Thoughts on this article?
- Thread starter littleharbor2
- Start date
littleharbor2
Solar Addict
Scary that some people believe this kind of crap.
All I have is an anecdotes but looks at Phoenix Arizona. The urban heat island has an effect on the local weather.
Contrary to the initial article, it has not exasperated rain or monsoons, and there are still no tornadoes.
A city of 5 million people and the paved infrastructure to support it creates a far more pronounced effect than what a solar farm would in my opinion
Separately, the term GREEN ENERGY.
I don’t care what color they call it, what I strive for is affordable, sustainable, off grid energy.
It could come in blue black or gold. It could be coal, corn, or helium
I do none of this out of concern of if I’m “green” or not
No amount of tax dollars will change the weather or climate
Contrary to the initial article, it has not exasperated rain or monsoons, and there are still no tornadoes.
A city of 5 million people and the paved infrastructure to support it creates a far more pronounced effect than what a solar farm would in my opinion
Separately, the term GREEN ENERGY.
I don’t care what color they call it, what I strive for is affordable, sustainable, off grid energy.
It could come in blue black or gold. It could be coal, corn, or helium
I do none of this out of concern of if I’m “green” or not
No amount of tax dollars will change the weather or climate
Ampster
Renewable Energy Hobbyist
Yes that is my primary goal.
littleharbor2
Solar Addict
And 5 million people CHOOSE to live there.
I'm no one to talk, I live in Northern Baja.?
I will say, I managed to escape. Now I wonder what took so long.
At least you’ve got the coast down in Baja to hopefully provide a bit of reprieve here and there. I haven’t been down to Ensenada in years. Miss it all the time!
cs1234
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- May 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,305
Just because you have it, doesn't mean they are going to be willing to use it. Worth assking though, I suppose.
littleharbor2
Solar Addict
We are just now coming out of a brutal summer. As soon as the Sea of Cortez warms up (97 degrees this summer) the humidity rises to awfully uncomfortable levels. Ensenada, otoh, is on the cool Pacific side.
Check this out And this was with lower humidity than usual. I think it turned to steam. plus another shot showing the "Heat Index"
Attachments
Last edited:
If people want electricity, then producing it from wind and solar panels is far better than burning fossil fuels whose pollutants are inhaled and whose CO2 emissions are warming the planet and causing climate changes.
If increasing cO2 levels are what’s causing climate change and warming the planet, then why are cO2 levels so much lower now, than historical data. Why was cO2 levels higher in times of lower temp averages?
What else is utilizes cO2 in nature?
What else is utilizes cO2 in nature?
Like I mentioned in my other post - CO2 levels were much higher in the past. It was also hotter, and more humid. Plants loved it, many animals lived near the polar regions, and sea water levels were much higher as well. The planet doesn't care, plants will love it. Humans on the other hand would die in those conditions (wet bulb temperatures alone will do it).
I have a new opinion… I think it’s silly..
Last edited:
Cited article on www.climate.nasa.gov:
"Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air."
Excellent graphs showing how CO2 levels have skyrocketed since 1950 and are higher than anytime in last 800,000 years.
SORRY TO SAY IT, BUT THE TWO POSTERS, GOOSE AND UPNORTHANDPERSONAL, ARE SIMPLY NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT FACTUAL SCIENCE OR UNABLE TO GRASP THE COMPLEX CONCEPTS, SO THEY POST FALSE AND INNACURATE OPINIONS THAT THEY PARROT FROM ELSEWHERE.
timselectric
If I can do it, you can do it.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2022
- Messages
- 19,095
Bold print doesn't say SORRY. lol
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,047
Man may have increased CO2 levels since his appearance, but still far lower than ancient times. We've come no where near releasing a majority or even large fraction of what was previously fixed out of the atmosphere and into the earth.
For 4.49 billion years the cO2 levels on earth were greater than 1000 parts per million.
While “pre-industrial” levels have been as low as 280ppm that doesn’t tell the whole story.
If you expand the microcosm of data that you cherry pick you will see that the true data disagrees with modern science.
Over time the average co2 decreased, which led to the ice age. Sure it is increasing “now” and we are post industrial “now”. But historical causes for cO2 increases were due to volcanoes and Mother Nature did what Mother Nature does.
So again I ask: what executive orders, tax laws, and rules for the masses but not elite will in fact impact this data?
Careful, he might type in all caps at you again.
Excuse me? I think I've been very clear that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increasing temperatures due to the green house effect, and that millions of years ago (the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse roughly 92 million years ago - look it up - and read the second part of what I wrote in post #6 in this thread) when the atmosphere was at >1000 ppm, while good for plants, would be disastrous for humans. Please tell me where I did not accept factual science please.
