Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Paris Climate Disagreement

The Paris Climate Disagreement (Page 4)
Thread Tools
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The climate changes every day. What is called into question is it solely anthropomorphic climate change.
Dude I live in Arizona. We're called the "Valley of the (surface of the) Sun for a reason. Last week week broke a summer temperature record that stood for over 105 years. If the climate alarmists are correct, not only should it have been broken years ago, we should be breaking temperature records every day.
No. Just.....no. That's simply not how climate science works. At all. That you think so is just so.....sad.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Would you say you and the Pope are on the same page with climate change?
"No. Just.....no. That's simply not how the Catholic Church works. At all. That you think so is just so.....sad."
Let me know when anthropomorphic climate change has been declared a dogma of the Church.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's about the size of it. Nearly every climate prediction has been wrong, or at the very least been horrendously off the mark.
Completely wrong. Most climate models have been surprisingly accurate, going back even to 1990s Kyoto days. This is a factual statement, based on the fact that someone actually went through all the papers and measured the accuracy of the claims in response to completely unfounded statements like the one you've made. You can easily Google this. I'd bother to look it up and post it again, but it hasn't stuck the last times I've done so and you'll simply continue on in your ignorance in any event.

Just because you say these wrong things, does not make them true.

Also, what happened to the giraffe pic and snows of Kilimanjaro? I wanted to ask you who told you the snows would be gone by 2016......another totally bogus right-wing conspiracy website claim of course.....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Completely wrong. Most climate models have been surprisingly accurate
You mean after they falsified the records, which they've already been exposed doing before?

Just because you say these wrong things, does not make them true.
You either.

Also, what happened to the giraffe pic and snows of Kilimanjaro? I wanted to ask you who told you the snows would be gone by 2016......another totally bogus right-wing conspiracy website claim of course.....
Didn't you watch An Inconvenient Truth? For shame, Gore even won an Oscar for it. Well, I sure did, it had almost as much gravitas as the Ten Commandments.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 01:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You mean after they falsified the records, which they've already been exposed doing before?
So you think that most records have been falsified?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So you think that most records have been falsified?
Earnestly apologize to Chongo.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 01:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Also, what happened to the giraffe pic and snows of Kilimanjaro?
Buried in the reply sequence to a deleted post. The giraffe & related discussion would have survived if I'd edited the insults from the 15 posts.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
For instance, anyone else remember when we were told that Kilimanjaro would lose its snowpack by 2016?

Kilimanjaro 2017


In fact, thus far it's {climate and environmental predictions} been about as accurate as any other doomsday cult.
Originally Posted by besson3c
You are doing the same thing as him {Chongo?} and conflating prediction that may not have come out of scientific consensus (as opposed to educated guess) with the underlying science behind it which it is based on, which most definitely has.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 02:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Earnestly apologize to Chongo.
Why?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 02:51 AM
 
Did my discussion with besson get vaped?
     
Dan.Mitroi
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 05:22 AM
 
I really believe that US should be involved in this. I can't understand how such a big country and culture like US denies and don't want to be part of Paris Climate Agreement
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You mean after they falsified the records, which they've already been exposed doing before?
Ooo, I'd love to see a source on this one.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 12:23 PM
 
One example
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
https://science.house.gov/news/press...limate-records
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Ooo, I'd love to see a source on this one.
and it needs to refute this:

Most climate models have been surprisingly accurate
Note the "most", which is a part of what CTP took exception to. Please provide a source that most records have been falsified?

I'd also like to know why you feel that the anti-climate change stuff (which I would imagine has largely come out of the US) has not been falsified or the result of corrupt lobbying, but I realize that I'm asking for too much here.

My theory stands that what this boils down to is their gut feelings over which information to subscribe to because they know better. Like I said, I'll stick with the vast majority of scientists from all over the world who agree on the same thing.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
One example
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
https://science.house.gov/news/press...limate-records
And if my response was to reject your link as fake news because it's from Lamar Smith, a noted climate change denier?

Hint: Rejecting information that I don't like because I don't like the ramifications and using the fact that it's from a biased source as my reason for rejection makes me a shitty person.

