Remember me
▼ Content

Our Fragile Planet



Page 4 of 7<<<23456>>>
13-09-2019 05:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
HarveyH55 wrote:
You just omitted Temporary in your post, just two up from this...


First of all you lied and never acknowledged it. You said "when you started the fuss, you left out the 'TEMPORARY', " which is false as I included it in the beginning.

And I'm not required to include it every time. You think it matters.
And I don't think it matters! "Temporary abomination" is still an abomination.
Edited on 13-09-2019 05:07
13-09-2019 05:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I suppose Trump also called for an end to the federal government.
After all, he did say he was OK with shutting it down.

Would I be a liar if I quoted him accurately?
13-09-2019 05:25
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1478)
tmiddles wrote:
Having a test for entry into the county is what it is

What's wrong with a test for entry into the country??!!
13-09-2019 05:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Having a test for entry into the county is what it is

What's wrong with a test for entry into the country??!!


Are you proposing a new policy?
13-09-2019 05:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I suppose Trump also called for an end to the federal government.
After all, he did say he was OK with shutting it down.

Would I be a liar if I quoted him accurately?

You aren't quoting him accurately, so yes, you are a liar.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2019 05:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Having a test for entry into the county is what it is

What's wrong with a test for entry into the country??!!


Are you proposing a new policy?


Are you suggesting there is no test now for entering the country legally??


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-09-2019 05:58
13-09-2019 06:04
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1478)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Having a test for entry into the county is what it is
What's wrong with a test for entry into the country??!!


Are you proposing a new policy?


Are you suggesting there is no test now for entering the country legally??


To be fair, I intentionally misquoted tmiddles. I left out one important word that changed the entire point he was making. Wondering if he might see how he's done exactly that to Trump. I'll make it right...

tmiddles wrote:
Having a religious test for entry into the county is what it is



spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
13-09-2019 07:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I intentionally misquoted tmiddles.


I never misquoted Trump and no one has pointed out how I did. He made the statement he was calling for a ban on muslims. ITN still denys he did as do all of you. Because you're all insane.

It's just nice to have such a clear proof of your madness, sad and scary as it is.
13-09-2019 15:20
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1478)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
I intentionally misquoted tmiddles.


tmiddles wrote:I never misquoted Trump

You did, and you're about to do it again.


[quote]tmiddles wrote:and no one has pointed out how I did.

we all have

[quote]tmiddles wrote: He made the statement he was calling for a ban on muslims.
There it is! He never said that.

tmiddles wrote: ITN still denys he did as do all of you.

ITN is right.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
13-09-2019 23:26
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
To get back on topic...

I ran into that crying girl from the movie, the one that started this thread, not the hijack Trump ad.

https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/greta-thunberg-brings-environmental-campaign-to-washington/986064592

She's 16, and just arrived at Washington DC, to protest Trump's inaction... Have to hand it to her though, apparently she actually practices what she preaches, or least give the impression. The article mentioned she arrived on a solar powered boat, which I'm going to look into a little further after this post. Seems like crossing the Atlantic by solar power alone, would be a very ambitious/expensive feat to accomplish. I don't really expect solar moving the boat, maybe charge her cell phone...
14-09-2019 00:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
HarveyH55 wrote:
To get back on topic...

I ran into that crying girl from the movie, the one that started this thread, not the hijack Trump ad.

https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/greta-thunberg-brings-environmental-campaign-to-washington/986064592

She's 16, and just arrived at Washington DC, to protest Trump's inaction... Have to hand it to her though, apparently she actually practices what she preaches, or least give the impression. The article mentioned she arrived on a solar powered boat, which I'm going to look into a little further after this post. Seems like crossing the Atlantic by solar power alone, would be a very ambitious/expensive feat to accomplish. I don't really expect solar moving the boat, maybe charge her cell phone...

If you happen to be looking for a crowd of people who promote child prostitution, find Great Thornburg and just survey the area.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-09-2019 02:22
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Found a FAQ page for the boat ant the trip, for what it's worth...

https://www.borisherrmannracing.com/news/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-transat-with-greta-thunberg/

It's a $4 million racing yacht, 60 feet long. 1.3kw solar powered, with two hydro-generators as well. Also has an internal combustion, which of course the almost never use... Read the FAQ and the following comments. It really is a racing yacht, and has just the bare essentials, not even a toilet, much of anything for convince. It really isn't all that special, least not in the 'green' boat sense. I don't know why I keep getting fooled by the climatology crap. Essential, it's a sailboat, nothing out of the ordinary. Not sure why they bothered with solar panels at all. Long as the boat is moving, they should be generating plenty of power from the water.
14-09-2019 02:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
HarveyH55 wrote:
To get back on topic...

I ran into that crying girl from the movie, the one that started this thread, not the hijack Trump ad.

https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/greta-thunberg-brings-environmental-campaign-to-washington/986064592

She's 16, and just arrived at Washington DC, to protest Trump's inaction... Have to hand it to her though, apparently she actually practices what she preaches, or least give the impression. The article mentioned she arrived on a solar powered boat, which I'm going to look into a little further after this post. Seems like crossing the Atlantic by solar power alone, would be a very ambitious/expensive feat to accomplish. I don't really expect solar moving the boat, maybe charge her cell phone...


They're called 'sailboats'.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2019 02:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Found a FAQ page for the boat ant the trip, for what it's worth...

https://www.borisherrmannracing.com/news/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-transat-with-greta-thunberg/

It's a $4 million racing yacht, 60 feet long. 1.3kw solar powered, with two hydro-generators as well. Also has an internal combustion, which of course the almost never use... Read the FAQ and the following comments. It really is a racing yacht, and has just the bare essentials, not even a toilet, much of anything for convince. It really isn't all that special, least not in the 'green' boat sense. I don't know why I keep getting fooled by the climatology crap. Essential, it's a sailboat, nothing out of the ordinary. Not sure why they bothered with solar panels at all. Long as the boat is moving, they should be generating plenty of power from the water.

