2023 confirmed as world's hottest year on record

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

If the Global western Marxist can figure out a way to protest& riot in unison with the Chinese Communist People on their turf, it would significantly improve the Climate Change accountability factor .

1. China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
2. https://climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters/

 

Is that the same China that's spending. waaaay more money as a % of GDP than any other on moving to renewables?

[placeholder]

30 minutes ago, novacova said:

Good grief, another graph. There is no proof that the use of carbon by humans causes climate disruption. All the data compiled in the attempt to explain that humans cause climate change is nothing more than a correlation of possibilities guise as fact to the untrained eye. The changes of gravity that affects the earth in the solar constellation and solar activity over the eons have caused more climate fluctuations than what any human activity has caused. The rest is propaganda used to influence and control which has become an epidemic hysterical mental disorder. 

Congratulations. You're only almost 200 years behind the times. In the 19th century, the great Irish physicist john tindall, reported on the heat trapping power of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jul/opinion-john-tyndall-forgotten-co-discoverer-climate-science#:~:text=In 1859%2C Tyndall showed that,emanating from the Earth's surface.

Or was he an agent of Big Green, too?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

They tend to follow "their" science. 

Like this you mean?:

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, stoner said:

 

not to compare but lithium is quite nasty and definitely needs changes and more technology to move forward.

 

 

 

First off, what you ignore is the issue of comparative harm. How much harm does extraction of fossil fuel and the burning of it cause vs. extraction of lithium.

Also, there are now coming online new and less polluting ways to extract lithium.

https://www.cleantech.com/direct-lithium-extraction/

Also, lithium batteries are recyclable. Fossil fuels not.

 

In addition, sodium based batteries are beginning to supplant lithium in some vehicles:

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/29/electric-cars-powered-by-sodium-ion-batteries-go-on-sale-in-china/

 

And there are other technologies like aluminium sulfide batteries in the works:

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/29/battery-breakthrough-scientists-invent-cheap-aluminium-sulphur-alternative-to-lithium-ion-

 

And for power storage on the grid, cheap and low polluting technologies like iron oxide based batteries are easly outcompeting gas peaker plants.

https://www.311institute.com/grid-scale-iron-battery-storage-helps-utilities-eliminate-gas-peaker-plants/

[stoner]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, what you ignore is the issue of comparative harm. How much harm does extraction of fossil fuel and the burning of it cause vs. extraction of lithium.

Also, there are now coming online new and less polluting ways to extract lithium.

https://www.cleantech.com/direct-lithium-extraction/

Also, lithium batteries are recyclable. Fossil fuels not.

 

In addition, sodium based batteries are beginning to supplant lithium in some vehicles:

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/29/electric-cars-powered-by-sodium-ion-batteries-go-on-sale-in-china/

 

And there are other technologies like aluminium sulfide batteries in the works:

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/29/battery-breakthrough-scientists-invent-cheap-aluminium-sulphur-alternative-to-lithium-ion-

 

And for power storage on the grid, cheap and low polluting technologies like iron oxide based batteries are easly outcompeting gas peaker plants.

https://www.311institute.com/grid-scale-iron-battery-storage-helps-utilities-eliminate-gas-peaker-plants/

 

how can you so blatantly ignore what i said then go onto rant. troll move. i literally said not to compare. then went to post an informative video about lithium. seems you don't like i posted a video with some information. strange to be honest.  

 

assemble !!

Edited January 11 by stoner

[placeholder]

37 minutes ago, novacova said:

Good grief, another graph. There is no proof that the use of carbon by humans causes climate disruption. All the data compiled in the attempt to explain that humans cause climate change is nothing more than a correlation of possibilities guise as fact to the untrained eye. The changes of gravity that affects the earth in the solar constellation and solar activity over the eons have caused more climate fluctuations than what any human activity has caused. The rest is propaganda used to influence and control which has become an epidemic hysterical mental disorder. 

