22 hours ago, Taboo2 said:

This is summer right?  It does get hot as far as I can tell since day 1 on this planet.  What was the excuse hundreds of years before humans started taking temperatures? 

 

Please move on....there is nothing we can do about the heat during the Summer season, except stay cool and get on with life.

 

Stop blaming everything on Climate Change, which is pure BS.

So you know more about climate change than 95% of scientists.  Are you proud you posted this? Is this sarcasm or abject arrogant stupidity? "please move on"    move on to where another planet?      

 

13 hours ago, digger70 said:

The scientist say whatever what the people who Pay there research what they want them to say.

and who pays the earth to heat up more each year than the year before?

17 hours ago, sidneybear said:

That's a woke dictionary. It's obvious were the term denier originated, and the definition is incomplete. 

" a woke dictionary"              

23 hours ago, sidneybear said:

Correct. All this climate change alarmism is just a hoax to disguise the promotion of an industry that makes silly windmills and things like that. 

 

Thailand is just having a hot summer. 

Yes the windmill industry dwarfs the fossil fuel industry   in terms of capital and political clout. You know the industry that you are spouting their BS.

22 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

The largest solar farms in the US are located in the southwestern deserts.  What do you think happens to the heat from the sun that strikes the barren desert ground?

 

Your logic is so flawed that it can't even be called merely wrong!

Where there are no panels the heat gets absorbed into the ground unlike a solar farm area where the heat is reflected back into the atmosphere, its not rocket science but logical! I believe the current temperatures are just a natural cycle and global warming due to carbon emissions is just another world scam! 

Propaganda , scare tactics being used on the population !

The globalist got it wrong by naming it Global warming years ago and made it all encompassing , Climate Change!

My resident expert is totally convinced 

Of the  Climate Crisis !

 

Sad

 

On 5/3/2024 at 7:28 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

 

I did NOT say "main", I said "stronger".

 

Water vapor is not the strongest greenhouse gas, which is why I did not say this.

 

Methane, per molecule, might be considered a stronger greenhouse gas.

 

And, there are other greenhouse gasses which persist a long time in the atmosphere and have far more potential to cause global warming.

 

 

 

It's always best to not just parrot some statement read on the internet without first understanding the CONTEXT.

 

 

Water vapour IS the MAIN greenhouse  gas and, Mr parrot,  I never said it was the strongest did I, I said THE MAIN youre  so full of your own endless twaddle.................go write a  post about how the colour  lilac makes you weep or some other useless twaddle.

Edited May 4, 20242 yr by Rampant Rabbit

5 hours ago, charleskerins said:

So you know more about climate change than 95% of scientists.  Are you proud you posted this? Is this sarcasm or abject arrogant stupidity? "please move on"    move on to where another planet?      

 

you could argue the same for the luminiferous aether 

Several iterations of the experiment disproved the luminiferous aether theory. The scientific community only accepted that it did not exist in 1905 when Albert Einstein published his special theory of relativity. He proved that the speed of light is constant. Therefore, there was no luminiferous aether.

Edited May 4, 20242 yr by metisdead
Odd formatting reset to normal.

2 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

you could argue the same for the luminiferous aether 

Several iterations of the experiment disproved the luminiferous aether theory. The scientific community only accepted that it did not exist in 1905 when Albert Einstein published his special theory of relativity. He proved that the speed of light is constant. Therefore, there was no luminiferous aether.

 

Wait:

 

The speed of light is considered to be A constant.

But, the speed of light is not constant in all cases, such as when it travels from one medium into another, for example from a complete vacuum into a liquid, or, say, a glass fiber (fibre).

 

Capisce?

 

 

2 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

you could argue the same for the luminiferous aether 

Several iterations of the experiment disproved the luminiferous aether theory. The scientific community only accepted that it did not exist in 1905 when Albert Einstein published his special theory of relativity. He proved that the speed of light is constant. Therefore, there was no luminiferous aether.

The thing is, Einstein's theory disproved the existence of the luminiferous aether.

Whereas the denialists have repeatedly been proved wrong in their predictions that the climate was going to cool down in the early part of the 21st century. They are actually comparable to the scientists who disbelieved in Einstein's work.

39 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Wait:

 

The speed of light is considered to be A constant.

But, the speed of light is not constant in all cases, such as when it travels from one medium into another, for example from a complete vacuum into a liquid, or, say, a glass fiber (fibre).

 

Capisce?

 

 

duh oh no you mean when its not in a vacuum .............. yer dont say, who wouldve thunk it eh

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The thing is, Einstein's theory disproved the existence of the luminiferous aether.

Whereas the denialists have repeatedly been proved wrong in their predictions that the climate was going to cool down in the early part of the 21st century. They are actually comparable to the scientists who disbelieved in Einstein's work.

yes but who knows if someone comes  along and  disproves global warming due to man etc, we think were smart but in a  100 years we'll  look pretty stupid no doubt

6 minutes ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

duh oh no you mean when its not in a vacuum .............. yer dont say, who wouldve thunk it eh

 

Yes.

That is what I meant.

Saying what one means makes sense, when one has any sense, that is.

 

3 hours ago, charleskerins said:

and who pays the earth to heat up more each year than the year before?

No one has to pay for that.One gets that for Free from the Natural Phenomenon.

5 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Well I never....

Of course you don't.

14 hours ago, kwilco said:

seriously - how dumb can you be? So how do you get your scientific information?

I could say how smart  are you (not ) to not see true their scare mongering  greedy money grabbing tricks.

On 5/3/2024 at 4:02 AM, webfact said:

These weather events have offered a stark glimpse into the potential impacts of climate change on the country. 

