Nuclear power is on the brink of a $1 trillion resurgence, but one accident anywhere could stop that momentum
Nuclear leaders from around the globe gathered at the United Nations on Tuesday to discuss safety.
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
Hold it together man because trust me, it's more fun watching them lose their shit the past week or so. And it's only getting better.
Yet more data that fools the fools.
MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% of U.S. Climate Data Are Corrupted - The Heartland Institute
Official NOAA temperature stations produce corrupted data due to purposeful placement in man-made hot spots
www.heartland.org
Heartland Institute - Wikipedia
Google it. I just picked one. There are a number of sites that report it. The problem is you libs think you will hear about this on AlGore.com and I’m sorry to say you will not.Your source is certainly above reproach. You people...😂😂Heartland Institute - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Oh course, this is ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS the reply to any report or data listed that you don’t like. It’s ALWAYS the source. Maybe you guys should broaden your search for truth. Just a thought.
Your stupid ass source rejects the scientific consensus regarding the negative health impacts of smoking. Nice try though. You "cons" can always find a source that will say what you want it to say. It took me about 2 seconds to find that your source is crap even though you "just picked one."
That's from a blogger named Anthony Watts that attempts to debunk the science on global warming. He isn't a climate scientist but does have some background in meteorology (which is much different than climate science). Watt basses his arguments on his assertion that sunlight is more responsible for global warming than Co2 emissions but that has been discredited by numerous sources including by NASAYet more data that fools the fools.
MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% of U.S. Climate Data Are Corrupted - The Heartland Institute
Official NOAA temperature stations produce corrupted data due to purposeful placement in man-made hot spotswww.heartland.org
Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science
No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and...
climate.nasa.gov
Can you dispute these findings or not? Before you doubt something how about looking in to it. I’ve read about this several years ago as well. Many stations were also closed down. Many in colder climates. But by all means… keep believing Al Gore and Greta Thunberg. Their track record is knocking it out if the park after all. Lol.
You mean like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg are scientists?That's from a blogger named Anthony Watts that attempts to debunk the science on global warming. He isn't a climate scientist but does have some background in meteorology (which is much different than climate science). Watt basses his arguments on his assertion that sunlight is more responsible for global warming than Co2 emissions but that has been discredited by numerous sources including by NASA
Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science
No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and...
Wow the sun isn’t responsible for warming the earth. Now that’s a scientific breakthrough I’m not aware of. I’ll definitely look into that.
I just walked out and the sun is down and it’s 20 degrees cooler. Must be a massive dip in CO2 levels.
Did you know the Sahara desert turns lush and green every 20,000 years? Did you know it’s been found other planets go through warming just like the earth does? Did you know of all the computer models on climate change none included the sun as a possible source.
The last I checked, and I’m no expert, but the sun has the greatest effect of anything to do with our temperature. The distance and angle of the earth also have a lot to do with it. Maybe that’s why we have something the scientific community calls seasons. Fall, winter, spring, and summer. I never realized it was CO 2 levels that caused those. But yeah, I’ll look into that.
Well it’s either man or magic. Must have been magic in the past when the earth heated up. Now? Definitely man. But, Neptune? Magic!!That's from a blogger named Anthony Watts that attempts to debunk the science on global warming. He isn't a climate scientist but does have some background in meteorology (which is much different than climate science). Watt basses his arguments on his assertion that sunlight is more responsible for global warming than Co2 emissions but that has been discredited by numerous sources including by NASA
Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science
No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and...
Whoa! That was over the top. We may never hear from Doc H again. Bruuuu - tal! We’re you raised in an outhouse? Mercy!
Lost in all this is the coming famine from these green agendas around the world. I wonder how much starving people will care about the environment because history shows that the environment suffers more during hard economic times. Ecology and environmentalism is a luxury of wealthy nations.
Ahhh, remember the good old days when Hollywood was suntanning their a-holes. Some even getting sunburnt. But now they got the new improved monkey pox to damage their bungs. Ain't technology wonderful!