Ah...a NICE sailboat!

The solar panels are there to power all the toys.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2019 02:37
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Found a FAQ page for the boat ant the trip, for what it's worth...

https://www.borisherrmannracing.com/news/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-transat-with-greta-thunberg/

It's a $4 million racing yacht, 60 feet long. 1.3kw solar powered, with two hydro-generators as well. Also has an internal combustion, which of course the almost never use... Read the FAQ and the following comments. It really is a racing yacht, and has just the bare essentials, not even a toilet, much of anything for convince. It really isn't all that special, least not in the 'green' boat sense. I don't know why I keep getting fooled by the climatology crap. Essential, it's a sailboat, nothing out of the ordinary. Not sure why they bothered with solar panels at all. Long as the boat is moving, they should be generating plenty of power from the water.

Ah...a NICE sailboat!

The solar panels are there to power all the toys.


There was a click 'here' in the FAQ, to see more information about the solar. Read more like an advertisement for the company that custom fits solar installations. Probably a sponsor/partner deal to promote the business. Doubt they get much power out of them, the sails would keep them in the shade most of the time, might get lucky occasionally.

The whole thing reads publicity stunt, since little of the claims made, are just words, and nothing really fits them. Few solar panels, and you are instantly a climate-crusader.

Wonder if all this will get her a meeting with Trump? Maybe Joe Biden will stop by...
14-09-2019 07:36
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
HarveyH55 wrote:It's a $4 million racing yacht, 60 feet long. 1.3kw solar powered, with two hydro-generators as well.


Thanks for the info. I was probably wrong on the other thread about it being a lone jetsetter; now there's more than one.


HarveyH55 wrote:Wonder if all this will get her a meeting with Trump? Maybe Joe Biden will stop by...


I'm afraid neither of them had that in mind; she was at a protest outside the White House. I think her schedule called for her to speak at the UN in New York, bop around the US for a while and then go to Chile for the UN climate summit there. Not sure what the carbon arrangements for getting to South America are. She's a nice young lady; excellent deportment and sincere, as you averred above. I've no objections to what she's doing. It's that it won't work.

Not to mention with the security consciousness pervading our age, they have to take a mugshot and drape a photo ID badge around poor Greta's neck everywhere she goes, an imposition never pressed on kids when I was 16. The climate hoopla's worse than silence, keeping the US from steps toward a practical energy policy for 30 years.

We need to phase hydrocarbons out. To do so, we need Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Powder River on board, not just the millions of solar panels and wind turbine blades the left wants its geeky startups to import from China, a serious international foe, under the protection of taxes. We've long known that alternatives including wind and solar will come, given some encouragement from Uncle Sam and major firms' interest in developing them before their new domestic well technologies run dry, but this program is blocked by the anger in the politics. The activists don't want to acknowledge that energy changeover requires decades.


Princeton NSTX fusion device, a power-plant dream AOC's "Green New Deal" throttles?

Spherical Torus Fusion research slideshow
Oak Ridge Nat'l Laboratory, 2006
https://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/qa4ScQIicx-kve2pX9D7Yg/peng_fusion_05_06.pdf


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
14-09-2019 09:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
VernerHornung wrote:
We need to phase hydrocarbons out. To do so, we need Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Powder River on board, ...
Princeton NSTX fusion device, a power-plant dream AOC's "Green New Deal" throttles?

How would we have oil companies motivated to phase out burning oil?

And do you think this fusion power generator could work on a large scale? Shouldn't we have a plan based only on the cards we hold too?

Great post
14-09-2019 18:11
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
VernerHornung wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:It's a $4 million racing yacht, 60 feet long. 1.3kw solar powered, with two hydro-generators as well.


Thanks for the info. I was probably wrong on the other thread about it being a lone jetsetter; now there's more than one.


HarveyH55 wrote:Wonder if all this will get her a meeting with Trump? Maybe Joe Biden will stop by...


I'm afraid neither of them had that in mind; she was at a protest outside the White House. I think her schedule called for her to speak at the UN in New York, bop around the US for a while and then go to Chile for the UN climate summit there. Not sure what the carbon arrangements for getting to South America are. She's a nice young lady; excellent deportment and sincere, as you averred above. I've no objections to what she's doing. It's that it won't work.

Not to mention with the security consciousness pervading our age, they have to take a mugshot and drape a photo ID badge around poor Greta's neck everywhere she goes, an imposition never pressed on kids when I was 16. The climate hoopla's worse than silence, keeping the US from steps toward a practical energy policy for 30 years.

We need to phase hydrocarbons out. To do so, we need Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Powder River on board, not just the millions of solar panels and wind turbine blades the left wants its geeky startups to import from China, a serious international foe, under the protection of taxes. We've long known that alternatives including wind and solar will come, given some encouragement from Uncle Sam and major firms' interest in developing them before their new domestic well technologies run dry, but this program is blocked by the anger in the politics. The activists don't want to acknowledge that energy changeover requires decades.


Princeton NSTX fusion device, a power-plant dream AOC's "Green New Deal" throttles?

