My electricity bill has gone down steadily since buying my house in Las Vegas in 2014. Our utility has increased use of renewables in this time period. What are you talking about? Driving electric cuts my per mile fuel cost from about 8 cents to 1 cent. LOL
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change Denial
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change
My electricity bill has gone down steadily since buying my house in Las Vegas in 2014. Our utility has increased use of renewables in this time period. What are you talking about? Driving electric cuts my per mile fuel cost from about 8 cents to 1 cent. LOL
Short answer.. no
I asked you to provide a fact based argument as to why we should give more weight to your sources. You have given none other than ramblings about some hidden political agenda, all of which are irrelevant in a discussion of scientific veracity. Either the science is accurate or not .. politics does not enter into it.
So, again, why should people weight your sources more than others?
My liberal sister just recently bought solar panels for her home in Alubquerque, NM. Initial cost 30K. I noticed you left your initial cost out.
My initial cost is zero, I do not have solar, I let the utility invest then pass the savings on to me. LOL
Definitely not Iowa! Oh, they are putting up solar too.
Utility announced plans for huge solar farm in eastern Iowa
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa electric power provider has announced new plans for a huge solar farm in eastern Iowa.
apnews.com
Nor Washington state! Oh, they're putting up solar too.
Solar farms are booming, but their locations are causing friction
Nearly 30 large solar projects have been proposed in Washington as the state seeks to lower carbon emissions. The new projects have neighbors pitted against each other as some lease their land for solar panels — and earn thousands in...
www.seattletimes.com
Well, definitely not the whole country of Canada! Oh, they're putting up solar too.
Largest Canadian solar farm to begin operating next year
Construction on what will be Canada’s largest solar farm is set to begin later this year. After receiving an investment of $500 million from Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, the Greengate Power Corporation will begin to construct the Travers Solar Farm. It is expected to be fully operational
www.rcinet.ca
LOL
Since your short answer was no, then from my perspective, you and me are in 90% agreement. We can have a disagreement over what causes the global mean temperature to change over the decades. Where I get cross with people is when they get fanatical with their human-caused global warming belief; to the point of advocating government policy with their belief.
Back in 2017, I went to a hurricane conference in Houston. I met a meteorologist there who is is a strong believer in AGW theory. But he was a bit unusual. He wanted Al Gore and company to just butt out. He believed that the private sector will have to take over the efforts to take on climate change. The pro-AGW meteorologist was opposed to using government policy for that purpose. I told him that I was a Tesla owner, and he was happy about that. He said that if he could afford one, he would own one. He did say that improving gasoline efficiency for the internal combustion engine would go a long way in mitigating the effects of CO2 forcing. He was opposed to forcing BEVs onto the public. That should grow by consumer choice. As the free market is able to lower the costs of BEVs, then it would be more appealing for the public to buy it. We are seeing that now.
So, I met a fellow meteorologist who is on the opposite side of the AGW issue from me. However, he and I were in complete agreement that climate science should stay out of the business of policy making. In my book, that put us in 90% agreement with each other. So Dr. Tim, if you are like the pro AGW theory meteorologist I met at the hurricane conference, you and me have no quarrel.
Knock yourselves out. We have a lot of solar in Texas too.Definitely not Iowa! Oh, they are putting up solar too.
Utility announced plans for huge solar farm in eastern Iowa
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa electric power provider has announced new plans for a huge solar farm in eastern Iowa.
Nor Washington state! Oh, they're putting up solar too.
Solar farms are booming, but their locations are causing friction
Nearly 30 large solar projects have been proposed in Washington as the state seeks to lower carbon emissions. The new projects have neighbors pitted against each other as some lease their land for solar panels — and earn thousands in...
Well, definitely not the whole country of Canada! Oh, they're putting up solar too.
Largest Canadian solar farm to begin operating next year
Construction on what will be Canada’s largest solar farm is set to begin later this year. After receiving an investment of $500 million from Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, the Greengate Power Corporation will begin to construct the Travers Solar Farm. It is expected to be fully operational
LOL
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Then you know that CO2 resonates at Infrared frequency trapping the heat and making the temperature of the Earth increase. You also know that there are SCIENTIFIC evidences that the increase of CO2 CONCENTRATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS ANTHROPOGENIC.
Why you keep saying that Climate goes through Natural Cycles?
