It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The real hoax of climate change

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Yes. Glacial and interglacial periods do follow cycles in response to orbital and axial cycles. According to that, things should be cooling slightly (and very slowly). Instead, we see the planet warming (rapidly).
biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu...

Ocean currents distribute heat so they do have a profound effect on climates. But rising CO2 levels cause more heat to be retained within the entire system. Including oceans. Actually, CO2 matters. A lot.

edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Specimen
Does this mean that private and public jets will be taxed when they should of used a bike. What about volcanoes, do we really want to piss it off?


Ideally, a carbon tax would be assessed against producers of fossil fuels, not consumers. Of course, some of that tax would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices so, ideally, the government would not spend those revenues but would return them to consumers in the form of tax credits or rebates to offset the price increase. Revenue neutral is the term used.

Yes, it would cost more to fly instead of riding a bike. It already does, but it's also quite a bit faster.
edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: HaiTaiChen

Stone has been used to build houses for thousands of years and stone is still the most valuable material for building houses. Oil powered cars and trucks ain't doing the way of the horse anytime soon, which by the way are still used by Mennonites. Battery cars and oil cars were both invented in the 1800s. There's a reason oil cars dominate sales. Battery cars may be able to compete if they get subsidies. But without subsidies no way. Not convenient. Too long to charge.


Tesla can do 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds, about what a $300k car can do, their roster will be .9 seconds, they can get 300 miles, Tesla 3 will be about $35k...charging is getting better...

"Tesla supercharging stations charge with up to 135 kW of power distributed between two cars with a maximum of 120 kW per car. They take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100% on the original 85 kWh Model S."

You talk like someone who sees a Model T and says ya the horse not going to be replaces very soon, but it took about 25 years once the model T was mass produced in 1916. I would bet in 25 years the gas car will not be more more than a collector item.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

My nephew's wife has a Model S.

It's awesome.

edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

Yes. Glacial and interglacial periods do follow cycles in response to orbital and axial cycles. According to that, things should be cooling slightly (and very slowly). Instead, we see the planet warming (rapidly).
biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu...

Ocean currents distribute heat so they do have a profound effect on climates. But rising CO2 levels cause more heat to be retained within the entire system. Including oceans. Actually, CO2 matters. A lot.



CO2 concentrations do not correlate with temperature in the long term. Water is the greenhouse gas that most affects the climate. The vapor phase absorbs heat and the liquid and solid phases reflect sunlight. So far the evil CO2 models haven't done such a good job.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




CO2 concentrations do not correlate with temperature in the long term.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean but increasing CO2 concentrations increase radiative forcing.


Water is the greenhouse gas that most affects the climate.
Water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas, yes. But, unlike CO2, its concentration is temperature dependent. That's one of the problems. CO2 warms the atmosphere a bit, which means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which warms the atmosphere more. Without the increase in CO2, that would not happen. CO2 doesn't go away if things cool down. Water vapor does.



So far the evil CO2 models haven't done such a good job.
Incorrect.

www.realclimate.org...


edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Specimen
Does this mean that private and public jets will be taxed when they should of used a bike. What about volcanoes, do we really want to piss it off?


Ideally, a carbon tax would be assessed against producers of fossil fuels, not consumers. Of course, some of that tax would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices so, ideally, the government would not spend those revenues but would return them to consumers in the form of tax credits or rebates to offset the price increase. Revenue neutral is the term used.

Yes, it would cost more to fly instead of riding a bike. It already does, but it's also quite a bit faster.


Ideally.
Probably, all carbon taxes would be passed along to the consumers in the efforts to redistribute wealth using the GCC stick. If the DC dolts would ever set a standard for nuclear power plants, say a standard design for an HTGR train of 250MWe that was pre approved and didn't need a 5 year review and 10-20 years of permits. The plan would be to build a fleet of standard Chevys instead of custom Bentleys no two of which were identical. See France for the concept.
The idea of sequestering carbon dioxide from existing plants has a goal of a 10% increase in the cost of power. Real cost to the consumer? Take your bill and multiply it by 3.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

That may be extreme.

