Global Warming, Is It A Man Made Hoax?

[Truth7t7]

True


Great inventions.


Yes.


Ask the billions of poor folks in the world about that.



I listened......
So how does that history guide you nvto believing that we have to continue burning fossil fuels at the present rate?
You've mentioned progress and I just want to know why you don't want to progress further now?
IT has changed our world amazingly. We don't need to look back in order to move forwards, surely?

I'm 100% for technology, they are developing solar panels that are cost effective, that have a long life, install them, wind and tidal generators the same.

The fossil electrical generators have moved to combined cycle, they are twice as efficient as fossil fired boilers, with a fraction in the polluting emissions, great!

Do I believe the taxpayers should subsidize electric vehicles or renewables, (NO) let the free market have its course.

Thanks for the response!

 

[rocketman]

Another moron who thinks that chucking insults can win his point of view over.
I can usually put up with creeps throwing insults but sometimes.....

Now, your lesson for today is simple, it's KISS basic..... Keep it simple.

Just because we have used fossil fuels in vast quantities for hundreds of years doesn't mean we should keep doing so.

Off you go. See ya later. Much later.

That wasn't what you said, nor is deflecting to a new argument of "if we should continue to use fossil fuels" gonna erase the absolutely stupid remark you made. What you said was "Fossil fuels have not lifted any % of the poor up"... now that is the statement that I was mocking/insulting you over. I don't have to "win" your point of view because your assertion is completely absurd! 100% of humankind has been lifted up from the discovery of fossil fuels to date, it isn't a point of view it is a fact, you wouldn't even have a computer to write your completely baseless drivel without fossil fuels. If you want to have a discussion about the continuation of fossil fuel use than start one but, your deflection to a different subject from the statement you made, and I destroyed, isn't working. Is that KISS enough for you, probably not? Again, think before you post, or at least be intellectually honest enough to own your words, and a willingness to back off from an absolutely absurd argument. Off you go...

 

[eider]

I'm 100% for technology, they are developing solar panels that are cost effective, that have a long life, install them, wind and tidal generators the same.

The fossil electrical generators have moved to combined cycle, they are twice as efficient as fossil fired boilers, with a fraction in the polluting emissions, great!

Do I believe the taxpayers should subsidize electric vehicles or renewables, (NO) let the free market have its course.

Thanks for the response!

Good answer.
Although I don't mind government funding green technology, which ours is doing.

If I walk to the cliff and look out I can see four huge windfarms out to sea, the most distant one is the 2nd largest in the world, an amazing sight viewed through a scope.

Electric cars are still very expensive, all I have so far is an electric bike. But my wife loves her ATV and is prepared for the enormous rises on road tax which such vehicles will soon be attracting. It's her one vice and she will pay up.

About a quarter of the homes around here have large solar voltaic panel systems on their roofs but for various reasons are home is in shade most of the day in winter, so I haven't gone for those.

 

[The Barbarian]

Like any new technology, wind and solar are still getting less and less expensive. And like every other case of new technology, those with an investment in old technology are lobbying to stop it form happening. In the long run, they will lose. The only question is how much money they will cost the public in their quest to keep making buggy whips.

But the fact of ongoing solar warming, primarily caused by human-produced carbon dioxide, remains, regardless of the question of what, if anything, we should do about it.

 

[eider]

Like any new technology, wind and solar are still getting less and less expensive. And like every other case of new technology, those with an investment in old technology are lobbying to stop it form happening. In the long run, they will lose. The only question is how much money they will cost the public in their quest to keep making buggy whips.

But the fact of ongoing solar warming, primarily caused by human-produced carbon dioxide, remains, regardless of the question of what, if anything, we should do about it.

Do you think that we can halt the warming, or slow it or that it's already coming?

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you think that we can halt the warming, or slow it or that it's already coming?

Realistically? We have some help from nature. There's a deep sunspot minimum, which would be cooling off the Earth if it weren't for our activities. Still, it's not going to turn on a dime. Even if we had the will and the political consensus to do it, it would take a while. So it's going to get worse before it gets better. Anything we can do to slow it, will help.

Technology can fix this eventually, but those with investment in old technology will do whatever they can to stop it. It's a mess.

 

[Truth7t7]

Realistically? We have some help from nature. There's a deep sunspot minimum, which would be cooling off the Earth if it weren't for our activities. Still, it's not going to turn on a dime. Even if we had the will and the political consensus to do it, it would take a while. So it's going to get worse before it gets better. Anything we can do to slow it, will help.

Technology can fix this eventually, but those with investment in old technology will do whatever they can to stop it. It's a mess.

A deep sunspot minimum, cooling off the earth?

You must be a scientist with first hand access?

 

[Truth7t7]

Like any new technology, wind and solar are still getting less and less expensive. And like every other case of new technology, those with an investment in old technology are lobbying to stop it form happening. In the long run, they will lose. The only question is how much money they will cost the public in their quest to keep making buggy whips.

But the fact of ongoing solar warming, primarily caused by human-produced carbon dioxide, remains, regardless of the question of what, if anything, we should do about it.

New tech isn't against the law to implement, or selling power derived from it.

If renewables are cost competitive, they will take over the free market, with no government subsidizing.

Why haven't they?

 

[The Barbarian]

A deep sunspot minimum, cooling off the earth?

Yep. Much deeper than usual.

The Sun Is Asleep. Deep ‘Solar Minimum’ Feared As 2020 Sees Record-Setting 100-Day Slump
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiec...es-record-setting-100-day-slump/#18e953c05e28

You must be a scientist with first hand access?

I am a scientist, and yes, I do have access to journals, but you don't need that kind of access to learn about this. I just left you a link from Forbe's.

