6 ms·

As to whether those hybrids have a 'huge effect' on 'global warming' depends on many factors but assuming the narrative around climate change - the term 'global

As to whether those hybrids have a 'huge effect' on 'global warming' depends on many factors but assuming the narrative around climate change - the term 'global warming' has been swapped for the latter since the average global temperature has gone down for a number of years after an earlier steady rise - in relation to the CO₂ hypothesis holds truth the main factor of importance is the source of the carbon used in the fuel. Fossil fuels add carbon to the atmosphere while synthetic fuels made from 'renewable' sources - biomass and direct carbon capture being the most likely ones - do not. Especially the latter - captured atmospheric carbon in combination with hydrogen from ocean-based wind and solar sources - would be a clearly carbon-neutral synthetic fuel source. If such a process could be made economically viable it could also solve the problem with storing hydrogen produced by those ocean-based sources: CO₂ -> C + O₂ 2 H₂O -> 2 H₂ + O₂ C + 2 H₂ -> CH₄ (methane) Theoretically it is simple. Building an economically viable installation, not so. With the amount of attention the 'climate crisis' gets this should not be a barrier given that untold billions of euros are being spent. Take some of that money which currently goes to nonsensical political vanity projects and redirect it into a Manhattan-project style research and development project with the aim of not just finding some theoretical process but actually creating working systems which can be installed and used. The advantage of creating methane is clear since it enables existing infrastructure to be used for transport and power production - including ICE-equipped vehicles. Either create heavier liquid hydrocarbons using the Fisher-Tropsch [1] process or convert diesel engines to use methane. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces...

XorNot 4y ago
> the term 'global warming' has been swapped for the latter since the average global temperature has gone down for a number of years after an earlier steady rise You're just going to throw that out there? You'll cite the Fischer-Tropsch process, but not "actually global temperatures are declining"? Here[1]. The temperature hasn't gone down. The narrative hasn't changed from global warming because of this (the term was in fact dropped because people are idiots and trying to explain what global temperature is measuring in terms of energy dynamics in the climate system doesn't work...). 2022 was the 6th warmest year on record, and based on all data the overall trend is up. [1] https://www.noaa.gov/news/2022-was-worlds-6th-warmest-year-on-record https://www.noaa.gov/news/2022-was-worlds-6th-warmest-year-o...
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  You are pointing at a single year, I am pointing at a trend [1,2]. The trend had been for the average global temperature to rise up to 2012 to 2016 - depending on which measurements you look at. After that period the average global temperature has declined by 0.06°C per year up to 2022. This change in the trend made the "global warming" moniker easily attacked "because the temperature are clearly going down". This is why "climate change" became the more common term [3]. May I suggest a less belligerent/dogmatic attitude when discussing this subject? If the narrative holds it won't change the conclusion. If new data shows the narrative to be false or misleading - e.g. ice core records show the atmospheric CO₂ concentration to lag behind temperature changes, not lead them, climate sensitivity wrt. CO₂ concentration is low, feedback mechanisms are unclear, there are far too many fudge factors in the climate models to make them reliable sources - it will be much easier to adapt to the new situation. We're not talking religious dogma after all but scientific theory, that which can and should be discussed lest it turns into the former. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/04/26/global-temperatures-have-cooled-since-2016-heres-why-thats-normal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/... [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-ear... [3] https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Wow didn't even wait before busting out "what if CO2 doesn't cause global warming" and very obviously didn't read your own links. Running the denialist playbook as usual: slip in a insinuation that the issue has stopped without evidence, then drop a bunch of articles which don't support it while continuing to say "what if all the data supported me?" And then started alluding to a conspiracy with language choices like "dogma". Throw in some upfront tone policing because heaven forbid you have to defend your position vigorously and the recipe is complete. Go on: hit me with "climate cycles are natural" and then lean into how the media just don't talk about the controversy.
    - 4y ago
supernova87a 4y ago
by the way, how did you do all those subscript formatting tricks?? It would be great to know how to post more advanced things in the comments here.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  I use the compose key (which I mapped to Scroll Lock) for subscript: <compose> + _ + [0-9] For superscript I use a dead key, ^: superscript: ^ + [0-9] O₀ … O₉ O⁰… O⁹
- jwilk 4y ago
  You may like this: https://jwilk.github.io/chemiscripts/ https://jwilk.github.io/chemiscripts/
- dspillett 4y ago
  Assuming you are on desktop/laptop: The long-winded way is to use your OS's character map tool: find the glyph you want there and copy+paste. Under Windows 10+ there is the emoji keyboard (hit [win]+;) which also gives access to much more including super-/sub- script characters, which is a little more convenient than character map. Presumably other OSs have similar available too. Better is to have support for a compose key sequence. Usually build in to Linux & similar, you just might have to find the setting to turn it on and configure what your compose key is. Under Windows I use http://wincompose.info/ http://wincompose.info/ and there are a couple of similar tools out there. In any case it is useful for more than super- and sub-scripts: accented characters & similar (áàäæçﬀñ), some fractions (¼,½,¾), other symbols (°∞™®↑↓←→‽¡¿⸘♥⋘»‱), and configurable too so you can make what you use most easiest to access (and if you are really sad like me you can do something https://xkcd.com/2583/ https://xkcd.com/2583/ to type hallelujah too!). On mobile devices a fair few “special” characters are usually available (though it depends what keyboard you have installed) via long-press on the right keys of the virtual keyboard.

