Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.

Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.11-09-2019 05:05
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	I was searching for an old ice core documentary, and stumbled on this instead. https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/ It's kind of old, but full of fun misinformation. The guy who attempted, several times, to replicate the experiment in the first video, didn't get the same results actually, the CO2 jar didn't anything different. Bill Nye's video was heavily edited, mostly propaganda, but it turned out the experiment was completely bogus. The real gems though, were in the comments section after. Still don't understand why, when they are talking about those 'dirty' power plants, and show the picture of the white cloud coming off them. It's steam, and not even coming out of the smoke stack. Guess it doesn't matter, almost forgot water vapor was a greenhouse gas too. I only watched the first video, took a while for it load on my computer, for only 4 1/2 minutes. I could see waiting out any of the others tonight. Don't usually watch videos only, for that reason. The comments at the bottom of the page are worth a look, and I plan to go back and read some more. Little burned out, to go back looking for the ice core movie. Think it got buried under climate change. I could even find a paper or mention of why they were boring the holes back in the 70s. That part is glossed over pretty quick, and the jump right in to the 80s research on trapped gasses and dating the layers. Apparently, the researchers admit freely, that they can be off a thousand years per layer. They discuss that the gas measurement get less reliable, deeper they go. I didn't read the whole thing, wasn't what I was looking for, might go back though, seemed more realistic than the IPCC version of ice core research. Did see enough to add to the list of misused research.
12-09-2019 23:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: . The guy who attempted, several times, to replicate the experiment in the first video, didn't get the same results actually, the CO2 jar didn't anything different. Good post Harvey I have run into this 10 times trying to find any decent experiments on YouTube. Bill Nye is a disgrace with his heavy handed slop on Climate Change. He absolutely presents it as a "hey kids try this at home" so there's no excuse.
13-09-2019 04:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: . The guy who attempted, several times, to replicate the experiment in the first video, didn't get the same results actually, the CO2 jar didn't anything different. Good post Harvey I have run into this 10 times trying to find any decent experiments on YouTube. Bill Nye is a disgrace with his heavy handed slop on Climate Change. He absolutely presents it as a "hey kids try this at home" so there's no excuse. If you scroll down to through the comments at the bottom of that page, you'll find a response from Bill Nye. He only claims responsibility for the video's voice-over, places the blame on the experiment on Al Gore's team. He also claims he's done a similar experiment several times, slight different setup, no plastic globes in the jars. The tone, didn't really seem to indicate he was sorry, except that he got called on it. Think he misses being on TV, and happy to get any attention.
13-09-2019 05:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:. The tone, didn't really seem to indicate he was sorry, except that he got called on it. Think he misses being on TV, and happy to get any attention. Yeah ONLY a video with proof it works is redemption. It's very suspicious there isn't one. It's SUPPOSED to be easy.
14-09-2019 03:50
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	HarveyH55 wrote: ...Still don't understand why, when they are talking about those 'dirty' power plants, and show the picture of the white cloud coming off them. It's steam, and not even coming out of the smoke stack. Guess it doesn't matter, almost forgot water vapor was a greenhouse gas too... Umm...not much to do with thermocouple in cookie jar under heat lamp at home, but the following images of Utah's coal-burning Intermountain Power Project, online in 1986 and due to close in 2025, show such a cloud of steam above the stack in winter, versus the smaller tuft of ash, soot and sulfate particles you see in the summer. This is good old-fashioned air pollution. Stack scrubbers remove about 90% of the sulfate and a hotter furnace cuts down on the soot. Nothing's zero, however, and we still get an annual 4300 tons of sulfate and 23600 tons of nitrogen oxides from IPP plus who knows how much ash and soot; Benchmarking Air Emissions, the general public report on emissions from power producers, doesn't include particulate matter, the PM5 the EPA monitors in city air. The only reason I was able to single out the IPP plant is it's the only one operated by its agency. But CO2, which in ordinary amounts is harmless with respect to respiratory health, is reported—and charged to Utah's greenhouse gas account while the Los Angeles Basin cities that use most of the electricity from IPP can put the markups in the denominator under GDP when the juice is resold, thus chopping the California economy's "carbon intensity." At least the fellas down there finally saw through their own charade, banning renewal of purchase contracts and prompting the impending closure. Intermountain Power may build a natural gas-fired plant to replace IPP, if issues raised by the necessary pipeline don't make it infeasible. I'm not in the "denial" camp on climate change. I see it as a real risk deserving of action. The single-minded focus on CO2 to the exclusion of other environmental ills, and the lack of candor in the politics, where everything becomes "1.5˚ of warming" or "12 more years," bothers me nonetheless. Windmills, solar panels and lithium ion batteries aren't particularly green. True commitment on a citizen's part comes not from buying an electric car—a thing the poor can't afford—but from driving less or not *owning* a car at all. Ditto "carbon offsets." And applicable to Greta Thunberg. While her voyage, considered alone, may have generated little carbon, the manufacture and subsequent maintenance of the yacht, normally used by a lone Italian jetsetter and his crews on regatta, sure did. It's exactly because of the farce after farce we have so many deniers. Benchmarking Air Emissions (see p. 27, rank line 59) MJ Bradley & Associates, 2016 NDRC https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/benchmarking-air-emissions-2016.pdf Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 14-09-2019 03:53

14-09-2019 07:04
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	I don't believe any of the CO2 hype, or there is any warming crisis. Think that part is entirely a scam, just a means to an end. I do believe that there are too many sloppy, wasteful, inconsiderate people in this world. Would hurt to change some attitudes, clean up a little bit of the mess, waste less. The climate change proposal is a little harsh though, and will do more damage, than good. Solar and wind farms take up a lot of real estate, and are only 'green' after they are manufactured an setup, don't produce anywhere near what's claimed. CO2 at 2000 ppm is great for plants, and safe to work in, for short periods at a time. Plants struggle badly under 200 ppm. Think the reduction targets are a threat to all life on the planet, less food for everything. Just seems that the dream was to trick people into a cleaner lifestyle, but politics and greed got involved, marketing is expensive. The partnered with the devil, and sort of got pushed to the side. Now it's about power and control, and of course large sums of money. Fortunately, I don't expect to live long enough, to see it happen. It's going to be just a lot of talk, for quite some yet.
14-09-2019 09:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	VernerHornung wrote: I'm not in the "denial" camp on climate change. I see it as a real risk deserving of action. The single-minded focus on CO2 to the exclusion of other environmental ills, and the lack of candor in the politics, where everything becomes "1.5˚ of warming" or "12 more years," bothers me nonetheless. Well said. I never think lying is a good way to accomplish anything and you have it as the principle strategy for both "alarmists" and "deniers" on the issue. We should allow the issue to be honestly discussed. Really excellent post! HarveyH55 wrote: I do believe that there are too many sloppy, wasteful, inconsiderate people in this world. Would hurt to change some attitudes, ... I like the undeniable "waste" perspective that goes far beyond environmental concerns. Fuel efficiency, recycling, innovation in general all make life better economically. The problem with the focus on CO2 emissions is the price tag is staggering. Bjørn Lomborg (skeptical envirnmentalist) has good work comparing the costs to benefits. Edited on 14-09-2019 09:49
14-09-2019 19:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:. The tone, didn't really seem to indicate he was sorry, except that he got called on it. Think he misses being on TV, and happy to get any attention. Yeah ONLY a video with proof it works is redemption. It's very suspicious there isn't one. It's SUPPOSED to be easy. A video is not a proof. 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
14-09-2019 19:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: ...Still don't understand why, when they are talking about those 'dirty' power plants, and show the picture of the white cloud coming off them. It's steam, and not even coming out of the smoke stack. Guess it doesn't matter, almost forgot water vapor was a greenhouse gas too... Umm...not much to do with thermocouple in cookie jar under heat lamp at home, but the following images of Utah's coal-burning Intermountain Power Project, online in 1986 and due to close in 2025, show such a cloud of steam above the stack in winter, versus the smaller tuft of ash, soot and sulfate particles you see in the summer. This is good old-fashioned air pollution. Stack scrubbers remove about 90% of the sulfate and a hotter furnace cuts down on the soot. Nothing's zero, however, and we still get an annual 4300 tons of sulfate and 23600 tons of nitrogen oxides from IPP plus who knows how much ash and soot; Benchmarking Air Emissions, the general public report on emissions from power producers, doesn't include particulate matter, the PM5 the EPA monitors in city air. The only reason I was able to single out the IPP plant is it's the only one operated by its agency. But CO2, which in ordinary amounts is harmless with respect to respiratory health, is reported—and charged to Utah's greenhouse gas account while the Los Angeles Basin cities that use most of the electricity from IPP can put the markups in the denominator under GDP when the juice is resold, thus chopping the California economy's "carbon intensity." At least the fellas down there finally saw through their own charade, banning renewal of purchase contracts and prompting the impending closure. Intermountain Power may build a natural