BS!

Hot weather for a couple of days has little to nothing to do with climate change.

If there are a few colder as usual days we also don't read the next ice age is approaching fast.

 

 

24 minutes ago, digger70 said:

I could say how smart  are you (not ) to not see true their scare mongering  greedy money grabbing tricks.

QED

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

While you are busily engaged with your research, I though I might share this with you.

 

 

You didn't answer my question. If renewable energy is so cheap and available, why are consumer energy costs skyrocketing? 

 

And a follow on question, how will batteries provide sufficient base load when there's no wind?

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Rich people can afford renewable power sources and battery storage. The average person can't.

That's the crux of the problem. Lefty Nut Zero politics and so called unreliable "renewables" (which need back up base load or expensive and polluting batteries) are inflicting poverty onto average people. 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

Right., It's a case of Big Green showering them with cash while the bullied and impoverished teensy fossil fuel interests, unable to compete for the favor of the major financial institutions, cower helplessly. So sad.

That's the direction it's heading, yes. Investment funds are divesting fossil fuel assets to satisfy the green creed. Larry Fink was well known for shareholder activism, insisting that ESG was an integral part of board decisions in exchange for shareholder cash. 

3 hours ago, paul1804 said:

Where there are no panels the heat gets absorbed into the ground unlike a solar farm area where the heat is reflected back into the atmosphere, its not rocket science but logical! I believe the current temperatures are just a natural cycle and global warming due to carbon emissions is just another world scam! 

A scam by the fossil fuel industry.

3 hours ago, paul1804 said:

Where there are no panels the heat gets absorbed into the ground unlike a solar farm area where the heat is reflected back into the atmosphere, its not rocket science but logical! I believe the current temperatures are just a natural cycle and global warming due to carbon emissions is just another world scam! 

Exactly. You "believe". Billions of people "believe" there is a God, despite having no physical evidence for such a being.

 

Global warming due to carbon emissions is replete with physical evidence. Scientists can easily demonstrate the carbon dioxide molecule absorbs radiation in the infra-red spectrum. There are food ovens and paint curing systems which rely on infra-red designs. They also have data which shows CO2 levels have gone from 280 ppm to 420 ppm in 200 years of industrialization.

 

Average ocean temperatures are rising. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at unprecedented rates. Glaciers in Greenland, Iceland and the Himalayas are disappearing. Polar bears are losing habitat in the Arctic. In the last decade, Australia has set new records for inland heat cells.

 

This is all undeniable physical evidence. What astonishes me is so many people with no scientific training seem to think they know better. Natural cycle my aching @!se.

23 hours ago, digger70 said:

The Scientists say whatever the people who pay their research want them to say.

i know several scientists. BS

6 hours ago, digger70 said:

No one has to pay for that.One gets that for Free from the Natural Phenomenon.

It's not natural....

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

BS!

Hot weather for a couple of days has little to nothing to do with climate change.

If there are a few colder as usual days we also don't read the next ice age is approaching fast.

 

 

But it's not just hot weather for a few days. It's a change never seen before.

6 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Yes.

That is what I meant.

Saying what one means makes sense, when one has any sense, that is.

 

t'was  sarcasm

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Exactly. You "believe". Billions of people "believe" there is a God, despite having no physical evidence for such a being.

 

Global warming due to carbon emissions is replete with physical evidence. Scientists can easily demonstrate the carbon dioxide molecule absorbs radiation in the infra-red spectrum. There are food ovens and paint curing systems which rely on infra-red designs. They also have data which shows CO2 levels have gone from 280 ppm to 420 ppm in 200 years of industrialization.

 

Average ocean temperatures are rising. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at unprecedented rates. Glaciers in Greenland, Iceland and the Himalayas are disappearing. Polar bears are losing habitat in the Arctic. In the last decade, Australia has set new records for inland heat cells.

 

This is all undeniable physical evidence. What astonishes me is so many people with no scientific training seem to think they know better. Natural cycle my aching @!se.

"What astonishes me is so many people with no scientific training seem to think they know better. "   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

2 hours ago, charleskerins said:

"What astonishes me is so many people with no scientific training seem to think they know better. "   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

When scientists and engineers come up with miracles of modern technology, such as passenger aircraft, PET scans, and smartphones, everyone applauds.

When they come up with unpopular information which indicates we are $h!tting in our own nest, many don't want to know.

21 hours ago, sidneybear said:

You didn't answer my question. If renewable energy is so cheap and available, why are consumer energy costs skyrocketing? 

 

And a follow on question, how will batteries provide sufficient base load when there's no wind?

To slightly modify an old proverb, you can lead a horse to evidence but you cannot make it think. I provided evidence with links concerning coal, gas, and nuclear energy. Coal and gas had huge spikes in prices not long ago and nuclear energy has had huge cost overruns. Do I really have to spell out for what that means for power rates?  In addition, maybe you should consider that fact that renewables, while dominating as a percentage of new power plants being built, are still a fraction of the world's total installed base.

As for how batteries will provide energy when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, if you actually are interested in learning something, here's a link to an article that explains an MIT report about getting to 100%.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

The report stipulates that the cost of a storage device should be about "$20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs"

The report projected that wouldn't happen until 2030 at the earliest. But, as has consistently been the case, battery technology has consistently outrun predictions:

 

Form Energy to begin manufacturing iron air batteries in Weirton to stabilize electrical grid

https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2024-02-19/weirton-form-energy-battery-manufacturing

 

Power when the sun doesn’t shine

https://dmse.mit.edu/news/power-when-the-sun-doesnt-shine/