diy solar

diy solar

Get ready for the coming little ice age!

D71 said:

Elon Musk had woe after woe so imagine a system like skyhook with high speed docking, an even higher speed sling shot launch, and not losing the energy that was transferred in the sling shot move. I don’t see it.

Does this look real? Watch Space X land on a barge. Ever been out on the ocean in a ship? Imagine a moving barge anchored and a rocket landing vertically on it. That is not a real landing = cgi. The real one reportedly crashed and broke up like a cracker hit with a sledge hammer. 🤣😀

Landing a rocket vertically on an anchored barge? 🤡🤣😀👉🏻🤣
Landing system for helicopter on ship deck.

”’’’

SpaceX Starship Woes Has NASA Worried About Artemis Moon Landing Delays​

Passant Rabie Avatar
Passant Rabie
8 months ago
June 9, 2023 at 3:55 pm

SpaceX’s Starship could end up delaying humanity’s return to the Moon as NASA waits on the company’s lander to be ready to touchdown on the lunar surface, according to a space agency official.
On Wednesday, Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, said that the Artemis 3 mission, designed to land astronauts on the Moon for the first time in more than 50 years, would likely be pushed back to 2026 instead of 2025, SpaceNews reported.

“With the difficulties that SpaceX has had, I think that’s really concerning,” Free said during a joint meeting of the National Academies’ Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and Space Studies Board.
SpaceX is under a $US2.89 billion contract to use a lunar lander version of its Starship rocket in landing humans on the Moon by late 2025 as part of NASA’s Artemis 3 mission, and then again for Artemis 4 in 2028, under a separate $US1.15 billion contract signed last year.
Before it can land humans on the Moon, however, Starship has to carry out an uncrewed mission to the lunar surface first, which also involves launching tanking vehicles to Earth orbit so that they can fuel the vehicle prior to its journey to the Moon. “That’s a lot of launches to get those missions done,” Free is quoted as saying in SpaceNews. “They have a significant number of launches to go, and that, of course, gives me concern about the December of 2025 [Artemis 3 launch] date.”
NASA has a second option for a commercial lunar lander, namely Blue Origin’s Blue Moon, but that’s slated for Artemis 5, which won’t happen until 2029.
SpaceX’s Starship launched for the first time on April 20 for a less-than-perfect test flight. About four minutes after liftoff, Starship exploded in the skies above the Gulf of Mexico. A few of the rocket’s engines failed in flight and the two-stage heavy-lift launch vehicle was forced to self-destruct; that said, it took the rocket 40 seconds to respond to the self-destruct command, in what was yet another troublesome aspect from the debut launch.
Despite its untimely explosion, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk still deemed the test flight a success and anticipated that Starship would be ready to fly again in a “couple of months.” At the time, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson expressed confidence in SpaceX’s ambitious timeline during a hearing before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
It may have been that NASA’s sentiment recently changed after SpaceX showed little to no progress on the launch of Starship more than a month after its orbital test flight. SpaceX still needs the green light from the Federal Aviation Administration, which has grounded Starship pending an ongoing investigation into its botched flight. The FAA is also battling a lawsuitrelated to the botched launch, which prompted a coalition of conservation and Texas-local non-profit groups to sue the administration over its approval of SpaceX’s Starship activities in Boca Chica. SpaceX recently filed to fight alongside the FAA in this lawsuit.
The space agency is on a tight timeline for its Artemis program, fearing that China may take the lead in landing on the Moon. China recently announced that it is targeting 2030 for its own crewed landing on the Moon, aiming to establish its own presence on the lunar surface to compete with NASA.
NASA has been relying more on its commercial partners as of late and that can sometimes lead to delays outside of the space agency’s control. SpaceX has been successful in delivering astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS) as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, while Boeing has fallen behind with its CST-100 Starliner program designed for the same missions.
The space agency’s private partnerships are designed to save NASA time and money, although it can come with its own bout of launch vehicle anxiety.“‘’’

gizmodo.com.au

SpaceX Starship Woes Has NASA Worried About Artemis Moon Landing Delays

SpaceX’s Starship could end up delaying humanity’s return to the Moon as NASA waits on the company’s lander to be ready to touchdown on the lunar surface, according to a space agency official. On Wednesday, Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, said that the...
gizmodo.com.au gizmodo.com.au