gas-fired plant to replace IPP, if issues raised by the necessary pipeline don't make it infeasible. I'm not in the "denial" camp on climate change. I see it as a real risk deserving of action. The single-minded focus on CO2 to the exclusion of other environmental ills, and the lack of candor in the politics, where everything becomes "1.5˚ of warming" or "12 more years," bothers me nonetheless. Windmills, solar panels and lithium ion batteries aren't particularly green. True commitment on a citizen's part comes not from buying an electric car—a thing the poor can't afford—but from driving less or not *owning* a car at all. Ditto "carbon offsets." And applicable to Greta Thunberg. While her voyage, considered alone, may have generated little carbon, the manufacture and subsequent maintenance of the yacht, normally used by a lone Italian jetsetter and his crews on regatta, sure did. It's exactly because of the farce after farce we have so many deniers. Benchmarking Air Emissions (see p. 27, rank line 59) MJ Bradley & Associates, 2016 NDRC https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/benchmarking-air-emissions-2016.pdf What problem? Who are YOU to decide what form of energy anyone uses? You are not the king. Coal is carbon. Sulfur is an impurity. It can be removed by processing the coal before burning, and catching what's left in the scrubbers. Sulfur dioxide is not a sulfate. Sulfates are valuable chemicals that occur naturally. We actually mine them. 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 14-09-2019 19:40
14-09-2019 21:08
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	HarveyH55 wrote: I don't believe any of the CO2 hype, or there is any warming crisis... Or a slow-moving crisis. Reminds me of Apollo 13. When the LOX tank on the spacecraft blew up, the astronauts had hours to talk to Houston and figure out what to do, assembling an improvised adaptor that allowed them to plug into the Lunar Module's CO2 scrubber so they wouldn't croak. Had they panicked as Greta Thunberg suggests our policymakers do, that would have been finis: totally ineffective thrashing about and loss of the mission. HarveyH55 wrote: Solar and wind farms take up a lot of real estate, and are only 'green' after they are manufactured an setup, don't produce anywhere near what's claimed. Yeah. Ever been to Seven-Mile Hill Wind Farm outside Rawlins, WY? It's pretty loud and kills lots of birds from what I hear. Since Wyoming has 1.5 GW of wind capacity installed, enough to electrify a million homes when it's blowing, solar and wind do have a significant contribution to make in the US power picture. But we'll need a diversified portfolio, with natural gas for when it's *not* blowing or sunny, and oil where portability is criterion. No one's even mentioned the thermoelectric plants we might build to get energy from the temperature gradient between warm surface and cold bottom water in the Pacific. Funding for research on D-T fusion reactors that produce less nuclear waste has stalled. For electric cars, a fuel cell using hydrogen made by electrolysis might outperform batteries. Overlooking innovation in a rush to convert to what's now seen as green could leave us stuck with white elephants if the newer ideas turn out more economical. HarveyH55 wrote: CO2 at 2000 ppm is great for plants, and safe to work in, for short periods at a time. Plants struggle badly under 200 ppm... I dunno. Letting CO2 go up and up unabated looks hazardous to me; I don't think we want anywhere near 2000ppm. But we can't change the fact that a crash decarbonization program would disrupt our economy, impairing our ability to help the Latin American countries and indigenous folks AOC says she loves. Migrant caravans come from economic and political failure in lands that have ports and fertile soil. They need *more* development, not less, and a strong North American market to trade with. That's why I favor moving the US off fossil energy, but at a sensible pace, guessing 50-75 years. Cities need time to rebuild to where high-rises, trains, walking or home delivery of goods becomes norm, and people need generations to acquire, and accept, new living habits. Vladimir Lenin's the guy who tried to ram a revolution down his nation's gullet overnight. tmiddles wrote: Fuel efficiency, recycling, innovation in general all make life better economically. The problem with the focus on CO2 emissions is the price tag is staggering. Bjørn Lomborg (skeptical envirnmentalist) has good work comparing the costs to benefits. Agreed, and there's little intelligent discourse on conservation these days; we have knee-jerkers who think a 9mpg Hummer's a dandy and tree-huggers who prefer shuffling off to the commune, last one out please shut the lights off. I haven't checked on Bjørn; that's a new name to me. The costs *will* crush us if we scrape our serviceable energy infrastructure heedlessly. While fossil fuel plants and gasoline on the road are dinosaurs, I see no good option but to let 'em live out their days, replacing them gradually as they die. Even the computer-Internet explosion, decades later, has yet to kill off radio and broadcast TV. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
14-09-2019 21:55
