Climate Change

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, reason10 said:

No, we do not have enough fossil resources. And they are harming us.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-200-year-supply-oil-2012-3

The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil

For instance: Notice how, every time the Arabs raise their prices, the Americans and Canadians bend us over and raise prices on us. And I've also noticed how we seem to get into wars over oil and that's very expensive.

You obviously were born in 2019 if you somehow think oil company execs have ANYTHING to do with oil prices.

Imagine if America was the leader in wind and solar technology, and we exported it to nations around the world, and we had so much cheap energy that we could all drive electric cars practically for free and we could build massive, clean, low pollution factories to grow our economy. And the environmental reviews for those factories would be far easier because they could run from electricity. No exhaust smoke! 

Today wind and solar are inefficient. Both combined cannot power a small town. And you are an IDI0T if you think there's such a thing as driving an electric car for free.

Energy is what drives economies. With renewable technologies, we could have unlimited energy. Of course, manufacturing panels and turbines requires energy, but the net is far, far lower.  That is what will happen, sooner or later. It is inevitable. 

Actually, free market capitalism drives economies. It drive economies all throughout history before the first Texan bought an SUV and got 12 miles to the gallon. FOSSIL FUEL energy fuels hospitals, ambulances, farms that  produce our food, fire trucks that put out our fires, police cars that transport protection from crime. The world has 200 years' worth of fossil fuels.

You want to  live on solar and wind? Go buy your own farm. Power it SOLELY by your own windmills and solar collectors and do not connect your place to a city  power grid and see how long you last. Just leave the rest of us alone.

Just one analyst who does not even state it DEFINITIVELY. "COULD" LMAO

And you state it AS FACT, when it's just speculation.

YOUR CITE:

Quote

However, this figure represents just proven reserves.

But one analyst believes he could be off by almost a trillion.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

Based on nothing happening. I'm looking out my window and it's perfect outside - no floods, no crazy ass weather, nothing. it's the same outside as it's always been.

Climate Change is a hoax. 

"Looking outside" AGAIN you're citing weather, NOT CLIMATE. LMAO

You're like Senator Inhofe who denied warming by bringing snowball into the Capitol.

You won't see climate by looking outside, you have to look at the 30-year DATA.

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

I don't NEED evidence. I'm not the crazy f*ck running in circles and crying about the sky falling. lol

Climate Change is a hoax. 

You're making claims which NEED EVIDENCE to be believed, like that published in MANY JOURNALS on climate.

Your FANTASIES do NOT SUFFICE.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm down for cleaner air. What I'm not down for is you wokejobs trying to scare the public into your dystopian climate nightmare. 

The "scaring" is to AVOID the climate nightmare. Duh.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

It's fact. You're not going through anything crazy and I'm not either. 

Nothing is FACT without proof. Your FANTASIES are NOT ENOUGH.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

BULLSHIT. The basic physics is UNDERSTOOD. Stochastic processes, like the weather, are notoriously difficult to predict.

IF it's difficult to predict then we don't understand the physics.  Science can literally predict the behavior of every single atom in a nuclear explosion - becasue we understand the physics.  We can't accurately predict weather because we don't undersatnd the physics.

LOL - and i notice you couldn't explain stochastic like i asked - seems like that's TWO things you don't understand.  ROFLMAO!!

 You must have been having a dunning kruger moment LOLOL

[Aristides]

Weather is hard to predict precisely, accelerating glacial melt and rising ocean temperatures are easily measured.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Randstander is FAMOUS for LYING. You probably don't hear about that on FOS LIES.

Nothing about my conclusions is "blind," cause I SEE a LOT from MANY SOURCES.

WMO are world experts. YOU OTOH are TOP TROLL.

Incredible.

[Rebound]

On 7/7/2023 at 4:10 PM, Deluge said:

And that deliberative body of leaders of every nation in the world told us back in 2019 that we had 11 years until climate catastrophe strikes. 

And yet this forum for the nations pulled out their crystal ball and told us back in 2019 that we had 11 years until climate catastrophe strikes. 

We have 7 years to go and I haven't seen even a hint of climate change. What's going on, professor? 

We have had many “hints” of climate change. It is unquestionable. 
We can measure higher concentrations of atmospheric methane and CO2.

We can measure the clear reduction of ice in the Arctic.

