Originally posted by rinselberg: Not at all. R-12 freon refrigerant is a CFC, and the reason for phasing it out in favor of the the newer HFC refrigerants was to protect the ozone in the stratosphere that shields the earth's surface from the sun's UV radiation. In order to protect living organisms from the damaging effects of UV radiation. It wasn't to protect against an "ice age". HFC refrigerants are less damaging to the high altitude ozone layer than CFC refrigerants like R-12 freon.
I'll play, lets dance.
Carbon dioxide prevents the formation of new ozone molecules in the troposphere, and higher CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere may be contributing overall to the closing of the ozone holes over the poles. Hopefully, you do know something about ozone holes.
You said the hydrologic cycle operates in a way that's a positive contribution to life on Earth. Why does not the CO2 operate the same way ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The other thing that you keep saying that makes no sense is "one degree of global warming over the next 100 years".
First of all, there's an important distinction between Fahrenheit degrees and Celsius degrees. One degree Celsius is equivalent to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. And secondly, what does that mean? It's not what climate scientists are predicting. They have different scenarios, depending on how much success is achieved in reducing the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions.
I can't go looking it up right now, but they're seeing more global warming in their "crystal balls" than just one degree (even Celsius) over the next 100 years, unless the efforts to reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere achieve almost unimaginable success and achieve that success very quickly. They're not really expecting that.
It's not what climate scientists are predicting ? They have different scenarios, depending on how much success is achieved in reducing the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions ? They have no idea of how successful their reduction efforts will be ?
A show of hands peanut gallery. Has anybody heard of a more dire warning prediction than one degree in 100 years ? We always hear the predictions, blah blah blah, 15 years, 12 years, Greta said five years, five years ago (then this year deleted her post prediction). How dare she ?
Of course scientists predict different scenarios. The science is settled, . Or is it ?
Now the fear mongers blame everything on Global Warming. Droughts, floods, hurricanes, even climate migration. I just heard that erectile dysfunction is caused by Global Warming.
With no explanation how, or science.
Your not a very good dance partner. I think you are stepping on your own toes. Many of my questions, opinions, thoughts go unanswered by you.
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's not what climate scientists are predicting. They have different scenarios, depending on how much success is achieved in reducing the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions.
They're not really expecting that.
Ok, you saying the temperature will be hotter due to more CO2 in the atmosphere. How many more inches is the ocean going to rise, per CO2 atmospheric concentration ?
More good news, more land recovered, longer growing season. This is all good. A warming earth is better for humans.
How much more warmer before "better for humans" turns into "worse for humans"..?
Even if the entire world went "Maximum Greta" overnight and (somehow) cut human greenhouse gas emissions to the bone starting tomorrow morning, the planet would keep getting warmer for many more years before the warming curve flattens and temperatures become level instead of rising. That's because of the greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.
There's already more global warming that's "locked in", even in the most optimistic scenarios for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
"More good news, more land recovered..." Land recovered? What's that about?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-21-2023).]
rinselberg wants us to embrace the Green Gawds. They want us to disrupt our adaption to have a better world, to make a worse off world. By fear mongering. Under the guise of "pollution".
Yet, rinselberg suggests we should pollute the Earth to end CO2 pollution. Ending the CO2 content in the atmosphere is not an Earth saving effort. Nor is CO2 in the atmosphere an Earth ending scenario. (Well, some people will believe any thing.)
In place of Global Warming CO2, he proposes we weaken America, make China stronger, infect African slave labor children with the toxins from mining the necessary minerals to make batteries, infect the Earth with the same toxins from depleted batteries.
To what end is he proposing that nonsense. Does he own water front property, or is he trying to protect the rich who do ? rinselberg, there will always be ocean front property. Less rich people will become more wealthy. Rich people can buy new ocean front property.
Or, is he scared that farming regions will be wiped out. What if farming rich property shifts slightly to another region ? Farming happens in every country. Warmer or not.
That's just the ecological damage. Let's look at the economic damage.
The Green Gawds want to wreck people's personal financial standing by making fossil fuels so expensive that we must go Green. With increased fuel costs, shipping / trucking expenses increased, causing a cascading of increases in the price of everything. Car prices will double. The more complicated cars will increase repair costs, especially since everyday people will not have the technical knowledge or the needed tools / facilities.
The Green Gawds would have us held hostage to the forces of nature and poor planning, to ensure recharging capabilities. Of which, recharging capabilities can be withheld by government decree.
