Climate Hoax

[mspart]

I'm no climate warrior.   It just seems funny to use farmland for fuel when we hear about so many starving people in the world.  

mspart

[ionel]

23 minutes ago, mspart said:

I'm no climate warrior.   It just seems funny to use farmland for fuel when we hear about so many starving people in the world.  

mspart

But more or less funny that using farmland to build more cars that use more fuel instead of feeding starving people?  

[mspart]

To be clear, I am saying use farmland to raise food for people.   Using arable farmland as manufacturing sites seems very short sighted to me.

mspart

[ionel]

54 minutes ago, mspart said:

To be clear, I am saying use farmland to raise food for people.   Using arable farmland as manufacturing sites seems very short sighted to me.

mspart

What about use river water to grow food instead of water lawns and golf courses? 

[WrestlingRasta]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

To be clear, I am saying use farmland to raise food for people.   Using arable farmland as manufacturing sites seems very short sighted to me.

mspart

Would love to see more household gardens.  With all the government incentives and subsidies out there, why not (or maybe there is) for maintaining household vegetable gardens....

[Scouts Honor]

ethanol uses about 40 % of commercial corn produced in the US

about 35% to animal feeds

[Husker_Du]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

Yeah, but now we are using our crop land for power rather than feeding the people.   That's what I was getting at.   Yeah, I figured it was field corn that is used but it seems like the land would be better used growing food for hungry mouths rather than gas guzzling machines.   Just my $0.02.

mspart

any studies out there on how much labor/energy/cost there is to producing corn ethanol?

can't imagine that it would be too efficient. 

i never realized that ethanol made up that much percentage of total corn use. i guess i just assumed that corn ethanol was made from surplus corn left over from feedlots and such. 

raising corn for the sole purpose of ethanol production seems inefficient but i admittedly don't know much about it. 

[Lipdrag]

First physics then math then the roads then the universe were all discovered to be racist.  Now, the environment has been proven to be systemically racist.  What are absurd lefties going to do about it?  this Canadian has  a plan:

 

"Elizabeth May says it's not enough to say we're in a climate crisis, we have to do more to deal with on of its biggest threats; environmental racism... She says her law will give govt more 'tools' to deal with environmental racism"

 

The environment is so racist that it makes the Nazis look like the racist JV.

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

any studies out there on how much labor/energy/cost there is to producing corn ethanol?

can't imagine that it would be too efficient. 

i never realized that ethanol made up that much percentage of total corn use. i guess i just assumed that corn ethanol was made from surplus corn left over from feedlots and such. 

raising corn for the sole purpose of ethanol production seems inefficient but i admittedly don't know much about it. 

Yes there are and don't believe the Cornell Pimentel study, he used old data and its not accurate with new processes.  It takes less energy to produce it but that doesn't mean its the best use of resources.  

[Lipdrag]

Another one bites the dust.  Pesky physics.  Silly customers preferring cars that work differently from BEV constraints.

 

 

 

In other news:  

 

Don't these people know about mandates?  EPA rules?  CAFE requirements?  HOW DARE these people have a preference based on actual experience?!?

Note - it is probable that most if not all of these 46% were not forced into an EV but were enthusiastic adopters right up to the point the reality struck them in the face.  They are definitely not MAGA deplorable climate denying right wing racists.  These are probably people who think Greta might be right.  HOW DARE THEY?!?

[ionel]

29 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Another one bites the dust.  Pesky physics.  Silly customers preferring cars that work differently from BEV constraints.

 

 

 

In other news:  

 

Don't these people know about mandates?  EPA rules?  CAFE requirements?  HOW DARE these people have a preference based on actual experience?!?

Note - it is probable that most if not all of these 46% were not forced into an EV but were enthusiastic adopters right up to the point the reality struck them in the face.  They are definitely not MAGA deplorable climate denying right wing racists.  These are probably people who think Greta might be right.  HOW DARE THEY?!?

Can't Biden just mandate that Fisker stays in business? 

[mspart]

42 minutes ago, ionel said:

Can't Biden just mandate that Fisker stays in business? 

Yes, that should be a thing.   If you can't make cars that sell with mandates, you should be propped up for as long as it takes for people to start buying that garbage.  

mspart

[Offthemat]

How much ethanol would be produced without the use of petroleum products?

[mspart]

Zero?   Like zero food as well.

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

@mspart did I hear you guys are getting snow and freezing temps right now??

