NO... Im asking if you understand the difference between Hydrogen fuel as an internal combusiton fuel and hydrogen fuel cells? Because it really came off like you think they are the same.
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
My guy, hydrogen may be the future. It’s just not there yet. And that’s the point. Many states are forcing a transition that technology can’t support, and thats a disaster in the making.
FCEVs require less precious metals to build than BEV and gas combustion engines. FCEVs power most fork lifts in the country
You didn't answer his question. Which is typical in these conversations with "green energy" proponents.
If I had the answer I’d tell you. I do know fcev are cheaper and far lighter in weight than Bevs. This makes FCEV the most obvious choice to replace diesel engines.
Don't get me wrong, I love hydrogen. But this rush to "green energy" isn't about the environment. It's about money and possibly something even more sinister.
We don't have to be dependent on foreign fossil fuels. And lol if you think any of this is about clean air. I mean personally for you, sure I buy that. But there's no difference in green lobbyists.
We are dependent upon foreign oil and have been no matter who is president. You’re right, I value greatly air that is clean. Everyone should, or will once they lose it. My clients from China and Korea say they have to wear masks because the Asian air is so dirty and difficult to breathe in
Our air isn't that way so why ruin everything else for some pie in the sky hope? We are not fully dependent on foreign oil. We are more so now because the current administration is against our oil industry. Oil companies have no desire to invest in more refining capacity when the administration continues to parrot all of this bullshit climate change bunk.
Last edited:
The last half of that sentence is not true.
We can be energy independent if the Democrats will allow it.
We are fully dependent on foreign oil. What do u think happens if we stop buying Saudi oil and rely totally on United states oil?
Read my post again. Also read this.
We still could produce more too if dumbass democrats would stop trying to kill domestic oil and natural gas. We are not fully dependent on foreign oil.
Follow this website: Arctic News
Earlier this year, on February 25, Antarctic sea ice extent was at an all-time record low of 1.924 million km², as the above image shows. Throughout the year, Antarctic sea ice extent has been low. On December 14, 2022, Antarctic sea ice was merely 9.864 million km² in extent. Only in 2016 was Antarctic sea ice extent lower at that time of year, and - importantly - 2016 was a strong El Niño year.
The NOAA image on the right indicates that, while we're still in the depths of a persistent La Niña, the next El Niño looks set to strike soon.
Meanwhile, ocean heat content keeps rising due to high levels of greenhouse gases, as illustrated by the image on the right.
Rising ocean heat causes sea ice to melt from below, resulting in less sea ice, which in turn means that less sunlight gets reflected back into space and more sunlight gets absorbed as heat in the ocean, making it a self-reinforcing feedback loop that further speeds up sea ice loss.
The currently very rapid decline in sea ice concentration around Antarctica is illustrated by the animation of Climate Reanalyzer images on the right, showing Antarctic sea ice on November 16, November 29 and December 15, 2022.
In 2012, a research team led by Jemma Wadham studied Antarctica, concluding that an amount of 21,000 Gt or billion tonnes or petagram (1Pg equals 10¹⁵g) of organic carbon is buried beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet, as discussed in an earlier post.
The potential amount of methane hydrate and free methane gas beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet could be up to 400 billion tonnes.
The predicted shallow depth of these potential reserves also makes them more susceptible to climate forcing than other methane hydrate reserves on Earth, describes the news release.
“We are sleepwalking into a catastrophe for humanity. We need to take notice right now. It is already happening. This is not a wait-and-see situation anymore," Jemma Wadham said more recently.
The animation on the right shows the thickness of Antarctic sea ice up to December 14, 2022, with 8 days of forecasts added.
On December 29, 2022, Antarctic sea ice extent was at a record low for the time of the year, at 5.527 million km² (see image on the right).
Recently, a study discovered a process that can contribute to the melting of ice shelves in the Antarctic, as discussed at the ArcticNews group.
Ominously, high concentrations of methane have been recorded over Antarctica recently. The image below shows methane as recorded by the Metop-B satellite on November 28, 2022 pm at 399 mb.
Earlier this year, on February 25, Antarctic sea ice extent was at an all-time record low of 1.924 million km², as the above image shows. Throughout the year, Antarctic sea ice extent has been low. On December 14, 2022, Antarctic sea ice was merely 9.864 million km² in extent. Only in 2016 was Antarctic sea ice extent lower at that time of year, and - importantly - 2016 was a strong El Niño year.
The NOAA image on the right indicates that, while we're still in the depths of a persistent La Niña, the next El Niño looks set to strike soon.
