JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The physics of the CO2 molecule only have one side.More like exactly what's going on, from BOTH sides of the coin.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The physics of the CO2 molecule only have one side.More like exactly what's going on, from BOTH sides of the coin.
Physics doesn't apply to the politics of either sideThe physics of the CO2 molecule only have one side.
What Salk Institute of Oceanography? The Salk Institute studies biologicals. Jonas Salk was famous for the Salk polio vaccine.Sorry to put you out.
No sale. You're captive to the construct without direct experience of the problem.
30 years ago the researchers at Salk Institue of Oceanography were in my orbit.
They were tracking CO2 rise even before then. But they struggled to find cause/effect and direct links to actual issues.
Still the case.
Fast forward to today, and climate change is now the preferred phrase for Media to describe any weather event, trivial or major.
Yes, things are changing, but that's not under our direct control. It's the height of conceit to believe otherwise; science as religion doesn't wash.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to understand root causes, or attempt to mitigate what we can. But we are not in an existential situation.
The emotional rhetoric and shaming put forth by the 'faithful' is just a bit over the top.
correct !!What Salk Institute of Oceanography? The Salk Institute studies biologicals. Jonas Salk was famous for the Salk polio vaccine.
I am not sure your memory is serving you well.
If rather you are talking about the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, they seem to be pretty clear about the relationship between carbon dioxide production and the need to limit it to avert worsening global warming. They also believe there are additional factors.
Something recent from them to help you with your recall: Time to Broaden Strategy to Avert Catastrophic Climate Change
Now it's both sidism? You know, if you would bring something substantial to the discussion, rather than easily debunked anecdotes about growing Norwegian glaciers and Institutes of Oceanography that question standard science about carbon dioxide and climate, or your love/hate relationship with Al Gore and his superpowerful influence (by the way, he lost to George W, for God's sake), it would be easier to believe that you aren't just trolling us.Physics doesn't apply to the politics of either side
Only one side is trying to deny physics though. I'm sorry but your attempts to "both sides" this argument are doomed to failure, all the science is clearly on the side of human induced climate change.Physics doesn't apply to the politics of either side
Sorry bud but your appeal to ignorance is exceptionally wanting when compared to basic physics or my own experience.Sorry to put you out.
No sale. You're captive to the construct without direct experience of the problem.
30 years ago the researchers at Salk Institue of Oceanography were in my orbit.
They were tracking CO2 rise even before then. But they struggled to find cause/effect and direct links to actual issues.
Still the case.
Fast forward to today, and climate change is now the preferred phrase for Media to describe any weather event, trivial or major.
Yes, things are changing, but that's not under our direct control. It's the height of conceit to believe otherwise; science as religion doesn't wash.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to understand root causes, or attempt to mitigate what we can. But we are not in an existential situation.
The emotional rhetoric and shaming put forth by the 'faithful' is just a bit over the top.
Physics doesn't apply to the politics of either side
Wow, everyone saw the weather news? Lots of 100F across the US this week!
Do you think the sun suddenly started putting out more photons?We are in an energy crisis and you guys are complaining that the sun delivers too much energy to us ?
Of course, not. I know the warming is not due to increased input energy, but the increased portion of the energy being trapped and not allowed to radiate back out into space.Do you think the sun suddenly started putting out more photons?
Of course, not. I know the warming is not due to increased input energy, but the increased portion of the energy being trapped and not allowed to radiate back out into space.
On the other hand, the more photon energy is turned into electricity, less turns into heat, so in a way photovoltaic solar panels help in more than one way (not just replacing energy generated by fossil fuel burning). Although, this effect is probably negligible.
I hope you see how your previous statement was misleading. Also worth noting that solar panel performance decreases with heat, plus the black of solar panels absorbs more heat than most other surfaces so I doubt the captured photons offset that.Of course, not. I know the warming is not due to increased input energy, but the increased portion of the energy being trapped and not allowed to radiate back out into space.
Of course, not. I know the warming is not due to increased input energy, but the increased portion of the energy being trapped and not allowed to radiate back out into space.
On the other hand, the more photon energy is turned into electricity, less turns into heat, so in a way photovoltaic solar panels help in more than one way (not just replacing energy generated by fossil fuel burning). Although, this effect is probably negligible.
It’s negligible because it all* gets turned into heat eventuallyDepends, if solar panel is over rock & concrete, the shading effect will ensure heat do not get retained and released in the evening but instead escapes to the upper atmosphere as it is generated.
Also, when installed on side of tall buildings as walls or windows, it acts like an awning and intercepts heat that would otherwise heat up the walls/windows and enter the building then require cooling. So double benefit!
I see this negating a good portion of the heat island effect.
It’s negligible because it all* gets turned into heat eventually
That’s a good point. Without doing a thermal analysis I’m not sure how it all balances out.If you say so, but shading means lower temp after sundown and affects how cool it gets over night. You can probably look at shading effect during the day and correlate it to clear vs cloud covered night. Or even compare temps of a forest vs rock canyon. It's not negligible.