Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9937
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 03 2019 4:22am

furcifer wrote:
Jul 02 2019 11:59pm
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 02 2019 11:25pm
Sure, but you failed to register the word “significant” fossil fuel related CO2.
There's no significant increase in CO2 either. The increase is directly proportional to human use of fossil fuels.
What ?.. you agree that there was no significant fossil based CO2 prior to 1850 ??
Oh ?, but, you also think that the 10ppm increase between 1750 and 1850 is not significant ?
..even though that accounts for 8% of the entire increase in CO2 to date ! :shock:
But its not just the amount that is significant ,..its the fact that there is clearly a trend of increasing CO2 levels starting before any SIGNIFICANT Fossil based CO2 is present
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 02 2019 11:25pm
And you obviously missed my previous post where i pointed out that the FFCO2 in 1800 amounted to 0.0003 % of all CO2 emissions at that time..
I know a fair bit about concrete. And cement. .
OK then ....explain how the use of “concrete” prior to 1825 could have produce any SIGNIFICANT CO2 ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9937
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 03 2019 4:35am

furcifer wrote:
Jul 03 2019 12:11am
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 02 2019 11:34pm
PS..have you found ANY papers yet with PROOF that all CO2 increase is due to human activity ??
Since almost all of them do the onus is on you to produce one to the contrary ...
As i keep telling you NONE OF THE INFORMATION you have “copy/pasted” gives any proof.
Which is not surprising since i told you at the start..THERE IS NO PROOF TO FIND
Amoungst the many things you have avoided answering, i asked you to post a single paragraph from any source that you believe contains solid proof that the increase in CO2 levels is ALL due to human activities.
That should be easy for someone so well informed and smart as you believe you are.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 6:55am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 4:22am
What ?.. you agree that there was no significant fossil based CO2 prior to 1850 ??
Oh ?, but, you also think that the 10ppm increase between 1750 and 1850 is not significant ?
Image


With what single graph are you trying to reverse the worldwide consensus?
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 4:22am
..even though that accounts for 8% of the entire increase in CO2 to date ! :shock:
But its not just the amount that is significant ,..its the fact that there is clearly a trend of increasing CO2 levels starting before any SIGNIFICANT Fossil based CO2 is present
No it isn't. This is how anyone can tell you don't know anything about science and can't even interpret data in a graph. It's the RATE OF INCREASE. The slope.

Right not the increase in anthropogenic CO2 is 20 times faster than any CO2 has risen AT ANY POINT in history. EVER.

The rate of increase you're talking about from 1750-1850 might have been part of the natural variation, even though it did coincide with humans starting to burn fossil fuels. If that's the point you're trying to make then, yes.

But the current rate, especially in the last few decades is completely, irrefutably, UNNATURAL.

Catering to morons over the last 20 years they've tried to look back even further. Just in case we are in some weird, natural cycle of CO2 increase. There have been periods of extremely high CO2 (determined by proxies, which you have decided in your uneducated fever to reject, except when it supports your narrative. Regardless, I agree with them)

But all of these changes happened over 1000 years, not 100 or 50. Even with the error in levels, the rate of change, which isn't determined by proxies but empirical scientific evidence, isn't.

Even with all of this, the change due to humans isn't 100% certain. It never can be, it's statistically impossible. Right now the likelihood is over 95%.

This is what the science HAS PROVEN. With a 95% certainty, anthropogenic CO2, the stuff from fossil fuels, is responsible for all of the observed changes, consistent with AGW theory.

What don't you get about all of this? It's not overly technical. AGW "theory" as you say is being proven, with tons of science, every single day. It's not being shown false. The certainty has only continued to increase. The only reason they continue to press for evidence is because of the PROPAGANDA you spout. It all comes from ignorant paid shills that know nothing. As you've clearly displayed here, it's completely uneducated disinformation.

It's good to have a cause, but you're fighting for stupid. Take a look around, if you're the smartest person in the room it's time to change rooms. Clearly, it's time for me to change rooms.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 7:20am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 4:35am
As i keep telling you NONE OF THE INFORMATION you have “copy/pasted” gives any proof.
Which is not surprising since i told you at the start..THERE IS NO PROOF TO FIND
Amoungst the many things you have avoided answering, i asked you to post a single paragraph from any source that you believe contains solid proof that the increase in CO2 levels is ALL due to human activities.
That should be easy for someone so well informed and smart as you believe you are.
Nonsense.

You don't understand how science works.

There's no single piece of evidence that proves it. It's the entire body of evidence supporting the theory that produces a confidence interval.

Since science doesn't work the way YOU think it does, the IPCC was formed to interpret the body of evidence and come to specific conclusions.

SO please, stop lying. If you've heard of the IPCC and read any of the reports, YOU ARE FULLY AWARE OF WHAT THE ANSWER IS TO YOUR QUESTION.

It's so disingenuous and obvious. People that can't formulate an answer on their own ask for clarification. An entire international body is formed to specifically to answer their question. When it does, and you don't like the answer, now you're suddenly experts on how science is conducted. Now you have an answer. All of the studies conducted on the climate, the good, the bad, the indifferent, and the ugly, show with 95% certainty the current rise is due to humans burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, eating beef and building concrete jungles and the like.

That's a fact bro. This amateur hour hand waving just doesn't cut it any more. And why would it. Over the past 20 years this baby was put to rest. Every single argument you've made is dumb shit taken from other idiots 20 years ago that has been shown false. Trust me, I know, I made some of them in the past. I'm just smart enough to know what is, and what isn't reliable scientific evidence.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9937
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 03 2019 8:47am

You just dont get it do you .
Unless you can PROVE WITH 100% CERTAINTY that all the CO2 increase is due to human activity,...then EVERYTHING ELSE that flow on from it (and you think is a fact), becomes just lies.
I started to reply again, .....but realised its a waste of time..
Your blind faith in AGW theory, the IPCC dictates, and associated propoganda, prevents you even considering the possibility that there could be some other factors involved.
You are irrational, your posts illogical and disconnected, even contradictory at times.
You need help.
I suspect rehab might be a good start.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 9:22am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 8:47am
Unless you can PROVE WITH 100% CERTAINTY that all the CO2 increase is due to human activity,...then EVERYTHING ELSE that flow on from it (and you think is a fact), becomes just lies.
Not even close. You don't know anything about science. Anyone claiming to have, or asking for 100% proof is an idiot.

You claim to know scientists, then you should ask them. They will tell you this is such a ridiculous premise.

You literally have no clue or you would realize this. The fact that we're at 95% confidence, or within 1 standard deviation is more than sufficient. And you would understand what it takes to move from 1 std to 2 or 3. FFS dude, do you have any idea what it takes to prove a fair coin toss is 50/50 with this amount of certainty? Mathematically we can derive an anylytical solution, we know this is true, but there's no scientific proof on this planet that exists in terms of what you think is proof. And certainly not 100%. Regardless of this hole in the theory, a fair coin toss is 50/50.

Really, you need to stop talking and listen. With every single post you've showed a lack of a basic understanding of science. I'm quite sure you've been told this repeatedly by various random people. At this point, it's about the only thing approaching 100% certainty.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 9:34am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 8:47am
Your blind faith in AGW theory, the IPCC dictates, and associated propoganda, prevents you even considering the possibility that there could be some other factors involved.
Nope wrong again. I've explained this to you. Are you reading for comprehension?

It's not blind faith. GHG effect has been known for over 100 years. It's a scientific fact, several gases in the atmosphere trap more heat than they let out. There's absolutely no question. The math, the data and empirical evidence all confirm this.

Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 and O2. Scientific fact. Confirmed theoretically and verified experimentally. Scientific fact. (actually it's more a stoiciometric law than a fact, but whatever)

Humans burn fossil fuels. Scientific fact. I have PROOF!

This is AGW theory. Again, you don't seem to know what is science and what is faith. Complete lack of comprehension. And yes, this is verging on a scientific fact at this point.

