Dangers of Global Warming

On Wednesday, 14 October 2015 09:29:13 UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 4:38:20 PM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:14:13 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

FYI: the world also has other cities than just NYC...

Yes, it's just used as a common example of one of the cities
threatened by a rise
in ocean levels.

There are even entire nations which risk to be drowned if the ocean
lever would rise a meter or two - small Island nations in the Pacific
like Tuvalu and Niue.

There are the Maldives, which has made quite a big deal about sea-level rise. It's really too bad that most of its economy is critically dependent on tourism which inevitably involves cruise ships and air travel, both rather carbon-intensive activities. Can you say "hypocrisy?" I bet you can.

Wasting billions of dollars (even IF AGW was true) to worry about a handful of f------ islanders is the HEIGHT of stupidity. It was like rebuilding New Orleans to the tune of $400B, a complete waste of money, given 44% of the people there were on perpetual welfare. They should have left the re-distribution of people alone and NOT repatriated anyone. They were better off in Dallas, etc.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:07:10 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
It was like rebuilding New Orleans to the tune of $400B, a complete waste of
money, given 44% of the people there were on perpetual welfare. They should
have left the re-distribution of people alone and NOT repatriated anyone. They
were better off in Dallas, etc.

If you had paid attention to some of the news stories about the disaster, you
would have learned that New Orleans had been the only major city in the United
States where black people could go about their lives with dignity - without
fear of being harassed by the police simply for being black.

It would have cost less than billions of dollars to keep the levees properly
maintained so that the damage would not have taken place. Those whose
negligence caused this disaster - the Federal government, which was responsible
for maintaining the levees - should pay for the damage it caused.

John Savard

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:44:23 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:
On 14.10.15 22:47, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:17:57 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
I do my daily commute to work and back in my Chevy Volt using
only electricity.
It consumes a mere 200 watts per mile at a cost of less than
1
cent
per mile.

Units! It cannot do any number of watts/mile.

Yes it can! When the car is brand new it runs smoothly and
consumes a
number of watts. If you don't maintain the car it will eventually
runt less smoothly and will therefore consumes more watts when
running. The number of watts per mile its power requirement
increases
will be a measure of how fast the car deteriorates. Ideally the
car's
power requirements would increase by zero watts per mile, in
reality
it will increase by some non-zero watts per mile.

It is totally impossible to consume watts.
You are confusing power(watts) and energy(1000 watthours is 1 KWh)

No I'm not. Read against what I wrote and read it less sloppily this
time. I'm not talking about consuming watts, I'm talking about the
rate of change in power.

Multiply your watts with time and you have energy(consumption).

True. And divide your watts with time and you have the rate of change
of power. If motion is involved, you can, if you want, divide your
watts with distance instead and get the spatial gradient of power.

Watts per meter is not an impossible quantity, but it is of course
different from Joules per meter.

On 15/10/2015 06:05, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:44:23 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:
On 14.10.15 22:47, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:17:57 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
I do my daily commute to work and back in my Chevy Volt using
only electricity.
It consumes a mere 200 watts per mile at a cost of less than
1
cent
per mile.

Units! It cannot do any number of watts/mile.

Yes it can! When the car is brand new it runs smoothly and
consumes a
number of watts. If you don't maintain the car it will eventually
runt less smoothly and will therefore consumes more watts when
running. The number of watts per mile its power requirement
increases
will be a measure of how fast the car deteriorates. Ideally the
car's
power requirements would increase by zero watts per mile, in
reality
it will increase by some non-zero watts per mile.

Pedant. Wear induced deterioration of the kit. I suspect it actually
gets better initially after the high spots wear off the bearings and the
driver learns to work with the electric motor.

It is totally impossible to consume watts.
You are confusing power(watts) and energy(1000 watthours is 1 KWh)

No I'm not. Read against what I wrote and read it less sloppily this
time. I'm not talking about consuming watts, I'm talking about the rate
of change in power.

But if its performance was getting worse by 200W per mile it would very
quickly require a full battery charge to move one car length.

Nominal electric range 40 miles from new would already be down to 20
miles after the first mile and to 2 miles after the first ten. Even I
don't have such low expectations of electric vehicles.

Multiply your watts with time and you have energy(consumption).

True. And divide your watts with time and you have the rate of change of
power. If motion is involved, you can, if you want, divide your watts
with distance instead and get the spatial gradient of power.
Watts per meter is not an impossible quantity, but it is of course
different from Joules per meter.

I presume he meant Whr from the context.
A common unit of energy although decidedly not SI.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 10:28:09 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 October 2015 15:34:18 UTC+2, wsne... wrote:

He is full of hot air.

But it is much nicer hot air than your inexhaustible effluvium.

I make only short, truthful comments here whereas you post PAGES full of crap.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:17:57 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

How are they making a profit on them at that price?

Well, there are subsidies that help.

The important point, I think, is that these cars represent the future
of personal transportation.

Most of the world's population doesn't own a bicycle, much less a car of any sort and that is unlikely to change. You are speaking from a very narrow and very self-centered perspective.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 11:18:05 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 7:29:13 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

There are the Maldives, which has made quite a big deal about sea-level rise.
It's really too bad that most of its economy is critically dependent on tourism
which inevitably involves cruise ships and air travel, both rather carbon-
intensive activities. Can you say "hypocrisy?" I bet you can.

They need both the sea level to stay put, and their tourism-dependent economy
to thrive.

Millions need to drive to work. Millions need to keep warm.

I should walk or ride a bike, just so rich tourists can travel to remote islands? Shame on you for implying that.

edit

They had tourism, no doubt, even back in the 1950s, before anyone noticed a
global warming problem.

If they have now gotten around to noticing a perceived problem, then their actions need to speak louder than their words, wrt to that problem.

edit

It's not hypocrisy to note that carbon emissions are a problem, but one has a
need for certain high-priority ones to be allowed.

Carbon intensive tourism to a remote island is not a "high-priority" if one truly believes that a crisis is at hand.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 12:55:42 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

So what, I don't use coal power.

Yes, you do.

Those plants are far away in southern Illinois and serve mostly Kentucky markets.

Then the hydro plant just down the street from me must be supplying ALL of my electrical power, based on your IL-logic.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 1:06:35 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Whoa! Even at this point my electric car is NOT inferior to anything.

From an environmental standpoint, driving one's existing car is a far better choice than buying a new one. Your electric car is expensive and expense always equates to increased CO2 emissions.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:30:41 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:07:10 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
It was like rebuilding New Orleans to the tune of $400B, a complete waste of
money, given 44% of the people there were on perpetual welfare. They should
have left the re-distribution of people alone and NOT repatriated anyone. They
were better off in Dallas, etc.

If you had paid attention to some of the news stories about the disaster, you
would have learned that New Orleans had been the only major city in the United
States where black people could go about their lives with dignity - without
fear of being harassed by the police simply for being black.

NOLA's population still has not rebounded to 2005 levels. Those who haven't returned (100,000 or more?) must like where they are living now.