Remember me
▼ Content

Our Fragile Planet



Page 4 of 4<<<234
13-09-2019 05:06
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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
★★★★☆
(1382)
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
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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 Night
★★★★★
(9164)
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 Night
★★★★★
(9164)
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
★★★★☆
(1382)
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



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
13-09-2019 07:46
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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
★★★★☆
(1382)
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.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
13-09-2019 23:26
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1154)
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
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
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.

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
★★★★☆
(1154)
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 Night
★★★★★
(9164)
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 Night
★★★★★
(9164)
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
★★★★☆
(1154)
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☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
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
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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
★★★★☆
(1154)
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 Night
★★★★★
(9164)
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
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
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☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
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
★★★★☆
(1154)
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☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
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
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
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.

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
★★★★☆
(1154)
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
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
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.
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Our Fragile Planet:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
Global Climate Strike: Meet the teenagers skipping school to fight for a greener planet913-04-2019 20:34
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