Page #5
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#29|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
4000 acres of BUSTED solar panels, leaking chemicals into everyone's ground water that the cows, people,everyone drinks.
So how is this better than some smoke from burning coal or oil??
Let ME put it very simply. What a meteorologist can do or not do has no bearing on what the natural progression of, well, nature’s future doings, will be. I live in Miami, Florida. In 1961 I had to use a light jacket when I walked to junior high in September at the start of autumn. Today, I seldom have to use a jacket for more than a couple of days in the middle of winter. That, in my opinion, is global warming. In 1961 I could walk down COLLINS ave in Miami Beach when the Atlantic had a king high tide and not have to wade through salt water flooded streets. Now it’s an everyday occurrence during normal high tides.
Hmmm. I wonder why? 🤣😈
If you hold a globe in your hand, and tilt it towards a table lamp, and change the angle, you can see what may be happening to the earth.
it would get warmer if it is tilted facing the sun more.
Is the tilt of the Earth changing?
Scientists discovered that Earth's tilt has changed because of the amount of ground water pumped by humans. (Image credit: Seo et al.) Earth's tilt has changed by 31.5 inches (80 centimeters) between 1993 and 2010 because of the amount of groundwater humans have pumped from the planet's interior.Jun 18, 2023
So STOP drinking water, you are heating up the earth.
Also,in regards to those pesky tides.
only registered users can see external links
"What will happen if moon moves away from Earth?"
We'll have fewer aquatic tides, a lengthening day, no more seasons, and no more stunning total solar eclipses. But watch out for more asteroid impacts. The moon is Earth's only friend. And yet—despite a relationship stretching back billions of years—the gap between us only grows wider.Nov 29, 2023
So unless you watch this movie and learn how to move the earth using rockets running off the oil,
'Ominous Star Gorath') is a 1962 Japanese epic science fiction disaster film directed by Ishirō Honda, with special effects by Eiji Tsuburaya. Based on an idea by Jojiro Okami, the film is about mankind's efforts to move Earth out of its orbit to prevent it from colliding with a runaway white dwarf star.
there aint much we can do.
The moon is the primary cause for ocean, river, and any large body of water to have changes in the relative height of the water. That is so predictable that there are tables that can tell you when they occur on a daily basis. The Farmer's Almanac is one place you can check that. As the orbit of the moon is elliptical, like every heavenly body, some high tides are "higher" than others.
This is not what causes flooded Miami Beach streets. It's the higher mean levels of the oceans that mean higher high tides. The moon is doing what it's been doing since it detached itself from earth. The higher ocean mean level, what we call the ocean level, is higher now due to the melting of the polar ice caps because of accelerated global warming.
When things remain constant predicable, it is less stressful on people.
Americans have worked very hard to be where we are as far as comfort and safety. Change takes away from that.
The bigger issue here is the government wants to FORC3 all these changes on us as a country in to short of a time,at to high of a cost.While the rest of the world belches out smoke 60 fold that follows our jet stream right into the US altering our air quality numbers.
Electric cars were around before you or I were born. they were not feasible then nor are they now.
Solar clothes dryers have been around for century's, but people are to lazy to hang clothes ,they use a dryer.
which puts a hell of a load on a electric grid. They got lazy because technology has improved the way we do things.
Staying the course as you call, not necessarily the only way.
Let private enterprise bring out the new tech, and let the people CHOOSE what they buy with THEIR own money.that is the biggest gripe. be it fuel,cars,homes,whatever. Let the people choose. IF a electric car can do what a person wants,he will buy it without the government giving him a price break with YOUR money and mine.
And i want a incandescing bulb that will provide light without interfering with my short wave radio, I should be able to buy 1.
The weather is dependent on fluctuations in the atmosphere, which are very hard to predict, because they are mostly chaotic. It can be done, to some extend, by mathematically dividing the whole of the atmosphere in millions of virtual boxes, with interactive modeling between them, including the surface of the earth below, accounting for temperature, humidity, vectors of air movement from differences in atmospheric pressure, cloud cover, cloud height and energy gain or loss.
