The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-14-2013, 01:19 PM   #76
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,492

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I think it's pretty clear at this point, with the huge new reserve estimates in North America alone that the population will decline significantly long before the oil runs out.

Population collapse, and the transition to that new world is humanity's biggest (known) challenge coming over the next century. That new reality will have far more impact on CO2 concentrations than any byzantine scheme our government masters could ever imagineer.
Ask Baja. It's the Club of Rome...



http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...cline_04052012
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 03:19 PM   #77
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,858
Default

I love the righties.

Basically **** the Planet for a Buck.

Same lack of thinking as these guys:

W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 03:28 PM   #78
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I love the righties.

Basically **** the Planet for a Buck.
No matter what we do our emissions will become a drop in the bucket compared to China and India in a very short period of time.

Charging our own industry while watching theirs operate outside of our standards with impunity only furthers their interest and harms ours.

Ironic thing is our production technology is generally much cleaner than theirs. Any incentive we give to further push industrial production to Asia hurts more than it helps.

When it comes to livelihoods and jobs you have to be at least somewhat pragmatic about this stuff. Utopia doesn't exist, and global CO2 emissions aren't going to decline by order of federal legislation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 04:22 PM   #79
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Price carbon and let the market respond.
What would be the price, and how would it be enforced globally?
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 04:43 PM   #80
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
No matter what we do our emissions will become a drop in the bucket compared to China and India in a very short period of time.

Charging our own industry while watching theirs operate outside of our standards with impunity only furthers their interest and harms ours.

Ironic thing is our production technology is generally much cleaner than theirs. Any incentive we give to further push industrial production to Asia hurts more than it helps.

When it comes to livelihoods and jobs you have to be at least somewhat pragmatic about this stuff. Utopia doesn't exist, and global CO2 emissions aren't going to decline by order of federal legislation.
This is a global problem and will require a global solution.

You should be pissed that the emissions of others are going to continue to impact us, and get worse.

What are you doing about it? Nothing. Why?

If the Chinese were flinging their **** over the Pacific at us, you'd react. Instead, you're just throwing up your hands and doing nothing.

Pathetic.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 04:44 PM   #81
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
What would be the price, and how would it be enforced globally?
The price will be whatever it needs to be to absorb the costs of our carbon emissions.

Like I told Beavis, this is a global problem and will require a global solution.

Doing nothing while blaming the Chinese and Indians for our inaction is the p***Y maneuver.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 04:35 AM   #82
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
The price will be whatever it needs to be to absorb the costs of our carbon emissions.

Like I told Beavis, this is a global problem and will require a global solution.

Doing nothing while blaming the Chinese and Indians for our inaction is the p***Y maneuver.
"Global solution.". Got it. Well as soon as you kids get China and India to agree to cap carbon emissions, you let us know. Our emissions haven't been lower in decades, but theirs keep exploding. And they're not going to stop it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 04:57 AM   #83
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
"Global solution.". Got it. Well as soon as you kids get China and India to agree to cap carbon emissions, you let us know. Our emissions haven't been lower in decades, but theirs keep exploding. And they're not going to stop it.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...2&postcount=80
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 07:32 AM   #84
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I know I know. You must 'do something' even if to completely trivial effect and at whatever cost demanded. Because doing nothing is always worse than Doing Something (moronic)

Even after example after example spills out establishing that many of the ardent climate doomsdayers have really no clue what they're talking about.

http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...-gas-emissions

As has been argued over and over again, many are letting the hypothesis drive the policy (ironically in the name of 'science'). And in a system so complex they can't even begin to make an accurate prediction of what happens this decade, let alone this century.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 08:19 AM   #85
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I know I know. You must 'do something' even if to completely trivial effect and at whatever cost demanded. Because doing nothing is always worse than Doing Something (moronic)
"Whatever cost"? Nope. Typical strawman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Even after example after example spills out establishing that many of the ardent climate doomsdayers have really no clue what they're talking about.

http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...-gas-emissions

As has been argued over and over again, many are letting the hypothesis drive the policy (ironically in the name of 'science'). And in a system so complex they can't even begin to make an accurate prediction of what happens this decade, let alone this century.
Wrong. You don't even know the relevance of climate sensitivity. Put it this way - it's not policy relevant.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-...scenarios.html

You guys still don't get it:

W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:16 AM   #86
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,798

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXPWco_0ivo
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:19 AM   #87
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,858
Default

Stick your chemtrails up your arse, baja.

