the maoster:
Errr, truck driver?
Point taken, just being trendy and ābeing kindā as all the wokees keep banging on about
Carryfast:
The truth is you obviously donāt want to hear or debate anything which doesnāt fit your biased climate scam belief narrative.
So here we are on your side of the debate the idea that CO2 cooked Venus but it froze Mars.
Water vapour, such as from steam turbine emissions, has less greenhouse effect than CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel.
Last but not least Nuclear energy is supposedly safe.Tell the victims of Chernobyl that.
theparisreview.org/letters-e ā¦ alexievich
Any arguments to the contrary predictably and selectively conveniently falls outside of your āscientific knowledgeā.
All that so our fossil fuel reserves can be stolen from us and handed over to whatever cause suits these far left useful idiots.
Thatās what youāre selling us.
Burning 1 ton of fossil fuel makes 1.3tons of water.
Nuclear submarines may puff like steam trains, but theā¦waitā¦
Zac_A:
Wow! What a choice: siding with the God-bothering fanatic or siding with the climate denying conspiracist loon?Sploom, you win, Iāll take God-botherers over climate deniers any day of the week: You are absolved, go in peace
The irony when itās the climate scammers who are trying to sell the idea that 95% CO2 cooked Venus but froze Mars let alone the 0.04% that makes up Earthās atmosphere.
Which is around the minimum required to sustain photosynthesis and with it our oxygen supply
Deniers indeed.
Franglais:
Carryfast:
The truth is you obviously donāt want to hear or debate anything which doesnāt fit your biased climate scam belief narrative.
So here we are on your side of the debate the idea that CO2 cooked Venus but it froze Mars.
Water vapour, such as from steam turbine emissions, has less greenhouse effect than CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel.
Last but not least Nuclear energy is supposedly safe.Tell the victims of Chernobyl that.
theparisreview.org/letters-e ā¦ alexievich
Any arguments to the contrary predictably and selectively conveniently falls outside of your āscientific knowledgeā.
All that so our fossil fuel reserves can be stolen from us and handed over to whatever cause suits these far left useful idiots.
Thatās what youāre selling us.Burning 1 ton of fossil fuel makes 1.3tons of water.
Nuclear submarines may puff like steam trains, but theā¦waitā¦
But wait the climate scammers are denying that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.
The turbine emissions of a submerged nuke submarine obviously aināt the same thing as a nuke power power stationās venting to air.
Bearing in mind that itās airborne water vapour that creates, the greenhouse effect ( which the believersā deny exists ).
1t of petrol provides around 4MWh allowing for efficiency losses of ICE.Bearing in mind that itās water vapour that is the issue not water and engine exhaust water vapour starts out at a much lower temperature and therefore condenses out of the atmosphere much sooner than superheated steam.
Tell us how much superheated steam throughput required by a steam turbine per MWh.
Obviously all moot if the useful idiots donāt believe that water vapour is a greenhouse gas let alone the idea that nuclear energy is lethally dangerous.
They also obviously donāt care about the cost at 50p per kWh because they believe that someone else is paying their energy bills through the benefits system.
Itās ok everyone. Dr Carryfast is on the case. Everything will be ok.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Carryfast:
The truth is you obviously donāt want to hear or debate anything which doesnāt fit your biased climate scam belief narrative.
So here we are on your side of the debate the idea that CO2 cooked Venus but it froze Mars.
Water vapour, such as from steam turbine emissions, has less greenhouse effect than CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel.
Last but not least Nuclear energy is supposedly safe.Tell the victims of Chernobyl that.
theparisreview.org/letters-e ā¦ alexievich
Any arguments to the contrary predictably and selectively conveniently falls outside of your āscientific knowledgeā.
All that so our fossil fuel reserves can be stolen from us and handed over to whatever cause suits these far left useful idiots.
Thatās what youāre selling us.Burning 1 ton of fossil fuel makes 1.3tons of water.
Nuclear submarines may puff like steam trains, but theā¦waitā¦
But wait the climate scammers are denying that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.
The turbine emissions of a submerged nuke submarine obviously aināt the same thing as a nuke power power stationās venting to air.
Bearing in mind that itās airborne water vapour that creates, the greenhouse effect ( which the believersā deny exists ).
1t of petrol provides around 4MWh allowing for efficiency losses of ICE.Bearing in mind that itās water vapour that is the issue not water and engine exhaust water vapour starts out at a much lower temperature and therefore condenses out of the atmosphere much sooner than superheated steam.
Tell us how much superheated steam throughput required by a steam turbine per MWh.
Obviously all moot if the useful idiots donāt believe that water vapour is a greenhouse gas let alone the idea that nuclear energy is lethally dangerous.
They also obviously donāt care about the cost at 50p per kWh because they believe that someone else is paying their energy bills through the benefits system.
