'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Coal technology should be upgraded to remove real pollutants out of the air. There should also be research to help make coal plants more efficient.

Then let the best power source win in terms of reliability and cost.
 
Monahorns said:
Hey BrntOrangeStampede, no need to worry about CO2. The physics shows that there isn't much more warming even possible due to CO2 concentration. Unless you are worried about a 0.33C increase or less.

screenshot-2019-06-29-at-14.26.41.png


screenshot-2019-09-23-at-10.06.07.png


screenshot-2019-09-23-at-14.02.30.png
Click to expand...
ok. I'm willing to read and consider this...need a link.

But I say again....if this is so obvious and so irrefutable and "just math" then why the F.... isn't the GOP, the Whitehouse, the Senate holding hearings to publicize this? I'm tired of the default "it's a hoax" responses. I'm tired of the "they don't want anyone to know, so they won't let us talk" responses. If the nay-sayers have data and facts to back up their assertions then the current occupant of the WH and the leader of the Senate have plenty of authority and opportunity to give it a voice. But instead....we get crickets. The POTUS tweets 5-6 times a day. Surely one of those tweets could be...."A new publication has come out exposing the holes in the CC model. Check it out here...." or "POTUS has commissioned a panel to discuss the shortcomings of CC models."

But again....big fat crickets.
 
4th_floor said:
Agreed. We need nukes for baseload, since coal is foolishly being phased out. Using wind for baseload is moronic, as Griddy customers learned this summer.
Click to expand...
completely agree. looked at the thorium thing. seems like a smart way to go. Wind energy has a niche but it is a relatively small niche. Hard to scale that one appropriately. I'm not even an advocate for 0% carbon and certainly not on the Dem timeline, but I do believe there is an issue and we are very unwise....
1. to ignore it because it hurts our pocket book in the short run
2. completely abdicate our voice to the left on the issue

A prudent person would at least invest in technology upgrades and research into batteries, if only as an insurance policy against CC.
 
But I say again....if this is so obvious and so irrefutable and "just math" then why the F.... isn't the GOP, the Whitehouse, the Senate holding hearings to publicize this? I'm tired of the default "it's a hoax" responses. I'm tired of the "they don't want anyone to know, so they won't let us talk" responses. If the nay-sayers have data and facts to back up their assertions then the current occupant of the WH and the leader of the Senate have plenty of authority and opportunity to give it a voice. But instead....we get crickets. The POTUS tweets 5-6 times a day. Surely one of those tweets could be...."A new publication has come out exposing the holes in the CC model. Check it out here...." or "POTUS has commissioned a panel to discuss the shortcomings of CC models."
Click to expand...

What if there is no Climate Emergency?

I'm with you. But I think the answer is simple. First of all, the GOP are a bunch of idiots. They don't have any courage. If there is a loud voice screaming for something. They don't want to be seen as against it. The other part of it is that the GOP want the excuse to control more of the economy just like the Dems do. They really aren't against the AGW and crisis narratives. They just want to be the ones leading the ship.

Another reason, that Physics and Math are used to refute the AGW narrative is that articles like this do not get published because they don't support the narrative. Therefore, not many people know about the research. And because of the cowardice described above, people aren't willing to advertise the data on their own.
 
A professor in England came up with a plan to not only do away with airline mileage rewards, but to tax the most frequent flyers - all to fight global warming

Climate fraudologists are very upset with this idea

"Air miles schemes should be axed as they encourage jet-setters to take extra flights in a bid to maintain “privileged traveller status”, according to a report commissioned by the government’s climate change advisers.

An “escalating Air Miles Levy” should also be introduced to rein in the number of trips taken by frequent flyers without penalising those taking an annual holiday, with the income raised to be invested into low-carbon aviation technology...."​

Air miles should be axed to deter frequent fliers, advises report
 
Monahorns said:
What if there is no Climate Emergency?

I'm with you. But I think the answer is simple. First of all, the GOP are a bunch of idiots. They don't have any courage. If there is a loud voice screaming for something. They don't want to be seen as against it. The other part of it is that the GOP want the excuse to control more of the economy just like the Dems do. They really aren't against the AGW and crisis narratives. They just want to be the ones leading the ship.

Another reason, that Physics and Math are used to refute the AGW narrative is that articles like this do not get published because they don't support the narrative. Therefore, not many people know about the research. And because of the cowardice described above, people aren't willing to advertise the data on their own.
Click to expand...
Read it. here's the part I either don't get or dispute. the author claims...
"The diminishing warming effectiveness of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
There is no direct straight-line relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.
The effectiveness of CO2 as a warming Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically as concentration increases."

And just states it as fact. not much discussion about why they believe or have calculated this to be the case. If you take that statement as gospel then I get the rest of the math and implications...but I don't take that statement as gospel.

That statement is almost the polar opposite of what the bulk of the scientific community asserts and this author does very little to describe how/why they came to that conclusion.

Certainly there are systems that could be seen as analogues to what this author is asserting for diminishing impacts for greater concentrations but this author doesn't do a great job of describing that argument.
 
And just states it as fact. not much discussion about why they believe or have calculated this to be the case. If you take that statement as gospel then I get the rest of the math and implications...but I don't take that statement as gospel.

That statement is almost the polar opposite of what the bulk of the scientific community asserts and this author does very little to describe how/why they came to that conclusion.

Certainly there are systems that could be seen as analogues to what this author is asserting for diminishing impacts for greater concentrations but this author doesn't do a great job of describing that argument.
Click to expand...

The "scientific community" hasn't even asked the question about the effect curve of CO2 on temperature. They just assumed.

