Solutions anyone?
| Solutions anyone?31-03-2015 03:05 | |
| Common Sense☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
If climate change is happening like some believe, what do you propose we do about it? I hear a lot of debating back and forth on the issue but few solutions. I consider myself a realist, (some call me a denier because I"m skepical) and a I'm open to using natural sources of energy to keep from being dependent on energy companies. What's Al Gore's plan to reduce climate change. If he really believes it then he should be more solutions oriented. |
| 31-03-2015 03:16 | |
Abraham3 ★★☆☆☆(256) |
We need to move reduce our GHG output so we need to address those industries/technologies by which we produce the most: energy generation and transportation. ENERGY GENERATION We [humans] have already gotten a decent start on switching to renewable energy technologies: solar thermal, solar PV and wind. A non-renewable but zero carbon technology is, of course, nuclear fission reactors. They have their own problems as Fukushima clearly demonstrated, but with proper safeguards and proper siting, they can work marvellously well. France is almost completely powered by nuclear fission and has suffered zero accidental releases. Even taking Chernobyl and Fukushima into account, the human damage caused by nuclear power is a tiny fraction of that caused by coal, petroleum or natural gas. Fusion is finally approaching feasability and will have far less safety issues. Conservation can help a great deal. Then there's hydroelectric, energy from ocean waves, tides, major currents, ocean thermal generators and other ideas. TRANSPORTATION In the short term: high mileage vehicles, hybrid and full electric. In the long term, hydrogen fuel cells seem almost completely inevitable. |
| 06-10-2015 20:13 | |
| drm★☆☆☆☆ (67) |
There are a lot of solutions out there and I don't think it is so critical to choose the best one as that will happen on it's own. We do have to deal with the externalities of carbon use via some pricing mechanism and this seems to be the real sticking point. Underlying the challenge is that while humans as individuals and in small groups are quite creative and adaptable, large-scale societies and civilizations are less so. They seem to come and go quite frequently in recorded history, often when faced with fairly manageable and modest challenges. Apparently this is required to to get out of the rut, stop the powerful from protecting their status quo advantages, and to let that adaptability and creativity bloom. Our modern society has done better at that than many in the past, but it still has it's blockages and we see that quite prominently here in the US now. |
| 06-10-2015 23:13 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14389) |
drm wrote:. We do have to deal with the externalities of carbon use via some pricing mechanism and this seems to be the real sticking point.. Aaah, another leftist who wants to play the "externalities" card. Are you going to specify what those are and then show the science of their mechanism and the economics establishing their monetary value? I didn't think so. Externalities: the Marxist justification for taxing anything and everything without any justification. Alternate Definition: Marxists' secret strategy for combatting capitalism and general global happiness. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 06-10-2015 23:22 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
IBdaMann wrote:drm wrote:. We do have to deal with the externalities of carbon use via some pricing mechanism and this seems to be the real sticking point.. Interesting. So the Marxist conspiracy covers not only the entirety of science but also extends to cover economics. Is there any field of human endeavour that is not pure Marxist dogma? How can we be sure that our entire existence is not simply the product of some Marxist's imagination? |
| 07-10-2015 05:39 | |
| Greg☆☆☆☆☆ (13) |
I agree with the need for nuclear power to be part of the mix. It's got its own risks of course, especially as many of the reactors are based on the coasts, and sea level is rising. However, I see it as the lesser of the two evils. I definitely also favor some sort of price on carbon, whether that's a revenue-neutral carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. As a market-based solution, a price on carbon is actually the least leftist of the possible solutions. @IBdaMann - I'm curious. I've read enough of your posts to know you vehemently reject that CO2-caused global warming is happening, but there are other externalities of burning carbon, like air pollution and ocean acidification. Do you reject these as well? |
| 07-10-2015 16:03 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
Surface Detail wrote: Interesting. So the Marxist conspiracy covers not only the entirety of science but also extends to cover economics. I never said the Marxist solidarity involves anything having to do with science. That's an entirely foolish thought. I mean, talk about your knowledge vacuums! Surface Detail wrote: Is there any field of human endeavour that is not pure Marxist dogma? Sure. Go wherever serious brainpower is required and you likely won't find hide nor hair of any. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 07-10-2015 18:54 | |
| drm★☆☆☆☆ (67) |
