VincentRJ

Very strange! Perhaps your friends are in the 'very general' location, maybe 50 km away from this unusually cold event. It's not April 1st. ????

Haven't you noticed the significant rise of electricity prices in countries that are relying more and more on solar and wind for their energy supplies. Germany is an example, with the highest electricity prices in the world, and that was before the current problems resulting from the Ukrainian war. As I've mentioned before, the biggest drawback to Wind and Solal energy is the intermittency of supply. Battery storage in itself is a very expensive way of addressing this problem because it would require enormous amounts of batteries to deal with those occasions when there is little or no wind and sunshine for several days, and the entire electricity supply in a particular region has to come from batteries. In other words, there would have to be a large amount of excess supply just sitting there, waiting for the few occasions when there's little wind or sunshine for several days, and, of course, as we should all know, weather is very difficult to accurately predict. However, in these circumstances, fossil fuels come to the rescue. It's much cheaper to have gas or diesel generators sitting idle than billions of dollars worth of batteries. Of course, the energy from such fossil fuel generators is also more expensive than it could be, because they are not being used most of the time. I appreciate there are other solutions, but they are expensive and would require an increase in the use of fossil fuels to create the infrastructure. In my view, the ideal situation to achieve complete reliance upon renewable energy, is for all countries, and states within those countries, to be interconnected with UHVDC cables, which have a low transmission loss. At any given time, the sun is shining and the wind is blowing somewhere on the planet. Some time ago I came across a study which calculated if the entire Sahara Desert were covered in solar panels, the amount of electricity created each day would be about 20x the total world consumption of energy. That would suggest if numerous deserts and arid regions around the world, a fraction of the size of the Sahara desert in total, were covered with solar panels, then the entire world could get it's electricity supply from solar, provided all countries were connected to these solar farms with UHVDC cables. Unfortunately, the cost of laying these cable, undersea and underground, would be enormous, and would take many decades, involving the use of fossil fuels to dig the trenches and produce the enormous amount of copper required for the cables. Such cables could also be the target of attacks during wars and conflicts. I think most countries would prefer to be 'energy independent'. The gas pipeline from Russia to Germany is an example that should be noted.

That's an interesting calculation, but I can't find that comment in the report. Can you quote it for me? It's not clear to me whether the 22,000 square miles of solar panels that are sufficient to power the whole of the USA, do so only when the sun shines. Is battery storage included in that calculation? If so, then the solar panels would have to produce far more than the energy consumption of the entire country when the sun shines, in order to provide the energy to charge the batteries for use when the sun doesn't shine. That adds enormously to the cost. Imagine the consequences of several days of overcast and cloudy skies. Energy supplies are a fundamental necessity for any civilization to flourish, and the cost of that energy is directly related to our living standards. Striving to produce clean, reliable and affordable energy is a very worthy goal. I have no objection to spending money to develop new and cleaner sources of energy, but if such energy is more expensive, then the average standard of living will fall, which is why India and China are still building new coal-fired power plants. "A study published in 2009 looking at the US and Europe estimated that wind farms were responsible for about 0.3 bird deaths for every 1GWh of electricity generated, compared with 5.2 deaths per 1GWh caused by fossil-fuelled power stations." That's a good point which I haven't given sufficient consideration. There are many causes of bird deaths in our modern societies. Birds frequently crash into the windows of buildings, possibly because they see their own reflection and think it's another bird, and that gives them the impression they are flying into an unobstructed path. They also crash into solar panels. So, I agree that bird deaths from wind and solar energy should not be touted as a negative to their development. I always admit that I'm wrong when the evidence suggests that I am, although I suspect that the stated numbers are not accurate because of the difficulty of observation. The following site, not as outdated as your linked study of 2009, explains the difficulty of accurately determining the number of bird deaths around Solar Panel Farms. "Too much to do At the moment, the only way to track bird deaths at solar panel facilities is to have a human walk around and collect the bodies. This prevents researchers from collecting a valuable amount of data. That’s why Szymanski and his colleagues are working on a means to automate the process." https://sciencenode.org/feature/Save the birds.php#:~:text=Billions of birds die annually,flying into an unobstructed path.

