Heating up down under

[Tuur]

In a Toyota Mirai hydrogen car, the pressure in the tank is about 10,000 psi, or 5 US tons to the square inch. I used to think Scuba tanks had a lot of pressure at about 3000 psi, but hydrogen fuel tanks are more than 3 times as much.

The time: 1970s. The place: Canada. Rising fuel costs caused a lot of looking into alternatives. One of them was LPG. Now, you can run a vehicle on LPG. In the US, the propane delivery trucks that refill home tanks do just that. So it wasn't just a viable technology, it was pretty much off-the-shelf tech.

Some places started investing in LPG fuel fleet vehicles like buses. This included school buses. Then one day in Canada an LPG fueled school bus was involved in a traffic accident. I think another vehicle struck it. When it did so, the tank ruptured.

Eyewitnesses reported an explosion. My guess is there was an initial explosion was the pressure of a venting ruptured tank. How soon this was flowed by an explosion from LPG igniting, I don't know. The result was fatalities. Canada and the US backed away from LPG powered busses after that, at least around the time it happened, and it cooled enthusiasm for LPG as a vehicle fuel.

The problem wasn't so much the LPG but the ruptured tank. Any gas under pressure is going to have that issue, hydrogen included. Incidents like what happened with that school bus in Canada would happen again because there will be wrecks and there will be ruptured tanks. Hydrogen has the added fun of not only being clear and odorless like LPG without an odorant, but burning with an invisible flame. You could literally walk into a hydrogen fire without ever seeing it. That can be handled by an odorant that also provided color to the flame, but still something to keep in mind.

Hydrogen is also as basic as you can get with an atom. You've got a proton and an electron. Helium is a pretty basic atom, too, and a noble gas, so it's inert, but will still pass through walls of stuff like balloons. Hydrogen has the habit of the proton migrating through metal by swapping electrons until it gets to the other side. That's a factor in hydrogen embrittlement of metal. It makes LPG look tame in comparison. Obviously there are ways to keep hydrogen in tanks or that couldn't be done now, but it is something that has to be kept in mind and dealt with.

 

[Tuur]

I cut my teeth on science's Y2K scare -- (despite what the Bible says) -- and I vowed I would never let science's doomsday scenarios scare me like that again.

Okay: That wasn't a science thing, that was a tech thing,. based on programmer laziness to use only the last two digits of the year. Being lazy myself, I can say that. Where it was important to keep up with the year, Y2K was significant. I saw an electronic recording KWh meter loose that function due to Y2K. Where date wasn't important or kept up with at all, it wasn't an issue. That didn't prevent a panic. I was told quite seriously by someone who didn't have a clue that transformers wouldn't function past Y2K, and a distribution transformer is just coils of wire, a core, and oil.

Marketing didn't help. I saw a surge suppressor billed as Y2K ready. Some companies wouldn't certify their old software as Y2K ready, even if it didn't care what the year was, because they had moved on to newer versions. I saw salesmen push upgrades of hardware and equipment even when the old hardware and equipment would work just fine, and called one's hand on it.

Just days before Y2K, our power supplier wanted to know what would we do if our trucks didn't start. By that time it was past old, and we said we'd drive tractors.. That's how bad people absolutely freaked. It wasn't science; it was hysteria.

We had to work the night of Y2K Just Because. To date it's the easiest overtime I ever earned. Since the clock rolled over to New Year's Day, and that's a paid holiday for us, pulled double pay. We had one "legacy" computer that hadn't been supported in years, and I set the date to 1971 (1972's calendar was identical to 2000's) and rocked on. When it became obvious that everything was going to be just fine, we went home.

 

[eclipsenow]

So I was right. It's mainly about politics. Which is why it's scoffed at by those not committed to that side of politics. Those who go along with ideas like "men menstruate and can become pregnant" (along wth other absurdities) going on about being bastions of science and reality, is something else to scoff at.

What kind of messed up circular logic is that? Let's do a little political history.



