Popular German physicist Harald Lesch about Trumps Knowledge

a reply to: Peeple

NOW, I am behind you 100%!

If you guys will start up a convention to get an international group to clean up that plastic island, I will campaign over here to get us to join you.

ETA: You guys still got a smog problem? We've managed to eradicate most of ours...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Particulate matter is the thing at the moment I believe.

a reply to: Peeple

Particulate matter is smog... one part of it anyway. It's mostly nitrates and nitrides, with a little elemental carbon thrown in.

I'm not particularly happy with our latest attempt to reduce them (the regeneration used on heavy trucks), as it seems quite inefficient, economically difficult, and has several hazards associated with the "cure"... but I can't complain it is a solution looking for a cause either.

The thing about particulate matter is, it's pretty easy to clean. I still don't see why we don't set up air cleaning stations outside the larger cities. With the proper design, they could actually do fairly well on solar power (no transmission issues and no disastrous results if the sun doesn't shine for a few days) so the only real cost would be construction and occasional maintenance. I think that's well worth further reducing the smog issue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

To be honest I believe the future is electric. If we only find the perfect battery, which lasts 600 km with 140 km/h and is fully loaded in 10 minutes.

a reply to: Peeple

Hahaha, you're not alone.

The problem is that nature doesn't seem to want us to find that perfect battery. The chemical processes that produce electricity are reversible, yes, but that reversal is never 100% and it gets harder to maintain a high percentage the faster it is charged. There's also the problem of pollution in battery manufacture: batteries require very pure materials, which requires a lot of refining, which produces a lot of nasty stuff. Lithium (which is one of our best bets right now) is quite toxic in itself. And then there is the issue of where the electricity comes from to charge the battery. Batteries do not produce electricity (dry cell non-rechargeables notwithstanding)... they store it. Think of a battery as a water jug... you can only take water out for so long until it has to be filled up with water again. The jug is helpful, but it's not a water source... that's the creek or well where you get the water.

A lot of people don't really understand the difficulties involved with battery technology, so don't feel bad.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I just never thought about it really, leave it to those with the technological know how I think. But I read what you say.
Well maybe battery exchange stations would be an idea? That way they can slowly charge and your pit stop still only takes a few minutes.
But that wouldn't make the battery production cleaner...

a reply to: Peeple

I just never thought about it really, leave it to those with the technological know how I think.

Most people don't, and I actually understand that. Technology can seem like magic, and if it can do A, then surely it can do B, C, D, and E.

It's not magic, though.

I'm one of those with the technical know-how. It's what I do... well, what I do when I can do. That's why guys like the "scientist" that started this thread tick me off so much. It's hard enough trying to get people to understand what's possible and what is not at this stage of technological progress, but he just makes it that much harder. I want people to understand what I do... I want them to understand the concepts and possibilities, because everyone has an imagination. Imagination is where these ideas that change our lives come from. The trick is that one needs a basic understanding for their imagination to be useful.

I will collaborate with anyone who has what I think is a workable idea... anyone. Janitor, Engineer, ditch-digger... who cares? The idea is that their imagination and my technical ability come together and make someone's lives better. But their idea has to be workable, and for that to happen usually requires a basic understanding... which this "scientist" is destroying in exchange for a little fame and glory.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe we're just all quantum carried away?

a reply to: Peeple

Hahahaha!

That's actually a pretty astute observation. Quantum mechanics offers so much, but to date has produced so little...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Lumenari

You're making yourself look really bad. 97%

I want to be sure you understand the link you posted. I doubt anyone is denying the warming trend. It's real, it happend before, and seems to be hapening again, and faster than before this time. But:

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

If you check out the bolded parts, you may see that this isn't quite the 97% of all scientists are cock sure this is man's fault, that some low IQ folks claim.

Some of us think we may not have all the answers yet. And that "hypothesis" seems to be backed up by the failure of the models and predictions.

a reply to: network dude

It's important you understand admitting there's always some margin of error in every prediction, is just an honest thing to do. That doesn't mean it's false or unlikely.

a reply to: Peeple

The thing is, I have analyzed my local temperatures since 1950, and while there does appear to be some warming occurring, it also appears to be cyclic. That means it will peak (has peaked?) and then go down again. That's natural, not man-made. If it is occurring faster than in the past, then that might be attributable to additional carbon dioxide, but is not hazardous in any way if the limits are not substantially changed. The system is still stable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What about extreme weather events and the hickups in ElNino and such?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TheRedneck

To be honest I believe the future is electric. If we only find the perfect battery, which lasts 600 km with 140 km/h and is fully loaded in 10 minutes.

It would also have to be extremely non-toxic/environmentally friendly, but that is only half the equation.

