USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
climate change times are a changin'
- Thread starter huskyfan
- Start date
- Status
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: climate change times are a changin'
This is the worst kind of argument. The absolute worst kind. It's borderline fraudulent.
So because someone made a prediction based on what they knew at the time and it turned out wrong, we can discredit them forever about any other topic? **** me.
Edit: And for ****'s sake, in the 1970s a supercomputer was about as powerful as a couple of iPhones are now. It would take years if not decades to run the kind of complex, multivariable calculations they can now with the supercomputer farms popping up all over the world.
In the early 1970s, a substantial number of respected academics were projecting that the world would run out of oil by 2025 (i.e., in 50 years, from then). They extrapolated based on then-current usage, and looked at all the then-known reserves available, and of course, given their initial assumptions, those calculations seemed eminently reasonable to them at the time.
In the fable about the boy who cried "wolf," the wolf did eventually come....
This is the worst kind of argument. The absolute worst kind. It's borderline fraudulent.
So because someone made a prediction based on what they knew at the time and it turned out wrong, we can discredit them forever about any other topic? **** me.
Edit: And for ****'s sake, in the 1970s a supercomputer was about as powerful as a couple of iPhones are now. It would take years if not decades to run the kind of complex, multivariable calculations they can now with the supercomputer farms popping up all over the world.
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Oh, stop it. Science has a long history of getting things somewhat, if not totally wrong, and not having a very good record of admitting this is the case. There's lots of examples like this. The lesson is not to throw out science, but to have a healthy skepticism, especially in areas where science is speculative, unsettled, and/or reliant on computer models of questionable accuracy to tell you what things will be like far into the future.
Oh, stop it. Science has a long history of getting things somewhat, if not totally wrong, and not having a very good record of admitting this is the case. There's lots of examples like this. The lesson is not to throw out science, but to have a healthy skepticism, especially in areas where science is speculative, unsettled, and/or reliant on computer models of questionable accuracy to tell you what things will be like far into the future.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Again, why? Is there some magic wand out there I don't know about that will get efficiency up?
Again, why? Is there some magic wand out there I don't know about that will get efficiency up?
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Efficiency is irrelevant. The numbers don't work even if you assume 100% efficiency. Now if we could get 200%....
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Yeah, you guys are right. Let's just give up. Research has never gotten us anywhere.
It was once "impossible" to survive Mach 1. But we did. It was once thought terrestrial nuclear fission was a pipe dream. But it wasn't. Hell, even flight was once deemed impossible.
Breakthroughs happen.
But I suppose the alternative is just as acceptable.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Seeking_a_Friend_for_the_End_of_the_World_Poster.jpg
Yeah, you guys are right. Let's just give up. Research has never gotten us anywhere.
It was once "impossible" to survive Mach 1. But we did. It was once thought terrestrial nuclear fission was a pipe dream. But it wasn't. Hell, even flight was once deemed impossible.
Breakthroughs happen.
But I suppose the alternative is just as acceptable.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Seeking_a_Friend_for_the_End_of_the_World_Poster.jpg
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Of course breakthroughs happen. I didn't say that there *won't* be a breakthrough that gets us to 80% efficient PV conversion - I said that even if we do get that breakthrough, solar still can't be our primary power source as a replacement for fossil fuels. I'm not talking about the liklibood of the breakthrough, just the impacts once it does occur.
Of course breakthroughs happen. I didn't say that there *won't* be a breakthrough that gets us to 80% efficient PV conversion - I said that even if we do get that breakthrough, solar still can't be our primary power source as a replacement for fossil fuels. I'm not talking about the liklibood of the breakthrough, just the impacts once it does occur.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Fair enough. I honestly believe that within 25-30 years, we'll see a big increase in the number of houses in the southern states generating their own power. Maybe not enough to run an A/C, but certainly enough to dampen the load on the power plants.
I wouldn't be shocked to see California mandate them within the next 50 years.