It's difficult to predict how long the development of a new technology will take before the goals are successfully achieved. An example would be the development of Nuclear Fusion to supply energy (as opposed to the conventional Nuclear Fission which has many 'potential' problems). Research into Nuclear Fusion has been going on for many decades with many predictions along the way that success will be achieved within a few years. Here's an article that mentions the latest investments in this research. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-01/commonwealth-fusion-attracts-1-8-billion-in-top-funding-deal "Commonwealth Fusion Systems said it raised $1.8 billion from investors including billionaire Bill Gates and venture capitalist John Doerr in the fusion industry’s largest financing deal." "As for a reliable source of supply there has been huge progress. The cost per kwh via solar and wind has declined by . So much so, that they are far cheaper than coal plants. In fact the cost of building wind or solar plants is now cheaper than the cost of just running a coal plant." That would only be true if the sun were to shine continuously and the wind were to blow continuously. The intermittency of renewables seems to get ignored when doing cost comparisons. It's going to be horrible to see large tracts of land covered in black solar panels, and scores of noisy Windmills killing lots of birds. How can these 'Green Environmentalists' promote such a concept. There must be something wrong with them. They are ruining nature. ????

This is very impressive. The limited range of EVs has been a major obstacle, especially considering the lack of recharging stations and the relatively long time it takes to recharge. However, I have great faith in the ability of technology to progress, but it can often take many decades to reach a specified goal, which in the case of the EV, is a lighter, more durable, safer, and quicker-charging battery with greater capacity, all at an affordable price. Another major issue with EVs is the production of a reliable electricity supply without the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. Can we build an Electric Vehicle using only renewable energy sources to mine the minerals and rare earth metals and process them, and recycle them? Can we use only renewables to produce the electricity to recharge hundreds of millions of EVs?

I wonder when the price of the essential metals such as Lithium, Cobalt, Copper and Nickel, required for the construction of electric motors and batteries. will begin to escalate as reserves of these metals become scarce. Recycling is a solution, but is currently a very expensive source of these metals. There is also the expense of replacing the current petrol stations with a far greater number of electric recharging stations, considering how long it takes to recharge a battery compared with how long it takes to fill a tank with petrol. Then there is the additional cost of providing huge amounts of reliable electricity supply for the recharging of millions of electric vehicles at all times of the day.

Some of them might, but sensible people understand that everything is connected to some degree and therefore the total of mankind's activities, such as deforestation, the creation of concrete jungles (cities, roads and urban areas), and the emissions of CO2, have at least some effect on the climate. I certainly think we should take better care of our environment and spend more money on recycling waste products, reducing the emission of real pollutants, and penalize those who discard their trash into the sea, rivers and environment. The great mistake we're making is attributing the cause of normal changes in climate and extreme weather events to our CO2 emissions. CO2 is one of the essential gases for life to exist. Most plants thrive on increased CO2 levels. Satellite studies by NASA have revealed that during the past 35 years, whilst CO2 levels have been increasing, the increase in the amount of greening of the planet is equivalent to an area twice the size of the USA. The increase in the food crops, world-wide, attributable to the increases in atmospheric CO2 is worth billions of dollars. Warming is generally good. The reduced number of people who die from extreme cold, as a result of global warming, is far greater than the increased number of people who die from an increase in heat waves.

For anyone who is interested in issues of climate, the first principle to grasp is that climates, or weather patterns, are always changing, and always have throughout the history of our planet. They don't change uniformly across the entire planet. Some areas get more frequent storms, or floods or droughts, during a specified period, whilst other areas get less frequent storms, floods and droughts during the same period. For example, around 10,000 years ago, the Sahara Desert was a flourishing grassland with lots of wildlife. Some changes in climate are relatively rapid, and some changes are far more gradual. During the past 20,000 years, global sea levels were on average around 120 metres lower than today, which means, on average, sea levels have risen 6 mm per year for the past 20,000 years. However, that's just an average. During certain centuries, sea levels have risen much faster than 6 mm per year, and have fallen by more than 6 mm per year during other centuries in that 20,000 year period. During the past century in our modern era, it is estimated that sea levels have risen between 2 mm and 3 mm per year. That doesn't sound alarming to me. However, when cities close to the sea are sinking at a faster rate than the sea is rising, then that's obviously a problem that has to be tackled, but that has very little to do with 'so-called' man-made climate change, and the idea that we can stop such changes by reducing our CO2 emissions is fanciful propaganda for the uneducated masses. ????