But this link isn't an answer to the claim being made - you can go back to studies done over the last 20-30 years and line their predictions up with reality. That's what's being discussed.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
"No. Just.....no. That's simply not how the Catholic Church works. At all. That you think so is just so.....sad."
Let me know when anthropomorphic climate change has been declared a dogma of the Church.
Well I imagine what the pope believes would have more sway with you. I guess you think he's fallen for the hoax as well?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well I imagine what the pope believes would have more sway with you. I guess you think he's fallen for the hoax as well?
I get the impression most of you don't give a rip what the Pope believes. If the Pope were to says that console games rule and PC games are the spawn of Satan, would you agree?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I get the impression most of you don't give a rip what the Pope believes.
Hence the greater value in posing the question to someone who does give a rip.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:06 PM
 
Depends on his reasoning. I don't give extra weight to his opinions because of his position but I also know his word carries more weight for, like, roughly a billion people, in no small part due to papal infallibility. I respect and encourage people who don't dogmatically endorse every aspect of their religion, but as someone who has complained about cafeteria Catholics, I feel suspicious that your political view diverges with the church in the one place where it aligns with your political party.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:07 PM
 
I really don't know if it IS "most", but I do know that enough records have been falsified that it calls into question the veracity of the models, and that's only WRT the records that we know have been tampered with. Tiny manipulations can cause big differences in computer models, especially with forecasts that span decades. So yes, I'm skeptical of what the climate change believers are preaching. However, I'm still fully on board with a strong environmental initiative, as the world's custodians we're doing a shitty job and need to focus on developing the cleanest renewable energy sources possible.

IOW, I don't need their fear-mongering tactics, I'm already engaged in the work to what needs to be done; hydrogen fuel cells, cleaner fusion technology, solar viability, hydroelectric and geothermal expansion, and fusion development. For instance, right now hydrogen tech is 100% viable for businesses and households, we only need to scale up hydrogen production and improve natural gas extraction methods to make it cheaper. We're almost there, we just need to shift from our obsession with proselytizing to touting the benefits of the renewable sources on a truly massive scale. The main problem is, it's much more lucrative to continue selling climate change, because fear is a far greater tool for extracting money.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Depends on his reasoning. I don't give extra weight to his opinions because of his position but I also know his word carries more weight for, like, roughly a billion people, in no small part due to papal infallibility. I respect and encourage people who don't dogmatically endorse every aspect of their religion, but as someone who has complained about cafeteria Catholics, I feel suspicious that your political view diverges with the church in the one place where it aligns with your political party.
My guess is his climate change pronouncements aren't directly from Big G, and are thus fallible. IIUC, there's some sort of special protocol for infallible pronouncements.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
... If the Pope were to say that console games rule and PC games are the spawn of Satan, would you agree?
I don't pay much attention to the Pope, but I would be very interested if he made this claim. I'd want to know his reasons. Though I'd prefer he took the opposite position.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Depends on his reasoning. I don't give extra weight to his opinions because of his position but I also know his word carries more weight for, like, roughly a billion people, in no small part due to papal infallibility. I respect and encourage people who don't dogmatically endorse every aspect of their religion, but as someone who has complained about cafeteria Catholics, I feel suspicious that your political view diverges with the church in the one place where it aligns with your political party.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My guess is his climate change pronouncements aren't directly from Big G, and are thus fallible. IIUC, there's some sort of special protocol for infallible pronouncements.
Papal infallibility applies to matter of faith and morals and when exercised in an "Ex Cathedra" statement. This was last done by Pope Pius XII (The Assumption of the BVM)
No, we agree that we should not trash the planet. What we don't have to agree on is how not to do it. I don't have buy into wealth transfers disguised as "carbon credit exchanges" He also said saving the environment is not justification for pushing population control on the world.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:31 PM
 
