Global Warming, Is It A Man Made Hoax?

[eider]

California, beautiful State as far as scenery in mountains, desserts, coastline is concerned, lots of good food

I would love the space. I live on the coast which does have space, but nothing like that which I see in films about your State.

The political environment in the State in government controls is out of hand, not to mention taxes and corruption

Sadly you get levels of corruption where you get people.
I cannot compare your taxes with ours.....

​​​​​​

The white cliffs of Dover and it's castle :up:, Kent a beautiful place from my observation, like to see man's work, in the channel tunnel into France, cheers!

Yes, there's plenty about my county 'Kent' and the whole country to be happy about.
For scenery Scotland has to take the medal ... here.

 

[Right Divider]

No offence intended, but you are clearly ignorant about power-saving.

Pumping water to a higher elevation requires MORE power than is returned when it returns to the lower elevation.

That's about as basic as it gets with physics.

We've used that for decades, now.

Well you're pretty silly then.

You wouldn't know it, but during the night our generators have to keep rolling..... shut-downs and start-ups are very complex operations, so what some generators do is to keep rolling through the night and spare power from our National Grid is used to pump water, a bit like charging a battery. During the busy daytime the battery can be connected and used.

Well... there are no generators that are 100% efficient. So you're running a NET LOSS scheme.

The KISS memory trick (Keep it simple stupid) is to think of the high level lake as a storage battery, holding the energy.

It holds energy just fine. The problem is the wasted energy during the pumping UP process.

What is (or was) your job?

I'm a computer engineer.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here are some silly misconceptions:

The Earth is warming

. It is not increasing in temperature because of carbon dioxide; it is because of friction within the planet. We have a molten core that has lava "raining" onto it from the mantle.

The reason for the warming is mankind. The cause of global warming is not because people drive SUVs.

It is because we are dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Scientists in the 1800s realized that this would cause warming. And we are observing the predicted rise.

It is because Adam sinned, leading to the chain of events culminating in the flood. This wrecked the crust, leaving the planet somewhat more out-of-the-spherical than it was. Gravity is trying to squeeze a slightly less massive Earth back into a sphere, which is what is causing all the friction.

No, that's wrong, too. The planet is an oblate spheroid because of the rotation of the Earth. There is considerable friction on the earth, but it's caused by the moon, not by the very slightly out-of-round shape caused by rotation. The heat flux from the Earth itself is measurable, and has not increased.

Earth's internal heat powers most geological processes and drives plate tectonics. Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget

The results will be catastrophic

. It's a process on an exponential path toward the complete melting of the entire planet. Elements themselves will melt away.

That's just a fairy tale. It has no evidence or scriptural support.

Now, Darwinists agree with the main, bolded points there.

Actually, not all of them do. There are right-wing Darwinists who are warming deniers. The writer has confused Darwinism with physics.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Greenland ice sheet is reported to be melting and that huge glacier in Antarctica ..... I forget it's name now, will make a difference.

The part that's on land will. Ice shelves are a special case, because they tend to be supported by the coast, and even though they are sea ice, they will raise ocean levels if they melt.

I think that all the glaciers are receding, everywhere.

Most places, they are. But not everywhere. The center of Antarctica is gaining ice, because warmer seas mean more snowfall. There are some high-altitude alpine glaciers, including one in the Himalayas that are growing. Most are melting, however.

 

[eider]

Pumping water to a higher elevation requires MORE power than is returned when it returns to the lower elevation.

That's about as basic as it gets with physics.


Well you're pretty silly then.


Well... there are no generators that are 100% efficient. So you're running a NET LOSS scheme.


It holds energy just fine. The problem is the wasted energy during the pumping UP process.


I'm a computer engineer.

So now we all know that you have no idea about simple economics.
Not only can these high level reservoirs be resourced to support the National Grid in times of very high power supply demand, but they pay for themselves easily.......... they work economically.

You probably won't figure that out, but the high-demand periods are charged at higher rates than the low demand night-use periods.

You see? Highly valuable in times of very high demand, and they can earn money enough to run themselves.

KISS Keep it simple stupid.

 

[eider]

The part that's on land will. Ice shelves are a special case, because they tend to be supported by the coast, and even though they are sea ice, they will raise ocean levels if they melt.

Most places, they are. But not everywhere. The center of Antarctica is gaining ice, because warmer seas mean more snowfall. There are some high-altitude alpine glaciers, including one in the Himalayas that are growing. Most are melting, however.

Useful info, all.....

If sea levels rise by a meter in this century the hill where I live will be a tidal island. My wife might live to see that but I'm too old, I will have to imagine what it will be like! I was brought up on a tidal island with a causeway to mainland but that was flooded over on spring high tides, so I'd be used to that idea.

 

[Right Divider]

So now we all know that you have no idea about simple economics.

Must you always say retarded things?

Not only can these high level reservoirs be resourced to support the National Grid in times of very high power supply demand, but they pay for themselves easily.......... they work economically.

I never said anything about them "paying for themselves or not". They simply do not generate NET ENERGY GAINS.

We were discussing SOURCES of energy... until you ran that into the ditch.

You probably won't figure that out, but the high-demand periods are charged at higher rates than the low demand night-use periods.

