Climate continues to change.

[gunthernehmen]

Von BS, if you lookup "irony" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of yourself. You really, REALLY should go back an re-read some of your gems in this discussion. I really hope you are lying about being in any kind of scientifical field because you are a dolt.

Klink, I was rooting for you, but you lost your temper. I think you lost this round. Not on content, but on temper. Never let them see you sweat.

Que, you made the only substantive comments this evening. Sadly, though not surprisingly, they went over Von BS's head.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Von BS, if you lookup "irony" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of yourself. You really, REALLY should go back an re-read some of your gems in this discussion. I really hope you are lying about being in any kind of scientifical field because you are a dolt.

Klink, I was rooting for you, but you lost your temper. I think you lost this round. Not on content, but on temper. Never let them see you sweat.

Que, you made the only substantive comments this evening. Sadly, though not surprisingly, they went over Von BS's head.

That you perceive these exchanges as any sort of contest is hilarious. Thanks for that.

 

[Klinkster]

And yet....you still are an idiot.

Not a contest.....just facts....of which you have shown none.

Other than, you are an idiot.

That you perceive these exchanges as any sort of contest is hilarious. Thanks for that.

 

[phrodeau]

https://www.noaa.gov/news/march-2019-was-second-hottest-on-record-for-globe

March 2019
The average global temperature in March was 1.91 degrees F above the 20th-century average of 54.9 degrees F, making it the second-hottest March on record in the 140-year record (1880–2019). Last month also was the 43rd consecutive March and 411th consecutive month with global temperatures above average.

The last March with below average temperatures was 1976.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Welcome to climate change

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613350/welcome-to-climate-change/

We start off with some harsh truths about mitigation. The growth in renewables has made virtually no dent in the use of fossil fuels; it’s come largely at the expense of nuclear energy, another low-carbon source. But a nuclear comeback looks increasingly unlikely now that corruption scandals have sunk South Korea’s nuclear program, one of the world’s most ambitious. Even with valiant efforts to use more renewables, countries like India will drag the world’s emissions up as they strive for higher living standards.

For my part, I tend to be a little more optimistic. Rates of technology adoption tend to follow logistic curves, and we are at the leading end of renewable energy technologies, even at 2019. But there is a significant point to be made about having contingency plans, and an energy portfolio that's diverse and caters to cost-effectiveness. From the studies I've read, solar and wind plus storage can reasonably be expected to be cost effective servicing up to around 80% of our energy. We do need something more.

And we'll have to accept that we're committed to a certain amount of climate change, no matter what that amount is, and what the regional effects are. Projections out to the year 2100 can be misleading. Climate won't stop changing at 2100.

 

[Klinkster]

What is it going to be next year?
Or three years from now?

And....consider the source....NOAA....are the guys that got busted tweaking numbers, and having weather stations next to incinerators, or what used to be out in the desert, but were now in asphalt parking lots.

It snowed in Tucson in 1973....maybe it was 1972...been a while........but what was that? Above average?
A fluke?
Did it again in '76.....So?
Did it again this year. I took pics.

Anecdotal....

https://www.noaa.gov/news/march-2019-was-second-hottest-on-record-for-globe
The last March with below average temperatures was 1976.

 

[Klinkster]

And the proof it's man made again???

Welcome to climate change

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613350/welcome-to-climate-change/

We start off with some harsh truths about mitigation. The growth in renewables has made virtually no dent in the use of fossil fuels; it’s come largely at the expense of nuclear energy, another low-carbon source. But a nuclear comeback looks increasingly unlikely now that corruption scandals have sunk South Korea’s nuclear program, one of the world’s most ambitious. Even with valiant efforts to use more renewables, countries like India will drag the world’s emissions up as they strive for higher living standards.

For my part, I tend to be a little more optimistic. Rates of technology adoption tend to follow logistic curves, and we are at the leading end of renewable energy technologies, even at 2019. But there is a significant point to be made about having contingency plans, and an energy portfolio that's diverse and caters to cost-effectiveness. From the studies I've read, solar and wind plus storage can reasonably be expected to be cost effective servicing up to around 80% of our energy. We do need something more.

And we'll have to accept that we're committed to a certain amount of climate change, no matter what that amount is, and what the regional effects are. Projections out to the year 2100 can be misleading. Climate won't stop changing at 2100.

 

[gunthernehmen]

That you perceive these exchanges as any sort of contest is hilarious. Thanks for that.

And it STILL goes over your head. You really are as socially inept as you come across here, aren't you? LOL

 

[von_Bismarck]

And the proof it's man made again???

What makes you think you're worth engaging?

 

[Klinkster]

What makes you think you are worth consuming oxygen?

And....while you do, you expel CO2....

Eee Gad! Talk about a waste!
Nothing to offer, and contributing to global warming!

What makes you think you're worth engaging?

 

[Que]

That you perceive these exchanges as any sort of contest is hilarious. Thanks for that.

#AscriptionAgain!!