As I've said, climate change is one of the subjects I triage. In the interest of more informed participation, someone throw me their fave dire climate model so I can criticize it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I don't pay much attention to the Pope, but I would be very interested if he made this claim. I'd want to know his reasons. Though I'd prefer he took the opposite position.
It would be up there with saying the Priemer League sucks compared to the Argentine Primera División
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Papal infallibility applies to matter of faith and morals and when exercised in an "Ex Cathedra" statement. This was last done by Pope Pius XII (The Assumption of the BVM)
No, we agree that we should not trash the planet. What we don't have to agree on is how not to do it. I don't have buy into wealth transfers disguised as "carbon credit exchanges" He also said saving the environment is not justification for pushing population control on the world.
Pop control is a red herring. Are you ok with limiting carbon emissions? Aggressive EPA policy?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'd want to know his reasons.
Mods. Especially naked boob ones.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Pop control is a red herring. Are you ok with limiting carbon emissions? Aggressive EPA policy?
Yet there people advocating that very thing as a way to reducing carbon emissions. Someone wanted to know the "carbon footprint" of the 22 child family in my parish. It's Yuuuge. They are all grown with children and (great)grandchildren of their own.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 07:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I really don't know if it IS "most", but I do know that enough records have been falsified that it calls into question the veracity of the models, and that's only WRT the records that we know have been tampered with. Tiny manipulations can cause big differences in computer models, especially with forecasts that span decades. So yes, I'm skeptical of what the climate change believers are preaching.
No. This has been reviewed ad naseum and studied by multiple independent panels. Mysterious falsified records are almost completely a myth created by the usual anti-GW lobby. You have been duped.

IOW, I don't need their fear-mongering tactics, I'm already engaged in the work to what needs to be done; hydrogen fuel cells, cleaner fusion technology, solar viability, hydroelectric and geothermal expansion, and fusion development. For instance, right now hydrogen tech is 100% viable for businesses and households, we only need to scale up hydrogen production and improve natural gas extraction methods to make it cheaper. We're almost there, we just need to shift from our obsession with proselytizing to touting the benefits of the renewable sources on a truly massive scale. The main problem is, it's much more lucrative to continue selling climate change, because fear is a far greater tool for extracting money.
So according to you the answer is absolutely not Tesla's batteries.......but instead hydrogen fuel cells?

     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
No.
Yes, it does. However, since I don't need your beliefs for me to be onboard with what's necessary (a planetwide cleanup), it really doesn't matter.

So according to you the answer is absolutely not Tesla's batteries.......but instead hydrogen fuel cells?
Of course we need batteries, but they aren't the fix that he claims (we still need to produce the electricity to place in them), and the volume he's talking about making over the next 20 years would cause its own environmental calamity. I can see you're ignorant regarding the potential of HFCs, though.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yes, it does. However, since I don't need your beliefs for me to be onboard with what's necessary (a planetwide cleanup), it really doesn't matter.
For ****'s sake, man. It's not his beliefs, it's tons and tons and tons of peer reviewed scientific consensus from scientists all over the world over the course of many, many years.

I don't know why this doesn't seem to carry weight with you guys.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 10:00 PM
 
I don't need your climate change religion to be an environmentally moral person. Oh, and keep ignoring what's been pointed out regarding the data.

While I believe their hearts are in the right place, for the most part, they only want to help the planet, fudging the stats doesn't help them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 10:10 PM
 
So, TL;DR: CTP knows better.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
TL;DR
That's obvious.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 11:49 PM
 
Lol. I know significantly more about HFC than most people - including you I am fairly confident in saying. Certainly enough to say that other than the direct output emissions - which are fantastic - the actual sourcing and distribution model remains extremely problematic. But of course, very similar to the current hydrocarbon energy source.....hmmmmmm......now I wonder who could stand to benefit from this status quo, and I wonder if they would be so bold as to pay people to regurgitate the idea to the sheeple who rely on right-wing alternative-news conspiracy sites?

Nawwwwwww.....

None of this to say it isn't a good idea - I know some very smart people in the industry who think it may be our next transition. But to suggest it is the Answer - and battery cells powered by a centralized source are not - is so foolish as to be almost silly.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't need your climate change religion to be an environmentally moral person. Oh, and keep ignoring what's been pointed out regarding the data.

While I believe their hearts are in the right place, for the most part, they only want to help the planet, fudging the stats doesn't help them.
What's been pointed out? Please, enlighten us on the frightening, nefarious schemes that have been taking place. Source your work professionally, please.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Lol. I know significantly more about HFC than most people - including you I am fairly confident in saying.
Sure ya do, buddy. I've only been using HFCs as the main source of power in my home and garage for the last 4+ years. I guess you don't remember, but anyone else here can tell you I've been singing its praises ever since I converted over. Hell, I've even reported my tribulations in attempting to give power back to the local grid, because we often make too much, but they said it isn't designed for it. In fact, I loved the tech so much I invested in the companies developing and manufacturing them.