On the other hand, SO2 trading seems to have been pretty effective in reducing emissions without affecting consumer costs. But for some reason it seems that if someone profits by it, it must be bad. Strange position for "conservatives" to take, I think.



edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Yes in 2017 there was a 0.5% decrease in CO2 production (according to BP). That went away in 2018. Working on problems. Yeah, like this:
Deregulation


Have you seen the quality of life many Chinese have to get such a small foot print, be careful what you wish for. I for one believe that carbon tax is not needed and industry will evolve in the free emissions direction as technology makes it desirable over what we currently have.

As example you want to lose weight, so you try veggie burgers and they taste like crap and so you are just not going to eat them. Then they make meatless burgers that taste as good if not better than the real thing, they also give you a perfect amount of nutrition for your diet...We can at that point say bye bye to much of the 130 billion pounds of beef the world eats as it gets replaced by something that is desirable.

I don't see free emissions any different, once it is desirable it will be a natural course for humans to go to. I think what you are suggesting with carbon tax is to force those nasty tasting veggie burgers on to people in a way of forcing things before they have matured enough.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




I don't see free emissions any different, once it is desirable it will be a natural course for humans to go to.

Yeah. That's human nature.
Short term thinking. Not so good when it comes to something with as much inertia as the atmosphere.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

That may be extreme.

On the other hand, SO2 trading seems to have been pretty effective in reducing emissions without affecting consumer costs. But for some reason it seems that if someone profits by it, it must be bad. Strange position for "conservatives" to take, I think.




The 3x number may be slightly high or low depending on how and where the carbon is sequestered. Right now BAT is about 3x.
SO2 trading has worked out because fuels have different sulfur contents and blending fuels of varying sulfur content is common practice as is scrubbing SOx. Western coals are lower BTU and low S so the heat rate may be reduced along with the SOx but this does not have a big impact on costs. We now have a big supply of gypsum because of scrubbers.

The problem arises when the products of fuel combustion must be captured and sequestered. There is no substitute or blend of fuels that will reduce carbon other than moving to natural gas. One can move to gas turbines as baseload but that will take time and money. In a way, that is happening and is driven by market and regulations. Obama tried to shut down coal and the collegiate kiddies and media idiots thought it was a great idea and we should do it immediately. Rationing would have had them howling.

Likely, the next whine will be that moving to gas power is not enough and CO2 must be captured and sequestered. This is where things get really expensive. Energy required for such is significant and trading carbon will punish the developing countries in that they will not have the advantage of ready electric power in large quantity. They will be granted exceptions, of course. China signed the Paris agreement. How did that work out?

Al Gore's personal finances not withstanding, a carbon tax is unlikely as long as the GDP is a function of the cost of electric power and there are no good low-cost alternatives to carbon based power plants until the nuclear industry is developed beyong scaling up submarine power plants or LENR comes online.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine



Likely, the next whine will be that moving to gas power is not enough and CO2 must be captured and sequestered.
Innovation often leads to increased efficiency. I think that the government should encourage such things rather than promoting the status quo by reducing emissions regulations.




China signed the Paris agreement. How did that work out?
Their rate of increase has declined. How did Trump bailing on the accords work out?
edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: HaiTaiChen

Stone has been used to build houses for thousands of years and stone is still the most valuable material for building houses. Oil powered cars and trucks ain't doing the way of the horse anytime soon, which by the way are still used by Mennonites. Battery cars and oil cars were both invented in the 1800s. There's a reason oil cars dominate sales. Battery cars may be able to compete if they get subsidies. But without subsidies no way. Not convenient. Too long to charge.


Tesla can do 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds, about what a $300k car can do, their roster will be .9 seconds, they can get 300 miles, Tesla 3 will be about $35k...charging is getting better...