Spherical Torus Fusion research slideshow
Oak Ridge Nat'l Laboratory, 2006
https://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/qa4ScQIicx-kve2pX9D7Yg/peng_fusion_05_06.pdf


I'm not sure about Greta, seems more like a team effort. See seems always be reading her statements and responses, scripted. I have seen that many so far, but not see anything spontaneous. Not a big deal, most of the politicians do the same. Trump does a fair amount of reading, but he's off script almost as much. The thing is, if you wrote it yourself, and believe it, you don't need to read it, word-for-word. Apparently, she's been doing the activist thing for a few years, a lot of focus. Where does she find time to go to school? Lot of attention put into the details, and unlimited funding. Doubtful that she is allowed to travel freely, with total strangers, which she does often. She must have a team, which also craft an image for her, and a message to be delivered. The sail across the Atlantic, wasn't the safest choice for transportation, risky for most. Green as it may be, not recommended travel, not to mention, a long trip, without modern conveniences, and survival food. Might be something to do, once in a lifetime, or occasionally, but not an alternative to a ship built for the task. Just because something can/could be done, doesn't make it better.

We could run a lot of stuff off solar and wind, but it's not the best option. fossil fuels are great, they are as cheap and easy as pulling them out of the ground, and touching a match too them, well coal takes a little more to get going. It's real our best source of energy right now, anywhere, anytime, reliable. Lot of money involved, lot of power and control as well. The price and supply provides a lot of political power. Fortunately, it's relatively cheap and plentiful, so the politics are too bad, it's still profitable. None of the alternative energy schemes are cheap or plentiful, like fossil fuels, nor does any single scheme replace fossil fulls. There is a lot of power and control to be had, by forcing a change over. The trend is for replacing our energy source to something better, it's a push for the most expensive, least efficient. The consumers are still going to need a certain amount of energy, to live a modern lifestyle, even cutting back. Regardless wages paid, more of that paycheck is going toward the electric bill, and more dependence on government assistance. To make the 'Green New Deal' happen, it's going to mean higher taxes for everyone, higher prices on everything, lot of government subsidies. The rapid pace proposed, increases the cost a great deal as well. Not to mention the hardship and suffering, as they work out the bugs. Burning fossil fuels, is what made modern life possible. What's being forced on us, is like shutting it all down, and starting over. Much of what we have now, is based on a cheap, and plentiful fuel source, and would be too inefficient to convert over to a 'green' energy solution. That's a lot of industrial equipment, vehicles, boats, planes, that would basically be useless scrap. There really aren't many options for long distance transportation, for air and water either. Are we really going back in time, and use sails to cross the oceans, like Greta? Would you really expect to put an end to air travel? Bernie Sanders, and most of the wealthy supporters aren't willing to cut back on the private jets, even though they have good, land based transportation available, at a reduced cost, and less carbon emissions. A little planning, and they could fly a lot less, from state-to-state, to speak. They also have electronic options to reach, and interact with their audiences.

We tend to forget that the politicians are smart and clever people, as are the activists. They try to appear as normal, average people, and they like to point out each others flaws and mistakes, which make them seem just like everyone else, we believe in them. We only get the media view though, the public view. Very few actually get to see what they do on the side, which is most of the time. I do believe that most of the people who get into politics, have personal reasons, which they don't share with too many. Some are worse than others, but doubt many actually care, and their personal agenda is their major focus. I think if the House successfully compels the Trump tax returns go public, all elected officials in DC should be equally compelled. Trump's might use the tax code to the extreme, and probably looks bad for him, and his company, but all meticulously legal. Doubt half of congress would stand the same close look at their finances.

I don't believe any of this really has to do with energy, CO2, or pollution, it's entirely about a different kind of power.
14-09-2019 19:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
VernerHornung wrote:
The climate hoopla's worse than silence, keeping the US from steps toward a practical energy policy for 30 years.

The U.S. has one. It's called 'capitalism'. People the energy in the form they want at the price they are willing to pay.
VernerHornung wrote:
We need to phase hydrocarbons out.

You are not the king. Who are YOU to dictate the energy market? There is nothing wrong with any hydrocarbon.
VernerHornung wrote:
To do so, we need Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Powder River on board,

Since Chevron and Exxon are both in the business of selling refined hydrocarbons, I don't think you are going to get them on board with destroying their own companies.
Coal is not a hydrocarbon.
VernerHornung wrote:
not just the millions of solar panels and wind turbine blades the left wants its geeky startups to import from China, a serious international foe, under the protection of taxes. We've long known that alternatives including wind and solar will come, given some encouragement from Uncle Sam and major firms' interest in developing them before their new domestic well technologies run dry, but this program is blocked by the anger in the politics. The activists don't want to acknowledge that energy changeover requires decades.

Who are THEY to dictate energy markets? No, fascism doesn't work.
VernerHornung wrote:
Princeton NSTX fusion device, a power-plant dream AOC's "Green New Deal" throttles?

Doesn't produce power yet. When it does, it will also enter the energy market.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2019 20:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
HarveyH55 wrote:
We could run a lot of stuff off solar and wind, but it's not the best option. fossil fuels are great, they are as cheap and easy as pulling them out of the ground, and touching a match too them,


Entirely aside from any Global Warming issue we will run out of fossil fuels. We are essentially using up the savings account that took millions of years to accrue.

Also there are other uses, like plastics.

Someone developing plastics back in the day could have been dismissed with "hey metal and wood are awesome, don't bother".

There is always smarter and better. We should never stop innovating.
15-09-2019 00:41
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Into the Night wrote:
People the energy in the form they want at the price they are willing to pay.

Sorry; not sure how you "people the energy."

Into the Night wrote:
You are not the king.

You've said this elsewhere, and I've answered elsewhere, on the Bill Nye thread.

Into the Night wrote:
Since Chevron and Exxon are both in the business of selling refined hydrocarbons, I don't think you are going to get them on board with destroying their own companies.

