Carbon Dioxide Pollution In The Good Old Days

“Towards the end of the 20th century around 50% of the CO2 emitted by humans each year was removed from the atmosphere this way. Now that number seems closer to 60%. Earth’s carbon sinks seem to have become more effective, but the precise details are still unclear.”
 
See Earth’s plants are countering some of the effects of climate change
Life is a lot of chemical reactions. One of the most important is photosynthesis which combines CO2 with air, water and sunshine to make sugars, energy food for plants. Increasing concentrations of CO2 does increase the rate of photosynthesis which is a good thing for farmers and vegetarians and creatures that like trees and grass etc. Scientists report that is happening, one of the few good things associated with global warming.

However, the bad things are coming: more extreme weather, droughts in the interior of continents, where I live, and floods elsewhere. The Arctic is already feeling the pain. The climate certainly is warmer where I live a few hundred miles south. When I was a kid, we had plenty of snow in winter to build subsurface cities, caverns in which to stay warm and snug. I remember walking on snow drifts many feet deep right in my yard. I think it’s been three years since there was any snowdrift in my yard. Last winter, I only cleared my driveway three times. I had young trees die from lack of snow-cover.

In the short term I am better off as the trees I’ve planted will grow more vigorously and the white tailed deer will be more fruitful and survive milder winters but I fear for the world my grandchildren will inherit. Will water become scarce for them? Will they have to move to the tropics for water? Will drought kill the trees here? Will global displacements of people make our times look like a picnic? I guess I will not know the answers as I am a short timer.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in family, food, horticulture, weather and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Carbon Dioxide Pollution In The Good Old Days

  1. dougman says:

    “building up back track information for over 10 years.”

    More like building up ten years of bullshit. Did you back trace me yet? When are you going to involve the cyber-police?

    Meh, Australia is full of pansies.

  2. oiaohm says:

    My, oh my!…take your meds, before you blow your top! OH? do tell me, what was my alleged address?
    Why if I am planing on serving why in hell would I tell you the one I know. By this action I can bet you have completely forgotten you stuffed up and thinking a person like me have not been building up back track information for over 10 years.

  3. dougman says:

    “I see so much of coward that you have to give someone else address to attempt to protect your stupid ass forgetting you linked to your business in the past as attempted advertising that had your real address. To late to try this bull crap now.”

    My, oh my!…take your meds, before you blow your top! OH? do tell me, what was my alleged address?

  4. oiaohm says:

    LOL! That’s like saying diamonds are a lump of coal. So diamonds can be called coal, but not all coal is a diamond. That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
    Graphene being a single layer of graphite has the same carbon layout as every other bit of graphite. Graphene is just a special word for a single layer of graphite. Please note early science papers before the word graphene just use the words a “single layer of graphite” for the same thing and the words “single layer of graphite” is used in some of the 2016 published papers. So usage of the word graphene is not universally accepted in the science world.

    There is a reason to avoid using the word graphene and use single layer of graphite instead. Graphane look it up. Graphane this is single layer of Graphite bonded with hydrogen. One letter difference totally different chemical. If you use Graphane in the experiment you will not get super conducting properties.

    So you asking for graphene to use in an experiment you will most likely ask for a single layer graphite that way you will get want you need. Asking for graphene do you feel lucky that the person doing supplies will not typo.

    Well, my hot-headed Abo, what IS on my dryer of course is never dried. What IS dried, is what IS inside the dryer dumbass. Oh the humility!
    Depends what your dryer is if it in or on. Does not matter that much because the same thing is true. A dryer can like a hot plate on a stove applying heat to remove water. So no this is you being a dumbass and presuming all dryers are formed the same way. Does not change the fact that what you take out or off of a dryer is never normally 100 percent dry. When you get stuff 100 percent dry you sometimes see some really unexpected properties.

    Jeff Sessions
    326 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

    I see so much of coward that you have to give someone else address to attempt to protect your stupid ass forgetting you linked to your business in the past as attempted advertising that had your real address. To late to try this bull crap now.

  5. dougman says:

    Fifi, you are dense as a neutron star. At least with Robert, he makes an educated response. You on the other hand, just pull shit out of thin air. I call you out on your stupidity and still, you argue that you are correct.

    “Graphene is a single layer of graphite. So graphene can be called graphite but not all graphite can be called graphene.”

    LOL! That’s like saying diamonds are a lump of coal. So diamonds can be called coal, but not all coal is a diamond. That doesn’t make a lick of sense.

    “Because what is on your clothes dryer is never dried lower than humility and permanently trapped water is never removed.”

    Well, my hot-headed Abo, what IS on my dryer of course is never dried. What IS dried, is what IS inside the dryer dumbass. Oh the humility!

    “So dougman another complete set of challenges that were completely incorrect as normal.”

    Speaking of challenges, have you not filed your “deformation” suit have you? Please kindly send your suit to the following:

    Jeff Sessions
    326 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

  6. oiaohm says:

    Ummm, you do recall we are talking about finely ground graphene. This may come as a shock to you, but graphite and graphene are NOT the same.
    http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3836
    Dougman please stop commenting when you don’t have a clue.

    Graphene is a single layer of graphite. So graphene can be called graphite but not all graphite can be called graphene.

    Exactly why cannot two layers of Graphene link back up and make multi layer graphite. There is nothing preventing this. Interesting point is carbon linked to hydrogen does not dissolve in water to dissolve in what OH of a soap/detergent has to be connected to carbon but that reaction has not happened. Instead a suspension happens. What has happened is a very simple sandwich 1 layer of graphene then a H2O Molecule in the middle then another layer graphene so making a water graphite composite material. Graphite wants to shear to start off with now with a molecule of water suck between the two layers it even wants to shear even more. This very simple sandwich kicks out the super conductor properties as well as graphite going into suspension in water that normally does not happen. Even that the H20 is trapped the + and – charge required so it can mix in water is still expressed though the thin layer of graphite.

    So that paper describes what happens and then fails to notice that there attempted explanations cannot work. But there is a really simple explain when you remember that graphene can link back up and make multi layer graphite and something could get trapped between the two layers.

    Oh, then do tell me, how is that a clothes dryer is able to evaporate all the water in clothing at a paltry 57.2C? My linens and socks come out dry each and every time.
    Dougman really idiot because that never happens if you understand what is happening.
    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23936.0

    Because what is on your clothes dryer is never dried lower than humility and permanently trapped water is never removed. So you have not in fact evaporated off all the water in the clothing. It is not like you want to on a lot of materials that clothing is made from absolutely dry is really bad of them. Anything natural fibre has a percentage of trapped water and in a lot of cases no water no fibre.

    Clothes dryer only dries what is in it to a particular percentage. This is the trap. Even at 100C you are only drying materials to a particular percentage.

    Actually, oh numb-skull, silica gel can be dried out at 135C.
    Learn to read your self care instructions are not material information.
    **Where it is dry (humidity under 40%) and sunny you can dry it in the sun**
    silica gel is only fully dried if you heat to 300C and change the structure so it never absorbers water again. 135C only really dry silica gel out to 20-30%. Thing about absolutely dry like silica gel and graphite is that they both absolutely don’t mix with water but behave very differently when water is trapped in their structures.

