Climate Change

Natboy

Natboy

Banned
Premium Member
SC H2H Champion
SC Top Scorer
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
8,945
Reaction score
11,608
Hacky McAxe said:
Hard to say. For full commercial use I would think that it's at least 5 years away, but probably closer to 10.

There are some hydrogen vehicles available now, but they're not real hydrogen. They use hydrogen fuel cells which emit a fair amount of CO2 to make, and there's no real infrastructure in place for them. They're basically like electric vehicle cells that go a longer distance on a single fuel up, and are more powerful, but are much harder to fuel.

The issue they are facing is that they need to make smaller, more efficient converters. When that's done then mass production on decent hydrogen cars will start. Difficult to say when that will be.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. 5-10 is ok. I usually get rid of cars before they need a pink slip and am sure petrol cars will still be available if I got two in ten years
 
The DoggFather

The DoggFather

ASSASSIN
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
107,342
Reaction score
119,413
Fkn lol anyone see the staged "arrest" of that fuckberg mutt?

Posing and smiling with the cops?

If you believe she was really arrested and not just a photo shoot then you're the conspiracy theorist.
 
Flanagun

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,581
GODofWAR said:
Fkn lol anyone see the staged "arrest" of that fuckberg mutt?

Posing and smiling with the cops?

If you believe she was really arrested and not just a photo shoot then you're the conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...
Cynic. I guess there's no point asking you to donate to my Free Greta GoFundMe page?
 
Hacky McAxe

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,142
Reaction score
29,631
GODofWAR said:
I just hate lying evil *****, too many of them these days.
Click to expand...
I probably wouldn't put Greta in that category. She is annoying, and she's hated by many, but she's not lying. Exaggerating though... Maybe a little. But not lying.
 
The DoggFather

The DoggFather

ASSASSIN
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
107,342
Reaction score
119,413
Hacky McAxe said:
I probably wouldn't put Greta in that category. She is annoying, and she's hated by many, but she's not lying. Exaggerating though... Maybe a little. But not lying.
Click to expand...
The **** is just a dumb fuck pawn that backfired. They thought the world would love her but everyone hates the mutt.

One of the reasons why I take the piss out of global warming/climate change/the latest boogeyman is because of that failed pawn.
 
Aristidiz

Aristidiz

Bullwog
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
3,059
Reaction score
2,607

TikTok - Make Your Day

vt.tiktok.com

Time to wake up from the narrative you keep getting spoon fed. And peel back the layers to find the true motives. Hard to do from the outside looking in, but when you smell something is off it often is.
 
Hacky McAxe

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,142
Reaction score
29,631
Aristidiz said:

TikTok - Make Your Day

vt.tiktok.com

Time to wake up from the narrative you keep getting spoon fed. And peel back the layers to find the true motives. Hard to do from the outside looking in, but when you smell something is off it often is.
Click to expand...
As I keep saying to everyone. Don't take climate advice from celebrities. Don't take it from former Presidents. Don't take it from kids. Take climate advice from the actual experts.
 
Hacky McAxe

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,142
Reaction score
29,631
Aristidiz said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1620168647850496001

This bloke's tweets are a breath fresh air (pardon the pun). And he provides evidence and responds to just about every comment from climate change nuffies.
Click to expand...
This blokes claim to fame is that he played drums for ACDC for less than a year.

Which shows, because anyone without drug fried brains should be able to read the article and understand that it doesn't say what he thinks it says.

Firstly, the article doesn't say, "leaf litter contributes 90% of yearly volume of carbon". The article says, " the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans"

Major difference. Natural decay of organic carbon includes leaf decay, trees dying, trees burning due to naturally started forest fires, organic see life dying and decaying (over 70% of that natural organic carbon release), and many other factors. Leaves are just part of it.

Secondly, natural organic carbon delay is part of the carbon cycle and is counted. The sun effects the climate more than natural carbon decay, and that is also counted. It's the things that aren't part of the natural carbon cycle that are a problem.

During the natural climate carbon cycle, trees die. Leaves decay. This releases carbon into the atmosphere. Then that same carbon is absorbed by trees and other plant based organic life. Then when that plant base life dies it releases it again, then the new plants absorb it. It's a cycle.

But then we add to it by digging up carbon that has been trapped for millions of years and we release that carbon. This isn't part of the carbon cycle and it's cumulative. Think of it like a glass of water. You get a glass of water that's 70% full, and you pour some into another glass that's empty. Now you have one glass that's 30% full and the other glass holds the other 40%. Then you pour that 40% back into the original glass and once again the glass is 70% full. You keep doing this, and it's fine. But you're doing it outside, and someone turned on the sprinklers. Now your glass that was 70% full has gone to 80%, 90%, 100%, overflowing. All because an outside force started messing with your cycle.

That's the basics of climate change and the human impact on the carbon cycle. They have been teaching this stuff in schools for the last 10 years. They have been teaching greenhouse gases in school for the last 50 years. But still we get ex-ACDC drummers on Twitter that think they have uncovered some amazing secret that the scientists don't understand. In reality, the bloke probably got straight F's in science and doesn't understand basic logic. I mean, it takes 2 seconds looking through his posts to see that he's pushing stuff that has been debunked so many times.
 
