12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
I seldom name call. It is the only plausible conclusion: you’re unmotivated to look into it.
Spinning what I said doesn’t change that.
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
Spinning what I said doesn’t change that.
12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
Thereby neither does yours following your logic of course
Last read on NYC was it is under a mass exodus ppl were reported leaving moving away left and going to greener pastures. There was mention that Covid with work at home had been a major contributor to it. Dunno don't live there just going off the news and reports. Lot of ppl reported to be self moving with Uhaul because normal moving companies were over loaded. Reported shortages of UHaul too.
'Racist" can not fix this this problem. It is a World Problem. Never mind racist are severely out numbered. Stop letting them call you racist to solve the ir problems.
Africa and India need to stop screwing.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
The beginning of the post does provide a list of what can cause warming, it's a direct response to your statement it was impossible to understand it:
But honestly, we're surrounded by a vacuum, there are only so many plausible ways to heat up something in a vacuum.
But, the post didn't leave out how the Earth cools. Possibly it wasn't clear, but I tried with a pretty picture and everything! There are only three ways to move heat: radiation, conduction, and convection. As space is a vacuum and the only place for heat to go from the Earth, heat can only leave via radiation (or lost atmospheric molecules). Heat transfer by radiation is something really well understood and established. #472 is a simplistic explanation, but if you really want to dig into it Sabine has an excellent video in #309.
There are other things that can reflect high-energy sunlight before it can be absorbed by our planet: anti-GHGs (discussed in post #15), aerosols, clouds, high albedo (e.g., snow/ice), etc. And yes, the IPCC models include them all and they're discussed in posts 40ish through 70ish. The only phenomenon I didn't see was noctilucent clouds which have been increasing over the poles (discussed in #64, but as the poles already have a very high albedo it is probably moot).
Nope. I don't worry about asteroid strikes either as either one would probably fix the whole warming thing by tossing us into the equivalent of a nuclear winter.
I don't believe super-volcanoes are a part of the IPCC report other than one of the general caveats that totally unexpected things might happen. The last one was in New Zealand 27,000 years ago, so I can see why they might not want to include it. They do include the average annual volcanic emissions and use the annual variance in emissions in the uncertainties for their predictions. The IPCC reports go into more detail on the topic.
The NPS says it's not likely in the next 10,000 years; the IPCC reports don't go out that far.
Really? Just a few posts back it was lazy and a few pages back you were calling me a liar - seems commonplace.
You also said you'd debate me to the end and one or two posts later that you were bowing out, so poor consistency too.
Regardless, if you think I'm lazy for not researching for your "easy to find experts" what does that make you when you won't do it? Oh right, you're busy not lazy (but amazingly have time to post and repost the same unsubstantiated opinions and try to distract from the topic with character attacks). But as I said, if you do find what appears to be scientific proof like Hedges or have actual discussion points like Bob I'd be happy to discuss them. But opinions? You're welcome to them, but they don't have any merit.
I can't spin what you've said. No one can. You literally haven't said anything other than unsubstantiated opinion, innuendo, and of course some labeling. That, without any facts, you believe the IPCC is suppressing good science and promoting only their narrative (despite the overwhelming endorsements from universities, science institutes, professional societies, and others) then there's nothing I can say that will definitely prove to you it's an absurd notion.
Unlike your posts, mine talk about facts, evidence, and theories from others that can be further researched and discussed (e.g., we know the earth is warming and has been with satellite data that is corroborated by spot checks on the ground, CO2 amounts from volcanoes compared to man-made CO2 amounts, information on IR heat rejection at different altitudes in the atmosphere, breakdowns and links to scientific studies).
Last edited:
This can be debated forever. You claim that your facts are the only "true" facts, and everyone else is posting baloney, but the same can be said in reversal. There have been numerous studies, many by respected scientist in their field, who basically said that the entire "global warming" (since renamed climate change because it was no longer fitting even the mainstream narrative) is complete hoax, and most of the models were completely made up GIGA style (Garbage in, Garbage out).
Many of these scientists are being censored and "cancelled", just like anyone who opposed the official narrative on Covid.
