Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:12 am

acaton wrote:People will die due to our pulling it out...


Die? Or not be born?
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:26 am

Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby acaton » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:33 am

How do they ship it?
Image

Short, fat and slow often does the trick...45ACP
User avatar
acaton
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:42 am

Maybe Trump will legislate less children....

Image
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:47 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:Maybe Trump will legislate less children....

Image


that's right, Goyim, save the planet, don't have kids!


oh, don't worry about your 1.7 birthrate, we can import people to fill in the replacement gap

no Goyim, it's OK for them to have 5 or 6 kids, its part of their culture, don't be racist!
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 163 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:54 pm

I'm greener than I gave myself credit for. :lol:
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7638
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:55 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:Maybe Trump will legislate less children....

Image


that's right, Goyim, save the planet, don't have kids!


oh, don't worry about your 1.7 birthrate, we can import people to fill in the replacement gap

no Goyim, it's OK for them to have 5 or 6 kids, its part of their culture, don't be racist!


Ha!!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:58 pm

Buc2 wrote:I'm greener than I gave myself credit for. :lol:



Lol
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:28 pm




Did they say who they are contracting the job with?
mdb1958
 
Posts: 7019
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:50 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:Maybe Trump will legislate less children....


that's right, Goyim, save the planet, don't have kids!


oh, don't worry about your 1.7 birthrate, we can import people to fill in the replacement gap

no Goyim, it's OK for them to have 5 or 6 kids, its part of their culture, don't be racist!


You have such a limited thought process when it comes to the problem of procreation. You're stuck on Reduce. You can also Recycle and Reuse.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:52 pm

mdb1958 wrote:



Did they say who they are contracting the job with?

No.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:14 pm

Cow farts are much worse than we thought. Forget about your Ford F250 gas hog. Next time you're munching on your, oh so tender, rare 24oz Porterhouse or enjoying that scrumptious mac & cheese casserole, think about how you are contributing to the problem of global warming.

Massive Global Warming discovery shocks scientists
OCTOBER 1, 2017 BY DAN TAYLOR

Scientists have long been aware that methane emissions from cows can impact on our climate, but a new study claims that cow farts may have had a far bigger impact on global warming than we thought possible. The findings, published in the journal Carbon Balance and Management, claims that we may have been off in our calculations of methane emissions from livestock by a staggering 11 percent.

Methane is a natural byproduct of the cow as its gut microbes breakdown the tough vegetation it eats. Methane contributes to the greenhouse effect by trapping the sun’s heat and warming our planet. While carbon dioxide is the biggest culprit in this effect, methane is far more effective than CO2 when it comes to keeping heat.

This particular project was sponsored by NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System research initiative. Scientists think that previous estimates on cow methane emissions used out-of-date data, and that the correct figure for 2011 is about 11 percent higher than previous estimates.

Continued: https://www.morningticker.com/2017/10/m ... cientists/
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7638
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:36 pm

Interestingly enough, today I rode my 2 stroke dirtbike spewing gas, oil and CO2 into the air, had a couple gatorades in plastic bottles, towed a trailer behind my large engine Jeep and was just marinating a 10 oz filet to grill for dinner. I also have my AC on 69. And undoubtedly will at some point tonight fire up the hot tub


'Murica bitches
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:20 pm

Image
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7638
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby beardmcdoug » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:51 pm

Lmfao y'all are the worst.

We've got bigger bigger problems though, IMO, so I guess who really gives a ****. I'm sure we'll end up being an interplanetary species in the next 100 or so, with a home planet with somewhere around half the species we've got now. Just enjoy the lavish beauty of the oceans while you still can, really
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 163 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:44 am

Dont you know? If we give trillions to other countries it'll fix everything.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 7019
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:45 am

So...umm....Now there's a hurricane hitting Ireland....
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby The Outsider » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:53 pm

deltbucs wrote:So...umm....Now there's a hurricane hitting Ireland....


Shhhh...don't worry. It's not like it's still in the 90s half way in to October.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:24 am

It feels like fall today. I told you global warming was fake.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:37 pm

Looks like Jacobson's science paper about the feasibility of 100% renewable energy was total bs.