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: What problem? Who are YOU to decide what form of energy anyone uses? You are not the king. Never said I was. Markets will make most of those decisions. But Americans no matter how libertarian have accepted government intervention to steer economic development from the Land Grant Act (railroads, 1862) to DARPA (1958, origin of Internet) to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (1973), and we're still benefiting from all three measures. Given that much of the world's oil comes from its most turbulent regions, coal mining slices mountaintops off in West Virginia, and natural gas is a finite resource we'll exhaust one day, why should we *promote* dependence on them with no plans for the future? I don't advocate the severe restrictions the Green Party wants to impose on energy markets, i.e. carbon tax. But it's high time we step up incentives for solar and wind to supplant extant fossil plants as they reach their scheduled decommissioning dates, and fund more R & D on the fusion and thermoelectric equipment we've stopped thinking about. Into the Night wrote: Coal is carbon. Sulfur is an impurity. It can be removed by processing the coal before burning, and catching what's left in the scrubbers. Missing my point. My post on IPP praised its stack scrubbers, and complained about the emphasis on CO2 taking over politics, which detracts from traditional pollution control efforts and gives California an undue voice in shaping laws in other states or Washington. Into the Night wrote: Sulfur dioxide is not a sulfate. Sulfates are valuable chemicals that occur naturally. We actually mine them. True, but SO2 reacts with H2O and dust in the air to generate sulfuric acid and airborne sulfate particles. Gypsum and magnesium sulfate, both produced in Utah, may be valuable, but that hardly means you want to breathe them. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 14-09-2019 22:00
14-09-2019 23:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:...is not a proof. Nothing is significant or usable according to you. You're like the Jim Crow laws of science. Into the Night wrote:Who are YOU to decide what form of energy anyone uses? Citizen. Try using leaded gasoline or burning your leaves after some yard work. VernerHornung wrote:But we'll need a diversified portfolio, with natural gas for when it's *not* blowing or sunny, and oil where portability is criterion. No one's even mentioned the thermoelectric plants ... Not to mention: tmiddles wrote: Crap the U.S. loses more than 67.8% of the electricity that is generated in our Grid. VernerHornung wrote: That's why I favor moving the US off fossil energy, but at a sensible pace, guessing 50-75 years. Cities need time to rebuild to where high-rises, trains, walking or home delivery of goods becomes norm Well said. People made a similar transition to having electricity over burning kerosene lamps for light. I think fossil fuel handicap our ability to innovate. They're just cheap and easy. Car fuel economy hasn't done squat really, because gas is cheap. Humanity is crazy rich with resources right now. Innovating in the Energy area is a good project.
15-09-2019 00:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...is not a proof. Nothing is significant or usable according to you. You're like the Jim Crow laws of science. Into the Night wrote:Who are YOU to decide what form of energy anyone uses? Citizen. Try using leaded gasoline or burning your leaves after some yard work. VernerHornung wrote:But we'll need a diversified portfolio, with natural gas for when it's *not* blowing or sunny, and oil where portability is criterion. No one's even mentioned the thermoelectric plants ... Not to mention: tmiddles wrote: Crap the U.S. loses more than 67.8% of the electricity that is generated in our Grid. VernerHornung wrote: That's why I favor moving the US off fossil energy, but at a sensible pace, guessing 50-75 years. Cities need time to rebuild to where high-rises, trains, walking or home delivery of goods becomes norm Well said. People made a similar transition to having electricity over burning kerosene lamps for light. I think fossil fuel handicap our ability to innovate. They're just cheap and easy. Car fuel economy hasn't done squat really, because gas is cheap. Humanity is crazy rich with resources right now. Innovating in the Energy area is a good project. Electric lighting, won out over candles and kerosene because it was simple and safe, just flip a switch. Candles and kerosene were messy, required constant cleaning, and both were fire hazards, and needed filling, replacing often. Electricity made things safer, less labor intensive. Nobody was forced to get electricity installed in their homes, or use it. The benefits were obvious to most, and they were eager to modernize their lives. Going 'green' has us moving backward in a lot of cases. Personal transportation (cars) is moving to more expensive to own/operate. We are urge to walk, or use mass transit as much as possible. Sure, there are a lot of affordable electric cars now, but there are millions of gas cars on the roads. The price of even the cheapest, will jump, as the demand for the rises quickly, beyond the capacity to produce them. The 'Green New Deal', is a very expensive agenda, not just energy, and is going to need tax money to fund. What we earn, is going to buy as much. Most of our old technology appliances are going to be very expensive to use, and will need to be replaced with new, high-efficiency versions, or we do without them. No matter how you slice it, our cost of living is going to rise faster than man-made CO2, or the net-mean-global-average-surface-temperature, or what ever CO2 is claimed to be causing. We aren't all like to see our bosses giving us huge cost of living raises, since they are going to be getting hit just as hard, if not harder, since they are the 'wealthy' the socialist wish to tax, to pay for all the 'free' stuff.