Hmmmm …… NASA did not use Space X current plan… How did Apollo astronauts transfer from CSM to the lunar lander… look at the video for multiple docking too. 😀🤣
www.sciencemuseum.org.uk

The technology it took to get to the Moon | Science Museum

Discover the role of engineering, ingenuity and technology in getting a man on the Moon.
www.sciencemuseum.org.uk www.sciencemuseum.org.uk

Japanese pull off unmanned soft lunar landing updated in 2024 No power from solar panels.

hahaha lot of unmanned lunar landings …. Hmmmm 50+ years ago reported moon walking like michael jackson. MC Hammer can’t touch this…. Elon Musk is going to end up MC Hammer broke. Who is going to make the new space suits? Idea Just borrow the ones out of museums. Micro meteors. 😀🤣
Click to expand...


You lost me here. Are you saying SpaceX landings are fake?
 
aenyc said:
This is a strawman argument.
The Soviets sent a sputnik to orbit the earth in 1957. They even built a space station (Mir) way before anyone else. And they sent rovers (Lunokhod) to the moon, supposedly. (And Venus, and Mars, but many crashed until they got success)
US has sent probes like Voyager and many others.
But these things are astronomically easier that actually putting a lander with humans on the moon, then taking off, then redocking and returning to earth.
We are talking several sigmas delta in difficulty. (And the directly observable proof of that is that it has not been done since, even with automated probes, with today's tech)
Again, I am not saying the mission did not happen, i just said i have my doubts, because there are too many gaps in the story. (And i have done more research on both American and Soviet space programs than you can possibly imagine)
Click to expand...

It's easier if you just say you don't understand.

You need to be honest with yourself or you just end up looking crazy.
 
Checkthisout said:
It's easier if you just say you don't understand.

You need to be honest with yourself or you just end up looking crazy.
Click to expand...

Ok boss. I suggest you actually do some research instead of falling to ad-hominem.
Its amazing you don think the vaxxes are safe and effective, so at least there is hope.
 
aenyc said:
Ok boss. I suggest you actually do some research instead of falling to ad-hominem.
Its amazing you don think the vaxxes are safe and effective, so at least there is hope.
Click to expand...

Sure, all that or you just don't understand.
 
D71 said:
Maybe ppl like Wernher Von Braun do not exist anymore. Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? The military sent the strongest to fight and die in foreign wars which “leftist” weak retards to multiply. Nikola Tesla knew how to work claimed he dug ditches as in manual labor for employment at one time in his life. Imagine a genius digging ditches for food. 🤣😀🤡


Where are ppl like, Nikola Tesla.? Do they even exist anymore? Why is Nikola Tesla not promoted and why was he sorta buried?
What college did he go to and why isn’t it over run with students? Hmmmm ….

Ask ppl who was the smartest man alive what will be the name? What did he really do? Is he jewish? Hahahaha ….hahaha

Was Braun or Tesla jewish? Think they went back and persecuted Braun for having been in Nazi SS. He was called father of space program.
hahaha hahaha