This is about 1/2 the article, if you feel like reading the rest, click on the link.

The Appalling Delusion of 100 Percent Renewables, Exposed
The National Academy of Science refutes Mark Jacobson’s dream that our economy can run exclusively on ‘green’ energy..

By Robert Bryce — June 24, 2017

The idea that the U.S. economy can be run solely with renewable energy — a claim that leftist politicians, environmentalists, and climate activists have endlessly promoted — has always been a fool’s errand. And on Monday, the National Academy of Sciences published a blockbuster paper by an all-star group of American scientists that says exactly that.

The paper, by Chris Clack, formerly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado Boulder, and 20 other top scientists, appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It decimates the work of Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor whose wildly exaggerated claims about the economic and technical viability of a 100 percent renewable-energy system has made him a celebrity (he appeared on David Letterman’s show in 2013) and the hero of Sierra Clubbers, Bernie Sanders, and Hollywood movie stars, including Leonardo DiCaprio.

Jacobson became the darling of the green Left even though his work was based on Enron accounting, alternative facts, and technology hopium. Nevertheless, his claims were politically popular, and his academic papers routinely sailed through peer review. In 2015, Jacobson published a paper, co-written with Mark Delucchi, a research engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper, which claimed to offer “a low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem” with 100 percent renewables, went on to win the Cozzarelli Prize, an annual award handed out by the National Academy. A Stanford website said that Jacobson’s paper was one of six chosen by “the editorial board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from the more than 3,000 research articles published in the journal in 2015.” The fact that the National Academy would bestow such a prestigious award on such weak scholarship greatly embarrass the Academy, which gets 85 percent of its funding from the federal government.

In their scathing takedown of Jacobson, Clack and his co-authors — who include Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Dan Kammen of the University of California, Berkeley, former EPA Science Advisory Board chairman Granger Morgan, and Jane Long of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — concluded that Jacobson’s 2015 paper contained “numerous shortcomings and errors.” The paper used “invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” Those errors “render it unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100 percent wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system.”

Among the biggest errors — and one that should force the Academy to withdraw Jacobson’s 2015 paper — is that Jacobson and Delucchi overstated by roughly a factor of ten the ability of the United States to increase its hydropower output. Furthermore, the paper ignores two key issues: electricity storage and land use. Jacobson claimed that the U.S. can store energy underground or store it in the form of hydrogen. Clack and his co-authors wrote that “there are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone.”

But the most obvious flaw in Jacobson’s scheme involves his years-long refusal to admit the massive amount of land his proposal would require; his myriad acolytes have repeated his nonsensical claims. For instance, last year, Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org and one of America’s highest-profile climate activists, wrote an August 2016 cover story for The New Republic in which he lauded Jacobson’s work and repeated Jacobson’s erroneous claim that his all-renewable program would need only “about four-tenths of one percent of America’s landmass.”

Clack et al. correct the record by pointing out that Jacobson’s scheme would require “nearly 500,000 square kilometers, which is roughly 6 percent of the continental United States, and more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for each American.” In other words, Clack found that Jacobson understated the amount of land needed for his all-renewable dystopia by a factor of 15. But even that understates the amount of territory needed. Jacobson’s plan requires nearly 2.5 terawatts (2.5 trillion watts) of wind-energy capacity, with the majority of that amount onshore. The Department of Energy has repeatedly stated that the footprint of wind energy, known as its capacity density, is 3 watts per square meter. And so 2.5 trillion watts divided by 3 watts per square meter equals 833 billion square meters (or 833,000 square kilometers): That’s a territory nearly twice the size of California.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7638
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:42 pm

The National Academy of Sciences is funded by Sean Hannity and FauxNews!!!
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9328
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 376 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:45 pm

DreadNaught wrote:The National Academy of Sciences is funded by Sean Hannity and FauxNews!!!

So? Are the facts in the review wrong?
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7638
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:45 pm

Buc2 wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:The National Academy of Sciences is funded by Sean Hannity and FauxNews!!!

So? Are the facts in the review wrong?

Probably.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:18 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Buc2 wrote:So? Are the facts in the review wrong?

