Climate change discussion.

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

FWIW it’s down to 50% in 2018. Cherry picked to use 2017 numbers.

Extremely doubtful. Even propaganda sites get their numbers wrong:

http://www.climateaction.org/news/ge...ewables-record

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

FWIW it’s down to 50% in 2018. Cherry picked to use 2017 numbers.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5971947/g...nst-coal-mine/

So then what's with the protests about coal mine expansion...

But clearly Germany is ahead of Alberta and there's no such need for coal to supply power plants ...

[Buster]

[Tik-Tok]

Classy

[ZenOps]

Uhh, Porsche plans to go all electric. I can imagine they will triple the cost of existing combustion engine parts as they are phased out. Greta wins.

It makes sense for Euro automakers to go all in electric because its the USA that holds many auto combustion engine patents. Germany sees the bigger picture, remove carbon - remove payments to the USA on all combustion patents. I get the feeling Trump understands this all too well. If China can sell solar panels to the USA at cost, it will greatly accelerate the dollar losses of the USA on all combustion engines, which does have the capacity of crippling the US economy very quickly.

The game is afoot. Realistically the 21% conversion from carbon to movement in a car engine is just plain overdue to be replaced, the USA will eventually have to fold on it.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Uhh, Porsche plans to go all electric. I can imagine they will triple the cost of existing combustion engine parts as they are phased out. Greta wins.

Porsche plans to make money. They will be running ICE vehicles as long as cool people want them.

They'll take those sweet sweet margins selling people electric skateboards with seats in them though.

- - - Updated - - -

"WE ARE IN THE BEGINNIN OF A MASS EXTINCTION!"

lol

gets me every time.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There sure are a lot of tonnes of CO2 being produced by burning fossil fuels. So many tonnes! It's obvious that this should be contributing to a noticeable problem.
I can't help but wonder where the chaGillions of tonnes of water produced by burning fossil fuels goes. Where does it all go? Why aren't we drowning? Why is there not more rain? Why does potable water remain so scarce in vast regions of Earth?
Since science is so clear that "we live on an apple and the skin is the atmosphere," shouldn't the flesh of that apple be getting a lot more moist?

Well for every ton of CO2 you produce you don't produce the same weight in water. For many hydrocarbons (methane, propane, octane notably) you're looking at around half when you start to average the hydrocarbons out. For coal burning, you're not seeing much water produced at all and only occurs when there's sufficient steam, but even then you're looking at 30% on the high end. So of all the Co2 produced on Earth it's not from the same reaction, you're probably looking at closer to a third to two-fifths of the weight of Co2 with the water produced. With that you could produce well over a hundred times the CO2 on Earth and still not be able to fill Lake Ontario. So spread out over the whole skin, the water won't make a big difference in the moistness of the apple.

[ExtraSlow]

Hey, had a question pop into my head, and I couldn't quickly find the answer in google, so figured you guys could help me.
What parts of the earth are currently warming slower than average? It has to be half the globe, right? Like half the surface of the earth? Is anywhere cooling?

[bob9979]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Also about solar panels: They are slowly working their way toward silicon extrusion as opposed to drop forging. This means that silicon panels could be made from long "wires" instead of two or three foot ingots. This last step will allow 24/7 production of silicon panels and greatly reduce the number of humans in intermediate steps.

If you can extrude a mile long length, cutting it while it cools at the one end - you can reduce the cost of solar panels even further and potentially increase output 10x.

USA? Stupendously far behind in this aspect. The USA has concerned itself with adding another 1,000 patented parts to a 2,000 part combustion engine, to make it run 0.5% more efficiently. Its obvious to me who is winning. I do tend to blame NASA for this particular problem, the USA is now fixated on "more complicated = gooder because you can charge lots of money for it"

I do get the feeling that China has already taken some sort of intermediate step that I was not aware of, because they did try that "solar road" and although it was a spectacular failure, you do have to wonder where they got all those silicon wafers to start with. You can order up 1 million, 100 or 200 watt panels from China today, and as long as you show the money - it will show up in three weeks.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...ar-road-theft/

When panels drop further, I can imagine the USA will move from a 25% tariff to 50% to probable ban on solar panels to "protect American industries" which means auto-patent holders and the entire combustion vehicle industry. The shift may soon be here, but the USA is working hard to stop it.

ZenOps, cash your nickel and start invest JKS today.

[bob9979]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

People are at the root of the climate crisis, and no one wants to talk about population control.
Since climate change is man made, there should be a Climate Change Tax on having kids.
20 tonnes/year (average) x $50/tonne x 100 years = $100,000 per kid.
If you have kids and are unable to pay the new tax, you will be sent to Eco-jail and be forced to subsist on nothing but Beyond Meat burgers.

Let's start eating babies!

[04Terminator]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hey, had a question pop into my head, and I couldn't quickly find the answer in google, so figured you guys could help me.
What parts of the earth are currently warming slower than average? It has to be half the globe, right? Like half the surface of the earth? Is anywhere cooling?

You are confusing the junior high concepts of mean and Median.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hey, had a question pop into my head, and I couldn't quickly find the answer in google, so figured you guys could help me.
What parts of the earth are currently warming slower than average? It has to be half the globe, right? Like half the surface of the earth? Is anywhere cooling?

The entire globe has been on a cooling cycle for 15 years. So there isn't really an answer to the question as it is a false dichotomy.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well for every ton of CO2 you produce you don't produce the same weight in water. For many hydrocarbons (methane, propane, octane notably) you're looking at around half when you start to average the hydrocarbons out. For coal burning, you're not seeing much water produced at all and only occurs when there's sufficient steam, but even then you're looking at 30% on the high end. So of all the Co2 produced on Earth it's not from the same reaction, you're probably looking at closer to a third to two-fifths of the weight of Co2 with the water produced. With that you could produce well over a hundred times the CO2 on Earth and still not be able to fill Lake Ontario. So spread out over the whole skin, the water won't make a big difference in the moistness of the apple.

Ok, so let's just consider the burning of methane for a moment. That's what all of us will use to heat our houses all winter.
CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O
So, actually double the moles of water are produced as compared to CO2.
The molecular weight difference is 18/44 so for every metric tonne of CO2, 818 kg of water are produced. Now let's talk about those who are sequestering CO2 like Shell Quest at Scotford. They've recently plugged their four millionth kg into the earth where it will "never" come out. That means 3,273,000 kg of water that never existed before was generated from their steam methane reformers and released to our atmosphere in the period of time that they plugged 4 million kg of CO2 into the earth. That's 3,273 cubic meters (tonnes) of water which is a 1m x 1m channel of water that is 3.273km long. Two miles of water deeper than 3 feet and wider than 3 feet.
Where did that go and why is there literally zero measurable effect from it? Is Edmonton or Fort Sask suddenly more humid? Does it rain more since there's an extra 3,200+ tonnes of water in the air? Does it snow more? Is the North Saskatchewan River higher than before?
No. It's gone into the arbitrarily infinite atmosphere because it's the equivalent of spitting in the ocean.
And that's just one facility. Add up every dwelling in Greater Calgary & Greater Edmonton for one winter plus add the SMR's from Suncor/P-Can, Esso Strathcona and any other refineries cranking out 100,000+ bpd in refined products and we are generating millions and millions of tonnes of water. That's lakes of water that no one sees, no one drowns in and no one can measure any appreciable change in anything in our lives, at all.
But they can sure allegedly measure the effects of the CO2 generated and tell us "ErrMerGurrd! Instant emergency. The house is on Furr!!! Life on Earth over in <20 years, for troozels!!"
That's... Odd.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's 3,273 cubic meters (tonnes) of water which is a 1m x 1m channel of water that is 3.273km long. Two miles of water deeper than 3 feet and wider than 3 feet.
Where did that go and why is there literally zero measurable effect from it? Is Edmonton or Fort Sask suddenly more humid? Does it rain more since there's an extra 3,200+ tonnes of water in the air? Does it snow more? Is the North Saskatchewan River higher than before?

If you use the North Saskatchewan and the edge of Edmonton and the middle of Fort Saskatchewan as your reference points, it isn't hard to hide a 1m x 1m x 3273m channel of water in a 220m x 3m x 20000m channel of water and not notice it's there.

[dirtsniffer]

It's also 1.5 Olympic swimming pools and could be held in a couple tanks

[ZenOps]

Heating the planet should have the effect of less snow and more dew moisture as clouds smash into the Rocky Mountains. Which means more runoff. Snow clouds can retain their moisture and head into Ontario or even all the way around the world. Or at least goes the theory.

Any place that is right around zero Celsius (or more accurate dewpoint for the conditions) should see more moisture. You usually get gradients of temperature as you go up to higher altitudes, so more of the mountain is "hot" which means more dew accumulation.

Flooding in Calgary should be more common as time goes forward as the ground saturates year round instead of just seasonal flooding. Year round moisture is of great benefit to plant growth.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you use the North Saskatchewan and the edge of Edmonton and the middle of Fort Saskatchewan as your reference points, it isn't hard to hide a 1m x 1m x 3273m channel of water in a 220m x 3m x 20000m channel of water and not notice it's there.

That's excellent and thanks for your explanation putting that into perspective.
So, now we know for certain that the trillions of tonnes of water being produced has absolutely zero measurable effect, whatsoever.

However, it should be obvious to anyone that the trillions of tonnes of CO2 being produced by the same chemical equation (it's science, Bitch) means we have 10-15 years to live.

[ZenOps]

Going from 0.04% CO2 to 0.08% has negligible effect on human respiration. Getting to 0.08% would require burning most if not all the dinosaur juice left on the planet.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's excellent and thanks for your explanation putting that into perspective.
So, now we know for certain that the trillions of tonnes of water being produced has absolutely zero measurable effect, whatsoever.

However, it should be obvious to anyone that the trillions of tonnes of CO2 being produced by the same chemical equation (it's science, Bitch) means we have 10-15 years to live.

Who would have thought different compounds could affect systems differently.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Going from 0.04% CO2 to 0.08% has negligible effect on human respiration. Getting to 0.08% would require burning most if not all the dinosaur juice left on the planet.

The problem with your posts is kind of akin to "the boy who cried wolf", you post so much sheer and utter nonsense that you may occasionally say the most true thing on Earth but I have to assume everything is sheer and utter nonsense.