As Mahatma Gandhi is claimed to have said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” This is a comment which makes sense to me. I've always been perplexed at the behavior of those who claim to be Christians, throughout the history of Christianity that I've read, because as I see it, the most fundamental precepts of Christianity are 'Love thine Enemy', 'Love thy Neighbor as Oneself', and 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. The most rational answer to my perplexity I can think of, is that the instinct to survive, prosper, and dominate is significantly more powerful than any religious teaching, at the level of both the individual and the state. Buddhism is even more extreme than Christianity in its precepts of 'refraining from killing'. They are even concerned about killing all forms of life, such as worms and insects in the soil, yet Buddhist countries such as Cambodia, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka, have a recent history of terrible killing of their neighbors and perceived enemies. What the heck's going on? ????

"The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), as the tribunal is formally known, was set up with UN backing in 2006 using a mix of Cambodian and international law. It has convicted three people and cost more than $300 million." $300 million to convict just three people after so many years of investigation. Seems like there's some great inefficiency in that process! ????

Must be due to anthropogenic global warming. ????

I guess I must just look too strong and fearsome for anyone to attempt to rob me. ???? Whilst in total, I have spent less than a year in Cambodia on my numerous photography trips, I've spent much more time, in total, in other Asian countries such as Thailand, India, Nepal, Iran. I've been robbed on only one occasion during the many years of travelling, and that was in Rome whilst on holiday in Italy. I was on an extremely crowded railway station where everyone was literally pressed up against each other. I realized at the end of the trip that my wallet was gone.

Maybe it's you have simply been unlucky. ???? I can understand that those who walk around whilst gazing at their iPhone, unaware of what's happening in their immediate vicinity, might be more vulnerable to snatch and grab theft. To quote from the article: "Expats, especially foreign businessmen, generally agree that Cambodia is a safe place for them." “I have been living in Cambodia for more than five years. And I feel safe enough. This is my experience. I’ve never had any problems with police or local authorities. And yes, my phone was stolen twice. Nothing else,” Russian businessman Sergey Sidenko said."

What strange comments! During the past 16 years, prior to the Covid-19 outbreak, I've visited Cambodia on numerous occasions to take photos in the streets and alleys of Phnom Penh, and in the many ancient temples in various locations surrounding Siem Reap. I usually travel with the latest Canon or Nikon DSLR camera around my neck. I've never experienced anyone try to grab the camera, even though all the cameras I carried were more expensive than any iPhone.

Thanks for the correction. However, the point I'm making is that all our scientific theories have been 'created' through our enhanced capacity for symbolic and abstract thought. Ancient peoples were thinking about the issue of gravity long before Isaac Newton clarified the situation using advanced mathematics. Everything in science that we think is settled is only settled until it becomes unsettled, and the history of science reveals that frequently, theories which were presumed to be settled, are later either amended or abandoned as new evidence becomes available. The 'Methodology of Science' requires repeated experimentation which produces consistent results, before a high degree of certainty can be achieved. But that experimentation depends upon things and effects that we can observe or detect. The idea, or hypothesis, that more than 95% of all the matter and energy in the universe is currently undetectable by any means currently at our disposal, provides a hint of how little we really know. ????

Definitely. We've just recently discovered the possibility that gravity can be repulsive. It's called Dark Matter, which is a hypothetical explanation for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe. We used to think that the expansion was slowing down due to gravity, but recent observations, resulting from improvements to the Hubble telescope, show the expansion is accelerating. The current explanation is an invisible and undetectable gravitational, repulsive force.

That's true. I'm less accepting of the notion that increased temperatures can, based on the consensus of scientific studies, lead to bad outcomes. One of the reason why I'm less accepting is because my own enquiries have revealed that the claimed high degree of consensus, such as 97%, appears to be fraudulent, from a true scientific perspective. Another reason why I'm less accepting of the alarmist claims of bad outcomes is that the claimed driver of such warming, our CO2 emissions, has undeniable beneficial effects. CO2 is a clear and odorless gas which is essential for all life. It's not a pollutant. This fact is far more certain than any computer projections of the dire consequences of rising CO2 levels. There are numerous studies which show that most plants, which are of the C3 type, will increase their growth by around 35% with a doubling of CO2 levels from, for example, 200 ppm to 400 ppm, or from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. After about 1300 ppm the benefits begin to wane. In dry and arid regions, the increased plant growth is even greater for a doubling of CO2. It produces around a 65% increase in plant growth. This is particularly good for Australia where we have large areas which are arid. The following article addresses the use of CO2 in greenhouses. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm "The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation)." This next article provides convincing evidence that our planet is becoming greener, as a result of rising CO2 levels https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ "An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