    So you were saying what is silica gel have to do with this it another material that traps water without reacting with it changing its properties. So this is silicon and carbon based materials showing the same kind of stunt of making a composite material with water yet the outcomes are very different.

    So dougman another complete set of challenges that were completely incorrect as normal.

  7. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “I paid about 1/2 that for my SUPERMICRO MBD-X9SCL-O board,”

    Unfortunately, Dougie, that is the ebil Intel x86 technology that you have there. Robert Pogson wants to avoid ebil intel. Ironically Pog could get his preferred ARM based server board in the form of something like a gigabyte mp3-ar0 motherboard. But he has to pay way more than his inner miser will allow him to.

    So he will sit and wait for what he has decided that he market needs to deliver to him, Lets hope that his “beast” server holds up, because it may be a long wait.

  8. dougman says:

    $300 for a Cello board?

    http://www.lenovator.com/product/103.html

    I paid about 1/2 that for my SUPERMICRO MBD-X9SCL-O board, and is a REAL server board. At idle it consumes about ~20 watts, run’s countless virtual-machines, hosts my media server, all my DWM backups and is my main NAS.

    With the other 1/2 of what you spend on that piddly thing, I can also obtain a 15-bay case, PSU and CPU.

  9. Wizard Emeritus says:

    ” I want a small server for a low cost using a small amount of energy and I don’t want Wintel.”

    You seem to have the notion that just because you have decided that there is a “market” for some piece of technology, it automatically has to be there. Unfortunately, vendors don’t seem to want to deliver inexpensive ARM based desktop motherboards they way that they do for the x86 market. It looks like the closest that you can get might be something like the LeMAker piano with its single SAS 2.0 port. (http://www.lenovator.com/product/131.html)

    So it looks like you can either
    1)stick a crowbar in your wallet and invest in one of the true full function ARM motherboards (http://b2b.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5422#ov) at ca. $1000US that is being offered for server developers

    2) come off you high horse, hold your nose and by a cheap x86 desktop and call it a server.

    IN the end its all a big whatever.

  10. dougman wrote, “what is a “pipe-dream” is this notion of your Cello board to be used as a server. Some things aren’t meant to be, eh?”

    Uh, the fact that the specs are for a small server, just what I need. I don’t need huge throughput on the network, storage, CPU or memory. I want a small server for a low cost using a small amount of energy and I don’t want Wintel.

  11. dougman says:

    “No man is an island unto himself…”

    LOL… quoting poetry now?

  12. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “I much prefer the ability to ring my own electrons, on my own grid, at home thank you.

    No man is an island unto himself…

  13. dougman says:

    “There is no scientific basis for the view that room-temperature superconductors cannot exist.”

    Never stated that, I said that it was a hypothetical hypothesis with a slim chance of fruition. People have been working on the very notion since the 60’s. Now, what is a “pipe-dream” is this notion of your Cello board to be used as a server. Some things aren’t meant to be, eh?

    But more on topic, the art and principle of electrical transmission is dying off. Electricity, in the form of power-plants, whereby centralized in a few locations and distributed via long wires around the globe, is slowly being laid the rest. The future is a decentralized power-grid, whereby every business and home is there own source of energy. I look at how computers were taken from room-size machines and replaced with a pocket-sized device. Now everyone has a computer on their person, and all that happened in under 60-years.

    I much prefer the ability to ring my own electrons, on my own grid, at home thank you.

  14. dougman wrote, “some ideas are pipe dreams.”

    There is no scientific basis for the view that room-temperature superconductors cannot exist. We are already at the point where superconduction has been demonstrated at rather high temperatures. The higher the temperature the more efficient the systems are. At the moment, HVDC is the state of the art in transmission efficiency but that’s still expensive because of the cost of copper and steel. A single super-conducting transmission line could eventually replace a bunch of normal conducting lines more effectively transmitting power from where it’s cheap and plentiful to where it’s expensive. In the meantime there are other competing technologies like hydrogen pipelines which may also work for people. Presently high temperature semiconductors work in the lab but don’t scale well. It’s silly to say they never will. It may take just one good idea to fix that.

  15. dougman wrote, “In my personal experience, people that self identify as scientists, aren’t. Namely John Cook shows no PhD or Masters, no post-graduate work. Imagine my shock.”

    Being a scientist has little to do with education and much to do with philosophy, like asking Nature for truth. The first modern scientists had little or no formal training obviously, because there was no existing body of scientific knowledge. They created such a body of knowledge. Modern scientists tend to have a lot of education because a scientist adds to the body of scientific knowledge, but it doesn’t have to be in the form of PhD. It could well be in multiple B.Sc., for instance. In my case, I studied heavily in maths/physics but worked in nuclear physics, not as a basic scientist but as a particle accelerator physicist. I created gadgets useful in nuclear physics in vacuum systems, RF systems, ion sources and automated data-collection. It is doubtful that a PhD would have been a good basis for that. I studied a lot of electronics and computer science however.

  16. dougman says:

    “To know that you cannot absolutely dry stuff like Silica Gel even if you back it over night at 200+C.”

    Oh, then do tell me, how is that a clothes dryer is able to evaporate all the water in clothing at a paltry 57.2C? My linens and socks come out dry each and every time.

    “Molecules of water trapped inside a graphite or silica gel..”

    Ummm, you do recall we are talking about finely ground graphene. This may come as a shock to you, but graphite and graphene are NOT the same. Also, why are you bringing up silicia gel into the discussion? No one ever mentioned that.

    Actually, oh numb-skull, silica gel can be dried out at 135C. http://qqjky.qjhbf.servertrust.com/v/vspfiles/info/Silica%20Gel.pdf

    Question: do you EVEN understand the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius. I see what appears that you transposed the numbers, but maybe it’s your scientific methodology of stating things due to your dyslexia.

  17. oiaohm says:

    Moron, when they baked the material at 100C, the water boils and turns to steam. The superconductivity was measured AFTER the drying cycle. So tell me, how can there be water in the material if it is baked overnight?
    Because you are Moron who has not done drying of Silica Gel let alone anything else like it. To know that you cannot absolutely dry stuff like Silica Gel even if you back it over night at 200+C. You have to weigh the silica gel to know how far you have in fact dried it. Individual molecule trapped water does not boil instead it goes from trapped to escaped as vapour and this may happen at room temperature. This does not matter if you have graphite or Silica gel. If they were baking the graphite for 30 days then you could be fairly sure it was in fact dry but less than 12 hours really cannot be sure it anywhere close to truly dry. Yes fell dry but contain water what you have after 12 hours of drying.

    Molecules of water trapped inside a graphite or silica gel is like water under very high pressure so a 100C temperature is too cold to dry those by force.

    So does water turn to steam at the same temperatures the answer is no. Boiling temperatures are based on pressure. So the H20 trapped inside graphite or silica gel is under 1 pressure and water outside of the graphite/silica gel particles are under a different pressure. So you have water that will boil at two completely different temperatures. This is why it super important to weigh your products in and your products out when drying so you in fact know what you have done.

