CO2 storage of coal at source

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by ABC2019 » 09/11/21, 08:11

Remundo wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:And how can you talk about "70 ° C in 50 years" when the warming measured and published everywhere is at the worst 0,18 ° C per decade and that it is only 0,9 ° C IN 50 YEARS? How can you go from 0,9 ° C more to 30 ° C more, SERIOUSLY? and how can you think that humanity is threatened with 0,9 ° C OVER?

you will still only find insults to answer?

Christophe wrote:Hey funny!

Do you think how many humans will die when there is heatwaves in Europe lasting 10 days at over 50 ° C (in 10 years?) ... at 60 ° C (in 20 years?) ... at 70 ° C (in 50 years?)?

Are you getting poop out of your mouth on purpose?

GillABC2019 ... who doesn't give a damn about the world again ...

There is no incompatiblity in having a transient heat wave located at X0 ° C and a global warming of X ° C / 10 years.


of course if, it is incompatible, you cannot gain 30 ° C in the maximum when the average has only increased by 1 ° C, unless the standard deviation also increases much faster than the average, which is ABSOLUTELY not observed, nor predicted in any model. Moreover, the observed rate of increase in RECORDS is not significantly different from that of the AVERAGE.

You too, Remundo, are not devoid of scientific knowledge, so how can you get out of such enormities? If you could stop asserting anything, frankly, it would save unnecessary pages in the forum.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by Christophe » 09/11/21, 09:06

We are talking about the disappearance of man on the horizon 2400-2500! It is not only the temperatures linked to the climate that will kill us but all the other consequences of RC (disaster, food, first needs ...) !! ABCile's Head

You want us to talk about the cold snap in the USA last winter and particularly in Texas: how many people did it kill?

Do you want us to talk about human and material damage from flooding in the Roya valley or in Germany in less than 1 year? Head of b * te ...

I think that the records increase much faster than the average and there we are not talking about +30 in the record but of +5 or +10 in peak which would already be in the 50 to 55 ° C in France ! Head of knots!

Otherwise, I still did not understand how the terrestrial average was calculated (13.X ° C from memory?) : Mrgreen: it is the average of the emerged lands or one takes the surface of the oceans too ???

Also, is there a weighting of inhabited areas or not? Ideally it would be ... temperatures in the Himalayas do not matter as much to human life as the center of a megalopolis ...
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by ABC2019 » 09/11/21, 12:01

Christophe wrote:We are talking about the disappearance of man on the horizon 2400-2500! It is not only the temperatures linked to the climate that will kill us but all the other consequences of RC (disaster, food, first needs ...) !! ABCile's Head

I want to but explain to me how we make humanity disappear and because of what! you realize that to make humanity disappear, it would be necessary not even to be able to feed 10 000 people is the population of a small town, with all the earth's surface.

Apart from a global disaster like supervolcanoes or meteorites, I absolutely do not see what could cause this.

You want us to talk about the cold snap in the USA last winter and particularly in Texas: how many people did it kill?

uh splash splash, I would say maybe 0,01% of the maximum population, and in addition probably not the one that has not yet reproduced, so without any consequence on demography?

unless you have conflicting information?

And in addition, since when the descents of polar air on the USA come from the RC?

Do you want us to talk about human and material damage from flooding in the Roya valley or in Germany in less than 1 year? Head of b * te ...

well if you want, we can also talk about the floods in China in 1931 which killed maybe 150 people, and according to some estimates millions of people by the subsequent consequences, famines etc ...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inondatio ... 1_en_Chine

how did that prevent China from becoming the most populous country in the world?

We must stop with the delirium, climatic catastrophes have ALWAYS existed and mankind has survived them very well - as it has survived much more serious events, epidemics and famines.

Some historical examples among many others of much bigger catastrophes ... which in no way prevented populations from recovering in a few centuries

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerre_de_Trente_Ans

the population of Germany and central Europe suffers enormously from the war, deaths in combats, massacres, famines and displacement of populations leading to real demographic bloodletting: North Germany is particularly depopulated; in Pomerania, the population decreased by 65% ​​between 1618 and 1648. The patrimonial States of the Habsburgs also knew important losses: Silesia loses a quarter of its population. Although some regions may have been spared, notably the Hanseatic towns which bought their safeguard at a high price, Central Europe lost around 60% of its population102.

These figures, taken from nineteenth-century historiography based on the writings of horrified witnesses, have not been confirmed by historical demographic surveys. They have been the subject of important debates. We agree today on the figure of 3 or 4 million deaths in thirty years for an initial population of 17 million inhabitants, or about one inhabitant in five, an enormous proportion.


https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_ ... mérindiens

Without being able to say with certainty the extent of the impact of infectious diseases on Native Americans, the death rate has reached 90 percent for some hard-hit populations. Native Americans, who were not immune to viruses and diseases like whooping cough, measles or smallpox that had plagued the Old World for millennia, were said to have been struck down by epidemics decades before settlers arrived in the territories. apparently sparsely populated from the inside. Having no knowledge of viruses at the time, Europeans therefore did not knowingly take advantage of the immune weaknesses of indigenous populations. The process began as early as the 1500s and claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

In 1520 and 1521, a smallpox epidemic affected the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan and was one of the main factors in the fall of the city at the time of the siege. Indeed, it is estimated between 10 and 50% of the population of the city who would have died because of this disease in two weeks. Two other epidemics affected the Valley of Mexico: smallpox in 1545-1548 and typhus in 1576-1581. The Spaniards, to compensate for the shrinking population, rounded up the survivors of the small towns of the Valley of Mexico in larger cities. This migration shattered the power of the upper classes, but did not dissolve the cohesion of indigenous society in a larger Mexico.

