Page 3 of 195 FirstFirst 12345678910111353103 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 4871
  1. #51
    Newbie westozguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Online
    11-05-2013 @ 06:32 PM
    Location
    South West corner of Oz/Phetchabun
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    For the long term we need renewable energy sources. But we don't have the technology just yet. Everybody who says otherwise is overoptimistic or plainly lying.
    Take a look at this list of countries utilizing hydro-electricity generation:https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2045.html

    What I find surprising from this list is:

    1) The countries that squawk the loudest about the need to employ greener technologies are also amongst those that least utilize hydro generation.

    2) Many so called "third world countries" are amongst some of highest in terms of the percentage of their electricity requirements generated by hydro.

    3) Many countries utilize hydro electric for at or near 100% of their electricity generating requirements.

    In addition to the natural cycles of mother nature I can concede that mankind's activities are also contributing to global warming but I question whether carbon is the real culprit.

    Surely the possibility that merely HEAT from all the combustion processes occurring on the planet is contributing to atmospheric warming and I think that developing the emerging co-generative technologies that recycle heat into useful energy is worth pursuing.

  2. #52
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,089
    Quote Originally Posted by westozguy
    2) Many so called "third world countries" are amongst some of highest in terms of the percentage of their electricity requirements generated by hydro.

    3) Many countries utilize hydro electric for at or near 100% of their electricity generating requirements.
    You may consider that it is the geography that is responsible to that distribution. Also less industrialized countries have less use of electricity so one big dam can provide a large share of their needs. Hydroelectric power can contribute only a very small part of electricity globally. And electricity is only a small part of overall power needs.

    Quote Originally Posted by westozguy
    Surely the possibility that merely HEAT from all the combustion processes occurring on the planet is contributing to atmospheric warming and I think that developing the emerging co-generative technologies that recycle heat into useful energy is worth pursuing.
    You got to be kidding. The heat produced is miniscule on a global scale. It does contribute to local heating of big Cities, though.

    Utilizing waste heat from power production is possible and is done, but distributing that heat is not possible over larger distances. So its use is very restricted.

  3. #53
    Thailand Expat
    Little Chuchok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:36 PM
    Posts
    9,175
    What about the population of China? 1.3 billion of the bastards fart.That's a shed load of
    green house gas.

    Corks for the lot of 'em!

  4. #54
    Newbie westozguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Online
    11-05-2013 @ 06:32 PM
    Location
    South West corner of Oz/Phetchabun
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    You may consider that it is the geography that is responsible to that distribution.
    Partly, yes for sure, granted. I do believe though that many nations chose make an investment in hydro electric when indeed they could have built fuel based generating capacity for a lower cost. I also believe many nations chose not to go the path of hydro when indeed perhaps there are geographical situations within some of those countries where they could have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Also less industrialized countries have less use of electricity so one big dam can provide a large share of their needs. Hydroelectric power can contribute only a very small part of electricity globally.
    I am not saying hydro-electric can generate all or even most of the globe's electricity requirements, I do believe though it can and should be utilized more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    And electricity is only a small part of overall power needs.
    Besides transport, what other power needs do we need to consider?

    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    You got to be kidding. The heat produced is miniscule on a global scale. It does contribute to local heating of big Cities, though.
    No, I'm not kidding as a matter of fact. Considering that it's being said that a .5 degree Celsius average rise in global temperature is setting us on a path to catastrophe and if indeed that is true, then I don't believe "minuscule" is worth dismissing as irrelevant. That's the problem, everyone dismisses all these little parts of the equation as "minuscule" or of no consequence, oh my little bit is minuscule, it makes no difference.

    Okay, so maybe I'm wrong then tell me, where does this heat go? Can't deny it's being produced can we? The earth and it's atmosphere is a closed system isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Utilizing waste heat from power production is possible and is done, but distributing that heat is not possible over larger distances. So its use is very restricted.
    In some cases yes that's true, but if the technology were to be applied locally then there is potential to recover lost heat, for example:

    Only a very small portion (some 25 to 35%) of the energy produced by the burning of fuel in an internal combustion engine actually propels the vehicle, 65 to 75 % of the energy is dispersed as heat either out the exhaust pipe or dissipated through the cooling system. There are successful experiments taking place now that can recover much of that wasted energy, but of course it's minuscule, so it'll never happen.

  5. #55
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,089
    Quote Originally Posted by westozguy
    Besides transport, what other power needs do we need to consider?
    Transport is a big one.

    Heating in cooler climates is another big one. Part of that could indeed be done by utilizing heat loss of combustion engines. One suggested application is not putting boilers in the basement of buildings but motors and generators. The electricity can be fed into the grid and the heat is utilized in the building. A drawback of that method is the production of electricity is done only when the heat is needed. Big power plants are still required in standby for the time of the year when heating is not required. But it could be done.