[mspart]

Not quite, but it has been a bit chilly.   Usual for around here when school gets out.   Never fails.   We are supposed to be getting into the 80s here in Seattle the next few days, then it dives back down to the 60s.   60s is not freezing but it may seem like it to some.   Especially those that are experiencing really hot weather.   I remember 2-3 years ago we had record highs of 113F - 115F here.   It had never gotten that hot here ever, on any day.   Those were pretty warm days.   The hot tub felt cool ha ha.   Just kidding, I didn't even try.   Yeah our bunny suffered as did we all.  But the house stayed cool through most of the day until about 2:00 and then it got warm, by night it was an oven.  

We will have rain on 04 July.   That's pretty standard.   Then it will warm up.   July and August usually are pretty nice around here.

mspart

[ionel]

16 minutes ago, mspart said:

Not quite, but it has been a bit chilly.   Usual for around here when school gets out.  

mspart

You still in school?  

[ionel]

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

How much ethanol would be produced without the use of petroleum products?

Ethanol replaced other additives (produced & transported with petroleum I'm sure).  So get rid of ethanol go back to nasty additive.  

[Scouts Honor]

22 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

any studies out there on how much labor/energy/cost there is to producing corn ethanol?

can't imagine that it would be too efficient. 

i never realized that ethanol made up that much percentage of total corn use. i guess i just assumed that corn ethanol was made from surplus corn left over from feedlots and such. 

raising corn for the sole purpose of ethanol production seems inefficient but i admittedly don't know much about it. 

the worst part is the water inefficiency

[JimmyBT]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gen-z-desperate-eco-friendly-104710076.html
 

looks like all the “do gooders” are too stupid to do anything about climate change any ways. 

[Lipdrag]

 

How is this possible?!?  Europe is the green capitol of the world.  Mandates.  ESG.  Bans on gasoline.  Windmills and solar panels everywhere which means the electricity is free (I actually heard a CEO of a multi-billion euro German company make the claim that electricity was becoming free due to, you know, made up credits).

How is it possible that electricity which is subsidized for cars which are subsidized and most workers can plug in at work for free because it is sustainable and they get ESG points and it is subsidized STILL be too expensive?!?  Is it that climate denying racist physics again?  Stupid physics. Greta does not approve of charging costs.

[mspart]

On 6/18/2024 at 4:48 PM, ionel said:

You still in school?  

My last kid just graduated a couple of years ago.   So after XX years since I was in HS, it has been the same.   Gets nice before school lets out and overcast and rainy when school lets out.   Never fails.  

mspart

[mspart]

The physics and chemistry of the whole green situation does not make sense.   Robbing Peter to pay Paul never really works out well.   It's best when the economy chooses a different path because it is better/cheaper/better.  

mspart

[billyhoyle]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

The physics and chemistry of the whole green situation does not make sense.   Robbing Peter to pay Paul never really works out well.   It's best when the economy chooses a different path because it is better/cheaper/better.  

mspart

What doesn't make sense about CO2 absorbing IR radiation? You increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, you retain more heat on the planet.  It's a simple concept, but most people don't understand how molecular vibrations work. O2 and N2 do not absorb IR radiation btw. Hence why we are more and more ***ducked** as we increase CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 

You can see the IR spectrum right here if you're curious:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1

 

If you want to say we should move inland/north in the long term or build giant levees rather than decrease CO2 emission, sure I could see that argument. It might be more feasible to just say the state of Florida and current coastal areas on the east/west coast probably shouldn't be inhabited 200 years from now than it is to say we should stop burning fossil fuels (and somehow convince China/India to do the same thing).  But you can't really deny the premise that CO2 is heating the planet. 

Edited June 21 by billyhoyle

[Bigbrog]

8 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

What doesn't make sense about CO2 absorbing IR radiation? You increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, you retain more heat on the planet.  It's a simple concept, but most people don't understand how molecular vibrations work. O2 and N2 do not absorb IR radiation btw. Hence why we are more and more ***ducked** as we increase CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 

You can see the IR spectrum right here if you're curious:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1

 

If you want to say we should move inland/north in the long term or build giant levees rather than decrease CO2 emission, sure I could see that argument. It might be more feasible to just say the state of Florida and current coastal areas on the east/west coast probably shouldn't be inhabited 200 years from now than it is to say we should stop burning fossil fuels (and somehow convince China/India to do the same thing).  But you can't really deny the premise that CO2 is heating the planet. 

This is based on what historical length of data??