Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Ianhill]

Simple plastic recycling plant uses as much energy as the average uk city, 80% of UK energy emits carbon so to recycle the atmosphere carry the debt, till we get clean fusion scale energy then our air is looking polluted.

Micro plastics are in the air in city's at high levels found in the aviola of our young lungs never mind the trees we have wrecked ourselfs, health issues on the rise really what is the fix and how long is the clean up ? Answers some form of clean fusion and long time to remove contaminants from the air and oceans let alone land fills.

 

[Punx0r]

Furcifer, you are banging your head against an already bloodied wall... He will not accept anything he cannot physically see/touch/hear/taste with his own senses. Anything beyond that is considered patent lies.

 

[billvon]

Here is a scientist who has a PhD in Ecological Climatology, worked for the IPCC, with core Nobel prize contributing work talking about global warming. . . .

It's really another example of why broadcast media has to die, these people just abuse it and brainwash people.

Well, you just posted a great example of that.

The upper atmosphere is going to cool as the planet warms. That's how global warming works. More heat is trapped below the atmosphere; the upper atmosphere gets cooler as a result. So balloons will show less warming at low altitudes, zero warming at mid altitudes and cooling at very high altitudes.

Again, this is proof global warming is happening.

A lot of the global warming folks said the Arctic would be "ice free" during the middle of the Arctic summer by now over 10 years ago.

The IPCC predicts an ice free arctic by 2050.

But the fact is its still a solid block of ice during the middle of summer and looks no different than decades ago.

September 1979 arctic ice: 17 cu km
September 2017 arctic ice: 5 cu km

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline#/media/File:Arctic-death-spiral.png

 

[furcifer]

Evolution is complicated. You can't see it at work in everyday life - you have to trust biologists. It is very hard to see how (to use Hoyle's expression) "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747." The rules of inheritance, dominant vs recessive alleles, meiosis, mutation, the HOX complex - these are things most people don't understand. So to most people who accept evolution, it's taken on "faith" that the expert that explains it knows what they are talking about.

That's also what makes it easy to deny. That 747 analogy is just the top of the list. So if you have a strong reason to deny it, there's no shortage of excuses to do so - and most people don't have a lot of already-known facts they have to somehow transform into not-facts.

True, but the fossil records are pretty extensive. We have predictions based on evolution that have been verified true like Tiktaalik. Even the randomness of mutation has been studied and under certain conditions can be predicted. The so called "missing link" has also been found. It's not as perfect a theory as gravity, but it takes a lot of denial to not see it.

 

[furcifer]

Furcifer, you are banging your head against an already bloodied wall... He will not accept anything he cannot physically see/touch/hear/taste with his own senses. Anything beyond that is considered patent lies.

Yep, 10-4 on that. I still do it because I figure at some point if they see enough of the same observations from different people they might notice a pattern. It also weakens their confidence to speak openly IRL because there's no repercussions from looking the fool on the internet, but when they hear the same arguments from someone they respect I find they tend to remain silent.

 

[billvon]

True, but the fossil records are pretty extensive. We have predictions based on evolution that have been verified true like Tiktaalik. Even the randomness of mutation has been studied and under certain conditions can be predicted. The so called "missing link" has also been found.

Well, not to many people - and for them it never will be. There will never be a smooth, unbroken record going back to single celled animals that shows the evolution of hominids.

It's not as perfect a theory as gravity, but it takes a lot of denial to not see it.

Or a lot of ignorance, intentional or otherwise. And unfortunately there is no shortage of that.

 

[furcifer]

Well, not to many people - and for them it never will be. There will never be a smooth, unbroken record going back to single celled animals that shows the evolution of hominids.

It's not as perfect a theory as gravity, but it takes a lot of denial to not see it.

Or a lot of ignorance, intentional or otherwise. And unfortunately there is no shortage of that.

It's funny because it's basically the same argument repeated over and over again "It's not precise enough!", whether it's the fossil record or climate change. At least the fossil record is tangible.

And to some extent I do believe that current models aren't precise enough. The science itself is sound, there's little doubt in that regard. And every year we get more and better data to feed into the models. It's just that we are dealing with such sensitive and chaotic systems. I'd prefer to wait until we have more reliable predictions, but I'm starting to believe it's not going to happen soon enough. We may just have to accept that we don't know what's going to happen, but we are relatively certain it's not good.