btw I don’t like NAzi with exception of Nationalist part. They were also Socialist….nope not for me. But do thinkppl are funny as hell - ignorance is comical. Watch Idiocracy.
Click to expand...
Theres a book out there that tells the story about einstein being promoted as the smartest man in the world by jews for propaganda purposes. I read part of it, its not inconceivable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D71
svetz said:
Who is the author of that paper? Let's google it...Oh, she's a mathematician...
​
No one is more surprised than Valentina Zharkova that her research prompted a worldwide media storm over the next ice age.​
​
That's because her research never even mentioned an ice age.​
​
Media outlets got wind of her research and some concluded it suggested the 2030s would be the world’s next ice age because of the drop in solar activity.​
“In the press release, we didn’t say anything about climate change,” she told USA TODAY. “My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it.”​
Click to expand...
So... Whats your point, that its a lie that a modern grand solar minimum is coming? Do you have a credible scientific journal (that doesnt publish work from environmentalist activists pretending to be scientists) that says the 350 year solar cycle theory is bullshit?
Are you saying the maunder minimum didnt cause global cooling? 0_gtjg_BjQb-F2hb_M.png
We've been hearing this bullshit about humans and climate for too long. More energy from the sun hits the earth in one day than all the energy generated by humans in 10,000 years of recorded history. Look at the solar activity since 1940. Most active average cycles over the 400 year history. Oh but its all humans.
Heres the funny thing about "climate change research". Nobody, I mean nobody, devotes their life to a field of research in something they believe isnt real or isnt happening.
How many atheists become priests?
Thats right. Every single "climate change scientist" is an ideologue whose sole purpose is to sell their beliefs as propaganda, all their research is carefully crafted to manipulate statistics toward a singular conclusion. Their concensus is shouting into an echo chamber, and its absolute fact that if the consensus were to shift to disproving AGW, funding would dry up and theyd all be cleaning out their desks in a month.
You people lack the critical thinking skills to even consider this or share their ideology so dont care.
 
Batvette said:
...so dont care.
Click to expand...
You sound fairly passionate about it for someone who doesn't care.

The mathematician cited (Valentina Zharkova) said:
...During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C...
Click to expand...
Good thing too! How likely is this mathematician's theory? It's important to understand that she's not a scientist or physist in solar dynmanics. She is using the number of sunspots recorded to try and predict when there will be exceedly few. Her paper doesn't state the degree of confidence so one might think of it as a best guess. She does say:
...it was rather difficult to match the observed sunspot numbers with the modeled ones unless the cycle is well progressed. This difficulty is a clear indication of some missing points in the definition of solar activity by sunspot numbers...
Click to expand...

NASA has a lot to say about it here, but in short: There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age'

Batvette said:
Thats right. Every single "climate change scientist" is an ideologue whose sole purpose is to sell their beliefs as propaganda
Click to expand...
That's a little hard to believe. Even Valentia published on a government website (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). If it's all as you say, why would they have published her paper?

Batvette said:
You people lack the critical thinking skills
Click to expand...
Says the person who doesn't understand what they quoted. Perhaps this will help you....

 
Last edited:
Batvette said:
So... Whats your point, that its a lie that a modern grand solar minimum is coming? Do you have a credible scientific journal (that doesnt publish work from environmentalist activists pretending to be scientists) that says the 350 year solar cycle theory is bullshit?
Are you saying the maunder minimum didnt cause global cooling? View attachment 196825
We've been hearing this bullshit about humans and climate for too long. More energy from the sun hits the earth in one day than all the energy generated by humans in 10,000 years of recorded history. Look at the solar activity since 1940. Most active average cycles over the 400 year history. Oh but its all humans.
Heres the funny thing about "climate change research". Nobody, I mean nobody, devotes their life to a field of research in something they believe isnt real or isnt happening.
How many atheists become priests?
Thats right. Every single "climate change scientist" is an ideologue whose sole purpose is to sell their beliefs as propaganda, all their research is carefully crafted to manipulate statistics toward a singular conclusion. Their concensus is shouting into an echo chamber, and its absolute fact that if the consensus were to shift to disproving AGW, funding would dry up and theyd all be cleaning out their desks in a month.
You people lack the critical thinking skills to even consider this or share their ideology so dont care.
Click to expand...

If I was president I would say ok, we are going to quickly divest fossil fuel usage but in exchange absolutely ZERO dollars will be spent on further research into climate change.

svetz said:
You sound fairly passionate about it for someone who doesn't care.

The mathematician cited (Valentina Zharkova) said:

Good thing too! How likely is this mathematician's theory? It's important to understand that she's not a scientist or physist in solar dynmanics. She is using the number of sunspots recorded to try and predict when there will be exceedly few. Her paper doesn't state the degree of confidence so one might think of it as a best guess. She does say:


NASA has a lot to say about it here, but in short: There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age'


That's a little hard to believe.


Says the person who doesn't understand what they quoted. Perhaps this will help you....

Click to expand...