To my mind this is not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about de-coupling science from politics. There are basically three questions that need to be addressed:
1. Is global warming real and, if so, what effects will it have on the planet, and over what timescale?
2. What are the causes of global warming?
3. What, if anything, needs to be done and can be done?
The first question is essentially observational. The second is analytical. The third is political (and financial). The problem I have is when people decide what they want the answer to question 3 to be, and then "back-fill" answers to the first two questions to support their desired answer to question 3. That is dishonest.
The problem, of course, is that both sides of the climate change argument think the other side has done just that. The result is to muddle together discussions about what is actually happening to the climate (if anything) with what should be done about it (if anything). Such discussions get nowhere.
For myself, at the present time the preponderance of evidence appears (to me) to support some degree of global warming. I continue to hold an open mind, as anyone with a scientific background and mindset should: getting entrenched in any position is bad, especially one that potentially has massive global consequences.
However, I have a low tolerance for those who wish to distort the science to conform to their own agenda. This is extremely dangerous, and leads down a slippery slope where "truth" becomes defined by those in political power (as was the case in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany). We have had rather too much of this recently; it's now time to do some collective growing up, step back, cut through the hysteria and lies, and figure out the right thing to do.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
This is called DISINFORMATION and I agree that Is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
As I said in another thread disinformation Is so DANGEROUS that the Court should intervene IMHO.
To this concern see the thread:
Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers
Indeed they don't. But I would really like to somehow slow the rising tide of aggressive ignorance in this country before it's up to my neck. I really don't know how far these people are willing to go. Agree. From this point of view I agree with Robert Kennedy who would like to issue a law to...
teslamotorsclub.com
Last edited:
Oh, TX, "Good Luck"
Well, at least you have your P85 to live in when the grid goes down again.
Last edited:
I’m aware of Dr Spencer and the arguments the denier crowd.
I’ve never found their arguments persuasive. About 15 years ago I didn’t have a firm opinion as to what the climate was actually doing so I investigated it myself. As I have a background that includes some classes in Heat and Mass Transfer as well as work experience using thermal analyses I approached the topic as I would dealing with any other thermal analysis. I found that mainstream climate science at a high level had done everything I would do to answer this question.
If you want to know if a system is warming or cooling you create an energy budget & measure the difference between the energy entering and leaving the system. We have satellites that measure the energy from the sun and the spectrum of light emitted by the Earth. They show a small but consistent imbalance of a few fractions of a watt/m^2 indicating slightly more energy is arriving than leaving the Earth.
If that’s true then using an energy budget we should be able to find parts of Earth warming based on where that energy can be transported to. Which is exactly what we find. As I’ve already mentioned we find an increase of 100’s of zettajoules in the oceans, melting ice, land and lower atmosphere. This evidence supports the warming Earth theory.
If the Earth is warming it’s either getting additional joules from somewhere or those joules are not leaving which again is something our energy budget can help with.
There are only three fundamental sources of heat the Earth experiences. Residual heat from its formation, radioactive decay from elements in Earths crust and energy from the sun. There’s been no widespread volcanism over the last century that can explain even in part the temperature increase. Radioactive decay is a consistent and decreasing process and cannot be cause of this measured increase.
That leaves the sun. As I’ve already mentioned the sun has actually been quiet and it’s output slightly down for the last decade or more. So it’s not from an increase in the suns output
That leaves us with the Earth retaining more of the energy it does receive. The only way for energy to leave the Earth is via radiative transfer. Which means we should find something reducing the amount of energy leaving the planet.
As I’ve already mentioned we’ve known about the greenhouse effect of certain gases for over 100 years and we can see it’s effect in the measured spectrum the Earth radiates.
“Figure 6: Radiation transmitted and absorbed by the cloud-free atmosphere. The left part of the figure shows the solar radiation and the right part shows Earth’s radiation. The blackbody curve at 5525 K (red curve in the top panel) represents the incident (downgoing) solar radiation at the top-of-the-atmosphere. The red filled area is the radiation transmitted through the atmosphere. The difference between the two (the white area between the red curve and the red area) is the amount absorbed by the atmosphere. For Earth’s radiation blackbody curves are shown for three temperatures (210, 260, and 310 K) and represent upgoing radiation from the surface. This is a key figure. From commons.wikimedia.org”
Being from Houston it shouldn’t surprise you but the markets do track every barrel of oil sold and for what purpose. We also understand the chemistry behind what we do with our fossil fuels so we know what kinds and how much of each type of exhaust gases we should expect to see in the atmosphere. When we measure the amount of CO2, methane and other industrial exhaust gases we see what we would expect - increasing amounts. Once more the isotope ratio of carbon in the atmosphere show the bulk is from old carbon which is what one should expect from burning fossil fuels and not from a natural source.
