Endless Sphere

I understand the carbon cycle , but i also realise that the variations and errors in the measurement of those sources and sinks, is orders of magnitude greater than the suggested additios caused by human actions. Whilst you just seem to blindly accept as precise the figures regurgitated by alarmist...

Ahhh, good , i feel comforted now.! If the IPCC says it will happen , then it most likely wont ! They have a near perfect record for failed predictions. You do realise they are not a Scientific body, dont you? They are merely a group of political appointees set up by the UN in 1988 to find a soluti...

I have no idea what the gas price is in Central Texas. I started riding my bike (regular bike, not my ebike) to work most days. I filled my truck a month ago and it is still sitting near full. It could go to $10 a gallon for all I care. In the meantime, I've dropped 10 lbs and am in the best shape I...

Why would you be happy to let someone else decide when and if you can have heating or cooling ? Why can you not have power when ever you need it ? Why cannot they install sufficient capacity to cope with all demands....it has always been possible in the past ? I have had these type of thermostats f...

Gotta love that hillhater dude. Always with the negative vibes. While he is beating out the constant refrain of how it can't be done, we are here doing it. Closing 3 out of 4 coal plants (2 this year and one in 2030) and increasing renewables (almost entirely wind and solar) to 50 percent of the por...

Thought this might be of interest: links to two presentations by my local utility for how the energy portfolio will evolve from now until 2040 while striving to meet emission reduction goals. CPS Energy is municipally owned and services the 7th largest city in the USA and most of the surrounding sub...

Where are you getting this graph of HADCrut data from, because it is not correct. The real data shows no "hiatus." See for yourself here: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html The data is original Hadcrut... so i assume correct, and if you cannot see the change in the trend,...

Hillhater wrote: ↑

May 14, 2018 11:14 pm

Where are you getting this graph of HADCrut data from, because it is not correct. The real data shows no "hiatus."
See for yourself here: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/had ... stics.html

So you do acknowledge that an EXTRA increase in surface temperature CAUSES a corresponding EXTRA increase in CO2 emissions ? And if "EXTRA" temperature increase, results in EXTRA CO2, ....is it not possible that the recorded recent "baseline" increase in surface temperatures might just be a cause o...

^^^ still having problems with reading comprehension ?? Or simply refusing to accept any facts that do not fit with your preconcieved views ? Don't be daft. That article you linked is about why the rise in CO2 levels in the air seemed to accelerate, despite the rate of human emissions being relativ...

Hillhater wrote: ↑

May 11, 2018 1:58 am

....but the cause and source of the increase is still very much in debate, as are its possible consequences.

No, it isn't under debate. Period. End of story.

I also understand that its human nature to accept and support those results which best fit your pre established beliefs and im happy for you to go with your commitments... .....but please do not expect me to swallow unproven, disputed, theories as established science. Some of us wish to keep an ope...

I guess i have to repeat myself again... The problem with "gross", and "net" , in the climate debate is there is no accurate data for any of these figures. We know with very great accuracy how much petroleum, coal, and natural gas is produced and burned every year. This is the NEW CO2 that is being...

Beastie also doesn't seem to understand the difference between fossil CO2 and the closed-cycle CO2 from animal/human respiration and why that difference is important. I couldn't make it past the first paragraph of his incoherent manifesto without finding several errors of fact and illogical conclusi...

Its hard to reason with anyone wjho is convinced that 30bnT is more relavent than likely variation (+_ 10-??% variation). in the "estimated" 750 bnT of natural emissions Theorys, models, predictions, peer reviewed papers, ....all very unconvincing ! Your claim of 750bn tons of natural emissions is ...

Seriously my denier friends, it all boils down to this: Show me your model. If you believe it's possible to emit over 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 each year without raising global temperatures, then show me a plausible physics-based model that explains how that is possible. To date, nobody has been...

sendler2112 wrote: ↑

May 01, 2018 11:39 am

You can't get mad at people for being skeptical when denier sites keep showing this image.
.

Yes I can get mad so long as those denier sites show that graphic without also showing a plot of what solar activity was doing during that time.

Seriously, hillhater? Do you just make this stuff up or cut and paste from the denier sites? Because nothing you just wrote is even close to the truth. I explained all this to you before in great detail but you choose ignorance. I'm done explaining things to you.

So the rapid increase in CO2 concentration co-occurring with the industrial revolution is purely coincidental? And coincidental with the increase in global temperature also ..which has been shown to preceed the increase in CO2 ! CO2 lags temperature when the temperature change is being caused by or...

$16.5 Trillion? So, for about the same amount wasted on failed wars for the last 16 years, we could have a reliable, renewable, carbon free energy grid? I'll vote for that. Where do I sign up?

So now you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - No !,....you need to check your reading comprehension ! :roll: What i am saying is, It may be but, (A) .. there is no scientific proof of its effect ....All we have is theorys and predicdictions (B). .. Even if there is some effect, on a global scale,...

Wow. Just wow. The ignorance is strong with this one. So strong it has to be willful. Now he's trying to say that calculations are theories? Don't waste your time with this guy.

For what it's worth and contrary to an uninformed comment above, the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is not a theory. It is an observation. It is measurable. It is a fact. Similarly, the LAWS of thermodynamics are not the theories of thermodynamics. The known greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide ...

Check out this video about a floating offshore wind turbine project in Scottland. The turbines are 6 MW each and huge! Supposedly has been consistently producing at over 60% of rated capacity. Some serious heavy lift operations going on in the video. Not sure how the cost compares to a coal or gas p...

I found this analysis relevant to the discussion: The authors analyzed 36 years of hourly weather data (1980–2015) in the US. They calculated the available wind and solar power over this time period and also included the electrical demand in the US and its variation throughout the year. With this in...