Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G David Bock
    replied
    [QUOTE=marktwain;n5128873]
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    What eludes me is why you won't point out WHAT within that site you think I should consider and apply towards the point you want ot make.
    I've been there and through it many times and I see an agenda to preserve an agency and jobs, chasing funding/dollar$ designed to "prove" ACC/AGW, NOT engage objective science and hence see little objective relevancy to the site.



    A "simple home experiment" is to take a two liter soda bottle of two litters water at 70 degrees F. and add to it about an quarter teaspoon=0.8ml of water at 75 degrees F. and note how much it raises the temp. of the rest of the two litters in the bottle ...



    Please explain better how this relates to one part of 2,500 CO2 transfers heat to the other 2,499 other element molecules in the atmosphere ...



    Having a lot lately with other organizational demands on my time, plus home yard/garden/household chores and limited patience with obscure and imprecise science references, etc. ...



    W
    [/QUOTE
    W
    ell - this was the "trout fishing in 'Yellowstone park' and associated recipes thread', so one shouldn't be surprised if a discussion of "litters of soda water' sort of, like, dies on the table...

    Be sure to have your soda bottle experiment peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. The NOAA may be able to aid you with this' if you ask nicely…..

    My "peer review" sort was back here, @ post #1103;
    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...17#post5127217
    The "soda bottle" home experiment is a "Bill Nye, he's NOT a science guy" sort of basic one to illustrate the false concept behind ACC/AGW.

    A reminder, if you insist on NOAA website, please be specific as to which of their hundreds of articles you think is relevant to your point/position.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    what ELUDES ME IS :
    why you refuse to visit the NOAA website for your answers

    the bolded seems somewhat bellicose, and has no relation to what I wrote.
    a simple home experiment in Molecular resonance.
    Deep freeze an ice cube, and place it with insulated tongs in - your microwave. the microwaves will not melt the cube, until the ambient air converts ice to water, which will heat- then melt the ice.
    the resonance of molecular water changes when the cube freezes.

    Having a somewhat titchy day, are we?.
    Total relation since the other 99.96% of atmosphere, non-CO2 portion is also heating and claim is that it's heat retention of CO2 is the mechanism.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    Texas Power & light is building a new coal fired plant to cover the anticipated server overloads...
    And being in the USA, and West in general EPA regulations of over 40 years duration will require it include a Flue-Gas Desulfurization; FGD; scrubber system to remove sulfur dioxide, a real pollutant which becomes sulfuric acid once in the atmosphere and chemically combined(reacts with) water vapor (cause of acid rain).
    ...
    As stringent environmental regulations regarding SO2 emissions have been enacted in many countries, SO2 is now being removed from flue gases by a variety of methods. Below are common methods used:
    For a typical coal-fired power station, flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) may remove 90 percent or more of the SO2 in the flue gases.
    ...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization (and yes, I know, per "expert" Massena Wiki isn't a valid source to cite, but then he likely never bother to check the references cited at the bottom of the wiki articles ... )

    Certain supposed developed nations like India and China whom are extensive users of coal for electric generation rarely bother with FGD scrubbers for their plants, hence do incur significant SO2 'pollution'.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    I suspect this thread will grow so big it will cause global temperature to rise by several degrees all by itself
    Texas Power & light is building a new coal fired plant to cover the anticipated server overloads...

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    From WUWT...
    Hilarious irony – Michael Mann to give lecture on ‘Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists’

    Anthony Watts / 8 hours ago December 14, 2014

    From the ‘truth is stranger than fiction department’, reporting from San Francisco at the AGU Fall Meeting
    ED11D-02 Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists
    Monday, December 15, 201408:15 AM – 08:30 AM Moscone South 102


    Several authors have warned that climate scientists sometimes exhibit a tendency to...

    [...]


    We recognize that there are disanalogies between professional and scientific ethics, the most important of which is that codes of ethics are typically written into the laws that govern licensed professions such as engineering. Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical...

    [...].
    Authors
    source: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meet...gi#Paper/11679

    h/t to Steve Milloy

    Too funny. Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann presenting a paper on ethics...

    Notes to Mikey:
    • There are no "disanalogies between professional and scientific ethics" in the private sector.
    • If one could "legally compel a research scientist to be ethical," at least one of the authors of this paper would likely be wearing an orange jumpsuit with a number on it.
    From wikip[edia:
    Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".[32]Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary."[33]


    try this instead, where the politics doesn't driver seat ....