Predicting the climate is a whole different ballgame. All those fluctuations, that are so important for predicting the weather are averaged out. The only factors they use is the energy from the sun coming in, the ability of the atmosphere and the surface to absorb or reflect that energy, resulting in the average temperature of earth or more specifically a certain area of earth.
The ability of the atmosphere to absorb solar radiation is dependent on the concentration of gasses that are composed of more than two atoms, like CO2, methane and water vapor, because those molecules absorb infra red light, to create heat. Oxygen and nitrogen only have two atoms, and therefore do not absorb any light. The CO2 and methane concentrations have risen to concentrations never seen before in history. This can be measured from a.o. ice core gas composition measurements. The temperature of earth has not exceeded historical temperatures yet, because it takes much more time, than the few decades the green house gas concentrations have been at record highs, before such an incredibly large system as the whole earth can heat up and before all the icecaps have melted. When the icecaps melt, the surface of the earth becomes darker and less reflective, absorbing even more of the solar radiation (not just the infrared), exacerbating the increasing temperatures on earth.
Predicting the weather takes massive computer power, predicting the climate is pretty simple physics. It just has some variables and interactions that are not fully predictable yet, but the basic principles are discovered by science long ago.
Why is this important? Because, in previous times, the process was gradual enough that mankind and other living things, could adapt. This acceleration brings the possibility that there’ll be catastrophic consequences that could cost many lives and physical destruction. We are seeing, now, stronger than normal storms, droughts, forest fires, polar ice melts (rise of ocean waters), and, of course, higher temperatures.
These changes have come in the last 80 yrs or so, and, I, personally, have experienced these changes.
"The 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade. In fact, the average global temperature for 2023 exceeded the pre-industrial (1850–1900) average by 2.43 degrees F (1.35 degrees C).
Looking ahead, there is a one-in-three chance that 2024 will be warmer than 2023, and a 99% chance that 2024 will rank among the top five warmest years"
What do I believe? Would it help if I believed that the Earth is flat?
what did the dinosaurs do to the enviroment to prompt their death?
Why is there old trees under the ice in greenland? why is there citys under water from 1000's of years ago?
only registered users can see external links
Some are man made but others are under water for far longer than your Citroens have been roaming the pathways of europe.
the center of the planet is still molten,like concrete in the center of the hoover damn that is not cured to this day.
now those changes take decades.
Those trees under the ice of of greenland are about 400,000 years old.
The CO2 concentration then was 280 ppm. During the last 400,000 years,
the CO2 concentration didn't rise above 300 ppm once. We are at 421.83 ppm today.
In 1970, the CO2 concentration still was at 325 ppm.
The global average temperature was 53.6°F/12°C 400,000 years ago
and didn't rise above that for 400,000 years. The global average temperature
right now is at 57.99°F/14.44°C. It just takes a while for all the ice to melt away.
Yonaguni Jima is NOT under water because of the sea level rising,
but because of tectonic activity causing it to sink below the sea level.
Find some arguments that cannot be debunked in 5 minutes of Googling.
If you don't think: "OMG, I was wrong!" from those arguments, then you are either
not smart enough to understand them or you are gaslighting yourself.
only registered users can see external links
These folks claim to be concerned about the enviroment but then set FIRE to things, that makes poisonous smoke,and powers ELECTRIC car factory so they can travel without the smog from cars.
What do these idiots want? Caveman lifestyle?
I've told you before that electric cars will not save the climate or humanity,
they will only save the car. Maybe! If you don't support any more changes than that, the option of electric cars goes away. In the end, humanity will do anything to save itself, when they eventually accept that it's the only way, which by then has turned to reality. The sooner we act, the less extreme the sacrifices will need to be.
I don't want to live the 'caveman lifestyle', so please get your act together.
But women were easier to get back then, you just find 1 and Wack her on the head and drag her to your cave and bring her dead bears and deer to cook and make clothes out of!
Sorry, but their are not enough caves, wild animals and berries, for 8 billion people. Going back to nature is not an option, when humanity has destroyed most nature.
That might have worked a few hundred years ago, when there still was most nature and way less of us.
We cannot save humanity by rejecting technology, only by using our technological knowledge to the fullest. That's why I don't agree with the "Vulkangruppe" or you,
or whoever else thinks we have to go back to the 'caveman lifestyle'.