Many think the cost benefit analysis is not worth it. For an idea not ready for prime time. For technology that did not evolve from the private sector. Government forced.
An idea of which needs massive infusions of infrastructure government cash. Our cash, taken by decree.
All for what ? A savings of two degrees in 100 years, ? All for something which is claimed science. With all sorts of fear factors, none which has been predicted, came true.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-21-2023).]
It's been called the "Doomsday Glacier" and the "Sleeping Giant of Sea Level Rise".
If you're a conservative about climate change, and not keen on the idea of large, rapid and radical changes in the earth's temperature regime and coastlines, this is why you don't want to sleep on Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier.
I've scoured YouTube for the best of the recent presentations and this is the one. It's dated October 28 2022, which is recent. It features Tim Naish, an expert on glaciers and other climate-related topics, with a resume that lists university and science credentials "out the gazoo". The entire video presentation is 7 minutes and 40 seconds.
If skeptics want to jump straight into it just beyond the 6-minute mark, there's an "arresting" animated viewgraph presentation of "Predicted Sea Level Rise, High Emissions Scenario", based on recent data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. Use this link: https://youtu.be/InhMCJro6hA?t=364
How many cities and settlements have been found under the water from hundreds and thousands of years ago ? Or burried in deserts ?
LONG before the ICE and fossil fuels.
Seas rise and fall. Sands shift. Shift happens, and has since day 1.
Short of launching some sort of planet-cracker doomsday bomb, there aint nothing any human can do to change that fact of life. All the foot-stomping, hysteria, and carbon-taxation in the world wont do one damn thing. All that will do is make some fear-mongers rich off of gullible suckers.
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: How many cities and settlements have been found under the water from hundreds and thousands of years ago? Or burried in deserts? LONG before the ICE and fossil fuels. Seas rise and fall. Sands shift. Shift happens, and has since day 1.
Short of launching some sort of planet-cracker doomsday bomb, there aint nothing any human can do to change that fact of life. All the foot-stomping, hysteria, and carbon-taxation in the world wont do one damn thing. All that will do is make some fear-mongers rich off of gullible suckers.
That stuff happens, but why are we doing things that are bringing these changes upon us in just decades, instead of hundreds or thousands of years from now? Even a mere 100 more years of roughly the same planetary temperature regimes, polar ice caps and coastlines is a fairly long time in terms of human civilization, which progressed all the way from the Bronze Age to the Semiconductors Age in just the most recent 4000 years.
That's the meaning of the Climate Mitigation movement that wants to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions by transitioning the world away from fossil fuels and achieving other changes, like more energy efficient buildings and lower carbon materials and methods for building and roadway construction, and lower carbon methods for growing food crops and raising farm and ranch animals. The list of meaningful Climate Mitigation ideas, many of which have already progressed beyond the proverbial drawing board, is long and diverse.
Climate Mitiigation or "CliMit"... it's what's happening.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-22-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Climate Mitiigation or "CliMit"... it's what's happening.
You mean CliZhit !
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's been called the "Doomsday Glacier" and the "Sleeping Giant of Sea Level Rise".
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Your Green Gods will go down in the annals of history with other great giants such as Chicken Little and the Boy who called Wolf.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The ski is falling !
Is the "Doomsday Glacier" the latest greatest fear mongering tactic ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: If you're a conservative about climate change, and not keen on the idea of large, rapid and radical changes in the earth's temperature regime and coastlines, this is why you don't want to sleep on Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier.
I don't want to sleep on a frozen lake. I don't want to sleep in a walk-in freezer. Warm doesn't bother me.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I've scoured YouTube for the best of the recent presentations and this is the one. It's dated October 28 2022, which is recent.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I wonder how he feels about hot.
Perhaps a little context is in order.
I was born outside of London. I have weathered England, Delaware, Ohio, Montana, Florida, Texas (San Antonio et al), Texas (Amarillo), Oklahoma, Texas again (San Antonio), Texas (Houston), Wyoming, and Texas again (Bandera / Kerrville / San Antonio currently).
I worked 12 hours a day ... in non climate controlled environmental conditions. At times, 120 / 150 foot above the ground. (The climate IS different that high.). 114 degrees during the summer near Laredo Texas. 19 degrees (snowing / windy) near Ft Stockton Texas (interstate 10 was shut down, I was working).
Basically, I can and did have my choice. Hot is fine by me.
