Select to expand quoteIan K said..D3 said..
We're not expecting everyone to go "cold turkey " on fossil fuels, but we're asking for assistance to reduce their use.
Had to pass the nose of an idling DCU on the way to Coles. It's already hot today. passing the nose of a hot diesel doesn't help. Now the compressor in an AC unit takes about a kW. A DCU burns about 1.5 litres per hour at idle. Heat of combustion of diesel is 44.8 Mj/litre. So that's 1.5 X 44.8X1000/3600 kilojoules per second. = 18.8 kW! To run a 1 kW AC compressor! It takes a lot of energy to slide those pistons up and down. Way more than to turn the compressor. Got to be the most wasteful use of fossil fuel on the planet.
Anyway, he was still idling when I came by again with all the groceries.
Or the lastest trend in engines for eco sailboats, have electric propulsion running off batteries and a diesel genset to charge them.
Interesting how all globalist propaganda has one thing in common - it's turns out to be bull dust given the fullness of that beautiful natural truth we refer to as "time":
time.com/archive/6878023/another-ice-age/
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Strange how time caught up with Time.
Did you look at the date??????
TIME
June 24, 1974 12:00 AM EDT
Back then it looked a lot different to now!!!!!
It's you that has a problem with time. half a century out of date.
Select to expand quotecammd said..Ian K said..D3 said..
We're not expecting everyone to go "cold turkey " on fossil fuels, but we're asking for assistance to reduce their use.
Had to pass the nose of an idling DCU on the way to Coles. It's already hot today. passing the nose of a hot diesel doesn't help. Now the compressor in an AC unit takes about a kW. A DCU burns about 1.5 litres per hour at idle. Heat of combustion of diesel is 44.8 Mj/litre. So that's 1.5 X 44.8X1000/3600 kilojoules per second. = 18.8 kW! To run a 1 kW AC compressor! It takes a lot of energy to slide those pistons up and down. Way more than to turn the compressor. Got to be the most wasteful use of fossil fuel on the planet.
Anyway, he was still idling when I came by again with all the groceries.
Or the lastest trend in engines for eco sailboats, have electric propulsion running off batteries and a diesel genset to charge them.
Is it a similar reason as having diesel electric locomotives? Maybe the engine can be more efficient at a certain load and the electric motor can be more efficient at the speed it is run at?
Unless of course these people are crazy, or maybe they are just hoping that they will get enough charge from solar?
Sort of like those people that cover their roof in solar cells and expects to be paid for it by the government/everybody else ;-p
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
Interesting how all globalist propaganda has one thing in common - it's turns out to be bull dust given the fullness of that beautiful natural truth we refer to as "time":
time.com/archive/6878023/another-ice-age/
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Strange how time caught up with Time.
It's almost like humans have educated themselves in the last 50 years. Peacenlove, not so much.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
America wasn't great in 1974. Cost of living doesn't seem as bad though.... Does Seabreeze still employ that pedantic fart checker?
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Back in 1974 atmospheric CO2 was at 331 ppm, up 51ppm on pre-industrial levels.
Today atmospheric CO2 is at 424 ppm up 144pp on pre-industrial levels.
And back then scientists knew about CO2. You can go to the lab, put it in a bottle and shine light of various frequencies through it. Did they forecast what it would be today under a carry-on-as-normal scenario?
Wikepiea says this.
The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed as early as 1824 by Joseph Fourier.[2] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapour than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide.[3][4]
John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorption and emission of various gases and vapors. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapor, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect.[5] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Wikepiea says this.
The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed as early as 1824 by Joseph Fourier.[2] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapour than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide.[3][4]
John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorption and emission of various gases and vapors. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapor, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect.[5] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Wikipedia is influenced by "woke" ideologies due to its open-editing model, which allows contributors with activist agendas to dominate certain topics. Articles on contentious subjects like gender, race, climate change or history frequently reflect progressive biases, emphasizing viewpoints aligned with social justice narratives while marginalizing conservative perspectives.
Editorial policies favour sources and interpretations consistent with prevailing cultural trends rather than balanced academic discourse. This results in articles that prioritize activism over objectivity, fostering skepticism about Wikipedia's reliability as a truly impartial resource for contested topics.
Is that a valid arguement brother?
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..>>>Is that a valid arguement brother?
Yes I agree, it could be biased, or even non factual, that's why I posted the source.
But I guess it's a matter of history who did what when.
But I have no idea about reliable history data, or where to look for it.
So take it as you find it.
Just did a search on Fourier. Britanica has a lot to say about him, but doesn't mention anything about CO2.
But he was a great mathematician and got interested in heat and the weather, so it's possible this was a minor thing in his life and Britannica didn't think worth mentioning.
the Fourier series is named after him.
So how reliable is the Royal Institution.
Because there is a similar story here.
www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/who-discovered-greenhouse-effect
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..myscreenname said..>>>Is that a valid arguement brother?
Yes I agree, it could be biased, or even non factual, that's why I posted the source.
But I guess it's a matter of history who did what when.
But I have no idea about reliable history data, or where to look for it.
So take it as you find it.
While I agree Wikipedia is not the oracle of truth, in its defence it does have systems (talk pages, dispute resolution, and arbitration committees) designed to enforce neutrality. These systems were implemented to reduce undue influence by a small group of editors.
Second, Wikipedia has a Reliable Sources Policy where it prioritises information from verifiable and published sources.
Finally, the open-editing model also allows for corrections, meaning that biases/perspectives can be challenged over time. Not perfect, but not dominated by 'woke' ideology either. Eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
Given that academics are often the contributors of information that meets Wiki's criteria, it's probably not surprising to see a centrist or left leaning bias.
