• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deniers are about to lose the Argument

You need to broaden your thinking, how about if every car on the road today were powered by alternate energy?
Also your reply did not speak of recharge rates.
If we really want everyone to stop using oil for fuel, the answer is not to make everyone adopt a technology that is not ready,
but to change the fuel to net zero emissions.
What is a battery? It is an energy storage device, gasoline is also an energy storage device, but currently holds
about a 5:1 energy density advantage over the best batteries, and with much faster fill up rates.
I propose we make carbon neutral gasoline, from surplus solar, wind, and nuclear power,
and every vehicle out there will effectively be an "electric" vehicle, but without everyone changing how they do things.
I think this change is already in the pipeline, and waiting until the inevitable rise in the price of oil,
makes man made fuels the most profitable choice naturally.
The price point look like it is between $90 and $100 a barrel oil.

Broaden my thinking?

You need to do more reading.

The situation is not ideal now but it will be soon.
 
Broaden my thinking?

You need to do more reading.

The situation is not ideal now but it will be soon.
This brings up an interesting question, will people in Canada use the engine block heater connections everywhere to charge
their electric vehicles?
What I am saying is that it is easier to change the fuel, than to change all the vehicles.
Later I fully expect electric motors to be used instead of internal combustion, but to drop emission faster,
the fuel need to change.
 
This brings up an interesting question, will people in Canada use the engine block heater connections everywhere to charge
their electric vehicles?
What I am saying is that it is easier to change the fuel, than to change all the vehicles.
Later I fully expect electric motors to be used instead of internal combustion, but to drop emission faster,
the fuel need to change.

Which alternative fuel are you thinking of?
 
Which alternative fuel are you thinking of?
I am think of man made carbon neutral fuels.
Power-To-X: Sunfire reports successful test run of co-electrolysis system of >500 hours; e-Crude demo targeted - Green Car Congress
They are made from hydrogen from water, Carbon from atmospheric CO2, and lots of electricity,
(If Sunfire is correct with their 80% efficiency number, that would mean it would take 42 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline.)
The fuel when burned would release the same amount of CO2 that it took to create the gallon of fuel, hence carbon neutral.
The process would also fill a role of storing and accumulating surplus alternate energy in a package
currently in demand and with a well developed distribution infrastructure.
 
I am think of man made carbon neutral fuels.
Power-To-X: Sunfire reports successful test run of co-electrolysis system of >500 hours; e-Crude demo targeted - Green Car Congress
They are made from hydrogen from water, Carbon from atmospheric CO2, and lots of electricity,
(If Sunfire is correct with their 80% efficiency number, that would mean it would take 42 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline.)
The fuel when burned would release the same amount of CO2 that it took to create the gallon of fuel, hence carbon neutral.
The process would also fill a role of storing and accumulating surplus alternate energy in a package
currently in demand and with a well developed distribution infrastructure.

Hydrogen is another avenue I'd like to see developed. The coming reality is that we are likely going to see competition between a lot of non-fossil fuel / carbon neutral car models and it's going to be very healthy for our energy economy. I'm open to any useful model that prevails. We need to get away from dirty fuel cars and industry.

In my mind, regardless of what comes next, the improvement of battery technology is going to be a key factor and it gives me a lot of hope.
 
Hydrogen is another avenue I'd like to see developed. The coming reality is that we are likely going to see competition between a lot of non-fossil fuel / carbon neutral car models and it's going to be very healthy for our energy economy. I'm open to any useful model that prevails. We need to get away from dirty fuel cars and industry.

In my mind, regardless of what comes next, the improvement of battery technology is going to be a key factor and it gives me a lot of hope.

You’ll enjoy this:

Switching Out of Fossil Fuel Feedstocks | In the Pipeline
 
Hydrogen is another avenue I'd like to see developed. The coming reality is that we are likely going to see competition between a lot of non-fossil fuel / carbon neutral car models and it's going to be very healthy for our energy economy. I'm open to any useful model that prevails. We need to get away from dirty fuel cars and industry.

In my mind, regardless of what comes next, the improvement of battery technology is going to be a key factor and it gives me a lot of hope.

Hydrogen powered cars emit a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 ...... water vapor !

The military have been trying to reduce battery charging times for over a century in submarines with limited success and despite almost unlimited budgets so don't hold your breath
 
Last edited:
Hydrogen powered cars emit a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 ...... water vapor !

The military have been trying to reduce battery charging times for over a century in submarines with limited success and despite almost unlimited budgets so don't hold your breath

No breath holding necessary.

