Of course, just because the temperature is rising a bit, which if it continues, certainly will change a few things, that will not be the end of the world. The planet apparently was warmer back when the dinosaurs were around, and humans are far more able to adapt than reptiles. populations may move around to enjoy whatever climate they prefer. And the population of California may need to adjust to a different climate, which for them may be a horrible fate. And if the temperature rises then we may not need to use so much energy for heating. In my part of the country we use heating during nine months of the year and cooling during three months. So a bit warmer would be an energy saving thing.

 

And the population of California may need to adjust to a different climate, which for them may be a horrible fate.

Whereas we in Florida have been training for this all our lives. Bring it on.

 

Whereas we in Florida have been training for this all our lives. Bring it on.

I guess you're right, what could be worse than present day Florida.

 

RE:"" I agree that EVs have nothing to do with reducing global warming "" With one single exception. My classmate and studymate is running the solar panel mounting firm. Thus always he have a full yard with panels. While it waits for clients, he stack them around the property like a hence. And for serviceing the clients he operate two EV. One is charging up in the daytime, while other is on the road. Next day that first is runing the road and second is charging up. At least, there I see some clean benefit.

 

The strange thing about FUEL CELL POWERED EVs is that the energy needed to pressurize that hydrogen is never mentioned except when I bring it up. And it is an issue because I am not aware of any scheme to recover that energy being available. And certainly it takes a fair amount of power/energy to compress gas from some low pressure ( less than ten atmos) up to 10,000 PSI for storing n adequate amount in a reasonable sized tank.
How would one recover the energy used to pressurize a gas?? In a practical manner??

 

The strange thing about FUEL CELL POWERED EVs is that the energy needed to pressurize that hydrogen is never mentioned except when I bring it up. And it is an issue because I am not aware of any scheme to recover that energy being available. And certainly it takes a fair amount of power/energy to compress gas from some low pressure ( less than ten atmos) up to 10,000 PSI for storing n adequate amount in a reasonable sized tank.
How would one recover the energy used to pressurize a gas?? In a practical manner??

Use it to fill up the tires? Or should I say blow up the tires

It's amazing that we are at a place where we come to this kind of conversation about wasting energy. How lucky were our forefathers, but we do have somewhat better medicine.

 

Use it to fill up the tires? Or should I say blow up the tires

It's amazing that we are at a place where we come to this kind of conversation about wasting energy. How lucky were our forefathers, but we do have somewhat better medicine.

What I am describing is that there is nothing done to recover the work energy used to compress the hydrogen. Consider that compressing a gas always raises the temperature, and then that heat energy is also lost. So the whole hydrogen deal ignores the waste of energy in all of their discussions.

 

Recovering copper from discarded equipment collides with the amounts they want to profit, otherwise won't move a finger...



The fact that computers somehow became the savior of mankind really baffles the heck out of me.

The fact that smart phones somehow became the enhancer of mankind laziness baffles the heck out of me.

The fact that artificial intelligence somehow will become the diarrhea of mankind really baffles the heck out of me.

Interesting things to think about!

 

If only it was possible to make small cars without 700 horsepower motors capable of driving through cinderblock walls. Or, crazy thought, locate housing closer to work/school/shopping so people don't have to drive everywhere.

That was called a town, we did away with them 60 years ago.

 

The core body temperature at which life- sustaining functioning of the human body starts to break down is only around 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-degrees-why-heat-waves-kill-so-quickly/

You didn't need to add the C degrees

 

Ad if all he ice in the arctic and ant-arctic melted would they even be able to measure the rise. If you look at the surface area of the combined oceans, and consider the volume of water to raise one square mile one inch. how many hundreds of cubic miles of ice will need to melt to rise the level one inch.

I don't think there would be a problem to measure it.

 

I don't think there would be a problem to measure it.
View attachment 324515

I wonder if those folks making that claim about the rise can state their estimate of the volume of ice that they are assuming. AND, given that all of the oceans are connected, and the fluid properties of water, how can it happen that "ocean levels will rise locally"?? I detect some unusual math usage.
So can they state the estimated volume in cubic miles?

 

I wonder if those folks making that claim about the rise can state their estimate of the volume of ice that they are assuming. AND, given that all of the oceans are connected, and the fluid properties of water, how can it happen that "ocean levels will rise locally"?? I detect some unusual math usage.
So can they state the estimated volume in cubic miles?

Hi,

That's an interesting thought because not all the ice is above the water line either.

The other factor is that the dynamics of the ocean water normal flow patterns would be different. That could influence storms. The question then is does it make it better or worse.

 

I wonder if those folks making that claim about the rise can state their estimate of the volume of ice that they are assuming

Of course,
There's a heck of a lot of ice covering Greenland and Antarctica, and that's all above the water line.
For example, the average Antarctica ice thickness is 2,160 meters,
Multiply that by it's area and that's a huge amount of water.
Obviously ice floating on the ocean, would have not effect on ocean levels if it melted.

given that all of the oceans are connected, and the fluid properties of water, how can it happen that "ocean levels will rise locally"??

Not sure what locally means.
Obviously the ocean levels will basically rise the same all over the globe.

 

I wonder if those folks making that claim about the rise can state their estimate of the volume of ice that they are assuming. AND, given that all of the oceans are connected, and the fluid properties of water, how can it happen that "ocean levels will rise locally"?? I detect some unusual math usage.
So can they state the estimated volume in cubic miles?

The Antarctic Ice Sheet has a volume of about 27 million cubic km. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

The surface area of the earth's oceans is about 361 million square km. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean

Assuming that the volume of the ice and melt is the same (a rough approximation), a simple division gives about 75m sea level rise.

The surface area of the ocean is big, but so is the volume of the ice.

Some parts are more vulnerable than others, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is already under water, and it alone will give 3-4m of sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet

 

The good news is that whatever rise happens will not be quick, like when a levee breaks or a dam busts, or even a river simply overflowing. So folks will have a chance to move away. OR maybe like Holland, where they built dykes to hold back the water. And if the climate is different then perhaps some of that underpopulated land will be used to live on, when things are different.
I certainly recall a lot of fools always telling me "that change is good". My response has always been that at best only half of all changes are for the better.

 

You can't get there from here.

 

You can't get there from here.

That's so nuts. Copper is worth a lot of money these days. They should have been smarter and made the cables out of gold
Actually, the way they overlook things these days I am surprised they didn't do that already. And make sure they don't have any security system in place ... why would they need that

The real reason it is disappearing though is because of global warming

 

A simple solution would be to add a tough steel cable , and also to connect a fairly high voltage to the cable when it was obviously being cut. That is, about 15KV at maybe half an amp. And only for a minute or so.

 

A simple solution would be to add a tough steel cable , and also to connect a fairly high voltage to the cable when it was obviously being cut. That is, about 15KV at maybe half an amp. And only for a minute or so.

No sane company, that wants to stay in business, will design a deadly booby trap for loss prevention, they will just add the loss into the retail price of the product. The first malfunction that leads to serious injury or death will lead that company straight to legal bankruptcy.