Meanwhile, ocean heat content keeps rising due to high levels of greenhouse gases, as illustrated by the image on the right.
Rising ocean heat causes sea ice to melt from below, resulting in less sea ice, which in turn means that less sunlight gets reflected back into space and more sunlight gets absorbed as heat in the ocean, making it a self-reinforcing feedback loop that further speeds up sea ice loss.
The currently very rapid decline in sea ice concentration around Antarctica is illustrated by the animation of Climate Reanalyzer images on the right, showing Antarctic sea ice on November 16, November 29 and December 15, 2022.
In 2012, a research team led by Jemma Wadham studied Antarctica, concluding that an amount of 21,000 Gt or billion tonnes or petagram (1Pg equals 10¹⁵g) of organic carbon is buried beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet, as discussed in an earlier post.
The potential amount of methane hydrate and free methane gas beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet could be up to 400 billion tonnes.
The predicted shallow depth of these potential reserves also makes them more susceptible to climate forcing than other methane hydrate reserves on Earth, describes the news release.
“We are sleepwalking into a catastrophe for humanity. We need to take notice right now. It is already happening. This is not a wait-and-see situation anymore," Jemma Wadham said more recently.
The animation on the right shows the thickness of Antarctic sea ice up to December 14, 2022, with 8 days of forecasts added.
On December 29, 2022, Antarctic sea ice extent was at a record low for the time of the year, at 5.527 million km² (see image on the right).
Recently, a study discovered a process that can contribute to the melting of ice shelves in the Antarctic, as discussed at the ArcticNews group.
Ominously, high concentrations of methane have been recorded over Antarctica recently. The image below shows methane as recorded by the Metop-B satellite on November 28, 2022 pm at 399 mb.
Research has shown that illegal alien (a risk I take to inform) immigration is causing global warming. Big Oil in this country is hiding that fact, because it benefits greatly from the anti-law migration (better?). If more immigrants truly were fleeing persecution, the warming would be less. But, because the overwhelming majority just want to get into this country, to vote for Democrats and create socialism akin to what they are fleeing, climate change (sorry, about the “warming” and “global” business above) would be no problem at all. The climate would merely change like it always changed throughout the history of climate. Don’t be afraid to speak the truth research is revealing. We suck. Less of us would be better for the world that does not suck. Stop the intrusion of thems (this people coming in violation of a law we don’t want to enforce).
By the way, the sea level is rising because we have taken the oil and gas from the earth which has cause the land to sink. Another thing we did. We need to take more oil and gas from below the ocean floor to save ourselves.
Being stupid is an interesting defense. Hey, we would have done something but as it turns out we were complete morons the whole time. Flew right over our heads. We thought it was indigestion.
Nature is remorseless and science will not bend to ignorance. There are dramatic changes unfolding across the planet and they will continue to intensify producing a rate of change too great for any vertebrate to survive in the very early stages long before sea level rise is of real consequence. The loss of habitat is well underway. People can sense that even if they don't understand it, yet.
As soon as the arctic goes ice free in the summer, the jet stream weakens and fizzles to the equator, what cold air is left in the arctic blows down over the continental US just like now and also just like now it is because warm air and water are moving up into the arctic over the Atlantic. That's why you see a nice cyclonic shape when they're showing you the latest "arctic blast" on TV. Basic thermodynamics. Warm moves to cold and vice-versa in their eternal struggle to even out. Arctic air wants to go the the equator and of course the warm air in the equator wants to return the favor. Absent the jet stream what is stopping them? With the sunlight heating open ocean 24/7 monsoon rains will form then sweep in over arctic permafrost unleashing even more vast amounts of green house gases. This will heat the arctic even faster until methane clathrates are sufficiently destabilized to add the final nail to life on the planet. Life is not possible with a 3-5 degree increase in global temperature, we'll have 18c by 2026 and that's without a methane clathrate release.
Grain crops will fail in the entire Northern Hemisphere in one of the first blows. You can't maintain civilization anywhere without the ability to grow, store, and transport grain at scale. It is the fundamental building block of civilized society. You can put that as a marker as it will closely follow a BOE. People always want to know when. How much time they have. The chances for a BOE this Aug/Sept is very, very high. We came perilously close in 2012 and you didn't even know it.
Planetary history proves such abrupt warmings have stricken the planet before and we are outpacing the rate of even those changes dramatically. Only there will not be millions of years to reestablish basic eco systems and for life to flourish once again this time as we have 480 nuclear power plants around the globe that will be unattended.
The fate of the planet is to be a dry rock scoured clean of any sign anything ever existed here at all. It will be this way and not some other.