Typically, this would be one of those times where we agree to disagree and call it a day, but it is the climate alarmist club calling on everyone to pretty much stop living (and start eating ze bugz because cow farts are causing co2 buildup while completely ignoring much larger environmental problems) because climate change, and it is the alarmist club that is almost militant against anyone that disagrees with them.
The rebuttal to climate alarmism is very well researched and discussed on this Corbett Episode. Note that he includes links to many studies in both mainstream and alternative media. But i am 100% certain that the climate change narrative will just counterargue by saying "Who is this guy Corbett, hahaha". Well why dont you watch the presentation and follow ALL the links, and then we can further discuss.
All Your Climate Questions Answered in 60 SECONDS!!! - Questions For Corbett #085 - The Corbett Report
Daniel writes in to ask how James can possibly think that climate change is a hoax. James responds in the most succinct way possible. Buckle up, folks!
www.corbettreport.com
Last edited:
What if the sun is getting hotter and getting ready to blow up? That use to be a theory from scientist. The sun was going to burnout blow up ..... hahaha did the scientist prove right and are we seeing the temp rise as a result.
We on Earth are facing so many diasters that we often grab one or two that we think can change in some form or fashion forget the rest. Hahaha sorry but it is funny to me for the constant human responses. Especially climate change. Some ppl expect the USA ~330 million ppl to lead 7-8 billion ppl out of this mess. Some ppl act like only the USA caused our present conditions . Sorry but it is just bs unless you can reach about 7-8 billion ppl
Attachments
This is the absolute best.
Referencing ONLY mainstream and "official science media".... and in 2015 too!
www.corbettreport.com
Referencing ONLY mainstream and "official science media".... and in 2015 too!
Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience - The Corbett Report
Karl Popper famously said, "A theory that explains everything explains nothing." So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven "climate change" can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less...
www.corbettreport.com
Bust a move spew more babies Keep Denying the over population is the problem.... to big to fast. Developments to slow. Stop being afraid to be called a racist...... you are severely out numbered. Address the real problems. People are fucking way to much and wanting to keep doing it. Feels good to get the fuck on and blow a nut.... let someone else raise the kids. Send money send food....... so can fuck some more.
Until ppl the minority stop being afraid of being called racist then no real solution is available.
Until ppl the minority stop being afraid of being called racist then no real solution is available.
Attachments
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Hardly.
Keep in mind the other guy isn't saying anything other than you can't believe anything. It's one guy's unsubstantiated opinions repeated ad nauseum. Repetition and belief don't make things true. You also can't discuss that as they're just what that person believes.
As to the veracity, science is all about testing and verifying. So, there is actual proof of what I've posted.
The ultimate proof is in the temperature predictions. The IPCC predicted temperatures have never been wrong, they have always been within their stated accuracy levels. This is discussed more in post #32.
Without a creditable scientific reference, this is a useless statement. It's a common claim, but I've only ever seen politicians saying it's a hoax.
Except of course, the IPCC has been very accurate and it's easily proven (yes, the proof is in post #32). Models are discussed in and around post #53.
Which flies in the face of universities, science institutes, and even the oil companies saying it's real:
Hardly. There are a few countries way ahead of their 2050 commitments and they've grown their GDPs without the need for hardship or eating bugs.
As it was only 5 minutes I listened to it, despite it not being by a climate scientist. In the first two minutes it's only talking about climate change hysteria, which I agree is bad. A lot of things are blamed on climate warming that cannot be conceivably linked to it by any rational person. The rest is about the psychology of the universal theory which I don't disagree with.
But, the video offers no actual proof anywhere in it that the science is bad. Stupid headlines from idiots that don't understand the science and are looking to sell newspaper isn't actual proof of anything. The only relevant bit is as Karl Popper said, the proof is in the testability of the theory.
As mentioned, the temperature predictions (shown in post #32) have never been outside the predicted range. So, by the measure of the video, it is good science.