 

[Punx0r]

One thing manmade environmental disasters, like climate change, spreading of disease and invasive species, have done is reveal evolution can operate much more rapidly than previous thought - sometimes advantageous adaptations emerge in only a few generations. This may well be thanks to epigenetics, which almost brings us full circle back to Lamarckian evolution

The theory of gravity is also very much incomplete. Gravitational waves have only just, maybe, been proven. There is still nothing beyond speculation about how gravity operates on the quantum scale. Is there a graviton? How much matter is there in the observable universe? Who knows. Still, as incomplete as our theory of gravity is, it's completely adequate for the purposes of every aspect of our everyday lives. It's imperfect but good enough. Much like climate modeling...

 

[Punx0r]

It's funny because it's basically the same argument repeated over and over again "It's not precise enough!", whether it's the fossil record or climate change. At least the fossil record is tangible.

[youtube]UuIwthoLies[/youtube]

 

[Hillhater]

ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE ESTIMATES. ALL OF THEM!!!
It's really basic. As an example, an American football field is 360 feet long. If you measured every single football field in the US, they would all be the same.
Now get ready for this.
NONE OF THEM ARE THE SAME.
This probably confuses you since you don't understand science. It all depends on how precise we are with our measurements.

Why should i be “confused” that sports field are not all exactly the same dimensions ?
Unlike you i am not confused by the difference between measured data. , and calculated estimates.
...Or their relative error probabilities.
Now please stop playing amateur student debating games, and stick to the subject.
You are rambling, off topic, and still avoiding those basic questions..

What is the scientific evidence to prove increased CO2 is the result of human activity ?..
What is the scientific evidence to prove CO2 causes climate change ?..

. velocity or speed isn't theoretical. it's a physical and measurable property of a moving body. the skid marks are a direct result of a tire with zero relative velocity to the pavement applying a force, that is countered by the normal force due dynamic friction between the tire and the road. all you need is the weight of the car and the coefficient of friction between the tire and the road to determine the velocity. As I said before, we know it's an estimate. As an example it's going to be 75 mph +-2, or 0.2 or 0.0002 or 20! If it was the latter we might reject the calculation because it is of no use. Even the first one might be rejected depending on the circumstances.

So you agree...its an ESTIMATE !.....why ?....because it is not a direct measurement, its a THEORETICAL calculation based on indirect data and ASSUMES you have included ALL THE VARIABLES...which you didnt !

 

[billvon]

What is the scientific evidence to prove increased CO2 is the result of human activity ?..

1) Math. Calculate the total CO2 produced (pretty easy; multiply carbon content by weight by 2.66 to get CO2 weight.) Then subtract the expected takeup by the environment. Then look to see if the increase in CO2 percentage in the atmosphere matches the amount we are adding. And lo and behold - it does.

2) Isotope analysis. C12/C13 ratios in the atmosphere are pretty constant - unless you add ancient carbon by burning fossil fuels. Since fossil fuels come from ancient plants, and since plants take up C12 preferentially, you'd expect to see the C12 ratio grow. And we see it.

3) Oxygen levels. To make each Co2 molecule takes one O2 molecule. And we are burning a LOT of carbon. As a result the O2 content of the atmosphere is declining slightly - closely matching the amount we are using by burning fossil fuels.

4) Ocean Co2 concentrations. The concentration of CO2 in the oceans is increasing at a similar rate to the Co2 in the atmosphere. Therefore the ocean isn't the one supplying the new CO2.

What is the scientific evidence to prove CO2 causes climate change ?..

Co2 causes warming which is just one part of climate change. That is because it is a greenhouse gas. You can prove this to yourself with a glass tank, some CO2, an infrared lamp and a spectrometer or frequency sensitive pyranometer.

So you agree...its an ESTIMATE !.....why ?....because it is not a direct measurement, its a THEORETICAL calculation based on indirect data and ASSUMES you have included ALL THE VARIABLES...which you didnt !

Direct measurements ARE estimates.

 

[Hillhater]

.... We know that more CO2 will cause more heat,...

Really ?, do tell how you KNOW that bill .
Historic records show the opposite.