It's really fascinating to watch someone fail again and again. The tenacity to stupidity is breathtaking. :mrgreen:

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 774
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Jul 03 2019 10:00am

furcifer wrote:
Jul 03 2019 6:55am

Even with all of this, the change due to humans isn't 100% certain. It never can be, it's statistically impossible. Right now the likelihood is over 95%.

This is what the science HAS PROVEN. With a 95% certainty, anthropogenic CO2, the stuff from fossil fuels, is responsible for all of the observed changes, consistent with AGW theory.
Gotta disagree with you here furcifer. It is virtually 100% certain that the rising rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human fossil fuel emissions. There are very accurate records of global oil, gas, and coal production and use. It is known with certainty that burning these fuels produces CO2 and the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere each year can be accurately calculated. The rise in global CO2 concentration can also be accurately measured at monitoring sites all over the globe. Similary, we can measure the increase in CO2 concentration in the oceans. A simple mass balance of how much CO2 increases in the air and oceans each year is consistent with the amount of fuel that is burned each year. Similarly, the CO2 from fossil fuels is isotopically dead (no C-14 isotopes) and isotopic analyses of atmospheric CO2 shows that the new CO2 being added is also isotopically dead. There can be no other explanation other than that the increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 content is a direct result of the more than 30 billion tons of it that we pull out of the ground and pump into the atmosphere every year.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 10:41am

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 03 2019 10:00am


Gotta disagree with you here furcifer. It is virtually 100% certain that the rising rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human fossil fuel emissions. There are very accurate records of global oil, gas, and coal production and use. It is known with certainty that burning these fuels produces CO2 and the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere each year can be accurately calculated. The rise in global CO2 concentration can also be accurately measured at monitoring sites all over the globe. Similary, we can measure the increase in CO2 concentration in the oceans. A simple mass balance of how much CO2 increases in the air and oceans each year is consistent with the amount of fuel that is burned each year. Similarly, the CO2 from fossil fuels is isotopically dead (no C-14 isotopes) and isotopic analyses of atmospheric CO2 shows that the new CO2 being added is also isotopically dead. There can be no other explanation other than that the increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 content is a direct result of the more than 30 billion tons of it that we pull out of the ground and pump into the atmosphere every year.
Because there have been natural variations similar to what we are seeing now, no scientist is going to make an unequivocal claim to this effect. It's just not responsible science.

eta: the fact that we are talking about small percentage increases in the total carbon cycle also makes it difficult to make things more certain. That's about the only point I think hillhater has made that's remotely correct. He's just clueless to what extent this has on the overall certainty.

The implications of this are kinda cool. This leaves it open to the possibility that some future society, time traveled back to about 100 000 years ago and just wrecked the environment for 1000 years, then disappeared off the face of the planet leaving no traces. Maybe they traveled to Mars and wrecked Mars. You just can't take these possibilities off the table. :mrgreen:

The certainty is so high, and the alternative possibilities so ridiculous, we can say in the practical sense it's 100%, but we just don't do this in science. The burden of proof on making a claim of 100% is so much higher. Even if we sent 100 000 scientists back in time to measure the CO2 concentrations for the last 100 000 years, the 0.1% error inherent in measuring devices would take from the 100%.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2763
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 03 2019 11:29am

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 03 2019 10:00am
furcifer wrote:
Jul 03 2019 6:55am

Even with all of this, the change due to humans isn't 100% certain. It never can be, it's statistically impossible. Right now the likelihood is over 95%.

This is what the science HAS PROVEN. With a 95% certainty, anthropogenic CO2, the stuff from fossil fuels, is responsible for all of the observed changes, consistent with AGW theory.
Gotta disagree with you here furcifer. It is virtually 100% certain that the rising rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human fossil fuel emissions.
Agreed. Let's call it 99.99%.