Select to expand quotefangman said..
While I agree Wikipedia is not the oracle of truth, in its defence it does have systems (talk pages, dispute resolution, and arbitration committees) designed to enforce neutrality. These systems were implemented to reduce undue influence by a small group of editors.
Second, Wikipedia has a Reliable Sources Policy where it prioritises information from verifiable and published sources.
Finally, the open-editing model also allows for corrections, meaning that biases/perspectives can be challenged over time. Not perfect, but not dominated by 'woke' ideology either. Eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
Given that academics are often the contributors of information that meets Wiki's criteria, it's probably not surprising to see a centrist or left leaning bias.
Sorry brothers, I've a confession to make . I just punched into chat gpt:
Create a one hundred word argument that Wikipedia is written by wokes.
I then edited it slightly to suit. I thought the output was quite good.
Wikipedia, is one of the best things that came from the invention of the internet.
I usually take Wikipedia as being pretty good on stuff that has no consequence for controversial matters. Climate change is controversial but whether it was first brought up in 1824 or 1974 is hardly critical to the current arguments. And I'd think the more fundamental aspects of the science, the absorption bands of CO2 etc are likely to be correct (? )
But once the individual well-established components of the sciences are added up in computer models it becomes a complex science. (A complex system is one where knowing how all the components of the system work does not allow one to predict how the system as a whole behaves.)
I don't believe anyone who says this is what the climate will be like in 100 years +- quite a few degrees. .
I added "climate change" to the list of controversial subjects that Chat GPT outputed.
Select to expand quoteIan K said.
Back in 1974 atmospheric CO2 was at 331 ppm, up 51ppm on pre-industrial levels.
Today atmospheric CO2 is at 424 ppm up 144pp on pre-industrial levels.
And back then scientists knew about CO2. You can go to the lab, put it in a bottle and shine light of various frequencies through it. Did they forecast what it would be today under a carry-on-as-normal scenario?
Are you measuring the CO2 in the city, in the forest, or above the seagrass in Shark Bay?
I think various scientific groups have research bases all over the globe, including the poles.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
I added "climate change" to the list of controversial subjects that Chat GPT outputed.
I just asked Chat if peacenlove was a AI bot. Chat reckons peacenlove is human. Chat was relieved.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..Ian K said.
Back in 1974 atmospheric CO2 was at 331 ppm, up 51ppm on pre-industrial levels.
Today atmospheric CO2 is at 424 ppm up 144pp on pre-industrial levels.
And back then scientists knew about CO2. You can go to the lab, put it in a bottle and shine light of various frequencies through it. Did they forecast what it would be today under a carry-on-as-normal scenario?
Are you measuring the CO2 in the city, in the forest, or above the seagrass in Shark Bay?
Mauna Loa is the site used for reference. It is top of a mountain in Hawaii exposed to well mixed air and been recording since the 1950s.. Other stations around the world may read a little higher or lower, depending on their proximity to cities or seagrassy-like sinks but they all have the same trend and relative rise.
gml.noaa.gov/obop/mlo/
Thanks for introducing me to Sabine! She makes a lot of sense, and gives a good evaluation of her sources.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Thanks for introducing me to Sabine! She makes a lot of sense, and gives a good evaluation of her sources.
You sure? You can while away hours watching Sabine's videos. (Or maybe it's her German sense of humour. Just got my DNA analysis back)
Trump's nuclear warming??????
Is he talking about the natural slow fission of geological radioactive material?
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Trump's nuclear warming??????
Is he talking about the natural slow fission of geological radioactive material?
Well according to Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget#:~:text=Despite%20its%20geological%20significance%2C%20Earth%27s%20interior%20heat%20contributes,of%20the%20planet%27s%20atmospheric%2C%20oceanic%2C%20and%20biologic%20processes.
"Earth's interior heat contributes only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation."
I tend to believe Wikipedia on this one.
yes, and I would assume, that's relatively stable, not suddenly going to ramp up.
Select to expand quotehitch_hiker said..>>>asiatoday.id/read/catastrophic-fire-at-australian-lithium-mine
Pravda also has this, looks like a Russian beat up. I can't find it on any other news source.
But there is a bush fire new Mt Holland.
Anyway it's not the lithium ore on fire, it's non flammable.
SECTION 5 FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES
FIRE EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: This product is not flammable. Use fire extinguishing material appropriate for
surrounding fire.
SPECIFIC FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: None known.
Explosion Sensitivity to Mechanical Impact: Not sensitive.
Explosion Sensitivity to Static Discharge: Not sensitive.
SPECIAL FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES: Incipient fire responders should wear eye
protection. Structural firefighters must wear Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus and full protective equipment.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Trump's nuclear warming??????
Is he talking about the natural slow fission of geological radioactive material?
This one took me a while to figure out. As far as I can see in the press, 'Nuclear Warming' is a Trump specific term. What it means is a bit confusing. He implies that the nuclear weapons in the world, if detonated would cause a warming effect. I guess if you where close to ground zero that would be true, but the total amount of energy in all the warheads that current exist, is about 1/10,000of what the earth receives every day from the sun, so the detonations themselves are not the warming problem.
The ensuring wildfires and destruction will throw up a lot of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and it is expected the earth might rise by 1 degree over a rear. I guess this is the bit Trump is worried about, but I am not sure whether this fits with all his other narratives on CO2 and climate change... Seems like marlarky to me. Regardless, the consensus is that Nuclear Winter will set in after one year and the temperatures will plunge along with the multiple ecosystems