.....All that makes the degree of warming uncertain - which is why even later models have uncertainty bands. The good news is that the predictions made so far have been pretty accurate, which means that the models people have used are at least close to reality......

Rubbish. ! The (IPCC) “models” predicted much higher warming than has been recorded ( Data,..not alarmist news clip headlines )
More recent models have been “modified” to reflect the data they failed to predict, and “errorbands” added to disguise the borls up.
Noe so blind as those who will not see. !
97% of scientists agree !

 

[furcifer]

Why should i be “confused” that sports field are not all exactly the same dimensions ?
Unlike you i am not confused by the difference between measured data. , and calculated estimates.
...Or their relative error probabilities.

If that's the case then your posts don't do you justice. What you've posted is nonsense.

What is the scientific evidence to prove increased CO2 is the result of human activity ?..
What is the scientific evidence to prove CO2 causes climate change ?..

10 000 scientific studies and reports conducted in the last 30 years, as well as a signed affidavit by almost every single climate scientist on the planet. It's called "anthropogenic carbon dioxide". There's got to be 1000000 pages of data that's easily available. You can up your Googlefu by trying Google Scholar.

Unfortunately I don't think you understand them. I can barely understand them. It's probably easier to just read the IPCC reports. Although they also tend to be technical, they do make summary conclusions that anyone can understand.

There's 2 simple answers to your begging; anthropogenic CO2 and greenhouse gas effect. Both are known, measured, and verified. I can provide you with numerous reports in affirmation, but I also know full well you've been given them in the past.

How many papers and reports on the increase in CO2 due to human activity ie. fossil fuels, would it take to change your mind? Try to be honest. Also, it's only worth engaging you in this discussion if you are willing to accept the fact that you don't have the credentials, or the capacity to refute a single paper.

Give me a number.

 

[furcifer]

[youtube]UuIwthoLies[/youtube]

Oddly enough this is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that post.

Man I miss that show. "Let's go allredeeee!"

 

[furcifer]

So you agree...its an ESTIMATE !.....why ?....because it is not a direct measurement, its a THEORETICAL calculation based on indirect data and ASSUMES you have included ALL THE VARIABLES...which you didnt !

All direct measurements are estimates.

You don't need every single variable, just the ones that matter. That's science. What you're talking about is OCD.

I don't know if you'll understand this, but to extend the skid mark as a proxy analogy, the wind speed direction actually play a part in determining the velocity of the car by measuring the skid marks.

It's just not important. If you understood science and statistics, not including such minutia does not invalidate your "theoretical calculations.

And don't even get me started on weight! (inside joke, you won't get it)

 

[furcifer]

One thing manmade environmental disasters, like climate change, spreading of disease and invasive species, have done is reveal evolution can operate much more rapidly than previous thought - sometimes advantageous adaptations emerge in only a few generations. This may well be thanks to epigenetics, which almost brings us full circle back to Lamarckian evolution

The theory of gravity is also very much incomplete. Gravitational waves have only just, maybe, been proven. There is still nothing beyond speculation about how gravity operates on the quantum scale. Is there a graviton? How much matter is there in the observable universe? Who knows. Still, as incomplete as our theory of gravity is, it's completely adequate for the purposes of every aspect of our everyday lives. It's imperfect but good enough. Much like climate modeling...

+1 for a smart post in a sea of stupidity.

 

[furcifer]

[youtube]c6Kj17oVHAk[/youtube]

You don't make friends with solar!











(sorry. after the Futurama post I had to. It's a total troll on the PV guys, which I actually respect)

 

[Hillhater]

What is the scientific evidence to prove increased CO2 is the result of human activity ?..

1) Math. Calculate the total CO2 produced (pretty easy; multiply carbon content by weight by 2.66 to get CO2 weight.) Then subtract the expected takeup by the environment. Then look to see if the increase in CO2 percentage in the atmosphere matches the amount we are adding. And lo and behold - it does....

holy cow bill !
Do you really think that is scientific evidence ?
Im begining to see a trend here with alarmists. you all appear to have a problem differentiating between proof and correlation !