Like most, if not all, anthropogenic climate change denialists, you don't seem to appreciate the concept of rates. It is true that Milankovitch cycles which have to do with the Earth's orbit, do play a big role in climate change. However, a cycle takes about 41000 years to complete. So the rate of change due to the Milankovitch cycles takes place very slowly.  To put it another way, where would you put your money given 2 investments of equal risk: one that pays 1% interest and another that pays 10% interest? Rates matter.

And the relatively rapid rise that is occurring now has little to do with Milankovitch cycles.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

how can you so blatantly ignore what i said then go onto rant. troll move. i literally said not to compare. then went to post an informative video about lithium. seems you don't like i posted a video with some information. strange to be honest.  

 

assemble !!

I ignore videos because they are time consuming and much more difficult to refute given the necissity of transcribing the points they make.. There's plenty of written material out there. Why not use that? But given that it's a lot easier to refute something that's put in writing, I suspect you won't. Tell you what. You post the specific times in that video where points gets made and I'll look at them. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I ignore videos because they are time consuming and much more difficult to refute given the necissity of transcribing the points they make.. There's plenty of written material out there. Why not use that? But given that it's a lot easier to refute something that's put in writing, I suspect you won't. Tell you what. You post the specific times in that video where points gets made and I'll look at them. 

 

I agree, it isn't hard to find corroborating written material for anything one sees in a video which purports to be factual.

[stoner]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I ignore videos because they are time consuming and much more difficult to refute given the necissity of transcribing the points they make.. There's plenty of written material out there. Why not use that? But given that it's a lot easier to refute something that's put in writing, I suspect you won't. Tell you what. You post the specific times in that video where points gets made and I'll look at them. 

 

stop trolling. it's boring. not my fault if you are too lazy to watch a few minutes. 

[stoner]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I agree, it isn't hard to find corroborating written material for anything one sees in a video which purports to be factual.

 

nor is it difficult to take a few minutes to watch a video meant to be informative to anyone that was interested. 

 

keep up your bi polar games though. don't let me stop you guys. 

Edited January 11 by stoner

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

stop trolling. it's boring. not my fault if you are too lazy to watch a few minutes. 

It's not my fault if the written word poses challenges for you. Still, I decided to give it a go, this once.

First fault:

The narrator called lithium 'non renewable". What does that even mean? The fact is that it's 99% recyclable. Later in the video he talks about the need for recycling these batteries as though it isn't already a fact. 

He also nowhere offers a comparison of magnitude of the pollution effects of lithium extraction vs fossil fuel extraction.

He makes a very outdated reference to possible replacements for lithium.

He does, however, praise Tesla, for having solved the problems of pollution associated with lithium. Go figure.

I thought, maybe, because the creator of this video doesn't include progress that's been made with regards to these issues, that this video was created a long time ago. But according to Youtube, it was posted only a year ago. So the creator doesn't even have the passage of time as an excuse.

There's a reason that the mods delete videos like this that come from sources that can offer no proof of their crediblity.

I hope the mods don't delete this one since it's typical of the kind of junk that ACC denialists get their info from.

 

Edited January 11 by placeholder

[CharlieKo]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The earth has not warmed up because of 8 billion people's body temp. It does not stink because they all fart either.

 

Wait till they come up with a fart tax! It's coming!

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

how can you so blatantly ignore what i said then go onto rant. troll move. i literally said not to compare. then went to post an informative video about lithium. seems you don't like i posted a video with some information. strange to be honest.  

 

assemble !!

So why did you rule out making a comparison? Is less harmful not a crucial point?

[stoner]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's not my fault if the written word poses challenges for you.

 

now you are onto personal insults ? smh.

[placeholder]

Just now, stoner said:

 

now you are onto personal insults ? smh.

I apologize for what you construe to be an insult. I'm particularly repentant because you're using it to point out the massive deficiencies of the video you posted. Got any specific defenses for its failures?

[stoner]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I apologize for what you construe to be an insult. I'm particularly repentant because you're using it to point out the massive deficiencies of the video you posted. Got any specific defenses for its failures?