Jeeze rinselberg, your failing miserably. You don't know how to put the fear in "fear factor". You should say, "If the ice cube at the South Pole melts, so will the ice cube melt at the North Pole".
Power. All that power. POWER over the cattle. It's not good enough for them (elitist know-it-all "I just report control-c control-v" ChatR.I. bots), but you're gonna be FORCED to get it. Like those gas stoves/furnaces. Power over the people Power of the processions you plug in Power of sexuality Power of gender Power ⚡ All that Power
How many cities and settlements have been found under the water from hundreds and thousands of years ago ? Or burried in deserts ?
LONG before the ICE and fossil fuels.
Seas rise and fall. Sands shift. Shift happens, and has since day 1.
Short of launching some sort of planet-cracker doomsday bomb, there aint nothing any human can do to change that fact of life. All the foot-stomping, hysteria, and carbon-taxation in the world wont do one damn thing. All that will do is make some fear-mongers rich off of gullible suckers.
You are correct.
Can we improve technology and become more energy efficient? Sure. Can we reduce pollution, clean up past environmental disasters? Sure. Is green tech good? Yes.
Applauding policies that forces poor people to not modernize, barking regurgitated leftist sheep propaganda from your SUV clutching a Starbucks venti and virtue signaling on Instagram that you recycle because you "care" on Earth Day doesn't make you an environmentalist. Makes you an anti-science leftist simp.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 03-25-2023).]
Can we improve technology and become more energy efficient? Sure. Can we reduce pollution, clean up past environmental disasters? Sure. Is green tech good? Yes.
Applauding policies that forces poor people to not modernize, [up to this point, it's a respectable statement, but from this point forwards...]
barking regurgitated leftist sheep propaganda from your SUV clutching a Starbucks venti and virtue signaling on Instagram that you recycle because you "care" on Earth Day doesn't make you an environmentalist. Makes you an anti-science leftist simp.
[Just a platitude. A fundamentally meaningless rant. It's mostly about a fantasy world that exists inside someone's head. The ideas and observations that he never gives voice to—the aspects of reality that he completely ignores—are far more significant than the aspects of reality that are in the front of his mind.]
[Just a platitude. A fundamentally meaningless rant. It's mostly about a fantasy world that exists inside someone's head. The ideas and observations that he never gives voice to—the aspects of reality that he completely ignores—are far more significant than the aspects of reality that are in the front of his mind.]
Obvious Personal Character Attack
REPORTED
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-25-2023).]
Can we improve technology and become more energy efficient? Sure. Can we reduce pollution, clean up past environmental disasters? Sure. Is green tech good? Yes.
Applauding policies that forces poor people to not modernize, barking regurgitated leftist sheep propaganda from your SUV clutching a Starbucks venti and virtue signaling on Instagram that you recycle because you "care" on Earth Day doesn't make you an environmentalist. Makes you an anti-science leftist simp.
Demagogue much?
Part of the "dumb" here is the Holier Than Thou attitude—the boldfaced text—that overpowers any actual thought.
What does implicitly endorsing memes of this kind, by posting them without further comment on this forum, make someone?
So the people at the global warming conference (2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP27) are IDIOTS..? All of them? Just some of them? What about the people who created this meme, and the people who are enthusiastically circulating this meme on their social media networks and copying it into online forums like this one?
It's idiotic to set up a "science lesson" to troll the Climate Change Conference, when the ice cube melting in a measuring glass is a complete disconnect from the concerns at COP27 about sea levels rising, As I've already explained (like a dozen times) this simple science experiment has nothing to do with how global warming is connected with rising sea levels. That's not how it works.
Why should I stop explaining it, if it pleases me to do so? The demagoguery—the banal and mindless screeds about the "anti-science left"—haven't stopped! Screeds about the "anti-science left" from people whose forays into science-related topics on this forum have exposed them as science "flunkies" themselves.
I think it was just yesterday when the same chorus of bulls**t artists showed up on this forum again, trying to fob off the nonsense that there are no research reports in the science journals about the origin(s) of Covid-19, because the "left" will not allow it. I knew this was a lie, so I used Google and Google Scholar to find some of these research reports and document their existence, posting that into the thread. Then I asked, why this lie, and what would cause someone to repeat it?
I'm no closer to enlightenment on that, then I was when I asked the question, yesterday.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-26-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: What does implicitly endorsing memes of this kind, by posting them without further comment on this forum, make someone?
More woke than you ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: What about the people who created this meme, and the people who are enthusiastically circulating this meme on their social media networks and copying it into online forums like this one?