Probably.

:lol:
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7638
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby The Outsider » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:56 pm

It really is too bad that we did such a good job scaring ourselves away from fission plants. Nuclear really is the best middle ground between environmental impact and feasibility.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:59 pm

Buc2 wrote:Looks like Jacobson's science paper about the feasibility of 100% renewable energy was total bs.

This is about 1/2 the article, if you feel like reading the rest, click on the link.

The Appalling Delusion of 100 Percent Renewables, Exposed
The National Academy of Science refutes Mark Jacobson’s dream that our economy can run exclusively on ‘green’ energy..

By Robert Bryce — June 24, 2017

The idea that the U.S. economy can be run solely with renewable energy — a claim that leftist politicians, environmentalists, and climate activists have endlessly promoted — has always been a fool’s errand. And on Monday, the National Academy of Sciences published a blockbuster paper by an all-star group of American scientists that says exactly that.

The paper, by Chris Clack, formerly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado Boulder, and 20 other top scientists, appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It decimates the work of Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor whose wildly exaggerated claims about the economic and technical viability of a 100 percent renewable-energy system has made him a celebrity (he appeared on David Letterman’s show in 2013) and the hero of Sierra Clubbers, Bernie Sanders, and Hollywood movie stars, including Leonardo DiCaprio.

Jacobson became the darling of the green Left even though his work was based on Enron accounting, alternative facts, and technology hopium. Nevertheless, his claims were politically popular, and his academic papers routinely sailed through peer review. In 2015, Jacobson published a paper, co-written with Mark Delucchi, a research engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper, which claimed to offer “a low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem” with 100 percent renewables, went on to win the Cozzarelli Prize, an annual award handed out by the National Academy. A Stanford website said that Jacobson’s paper was one of six chosen by “the editorial board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from the more than 3,000 research articles published in the journal in 2015.” The fact that the National Academy would bestow such a prestigious award on such weak scholarship greatly embarrass the Academy, which gets 85 percent of its funding from the federal government.

In their scathing takedown of Jacobson, Clack and his co-authors — who include Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Dan Kammen of the University of California, Berkeley, former EPA Science Advisory Board chairman Granger Morgan, and Jane Long of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — concluded that Jacobson’s 2015 paper contained “numerous shortcomings and errors.” The paper used “invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” Those errors “render it unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100 percent wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system.”

Among the biggest errors — and one that should force the Academy to withdraw Jacobson’s 2015 paper — is that Jacobson and Delucchi overstated by roughly a factor of ten the ability of the United States to increase its hydropower output. Furthermore, the paper ignores two key issues: electricity storage and land use. Jacobson claimed that the U.S. can store energy underground or store it in the form of hydrogen. Clack and his co-authors wrote that “there are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone.”

But the most obvious flaw in Jacobson’s scheme involves his years-long refusal to admit the massive amount of land his proposal would require; his myriad acolytes have repeated his nonsensical claims. For instance, last year, Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org and one of America’s highest-profile climate activists, wrote an August 2016 cover story for The New Republic in which he lauded Jacobson’s work and repeated Jacobson’s erroneous claim that his all-renewable program would need only “about four-tenths of one percent of America’s landmass.”

Clack et al. correct the record by pointing out that Jacobson’s scheme would require “nearly 500,000 square kilometers, which is roughly 6 percent of the continental United States, and more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for each American.” In other words, Clack found that Jacobson understated the amount of land needed for his all-renewable dystopia by a factor of 15. But even that understates the amount of territory needed. Jacobson’s plan requires nearly 2.5 terawatts (2.5 trillion watts) of wind-energy capacity, with the majority of that amount onshore. The Department of Energy has repeatedly stated that the footprint of wind energy, known as its capacity density, is 3 watts per square meter. And so 2.5 trillion watts divided by 3 watts per square meter equals 833 billion square meters (or 833,000 square kilometers): That’s a territory nearly twice the size of California.

Is this the first time you've read this "article"?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:32 pm

Just wondering if you even read a single word from it when you posted it 6 months ago.....
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mdb1958 and 2 guests