diy solar

diy solar

The Real Reason LA port is backed up

If the tree was 200 years old and you have a grove of 200 trees.... harvest one a year and they grow back, carbon neutral.
Yeah .... that would be called forest management.

They are not doing that, but instead setting up a scenario where an entire forest of tress burns all at once .... and it will then be MANY years before that area gets back to anywhere near the growth it once had.
 
Environmentalists seem to have no logic in their decisions.
Ban older trucks from picking up cargo and bring the entire US economy to a halt. For what ?
A tiny bit of emissions that are being released anyway, just not around the port of LA.
Many of us on this forum are waiting months for solar equipment.
Meanwhile, as California strains over a few CO2 molecules, Etna explodes :

It's always amusing when people see something and then jump to the conclusion that what they are seeing is proof positive that it proves their point. I get it, "Smoke Bad". so large Smoke Real Bad.

So lets do the science.
First of all, I guess you would not have imagined that all that volcanic ash and plume actually lead to global cooling and not global warming. For the most part this is rock and minerals burning, not some rich Carbon source like oil.
So while it does produce Co2 the main ingredient is Sulfur, ya know the stuff everyone smells when a Volcano goes off. That Sulfur mixes with Hydrogen and becomes H2SO4 (A Sulfate Aerosol) which actually reflects Sunlight reaching the Stratosphere back out into space and cools the planet unlike CO2 which heats it.
When Mount Pinatubo erupted it cooled the whole earth by over 1 Deg F for three years. It was clearly Visible from Clarke Air force base.

I am not saying it's all good as the H2SO4 also has a depleting effect on the Ozone layer.
What I can tell you is that annual Human pollution is 50-65 times more devastating to the environment than all the volcanoes that erupt every year. So Environmentalist are not illogical, they are just more informed about what the real problems are versus the things that just look like threats.
 
Last edited:
I know, hard to believe, but … it is… the issue is if the forest doesn’t grow back or something else is built on it and takes away the use of it as forest, which cannot then grow back to sequester more carbon … hence why forests and their expansion and regrowth vs their destruction, globally, not just here in the US, needs to be addressed as part of the solution. But we are deforesting and destroying way more than we are regrowing and expanding forests nationally and globally. So sorry, but blaming the tree huggers is just another example of the other side not understanding the bigger picture, imho….

The scenario you describing as carbon neutral would be forest management ..... not a forest fire.

I agree that loosing huge areas that was previously forested is not a good thing. The people who set up protections for the national forests benefitted us in more ways that they knew.

Protecting the rain forests and such is much toucher to influence.
 
If the tree was 200 years old and you have a grove of 200 trees.... harvest one a year and they grow back, carbon neutral.
Great theory but not economically practical. I was in the lumber industry for years and most of the timber harvested is replanted. Same on Federal, State and privately owned forests. Most lumber we see is second growth. second growth refers to anything after the first harvesting of Virginia forest. One Grove out of 200 is practical and in reality is close to what is done.
 
Yeah .... that would be called forest management.

They are not doing that, but instead setting up a scenario where an entire forest of tress burns all at once .... and it will then be MANY years before that area gets back to anywhere near the growth it once had.
Hence the need to stop deforestation, and replant and expand the number of trees. Forests will regenerate if it’s allowed to. We cannot stop forest fires from occurring naturally either. Yet, if we stop with deforestation and let more trees grow, it will be able to sequester more carbon. So yes, the older the forests and the more trees there are in this world, the better it is for our air quality, as well as in regards to the the global warming/climate debates.
 
Great theory but not economically practical. I was in the lumber industry for years and most of the timber harvested is replanted. Same on Federal, State and privately owned forests. Most lumber we see is second growth. second growth refers to anything after the first harvesting of Virginia forest. One Grove out of 200 is practical and in reality is close to what is done.
Not an actual use case. Example for illustration only. Yes with a million acres.... many acres would be cleared and replanted each year.

Unfortunately with clear cutting the diversity of the forest is lost for a long time. Sad that much is destroyed for economics.
 
I don't see how you can take a live tree that is removing CO2 from the environment and burn it .... releasing all the CO2 it has captured it's entire life ... and call that carbon neutral.
Seems like a way to get around addressing the problem.

Maybe if all you were burning was dead downed trees.
CO2 isn't the problem, CO2 is the gas of life - all plants needs CO2. If we reduce CO2 or remove it from the atmosphere -as it is planned- it will reduce the number of plants - aka food. Why nobody want to reduce carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and other harmful gases? Only CO2 is the big enemy...
 
If the tree was 200 years old and you have a grove of 200 trees.... harvest one a year and they grow back, carbon neutral.
Actually we have new Data that shows cutting down an old tree and replacing it with a new one is not a good idea at this critical point in time.
This Video is well worth watching.
 
Yes it has always been best to plant a tree 20 years ago. Second best time is to plant today. (old Chinese proverb)

If you cut them every 200 years.... you get the use of the wood and 90% of the carbon sink.
 
So we just need to use electric trucks. I am sure Elon will ramp up production. The law of unintended consequences.
Sadly, the laws of physics and chemistry preclude the magical thinking that battery powered heavy trucking is a substitute for diesel powered heavy trucking. Battery mass too great and energy density too low … Elon hasn’t built a solution to these problems and never will.
 
Sadly, the laws of physics and chemistry preclude the magical thinking that battery powered heavy trucking is a substitute for diesel powered heavy trucking.
That may currently be true for long distance trucking. There are a lot of short routes where the economics favor battery powered trucks.
 
"Those websites" are called conservative websites, and it's the only place you can find real journalism.
Do you listen to CNN ? ABC ? NBC? CBS ? Did you read what CA has done to trucking ?
Nobody believes the mainstream media anymore, except for a few.......
ROFLMAO..

Conservative websites are very quickly becoming synonymous with fake news..

Yes, most of the main stream media has its problems with story telling, but such problems are universal across both the liberal and conservative sources. These politically slanted information sources are a far cry from the fake news website that was posted.

We don't watch or listen to any television at all.. Our TV isn't connected to any source other than a USB stick when we want to watch a movie.
 
Environmentalists seem to have no logic in their decisions.
Ban older trucks from picking up cargo and bring the entire US economy to a halt. For what ?
A tiny bit of emissions that are being released anyway, just not around the port of LA.
Many of us on this forum are waiting months for solar equipment.
Meanwhile, as California strains over a few CO2 molecules, Etna explodes :

If you added up all the CO2 emissions from every volcano in the world for the entire year, it equates to about 1/50th of what vehicles alone spew out.

Quit reading wacky quaky websites.. pay attention to real science.. you know.. that real science that you trust your life to when you're in an emergency room, or flying 600 mph at 35,000 feet..

To question science while typing away on a device invented by science, requires a third ingredient.. We call this ingredient "conspiracy".. And only people who don't understand science fall for such silly concepts.
 
I suspect all this talk about trees and the such takes into account that we use a unatural amount of natural resources....

Seriously though the only real solution to the "human" problem is less people. Anything else is just people trying to use their political influence to get money/power or some insane belief that what you are doing helps humanity (and hence mother earth).

Says a LOT that in our country we want to expand global trade and the global population.

As far as the port problem goes I'd say the problem is the same. Too much mass movement of things (in this case goods). Its idiotic to think its good to move mass (anything) major distances on the scale we do, all to save a $/work, all the while making the political class rich off it.
 
ROFLMAO..

Conservative websites are very quickly becoming synonymous with fake news..

Yes, most of the main stream media has its problems with story telling, but such problems are universal across both the liberal and conservative sources. These politically slanted information sources are a far cry from the fake news website that was posted.

We don't watch or listen to any television at all.. Our TV isn't connected to any source other than a USB stick when we want to watch a movie.
That's largely because almost all of the so called fact checking outfits that are springing up have a progressive agenda themselves. The fact checkers in many cases are actually the fake news.
There are examples everywhere of things that a year or 2 ago were labeled as fake news are now proven to be true. They were labeled fake to achieve an agenda.
 
Hence the need to stop deforestation, and replant and expand the number of trees. Forests will regenerate if it’s allowed to. We cannot stop forest fires from occurring naturally either. Yet, if we stop with deforestation and let more trees grow, it will be able to sequester more carbon. So yes, the older the forests and the more trees there are in this world, the better it is for our air quality, as well as in regards to the the global warming/climate debates.

You can't prevent them from starting, but forest management can certainly contain the amount of forest that gets burned.
 
Sadly, the laws of physics and chemistry preclude the magical thinking that battery powered heavy trucking is a substitute for diesel powered heavy trucking. Battery mass too great and energy density too low … Elon hasn’t built a solution to these problems and never will.
Tesla Semi will easily haul the heaviest shipping container around the local area. Cross country is generally by rail.
 
That's largely because almost all of the so called fact checking outfits that are springing up have a progressive agenda themselves. The fact checkers in many cases are actually the fake news.
There are examples everywhere of things that a year or 2 ago were labeled as fake news are now proven to be true. They were labeled fake to achieve an agenda.
I knew someone was going to say that.. How about an example with links?
 
I knew someone was going to say that.. How about an example with links?
Knew you were going to say that .... How about the Covid Wuhan Lab leak theory ..... people were banned from Facebook, Instagram, and fact checkers all said ... fake news.... for some reason that's not clear.
Now, it is accepted as the most plausible explanation and has been accepted as fact by all except those who still have an agenda.

You can do your own research for links, but I imagine you already know what I said above and in my previous statement is true.
 
Back
Top