The steam that actually passes through the turbine is cooled and reused. It is not vented. It is a sealed system: it is better to re-use this clean distilled water rather than introduce water with any contaminant into the sytem.
All of this water is already here.
What of the new water made by the combustion of fossil fuels? Carbon/Hydrogen plus Oxygen makes CO2 and H2O. As I said over a ton of water for every ton of fuel burnt.
Your petrol cars are making more water vapour, which you desctibe as greenhouse gas. Your fossil fuel is adding to both CO2 and water contamination.
The rate that water vapour precipitates out of the atmosphere isn`t very dependent on the temp at which it enters the air. It is more dependent on the temp of the air.
The amount of water vapour from power station cooling towers which may be present on nuclear and fossil plants, doesn`t seem likely to compare much with the estimated 434,000,000,000,000 tons that evaporate from the ocean every year.
I notice within this thread there is an ongoing debate on basically whether climate change exists or not.
Iām going to add two further points to offer a different perspective, they are not embedded with āscience talkā and nor do they need to be.
-
I had a business mentor, who is now in his 70ās, a few years back had been to both the North and South poles to renew his wedding vows with his wife. He is someone of whom has conducted business and M&A globally among other things and so I highly respected his opinion and knowledge. There are research facilities at both these poles that have teams of scientists from various countries. My mentor noticed that they had measuring devices that recorded the sea level. He asked them āWith all the talk about climate change, has the sea level risen from all the glaciers allegedly melting?ā The scientists all looked at each other and laughed, saying that āClimate change is a hoax that started in the West (U.S & U.K) and the sea level hasnāt risen in several decades!ā
-
My mentor has done business and maintains ongoing relationships with some of the largest banks and insurance companies in the U.K and U.S. He explained that with all this debate on climate change, you would think that certain coastal cities would eventually be under water from the sea level allegedly rising over the next few decades? If this were true, these banks and insurance companies would stop lending against properties in these regions, being that it is their job to mitigate risk to avoid losing Ā£millions/billions, correct? Nope - they continue to lend in those areas as they know climate change is a trillion dollar hoax and is largely about redistributing wealth and controlling the general population with scare tactics.
Take from that what you will.
Marky-p:
I notice there is an ongoing debate on basically whether climate change exists or not.
Yes there is.
There is equally an ongoing debate about whether or not the world is a globe, or a flat disc on the back of a giant turtle.
Marky-p:
Take from that what you will.
I will do so.
Marky-p:
I notice there is an ongoing debate on basically whether climate change exists or not.Iām going to add two further points to offer a different perspective, they are not embedded with āscience talkā and nor do they need to be.
I had a business mentor, who is now in his 70ās, a few years back had been to both the North and South poles to renew his wedding vows with his wife. He is someone of whom has conducted business and M&A globally among other things and so I highly respected his opinion and knowledge. There are research facilities at both these poles that have teams of scientists from various countries. My mentor noticed that they had measuring devices that recorded the sea level. He asked them āWith all the talk about climate change, has the sea level risen from all the glaciers allegedly melting?ā The scientists all looked at each other and laughed, saying that āClimate change is a hoax that started in the West (U.S & U.K) and the sea level hasnāt risen in several decades!ā
My mentor has done business and maintains ongoing relationships with some of the largest banks and insurance companies in the U.K and U.S. He explained that with all this debate on climate change, you would think that certain coastal cities would eventually be under water from the sea level allegedly rising over the next few decades? If this were true, these banks and insurance companies would stop lending against properties in these regions, being that it is their job to mitigate risk to avoid losing Ā£millions/billions, correct? Nope - they continue to lend in those areas as they know climate change is a trillion dollar hoax and is largely about redistributing wealth and controlling the general population with scare tactics.
Take from that what you will.
So, basically its a bit like Covid then. ! What will it be next week?
Franglais:
Carryfast:
Franglais:
The steam that actually passes through the turbine is cooled and reused. It is not vented. It is a sealed system: it is better to re-use this clean distilled water rather than introduce water with any contaminant into the sytem.
All of this water is already here.
What of the new water made by the combustion of fossil fuels? Carbon/Hydrogen plus Oxygen makes CO2 and H2O. As I said over a ton of water for every ton of fuel burnt.
Your petrol cars are making more water vapour, which you desctibe as greenhouse gas. Your fossil fuel is adding to both CO2 and water contamination.
The rate that water vapour precipitates out of the atmosphere isn`t very dependent on the temp at which it enters the air. It is more dependent on the temp of the air.The amount of water vapour from power station cooling towers which may be present on nuclear and fossil plants, doesn`t seem likely to compare much with the estimated 434,000,000,000,000 tons that evaporate from the ocean every year.
