Page #18
Pages: #1... #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 ...#29|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
Uh? well which 1's are gone?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
As time goes by, different scientist, different data ,different results, but we are still here. And more money is being made than ever with carbon taxes,and emissions control devices and etc.
There was no consensus about that Global cooling hypothesis.
Actually, the scientists proposing it were a tiny minority.
only registered users can see external links
Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
At that time the effects were still hardly noticeable. It has progressed a lot in 50 years.
Climate science requires huge computer power. That was not available in the 70's.
only registered users can see external links
Phytoplankton is basically the first link in the oceanic food-chain.
And it's responsible for 70% of the Earth's oxygen production.
You should read the book The Message by Yan Vana.
there wouldn't be this problem.
Keep their pants up,
jump off a cliff and etc.
Your supreme court sure knows how to exacerbate the world's problems.
At least right-wingers are against vaccines. That might help a lot in the future.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Their arguments are laughably simplistic. The same shit about 600 million years of history that all right-wingers use. That only fools people who don't know shit about science and are looking for anything to discredit 50 years of actual science.
It doesn't fool me, because I'm capable myself of understanding science.
Their methods are not how serious scientists refute their colleagues:
only registered users can see external links
"Two top-level American atmospheric scientists have dismissed the peer review system of current climate science literature as “a joke”."
"Happer, who has studied possible CO2 related climate change for over 40 years, succinctly states his opinion: ”There isn’t a climate crisis. There will not be a climate crisis. It is utter nonsense.”"
Lindzen has studied climate even longer than Happer, his comment: “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that carbon dioxide from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. “It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that carbon dioxide, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”
Clearly the words of grifters. They didn't even try to build their case through the scientific method.
That site is a scam too. A trust index of 8.9 out of 100:
only registered users can see external links
Still, I must admit that this site fooled me for a minute, until I read their other articles.
HaHa!
"William Happer, the former Princeton physicist now on Trump’s National Security Council, was then in charge of energy research under George HW Bush."
"Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company, has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations, analysis by the Guardian reveals."
"Peabody, the world’s biggest private sector publicly traded coal company, was long known as an outlier even among fossil fuel companies for its public rejection of climate science and action. But its funding of climate denial groups was only exposed in disclosures after the coal titan was forced to seek bankruptcy protection in April, under competition from cheap natural gas."
"Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list. "
only registered users can see external links
"Lindzen is an outlier whose arguments have been disproved time and time again, including about the link between smoking and lung cancer."
only registered users can see external links
You seem to like Skeptic sites. Here is a better one.
It at least gets a trust index of 65.1 out of 100. Yours got 8.9.
(https://www.scam-detector.com/validator/skepticalscience-com-review/):
only registered users can see external links
"Climate skeptic Richard Lindzen has testified in court that the link between tobacco and cancer is not proven."
Don't you think he got paid for that, by the cigarette industry?
That's what grifters do; they get money to lie to you, on any subject.
only registered users can see external links
scam-detector.com/ !
As I said, Let others tell you what to think! Ha Ha!!!
You found one site with a narrative that you like and you let it tell you what
to think. A scam-site says 'Top Climate Scientists...' and you believe that.
Sorry to tell you, but they are bottom of the barrel.
You provide no peer reviews of their science and I only find articles that refute their claims and other articles that show Richard Lindzen and William Happer cannot be trusted. I have researched those two people's credibility and I have taken a look at their arguments for their claims. Their arguments are razor thin and refuted many times with good arguments. Only people who know absolutely nothing are convinced by that.
People like you think two outliers that completely oppose 99% of other scientists must be correct. I am open to that possibility, but not if their arguments are weak as theirs. If you don't understand that it's not an argument that the earth had a higher CO2 concentration 180 million years ago (which is determined by the exact same climate scientist you don't believe), than you show that you knowledge is at a minimum, but your confidence is at the maximum. It's called The Dunning–Kruger effect; a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of a task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.
Would you target Africa? 1.3 Billion?
only registered users can see external links
Maybe by vaxxing the world, Bill Gates.
only registered users can see external links
Nothing natural has ever spread with that speed.
So it did almost nothing to reduce the population of the human race.
However, Covid is causing poverty in lots of areas in the world.
Poverty causes high birthrates, so Covid probably caused more population growth, than it ever lowers by killing people.
People who can engineer a virus are smart enough to know that, so they wouldn't use a virus for reducing the population. If the virus is engineered, it's more likely their goal is causing misery, because that is when people vote in authoritarian leaders and further destroy democracy around the world. That could be a Xi Jinping plan, but
he is not stupid enough to release that engineered virus in his own country.
He would just infect New York and there would be no trace leading back to China.
It's just conspiracy theories, from people who think everyone is as dumb as they are.
This is why Bill Gates mentioned vaccination in relation to population growth:
- People in poor countries need children, to take care of them when they are old.
- However, child mortality is staggering in poor countries, because of diseases.
- Therefore they have lots of children, so at least one of them survives, as insurance.
- Therefore the birthrate in those countries is very high.
- Vaccination prevents their children from dying of diseases.
- Then those parents limit their birthrate with birth control: less mouths to feed.
All over the world the birthrate is going down, when child mortality is improved.
only registered users can see external links
Do you understand now the relationship between vaccination and population growth?
Helping people in Africa out of poverty, is the best way to limit their population growth.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
"Geoengineering might be our final and only option."
They pose ideas for "If climate change has already gone too far, what could be our emergency solutions?" only registered users can see external links
Their 'final and only option' is probably about a thousand times more expensive than
the complete global transfer to renewable energy.