We have seen a clear increase in the number of highly powerful hurricanes, such as those which destroyed New Orleans, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, and much more. 
 

We experienced unprecedented forest fires which even destroyed entire towns, including some quite large suburban towns. We saw orange skies which lasted weeks.  These things have not happened before on this scale and they are becoming commonplace in the west and Canada. 
 

We saw massive ice storms hit Texas and take down its power grid.  
 

We can scientifically measure these things and compare the frequency and severity of these events against historical records to prove decisively that, unfortunately, the predictions are sadly true. 

[robosmith]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

IF it's difficult to predict then we don't understand the physics.  Science can literally predict the behavior of every single atom in a nuclear explosion - becasue we understand the physics.  We can't accurately predict weather because we don't undersatnd the physics.

LOL - and i notice you couldn't explain stochastic like i asked - seems like that's TWO things you don't understand.  ROFLMAO!!

 You must have been having a dunning kruger moment LOLOL

Ironically it is YOU who ERRONEOUSLY believes "science can literally predict the behavior of every single atom in a nuclear explosion." That is NONSENSE.

No one can measure that, to verify ANY "prediction" was accurate. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE with today's technology.

But you have identified ONE OF THE FACTORS which makes a process stochastic: the inability to perfectly measure the states (position, velocity, mass, etc) of all the factors involved in the process.

IOW, you've once again proven that Dunning-Kruger study's conclusions were correct.

20 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Incredible.

Because you are locked in the right wing echo chamber.....

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Ironically it is YOU who ERRONEOUSLY believes "science can literally predict the behavior of every single atom in a nuclear explosion." That is NONSENSE.

Sure we can. Which is why it's illegal to do any more nuclear testing. 

Quote

No one can measure that, to verify ANY "prediction" was accurate.

 

Sure they can.  It's just math.   well - france can't but everyone else can  

Quote

But you have identified ONE OF THE FACTORS which makes a process stochastic: the inability to perfectly measure the states (position, velocity, mass, etc) of all the factors involved in the process.

Still can't explain what stochastic means or why how we used it to throttle feeds is different eh  

Quote

IOW, you've once again proven that Dunning-Kruger study's conclusions were correct.

Yes - using you as the model   Well done  

God you're such a loser  

 

[Rebound]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Still can't explain what stochastic means or why how we used it to throttle feeds is different eh  

 

And you still can’t even write a sentence in comprehensible English. 

[CdnFox]

35 minutes ago, Rebound said:

And you still can’t even write a sentence in comprehensible English. 

Well not ones that YOU'D comprehend anyway - some of those words had more than 2 syllables lol!

[herbie]

The guy that made that predictive software got killed in Guatemala protecting his wife & daughter.

I saw that movie too!

[Nationalist]

On 7/7/2023 at 6:18 PM, robosmith said:

The "scaring" is to AVOID the climate nightmare. Duh.

So this is how you approach the public? By scaring them? Gee...what a nasty idea. And you're genuinely wondering why so many people are not willing to be scared?

[Rebound]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So this is how you approach the public? By scaring them? Gee...what a nasty idea. And you're genuinely wondering why so many people are not willing to be scared?

It is because oil and coal companies are run by people who are so greedy that they are happy to run subversive campaigns to fool people into believing that climate change is a myth. They don’t care about the environmental devastation they cause.  
You can look at every group fighting climate change, and behind it, you’ll find funding from Exxon Mobil, Scaife, and the Koch Brothers.

Their effectiveness is so powerful that Newt Gingrich made a campaign promise that, if elected President, his first act on his first day would be to sign a pipeline deal for the Koch Brothers.  That’s some serious political power. 

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

It is because oil and coal companies are run by people who are so greedy that they are happy to run subversive campaigns to fool people into believing that climate change is a myth. They don’t care about the environmental devastation they cause.  
You can look at every group fighting climate change, and behind it, you’ll find funding from Exxon Mobil, Scaife, and the Koch Brothers.

Their effectiveness is so powerful that Newt Gingrich made a campaign promise that, if elected President, his first act on his first day would be to sign a pipeline deal for the Koch Brothers.  That’s some serious political power. 

As opposed to Biden stomping on pipelines while caving to packs of effeminate men in pink kitty hats and fat ugly sexually frustrated women?

