Thousands of activists block London roads to demand action on climate change

[transam]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Back in the late 80s I lived in a house that was heated completely by solar energy, hot water came from heat exchangers on the roof, room heating came from a heat pump pumping heat from the garden and outside air.

 

The house was always comfortably warm and there was always plenty of hot water.

 

The house is in Sterling, Scotland.

 

Your understanding of the limitations of solar energy is at least a few decades out of date.

Oh, an area with no electric.....????

[transam]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because that’s what environmentalists are advocating?

 

Of course it is not, but what do you care, engaging in the issue is not your point.

Not my point....????.....Sorry I posted........

 

But as on most threads you post a huge number of confused emijons I suppose I must take that into consideration...????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Oh, an area with no electric.....????

Again, who is advocating living without electricity?

 

Nobody is.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

29 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your understanding of the limitations of solar energy is at least a few decades out of date.

Not correct. The potential of solar energy is enormous. If the entire Sahara desert were covered with modern solar panels, it would provide about 20 times the total amount of energy currently used by the entire global population, converting all energy currently used into the electricity equivalent of kilowatt hours.

 

The issue is all about cost. The cost of energy, and the ways and the efficiency with which we use that energy, is the fundamental basis of the prosperity of mankind.

 

If you make energy more expensive, for whatever reason, then people on average, or certain target groups in our unequal societies, will inevitably be less prosperous. That's basic Physics.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 2:39 PM, nauseus said:

That's a bit drastic and would end our species in about a century. However, limiting and controlling numbers of people on earth is the master key to solving most emission, pollution, hunger and strife problems. The biggest snag would be having everyone agree to it.  

IMO, limiting population is the ONLY key to solving the problem. Humans are busily destroying everything they touch ecologically. Unfortunately, the people having children in large numbers are often the most uneducated and will be the most reluctant to limit their reproduction. 

As I've said before, the world population should be around 3 billion at most. How to achieve that? Nature will answer, and the means will not be nice.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Not correct. The potential of solar energy is enormous. If the entire Sahara desert were covered with modern solar panels, it would provide about 20 times the total amount of energy currently used by the entire global population, converting all energy currently used into the electricity equivalent of kilowatt hours.

 

The issue is all about cost. The cost of energy, and the ways and the efficiency with which we use that energy, is the fundamental basis of the prosperity of mankind.

 

If you make energy more expensive, for whatever reason, then people on average, or certain target groups in our unequal societies, will inevitably be less prosperous. That's basic Physics.

Saudi was doing research into solar power in the 90s, and I visited the research plant. They certainly have the sunlight, but it was too expensive to use it instead of oil for power generation.

When it's cheaper to use solar than other means, it will take over. Till then...…………………….

 

As for electric cars, till I can drive for 7 hours with one recharge in less than 15 minutes, it's not going to be for me.

[bizboi]

21 hours ago, bristolboy said:

really?

Will India’s coal plants be left high and dry?

Thanks to the rise of low-cost electricity from wind and solar plants, a third of India’s coal power plant capacity is likely to be ‘stranded’. Since India has 197,171 MW of coal power, a third of it (65,723 MW) is quite a lot, and the big question is, what to do with them.

In 2017, most of the coal plants in the country produced, on an average, only 60 per cent of the electricity they could, and one of the bigger reasons was that the utilities were happier buying cheaper power from wind and solar. Experts calculate that if the capacity utilisation of a coal plant falls below 52 per cent — as is likely, with the rise of renewables — then the plant becomes fit to be shown the door.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/will-indias-coal-plants-be-left-high-and-dry/article24039455.ece

 

Quote

Yes really - your point relates to coal production of electricity only have a look at the whole picture about bio fuels and total energy production - also you may want to look up biomas!!

India is increasingly dependent on imported fossil fuels as demand continues to rise

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics

---

India's dependence on imported fossil fuels rose to 38% in 2012, despite the country having significant domestic fossil fuel resources. India ranked as the fourth-largest energy consumer in the world in 2011, following China, the United States, and Russia. The country's energy demand continues to climb as a result of its dynamic economic growth and modernization. India is the third-largest economy on a purchasing power parity basis and has the world's second-largest population, according to World Bank data.

As India modernizes and the population moves to urban areas, the country has shifted from using traditional biomass and waste to relying on other energy sources, including fossil fuels. India's newly elected government, with the Bharatiya Janat Party as the majority party, faces challenges to meet the country's growing energy demand, to secure affordable energy supplies, and to attract investment for domestic hydrocarbon production and infrastructure development.

Petroleum and other liquids. In 2013, India was the fourth-largest consumer and net importer of crude oil and petroleum products in the world after the United States, China, and Japan. India's petroleum product demand reached nearly 3.7 million barrels per day (bbl/d), far above the country's roughly 1 million bbl/d of total liquids production. Most of India's demand is for motor gasoline and gasoil, fuels used mainly in the transportation and industrial sectors, and for kerosene and LPG in the residential and commercial sectors. Consumers receive large subsidies for retail purchases of diesel, LPG, and kerosene, placing upward pressure on overall oil demand. Insufficient investment in developing more crude oil and liquids production has caused production to grow at a slower rate than oil demand.

 

Quote

And that's without adding in the cost of pollution controls for coal powered plants.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Not correct. The potential of solar energy is enormous. If the entire Sahara desert were covered with modern solar panels, it would provide about 20 times the total amount of energy currently used by the entire global population, converting all energy currently used into the electricity equivalent of kilowatt hours.

 

The issue is all about cost. The cost of energy, and the ways and the efficiency with which we use that energy, is the fundamental basis of the prosperity of mankind.

 

If you make energy more expensive, for whatever reason, then people on average, or certain target groups in our unequal societies, will inevitably be less prosperous. That's basic Physics.

You seem to be confusing physics and economics.

 

You also seem to have a limited understanding of what drives the energy costs to consumers.

[thaibeachlovers]

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because that’s what environmentalists are advocating?

 

Of course it is not, but what do you care, engaging in the issue is not your point.

What are the environmentalists advocating? Seems to me they want other people to do something about it, and don't actually have any idea of what should be done, or if anything can be done.

I often read that solar is the answer, when clearly it's not, at the moment. When it's as cheap as present generators, and is 24 hours, then it will be replacing present generators.

What happened to wave generation? That's a 24 hours solution.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Saudi was doing research into solar power in the 90s, and I visited the research plant. They certainly have the sunlight, but it was too expensive to use it instead of oil for power generation.

When it's cheaper to use solar than other means, it will take over. Till then...…………………….

 

As for electric cars, till I can drive for 7 hours with one recharge in less than 15 minutes, it's not going to be for me.

Saudi in the 90s.

 

At least two decades ago

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What are the environmentalists advocating? Seems to me they want other people to do something about it, and don't actually have any idea of what should be done, or if anything can be done.

I often read that solar is the answer, when clearly it's not, at the moment. When it's as cheap as present generators, and is 24 hours, then it will be replacing present generators.

What happened to wave generation? That's a 24 hours solution.

I don’t know anyone who argues a single energy source is ‘the answer’.

 

Maybe it’s another one of those Strawmen. I suspect it is.

[VincentRJ]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You seem to be confusing physics and economics.

 

You also seem to have a limited understanding of what drives the energy costs to consumers.

Please feel free to explain why you think I'm confused, and educate me on the drivers of energy costs.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Saudi in the 90s.

 

At least two decades ago

So what. Are they using solar now, instead of oil? According to what is brought up on google, no.

 

No matter, deflect away.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Please feel free to explain why you think I'm confused, and educate me on the drivers of energy costs.

I’ll give you a driver - price fixing (just one example), there are more, non of the anything to do with physics.

[VincentRJ]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ll give you a driver - price fixing (just one example), there are more, non of the anything to do with physics.

You're confusing energy costs with energy prices. Price-fixing doesn't change the fundamental cost of producing the energy. It's the fundamental, real cost of producing energy that affects our average prosperity. Price fixing simply transfers more money (or energy equivalent) from the buyer to the seller. One person's increased wealth then becomes another person's reduced wealth.

[fruitman]

A Dutch politician just discovered that the historical weather charts of Amsterdam have disappeared and asked to see them back.

 

There have been heatwaves before which all got registered but for convenience reasons the government removed them some weeks ago.

 

Now why would that be? Are there still historical weather charts of london so we can see the average temps for the last century?

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, fruitman said:

A Dutch politician just discovered that the historical weather charts of Amsterdam have disappeared and asked to see them back.

 

There have been heatwaves before which all got registered but for convenience reasons the government removed them some weeks ago.

 

Now why would that be? Are there still historical weather charts of london so we can see the average temps for the last century?

Yes, at least for the UK and four home nations anyway.

Go to: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/actualmonthly

 

Below is the mean temp for the UK since 1910. Almost exactly a 1 deg C rise and you can see the effect of the famous 1962/3 winter (big freeze):

 

[isaanjohnno]

Reasoning and logic in these  uneducated idiots is skewed beyond all recognition, making them pathological hypocrites—or psychopaths.

[metisdead]

An offensive off topic troll post has been removed. 

[tifino]

i hope the EcoMonitors measured to graph the 'local' before and after effects on oxygen wasted by the disrupters? to produce all that hot air...

 

 - as MontyPython would have it :

"...moan moan moan, always complaining..."

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, isaanjohnno said:

Reasoning and logic in these  uneducated idiots is skewed beyond all recognition, making them pathological hypocrites—or psychopaths.

I’m critical of climate change deniers but I wouldn’t go that far.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The average pH of the ocean surfaces is estimated to have fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 150 years. A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH below 7 is acidic. Above 7 is alkaline. 

The pH scale is logarithmic. Converting it to percentages can be misleading, but that's what climate alarmists are experts at, so no surprise there. ????

 

A fall in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 is a 26% decline in alkalinity. However, a fall from a pH of 8.2 to 7.1, which is still slightly alkaline, is a 900% decline in alkalinity. Blast it! That makes a 30% decline non-alarming. Better not mention it. ????

The trouble is that the rate of acidification is still increasing and also that some areas are worse affected than others, to the point where some organisms (classic e.g. corals) are already affected. It is a problem already, so alarm bells are definitely warranted.

[bristolboy]

Just now, isaanjohnno said:

Reasoning and logic in these  uneducated idiots is skewed beyond all recognition, making them pathological hypocrites—or psychopaths.

I know what you mean. All they do is call people they disagree with names but provide no evidence to support their case. They are such uneducated idiots.

[Becker]

48 minutes ago, isaanjohnno said:

Reasoning and logic in these  uneducated idiots is skewed beyond all recognition, making them pathological hypocrites—or psychopaths.

Even if the climate change deniers disregard cold hard facts and solid science I believe it's over the top to call them idiots. Morons perhaps, but not idiots.

[Inepto Cracy]

[Inepto Cracy]

Crisis, what crisis.  .  .  .

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Inepto Cracy said:

A couple of weeks back, not far from where I’m sitting.

[transam]

30 minutes ago, Inepto Cracy said:

But I like Chili Con Carnie...????

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

The trouble is that the rate of acidification is still increasing and also that some areas are worse affected than others, to the point where some organisms (classic e.g. corals) are already affected. It is a problem already, so alarm bells are definitely warranted.

Ocean acidification is as variable as local weather. It changes according to the season of the year, the location of the ocean, the part of the ocean that is measured, the depth of the ocean, and so on. The magnitude of such variations over very short periods of time is far greater than the estimated average increase in the acidification of the ocean surfaces during the past 150 years.

 

Not only do the oceans cover a much larger area of the planet's surface than land, they also have a far greater number of active volcanoes at any point in time, spewing CO2 into the ocean waters. It is estimated there are over 3 million submarine volcanoes (not all active at the same time, of course).

 

Fish and other sea creatures that can move, are smart enough to move to conditions (or pH levels) that best suit them, unlike most humans who are stuck in their homes like coral reefs. ????

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Ocean acidification is as variable as local weather. It changes according to the season of the year, the location of the ocean, the part of the ocean that is measured, the depth of the ocean, and so on. The magnitude of such variations over very short periods of time is far greater than the estimated average increase in the acidification of the ocean surfaces during the past 150 years.

 

Not only do the oceans cover a much larger area of the planet's surface than land, they also have a far greater number of active volcanoes at any point in time, spewing CO2 into the ocean waters. It is estimated there are over 3 million submarine volcanoes (not all active at the same time, of course).

 

Fish and other sea creatures that can move, are smart enough to move to conditions (or pH levels) that best suit them, unlike most humans who are stuck in their homes like coral reefs. ????

Nonsense. And significant that you choose to compare increasing acidity to weather rather than to climate. That fact that ocean acidification is up 30 percent means that on average the huge variety of species that depend on extracting calcium carbonate from the ocean are under stress. What's more, In the same way the global warming is resulting in far more high temperature records being broken than cold temperature records,, the average increase in acidity ( or deallkalinization_is resulting in far more acidity records being broken than alkalinity records. These novel bursts of high acidity puts huge stress on local life forms. If present trends continue by 2100 the oceans will be 170 percent more acidic on average than they are now. In addition there's a lot less variability in tropical and subtropical waters where corals grow. Corals and other sea life are already under stress in the tropics from increasing heat. The increase in acidity just adds to it.

http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/Oarp/media/images/PDF/UKOA-Variability_Trends.pdf