Aristidiz

Aristidiz

Bullwog
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
3,059
Reaction score
2,607
Hacky McAxe said:
This blokes claim to fame is that he played drums for ACDC for less than a year.

Which shows, because anyone without drug fried brains should be able to read the article and understand that it doesn't say what he thinks it says.

Firstly, the article doesn't say, "leaf litter contributes 90% of yearly volume of carbon". The article says, " the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans"

Major difference. Natural decay of organic carbon includes leaf decay, trees dying, trees burning due to naturally started forest fires, organic see life dying and decaying (over 70% of that natural organic carbon release), and many other factors. Leaves are just part of it.

Secondly, natural organic carbon delay is part of the carbon cycle and is counted. The sun effects the climate more than natural carbon decay, and that is also counted. It's the things that aren't part of the natural carbon cycle that are a problem.

During the natural climate carbon cycle, trees die. Leaves decay. This releases carbon into the atmosphere. Then that same carbon is absorbed by trees and other plant based organic life. Then when that plant base life dies it releases it again, then the new plants absorb it. It's a cycle.

But then we add to it by digging up carbon that has been trapped for millions of years and we release that carbon. This isn't part of the carbon cycle and it's cumulative. Think of it like a glass of water. You get a glass of water that's 70% full, and you pour some into another glass that's empty. Now you have one glass that's 30% full and the other glass holds the other 40%. Then you pour that 40% back into the original glass and once again the glass is 70% full. You keep doing this, and it's fine. But you're doing it outside, and someone turned on the sprinklers. Now your glass that was 70% full has gone to 80%, 90%, 100%, overflowing. All because an outside force started messing with your cycle.

That's the basics of climate change and the human impact on the carbon cycle. They have been teaching this stuff in schools for the last 10 years. They have been teaching greenhouse gases in school for the last 50 years. But still we get ex-ACDC drummers on Twitter that think they have uncovered some amazing secret that the scientists don't understand. In reality, the bloke probably got straight F's in science and doesn't understand basic logic. I mean, it takes 2 seconds looking through his posts to see that he's pushing stuff that has been debunked so many times.
Click to expand...
I agree he has misinterpreted the article in terms of the % that leaves contribute to that 90% figure.

But I think you missed his point, and the article's point entirely.

Organic carbons contribute the vast majority of CO2 back into the atmosphere thus being a contributor to climate change.

Referring to your own analogy, adding or removing the quantity of water from the glasses due to an 'outside force' (I assume humans are this outside alien force you are referring to) has been happening for an eternity on this planet by natural occurences (non-human allien sources). Are you proposing that the combined % of water in the glasses has remained unchanged over all of time?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619443589737746432
 
Aristidiz

Aristidiz

Bullwog
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
3,059
Reaction score
2,607
Another incovenient truth nobody wants to talk about. Amazing how it takes someone like a curious ACDC drummer to form an independent thought.

I guess most of these Climate Scientists were all indoctrintrinated into the same rubbish at the same universities. Makes you wonder how many are actual scientists capable of their own critical analysis, and how many have just read books of other so-called scientists and regurgitated that information.

The COVID scientists all went to the same University too I believe. The majority were all super accurate too with those lockdown recommendations. Anyone remember when they recommended we couldn't eat lunch on a bench seat outside because it was deemed unsafe?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1620179053159530517
 
Hacky McAxe

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,142
Reaction score
29,631
Aristidiz said:
I agree he has misinterpreted the article in terms of the % that leaves contribute to that 90% figure.

But I think you missed his point, and the article's point entirely.

Organic carbons contribute the vast majority of CO2 back into the atmosphere thus being a contributor to climate change.

Referring to your own analogy, adding or removing the quantity of water from the glasses due to an 'outside force' (I assume humans are this outside alien force you are referring to) has been happening for an eternity on this planet by natural occurences (non-human allien sources). Are you proposing that the combined % of water in the glasses has remained unchanged over all of time?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619443589737746432
Click to expand...
Nope. I covered all of that in my post. Read it again.

If it was unchanged over time then it wouldn't be a carbon cycle. Emphasis on the cycle. That's why I put in the whole part about pouring the water out and adding it back in.

Natural climate cycles happen over an extended period of time. And natural carbon cycle happens over a period of time. But this is simple math. When you have CO2 that has been trapped for millions of years and you release a majority of it in less than 200 years, that is no longer a natural cycle. The added effect is cumulative.

And as I said, this is all accounted for and it's stuff that is taught at the rudimentary level. This is why I pointed out his lack of expertise as well. He's arguing that climate science ignores natural cycles. It doesn't though. It's like arguing that mechanics ignore that cars have engines. It's rudimentary stuff. He's either saying it because:

1) he doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about

Or

2) he does know what he's talking about but he's using stupid arguments because he knows those who didn't study climate science won't know his arguments are stupid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top