Nature is remorseless and science will not bend to ignorance. There are dramatic changes unfolding across the planet and they will continue to intensify producing a rate of change too great for any vertebrate to survive in the very early stages long before sea level rise is of real consequence. The loss of habitat is well underway. People can sense that even if they don't understand it, yet.
As soon as the arctic goes ice free in the summer, the jet stream weakens and fizzles to the equator, what cold air is left in the arctic blows down over the continental US just like now and also just like now it is because warm air and water are moving up into the arctic over the Atlantic. That's why you see a nice cyclonic shape when they're showing you the latest "arctic blast" on TV. Basic thermodynamics. Warm moves to cold and vice-versa in their eternal struggle to even out. Arctic air wants to go the the equator and of course the warm air in the equator wants to return the favor. Absent the jet stream what is stopping them? With the sunlight heating open ocean 24/7 monsoon rains will form then sweep in over arctic permafrost unleashing even more vast amounts of green house gases. This will heat the arctic even faster until methane clathrates are sufficiently destabilized to add the final nail to life on the planet. Life is not possible with a 3-5 degree increase in global temperature, we'll have 18c by 2026 and that's without a methane clathrate release.
Grain crops will fail in the entire Northern Hemisphere in one of the first blows. You can't maintain civilization anywhere without the ability to grow, store, and transport grain at scale. It is the fundamental building block of civilized society. You can put that as a marker as it will closely follow a BOE. People always want to know when. How much time they have. The chances for a BOE this Aug/Sept is very, very high. We came perilously close in 2012 and you didn't even know it.
Planetary history proves such abrupt warmings have stricken the planet before and we are outpacing the rate of even those changes dramatically. Only there will not be millions of years to reestablish basic eco systems and for life to flourish once again this time as we have 480 nuclear power plants around the globe that will be unattended.
The fate of the planet is to be a dry rock scoured clean of any sign anything ever existed here at all. It will be this way and not some other.
The media and politics around climate change are truly shocking to me. Oil people, coal people, and conservatives don’t want to change. Solar people, wind people, and progressives want to change everything. It’s shocking I tell you, shocking. Next thing you’ll tell me is that water is wet.
I think conservatives are fine with energy source changes that work. In fact, many conservatives have been pushing a nuclear energy revival in this country for years that the liberals have rejected and only now have begun to even speak about. Conservatives have pushed cleaner burning natural gas, which liberals have done everything in their power to stop. Even without the Paris Accord, a GOP president led the U.S. to lower emissions, while some signers of the agreement saw no change or more carbon emissions in their countries. I think conservatives have pushed for a reasonable transition to energy sources that actually provide the energy we use. While there are huge environmental problems with solar and wind, it has really been the unreliability of those energy sources (which are not sustainable) that have created the pushback and call for a reasonable transition.
Liberals act like moving money around the globe will somehow fix the problem (some believe this, others are just taking advantage of the fear to get things unrelated accomplished). Meanwhile, India and China continue to increase their carbon footprint. And, we continue to benefit from other parts of the world that have less environmental and labor regulations for resources we pretend would be abhorrent to extract in this hemisphere.
Conservatives see the hypocrisy and the inconsistency and the diversions and, quite frankly, the history of lies about global warming and other prophetic climate catastrophes and attempt to view the situation through a more reasonable filter. They saw money thrown at political contributors under the guise of progress, only to see those millions buried in bankruptcies.
So, change for change sake certainly is not a conservative principle. We can agree on that.
Liberals act like moving money around the globe will somehow fix the problem (some believe this, others are just taking advantage of the fear to get things unrelated accomplished). Meanwhile, India and China continue to increase their carbon footprint. And, we continue to benefit from other parts of the world that have less environmental and labor regulations for resources we pretend would be abhorrent to extract in this hemisphere.
Conservatives see the hypocrisy and the inconsistency and the diversions and, quite frankly, the history of lies about global warming and other prophetic climate catastrophes and attempt to view the situation through a more reasonable filter. They saw money thrown at political contributors under the guise of progress, only to see those millions buried in bankruptcies.
So, change for change sake certainly is not a conservative principle. We can agree on that.
The co' I had invested in 2006ish to 2009ish were trying to get just the fuel cell down to $100,000. They were doing large trucks and equipment because of the cost. What he isn't getting is it's not just the amount of resources. A hydrogen fuel cell works by basically filtering out electrons from other particles. They have to build that filter at a nano scale. That is where the cost is.
I've built hydrogen generators at the garage with my dad just for fun. It's not complicated or hard. Running Hydrogen and Oxygen into a 'filter' and separating + and - charged particles is wayyy over my head though. lol.