Direct experimental studies confirm atmospheric CO2 increasing the energy imbalance over the course of several years
First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface - Berkeley Lab
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by Berkeley Lab scientists, measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an...
newscenter.lbl.gov
Finally, our understanding of what’s happening now shows what’s different from previous glacial / inter-glacial periods. In previous warm periods periodic changes in the orbital mechanics of Earth (Milankovitch Cycles) begin increasing the amount of sunlight absorbed, which begins melting ice which changes the albedo providing a feedback for more warming. Warming permafrost and oceans release more CO2 and other greenhouse gases further providing warming feedback.
Today CO2 led the increase in temperatures instead of lagged it. The rate of change in temperature is about 10 times faster than previous post ice-age recoveries.
So the case is pretty open and shut confirmed by multiple avenues of investigation. The Earth is warming, it’s caused by greenhouse gases, it’s not natural and it’s caused by us.
Until the denier camp can put forth a hypothesis that takes all of this evidence into account in accordance with known laws of physics better than the current theory they aren’t going to convince me of anything and it shouldn’t convince you.
Whether global warming is real or not, ICE transportation needs to die. Powertain efficiency is awful and tailpipe emissions continue to be produced.
In Europe and the UK EVs are inevitable because OEMs are finding it impossibly expensive to build ICE that can comply with Euro 7 (which basically insists the engines meet emissions targets over the entire drive cycle and over the engine’s lifespan), I.e. if they are not allowed to cheat the emissions regs they are screwed. Electric is the only way forward.
So, since the OEMs can’t achieve the, thoroughly reasonable, goal of not poisoning their customers and those around them I for one am happy that our governments are legislating ICE out of existence.
And that’s before you even consider CO2 reduction which, even you would probably agree, is a good thing if it’s a by-product of legislation that is so clearly beneficial to all, and particularly to those most vulnerable to atmospheric pollution.
So EV are cheaper and greener to run, zero tailpipe emissions, quieter, on the way to becoming cheaper to buy, safer, yet still face resistance due to a constant barrage of FUD from the oil industry et-al: I think a bit of government nudge and subsidy to help overcome the FUD is pretty damned reasonable to be honest.
I’m aware of Dr Spencer and the arguments the denier crowd.
I’ve never found their arguments persuasive. About 15 years ago I didn’t have a firm opinion as to what the climate was actually doing so I investigated it myself. As I have a background that includes some classes in Heat and Mass Transfer as well as work experience using thermal analyses I approached the topic as I would dealing with any other thermal analysis. I found that mainstream climate science at a high level had done everything I would do to answer this question.
If you want to know if a system is warming or cooling you create an energy budget & measure the difference between the energy entering and leaving the system. We have satellites that measure the energy from the sun and the spectrum of light emitted by the Earth. They show a small but consistent imbalance of a few fractions of a watt/m^2 indicating slightly more energy is arriving than leaving the Earth.
If that’s true then using an energy budget we should be able to find parts of Earth warming based on where that energy can be transported to. Which is exactly what we find. As I’ve already mentioned we find an increase of 100’s of zettajoules in the oceans, melting ice, land and lower atmosphere. This evidence supports the warming Earth theory.
If the Earth is warming it’s either getting additional joules from somewhere or those joules are not leaving which again is something our energy budget can help with.
There are only three fundamental sources of heat the Earth experiences. Residual heat from its formation, radioactive decay from elements in Earths crust and energy from the sun. There’s been no widespread volcanism over the last century that can explain even in part the temperature increase. Radioactive decay is a consistent and decreasing process and cannot be cause of this measured increase.
That leaves the sun. As I’ve already mentioned the sun has actually been quiet and it’s output slightly down for the last decade or more. So it’s not from an increase in the suns output
That leaves us with the Earth retaining more of the energy it does receive. The only way for energy to leave the Earth is via radiative transfer. Which means we should find something reducing the amount of energy leaving the planet.
As I’ve already mentioned we’ve known about the greenhouse effect of certain gases for over 100 years and we can see it’s effect in the measured spectrum the Earth radiates.
“Figure 6: Radiation transmitted and absorbed by the cloud-free atmosphere. The left part of the figure shows the solar radiation and the right part shows Earth’s radiation. The blackbody curve at 5525 K (red curve in the top panel) represents the incident (downgoing) solar radiation at the top-of-the-atmosphere. The red filled area is the radiation transmitted through the atmosphere. The difference between the two (the white area between the red curve and the red area) is the amount absorbed by the atmosphere. For Earth’s radiation blackbody curves are shown for three temperatures (210, 260, and 310 K) and represent upgoing radiation from the surface. This is a key figure. From commons.wikimedia.org”
Being from Houston it shouldn’t surprise you but the markets do track every barrel of oil sold and for what purpose. We also understand the chemistry behind what we do with our fossil fuels so we know what kinds and how much of each type of exhaust gases we should expect to see in the atmosphere. When we measure the amount of CO2, methane and other industrial exhaust gases we see what we would expect - increasing amounts. Once more the isotope ratio of carbon in the atmosphere show the bulk is from old carbon which is what one should expect from burning fossil fuels and not from a natural source.
Direct experimental studies confirm atmospheric CO2 increasing the energy imbalance over the course of several years
First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface - Berkeley Lab
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by Berkeley Lab scientists, measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an...
Finally, our understanding of what’s happening now shows what’s different from previous glacial / inter-glacial periods. In previous warm periods periodic changes in the orbital mechanics of Earth (Milankovitch Cycles) begin increasing the amount of sunlight absorbed, which begins melting ice which changes the albedo providing a feedback for more warming. Warming permafrost and oceans release more CO2 and other greenhouse gases further providing warming feedback.
Today CO2 led the increase in temperatures instead of lagged it. The rate of change in temperature is about 10 times faster than previous post ice-age recoveries.
So the case is pretty open and shut confirmed by multiple avenues of investigation. The Earth is warming, it’s caused by greenhouse gases, it’s not natural and it’s caused by us.
Until the denier camp can put forth a hypothesis that takes all of this evidence into account in accordance with known laws of physics better than the current theory they aren’t going to convince me of anything and it shouldn’t convince you.
You can't do that if you're trying to run an 'entertainment' website or 'entertainment news' channel. I think that's the basic requirement of FAUX. LOL
For the next Arctic blast, Texas will know to boost coal-powered energy before it arrives, because wind turbines freeze with our relatively high dewpoint temperatures.
You are so funny. You DO know that coal piles froze, right? What is it a fellow Texan said about what they say in TN about getting fooled twice? LOL
ENERGY TRANSITIONS: How coal failed in the Texas deep freeze
Industry has claimed that coal is more reliable than natural gas and renewable energy during extreme weather events because it's stored on-site. But the disaster in Texas shows that is not always true.
www.eenews.net
The Texas Tribune: Wind power's role in Texas grid failure less than first estimated.
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2021.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/92c870a059ae8609f9d773bcc15b87c6/Wind%20Energy%20Power%20Texas%20CS%20TT%2003.jpg)
www.texastribune.org
Wind power a smaller contributor to Texas electricity crisis than initially estimated, ERCOT analysis shows
An updated analysis of the Texas power crisis shows lost natural gas power generation was the most significant component of the February outages.
www.texastribune.org
The late, great CSU Tropical Meteorologist Dr. William Gray explained the way this issue should have been handled right from the beginning in the 1980s. He said that 50% of atmospheric research funding should have gone to study natural climate variation, and the other 50% gone to anthropogenic influences on climate. After the two groups complete their research, then the scientists could have compared their results. Then a real dialogue between the two opposing groups would occur. They could have questioned each others' work and scrutinized each others' findings. After that process is completed, then both groups could have formed a panel and suggest their recommendations to the policy makers. But this did not happen.
What actually happened was that all government research went to those who studied human-caused global warming. The only way an atmospheric research scientist could get funding was that they had to show how humans were affecting the climate. This severely skewed and biased the conclusions of all government sponsored atmospheric research. This led to shoddy research such as Mann's hockey stick graph. He tried to abolish the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that clearly has widespread scientific support. And not only that, this led to faulty and exaggerated predictions by the pro-AGW scientists that obviously failed. An attempt has been made to cover up these failures, and castigate those who point out the faulty science.
So, this is the reason why the climate change debate is so contentious. And this isn't the only reason.
Similar threads
- Article