Fair enough. I honestly believe that within 25-30 years, we'll see a big increase in the number of houses in the southern states generating their own power. Maybe not enough to run an A/C, but certainly enough to dampen the load on the power plants.
I wouldn't be shocked to see California mandate them within the next 50 years.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Here is a question for those more versed with the numbers. If we removed coal burning plants and replaced with sunlight power plants with steam generation, how much does that reduce our footprint without removing automobiles? I ask because I have heard many times that it will be difficult to change the world to electric cars simply because there isn't enough of the right metals to make enough batteries.
As far as efficiency goes, I did watch last Sunday's The Cosmos. I'm surprised that no one has done the heat up water with sunlight in really warm places and turn it into steam to power generators...versus the photo voltaic cells.
Here is a question for those more versed with the numbers. If we removed coal burning plants and replaced with sunlight power plants with steam generation, how much does that reduce our footprint without removing automobiles? I ask because I have heard many times that it will be difficult to change the world to electric cars simply because there isn't enough of the right metals to make enough batteries.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: climate change times are a changin'
I think electric cars, until we find a better way to distribute electricity, are not going to work on a large scale. The demand on the power grid would be too much right now. Maybe in another 40-50 years we could see such improvements to the grid, but the cost would be enormous. Or maybe not. Maybe if we can improve the efficiency of the major national transmission lines (maybe not the actual conductivity, but look at how we can improve sag and reduce overall length of the lines thereby reducing the overall resistance of the line - things like that).
Regarding your question:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html
It looks like transportation accounts for about 28% of our GHG emissions.
Even more details:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html
I think electric cars, until we find a better way to distribute electricity, are not going to work on a large scale. The demand on the power grid would be too much right now. Maybe in another 40-50 years we could see such improvements to the grid, but the cost would be enormous. Or maybe not. Maybe if we can improve the efficiency of the major national transmission lines (maybe not the actual conductivity, but look at how we can improve sag and reduce overall length of the lines thereby reducing the overall resistance of the line - things like that).
Regarding your question:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html
It looks like transportation accounts for about 28% of our GHG emissions.
Even more details:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html
Re: climate change times are a changin'
It sounds like you completely misinterpreted what I said. I said that today's "experts" should learn from the mistakes of the past "experts" and temper their apocalyptic predictions a bit if they want to retain credibiilty. So your comment actually supports what I said.
It sounds like you completely misinterpreted what I said. I said that today's "experts" should learn from the mistakes of the past "experts" and temper their apocalyptic predictions a bit if they want to retain credibiilty. So your comment actually supports what I said.
Re: climate change times are a changin'
We had this same conversation last year. A finely tuned internal combustion engine will always provide better all-around energy efficiency, especially when you take into account the environmental consequences of battery production on a wide scale. The problem with the internal combusion engine is in the transmission: you need the engine to run at a constant speed. Use a constant-speed engine to power a generator instead of a variable-speed motor to power a car. (there are people here who know way more than I do who can explain the technology better, last discussion someone referred to "clean diesel" or something like that). Battery-powered cars don't reduce energy usage at all; they actually increase it. you just don't see where and how.
We had this same conversation last year. A finely tuned internal combustion engine will always provide better all-around energy efficiency, especially when you take into account the environmental consequences of battery production on a wide scale. The problem with the internal combusion engine is in the transmission: you need the engine to run at a constant speed. Use a constant-speed engine to power a generator instead of a variable-speed motor to power a car. (there are people here who know way more than I do who can explain the technology better, last discussion someone referred to "clean diesel" or something like that). Battery-powered cars don't reduce energy usage at all; they actually increase it. you just don't see where and how.
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Some of us don't assume breakthroughs will come when and how we want them, so we realize that you have to plan for what to do if you don't get the breakthrough you hope for.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: climate change times are a changin'
Don't assume you can rely on stuff that isn't in existence yet would be a good start.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
So what is your plan?
- Status