The Climate Is So Bad..........

Gulfstream G650ER can cruise at up to 51,000 feet. Additionally, the G650ER has an average hourly fuel burn of 490 Gallons per Hour

Celebrities prefer Gulfstream. While little old ladies have trouble paying 5 dollars a gallon to go to church.

I and another sailor flew cross country for a green virtue signalling sailing event. The owner has 3 jets, which have their own hanger and clock around 2,000 hours a year each.
 
Scientists overstate their understanding about every other breath they take. You're a hack referencing information from hacks.

The fact you don't know what Einstein was wrong proves you're not informed on the subject. Learn a little more before you start making empty claims.

Nasa has never sampled the entire atomsphere of the earth. They take small samples and make big claims.

Tell me, were was NASA in the 1800s?

Is a great source that is not flooded with alarmist bias.

Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.
His sat data shows the warmistas are wrong.
 
ad hominem - I was hoping for a better conversation with you, especially since you brought up logical fallacies. I have never met a scientist that believes he/she is God - or that opinions are absolute - especially myself.
Go ahead and post the name of the documented liar that said Mike Mann was a Nobel Prize winner.
Why does Mike lie under oath and why do hockey stickers approve?

By the way, your sexual predator leader alGore does say "the science is settled"

You are not a scientist.
 
If oil and coal companies want to stay relevant in the energy business, they should think about investing in fusion especially in view of a number of recent successful breakthroughs.

- abundant carbon-free energy -

The breakthroughs are significant and there is reason to believe that a time will come when people say "goodbye" to dirty, toxic, ugly refineries and piles of coal and soot producing smokestacks, and when continued funding for climate change research and mitigation will decrease.

___
 
If oil and coal companies want to stay relevant in the energy business, they should think about investing in fusion especially in view of a number of recent successful breakthroughs.

- abundant carbon-free energy -

The breakthroughs are significant and there is reason to believe that a time will come when people say "goodbye" to dirty, toxic, ugly refineries and piles of coal

Silly emotional arguments. Juvenile Goremon talking points.



and soot producing smokestacks,
I will add your dirty warmistas photo shop "smoke stacks" which they label as smoke and they are actually steam from cooling towers.

If you knew engineering, you would know.
and when continued funding for climate change research and mitigation will decrease.

___
You don't know anything about the oil business. Texas A&M pumps out our finest Industrial Hygiene engineers and safety engineers.
You are a discredited oil business outsider.

Koch owns John Zink which is the world leader in pollution control systems https://www.johnzinkhamworthy.com
Your Marxist slants do not know the industries.

Lack of education.

Oil refines asphalt to pave roads. Make car tires. You are a business outsider. Energy bills chasing your political novelties are doubling.

The next issue is coal and petrol sources offer RELIABILITY. Your Marxist novelties open the door for blackouts.
Your gaslighting keeps failing.

By the way, our daughter has PhD EE in Power systems. You are not an engineer. She finished all her University engineering math requirements before she started High school.

The Germans this year will pay a huge price for their power scheme stupidities.
 
I agree, hydrogen is the answer.
Where does H come from? Hydrolysis Takes a lot of electric to split H20.

Energy required to produce Hydrogen energy. Kinda like a lot of petrol is used to raise and brew corn for ethanol.
Another way is to make ethanol and pull Hydrogen out of the ethanol molecule.


Main processes for hydrogen on-site supply:

  • Steam reforming of methane or other hydrocarbons
  • Recovery from refinery off-gases
  • Recovery from syngas
  • Gasification of oil refining residues

#1 CH4 is Methane. it is easy to gather from coal bed methane wells. Or one of the gases in Natural Gas.
Methane is produced by rice paddys.
 
My goodness the cuckoos are calling late this year.

The "Roman bridge...hidden under ice" as you allege, is the bridge reportedly built by the Roman emperor Nero that is usually submerged under the waters of the Tiber River - in Rome!

What makes you think that's what I was referring to? IIRC, the article I read a few years ago said somewhere in the Alps. But while doing a search I got sidetracked.

How about a pair of 1300 year old skis?



A lost mountain trail and Viking settlement?

 
As I noted previously, he has to earn his daily crust and he has found a very lucrative way in which to do so.

Scientists are, after all only human, and we know that some are not always guided by integrity and rectitude.

Nothing lucrative about "alternative" energy?
Nothing lucrative about more government control?
 
If oil and coal companies want to stay relevant in the energy business, they should think about investing in fusion especially in view of a number of recent successful breakthroughs.

Or just do more business with China?

- abundant carbon-free energy -

The breakthroughs are significant and there is reason to believe that a time will come when people say "goodbye" to dirty, toxic, ugly refineries and piles of coal and soot producing smokestacks, and when continued funding for climate change research and mitigation will decrease.

___
 
Where does H come from? Hydrolysis Takes a lot of electric to split H20.
You are an energy outsider. You have no experience with chemistry, physics, engineering or alternative energy technologies:

Steam-methane reforming is a widely used method of commercial hydrogen production​

Steam-methane reforming currently accounts for nearly all commercially produced hydrogen in the United States. Commercial hydrogen producers and petroleum refineries use steam-methane reforming to separate hydrogen atoms from carbon atoms in methane (CH4). In steam-methane reforming, high-temperature steam (1,300°F to 1,800°F) under 3–25 bar pressure (1 bar = 14.5 pounds per square inch) reacts with methane in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Back when I was the CEO of the Big Three largest petroleum manufacturers, I hired industry-leading chemists and engineers. Think-tank material. They did maths better than unemployed Oneness creeps, and knew the English language better, too. My conglomerates won industry awards for innovation and ingenuity. It takes too much "electric" to use hydrolysis to produce mass quantities of hydrogen profitably.
 
Last edited:
Nothing lucrative about "alternative" energy?
Nothing lucrative about more government control?
Your point? Do you think climate change is some kind of money-making scam?

From here https://theconversation.com/arctic-...han-the-rest-of-the-world-new-research-188474

The Earth is approximately 1.1℃ warmer than it was at the start of the industrial revolution. That warming has not been uniform, with some regions warming at a far greater pace. One such region is the Arctic.

A new study shows that the Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the rest of the world over the past 43 years. This means the Arctic is on average around 3℃ warmer than it was in 1980.
The sea ice is covered in a bright layer of snow which reflects around 85% of incoming solar radiation back out to space. The opposite occurs in the open ocean. As the darkest natural surface on the planet, the ocean absorbs 90% of solar radiation.

When covered with sea ice, the Arctic Ocean acts like a large reflective blanket, reducing the absorption of solar radiation. As the sea ice melts, absorption rates increase, resulting in a positive feedback loop where the rapid pace of ocean warming further amplifies sea ice melt, contributing to even faster ocean warming.

This feedback loop is largely responsible for what is known as Arctic amplification, and is the explanation for why the Arctic is warming so much more than the rest of the planet.

This is alarming, because the Arctic contains sensitive and delicately balanced climate components that, if pushed too hard, will respond with global consequences.

Why is the Arctic warming so much faster?

A large part of the explanation relates to sea ice. This is a thin layer (typically one metre to five metres thick) of sea water that freezes in winter and partially melts in the summer.

The sea ice is covered in a bright layer of snow which reflects around 85% of incoming solar radiation back out to space. The opposite occurs in the open ocean. As the darkest natural surface on the planet, the ocean absorbs 90% of solar radiation.

When covered with sea ice, the Arctic Ocean acts like a large reflective blanket, reducing the absorption of solar radiation. As the sea ice melts, absorption rates increase, resulting in a positive feedback loop where the rapid pace of ocean warming further amplifies sea ice melt, contributing to even faster ocean warming.