    Drying at 100C tells you a very clear problem. Everything else trapping water requires higher temperatures than general boiling to get the water out of it. So if you dry the powder with 100C you will leave behind every bit of trapped H20. The fact did not weight the graphite in and graphite out they missed how much was trapped.

    100C+ experiment temperatures would lead you to the other paper if you knew where to look. I gave you a clue that I was not just using that paper.

    Basically dougman you don’t know enough basic stuff to see how that paper is hugely flawed method of implementation. Yet you want to call me a moron. And if I give you the correctly done paper you would most likely make a equally big balls up of dougman.

  18. dougman says:

    “Remember dougman you claimed that you need “cryogenic temperatures super-conductors” the reality is there are existing super conductors that don’t require cryogenic.”

    FAIL!

    http://mrpogson.com/2016/11/12/carbon-dioxide-pollution-in-the-good-old-days/#comment-358799

    Robert stated “All we need are super-conducting transmission lines…”

    I stated “Sans “cryogenic” temperatures, the very idea is ludicrous.”

    Trying to imply that something IS, when there is no IS to begin is stupid, just like you.

    “dougman reading the paper you did was pointless you need to read the follow up paper where they used a electron microscope to see what was in fact in there and finds trapped H20”

    Moron, when they baked the material at 100C, the water boils and turns to steam. The superconductivity was measured AFTER the drying cycle. So tell me, how can there be water in the material if it is baked overnight? Just like how can 100C be room-temperature, you cross-eyed black-face dyslexic Abo.

  19. oiaohm says:

    dougman reading the paper you did was pointless you need to read the follow up paper where they used a electron microscope to see what was in fact in there and finds trapped H20.

    Without exceptions, all prepared samples with the same powder showed the superconducting behavior we present below as long as the powder is not pressed into compact pellets.
    Guess what pressing it was removing the water. Yes 40 years this oddity had been turning up and no one had thought to put them under electron microscope to confirm what they were in fact looking at instead keep on presuming it had to be some form of single compound super conductor without the backing evidence.

    dougman read that paper again where is anything other than guess work about what the super conductor is. This has been the problem with super conductor research. For 40 years a super conductor at room temperature and slightly above has been turning up. Problem is the experiment has failed to dependably repeats. Yes the 24 hours soaking is to get trapped H20.

    Also do they measure water in and water out and the weight of graphite in and graphite out. Because doing this you will also find that the graphite soaked in water has gained weight and for the amount of water missing and the weight the graphite has gained it more than just taking up the hydrogen.

    Did you even read the paper? NO, you did not!
    Did I read that paper alone the answer is no I did not. I fact I have read that paper and unlike you can see the flaws. I gave you the starting paper not everything I know. The starting paper shows super conductor at room temperature and is just full of a stack of guess work on what the heck is going on with none of the data to have a clue what is going on.

    Remember dougman you claimed that you need “cryogenic temperatures super-conductors” the reality is there are existing super conductors that don’t require cryogenic. The fact that the early stuff cannot be compacted means you cannot made wires. The shocking part is the room temperature super conductor has been turning up for over 40 years and only some of the recent research decided to do the steps to confirm what in heck it is instead of guessing. Issue has been presume that all super conductors would only be one compound so no one was looking for multi compound super conductors.

  20. dougman says:

    Fidom!…you are killing me! LMAO…just stop.

    “The temperature that graphene+water+pressure super conducts is a 100C+.”

    Did you even read the paper? NO, you did not!

    Is 100C even remotely room-temperature? NO, it is not.

    The gist of your argument was that “Room temperature super conductors was in fact found in 2012” you even cited a source for once. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429203/room-temperature-superconductivity-found-in-graphite-grains/

    Here is the link to the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1938v1.pdf, read what it says.

    For the preparation of the water-treated graphite powder we mix 100 mg of ultra pure graphite powder (see Experimental details below) into 20 ml distilled water and this mixture is continuously stirred at room temperature. At the beginning of the preparation the graphite grains are swimming on the surface of the water because of their highly hydrophobic property. After ∼1 hour one can observe that the graphite powder forms a suspension within the water, which is well homogenous ∼1 hour later. After further stirring for 22 h the obtained powder is recovered by filtration with a clean non-metallic filter and we dry it at 100 °C overnight. We have repeated the same procedure several times and checked for the reproducibility of the measured properties. Without exceptions, all prepared samples with the same powder showed the superconducting behavior we present below as long as the powder is not pressed into compact pellets.

    So genius, it is obvious you misread what was stated and have no intelligence to comprehend that 100C+ is NOT room-temperature.

  21. oiaohm says:

    John is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics.
    This is on the team page. You don’t need PhD or Masters to be a scientist.
    Namely John Cook shows no PhD or Masters, no post-graduate work.
    This is normal dougman incompetence. A Fellow in a particular department at a University in Australia is a paid researcher working on their PHD/Masters or on other papers.

    https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=ZEN_Z2UAAAAJ&hl=en
    Funny claiming no post-graduate work John Cook has tones of published and peer reviewed post graduate work. Just he has never done his masters or PHD submissions.

    http://www.nature.com/news/tantalizing-hints-of-room-temperature-superconductivity-1.11443

    I stated was that without cryogenic temperatures super-conductors are nothing but a fanciful notion, causes you to interject with some claim that real scientists have discovered super-conducting graphene.
    It is peer reviewed work and its not super-conducting graphene you need to learn to read.

    The temperature that graphene+water+pressure super conducts is a 100C+. This means you don’t need cryogenic temperatures to have a super-conductor.

    What makes the super-conducting graphene and water interesting is neither is super conducting at 100C-130C by themselves and they are not in fact chemically reacting with each other. This is the first multi compound super conductor discovered that rewrote the rules of how a super conductor had to be made.

    https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/28/get-ready-for-the-age-of-room-temperature-superconductors/
    Yes more research into multi compound super conductors are starting to get super conductors that work at true room temperatures not above room temperatures like the first generation multi compound super conductors do.

    Oh? Have they gone to market? Where are they in the commercial sector??
    The reality is discoveries sometimes take decades to be in form that the market or commercial sector can consume. The graphite and water peer reviewed stuff rewrote the rules of superconductors. Single compound super conductors require cryogenic temperatures but multi compound super conductors cryogenic temperatures will stop them from working as they require heat so the compound can move and react with each other . We believed there as only 1 form of super conductor but in reality there is two forms. The multi compound super conductors will most likely be the most useful to us than the single compound that require insane cold. Super conducting power lines to be successful you would be betting on multi compound super conductors.

  22. dougman says:

    Oh, Wizard Emeritus, where art thou?

    All the world ‘s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.
    They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.

    Since at which hour art thee cuck to Robeth’rt and Pet’r?

  23. Wizard Emeritus says:

    ““John Cook is a self-deluded moron that pushes a false agenda. He is a failed cartoonist, was never a scientist, vainly tries for a PhD in philosophy””

    Whatever. Did you bother to follow and read the points made along with the accompanying information to back them up, Dougie/

    Or do you prefer to remain willfully ignorant.