You just can't but **** on just about every thread with your paranoia and conspiracy crap.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:07 AM   #88
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,782
Default

The fam scores 110. I'm guessing that's not super green.

I've started holding in my farts on the weekends. That should count for something.
Bronco Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:08 AM   #89
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,624

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I'm going to try and push my carbon footprint to 30! This whole app is a joke though and you all know it right? It's just a way to get people to donate money to supposedly offset your footprint. You know like Al Gore did. Don't people realize global warming and carbon footprint is just a new industry trying to make money off you?

How many of you really think co2 will ever drop in your lifetime? It will take technology far beyond electric cars and solar energy. I doubt electric cars will even be that green once people realize the batterys don't last as long as they say they will. That means you need a new battery and they take a lot of co2 to produce.
It's impossible to determine if electric vehicles pollute less than internal combustion engine vehicles without considering where they are to be driven and what source of electricity is used to generate power. An electric car that is charged with energy from hydroelectric power, will produce very little pollution, while one charged with energy from a source, like coal or oil, may produce more pollution than an internal combustion engine car.

I don't worry too much about it, I drive an F-250 diesel and blow my cigar smoke out the window while driving. My wife drives a Cadillac Escalade Platinum that on a good day gets 14 mpg and we always take two vehicles when we go somewhere because she won't let me light a stogie in her car.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:19 AM   #90
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
It's impossible to determine if electric vehicles pollute less than internal combustion engine vehicles without considering where they are to be driven and what source of electricity is used to generate power. An electric car that is charged with energy from hydroelectric power, will produce very little pollution, while one charged with energy from a source, like coal or oil, may produce more pollution than an internal combustion engine car.
No, because

a.) Producing electricity, even in a coal plant, is far more efficient than producing energy in an internal combustion engine. This is pretty much entirely about gains from scale and using more efficient ways to capture thermal energy that results from burning fossil fuels

b.) Electric cars are more efficient per unit of energy than internal combustion cars, even after the energy is produced.

This is why electric cars have an "MPG equivalent" rating. Tesla is getting around ~100MPG equivalent ratings producing as much or more torque/horsepower as ICE's getting 15 MPG. Once they scale down out of the luxury market, they will likely be getting closer to 200MPG equivalents.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:30 AM   #91
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,624

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
No, because

a.) Producing electricity, even in a coal plant, is far more efficient than producing energy in an internal combustion engine. This is pretty much entirely about gains from scale and using more efficient ways to capture thermal energy that results from burning fossil fuels

b.) Electric cars are more efficient per unit of energy than internal combustion cars, even after the energy is produced.

This is why electric cars have an "MPG equivalent" rating. Tesla is getting around ~100MPG equivalent ratings producing as much or more torque/horsepower as ICE's getting 15 MPG. Once they scale down out of the luxury market, they will likely be getting closer to 200MPG equivalents.
How Green Are Electric Cars? Depends on Where You Plug In

The U.C.S. report, which takes into account the full cycle of energy production, often called a well-to-wheels analysis, demonstrates that in areas where the electric utility relies on natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric or renewable sources to power its generators, the potential for electric cars and plug-in hybrids to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is great. But where generators are powered by burning a high percentage of coal, electric cars may not be even as good as the latest gasoline models and far short of the thriftiest hybrids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/au...anted=all&_r=0
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:37 AM   #92
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
No, because

a.) Producing electricity, even in a coal plant, is far more efficient than producing energy in an internal combustion engine. This is pretty much entirely about gains from scale and using more efficient ways to capture thermal energy that results from burning fossil fuels
That's theoretically true, if you're talking about instantly using the energy as it's generated. Once you start dealing with transmission and storage losses (as you do in a transportation scenario) efficiency suffers a lot. And once you start looking at the environmental costs of production (like for the massive heavy-metal battery banks) the scales pretty much tip against the EV (so long as you compare it to a similarly sized and priced gas or diesel equivalent)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:40 AM   #93
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
"Whatever cost"? Nope. Typical strawman.