Certainly enough to say that other than the direct output emissions - which are fantastic - the actual sourcing and distribution model remains extremely problematic. But of course, very similar to the current hydrocarbon energy source.
What? Hydrogen production is an economy of scale issue, nothing more. Even extracting it from natural gas, the least "green" method, it's cleaner than other hydrocarbon sources, in every way. Ideally we'll extract most of what we need from seawater, however.

.hmmmmmm......now I wonder who could stand to benefit from this status quo, and I wonder if they would be so bold as to pay people to regurgitate the idea to the sheeple who rely on right-wing alternative-news conspiracy sites?
blah.. blah.. blah.. Did you actually just use "sheeple" unironically?

None of this to say it isn't a good idea - I know some very smart people in the industry who think it may be our next transition.
Because it's the most sensible transition.

But to suggest it is the Answer - and battery cells powered by a centralized source are not
Even using the most advanced production and recycling methods, do you know how destructive to the environment Li-Ion type cells are? And here I thought you cared about the planet? While we'll still need batteries and capacitors, even with HFCs, with proper implementation we'll require only a fraction of the amount of batteries Musk suggests. Mostly we only need the high-output, lower capacity variety, not the mountains of monster capacity cells he wants to produce (and make 100s of $billions$ in the process by cornering the market with his Gigafactories).

- is so foolish as to be almost silly.
Given this recent display from you, "silly" is something you're very familiar with.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Hydrogen production is an economy of scale issue, nothing more. Even extracting it from natural gas, the least "green" method, it's cleaner than other hydrocarbon sources, in every way. Ideally we'll extract most of what we need from seawater, however.
That link isn't persuasive to me. They're talking about using seawater which contains dissolved CO2. Then somehow extract the CO2 plus hydrogen gas. That reaction requires a power input, which isn't mentioned at all. Further reactions would be required to extract carbon from the CO2 for synthesis of synthetic fuels. Which needs further power input. I suspect the NRO's effort is to see if nuclear-powered aircraft carriers could synthesize aircraft fuel on the go, allowing for smaller tanks on the ships. And longer unsupported missions away from port. Hence why the example was a model aircraft.

It's describing combustion in reverse, and you need to put a lot of power in to make that happen. Just as much as you get out of combustion in the first place.

Musk's plan: solar cells plus huge-scale battery production to lower costs -> electric cars -> retired batteries used in the power grid to stabilize erratic renewables production. This uses an infrastructure we already have (electric grid), has a power input, and would actually work. In other words, a working business plan.

Fuel cells require fuel. To get hydrogen, you need to extract it from a fossil fuel, or use electricity to break it from water. If you already have the electricity, why go through extra steps, and the loss of efficiency at each step? And why pay to build out another distribution infrastructure? Fuel cells are efficient, if you already have the fuel. I've never figured out the savings though, because of the missing fuel.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
That link isn't persuasive to me.
It's a basic proof of concept of the process, there are much more advanced solutions being worked out as we speak. Currently it is too expensive, but they're currently working that out. As of right now we're looking at NG-sourced hydrogen, which isn't ideal but is still cleaner than Musk's massive battery production scheme, which isn't environmentally sustainable.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 06:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It's a basic proof of concept of the process, there are much more advanced solutions being worked out as we speak. Currently it is too expensive, but they're currently working that out. As of right now we're looking at NG-sourced hydrogen, which isn't ideal but is still cleaner than Musk's massive battery production scheme, which isn't environmentally sustainable.
The efficiency of electric-hydrogen-electric is much lower than storing energy directly in batteries. In fact, battery-based electric vehicles are three times more efficient:


Efficiency is not everything, though, another point is the refueling network: one of the reasons why gasoline-powered cars initially won over electric cars was the lack of electrification in rural America. Especially if power generation is “free” (because the electrolysis is powered by renewable energies), lack of efficiency may not be a problem. Power lines are everywhere, but building an H2 delivery network is very expensive.