    Huge amount of fossil fuels, particularly oil, go into processing of metal ores and products of the chemical industry. Fertilizers and pesticides are essential for food production at the scale needed for a growing population. Reducing the population to 1 or 2 billion pepople would help there.

    Quote Originally Posted by westozguy
    I am not saying hydro-electric can generate all or even most of the globe's electricity requirements, I do believe though it can and should be utilized more.
    My best guess is a large share is alredy utilized. I doubt that the output can even be doubled. I agree those souces should be tapped, but as always, environmentalists will disasgree.



    Quote Originally Posted by westozguy
    Okay, so maybe I'm wrong then tell me, where does this heat go? Can't deny it's being produced can we? The earth and it's atmosphere is a closed system isn't it?
    Yes it is produced, and as I said locally it may make a difference but not on a global scale. I will try to put together a few numbers.
    But first I post this before some error deletes all my typing.



    Quote Originally Posted by westozguy
    Only a very small portion (some 25 to 35%) of the energy produced by the burning of fuel in an internal combustion engine actually propels the vehicle, 65 to 75 % of the energy is dispersed as heat either out the exhaust pipe or dissipated through the cooling system. There are successful experiments taking place now that can recover much of that wasted energy,
    Could you point me to some example? Besides what I posted about heating.

  6. #56
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,089
    Here a rough calculation.

    The earth receives 173.000.000.000.000 kW. solar radiation. Part of that is reflected by clouds back into space, most of it will radiate as thermal radiation from the surface back into space so we have a balance.

    Total energy use of mankind in 2008 was 15.000.000.000 kW.

    173.000.000.000.000 kW kW solar energy
    15.000.000.000 kW energyconsumption by man.

    So roughly the sun provides 11.000 times more energy than we consume. The direct effect is very small. The effect through the greenhouse effect is much larger.

    The comparison however shows there is enough energy, we only must learn to use it.


    Edit: I add a comment on that closed system part.

    Quote Originally Posted by westozguy
    The earth and it's atmosphere is a closed system isn't it?
    No, it is an open system. Sunlight pours in and is absorbed by the water or soil and heats them up. The heat then radiates out as infrared radiation. There is a balance between incoming and outgoing amount of energy.
    Last edited by Takeovers; 29-06-2012 at 04:58 AM.

  7. #57
    Thailand Expat Hampsha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    31-08-2012 @ 07:47 PM
    Posts
    2,298
    Not really following this story lately but it did come to mind when I was in Laos a week ago. It was a sweating day in most of the city but I made my way to the Mekong River and things changed. The air was cool and moving along with the river. I wondered with all these dams going in around the world there must me some small impact on the water flow and so the air movement above these great rivers. That must have some overall effect. The rivers actually extend into the sky if you think about it. Whatever effect they have on the bigger picture that effect must be changing to some extent. Combine this with the changing rain patterns causing drought and who knows what effects these flows are or aren't having.

    Okay, that's my two cents. I just wanted to throw this out for those the junior scientists out there.


  8. #58
    Thailand Expat Humbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:56 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,598
    If, miraculously, every vehicle on the planet including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, trains and planes stopped functioning today the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere would only be reduced by 14%. The solution will require a much bigger shift from our dependance on fossil fuels for business, industry, home use etc. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reach double the amount it was at the start of the industrial revolution by 2050 and that will be the tipping point for the planet unless we act seriously about this problem. If we do not start getting serious about finding more renewable energy sources we are in for a period of climatic chaos beyond imagining.

  9. #59
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert
    If we do not start getting serious about finding more renewable energy sources we are in for a period of climatic chaos beyond imagining.
    I agree. However it is a process that will need time. Pouring now multi-billions of Dollars or Euro into the problem with the wrong approach it is not going to do any good. That is why I believe we need geoengineering as a stopgap solution, to buy time to find solutions.

    One prime example for the wrong approach is our german program to subisdize solar panels on the roofs of private houses. It costs several billions of Euro per year, it does no good at all because the amount of electricity produced is very small. And the german solar industry is now getting bankrupt anyway as the solar panels are built cheaper in China. And it was obvious from day one that the measure would fail.

    The money would be better spent by investing it into a better european grid and placing solar farms in Spain or southern Italy. Even better in solar farms in northern Africa, but there we have the problem of political instability.

  10. #60
    Thailand Expat Cthulhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    03-05-2013 @ 07:59 PM
    Location
    *classified*
    Posts
    1,800
    I don't believe anyone doubts the climate is changing - it does so all the time. In addition to this thing called "seasons" (where the climate changes regionally across 365 days), there's cycles of climate changes that happen in 22 year cycles, and also much larger cycles that repeat every 5,000, 10,000, and 15,000 years... and we're quite on schedule for another of those ....

