A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Maybe OT Tesla



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 8th 18, 04:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,338
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:05:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2018-06-04 20:45, Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 15:30:39 -0700, Savageduck


Why does that article have the appearance of total BS?


Probably for the same reason that all of the climate change crap looks
like total BS to people like me - total skeptics.

There are very many highly intelligent people out there who disagree
on this subject, and an awful lot of what is published, and what you


Most subject matter experts agree at large the AGW is real,


Okay...

serious


Maybe...

and
dangerous.


I doubt that.

The "skeptics" usually have commercial interests at "heart".


Usually? That's a bit mushy.

But, hey, the IPCC report compiled by scientists from around the world
from a wide range of expertise groups can't mean much, right?


The report and summary are two different things, and it's the
corrupted summaries that are fed to the squirming masses.

And radio talk show hosts must know more, right?


Serious people don't listen to that stuff.

reliably see on the MSM is quite disingenuous.

There is no truth on this subject, just opinions, and wild guesses.


No. There is hard science that's been accumulating and refining over
many decades.


Yes, that's true. The problem is how that data and research are used.
Once any issue has been politicized, it becomes nothing more than a
fight between true believers of their side. If you won't admit that
there are smart people on both sides, both with plausible conclusions,
then you have stopped being a thinking person, and have become an
activist, nothing more.

The basic thing is you can't keep spewing massive amounts of pollution
and expecting there to be no effect.


Sure, but there is no truth at this time regarding what that effect
will be. And the US is not spewing those massive amounts. The problem
needs to be addressed elsewhere.
  #2  
Old June 8th 18, 04:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On 6/7/2018 11:14 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:05:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2018-06-04 20:45, Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 15:30:39 -0700, Savageduck


Why does that article have the appearance of total BS?

Probably for the same reason that all of the climate change crap looks
like total BS to people like me - total skeptics.

There are very many highly intelligent people out there who disagree
on this subject, and an awful lot of what is published, and what you


Most subject matter experts agree at large the AGW is real,


Okay...

serious


Maybe...

and
dangerous.


I doubt that.

The "skeptics" usually have commercial interests at "heart".


Usually? That's a bit mushy.

But, hey, the IPCC report compiled by scientists from around the world
from a wide range of expertise groups can't mean much, right?


The report and summary are two different things, and it's the
corrupted summaries that are fed to the squirming masses.

And radio talk show hosts must know more, right?


Serious people don't listen to that stuff.

reliably see on the MSM is quite disingenuous.

There is no truth on this subject, just opinions, and wild guesses.


No. There is hard science that's been accumulating and refining over
many decades.


Yes, that's true. The problem is how that data and research are used.
Once any issue has been politicized, it becomes nothing more than a
fight between true believers of their side. If you won't admit that
there are smart people on both sides, both with plausible conclusions,
then you have stopped being a thinking person, and have become an
activist, nothing more.

The basic thing is you can't keep spewing massive amounts of pollution
and expecting there to be no effect.


Sure, but there is no truth at this time regarding what that effect
will be. And the US is not spewing those massive amounts. The problem
needs to be addressed elsewhere.

In the book " Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations"
[by: Amy Chua, Julia Whelan] they cite studies that show [totally
paraphrased from memory] numerically adept people tend to impress
their bias on data sets .. and further that the resulting bias is stronger
for the more educated/numerically adept. This agrees with what you
say about smart people on both sides reaching different conclusions.
~~
Even so, I doubt anyone believes pollution is a good thing.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--


  #3  
Old June 8th 18, 10:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,226
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 23:49:45 -0400, Ron C wrote:

Even so, I doubt anyone believes pollution is a good thing.


One problem is CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth almost entirely
requires CO2 for its existence and present levels (even the elevated
levels are much closer to extinguishing life than is really
comfortable.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #4  
Old June 9th 18, 02:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,226
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 8 June 2018 10:58:24 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 23:49:45 -0400, Ron C wrote:

Even so, I doubt anyone believes pollution is a good thing.


One problem is CO2 is not a pollutant.


If there's too much it's bad for animal life the planet might be OK.


Too much is a hell of a lot - a way more than thee is at the present.

Life on earth almost entirely
requires CO2 for its existence and present levels (even the elevated
levels are much closer to extinguishing life than is really
comfortable.


In Stargate universe they had problems and needed a CO2 scrubber.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44396781

I think the global CO2 emissions is about 30G tonnes


i.e 3x10^10 tons, per year I presume.

The article you cited above gives a cost of less than $100/ton. Cost
of removal therefore is less than $3x10^12 per year. Then there is
the cost of converting this to fuel. :-(



--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #5  
Old Today, 12:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,226
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 02:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 9 June 2018 02:53:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 8 June 2018 10:58:24 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 23:49:45 -0400, Ron C wrote:

Even so, I doubt anyone believes pollution is a good thing.

One problem is CO2 is not a pollutant.

If there's too much it's bad for animal life the planet might be OK.


Too much is a hell of a lot


it's not that much, it's not like the air would need to be filled with CO2.


Please quote a percentage.


- a way more than thee is at the present.


about 150 times moire which isn't that much more.


Life on earth almost entirely
requires CO2 for its existence and present levels (even the elevated
levels are much closer to extinguishing life than is really
comfortable.

In Stargate universe they had problems and needed a CO2 scrubber.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44396781

I think the global CO2 emissions is about 30G tonnes


i.e 3x10^10 tons, per year I presume.


Yes depends who's counting and how I suppose.


The article you cited above gives a cost of less than $100/ton. Cost
of removal therefore is less than $3x10^12 per year.


That's a hell of a lot of $ far more than most countries GPD.




Then there is
the cost of converting this to fuel. :-(


Yes and then burning it all over again.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Tesla performance Bill W Digital Photography 3 July 21st 17 02:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.