Atmospheric CO2 now 410 parts per million. Uh oh.....

Forums › Off topic › Atmospheric CO2 now 410 parts per million. Uh oh.....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 12

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2005015 30-Apr-2018 11:56

Fred99:

Another problem is that the litre of fossil fuel contains (stored/chemical) about the same energy as about 50 kg of charged lithium ion battery, so even though most of that energy is wasted as heat, liquid fuels have a huge practical advantage for transport when the energy source needs to be carried. In a hypothetical electric air-liner, most of the stored energy would be "wasted" by the need to get the batteries up in the air and keep them there long enough to travel a useful distance.

Not an issue if microwave energy is beamed at the aircraft from space.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2005043 30-Apr-2018 12:02

Rikkitic:

Fred99:

Another problem is that the litre of fossil fuel contains (stored/chemical) about the same energy as about 50 kg of charged lithium ion battery, so even though most of that energy is wasted as heat, liquid fuels have a huge practical advantage for transport when the energy source needs to be carried. In a hypothetical electric air-liner, most of the stored energy would be "wasted" by the need to get the batteries up in the air and keep them there long enough to travel a useful distance.

Not an issue if microwave energy is beamed at the aircraft from space.

LOL!

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005140 30-Apr-2018 13:56

Rikkitic:

Fred99:

Another problem is that the litre of fossil fuel contains (stored/chemical) about the same energy as about 50 kg of charged lithium ion battery, so even though most of that energy is wasted as heat, liquid fuels have a huge practical advantage for transport when the energy source needs to be carried. In a hypothetical electric air-liner, most of the stored energy would be "wasted" by the need to get the batteries up in the air and keep them there long enough to travel a useful distance.

Not an issue if microwave energy is beamed at the aircraft from space.

Not an issue if microwave energy is beamed at my jetpack from space, I won't need aircrafts!

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2005143 30-Apr-2018 13:59

You might get a little warm.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15464

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005207 30-Apr-2018 14:29

Linuxluver:

Stereoypes are a funny thing. They aren't true for everyone, but they contain enough truth to be recognisable. It's a model, of sorts. How many attributes of this model apply to me?

As for the specific comments......if we look through the many posts related to vehicles, we will find these comments littered among them.

Models are useful.

Thing is, and I have said this to you before, if you take a stance like the one she is taking in making these stupid stereotypes, she just risks alienating people. The opposite effect is required.

There are a lot of stereotypes that probably apply to her as well, but if you raised them in discussion aimed at increasing adoption rates of something or other, then how long before she or anyone disengages?

I'll switch to electric when a car comes along that suits my needs/wants. I am prepared to sacrifice some things to switch to electric, but right now I'd be losing a lot over my traditional car, and paying the earth for it.

I think it's likely I'll end up with 1 more petrol/diesel car and by the time it's replacement time, technology will have moved along enough to consider seriously.

A 200K+ Telsla is the nearest I can get and it's still not as good as what I have.

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#2005214 30-Apr-2018 14:39

Climate change and weather it is good, bad or indifferent depends on your reference point in history.

Warmer: With a little more CO2 in the air, the planet will be warm enough to support dinosaur again and surely dinosaur are natural and therefore good? So does that mean the planet is un-naturally cold right now?

Cooler: At several points in history, through not fault of humans, ice covered a lot of the planet, sometimes all the way to the equator - almost all defrosted long before the industrial revolution, so is the planet still recovering from the last ice age?

Rising sea levels: You can find seashells up mountains in New Zealand from when the place was mostly underwater - surely that was a natural and normal thing.

Climate change is as old as the planet. Species have been wiped out by weather changes for as long as life existed on this planet. We know from fossils that many more species lived in the past than are currently alive, or were alive before man took their habitat. Looking at evidence from the Ice Ages we know that the climate goes through million year cycles. A 150 to 300 year sample of data is too short to deduce where we are and where we should be in a million year cycle. The initial evidence the spurned the creation of the theory of global warm was long ago debunked because the sample size used (growth rate of some trees in France) was from a singe geographic region and subject to micro-climates. Before it was debunked it became a cash-cow for scientists to get money out of government. Once it was debunked, they clamoured to find new data to jam into the old model to support the disproven theory/model and keep the cash rolling in.

Humans and civilisation has only existed as you and I would recognise it for approx. the last 15,000 years. That is our climate-change reference point. 15,000 years is a short time when you are talking about a million year cycle. The perception that humans have of the ways things are/should be, is a mere snapshot (and a very biased snapshot) in a very long and changeable time line.