However, that CO2 has caused _all_ the observed changes is closer to 95%. For example - warmer average temperatures? Absolutely. 99.99%, because we understand the greenhouse effect, and have observed rising surface temps and dropping upper atmosphere temps, all consistent with heat retention by CO2. Ocean acidification? Also yes; that's simple chemistry. Worse droughts, more heat-related deaths, faster melting of polar ice - all those things we are very confident in.

But stronger hurricanes? There are links between ocean and air temperatures and hurricanes, but there are so many other factors involved that it's harder to say with anywhere close to 99.99% certainty. Call that one 75% certainty. There are other predictions that have similar levels of certainty.

So on average let's say 95% certainty that CO2 is responsible for all the changes we are seeing. You can choose another number if you like - but the farther you get from direct effects of Co2 and heat, the less certainty there is.
--bill von

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 11:43am

With the goal posts shifting all the time it's hard to stay on point.

I honestly don't know what the error is or how it's factored into the overall picture. I would say billvon's estimate is as good as any. I think it's important to note that even within these errors, it's not some 0% understanding. This is where people seem to get confused. Even knowing 75% of how a mechanism works doesn't make it invalid. It just makes it unreliable for long term projections.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9937
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 03 2019 6:14pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 03 2019 10:00am
There are very accurate records of global oil, gas, and coal production and use. It is known with certainty that burning these fuels produces CO2 and the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere each year can be accurately calculated. The rise in global CO2 concentration can also be accurately measured at monitoring sites all over the globe. Similary, we can measure the increase in CO2 concentration in the oceans. A simple mass balance of how much CO2 increases in the air and oceans each year is consistent with the amount of fuel that is burned each year.........

You cannot do a “simple mass balance” unless you know ALL the sources and sinks to some degree of accuracy.
Every time this is mentioned you ignore the biggest factors in that system, the natural sources and sinks of the biosphere, which are not known to any reasonable degree of accuracy, have high variability, and outweigh anthropogenic CO2 emissions by a factor of 20
......Similarly, the CO2 from fossil fuels is isotopically dead (no C-14 isotopes) and isotopic analyses of atmospheric CO2 shows that the new CO2 being added is also isotopically dead.
...and that same isotopic analysis indicates that the “isotopically dead” portion of atmospheric CO2 is less than 5%
.....not the 40% that the IPCC predictions suggested ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 6:41pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 6:14pm
Every time this is mentioned you ignore the biggest factors in that system, the natural sources and sinks of the biosphere, which are not known to any reasonable degree of accuracy, have high variability,
lol, wrong again. The forcing datasets for C14 and C13 are consistent, devating by 2% over multiple sources.

Image

Yep, a lot of varibaility in that graph.


2% is actually very accurate and reasonable. Although the poor bastards are shooting for 1%

liar.
Last edited by furcifer on Jul 03 2019 6:57pm, edited 1 time in total.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 6:54pm

The real problem is humans create so much gull darned CO2 it makes it very difficult to get an accurate measurement. Scientists need multiple remote locations that aren't swamped by the constant flux of anthropogenic CO2. Land based measurements are almost impossible. In order to do this research scientists need to go to remote islands in the Pacific.

Taking a reading anywhere in the continental US would make your head explode.

But yah, nothing to see here. It's all a perfectly normal part of nature. :mrgreen:

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3545
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 03 2019 7:29pm

Check out this:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/c ... thographic
You can select various chemicals and you can see where they are pluming from.

Unsurprisingly, where there are cities and industry which burns stuff, you can see plumes of SO2 and CO2.

Right now, the northern forests show the lowest amounts of CO2 as they are busy photosynthesising.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9937
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 03 2019 8:48pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 03 2019 6:41pm
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 6:14pm
Every time this is mentioned you ignore the biggest factors in that system, the natural sources and sinks of the biosphere, which are not known to any reasonable degree of accuracy, have high variability,
lol, wrong again. The forcing datasets for C14 and C13 are consistent, devating by 2% over multiple sources.

