Actually, I have worked the numbers and a good 4 cyl turbo liquid cooled diesel engine with a good genset and interface can be had for like 18k for close to 30kW. Burn off road tax free and it will last a lifetime and be a primary unit too.
Thoughts on this article?
- Thread starter littleharbor2
- Start date
ksmithaz1
Solar / EV Junkie
Comparing toxic gas to CO2 is disingenuous at best. Supposedly CO2 has been greater than 2000ppm. I despise youtube, but at least they have finally stopped deleting videos with opposing presentations and opinions on CO2. You cannot analyze a multi-variant system with a single variable and reach a valid conclusion. It's stupid and non-scientific.
I like this one below, we get to hear two sides... Though the premise of the debate is odd, if you listen, you have one guy tugging at your emotions, with the typical arguments. The other is saying, I hear you, but the based on what you hypothesize what we see in reality is nowhere close to what was predicted. Here is where I think the current models fail. Then the anti-co2 guy, starts attacking the other guy's integrity. He doesn't refute the data being presented with other data, or an explanation of why it is wrong, he just starts attacking him and the organization he works for. If you can't refute the data, smear the messenger. Or better yet kick them off media platforms, attack them, and make them lose their job. BTW that is the definition of 'Fascism'.
I think CO2 is great for humans, without it you can't grow plants, without plants we don't eat. I passed "earth science" in school, and we did the experiments with plants and CO2 and sunlight. I'm really old, apparently we are not teaching earth science any more. You might want to listen to a few older people who are not getting grants to prove CO2 is going to kill us all. It also didn't dawn on me that in a closed roomful of people like an auditorium CO2 levels go way up, I found it interesting. This gentleman's presentations were banned on the various media outlets. Since he was semi-retired he didn't give a crap and he kept talking. Agree or not, if you can't refute the presented facts, any opinions based on them are not 'dis-information'.
If we are not careful we may CREATE a disaster by trying to fiddle with things we shouldn't. The minute the conversation starts with absolutes about consensus or destroying the planet, and such, perhaps you might want to look at arguments that do not try and ignite fear and outrage instead.
Not when trying to illustrate that parts per million is meaningless when claiming that x ppm is so little that it doesn't matter.
Like I said before, really good for plants. They won't mind at all. They did great when the atmosphere had that. Now go visit a greenhouse where they use CO2 injection to >1000ppm and spend some time in there...
It's not so much that CO2 is going to kill us all, it's that the effects of CO2 based on everything we know will lead to increasing temperatures, and rising sea levels (just like millions of year ago). The majority of the human population lives close to sea shores.
By the way, I'm not very young.
ksmithaz1
Solar / EV Junkie
Troll, possibly AI
ksmithaz1
Solar / EV Junkie
Yes it is, because it was a casual mention of a substance that is toxic in minute quantities, to try and illustrate that a substance that is not toxic even in much higher concentrations is somehow similar, without actually saying it's similar, because,... well, it isn't. This creates high index emotional response "Wow small concentrations of CO2 are kinda like toxic gas". That's not what you said, but it's what gets perceived when you then argue that higher CO2 in the atmosphere is bad.
ksmithaz1
Solar / EV Junkie
I agree, and so does Leonard Nimoy:
(5) Leonard Nimoy Predicts An Ice Age Back In 1979. Fascinating! - YouTube
But that was not the context of my reply. This was:
"
which ignores the effects of a greenhouse gas in those concentrations, by somehow concluding that it's only a small amount so it couldn't possibly have an impact. Chlorine Pentafluoride is dangerous (IDHL value) at 1.7 ppm - barely anything, so can't possibly have an impact, right?
During the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse roughly 92 million years ago we had CO2 concentrations of over 1000ppm. There is a reason why industrial greenhouses use carbon dioxide supplementation - which is great for plants, but not so much for humans.
"
Within this context, I only tried to explain that you can't say something like "it's only x ppm, so it can't possibly have an impact". It was not a 'casual mention', it was an example of how a low ppm can have a huge impact in direct response to someone stating that low ppm can't have a noticeable impact.