The epidemics of smallpox, typhus, influenza, diphtheria, measles, plague have killed between 50 and 66% of the indigenous population depending on the regions of Latin America16.

In 1617-1619, an epidemic of bubonic plague ravaged New England. The assessment of these epidemics is difficult to give with exactitude. Sources are non-existent and historians disagree on estimates. Some put forward 10 million Amerindians for the whole continent; others [Who?] think more of 90 million, including 10 for North America. The entire American continent (from Alaska to Cape Horn) would have sheltered approximately 50 million inhabitants in 1492; for comparison, there were 20 million French in the seventeenth century. The figures put forward for the territory of the United States today are between 7 and 12 million inhabitants. About 500 Amerindians populated the east coast of this space. They were only 000 at the start of the 100th century. In the Spanish Empire, the mortality of the Amerindians was such that it was one of the reasons for the slave trade, making it possible to import into the "New World" labor for mines and plantations. .



I think the records are rising much faster than average

tu THOUGHTS than ?

but where do you get that from apart from your certainly fertile imagination?
Otherwise, I still did not understand how the terrestrial average was calculated (13.X ° C from memory?) : Mrgreen: it is the average of the emerged lands or one takes the surface of the oceans too ???

this is the average over the entire surface including the oceans, but with some technical problems, in particular for polar reasons and the surface of the oceans (temperature of the water at what depth? or of the air just above the surface ?)
Also, is there a weighting of inhabited areas or not? Ideally it would be ... temperatures in the Himalayas do not matter as much to human life as the center of a megalopolis ...

no it is not weighted.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14822
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 09/11/21, 12:43

(Excluding lousy subject, useless illustrations, drowning fish, silly remarks, bad faith, denial, widespread ignorance, fallacious historical references, that's Bouzo ... a good con for the dumpster that takes the place of a landfill)
2 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by Christophe » 09/11/21, 14:36

Even more want to answer him there ...

If you go ... since you like curves ... find us the recent history (of the last 20 years) of temperature records in France ...

And compare their progress to the average temperature.

Average temperature which does not mean much since we know that climate change can also cool very large areas as we see with the inversion of the polar vortex !!
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by ABC2019 » 09/11/21, 16:07

there are thousands of records, you can take absolute records, or those of a day, a week, a month, a season, you can take the records by city, by department, on the national territory, you can take the average temperatures over different intervals ...

that's why you always find broken records somewhere, there are so many possible.

if you want to take the census, good luck, but each time a record is broken, it has been a few tenths and for a few decades, with some exceptions here and there but there again these are statistical fluctuations.

More rigorously, you can measure the increase in the mean and the standard deviation from the mean. It does not tell you what the real record is because these are rare events, but it is more significant because precisely it measures how much the temperatures fluctuate compared to the average. From memory there is a small increase in the standard deviation but certainly not by a factor of 30 !!!
and anyway nobody ever said that an increase of a few ° C would cause an extinction of humanity - so what is your benchmark for 2400 and what is it based on which extinction mechanism?
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14822
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 09/11/21, 16:37

Records beaten, sorry, pulverized by Bouzo, I'll let you guess which ones. : Mrgreen:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by Christophe » 09/11/21, 18:44

No thanks Guy !!

No longer want to help him do his psychiatric analysis : Mrgreen: at this level he needs a real professional (and especially molecules that are going well ...)
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by ABC2019 » 09/11/21, 18:47

Christophe wrote:No thanks Guy !!

No longer want to help him do his psychiatric analysis : Mrgreen: at this level he needs a real professional (and especially molecules that are going well ...)

pffft...

rather give me your reference on the extinction of humanity in 2400 with the explanation of why we would be unable to feed even a few hundred thousand (or more probably a few hundred million) of human beings, a species who, I remind you, was able to adapt on her own with her little arms, without modern technology, from the Sahara Desert to the Arctic, including the colonization of the Pacific Islands?

just explain to me, that's all ...

I live in a region 200 m above sea level (even if all of Antarctica is melting, it will still be emerged), near a river fed by a mountain range that serves as a sponge, with good alluvial soil, who can afford to take a few ° C without problem, so explain to me why people in 400 years would be unable to grow wheat, vegetables, fruits, livestock and eat them; what would prevent them?
Last edited by ABC2019 the 09 / 11 / 21, 18: 50, 1 edited once.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14822
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: CO2 storage of coal at the source




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 09/11/21, 18:48

Your "requests" (bullshit) don't fool anyone anymore, CC (Cretin Clown). : Mrgreen:
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 310 guests