Once the first commercially viable system becomes available along with an infrastructure to support it, I expect scales of efficiency to take over with increasingly rapid innovation, much like how it works with other kinds of tech.
 
Hydrogen powered cars emit a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 ...... water vapor !

You once again prove your complete ignorance of atmospheric physics.

Water vapour, unlike CO2, is a condensing gas. This means that its concentration in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. It doesn't matter how much water vapour you put into the atmosphere - it will simply condense again as rain to leave the concentration unchanged.

This is why, even though water vapour has the strongest greenhouse effect, it is not considered to be a forcing agent. Instead, its condensing nature means that the effect of water vapour is to amplify the effects of non-condensing greenhouse gases, such as CO2. Small temperature increases caused by CO2 result in an increase in atmospheric water vapour and hence a further increase in temperature. The upshot of this is that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is estimated to cause a rise in temperature of about 3C, rather than the 1C that would result in the absence of water vapour.
 
...The upshot of this is that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is estimated to cause a rise in temperature of about 3C, rather than the 1C that would result in the absence of water vapour.

CO2 is up almost 45% since 1850 so according to you, temperature should
be up about 1.3°C. It's not, so when is this going to begin to happen?
 
Hydrogen is another avenue I'd like to see developed. The coming reality is that we are likely going to see competition between a lot of non-fossil fuel / carbon neutral car models and it's going to be very healthy for our energy economy. I'm open to any useful model that prevails. We need to get away from dirty fuel cars and industry.

In my mind, regardless of what comes next, the improvement of battery technology is going to be a key factor and it gives me a lot of hope.
I think you are not seeing the full picture, because you used the term "dirty fuel cars", just because a vehicle runs a heat engine does not make it dirty.
If the fuel is carbon neutral, the vehicle could be as clean or cleaner than an electric car.
As to hydrogen, that is what todays engines burn, the attached carbon, allows it to be carried as a liquid.
A bit longer term, I fully expect to see fuel cell electric cars, where the energy is still carried as a hydrocarbon,
but the hydrogen is stripped off and used in the fuel cell, this would double or triple the amount of useful energy carried in each gallon
of hydrocarbon fuel.
Batteries are still a long way from the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels.
Energy density - Wikipedia
The table on the Wiki page shows gasoline at 33.1 MJ/Kg, the best rechargeable battery in production is under 1 MJ/Kg (Lithium-ion 0.36–0.875)
That said, a IC car engine can only extract about 20% of that 33.1 MJ/Kg of energy, which drops the fuel density to ~6.6 MJ/kg.
If they can work out the bugs, the lithium-air rechargeable Battery might surpass the energy density of a heat engine carrying hydrocarbon fuel,
but we would still need the infrastructure to improve the handle the extra capacity.
 
CO2 is up almost 45% since 1850 so according to you, temperature should
be up about 1.3°C. It's not, so when is this going to begin to happen?

Well, it's already begun to happen! The global temperature has already risen by about 1°C since 1850. Bear in mind, though, that the temperature rise lags behind the CO2 rise due to the thermal inertia of the Earth - those oceans take a long time to warm.

That's why we call the figure that I mentioned the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), i.e. the sensitivity of the climate once equilibrium has been reached. It represents the temperature that the Earth would eventually reach if the CO2 level were doubled and then kept at that value.
 
CO2 is up almost 45% since 1850 so according to you, temperature should
be up about 1.3°C. It's not, so when is this going to begin to happen?
That is an interesting point, If 2XCO2 caused an ECS of 3C after all the perturbation were equalized,
then the formula would X times ln(2)=3C, so 3C/ln(2) would equal X, or 4.32.
Since Hansen says 60% of ECS should be seen between 20 to 50 years, (37.5 Years),
we should at least see (4.32 X ln(341/280)X .6= .51 C of the predicted 3C.
If on the other hand the latency of ECS is only the 10 years found in some research,
then the number should be 4.32 X ln(383/280)=1.35 C.
 
That is an interesting point, If 2XCO2 caused an ECS of 3C after all the perturbation were equalized,
then the formula would X times ln(2)=3C, so 3C/ln(2) would equal X, or 4.32.
Since Hansen says 60% of ECS should be seen between 20 to 50 years, (37.5 Years),
we should at least see (4.32 X ln(341/280)X .6= .51 C of the predicted 3C.
If on the other hand the latency of ECS is only the 10 years found in some research,
then the number should be 4.32 X ln(383/280)=1.35 C.

Yes, the latency of CO2 is actually much shorter. The idea of the decades comes from from heating of the ocean surface water. It appears they forgot to factor in that the greenhouse spectra is fully absorbed in the water within a few microns of the surface skin, and a few microns are constantly evaporated as well. I suspect only about 20% to 25% of the IR flux adds to ocean heating as the majority of it adds to evaporation.

