That's a great meme, for people who imagine that no one is already testing new kinds of EV batteries that require lesser amounts of cobalt or not any cobalt, or that nothing is going on in the way of improving the cobalt mining industry where it currently exists or developing new mining operations for cobalt in countries with effective safeguards, or that scenes like this have not been commonplace, even to this day, since the oil industry expanded from its origins in the second half of the 19th century:
Recovering from an oil pipeline that leaked
How many of us are that unrealistic in our thinking?
Two for sure. The forum member who just posted this "Greta" meme (at the end of the previous page), and the other forum member who posted that same meme some weeks or months ago.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-05-2023).]
Originally posted by Hudini: It's a meme. It hints that the "answers" the climate activists are proposing have just as many downsides as the oil industry today.
From their point of view—and I'm speaking as a climate activist sympathizer, not as a climate activist myself—the reliance on diesel, or bunker oil (for ships), and on gasoline and natural gas for energy has one very distinctive downside that there's just no getting around: carbon dioxide emissions as a byproduct.
I guess it's about how to interpret the "Greta" meme. You're explaining it in a kind of general way, and I am interpreting it in a more literal or exact kind of way.
I don't like this meme because I think it is misleading in the way that I described when I talked about cobalt in batteries and cobalt mining, vs the oil industry.
I think the key words (in the remark from Hudini) are "just as many downsides."
Is it "just as many" downsides? Or (?) is it "different downsides, none of which is as inherently irredeemable, from a climate activist's perspective, as the carbon dioxide emissions from petroleum-derived fuels."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-05-2023).]
There are no carbon dioxide emissions from the manufacturer of wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants or hydroelectric power facilities.
When you can affirm the above statement as being true, maybe a conversation might take place.
It's not a question of carbon dioxide emissions. It's the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
Accurate systems analysis is a "must". To predict the total amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions before the wind farm or solar farm (etc.) is green-lighted. That has to include the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from every phase of the facility, from its manufacture or construction and installation (including the raw materials), and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions on a per unit of energy production basis, during the projected lifetime of the facility. Even the decommissioning and dismantling of the energy-producing facility needs to be analyzed from a "greenhouse perspective", for an accurate systems analysis.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Canadian Renewable Energy Association; January 2022.
What commies think of America.
May not be in the ocean/gulf, but other problems will arise. And guess what? They won't give a sheet about those problems either. Just as long as $moneys$ get transfered to D-Evil lobbists and NGHoes. They can say all they want after they take the money and run. We'll be stuck with what they left.
Never any kind of problem with the oil and gas industry.
impact oil gas "birds" (search engine parameters)
Sure... Everything is win win pro pro with green tech. Now, what are the cons. You never list any. Everything thought of. No loss of transmission power from distance. Quick to restore when a big wave/storm/act-of-green-god. All tech tested. No biomatter affected. No change or screwing with natural wind patterns. No change from low/high freq traveling down into the water messing with above/below water biomatter patterns. No problems what so ever, huh?
You post nothing but puff pieces from used car sales men. You're no different than the Verizon store dude trying to sell me a new phone when all I went in there for was a new sim card since mine would no longer along in/out calling. Kept trying to say it was my phone because he had one and it did the same thing. New sim and it worked. You're a pushy person who'd rather spend blank checks. What the F are you getting out of this?
We must save California by raping red states of more money. How's the bullet train coming?
Prospects for new onshore and dockside infrastructure projects to support floating offshore wind farm construction near Morro Bay, California. https://youtu.be/Pk5OE4d4vMU
2 minutes 40 seconds of YouTube video content
Carbon dioxide hysteria "Share the Scare"
It's a CO2 spooktacular ... a Decarbonization debauchment... a Net Zero palooza!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-09-2023).]
The econuts do know that the oil they hate so much comes FROM the ground right?
Where does the fiberglass that's used for the blades of those "renewable energy", bird-killing, monstrosities come from (hint: fiberglass and the resins used with it aren't natural either)?
What do these monstrosities use for lubrication (HINT: rhymes with linoleum)?
Do you econuts have any idea how much oil needs to be pumped up to the turbines everytime they do an "oil change"? A: EACH WIND TURBINE requires 80 GALLONS every 8-12 months for ALL 341,000 wind turbines worldwide.
What about all the grease (made from petroleum) do they require for lubrication of all the other moving parts? A: EACH WIND TURBINE requires 60 GALLONS every 8-12 months of grease for ALL 341,000 wind turbines worldwide.
I'll do the math for you 341,000 x 80 = 27,280,000 GALLONS of OIL and 341,000 x 60 = 20,460,000 GALLONS of GREASE every 8-12 months worldwide!