Saving humanity starts with cutting the useless wasteful consumerism. It starts with rethinking the economy from the ground up. Not making useless crap, that is designed to break, filling landfills. No more unhealthy food, that makes people sick, while polluting nature and emitting greenhouse gasses, just to enrich some selfish assholes.
Instead, use our maximum scientific knowledge to provide everyone with a place to live, healthy food, clothes to wear and some basic luxuries, without polluting nature and emitting greenhouse gasses.
They have told you that this is impossible, but that's just propaganda from the rich selfish assholes, who would rather destroy nature and humanity, than accept that
we won't be serving them anymore. We should serve humanity.
So perhaps there is a logical reason for the warming that is NOT human related?
only registered users can see external links
"Furthermore, the release of sufficient methane from the protective frozen barrier could hinder efforts to limit global temperature increases to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels."
OH yea, aint read the details yet but ol john kerry is leaving the biden administration. I guess maybe he has enough under the table money he don't need to work anymore
Fairy 🧚♀️ Kerry hell I thought he died
Methane is an 80x - 120x stronger 'greenhouse gas' than carbon dioxide.
What don't you understand about it? It's all relatively simple science.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
alot of sewer treatment plants heat the interior spaces with methane ,offices and such, because it is free fuel as a biproduct.
edit,
here is something to think about,and there is PLENTY of methane, just go to any nations capital, the politicians are full of it.
only registered users can see external links
The methane that is emitted by farm animals and rotting melted permafrost is useless to us, but very harmful.
Maybe they find an energy efficient method to extract it from the atmosphere.
Then we could use it. At the moment it's more energy and cost effective to reduce methane emissions.
Whatever gas you can extract from politicians will be more worthwhile,
than what you've been asking from them. Go for it!
This is also an American invention. In 2000, President Bush asked Berkeley Lab
to think of the energy solutions of the future. It was called the FreedomFuel Initiative.
They actually came up with this; energy storage in the form of Sodium Borohydride (NaBH4), but they couldn't get it to work correctly.
A few guys in a shed in The Nederlands found the solution. It has now grown from a
start-up, to a mature scale-up. The company is called H2 FUEL only registered users can see external links.
It can be stored until there is not enough sun and wind or transported from places with much more solar, wind or hydro energy to places where there is not much more solar, wind or hydro energy. It has a 50% higher energy density than coal (36 MJ/kg vs 24 MJ/kg).
Well,
- production of hydrogen by electrolysis is extremely inefficient. The energy content of the hydrogen produced is a bit under 20% of the energy you put in (if I recollect correctly).
- and then there will be the further energy loss in using it in a power plant (presumably via some sort of ICE)
- the electrolysis process requires catalysts, mainly gold and platinum atm and the amounts needed were this a mainstream industry may be not be available / would be prohibitively expensive.
So, interesting for sure and certainly sounds like a good storage solution for hydrogen. BUT I cannot see how hydrogen produced by electrolysis can be a major part of the energy economy given its inefficiency.
it's a loss of 20%, that's an efficiency of 80%.
How efficient do you think fossil fuels are? Just to get them out of the ground costs more energy every year, because all the easy sources are mostly depleted.
Oil extraction by fracking is such an energy inefficient process that 45% of the energy in the oil is wasted by extraction. That's BEFORE the refining process.
The Canadian tar sand mining costs almost just as much energy as it produces.
The average efficiencies of power generation are 35% for coal, 45% for natural gas and 38% for oil-fired power generation.
There are new improvements that can raise the efficiency of electrolysis to 95%.
"Record-breaking hydrogen electrolyzer claims 95% efficiency"
only registered users can see external links
However, you're thinking about it wrong; in renewable energy, the energy efficiency is not that important, the cost per Watt is important and the required area per Watt is important.
The wind and the sun are free, the equipment to harness that energy and the piece of the earth you put it on are not.
That's why you need to think in $/J, $/Watt and in $/kg H2.
