Climate Change Denial

[MitchP85D]

???? You're the one whining about how wind can't do something it was never intended to do and using the Texas Blackouts as an example. I'm simply pointing out how you're wrong because facts.

How many times do I have to tell you that the state of Texas is proud of our wind energy production? Our wind energy dwarfs every other state in the union. But a 72-hour period in Texas last February taught us the conditions that we cannot rely on wind. We need to have a backup plan set in place before the next Arctic blast. We'll figure this. My Gawd your fixation on this issue is sick!

 

[JRP3]

Right, because an all tesla household still clings to fossil fuels.

Your buddy Mitch you keep agreeing with does, as do many of your legislators.

 

[JRP3]

We need to have a backup plan set in place before the next Arctic blast. We'll figure this.

Nothing to figure, winterize all your generating capacity and stop blaming the wind power you're so "proud of".

 

[nwdiver]

How many times do I have to tell you that the state of Texas is proud of our wind energy production? Our wind energy dwarfs every other state in the union. But a 72-hour period in Texas last February taught us the conditions that we cannot rely on wind. We need to have a backup plan set in place before the next Arctic blast. We'll figure this. My Gawd your fixation on this issue is sick!

Did your account get hacked? If an argument is weak.... or has ovvious errors... maybe... maybe don't back it instead of whining when it gets torn to shreds I realize all you have is weak arguments to support your position.... maybe you should take a break and think about why that is.....

Because when our wind turbines were knocked out, this started our rolling blackouts.

My point is simple. The purpose of wind turbines is not to prevent blackouts => wind turbines cannot be responsible for blackouts. That's it. That's my point.

 

[MitchP85D]

< 1% as much SO2 was able to drop global average temperatures by 1F for over a year from 1815-16 by reducing incoming energy from the sun. Why wouldn't reducing outgoing energy have a warming effect?

Big difference between incoming short-wave radiation and outgoing long-wave radiation.

 

[eevee-fan]

How many times do I have to tell you that the state of Texas is proud of our wind energy production? Our wind energy dwarfs every other state in the union. But a 72-hour period in Texas last February taught us the conditions that we cannot rely on wind. We need to have a backup plan set in place before the next Arctic blast. We'll figure this. My Gawd your fixation on this issue is sick!

Without interconnecting to the US grid, it's not a serious fix.

 

[eevee-fan]

Nothing to figure, winterize all your generating capacity and stop blaming the wind power you're so "proud of".

Plus interconnection! What's the point of being in a union if you are not going to be part of the union.

 

[nwdiver]

Big difference between incoming short-wave radiation and outgoing long-wave radiation.

Yeah... one is blocked by SO2 and the other by CO2. Energy is Energy. Reduce incoming temps go down. Reduce outgoing temps go up. Physics.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Plus interconnection! What's the point of being in a union if you are not going to be part of the union.

Unity under tyranny is not legitimate.

 

[JRP3]

Making smarter choices isn't tyranny. Cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind...

 

[eevee-fan]

Unity under tyranny is not legitimate.

Seems the rest of the USA is more free than TX. In TX, you are free to buy your own whole house generator like a few on this thread living in TX.

If guess you mean Life Free or Die and you choose to Die.

 

[eevee-fan]

 

[MitchP85D]

So.... you agree CO2 DOES cause warming? You do accept physics?

Facts are Facts. Is it too much to ask to agree on reality.... THEN allow that reality to inform policy?

Just because the high and mighty YOU thinks you know what reality is doesn't mean we should base policy on that. As a matter of fact, how much warming is caused by CO2 is highly speculative, Nobody has been able to quantify that because there are other variables that exceed whatever effect CO2 has. Watch as a stunned University of Virginia student audience stares in silence when Dr. Richard Lindzen asks them what happens to a global warming equation the alarmists tout when f = 1:

Go to 1:01:30

This explains the wide uncertainty in global warming predictions. And it explains why all previous predictions have been grossly exaggerated.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Making smarter choices isn't tyranny. Cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind...

Define smarter choices? If those choices are so smart, why are people fleeing those smart choices?

 

[nwdiver]

Just because the high and mighty YOU thinks you know what reality is doesn't mean we should base policy on that. As a matter of fact, how much warming is caused by CO2 is highly speculative, Nobody has been able to quantify that because there are other variables that exceed whatever effect CO2 has. Watch as a stunned University of Virginia student audience stares in silence when Dr. Richard Lindzen asks them what happens to a global warming equation the alarmists tout when f = 1:

Go to 1:01:30

This explains the wide uncertainty in global warming predictions. And it explains why all previous predictions have been grossly exaggerated.

??? It's not 'highly speculative'. We can actually measure very precisely exactly how much IR is 'shielded' at 150, 200, 400 etc, etc. I have over 15 years of experience in the nuclear industry. A big part of that is radiative shielding. That's what CO2 is.... it's a shield to photons in the IR spectrum. Calculations made in 1896 have been shown to be very accurate. We're finding the amount of increase in the thermal heat content in the oceans as the models predicted we would find. How is that 'speculative'?

The Theory backing Global Warming is probably one of the most 'proven' theories in the history of science to the extent that a theory can ever be proven. It's probably impossible for it to be any more proven than it is. We even have real world examples of the effect of CO2. Wanna know what happens if you cram 90 Bar of CO2 onto a planet then block ~97% of the incoming radiation? Look at Venus. Wanna know what happens when you suck ~40% of the CO2 out of the atmosphere and dissolve it into the oceans? Look at Ice Cores revealing Earths climate history.

For Global Warming to be wrong either quantum mechanics is wildly off or thermodynamics is wildly off. The probability of either of those being wildly off with the accuracy of the predictions they make is as close to 0 as you can get.

 

[ElectricIAC]

??? It's not 'highly speculative'. We can actually measure very precisely exactly how much IR is 'shielded' at 150, 200, 400 etc, etc. I have over 15 years of experience in the nuclear industry. A big part of that is radiative shielding. That's what CO2 is.... it's a shield to photons in the IR spectrum. Calculations made in 1896 have been shown to be very accurate. We're finding the amount of increase in the thermal heat content in the oceans as the models predicted we would find. How is that 'speculative'?

The Theory backing Global Warming is probably one of the most 'proven' theories in the history of science to the extent that a theory can ever be proven. It's probably impossible for it to be any more proven than it is. We even have real world examples of the effect of CO2. Wanna know what happens if you cram 90 Bar of CO2 onto a planet then block ~97% of the incoming radiation? Look at Venus. Wanna know what happens when you suck ~40% of the CO2 out of the atmosphere and dissolve it into the oceans? Look at Ice Cores revealing Earths climate history.


View attachment 667645

Cocaine and opiates were also legal in 1896.

 

[nwdiver]

Cocaine and opiates were also legal in 1896.

That's why in science there's this thing called 'peer review'. If a paper you publish survives over 120 years of being picked apart without significant errors being found.... and your results can be replicated.... good chance it's an accurate reflection of reality.

 

[eevee-fan]

Just because the high and mighty YOU thinks you know what reality is doesn't mean we should base policy on that. As a matter of fact, how much warming is caused by CO2 is highly speculative, Nobody has been able to quantify that because there are other variables that exceed whatever effect CO2 has. Watch as a stunned University of Virginia student audience stares in silence when Dr. Richard Lindzen asks them what happens to a global warming equation the alarmists tout when f = 1:

Go to 1:01:30

This explains the wide uncertainty in global warming predictions. And it explains why all previous predictions have been grossly exaggerated.

Would be great to bring the other 9 scientists who can answer that question instead of stumping students. I guess that's why some 'scientists' hate peer review.

 

[MitchP85D]

Your buddy Mitch you keep agreeing with does, as do many of your legislators.

Having that 240V outlet in my garage for my P85D isn't what I call "clinging to fossil fuels!" Furthermore, my wife and I drive the Tesla by far more than our Chevy pickup truck. In our earlier years of Tesla ownership, we used to fight over who got to drive the Tesla for the day.

 

[MitchP85D]

??? It's not 'highly speculative'. We can actually measure very precisely exactly how much IR is 'shielded' at 150, 200, 400 etc, etc. I have over 15 years of experience in the nuclear industry. A big part of that is radiative shielding. That's what CO2 is.... it's a shield to photons in the IR spectrum. Calculations made in 1896 have been shown to be very accurate. We're finding the amount of increase in the thermal heat content in the oceans as the models predicted we would find. How is that 'speculative'?

The Theory backing Global Warming is probably one of the most 'proven' theories in the history of science to the extent that a theory can ever be proven. It's probably impossible for it to be any more proven than it is. We even have real world examples of the effect of CO2. Wanna know what happens if you cram 90 Bar of CO2 onto a planet then block ~97% of the incoming radiation? Look at Venus. Wanna know what happens when you suck ~40% of the CO2 out of the atmosphere and dissolve it into the oceans? Look at Ice Cores revealing Earths climate history.

For Global Warming to be wrong either quantum mechanics is wildly off or thermodynamics is wildly off. The probability of either of those being wildly off with the accuracy of the predictions they make is as close to 0 as you can get.


View attachment 667645

Dr. Richard Lindzen knows radiative flux by far better than you. He knows the absorption bands of the CO2 molecule, and how minor its effect is on our atmosphere compared to other variables as latent heat and cloud cover.