Anti-climate change is all about preserving the planet for human kind, not preserving the planet for mother nature. I am certain mother nature will make us extinct when she feels like it, and there won't be much we can do about it. She has a crack at us every so often with plagues that have almost done the trick and sooner or later one will work (antibiotic resistance will shortly bring down population levels) - I think climate change, if it turns out to be true, won't make a lot of difference to humans.

Edit: spelling.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#2005216 30-Apr-2018 14:41

networkn:

Thing is, and I have said this to you before, if you take a stance like the one she is taking in making these stupid stereotypes, she just risks alienating people. The opposite effect is required.

Well put - there is a great danger in being too preachy, evangelical or patronising - especially when combined with sarcasm or an irritating manner - that you'll have the opposite effect to that intended. I call this the "Russel Norman effect".

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2005228 30-Apr-2018 14:50

networkn:

Thing is, and I have said this to you before, if you take a stance like the one she is taking in making these stupid stereotypes, she just risks alienating people. The opposite effect is required.

There are a lot of stereotypes that probably apply to her as well, but if you raised them in discussion aimed at increasing adoption rates of something or other, then how long before she or anyone disengages?

I'll switch to electric when a car comes along that suits my needs/wants. I am prepared to sacrifice some things to switch to electric, but right now I'd be losing a lot over my traditional car, and paying the earth for it.

I think it's likely I'll end up with 1 more petrol/diesel car and by the time it's replacement time, technology will have moved along enough to consider seriously.

A 200K+ Telsla is the nearest I can get and it's still not as good as what I have.

Sounds defensive to me. A sense of humour also helps.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2005232 30-Apr-2018 14:54

It's the alarmism that gets to me. Like when Wellington City Council spent good money putting up a stupid visualisation game, faithfully spruiked by the MSM, to show what Wellington would look like with different levels of sea level rise... and allowed a range of 300mm up to 6m!

Based on historic rates, 100 years might get 300mm so the minimum allowable view is 100 years worth of rise.

Pure alarmism.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/103246531/virtual-reality-game-shows-wellington-after-sea-level-rise

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2005234 30-Apr-2018 14:55

tripper1000:

Climate change and weather it is good, bad or indifferent depends on your reference point in history.

Warmer: With a little more CO2 in the air, the planet will be warm enough to support dinosaur again and surely dinosaur are natural and therefore good? So does that mean the planet is un-naturally cold right now?

Cooler: At several points in history, through not fault of humans, ice covered a lot of the planet, sometimes all the way to the equator - almost all defrosted long before the industrial revolution, so is the planet still recovering from the last ice age?

Rising sea levels: You can find seashells up mountains in New Zealand from when the place was mostly underwater - surely that was a natural and normal thing.

Climate change is as old as the planet. Species have been wiped out by weather changes for as long as life existed on this planet. We know from fossils that many more species lived in the past than are currently alive, or were alive before man took their habitat. Looking at evidence from the Ice Ages we know that the climate goes through million year cycles. A 150 to 300 year sample of data is too short to deduce where we are and where we should be in a million year cycle. The initial evidence the spurned the creation of the theory of global warm was long ago debunked because the sample size used (growth rate of some trees in France) was from a singe geographic region and subject to micro-climates. Before it was debunked it became a cash-cow for scientists to get money out of government. Once it was debunked, they clamoured to find new data to jam into the old model to support the disproven theory/model and keep the cash rolling in.

Humans and civilisation has only existed as you and I would recognise it for approx. the last 15,000 years. That is our climate-change reference point. 15,000 years is a short time when you are talking about a million year cycle. The perception that humans have of the ways things are/should be, is a mere snapshot (and a very biased snapshot) in a very long and changeable time line.

Anti-climate change is all about preserving the planet for human kind, not preserving the planet for mother nature. I am certain mother nature will make us extinct when she feels like it, and there won't be much we can do about it. She has a crack at us every so often with plagues that have almost done the trick and sooner or later one will work (antibiotic resistance will shortly bring down population levels) - I think climate change, if it turns out to be true, won't make a lot of difference to humans.

Edit: spelling.

I'm not sure what you are actually trying to say here. Climate change is a conspiracy? We deserve what we get? Bring back the dinosaurs?