I'll just address one of your points for now, to keep it brief. ???? The average warming of the entire globe during the past 150 years or more is estimated to be around 1 degree C . I was raised near the city of Manchester in the UK where average temperatures, which include both day and night, and winter and summer, are a miserable 9.4 degree C. I now live in Brisbane, Australia, where the average, yearly temperature is 20 degrees C, which is 10.6 degrees warmer than Manchester, and I much prefer that higher temperature. Why should people be concerned with a temperature rise of a small fraction of a degree per decade, which they wouldn't even notice if that temperature rise occurred in their house within the course of a day or even an hour? Surely the concern must be the projected increase in extreme weather events due to a change in climate resulting from that small rise in average global temperatures, which is claimed to be caused by our CO2 emissions. The last major drought we had in Australia, known as the Millennium Drought, ended in 2010-11. I personally experienced the extreme flooding that took place, which was later discovered to be mainly due to mismanagement resulting from inaccurate advice from so-called 'climate scientists'. During the drought there were a number of proposals to build new dams to reduce the looming water shortage. It does rain occasionally during long drought periods, but below average. However, the advice from the climate experts was that we should get used to the drought conditions because this would become the norm due to global warming, and that there would be little point in building new dams, and that desalination plants would be a better option. So that's what the Queensland government did. They spent money on desalination plants which were used for just a short time before the massive flooding arrived. If the dams had been built, the flooding could have been avoided, and billions of dollars in property and infrastructure damage could have been saved, as well as the 33 lives lost. According to BOM records, the 2010-11 floods in the Brisbane area was the 6th worst on record, in terms of flood height, although the graph seems to show it was the 7th worst. http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml Can you understand my skepticism about 'climate change alarmism'? When we have a drought in SE Australia, the ice is affected in parts of the Antarctic. Analyses of ice cores from an area called Law Dome have revealed that during the past 1,000 years, SE Australia has had 8 megadroughts (droughts which are longer than 5 years). 6 of those droughts occurred before European settlement in Australia, and the worst occurred in the 12th century AD and was 39 years long. If we have another 39 year drought in Australia, I bet the climate scientists (or more correctly, climate science activists) will claim that the drought is undeniable evidence of CAGW, and will ignore the existing proxy evidence that a similar event occurred long before we began burning fossil fuels.

If I write something which someone can't understand, I'm willing to help them understand it by clarifying what I wrote, or rephrasing it.

Don't be silly. ???? A molecule is so small it's completely invisible to the naked eye. Even if one were viewing the molecule through an electron microscope, it would be very foolish to expect it to hear and understand your questions. The kind of evidence I would require is evidence that meets the requirements of the 'methodology of science', that is, evidence that can be repeatedly either confirmed through controlled experiments or falsified through controlled experiments. Evidence that can be neither confirmed nor falsified is useless. "The laws of physics, geometry, maths etc are evidence of a design, and you know very well that you can't prove that all this originated from the man.. ..so, at least, a little skepticism is fair." The laws of physics, geometry, maths, etc, are all creations of mankind that have slowly evolved since the beginning of civilization, and continue to evolve because science is never 'completely' settled. Everything is gradually evolving or changing to some degree or at some rate, including our climate. Even the Buddha knew this, 2,500 years ago. ????

It seems just plain common sense to me that consciousness requires an active neural network. I've not come across any evidence that consciousness can exist independent of a neural network or brain, but you can speculate to your heart's content. ????

I've been considering the possibility of the existence of some sort of intelligent design long before this thread started. Around the age of 5, I wondered if it were possible for Father Christmas to enter my bedroom through the chimney, to place a present in the stocking at the foot of my bed. So, on Christmas Eve after going to bed, I did my best to keep awake, whilst pretending to be asleep, so I could witness this amazing event. What I witnessed was my own father quietly entering through the bedroom door and placing a present in the stocking. ???? I've had a general interest in religious issues for much of my life. I spent quite a few hours reading the Bible many years ago. I've also read parts of the Koran, and various Hindu texts, visited Yoga Retreats, practiced Hatha Yoga for a while, and have also read detailed explanations of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution as well as scientific articles and books in the disciplines of anthropology and paleontology. I even taught English to a class of monks at Wat Mahathat in Bangkok when I first visited Thailand in the early 1960's, in exchange for free accommodation because I was broke. ????

Of course I'm able to see the difference. That's why I used the word 'similar'. Do you understand the difference between 'similar' and 'identical'? ????

Can you explain why you think that and refer to whatever I've written that suggests I'm biased, and why it suggests I'm a bit biased? ????

Indeed it has, and the complexities involved are staggering.