That externalities exist are generally not controversial, that people do things that impose costs on others. Often these costs are trivial and so we either barely notice them or just put up with them. As they increase, we call it "the price of progress." But as they increase people are less willing to put up with them. Nonetheless putting a precise cost on them ranges between difficult and impossible which makes putting a price on them equally difficult. In some cases where the activity causing the externality is not critical or fixable, we ban the activity. But that is hardly possible in this case so we argue about how to do it: carbon taxes vs cap and trade mechanisms. British Columbia has has put a price on carbon and it's economy has not crashed and in fact it is so popular that most business groups like it. It actually encouraged innovation to avoid the price and many business saw costs lower to more than offset the cost. But the cost added was quite low. China has now said that it will implement a cap and trade system nationwide but the devil is in the details for this, as shown by the European experience. |
| 07-10-2015 21:50 | |
trafn ★★★☆☆(779) |
The underlying problem is in the demand. There are just too many people seeking too much energy at the same time to be able to deliver it in an enviromentally friendly way that has no long-term direct or indirect (external) consequences. Say, for example you weren't worried about the problem of radioactive waste and you could magically covert everything to nuclear power overnight. Unfortunately, there's only about enough raw fuel on the planet to last for about twenty years, although recent nuclear fuel recycling technology might extend that estimate another decade further. After that you're back to coal and petrochemicals (note to self: isn't coal technically a petrochemical in solid form?). The real answer will probably need to include decreasing overall demand and/or the global population, combined with extracting as much energy as is possible from renewable sources. |
| 28-04-2016 07:00 | |
| Nikola☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
Here are a few ideas, based on the fact that emissions from power generation are already decreasing due to gas-fired plants replacing coal-fired plants, which makes transportation at least in the US just as large a problem as power generation. Emissions are not decreasing from transportation in the US, despite bett gas mileage and hybrids. Reduce your power usage by: - replace all of the light bulbs in your house with LEDs - turn off lights when you leave rooms - use programmable thermostat to reduce heat/cooling demand - replace your heqtpump/air conditioner witha high efficiency model - improve your house insulation - unplug appliances/computers when not in use - use the microwave rather than the oven - replace your cooktop with an induction type Reduce your transportation emissions: - replace your ICE vehicle with an EV - use public transportation - replace your ICE vehicle with a hybrid - keep your ICE vehicle tuned-up - maintain proper tire pressure - ride a bike or walk Other: - avoid burning fireplace for ambience, only for heat - upgrade efficiency of woodstove - catalytic converter - avoid burning trash or slash |
| 30-06-2016 12:32 | |
| Emceedust123☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
I just thought of something intresting, im new to posting on forums and i consider myself uneducated but humour me a little. You know they say the pollution we create is destroying the world. Personally i havent seen most of the destruction first hand. The world is getting drier, hotter, the ocean level is rising by the day. Could we not somehow cool the world down. i mean our waters are polluted to some extent just like metal just like our bodies. But we clean that too. What if someone invented bascially this big giant scorching hot material into the ocean? and right now you are thinking well, wouldnt that heat up the ocean? Could we not incase this hot object in something that draws water into its chamber and release the steam back into the atmosphere, there for being insulated. and also what other chemicals could we possibly be releasing into the atmosphere by doing that? Does that seem viable? Just like you boil water and it condensates to the lid. Im talking on like a world wide scale too. Is there a certain level of heat that burns only salt water? This idea is eating me away and if I need to share it and just get some feedback because I really dont have the time research all of this and this seems worth debateable. like something along the lines of this but on a wonder of the world scale park on an beach or something http://www.wikihow.com/Turn-Salt-Water-Into-Drinking-Water |
| 30-06-2016 22:17 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21582) |
