|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 26, 2019 12:35:56 GMT 1
You think I am sensitive yet you call me insulting for simply saying "My bet is that is that you are not going to tell us how and when this was proven" - a sentence devoid of insult. All you had to do was ask, whereupon I would have answered, being a polite and reasonable sort of chap, unlike the sort you imply. Either you do not understand English, the meaning of the words you use, or you're self-deluded - or quite simply, a liar, and a stupid one, who thinks others are as stupid and can't see through your lies. All you had to do was ask. The evidence is abundant, if you're interested. But clearly you are not, else you would know this already. You can fuck off now, you obnoxious dimwit. You're not worth a second of my time - henceforth I'm blanking you: at least, until a day might arrive when you can manage to be civil. Exactly. You didn't answer the question either. As you didn't about a single piece of scientific evidence that the AGW theory has ever not been falsified. I don't blame you for not knowing, you're plainly wholly ignorant of the subject - but I do blame you for trying to pretend otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 26, 2019 12:51:53 GMT 1
"All you had to do was ask" - but we have heard this before from you, many times, when you came out with your other fantasies. The previous time was something about there being scientific proof of some diet being a certain cure for cancer. All that we got, after many polite requests, was, if I remember rightly, a Youtube video. What a waste of time!
You don't provide evidence of your outlandish claims, so you resort to gratuitous insults. You cannot even tell me when I have been uncivil.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Apr 26, 2019 23:03:36 GMT 1
The correlation between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and various indicators of increased global surface temperature is undeniable (except by politicians).
The causation is far from clear.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 27, 2019 9:11:58 GMT 1
The correlation between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and various indicators of increased global surface temperature is undeniable (except by politicians). The causation is far from clear. But you do say "There are plenty of reasons for reducing CO2 emissions".
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Apr 27, 2019 17:17:25 GMT 1
Yes. Principally because the present rate of burning carbon fuel is unsustainable and will eventually lead to a world war or global starvation, and secondly to test the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. If only it were!
The worst possible outcome is discovering that the CO2 climate scaremongers are wrong, and the climate is going to hell in a handcart anyway, as has happened many times before, due to the inevitable cycle of atmospheric water. At the point of that discovery, we are going to have to make some very serious changes in the way humans think about and run the world.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 27, 2019 18:13:57 GMT 1
So, really, you are basically in favour of what these protesters in London want ie cuts in pollution in carbon emissions, though probably you disagree that Britain's emissions should be cut to zero by 2025. Nor do I. There is a some reasoning to the protesters going to London and Edinburgh, because those places have harmful particulate pollution in their city centres, but they are supposed to be "saving the World". I'm a bit miffed that a girl from Norway comes here to lecture us, when the UK happens to have been one of the most active countries in cleaing up its act. The UK is now emitting less carbon dioxide than it did in 1899. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-28/u-k-returns-to-victorian-times-as-lower-coal-use-cuts-emissions Other countries, like China and USA still pollute far more.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Apr 27, 2019 19:04:01 GMT 1
You have put your finger on several problems.
There is no way that governments can reach a worldwide accord on anything until everyone enjoys a western lifestyle. This requires between 5 and 15 kilowatts per capita depending on your latitude, and a bit more if you want to travel. Unfortunately there is no sustainable source that can reliably produce that amount of power, and no means of producing a wholly electric transport system without burning an awful lot of oil to make the vehicles.
The supposed urban particulate problem needs better explanation. The number of people in the UK dying from respiratory diseases other than bacterial pneumonia has decreased every year since the 1950s, but road traffic has increased, so there's no evidence that the diesel particulates which have replaced coal soot (from domestic grates more than any other source) are actually harmful compared with the benefits of door-to-door transport that doesn't fill the streets with horse shit. The death of high street retail and the growth of home office working means that cities are rapidly becoming redundant anyway. Almost anyone who wears a suit to go to work, might as well stay at home.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 27, 2019 20:07:10 GMT 1
The reason why deaths from respiratory diseases since the 1950s has gone down might be due to large reduction in smoking, as well as the implementation of smoke free zones (ie banning coal fires). You will be aware of the terrible smogs of the 1950s, which killed thousands in London. Better medical care might also be a factor in the reduction in such fatalities. By the 5 to 15 kilowatts I think you mean the installed capacity? You're not saying that each person wants to consume at a rate of 5 kilowatts of energy minute of every day. I think the energy usage of most people averages out at about 2 kilowatts, constant, but, as you say, there needs to be installed capacity to meet the demand peaks, obviously. We are being told that sustainable energy can be generated at about$2000 a kilowatt. Biomass burning will be used on calm nights. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Apr 28, 2019 0:06:26 GMT 1
Yes, 5 to 15 kW consumption averaged over a year. You pay directly for about 2 kW of domestic heat, light and power, but every drop of mains water you consume has been sterilised and pumped to you by the expenditure of energy. Every ounce of food was grown, directly or indirectly with an artificial fertiliser that consumes 1- 2% of the world's power, then harvested processed chilled and transported to a shop qwhere another kilowatt of light and airconditioning held it until you got on your 200 kW bus (you wouldn't use a 50 kW car 'cos that ain't green!)....and so forth. As you know, it takes as much energy to make a car as it consumes in its lifetime, but that still doesn't include the energy expended to refine and transport the fuel to where you buy it.