2) Isotope analysis. C12/C13 ratios in the atmosphere are pretty constant - unless you add ancient carbon by burning fossil fuels. Since fossil fuels come from ancient plants, and since plants take up C12 preferentially, you'd expect to see the C12 ratio grow. And we see it.

Yes, we see it.
... BUT, the change we see (less than -0.5 per mil in the last 50 yrs . re NOAA).. is minimal, and less than 10% of the change predicted by the IPCC, and suggests ( in brief), that only 4%, or 16 ppm , of the atmospheric CO2 is fossil fuel related...Far less than the 120ppm espoused by the alarmist cult.
So the science does not support the claim .

3) Oxygen levels. To make each Co2 molecule takes one O2 molecule. And we are burning a LOT of carbon. As a result the O2 content of the atmosphere is declining slightly - closely matching the amount we are using by burning fossil fuels....

“Closely matching “.. !! Not exactly scientific proof.
Just more correlation and speculation...guilt by association

..4) Ocean Co2 concentrations. The concentration of CO2 in the oceans is increasing at a similar rate to the Co2 in the atmosphere. Therefore the ocean isn't the one supplying the new CO2.

I think that is a statement, and contributes nothing to scientific proof of human involvement .

What is the scientific evidence to prove CO2 causes climate change ?..

Co2 causes warming which is just one part of climate change. That is because it is a greenhouse gas. You can prove this to yourself with a glass tank, some CO2, an infrared lamp and a spectrometer or frequency sensitive pyranometer...

Quite possibly...but it does not prove anything about the effects of CO2 in an open global scale, atmspheric environment.... that remains just a THEORY.

 

[ZeroEm]

by billvon » Jun 20 2019 11:15am

ZeroEm wrote: ↑
Jun 20 2019 7:51am
Now the Power company sent out an Email (in a State that makes more power than most) to reduce power between 1600 and 1800 hrs to day to avoid rolling black outs.

Out here we have load aggregators that make that a lot easier. The one I use, OhmConnect, sends a signal to your house to shut down "dispatchable" loads like the garage freezer, hot water heaters, pool pumps, dishwashers etc. (It also enables my inverter that pumps about 800 watts back to the grid.) They last an hour at a time - very occasionally they go to two hours. You get about $1 for every kwhr you don't use during that time.

The city here does not offer anything, they do want to connect to your thermostat to control it but want you to pay for the connection.

Wanting to connect to the 12vdc on my Car not the 400vdc but do not want to tax the DC to DC and need bigger battery for the surge. Need to test and see what is really needed. not trying to run the house just keep the beer cold.

Yes CO2 has been around along time, just get tired of them playing there game with gas types.

The earth will recover after we wipe out the human race. no point in debating the details.

 

[billvon]

Really ?, do tell how you KNOW that bill .

Physics.

Rubbish. ! The (IPCC) “models” predicted much higher warming than has been recorded ( Data,..not alarmist news clip headlines )

Let's look at some of those predictions.

FAR, 1990 - predicted 1C warming 1970-2016, with an increase in CO2 to 418ppm. Actual numbers were .85C with an increase in CO2 to 404ppm. So the CO2 increase was less than predicted, and the actual warming was 17% less. Remarkably good for an estimate almost 30 years ago, when computer climate simulation was in its infancy.

TAR, 2001 - predicted 1970-2016 temperature change accurately within 14%.

AR4, 2007 - predicted 1970-2016 temperature change accurately within 8%.

Pretty damn good, overall.

97% of scientists agree !

Well, between actually 97% and 100% of climate scientists depending on how you phrase the question and run the tests. And if you include people whose livelihood depends on not understanding climate change (like, say, petrochemical engineers) that number starts dropping fast.

Specifically:

Oreskes, 2004 - 928 climate change papers surveyed; none rejected the basics of AGW (0% rejection.)

Doran & Zimmerman, 2009 - asked in survey of earth scientists "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 82% of all respondents said yes. When narrowed down to active climate researchers that rose to 97%.

Anderegg, 2010 - reviewed publicly signed declarations by climate change experts. 97% consensus.

Cook, 2013 - 4000 climate change papers surveyed; 97.1% endorsed AGW.

 

[Hillhater]

Rubbish. ! The (IPCC) “models” predicted much higher warming than has been recorded ( Data,..not alarmist news clip headlines )

Let's look at some of those predictions.