XorNot 4y ago

> the term 'global warming' has been swapped for the latter since the average global temperature has gone down for a number of years after an earlier steady rise You're just going to throw that out there? You'll cite the Fischer-Tropsch process, but not "actually global temperatures are declining"? Here[1]. The temperature hasn't gone down. The narrative hasn't changed from global warming because of this (the term was in fact dropped because people are idiots and trying to explain what global temperature is measuring in terms of energy dynamics in the climate system doesn't work...). 2022 was the 6th warmest year on record, and based on all data the overall trend is up. [1] https://www.noaa.gov/news/2022-was-worlds-6th-warmest-year-on-record https://www.noaa.gov/news/2022-was-worlds-6th-warmest-year-o...

the_third_wave 4y ago
You are pointing at a single year, I am pointing at a trend [1,2]. The trend had been for the average global temperature to rise up to 2012 to 2016 - depending on which measurements you look at. After that period the average global temperature has declined by 0.06°C per year up to 2022. This change in the trend made the "global warming" moniker easily attacked "because the temperature are clearly going down". This is why "climate change" became the more common term [3]. May I suggest a less belligerent/dogmatic attitude when discussing this subject? If the narrative holds it won't change the conclusion. If new data shows the narrative to be false or misleading - e.g. ice core records show the atmospheric CO₂ concentration to lag behind temperature changes, not lead them, climate sensitivity wrt. CO₂ concentration is low, feedback mechanisms are unclear, there are far too many fudge factors in the climate models to make them reliable sources - it will be much easier to adapt to the new situation. We're not talking religious dogma after all but scientific theory, that which can and should be discussed lest it turns into the former. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/04/26/global-temperatures-have-cooled-since-2016-heres-why-thats-normal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/... [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-ear... [3] https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/
- XorNot 4y ago
  Wow didn't even wait before busting out "what if CO2 doesn't cause global warming" and very obviously didn't read your own links. Running the denialist playbook as usual: slip in a insinuation that the issue has stopped without evidence, then drop a bunch of articles which don't support it while continuing to say "what if all the data supported me?" And then started alluding to a conspiracy with language choices like "dogma". Throw in some upfront tone policing because heaven forbid you have to defend your position vigorously and the recipe is complete. Go on: hit me with "climate cycles are natural" and then lean into how the media just don't talk about the controversy.
  - 4y ago

supernova87a 4y ago

by the way, how did you do all those subscript formatting tricks?? It would be great to know how to post more advanced things in the comments here.

the_third_wave 4y ago
I use the compose key (which I mapped to Scroll Lock) for subscript: <compose> + _ + [0-9] For superscript I use a dead key, ^: superscript: ^ + [0-9] O₀ … O₉ O⁰… O⁹
jwilk 4y ago
You may like this: https://jwilk.github.io/chemiscripts/ https://jwilk.github.io/chemiscripts/
dspillett 4y ago
Assuming you are on desktop/laptop: The long-winded way is to use your OS's character map tool: find the glyph you want there and copy+paste. Under Windows 10+ there is the emoji keyboard (hit [win]+;) which also gives access to much more including super-/sub- script characters, which is a little more convenient than character map. Presumably other OSs have similar available too. Better is to have support for a compose key sequence. Usually build in to Linux & similar, you just might have to find the setting to turn it on and configure what your compose key is. Under Windows I use http://wincompose.info/ http://wincompose.info/ and there are a couple of similar tools out there. In any case it is useful for more than super- and sub-scripts: accented characters & similar (áàäæçﬀñ), some fractions (¼,½,¾), other symbols (°∞™®↑↓←→‽¡¿⸘♥⋘»‱), and configurable too so you can make what you use most easiest to access (and if you are really sad like me you can do something https://xkcd.com/2583/ https://xkcd.com/2583/ to type hallelujah too!). On mobile devices a fair few “special” characters are usually available (though it depends what keyboard you have installed) via long-press on the right keys of the virtual keyboard.