Global warming

[Frank]

Yes I know, I just pointed out that when running on "battery fumes" you can furtner extend that period when the machine is still properly steerable

If you would turn off the power to the rotor, you would definitely have enough to keep the electronics and hydraulics running.

 

[corduroygt]

What in the hell are you going on about? I make a post that points out the well-documented fact that an increased emission in CO2 today affects the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for centuries to come, and you go on with some ridiculous shit about CO2 being necessary?

Look, if we stopped all emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels living organisms would still emit just about as much CO2 as they absorb. There simply isn't any concern whatsoever with CO2 levels dropping too low. Biology basically can't let CO2 levels drop too low, in fact, because as CO2 levels start to get really low, plant metabolism slows down. In any event this isn't the problem we are having.

If this is the case and animals are in equilibrium with plants, then it means CO2 levels have been roughly the same throughout the Earth's history. Instead, we have periods where CO2 concentrations have been much much higher than they are now. Here's two graphs showing temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the last 542 million years, during the Phanerozoic era:

The Earth and its climate are constantly changing and there isn't a single correct climate or temperature for our planet. There have been ice ages with much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than we have today. Those who say CO2 is the most important factor in climate change, that human emissions will cause runaway global warming, have no historical basis for such claims, they're simply generating alarmism for financial and/or professional gain.

Those of you who worry about AGW, there are thousands of things that are more disruptive to human life that we need to worry about before we even get to AGW.

 

[corduroygt]

Good question.
Well, with liquid fuel you can rather easily gauge how much of it remains in your tank(s). Not so with batteries...

My $30 R/C helicopter with li-ion batteries starts losing lifting ability, it doesn't just drop to the floor. It won't be able to climb first, and barely hold the same altitude with full power. Then even with full power, it descends slowly until it touches the ground.

Of course electricity and helicopters are only good for toys.

 

[Frank]

The interesting thing about Li-Poly batteries, when compared to Li-Ion, is that they have a much better weight/power ratio. So, if the Sikorsky Firefly, as linked by AlphaWolf would use those, it would need less and lighter batteries to fly longer.

And another interesting thing about Li-Poly batteries is, that they're basically Li-Ion ones, where the surface area of the cathode and/or anode are enlarged, by using a mesh-like surface instead of a flat solid.

Because, there is much more energy in batteries than is generally used or available, because at some moment the wattage required becomes larger than the wattage available. The cells aren't empty, far from that, but delivering the requested wattage would destroy them.

And that doesn't only depend on the chemical reaction mass inside, but also on the speed at which that reaction can happen. And a larger surface area means a faster speed. That's why Li-Poly cells seem to hold more power. They don't, they can mostly supply it faster, and thereby more of it before considered "empty".

And we can still go quite some way with that concept.

Basically, the energy density of Lithium batteries is great, it's only extracting it fast enough that is a problem. Which can be solved by high-tech Li-Poly cells.

Btw, Li-Ion packs as used in most applications, like laptops, are still only a set of cylindrical AA or AAA cells, encased in steel, linked together. Because that's much cheaper than making a custom one. Pouch cells, like found in cell phones are much better: no empty space inside, no heavy steel casings and made in a better (higher voltage) form factor. Li-Poly cells are generally only sold in pouch form.

 

[Grall]

My $30 R/C helicopter with li-ion batteries starts losing lifting ability, it doesn't just drop to the floor.

Yes, but a $30 toy helicopter is quite light in comparison to its lifting ability. Kind of like a cat is more agile than say, a bull...or an elephant. A full-size helicopter would of course need a lot more power to stay aloft, which means there's less margin when battery voltage starts to drop.

 

[rpg.314]

If this is the case and animals are in equilibrium with plants, then it means CO2 levels have been roughly the same throughout the Earth's history. Instead, we have periods where CO2 concentrations have been much much higher than they are now.

And as you completely ignored, the species roaming the planet have been very different as well over those time scales. If you have no problems with subjecting human beings to similar mass extinctions, then carry on.

The Earth and its climate are constantly changing and there isn't a single correct climate or temperature for our planet.

Yes, but there is a single correct temperature for human life. Besides, you still haven't answered my question whether or not small changes in long term averages can have an effect or not?

Those who say CO2 is the most important factor in climate change, that human emissions will cause runaway global warming, have no historical basis for such claims, they're simply generating alarmism for financial and/or professional gain.

I'd ask you to look at the evidence, but you are both incapable of understanding it and unwilling to accept it. You will of course jump at any bit of fact, not matter how unrelated, if it aligns with your version of "science".

 

[AlphaWolf]

Million years ago there was much more plant growth on the planet.

 

[Frank]

Yes, but a $30 toy helicopter is quite light in comparison to its lifting ability. Kind of like a cat is more agile than say, a bull...or an elephant. A full-size helicopter would of course need a lot more power to stay aloft, which means there's less margin when battery voltage starts to drop.

Then again, an electric, full-scale helicopter is definitely feasible. The main setback would be the cost: the Li-Poly battery pack(s) alone would cost more than the rest of the heli combined.

Still, mass-production of Li-Poly doesn't need to be more expensive than Li-Ion, as soon as the costs for R&D and the production facility are recuperated. Give it a decade.

 

[Grall]

Million years ago there was much more plant growth on the planet.

Millions of years ago there weren't billions of human beings logging entire forests and slashing and burning to make room for their agriculture...

 

[corduroygt]

Yes, but there is a single correct temperature for human life.

Yes, homo sapiens and its ancestors been living in warmer climates for millions of years. It'd be a boon to humanity if vast regions of Canada, Greenland, Siberia and Alaska were inhabitable. At least it'd stop the hypocritical left elite urbanites who hate the USA from saying "I'd move to Canada if it wasn't so cold"

Millions of years ago there weren't billions of human beings logging entire forests and slashing and burning to make room for their agriculture...

A perfect example of one of the thousands of environmental issues of today that is far more important than AGW. I believe that humanity would benefit a whole lot more if every penny dedicated for AGW mitigation was spent for planting and protecting our forests.

 

[rpg.314]

Million years ago there was much more plant growth on the planet.

And how is that related to "higher Co2 in the past is irrelevant to our near future"?

 

[Blazkowicz]

The Earth and its climate are constantly changing and there isn't a single correct climate or temperature for our planet. There have been ice ages with much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than we have today. Those who say CO2 is the most important factor in climate change, that human emissions will cause runaway global warming, have no historical basis for such claims, they're simply generating alarmism for financial and/or professional gain.

Those of you who worry about AGW, there are thousands of things that are more disruptive to human life that we need to worry about before we even get to AGW.

what kind of financial or professional gain exactly?
I've abandoned my (crappy-looking battered) car and given up the idea of ever owning one again, I won't work for my town industries (airplanes and missiles) and I don't think I will ever be able to afford a suit with the watch, shoes, tie etc.

I could live an upper middle class existence working for the old men in suits, designing more efficient ways to kill people or burn oil to the last drop but I won't. I'd rather continue to get my food and clothing from dumpsters (don't worry the food from dumpsters is still clean, packed and edible), drink on the street and meet people in squats (or drink in squats and meet people on the street).

I could get rich (middle class standard of living *is* rich) but that would require me feigning to ignore all the energy, carbon, food and human dignity issues. But I'm sick of that global culture that relies on science and technique but promotes ignorance, that prides itself on democracy and human rights but props up Mubarak, Ben Ali, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and so on.

I'm fed up with the bullshit and it's time we overthrow the criminals who rule us, as well. Why is democracy only exercised in 3rd world dictatorships those days?

 

[AlphaWolf]

And how is that related to "higher Co2 in the past is irrelevant to our near future"?

Oh I'm just saying the environment was more capable of handling high CO2 levels. While the dinosaurs were around the oxygen content was also nearly double what it is now.