Notice the commonality between the white beard weird guy Svetz kept posting and now this lady.

The professionally produced thumbnail nonsense and that stupid look on her face.

Lefties....when you're too ugly to get laid by who you want, pretend you're smart and "believe" in science.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: D71
svetz said:
You sound fairly passionate about it for someone who doesn't care.

The mathematician cited (Valentina Zharkova) said:

Good thing too! How likely is this mathematician's theory? It's important to understand that she's not a scientist or physist in solar dynmanics. She is using the number of sunspots recorded to try and predict when there will be exceedly few. Her paper doesn't state the degree of confidence so one might think of it as a best guess. She does say:


NASA has a lot to say about it here, but in short: There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age'


That's a little hard to believe. Even Valentia published on a government website (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). If it's all as you say, why would they have published her paper?


Says the person who doesn't understand what they quoted. Perhaps this will help you....

Click to expand...
Oh gee he is referencing climate change "scientists".
Which one of them is doing research that would put them out of a job? You know, coming to any other conclusion than nodding along with the other alarmists?

"While scientists continue to research whether an extended solar minimum could have contributed to cooling the climate, there is little evidence that the Maunder Minimum sparked the Little Ice Age, or at least not entirely by itself (notably, the Little Ice Age began before the Maunder Minimum). Current theories on what caused the Little Ice Age consider that a variety of events could have contributed, with natural fluctuations in ocean circulation, changes in land use by humans and cooling from a less active sun also playing roles; overall, cooling caused by volcanic aerosols likely played the title role."

So they dont have a fucking clue what happened 400 years ago and can only throw wild guesses at it llke a blindfolded dart player but theyre absolutely positively 100% unequivocably certain that they know whats doing it now.

Sounds like real objective science.
 
D71 said:
View attachment 196880
Click to expand...
There should be a law that people should drive whatever works for them and government officials who all own homes with garages and huge carbon footprints should butt out and stop telling us this bullshit that their tesla is saving the planet.

Ill remind people that the carbon cost of creating this vast charging infrastructure required by EVs for mass adoption has never been calculated by anyone thus the claim they are better for climate change is a bald faced lie and promoted by ideologues who are either clueless, dishonest, or both. Look at any public charging station array and give us an accurate figure on how many man hours were expended in digging the trenches for cables... Mining the copper for those cables... The petrochemicals used to insulate them... The diesel used for heavy equipment... The concrete used to pave it over... The resources and energy for the chargers themselves... Upgrading the generating and distribution grid... All of this just part of whats involved.
 
Batvette said:
Oh gee he is referencing climate change "scientists".
Which one of them is doing research that would put them out of a job? You know, coming to any other conclusion than nodding along with the other alarmists?

"While scientists continue to research whether an extended solar minimum could have contributed to cooling the climate, there is little evidence that the Maunder Minimum sparked the Little Ice Age, or at least not entirely by itself (notably, the Little Ice Age began before the Maunder Minimum). Current theories on what caused the Little Ice Age consider that a variety of events could have contributed, with natural fluctuations in ocean circulation, changes in land use by humans and cooling from a less active sun also playing roles; overall, cooling caused by volcanic aerosols likely played the title role."

So they dont have a fucking clue what happened 400 years ago and can only throw wild guesses at it llke a blindfolded dart player but theyre absolutely positively 100% unequivocably certain that they know whats doing it now.

Sounds like real objective science.
Click to expand...

Isn't it weird how what libtards call the truth aka the "science", changes all the time?

It's important to remind them that if their "science" had to updated, it means they were wrong about shit for the entire time and by extension are also wrong this time.

In fact, it's almost as if the "science" changes to suit the agenda.

It's also weird that when they say science they actually mean the shit that people with official government titles says and not evidence.
 
If every car was "fueled" with a carbon-neutral power source, you only reduce C02 output by about 8.5%
 
Batvette said:
Oh gee he is referencing climate change "scientists".
Click to expand...
Valentina is the "scientist" you referenced. I just pointed out what she actually said Vs. what her words were twisted to say. Or, if you meant Sabine, she isn't a climate scientist. She's a physicist who tries to make science clear without the gobblygook.