Tenneco was originally a gas pipeline firm. Today it's in the automotive and packaging business instead. This redo was accomplished by spinoffs. Likewise, Exxon-Mobil may well divest itself of refineries as they age, or repurpose assets such as pipeline rights of way to deliver other goods, or drill for geothermal instead of oil. Exxon pioneered 3-D microtomography imaging to study opaque materials and franchised thousands of service stations that could dispense hydrogen one day. Given time, a company can look out for its shareholders in a changing world.

Into the Night wrote:
Coal is not a hydrocarbon.

A bit pedantic, are we? Okay, restated in a form you may prefer: "We need to phase out coal, oil and gas, two of which are hydrocarbons and the other a heterogeneous mixture of graphite, benzenoid compounds, and mineral solids."
~


Why? Because long-term supply is uncertain, exposing us to the Mideast and its wars. Production decorates landscapes with strip mining scars and tailings ponds. Phasing them out in a way that doesn't roil our economy will take many years. We should start now. We should have been on this back in 1973 when I was watching cars queue up for gas.

Into the Night wrote:
No, fascism doesn't work.

And neither does Trumpism. Come 2021 or 2025 he'll leave office, the GOP will move on to other priorities, and the MAGA hat crowd will fade to irrelevance while the problems it worried about remain behind. And neither does Ayn Rand. History has never featured a pure private market economy; the state will act to ensure its own survival and that of its people when the market fails, as it often does.

Into the Night wrote:
Doesn't produce power yet.

Precisely why we need to support the research, which has made considerable progress since the 1980s. Reactors can generate more power than they consume, just not continuously as of yet, on a $600 million a year budget sales of Doritos brand dwarfs.

Dunno about you, but the notion of buying oil and gas from Iran when ours runs out doesn't appeal to me. Or flue gases in a global atmospheric experiment whose results we can't predict. Fossil fuels are an interim.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
15-09-2019 00:50
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
tmiddles wrote:
Entirely aside from any Global Warming issue we will run out of fossil fuels. We are essentially using up the savings account that took millions of years to accrue.


Indeed. Some of us remember the energy crisis.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
15-09-2019 01:16
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
We could run a lot of stuff off solar and wind, but it's not the best option. fossil fuels are great, they are as cheap and easy as pulling them out of the ground, and touching a match too them,


Entirely aside from any Global Warming issue we will run out of fossil fuels. We are essentially using up the savings account that took millions of years to accrue.

Also there are other uses, like plastics.

Someone developing plastics back in the day could have been dismissed with "hey metal and wood are awesome, don't bother".

There is always smarter and better. We should never stop innovating.


Yeah, I've been told that since the 70s... Oddly enough, we didn't run out, as predicted, and production and use has greatly increased. I still don't know what they are basing the 'running out' thing on. Even dry wells become productive again, few years later, when they restart the pumps, just to check and see if it was really a dry well. We don't actually know what's going on down that far underground. We poke a hole deep enough, sometimes something squirts out. We do know that all that weight, creates a lot of pressure, which would squeeze some stuff through small cracks and fractures, doesn't mean all of it gets squeezed through. How come the ground doesn't collapse under the wells? We pumped millions of gallons of material out from under there. Doesn't that leave a void? We also have a lot of places we haven't tapped (much), mostly for environmentalist reasons.

We'll all be incinerated by global warming, long before we run out of petroleum to pump out of the ground... Which reminds me of something I was reading the other day, about cremation. I personally want the traditional box and a plot. But, apparently, cremation is the preferred 'green' method of corpse removal. I didn't really get all the carbon jargon, never really got around to looking some of it up. It's getting to be like learning a foreign language. I really don't get how rotting in a box, produces more CO2, than firing up a gas oven, and roasting off the flesh. Burning gas, produces CO2. Our bodies are full of carbon, certainly much of that is released as CO2. That zip-lock baggy you loved ones get, to usually dump out some place, doesn't look like charcoal.
15-09-2019 01:32
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Burning fossil fuels, is what made modern life possible. What's being forced on us, is like shutting it all down, and starting over. Much of what we have now, is based on a cheap, and plentiful fuel source, and would be too inefficient to convert over to a 'green' energy solution. That's a lot of industrial equipment, vehicles, boats, planes, that would basically be useless scrap.


Therefore I'm hoping we work on our energy situation before things are forced on us. Nothing's wrong with using our jet-fuel planes until we have substitutes, but stuff that can be converted, electric power generation, industrial factories and freight transportation in particular, should be switched to better energy sources as soon as possible.

I don't love technocrats and central control much more than Jefferson or Calvin Coolidge did. Yet a lot of the modern world's inventory has grown too complex to manage via popular mandate. We either get regulation we have a say in, or muddle along until an implosion occurs and radicals step in with decrees we won't like.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 15-09-2019 01:39
15-09-2019 06:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Entirely aside from any Global Warming issue we will run out of fossil fuels. We are essentially using up the savings account that took millions of years to accrue.


Indeed. Some of us remember the energy crisis.


Exactly ... and look, we didn't run out of fuel. It was the energy crisis that never was. Apparently it was a hoax.

@tmiddles, how do you "know" that our supply of hydrocarbons took millions of years to "accrue" and how do you "know" that the earth isn't making more every day from the virtually limitless amounts of carbon in the earth's crust through natural geological processes?

Can hypothetical natural geological processes be synthesized in a lab?

Do you know any person in the history of humanity who has observed hydrocarbons form naturally?