Here is another article that explains the physics behind the previous article. The bottom line is that there is only so much solar radiation that CO2 can absorb. CO2 doesn't absorb heat. It absorbs a spectrum of IR frequency and that energy is converted to heat. That spectrum is almost all converted into heat already. So you can add more CO2 but the heat output is drastically lower per.

https://www.geoconvention.com/archi...5EDNMA4nmVyVpqXHKEN8fTTux4l0IZEAnxS5ihm8pb9gE

I listened to a different physicist say the same thing basically on a podcast. He had tried to get other climate scientists to take a look at his calculations, but they wouldn't even read his paper. More evidence that anything that challenges the narrative gets ignored and then disappeared.
 
Monahorns said:
Coal technology should be upgraded to remove real pollutants out of the air.
Click to expand...

My dad worked most of his life in a TVA coal powered plant. In the early 80's they installed "scrubbers" in every smoke stack from which he said removed pollutants so what you see coming out of the stacks was just plain steam. If that was in the early 80's then wouldn't the coal polluting be a bunch of BS today? Or were they lying to my dad?
 
Vol, they weren't lying. I just don't think all the coal plants added scrubbers. The scrubbers probably aren't 100% efficient either. There might have been a bit of junk still coming out but much, much less.
 
Why wont any of them challenge China over its coal burning plants? They are building them not just in China but all over the world.

“There should be no universal environmental standards.”
“Countries endowed with coal resources should not be stopped using coal.”
- - Yu Zhirong​
 


Where we are all headed if we don't stand up to those who are pushing AGW alarmism. California has long been known to have policy that spreads to the rest of the US within the next decade.

It isn't just going to go away. Those of us who don't agree are going to have to push back.
 
Why wont any of them challenge China over its coal burning plants? They are building them not just in China but all over the world.

“There should be no universal environmental standards.”
“Countries endowed with coal resources should not be stopped using coal.”
- - Yu Zhirong
Click to expand...

Just look at the NBA over Hong Kong. No US business or politician is going to criticize China. They are a huge market and they are the largest owner of US debt.

Another reason we need to quit running deficits. It affects our foreign policy. As a result our society is focused less and less on freedom and more on government power.
 
We should have our own resident admittance system for Texas depending on what state the person is moving from. That way immigrants from failed states will learn about why their state failed and why ours hasn't. They should also take a test with questions like "I agree with the statement, the oil and gas industry benefits our society and should be supported. Yes or No." Wrong answers earn you a 1-way bus ticket back to your home state.
 
Another reason we need to quit running deficits. It affects our foreign policy. As a result our society is focused less and less on freedom and more on government power.
Click to expand...

I disagree. All my adult life I've been told that the debt is bad and will eventually kill us, and now, 40+ years later, where are we? We have brought China to heel without firing a single shot. They *cannot* afford for our debt payments to stop, it is the main bulwark of their BS economy. This comes under the heading of the old saw, "If you owe a million dollars, that is bad for you. If you owe a billion dollars, that is bad for your banker."
 
Uh. I don't think we control China. There is definitely entanglement, but it keeps us from truly criticizing their political oppression and manipulation of their economy. They don't seem afraid to do whatever the hell they want.
 
Monahorns said:
Uh. I don't think we control China. There is definitely entanglement, but it keeps us from truly criticizing their political oppression and manipulation of their economy. They don't seem afraid to do whatever the hell they want.
Click to expand...

I think the debt element is somewhat overblown (though not insignificant). They hold about $1.1T of our debt. It's a lot of money but not game-changing. They aren't building their economy around the interest payments, though they certainly help.

The real money is coming from the $800B of exports the United States and EU (and $2.2T of total exports) are buying from China every year. That's serious coin - enough to bankroll a powerful military, etc.

And of course, a lot of the leverage they have on our businesses comes from the fact that they give us a bunch of cheap labor. China makes money off the exports, but a lot of the money is made by American business interests exploiting cheap Chinese labor.
 
Monahorns said:
Here is another article that explains the physics behind the previous article. The bottom line is that there is only so much solar radiation that CO2 can absorb. CO2 doesn't absorb heat. It absorbs a spectrum of IR frequency and that energy is converted to heat. That spectrum is almost all converted into heat already. So you can add more CO2 but the heat output is drastically lower per.

https://www.geoconvention.com/archi...5EDNMA4nmVyVpqXHKEN8fTTux4l0IZEAnxS5ihm8pb9gE
Click to expand...
Interesting point. The link doesnt work. Would be interested in reading more.
 
Monahorns said:
I found the article in another location.

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125711/58_GEOCANADA_2010_ABSTRACT_Norm_Kalmanovitch.pdf

I also found a similar one. I haven't read it yet though.

(PDF) Increasing CO 2 in atmosphere cannot increase the Earth's temperature
Click to expand...
ok, so if I'm understanding the assertion here....CC/Temp effect is not just dependent on the amount CO2 but also highly dependent on the IR levels. And IR levels are not infinite, therefore no matter how much CO2 enters the atmosphere, there is a finite amount of IR and therefore the amount of reaction is ultimately limited by the amount of IR. An interesting counter argument and certainly has other parallels in chemical reactive equations but THIS IS ALSO ONLY A MODEL. One that is based on lots of educated guessing. This gives a plausible explanation, but it is no more proof of the absence of CC, than some of the other sides models are proof of the existence of CC. We are working with an abundance of guesswork. My position is that we should be taking some measures to respond and some measures to understand. We should neither act like the sky is falling (green new deal), nor should we hide our heads in the sand (most of the GOP).

And again I would say, why isn't the administration leveraging this guys paper to refute CC? Why is the administration so scared to go science-toe to science-toe with the CC folks? Why does the GOP hide from this conversation?
 
Spending your valuable time addressing every idiotic argument from the libs is a waste. There is plenty of evidence in existence and available for those that seek the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top