1. The Cold War ends - and the scientists that defeated the USSR suddenly turn their gaze inward and create FUD about environmental activism being 'anti-market'. (How climate denial started.)
2. Certain NeoLib economic propensities in the Republican party - AND Big Oil lobbyists - end up influencing the Republican party to be climate sceptics.
3. The Democrats are also lobbied by Big Oil - but being more open to a little tinkering with the market - are not so blinkered that they just reject the science.
4. So for NeoLiberal ECONOMIC preferences and BIG OIL donations - The Republican Party becomes the party of climate scepticism and inaction.

This is history. Phd's have been written about this. This is undeniable FACT!

And so for YOU - a MAGA - to try and insist this is political? Yeah! I agree.
The Republicans MADE it political!

The rest of us are just reading the science. You know - the same science that Exxon discovered and verified in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Pretty accurate given their model was developed over 40 years ago!
Shame Exxon legally bound all the climate guys they hired and signed them up to the strictest NDA's for decades.
But hey - just goes to show. This climate model stuff? It works!
Many US cities and States are currently suing Exxon for lying to the public for 4 decades.
Trump is lying to the public about climate change as well.
What side do you want to be on?

Those who go along with ideas like "men menstruate and can become pregnant" (along wth other absurdities) going on about being bastions of science and reality, is something else to scoff at.

One of the advantages of having more than two political parties He in Australia is that we can have a few left parties that are not about all the extra stuff that gets wedged under the two very large umbrellas of Democrat or Republican.

It means the population has a greater diversity of political nuance in conversations. It also means they're less likely to sound like prejudiced ignorant anti science weirdos just because they associate one thing with another under the same political umbrella.

You really have revealed how shallow your thoughts about this enormously important subject are! To you it's just lumped in as a Democrat thing. It's a Democrat scare campaign!

Dude, climate science is older than the current expression of the democrats.

Climate science physics not politics. Now you can play it with gender issues and also manage to sound really harsh about that subject as well. What would you do if a bloke walked into church and looked really unhappy? You chat with him about what's making him so upset and he can barely talk to you about it. Turns out he has extreme gender dysphoria. What do you know about it? I'm Australian don't put me in the Democrat file straight away. I totally agree that there's some really weird things going on in the modern culture, and that some people are exaggerating claims about this stuff that are just way out there!

I voted Labor because our greens tend to go on about that kind of stuff a bit too much, and a bit too extreme, from where I think the medicine actually says these issues are at.

But here's the thing. Even conservative reformed evangelical Bible believing Bible colleges like Moore college has interviewed experts in this field, as has the great undeceptions podcast.

Here's the deal. From psychiatrist who are experts in this field, gender dysphoria is unlike say a fear of flying. For many there is no cure. For many this will be a lifelong psychiatric and painful disorder that will fill them with shame every day of their lives because they feel they will born into the wrong body. You speaking of such things with snide dismissal just sounds ignorant and hate-filled. hateful. MAGA Christians seem to be united around what they hate more than what they might pretend to love. They hate immigrants, they hate climate science, they hate climate scientists, they hate renewable energy, and they hate people with gender dysphoria who challenge them to think about the nature of the fall, and how that has messed up more than just our morality but our very sense of self.

MAGA - the so-called Christian nationalist movement united around hate. And no wonder! It's led by someone with narcissistic personality disorder!

 

[Servus]

What kind of messed up circular logic is that? Let's do a little political history.

View attachment 371727

1. The Cold War ends - and the scientists that defeated the USSR suddenly turn their gaze inward and create FUD about environmental activism being 'anti-market'. (How climate denial started.)
2. Certain NeoLib economic propensities in the Republican party - AND Big Oil lobbyists - end up influencing the Republican party to be climate sceptics.
3. The Democrats are also lobbied by Big Oil - but being more open to a little tinkering with the market - are not so blinkered that they just reject the science.
4. So for NeoLiberal ECONOMIC preferences and BIG OIL donations - The Republican Party becomes the party of climate scepticism and inaction.

This is history. Phd's have been written about this. This is undeniable FACT!

And so for YOU - a MAGA - to try and insist this is political? Yeah! I agree.
The Republicans MADE it political!

