Comment

Comment by Jeff on December 18, 2009 at 2:55pm

Yes, I agree with all of you. I believe the globe has been warming. Other evidence suggests it's now cooling. Whatever the case may be, the earth warms and cools and we're currently experiencing noticeable climate change here in North America and we can see the effect elsewhere across the globe. That these changes are caused by man are still debatable. I'm still uncertain as to whether man-made pollutants effect the environment, or rather the weather as a whole.

We know how easily our pollutants effect smaller rivers and streams. They are devastating. They also recover easily with time if the pollution is stopped. We know some of the effects pollution has on the oceans. We've seen the effects pollution has on the air in our cities. Undoubtedly they are cleaner than they were 50 years, or even 100 years ago. I'm not ready to say unequivocally that man does not effect the weather. It seems that science is undecided on this issue also.

Other evidence, like the factual data within this post makes a clear and definitive argument for war and its obvious contribution to carbon emissions and that's the dilemma posed by war versus the Copenhagen initiatives desired by the global leaders of the world. They are, without question, contradictory in nature.

Neither makes sense when compared to the other.

Therefore, the conclusion that Copenhagen and all legislation or agreements derived from it are a complete fallacy is warranted.

The global leaders either believe the lies or they believe the rest of the world is ignorant. While I would prefer to believe that they believe the lies I'm too smart not to recognize their intelligence and consequently I believe that they believe we're all ignorant. The serious problem attached to that perception is that most of the global population, almost all of it, actually is ignorant. Sadly, we as a species, humanity, do very little to disassociate ourselves from the ignorance that plagues us.

While that's not necessarily true of the population that's regularly active here on 12.160Mhz; in spite of my opinionated arguments with many of you I still find almost all of you far more cognizant and intellectually minded than most people elsewhere, which is the primary reason that I spend as much time as I do posting and commenting here. All of us here are, at the very least, are making a serious effort to understand the world around us, the world we live in.

That's more than I can say for most of the people we share the planet with.

Comment by I811st on December 18, 2009 at 12:04pm

Remember were gonna be borrowing the money from China so we can continue to be the world's nanny. And how will we pay them back? By buying and importing mediocre products from across the Pacific.Thoses ships burn 1,600 GALLONS of fuel pre HOUR!!!! WTF?

The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken.
It is available in 6 through 14 cylinder versions, all are inline engines. These engines were designed primarily for very large container ships. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them.

The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.

Some facts on the 14 cylinder version:
Total engine weight: 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)
Length: 89 feet
Height: 44 feet
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.
For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.

Comment by Tara on December 18, 2009 at 11:58am

Like I've said before, whether you believe in Global Warming or not, the carbon credit/cap-and-trade is nothing but a power/money grab, so obviously the powers that be don't care about the environment, they care about another kind of green monster-money!

Personally, I believe that the climate forever changes and it is a natural occurence, mostly brought about by the suns activites and has been happening since the dawn of time! To claim that carbon dioxide is a toxic pollutant is ridiculous when green plants turn it into carbs and oxygen, part of the natural process of photosynthesis. Without carbon dioxide, life for all living creatures would cease to exist! Carbon monoxide however is toxic and is a whole other story!