Look Rebound...nobody really likes dirty air and the possibility of rising sea levels enough to actually effect us. Should we find a means of replacing fossil fuels with something as reliable, you'd think the vast majority would be for it. Today that would be nuclear. Yet you greenies hate nuclear generated power too.

You're like a bunch of spoiled brats, screaming in the middle of the grocery store. You don't really know what you want, but Gawd Damnit...whatever it is...you want it right fcking now!

Find an energy source that is RELIABLE and we'll talk seriously. That is...if you can dry those crocodile tears and blow your noses long enough to pretend to be serious.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

As opposed to Biden stomping on pipelines while caving to packs of effeminate men in pink kitty hats and fat ugly sexually frustrated women?

Look Rebound...nobody really likes dirty air and the possibility of rising sea levels enough to actually effect us. Should we find a means of replacing fossil fuels with something as reliable, you'd think the vast majority would be for it. Today that would be nuclear. Yet you greenies hate nuclear generated power too.

You're like a bunch of spoiled brats, screaming in the middle of the grocery store. You don't really know what you want, but Gawd Damnit...whatever it is...you want it right fcking now!

Find an energy source that is RELIABLE and we'll talk seriously. That is...if you can dry those crocodile tears and blow your noses long enough to pretend to be serious.

Stop cursing. Calm down.  Geez.

First, the world will burn fossil fuels for a long time to come.  There is no target of zero petroleum consumption.  And nuclear isn’t being prevented by “greenies.” It simply isn’t economically feasible any longer, and local communities everywhere won’t accept a nuke plant in their backyard. The entire state of Nevada refused to permit the Yucca Mountain storage site, and that was only a storage site buried beneath a mountain!!!
 

Second, we have many alternatives. For starters, industry has already transitioned rapidly from coal to natural gas, which is now the #1 source of electricity in the US. While not ideal, it is far superior to coal.  Besides that, operators can increase/decrease electrical generation dynamically with natural gas, just as they can with wind.  Today, US electricity production from renewable energy exceeds that of both nuclear and coal; it has been growing dramatically and it can continue to grow, because it is the cheapest means of electrical production. The gas and coal industries don't want you to know that!
 

Third, we already know that we can transition a substantial amount of our electrical generation to wind and solar, and that it works reliably and affordably on industrial scales.  The only thing holding wind back is the buildout of more transmission towers.  In Canada, obviously, wind is a limitless and free energy source. I’ve mentioned countless times that half the electricity generated in Iowa and Denmark — 50% — is from wind, while the remainder is legacy generation.  
 

The oil companies are lying to us through very sophisticated campaigns. The truth is obvious to you: If Canada and the US becomes 80% wind and solar reliant, we can have unlimited and cheap electricity production. This means cheaper factories and businesses.  Who loses? The oil and coal companies!!! Everybody else wins.  Our economies will be far stronger if we transition to a mostly renewable energy profile.  

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

Edited July 10, 2023 by Rebound

[Deluge]

On 7/8/2023 at 4:20 PM, Rebound said:

We have had many “hints” of climate change. It is unquestionable. 
We can measure higher concentrations of atmospheric methane and CO2.

We can measure the clear reduction of ice in the Arctic.

We have seen a clear increase in the number of highly powerful hurricanes, such as those which destroyed New Orleans, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, and much more. 
 

We experienced unprecedented forest fires which even destroyed entire towns, including some quite large suburban towns. We saw orange skies which lasted weeks.  These things have not happened before on this scale and they are becoming commonplace in the west and Canada. 
 

We saw massive ice storms hit Texas and take down its power grid.  
 

We can scientifically measure these things and compare the frequency and severity of these events against historical records to prove decisively that, unfortunately, the predictions are sadly true. 

No we haven't. You moonbats have been shrilling about climate disaster since what, the 19th century? And we haven't seen, nor been through, a f*cking thing since I've been alive. Now, up until this last winter we had about 4 straight years of mild winters. I was beginning to think you kooks might be onto something until this last winter where we had record breaking snowfall that went well into Spring - hell, April looked like January this year. 

The truth is, you Marxists want power and you'll say and do anything to get it, including lie about the climate. There is no climate change here - there never has been in all of recorded history, and there won't be for a long, looooong time. 