The rest of us are just reading the science. You know - the same science that Exxon discovered and verified in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Pretty accurate given their model was developed over 40 years ago!
Shame Exxon legally bound all the climate guys they hired and signed them up to the strictest NDA's for decades.
But hey - just goes to show. This climate model stuff? It works!
Many US cities and States are currently suing Exxon for lying to the public for 4 decades.
Trump is lying to the public about climate change as well.
What side do you want to be on?

View attachment 371728

The way you go on about Trump it's as if his presidency covers that entire span of time.

 

[AV1611VET]

The way you go on about Trump it's as if his presidency covers that entire span of time.

Science and politics go hand in hand.

A one-world government (technocracy) and a one-world church (scientism) are on the way.

Both led by their respective antichrists.

 

[eclipsenow]

The way you go on about Trump it's as if his presidency covers that entire span of time.

Incorrect - and you did not address the historical facts above or scientific facts above.
Instead of hit and run, MAGA are "assert and run."

You're now up to rotation point 4 - without once actually trying to debunk my points, produce counter-factual data, or anything.

You're rotating.​

Fire 1! "Climate change has always happened - and it's exaggerated."
I ask for evidence, and I reply with evidence FOR climate change, and you just move on to....

Fire 2! "The bible says do not worry about the future!"
I reply with some quick biblical evidence for an environmental theory, and a link to the Undeceptions podcast that addresses that question in more detail, and point out about how even Calvin wrote about our duty to hand over our farmlands to the next generation in a better condition than we received them in... so you replied with...

Fire 3! "You're all hypocrites and do not believe it anyway."
Energy is a communal system with multi-trillions in investment that is GOING to take 25 years even if governments DO keep their Paris agreement targets!

Fire 4! "It's just all political - to get me to vote for the Democrats."
It's a tragedy that Republicans have abandoned science, as they might have contributed a unique set of solutions to the climate problem. The physics remains valid, despite the sad mixed motives behind MAGA's increasing hatred of science.

 

[eclipsenow]

Just days before Y2K, our power supplier wanted to know what would we do if our trucks didn't start. By that time it was past old, and we said we'd drive tractors.. That's how bad people absolutely freaked. It wasn't science; it was hysteria.

Oh I hear you!

CONSPIRACY THEORISTS TOOK OVER FROM THE PROFESSIONALS

My dad worked for IBM at this time. When my grandma (who was prone to being sucked in by April fool's day news 'specials' about aliens at Area 51!) asked if we were going to be OK with Y2K - dad said yep, most systems were ready and any that failed could be fixed the next day.

Civilisation was not about to crash and burn. It's a fun technical and historical story.

But this is where it gets sad. The professionals were cool, calm and collected. Some got extra money fixing this stuff in a last minute rush - others had it sorted years before the event. The weirdness with the online world that was starting to emerge then was that the more the professionals assured everyone - the more everyone panicked!

I don't know much about the rationale behind it, but apparently some End Times sorts in the church married this to something in their "end times tables" that they (and only they!) had 'decoded' from Revelation. (I'm Amil - and see Revelation as a gospel sermon about suffering to Christians about to be persecuted by Rome. Sure it depicts the Lord returning - but it's a sermon written in picture language - and depicts the Lord returning from multiple angles and repeated at different points in the sermon. EG: There's just no way to read it as a future timeline when the Lord returns at the end of Chapter 6!)

I've read about church people wasting huge real estate investments going to live in a rural community off-grid at this point. Closer to home, some in my dad's charismatic church started to FREAK OUT - exactly as you said. They bought a decade's worth of chick peas and soy beans, and we were given a huge tub each as a 'present' from this person after the event.

But what I want to know is when did Y2k enter the "Denial-o-sphere" of anti-science bloggers? What was the link? Why is a computer program with a built in flaw suddenly linked to a perception of failed physics models?

THE SAD IRONY - THAT ARGUMENT TURNED BACK ON THE END TIMES

Indeed - because this was all tied into various End-Times schemes, what if we turned the argument around and said "Given there were so many failed End Times tables based on Y2K - does this disprove Revelation as a future-timetable? Does it disprove Dispensational theology as a whole? Indeed - if Christians KEEP making fake predictions of when the Lord will return, doesn't it paint the whole of Christianity as a laughing stock, losing credibility with each failed prediction!"