Emceedust123 wrote:The reason you haven't seen anything personally is because it is not happening. It is impossible to measure global temperature, so we don't know if the world is getting hotter, cooler, or just staying the same. Indications from weather patterns are that it's just staying the same. The ocean level too cannot be measured accurately. We just don't have the instrumentation to do that, even with satellites. Indications are the sea level has not changed much if at all. There is certainly no valid mechanism for such a change. Emceedust123 wrote:Even if you could (it would take a tremendous amount of energy to do that), is it desirable? Crops grow better and people do better when the weather swings to warmer periods. Emceedust123 wrote:Some waterways are polluted. The oceans are not polluted except in certain limited areas. Emceedust123 wrote:Sometimes. Most of the time we just stop or limit the pollution and the waterway flushes it away to the ocean, where the pollution is diluted to the point of not being a problem. Emceedust123 wrote:You mean like an underwater volcanic vent? Emceedust123 wrote:Steam doesn't insulate. It conducts thermal energy very well. That's why a steam engine works. Emceedust123 wrote:Steam consists of water only. Emceedust123 wrote:No. The energy required would be far too much. We couldn't generate that much energy if you included all the power plants in the world combined to this task. Emceedust123 wrote:Salt water doesn't burn. It boils at a slightly higher temperature than fresh water. This is one way to make fresh water out of sea water, but disposing the salts left behind is a hassle and it's energy wasteful. There are better ways to generate fresh water out of seawater, such as permeable membranes. Emceedust123 wrote: Global temperature is determined by a basically simple process. The sun provides energy in the form of a wide spectrum of light. As this light strikes different materials, these materials will absorb some of that light and convert it into thermal energy (it gets hotter). The reflected light and the thermal energy absorbed leaves the Earth once again, equaling the amount of energy coming in. To cool the Earth, you would have to ADD energy to remove energy from somewhere and put it somewhere else. The total energy must stay the same. This is like your basic refrigerator. On a global scale, you would have to add a tremendous amount of energy to overcome that coming from the sun. The other problem then encounters you: where do you put it and how would you get it there? Boiling the oceans would produce an incredible cloud cover, but it would also produce incredible rainstorms, destroying the world you are trying to save. All that water just ends up back in the sea again after it's all over. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-07-2016 03:16 | |
| Emceedust123☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
"The reason you haven't seen anything personally is because it is not happening. It is impossible to measure global temperature, so we don't know if the world is getting hotter, cooler, or just staying the same. Indications from weather patterns are that it's just staying the same. The ocean level too cannot be measured accurately. We just don't have the instrumentation to do that, even with satellites. Indications are the sea level has not changed much if at all. There is certainly no valid mechanism for such a change". See i had a feeling thats the case, just like how water is constantly swaying within a bath tub even at a microscopic level, you can never pin point the exactly level. right? And I gave you a bad example of what this idea/invention should be. imagine somewhere in a high populated area, close to a river (like most highly populated areas) had a dam that would generate its own energy using water turbines and provide energy to power sources around it. Just like a damn, but connected or close to this dam or just somewhere along the river theres this steam station. For now we will say this steam station creates steam by. i know water doesnt burn i just used the wrong word. I dont want to the world to be drenched in water but i feel it should be more moist in certain places. And you could say wouldnt this drain lakes and waterways. But what goes up must come down and this water would run back into the groundwaters and waterways eventually, right?. I do not know how long this process would and should be to be sustainable. Even then could we not do this to polluted lakes to clean them? Releasing the steam back into the atmosphere and hopefully back in the lake only pure and not contaminated? |
| 01-07-2016 03:23 | |
| Emceedust123☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
Like the Los Angelos, California region for example |
| 01-07-2016 03:51 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Emceedust123 wrote: Where is Los Angelos? Seriously, the Southern California regions is NORMALLY dry. It is through the efforts of the Los Angeles Water Supply System that keeps the city from being nothing more than a dusty burg by the sea. The population of Los Angeles has grown, the farming practices have become stupid, and the water supply system is no longer able to meet the needs of the expanded load. Add to that a drought that is slightly atypical of the area and you have your problem show up in spades. You will get rain, but you use so much of it. A lot of it goes to waste. If you look back on the records of the weather stations in the area of Los Angeles, you will find there has been no significant change in weather pattern since 1890. The problem with Southern California is mostly a mismanagement problem. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 01-07-2016 03:52 |
| 05-10-2017 04:43 | |
| ChristianC123☆☆☆☆☆ (6) |
In order to effectively address global warming, we must significantly reduce the amount of heat-trapping emissions we are putting into the atmosphere.good news is that we have the technology and practical solutions at hand to accomplish it.Expand the use of renewable energy and transform our energy system to one that is cleaner and less dependent on coal and other fossil fuels. Regards, Christian |