    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...roperties.html

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    It is sufficiently unproven that we shouldn't rush to destroy the global economy with half-assed attempts to "fix" the problem, particularly when those recommended solutions (solar / wind, battery cars, mass transit) are all proven economic failures.
    that is a very good point. \there is an argument that we should accept a moderate amount of greenhouse gas warming, and counterbalance it with sulfite aerosol cooling. then, if we enter a period of global cooling, cutting back on sulfite usage will balance out then cooling . the eruption of Tambora in 1814 bought us the 'year without summer.' that we don't need again...

    with over seven billion people on lifeboat earth, rational tradeoffs are the best we can hope for

    getting back to the happier subject,As an invasive species[edit]


    Although brook trout populations are under stress in their native range, they are considered an invasive species where they have been introduced outside their historic native range.[41][42][43] In the northern Rocky Mountains, non-native brook trout are considered a significant contributor to the decline or extirpation of native cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) in headwater streams.[44] Non-native brook trout populations have been subject to eradication programs in efforts to preserve native species.[45][46] In Yellowstone National Park, anglers may take an unlimited number of non-native brook trout in some drainages. In the Lamar River drainage, a mandatory kill regulation for any brook trout caught is in effect.[47] In Europe, introduced brook trout, once established, have had negative impacts on growth rates of native brown trout (S. trutta).[13]

    so you can, this year, harvest brook trout caviar in October without guilt, or having the cuffs slapped on you...


    Last edited by marktwain; 16 Jul 19, 13:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    A "simple home experiment" is to take a two liter soda bottle of two litters water at 70 degrees F. and add to it about an quarter teaspoon=0.8ml of water at 75 degrees F. and note how much it raises the temp. of the rest of the two litters in the bottle ...

    Be sure to have your soda bottle experiment peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. The NOAA may be able to aid you with this' if you ask nicely…..
    An invalid experiment. In order to make the experiment work you need to have your "soda bottle" at the correct air pressure for the altitude you are simulating. Better, stratify the pressure in the bottle to simulate from sea level to say 100,000 feet. Then put the bottle in a vacuum chamber so it is unaffected by outside temperatures except by radiation.

    Now, that simulates the atmosphere of the planet.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied

    [QUOTE=G David Bock;n5128778]

    What eludes me is why you won't point out WHAT within that site you think I should consider and apply towards the point you want ot make.
    I've been there and through it many times and I see an agenda to preserve an agency and jobs, chasing funding/dollar$ designed to "prove" ACC/AGW, NOT engage objective science and hence see little objective relevancy to the site.



    A "simple home experiment" is to take a two liter soda bottle of two litters water at 70 degrees F. and add to it about an quarter teaspoon=0.8ml of water at 75 degrees F. and note how much it raises the temp. of the rest of the two litters in the bottle ...



    Please explain better how this relates to one part of 2,500 CO2 transfers heat to the other 2,499 other element molecules in the atmosphere ...



    Having a lot lately with other organizational demands on my time, plus home yard/garden/household chores and limited patience with obscure and imprecise science references, etc. ...



    W
    [/QUOTE
    W
    ell - this was the "trout fishing in 'Yellowstone park' and associated recipes thread', so one shouldn't be surprised if a discussion of "litters of soda water' sort of, like, dies on the table...

    Be sure to have your soda bottle experiment peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. The NOAA may be able to aid you with this' if you ask nicely…..


    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    [QUOTE=G David Bock;n5128778]

    What eludes me is why you won't point out WHAT within that site you think I should consider and apply towards the point you want ot make.
    I've been there and through it many times and I see an agenda to preserve an agency and jobs, chasing funding/dollar$ designed to "prove" ACC/AGW, NOT engage objective science and hence see little objective relevancy to the site.



    WELL- GOOD FOR YOU, -I SUPPOSE



    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    what ELUDES ME IS :
    why you refuse to visit the NOAA website for your answers
    What eludes me is why you won't point out WHAT within that site you think I should consider and apply towards the point you want ot make.
    I've been there and through it many times and I see an agenda to preserve an agency and jobs, chasing funding/dollar$ designed to "prove" ACC/AGW, NOT engage objective science and hence see little objective relevancy to the site.

    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    the bolded seems somewhat bellicose, and has no relation to what I wrote.
    a simple home experiment in Molecular resonance.
    A "simple home experiment" is to take a two liter soda bottle of two litters water at 70 degrees F. and add to it about an quarter teaspoon=0.8ml of water at 75 degrees F. and note how much it raises the temp. of the rest of the two litters in the bottle ...

    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    Deep freeze an ice cube, and place it with insulated tongs in - your microwave. the microwaves will not melt the cube, until the ambient air converts ice to water, which will heat- then melt the ice.
    the resonance of molecular water changes when the cube freezes.
    Please explain better how this relates to one part of 2,500 CO2 transfers heat to the other 2,499 other element molecules in the atmosphere ...