The issue isn't what nature has done for four billion years. The issue is what is happening right now, while we are here, and if we are making things worse for our survival as a species, and if that means we can make them better. We also belong to nature, and wanting to continue surviving is the most natural thing there is.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005235 30-Apr-2018 14:56

tripper1000:

Climate change and weather it is good, bad or indifferent depends on your reference point in history.

Warmer: With a little more CO2 in the air, the planet will be warm enough to support dinosaur again and surely dinosaur are natural and therefore good? So does that mean the planet is un-naturally cold right now?

Cooler: At several points in history, through not fault of humans, ice covered a lot of the planet, sometimes all the way to the equator - almost all defrosted long before the industrial revolution, so is the planet still recovering from the last ice age?

Rising sea levels: You can find seashells up mountains in New Zealand from when the place was mostly underwater - surely that was a natural and normal thing.

Climate change is as old as the planet. Species have been wiped out by weather changes for as long as life existed on this planet. We know from fossils that many more species lived in the past than are currently alive, or were alive before man took their habitat. Looking at evidence from the Ice Ages we know that the climate goes through million year cycles. A 150 to 300 year sample of data is too short to deduce where we are and where we should be in a million year cycle. The initial evidence the spurned the creation of the theory of global warm was long ago debunked because the sample size used (growth rate of some trees in France) was from a singe geographic region and subject to micro-climates. Before it was debunked it became a cash-cow for scientists to get money out of government. Once it was debunked, they clamoured to find new data to jam into the old model to support the disproven theory/model and keep the cash rolling in.

Humans and civilisation has only existed as you and I would recognise it for approx. the last 15,000 years. That is our climate-change reference point. 15,000 years is a short time when you are talking about a million year cycle. The perception that humans have of the ways things are/should be, is a mere snapshot (and a very biased snapshot) in a very long and changeable time line.

Anti-climate change is all about preserving the planet for human kind, not preserving the planet for mother nature. I am certain mother nature will make us extinct when she feels like it, and there won't be much we can do about it. She has a crack at us every so often with plagues that have almost done the trick and sooner or later one will work (antibiotic resistance will shortly bring down population levels) - I think climate change, if it turns out to be true, won't make a lot of difference to humans.

Edit: spelling.

In other words you dont believe in human caused climate change? There is no dispute how the Earth has been in the past. The 15000 years you refer to is actually closer to 200. While there are many examples of past natural climate change, there is a clear spike from the Industrial revolution. Should the Earth evolve over a million years and get much warmer or much cooler we will adapt. If it happens by another 2 or 3 degrees over the next 50+ years we will be toast. Its not just us, its the global water cycle system that will deliver the killer blow. Being warmer, wetter, wilder weather, moving inland are just annoyances. We can shift our agriculture North or South, 500 to 1000km, but the sea water is the final blow. Over a million years, I imagine nature will evolve, and the ice caps wont disappear overnight as they are now.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2005237 30-Apr-2018 14:58

"and the ice caps wont disappear overnight as they are now"

???

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2005240 30-Apr-2018 15:02

I have just gone through the process of buying a new car. We wanted to down size one of our vehicles as having two SUVs seemed pointless. I considered EV but in the end the new car offerings were over priced for what you get. The used options are poor and again not worth the money requested. I purchased a new compact ICE that has all the latest driver aids and safety equipment and returns very economical fuel usage.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#2005246 30-Apr-2018 15:08

MikeB4:

I have just gone through the process of buying a new car. We wanted to down size one of our vehicles as having two SUVs seemed pointless. I considered EV but in the end the new car offerings were over priced for what you get. The used options are poor and again not worth the money requested. I purchased a new compact ICE that has all the latest driver aids and safety equipment and returns very economical fuel usage.

I can't avoid the same conclusion, much as I think an electric car would be cool.

It troubles me that plenty of additional generation for EV will be thermal - gas or worse, coal. In addition, the efficiency of getting that generation from its source to your wheels is pretty bad on account of transmission and conversion losses.

If solar can be made economic and feasible and reliable then it's a no-brainer and no subsidies will be required as everyone will want.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005252 30-Apr-2018 15:19

kryptonjohn:

"and the ice caps wont disappear overnight as they are now"

???

The poster referred to millions of years, relating to climate changes, and what happens over time. Our place now, and for those that believe in human caused climate change, the last 200 years and the future 50 years is a blink of an eye. There is no time to adapt and evolve. Overnight in that context

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 12