    Personally I am old enough that I expect to be gone by the time that the sh1t hits the fan.

    Are you?

  24. dougman says:

    “John Cook happens to be a fully qualified scientist as well as cartoonist.”

    Robert says he wasn’t a cartoonist, now you see he is. You two need to get your facts straight.

    Qualified? Scientist?? His bio on the link you cite states neither. He has a alleged degree in physics. *rolls-eyes*

    First rule for being a scientist: You don’t care about being called a scientist. You know what you do. In my personal experience, people that self identify as scientists, aren’t. Namely John Cook shows no PhD or Masters, no post-graduate work. Imagine my shock.

    “Basically there is something else to be aware of is the University of Queensland is known for using it legal students to sue idiots like dougman for spreading incorrect or incomplete information about their graduates.”

    Back to “deformation” are we? LOL…did you file yours yet loser? Here I will make this simple for you: “John Cook is a self-deluded moron that pushes a false agenda. He is a failed cartoonist, was never a scientist, vainly tries for a PhD in philosophy”

    “Room temperature super conductors was in fact found in 2012.”

    Oh? Have they gone to market? Where are they in the commercial sector??

    Attempting to back Robert’s statement on super-conducting transmission lines, when all I stated was that without cryogenic temperatures super-conductors are nothing but a fanciful notion, causes you to interject with some claim that real scientists have discovered super-conducting graphene.

    The question that bears to mind is simply have you peer reviewed their work and what did you find? Obviously mixing graphene and water is so simple, even a moron like yourself can do it. Also, this is a super big maybe, just perhaps, but ponder the notion that if you ingested this concoction, you human cells would become super-conducting! You could be the Magneto as in X-MEN.

  25. DrLoser says:

    Even Fifi can occasionally come across something interesting. Did you look at what is here or are you just going to dismiss it out of hand.

    Indeed. The all too common ad hominem attack, as used by morons the world over. (I encourage you all to follow the link and understand how logical argument actually works.)

    What next, Dog-Brain? Are you going to dismiss Fifi’s posts simply because he earns 95% of his living by hanging around lamp-posts in a small town in Queensland, dressed only in a red leather mini-skirt, an off-colour halter top, high heels, and mildly disarrayed fishnet stockings?

    Shame on you, Dougie. Shame on you. Fifi is an ignorant incompetent oaf, but Fifi is an ignorant incompetent oaf regardless of his cites.

  26. oiaohm says:

    John Cook happens to be a fully qualified scientist as well as cartoonist.

    Dougman some people hold down more than 1 job at the same time. He was happened to employed at one time to collate the information.

    If you had checked the team page http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php It informs you that John Cook is a qualified scientist in the field. Also has many formally published papers.

    Basically there is something else to be aware of is the University of Queensland is known for using it legal students to sue idiots like dougman for spreading incorrect or incomplete information about their graduates.

    dougman also be aware solarcity has cost a lot in R&D. But they have got to the point where the product is cheaper than normal tiled roof materials to make and supply.

    If the Tesla current figures for the solar tiles is right using 3m solar cells it will be cheaper to deploy Tesla glass tiles than traditional roof tiles even if you never hook them up to produce electricity.

    Please note Solarcity never in fact made solar cells. http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Renewable/Energy/ Solarcity tiles are 3m solar-panels moulded into traditional tile shapes. So this is not like Solyndra. 3m is quite a profitable solar cell maker. Solarcity now Tesla is taking the 3m product and put it out in a different form factor. Also there are some interesting advantages to solar tiles vs solar panels. Solar tiles a single solar cell fails and you can either bypass it or replace it were a single cell fails in a panel set up it normally replace panel completely. It might take 20 years before the solar tile patents expire and we have competitive market in solar tiles.

    “All we need are super-conducting transmission lines…”

    FANTASY.
    Another comment of a pure idiot dougman showing he knows nothing about the topic that is anywhere near current.
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429203/room-temperature-superconductivity-found-in-graphite-grains/

    Room temperature super conductors was in fact found in 2012. The issue is we still have not worked out how to make this in volume. The first part to work out how to make room temperature super conductors in volume then making super conducting power-lines will not be a major problem.

    Just because something was a pipe dream before 2012 does not mean it is now.

    The question with room temperature super conductors is not if they can be made is when we develop an effective method to make them in volume and how many years that will be.

    Wizard Emeritus the reality is dougman does not know anything about the topic.

  27. dougman says:

    “All we need are super-conducting transmission lines…”

    FANTASY.

    Sans “cryogenic” temperatures, the very idea is ludicrous. I love how some people have all the solutions to problems in the world, but fail to understand that some ideas are pipe dreams.

    For example, Solyndra comes to mind whereby $500M was wasted on a bankrupt solar panel company.

    The latest merger, Tesla & SolarCity, will be the next on the list good intentions, but failed economic policies. As one lost $889M and $769M respectively in 2015. A business cannot continue to bleed cash annually, and with Trump coming on board, government subsidies are going to dry-up and cheap oil is going to reign supreme again.

  28. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “LMAO! Is Fifi citing a website run by a cartoonist?

    YEP.”

    Even Fifi can occasionally come across something interesting. Did you look at what is here or are you just going to dismiss it ot of hand.

  29. dougman, having nothing to say about anything in particular, attacks the owner of a domain for no particular reason…

    The folks who contribute to the site are not cartoonists.

  30. dougman says:

    “For once in the wall of text a useful cite is proposed. Of course it required some digging.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Provides quite a bit of discussion of all the arguments about global warming in an easy to peruse form. You should take a look at it, Dougie.”

    LMAO! Is Fifi citing a website run by a cartoonist?

    YEP.

    ~ $ whois skepticalscience.com

    Domain Name: skepticalscience.com
    Registry Domain ID: 1046786008_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
    Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.tppwholesale.com.au
    Registrar URL: http://www.tppwholesale.com.au
    Updated Date: 2016-03-29T19:27:54Z
    Creation Date: 2007-06-25T00:00:00Z
    Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2018-06-25T11:52:25Z
    Registrar: TPP Wholesale Pty Ltd
    Registrar IANA ID: 900
    Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@tppwholesale.com.au
    Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +61.292156247
    Reseller:
    Domain Status: ok
    Registry Registrant ID:
    Registrant Name: John Cook
    Registrant Organization: Sevloid Art
    Registrant Street: N/A
    Registrant City: N/A
    Registrant State/Province: QLD
    Registrant Postal Code: N/A
    Registrant Country: AU
    Registrant Phone: +61.888888888
    Registrant Phone Ext:
    Registrant Fax:
    Registrant Fax Ext:
    Registrant Email: john@skepticalscience.com
    Registry Admin ID:
    Admin Name: John Cook
    Admin Organization: Sevloid Art
    Admin Street: N/A
    Admin City: N/A
    Admin State/Province: QLD
    Admin Postal Code: N/A
    Admin Country: AU
    Admin Phone: +61.88888888888
    Admin Phone Ext:
    Admin Fax:
    Admin Fax Ext:
    Admin Email: john@skepticalscience.com
    Registry Tech ID:
    Tech Name: John Cook
    Tech Organization: Sevloid Art
    Tech Street: N/A
    Tech City: N/A
    Tech State/Province: QLD
    Tech Postal Code: N/A
    Tech Country: AU
    Tech Phone: +61.88888888888
    Tech Phone Ext:
    Tech Fax:
    Tech Fax Ext:
    Tech Email: john@skepticalscience.com
    Name Server: NS1.HAVELAND.COM
    Name Server: NS-919.AWSDNS-50.NET
    DNSSEC: unsigned

    http://sevspace.com/stupidarchive/sevteam.asp.htm

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

  31. Wizard Emeritus wrote, “The only way to break the jam is to make change as incremental as possible.”

    The size of the problem means that even fairly large changes are incremental. We needed to start decades ago so we have to play catch-up. I doubt Trumpism will help any… so we’ll be further behind the curve in a few years if he and Pence aren’t impeached sooner. Pence is no better despite better presentation. Pence would rather fight birth control than make the world a better place.