This feedback loop is largely responsible for what is known as Arctic amplification, and is the explanation for why the Arctic is warming so much more than the rest of the planet.
 
What makes you think that's what I was referring to? IIRC, the article I read a few years ago said somewhere in the Alps. But while doing a search I got sidetracked.

How about a pair of 1300 year old skis?



A lost mountain trail and Viking settlement?

And? What point are you trying to make?
 
You are an energy outsider. You have no experience with chemistry, physics, engineering or alternative energy technologies:



Back when I was the CEO of the Big Three largest petroleum manufacturers, I hired industry-leading chemists and engineers. Think-tank material. They did maths better than unemployed Oneness creeps, and knew the English language better, too. My conglomerates won industry awards for innovation and ingenuity. It takes too much "electric" to use hydrolysis to produce mass quantities of hydrogen profitably.

Are you familiar with Linde? Air Products is already -knee deep- in the industry.

Maybe automobile manufacturers and Linde should begin an effort to secure future profits by funding a hydrogen infrastructure soon.

___
 
Last edited:
Are you familiar with Linde? Air Products is already -knee deep- in the industry.

Maybe automobile manufacturers and Linde should begin an effort to secure future profits by funding a hydrogen infrastructure soon.

___
Thanks for adding your usually reasonable/informative/constructive input to my obvious snark. No, I wasn't specifically aware of Linde, but I've known about several of the hydrogen technologies / products being explored over the last 2 decades. I remember a (PBS?) show back in the 2000s (EDIT: here's a related article), explaining Greenland's attempts to add renewable hydrogen to its energy portfolio.

If I remember correctly, one of the major hurdles is the simple public perception that hydrogen is extremely dangerous.
 
Thanks for adding your usually reasonable/informative/constructive input to my obvious snark. No, I wasn't specifically aware of Linde, but I've known about several of the hydrogen technologies / products being explored over the last 2 decades. I remember a (PBS?) show back in the 2000s (EDIT: here's a related article), explaining Greenland's attempts to add renewable hydrogen to its energy portfolio.

If I remember correctly, one of the major hurdles is the simple public perception that hydrogen is extremely dangerous.
Same way global warming neurotics peddle the meme that CO2 is dangerous.
 
You are an energy outsider. You have no experience with chemistry, physics, engineering or alternative energy technologies:



Back when I was the CEO of the Big Three largest petroleum manufacturers, I hired industry-leading chemists and engineers. Think-tank material. They did maths better than unemployed Oneness creeps, and knew the English language better, too. My conglomerates won industry awards for innovation and ingenuity. It takes too much "electric" to use hydrolysis to produce mass quantities of hydrogen profitably.
You Non science outsiders hide behind cut and pasties.
Goremons.

Your Komrade still can't show us a copy of Mike Mannn's Nobel peace prize.

You have never signed paychecks for chemists and engineers that worked for companies you owned. i have.

Your ignorant Komrade doesn't know about pet coke. It comes green and is turned into quality pet coke used to make steel for the big GE fans.

Why is ignorance of chemistry and engineering a priority for greenie weenie hockey stickers?
 
Thanks for adding your usually reasonable/informative/constructive input to my obvious snark. No, I wasn't specifically aware of Linde, but I've known about several of the hydrogen technologies / products being explored over the last 2 decades. I remember a (PBS?) show back in the 2000s (EDIT: here's a related article), explaining Greenland's attempts to add renewable hydrogen to its energy portfolio.

If I remember correctly, one of the major hurdles is the simple public perception that hydrogen is extremely dangerous.

Hmm... Sorry I don't recall the PBS story back in ^the^ day. However, because you mentioned it I found another PBS update recorded on April 20th, 2022. Here, Keith Wipke, the Mechanical Engineer that runs the fuel cell laboratory at NREL is interviewed. The engineering goal is to reduce the price of hydrogen fuel to $1 per kilogram using only renewable energy resources.

___
 
Last edited:
Back
Top