"Renewables are the cheapest form of power today."
only registered users can see external links
Gold and platinum are not catalysts, but the electrolyzers, just the anode and cathode. The process is not burning gold or platinum, it's not destroyed. After a long period of use, they just end up as oxides in some filter and can be reconstituted. However, they are expensive, so that's why they are doing research into alternative electrolyzers:
only registered users can see external links
And of course you only use energy storage for when it's needed. All the electricity of renewables that can be used immediately are the cheapest. We have a long way to go, to just do that efficiently. At this moment, most of the electricity that is used during the day, when there is enough solar and wind energy available is still mostly produced by burning fossil fuels. That's a waste of money and resources and it should stop.
While it is not important, the precious metals do act as catalysers. It also seems iridium (VERY rare on earth) is also involved. I agree that they are not consumed but we have shortages of them.
Wind and solar ARE NOT CHEAP EVEN BEFORE THE 50% ROUNDTRIP COST. If you look at the recent UK auctions for wind, the strike price had to be increased by 66% as there were no bidders in the last auction...... And wind power was expensive before the increase compared to normal prices though not the peak fossil fuel prices of 2021. The UN headline you quote is just simple deception as it references to these inflated commodity prices and not historic or current prices. It may have briefly been cheaper for a short period but it certainly was not before and is not now.
There are reasons to move towards greener energy but is currently is and will continue to be more expensive. Hydrogen is not going to help at all - you could use it to be greener, but only at prohibitive cost.
And you can bet who ever controls the source of energy,be it hydrogen or lithium ,etc, will have alot of control of the economy just as big oil is now.
Everything you want to do costs money, every choice you make has consequences.
Denying a problem doesn't make it go away, it will only escalate,
which will result in worse damages.
Humanity cannot keep polluting the earth, without consequences; no free rides!
The better route is to use ALL energy sources in the areas they perform the best. And allow consumers a choice.
A electric car may work for 1 person and not another,where as a electric lawntractor would work fine for either.
Because our expanding population needs places to live and grow our food.
I would love to plant those billion trees, but where?
For me, at this time, an electric car is a useless purchase.
I drive way not enough to make it affordable at all.
However, for most commuters, an electric car is already cheaper.
But, I keep repeating that electric cars will not save humanity,
electric cars will save the car. If we don't replace them, we will be forced
to stop driving cars all together, to save ourselves.
only registered users can see external links
You don't NEED Iridium for electrolysis of water to hydrogen.
Maybe it works better, but it will not be used, unless it's cost effective.
It's of course very inefficient to convert all electricity from renewable sources to hydrogen. That's only a solution for when you need to store electricity, as an alternative to batteries, or when other solutions do not fit a local problem.
Higher efficiencies can be achieved with hydrozine energy storage.
And I just referred to the Sodium Borohydride (NaBH4) method.
Understand that energy efficiency is not important, when the energy itself costs nothing. A solar panel that is a bit less efficient, but costs half as much, can be more cost effective. If Sodium Borohydride or hydrozine energy storage can make solar panels in a country with lots of useless desert feasible, then they can export cheap energy. That's easier than building thousands of miles of electricity poles from Africa to Europe and Asia.
And maybe you don't know, but fossil fuels are also very inefficient. A loss of 50% of the energy is not an exception for the process of extraction, transportation, refining, transportation and storage. The worst is Canada's oil sands mining. It uses up almost as much energy as it produces.
only registered users can see external links
You mean like cocaine
Ask Hunter Biden he knows all the places to get that stuff
Did you ever see any recording of Donald Trump Jr.? He's coked-up 24/7.
He's just a coward and a hypocrite and doesn't admit it.
--------------------------------------- added after 69 seconds
All rich people use cocaine
He's just the son of the president and nothing more.
Meanwhile, Donald Jr. puts his face on TV, the internet and GOP fundraisers
and sold you the same bullshit his father does. He was also completely immersed
in his fathers corruption and crimes.
Trumps whole family was involved in his politics and his private profiteering from it.
As senior advisor, his son in law traveled many times to Saudi Arabia to 'represent your country', but the only thing he did was arrange a $2 Billion deal for himself.
Your side would never accept what Trump did with his businesses, while in office,
from a Democrat. It's all a million times more corrupt than putting on your resume
that your father was the Vice President, to get a nice job.
New Comment Go to top