Batvette said:
So they dont have a fucking clue what happened 400 years ago and can only throw wild guesses at it llke a blindfolded dart player
Click to expand...
The thermometer was invented in in 1654, nearly 400 years ago. So, they might have a clue ... especially since the British were taking and documenting water and air temperatures everywhere their boats went.

Batvette said:
but theyre absolutely positively 100% unequivocably certain that they know whats doing it now.
Click to expand...
Not Absolutely positive about everything. Real science comes with ranges of accuracies, the IPCC lists those ranges. Some things are unequivocal as they can be directly measured. Some things are nearly certain (e.g., global warming is manmade) as the model predictions have always been within the range of accuracy [ref] and for the reasons Sabine listed above.

You seem emotionally vested, angry in fact, about the topic. Why is that? Is it because someone on YouTube got you spun up about it?

Funny how the scientific videos don't leave an emotional impact and the denier ones leave you with a sense of outrage that makes you want to degrade fellow members. It's the same way politicians spin up their audience to get the results they want...something that makes you emotional isn't to be trusted. Hopefully, if you get nothing else from Sabine's videos, you will realize that the theory is there and sufficiently plausible that reasonably thinking people can honestly believe it.

Climate Change has always been occurring. The evidence strongly points to mankind's GHGs accelerating warming and Sabine does a good job with it in my prior post. Often a cause for misunderstanding is that the Greenhouse effect is more complicated than you learned in high school, here's a good video explaining it, I hope it helps you.

 
Last edited:
On Sabine Hossenfelder (Who seems to be very eager to capitalize on the latest scam aka "climate change")

5 minutes of internet research turned out these gems (I decided to look this up because i have quite a bit of interest in various topics in Physics):

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/t9t4kc/what_are_your_guys_thoughts_on_sabine

I particularly love this one:

Before I really knew much about physics, I liked Sabine and thought she was “speaking truth to power” in a way. Now that I know quite a bit more, I find that the majority of her audience is more of the “pop-sci” crowd who aren’t really able to form their own opinions and therefore just believe what she says unquestioningly. Among this crowd, she has positioned herself to be an authority, which she really is not. I find her to be extremely opinionated in a way that does not allow for other opinions to exist, meaning that she sees other opinions as being “unable to accept the truth” (where “the truth” here is really just her opinion). One instance of this is how she hates anything related to naturalness and acts like people who want to use naturalness as a motivation for physics are simply “lost in math” (the literal title for her book), but she conveniently leaves out that naturalness has historically been a very good motivator and has found huge success. She also rails against any future colliders, saying they are a waste of money because no one can guarantee any new discoveries will be made at these higher energies, but this is so antithetical to how science works and human exploration in general, not to mention that if you want to complain about wasted money in society, there are WAY bigger fish to fry (like the inflated military budget for instance, which spends more money in 2 days than the entire LHC cost to build over a decade). I am also a bit turned off by the fact that her new role as a “science communicator” (meaning her YouTube channel) comes across as being a bit of a money making ploy, but then again I guess everyone has to pay the bills somehow.

And this

The reason she is something of a controversial figure in the physics community, is that she has very definite opinions - and they are just opinions - about how science should be done.

She presents these in an extremely authoritative way, as if her understanding of philosophy of science is both all encompassing and absolute, when in fact she is not an expert in philosophy of science, and the field is not understood in such an absolute way that views cannot be challenged anyway.

Because her audience is pretty wide, and she may be the only, or one of the few people they listen to on these topics, her opinions can be taken as received wisdom. This has an actual effect on both the popular perception of fields she decides to target (e.g. String theory), even of the perception of these fields by scientists in other areas who haven't studied them, and consequently on the funding that these fields receive.

It's hard to articulate a strong response to what she does, because she's very dismissive. See her recent extremely rude and dismissive twitter thread against a physicist Arttu Rajantie for an example. Arttu argued clearly on historical and scientific basis that an experiment was worth doing and Sabine dismissed him in a horribly disrespectful way, see her replies at the end of his thread. It's hard to see what more could have been done to convince her.