Make your mind up either steam turbine emissions are vented or they arenāt which is it bearing in mind your French connections.The truth is closed systems wonāt cut it in this planned all electric utopia scam.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catteno ā¦ ower_Plant
The irony when youāre selling the idea that CO2 is supposedly a toxic contaminant but nuclear fission products are fine.While water vapour varies from being a zero greenhouse gas to not as bad as CO2 depending on which of the believers you talk to.As opposed to just about the largest Greenhouse factor on the planet
Franglais:
Marky-p:
I notice there is an ongoing debate on basically whether climate change exists or not.Yes there is.
There is equally an ongoing debate about whether or not the world is a globe, or a flat disc on the back of a giant turtle.Marky-p:
Take from that what you will.I will do so.
You mean the idea that CO2 supposedly cooked Venus but froze Mars.
Nuclear energy is safe and affordable.
Water vapour isnāt a greenhouse gas and even if it is power stations donāt emit it in massive quantities and even if they did CO2 is a more effective greenhouse gas.
Itās clear who the flat earthers are here.
Carryfast:
The irony when itās the climate scammers who are trying to sell the idea that 95% CO2 cooked Venus but froze Mars let alone the 0.04% that makes up Earthās atmosphere.
Which is around the minimum required to sustain photosynthesis and with it our oxygen supply
Deniers indeed.
You have no scientific training at all, yet you continue to believe you know better than everyone else, including NASA and Prof Brian Cox et al 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ā¦ ger_effect
Franglais:
Marky-p:
I notice there is an ongoing debate on basically whether climate change exists or not.Yes there is.
There is equally an ongoing debate about whether or not the world is a globe, or a flat disc on the back of a giant turtle.Marky-p:
Take from that what you will.I will do so.
Donāt even get me started on flat earthersā¦
Marky-p:
Donāt even get me started on flat earthersā¦
Zac_A:
Carryfast:
The irony when itās the climate scammers who are trying to sell the idea that 95% CO2 cooked Venus but froze Mars let alone the 0.04% that makes up Earthās atmosphere.
Which is around the minimum required to sustain photosynthesis and with it our oxygen supply
Deniers indeed.You have no scientific training at all, yet you continue to believe you know better than everyone else, including NASA and Prof Brian Cox et al
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ā¦ ger_effect
Cox is just parroting the same old crap that Sagan came out with.
All based on the premise that itās the atmospheric make up of Venus that cooked the planet and so obviously means that CO2 is a major greenhouse contributor.
When the example of Mars proves that premise wrong.
Let alone then extrapolating that premise to Earthās bare minimum CO2 component atmosphere.
As for NASA it thinks that its limited knowledge of local space qualifies it as an authority on the whole universe.When the truth is that accepted views and theories are continuously being challenged by real observations.
As for the useful idiot climate scam believers itās obvious that they wonāt recognise any of the numerous equally qualified scientists and science that doesnāt fit their own closed narrative.
When the truth is the inconvenient frozen world of Mars blows apart Saganās bs narrative.The inconvenient truth that atmospheric pressure and proximity to the Sun cooked Venus not the CO2 content of its atmosphere.
While all youāre trying to sell us, is an unaffordable, nuke fuelled, real greenhouse water vapour based, energy policy.As opposed to life giving carbon which ultimately is also our oxygen supply at least until your lot have chopped down the trees to burn as biomass and wiped out plant life under solar panels.
Thereās nothing as dangerous as a bunch of far left motivated zealots claiming that the science is in their favour
I donāt claim to be an expert but my idle musings are as follows.
Two hundred years ago there werenāt even railway engines. The world population was about a billion, and this population generally lived in unlit, unheated homes which were little more than shacks. Now there are 1.4 billion cars, the world population is 8 billion and many of this population live in heated and well-lit homes.
The energy required to sustain this comes largely from oil and it stands to reason that we must be depleting reserves far faster than new reserves are being formed. So we are living off of the planetās resources rather than its harvest. This cannot be indefinitely sustainable.
If we donāt address this, it is inevitable that Mother Nature will at some point and it is likely that any action she takes will be unpleasant from a human perspective.
Harry Monk:
I donāt claim to be an expert but my idle musings are as follows.Two hundred years ago there werenāt even railway engines. The world population was about a billion, and this population generally lived in unlit, unheated homes which were little more than shacks. Now there are 1.4 billion cars, the world population is 8 billion and many of this population live in heated and well-lit homes.
The energy required to sustain this comes largely from oil and it stands to reason that we must be depleting reserves far faster than new reserves are being formed. So we are living off of the planetās resources rather than its harvest. This cannot be indefinitely sustainable.
If we donāt address this, it is inevitable that Mother Nature will at some point and it is likely that any action she takes will be unpleasant from a human perspective.
This. The idea that we have had no impact on the planets weather & atmosphere is comical to say the least. Yes thereās varying opinions on the level but the most ridiculous are those who think weāve had no impact at all. It defies all logic.
ā¦
ā¦
Sorry error