What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

[garyhaupt]

That's one weather prediction for southern California in the next week.


Gary Haupt

[colliehauler]

10 trillion gallons of water would be a lot of toilet flushing, especially in a RV.

[azrving]

westend wrote:

I suppose with the way that we RV'ers burn fuels we would be in the abiotic camp. That's not to say that we aren't burning it faster than the earth could produce it.

That is interesting as it presumes that one's use (or a group's use) would determine what particular scientific mechanisms are at work. In the context of the discussion in this thread, that would mean if I am a large generator of CO2, greenhouse gas effect is nil.

Here is one analogy that explains fossil fuel use:

You and I are visitors from another planet. Our form and nutrition requirements are similar to Homo Sapiens. When we land on Earth, you, as the Captain, task me, the procurer, to go out and seek food as we only have a limited supply. I go out and return with solutions for our needs. "Captain, I have found the exact things we need", I report. "We will have snail darters, bald eagles, and spotted owls as our main diet". "Terrific", the Captain replies.

All goes well for awhile but soon everyone realizes that our menu is dwindling and that our choices for food may have not been the best.
The moral of this is "don't put all your eggs in one basket". We will run out of crude oil some day and as that oil gets harder to produce, it's usefulness over other fuels will decline. "never say never".

Oh yes indeed. I'm not saying abiotic oil is going to save us or that it's good to burn it if it is true. I say never say never when believing what some say is scientific gospel. Long before solar panels were common I always thought the sun is right there everyday and we need to utilize it. That was 50 years ago. We have come a long way in a relatively short time. Solar panels are made from silicon but they remind me of dirt in a different way. I used to wrench on heavy trucks and equipment used in landscaping supply businesses. The price of the dirt is cheap, the final price is in the transport of it. Solar Blvd has an 100 watt panel for $80.00 and $30.00 to ship it. Within a couple years it will probably be $50/$35 or $50/$40. Is a 40 % efficient panel going to cost $10.00 and ship for $50? 🙂

The link that John and Angela posted on the cafe standards thread is interesting. Change is coming, it may not be as quickly for our heavy type of vehicles but it's coming. Just as one car appeared on fifth ave New York among a sea of horses, within 15 years it was a sea of cars and one horse.

[westend]

I suppose with the way that we RV'ers burn fuels we would be in the abiotic camp. That's not to say that we aren't burning it faster than the earth could produce it.

That is interesting as it presumes that one's use (or a group's use) would determine what particular scientific mechanisms are at work. In the context of the discussion in this thread, that would mean if I am a large generator of CO2, greenhouse gas effect is nil.

Here is one analogy that explains fossil fuel use:

You and I are visitors from another planet. Our form and nutrition requirements are similar to Homo Sapiens. When we land on Earth, you, as the Captain, task me, the procurer, to go out and seek food as we only have a limited supply. I go out and return with solutions for our needs. "Captain, I have found the exact things we need", I report. "We will have snail darters, bald eagles, and spotted owls as our main diet". "Terrific", the Captain replies.

All goes well for awhile but soon everyone realizes that our menu is dwindling and that our choices for food may have not been the best.
The moral of this is "don't put all your eggs in one basket". We will run out of crude oil some day and as that oil gets harder to produce, it's usefulness over other fuels will decline. "never say never".

[pnichols]

okhmbldr wrote:
This has been a very interesting thread...did anyone ever determine what 10 Trillion gallons of water would be???

Kindof ... I estimated what it would be for Gary (the OP) way back earlier in this thread:

pnichols wrote:
Gary ... I'll go way out on a watersoaked limb here and make a guess to help visualize things: That much water probably could fill somwhere around the coach interior volumes of 5 billion motorhomes like yours.