Looking abroad, Japan hedges its bets (I have seen hydrogen-based cars here, every once in a while I see a Mirai, but I have seen many more battery powered EVs; my research institute is heavily invested in battery technology-related research). China seems to lean towards EVs. And while BMW and Mercedes have had H2-powered cars for decades, they have yet to bring one to market (BMW used H2 instead of gasoline while Mercedes tested fuel cells).

Honestly, when it comes to H2-powered vs. battery powered cars, I think the answer for most people is neither, electrically assisted bicycles are becoming very popular in cities and urban areas (which is where most people live) around the world, though. To a lesser degree I have also seen electric scooters.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
For ****'s sake, man. It's not his beliefs, it's tons and tons and tons of peer reviewed scientific consensus from scientists all over the world over the course of many, many years.

I don't know why this doesn't seem to carry weight with you guys.
Follow the money. Open your eyes. You seem to be oblivious of the data tampering at NASA and NOAA. Or to you, its like voter fraud, and you just look away.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The efficiency of electric-hydrogen-electric is much lower than storing energy directly in batteries.
I think CTP was including production of batteries in the first place, including the rare (ish) materials that go into their production. I honestly don't know how that compares to the production of a fuel cell, but I don't think it's negligible. I don't believe every fear-mongering article that claims we're running out of lithium, but it's something.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Follow the money. Open your eyes. You seem to be oblivious of the data tampering at NASA and NOAA. Or to you, its like voter fraud, and you just look away.
Lay it out for me - where's the money in claiming man-made climate change.

Now, as a fun exercise, trace for me the money spent by the fossil fuel industry to maintain the status quo.

Compare the two. Ready, GO!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Follow the money. Open your eyes. You seem to be oblivious of the data tampering at NASA and NOAA. Or to you, its like voter fraud, and you just look away.
This argument is stupid.

The scientific consensus is a global consensus that goes beyond American institutions, assuming that this claim is true.

So far we've heard many permutations of the same argument from you guys, which is basically "one bad apple spoils the bunch". Even two, three, or x number of bad apples does not spoil the bunch given that the bunch includes a crapload of peer reviewed studies from all over the world. And, as Laminar pointed out, how many of these bad apples are just fossil fuel corporate lobbying?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:10 PM
 
Badkosh, CTP, Chongo, you guys really need to wake up. The debate about climate change is over, it has moved from theory to fact by the sheer volume of peer reviewed studies with the same conclusions. This is called science. You might as well debate against gravity.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:13 PM
 
Science ISN'T ABOUT a consensus. Its not a popularity contest. Edison was wrong about DC electricity, and had the support of lots of big money types, but Tesla was correct that AC would be better, all by himself.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Badkosh, CTP, Chongo, you guys really need to wake up. The debate about climate change is over, it has moved from theory to fact by the sheer volume of peer reviewed studies with the same conclusions. This is called science. You might as well debate against gravity.
Sure AlGore. So WHO 'peer reviews these articles? More corrupt pop scientists like Bill Nye?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Science ISN'T ABOUT a consensus. Its not a popularity contest. Edison was wrong about DC electricity, and had the support of lots of big money types, but Tesla was correct that AC would be better, all by himself.
...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Sure AlGore. So WHO 'peer reviews these articles? More corrupt pop scientists like Bill Nye?
Your argument is stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...ific_consensus
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

You'll note that these conclusions were reached about 10 years ago. This is how incredibly backwards and ****ed up your thinking is, guys.

The debate is over. Wake up.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:11 PM
 
Okay, here's my question for the class.

We have two broad choices. Let the American fossil fuel industry die a natural death, or have it be actively dismantled by the government.

Is how this gets played the deciding factor for whether the end result is an apocalypse?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think CTP was including production of batteries in the first place, including the rare (ish) materials that go into their production. I honestly don't know how that compares to the production of a fuel cell, but I don't think it's negligible. I don't believe every fear-mongering article that claims we're running out of lithium, but it's something.
Yes I was. There's a kernel of truth in those articles, lithium isn't just one type of material, it's a class of them, and there are different kinds, many of which are going to become more scarce in ~50 years, if Elon has his way, no matter the reclamation efforts. It'll be like oil all over again, only worse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,