Which is why I followed that in the next sentence with:
"During the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse roughly 92 million years ago we had CO2 concentrations of over 1000ppm. There is a reason why industrial greenhouses use carbon dioxide supplementation - which is great for plants, but not so much for humans."
with a link to a paper on Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation.
ksmithaz1
Solar / EV Junkie
The problem is you have several premises, and you are basing a prediction on a single variable in a multi-variant system. The other problem is stupid people read this, and somehow think that in the next 5 years all the ice on the planet is going to melt and drown everyone, or turn the Earth into 'Water World'. Neither of which is going to happen, as my mother used to say, "You can write that down in your little book!"
If I grant you the possibility all the ice on the planet melts, and the sea level rises 60ft what kind of time frame are we talking about? So while I understand this could have a deleterious affect on New Orleans in the next 1000 years or so, is it something that should be of concern in the next 5 years, 10 years? If that were true we should already be seeing dramatic rises in sea levels, but we are not. Further, while I know for those impoverished folks who own the hotels, and beachfront cottages, this could create a bit of a financial burden, I'm not sure the poor people in the middle of sub Saharan Africa will be too excited about it. I mean the premise is people have not ever had to move because their environment has become untenable. We can be pretty certain that the bulk of the area around Egypt ten's of thousands of years ago was a fertile basin, home to a long prosperous dynasty, and is now pretty much a desert. Somehow all this went down without an abundance of CO2, and somehow humanity survived.
You can't take < 100 years worth of data and predict *anything* about the earths climate. For crying out loud we can barely predict the weather a week out, and even then we are often wrong.
ksmithaz1
Solar / EV Junkie
I disagree wholeheartedly. We've made fantastic strides and we should be proud of the environmental achievements we have made, from cleaner vehicles to cleaner rivers, to identifying and cleaning up industrial waste (can you say 'Superfund'?). While we are by no means done, we will be in a constant battle between economic sensibility and environmental sensibility as they are often at odds. When I was a child the Potomac River thru DC was so polluted you didn't want to be within 200ft of the shore. I may not want to swim in it, but it doesn't smell and kill all the fish anymore. One of the Great Lakes actually caught fire. We have some interesting challenges that need to be addressed around waste plastic, and other similarly scoped environmental needs. Technology will help us resolve these issues in an economically responsible manner if we don't let our emotional responses cloud our judgement.
To that end solar power is one of the many tools that can help achieve these goals! But we must be patient and figure out how to reduce the environmental impact across the board for any tech we might use. There are always unintended consequences to most every action, by proceeding with deliberate speed, we can analyze those impacts without making something bad, worse. In the mean time people need energy to live and prosper.
cs1234
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- May 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,790
That's cool. I admire your optimism.
Actually, real intellect with a high IQ. Nothing artificial about it. Remember, the average person has an IQ of 100 and 1 SD above and below the mean encompasses the central 68.26% of the population, or an IQ of 85-115. Unfortunately for democracy, this intellectual cohort casts a lot of votes. Remember, the founding fathers were educated men of wealth who were well above the +1 SD of IQ. Their problem was if they took the time to debate every issue and situation that could have arisen, then the documents would have never been ready to sign.
ksmithaz1
Solar / EV Junkie
'Nuff said.
cs1234
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- May 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,790
Sounds like something two AI's would say about each other to fool us humans.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,483
Present them with a math problem.
See if they are smart enough to make "human" mistakes just to fool us.
Better yet, get them into an argument with each other. They were optimized to emulate human responses, but a positive feedback loop should expose instability.
If they get to the point of threatening to kill each other ...
Uh, nevermind.
See if they are smart enough to make "human" mistakes just to fool us.
Better yet, get them into an argument with each other. They were optimized to emulate human responses, but a positive feedback loop should expose instability.
If they get to the point of threatening to kill each other ...
Uh, nevermind.
timselectric
If I can do it, you can do it.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2022
- Messages
- 19,796
3rd AI said "blah blah blah"
And went to bed.
And went to bed.
Similar threads
