PB666

Because in the 19th century the US population was smaller, the life expectancy was lower for all causes, as a relative cause of death. We can add to that we did not really understand the devasting effect of Mercury until the 'crazy-cats' incidence in Japan that was 1950's. Fully recognized potential for many environmental toxins from 1960 onward. Coal produces a number of these. Mercury, carcinogenic particulates, other toxic and inflammatory metals. Plant have been linked to mercury toxicity in fish eaters in Japan, United States. The coal plants particulates have been linked to increased incidences of lung cancer and rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, and exacerbation of post infection sequella, increased risk of tuberculosis. We in the US now know and practice to some degree based on that knowledge. It is however below my standard and trust levels with the corporations that run these plants. The second issue is that problems don't show up immediately, but often take a generation. Epigenetic changes that occur in parents can affect their offspring making them more susceptible, as noted in the video, Stopping pollution of certain kinds does not translate immediately to baseline risk in those born of parents who were exposed, even if the parents were assymptomatic. IMO, permitting the production of energy from facilities in which the risk characterizations are well know and high shows signs of ignorance more than advancement. And in the case of India, what good is the coal, if the particulates are lowering rainfall rates and lack of water means you cannot operate the plant?

Well for example I have a problem with Coal use anywhere not just in the developing countries. Coal burning transfers the energy needs of one generation to other innocent bystanders and to the next generation who do not burn coal. Indochina is an excellent example, they have shifted the Pan-evaporation rates and thus are consequential in the famines affecting africa. But in the world court do starving Africans have a right to sue? We see a generation of malnurished kids that with little future potential as a source of the next generation of unrest. The brown cloud that waifs over Japan an blankets the Northern Pacific is responsible for lung disease in Fukuoka, and for La Nino affects on the US plains states, do they have a right to sue China. The mercury produced from Lignite coal in Texas poisoned the waterways and resulted in mercury poisoned fish, in many lakes no fish over a foot are safe to eat and in the estuaries fish over 30 inches are not safe to eat. Yeah, so no I don't think a power plant in East Texas has the right to burn lignite Coal, nor do tree burners in and Coal plants in India have the right to cause droughts in Africa, nor do Chinese have the right to choke Japanese. Everyone talks about clean coal, but cleaning up coal even in 1st world countries takes decades, and coming from a refining cities and interacting with people in those industries I can tell you all they ways they have found to cheat the system, like releasing their most toxic emissions on rainy or foggy days. In the dev world corruption would allow this to go on all the time. Fortunately in my state, the farmers who had a backbone stood up and said no more lignite coal power plants, it makes sense because the mercury devalues their crops. But a tribesman in Africa cannot stand up to a municipality in India and say the same thing. Thats is a form of institutional discrimination. The second thing, many of these coal plants are simply inefficient, replacement of which would pay-off in a few years.

Start with the most important critique and work down the list. Critique 1. This assumes that atmospheric SO3 could not interconvert with SO2 after the fact due to 0 loss. Critique 2. This assumes that there was not whole scale oxidation of carbon reserves before oxygen was lost. Does that help you along?

But some economist have been arguing that the arab spring has a climate forcing component, rising local food prices coupled with declining production and water hoarding have increases inter-tribal, group, ethnic competition. Overall the africa/middle east reached highest production/technology shortly after the climate maximum and has been in a relative decline since. The problem is that forcing CO2, rising particulates and low pan evaporation rates in the Indian ocean and lowering relative to climate optimum in the glaciation cycle spell particularly bad for the Southwest Asian for almost all of Africa north of the equator. The instability has been rising in African region for more than a decade, its not a recent problem. High fertility rates, the lack of investment in manufacturing economy and long term problems are the base cause of the Syrian issue. The fact is that in its current state many of these countries cannot economically support themselves withou a large impoverished population.

The side mounts maybe pitot tubes, IAS determination. The boxes control the decouplers, one may be also a flight controllerl of sorts.

If i am reading Darnok correctly, thats what he wants, a seventh of the world deserves their fate because they lack the proper adaptive mutations, CO2 is more or less a convinient reason for institutional genocide. Namely they did not crawl out of their mud huts and eliminate all the coal miners, burners and feed lot technicians when they had the chance, survival of the fitest. There was a term for this in the early 20th century, though i forget the name. Citing the law of unintended consequeces and I see black swans all over the place here. You could be a high scale PhD of environmental science but if cat 5 storms trps on a freway you in your lexus as you try to flee a storm that reaches max winds just 24 hours after forming. . . . . . . . . .it was your genes that cause you not to build a stainless steel spherical home 100 feet above sea levell with enough power and supplies to last a month. One thing I see here this year is something that we have not seen since the Younger Dryas, the climate may, for many places, have a profound jumpstate, i.e. pushing the thread back on topic, that was the topic, the potential that 2016 is a jump state, its not about CO2, though its amazing how the climate deniers changed it into a thread about such.