 

[Blazkowicz]

the daytime's length was also considerably shorter and grass didn't exist ; the sun was less bright and most of all if we go one pixel = two million years you can plot any kind of graph and nothing will affect a human lifetime - mine should satistically end in 2065 or later.

are you sure about oxygen? never heard of that things would be pretty highly flammable. I believe biosphere let it at about its current level through the ages with the positive and negative feedbacks.

 

[Blazkowicz]

corduroygt I appreciate your input as you're playing the role of the classical, rational economic actor. most people do like you do, even AGW supporters that buy organic food, efficient cars and insulation, support wind mills etc. and in the end delude themselves as they still work the same jobs, still use almost as much energy and haven't done anything to solve any problem.

we like to believe we can still play the same game, only a bit more efficiently, but changing the rules of the game or playing another games is still out of question in the media/politico sphere.

small question do you support killing arabs, do you think we should mostly end killing arabs altogether or would only reduce the killing of arabs in ways that are profitable to you directly but not so much as threatening the industries that rely on the killing of arabs.

 

[Grall]

Why would he support killing arabs just because he doesn't believe in AGW?

 

[AlphaWolf]

are you sure about oxygen? never heard of that things would be pretty highly flammable. I believe biosphere let it at about its current level through the ages with the positive and negative feedbacks.

I saw it on the discovery channel a while back, but this was in wired recently and touches on it. I guess it was 50% higher, not double tho.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/huge-dragonflies-oxygen/

During the Paleozoic era, around 300 million years ago, huge dragonflies zipped around with wingspans stretching more than two and a half feet, dwarfing modern relatives. Back then, however, the planet’s atmosphere had roughly 50 percent more oxygen than today.

 

[corduroygt]

corduroygt I appreciate your input as you're playing the role of the classical, rational economic actor. most people do like you do, even AGW supporters that buy organic food, efficient cars and insulation, support wind mills etc. and in the end delude themselves as they still work the same jobs, still use almost as much energy and haven't done anything to solve any problem.

The irony is that I live only 4 miles from work, so my carbon footprint using my all wheel drive crossover SUV is far less than my coworker who lives 40 miles from work and drives a Prius.

small question do you support killing arabs, do you think we should mostly end killing arabs altogether or would only reduce the killing of arabs in ways that are profitable to you directly but not so much as threatening the industries that rely on the killing of arabs.

I don't support killing any kind of people. I support not giving our money to Saudi Arabians, by growing our own biofuel instead. If the US could be entirely self-sustaining with biofuels at $5/gallon, I'd prefer that to the current situation. At least there'd be no uncertainty about the availability or pricing of our fuel, and while gasoline would be more expensive, it'd at least be all grown domestically and help our economy. It'd also probably be far less expensive than the current situation, where we have to keep a huge army, air force, and a navy with 11 aircraft carriers to ensure that our oil suppliers don't change their minds.

 

[Ty]

Those who say CO2 is the most important factor in climate change, that human emissions will cause runaway global warming, have no historical basis for such claims, they're simply generating alarmism for financial and/or professional gain.

Do you admit that the reverse holds true as well? That is, those that are denying it could be doing so out of financial gain?

Yes, homo sapiens and its ancestors been living in warmer climates for millions of years. It'd be a boon to humanity if vast regions of Canada, Greenland, Siberia and Alaska were inhabitable. At least it'd stop the hypocritical left elite urbanites who hate the USA from saying "I'd move to Canada if it wasn't so cold"

Ok, and what about the rest of the planet that would become uninhabitable if the portions above warmed up to reach the temps you're referring to?

 

[Blazkowicz]

Why would he support killing arabs just because he doesn't believe in AGW?

I'm practising parabole and hyperbole mixed together.

I do see the issues as indirectly connected. foremost the war against iraq, a stronger case for AGW and the broadband internet age came coincidentally at the same time and my vision on humanity and politics was shattered.
incidentally big oil, big weapons and the corporate media are in bed with eachover or sometimes are the same person or entity thus among the elites you can see strong overlap between the promoters of war, ignorance and genuine AGW denialism.

I don't mean to insult you corduroygt and of course biosphere/atmosphere's response to excess CO2 input doesn't care about politics or wtf any of us think.