I would ask you to explain the science, but I know you just have faith one interpretation it is right. 😝
Australia passes landmark climate bill to cut emissions by 43% by 2030
The bill enshrines into law the new Labor government's environmental election pledge.
www.axios.com
World's largest hydrogen plant to be built in Australia
South Australia slated as the home of the world's biggest green hydrogen plant
This means lots of new jobs
Plug Selected by New Fortress Energy for 120 MW Green Hydrogen Plant on Gulf Coast
Facility Expected to Be One of the Largest Green Hydrogen Plants in North America Plug To Supply PEM Electrolyzer Technology, Equipment for NFE’s First Investment in Green Hydrogen Production LATHAM, N.Y., Aug. 04, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) - Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG), a leading provider of...
Wow! Another hydrogen plant to be built in the US and A. Lots of high paying jobs and tax revenue. Not to mention clean energy that can replace diesel
I keep hearing about the fact that "scientists agree" about climate change but given meteorologists are considered scientists and they can't tell me what's going to happen in the weather next week with any accuracy then I am not sure "scientists agree" is enough to convince me that we need to divert trillions of dollars away from much more needful items within our nation right now.
There's a difference between a trend and an event. For instance I can look at a thoroughbred race horse including it's past lines and I might tell you quite accurately that he'll win over 15% of his races over a career. But I can't tell you if he'll win the next race or not, I can only provide an educated guess.
Global warming is a trend that's measurable in a variety of ways, and based on historical data, while weather prediction is an attempt to define a future event.
what is more needed than cleaning up our country? Unless, we can get NIL money for the UK football players
Right, so based on the chart below from the Smithsonian institute it's going to be a lot hotter atmosphere in the future and I am fairly certain they didn't have cars and cow farts for the majority of this time. So again, if the chart here has any validity then I am going to temper my fear of a 1 degree change over a 120 year period. I am all for reducing emissions, using sustainable power when it is truly sustainable and doesn't require as much or more energy to be spent to make you feel like it's sustainable, but not at the expense of bankrupting the US.
Right, so based on the chart below from the Smithsonian institute it's going to be a lot hotter atmosphere in the future and I am fairly certain they didn't have cars and cow farts for the majority of this time. So again, if the chart here has any validity then I am going to temper my fear of a 1 degree change over a 120 year period. I am all for reducing emissions, using sustainable power when it is truly sustainable and doesn't require as much or more energy to be spent to make you feel like it's sustainable, but not at the expense of bankrupting the US.
Here's where you have to be careful with stats and charts. The charts that were posted previously by me and maybe others show historical data back 2000 years. They show relative stability for that period up until the industrial age started 100 years ago and then rapid acceleration.
The earth is over 3 Billion years old. Of course over earth's history there have been significant temperature changes for a variety of reasons but for the most part they didn't occur suddenly over a short period of time.
If you were to take this chart and make it on the same scale as the 2000 year chart above you would have to stretch it out approximately 9 miles. Imagine how these lines would look if they were stretched that far.
the climate change movement has nothing to do with changing climate. its about $$$, and the redistribution of it on a world scale. marx would be proud. plus, there will be small group of people somewhere who will get rich in the process.
What the chart I posted shows is that there is much more instability in the earths atmosphere over time than Stability. Even a 2000 year view is a blip on the radar of the extreme weather swings the earth has seen over millions of years. The 1 degree shift we have had over the last 2000 years or whatever is minuscule compared to what COULD happen without any human interference. You were correct in your first assertion that data does give you a better sense of reality, and any statistician will also tell you that the more data you have the better chance you have to understand where you are within that range. Based on that I would say were are pretty much right in the middle of a change that we cannot control one way or another and will likely fight ourselves into extenction before the atmosphere will kill us.
I know this won't convince anyone to change their mind, but here's part of the reason I'm not concerned about the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Long story short, a continued increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will have a negligible effect on the temperature.
Saturation of Infrared Absorption
Synopsis: We find an equilibrium climate sensitivity (temperature increase ∆T due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) of ∆T ≃ 0.5 0C.