FAR, 1990 - predicted 1C warming 1970-2016, with an increase in CO2 to 418ppm. Actual numbers were .85C with an increase in CO2 to 404ppm. So the CO2 increase was less than predicted, and the actual warming was 17% less.

Considering the first 20 years of that period were already recorded in 1990, that was not a prediction .

What 1990 IPCC FAR: actually predicted was.. “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases … this will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present (1990) value by 2025.” (See , page xi.)
The actual result..
From 1990 to 2017 (first 8 months) the increase in temperatures was 0.31 to 0.49°C depending on the database used. CO2 emissions have tracked the Business as Usual scenario.
It also predicted a rate of increase of 0.3 C per decade, with a range of uncertainty between 0.2 to 0.5 deg C.
The actual rate to date has been between 0.12 and 0.19 C, (depending on which data set you prefer)
Either way, the actual data is way below even the lowest FAR predicted range

TAR, 2001 - predicted 1970-2016 temperature change accurately within 14%.

AR4, 2007 - predicted 1970-2016 temperature change accurately within 8%.

So, they didnt even accurately “predict” 30 & 37 years of already known results ! :lol: :lol:

...Pretty damn good, overall.

you are easily impressed..and fooled !

97% of scientists agree !

Well, between actually 97% and 100% of climate scientists depending on how you phrase the question and run the tests. And if you include people whose livelihood depends on not understanding climate change (like, say, petrochemical engineers) that number starts dropping fast.

Specifically:

Oreskes, 2004 - 928 climate change papers surveyed; none rejected the basics of AGW (0% rejection.)

Doran & Zimmerman, 2009 - asked in survey of earth scientists "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 82% of all respondents said yes. When narrowed down to active climate researchers that rose to 97%.

Anderegg, 2010 - reviewed publicly signed declarations by climate change experts. 97% consensus.

Cook, 2013 - 4000 climate change papers surveyed; 97.1% endorsed AGW.Anderegg

Why do you keep regurgitating this rubbish ??
All of those have been thoroughly disected and debunked...multiple times..
From memory..
Oreskes...zero rejections does not mean everyone agreed ! That is junk research !
D& Z..their “97%” result was actually just 77 responses from 80 selected scientists.
Anderegg.. was a “google search” survey and only reflects 200 results
Cook..

... Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

Just one of many rebuttals of Cooks amateurish work.!
In other words... the 97% reference is a joke.
A quote from Swedish Climate scientist who has chair of the IPCC panel for sea level rise..
“ 97% of scientists may agree with AGW theory,...but 97% of SCIENCE does not. ! :wink:

 

[Punx0r]

TAR, 2001 - predicted 1970-2016 temperature change accurately within 14%.

AR4, 2007 - predicted 1970-2016 temperature change accurately within 8%.

So, they didnt even accurately “predict” 30 & 37 years of already known results ! :lol: :lol:

Are you assuming that they "cheated" by filling in the actual temperature record from 1970-2001/07 as part of their "prediction", rather than always starting with the up-to 1970 record?!

 

[furcifer]

The percentage of people that believe the Earth is 5000 years old, and flat, is much higher than the number of climate scientists that don't believe AGW. But there will always be outliers, which is actually a good thing.

Regardless of the actual percentage, it's been going down for the last 20 some years. And just about every scientific organization on the planet has issued supporting statements on AGW.

The latter is probably more important. What people like hillhater don't understand is that publishing scientists have to remain unbiased. Integrity comes from only reporting the facts and numbers and not speculating on something like sources unless it's part of the study. They need to maintain neutrality for fear of creating confirmation bias. Interpretation of the studies is left to other scientists.

That's how and why science works. It's not that hard to understand if you are willing.

 

[Punx0r]

I've read of debate in the scientific circles regarding how the professional caution with which scientists speak on important issues, like climate change, gives the impression that the vocal minority in opposition have a stronger argument. This is apparently why statements on these issues are phrased more affirmitively rather than the traditional way of "the data strongly support the argument that...".

Like Bertrand Russell said:

"the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt"

 

[Hillhater]

...".
Like Bertrand Russell said:

"the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt"

Well, the “ cocksure” IPCC and its followers seem to be making the most noise on this topic ,!