Jesus Christ wiping the wicked off the face of the earth will happen before your stupid climate crises kick in. 

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No we haven't. You moonbats have been shrilling about climate disaster since what, the 19th century? And we haven't seen, nor been through, a f*cking thing since I've been alive. Now, up until this last winter we had about 4 straight years of mild winters. I was beginning to think you kooks might be onto something until this last winter where we had record breaking snowfall that went well into Spring - hell, April looked like January this year. 

The truth is, you Marxists want power and you'll say and do anything to get it, including lie about the climate. There is no climate change here - there never has been in all of recorded history, and there won't be for a long, looooong time. 

Jesus Christ wiping the wicked off the face of the earth will happen before your stupid climate crises kick in. 

Building windmills and solar farms does not make Democrats more powerful. 

[Deluge]

On 7/7/2023 at 4:21 PM, robosmith said:

Nothing is FACT without proof. Your FANTASIES are NOT ENOUGH.

You mean you're experiencing sea levels rising in your backyard? How is that possible, climate crybaby? 

[Rebound]

9 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You mean you're experiencing sea levels rising in your backyard? How is that possible, climate crybaby? 

National Ocean Service says 10 to 12 inches of sea level rise over the next 30 years:

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html#:~:text=Sea level along the U.S.,years (1920 - 2020).

NASA says ocean levels have risen 98mm since 1993:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/#:~:text=Sea level rise is caused,of seawater as it warms.

"Sea level rise will create a profound shift in coastal flooding over the next 30 years by causing tide and storm surge heights to increase and reach further inland. By 2050, “moderate” (typically damaging) flooding is expected to occur, on average, more than 10 times as often as it does today, and can be intensified by local factors."

NASA reports that Arctic Sea ice has been measured as reduced 12.6% per decade, because of global warming:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

"Summer Arctic sea ice extent is shrinking by 12.6% per decade as a result of global warming."

What's NASA know? I mean, all the did was invent the weather satellite, put a them into orbit and changed the accuracy of weather forecasting by about fifty fold.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Rebound

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

National Ocean Service says 10 to 12 inches of sea level rise over the next 30 years:

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html#:~:text=Sea level along the U.S.,years (1920 - 2020).

NASA says ocean levels have risen 98mm since 1993:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/#:~:text=Sea level rise is caused,of seawater as it warms.

"Sea level rise will create a profound shift in coastal flooding over the next 30 years by causing tide and storm surge heights to increase and reach further inland. By 2050, “moderate” (typically damaging) flooding is expected to occur, on average, more than 10 times as often as it does today, and can be intensified by local factors."

You can go ahead and group that bullshit in with the the UN's 11 year prophecy. 

Relax, sunshine, we're all good.

[Deluge]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Building windmills and solar farms does not make Democrats more powerful. 

Sure it does. It forces citizens into some bizarre notion of utopia, while hypocrite globalist overlords and their personal shills enjoy the full benefits of what fossil fuels and nuclear power have to offer. 

[Deluge]

On 7/7/2023 at 4:18 PM, robosmith said:

The "scaring" is to AVOID the climate nightmare. Duh.

There is no climate nightmare. It's an ongoing fever dream since the late 19th century.

On 7/7/2023 at 4:16 PM, robosmith said:

"Looking outside" AGAIN you're citing weather, NOT CLIMATE. LMAO

You're like Senator Inhofe who denied warming by bringing snowball into the Capitol.

You won't see climate by looking outside, you have to look at the 30-year DATA.

You're making claims which NEED EVIDENCE to be believed, like that published in MANY JOURNALS on climate.

Your FANTASIES do NOT SUFFICE.

You mean my climate is at disaster levels? How is that possible professor? Explain. 

[Deluge]

On 7/7/2023 at 3:15 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Yes the UN is sometimes full of *sh1t*, however the ipcc studies and predictions are very accurate.

Just like the Canadian government can do some good things and bad things, it's not binary.

That should be clear now I expect.

1. Are you saying that the UN IS full of shit because they didn't use the ipcc studies when they gave the world 11 years? Or are you saying that the UN is not full of shit, in this instance, because they used the ipcc studies to tell the world that we only have 11 years from 2019? 

2. How much time does the ipcc give us, if not 11 years from 2019? 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Deluge