The energy input to make a pint of beer is about 5 kWh - more if it's in a bottle.
Stuff you aren't actually using at the moment, like street lights, hospitals, empty trains, all the airconditioning in the railway and bus stations....is all burning power that defines your lifestyle because unlike a naked savage on a desert island, you can get whatever you want whenever you want it. If you are a carnivore, there is about 3 times your body weight of livestock on the hoof (10,000,000 cows, 25,000,000 sheep, 5,000,000 pigs and god knows how many chickens, in the UK) waiting for you to eat it, and burning about 1 kW of food just being alive, plus all the energy costs of getting the feed to them and the slurry away from them.
Some jobs are particularly energy-intensive. My MRI clinic employed 5 people per shift and burned 250 kW, so each of them could add an average of about 15 kW to their personal consumption. A small cafe or pub kitchen runs at 50 kW with maybe a crew of 2, and a couple of staff at front-of-house with lights and refrigerators....say 5 - 10 kW per head. UK manufacturing industry overall has an installed capacity of about 10 kW per head useful power, plus all the "hidden energy" in its raw materials. And so it stacks up. Overall the UK used 180,000,000 tonnes of oil equivalent last year, say 3 tonnes per capita. This actually works out at about 5 kW per head, so perhaps my arithmetic is slipping,
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 28, 2019 6:43:12 GMT 1
Some of the energy is free, for example some of the cow's food is grass which has been grown in the sunshine (the energy cost of the fertiliser to help the grass grow will be a lot less I think).
Yes of course there are a multitude of ways that we use up artificially-generated energy. The amount of energy the Sun pours onto the Earth is far bigger than that, and ideally we will be able to harvest more of it, directly or indirectly.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Apr 29, 2019 10:41:51 GMT 1
"Free" isn't the point. Every acre of grass that supports a cow, can't support a solar electricity panel or a hydroelectric storage scheme.
If you harvest more of the sun's energy by any means, your ultimate objective is to turn it into low-grade heat so you will just be warming the planet more than if you allowed it to re-radiate into space.
Back to my dodgy arithmetic: the UK per capita consumption of course refers to energy actually expended in the UK. Around half of our food and nearly all of our raw materials is imported, so the western lifestyle does indeed require around 10 kW per capita.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Apr 29, 2019 11:48:53 GMT 1
Now that I simply don't understand. If you harvest the energy of the sun and as you say turn it effectively into low grade heat that heat, in whatever form will surely eventually re-radiate into space? I did some work on solar panels for heating houses with a university in S Wales some years ago and if I remember right the sun generates around 1 Kw of heat per Metre squared.
Nor as an aside do I understand how a woman gluing her breasts to the road, or a gang of people lying on the floor in Waitrose is going to solve anything. My initial thought with the woman on the road was 'fetch a good scraper'
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Apr 29, 2019 18:22:44 GMT 1
The rate of heat loss by radiation depends on the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the body (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). Which is why the desert can freeze overnight. 1 kW/sq m is a fair average for the tropics in direct sunlight. It is advertising puff for South Wales, where mean solar irradiance is between 34 and 250 W/sq m depending on the season. 100 W/sq m is probably recoverable as heat, or 30 - 50 W/sq m as electricity. www.reuk.co.uk/wordpress/solar/solar-insolation/
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 29, 2019 21:07:03 GMT 1
"Free" isn't the point. Every acre of grass that supports a cow, can't support a solar electricity panel or a hydroelectric storage scheme. If you harvest more of the sun's energy by any means, your ultimate objective is to turn it into low-grade heat so you will just be warming the planet more than if you allowed it to re-radiate into space. Back to my dodgy arithmetic: the UK per capita consumption of course refers to energy actually expended in the UK. Around half of our food and nearly all of our raw materials is imported, so the western lifestyle does indeed require around 10 kW per capita. Well yes, every acre supports a cow cannot be used for solar panels or lakes, but we don't need all that many acres. You were talking about the energy that the millions of livestock need, my point is simply that nature provides the bulk of that energy in the form of grass in a field, we don't need to build generators of any kind to make that energy. I don't think that the heat we create is a problem in itself. For example, when I heat my house, I use a lot of energy but there is a column of reasonably dense air that is 500 times higher than my house for the heat to disperse into, furthermore the footprint of all of the houses on Earth only covers about 1000th of the Earth's surface. When you drive an electric car the energy is dissipated into air that is pushed away (or wearing down tyres and engine parts etc), thus giving it kinetic energy thus it will eventually be radiated away. One figure I saw of the total of human energy production is 18Tw (trillion watts), which is insignificant in comparison to the 173,000 Tw that comes from sunshine.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Apr 30, 2019 0:02:26 GMT 1
The balance between 173,000 TW coming from the sun and an equal amount being radiated away is what produces an acceptable equilibrium surface temperature. If you add any amount of heat to the atmosphere, it will increase the equilibrium temperature, which is what people are concerned about: not the natural equilibrium 287 K but a creeping, inexorable, tiny amount of another 0.01 degrees per year or so.
|
|