15-09-2019 19:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I don't believe any of the CO2 hype, or there is any warming crisis... Or a slow-moving crisis. Reminds me of Apollo 13. When the LOX tank on the spacecraft blew up, the astronauts had hours to talk to Houston and figure out what to do, assembling an improvised adaptor that allowed them to plug into the Lunar Module's CO2 scrubber so they wouldn't croak. Had they panicked as Greta Thunberg suggests our policymakers do, that would have been finis: totally ineffective thrashing about and loss of the mission. No, Apollo 13 was a fast moving crisis, one crisis after another. They were extremely lucky to make it back alive. VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Solar and wind farms take up a lot of real estate, and are only 'green' after they are manufactured an setup, don't produce anywhere near what's claimed. Yeah. Ever been to Seven-Mile Hill Wind Farm outside Rawlins, WY? It's pretty loud and kills lots of birds from what I hear. Since Wyoming has 1.5 GW of wind capacity installed, enough to electrify a million homes when it's blowing, solar and wind do have a significant contribution to make in the US power picture. But we'll need a diversified portfolio, with natural gas for when it's *not* blowing or sunny, and oil where portability is criterion. 1.5Gw will not power a million homes. A hundred homes, maybe. Remember, the rating of these machines if per year. They rarely achieve that, making only one third of that power under practical conditions, leaving only 500Mw per year. Enough to power about 30 homes, assuming a perfect ballast. VernerHornung wrote: No one's even mentioned the thermoelectric plants we might build to get energy from the temperature gradient between warm surface and cold bottom water in the Pacific Expensive! We do not have materials strong enough! This is a bit like hanging a cable to the surface from a satellite. Currents would tear the thing to pieces. These generators also have a high impedance, resulting in very little power being available from them. The corrosive nature of seawater to the required metals is also a major factor. VernerHornung wrote: Funding for research on D-T fusion reactors that produce less nuclear waste has stalled. Because the technology has stalled. VernerHornung wrote: For electric cars, a fuel cell using hydrogen made by electrolysis might outperform batteries. No, about the same, except now you have to produce the hydrogen. It isn't free, you know. VernerHornung wrote: Overlooking innovation in a rush to convert to what's now seen as green could leave us stuck with white elephants if the newer ideas turn out more economical. Nope. Innovation is the stuff of capitalism, the same thing that produced the current energy market. VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: CO2 at 2000 ppm is great for plants, and safe to work in, for short periods at a time. Plants struggle badly under 200 ppm... I dunno. Biologists do. The growth of most any plant improves a lot with more available CO2. This makes sense, since a plant uses photosynthesis to break down CO2 and water into carbohydrates, which are food for the plant (and us!). VernerHornung wrote: Letting CO2 go up and up unabated looks hazardous to me; It's benign. There is also a limiting factor. The amount of fuel we have to burn. VernerHornung wrote: I don't think we want anywhere near 2000ppm. It can't. We don't have that much fuel in the world, and CO2 sinks are everywhere. VernerHornung wrote: But we can't change the fact that a crash decarbonization program would disrupt our economy, It would also kill a lot of plants (and us!). VernerHornung wrote: impairing our ability to help the Latin American countries and indigenous folks AOC says she loves. The only thing AOC loves is herself. She doesn't give a rat's ass about the Latin American countries, except to use them as pawns to keep her in power. VernerHornung wrote: Migrant caravans come from economic and political failure in lands that have ports and fertile soil. They need *more* development, not less, and a strong North American market to trade with. They already have a strong North American market to trade with. These caravans are organized and funded by George Soros. They do not want asylum in Mexico, they want to come and disrupt the border with the United States. VernerHornung wrote: That's why I favor moving the US off fossil energy, but at a sensible pace, guessing 50-75 years. We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. VernerHornung wrote: Cities need time to rebuild to where high-rises, trains, walking or home delivery of goods becomes norm, No city can survive long without continuous supplies from outside. They make up a very small percentage of land area. VernerHornung wrote: and people need generations to acquire, and accept, new living habits. No, they don't. A new drug user, for example, will accept his new living habit in the space of less than a year. The Alexa service has been around for only a few years, and many have made it part of their living habits. There are many examples of this. VernerHornung wrote: Vladimir Lenin's the guy who tried to ram a revolution down his nation's gullet overnight. He succeeded too, much to the destruction of his own people. Millions died under his regime as a direct result of his policies. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: Fuel efficiency, recycling, innovation in general all make life better economically. The problem with the focus on CO2 emissions is the price tag is staggering. Bjørn Lomborg (skeptical envirnmentalist) has good work comparing the costs to benefits. Agreed, and there's little intelligent discourse on conservation these days; Burning carbon based fuels efficiently produces CO2 and water. Burning carbon based fuels very inefficiently produces CO and soot. You've reduced CO2! Happy? VernerHornung wrote: we have knee-jerkers who think a 9mpg Hummer's a dandy If they want to buy one, and pay for it's fuel. Why not? VernerHornung wrote: and tree-huggers who prefer shuffling off to the commune, If they want to go live in a commune, why not? VernerHornung wrote: last one out please shut the lights off. Neither one shuts of any lights. VernerHornung wrote: The costs *will* crush us if we scrape our serviceable energy infrastructure heedlessly. You are talking about manipulating free markets again. Sorry, but you are not the king. VernerHornung wrote: While fossil fuel plants Don't have any. Fossils don't burn. VernerHornung wrote: and gasoline on the road are dinosaurs, No, oil, which gasoline comes from, is a renewable resource. It does not come from dinosaurs and we are using more than ever. It's cheap too. That means we have plenty of it. VernerHornung wrote: I see no good option but to let 'em live out their days, replacing them gradually as they die. They are not dying. VernerHornung wrote: Even the computer-Internet explosion, decades later, has yet to kill off radio and broadcast TV. Why would it? Indeed, much of the internet travels by radio, did you know that? 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
15-09-2019 20:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: What problem? Who are YOU to decide what form of energy anyone uses? You are not the king. Never said I was. Yes you did. It is what you are arguing. VernerHornung wrote: Markets will make most of those decisions. It will make ALL of those decisions. No government can change that. VernerHornung wrote: But Americans no matter how libertarian have accepted government intervention to steer economic development from the Land Grant Act (railroads, 1862) There was only one profitable railroad built across America, the Great Northern, which now is a part of the Burlington-Northern railroad. It was the only one that was built with private funds. The Union Pacific railway, built with federal money and land grants, lost money during most of its operation (kind of like Amtrack today!). That changed when the federal government interfered with the markets and dictated prices for rail shipment. It was the only way the government railroads could compete with the Great Northern railroad. That's fascism, dude. VernerHornung wrote: to DARPA (1958, origin of Internet) DARPA did not create the internet. They created only a very tiny part of it, including the IP, TCP, and UDP protocols, all of which are rather sucky in communications efficiency. Despite this, it became popular due to the use and popularity of the SSH and HTTP protocols, and mostly through the creation of commercial services as websites, including Amazon, a private company. The government may have created the protocols, but private companies built the internet into what it is today. It is THEY that make it useful. VernerHornung wrote: to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (1973), and we're still benefiting from all three measures. The government got in the way of the pipeline in Alaska, dude! The Act was finally relenting to market pressures. Private companies built the actual pipeline still operate it today. VernerHornung wrote: Given that much of the world's oil comes from its most turbulent regions, WRONG. The largest exporters of oil comes from the United States and Canada! A lot also comes from the UK. VernerHornung wrote: coal mining slices mountaintops off in West Virginia, Open pit mining is only one way to extract coal. Most coal mining is by shafts and tunnels. Very few mines in West Virginia are surface mines. VernerHornung wrote: and natural gas is a finite resource we'll exhaust one day, WRONG. Natural gas is a renewable resource. Ever hear of a compost pile? How about a sewer plant? How