 

[The Barbarian]

New tech isn't against the law to implement, or selling power derived from it.

But power companies are trying to jigger the laws to make it harder to use solar. They want laws to shut down solar power if regular power goes down. They want to charge solar uses a fee just for having solar power. And so on. This is what the purveyors of old technology always do. They want subsidies to make them more competitive with new technology.

If renewables are cost competitive, they will take over the free market, with no government subsidizing.

That's what has oil and gas companies spooked.



The United States provides a number of tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry as a means of encouraging domestic energy production. These include both direct subsidies to corporations, as well as other tax benefits to the fossil fuel industry. Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually.

Historically, subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industry were designed to lower the cost of fossil fuel production and incentivize new domestic energy sources. Today, U.S. taxpayer dollars continue to fund many fossil fuel subsidies that are outdated, but remain embedded within the tax code. At a time when renewable energy technology is increasingly cost-competitive with fossil power generation, and a coordinated strategy must be developed to mitigate climate change, the broader utility of fossil fuel subsidies is being questioned.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fa...-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

 

[eider]

Realistically? We have some help from nature. There's a deep sunspot minimum, which would be cooling off the Earth if it weren't for our activities. Still, it's not going to turn on a dime. Even if we had the will and the political consensus to do it, it would take a while. So it's going to get worse before it gets better. Anything we can do to slow it, will help.

Technology can fix this eventually, but those with investment in old technology will do whatever they can to stop it. It's a mess.

Thanks for that.
The glacier and ice field melts certainly do suggest that our atmosphere is warming rapidly, and weather patterns are much more active in recent times.
Since a three day northerly storm and resulting tidal surge occured in South East England February 1978 our coastline has been beefed up significantly with millions of tons of shingle, raised sea walls and flood gates all along the North Kent coastline, but if sea levels rise by a couple of feet in the next few decades we will be in some trouble.
Our tidal creeks and waterways have not been given extra protection.

 

[ok doser]

Thanks for that.
The glacier and ice field melts certainly do suggest that our atmosphere is warming rapidly, and weather patterns are much more active in recent times.

Science teaches that 10,000 years ago, there was a sheet of ice two miles thick over my part of northern NY and a kilometer thick over most of GB. I've referred often to Doggerland, which is just around the corner from you.

Do you believe that man's activity had anything to do with the melting of those glaciers or the flooding of Doggerland?

 

[ok doser]

I am a scientist ...

IIRC, you are a retired high school science teacher. Do you have training, education or experience working as a scientist? Have you ever done basic research as a job? Ever been published?

 

[Truth7t7]

IIRC, you are a retired high school science teacher. Do you have training, education or experience working as a scientist? Have you ever done basic research as a job? Ever been published?

He wouldn't lie doser, he said he was a (Scientist)?

You suggest that he would misrepresent the truth in deception?

​​​​

 

[ok doser]

He wouldn't lie doser, he said he was a (Scientist)?

You suggest that he would misrepresent the truth in deception?

​​​​

Dishonest is his middle name

 

[Truth7t7]

Dishonest is his middle name

If that's the case, you have granny keep an eye on him?

 

[The Barbarian]

He wouldn't lie doser, he said he was a (Scientist)?

Yeah, I was an academic bum for a long time, gathering degrees. Then for 18 years, I was an ergonomist. Then I retired to teach. But it wasn't mostly high school. Did a lot of seminars and education work for businesses. Did that for years. But I did get certified to teach high school, and did teach in public schools as well. Benefits, you know.

You suggest that he would misrepresent the truth in deception?

I don't think doser lies, as often as he convinces himself of weird things.

Would you like to talk about metabolic demands of industry tasks?

BTW, if you think I've got an unfair advantage by access to scientific journals, there are some sources open to anyone.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Google scholar can also get you to some journals.

If there's a university nearby, you can usually pay a small fee for access to journals. If you happen to have been formerly employed by the university, the fee is often very reasonable.

But you still have to know enough to know what to look for. No royal road, and all that...




​​​​

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks for that.
The glacier and ice field melts certainly do suggest that our atmosphere is warming rapidly, and weather patterns are much more active in recent times.
Since a three day northerly storm and resulting tidal surge occured in South East England February 1978 our coastline has been beefed up significantly with millions of tons of shingle, raised sea walls and flood gates all along the North Kent coastline, but if sea levels rise by a couple of feet in the next few decades we will be in some trouble.
Our tidal creeks and waterways have not been given extra protection.

So far, the sea rise has been largely by thermal expansion, not addition of melt water. The melting of the ice at the North Pole doesn't add anything to sea levels for reasons that should be obvious. When it melts, it occupies less volume by precisely the volume above water level. The now-accelerating melting of continental and alpine glaciers is another story; that will bring up sea levels, and apparently will do so faster than previously estimated.

There really isn't much you can do long-term about sea level rise, other than stop whatever is causing it. If the glaciers melt, the level is coming up.

 

[ok doser]

There really isn't much you can do long-term about sea level rise, other than stop whatever is causing it.

I'd rather not stop the sun, thank you

 

[The Barbarian]

The interesting thing is, if the Sun was the key element in the current climate change, the glaciers would be growing. Solar output is markedly down. Ordinarily, we'd be in a cooling period, but instead we are having record high temperatures for the Earth almost every year. The atmospheric effects of increasing carbon dioxide are stronger than the decrease in solar radiation.

The only way to reverse the warming trend is to lower the amount of heat absorbed by the atmosphere. There are at least two possible ways to do this. One would be to lower the output of carbon dioxide. The second would be to increase the albedo of the Earth. It's been suggested that putting many ships out to sea, with devices to make clouds from ocean water, the increase in reflectance might make the difference.