Saturation of Infrared Absorption
Synopsis: We find an equilibrium climate sensitivity (temperature increase ∆T due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) of ∆T ≃ 0.5 0C.
So hydrogen is an interesting example. Most hydrogen is actually made from natural gas and results in very high CO2 emissions, so there is problem number 1. Transportation of hydrogen as a fuel is also extremely challenging since you have to liquify it which is very costly, and there is huge risk to transporting large quantities of hydrogen since it is extremely combustible and basically results in mini hydrogen bombs rolling around. That's problem #2. Another issue is infrastructure which would be even harder to expand than EV and again, extremely expensive to maintain due to having to refrigerate for stability. Problem 3. Lastly the risk that there are explosions when filling tanks and the ability to maintain fuel cells to limit the risk both are extremely high and very dangerous. Problem 4.
So jobs or no jobs hydrogen comes with a significant number of issues that aren't worth the jobs. If you took the billions of dollars a hydrogen plan would cost and use that to build other infrastructure that is less risky and also builds jobs we would be in better shape.
Let me state it a little differently. It's the RATE of acceleration in temp changes that are the problem. Temp changes historically occur very gradually over time, when that happens civilization adjusts normally, but the rapid rate of acceleration we are seeing now is going to result in dramatic changes including rising oceans, melting of the polar icecap (which will add more fuel to the fire) draught, floods, mass migration etc. The rapid acceleration didn't occur over 2000 years it occurred only in the last 100.
Between now and December 31st....temps will slowly start to decrease....trees will have their leaves change color, then fall off....it will rain...it will storm...it will be warmer than normal...it will be colder than normal....it will snow...grass will go dormant...
.....been watching it do this for decades.
.....been watching it do this for decades.
It's remarkable how willing people are to believe and to perpetuate outright lies, so long as they advance their existing ideology. Germany is increasing coal use to offset the loss of Russian gas imports.
— H.L. Mencken
“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
— Tim Wirth“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
— Stephen Schneider
It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.
Paul Watson
And you don’t know the whole story apparently. Germany went in big on green energy. They shut down most of their nuclear and went away from coal to becoming Russia’s bitch for natural gas. There was no need for them to be in this position but because they bought into the green scam, they have now cut their own throats. Energy is nearly triple the cost it is here. They are starting to realize what a mistake they made.
There is no way to tell how many times the temperature fluctuation that much in that amount of time over the last several millions of years, at least it isn't easy to find that level of detailed data. Regardless, we still have a very, very long way to go to get to an extreme temp one way or another and moving 1 degree every 120 years doesn't make me shiver in fear. Believe what you want to believe but there is nothing happening on this earth that hasn't happened a great many times before, and until I see some type of evidence that there is extensive change with my own eyes then I will choose not to believe it.
I’m all for clean energy and cleaning things up in general. We recycle, drive electric cars, have solar panels etc. That said, you climate alarmists are absolute loons. Literally everything is a crisis with you people and must be dealt with RIGHT NOW!!!.
Forget doing things in a pragmatic way that benefits everyone and yields actual results. You clowns rush to decisions and never admit when all of your decisions fail miserably. Just on to the next dumb idea.
More facts and logic, FAR LESS EMOTION!!! It’s better for everyone.
Forget doing things in a pragmatic way that benefits everyone and yields actual results. You clowns rush to decisions and never admit when all of your decisions fail miserably. Just on to the next dumb idea.
More facts and logic, FAR LESS EMOTION!!! It’s better for everyone.
Eliminating nuclear was a huge mistake and is a huge mistake everywhere it's done. But "going green" isn't causing this. Their increases in renewables have offset the losses of nuclear. They were simultaneously shifting away from coal toward gas, and are having to reverse that shift. But had they maintained their level of nuclear power while adding the renewables, they'd have less need for fossil fuels of any kind, coal or gas. Nuclear should have been preserved until we've phased out fossil fuels, and THEN we can move away from nuclear.
Similar rate of change and temps from 1200 to 1270, long before the industrial revolution.
20th century warming not unprecedented