"Tesla supercharging stations charge with up to 135 kW of power distributed between two cars with a maximum of 120 kW per car. They take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100% on the original 85 kWh Model S."

You talk like someone who sees a Model T and says ya the horse not going to be replaces very soon, but it took about 25 years once the model T was mass produced in 1916. I would bet in 25 years the gas car will not be more more than a collector item.


The Tesla is an amazing vehicle and development of batteries that are also capacitors would help with charging times. What should be noted is that the power has to come from somewhere. If we do a rough calculation based on the estimate that transportation is about 1/3 of our energy demand and electric power is about the same, we would have to double our electrical output to provide transportation energy and with it the infrastructure for transmission and distribution. For the sake of argument, we can assume that the smaller, lighter vehicles will use less power by some factor. If it is 2x, the we need to increase our power generation by only 50% and don't need such high voltages or thicker wires. If we then have a developed alternate energy source, we could go carbon combustion free.

Another consideration would be the cradle to grave analysis of battery powered vehicles. What is the environmental impact of recovering rare earths for motor magnets? Lithium for batteries? How much energy is expended and carbon emitted? How about the metals needed for the structure and petrochemicals for the composite bodies? Not everyone considers the entire envelope.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine



Likely, the next whine will be that moving to gas power is not enough and CO2 must be captured and sequestered.
Innovation often leads to increased efficiency. I think that the government should encourage such things rather than promoting the status quo by reducing emissions regulations.




China signed the Paris agreement. How did that work out?
Their rate of increase has declined. How did Trump bailing on the accords work out?



The DOE does R&D for all of this and the Government encourages such by cost sharing on many industrial projects directed toward improving efficiencies and reducing emissions from fossil power plants. EERE and FE are bot working on advanced manufacturing processes such as additive manufacturing and process intensification. It is encouraging such and reducing risk of private companies by co funding, often when without co-funding, the project would not happen.


China has reduced the RATE OF INCREASE. That means that they are still increasing, just not as fast. This would be expected as their economy cooled and their industries matured. They are moving more into nuclear power but g=haven't given up on coal. Visit Beijing to discover what unrestricted emissions is like.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

My nephew's wife charges her Tesla with PV panels.

It's awesome.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




The DOE does R&D for all of this and the Government encourages such by cost sharing on many industrial projects directed toward improving efficiencies and reducing emissions from fossil power plants.
How's that funding look with the adminstration's new budget?


China has reduced the RATE OF INCREASE.
That's what I said.


Visit Beijing to discover what unrestricted emissions is like.
Not sure it's "unrestricted", but the EPA seems to be moving in the wrong direction as far as that goes.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   
On a cold winter's night

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

My nephew's wife charges her Tesla with PV panels.

It's awesome.


Overnight or on a long trip? In cloudy areas in the winter months, a good size photovoltaic array would be needed.

These vehicles are really nice for work commutes within range where they can be recharged overnight. Instant torque motors make for fantastic acceleration and as battery technology advances, they will become more useful and less expensive. The transition will not be overnight but it will occur.

There is a nice supply of rare earths in the Florida phosphate mining wastes that will be tapped eventually. Lithium resources will be developed or a different battery tech will be used. With enough power available, winter defrost will not overly limit range.
People accept hybrids and that is the path to electric vehicles. If the tech stalls [heh heh] the plug in hybrids will reduce carbon significantly.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

It's a island. Long trips...aren't.

Plus we have a whole hell of a lot of sunshine. Even in winter.

edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

It's a island. Long trips...aren't.

Plus we have a whole hell of a lot of sunshine. Even in winter.


Is this the island that some plan high-speed train service to? Solar works very well there and winter driving isn't a problem. Lava might be.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

No train service to the island. But we are building a stupid elevated system (about 15 miles or so) for which the feds have subpoenaed a lot of stuff.

No lava on this island. Not the hot sort.

edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join