Just wondering what we "know"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
15-09-2019 07:34
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
VernerHornung wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Burning fossil fuels, is what made modern life possible. What's being forced on us, is like shutting it all down, and starting over. Much of what we have now, is based on a cheap, and plentiful fuel source, and would be too inefficient to convert over to a 'green' energy solution. That's a lot of industrial equipment, vehicles, boats, planes, that would basically be useless scrap.


Therefore I'm hoping we work on our energy situation before things are forced on us. Nothing's wrong with using our jet-fuel planes until we have substitutes, but stuff that can be converted, electric power generation, industrial factories and freight transportation in particular, should be switched to better energy sources as soon as possible.

I don't love technocrats and central control much more than Jefferson or Calvin Coolidge did. Yet a lot of the modern world's inventory has grown too complex to manage via popular mandate. We either get regulation we have a say in, or muddle along until an implosion occurs and radicals step in with decrees we won't like.


The plan seems to be zero carbon fuels by 2050, 30 years, and electric is the best we got. Everything that relies on fossil fuels, going to electric. Unfortunately, our power grid is already stressed in many areas, and fails during high demands, like heat waves, and severe winter weather. Fossil fuels provide a great deal of that electricity, which is schedule to be shut down by 2050. The plan is to greatly increase the demand and usage of electricity, and at the same time, significantly reducing the supply. The renewable s proposed, won't be near enough, not a chance. Before shutting off the oil pumps, they need a better substitute first. I seriously doubt it'll happen by force, it's clearly a ridiculous proposal, maybe fun to argue about, dream about, but after almost 40 years, and little progress... Pretty obvious that it's just talk, not many are serious about acting. Most do the renewable thing as a proof of concept project, since the get grants an subsidies, and little oversight. It's no where near cost effective, regardless of how bad you are at finances, it's a losing proposition. Any replacement energy source, needs to be at the very minimum, equal, an it would till face considerable opposition, transition costs money as well. To sell something, it needs to be in some way considerable better than what we have now.
.15-09-2019 19:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Entirely aside from any Global Warming issue we will run out of fossil fuels.

Yeah, I've been told that since the 70s... Oddly enough, we didn't run out,

Everything we're digging up has a sliding scale from the easiest to get, when that's gone it's the harder to get, when that's gone it's the not cost effective to get.

Fossil Fuels: Coal, Oil, Natural Gas are the sequestered energy from plant growth long ago. There is a finite amount so we'll absolutely run out and before we do it will get more and more expensive. We can shift to growing our own fuel of course.
Edited on 15-09-2019 19:52
15-09-2019 19:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
VernerHornung wrote:Fossil fuels are an interim.

And not the first. Humans are amazing at innovating despite any efforts to slow them down.

Your comments made me wonder about Whale Oil's rise and fall so I thought I'd post this.
Edited on 15-09-2019 19:45
15-09-2019 20:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
@tmiddles, how do you "know" that our supply of hydrocarbons took millions of years to "accrue"...
Do you know any person in the history of humanity who has observed hydrocarbons form naturally?

Do you mean have I watched for a million years while plants turn into oil? Have I watched a diamond form naturally? Have I just entertained some really really stupid questions? I can only answer yes to the last one.

It's a stupid question because whatever the precise process or time required for coal, oil, or natural gas to form we aren't seeing them formed presently, where we can get at them. So yeah, it's a finite resource.
15-09-2019 22:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Entirely aside from any Global Warming issue we will run out of fossil fuels.

Yeah, I've been told that since the 70s... Oddly enough, we didn't run out,

Everything we're digging up has a sliding scale from the easiest to get, when that's gone it's the harder to get, when that's gone it's the not cost effective to get.

Fossil Fuels: Coal, Oil, Natural Gas are the sequestered energy from plant growth long ago. There is a finite amount so we'll absolutely run out and before we do it will get more and more expensive. We can shift to growing our own fuel of course.


Coal is not a fossil.
Oil is not a fossil.
Natural gas is not a fossil.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

Oil is not the result of plant growth. Neither is natural gas. Both are found well below any fossil layer. We can even synthesize both of them directly using CO2 and hydrogen as source materials. All you need is the source materials, heat, pressure, and the presence of an iron catalyst.

Conditions you find naturally underground.

Oil and natural gas are renewable forms of energy. We more than ever right now. We are not running out. We have plenty of coal too.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2019 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
@tmiddles, how do you "know" that our supply of hydrocarbons took millions of years to "accrue"...
Do you know any person in the history of humanity who has observed hydrocarbons form naturally?

Do you mean have I watched for a million years while plants turn into oil? Have I watched a diamond form naturally?

Obviously, the answer is no. You have no idea where any of it came from.
tmiddles wrote:
Have I just entertained some really really stupid questions? I can only answer yes to the last one.

No, you just want to evade.
tmiddles wrote:
It's a stupid question because whatever the precise process or time required for coal, oil, or natural gas to form we aren't seeing them formed presently,

We CAN form oil and natural gas from CO2 and hydrogen by direct synthesis in a matter of hours. The conditions required naturally exist underground.
We can make our own charcoal too, a material that is very similar to coal.
tmiddles wrote:
where we can get at them.

An industrial plant or where we drill for them. Drilling is cheaper. Take your pick.
tmiddles wrote:
So yeah, it's a finite resource.

No, it isn't. Oil and natural gas are renewable resources. Coal likely is as well.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-09-2019 22:50
16-09-2019 02:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote:It's a stupid question because ...

You are required to find it to be "a stupid question" because you are a mindless, dogma-regurgitating Marxist. Let's review ...

[*find-MARXISTSFEARMONGERHYDROCARBONS]

1. Marxists hate all life on earth and want all of humanity to die horrible, miserable deaths at the hands of a destroyed global economy.