Image
Nice graphs... but do you know what they actually mean in terms of % fossil derived CO2 in the atmosphere ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9937
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 03 2019 8:54pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 03 2019 6:54pm
The real problem is humans create so much gull darned CO2 it makes it very difficult to get an accurate measurement. Scientists need multiple remote locations that aren't swamped by the constant flux of anthropogenic CO2. Land based measurements are almost impossible. In order to do this research scientists need to go to remote islands in the Pacific.
Taking a reading anywhere in the continental US would make your head explode.
.. you just confirmed my point. :shock: :wink:
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 6:14pm
.......the natural sources and sinks of the biosphere, which are not known to any reasonable degree of accuracy, have high variability,
And because they total many times the scale of Fossil sources (20:1), attempting a “simple mass balance” is a waste of time. At best its a crude estimate, at worst , a guess !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 9:20pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 8:48pm
Nice graphs... but do you know what they actually mean in terms of % fossil derived CO2 in the atmosphere ?
Yes. They are anthropogenic CO2. ANTHROPOGENIC.

You do know what that is right?

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9937
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 03 2019 9:33pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 03 2019 9:20pm
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 8:48pm
Nice graphs... but do you know what they actually mean in terms of % fossil derived CO2 in the atmosphere ?
Yes. They are anthropogenic CO2. ANTHROPOGENIC.

You do know what that is right?
:roll: :roll: Change your glasses, open your eyes, engauge your brain....
Then read the freekin question again !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 9:36pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 8:54pm
.. you just confirmed my point. :shock: :wink:
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 6:14pm
.......the natural sources and sinks of the biosphere, which are not known to any reasonable degree of accuracy, have high variability,
And because they total many times the scale of Fossil sources (20:1), attempting a “simple mass balance” is a waste of time. At best its a crude estimate, at worst , a guess !
lol, your hilarious. You don't read for comprehension. It's the exact opposite, it refutes your stupid statements.

Measurements are taken away far from any sinks or anthropogenic sources that may disrupt readings and give false positive indications when calculating the relative concentration of isotopes.

You see, science works by eliminating unknowns. IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE YOU THINK IT DOES.

All your spouting is total nonsense. I'm not sure where you get it from, but it's complete junk. It's old school denier crap "Oh we don't know, oh we can't know, it's all a mystery".

It's not true anymore. Everything you've posted in this thread is garbage from the late 90's and early 2000. You've been told this. Climate science only deals with anthropogenic CO2 now. While you've been handwaving over this dead horse for 20 years everyone bought a Tesla. :mrgreen:

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 9:40pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 9:33pm
furcifer wrote:
Jul 03 2019 9:20pm
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 03 2019 8:48pm
Nice graphs... but do you know what they actually mean in terms of % fossil derived CO2 in the atmosphere ?
Yes. They are anthropogenic CO2. ANTHROPOGENIC.

You do know what that is right?
:roll: :roll: Change your glasses, open your eyes, engauge your brain....
Then read the freekin question again !
Man you are dense. IT'S ANTHROPOGENIC CO2. THAT MEANS ALL OF IT.

You have no idea what anthropogenic means do you?

It's not natural, it's not part of the carbon cycle. IT'S ANTHROPOGENIC.

It's the A in AGW.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 552
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 03 2019 9:45pm

"So how much of this anthropogenic CO2 do we actually know is from humans?"

"All of it"

"Yah, but how do we know that?"

:shock:

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9937
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 03 2019 10:48pm

You should take some time to re read your posts ..when you are sober/ return to planet earth/back on your meds.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2763
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 03 2019 10:49pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 03 2019 9:45pm
"So how much of this anthropogenic CO2 do we actually know is from humans?"
"All of it"
"Yah, but how do we know that?"
I know! It's like manmade diamonds. How do we know whether they are natural or artificial? We don't! There's NO CONSENSUS!
--bill von

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3545
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 03 2019 11:00pm

http://cmore.soest.hawaii.edu/summercou ... i_2000.pdf

Have a read of this, and don't post anything until you've read it all. Take your time.

Post Reply