Another reason it's hard to respond to her is that the reasons for thinking string theory is a productive thing to investigate are quite technical sometimes, and although I'm sure some very talented person could make a convincing counterpoint in the popular science sphere, such a person isn't really out there, or if they are they don't have the same platform as Sabine, or people who follow Sabine take it that when she angrily dismisses someone, that's because their point doesn't make sense. This is not the case, her angry dismissals are an effective tactic to convince people to ignore the argument of her adversary.

There are good reasons to think that string theory is a productive field to study. It's not just 'being lost in the math'. Scientists aren't just cynically studying it for the grant money, it represents a possibly huge leap in our understanding of the natural world. When people say it's not testible, well that's a good argument, but you have to keep in mind that the theory is extremely complicated and still quite poorly understood. It is not at all unlikely that continued study will uncover new aspects of the theory which are accessible to experiment. The only way we ensure that this possible resolution to some of the deepest questions about the universe remains forever untested is to cut funding, and stop exploring it, and that's what Sabine wants us to do.

And this, particularly interesting as this goes into her actual field of study, which is Theoretical Physics

www.essentiafoundation.org

The fantasy behind Sabine Hossenfelder's superdeterminism

Our Executive Director critiques physicist Sabine Hossenfelder's proposed 'superdeterminism,' which aims to account for the theoretical difficulties inherent to quantum measurements without departing from physicalist metaphysical assumptions.
www.essentiafoundation.org www.essentiafoundation.org
 
Guys it is real easy ….whatever Bill Gates, Musk, and Soros - TYPES are pushing for something then it is not going to be good for us. Musk has slacked off on somethings but he is still going with other things. Good Cop Bad Cop.

Some ppl just can’t see it… until they hear I told you so. Bad part even after hear “I told you so” the followers stay with climax hoaxing for profit plans….. we have forum members doing that. Covid and Climax Change are tied to = “do not ever question SCIENCE” as if it is their God and Religious center..

These Rich ppl think they can control the planet when their goals are to fleece the followers. Religion and this is closely related. Gates as example works every angle. Soros works every angle. Rothschild work every angle. Blackrock has grown wealthy beyond imagine working every angle. My own investment in Vanguard is wealthy beyond imagination.

Science Worship best name has already been taken by Scientology. 🤣😀🤡
en.wikipedia.org

Scientology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Ppl that often claim to be atheist just invent NEW religions and cults. Climate Cange is a cult and religious like worship. Example Don’t Question God is now Don’t question Science.
 
The good news on climate activism is that more and more corporations are being held to account for NOT acting in their best interest ... Some big players are rethinking their role.

1708460599027.png


☕️ SUDDENLY ☙ Tuesday, February 20, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
A pesky awkwardly-named group, the ‘Climate Action 100+,’ has been collecting Fortune 100 companies that “pledge” to adopt expensive, useless, and money-wasting green policies. But conservative lawyers have been claiming all this concerted corporate action violates antitrust laws, and on top of that, is usually not in the shareholders’ best interests. Directors, after all, are responsible to shareholders rather than to The Earth, which does not pay their oversized salaries or vote or attend shareholder meetings.
Even if it wanted to pay the Directors, I’m not sure The Earth could even get a bank account, since The Earth includes Russia. Ick.
On Friday, JPMorgan, Blackrock, State Street, and Pimco all pulled out of the Climate Action 100+ group. On the same day. Which doesn’t show concerted action, at all, so stop whining. Oh, and Goldman Sachs ‘declined to comment’ on Saturday, which is not a good sign for that one, either.
While the Times framed the story as bad news, it’s actually terrific news, and it is significant progress. Virtue-signaling climate boondoggles are getting unaffordable.
As I’ve often said, we don’t have many problems that a good recession​
 
  • Like
Reactions: D71
While Wall Street pulling out of the "visible" climate action is undoubtedly a very good thing (Thanks to people's increased awareness of the Climate Scam, another example of making them dance to our parade), we must be very diligent on what they are going to do next. In fact, they are already rebranding it under a different name (Something they are absolutely great at when being caught).