2. Marxists seek to achieve this objective through complete and utter dishonesty, twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. The single biggest vulnerability, human fear, is what Marxists target by default. Everything Marxist is undergirded by fear-mongering in pursuit of a panic-driven submission by all others.

3. The primary target of Marxists is energy, which fuels the global capitalist economy. Energy is the root of all the global success they H*A*T*E so much that when Marxists merely think about it, nearby paper is at risk of combustion.

4. Directing their favorite weapon (#2) against their primary target (#3) they refer to hydrocarbons as "fossil fuels" to give the impression that there is a limited supply that was created from fossils, in the hopes of generating a panic over the use of hydrocarbons, in the hopes that the world will voluntarily stop using hydrocarbons out of fear of "running out."

5. Marxists are required to remain in solidarity with each other over this war effort. They are not allowed to entertain discussions involving geology or chemistry or anything that varies from the party line. Any questions involving science and engineering must be dismissed as "stupid questions" and all such conversations must be EVADED.

-----------
All petroleum and natural gas reserves are kilometers under the surface, beneath impermeable rock, which alone precludes them from having been formed from any fossil anything. The depth below the surface alone precludes them from having formed from any fossil anything. The fact that fossils don't burn precludes hydrocarbons from being related to fossils.

[note: Coal is not a hydrocarbon and is not included here. Nonetheless, coal = carbon + impurities, and only the carbon in coal burns, not the impurities. Sometimes those impurities are fossils but fossils don't burn]

Marxists are terrible sources of information, especially on hydrocarbons, economics, energy and science. Heck, they'll even tell you that Global Warming is real with a straight face and attack you as a "denier" if you don't immediately submit to their collective will.

tmiddles wrote: whatever the precise process or time required for coal, oil, or natural gas to form we aren't seeing them formed presently, where we can get at them. So yeah, it's a finite resource.

So you are telling us that this is another thing that "we know," i.e. within the earth's crust where we cannot see there's no geological activity occurring involving heat and pressure. Got it. Thank you for clarifying.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
17-09-2019 03:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBeTheMan - tut tut - I'm the one that's supposed to lose my temper remember? You're the one that is suppose to remain thoughtful and reflective.
Edited on 17-09-2019 03:19
17-09-2019 06:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
Wake wrote:IBeTheMan - tut tut - I'm the one that's supposed to lose my temper remember? You're the one that is suppose to remain thoughtful and reflective.

Not quite. Into the Night is the nice one. Actually so is HarveyH55, gfm7175 and GasGuzzler. I admit to being a prick at times.

You are thoughtful and reflective at times; I just don't know why you believe in the Greenhouse Effect deal that you can't even define ... but I'm fine with you believing it.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
17-09-2019 20:57
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Harvey155 wrote:Most do the renewable thing as a proof of concept project, since they get grants and subsidies, and little oversight. It's nowhere near cost effective, regardless of how bad you are at finances, it's a losing proposition.

Wind & solar generate about 8% of US electricity today, or 3% of all energy we use (link; note the EIA also counts wood, hydropower etc. as renewable). Windmills receive a tax credit that's due to expire soon; solar gets tax credits in some states. As for cost effectiveness, I'm not good at bean counting; all I can say is they're competitive in places but not everywhere. Costs and conversion efficiency for wind & solar have improved a great deal since the '70s.

electricity generation, EIA
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
energy consumption, EIA
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

Harvey155 wrote:
Any replacement energy source, needs to be at the very minimum, equal, an it would till face considerable opposition, transition costs money as well.

The worst part will be those applications—car & truck engines, winter heating—that don't use electric power now. Electricity is much less efficient than natural gas for heating because generating and transmitting the power wastes 2/3 of the source's energy content. A gas furnace can put 90% of the gas's combustion heat into your home or into a chemical plant's cooking vessels.

Electric cars suffer this deficit to a smaller degree. Which leads to batteries: for the cars, and for backup storage in wind & solar systems. They're expensive, inefficient, hard to recycle, involving toxic metals and so on. We'll need "on-demand" plants using fossil fuels, and like you said, expansion of the power grid.

Because of the extra production stages, an all-electric economy would require more installed power capacity to do the same things our current system does. I don't really know how long this will take. The European countries have missed their Paris targets despite heavier tax outlays. But we should be converting the easier stuff now, such as aging coal plants that will have to shut down anyway.

IBdaMann wrote:
Yeah, I've been told that since the 70s... Oddly enough, we didn't run out, as predicted, and production and use has greatly increased. I still don't know what they are basing the 'running out' thing on.

It's based on the fact that coal, oil and gas are geological materials in finite supply. Coal is abundant, enough for up to 1000 years of current consumption, but gas & oil are not. We reopened a lot of "dead" wells by fracking, injecting fluid into wells to bust up the shale and allow more hydrocarbons out. We're only importing 10% of supply right now, yet fracking the shale extends a field's lifespan just 7 or 8 years, and once we've fracked them all, game's over. This stopgap required a plush commercial margin at the global Petromart to make it pay off in the first place.

Sure, the Left loves panic. Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb? He thought China would starve to death by 1985. What's bad about it is population and depletion are still on the horizon even if instant catastrophes didn't materialize. The left has forgotten them, too; they don't care about burgeoning African and Mideast populations anymore—expecting these to move to Europe or the US, it seems. Climate change won't bake us to death, but it's gonna be messy to deal with the longer it goes on, coastal flooding and having to move the Corn Belt up to South Dakota.

US addiction to oil doesn't please me. Prices yo-yo like crazy, repeatedly shocking our economy. At least the wind in Wyoming is our wind, not Kuwait's.

tmiddles wrote: And not the first. Humans are amazing at innovating despite any efforts to slow them down.