Supply and demand... duh.

You see? Highly valuable in times of very high demand, and they can earn money enough to run themselves.

I didn't say that it was a net MONEY loss... I said that is was a net ENERGY LOSS.

KISS Keep it simple stupid.

:juggle:

 

[The Barbarian]

A lot of economically-viable energy sources are "net-loss schemes." If you use batteries, you're converting (something) to electrical energy, to chemical energy, to electrical energy, to radiant energy, mechanical energy, or whatever. Each conversion is a "net loss." But if one is arguing that batteries aren't economically viable, I'd say one is making a rather poor argument.

Every energy conversion involves energy losses. Which is something every engineer would know. I think he's making a different point that you are. Even solar power is a net-loss scheme, since the (rapidly improving) efficiency of solar panes is still not close to 100%. But it is economically viable in most places.

 

[Stripe]

So how is it that the Earth has warmed and then cooled many times before?

It hasn't. :idunno:

God knows that Adam sinned, so surely he didn't change his mind?

:AMR:

Your post suggests that God is going to destroy the planet through complete melting....... I just never did read any words from Jesus about that.
??

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

 

[Stripe]

Pumping water to a higher elevation requires MORE power than is returned when it returns to the lower elevation.

To be clear, you're referring to usable energy. The process of lifting water and watching it flow downhill again has net zero consumption of energy.

 

[Right Divider]

A lot of economically-viable energy sources are "net-loss schemes."

Only when tax-payers are footing the bill! No business will run a loss for very long.

If you use batteries, you're converting (something) to electrical energy, to chemical energy, to electrical energy, to radiant energy, mechanical energy, or whatever. Each conversion is a "net loss." But if one is arguing that batteries aren't economically viable, I'd say one is making a rather poor argument.

Batteries are a somewhat unique type of power... where we give up cost for convenience.

Every energy conversion involves energy losses. Which is something every engineer would know. I think he's making a different point that you are. Even solar power is a net-loss scheme, since the (rapidly improving) efficiency of solar panes is still not close to 100%. But it is economically viable in most places.

Only because they've received large sums of TAX-PAYER money to make them "economically viable".

Folks like yourself are very generous with other peoples money.

 

[Right Divider]

To be clear, you're referring to usable energy. The process of lifting water and watching it flow downhill again has net zero consumption of energy.

No, it is not. There is NO 100% efficient method for lifting the water. There is ENERGY LOSS in the machinery that lifted the water. If you could build a 100% efficient machine, you'd be a billionaire (at least).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

 

[Stripe]

Here are some silly misconceptions:

Blablaman thinks it is a misconception that the Earth is warming. :chuckle:

It is because we are dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Scientists in the 1800s realized that this would cause warming. And we are observing the predicted rise.

Nope.

No, that's wrong, too.

Blablaman thinks the Earth is not round. :chuckle:

The planet is an oblate spheroid because of the rotation of the Earth.

As is everything else we call "round."

Earth's internal heat powers most geological processes and drives plate tectonics.

Nope. Heat inside the Earth doesn't move a thing. The heat is the result of movement. How else do you think the Earth's interior became hot? Magic?

That's just a fairy tale.

We know. You think the Bible is a fairy tale.

It has no evidence or scriptural support.

Something you knew was a lie as you were writing it. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

No, it is not. There is NO 100% efficient method for lifting the water. There is LOSS in the machinery that lifted the water. If you could build a 100% efficient machine, you'd be a billionaire (at least).

I agree with your critique of that idea. What I'm saying is that the energy budget never decreases. Your wording kinda made it sound like you thought energy was lost. Only usable energy is lost.

 

[Right Divider]

I agree with your critique of that idea. What I'm saying is that the energy budget never decreases. Your wording kinda made it sound like you thought energy was lost. Only usable energy is lost.

Overall there is a net usable energy loss. In other words, the system cannot sustain its own need for energy to power the system.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why are obvious "net-loss schemes" like batteries or coal-burning plants economical? Because we can use existing energy and convert it to usable forms, even if there's always a net loss in the conversion. The chemical energy stored in coal was converted from sunlight a long time ago. While it lasts, we can use that. Sunlight continuously falls on the Earth. So long as the Sun shines, we can use that.

Even if all of these are net-loss conversions.

 

[Stripe]

Why are obvious "net-loss schemes" like batteries or coal-burning plants economical? Because we can use existing energy and convert it to usable forms, even if there's always a net loss in the conversion. The chemical energy stored in coal was converted from sunlight a long time ago. While it lasts, we can use that. Sunlight continuously falls on the Earth. So long as the Sun shines, we can use that.Even if all of these are net-loss conversions.

Net loss of what?

 

[chair]

Only because they've received large sums of TAX-PAYER money to make them "economically viable".

That is true of some energy related technologies, but not all.

 

[eider]

.
Batteries are a somewhat unique type of power... where we give up cost for convenience.
.

Now what do you think the civil engineers had in mind in regard to high level reservoirs, eh?

Wake up.

 

[eider]

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

Ah yes.
When our Sun has burned up its fuel supply it will expand to a red giant and the inner planets will be consumed.
But that will not be for a while.