| 05-10-2017 05:54 | |
| GreenMan★★★☆☆ (661) |
Common Sense wrote: I'm thinking Al's plans are what he is doing. He will just keep doing it until he gets too old to fly around on his private jet fighting Global Warming. But it won't matter much what he does, or anyone else does, it is still going to keep getting warmer. My personal plan is to help my family move off-grid, in place for now, as we develop the technology to live independently of the grid, and those who aren't serious about getting through this. As far as I can tell, there is no viable solution to this problem. That magic goal of 2 degrees warming is unrealistic. It's going to get warmer than that, even if we could totally eliminate our use of fossil fuel today. That's because of the time it takes for CO2 to be absorbed back into the ground. You can realistically expect the warming to continue for hundreds of years, after the source of CO2 is eliminated. I'm not counting on the government to save me, or do anything to help me get by. They have pretty much showed their hand, with their complete denial of AGW. And by the time they realize that it is a problem, it will be too late, because by then, people will already be losing everything. Imagine living in a FEMA Camp indefinitely. Imagine thousands of people in there with you, relying on soup lines for food. And not sure how long the electricity will last, but it won't last forever, following a melt down of our society. That eventually happens. ~*~ GreenMan ~*~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 05-10-2017 18:10 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2219) |
Common Sense wrote: My usual response is what I'm pursuing. Show the IPCC and NOAA is right when they say we need CO2 in our atmosphere to protect stratospheric ozone recovery. a successful demonstration of my experiment would open new areas of research into carbon capture and into the possibility of being able to seed the stratosphere or tropopause to encourage the occurrence of ozone. After that we would need to consider how much waste heat we are dumping into the atmosphere as well as other side effects of urbanization. Edited on 05-10-2017 18:11 |
| 05-10-2017 20:44 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
ChristianC123 wrote: You cannot trap heat. It's not possible. Carbon dioxide does not warm the Earth. It is not an energy source. ChristianC123 wrote: Why would you want to? ChristianC123 wrote: Pretty much all the energy we use already is renewable. ChristianC123 wrote: What's wrong with coal? it burns clean and has a lot of energy available in a small package. ChristianC123 wrote: Coal is not a fossil. It is almost pure carbon. The purer the carbon content the better the coal. Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-10-2017 20:52 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
GreenMan wrote:Common Sense wrote: Sounds like Al. GreenMan wrote: Argument 2) from your favorite paradox. GreenMan wrote: Enjoy yourself. Personally, I'll just continue to live on the grid. It serves its purpose quite well. I'll continue to make instruments to make it more efficient as well. GreenMan wrote: CO2 is not plutonium. It does not have a half life. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. You can't eliminate the source of CO2 since it is the seas, the ground, and the vegetation itself. GreenMan wrote: Electricity is easy to generate. It is easy to regulate. Why do you think it will suddenly be impossible to make electricity? Food is easy to grow, ranch, or hunt. Why do you think it will suddenly not be possible? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-10-2017 20:54 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
James_ wrote:Common Sense wrote: You can't encourage the creation of ozone by 'seeding' with carbon dioxide. Ozone is just oxygen getting energy from somewhere. For the ozone layer, that energy is in the form of UV light. Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with the Chapman cycle. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-10-2017 17:43 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2219) |
Into the Night wrote:James_ wrote:Common Sense wrote: The difference between myself and you is that I am pursuing actual research. As for yourself, you do not acknowledge observations made by scientists. This invalidates your opinion. I am keeping to simple logic for your own benefit. |
| 06-10-2017 20:02 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
James_ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James_ wrote:Common Sense wrote: There is no such thing as 'scientific' observation. There is observation, or there is not. Science is not observation. Observation is not part of science. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. James_ wrote:No, you are just illiterate in philosophy. James_ wrote: You aren't using logic. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-11-2017 23:36 | |
| thomasbiking☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
A collaborative marketplace for sustainable shopping that allows all of us to take action with the weight of our combined purchasing power - 1,5hours to our campaign ends : https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/749142286/act-buy-back-our-future |
| 14-05-2018 00:17 | |
