Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

CO2 sanity

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:44 pm

TFLYTSNBN

Daryl wrote:So basically the best solution for coping with climate change is to -
Build airconditioned buildings to live in, and climate controled hydroponic green houses to grow food in?
Then build more coal power stations to run this?

You can then be secure while watching the third world famines on your 4k TV in perfect comfort.
Sounds like a conservative approach to me.


Your comment presumes that there is catastrophic global warming and that CO2 is the cause.

Assuming that the first premiss is true but not the second, how does restricting power generation help? Also, since the US is transitioning from traditional coal to combined cycle Natural Gas power plants or combined cycle coal, the carbon intensity is decreasing.

I seriously suggest that you derive the simplified equation for the Earth's equilibrium temperature and then take note of the obvious implications. You might begin to understand the importance of all variables.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Daryl   » Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:31 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3484
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Despite much fake news being spread, the average temperatures are increasing year by year. Not always obvious as increased temperatures lead to more energetic systems, which means greater temperature variations as well. This correlates with the activities of industralised mankind over the past 200 years.
I believe from published research that the main culprit is CO2, but it possibly is also partially from soot and other pollutants and even water vapour as well.
Whatever, it seems sensible to mitigate the damage.
There are even other benefits from doing this. A cleaner environment overall is one, more efficient cars and buildings is another.
An example I can provide is my current family transport. A 2.5 litre 5 seat 5 door hatchback, that has been tested to a top speed of 238 kph (147 mph), yet is remarkably frugal with fuel in everyday driving. Another is my domestic solar panels that feed back into the grid during the day and I then draw back during the night. Not only have I not had to pay a bill for 11 years, but last week I received a cheque for $885 AUD, for three years excess contributions.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Annachie   » Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:47 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

An example I can provide, if we didn't stop using CFC's, I'd be under the hole in the Ozone layer by now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:55 am

TFLYTSNBN

Daryl wrote:Despite much fake news being spread, the average temperatures are increasing year by year. Not always obvious as increased temperatures lead to more energetic systems, which means greater temperature variations as well. This correlates with the activities of industralised mankind over the past 200 years.
I believe from published research that the main culprit is CO2, but it possibly is also partially from soot and other pollutants and even water vapour as well.
Whatever, it seems sensible to mitigate the damage.
There are even other benefits from doing this. A cleaner environment overall is one, more efficient cars and buildings is another.
An example I can provide is my current family transport. A 2.5 litre 5 seat 5 door hatchback, that has been tested to a top speed of 238 kph (147 mph), yet is remarkably frugal with fuel in everyday driving. Another is my domestic solar panels that feed back into the grid during the day and I then draw back during the night. Not only have I not had to pay a bill for 11 years, but last week I received a cheque for $885 AUD, for three years excess contributions.


A key feature of AGW doom mongering is that temperatures in th Arctic and Antarctic will increase far more than the equator. This means a lower temperature differential and thus less energy to do work such as creating storms.

Of course AGW Theology is predicated on the assinine assumption that radiative heat transfer is the grossly predominant heat transport mechanism that moves thermal energy from the Earth's surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated out into space. The process of evaporation, convection, condensation and precipitation moves massive amounts of energy to the upper atmosphere. If the AGW presumed 4 Watt per Square meter CO2 forcing is valid, it does not take much increase in global precipitation to offset it.

As an exercise for the sentient activists, calculate the thermal energy transport to the upper atmosphere associated with Global Precipitation. Keep in mind that we have few rain gauges in the oceans so that number might be low.

Your solar panels and fuel effecient car are wonderful, but the solar panels also represent the effective export of your Carbon footprint to wherever they are manufactured.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:02 am

TFLYTSNBN

Check this out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation

What you see here is Earth's air conditioning system moving thermal energy from the Ocean surface to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.

Use the data in conjunction with the heat of vaporization of water to calculate the magnitude of heat transport. When you have done some actual calculations rather than merely regurgitate talking points, then we can have an intelligent discussion.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by The E   » Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:14 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

TFLYTSNBN wrote:When you have done some actual calculations rather than merely regurgitate talking points, then we can have an intelligent discussion.


Please provide proof that you have done the math first.

Preferably in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles in the relevant scientific fields.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:49 pm

TFLYTSNBN

The E wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:When you have done some actual calculations rather than merely regurgitate talking points, then we can have an intelligent discussion.


Please provide proof that you have done the math first.

Preferably in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles in the relevant scientific fields.



You go first to prove some knowledge.
It is a simple equation that anyone with any knowledge of basic thermodynamics can derive.
The drivel that has been published in Pal Reviewed scientific journals is both the cause and the consequence of the AGW fraud.
Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by The E   » Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:10 pm

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

TFLYTSNBN wrote:You go first to prove some knowledge.
It is a simple equation that anyone with any knowledge of basic thermodynamics can derive.


So, show your work. Derive the formula. Don't just claim to be more intelligent than all of us, actually demonstrate that you are.

You're deriding me for appealing to authority, but what are you doing, exactly? You're going for a "this is just common sense, and all the climate scientists in the world are just wrong" type of argument, but without actually proving that you have any idea what you are talking about.

Then again, since you have no idea what "majority" means, I am reasonably sure that you are not, in fact, more intelligent than any of us.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:01 pm

TFLYTSNBN

Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Annachie   » Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:41 pm

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

TFLYTSNBN wrote:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/uah-globally-the-coolest-september-in-the-last-10-years/
You do understand that quoting one localized area's weather as proof that the earth is not warming, or that the climate is not changing is damn near the height of stupidity. At least with regard to climate change anyway.

Especially after you've been telling people to look at the whole system.

What next, a photo of a snowball in the dead lands?


We are talking about a massively complex system.
We are talking about trends which go back decades, and from the geological records, appear to be unprecedented in speed.
We know, roughly, what variabled are driving those changes.

So, what the hell is wrong with trying to mitigate the variables where we can?
Especially if it involves increased efficiency?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top

Return to Politics