Which is what I believe to be the case. So stop it end-times people! You're hurting the credibility of Christianity itself!

Instead - with climate science - we DO find global temperatures rising.
Even in step with the earlier, primitive models from Exxon in the late 1970's!
(That were then sworn to secrecy by NDA's.)

The trickiest bit is tracing where that extra heat goes, and what it does.
Generally - the story is bad. But with two interacting mathematically chaotic systems - like the atmosphere and oceans - there are still a few surprises in some corners of the world where the real world oceans are doing surprising things compared to the models. But it seems the BIG picture of the models is right on track.

And that makes me very concerned for our children and grandchildren.

It's just immoral. And Christians backing the climate denial, and spreading misinformation and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) will be revealed to future generations as one of the MANY great shames of the American church today.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that makes me very concerned for our children and grandchildren.

What children and grandchildren?

 

[Servus]

Incorrect - and you did not address the historical facts above or scientific facts above.
Instead of hit and run, MAGA are

There's really been no point when most of it has been about "MAGA".

 

[Learning always]

That is true. It's a desert surrounded by a skid-mark of green.
But the truth you just posted does not contradict the scientific evidence.
"People avoid living in deserts and like the beach" does NOT disprove "Australia's starting to cook in accordance with climate change."
Both statements can be true. Both ARE true!
Unless - of course - you are politically wedded to an anti-science proposition.
Then - being MAGA - you can just believe anything you want to. Apparently. Conservatives used to be about conserving nature, not practicing a radical experiment by altering the atmosphere of the entire planet!

Eunice Foote discovered CO2 trapped heat way back in 1956.
She put thermometers in equal glass jars out in the same sun, and filled them with different gases.
The CO2 jar warmed higher, methane even more.
This is backyard science - but MAGA denies it.
Why is that? Oh yeah - big funding from Koch brothers and Exxon.
Trump gives billionaires tax cuts and kicks the bottom 16 million Americans off healthcare and calls it a "Big Beautiful Bill." Go figure.

REALITY:​

​

"Australia, on average, has warmed by 1.51 ± 0.23 °C since national records began in 1910, with most warming occurring since 1950. Every decade since 1950 has been warmer than preceding decades. The warming in Australia is consistent with global trends, with the degree of warming similar to the overall average across the world’s land areas."​

Australia's changing climate

Australia's weather and climate including temperature, fire weather, rainfall, heavy rainfall, streamflow, tropical cyclones, snowfall: State of the Climate 2024

www.csiro.au

There were very hot days in Australia before 1910.
So hot that some people died.

In late1890s, across eastern Australia, over 430 people died due to the heat. Many deaths were sudden and occurred in public spaces—people reportedly collapsed in the streets and died without regaining consciousness.

 

[eclipsenow]

There's really been no point when most of it has been about "MAGA".

Congratulations! So you concede that climate change is happening, is man-made, and is serious - but that the GOP / MAGA made it political for you so you can't even see or acknowledge it.

I guess the first step in growing through a problem is admitting you have one.
Good job!

 

[eclipsenow]

There were very hot days in Australia before 1910.
So hot that some people died.

True!

And yet so is this. As I said above:-
---
The rest of us are just reading the science. You know - the same science that Exxon discovered and verified in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Pretty accurate given their model was developed over 40 years ago!
Shame Exxon legally bound all the climate guys they hired and signed them up to the strictest NDA's for decades.
But hey - just goes to show. This climate model stuff? It works!
Many US cities and States are currently suing Exxon for lying to the public for 4 decades.
Trump is lying to the public about climate change as well.
What side do you want to be on?

 

[Learning always]

Congratulations! So you concede that climate change is happening, is man-made, and is serious

Is global warming aka climate change man-made??
I heard that many famous climate scientists said NO, that's not my opinion.

(And why did they change "global warming" to "climate change" ??)

 

[eclipsenow]

Is global warming aka climate change man-made??
I heard that many famous climate scientists said NO, that's not my opinion.

Do you want to look it up? Who said no, and why? What their arguments where - and even more important than how their arguments were easily debunked by the actual science - WHO FUNDED their 'sceptical' paper?

You're the one making that argument - how about you ad some specificity. Do your own homework so to speak.

(And why did they change "global warming" to "climate change" ??)

There's this rumour that the term global warming was abandoned and climate change introduced because the warming isn't happening - or something. It's wrong on 3 counts:-

1. Global average temperatures are RIGHT ON TRACK (as even the Exxon climate change studies from the 1980's show!)

2. It was a REPUBLICAN that changed the language. George W Bush's speech writer was told to find a 'less scary' term than global warming. So he went with the more technical 'climate change' - as he later admitted in "The Denial Machine" by the CBC. Great doco!

3. Historically, it was always called climate science. (With more technical phrases for actual climate changes, many of which have their own unique names.)

 

[Servus]

Congratulations! So you concede that climate change is happening, is man-made, and is serious - but that the GOP / MAGA made it political for you so you can't even see or acknowledge it.

I guess the first step in growing through a problem is admitting you have one.
Good job!

I'm not the one who's obsessed with MAGA.

 

[Servus]

Is global warming aka climate change man-made??
I heard that many famous climate scientists said NO, that's not my opinion.

(And why did they change "global warming" to "climate change" ??)

I'd say it's man-made to a degree. Or perhaps it could be said that man-made factors have accelerated the process some. But it's not as dire of a situation as climate change activists make it out to be. It was changed from global warming to climate change so that every weather phenomenon could be called man-made; cold winters, rainstorms, tornados, hurricanes etc.

 

[Learning always]

And that makes me very concerned for our children and grandchildren.

It's just immoral. And Christians backing the climate denial, and spreading misinformation and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) will be revealed to future generations as one of the MANY great shames of the American church today.

Yes, you should be concerned---we are all extinct 2 Years Ago !!

Several years ago, Greta posted a tweet which said humanity could become extinct if no action in fossil fuels was taken by 2023.

 

[Servus]

Yes, you should be concerned---we are all extinct 2 Years Ago !!

Several years ago, Greta posted a tweet which said humanity could become extinct if no action in fossil fuels was taken by 2023.

There was a version of Greta in the early 90s named Severn Cullis-Suzuki.

 

[Learning always]

50 years of scary newspaper headlines which you thought you won't live (got extinct) to read again today

The Extinction Clock

The Extinction Clock: the Internet's authoritative source for end of world climate and extinction predictions.

extinctionclock.org

 

[eclipsenow]

I'd say it's man-made to a degree.

Oh do tell! What degree? What evidence? Where did you get this from? Who do you listen to? How do they know what they know? What about natural forcings? How did they eliminate those natural forcings? What forcings ARE working now, what ARE NOT - and how did they measure them?

Or perhaps it could be said that man-made factors have accelerated the process some.

Oh do tell! What degree? What evidence? Where did you get this from? Who do you listen to? How do they know what they know? What about natural forcings? How did they eliminate those natural forcings? What forcings ARE working now, what ARE NOT - and how did they measure them?

But it's not as dire of a situation as climate change activists make it out to be.

Oh do tell! What degree? What evidence? Where did you get this from? Who do you listen to? How do they know what they know? What about natural forcings? How did they eliminate those natural forcings? What forcings ARE working now, what ARE NOT - and how did they measure them?

It was changed from global warming to climate change so that every weather phenomenon could be called man-made; cold winters, rainstorms, tornados, hurricanes etc.

Not true. I'll try again - see if it goes in this time.

There's this rumour that the term global warming was abandoned and climate change introduced because the warming isn't happening - or something. It's wrong on 3 counts:-

1. Global average temperatures are RIGHT ON TRACK (as even the Exxon climate change studies from the 1980's show!)

2. It was a REPUBLICAN that changed the language. George W Bush's speech writer was told to find a 'less scary' term than global warming. So he went with the more technical 'climate change' - as he later admitted in "The Denial Machine" by the CBC. Great doco!

3. Historically, it was always called climate science. (With more technical phrases for actual climate changes, many of which have their own unique names.)