Wrong. You don't even know the relevance of climate sensitivity. Put it this way - it's not policy relevant.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-...scenarios.html

You guys still don't get it:

Computer Models are Awesome. Until they aren't.

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:14 AM   #94
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,798

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Stick your chemtrails up your arse, baja.

You just can't but **** on just about every thread with your paranoia and conspiracy crap.
But waggsy cloud seeding is the answer to global warming.

Watch the video before you condem.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:23 AM   #95
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That's theoretically true, if you're talking about instantly using the energy as it's generated. Once you start dealing with transmission and storage losses (as you do in a transportation scenario) efficiency suffers a lot. And once you start looking at the environmental costs of production (like for the massive heavy-metal battery banks) the scales pretty much tip against the EV (so long as you compare it to a similarly sized and priced gas or diesel equivalent)
Your statement has no basis in fact, even according to the lovely source Pony Boy has (which doesn't say what he's claiming).

The reality is (again even Pony Boy's source says this) that all other things being equals (size/utility of vehicle) even an EV powered by the dirtiest coal based elec will be less polluting. An EV powered by really dirty coal isn't better than the most efficient (read tiny gutless sub compact) car, but that's apples-to-oranges.

And, EV tech (particuarly batteries) are still in its infancy. Energy density is going up, usability problems (i.e. recharge time) are getting better, etc.

Petrol cars have had over a century to mature. EVs have only been seriously worked on for a little over a decade.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:25 AM   #96
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,951

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
How Green Are Electric Cars? Depends on Where You Plug In

The U.C.S. report, which takes into account the full cycle of energy production, often called a well-to-wheels analysis, demonstrates that in areas where the electric utility relies on natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric or renewable sources to power its generators, the potential for electric cars and plug-in hybrids to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is great. But where generators are powered by burning a high percentage of coal, electric cars may not be even as good as the latest gasoline models and far short of the thriftiest hybrids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/au...anted=all&_r=0
As that article points out, your statement is only true if you compare the absolute worst EV to the most efficient ICE. All other things being equal (size of car, etc.) EVs are always better -- even according to your article.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:56 AM   #97
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
But waggsy cloud seeding is the answer to global warming.

Watch the video before you condem.
Geoengineering isn't the solution.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:59 AM   #98
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Computer Models are Awesome. Until they aren't.
Sigh.



The animation shows observations and two simulations with a climate model which only vary in their particular realisation of the weather, i.e. chaotic variability. A previous post has described how different realisations can produce very different outcomes for regional climates. However, the animation shows how global temperatures can evolve differently over the course of a century. For example, the blue simulation matches the observed trend over the most recent decade but warms more than the red simulation up to 2050. This demonstrates that a temporary slowdown in global surface warming is not inconsistent with future warming projections.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 01:22 PM   #99
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Sigh.



The animation shows observations and two simulations with a climate model which only vary in their particular realisation of the weather, i.e. chaotic variability. A previous post has described how different realisations can produce very different outcomes for regional climates. However, the animation shows how global temperatures can evolve differently over the course of a century. For example, the blue simulation matches the observed trend over the most recent decade but warms more than the red simulation up to 2050. This demonstrates that a temporary slowdown in global surface warming is not inconsistent with future warming projections.
Neato. More simulations.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 04:12 PM   #100
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,798

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Geoengineering isn't the solution.
well at least we agree on that.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 PM.


Denver Broncos