More woke than you ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: So the people at the global warming conference (2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP27) are IDIOTS..? All of them? Just some of them?
Of course not silly. They are very accomplished grifters.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's idiotic to set up a "science lesson" to troll the Climate Change Conference, when the ice cube melting in a measuring glass is a complete disconnect from the concerns at COP27 about sea levels rising, As I've already explained (like a dozen times) this simple science experiment has nothing to do with how global warming is connected with rising sea levels. That's not how it works.
Actually, you didn't.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Why should I stop explaining it, if it pleases me to do so? The demagoguery—the banal and mindless screeds about the "anti-science left"—haven't stopped! Screeds about the "anti-science left" from people whose forays into science-related topics on this forum have exposed them as science "flunkies" themselves.
Pray do tell, ... what are your scientific credentials, ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I'm no closer to enlightenment on that, then I was when I asked the question, yesterday.
Would you like a little variety? A change from your long endeavors to "shoot me down" in these climate and global warming-themed discussions? What do you make of this? https://www.fiero.nl/forum/...HTML/000643.html#p11
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-26-2023).]
Isn't it amazing that for hundreds of years, the majority of trains didn't have any problem at all staying on the track, and now, suddenly, they're just flying off left and right.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, isn't it amazing that the only ones that "accidently" derail are the ones carrying hazardous materials, and the derailment is usually centered around those cars that are carrying said materials?
Hundreds of trains, carrying goods, criss-cross the US everyday with no problems at all.
How "coincidental" is that...?
And a demoncrap, just happens to be in "charge", yet another convenient coincidence. Correlation?
What if you put the "violent crimes perpetrated by blacks" on the back burner and focused on these railroad derailments with a "deep dive" into the topic?
How many freight trains are moving across the entire U.S. every day? How many are transporting hazardous chemicals? Is this really a spate of recent derailments, or just a small uptick, or not even statistically signficant?
What about the regulatory aspects? How (specifically) can you tie any of this to Democratic Party-affiliated officials?
I'm not "sold" on the idea that these are anything other than just more accidents of the same kind that have long been commonplace on American railroads, and not any more frequently now than in years past.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-27-2023).]
Some here like to say don't ignore the science, yet they themselves are ignoring the science that his might just be "normal"
"Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?"
Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises Published by the National Academy of Sciences—a report from the Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, including members of the Ocean Studies Board, Polar Research Board, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, and National Research Council.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 03-27-2023).]
I would like to know how this "Abrupt Climate Change" book has been viewed by the IPCC and whether there's any discussion of this book in the latest synthesis report from the IPCC.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I would like to know how this "Abrupt Climate Change" book has been viewed by the IPCC and whether there's any discussion of this book in the latest synthesis report from the IPCC.
Viewed by the IPCC grifters ? There was discussion, no doubt.
"Wind industry predicts bounce-back and rapid growth in 2023"
quote
This year, the industry will reach a historic milestone — 1 terawatt, or 1,000 gigawatts, of wind energy installed worldwide, the council said. The 2-terawatt milestone should come in 2030 if policymakers strengthen supply chains to meet demand and address permitting and other bottlenecks, the council added.
"Five 'mega-sized' U.S. solar projects to break ground in 2023"
quote
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the United States solar industry continues to set records. SEIA predicted that the country’s total installed solar capacity would more than quadruple by 2030, with annual installations reaching 45 GW. This growth has been driven by declining costs of solar technology, favorable government policies, and increasing demand for renewable energy sources.
"Driven by green goods, global trade hits record $32 trillion"
quote
Global trade was worth a record $32 trillion in 2022, but amid deteriorating economic conditions and rising uncertainties, growth turned negative in the second half of the year and is set to stagnate in the first half of 2023.
The silver lining was the strong performance of trade in “green goods”, whose growth held strong throughout the year, says UNCTAD’s latest Global Trade Update, published on Thursday.
Green goods, also called “environmentally friendly goods”, refer to products that are designed to use fewer resources or emit less pollution than their traditional counterparts.
Originally posted by rinselberg: This doesn't contradict the science of the planet-warming Greenhouse effect.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The manufacture and life cycle implications of electric car batteries are not a given that isn't changing. It evolves.