This new battery tech would also have to be able to be charged with small solar units at extremely high efficiency (approaching 90%).

But in theory, I do agree

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Lumenari

Where is the data to support your opinion? And you dare calling my opinion a church?
You don't even notice how messed up that is?

I'm going with the vast majority of actual climate change scientists who say that man-made global climate change is BS.

You are going with the 1% or so of "scientists" (half of them not even climatologists) that say man-made global climate change is real.

And the 99% of Progressive left politicians that really would like more control over what you spend, what you eat, how you live and how much money they can take from your pocket.

Your opinion is based off of a computer model and intentionally flawed data.

A theory.

So yes, your personal opinion of climate change is nothing more than a belief in something that has not been proven.

It's the Church of Gore and you are a card-carrying member of it.

Again, something you have every right to believe... freedom of religion and all that.

So were ChloroFlouroCarbons just an illusion , we didn't create a chemical propellant that damaged the earths Ozone layer which then led to an increase in green house gases and the increase in temperature of the planet and an overall loss of environment because of it ?

That didn't happen then ?

We have no affect on the earth is what you are saying , and its all just made up to take your money !

a reply to: Peeple

Hiccups.

There have always been extreme weather events. We tend to forget that not very long ago, an F-5 tornado (aka "the finger of God") could sweep across a hundred miles in the Midwest, destroying everything in sight, and no one might even realize it had happened for a few years. Today, it's rare to see an F-1 (aka "wanna-be dust devil") not damage something within 100 yards.

We see these hiccups now where we didn't see them before. In April of 2011, my area was hit by a massive stream of F-4 and F-5 tornadoes that literally erased entire communities from existence and took out power to the entire region for a week. Yeah, that was scary. But it wasn't caused by carbon dioxide. It was caused by two air masses that just so happened to conflict at the wrong place at the wrong time. It was a roll of the dice.

100 years ago, that would have been just as devastating, but there was no power to take out... there were many less people here... and there were no Federal disaster funds to get. People would have buried their dead, cleared the fallen trees, and rebuilt as best they could. Today, we have 24/7 news coverage with storm spotters armed with cameras roaming the area to get the best shot of the most damage. And it looks and sounds awful now, but really, it would have been just as awful back then and no one would have known about it outside the local area.

Don't fall for the hype. Hurricane Katrina was only the beginning of the end, remember? Yet, although we have had hurricanes hit land regularly since, they are not stronger and are not more frequent as was predicted.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you think floods and droughts are just more reported on? I think we changed the density of our air with all the chemicals plus there are imbalances in our atmosphere we need to adress.
The fact they're spraying nano aluminium particles is just the crown jewel of stupidity.

a reply to: sapien82

So were ChloroFlouroCarbons just an illusion , we didn't create a chemical propellant that damaged the earths Ozone layer which then led to an increase in green house gases and the increase in temperature of the planet and an overall loss of environment because of it ?

That didn't happen then ?

CFCs don't exist in nature. They are completely man-made. Carbon dioxide does exist in nature, and nature knows how to deal with it.

BTW, the concern back then (I still remember it) was that the CFCs were destroying ozone and causing a hole in the ozone layer. Turns out that wasn't exactly true. CFCs do destroy ozone, but as they destroy it, solar UV radiation creates it, so the balance is not disturbed as much as was thought. And that ozone hole? It'a a natural phenomenon that goes through cycles.

The biggest reason for the concern, as it turns out, was that DuPont's patent on R-12 refrigerant (which used CFCs) was about to expire. They came out with a new patent on R-134a, and to maintain their monopoly on the refrigerant market, got R-12 banned to prevent generics from intruding on their market share.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Peeple

So you think floods and droughts are just more reported on?

I think that's a lot of it... and of course random means there will be times with more and times with less activity.

I think we changed the density of our air with all the chemicals plus there are imbalances in our atmosphere we need to adress.

Hahaha, no, if we changed the density of air substantially, we'd all be dead already. We have introduced some toxins, but that's just something that we need to clean up and stop doing. The level so far is not at critical; if we stop worrying about carbon dioxide, it need never get there.

The fact they're spraying nano aluminium particles is just the crown jewel of stupidity.

Wait, what? Do you have a link for that? Aluminum is actually a very toxic metal... the only reason it does not normally cause problems is it is also extremely reactive and will form a protective layer of inert aluminum oxide almost immediately on exposure to air. That's why aluminum-based deodorants are so dangerous... the aluminum is not encased in an inert compound, so it actually can be absorbed into the body.

If someone is spraying aluminum nanoparticles, that doesn't sound good.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well to me it was pretty convincing look