about the gas we extract from old landfills (now covered over and are turned into parks, golf courses and wilderness area). It is exceptionally easy to create methane by direct synthesis from CO2 and hydrogen as well. VernerHornung wrote: why should we *promote* dependence on them with no plans for the future? Because they're cheap. That means they're available. We have more oil than we know what to do with. We are awash in oil. VernerHornung wrote: I don't advocate the severe restrictions the Green Party wants to impose on energy markets, i.e. carbon tax. But it's high time we step up incentives for solar and wind to supplant extant fossil plants as they reach their scheduled decommissioning dates, There are no fossil plants to decommission. We don't manufacture fossils. VernerHornung wrote: and fund more R & D on the fusion Why? Funding people to build yet another version of what doesn't work is not R&D. VernerHornung wrote: and thermoelectric equipment we've stopped thinking about. Actually, we DO think about it. Such equipment is incorporated into every jet aircraft, and in many reciprocating engines in both aircraft and cars. As a source of power though, they suck. Generator impedance is too high due to required use of ion flow through metal. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Coal is carbon. Sulfur is an impurity. It can be removed by processing the coal before burning, and catching what's left in the scrubbers. Missing my point. No, that WAS your point. You are attempting to redirect. VernerHornung wrote: My post on IPP praised its stack scrubbers, and complained about the emphasis on CO2 taking over politics, which detracts from traditional pollution control efforts No, it was specifically mentioning your bad understanding of the chemistry at a coal fired plant. VernerHornung wrote: and gives California an undue voice in shaping laws in other states or Washington. I assume you mean Washington DC, not Washington State. The SOTC is not a significant voice in Washington DC concerning the use of coal. Indeed, more and more people are wanting to build a Mexico border style wall around the SOTC. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Sulfur dioxide is not a sulfate. Sulfates are valuable chemicals that occur naturally. We actually mine them. True, but SO2 reacts with H2O and dust in the air to generate sulfuric acid and airborne sulfate particles. No. SO2 reacts with rain to produce sulfuric acid, and a weak solution at that...the so-called 'acid rain'. Rain is normally acid, but the addition of SO2 makes the rain too acidic. Dust does not form sulfates in the presence of SO2. SO2 is washed out of air with the rain. Sulfates form on the ground. Concentrations are too low to be of much use to anyone. VernerHornung wrote: Gypsum and magnesium sulfate, both produced in Utah, may be valuable, but that hardly means you want to breathe them. They are mined in a hell of a lot more places than Utah! 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

15-09-2019 20:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...is not a proof. Nothing is significant or usable according to you. Repetitious lie. Bulverism fallacy. tmiddles wrote: You're like the Jim Crow laws of science. Irrelevant, and racism. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Who are YOU to decide what form of energy anyone uses? Citizen. Correct. You only get to decide energy usage for YOU, not anyone else. You are not the king. tmiddles wrote: Try using leaded gasoline or burning your leaves after some yard work. I do both. tmiddles wrote: People made a similar transition to having electricity over burning kerosene lamps for light. I think fossil fuel handicap our ability to innovate. They're just cheap and easy. Car fuel economy hasn't done squat really, because gas is cheap. Lie. We no longer use carburetors. We have FADEC now. That was built by private companies and capitalism, not government. Economy has improved from 7mpg to 30mpg! tmiddles wrote: Humanity is crazy rich with resources right now. Innovating in the Energy area is a good project. Not a project. An investment. 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
16-09-2019 15:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote:Nothing is significant or usable according to you. All you seem to have are attacks on bogus positions that you assign to those you cannot defeat in a forum of ideas. . 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 Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	145	24-04-2024 02:48
A Gas Can Be A Barrier	8	17-04-2024 13:39
A Gas Can Be ing A Barrier	0	12-02-2024 04:51
Burn Gasoline and Natural Gas To Fight Against Climate Change	25	04-01-2024 06:33
USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier heads home after elevators and catapults fail again	0	03-01-2024 02:33