By the way ... the findings of science are not always absolute Truth, they are often only state of the art Truth. 😉

[azrving]

okhmbldr wrote:
This has been a very interesting thread...did anyone ever determine what 10 Trillion gallons of water would be???
Science....what a great idea. I have always enjoyed science and the discoveries made, many that reshaped the world. Mostly thru trial and error, but still very productive.
Speaking of scientist; I tuned in to an old Johnny Carson show last night that had Scientist Carl Sagan as guest. He made a statement that brought this thread back to my mind. This episode must have been in the '70's, I not very sure of the date, but Sagan said "The world is quickly running out of fossil fuels and needs to find other sources of energy quickly".
Professor Sagan was commenting based on the science of the day (I do remember hearing that message in the 70's that we would run out of oil soon, the Arab oil embargo, etc. So, you saw a lot of solar panels on roof tops, some wind generators in people's backyards. A lot of people were looking for alternatives during that time.
Anyway, Carl Sagan's comment made me think, Science in not always correct and we need to understand that we cannot make a scientific statement a fact until it's proven thru trial and error that it is a reality, and not just science.
Now I'm off to find that 10 Trillion Gallons of water....how many 8 oz. glasses of water would I need to drink to end the 10 Trillion debate?

I remember Sagan from short wave radio. Fossil fuels are an interesting topic along with peak oil. I was taught in school that the oil came from dead dinosaurs and organic matter but was always puzzled by how they all ended up in such large areas of oil. How did they get so may dinosaur and stuff to accumulate in absolutely huge pools of oil? People often laugh when it's mentioned but there is another theory which is the abiotic. I suppose with the way that we RV'ers burn fuels we would be in the abiotic camp. That's not to say that we aren't burning it faster than the earth could produce it. The last paragraph is very important when it comes to believing scientists and the way some embrace them like a religion. I worked with a guy who told me an important thing one time when I was adamant about some topic that we were on. "Never say never"

[dewey02]

okhmbldr wrote:
This has been a very interesting thread...did anyone ever determine what 10 Trillion gallons of water would be???
Science....what a great idea. I have always enjoyed science and the discoveries made, many that reshaped the world. Mostly thru trial and error, but still very productive.
Speaking of scientist; I tuned in to an old Johnny Carson show last night that had Scientist Carl Sagan as guest. He made a statement that brought this thread back to my mind. This episode must have been in the '70's, I not very sure of the date, but Sagan said "The world is quickly running out of fossil fuels and needs to find other sources of energy quickly".
Professor Sagan was commenting based on the science of the day (I do remember hearing that message in the 70's that we would run out of oil soon, the Arab oil embargo, etc. So, you saw a lot of solar panels on roof tops, some wind generators in people's backyards. A lot of people were looking for alternatives during that time.
Anyway, Carl Sagan's comment made me think, Science in not always correct and we need to understand that we cannot make a scientific statement a fact until it's proven thru trial and error that it is a reality, and not just science.
Now I'm off to find that 10 Trillion Gallons of water....how many 8 oz. glasses of water would I need to drink to end the 10 Trillion debate?

Regarding Sagan on the Tonight Show: I caught it too. He also briefly mentioned the changing climate. While he didn't say more than that, I'm pretty sure he was talking about it getting colder not warmer. As the interview took place in 1978, that was the era of "global cooling" science.

[okhmbldr]

This has been a very interesting thread...did anyone ever determine what 10 Trillion gallons of water would be???
Science....what a great idea. I have always enjoyed science and the discoveries made, many that reshaped the world. Mostly thru trial and error, but still very productive.
Speaking of scientist; I tuned in to an old Johnny Carson show last night that had Scientist Carl Sagan as guest. He made a statement that brought this thread back to my mind. This episode must have been in the '70's, I not very sure of the date, but Sagan said "The world is quickly running out of fossil fuels and needs to find other sources of energy quickly".
Professor Sagan was commenting based on the science of the day (I do remember hearing that message in the 70's that we would run out of oil soon, the Arab oil embargo, etc. So, you saw a lot of solar panels on roof tops, some wind generators in people's backyards. A lot of people were looking for alternatives during that time.
Anyway, Carl Sagan's comment made me think, Science in not always correct and we need to understand that we cannot make a scientific statement a fact until it's proven thru trial and error that it is a reality, and not just science.
Now I'm off to find that 10 Trillion Gallons of water....how many 8 oz. glasses of water would I need to drink to end the 10 Trillion debate?

[pnichols]

Newbiecampers wrote:
[COLOR=]I read through pnichols list on page 20 of steps taken to help. It mostly seemed very boilerplate/standard stuff that most everyone, my own family included, do these days. I didn't read anything that made me think "wow, he is really concerned and taking serious steps." If anything, it led to further resolve on my stance regarding the hypocrisy. A Pool? An E-450 RV? Air Conditioning? Adding (building) a new house to the environment instead of purchasing an already existing house? A 500 foot driveway that leads one to the conclusion that it is a large property (how do those fit in with overpopulation)? And I am guessing that the RV is stored in a barn or such on said property. Home entertainment system (likely shipped from china) instead of using the speakers already present in the TV? He painted a picture of a lifestyle that doesn't seem all that concerned about the dire consequences requiring such drastic measures as population control at some point.

Hmmmm ... "boiler plate/standard stuff that most everyone" does these days ... really?

- It sounds like you have something against having a solar heated plastic liner pool originally filled 20-25 years ago and topped up with a few gallons each year from a natural spring (that the DW needs to exercise in as therapy for certain medical conditions)?

- So are you saying that human-caused GW believers on this forum shouldn't RV with a 8-10 MPG motorhome ... instead use a popup they tow behind a Smart Car, or instead use a Sprinter cutaway van based motorhome, or instead use a diesel truck towing a TT, or instead use a diesel truck camper, or are you saying that a human-caused GW believer shouldn't RV at all?

- Are you saying that a human-caused GW believer shouldn't live in a residence that is air conditioned with a low ER unit ... instead move from the Southern U.S., or instead move from Arizona, or instead move from Southern CA, or are you saying that a human-based GW believer shouldn't live in a residence that is air conditioned at all ... even when air conditioned with a SATA high ER heat pump unit for both cooling and non-fossil fuel based heating?

- Are you saying that a human-based GW believer shouldn't build, or have built, their own residence on raw land ... even when there aren't any existing used homes in the area or even when building their own residence is way less expensive than buying an existing used residence? How does everyone everywhere only buying existing residences play against an ever-increasing world population?

- Regarding a "large property" ... now you finally get one of the prime reasons for population control ... so way out in the future far more people can benefit (on several fronts) from living in less crowded conditions.

- How many folks have upgraded their TV's to LED lit, or OLED lit, TV's for energy conservation instead of perhaps buying other less-necessary toys?

- Our RV is stored outside in the elements ... except for being partially shaded by a large natural oak tree that was a twig when we first moved to the raw land to live in an old trailer while we built the residence.

- If you think that population control is drastic instead of necessary ... try watching "Soylent Green" if you never have, or again if you once did. Personal decision population control will never happen until the world finds itself already in the middle of a drastic emergency. Population control will only happen ahead of time before it's a drastic emergency if imposed from the outside. I suspect that being "imposed from the outside" strikes at the basic motive for one being a GW denier in the first place.

[westend]

I read the whole post, also. Pretty well describes the author's feelings on some things. I tend to be less sceptical about science but that's me.

[spoon059]

Newbiecampers wrote:

Fizz wrote:
FYI

Nobody ever read past the first few lines. At least I don't.
It's not you, just a general observation.

Ha ha. :B

Add that to my list of reasons our society is in decline: If it is longer than a twitter tweet or text message nobody wants to (or can?) have anything to do with it. :@

Was that response more than 140 characters...?

By the way, I tend to read the entire post. Unlike some people here that find a sentence and attack it, I try to read an ENTIRE post/thought and respond to the ENTIRE post/though... not just cherry pick.

[Newbiecampers]

Fizz wrote:
FYI

Nobody ever read past the first few lines. At least I don't.
It's not you, just a general observation.

Ha ha. :B

Add that to my list of reasons our society is in decline: If it is longer than a twitter tweet or text message nobody wants to (or can?) have anything to do with it. :@

[Fizz]

FYI

Nobody ever read past the first few lines. At least I don't.
It's not you, just a general observation.

[Newbiecampers]

westend wrote:
The items in your list of products that are not safe were all discovered by a "scientist" to be unsafe, rather than invented by "science". We now have Govt. agencies with scientists that protect our well being, the FDA and EPA.

And those same items were created by a scientist who thought they "knew" the science. And I very much disagree with your statement that government agencies are/will be there to "protect" us in many cases. That statement seems to help my arguement. The .gov said the medication that killed my grandmother was safe! That "protection" didn't work out so well for her. History is chock-full of examples where the government said something was safe only to later find that, well, maybe not so much. The .gov has become so bloated, bureaucratic, ineffective, and corrupted by outside influences (lobbyists) on ALL sides that they couldn't "protect" their way out of a paper bag.

How these facts can be used in the products we use or to bad intentions by corrupt industries that know better is where the "wrong" enters the picture.

EGGGSSACTLY.
That is exactly what I am and have been saying.

What matters regarding the pure science is who the end user is. And that end user is human. Humans that are subject to all the outside influences I previously mentioned. What matters is how the science is used/manipulated. I don't have much faith anymore that it is being used "purely." Edit: or that the "discovery" is even "pure." Far to much corruption and far too many agendas at play on all levels, usually in the search for money or control.


From the last paragraph in your post, it appears that you accept some truth in the discoveries of climate science but are unwilling to believe that bad outcomes are a possibility. Or, that you are uncertain what any future holds with regard to climate change.
With the amount of risk involved, wouldn't you want to know?

I am not unwilling to believe, or not believe, anything relating to this. But I am not willing to "jump off a cliff" just yet to end my own CO2 output, or pay some ridiculous "carbon tax" or any other such nonsense in an effort to prevent the doom and gloom, based on the corruption that has permeated all segments and sides of our society over the last 20+ years, or based on so-called "experts," that all too often are hardly experts at all. And great strides have been made over the decades in this country regarding pollution/garbage control. Those are obviously good things. And they will continue to be made without such immediate and drastic measures as some propose.

In other words, I look at everything with skepticism, especially when someone is trying to sell me something. And certainly when such dire consequences are mentioned unless we act drastically "right now." How does that saying go? "Things are never as bad, or as good, as they seem."

And I certainly hold skepticism when individuals still live the lifetyle that is supposedly leading to the very same drastic consequences that they are preaching to others about. gore and his private jet and 5000 sq ft home anyone?

I read through pnichols list on page 20 of steps taken to help. It mostly seemed very boilerplate/standard stuff that most everyone, my own family included, do these days. I didn't read anything that made me think "wow, he is really concerned and taking serious steps." If anything, it led to further resolve on my stance regarding the hypocrisy. A Pool? An E-450 RV? Air Conditioning? Adding (building) a new house to the environment instead of purchasing an already existing house? A 500 foot driveway that leads one to the conclusion that it is a large property (how do those fit in with overpopulation)? And I am guessing that the RV is stored in a barn or such on said property. Home entertainment system (likely shipped from china) instead of using the speakers already present in the TV? He painted a picture of a lifestyle that doesn't seem all that concerned about the dire consequences requiring such drastic measures as population control at some point.

Uncertain what the future holds? Of course. But to me, it seems most everyone else is uncertain as well. But being the arrogant little creatures we are, we think "we know it." History is full of situations where we thought "we knew it" right up until the point it became apparent that we didn't. We "knew" the earth was flat. We "knew" the earth was the center of the universe. Etc. Etc.. That was considered "pure" science back in the day. Are we the sole source of climate change? I doubt it. Are we contributing to it? Could be. Are there natural forces at work as well? There could be. Could be a combination of factors.

I spent 45 minutes typing out a response, got it exactly the way I wanted it, then a power blip wiped it all out.....:S Had to quickly retype it above from what I could remember.....

Anyway, good discussion.

[westend]

NYCgrrl wrote:
..currently listening to this "cuz" it fits most any current events mode I can think of..
Won't Get Fooled Agin

Could go off on a riff about the barbarians at the gate but that might be a bridge too far. Still why not?

Same as It Ever Was

Thanks for those hits, I hadn't heard them in years.:)