Here's an idea; let's prevent climate change from having gone too far.
only registered users can see external links
This is really cool. Maybe we don't all have to drive electric cars after all.
I would really like to hear it run, but there are no videos of that yet.
At 25,000 rpm, I imagine it would sound like a jet engine
Not impossible, but would increase the cost of the engine production.
I would like to see more about it.
This new engine appears to be similar to a jet engine. Crysler and Ford both tried the turbines back in the 60's. A turbine powered semi was Very powerful, but got terrible fuel mileage
The combination of inefficient combustion, inherent oil burning, and a sealing challenge result in an engine that's not competitive by today's standards on emissions or fuel economy.
Mazda still to this day produce 20B tripple rotor engines, and I do believe Bridgeporting helps problems with sealing.
Mazda is continuing its journey with the rotary, fitting a 0.33-litre single-rotor engine as a range extender in its MX-30 electric vehicle – with the shortcomings of the engine far less of a factor as a power generator, but its compact size a distinct advantage over traditional piston engines.
The US is already back to almost record oil production.
Just take a look at the 25Y history:
only registered users can see external links
In large-scale production, this could then cost around 1000 US dollars (around 890 euros).
"which is to be operated with hydrogen and could go into series production in 2024"
only registered users can see external links
"That is one big problem with socialists, they like to hide things."
They call that 'projection'. Ever watched FoxNews? They give their viewers some talking points, with no information or data at all.
EV's are much more energy efficient than vehicles with combustion engines. Electric motors convert over 85% of electrical energy into mechanical energy. Even the best combustion engines today have an energy efficiency of around 20%. They waste around 80% of the energy in the fuel. Electricity power plants are more efficient.
A natural gas power plant has an efficiency between 45% and 57%. That's around 2.5x better than a car. EV battery charging efficiency can vary, but it is often 84% to 93%.
Off course, the EV is heavier, because of the batteries, but they still are around 2x more energy efficient than cars with a combustion engine. However they have added value, because electricity can be generated in many ways. Any energy technology has other inefficiencies associated with them. Oil has a Recovery Efficiency; the fraction of oil in place that can be economically recovered with a given process. If it takes more money to extract and refine the oil, than it's worth, there is no incentive for the oil companies to do that. And if extracting and refining the oil takes just as much energy is is IN IT, it's better to stop.
I don't know why you mention nuclear energy, but it's the most expensive electricity in existence, has the longest investment payback period, the longest energy payback period and the longest CO2 payback time. And the waste will remain lethal longer than the 300,000 years Homo sapiens has walked across the surface of the planet.
Electricity from wind and solar is much cheaper, is a much better investment financially and has very short energy and CO2 payback periods. Even at the original electricity price, my solar panels are an investment that pays me 12.5% per year. Better than the dividend of any stocks and much lower risks. With the projected energy prices and my contract ending in December, my investment will be re-payed in about 3 years.
by the electrolysis of water, 20% of the energy is lost, a hydrogen fuel cell is about 60% efficient and there is some loss from the electric motor as well. That means half of the energy is lost in the process. However if this Omega 1 engine is close to the efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell/electric motor, it might be more efficient overall, because it's lighter.
There are two advantages of hydrogen over battery powered cars. The tank weighs less than a battery and filling them up again is faster. A battery powered car needs time to recharge, but filling up a tank with hydrogen doesn't take more time than filling up a tank with petrol.
Still, transportation is only responsible for about a third of the global CO2 emissions.
It's important, but it's more important to prioritize transferring the sources for electricity to renewables.
Hydrogen could be key to a carbon-free future, but is it safe?
only registered users can see external links
Hydrogen will be cheaper than today's natural gas prices by 2025.
(but this might be old news, because it was before Russia attacked Ukraine)
only registered users can see external links
Rising gas prices make green hydrogen cheaper than grey hydrogen.
only registered users can see external links
Elon Musk dismisses hydrogen as tool for energy storage.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
warm period and the "little ice age". I think global warming because of that tiny little plus of Co2 is scientific nonsense.
Gaia, the Earth Mother, is adaptive, and a dynamic being. When we go beyond her parameters, she "creates" some kind of "limiting" Factor, like diseases, Hurricanes, and Volcanoes, to keep us in Check!
We make plastic, and She "Evolves" little microbes, that degrade that, to protect Her, and maintain Her Life.
are you saying we all need to go jump off a cliff so earth can be happy again? We can't help we are here, we can't even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how we got here.
Some say we evolved, some say we were created. I would say created because at some point there had to be the "egg" for the chicken to ever happen.
When you said the earth was a being and we are the cancer I thought if you were 1 of those dedicated environmentalist you would go jump off a cliff to minimize your carbon footprint or whatever tree huggers do to alleviate the suffering to the poor ,poor earth.
But obviously you are just another, "do as I say do,not as I do" type.
only registered users can see external links
Public transport might work in a city or something but when you branch out, it is worthless.
A train can't take you to a house in the middle of town,it can only get you so close.
Just my commute to work was 30 miles each way , no train tracks,no where to put any without destroying corn fields and homes.
Millions of dollars wasted, farmland divided, neighborhoods divided, for maby 10 people to travel. Loosing money like rain.
Amtrak is the government subsidized and sole National Passenger Railroad Operator in the United States. Through outdated requirements and the inability to secure funding for long term investments, Amtrak has accumulated annual losses of greater than $1 Billion every year since its inception.Dec 9, 2015
There are other countries too.
New Comment Go to top