

It's like the news.. mostly only bad news hits the front page.. B)

---
* SLMR Rob * Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back.
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

>> Evaporative cooling towers? Yes, some water can be reused, but by their ve
>> name, a vast quantity is lost into the atmosphere due evaporation. A Google
>> search says depending on the system between 1 and 30% is reused.

So much for nuclear power not having any affect on the climate, or global

>warming.

Adding water vapour to the atmosphere shouldn't much affect the
climate in the amounts that would be in play there. It's not like
adding Carbon to the air..

---
* SLMR Rob * Nothing is fool-proof to a talented fool
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Adding water vapour to the atmosphere shouldn't much affect the
climate in the amounts that would be in play there. It's not like
adding Carbon to the air..

While it is not like adding carbon to the air, it does add fuel for clouds.
Immediately after 9/11, there was a study done on the affect of not having
any airplanes in the sky creating cloud fuel (i.e. their contrails). It
had a greater affect than one would imagine.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * Wrinkles only go where smiles have been - Jimmy Buffett
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Another part was about how any scientists who didn't say exactly

>> what the Gov't wanted them to say lost their jobs and/or funding.

This happens now and is a problem. IMHO, things like this help fuel the

>anti-science conspiracty theorists. People like to point to them like they
>are just stupid but, unfortunately, there are often real events that help
>fuel their fears.

Yes, most people tend to have some idea of what they expect/want the
science to say, and tend to ignore anything that contradicts that idea.

I know one person who absolutely ignores the news programs, saying
that they are totally controlled by the gov't, and that all the
gov'ts in the world are all controlled by about 6 super wealthy
people who control the information that makes the news in a way
that makes them more money.

I'm sure that is a ridiculous exaggeration of the world reality but
there is some minor truth to news stories being chosen or slanted
to report what high powered people want them to say. And in recent
years you'll find that the same news stories, word for word, are
repeated on dozens of news networks since they are all owned by
one huge media corp. News anchors have lost their jobs for adding
their own opinions on the stories they report. You must read the
script but you can't change it or add to it..

Yes, there have been forest fires as long as there have been forests,

>> long before people, and a good sized volcanic eruption can add a
>> huge amount of carbon to the atmosphere as well.

Those that want it to be "us" cannot stand the idea that nature might also

>be causing some of the issues, just as much as those who want it to be
>"nature" cannot stand the idea that we might also be a cause.

Yes, and most likely the truth is in the middle somewhere.
Nature is likely strongly at work here, but we could be speeding
up the time line somewhat. But I'm sure it's misleading to suggest
that we can stop Climate Change by changing the type of car we drive.

The reality of it is that nature has all the time in the world and
it tends to move slowly so, if the current change is anything like
the last one, maybe we are speeding up things by 50 or 75 years
but it is coming regardless and the last time it lasted for 3000
years, so changing your habits to benefit your grand children may
not be a reality and, again, that slow part, if we totally stopped
creating carbon, it would probably take 100 years to even start to
see any difference, if it actually made any, that assuming that it's
all our fault.

That said, anything that cuts down on pollution is a good thing
which may bring more of us better health even if it doesn't do
much to affect Climate Change.

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at
what number of people the whole world could support at a level
where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so
maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

---
* SLMR Rob * Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back.
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Those that want it to be "us" cannot stand the idea that nature might also
be causing some of the issues, just as much as those who want it to be "nature" cannot stand the idea that we might also be a cause.

True. Look at all the "animal lovers" who think nature would be so peaceful without man. Holding on the the image that those lions, tigers, and bears are
as huggable as the plushies on thier bookshelves.. (Nothing against plushies mind you <Nervously glancing at the plush bat beside him.>.

So many people have litterly been bitten in the butt on that incorrect assumption.

Indeed. One needs to look no farther than the social media influencers and other tourists who are getting chased/attacked/gored by bison that they
thought they could get right up next to.

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * Life after death - is that Terminate and Stay Resident?
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

That said, anything that cuts down on pollution is a good thing
which may bring more of us better health even if it doesn't do
much to affect Climate Change.

Agreed.

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at
what number of people the whole world could support at a level
where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so
maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

Also agreed! I am doing my part in that regard. ;)

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Hello Rob Mccart!

** On Monday 25.08.25 - 07:42, Rob Mccart wrote to MIKE POWELL:

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at
what number of people the whole world could support at a level
where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so
maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

There are reports that populations are already on the decline.

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: (1:396/45.29)

Adding water vapour to the atmosphere shouldn't much affect the

>> climate in the amounts that would be in play there. It's not like
>> adding Carbon to the air..

While it is not like adding carbon to the air, it does add fuel for clouds.

> Immediately after 9/11, there was a study done on the affect of not having
>any airplanes in the sky creating cloud fuel (i.e. their contrails). It
>had a greater affect than one would imagine.

I remember hearing about that, but I'm thinking that was a different
affect than just water vapour would produce.