    I think investments governments have made may not have turned the corner on this issue but economics will. Investments have made solar power mainstream rather than eccentric. There’s still a task to make oil/coal unacceptable for many purposes like heating/electricity. The drop in the price of oil slows that down. Still, the price of solar and inverters keeps falling so solar will win huge share sooner or later. Canada and USA are blessed to have a lot of land on which solar could be developed. Even the arctic is interesting because communities are 50 miles apart and a large portion gets 24×7 sun for much of the year. All we need are super-conducting transmission lines…

  32. Wizard Emeritus says:

    For once in the wall of text a useful cite is proposed. Of course it required some digging.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Provides quite a bit of discussion of all the arguments about global warming in an easy to peruse form. You should take a look at it, Dougie.

    While I do believe that something bad is happening, The tendency in some quarters to use global warming as a battering ram to push certain social agendas is IMHO going to go nowhere. The only way to break the jam is to make change as incremental as possible.

  33. oiaohm says:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
    dougman the other thing is the ppm of CO2 it is increase at a rate that we are going to run into trouble as humans.

    Now if it something natural doing it that we are not doing we need to find what it is so we can attempt to do something about it dougman. 2ppm per year we are at 450+ now 600 is big fatal trouble for use Humans. That gives us max of 75 years to find cause and alter path. Possible only 25 when you want 100ppm difference to allow for building ventilation.

    dougman like it or not with CO2 we are against the clock. If our activity is no doing CO2 change and the cause is nature cycle the earth is totally planing to get rid of us just we are being way too dumb to see it.

    So if you are against global warming you better have an explain for the increasing CO2 and how to bring that under control or you are just a idiot who wants the human race to walk to their death in illness and disease. Yes slow painful death way or another awaits us if we don’t deal with the CO2 problem.

    It is the big thing that lot of people talking about global warming and dimming forget to is what level of CO2 is harmful to humans and how is it harmful to humans? Asking that question gives you the very scarily low number of under 600ppm as possible safe(key word possible we are not even sure if that value is truly safe) with 600ppm and over as 100 percent sure not safe.

    Once you know we don’t know the exact number and the lowest possible suspected safe number of 400ppm we have already passed that. Super bug out breaks in hospitals might not be just that antibiotics on their own are failing but our own bodies defences could be failing due to being above the CO2 level we as humans can tolerate.

    This kinda stuffs a lot of the USA so called Preppers plans for disease out break as most have not considered the next major fatal disease outbreak on a global scale could be CO2 driven so poorly ventilated buildings and vehicles are totally not going to help things.

    Basically global warming is basically the third kick in the teeth the
    1)global dimming droughts
    2)the early effects of CO2 on human health.
    3)global warming effects.
    Yes we are successfully ignoring 1 and 2 at lot.

  34. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson
    “It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature.”
    That is wrong.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

    Watar vapor does not in fact warm the earth over all. It does the exact reverse. The problem is the volume of heat water vapour reflects back into space vs the amount it traps. Yes the reflected value is greater so clouds of water vapour cool the earth and we are depending on so much greenhouse gas to counter that. This is why as cloud cover increases greenhouse gases from the natural cycle increase as well. The earth has a set of automatic balances that we did not understand how they are connected and have made some very bad presumes.

    dougman EPA set the different standards for C02 inside buildings include the 600ppm

    https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms
    Places like the Uk say 1000ppm is acceptable.

    CO2 is not classed as a straight away hazardous pollutant. But due to volcano and other things you can find areas on the earth with CO2 levels above 5000ppm that is natural.

    Why is this only 600ppm classed as safe and any more is classed as unsafe for CO2 by the EPA studies into sick building syndrome
    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/base_3c2o2.pdf

    dougman EPA regulates all environment including inside buildings.

    dougman a business is suffering from excessive sick days one of the first things you do is walk in to their builds with a CO2 meter if it reading over 600ppm you have found part of the problem. A lot of causes of winter colds is too much exposure to high CO2 rates so wreaking havoc the human bodies defences.

    dougman this is the reality if general atmospheric CO2 gets to 600ppm 1/6 people you know will never be healthy without using a CO2 scrubber to breath though and almost everyone else will have increase illness rate with a shorter lifespan. CO2 may not directly kill a human above 600ppm but does increase the numbers of the population that die from the common cold and other infections. Lot of CO2 sensitivity is incorrect diagnosed as general asthma because it looks the same on lot of airway diagnostic tests and responds to a lot of the same drugs. The difference is general asthma immune system raised state where CO2 sensitivity immune system is suppressed yet the lungs are inflamed.

    So like it or not dougman there is a safe threshold for CO2 exposure and above that we as humans are in trouble if we cannot get time in lower CO2 exposure areas.

    If you are worried about health budget spending one regulation to pass is all buildings have to be fitted with CO2 smoke alarms set at 600ppm this will reduce your countries medical bills and make your country more productive based on the data on sick building syndrome at hand. Yes putting indoor plants in building to take up the CO2 the humans in building are breathing out can in fact help.

    Remember we are already seeing natural air spikes of 24 hours over 500ppm CO2 outside in cities.

    The sane reality is we have to slow down our CO2 emissions and it not dependant on global warming existing or not..

    The reality is empirical evidence for what levels of CO2 humans can safely tolerate is without question other than is 600ppm too high maybe it should only be 400ppm as this would explain the massive increase in asthma rates in developed countries.

    Dougman the reality is CO2 overdoes may already be killing some of us by deaths incorrect diagnosed as caused by Asthma. Yet for some reason we want to talk about maybe CO2 will make the earth a few degrees warmer.

  35. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “As a socialist…
    (bla bla bla)
    (Yadda, Yadda, yadda)”

    Fishing again, are we Dougie?

  36. dougman wrote, “it has grand visions of controlling everything under the sun: soot, road dust, rainwater runoff, pesticides, chlorine, methane, ozone, chloroflourocarbons, and, most especially, CO2 — human breath”.

    Nope. Human breath is part of a natural cycle from the atmosphere to plants, to our bodies and back again. It’s in perfect balance. Dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere because we are too lazy to walk etc. is breaking the cycle. We control pollution because pollution makes a mess, is unhealthful, and inefficient. Carbon is something we can control much better than we have so far. Carbon was very important to industrialization, transportation and freight but there are better ways to supply energy. PV certainly can do the job in many ways. Imagine a world with a global grid instead of oil-tankers, PV on the sunny side distributed globally. Shipping, aeronautics, space-travel, and long haul transport may be the only real needs for carbon as a source of energy. For that we should recycle carbon instead of mining it, just to maintain the balance of Nature.

  37. dougman wrote, “Such a puny number 3.9%”.

    Well, you’d probably like 3.9% too much water pouring into your bathtub, but it makes a mess and screws up the cycle. Again, burning billions of bbls of oil per annum is not part of any cycle. It’s a rude interjection affecting the balance of nature.

  38. dougman says:

    As a socialist, of course you would not understand why. Maybe you should move to America and live under the actions of the EPA. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/files/vidrine_v.%20US%20Press%20Release.pdf

    The EPA is Obamacare for the atmosphere, it has grand visions of controlling everything under the sun: soot, road dust, rainwater runoff, pesticides, chlorine, methane, ozone, chloroflourocarbons, and, most especially, CO2 — human breath — which, far from being a pollutant, is a beneficial gas that is essential for plant life on this planet. All the EPA’s claims, naturally, are aimed at protecting the environment and are based on sound science. Right?

    If so, why has the agency steadfastly and repeatedly refused to allow independent scientists to review its work and even stonewalled congressional subpoenas to release the “science” it is using to impose hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on Americans?

    Then, you get State regulators that decree a Rain Tax, or a Flush Tax is something that needs to be paid. So its not about saving the environment, but about how much more money can be collected from homeowners.

    “Earth used to be a very hot place in the universe.”

    SO? Earth us to be VERY cold not so long ago too, whats your point?

    “Would dougman want to go back there?”

    Actually I would enjoy a warmer climate thank you. The Eocene period, about 53 million years ago has palm trees growing in Antarctica!

    “Why does dougman think it’s OK to dump all of Earth’s ancient CO2 back into the atmosphere suddenly to take us back to ancient times?”

    Human output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year. Such a puny number 3.9% The forests and oceans are the BIG culprits, perhaps they should be banned as well!

  39. dougman wrote, “The EPA is a eff’n joke.”

    Of course, scientists that disagree with dougman are jokes:“The agency has approximately 15,193 full-time employees and engages many more people on a contractual basis. More than half of EPA human resources are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and information technologists.”
    [SARCASM]

    Earth used to be a very hot place in the universe. Would dougman want to go back there? Why does dougman think it’s OK to dump all of Earth’s ancient CO2 back into the atmosphere suddenly to take us back to ancient times? Living things need eons to adjust to such changes. Why do it in a century? Why do it at all when energy is so abundant? Why set our house on fire if you want heat?

  40. dougman wrote, “The EPA determined that CO2 was a pollutant not because it was harmful to humans but because it is linked to rising sea levels, wildfires and other results of global warming – all of which have zero consensus in the scientific community.”

    Rising sea levels are destroying some island nations in the Indian ocean. Rising sea levels are helping flood coastal communities all around the globe on top of the usual tides and storm surges. Wildfires kill people and render them homeless.

    Last time I checked. I had a scientific education. I understand molecular structure of CO2. It’s a larger molecule than N2 or O2 and is much more reflective in the infrared spectrum. Yes, water vapour is a greenhouse gas. We see that at night when clouds prevent cooling of the Earth below. However, water vapour is in equilibrium with the surface. It does precipitate. CO2 does not except at extremely low temperatures or very high pressures. CO2 is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas because it is rising monotonically and because it is much more effective than water vapour, percentage-wise.
    “It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature.”

  41. dougman says:

    Quoting the EPA, are ya? The EPA is a eff’n joke.

    You idiots were all chanting “GLOBAL WARMING!” at the turn of the century along with Al Gore, now that Gore’s predictions have all failed. You idiots issue the mantra “CLIMATE CHANGE!” So which is it??

    Back on subject and regarding the EPA and CO2. The specific rule on CO2, called the endangerment finding, is based on faulty science. The EPA determined that CO2 was a pollutant not because it was harmful to humans but because it is linked to rising sea levels, wildfires and other results of global warming – all of which have zero consensus in the scientific community.

    http://www.powermag.com/blog/epa-co2-poposal-is-anti-life-and-anti-science/

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/how-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-affects-american-business-and-consumers

    Next the EPA will decreed that water vapor to be regulated, as it is twenty times more efficient at trapping heat at the earth’s surface than CO2. It is also present in the atmosphere at about 100 times the concentration of CO2. In fact, water vapor has been known to be present in such high concentration that it spontaneously PRECIPITATES out in big drops. DANGER…DANGER.

    BAN Dihydrogen Monoxide now! In fact, ban Oxygen and Nitrogen while you’re at it too.

  42. The US EPA wrote, “Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution leads to more frequent and intense heat waves that increase mortality, especially among the poor and elderly. Other climate change public health concerns raised in the scientific literature include anticipated increases in ground-level ozone pollution, the potential for enhanced spread of some waterborne and pest-related diseases, and evidence for increased production or dispersion of airborne allergens.
     
    Other effects of greenhouse gas pollution noted in the scientific literature include ocean acidification, sea level rise and increased storm surge, harm to agriculture and forests, species extinctions and ecosystem damage. Climate change impacts in certain regions of the world (potentially leading, for example, to food scarcity, conflicts or mass migration) may exacerbate problems that raise humanitarian, trade and national security issues for the United States.”

    So, CO2 is a chemical agent and a pollutant. While it is naturally found in the atmosphere, it is quite unnatural to find the concentrations dumped by humans anywhere except in volcanoes. e.g. normal respiration emits it but a human body burns sugars to produce ~100W of heat while a single car produces killowatts burning petroleum. That’s not natural at all.

  43. dougman says:

    “The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.”

    Oh wow, you can copy/paste U.S. Code! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7602

    42 U.S. Code § 7602(g)

    (g) The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term “air pollutant” is used.

    Do yourself a favor and scroll further down, most specifically parts (v) and (w). What do they define?? In fact, whats does 42 U.S. Code Chapter 85 state?

    AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL

    Now!….. go back to subsection 7602 and find for me carbon-dioxide in the definitions. HINT, you won’t. The ONLY mention of carbon is part (w), as in carbon-monoxide, says nothing about carbon-dioxide you dumbass.

    Unlike you, I know how to read law. Which coincidentally, have you filed your “deformation” suit yet?

  44. dougman says:

    Ham-Turd, if you are so concerned about CO2 levels, please stop breathing.

  45. oiaohm says:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

    Argue all you like the define of an Air Pollutant
    The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
    That is the define
    But this is with the notion that CO2 is a pollutant, when it is not.
    As normal Dougman saying something that is not the define so is basically another lie to attempt to win a point.

    You breath you put out air Pollutants. Anything altering the air is an air pollutant and everything in air is a Pollutant.. The question is it a harmful pollutant.

    So everything in air has acceptable and safe thresholds.

    Something to be aware for value of ppm of CO2 in air we are at levels that we have never found in any old ice record. 500ppm is when we start having different crop plants turning toxic and becoming no longer eatable to us. 800ppm is when we start having crops die at night. Up 1500ppm CO2 you can use if the plant never sees darkness. At the rate we having been increase CO2 in atmosphere we are not far off the start of the worse problems.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html
    For humans CO2 acceptable levels: < 600 ppm for humans to be healthy and fully mentally alert.

    General drowsiness: 1000 – 2500 ppm basically 1000ppm+ is lets have every human on earth like they are drunk. So you would say under 1000ppm CO2 to have human brain function.

    dougman something to remember when you go inside a building the CO2 inside is normally 150-250 ppm greater than atmospheric. The reality we are not far off every human inside a building feeling stiff so under performing at work that is if your building has a 600ppm or greater CO2 load.

    Reality is we are down right close on the CO2 thresholds to make it not pleasant to live in caves or buildings. Cold sections of the world having to live outside to get access to human tolerable level CO2 air is not workable.

    Water depletion is mostly global dimming. Increasing co2 without global dimming would have normally equal more rainfall so more plant growth so correcting the CO2 value. Global dimming is a fairly big fact why the CO2 in our time has gone so far out of balance.

    Please note methane does not effect humans as bad directly as CO2 does. 500,000 ppm exposure to methane is the level to kill us directly but until that level if you don't explode it you are fine mentally. Even CO2 direct death level is 250,000 ppm half that of methane.

    So what one are those reservoirs producing dougman.

    Basically if you want to disregard global warming that is fine. But you cannot really ignore the human 600ppm CO2 threshold so we can think and function completely and we are already having 450ppm CO2 reading outside without the overhead of using recycled air in cars, buildings and the like. Maybe some of the reason you are a idiot dougman is you are not aware of how CO2 effect humans so are living in a building with too high of CO2 constantly impairing you.

  46. dougman wrote, “which is it??”

    Both! Manitoba has rivers from most of western Canada and northern USA passing through so we have leverage on all the precipitation in nearly a million square miles of land. That doesn’t mean we will have the rainfall where and when we need it for crops and filling aquifers. I’m close to a river so my well will likely never dry up in my lifetime but I know lots of people on the prairies that do run out of water in droughts. Having longer and more frequent droughts is a problem both for agriculture and hydro-electricity but the hydro is in surplus now. We could stop exporting hydro if water supply declined sufficiently.

  47. dougman says:

    “We have ~100K lakes in Manitoba. ”

    In your original post, you were worrying about where future Canadians are going to get their water. So here, we have you in one hand, linking CO2 pollution to future water depletion then in a complete 180-degrees, you speak with a forked-tongue that your province has huge excess of lakes. So which is it??

  48. dougman wrote, “They don’t use it, they create more of it.”

    Have you ever seen a hydro-electric project in northern Canada? They don’t need much of a reservoir because the rivers keep running year round. The reservoir is a small buffer to match seasonal variations. We have ~100K lakes in Manitoba. A few more won’t make any difference but it supplies millions with power which we export to USA at a handsome profit.

  49. dougman says:

    “Just sit 50 Germanies side by side and you have a very big country.”

    Yes, simple arithmetic does create large numbers. *rolls-eyes*

    “China is right up there too.”

    Right up where? Up you mean the top polluter in the world? But this is with the notion that CO2 is a pollutant, when it is not.

    “These folks are not fools.”

    Well Angela Merkel certainly is, the “open borders” migration policy instigated by her will create a Germany with half its under-40 population consisting of Middle Eastern and North African immigrants and their children. in 20-30 years, Germany will be no more.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/germany-on-the-brink.html

    “If you believe that an aging, secularized, heretofore-mostly-homogeneous society is likely to peacefully absorb a migration of that size and scale of cultural difference, then you have a bright future as a spokesman for the current German government….You’re also a fool.”

  50. dougman blathered on and wrote, “your electric car will be charge from non-renewable resources, but you are deluded to think that you are in some capacity saving planet”.

    You think I can’t do maths? This electric car will almost pay for itself in savings on fuel/maintenance and I will be much more mobile. Our utility use hydro dams, not carbon. It’s a no-brainer. As for Germany, their load scales. Just sit 50 Germanies side by side and you have a very big country. China is right up there too. These folks are not fools. PV works for them. Canada is blessed with real-estate, much of it rocks/tundra. We have lots of room for PV arrays and they are affordable. The problem of storage of energy is not that difficult. Since we have a lot of hydro we could use the daytime peaks in PV to pump water uphill and reuse that energy at night. Since NimH has come down in price that’s feasible too. Then there’s just plain heating, our largest energy expenditure in homes. It’s trivial to build in a massive rock/water heat-storage room and just store sunshine. My home almost does that, requiring little or no electrical heat until near freezing temperatures. A better-designed home could easily store passive solar for heating. The only other heavy loads we have are the welder and the stove. They are used rather briefly so battery-power could deal with them.

  51. dougman says:

    LOL…

    “Germany already has installed 31% renewable energy sources. ”

    You want me to compare U.S. or Canada to Germany? WOW!!

    Let’s see, Germany is 357,168 square kilometers, Canada is 9.984 million square kilometers and USA 9.834 million square kilometers. Which is a difference of 27:1 approximately.

    No way in hell can you compare such a tiny country like that.

    Also, when you look at the energy usage chart: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2015.png you find that less then 5% derives from any sort of renewable source. Plus, you need to add in rejected energy which is 60% then over-build due to base-load capacity requirements.

    You cannot compare a 1-2GW nuke plant or a 500MW coal plant to 500MW wind or solar array, it’s just not the same. Nuke and coal have a 90% and 60% capacity factor respectively, whereas, renewable’s suffer along at 30%. So for 1GW of generating power, you would need to install 4GW of solar or wind arrays.

    Thus, in reference to my chart as linked above, a single quad of energy is 33.434 gigawatt-years..YEARS! SO using simple math (33.434*98) equals 3276.532 giga-watt years.

    Continuing on, the USA has ninety-nine nuclear power reactors in thirty states and in 2015 they produced 798 TWh worth of energy. Since 2001 these plants have achieved an average capacity factor of over 90%, generating up to 807 billion kWh per year. No amount of wind/solar power will replace this in the foreseeable future.

    I think its hilarious, as your electric car will be charge from non-renewable resources, but you are deluded to think that you are in some capacity saving planet.

  52. dougman wrote, “solar/wind power is not a viable base-load alternative.”

    Sure, it is in many places. Germany already has installed 31% renewable energy sources. My own property certainly could use more than 50% already if you count hydroelectricity as renewable. If I get my electric car and TLW finds it suitable, we are almost done with oil except for mowing the lawn and cultivating. Mowing could go electric with a change in style. That just leaves cultivating, a small part of our energy-consumption. If I were to build a shack in the bush I certainly could design for solar/wind to do most of the work.

    Inability to supply the base load is more a lack of imagination that practicality. It just means doing things differently which is OK.

  53. dougman says:

    solar/wind power is not a viable base-load alternative.

  54. dougman wrote, “CO2 is NOT a polllutant”.

    It’s all a matter of concentration. A little ozone is not harmful. A bit more is definitely an irritating chemical pollution. CO2 is not as active as ozone but too much will definitely raise temperatures, just like a hot car or a greenhouse. For a lot of processes, CO2 is a waste product and definitely pollutes. It’s a waste product of animals, fires, and decay. The idea that one can burn billions of barrels of oil annually without consequence is just silly. Whatever processes might be producing hydrocarbons today just cannot keep up with that pace, so it’s depleting a useful natural resource for little benefit. There was a time when solar/wind power was marginal but no longer. Folks are installing as fast as they can so eventually there won’t be much need for burning hydrocarbons or even wood. At least wood is renewable and the CO2 is recycled. Not so with oil.

  55. oiaohm says:

    dougman those old papers define thresholds. You don’t need to argue if global-warming exists with those documents. If CO2 level gets to X while light level is a Y result will be no matter what crop failures of our main crops. Big thing to remember at night plants take in O2 they don’t have active lungs like us and if they don’t get the O2 they need they die. So plants die from hypoxia if CO2 in the atmosphere gets above a particular point.

    There is no global warming and CO2 is NOT a polllutant.
    Sorry CO2 is like O2 too much of it will kill you. Thing is too much O2 does not kill plants where too much O2 kills most animals and too much CO2 kills plants and animals with most crop plaints dieing first.

    The combination of low light and slightly raised CO2 levels is one of the causes ethiopia famine that we had the Live aid concert over a long time ago. So the crops did not just fail due to lack of rain. It was studies into famine events that caused CO2 levels and light levels to be run in labs on plants.

    dougman like it or not we have see first hand evidence why CO2 levels and light levels should be monitored and alter out behaviour when things go too far in particular directions or will we be dumb humans and have to suffer though another emission triggered famine again or worse. By the way the earth CO2 levels are not evenly spread.

  56. dougman says:

    “that data was published about this by the CSIRO and Israeli equal 15 years ago ”

    Ignorant useless moron, why would you bring-up a fifteen year old published paper to argue that CO2 is pollution and that global-warming is real? YOu can argue about till you are blue in the face and die from hypoxia. There is no global warming and CO2 is NOT a polllutant.

  57. oiaohm says:

    dougman that data was published about this by the CSIRO and Israeli equal 15 years ago of course under educated USA idiot like you would not know it.

    It was the CSIRO who first started doing tests artificially increasing CO2 levels and artificially messing with light levels for plants to understand the risks of increasing CO2 from global warming and reduce light from global dimming.

    So all the data is already collated on what we need to-do. Just big countries like USA China an so on have not be following the existing advice.

    So verbal-diarrhea is you dougman by a idiot who knows nothing about the topics he is commenting on most of the time.

  58. dougman says:

    Ham-turd, you are dead to me. Anything you post is just verbal-diarrhea.

    Only oiaohm has the answer, but no one will listen to him!

  59. oiaohm says:

    dougman there is something interesting here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_evaporation
    As pan evaporation that are use to monitor sunlight are showing improvement CO2 numbers are slowing in exact same response to it as plants are able to-do their job.

    So this says management of global dimming effect is very important to controlling green house gas levels.

    Photosynthesis cannot work without sun light. Us burning diesel, coal and other things not cleanly so causing global dimming have prevents the plants and other photosynthesis organisms from correctly managing levels. The level of green-shift aligns to pan evaporation numbers improvements or lack of.

    So if we are not going to control CO2 we do absolutely need to control particle emissions.

    Something to remember –475 and 600ppm– So 475-600 ppm is the CO2 sweet spot for plants any more they don’t function better but worse.

    So CO2 levels there is a point of no return where it turns toxic to even plants.

    One of the best ways to improve global dimming would be basically ground all civilian aircraft for good and force rail and ship to be used more.

    Global displacements? Why?? Certainly not due to weather, which I suspect you are broadly insinuating here. The displacements you are seeing on the television, is namely from the destabilization of the middle-east due to wars and former Secretary Clinton.

    Pull you head out your ass. Australia and other countries in the pacific have already have had to take in populations from islands that are no more due to sea level rises. No island near the USA with a population is no more yet but many not populated islands near the USA are no more. So USA has been lucky on this count. Of course these people who have lost their complete islands are not getting much media coverage.
    https://theconversation.com/sea-level-rise-has-claimed-five-whole-islands-in-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511

    If we keep on going this way the number of displaced due to the environmental change will make the displaced from the middle-east look like nothing. The warning bells are more than ringing on this problem. We are looking at over a billion people in the path of displacement due to the environmental change if nothing is done. In the Americas at about 250 million displaced as the land they are living on now disappears into the sea if nothing changes. This is without expanding area of tornado damage. 3 times more people than if all the population of syria, irag and Afghanistan had been moved and that is just in the Americas without overflow from else where.

    If you cannot deal with the number of refugees coming from the middle east now you will without question not be able to deal with the level of disruption sea hieght changes will cause. The evidence is solid that is happening.

  60. dougman says:

    “However, the bad things are coming: more extreme weather, droughts in the interior of continents, where I live, and floods elsewhere.”

    You cannot even predict the outcome of an election, and now you are predicting long-term weather patterns. People with degrees in meteorology, have a hard enough time predicting the weather days in advance. How did you obtains this function?

    “The Arctic is already feeling the pain.”

    A polar region experience’s pain? Do you hear it crying?? The ONLY region that is suffering pain near to you is the oil tar sands. That place is a eye-sore.

    “The climate certainly is warmer where I live a few hundred miles south.”

    All weather is cyclic, a few thousand years ago your region was buried under a mile thick sheet of ice. Hows that for weather change?

    “In the short term I am better off as the trees I’ve planted will grow more vigorously and the white tailed deer will be more fruitful and survive milder winters”

    You would have been better office tilling the backyard, and building a few greenhouses. more then likely your trees will be cut down, or just die off.

    “I fear for the world my grandchildren will inherit.”

    Are you suffering anxiety?

    “Will water become scarce for them?”

    Ummm no, they will get water from the same place as you and I, from the damn ground.

    “Will they have to move to the tropics for water?”

    Only if they despise living in a socialist country infiltrated by Muslims demanding Sharia law.

    “Will drought kill the trees here?”

    No. As I said, they will die on their own, or be cut down.

    “Will global displacements of people make our times look like a picnic?”

    Global displacements? Why?? Certainly not due to weather, which I suspect you are broadly insinuating here. The displacements you are seeing on the television, is namely from the destabilization of the middle-east due to wars and former Secretary Clinton.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

  61. dougman says:

    Just reading the title, “Carbon Dioxide Pollution” makes me cringe.

    Seriously?..whats next Oxygen pollution? Wait, what about Nitrogen pollution. Yes, that’s it! Eureka!..we should campaign against Nitrogen pollution. Lightening creates far too much nitrogen oxide’s, such as nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide.

    While we are at it, we should ban dihydrogen monoxide! This scourge ruins everything it touches, a very powerful solvent that is capable of dissolving a variety of different substances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *