A Tutorial For Trump Supporters On Climate Change

[healthmyths]

Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

As future president, Donald Trump has promised to dismantle President Barack Obama’s progress toward improving the environment. He has supported the Keystone XL pipeline and removing regulations on the gas and oil industries. He wants to reduce the influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he called a “disgrace,” and scrap the Clean Power Plan, which would compel power plants to reduce their carbon emission. He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate change deal. And he also once claimed that global warming is a hoax “created by and for the Chinese.” Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

Well Mr. Trump. You's got some learnin' to do. Average-student business-major Donald Trump; who doesn't take regular security briefings from experts even, cuz, you know, he's smarter than they are on everything...has suddenly deemed himself smarter than world scientific consensus. He might as well declare that green is now purple. What will be next in his world of make-believe?

Even the chemical industry disagrees with you; and dozens of other professional organizations, including NASA. Who is smarter Trumpees? Your guru Donald Trump? Or almost all world scientists?:

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Discuss

I have always intuitively wondered how reading a thermometer outside when it was -20° or +100° the person could distinguish between a temperature reading of "20° and 21°". I then just today found this great web page and fascinating debunking of global temperature readings. The Metrology of Thermometers

My main points are that in climatology many important factors that are accounted for in other areas of science and engineering are completely ignored by many scientists:
Human Errors in accuracy and resolution of historical data are ignored
Mechanical thermometer resolution is ignored
Electronic gauge calibration is ignored
Mechanical and Electronic temperature gauge accuracy is ignored
Hysteresis in modern data acquisition is ignored
Conversion from Degrees F to Degrees C introduces false resolution into data.

Finally we get to the infamous conversion of Degrees Fahrenheit to Degrees Centigrade. Until the 1960’s almost all global temperatures were measured in Fahrenheit. Nowadays all the proper scientists use Centigrade. So, all old data is routinely converted to Centigrade. take the original temperature, minus 32 times 5 divided by 9.
C= ((F-32) x 5)/9

example- original reading from 1950 data file is 60F. This data was eyeballed by the local weatherman and written into his tallybook. 50 years later a scientist takes this figure and converts it to centigrade:

60-32 =28
28×5=140
140/9= 15.55555556

This is usually (incorrectly) rounded to two decimal places =: 15.55c without any explanation as to why this level of resolution has been selected.

The correct mathematical method of handling this issue of resolution is to look at the original resolution of the recorded data. Typically old Fahrenheit data was recorded in increments of 2 degrees F, eg 60, 62, 64, 66, 68,70. very rarely on old data sheets do you see 61, 63 etc (although 65 is slightly more common)

Remember from 1880 to the late 60s all the world recording stations used this:

 

[Jarlaxle]

One more time: gas power plants DON'T BOIL WATER!

Yes but we weren't talking about gas power plants. We were talking about coal plants.

But if you want, let's discuss the same essential technological goal: spinning the fins of a turbine; which is all the steam does. The 'steam' from a gas or oil power plant is the highly combusted gases turning the fins. Potato, pot-A-to.

The combustion (gas) turbines being installed in many of today's natural-gas-fueled power plants are complex machines, but they basically involve three main sections: How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work | Department of Energy

Oh, my yes! VERY complex machines! NOT. They just push gases by a turbine's fins. All it is, is a giant car engine doing the work of container of boiling water...

• The compressor, which draws air into the engine, pressurizes it, and feeds it to the combustion chamber at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour.
• The combustion system, typically made up of a ring of fuel injectors that inject a steady stream of fuel into combustion chambers where it mixes with the air. The mixture is burned at temperatures of more than 2000 degrees F. The combustion produces a high temperature, high pressure gas stream that enters and expands through the turbine section.
• The turbine is an intricate array of alternate stationary and rotating aerofoil-section blades. As hot combustion gas expands through the turbine, it spins the rotating blades. The rotating blades perform a dual function: they drive the compressor to draw more pressurized air into the combustion section, and they spin a generator to produce electricity.

No matter what you say, a gas turbine cannot operate by burning pixie dust and unicorn flatulence.

 

[Silhouette]

No matter what you say, a gas turbine cannot operate by burning pixie dust and unicorn flatulence.

Maybe you missed this post last page? This isn't burning pixie dust and unicorn flatulence. Because if it was, China, France, Spain, Morocco & the ME wouldn't be in the process of kicking our asses in the race to utilize solar radiation to boil water. Watch the youtube videos. Calculate the bottom line of expensive vs free steam.

**********


What isn't financially viable about a row of parabolic sheet metal pointing at a tube filled with oil that flash-heats water to steam which then runs the same types of turbines that expensive coal or oil fuel do? With FREE sunshine.

Here, look how "hard, expensive and difficult" setting up a solar thermal boiler is:



Now here's a coal plant going in. Which one do you think costs more? And over time as well? And the untold an incalculable costs of damaging our thermosphere by needing 10lbs of coal to keep one TV running all day?



Trump is a man who can do the math especially on cutting costs to improve profits. When a power company can boil water to run the same steam turbine...only not have to buy fuel for up to 8 hours a day (or more) 300 days a year, Trump will know which company to invest in and which not to.

The Chinese are beating our pants off at this free-fuel turbine source. Other countries are following close behind her. Will we be the 21st Century's equivalent of "energy Amish"? Or will we get with the times and become the leaders in this inevitable replacement to boil water?

 

[Silhouette]

Note the language and who produced this youtube. Do you want the US to be in front on this technology? Or like the Amish, left behind in last century?

 

[Jarlaxle]

One more time for the slow kid: show me ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SOLAR PoWER PLANT that makes ONE DOLLAR of profit!

 

[Silhouette]

One more time for the slow kid: show me ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SOLAR PoWER PLANT that makes ONE DOLLAR of profit!

http://www.bine.info/fileadmin/content/Publikationen/Englische_Infos/themen_0213_engl_Internetx.pdf

In the last five years, the electricity generation costs for solar thermal power plants have fallen by about one third to around 14 to 18 eurocents/kWh and, according to the European industry association ESTELA, have the potential to undercut the 10 eurocent mark during the next ten years. Compared with fluctuating electricity from wind and PV systems, the added value for the improved supply security for the grid operation achieved through energy storage systems currently amounts to 3 euro-cents/kWh in some networks. This value will continue to increase in future along with the greater proportion of fluctuating energy in the grid. The three main drivers lowering costs are the up-scaling to larger units, mass production of components and technological innovations. The latter are aimed at increasing the efficiency of power plants with greater operating temperatures, optimising the optical design as well as lowering the component costs...

I guess we'll have to have support industry (jobs) that know how to stamp out parabolic shapes out of sheet metal. And engineers that are familiar with increasing efficiency. Oh woe are we! Will all this great and horrible effort be worth the free fuel we'll be getting every day the sun shines? In places like the desert; where it never stops shining? And where they implant heat reservoirs to continue producing power at night from the day's solar heat accumulation reserves?

Egads!

Go lay on a desert highway for a week or so Jar Jar & let us know if you think by the end of it there's enough energy in the Southwest to run a city or 100, or 1,000?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A quick tutorial on climate change......yes climate change is real.....it has been happening for eons....

 

[bripat9643]

Redfish; I'm going to side with the thousands of scientists...including the ones at NASA who tell us that human carbon combustion is thinning our thermosphere dangerously; creating the extremes in weather we've seen escalating. The time has come to completely ignore climate-change deniers and move forward right over the top of them; ignoring them as one would ignore a filthy child who struggles against getting a bath.

The sun stops shining every night, moron. So instead of one giant facility to create electricity, you want to build two to produce the same amount, and you think that's cheaper?

Leaving molten salt heat storage aside for now (which the Chinese are adding to their solar thermal fields to generate electricity at night after a sunny day); I'll take the stock in a company that generates free power 8 hours while the sun shines; while charging the same rate as those burning coal 24/7. In areas where that's 300 days a year (like most of the Southwest), my stock will be more valuable than yours.

Mr. Trump understands cheap materials to maximize profits. Why pay for coal during times when the sun boils water just as easily?

No company can produce free power for even one minute a day. There is no such thing as free solar power gathering equipment. There's no point in discussing the matter until you get that irrefutable fact through your thick skull.

 

[Chuz Life]

A quick tutorial on climate change......yes climate change is real.....it has been happening for eons....

I loved finding this chart in this thread! Awesome. And I honestly do actually believe that human have made some impact on global temperaturesensor and sea levels. But NOT to the extremes that the alarmists are incessantly whining about.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Silhouette]

Some impact?

 

[Silhouette]

No company can produce free power for even one minute a day. There is no such thing as free solar power gathering equipment. There's no point in discussing the matter until you get that irrefutable fact through your thick skull.

No such thing as free power. But there is such a thing as free fuel. Your company you have stock in either 1. Has to pay for fuel 24/7/365...or 2. Only when the sun isn't shining (even that night too if they have molten salt heat storage). Which company makes more profit? If you answer 1. I'll know you're a liar.

More importantly, Trump knows which company would Make America Great Again!

And in case you hadn't notice...fouling our last fresh water supplies underground forever (fracking solvents that can never be cleaned up) or being dependent on foreign oil/carbon hasn't been making America very great. It's like gang raping your mother for $5. Who cares? Her wild lands aren't virginal anymore! Soil her & spoil her. You won't live to see the cumulative damage!

 

[Chuz Life]

Some impact?

Yeah. So?

What about it?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Silhouette]

The entire thread is "about it"..

 

[bripat9643]

Note the language and who produced this youtube. Do you want the US to be in front on this technology? Or like the Amish, left behind in last century?

You still believe that installations like the one in your video are free. They aren't. for the same output they can easily cost as much as a coal fired power plant. Until you get around that little problem your schemes aren't economic.

 

[Chuz Life]

The entire thread is "about it"..

Yeah and your question is non specific. Sooo.....

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[flacaltenn]

No company can produce free power for even one minute a day. There is no such thing as free solar power gathering equipment. There's no point in discussing the matter until you get that irrefutable fact through your thick skull.

No such thing as free power. But there is such a thing as free fuel. Your company you have stock in either 1. Has to pay for fuel 24/7/365...or 2. Only when the sun isn't shining (even that night too if they have molten salt heat storage). Which company makes more profit? If you answer 1. I'll know you're a liar.

More importantly, Trump knows which company would Make America Great Again!

And in case you hadn't notice...fouling our last fresh water supplies underground forever (fracking solvents that can never be cleaned up) or being dependent on foreign oil/carbon hasn't been making America very great. It's like gang raping your mother for $5. Who cares? Her wild lands aren't virginal anymore! Soil her & spoil her. You won't live to see the cumulative damage!

The problem with your comparison is that large scale CSP (concentrated Solar Thermal) plants have failed to perform anywhere NEAR their potential.. ESPECIALLY the ones with "molten salt storage". Which AT BEST extends the operational effective by 3 or 6 hours and still leaves a huge gap during the nighttime.

Look up the most recent "solar death ray" plant at Ivanpah. Which uses Nat Gas as a back-up for operation.

There are no real "alternatives". Everything on the list is a SUPPLEMENT. Not an alternative. And has to backed by RELIABLE 24/7/365 conventional power generation. The exception MIGHT BE geothermal thermal. Which is actually a dirty, no so renewable, mining operation --- very similar to fracking in fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

Redfish; I'm going to side with the thousands of scientists...including the ones at NASA who tell us that human carbon combustion is thinning our thermosphere dangerously; creating the extremes in weather we've seen escalating. The time has come to completely ignore climate-change deniers and move forward right over the top of them; ignoring them as one would ignore a filthy child who struggles against getting a bath.

The sun stops shining every night, moron. So instead of one giant facility to create electricity, you want to build two to produce the same amount, and you think that's cheaper?

Leaving molten salt heat storage aside for now (which the Chinese are adding to their solar thermal fields to generate electricity at night after a sunny day); I'll take the stock in a company that generates free power 8 hours while the sun shines; while charging the same rate as those burning coal 24/7. In areas where that's 300 days a year (like most of the Southwest), my stock will be more valuable than yours.

Mr. Trump understands cheap materials to maximize profits. Why pay for coal during times when the sun boils water just as easily?

You really need to put more time into this to catch up with what's been discussed in detail in the Enviro forum.
The problems of focusing several hundred acres of mirrors onto a target 300 yards or more away and TRACK the movement of the sun are harder than estimated.

How concentrated solar could find new life overseas

Another example of the hype and oversell. MIT change the link message to a POSITIVE spin, when this article is mostly a tale of woe and failure.

It also fries migratory birds IN FLIGHT. They flutter down as ashes.

 

[Norman]

So, if this form of energy turns out to be success, I believe people will buy it and it will start replacing other forms of energy...? What's the argument here about?

Oh silly me... of course, this plant is just a new argument in the line of failed arguments of why the regressives should be able to take our wallets. I am sure that's what this is about, no one would even care otherwise.

 

[Silhouette]

You still believe that installations like the one in your video are free. They aren't. for the same output they can easily cost as much as a coal fired power plant. Until you get around that little problem your schemes aren't economic.

Wow, Trumpees are not only bad math, they're bad at reading too. I said that all things being equal, assuming you're bright enough to know that building either a pure coal or solar thermal plant BOTH cost money, that the FUEL is free when the sun shines in a solar thermal plant with a carbon backup for cloudy days or nights (assuming you're not storing heat also in molten salt for use at night after a sunny day).

Fee FUEL. But you knew that. You were being dishonest and trying to guide Trump's eye away from the fact that a solar thermal plant in the Southwest would be burning free fuel for up to 300 days a year....or more...

So, if this form of energy turns out to be success, I believe people will buy it and it will start replacing other forms of energy...? What's the argument here about?

Oh silly me... of course, this plant is just a new argument in the line of failed arguments of why the regressives should be able to take our wallets. I am sure that's what this is about, no one would even care otherwise.

"Turns out to be a success?" As if we still weren't sure that coal plants merely use steam turbines and as if we still weren't sure than focused sunlight can boil water to steam. You're funny! Poor Trumpees are really struggling with this concept that will make America Great Again if BigOil stops shielding Trump's eyes long enough so he can find out about it..

 

[Redfish]

We should be looking at all forms of energy generation. No one disagrees with that. But until alternatives become financially viable, they wont go anywhere.

What isn't financially viable about a row of parabolic sheet metal pointing at a tube filled with oil that flash-heats water to steam which then runs the same types of turbines that expensive coal or oil fuel do? With FREE sunshine.

Here, look how "hard, expensive and difficult" setting up a solar thermal boiler is:



Now here's a coal plant going in. Which one do you think costs more? And over time as well? And the untold an incalculable costs of damaging our thermosphere by needing 10lbs of coal to keep one TV running all day?



Trump is a man who can do the math especially on cutting costs to improve profits. When a power company can boil water to run the same steam turbine...only not have to buy fuel for up to 8 hours a day (or more) 300 days a year, Trump will know which company to invest in and which not to.

The Chinese are beating our pants off at this free-fuel turbine source. Other countries are following close behind her. Will we be the 21st Century's equivalent of "energy Amish"? Or will we get with the times and become the leaders in this inevitable replacement to boil water?

sure, solar works, we should be building solar and wind generators as well as hydro and nuclear. We need all sources of energy, including oil, gas, and coal.

It is the height of naivete to think that we can convert to renewables completely in the near future.

The war on fossil fuel is STUPID. That's the issue.