    The far more pressing question, which most walarmists seem unwilling to answer, is "what are we going to do about it".

    I just do not happen to believe that human industry and activity is responsible for 100% of any climactic changes, seeing as how none of that was present 5,000, 10,000, and 15,000 years ago.

    Also, a far more pressing issue is that fact that in 50 years, there will be 5-6 billion ADDITIONAL people competing for resources, and then it really won't matter much if we're a bit more sweaty or not.

  11. #61
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu
    I just do not happen to believe that human industry and activity is responsible for 100% of any climactic changes
    Nobody is claiming that. But it is quite obvious that we are responsible for the present climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu
    Also, a far more pressing issue is that fact that in 50 years, there will be 5-6 billion ADDITIONAL people competing for resources,
    Agree!

  12. #62
    Thailand Expat Cthulhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    03-05-2013 @ 07:59 PM
    Location
    *classified*
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu
    I just do not happen to believe that human industry and activity is responsible for 100% of any climactic changes
    Nobody is claiming that. But it is quite obvious that we are responsible for the present climate change.
    So, you are saying that nobody is claiming humans are responsible for the current climate, but it is quite obvious that humans are responsible for the current climate change?

    I'm confused by what you write.

  13. #63
    Thailand Expat Cthulhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    03-05-2013 @ 07:59 PM
    Location
    *classified*
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Even better in solar farms in northern Africa, but there we have the problem of political instability.
    Easily solved by providing "military assistance" and enforcing cooperation with a very heavy iron fist.

  14. #64
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu
    So, you are saying that nobody is claiming humans are responsible for the current climate, but it is quite obvious that humans are responsible for the current climate change?
    I was only referring to your wording as quoted below. Nobody claims industrialization is responsible for climate changes 5.000, 10.000, or 15.000 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu
    I just do not happen to believe that human industry and activity is responsible for 100% of any climactic changes, seeing as how none of that was present 5,000, 10,000, and 15,000 years ago.
    But the present changes are quite clearly linked to human activities. I have learned in school 50 years ago about the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 and its influence on the climate.

    Now we have changed the level of CO2 in the atmosphere quite dramatically. Who would believe that has no consequences?

    I will readily agree that climatology is complex and at present we cannot exactly quantify those consequences. But the data show there are quite rapid changes and they correlate to the CO2 increase.

    I will also agree that alarmists emphasize the negative changes and deny possible advantages and see that as a problem to the credibility of the warnings. But the risks are severe and we should do something now.

  15. #65
    Thailand Expat Humbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:56 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,598
    The effect of solar heating caused by the elliptical path of the earth around the sun has already been factored into the calculations on climate change. The warming that is leading us to a tipping point is caused by greenhouse gases. I hope we have the time and will to meet the challenge.

  16. #66
    Ocean Transient Sailing into trouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    06-05-2017 @ 02:55 PM
    Location
    Untied from dock. Heading South Down West Coast of Canada.
    Posts
    3,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus Jones
    No one is denying climate change. However, the man made theory is just a scam which is being coined based on natural climate change.
    Technically speaking that is

    BOLLOCKS

    Actually there is no debate. Not scientific, the multi national energy sector did hire a cadre of scientists to refute the world wide scientific data. However their credentials as scientists was somewhat tainted by their previous "scientific theory support that smoking does not effect your health" .

    O yes I wonder who payed for those scientific studies?

    A practical side of the science is that global warming does not mean that every place on the planet will get warmer meaning more sunshine. Unfortunately it means many temperate zones will have more rain and stormy weather as well. Tropical areas generally will see an increase in temperature.

    As an elderly lance corporal often exclaimed we are doomed doomed I tell ye! (Jonesy from Dads Army.)

    Keep Killing trees, Keep destroying the Ozone, Pump out millions of tons of carbon each year, what do we expect.

  17. #67
    Banned
    Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    16-12-2016 @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    44,058
    Check out Britain’s Worst Summer Ever:

    “Britain is facing its ‘worst ever’ summer with cold wet weather ruining family holidays and blighting the Olympics, forecasters warned last night.”

    So, the Brits can comfort themselves with the knowledge that what they’re experiencing is merely variable weather, while the United States is experiencing climate change?



  18. #68
    Thailand Expat Cthulhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    03-05-2013 @ 07:59 PM
    Location
    *classified*
    Posts
    1,800
    I think it's commonly called "Seasons".