I'm not sure how the dynamic math works on that, but I seem to recall over a minute of time, 60% of the penetration depth is evaporated. This equates to 22.2% of the heat flux absorbed, with 77.8% of it added to the evaporated H2O, and not warming the sea surface.
 
Well, it's already begun to happen! The global temperature has already risen by about 1°C since 1850. Bear in mind, though, that the temperature rise lags behind the CO2 rise due to the thermal inertia of the Earth - those oceans take a long time to warm.

That's why we call the figure that I mentioned the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), i.e. the sensitivity of the climate once equilibrium has been reached. It represents the temperature that the Earth would eventually reach if the CO2 level were doubled and then kept at that value.

You guys have been at this since 1988, and it doesn't look like
it's happening.

Oh yes, you said, " those oceans take a long time to warm."

The opening sentence of the executive summary for Chapter
Five of the IPCC's AR4 Report says:

The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003,
global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the
surface to a depth of 700 m.​
The IPCC really expects us to believe that they can measure
0.10 not 0.11 or 0.09 degrees but 0.10 degrees over a 42 year
period. My B.S. meter goes off scale when I read that sort of thing.
 
You guys have been at this since 1988, and it doesn't look like
it's happening.

Oh yes, you said, " those oceans take a long time to warm."

The opening sentence of the executive summary for Chapter
Five of the IPCC's AR4 Report says:

The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003,
global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the
surface to a depth of 700 m.​
The IPCC really expects us to believe that they can measure
0.10 not 0.11 or 0.09 degrees but 0.10 degrees over a 42 year
period. My B.S. meter goes off scale when I read that sort of thing.

It's all a game of statistics.
 
You guys have been at this since 1988, and it doesn't look like
it's happening.

Oh yes, you said, " those oceans take a long time to warm."

The opening sentence of the executive summary for Chapter
Five of the IPCC's AR4 Report says:

The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003,
global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the
surface to a depth of 700 m.​
The IPCC really expects us to believe that they can measure
0.10 not 0.11 or 0.09 degrees but 0.10 degrees over a 42 year
period. My B.S. meter goes off scale when I read that sort of thing.

Once again, the global surface temperature has indeed risen by about 1°C since pre-industrial times. And the oceans do indeed take a long time to warm. I don't think anyone disputes that. And no, personal incredulity is not a valid form of argument :roll:
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate Politics[/FONT]
[h=1]An Open Letter to the Editor of The Times (UK)[/h][FONT=&quot]By Mike Jonas In your editorial “The Political Climate” in The Times, 20 May 2019, you discussed the Australian election result in the context of climate. The commentary was all one way – damning of Scott Morrison and the winning Liberal-National coalition: …Australia has just endured its hottest ever summer and storms and dengue fever…
[/FONT]
 
Just wonderin'. Has AGW climate change been proven? Why do these 'scientists' of the OP and the OP believe in AGW climate change, for example?
It is rather an open ended question.
Yes adding CO2 to the atmosphere can cause some warming, that actual amount has not repeatable scientific test to validate the level.
Test conducted in the early 1900's by Angstrom, showed that the energy passing though a column of CO2 did not change with changes in the level of CO2,
but that could be a result of technical limitations.
Modern spectrum analysis, says that CO2 in a container would quickly become saturated, and transparent to the energy passing through.
Even if CO2 did what is claimed, it would be of no concern, as the largest amount of the predicted warming is not from the CO2 itself, but from the amplified feedbacks,
and there is even less scientific support for those feedbacks existing.
 
It is rather an open ended question.
Yes adding CO2 to the atmosphere can cause some warming, that actual amount has not repeatable scientific test to validate the level.
Test conducted in the early 1900's by Angstrom, showed that the energy passing though a column of CO2 did not change with changes in the level of CO2,
but that could be a result of technical limitations.
Modern spectrum analysis, says that CO2 in a container would quickly become saturated, and transparent to the energy passing through.
Even if CO2 did what is claimed, it would be of no concern, as the largest amount of the predicted warming is not from the CO2 itself, but from the amplified feedbacks,
and there is even less scientific support for those feedbacks existing.
Why do 'environmentalists' stake the entirety of their monitoring/slowing down climate change on monitoring CO2 in the 'sphere when AGW climate change is unverified? I see no science, there...When CO2 is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases in the 'sphere? When greenhouse gases reside in places other than the 'sphere?

This makes me wonder if 'environmentalists' are alarmed by climate change.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom