Mother nature, frosty in tooth and claw
Posting will be delayed today due to widespread ice-generated power outages all over New England, including my home. It’s spotty though—I’m at a nearby friend’s house right now, and it’s a little oasis of power. I probably will do some sort of posting later today, so stay tuned.
You posted to tell us you’re not posting. And I’m commenting on it. People crack me up.
(now practicing my new short style – links no minimal edited quotes)
it was snowing in texas too…
and here is why… solar cycle 24 shows up in time so save us from the control freaks.
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html
the earth has been cooling…
in the end if the false info wins, we enter a dark age… if the false info loses, everyone no longer trusts science any more (and the philsophers with ideology win over scientists with empiricism taking back their pre newtonian crown).
Scientists abandon global warming ‘lie’
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83323
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference
Tax on livestock farting planned
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene_cow_tax_2
and something to prepare for the coming season..
Photographing Snowflakes a how to guide.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photo2/photo2.htm
even between two tigers one can take time to taste the strawberries… 🙂
thats life… C’est la vie..
You must be a bit north of me. In Connecticut we got a ton of rain. More locals roads closed than I ever remember. We were without power for about 4 hours this morning. Hope you get yours back before the temps begin to plummet.
My home in Rochester, NH is w/o power. We’re staying at the in-law’s house in Somersworth until we get it back, which could take days. Hoping that the food in our freezer and refrig is not spoiled. I just feel grateful for the simple things, like being in a house that has heat and light.
I blame global warming. I mean, they tell us that if it is warmer, then it’s global warming, and if it’s cooler, then it’s also because of global warming.
And of course in the new Obama era, we must think as we are told to….
I think it’s going to be a miserable Winter.
I’m looking forward to retiring to Hawaii… 😉
We were without power all day yesterday, but we are so lucky to have it back today. Many are still without power.
I hope that you are doing well today.
Events like this reminds me of how some, myself included, are really not all that well prepared… Granted, this episode didn’t last that long, but what if it was to last for a few days? I hate the thought of having to depend on someone else for my well-being…
Pingback:In some rare cases | My Acai Online
one inch of rain = 1 foot of snow..
the east coast gets to benifit from city heat sinks that melt snows that just outside the cities freeze.
on another note. mitsu argued for pages and such about co2 sequestration… occam, myself and others tried… but mitsu with leftist physics would not listen.. since ideology commanded it. now take a look at this… liquid c02 from coal takes up 6 times the volume… so for every huge strip mine, you need 6 more volumes worth to store the result of burning..
there is no link to this other than a whole website, so i post it here.
VIABILITY OF ‘CLEAN COAL’ PROCESS UNLIKELY
An email from retired metallurgist John Harborne, MIEAust, CPEng. [harbs@iprimus.com.au]
For several years now, “clean” coal, involving carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, has been touted as the means of mitigating global warming, supposedly arising from fossil-fuel-burning power stations. But, of course, this necessarily comes at a considerable price increase for electricity.
It is not well-known that a huge drawback to the substantially unproven CCS process is that every cubic metre of (solid) coal that is burnt produces about six cubic metres of liquefied CO2. (The actual amount of super-critical fluid, or near-liquid, CO2, is based on complete combustion of the coal, its complete capture, and the actual carbon content of the coal … an 80% carbon coal yields six cu. metres of near-liquid CO2.)
It doesn’t take an Einstein to realise the immense logistics and difficulties of dealing with the around-sixfold increase in volume from coal to near-liquid CO2. Unless power generators have a ready sink in which to inject the voluminous CO2 (such as a depleted oil well), it won’t take long before multiple injection points have to be created, because the CO2 will readily exhaust the brine-filled pores of a deep, geologically acceptable rock stratum, such as sandstone (which must have an impermeable caprock anyway). If the geosequestration point is well away from the power station, huge costs in infrastructure to transport the large volumes of near-liquid CO2 (pipelines or tankers) will be inevitable.
Apart from the above, it is easy to gloss over other problems with the CO2, once underground. The volumes have to be retained in the rock forever, which is a huge ask, because near-liquid CO2 has extremely low viscosity and will sneak out of any fissure. Also, the CO2, being acidic, is highly reactive to organic and mineral constituents, possibly leading to fouling of aquifers for human or animal consumption.
“Clean” coal does not appear to be a realistic solution.