Reply With QuoteSpeaking of religion…
The Case For Making Earth Day a Religious Holiday | Time
Member
The WMO guidance itself is amateur. "averages" are very sensitive to outliers, i.e. noise. There are robust alternatives, like a percentile. The electronics isn't the problem; the data reduction is.Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
Incompetence has been going on for a very long time too.
Member
Speaking of religion…
The Case For Making Earth Day a Religious Holiday | Time
TMPHBITEU
Climate Hoax, Military Complex, Sold Out Scientists. No Wonder He's Dead.
When Kary Mullis speaks, just listen.
✓ Member
Bravo all well said!
Another contradiction of the “religion” is sea level rise leading to flooding of Venice. However the Venice canals are drying up. Well of course that’s because of a long period of high atmospheric pressure which squishes the water down. So although most meteorologists use high pressure to indicate good weather, ask any sailor or fisherman, Global warming zealots say high pressure is bad or pull whatever other arguments out of their asses to fit the mantra.
Member
The official line is that the south of Europe is experiencing a multi year drought as a result of global warming, which melts the ice in the poles, which was supposed to flood Venice to extinction. Take that in for a moment.
Member
I'm no expert on the whole climate change debate. The focus on models to forecast a complex system we don't entirely grasp (garbage in garbage out), and the dubious political movements that tag along with climate alarmism have always been red flags to me.
It is interesting that one of the arguments regarding CO2 levels seems to be related to the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum from 50+mm years ago. Supposedly CO2 levels went from 1,000ppm to 2,000ppm in a few thousand years, causing 5-8 degree C increase in temperatures. The supposed cause was a massive dump of CO2 emissions of 4-7 trillion tons over that period. We still have no clue where those CO2 emissions came from. So, more recently CO2 in the atmosphere was ~300ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until it shot up to 400ppm since the industrial revolution. I guess the fear is that we continue emitting CO2 at 30-40 billion tons per year, thus reaching similar amounts estimated in the Paleocene, which could cause atmospheric CO2 levels to once again reach 1,000-2,000 ppm and cause temperatures to go up a lot etc.
It's certainly a simple linear explanation. So many questions though. Why were temperatures fine at 1,000 ppm? What else could've happened over thousands of years that could cause the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum? Why can't nuclear power solve this, since it could eliminate most human emissions? - this one pisses me off, since it's all about the end of the world but no nuclear and you must become a vegan.
And then there's the timing. is it 10 years, 100 years, or 3,000 years?
Anyway, I'm out of my lane and certainly out of my depth on this. To be honest, I'd be more concerned about air quality first if the concern is a 2-4x increase in CO2 ppm. Would there be an impact?
Would be an easier sell to say "hey, at this rate air quality is going to be shit and we should do something about it. Also, there's always the small chance of unforeseen consequences to the climate, though we have no clue. So, let's put up a bunch of nuclear power plants and keep upgrading the grid and working on new energy sources too where it makes sense. Once there's enough nuclear and other, where we have reliably replaced coal/gas/biomass, and we've figured out a way to replace oil derivatives as energy for transportation, then we can worry about what's next."
Instead we get the whole nuclear bad, only wind and solar, cow flatulence theories, we should stop having kids cause carbon footprint, equity and inclusion??? It's straight to either anti-human or postmodern/critical theory rhetoric...
✓ Member
Electric Ford F150s have been having wicked battery fires.
Footage Shows Three Ford F-150 Electric Trucks Burning
While I’m fairly sure a lot of engineering progress can and will be made, it seems conceivable that a parking structure or a tunnel filled with 100s of EVs could take out a fair chunk of a city. Oops.
Member
. . . and while we waste time and effort, China already has 54 reactors in operation with 24 under construction. We were 40 years ahead of them and they've nearly caught up.
Besides the cost savings of nuclear, another loss are the add-on economic and human development opportunities which is something nobody talks about. With each power plant, think about how many employees need to be developed and how many supporting service providers would be hiring and developing people. With solar and wind, most of those benefits go to China where the production occurs.
✓ Member
That nuclear isn’t the proposed solution to the alleged problem tells us it’s a scam. They want to reduce living standards and reduce the population.
TMPHBITEU
This is inconvenient: Wyoming, Other Western States, Obliterate Snowpack Records | Your Wyoming News Source
“As of March 31, it's the most amount of snow cover in the United States since they've been tracking snow cover with satellites starting in 2001,” Day said.
He explained that until now, in 23 years of record keeping, the most land in the U.S. ever covered by snowpack on the last day of March was in 2019, when it was determined that more than 398,000 square miles of land in the Western states were covered by either ice or snow.
But this year, satellite imagery shows more than 444,000 square miles of snow and ice cover in the same region.
“The snow-covered area for the Western states was 184% of average for March, the highest since the satellite record began in 2001,” said Day.
Posting Permissions