| RenaissanceMan★☆☆☆☆ (105) |
Surface Detail wrote: Marxists embraced Darwin because it provided a purely mechanistic explanation for the *evolution* of life, negating any need for a Creator. This pleased the communists so very much that even Karl Marx offered to dedicate his book to Darwin. Why don't you move to North Korea and find out how wonderful Communism is and how savagely despots treat their own subjects, imprisoning and murdering at will, as they struggle for meager scraps of food. And their leader is a fat pig. |
| 15-05-2018 06:11 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
RenaissanceMan wrote:Surface Detail wrote: ...RMan, .. What compels me to believe that Darwin was right are Christians themselves. I know of too many Christians that believe they are the Alpha male. Christians can be outright hostile. They are good people, don't get me wrong that way. In fact all Christians are good people. I was taught the right way to talk. .. Do you know what's funny about that ? They don't even have to be nice to another person. They'll just say that person needs to be born again. I heard a lot of that from Christians while I was going to church with my niece who publishes a Christian newspaper ( http://www.seekernews.com ) and her grandfather. I was a bad person for going to church with my relatives. That's what Darwin talked about. The cunning and adaptive species will propagate. I ended up not going going to church because of some problems they helped to create. .. I could come up with arguments against Darwin but have no need to waste my time. p.s., one difference between Jews and Christians are the 2 words Yam Suph. Jews say they mean the Sea of Reeds while Christians say the Red Sea. Guess who's right. I'll give you a clue, it's not the Jews. Edited on 15-05-2018 06:23 |
| 18-05-2018 05:30 | |
| RenaissanceMan★☆☆☆☆ (105) |
Thinking and deep analysis are never a waste of your time. It seems quite impossible to me that so many millions of people and scientists find so many problems with Darwin's tautology, which says so little that it says nothing. These problems do not exist with gravity, which Darwinists compare their silliness all the time. After 130 years, the evidence should be more compelling than ever. In fact, the evidence points to the contrary instead. Climate change is much the same thing. |
| 18-05-2018 06:04 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
RenaissanceMan wrote: ..With climate change, I think too much information somewhat diminishes it's value. After all, what information is important and which information isn't. ..My perspective is based somewhat on Occam's Razor. This is because as I considered it I kept trying to reduce the variables. Kind of why I think reducing waste heat from the US and Europe might be sufficient. I know other countries like China release it's share of waste heat but they might not go along with a solution. ..What seems the best bet is to improve solar panels. Then they could convert waste heat back into electricity. How much energy would need to be processed ? I don't know. |
| 18-05-2018 10:57 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
James___ wrote:RenaissanceMan wrote: You cannot harvest 'waste heat'. You cannot reduce entropy in a system. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-05-2018 18:40 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:RenaissanceMan wrote: Your grammar is wrong. You should have said ITN cannot harvest waste heat. Into the Night wrote: You cannot reduce entropy in a system. >>Ever hear of Gravity ? You really don't know much, do you ? Your circular mind games. I think that's funny itn. You didn't know something as basic as gravity is the opposite of entropy. I think even 1st graders know that. ..This is where itn isn't familiar with system's that have been used through out history. With hydro power, using the flow of water more than one time maximizes the work it performs. To itn this wouldn't be reducing the entropy of a system because he would merely change the definition of what a "system" is. ..Scroll down and click on the map of the Magdalena Basin. https://global.nature.org/content/power-of-rivers ..Anybody who lives in Washington state should be aware of this. Then again marijuana is now legal.... Edited on 18-05-2018 19:07 |
| 18-05-2018 22:26 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:RenaissanceMan wrote: No, it is not possible to harvest 'waste heat'. You cannot reduce entropy in a system. James___ wrote:What about it?Into the Night wrote: You cannot reduce entropy in a system. James___ wrote: ?? James___ wrote: You're just laughing maniacally to yourself. James___ wrote: No, it isn't. James___ wrote: No, they don't. James___ wrote: Since I built instrumentation for these systems, I'm pretty familiar with them. James___ wrote:No, it doesn't. You can't create energy out of nothing. James___ wrote: Rivers don't flow uphill. James___ wrote: Nothing here. What point are you trying to make? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-05-2018 17:45 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
If they are right about graphene then it could probably be used to improve the efficiency of solar panels as well. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/graphene-apos-stimulation-apos-could-100200127.html |
| 21-05-2018 20:18 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