Huh. That's why Moby Dick was such a big deal back in 1851, Captain Ahab chasing that sperm whale halfway around the planet.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
17-09-2019 21:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
VernerHornung wrote:It's based on the fact that coal, oil and gas are geological materials in finite supply.

You are pretending the earth doesn't create hydrocarbons through natural geological activities.

So, to honestly address this topic, what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you know? Perhaps there's no need to worry whatsoever. If there's no need to worry, that puts the kabosh on Marxists' efforts to cause panic over energy.

Do you have any evidence that we should worry?


VernerHornung wrote: Sure, the Left loves panic. ... (snip) ... Climate change won't bake us to death, but it's gonna be messy to deal with the longer it goes on, coastal flooding and having to move the Corn Belt up to South Dakota.

What makes you think anyone should worry about this fictitious fantasy that exists in your mind?

Would you care to unambiguously define this "Climate Change" concept such that science can be applied to it? I notice that you are chomping at the bit to predict nature in this way so let's not waste time; let's get science in on this while the iron is hot ... presumably from Global Warming.


VernerHornung wrote: US addiction to oil doesn't please me.

Would you prefer the US be addicted to something far more costly and far less productive? If so, to what?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
17-09-2019 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
VernerHornung wrote:
Harvey155 wrote:Most do the renewable thing as a proof of concept project, since they get grants and subsidies, and little oversight. It's nowhere near cost effective, regardless of how bad you are at finances, it's a losing proposition.

Wind & solar generate about 8% of US electricity today, or 3% of all energy we use (link; note the EIA also counts wood, hydropower etc. as renewable). Windmills receive a tax credit that's due to expire soon; solar gets tax credits in some states. As for cost effectiveness, I'm not good at bean counting; all I can say is they're competitive in places but not everywhere. Costs and conversion efficiency for wind & solar have improved a great deal since the '70s.
...deleted Holy Links...

You are quoting Holy Links. Wind is one of the most expensive forms of energy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Harvey155 wrote:
Any replacement energy source, needs to be at the very minimum, equal, an it would till face considerable opposition, transition costs money as well.

The worst part will be those applications—car & truck engines, winter heating—that don't use electric power now. Electricity is much less efficient than natural gas for heating because generating and transmitting the power wastes 2/3 of the source's energy content. A gas furnace can put 90% of the gas's combustion heat into your home or into a chemical plant's cooking vessels.

You are also forgetting conversion losses, refueling times required for electric cars, and the weight of electric drive systems. They are not practical in airplanes and most boats, for example. They are not even practical for large trains. Those locomotives run on diesel oil.
VernerHornung wrote:
Electric cars suffer this deficit to a smaller degree. Which leads to batteries: for the cars, and for backup storage in wind & solar systems.

Batteries are not energy. They are buckets to store energy into. They do not create energy.
VernerHornung wrote:
They're expensive, inefficient, hard to recycle, involving toxic metals and so on. We'll need "on-demand" plants using fossil fuels, and like you said, expansion of the power grid.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
VernerHornung wrote:
Because of the extra production stages, an all-electric economy would require more installed power capacity to do the same things our current system does. I don't really know how long this will take. The European countries have missed their Paris targets despite heavier tax outlays. But we should be converting the easier stuff now, such as aging coal plants that will have to shut down anyway.

New coal plants are being built in China, Japan, Korea, and India. Germany still uses a lot of coal. So do we. So does Canada. Coal is cheap.

There is more to the world than the European Union!

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Yeah, I've been told that since the 70s... Oddly enough, we didn't run out, as predicted, and production and use has greatly increased. I still don't know what they are basing the 'running out' thing on.

It's based on the fact that coal, oil and gas are geological materials in finite supply.

Nope. Oil and natural gas are renewable. Coal likely is as well.
VernerHornung wrote:
Coal is abundant, enough for up to 1000 years of current consumption,

Guess why it's so cheap!
VernerHornung wrote:
but gas & oil are not.

They are both renewable fuels.
VernerHornung wrote:
We reopened a lot of "dead" wells by fracking,

Nope. Just opened 'em up and started pumping.
VernerHornung wrote:
injecting fluid into wells to bust up the shale

That is new wells. That is fracking.
VernerHornung wrote:
and allow more hydrocarbons out.

That's the purpose of fracking.
VernerHornung wrote:
We're only importing 10% of supply right now,

No, we are exporting crude oil. Imported crude comes to our refineries, and the refined product is also exported. In other words, we don't use the imported oil. We export the refined product again.
VernerHornung wrote:
yet fracking the shale extends a field's lifespan just 7 or 8 years,

Argument from randU. We don't know the total supply in shale oil. It is not 'extended'.
VernerHornung wrote:
and once we've fracked them all, game's over.

Not at all. Oil is a renewable resource along with natural gas.
VernerHornung wrote:
This stopgap required a plush commercial margin at the global Petromart to make it pay off in the first place.

Not a stopgap measure. It is a method to access vast resources of oil not possible before.
VernerHornung wrote:
Sure, the Left loves panic.

That they do.
VernerHornung wrote:
Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb? He thought China would starve to death by 1985. What's bad about it is population and depletion are still on the horizon even if instant catastrophes didn't materialize.

There is no population problem. People are assets, not liabilities.
Oil and natural gas are renewable fuels.
VernerHornung wrote:
The left has forgotten them, too; they don't care about burgeoning African and Mideast populations anymore—expecting these to move to Europe or the US, it seems.