... but methane reduction, industrial efficiency, carbon removal, and a moderate carbon tax are the most efficient ways to fight climate change.[/SIZE]
Electrification of road vehicles is just part of Climate Mitigation. It gets more media coverage than almost any other aspect of Climate Mitigation. But where are "you" on the movement towards zero carbon emissions concrete for building and road construction? Where are "you" on climate-proofing agricultural methods, so that farmers do not cause large greenhouse gas emissions that are easily avoidable if crop fertilizers are used in more carefully thought out ways? Where are "you" on a myriad of other aspects of the multifaceted diamond of modern Climate Mitigation or "Cli-Mit"..?
"Climate Mitigation—it's more than electric road vehicles"
The science of the planet-warming Greenhouse effect ? Science ? Why are climate scientists dumber than rocks ?
Climate mitigation ? Why do you tell us it needs to be difficult, painful, costly, weaken America, even necessary. What a farce !
Of course, your vaunted valued scientists have never thought of removing the so offensive carbon, from fossil fuels, before they are consumed.
The so-called "scientists" aren't stupid at all, they found a way to keep cashing in on an outright LIE.
The "green" in the "green movement" is MONEY, and lots of it, and all they have to do is LIE, LIE, and LIE again. It's a cash cow paid for by the ignorant.
As for the CO2 they want to remove, that's BS too, what they really mean is to remove all the carbon-based lifeforms - in other words, everything especially humans, except the "elite" of course, they think they're Gods of some kind, what do you think all the trans stuff is about too, the "elites" can control the climate, the "elites" will control what we see and hear, the "elites", not God, will determine what "gender" is even in children.
God has no control over them, they are mightier than God in their minds.
One of the "bullet items" that Bill Maher highlighted was plastic waste recycling, which has largely been a failure, and for the plastic waste that is routinely discarded from homes and apartments into garbage bins or even recycling bins—mostly a failure. For the most part, discarding a plastic bottle by putting it into a recycling bin is like the "virtue signaling" that goes on on social media networks: an empty gesture. The plastic waste does not get disposed of or recycled in an environmentally friendly way.
Could there be fresh hope in some of the more recent research that's been published?
quote
Researchers have developed a system that can transform plastic waste and greenhouse gases into sustainable fuels and other valuable products -- using just the energy from the Sun.
University of Cambridge. "Solar-powered system converts plastic and greenhouse gases into sustainable fuels." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 January 2023. https://www.sciencedaily.co.../01/230109112706.htm
That was just published at the beginning of this year. A solar-powered process to convert planet-warming carbon dioxide gas and planet-polluting plastic waster into usable materials and fuels.
It's clearly not yet ready for "prime time". It needs more development—no small amount of work. So, it's just a first step. Possibly. Here's some text from the fairly brief report in ScienceDaily:
quote
"Generally, CO2 conversion requires a lot of energy, but with our system, basically you just shine a light at it, and it starts converting harmful products into something useful and sustainable," said Rahaman. "Prior to this system, we didn't have anything that could make high-value products selectively and efficiently."
"What's so special about this system is the versatility and tuneability—we're making fairly simple carbon-based molecules right now, but in future, we could be able to tune the system to make far more complex products, just by changing the catalyst," said Bhattacharjee.
Reisner recently received new funding from the European Research Council to help the development of their solar-powered reactor. Over the next five years, they hope to further develop the reactor to produce more complex molecules. The researchers say that similar techniques could someday be used to develop an entirely solar-powered recycling plant.
"Developing a circular economy, where we make useful things from waste instead of throwing it into landfill, is vital if we're going to meaningfully address the climate crisis and protect the natural world," said Reisner. "And powering these solutions using the Sun means that we're doing it cleanly and sustainably."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-29-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: A solar-powered process to convert planet-warming carbon dioxide gas and planet-polluting plastic waster into usable materials and fuels.
There you go again, . Acting like Global Warming is real. Not everyone is stupid. Your CULT always speaks of carbon dioxide gas being a pollutant is accepted by all. Knowing by always doing so, other sheeple will believe the same bullzhit you do. Believing an invisible natural element, a finite element, is a pollutant. How dare you believe your gas lighting (planet-warming, planet-polluting) makes a friggin frack ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-29-2023).]
. Or is it ?
? All for something which is claimed science. With all sorts of fear factors, none which has been predicted, came true.
?
. Acting like Global Warming is real. Not everyone is stupid. Your CULT always speaks of carbon dioxide gas being a pollutant is accepted by all. Knowing by always doing so, other sheeple will believe the same bullzhit you do. Believing an invisible natural element, a finite element, is a pollutant. How dare you believe your gas lighting (planet-warming, planet-polluting) makes a friggin frack ?