Last edited:
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,157
The only thing I am trying to say is that I think the "regulation systems" built into the earth are WAY more complex than we understand and the way they play together is amazingly complex. Things like the manner in which the earth wobbles on it's axis, the fact that more sunlight in certain ocean areas causes the growth of more phytoplankton which gobble up CO2, and that more rain in the Amazon feeds the huge delta teeming with phytoplankton, more CO2 in the atmosphere promotes plant growth which gobbles up CO2 ... and on and on.
Maybe the cycle of ice ages is a necessary cycle for the health of the planet and if we interfere with that we are going to screw things up.
We actually think we can reverse a cycle that has been going on for 100's of thousands of years by limiting our production of CO2. I don't think it's that easy or that simple.
I just don't think all these climate scientists are nearly as smart as they think they are ...but they are useful for the people who want to gain more control over what we do ... and the ones who just want to cash in on the sensationalism.
If they hadn't totally reversed themselves several times in the last decade or so, it might be easier to believe. They even changed the name to "climate change" from "global warming" so they can pretend to be right no matter what happens .... Yes, the climate is changing and it has been changing for the entire history of the planet .... so, I guess they are right ... there is climate change.
Last edited:
I wouldnt put my trust into IPCC too much. Again, i post Corbett because he did an awesome job researching this topic and documenting each video he does with a lot of links to both official and alternative media
www.corbettreport.com
Also, the short 5 minute video is really just to get people interested.
Watch this most recent one for much more in depth analysis. And make sure to follow the links. He does a great job disputing pretty much every "conventional" man-made climate change narrative in the last 15 years.
The IPCC Exposed (video) | The Corbett Report
www.corbettreport.com
Also, the short 5 minute video is really just to get people interested.
Watch this most recent one for much more in depth analysis. And make sure to follow the links. He does a great job disputing pretty much every "conventional" man-made climate change narrative in the last 15 years.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Definitely agree with that. We for sure do not 100% understand everything there is to know. The real question is do we know enough to make any sort of prediction as to whether or not we're headed for trouble.
The problem with it being more complex than we understand is that it might actually be better, or it might be a whole lot worse.
The best thing about the IPCC in my opinion is they try to quantify what they know they don't know.
That the IPCC predictions (don't confuse them with hysteria headlines) have been really good which indicates that they have a good understanding of not only the primary climate drivers, but also of the uncertainties.
But there is risk in unknowns and the IPCC lists a number of tipping points (starts around #87, but see #129 ) where things might get suddenly worse. It's not in the recap, but there's also been a lot of concern about changing ocean currents. Fortunately, Sabine has some solid physics as to why that's crap:
A wobble takes about 26,000 years [ref], so probably safe to rule out as it doesn't correspond to normal climate cycles. The wobble doesn't actually cause changes like orbital shape and tilt... it's more of moving the seasons around... ah, found a link that describes it better than I can.
If history teaches us anything it's that today's solutions will become tomorrow's problems. We just need to not mess things up so badly your grandkids have an opportunity to fix it.
More than CO2, there's a number of GHGs we need to manage.
Sadly, there are a lot of plans I consider crazy to stop climate change (e.g., nuclear bombs to kick enough dust into the stratosphere to create a mini nuclear winter). We definitely have the power & knowledge to halt and reverse warming.
I think most people consider those plans as fairly desperate because we don't have good hard data on how to do it, and while we have ways to reverse warming AFAIK we have no way to reverse cooling. The next ice age was supposed to be ~50,000 years away and I'd like to keep it that way.
The oil companies are all developing carbon capture techs, I suspect their idea is we can burn oil to capture it so we don't have to give up fossil fuels... but obviously they'd run on nuclear, solar or wind.
The good news is the models predict reducing GHGs holds the line and eventually (see GHG half-lives on the first page) reduces temperature. We can reduce GHGs in an economically viable fashion too with advancement in a few areas that are well underway. Solar and Wind LCOE with Pumped hydro or compressed air is already cheaper than fossil fuels. If we can get low-cost batteries (e.g., Sodium ion, flow batteries, Solid State lithium) or low-cost nuclear within the next 30 years we'd want to convert over anyway. Even without those solutions, some countries are already ahead of schedule and growing their GDPs.