You could try paintbrushing a box and little arrows pointing to you percieved anomaly next time.

I can create the same stuff withou being a computer... Biological ineptness, quasipartioned semiartificial selection potential, to be or be not to. discuss.

Did something unplug itself. It might be better if the cheech snd chong test was performed?

Ok, so we have decided tongo back. Biggest single cause of greenhouse gas is . . . . . . . .Coal fired electrical 44% could fall to 22% if replaced by natural gas . . . . . . . . Cattle Livestock 18%. This one gets double duty sine it is a cause of deforestation, could be reduced by 2/3 rds if people who eat too much red meat and milk replaced these with vegetarian equivilants. Not all are the sames, eggs have more prorien and have smaller foot. IOW right now one third the global greenhouse emissions are simply due to human carelessness, and have nothing to do with technology.

Its a bit image graphics file, try getting a graphics file covertervto open it. you could alsontry inserting it into a word document.

Your control is the other launch core, pictures of which we haven't seen at either angle, you would have to put the two side by side and compare.

Lots of words, mostly fertilizer. Of course if you want to go this route I can observe, and see how well,it works out for you. I've decided that I am not a Neanderthal, and since 94% of their genome went extinct, not sure why feel the need to dig them up a force the other 6% into extinction.

Silly, thats a rubber smear from being grappled. Its superficial.

Still don't see any damage

I don't see any damage.

This idea was previously presented and discredited. Climate change and global warming are twomfaces of the same coin, on the one side you have a climate forcing agent on the other side you have the mechanics of force speading. If you heat a cup of water it warms, but over time it cools, one way is to release heat, another way is for it to release steam and the steam causes convection which increases the rate of evaporation, cooling the cup. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/climate-forcing.html https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html Anyway this thread is not about CO2 fircing, its about 2016 and climate destabilization in parts of the world.

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2014/mar/04/selfish-amorality-climate-change-naysayers/

No the Main tank clamps can hold the booster at least while the booster is near full fuel, once the fuel goes down then the forces might be to great for the decoupler, you have to release the booster, you can use the main engines to buffer the fall if you power them up as the boosters are being decoupled. Of course the red tank will fall over once you hit the pad, but a little bit of hydrol-ox never hurt anyone, cept maybe challenger, and my high school chemistry class mates . . . . . . BTW when has an SFRB ever failed to ignite on a launch? I though that was just about the most reliably firing engine that has ever existed. Just have two primer cords on the sucker and it goes. We are after all talking about the shuttle in the past tense, so it kind of means that the risk is something that might have showed up in the past.

Note the main engines would have gone offline, and you would only have a stack TWR of 0.615. Side TWR is slightly above G-force, Of course you can't abort after SFRB ignition, you can however release the SFRB, lol.

Where was this reentry vehicle designed.

Shuttles thrust is 30,125,000 N and starting mass is 2 050 000 (without payload) this is less than a 1.5 TWR Each booster contributed 41.5 percent of thrust lift off, if you dropped one engine. 1.5 x (1-0.41) = TWR 0.881 You are not going anywhere with a failed booster. So for 100s seconds you will be experiencing living hell.

Carbon is easy to extract, take salt water remove the chlorine and hydrogen in equimolar ratios, you have alkali run this over a water cooler and it sucks the Co2 right out of the air, take the resulting bicarbonate and heat it to near boiling and CO2 promptly comes off. It also sucks up NO, NO2, RNO, SO2, If you don't believe me take a glass of water and a teaspoon, next bring to boil the glass of water, while its still hot dump the teaspoon of baking soda into it, it immediately you will see CO2 evolve, if you do this under pressure even more CO2 will evolve. If you then take that, remembering that sodium hydroxide has a very high solubility in water, and just let it sit out for a few days the CO2 will absorb agian and the bicarbonate will start crystallizing. So after several days air pollutants will degrade your soda, and eventually you will need more salt. The problem is not so much capturing CO2, the problem is that it is toxic much over current levels, and your typical greenhouse is kind of expensive to cool with the glass and CO2. And you cant really storeit cheaply. Now if you really want CO2 fast and dont want to fiddle with big watercooler type equipment, Pump seawater into a system degass it free of O2 and bubble hydrogen chloride along a counter flow gradient of heating the water, you can get out almost pure CO2 out in a single step. Not very environmentally friendly.

Shuttles main engine powered up only after boosters reached full power, the shuttle itself did not have enough booster power to lift off, if a single booster failed the shuttle would just sit on the pad until the other burnt out of fuel. With a single engine, two or three engine failure, keep launch clamps power down main engines and wait with clinched fists for 2 minutes, then about thirty minutes for tower cool down, then rescue. Of course, once the launch clamps are released the shuttle could no abort if it had a positive rate of climb.

It will definitely never fly, it doesn't have wings and it can't flap.