    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    Having a somewhat titchy day, are we?.
    Having a lot lately with other organizational demands on my time, plus home yard/garden/household chores and limited patience with obscure and imprecise science references, etc. ...

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    For you it will probably not work.

    But this isn't about you …


    https://theconversation.com/the-elec...-the-us-116102

    Note that most are hybrids, meaning they can still be used as classic cars - if needed, to travel long distances.
    I couldn't find a more recent chart, but things really haven't changed.



    Battery cars are not popular. If the government wasn't forcing them down people's throats, they wouldn't even be made at all. Since you cannot get around the chemistry and physics of batteries both of which are well grounded and complete areas of science-- sure you might come up with a better version of an extant battery, or a new chemical combination, but it will still put out around TWO volts per cell, and cell size will still determine the ampacity / charge life of the battery-- you are never, ever going to get a truly practical battery car.

    On the other hand, once fuel cell technology using liquid hydrogen is fully practical and reliable, battery cars are finished. They can't compete.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Wind and solar wouldn't go anywhere if it wasn't continuously heavily subsidized by government.
    Neither would US oil/gas/coal apparently.

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...-oil-subsidies

    Energy analysts have made the point again and again that fossil fuels, not renewable energy, most benefit from supportive public policy. Yet this fact, so inconvenient to the conservative worldview, never seems to sink in to the energy debate in a serious way.
    Adding everything up: $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives, for a total of $20.5 billion annually in corporate welfare.

    Of that total, 80 percent goes to oil and gas, 20 percent to coal. On the right, subsidies are broken down by stage of production. Extraction gets the most.


    Point is that all national policy is subsidized - that's why it is called policy

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    So, tell me how a battery powered vehicle would work for me?
    For you it will probably not work.

    But this isn't about you …

    Many of them are buying electric cars. By 2015, electric vehicle sales in China had surpassed U.S. levels. In 2018, Chinese sales topped 1.1 million cars, more than 55% of all electric vehicles sold in the world, and more than three times as many as Chinese customers had bought two years earlier. U.S. electric vehicle sales that year were just 358,000.
    The government is also aware that electric vehicles could help solve some of China’s most pressing energy and environmental concerns: Massive air pollution chokes its major cities, national security officials are worried about how much oil the country imports and China is now the nation contributing most to global climate change emissions.
    https://theconversation.com/the-elec...-the-us-116102

    Note that most are hybrids, meaning they can still be used as classic cars - if needed, to travel long distances.
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 15 Jul 19, 08:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Evaluating corrective measures is not the same thing as implementing hasty and unevaluated measures, which is
    what many of the pro-ACC/AGW crowd want to do. When you don't know if something is really broken or fully understand how it is broken, corrective measures illconceived could be as bad or worse than doing nothing "corrective" that, which might actually backfire.

    The greenhouse gases (and that's not a correct metaphor BTW) amount to a few grains out of a five pound sack of sugar.
    What part of 0.05% of "chemical solution" eludes you and others?
    What part of one out 2,500 eluded you?


    It's the entire atmosphere that is slightly warmer in a rather short geological time-span, and the mechanism for heating the other 99.95% doesn't balance out as the two small slices of IR temporarily detained by CO2.
    what ELUDES ME IS :
    why you refuse to visit the NOAA website for your answers

    the bolded seems somewhat bellicose, and has no relation to what I wrote.
    a simple home experiment in Molecular resonance.
    Deep freeze an ice cube, and place it with insulated tongs in - your microwave. the microwaves will not melt the cube, until the ambient air converts ice to water, which will heat- then melt the ice.
    the resonance of molecular water changes when the cube freezes.

    Having a somewhat titchy day, are we?.
    Last edited by marktwain; 15 Jul 19, 14:35.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    Pumping out greenhouse gasses without evaluating corrective measures is merely a search for a 'free lunch.'There is ' no free lunch- but there are intelligent methodologies...
    Evaluating corrective measures is not the same thing as implementing hasty and unevaluated measures, which is
    what many of the pro-ACC/AGW crowd want to do. When you don't know if something is really broken or fully understand how it is broken, corrective measures illconceived could be as bad or worse than doing nothing "corrective" that, which might actually backfire.

    The greenhouse gases (and that's not a correct metaphor BTW) amount to a few grains out of a five pound sack of sugar.
    What part of 0.05% of "chemical solution" eludes you and others?
    What part of one out 2,500 eluded you?

    It's the entire atmosphere that is slightly warmer in a rather short geological time-span, and the mechanism for heating the other 99.95% doesn't balance out as the two small slices of IR temporarily detained by CO2.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X