 

i apoligize but i don't. double smh. 

 

 

[candide]

9 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Not that much? What do you think drove the increase in hydrocarbon usage - therefore emissions?

 

I was talking about the world from 1950, not individual regions. 

 

And China - low population growth? Are you kidding? Below chart from your own source - more than doubled from 1950 - 2000!

 Ooops!

 

 

Ooops!

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

i apoligize but i don't. double smh. 

 

 

Still evading the issue of the cr#ppiness of the video you posted.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, 300sd said:

One wonders if the scientists employed by government follow the science or the narrative. 

Another conspiracy theorist. I bet you've had a lot of theorizing practice.

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Another conspiracy theorist. I bet you've had a lot of theorizing practice.

 

What else could be the genesis of conspiracy theories?

[Robert Paulson]

It’s so hot and the glaciers are obviously melting at unprecedented rates and yet in hua hin the high tide comes to the exact same spot as it always did

[placeholder]

37 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

i apoligize but i don't. double smh. 

 

 

Allow me to explain. When people like you make these posts, you don't even provide any evidence that you've bothered to view it. After all, you extracted 0 talking points from the video. In fact, given the video narrators bizarre praise of Elon Musk/Tesla in how it sources and uses lithium, I'd be surprised if you did actually view the whole thing. But what using videos does allow you to do is require exorbitant amounts of time be spent viewing and extracting the points raised. In the future, if you want a reply to the video, extract the points yourself. Show that you've put in the work and time that you expect from others. 

[stoner]

32 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Allow me to explain. When people like you make these posts, you don't even provide any evidence that you've bothered to view it. After all, you extracted 0 talking points from the video. In fact, given the video narrators bizarre praise of Elon Musk/Tesla in how it sources and uses lithium, I'd be surprised if you did actually view the whole thing. But what using videos does allow you to do is require exorbitant amounts of time be spent viewing and extracting the points raised. In the future, if you want a reply to the video, extract the points yourself. Show that you've put in the work and time that you expect from others. 

 

again with assumptions and accusations. please stop trolling it's weird now.  

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

again with assumptions and accusations. please stop trolling it's weird now.  

I see you're still offering no defense for the contents of that highly deficient video you posted.

[Adumbration]

18 hours ago, sirineou said:

It is not entirely their fault. 

There are vested interests  with deep pockets and  a concerted effort to manufacture consent. 

to delay implementation of clean energy policies.The global fossil fuels market size was valued at USD 7.2 trillion in 2022 and is expected to reach around USD 11.78 trillion by 2032. Every years that they delay it is additional trillions in profit. We have seen similar efforts with the tobacco industry in the past.

Interesting Book and documentary by Noam Chomsky  if you are interested  " Manufacturing Consent" and fow special interests muddy the waters and influence a segment of the population to buy their narrative.

 

 

 

Nim Chimpsky was more entertaining.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

The earth has not warmed up because of 8 billion people's body temp. It does not stink because they all fart either.

 

We all fart, even if some do not admit it. Methane is a GG which produces far more warming than CO2,

 

So, think about the consequences next time you're about to let one rip!

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

Is that the same China that's spending. waaaay more money as a % of GDP than any other on moving to renewables?

 

If that is true do you really think that's out of concern for the planet? 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

We all fart, even if some do not admit it. Methane is a GG which produces far more warming than CO2,

 

So, think about the consequences next time you're about to let one rip!

 

Cattle rearing is the number one producer of methane gas emissions.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

If that is true do you really think that's out of concern for the planet? 

 

Irrelevant really isn't it what their motive is? It remains a fact that they are spending more than anybody. 

 

Do I think that Chinese think differently than any other race and are inscrutable in hiding their true motive which is really profit and market dominance?

 

Hell, no. But let's just suppose that was true for a moment. That would be an admission from a climate change denier that renewables are wildly profitable as a product. What happened to the years of bleating about not being able to afford renewable energy?

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, candide said:

Ooops!

 

There's an echo somewhere.