 
Batvette said:
So burn down the windmills and electric cars and fire up that V-8 powered leaf blower. The climate change alarmists have known about this but have desperately tried to cover it up. Science deniers!
Click to expand...
No one tried to cover it up. The predictions of global warming indicated that the warming would far outpace the cooling due to lower sunspot activity.

If anything 2023 was strong evidence to that. Cycle 24 was the weakest cycle in 100 years. Cycle 24 started at the end of 12023.

Solar Cycle 24 was average in length, at 11 years, ............................. It was also the weakest cycle in 100 years. Solar maximum occurred in April 2014 with sunspots peaking at 114 for the solar cycle, well below average, which is 179.​

And yet 2023, which occured at the end of cycle 23 was the warmest year on record.

2023 was the world’s warmest year on record, by far​

I'm sure you'll all just ingore the facts and attack me now.
 
McKravitts said:

2023 was the world’s warmest year on record, by far​

I'm sure you'll all just ingore the facts and attack me now.
Click to expand...

Stop spreading BS

wattsupwiththat.com

2023 “Earth’s Hottest Year on Record” Claims Fail

These “hottest year on record” claims are based on misrepresenting the year 2023 obscure “global average temperature anomaly” outcome that is not applicable to any specific location or region…
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com

The year 2023 flawed climate alarmist claims of “hottest year on record” are in the same vein as the flawed claims made by climate alarmists about the summer of 2023 being “the U.S. hottest summer ever” that was addressed here and shown below.

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

U.S. Climate Extremes: 2023 Year in Review

A Very Normal Year
rogerpielkejr.substack.com rogerpielkejr.substack.com

And then we have gems like this


And this

wattsupwiththat.com

Climate Change Weekly #495: New Research Further Demonstrates Problems with Surface Temperature Records and Models

And does Michael Mann really have a strong case for defamation? He himself frequently spreads false and malicious rumors about colleagues who challenged his science. Listen to his explanation for …
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com

And This
wattsupwiththat.com

Urban Heat Island Studies – Do Pristine Weather Stations Even Exist?

Australia’s low population density plus its many weather stations allow many “pristine” station candidates to be examined for studies of Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com
wattsupwiththat.com

Urban Heat Island Studies – Do Pristine Weather Stations Even Exist? Part Two. ‘HIDE THE INCLINE’.

The theme of these articles is whether the historic temperature record is useful for understanding Urban Heat Island Effects.
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com


So, the bottom line is that all this "Global Warming" / "Climate Change" is just more BS with the real goal to control you.
 
Last edited:
aenyc said:
Stop spreading BS

wattsupwiththat.com

2023 “Earth’s Hottest Year on Record” Claims Fail

These “hottest year on record” claims are based on misrepresenting the year 2023 obscure “global average temperature anomaly” outcome that is not applicable to any specific location or region…
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com

The year 2023 flawed climate alarmist claims of “hottest year on record” are in the same vein as the flawed claims made by climate alarmists about the summer of 2023 being “the U.S. hottest summer ever” that was addressed here and shown below.

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

U.S. Climate Extremes: 2023 Year in Review

A Very Normal Year
rogerpielkejr.substack.com rogerpielkejr.substack.com

And then we have gems like this

Click to expand...
It is more authoritative in enormous bold blue print
 
Look at California, getting rain.

OMG the humanity!

Liberals are so fricken stupid. Washes that have been dry for decades are getting water in them again.

It used to be called global warming but had to be rebranded as climate change because how can one possibly argue the climate doesn't change.

Liberals are notorious for bullshit like this.

1) giving a teenage boy hormones so he'll grow tits is called "gender affirming care"

2) killing a baby in-utero is "the right to choose"


Ad Nauseum....
 
  • Like
Reactions: D71
svetz said:
Valentina is the "scientist" you referenced. I just pointed out what she actually said Vs. what her words were twisted to say. Or, if you meant Sabine, she isn't a climate scientist. She's a physicist who tries to make science clear without the gobblygook.


The thermometer was invented in in 1654, nearly 400 years ago. So, they might have a clue ... especially since the British were taking and documenting water and air temperatures everywhere their boats went.


Not Absolutely positive about everything. Real science comes with ranges of accuracies, the IPCC lists those ranges. Some things are unequivocal as they can be directly measured. Some things are nearly certain (e.g., global warming is manmade) as the model predictions have always been within the range of accuracy [ref] and for the reasons Sabine listed above.

You seem emotionally vested, angry in fact, about the topic. Why is that? Is it because someone on YouTube got you spun up about it?

Funny how the scientific videos don't leave an emotional impact and the denier ones leave you with a sense of outrage that makes you want to degrade fellow members. It's the same way politicians spin up their audience to get the results they want...something that makes you emotional isn't to be trusted. Hopefully, if you get nothing else from Sabine's videos, you will realize that the theory is there and sufficiently plausible that reasonably thinking people can honestly believe it.

Climate Change has always been occurring. The evidence strongly points to mankind's GHGs accelerating warming and Sabine does a good job with it in my prior post. Often a cause for misunderstanding is that the Greenhouse effect is more complicated than you learned in high school, here's a good video explaining it, I hope it helps you.

Click to expand...
Its perfectly appropriate to be angry with all the money theyre throwing at this, the increasing restrictions on our lives, and the judgemental nature of holier than thou alarmists.
Leftists in America dont care about the planet. If they did they would stop Bidens invasion by third world people with 2-3 times the US birth rate, theyre just facilitating this overpopulation within our borders.
Most climate change measures are actually policies of global socialism with the goal of industrializing third world masses.
Since AGW is supposedly caused by human industrialization, its expected Im pissed off as apparantly the alarmists in charge dont have a fucking clue what theyre doing.
"There now, we are saving the earth, by taking your money away and giving it to the swarthy poor people in hopelessly corrupt countries with backward cultures."
(Introduces policies that only hasten its demise)
"Why are you angry?"
 
Batvette said:
Its perfectly appropriate to be angry with all the money theyre throwing at this,
Click to expand...
What money? Can you provide some context on this? The way I see it, a lot of people are angry about stuff that isn't even happening. Can't imagine you're upset with the pocket change spent on scientific studies when compared to the billions Congress wastes (e.g., Alaska's bridge to nowhere, see this link for Congress spending a billion on a trolley).

The way I see it, not spending money on it now is going to cost us a lot more later.

But, maybe I missed something? I would say, if you think trillions have been spent on climate change (federal tax dollars, not states or private investors like Bill Gates spending millions of his own money or people investing in solar farms to make money), make sure to look at the fine print as to where the money was actually spent ( I don't consider fixing lead pipes in Detroit or keeping the existing grid operational, repairing stuff after extreme weather, building natural gas pipelines, or funding Universities as fighting climate change (mainly because they don't address the root cause)).

BTW, just talking about the U.S. I know other countries have spent a lot on it (e.g., China spent $890 billion in 2023).

How much does it cost to NOT fix it?
One should always look at both sides.

For example, fixing roads is expensive. But not
fixing roads is more expensive as it hurts the
economy. That is we spend $1 to make $10.

How much does climate change cost? One way
to look at it is the increasing costs (adjusted for
inflation) to repair our existing infrastructure
from extreme weather events.

The image shown to the right shows "just" the
frequency of events exceeding a billion to fix,
the image is also a link to the source.

So the global temperature going up (regardless if human-induced or not) is costing us more every year to fix what we have. You say the alarmists are clueless, but maybe they just look at the existing facts and trends to make decisions rather than believe the Merchants of Doubt?

But obviously, it's not just about fixing our infrastructure after the fact. There are other factors that add to the costs such as increased healthcare costs, preventative infrastructure (e.g., keeping cities from flooding), disease, drought mitigation, international instability, and yes, border control.

Batvette said:
... theyre just facilitating this overpopulation within our borders....
Click to expand...
Fortunately, the U.S. is a country that people want to live in (some countries build walls to keep citizens from escaping). In order to keep the population stable you need about 2.1 kids per family, the U.S. is about 1.6 ... meaning we're on the decline rather than overpopulation and some think it might soon be a crisis. Here's a video on it:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top