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: 6
27
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



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


ourworldindata.org world-population-growth
I am not a scientist but I did take college level calculus, so I know the difference between growth and rate of growth.

According to this chart and what I heard from a guy who heard from a scientist, the World can sustain a population of about 1 Billion. So if the 1970 growth rate decrease had started in 1920 then we could have been sustainable.

In the same way, if CO2 emissions had begun decreasing in 1960, we would have been saved. I can't remember what chart I looked at to get the 1960 date.

I think we're screwed, quite frankly.
The sad thing is, these things were known in the 1950s and 1960s.
edit on 16-3-2019 by pthena because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

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

It's awesome.


Pretty bad ass, but 100k for even a used one. I just do not see China or India playing along, and as I said unless we make it less painful of a transition people are just not going to do it.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

A vehicle on the level of the Model S is not required. It is what is often referred to as a luxury vehicle.


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



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena

According to this chart and what I heard from a guy who heard from a scientist, the World can sustain a population of about 1 Billion. So if the 1970 growth rate decrease had started in 1920 then we could have been sustainable.

In the same way, if CO2 emissions had begun decreasing in 1960, we would have been saved. I can't remember what chart I looked at to get the 1960 date.

I think we're screwed, quite frankly.
The sad thing is, these things were known in the 1950s and 1960s.


Human population maximizes in 2100 at 11 billion, with 1 billion more in Asia, 3 billion more in Africa and 1 billion for higher age. That is still 50% more humans than we got today even though it stabilizes at 11 billion.



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

originally posted by: Phage

A vehicle on the level of the Model S is not required.


Nope, 1/2 of that is still better than 80% gas cars we got today. Think of electric cars today as Model Ts of 1916, Give it 25 years and the gas car will go the way of horses.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

The Model S is a "luxury sedan". Costly by design. Lots of bells and whistles. The opposite of a Model T.

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



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

The Model S is a "luxury sedan". Costly by design. Lots of bells and whistles. The opposite of a Model T.


Not the Model S but the full nature of electric cars of today



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

This is what you said:

Pretty bad ass, but 100k for even a used one.


But yes, electric vehicles are expensive. More expensive than IC vehicles. That's a problem.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero

This is what you said:

Pretty bad ass, but 100k for even a used one.


But yes, electric vehicles are expensive. More expensive than IC vehicles. That's a problem.



Model 3 is about 35 to 40k, I expect as batteries and charging get better and we have 10 car makers all doing it that price will drop a good deal. If prices for a viable electric car drops to 20k or less that is what we can see as a transition. I think we can fix coal right now...



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I don't see any feasible way to meaningfully curb C02 emissions right now.

What is needed is a reliable renewable energy source. Two technologies I have seen show great potential. The first is using a graphene cable to transmit the heat from the core of the earth to the surface. The hurdle is finding a way to manufacture the cable. The second tech is solar thermal fuel which is much farther along. See videos below. Maybe within the next decade, one of those will be able to replace fossil fuels.







posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Power satellites.
OTEC.

But eggs in one basket is never a good idea.

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



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If by power satellites you mean them beaming energy back down then there are probably a lot of hurdles to cross one of the largest may be public opinion.

This is the first I have seen OTEC and it looks promising. Are they able to net gain in electric now from the process?




top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join