Why would anybody expect them to move anywhere?
VernerHornung wrote:
Climate change won't bake us to death, but it's gonna be messy to deal with the longer it goes on,

Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
coastal flooding

Coastal flooding is normal. Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
and having to move the Corn Belt up to South Dakota.

There is no 'corn belt'. South Dakota already raises corn. Both sweet and feed varieties are available.

You should take a drive through South Dakota sometime and see for yourself.

VernerHornung wrote:
US addiction to oil doesn't please me.

It is not an addiction. Oil is not an addictive substance. It is simply part of the energy market.
VernerHornung wrote:
Prices yo-yo like crazy, repeatedly shocking our economy.

Not really. Like anything in any market, you occasionally get spikes in prices.
VernerHornung wrote:
At least the wind in Wyoming is our wind, not Kuwait's.

Wind farms in Wyoming are losing money.
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And not the first. Humans are amazing at innovating despite any efforts to slow them down.

Huh. That's why Moby Dick was such a big deal back in 1851, Captain Ahab chasing that sperm whale halfway around the planet.
~


Moby Dick is fiction. It is not about innovation. It's about fixation due to revenge.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2019 22:31
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
VernerHornung wrote:
The left has forgotten them, too; they don't care about burgeoning African and Mideast populations anymore—expecting these to move to Europe or the US, it seems. Climate change won't bake us to death, but it's gonna be messy to deal with the longer it goes on, coastal flooding and having to move the Corn Belt up to South Dakota.




Not sure what corn has to do with much, grows pretty much anywhere. Some place do better than others. Grew pretty well in Oregon, up on the side of Mt Hood, where I grew up. Grows in Florida, where I live now, though sort of pathetic, compared to out west, from the little I saw. Different kind maybe, definitely had ears on it though. Have heard the grow some in Canada as well. Likely a lot more farms will be growing more of it, for fuel production, to replace petroleum, when those carbon taxes get forced on us.

Anyway, I was just trying to point out, that it's not as simple as replacing carbon fuels with electricity. We will have to produce a lot more electricity, than we do now. By converting everything to electric, we are increasing the demand, likely more than double the current usage.

Since it's hurricane season, got another one brewing, likely to fizzle though. Was thinking about how people rush out and buy portable generators. What are people going to rush out and buy in the future, when they can't get the gas to fuel them? Windmills?
17-09-2019 22:57
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1478)
HarveyH55 wrote:
..,.Was thinking about how people rush out and buy portable generators. What are people going to rush out and buy in the future, when they can't get the gas to fuel them? Windmills?


Come on Harvey, you know the answer to that one.

Once carbon-based fuels are illegal, there will be an emergency reserve controlled by your local government and FEMA.

In times of emergency, they will ration the necessary fuel for the generators....each according to his needs.

Having never witnessed the raw power of a combustion engine, it will be quite a treat for the children ...."living like grandpa did in the good old days".



spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Edited on 17-09-2019 23:03
17-09-2019 23:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:IBeTheMan - tut tut - I'm the one that's supposed to lose my temper remember? You're the one that is suppose to remain thoughtful and reflective.

Not quite. Into the Night is the nice one. Actually so is HarveyH55, gfm7175 and GasGuzzler. I admit to being a prick at times.

You are thoughtful and reflective at times; I just don't know why you believe in the Greenhouse Effect deal that you can't even define ... but I'm fine with you believing it.

.


I don't know where you get the idea that I have any belief in greenhouse gases. Most of the people that used to post here didn't even know how an actual greenhouse works.

More than half of the emissions of the Sun which reach the ground are absorbed and transferred back into the stratopause via conduction. But conduction doesn't work in a near vacuum So at this point each molecule has to be excited to the point of radiation by absorbing incoming radiation from the Sun. This is why there couldn't be any greenhouse effect (though that is an entirely incorrect term). MOST of the energy in the absorption bands of atmospheric gases have been absorbed in the upper atmosphere and re-radiated (eventually) into open space.

Down in the troposphere, there now isn't any energy in the absorption bands of atmospheric gases.

If only half of the energy reaching the ground is removed via conduction where is the rest? While water vapor and liquid and ice in the atmosphere has an extremely wide absorption bands below the visible colors, there are holes in those bands and the Sun's emissions that reach Earth ground level can re-emit in the low IR and some of this escapes via radiation.

This is extremely complex since a great bit of weather in the troposphere has to do with the conductive transfer of heat EVENTUALLY up but in so doing it can circle about in the troposphere for days or even weeks whereas radiation has a direct path at the speed of light off the planet.

What occurs if you increase CO2? Basically nothing since there isn't energy in its absorption bands in the troposphere. Indirectly CO2 actually cools the planet. How? It causes increased plant growth which convert the Sun's energy into hydrocarbons which is an energy negative process.

Again I want to stress that there are far too many processes concerning the Sun's energy that occur on Earth for uneducated people to talk about as if it were simple.

For instance - the planets actually act as inefficient energy mirrors and reflect part of the Sun's emissions back towards the Sun 24 hours a day. This is so comparatively slight that we can ignore it in the Sun's energy budget.

In any case, there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect and the way that it has been described by morons like Dr. Michael Mann, even greenhouses do not work in that manner.
Page 4 of 7<<<23456>>>





Join the debate Our Fragile Planet:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Does anyone knew that plastic bags were made to save the planet ?215-11-2019 02:19
Petition to pressure governments to save the planet and humankind1024-08-2019 05:16
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
UN climate chief warns of 'catastrophe' if planet continues on current path026-04-2019 15:34
If Democrats rule America then in 100 years America will be biggest CO2 emitter on the planet126-04-2019 00:41
Articles
Barack Obama: Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact