"The Right Climate Stuff" .... A realistic view of global environmental issues from Tom Moser

Status
Not open for further replies.
PWMDMD said:
I'm not a climate scientist and I don't know the data but the vast majority of climate scientists who do know the data have come to a consensus that human activity is changing the climate. Few if any of you are in a position to claim you know the data either sitting in your armchairs.
Click to expand...
This is where I always stand on most issues. I'm not a medical doctor, I'm not a climatologist. I therefore put trust into those that study these things for a living. Do I think they are always right? Of course not. But I'm not in any position to dispute them.

The only thing I can do is copy/paste links to other experts who disagree. But even then, I'm still going with the consensus. That's the logical thing to do.
 
buster said:
This is where I always stand on most issues. I'm not a medical doctor, I'm not a climatologist. I therefore put trust into those that study these things for a living. Do I think they are always right? Of course not. But I'm not in any position to dispute them.

The only thing I can do is copy/past links to other experts who disagree. But even then, I'm still going with the consensus. That's the logical thing to do.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more. There are a small number of topics I can claim expertise in and outside of that in other subjects and disciplines I defer to those experts.
 
buster said:
This is where I always stand on most issues. I'm not a medical doctor, I'm not a climatologist. I therefore put trust into those that study these things for a living. Do I think they are always right? Of course not. But I'm not in any position to dispute them.

The only thing I can do is copy/past links to other experts who disagree. But even then, I'm still going with the consensus. That's the logical thing to do.
Click to expand...
OK you can no longer buy any more internal combustion engine devices. Starting NOW.
 
PWMDMD said:
...and? This is a weak argument. At one point the surface of the earth was nothing more than an inhospitable smoldering rock of lifelessness - so what? We have to deal with the fact that evolution has tuned much of life on this planet to live in a range based on CURRENT conditions.
Click to expand...
You should calm down, it was a statement, I have no desire to debate any of this...will just wait to be directly taxed for my carbon footprint.
 
KrisZ said:
Actually no. The current emission systems do not affect CO2 emissions, only NOx, SO2 and other harmful pollutants. So for CO2 release amounts, it is directly died to fuel consumption, not emission systems.
All these gas guzzling SUVs today, release roughly the same amount of CO2 as the land yachts of 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...
The EPA disagrees with you and still states the major sources of CO2, as well as NOx and SO2, are the burning of fossil fuels.

www.epa.gov

Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

Information on emissions and removals of the main greenhouse gases to and from the atmosphere.
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov
 
thastinger said:
You should calm down, it was a statement, I have no desire to debate any of this...will just wait to be directly taxed for my carbon footprint.
Click to expand...
Who's not calm? You made a statement and I made a statement. Don't read too much into it...
 
Where did I question the science of climate change exactly?
All I'm saying is where is that same scientific data showing that solar panels, wind and other technologies are actually making a difference?
Or where is the scientific research that led to implementing these technologies?
 
KrisZ said:
Where did I question the science of climate change exactly?
All I'm saying is where is that same scientific data showing that solar panels, wind and other technologies are actually making a difference?
Or where is the scientific research that led to implementing these technologies?
Click to expand...
I don't know...have you looked? If you haven't looked for it then you can't really comment that it doesn't exist. Please post what you find - it's an interesting question and I don't know the answer.
 
PWMDMD said:
The EPA disagrees with you and still states the major sources of CO2, as well as NOx and SO2, are the burning of fossil fuels.

www.epa.gov

Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

Information on emissions and removals of the main greenhouse gases to and from the atmosphere.
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov
Click to expand...
You clearly do not understand how it works.

Here is how catalytic converters work in simple terms. And I stand corrected, vehicle equipped with catalytic converters actually produce more CO2 because of the reaction that has to take place in order to reduce harmful pollutants. Which is totally fine and desired.

By most estimates, catalytic converters fitted inside the exhaust pipe of a gasoline-operated car convert over 90% of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the engine into less harmful carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen and water vapour. Diesel engines, in addition, emit particulates. The use of a particulate filter, in conjunction with a catalyst, can reduce their mass by 90% and reduce the number of ultra-fine particles by 99%.
Click to expand...

https://ipa-news.com/index/pgm-appl...ml?PHPSESSID=1eab3fd396c7cad1bbfe08bca4fae038
 
KrisZ said:
You clearly do not understand how it works.

Here is how catalytic converters work in simple terms. And I stand corrected, vehicle equipped with catalytic converters actually produce more CO2 because of the reaction that has to take place in order to reduce harmful pollutants. Which is totally fine and desired.



https://ipa-news.com/index/pgm-appl...ml?PHPSESSID=1eab3fd396c7cad1bbfe08bca4fae038
Click to expand...
Ok...transportation is responsible for 1/3 of greenhouse gases meaning other things without catalytic converts contribute to the other 2/3rds. Is the combustion of fossil fuels not a major contributor to CO2 production? The major products of combustion are H2O and CO2 - something every chemistry student has seen when learning to balance equations.

Here is the balanced equation for the combustion of propane but you can substitute any hydrocarbon and simply rebalance the equation.

{\displaystyle {\ce {{\underset {propane \atop (fuel)}{C3H8}}+{\underset {oxygen}{5O2}}->{\underset {carbon\ dioxide}{3CO2}}+{\underset {water}{4H2O}}}}}


What don't I understand?
 
Last edited:
KrisZ said:
Actually no. The current emission systems do not affect CO2 emissions, only NOx, SO2 and other harmful pollutants. So for CO2 release amounts, it is directly died to fuel consumption, not emission systems.
All these gas guzzling SUVs today, release roughly the same amount of CO2 as the land yachts of 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...

When you reduce instances of inefficient burning of fossil fuels you reduce the amount of all pollutants associated with it. Electrification of vehicles reduces the amount of NOX and CO2 the sector contributes to the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
Vercingetorix said:
A mechanical engineer is not a climate scientist.
Click to expand...
Well pretty much all those so called "climate scientists" that are pushing the warming (or cooling) apocalypse agenda since the 1920s all completely failed with their predictions. Those false predictions are filling books by now.

So why should I even listen to people with such a catastrophic track record?
Only cult members ignore such things.
 
PWMDMD said:
Just a question - so if climate scientists said sure the climate is constantly changing over long periods of time and the earth has been able to cope with that change over long periods of time but that the change has greatly increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution and that at no time in history has the earth ever been asked to absorb such a fast change in climate and that this could lead to catastrophic consequences never seen prior to modern times then it's still a "who cares?" kinda thing?
Click to expand...
Yes, I dont care.
Why would you care to give up your freedom for others to force you to pay and live for what they think is right?
Think about that. Ohhhh ... and there are the magic words, "could" hey what about "maybe not" both have the same meaning. Void of fact. Anything "could" happen in your life, in the next 5 seconds too.

The Ice age was catastrophic too and so was the warming and cooling cycles of Mother Earth over the last 4 billion years. Who cares?
This is life, the real world, be free or not.
 
Last edited:
Pablo said:
OK you can no longer buy any more internal combustion engine devices. Starting NOW.
Click to expand...
Pablo, hope you don't mind, I would like to reword your post.

" You can no longer benefit from any internal combustion engine devices."
 
PWMDMD said:
Ok...transportation is responsible for 1/3 of greenhouse gases meaning other things without catalytic converts contribute to the other 2/3rds. Is the combustion of fossil fuels not a major contributor to CO2 production? The major products of combustion are H2O and CO2 - something every chemistry student has seen when learning to balance equations.

Here is the balanced equation for the combustion of propane but you can substitute any hydrocarbon and simply rebalance the equation.

{\displaystyle {\ce {{\underset {propane \atop (fuel)}{C3H8}}+{\underset {oxygen}{5O2}}->{\underset {carbon\ dioxide}{3CO2}}+{\underset {water}{4H2O}}}}}


What don't I understand?
Click to expand...

You stated this earlier:
PWMDMD said:
...but the main producers of NOx and SO2 are the combustion of fossil fuels/coal/etc so you can't really deal with NOx and SO2 without dealing with CO2 and the measures used to reduce CO2 also reduce NOx and SO2.
Click to expand...

I showed you how catalytic converters deal with NOx and SO2 without dealing with CO2. Coal plants have scrubbers to deal with SO2, but not CO2. For some reason you lumped them all together. Most of the equipment that combusts fuel, at least in NA and Europe have some sort of emission system to deal with NOx and SO2, so it's not just transportation.

Your point is only valid if there is no emission systems at all, then all three correlate to the actual amounts of carbon based fuels being burned.

My point was that there is actually no way to deal with CO2 emissions other then actually reducing the amount of fuel used. While NOx and SO2 can be reduced and the fuel burned be the same.
 
alarmguy said:
Yes, I dont care.
Why would you care to give up your freedom for others to force you to pay and live for what they think is right?
Think about that. Ohhhh ... and there are the magic words, "could" hey what about "maybe not" both have the same meaning. Void of fact. Anything "could" happen in your life, in the next 5 seconds too.

The Ice age was catastrophic too and so was the warming and cooling cycles of Mother Earth over the last 4 billion years. Who cares?
This is life, the real world, be free or not.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Well I give you credit for being clear and consistent! ;)
 
alarmguy said:
Yes, I dont care.
Why would you care to give up your freedom for others to force you to pay and live for what they think is right?
Think about that. Ohhhh ... and there are the magic words, "could" hey what about "maybe not" both have the same meaning. Void of fact. Anything "could" happen in your life, in the next 5 seconds too.

The Ice age was catastrophic too and so was the warming and cooling cycles of Mother Earth over the last 4 billion years. Who cares?
This is life, the real world, be free or not.
Click to expand...

Why should I have to give up my freedom of free sewage disposal by connecting to the local system vs pumping it onto your property?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top