James___ wrote: So I see that you too are one of those people that like to cover the land with unsightly solar panels that don't produce much power. A single coal plant produces far more power than an entire State filled with solar panels and wind farms combined. It's cheaper too! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-05-2018 02:29 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote: ... This is what gets tiresome itn. Just trying anything to get a reaction. Kind of why I think you might be using hard drugs. Either that or IMO you're needing a fix. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/03/29/mass-employment-in-coal-mining-is-never-coming-back-no-matter-trumps-promises-or-regulations/#5ebd582971e8 Edited on 22-05-2018 02:41 |
| 22-05-2018 02:45 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote: Irrelevant to my statement. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 12-02-2019 07:40 | |
| Terry1001☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
Population has to get smaller. A lot smaller fast. If there is more people each year, obvious we need more energy, buildings, food, every day items, replace more items(phones, cars, fridges,clothes etc)Just a big cycle that needs more and more. Personally, do not think anything will be done, until it is a huge world crisis.We wont give up what we have while we think others wont give up what they have. The few thousand very rich people that control the world do not think it will effect them. And at the moment it does not effect them. |
| 12-02-2019 19:53 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Terry1001 wrote: You first. Terry1001 wrote: More people are more hands and minds to find or create more sources of energy, build their buildings, make their food and everyday items, etc. People are assets, not liabilities. Terry1001 wrote: What do you want to do? Start killing people to satisfy your religion? Terry1001 wrote:There is no need to give up anything. YOU don't get to dictate what others may or may not have. You are not the king. Terry1001 wrote:They don't control the world. Terry1001 wrote: It doesn't affect anybody. Your apocalyptic view is from the Church of Green, your religion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-02-2019 23:34 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5196) |
Terry1001 wrote: That's psycho-talk, but consistent with what the liberals have been working at lately. Several left-leaning states passed late term abortion legislation recently. Basically, all the way up until the baby pops out, mom isn't satisfied, she can agree to terminate. Personally, I don't like abortion used as a contraceptive. Play safe, or don't play at all, we all learn about sex and pregnancy at an early age, usually before we have to worry about it. But, taking responsibility, is a rare thing these days. The Dems are tight on the purse string, can afford a few billion for a much needed wall, which they started a couple decades ago. The need ever penny for important things, like some sort of 'artificial leaf' contraption, to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, and bury it in the ground. Why not spend that money on food crops, works out about the same, plus we get a product that is much needed, food. Reducing CO2, is starving plants, lower yielding crops, more people dying of starvation. Democrats are murderers, they just don't want to take responsibility. We'd have plenty of stuff to go around, but the Democrats keep pushing the single-use, disposable, non-repairable crap, that goes straight to the landfills. They make more money off us, if we have to keep buying the over-priced, throw-away garbage. |
| 10-04-2019 07:42 | |
| gadianddeborahslade☆☆☆☆☆ (6) |
Abraham3 wrote: The guy say right. https://www.instagram.com/gadianddeborahslade/ |
| 10-04-2019 16:03 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
Abraham3 wrote: Fortunately nobody produces any GHGs yet. We haven't found a way to violate Stefan-Boltzmann. From the MANUAL: Greenhouse Gas: noun According to the Global Warming mythology, greenhouse gas is a magickal substance (a gas) that has the magickal superpower to cause any black body in which it comes into contact to violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law by increasing its temperature while decreasing its radiance. This belief falls under Settled Science. Greenhouse Effect: proper noun Global Warming's loyal servant, creates "heat" when fed CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas by invoking his magickal superpower to force a black body to violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Greenhouse Effect continues to increase the earth's heat budget to aid Global Warming in His war against Climate. This belief falls under Settled Science. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
Join the debate Solutions anyone?:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Top Entities Only Want To Steal New Ideas Solutions, Do Not Want To Buy It | 2 | 03-12-2023 21:07 |
| Climate change - effects, impact and solutions | 34 | 17-08-2023 08:19 |
| The Correct Public Strategy Solutions For The Climate Change Problem | 1 | 03-11-2022 20:09 |
| People Must Start New Project To Share Solutions To End The COVID Event, Blaming Do Not Help | 2 | 21-11-2021 04:49 |
| Impactful individual-level solutions towards carbon footprint reduction | 31 | 19-10-2021 22:25 |