In reality, it isn't that consumers should stop using oil to "save the planet", it because the econuts think the world is running out of oil (which it isn't), and they want to HORDE it for all their screwy "renewable energy" SCAMS!
And unless the parts for these pathetic wastes are machined and put together outdoors during daylight hours, instead of in factories that all require ELECTRICITY, for the machines (which also require grease and oil for lubrication), lighting, computers, etc, which is provided by the other natural resource the ecoterrorists hate which is none other than COAL.
It's ok, according to A.I. cabal bot rinselberg (R.I.), it ozone healing smoke. In fact, that fire is actually producing cold flames, not hot at all. ACTUALLY, it's all CGI, it's fake. Nothing to see here. CNN, Vice, Vox, NBC say so.
Anyone pushing the green energy scam needs to listen to this podcast. I'm not a fan of Rogan, I heard about this one from another podcast and found it a good listen.
I already know Rinse won't bother listening because he doesn't care if the media doesn't tell him what to care about. Joe Rogan Podcast on Spotify
Rinse, even though I play around with EV toys, they are just that....fire-hazard toys. May as well stick a grenade between your legs, pull the pin then hope you don't drop it.
There are damn good reasons I stick with SLA batteries.
Cost. the set-up on my current build is 36v/22aH for a roughly 50km range at city speeds. Li is $500+. SLA was $190 bucks.
Safety. SLA aren't going to blow up in my living room in the middle of the night for no better reason than the day ends in "Y" (google ebike fire videos and pics. TONS of them out there. One of those Li bombs going off is a daily thing)
Simplicity. SLA dont need perfectly matched chargers or BMS boards to work.
Repairability. If one battery goes bad it's 2 bolts, not major surgery, to replace it.
The ONLY rational reason for using Li is weight. My current set-up weighs 39 pounds, and a comparable Li weighs about 5. Big effin deal, I'm building it for cruising, not racing. I dont care about the extra 2kph or 2 seconds of 0-to time the weight costs me.
(I know, I know....but, but, but...It's lead. It's acid, it's fiberglass. It's bad-bad-bad. )
<edit>
Right now, there is one and only one advantage to them. They are legally considered bicycles here so there is no need for registration, inspection, insurance, licence or any of the other red-tape crap. Build-and-ride. For the money these cost i could easily have a regular motorcycle. Used Harleys can go cheaper than some of these ebikes. Nevermind rice-grinders.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-17-2023).]
Live from Davos Switzerland I give you Al "Albert" Gore: "...it's been predicted in model calculations that there's a 75% chance that within 5-7 years, the polar ice cap will disappear..." (Not an exact quote, but sums it up.) Hmm, 5-7years eh? 2o3o 2O3O Twenty Thirty Two=2 / 0010 Zero=0 / 0000 Three=3 / 0011 Zero=0 / 0000
A global coup d'etat that's been planned for well over a decade. 2o21 couldn't happen fully because anointed one Shillary didn't get elected. The 'Don' (pbuh) stopped that. Scare virus (emergency plandemic) released. Brain dead individual installed due to voting changes brought on by plandemic (FRAUD). Social disorder rising. Solution presented to the masses? DNA/OWG=n3w w0rlD Order. Glad to know high ranking "American/USA" intelligence personnel are present in Davos.... assisting in trafficking of biomatter (playthings/pets) to the unelected snobby elites.
Not of the people, by the people, for the people, hasn't been for decades.
The temperature of the polar ice caps isn't entirely a function of the climate, the polar ice caps are cold (f-ing cold to be exact) because of the location on the planet.
I challenge any and all econuts to stop spewing their bullshit and actually GO TO the northernmost point on the planet and see EXACTLY how cold and frozen it actually is, and if they do and don't provide VIDEO PROOF of the claims they're making then "no video, no proof" and they can shut up about it.
"Traces of [prehistoric] rainforests found in West Antarctica"
quote
An international team of researchers has provided a new and unprecedented perspective on the climate history of Antarctica. From a sediment core collected from the seafloor in West Antarctica, they found evidence that around 90 million years ago the coastline was home to temperate, swampy rainforests where the annual mean temperature was ca. 12 degrees Celsius—an exceptionally warm climate for a location near the South Pole. The results are published this week (Wednesday 1 April 2020) in the journal Nature.
Scroll through this article and anyone can see that 90 million years ago, the Antarctic continent was not much different than it is today, in terms of its size and geography. It was at the South Pole, just as it is today. but the global climate was radically different, and so also, the prevailing conditions of Antarctica in terms of temperatures, humidity, ice/water and plant and animal life.
What about the Arctic? As recently as 125,000 years ago, the Arctic was much warmer and greener than it is today. But its location on the planet wasn't any different. Its geography was very much the same as it is today.
Originally posted by Fitz301: The temperature of the polar ice caps isn't entirely a function of the climate, the polar ice caps are cold (f-ing cold to be exact) because of the location on the planet.
It's true, the temperature [weather] at and surrounding the planet's North and South poles is not entirely a function of the global climate. But the second part of that sentence—"the polar ice caps are cold because of [their] location on the planet"—cannot be relied upon.The evidence from paleoclimatology is clear. That assertion is wrong.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-20-2023).]
I am well aware of the fact that Antartica was warm and lush at one point, but that's really not the point is it?
Their argument is that the "polar ice caps are melting and will disappear if we don't get more free money to throw at our made up crisis", now isn't it?
If the Antartic was already lush and green once, then why are they trying so hard to convince us that that's a bad thing? And it may have been "lush and green" at one time, most likely when it was located closer to the equator and was called "Pangea", then eventually it drifted south to it's present position and what happened?
It froze!
Why? Because everything that's at the poles is FROZEN. Because of their LOCATION on the planet.
Neither the ice caps at the north or south poles are in ANY danger of disappearing any time soon.
Time to cut the crap, we've been hearing about this BS since the 70's, only then it was "globull cooling" and we would all "freeze to death in 10 years", then in the 80's it became "globull warming" and we heard "the world will end in 10 years if we don't recycle" (and we've been hearing about it every 10 years since), then in the 90's-2000's, when the phrase "globull warming" wasn't enough to scare people anymore, they changed the name to "climate change".
They chose the phrase "climate change" so nobody could argue, because who could argue that the climate ISN'T changing, because it is, it has since the climate existed on the planet, The name change was to shut people up and if they didn't they were called "climate deniers" or "conspiracy theorists", which was the reason for the change.
People have to be really careful about the terminology they use when making their climate arguments, "globull warming" is a HOAX, "climate change" is a naturally occuring part of the environment in which we live (i.e.; Earth), but the two are used interchangeably to shut down those who would argue against the econuts and their climate cult agenda of control and their cash cow of dooming and scare tactics. The ecoterrorists work solely in semantics and will nitpick every argument and statement made by those not in the cult.
Climate change is happening, that's a given, but to think that throwing money at it will somehow stop it is a nonsensical endeavor which can never happen, the "green" in the phrase "green movement" has nothing whatsoever to do with "saving the planet", it's about THE green; the cold, hard cash green, to fill the pockets of the "green technology" hucksters and conmen because they know how gullible the majority of people actually are.
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 01-19-2023).]
I am well aware of the fact that Antartica was warm and lush at one point, but that's really not the point is it?
Their argument is that the "polar ice caps are melting and will disappear if we don't get more free money to throw at our made up crisis", now isn't it?
Well stated.
You obviously know to NEVER allow a Leftist to frame an argument.
Moreover, trying to get a Leftist to stay within any established boundaries of a debate is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.
But I suspect you know that too.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-20-2023).]
"Temperature graph misrepresented to [falsely] deny climate change" Sophia Tulp for AP; January 18, 2023.
quote
CLAIM: A graph from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration displaying land and ocean temperatures over the last eight years shows that the Earth has been cooling, not warming, proving that global warming from carbon emissions is a hoax.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. A small portion of the graph showing only the period between 2015 and 2022 has been taken out of context to make the incorrect claim. The larger graph from which it was isolated displays temperature trends over more than 140 years, showing a dramatic upward trend. Experts say El Niño and La Niña cycles have impacted the last eight years, but more reliable climate data must be measured over periods of decades.
THE FACTS: Social media users are misrepresenting a small portion of a graph from NOAA to support the erroneous claim that global temperatures are falling rather than rising, meaning global warming is not real.
“Last 8 years... global cooling... at a rate of 0.11°C/decade.... despite 450+ billion tons of emissions worth 14% of total manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 warming is a hoax,” wrote one Twitter user in a post that received nearly 10,000 shares and more than 13 million views.
The user shared an image of a graph with NOAA’s logo that displayed eight red bars corresponding with global land and ocean temperatures from 2015 to 2022. While some of the years fluctuate, a black line placed over the top appears to show a slight downward trend. A key on the graph says the overall temperature decreased 0.11 degrees Celsius during that period.
“The 8-year temperature time series shows the annual global mean surface temperatures for the most recent eight years,” said Jeffrey Hicke, a professor at the University of Idaho’s Department of Earth and Spatial Sciences. “It is accurate as shown, but is misleading.”
That’s because while the last eight years trended slightly downward, this small period of time was greatly impacted by El Niño and La Niña cycles, experts explained. Zooming in on just this period does not discredit the overall upward trend of global temperatures over the past century.
The full NOAA graph, which displays temperature trends over a period of 142 years, from 1880 to 2022, shows a dramatic rise in global average temperatures. Hicke said the graph in its full context [from 1880 to 2022] is “much more appropriate for assessing the influence of human activities on climate.”
NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information said in a statement that although the climate is warming, it is also subject to natural variability as it is impacted by weather events such as El Niños and La Niñas.
El Niños are a phenomenon that bring unusually warm temperatures across the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, while La Niñas bring unusually cool temperatures. El Niños and La Niñas affect global weather patterns and temperatures, NOAA scientists explained. During El Niños, global temperatures tend to be warmer than years when La Niñas were present. Global temperatures tend to be slightly cooler, though still above average, during La Niñas.
In its statement, NOAA said that 2015-2016 experienced a strong El Niño, which helped boost global temperatures to record highs. But since then, about three La Niñas have helped slightly cool global temperatures.
“The selected timeframe from 2016-2022 can create the appearance of a cooling trend,” the agency said, adding, “this is why when computing trends we use timescales of at least 10 years.”
John Knox, a professor at the University of Georgia’s Geography Department who studies the dynamics of weather and climate, said the claim in the tweet “is a classic example of cherry-picking the end points of a time series to seemingly prove a false point.”
He similarly pointed out that isolating just the last eight years to claim that global temperatures are cooling does not account for the El Niño and La Niña cycles.
“It’s a very short period of time, which reduces the statistical significance of claims of a trend,” he wrote in an email, adding, “The rising temperature trend over the decades is obvious.”
Despite increasing online misinformation on the topic, overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming and climate change are real and caused by human activity, including human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, as the AP has previously reported.
If the Antartic was already lush and green once, then why are they trying so hard to convince us that that's a bad thing? And it may have been "lush and green" at one time, most likely when it was located closer to the equator and was called "Pangea", then eventually it drifted south to it's present position and what happened?
It froze!
Why? Because everything that's at the poles is FROZEN. Because of their LOCATION on the planet.
Neither the ice caps at the north or south poles are in ANY danger of disappearing any time soon.
There was Pangea, when all the land was comprised by just a single continent. After Pangea, but still 90 million years ago, the various continents that we have today had started to emerge, and the Antarctic continent was already at the South Pole and similar in its geography to the Antarctic continent of today. But it wasn't the extremely cold year-round climate and it wasn't almost completely devoid of liquid water and water vapor (humidity) as it is today. As I said before:
"Traces of [prehistoric] rainforests found in West Antarctica"
quote
An international team of researchers has provided a new and unprecedented perspective on the climate history of Antarctica. From a sediment core collected from the seafloor in West Antarctica, they found evidence that around 90 million years ago the coastline was home to temperate, swampy rainforests where the annual mean temperature was ca. 12 degrees Celsius—an exceptionally warm climate for a location near the South Pole. The results are published this week (Wednesday 1 April 2020) in the journal Nature.
You state that the Antarctic is "devoid of water vapor (humidity)"...well of course it is - IT'S FROZEN.
If you want to know why, it's as simple as understanding the air conditioning system in your car - the AC in your car, or home, all work on the same principle, and it's the same principle at work in Antarctica or any other frozen climate and it's the reason that your AC doesn't work in the cold winter months - it's called "evaporation".
All AC systems work on the principle of evaporation, they don't get cold because of the refrigerant, they get cold because the refrigerant speeds up the process of evaporation, it's the reason you see, and here's another word that "climate science" tries to scare John Q. Public with but it's a naturally occuring result of evaporation called "condensation", that's dripping on the ground under your car in the hot summer months.
"Well, what's your point?", you may be wondering...
The point is, that Antarctica's lack of humidity IS NOT a symptom of "climate change", but because IT'S TOO COLD IN ANTARCTICA, only warm air has humidity - the very reason your AC (a device which relies on evaporation) only works in the summer, and the hotter and drier the air is, the better it works because it relies on being able to remove hot, humid air from your house or car to the hot, less humid surrounding air outside by replacing it with cooler, drier air so you don't sweat (with is a function of evaporation as well), and if it's already humid out the AC won't work as well either.
So if you're argument is that you have bunch of graphs showing that I should be "concerned" and frightened that Antarctica lacks moisture in the air, you failed (miserably) because of course the air is dry - IT'S TOO COLD!