Probably depends on the scientist ; -)
Most I've met are fairly humble, after all - every day they're faced with searching for answers to things they don't understand.
If anything, it is the news outlets that hype hysteria because it sells or report with only a vague and confusing notion as to the science.
Last edited:
12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
I didn’t call you a liar. But it does seem as if you have complications with truth based on that. Or you confuse me with someone else?
very substantiated - no innuendo
You don’t have ground to stand on
you have been spinning everything I said: putting words in mouth, pretending to have difficulty understanding English; making incongruous statements about what I posted that attempt to make it appear that I’m fringy-nuts; lumping me in with the wack jobs.
As far as lazy:
Unmotivated to look up and saying that you ‘can’t’ find divergence from other scientists - well either it’s no effort = unmotivated or you didn’t put any effort in because you don’t want to. So it is what it is.
This “conversation” could be interesting; I thought it was. But the “name calling” going on isn’t by me- I seldom resort to name calling unless I’m feeling a bit grumpy and unkind and I do it for entertainment value- though there has been name calling.
All I have done is point out my opinion that the ipcc opinions have other opinions than the status quo of the climate change platform- there’s unaddressed holes in it.
So ya, a lot of spin as I see it. You don’t want to accept or evaluate alternative opinions- the conversation is fruitless.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
I agree that posts that make unsubstantiated claims or attack others do cast a negative light on the poster.
You said it was easy to find them, yet you can't be bothered. Again you attack rather than discuss by assigning hypothetical motivations to another's actions (and certainly don't apply them to yourself). If they were easy to find and real, why not just post one to prove your point? Oh right, you're to busy to prove your point, but have time to post it.
Even if I did find one and then debunk it; you'd probably just claim that I cherry-picked a bad example proving I was biased. If anything, your conversational methods are not particularly trustworthy, remember saying:
To which Leo responded for me:
And Leo's right, shifting the conversation away from the topic with labels and imaginary traps is disingenuous. Who exactly is it that doesn't want to have a conversation on the topic?
Go to the humor forums for that. But even there it's unwise to just insult people for your amusement.
In a serious thread, it just detracts from the conversation and as you've said makes the poster look bad.
Agreed. Opinions are worthless for this topic without some corroborating proof. The topic is very polarized and emotional for some. The Hysteria generated by the media provides imaginary proof that Corbett uses as "proof" it can't be real because hysterical claims never come true. None of that is real or useful.
Discussion in the thread can and does happen: e.g., wobbles, currents, and accuracy. But it happens when people honestly want to discuss them.
Dude! Did you ever visit times square back in the 70s! Its like any city, has some ups and downs. Going through some paradigm shifts for shore. Homeless issue is nowhere near as bad as it was. Though perhaps thats simply the have moved folks around. There are more good areas. Even the NYCHA projects are turning around for the most part. It is a big city and has some less than nice areas, but the doom and gloom comes from folks that dont spend much time there.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
I might be a believer, but this sort of stunt sounds like it is driven more by climate hysterics. But, AFAIK there are no international laws to stop them from doing crazy things. In this instance, it doesn't sound concerning (sounds like the equivalent of a tenth of a snowflake in a blizzard (Volcanos typically spew more anti-GHGs annually)). I bet they drove it to the launch point using diesel. ; -)
LeoThomson
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2022
- Messages
- 3,469
It is unlikely that they will have enough money to do this at a scale that is required to drop the temperature. But it is a really dumb idea as it might convince a state like India, to do that. And they might even lower it a couple of degrees more, just to make it more comfortable to their population. The nationalist would argue, "why should we care about the rest of the world?" and "India first"...
I don't know man, i only visit every week, my parents are still in Queens (Where i lived for 25 years). I have NEVER (even in the 90's) have see a homeless encampment under pretty much EVERY bridge and overpass, along with literal moutains of garbage next to them. I will admit that I do not know how the city was in the 70s, but i can tell your FOR SURE, that its is MUCH, MUCH worse than the 90's. And idiots in face muzzles only make it even more depressing.
This kind of stuff always bothers me. Why would anyone have blind faith in a bunch of high level international bureaucrats, who are ALWAYS under influence of special interest, to come up with ANY laws that benefits the general populace, especially when this populace is thousands of miles away.
If anything, there should be local laws (but who writes those? Even in my small town it seems people have very little real influence even against the petty tyrants that run the town (of 7000 people).
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Uncoordinated events around the world might add up over time; it'll probably make the modeling harder too.
At least their idea isn't as frightening as some. There are a few about putzing with the oceans, mainly around nutrients (either adding them or bringing them to the surface) causing a bloom that would absorb gigatons of CO2, except it's a one-time thing that would probably also oxygen starve the ocean and they're hard to control. Aerosol ships are sort of intriguing and somewhat safer in they can be turned off, might be good as a stopgap, but like carbon capture we need to address the actual problem at some point). Space reflectors might be better as some of the designs can also add energy to the earth.
Blind faith might be demanded by religions. A government that demands it is ludicrous as government should only exist to serve the people.
All government employees in the U.S. take an oath to defend the Constitution that they take with true faith, without obligation, and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Most of them are honest hard working Americans and not only mean it but take pride in their service.
That said, power and corruption do exist, which is why transparency is important.
The UN has a similar oath and similar transparency, I believe that most of them have the same pride in doing what they can to make the world a better place. But the ones that rise to power have a poor track record. The systemic abuses involving humanitarian and development activities in the UN’s Funds and Programs gave rise to the Transparency and Accountability Initiative just after the turn of the 21st century. Now that the $ are more carefully audited, the scandals have moved more towards sexual predation, but there are still plenty of scandals. Personally, I believe a 3 legged balance system like the U.S. would serve them better, but I'm biased. They do have watchdog groups, but most have political agendas. So yes, that's a long way of saying I agree it's something we wouldn't want to blindly follow.
Last edited:
LeoThomson
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2022
- Messages
- 3,469
Ocean fertilization was tried, from what I can tell it didn't have the effect they hoped for either.
Lets hope the economics for renewables continues to improve because I have little faith in politicians doing enough of the simple things that need to be done, let allone the hard ones. But at least fossil fuel subsidies are going down a little.
12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
The whole thread is based on a theory with no corroborating proof.
Ostriching Syndrome
sometimes when the hyperbole door gets left open I wander in on the way back from the bathroom
Both of you are smoking something or put things in the koolaid
I’ve given up on this thread being interesting- it’s just a platform for rehashing predispositions. And so I don’t care anymore. It’s silly how you guys read what I posted and then come out with spin gibberish. Like the following which gives as an example a fabricated fictional situation that didn’t and won’t occur:
I give up.
I have nothing to prove to you, and I have not ambiguously. And voice to text while driving or whatever is a great opportunity to post thoughts. I don’t have time. I’ve been moving 3000 square feet of shop equipment and storage.
But I don’t need to explain myself to you or respond to infantile egging. I set you up twice- for fun and a litmus- and the colors glowed in the dark.
I’m not educated with degrees in philosophy or had to take debate to get a degree. So I can’t recite the names of those 11 fallacies that are to be avoided as the hallmarks of incongruous or of poor form in debate. If exposed to them I recognize them without needing to be told what they are. And I’m neither interested in nor willing to submit myself to the frustration of wading through failures in logic.
I don’t know if any, all, or some of global warning or opinions contrary are correct or incorrect. That is my stance. All the other popcorn-worthy metaphorical street fighting over that’s occurred in the last few days in this thread has not made me more skeptical or less skeptical. But it sure has frustrated me to death.
Have a Coke and a Smile
LeoThomson
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2022
- Messages
- 3,469
If you look at the EU, there the decisions have been mostly beneficial for the general population. But if you look at the US, any policy that is beneficial for the general population, is denounced as socialism. Just look at single payer health care, it is both more efficient than the current for profit system there and has better outcomes.
If you can convince people to vote for you, they will, regardless if you are sticking with facts or conspiracy theories. Would be nice if the candidates ran on facts only, but that won't happen.
Similar threads
