Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: noblehunter and 3 guests

CO2 sanity

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:27 am

TFLYTSNBN
Captain of the List

Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Trump just announced the appointment of physicist William Happer to the National Security Council.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... chnologies

Germany, Great Britain and other countries might continue to commit economic suicide in a Quixotic Quest to "save the planet," but the United States will not join them.

BTW, Weber's explaination that Sphinx is habitable because of an "active CO2 cycle," is crap. However; any trained meterologist who understands the concept of "lapse rate" would understand that the thick atmosphere described might make the planet habitable.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Annachie   » Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:50 am

Annachie
Admiral

Posts: 2568
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:36 pm

Not quite.

It's the GOP, the party of selfishness, that will not join them.

Several US states however, are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by The E   » Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:57 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Germany, Great Britain and other countries might continue to commit economic suicide in a Quixotic Quest to "save the planet," but the United States will not join them.


So even if that guy is right, I can't quite see how being more energy-efficient, switching to renewable energy sources and reducing the amount of harmful emissions is a bad thing.

Image
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Joat42   » Wed Sep 05, 2018 12:15 pm

Joat42
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:01 am
Location: Sweden

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Trump just announced the appointment of physicist William Happer to the National Security Council.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... chnologies

Germany, Great Britain and other countries might continue to commit economic suicide in a Quixotic Quest to "save the planet," but the United States will not join them.

BTW, Weber's explaination that Sphinx is habitable because of an "active CO2 cycle," is crap. However; any trained meterologist who understands the concept of "lapse rate" would understand that the thick atmosphere described might make the planet habitable.

Only idiots don't do a risk/reward analysis when the fate of the planet may be in the balance.

Regardless of the "skeptics" beliefs, all the evidence points to extreme climate change due to human activities releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:02 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Captain of the List

Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Joat42 wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:Trump just announced the appointment of physicist William Happer to the National Security Council.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... chnologies

Germany, Great Britain and other countries might continue to commit economic suicide in a Quixotic Quest to "save the planet," but the United States will not join them.

BTW, Weber's explaination that Sphinx is habitable because of an "active CO2 cycle," is crap. However; any trained meterologist who understands the concept of "lapse rate" would understand that the thick atmosphere described might make the planet habitable.

Only idiots don't do a risk/reward analysis when the fate of the planet may be in the balance.

Regardless of the "skeptics" beliefs, all the evidence points to extreme climate change due to human activities releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.


Actually there is no evidence supporting the extreme climate change predictions. Will Happen is an expert on that.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:10 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Captain of the List

Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

The E wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:Germany, Great Britain and other countries might continue to commit economic suicide in a Quixotic Quest to "save the planet," but the United States will not join them.


So even if that guy is right, I can't quite see how being more energy-efficient, switching to renewable energy sources and reducing the amount of harmful emissions is a bad thing.

Image



We have plenty of evidence that the alternative energy sources touted by the AGW crowd simply do not work. Capacity factor on wind and solar are a joke. Only exception is US SW where insolation peak mirrors peak electrical load for air conditioning.

I actually support transition from Coal to Natural Gas which incidentally emits far less CO2. But the shale gas revolution makes this substitution cost effective.

Under AGW Theology, the switch to "green energy" means less energy and more expensive energy. The result is that someones living standard suffers. So far the major victims are Africans whose food is being burned to fuel Europe. Ditto for the Amazon rain forest being cut down for biodiesel.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Joat42   » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:20 pm

Joat42
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:01 am
Location: Sweden

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Actually there is no evidence supporting the extreme climate change predictions. Will Happen is an expert on that.

So you are saying with 100% certainty that there will be no rapid climate change?

Are you a climate scientist doing research so you can unequivocally say that there is no evidence?

Because almost all of the climate scientist in the world says you are dead wrong.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Joat42   » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Joat42
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:01 am
Location: Sweden

TFLYTSNBN wrote:..snip..
Under AGW Theology, the switch to "green energy" means less energy and more expensive energy. The result is that someones living standard suffers. So far the major victims are Africans whose food is being burned to fuel Europe. Ditto for the Amazon rain forest being cut down for biodiesel.

Maybe you should keep up on new information.

According to data from Bloomberg production costs among the G20-countries for renewable energy (water, wind & sun) are on average lower than fossil fueled energy production.

Fossil fuel costs is between 49-174 USD per MWh and renewable costs is between 35-54 USD per MWh.

Also, the renewable energy sector employs more people than the fossil energy sector.

The production of bio fuels and their impact on rainforest deforestation and food prices in Africa is a problem, but that problem has it roots in a conservative car industry that have been wedded to the oil industry and refused to look at alternatives to the ICE - and it didn't help when car manufactures discovered that they could sell more cars by tweaking them a bit and slapping a eco-friendly sticker on them.

The whole idea of cutting down forests and buying up food crops for bio-fuel production is revolting IMHO, because it impacts the environment and populations negatively - exactly as the traditional oil industry do.

Anyway, the current top consumer of bio-diesel is actually the US closely followed by Germany and then Brazil.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by gcomeau   » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:25 pm

gcomeau
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1890
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Trump just announced the appointment of physicist William Happer to the National Security Council.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... te-science

That Will Happer?

Of course Trump picked him... he loves "experts" who can be bought to say what he tells them to say.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Imaginos1892   » Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:22 am

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1083
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

But WHY do they insist on playing their eternal one-song opera called Global Warming? (Or whatever is their latest name for it) There are so many other, better reasons to reduce our consumption of coal, oil and natural gas that don’t depend on convincing everybody that The End Is Near when they don’t see the world looking much different. I remember hearing climate gloom-and-doom back in the early 1970’s and the world hasn’t ended yet. Then, it was an impending Ice Age; now it's Global Warming. Most people just groan, and say ‘shut up, Chicken Little’.

There is only so much coal, oil and natural gas in the ground and we’re using it up. It’s taking more and more energy to get the same amounts of coal, oil and gas. When it takes as much energy to produce a barrel of oil as you get from it, you can’t run your economy on oil any more. You can’t even run an oil company on it.

Joat42 wrote:According to data from Bloomberg production costs among the G20-countries for renewable energy (water, wind & sun) are on average lower than fossil fueled energy production.

Norway has already found out that if you try to run a major power grid on unreliable sources like wind and solar, it gets unstable at about 40% ‘renewable’ energy. You can’t just turn up the wind, or the sun, when more power is needed. Load matching is a very tricky business. Brownouts are bad enough, but overvoltage is much worse.

Joat42 wrote:The production of bio fuels and their impact on rainforest deforestation and food prices in Africa is a problem, but that problem has it roots in a conservative car industry that have been wedded to the oil industry and refused to look at alternatives to the ICE - and it didn't help when car manufactures discovered that they could sell more cars by tweaking them a bit and slapping a eco-friendly sticker on them.

You’re right, piston engines are 15% efficient at best in converting chemical energy into mechanical energy. Gas turbine engines can be over 40% efficient, but would require cars to be completely redesigned. With current technology, it would be possible to build gas-turbine-electric cars that would get 80 to 100 miles per gallon, AND would run on nearly any liquid fuel. Their batteries could also be charged from other sources, using no fuel at all.

Why don’t we have them today? Development would cost $100 million or more, and they would completely disrupt the markets. The entrenched companies don’t see any need to take a chance on new designs when they can just go on selling the same old cars in the same old way. The oil companies wouldn’t want oil consumption to decrease by 30%.

Joat42 wrote:So you are saying with 100% certainty that there will be no rapid climate change?

Yes, the climate could change. Yes, it could be bad. But with no precedent, nobody can tell with any certainty what’s going to happen. Fifteen years ago there were widespread predictions that the results would be catastrophically bad ‘by 2020’, and it looks like those predictions have failed. Those making the predictions now look like clueless alarmists. ‘But wait! It really will happen this time!’ just sounds like more of the same.

Lighten up on the Global Warming. If it takes ten minutes to explain to people why you think there’s a problem, most of them will tune you out eight minutes before you’re done.
———————————
I'm not just sitting on my ass. I spent almost $20,000 putting solar panels on my house. They consistently produce more power than I use.
Top

Return to Politics