Do you have any proof, other than a bunch of "researchers" (that will literally say anything to keep the grant money rolling in, because if they don't they would have to get real jobs) that Antarctica was where it is now "90 million years" ago and still had it's "lush, green climate"? Some kind of time machine or something where you went back "90 million years" ago and literally stood in Antarctica to prove their theory (and that's really all it is conjecture and theory), got any pictures of you getting a tan on the beaches of Antarctica (SPOILER ALERT: the sun's angle isn't direct enough to warm Antarctica, because, again, of where it's located on the planet), got anything like that?
No, of course you don't, because that would be impossible right (unless of course "science" says it's possible and they have graphs to "prove" it)?
You live under the idea that "science can't be questioned", which is a huge part of the problems we face now. Anybody could produce the same graphs you just showed, with them showing any information, and version thereof, to make you believe exactly what they want you to believe, and anytime they add the phrase "and you can't question any of this because it's science", that should be the motivation of everybody to not only question it, but to question it until they find out for themselves what the truth actually is.
That was a nice graph though, and I suppose you expect me to believe the somebody, maybe even you, couldn't have just produced that in Paint before you posted it (I have no idea, I wasn't there).
But, for the sake of argument, let's say it is an actual graph, by some "scientists", that you pulled from the web and posted - fine. But what does it prove? Other than somebody is really good at making bar graphs, and that red color they used to really drive the point home, was a nice touch, but in all reality it proves nothing.
And, be honest, do you honestly believe that the information it contains is legitimate and hasn't been "adjusted" to reflect the point they're trying to make? Not even a little bit? Seriously?
Especially when you take into account that these so called "scientists" rely in grant money, provided by the federal government that is trying to push a "climate change" agenda and can cut them off at any time if they don't play the game, how can you seriously take anything they say as "fact"?
Grant money is a hell of a coercion tactic, to get somebody to say just about anything you want them to.
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 01-20-2023).]
Originally posted by Fitz301: Do you have any proof, other than a bunch of "researchers" (that will literally say anything to keep the grant money rolling in, because if they don't they would have to get real jobs) that Antarctica was where it is now "90 million years" ago and still had it's "lush, green climate"? Some kind of time machine or something where you went back "90 million years" ago and literally stood in Antarctica to prove their theory (and that's really all it is conjecture and theory), got any pictures of you getting a tan on the beaches of Antarctica (SPOILER ALERT: the sun's angle isn't direct enough to warm Antarctica, because, again, of where it's located on the planet), got anything like that?
You're interested in the topic. I respect that. Let me respond to just this one part of what you said.
If you scroll through this article, or just read the first two paragraphs... that's the evidence.
This is paleoclimatology. The research that enables scientists to talk with confidence about what the climate was like in Antarctica, 90 million years ago.
Obviously, I can't "vouch" for it personally. They published their research in Nature, which is a scientific journal that emphasizes peer review, so that other scientists can look at what's being published and provide their criticisms of it.
I haven't gone so far as to follow the link from this summary report of the British Antarctic Society to look at any of the full research report in Nature.
I don't think this is research that has been contradicted or called out as faulty or misleading or so incomplete that it's not enough to say with confidence that Antarctica had a much warmer climate (warm enough for rainforests) about 90 million years ago—but I have to say, I haven't looked to see if I can find any contradictory reports of that kind.
It's not just Antarctica. If you count back 7 posts before this one, I posted two reports about the evidence that the Arctic had a much warmer climate about 125,000 years ago. DNA evidence from 125,000 years ago.
It's just not accurate to say (as you seem to be saying) that the climate for the planet's two polar regions is certain to be very cold and certain to remain very cold because at the polar regions, the incidence angle of the sunlight that's received is shallower or more oblique or less direct than the sunlight that is received as you move away from the polar regions and closer to the Equator. The paleoclimatology research is evidence that there's way more to it than just the angle of the sunlight.
What else effects the climate at the polar regions?
The amount of greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere.
It's beyond dispute that the global climate has changed and changed radically at different times during the Earth's 4.5 billion year history.
I believe that the best research is proving with high confidence that our planet is getting warmer, overall, and it's happening very rapidly. Scientists have considered and continue to consider whether there's some other explanation(s) for it, but the explanation that lines up most closely with all the known evidence is that the planet is currently being driven towards higher temperatures by human emissions of greenhouse gases, significantly more so than by any other factor.
I can't vouch for any of it personally, but it's been my recreation (or procrastination) to ornament this forum with the media reports that I think are the most persuasive.
It's my eccentricity that I like to do this. After all, I'm kind of an "institutionalist" across the boards. Not just on climate.
So that's how it happens.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-20-2023).]