I wouldn't have thought a power plant would introduce enough water to
the atmosphere to make a noticable difference but...

Looking online there are a wide range of estimates for that, some
saying that plants with cooling towers release almost nothing, not
what someone said the other day. Another site said the ones that
use the water and then dump it are usually set up near the ocean
and use salt water with little affect other than right near the
exhaust pipes (warm water).

One site said that a large Nuclear plant attempting to reclaim
all the water it uses would Lose about 30 million litres per day
to evaporation, a tiny perscentage (1% to 2%) of the total water
it uses for cooling. But that number is still quite a bit higher
than I would have guessed.

It also begs the question, is that enough to make a noticable
difference to the weather or climate ?

---
* SLMR Rob * Never do card tricks for the group you play poker with
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

It's like the news.. mostly only bad news hits the front page.. B)

Or Facebook feed anlytics, you are only shown content that gets you upset, so

>u react and post more. Is that done intentionally OR is it simply that we te
>to only put forth the effort to reply to posts that get our dander up?

Yes, it's like product reviews. Likely the popular ones are planted by
the manufacturer because people very rarely comment on something they
bought that's working well, they only post complaints about problems.

---
* SLMR Rob * No one is listening until you make a mistake
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Look at all the "animal lovers" who think nature would be so peaceful wit

>hout man. Holding on the the image that those lions, tigers, and bears are a
>uggable as the plushies on thier bookshelves.. (Nothing against plushies min
>ou <Nervously glancing at the plush bat beside him.>.

So many people have litterly been bitten in the butt on that incorrect assump

>n.

Yes, having spent decades living by old growth forest surrounded by
tens of thousands of square miles of it you learn a whole new respect,
and possibly a dislike, for a lot of the critters that live there.. B)

A few weeks back a bear ripped through the screen walkout into my
sisters cottage when no one was inside and trashed the place to
the point of smashing open large glass fronted cupboards..

I've had major property damage done by raccoons and been threatened
by bears and cougars and smaller nasty animals when walking around.

---
* SLMR Rob * Success always occurs in private and failure in full view
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

One site said that a large Nuclear plant attempting to reclaim
all the water it uses would Lose about 30 million litres per day
to evaporation, a tiny perscentage (1% to 2%) of the total water
it uses for cooling. But that number is still quite a bit higher
than I would have guessed.

It also begs the question, is that enough to make a noticable
difference to the weather or climate ?

If those are the real numbers, I would say probably not!

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at

>> what number of people the whole world could support at a level
>> where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
>> could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so

>> maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

Also agreed! I am doing my part in that regard. ;)

Yes, my family as well. My parents had 8 siblings, but I have only 2,
and between the 3 of us there is only one child, now grown with 2
children of her own.

This is more typical of rich countries though. Poor countries tend
to have more children so there's a better chance some of them will
survive the poverty and still be around to help feed their parents
in their later years.

Okay, checking that online, apparently i.e. India only averages
1 or 2 children per family. Maybe it's reached a saturation point.

That said, in Canada only 58.2% of families have Any children.

I couldn't find an exact comparison for the USA but several
sites mentioned the typical family size in the USA is 3.13
people, suggesting an average of one child per family.

Not to go too far with this but Germany has about 50% more
children (half a child?) than the USA.

Looking at a list of countries with the Most children, a lot
of countries in Africa and the Middle East have 5 to 7 children
in a family on average.. This was more what I was thinking about.
India was for some reason a poor choice for that.

---
* SLMR Rob * You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at
what number of people the whole world could support at a level
where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so
maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

There are reports that populations are already on the decline.

Yes, mostly in the wealthier countries though, as I mentioned in
the previous message to Mike.

Better off people don't seem to have more than 1 or 2 children
at the most these days and it looks like some of the overcrowded
poorer countries are starting to see that it costs so much to
raise kids that they have fewer now to give them a better chance
of survival, finding enough food and getting a job and an
education at some level.

They say that the cost to raise a child in Canada to age 17
ranges from $238,000 for low income families to over $400,000
in better off families so having 4 or 5 kids can really cut
into your retirement funds... B)

But there are still a lot of countries where birth control is
either unavailable or illegal and some religious orders trying
to keep the population growing to add to their supporters.

---
* SLMR Rob * The sooner you fall behind, the more time to catch up
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

One site said that a large Nuclear plant attempting to reclaim

>> all the water it uses would Lose about 30 million litres per day
>> to evaporation, a tiny perscentage (1% to 2%) of the total water
>> it uses for cooling. But that number is still quite a bit higher
>> than I would have guessed.

It also begs the question, is that enough to make a noticable

>> difference to the weather or climate ?

If those are the real numbers, I would say probably not!

I suppose it may depend on where it is. In some places that much
water would be nothing and in others it would be a lot more than
usual going into the air, although I suppose those very dry areas
might welcome any added moisture they could get..

---
* SLMR Rob * If it weren't for STRESS I'd have no energy at all
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)