Anyone who mixes politics and climate change is irrational. Nature is not partisan. There are immutable laws that will be followed with certainty whether you understand them or "believe" in them or not. As an F5 tornado bears down on your house you could opt to ignore it. Scream about liberals or Hollywood movie stars, but that wouldn't change the tornado's path. You also wouldn't want to be talking about local building code or whether or not you should build a shelter as the time would have passed for those things. They were good ideas at the time but considering them when the time is long since over for them is just more deflection. To feel you're doing something responsible in the face of unavoidable consequences. Accept the responsibility for your fate and look upon the faces of those you have killed and lend them your empathy and compassion as you have nothing left to give. Show them your money, as a matter of fact, let them see what you traded them for.
Since we're all about to die and life is futile, I'm sure you'd be willing to do the following:
- Post your full name and where you live
- Show receipts of how much of your money you have given away to help others
- Post pictures of how you live and the ways you reduce your carbon footprint
Yeah, I would probably find that more inspiring than the hyperbolic scree of words and admonitions. Laughing Man, show us, so we may understand. Maybe @Kingseve1 , who liked his post, as well.
Well that's the thing, Wayne. You can't be like me. You're not up to the job.
As for proving something to you, I can't fathom why you think I would be interested in doing that? Like I'm a seal to play a bugle so you will clap. I need to perform for you? Why did you enter the conversation that way... to seize control. You like to talk loud in restaurants and in passing conversations with friends you say "I'm like you..." too many times for it not to be symptomatic.
You're a weak arrogant man, Wayne. I cannot help you.
Must not be as important as you pretend when you blow your bugle on that pedestal.
Can't speak for others... but I am digging this Global Warming.
Hope it keeps up until about March 1st or so...
Hope it keeps up until about March 1st or so...
I don't know if this has been posted on the "Most Scientist agree subject" but I just happened to come across this short video which should be viewed if you are serious about the subject.
So Michael Knowles or NASA? From the NASA website:
climate.nasa.gov
Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
climate.nasa.gov
Since we're talking about 360 thousand barrels per day, we would just increase production to compensate. Imports from SA were more than halved during the Trump admin. We ship out quite a bit each day from Prudhoe Bay.
I'm all for electric stuff. All of it will eventually be here and work fine, but before that can happen we will have to make major infrastructure improvements. Nuclear power is a must and the only true alternative we need. For the low low price of 1 trillion dollars, we can build a nuclear plant in every state. That's 20 billion for each. That's going to provide a lot of jobs and a lot of trained individuals. Of course, the libs at Yucca Mountain will need to shut the hell up and get out of the way. While we're building the plants, we can install the electrical grid necessary to provide the excess current we're going to need. What we have now cannot even come close.
Advances in fuel cell technology, as well as solid state batteries look promising for the future. What we can't do is cause people hardships along the way. No reason to take taxpayer money and give to entrepreneurs. Inventors and investors alike should have their skin in the game. This will prevent a Solyndra type episode.
All of this can and will figure itself out if given enough time. We certainly aren't in a natural crisis. No need to rush.
The United States became a net total energy exporter in 2019 for the first time since 1952 and maintained that position in 2020 and 2021. U.S. total energy exports exceeded total energy imports by about 3.82 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) in 2021, the largest margin on record. U.S. total energy exports equaled about 25.25 quads, an increase of about 7.6% from 2020, and total energy imports were about 21.43 quads, an increase of about 7.2% from 2020.
www.eia.gov
U.S. energy facts - imports and exports - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
U.S. energy imports and exports since 1950.
Again you touch on the main point that really undercuts the climate fanatics: if humanity is at a point of existential crisis, why haven’t the nuclear plants been built?
Maybe because energy isn't really the main plot. Who makes money off the nuclear plant? The utility. People own the utility. They invest in it. Who makes money off of solar panels and windmills? Anyone with a solar panel or windmill. Who pays for it? The people who invest in the utility. It's always about money.
Not too distant future we will see the fossil plants taxed and regulated to the point they cannot afford to operate without raising rates above lawful limits. What will we ever do then? That's when the government will have to step in and "save us". They will take over operating the plant because we deserve their help.
Michael Knowles was actually giving citations, but ignore that. No one believes that 97% of scientists believe there is a global crisis. It is a ridiculous claim.So Michael Knowles or NASA? From the NASA website:
Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
97% is one of those numbers' alarmist use for just about every claim. Did they not say the same thing for the effectiveness of the mask?
The only way you can get 97% on ANYTHING is $$$. These have been debunked over and over.So Michael Knowles or NASA? From the NASA website:
Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