  19. #69
    Thailand Expat
    robuzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    19-12-2015 @ 05:51 PM
    Location
    Paese dei Balocchi
    Posts
    7,848

    Russia is burning

    Bad news: Fires in Siberia : Natural Hazards (is having photo at link)
    Russian firefighters have battled uncontrolled fires for months. According to the environmental group Greenpeace, more land in Russia had burned in 2012 than in 2010, a year that intense wildfires affected western Russia. ITAR-TASS reported that more than 1,826 forest fires had burned a total of 195,800 hectares in the Far East of Russia.
    ---
    Of course, that is from NASA and they are in on the conspiracy- as Charlie Pierce so beautifully puts it, "As we all know, climate scientists dreamed up this whole climate-change business so that they could all get rich enough from those sweet government grants to buy up all the oil companies and turn their headquarters into vegetarian tattoo parlors."

    And Hongkouver, it's the new Singapore:
    Hazy B.C. skies caused by Russian forest fires - British Columbia - CBC News
    Smoke from massive wildfires in eastern Russia is creating hazy skies above British Columbia, and pushing ozone levels up to record levels in some parts of the province's Interior.

    Experts say the haze, which has blocked mountain views and creates spectacular sunsets, is mostly from fires burning in Siberia.

    Ken Reid, Metro Vancouver's superintendent of environmental sampling and monitoring, says the smoke is drifting across the Pacific at several thousand metres before being forced to lower altitudes as it approaches B.C.

    Meteorologist Eric Taylor, from the B.C. Ministry of Environment, says he has never seen ozone levels as high in B.C.'s central Interior as he has seen the last few days.
    You can lead a horticulture but you cant make her think. Dorothy Parker

  20. #70
    Thailand Expat Mr Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:46 AM
    Location
    In the Jungle of Love
    Posts
    13,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    But it is quite obvious that we are responsible for the present climate change!
    How is that obvious?

    The earth have been going through heating and cooling cycles for millions of years.
    The cycles have been determined scientifically to run about 16000 year periods. They figure we are near the end of the current cycle give or take a few thousand years.

    To conclude that the past 50 years of human activity is anything other than a slight blip on the chart is one giant leap of logic.

    Scientists not parlay in the political "global warming" hysteria generally agree the cycles are caused by solar flare activity, from observed geological evidence in the rocks.

    If anything the "greenhouse gasses" are more likely to precipitate a cooling period because they block/reflect/filter solar radiation.
    From the Gospel of Earl

  21. #71
    Thailand Expat Humbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:56 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Earl
    To conclude that the past 50 years of human activity is anything other than a slight blip on the chart is one giant leap of logic.
    No, you have the science wrong. Those solar influences are factored into the models on global warming. The only explanation in the rise in temperature is the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels, burning and agriculture.

  22. #72
    Member Umbuku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Earl
    The cycles have been determined scientifically to run about 16000 year periods. They figure we are near the end of the current cycle give or take a few thousand years.
    More complicated than that. There are several periodic cycles that overlap and then there is the somewhat erratic solar cycles which we cannot be certain of in the past. The orbital cycles are at 24,000 years and 100,000 years approximately, with smaller glacial periods at 24,000, major periods at 100,000 and extreme periods when they happen to coincide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Earl
    Scientists not parlay in the political "global warming" hysteria generally agree the cycles are caused by solar flare activity, from observed geological evidence in the rocks.
    This is somewhat new research and concerns not only emissions from the Sun but form other stellar events like supernova explosions in our neighbourhood in the past. It is being assimilated into the overall data on global warming but may take a few more years before it is considered canon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Earl
    If anything the "greenhouse gasses" are more likely to precipitate a cooling period because they block/reflect/filter solar radiation.
    No. Completely wrong. The GHGs do not block most incoming radiation as it is long wave. They do block and reflect the shorter waves of reflected and radiated energy from the Earth thereby trapping energy in the atmosphere.
    The only difference between saints and sinners is that every saint has a past while every sinner has a future.

  23. #73
    Thailand Expat Jesus Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    22-09-2017 @ 11:00 AM
    Posts
    6,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu
    I just do not happen to believe that human industry and activity is responsible for 100% of any climactic changes
    Nobody is claiming that. But it is quite obvious that we are responsible for the present climate change.
    So, you are saying that nobody is claiming humans are responsible for the current climate, but it is quite obvious that humans are responsible for the current climate change?

    I'm confused by what you write.

    Me too! But i''l let you slog it out!
    You bullied, you laughed, you lied, you lost!

  24. #74
    Banned
    Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    16-12-2016 @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    44,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Earl
    To conclude that the past 50 years of human activity is anything other than a slight blip on the chart is one giant leap of logic.
    No, you have the science wrong. Those solar influences are factored into the models on global warming. The only explanation in the rise in temperature is the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels, burning and agriculture.
    Are you quite sure about that?

    Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now and world has been cooling for 2,000 years.

    MMGW is a hoax...

  25. #75
    Thailand Expat Humbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:56 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,598
    ^You didn't bother to read your own article.

    German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate
    to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia
    until the global warming of the twentieth century.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •