America's intention to build on the Moon

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

Perhaps they should start with building a recycle plant to sort out the rubbish they have already put on the moon!!

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

:DActually, those living at a moonbase will be recycling like nobody ever did on Earth! Everything they have will be so precious as it's such a lifeless place. Urine will be recycled into drinking water again, exhaled air will be so far as possible cleaned up andbreathed again. Most power will be from solar power (which is why the base will be at the moon's pole, so there won't be any nights), etc.

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

My feeling, is that such Governments be made to clean up their acts as far as this planet is concerned, before ruining another.

Patsy.

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

Hi Patsy,

My reading of colourful's first post is that she is actually concerned about the Arctic, and the environment here on Earth, yes. But so far as the moon is concerned, the USA is hardly going to "ruin" it, ;). We're talking about maybe six or eight or whatever people living on an entire world. There's not even anything there, such as atmosphere, to pollute! So I don't think we need worry about the moon. 😀

Environmental ruin back here on Earth - yes, obviously.

So far as pollution, environmental issues, and CO2 in the atmosphere is concerned here on Earth, it sure looks to me as if Westerners have got the wrong end of the stick and are becoming "active" in quite the wrong directions. The idea is that we all cut down on CO2 emissions and the use of fossil fuels, right? To focus just on that as one major aspect of pollution, what are we doing about it? Well, America is doing b**** all as we all know, but here in Europe we're not cutting down much either, even as hypothetical future plans. Nevertheless, I'm afraid to say that the future of the planet and the effect pollution is going to have on the Earth isn't mainly in the hands of the USA or Europe anyway.

Both India and China each have populations of about one billion. That's 20 percent of the world's population in each of them. And both of them are becoming advanced and industrialised at an incredibly fast rate. The impact they will have on the atmosphere is justoverwhelming compared to what anyone in Europe can do. Here we are, LOL, trying to recycle plastic and newspapers, when 40 percent of the world's population are just on the verge of many of them having cars, all the high-tech electrical goods which burn energy, and they've so far been deprived of all this. They couldn't care a toss for the envoronment as they now want their turn at being consumers.

I heard somewhere that if the UK stopped using any fossil fuels at all (which right now is totally impossible), we are so small in numbers that the difference that would make to the environment would be matched by just the mere growth of China's economy over a 10-month cycle.

So the situation looks hopeless. The West is now becoming aware of global warming - but nothing we do will have much effect since China and India are now moving into becoming the biggest fossil-fuel burners on Earth, arguably along with the USA still. And there's nothing I can think of that we can do about it. They are sovereign nations, and they'll do what suits them.

V

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

Now you're just scaring me David!

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

Hi Jas,

Well, that's how I read it! All the growing awareness in the West of the deteriorating ozone layer, and us recycling a few newspapers and tin cans will have pretty little effect now that China and India are industrialising Western-style, and no-one can stop them.

Me, I just (I admit) try not to think of it. It's quite possible that some 'divine intervention' will occur just when we really need it, such as a proven and repeatable, reliable, source of endless free energy such as a developed cold fusion or such.

V 😉

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

Fingers crossed on divine intervention then! I wonder exactly how much they pollute the air with a rocket launch! Not that I want them to stop, I think we are going to need another planet before too long. There's just too many folks on this ship to sustain at the growing rate. Then again, that's probably why we have these pole shifts and mass environmental destruction every few thousands of years - just to balance it out again so Mother Earth can cope 😮

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

Hi David,

Yes, it might be a handful of people at first, but how long before the Moon is 'terraformed' and then more and more people turn up? This terraforming idea was mooted some years ago, but it was Mars, not the Moon in the sights of scientists.

I am not convinced that man is entirely responsible for global warming; it is believed that planet Mars is also warming up, but I think that we all need to stop polluting the place with our rubbish and detritus.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxx

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

I don't know if terraforming would be possible on any world we know of, but I'd think not on the moon as its gravity isn't strong enough to hold on to any atmosphere.

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

The other more unpopular theory is that the Earth is actually warming up naturally. Solar emissions from the Sun are up, which in turn is heating up Mars and Earth. The Earth has been gradually increasing in Temperature (cyclic) since records really began. There hasn't really been an increase in the rate of warming in the last 50 years since emissions have been at there highest.
In the 80s, the biggest fear of scientists was we are heading toward an iceage (and one is indeed true in the next few thousand years) so IF emissions are contributing to the earths temperature maybe we should continue to pump them out?
Personally any self destructive behaviour on the planet isn't the best. However recycling isn't the answer. The only thing that it is feasable to recycle at the moment is food with composting, and aluminium cans.
Most paper is produced for managed farms, as is timber for building. Native slow growing timbers should be protected and suitable species planted for construction and furniture. Bamboo should also be looked at for flooring and other needs.
How many of you that are actually voicing concerns take mass transit or walk? Have you looked at installing any form of solar power for your hot water?
When I build in a couple of years, I already have plans for a strawbale house, with composting toilet. This should save 1000s of litres of water each year. (and shifting haybales around is good exercise and very very cheap compared to getting someone else to build. and the long term power saving in insulation are immense.)
New Zealand has been rabidly anti nuclear since the 80s. When modern nuclear power is very clean (About half a 40 gallon drum of waste per year) Which at the moment to me is preferable to coal or moving the courses of rivers for hydro power.
Many countries in the world have numerous reactors and have operated them without problems. There have been a couple of accidents, as always happens with new technology. But other than that Nuclear is a safe abundent power.
Currently NZ needs much more generation to keep up with poplation growth. A massive windfarm has been proposed in a remote high country area. The 'conservationists' argue that the towers will spoil the scenery. I just do not understand how a source of power that is totally environmentally nuetral can possibly be rejected. Either we have this form of power sourse or we have coal, oil and nuclear. Which priority is more important?

The bright side to building on the moon is
a) No atmosphere to cock up
b) Loveable friendly space aliens ala SPACE1999 will befirend us.

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

Hi FAS.

I agree with you on wind farms. There was a long thread on that somewhere (under science?) on HP way back, and I seem to recall people were perhaps split 50-50. But I've encountered them in Denmark and actually thought they made the scenery much nicer!

ORIGINAL: FAS_Dunedin

There hasn't really been an increase in the rate of warming in the last 50 years

Yes, but that's, if true, no increase in the "rate" of increase! In other words, CO2 is going up and up. Solar flares wouldn't explain CO2 increases, or ozone holes, would they?

On the ice age issue, it's no reason to increase CO2 emissions! The predicted ice age would be localised to Europe because of warming. We are only not in an Arctic environment at the moment because of the warming Gulf Stream, and the Gulf Stream is pulled into existence by the annual melting of the non-salty north polar icecap. As the icecap melts through global warming, the prediction is that the Gulf Stream will halt, in which case we'll have an arctic weather system in Europe. So CO2 is the last thing we need. [:-]

Personal efforts to recycle, or not to use fossil fuels, are commendable. In the end it all comes down to individuals. But it's all at the moment a minute gesture when you consider that China and India are industrialising - with populations of one billion each. [:-]

Sometimes future developments are completely unpredictable. It's rare that anyone in history could have predicted some of the astonishing things due to happen 50 years hence. So I'm crossing my fingers and hoping, maybe even expecting, for totally new and unforeseen sources of energy to be discovered, so that burning fossil fuels will suddenly be totally old-fashioned and not economical.

V

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

I was being a bit facicious about increasing CO2 output. However look at this summary of a study from 1988-2005 in Helsinki.
With the full study here [link= http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/globwarm.htm ]http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/globwarm.htm[/link]

Summary
1. There has been a fall of 0.2-0.3 degrees Celsius from 1988 to 2004. The level reached during the 17 years in 1988-2004 is rivalled during the last 200 years only in 1930-1939. 2. The sunspot maxima and minima are clearly seen in the data just during the period when man is supposed to be guilty of warming the atmosphere (minima in 1986 and 1996, maxima in 1989 and 2000). The level of activity is in accord with the temperature and could be the reason for the 0.3 degree drop (the cycle peaking in 1989 reached 160 Wolfs, the cycle peaking in 2000 reached 120 Wolfs). The data may suggest an immediate reaction towards the winter temperatures and a delayed one or more long-lasting towards the summer temperatures.
3. The 1930's and the 1990's are equal in temperature. The mean temperature of the 1930's is 6.0 degrees Celsius and of the 1990's 5.9 degrees the difference being statistically insignicant. So the result is a tie. There is NO SIGN OF ANY RISE OF TEMPERATURE from 1930 to 2004.
4. There is one degree colder period from 1940 to 1987 compared to the preceding 10 years and following 17 years.
5. A real rise shows from 1830 to 1930. There is first a much colder climate (by about 2 degrees) than today and then a gradual rise from 4 degrees to 6 degrees from about 1880 to 1930. Various proxies show that the temperature were last as high and partly even higher around the year 1000 AD and again in the 1100's. That's the time when Greenland was green as the name given by the Vikings indicates.

6. Thus the 175-year period investigated (1829-2004) can be divided into 5 subperiods:
--- 1. the cold period before 1880 (possibly at least from Dalton minimum's minimum in the 1810's): 4 degrees
--- 2. the real and only permanent participation of Helsinki in the global warming from 1880 to 1930: a rise from 4 to 6 degrees.
--- 3. the first part of the Modern Warm Period (MWP2) during the 1930's and partly during the 1940's: 6 degrees.
--- 4. the medium period from 1950 to 1987: 5 degrees.
--- 5. the second part of the Modern Warm Period since 1988: 6 degrees.
7. The temperature of the whole period correlates neatly both with the length of the sunspot cycles and the socalled Gleissberg cycle (71-84 years).

Also here
[color="#470d05"]Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data. Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate. During the last 100 years there have been [color="#00003f"]two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no [color="#00003f"]significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.

[color="#330099"]1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

Thanks a great deal for that post. I do love anomalous data and findings. Interesting indeed! Yes, of course, Greenland only some centuries back was not so called for nothing ...

Apologies for being too lazy to look it up. There's no reason to really. But again, here on HP about 1-2 years ago (probably again under "Science") there was a long-running thread on whether global warming was real (as man-made) or a bit of a media con or hype, or hysteria. For whatever motive, if any or none.

Again I seem to recall people being split about 50-50 then between "Man is ruining the world" and "Calm down, there's no real evidence". TBH, I was then on the latter side; but the media has been full of such a lot of seemingly convincing stuff that I'd quietly slunk over to believing that man is responsible.

I'll keep a more open mind, huh?

It's confusing, as various 'experts' have made extremely strong cases either way. They don't seem to meet up and haggle out their differences, so the public is left lost and in-between.

P.S. A cooler period in Dickensian times was also caused by the explosion of Krakatoa - so after that the world had to naturally warm up once again too.

V

RE: America's intention to build on the Moon

Hi,
I read a paper recently by Viscount Monkton of Brenchley. Basically it states that not all scientists are agreed that climate change is the product of Human activity. It was reproduced in the Telegraph online.

Interestingly it states that there were various warm periods during the middle ages etc.
It also shows a co-relation between solar activity and global warming.

I am no expert on this but it appears that Margaret Beckett is because when this paper was presented her reaction was to say that these sort of views should be denied access to the media. This could explain why the debate doesn't seem to happen.

It would seem that any view that challenges theorthodoxy that global warming is the result of human activity is being surpressed by polititians that have a vested interest in using that orthodoxy as an excuse to raise taxes.

Dunkirk