Welcome to climate change

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613350/welcome-to-climate-change/

We start off with some harsh truths about mitigation. The growth in renewables has made virtually no dent in the use of fossil fuels; it’s come largely at the expense of nuclear energy, another low-carbon source. But a nuclear comeback looks increasingly unlikely now that corruption scandals have sunk South Korea’s nuclear program, one of the world’s most ambitious. Even with valiant efforts to use more renewables, countries like India will drag the world’s emissions up as they strive for higher living standards.

For my part, I tend to be a little more optimistic. Rates of technology adoption tend to follow logistic curves, and we are at the leading end of renewable energy technologies, even at 2019. But there is a significant point to be made about having contingency plans, and an energy portfolio that's diverse and caters to cost-effectiveness. From the studies I've read, solar and wind plus storage can reasonably be expected to be cost effective servicing up to around 80% of our energy. We do need something more.

And we'll have to accept that we're committed to a certain amount of climate change, no matter what that amount is, and what the regional effects are. Projections out to the year 2100 can be misleading. Climate won't stop changing at 2100.

Oh, look- Your Google is working again.
#SoMuchWinning

^Doesn't appear to realize the C&P supports his point of view, not at all. Nuclear power provides 20% of our power, solar and wind, 2%.

Lol. I know more about scientific theories than you could ever hope to.

#SoMuchScience
#HeIsScienceAsFuck

 

[phrodeau]

What is it going to be next year?
Or three years from now?

And....consider the source....NOAA....are the guys that got busted tweaking numbers, and having weather stations next to incinerators, or what used to be out in the desert, but were now in asphalt parking lots.

It snowed in Tucson in 1973....maybe it was 1972...been a while........but what was that? Above average?
A fluke?
Did it again in '76.....So?
Did it again this year. I took pics.

Anecdotal....

Do you know of any data set of global surface temperatures that doesn’t agree with NOAA’s?

No, of course you don’t. You just want to continue being skeptical and ignorant.

 

[Klinkster]

Nope. I’m saying NOAA’s own temps disagree with NOAA’’s own temps.
Better check on NOAA....they said so. Admission of guilt. You better check how many stations they removed from their system, only after they got caught. And why they removed them.

Skeptical.....yes. Ignorant.....no.
You are ignorant, because you are NOT skeptical. Skepticism is an integral part of science....but you skip over that, and IGNORE that point.

You want to freeze in the dark to save the planet? You damn well better be able to know what is actually going on.

Do you know of any data set of global surface temperatures that doesn’t agree with NOAA’s?

No, of course you don’t. You just want to continue being skeptical and ignorant.

 

[von_Bismarck]

#AscriptionAgain!![1]



Oh, look- Your Google is working again.
#SoMuchWinning

^Doesn't appear to realize the C&P supports his point of view, not at all. Nuclear power provides 20% of our power, solar and wind, 2%.[2]



#SoMuchScience
#HeIsScienceAsFuck

[1] Gun-whatever was talking about "rooting" and "round." Can you at least try to read for comprehension?

[2] First, you're referring to electricity production. The numbers for total energy production are less favorable to nuclear. Second, what point of view are you ascribing to me, that the Technology Review article disagrees with? If you want to fabricate a straw man, you can at least do the courtesy of spelling out exactly what that straw man is.

 

[Que]

[1] Gun-whatever was talking about "rooting" and "round." Can you at least try to read for comprehension?

[2] First, you're referring to electricity production. The numbers for total energy production are less favorable to nuclear. Second, what point of view are you ascribing to me, that the Technology Review article disagrees with? If you want to fabricate a straw man, you can at least do the courtesy of spelling out exactly what that straw man is.

What, besides electricity are you not "producing" with the solar cells not on *your* rooftop and the windmill not in your backyard?

#TryAgain,Boofy

 

[von_Bismarck]

What, besides electricity are you not "producing" with the solar cells not on *your* rooftop and the windmill not in your backyard?

#TryAgain,Boofy

Is your Google broken?

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home

#TryAgain,Queefy

 

[Que]

Is your Google broken?

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home

#TryAgain,Queefy

Again when *you* are talking about WIND and SOLAR, *you* and I are talking about ELECTRICITY production which is what I was comparing to nuclear. If you want to include every other type of energy use wind and solar fall even farther behind nuclear because you can use nuclear power for some of our transportation needs specifically ocean-going. I'm pretty sure we aren't getting any of our transportation needs met by sails, these days.

Making the same argument that I just destroyed doesn't support your argument. I said, try again, not repeat your meaningless expansion of your argument.

Solar and wind are meaningless in our electricity production specifically or our general energy production either one.

 

[von_Bismarck]

LMAO. What argument, exactly, did you "destroy." Are you completely off your rocker? If you want to post merely to see your own words on a screen, I suggest playing with someone else.

 

[Que]

LMAO. What argument, exactly, did you "destroy." Are you completely off your rocker? If you want to post merely to see your own words on a screen, I suggest playing with someone else.

The one where you argued that it isn't true that solar and electricity are 2% of <electricity> production versus 20% for nuclear because I didn't specifically delineate it as electricity production...as if that was not quite obviously what we were talking about.

You should take your ball and go home, champ.

*nods*

See ya!

 

[RobDownSouth]

The one where you argued that it isn't true that solar and electricity are 2% of <electricity> production versus 20% for nuclear because I didn't specifically delineate it as electricity production...as if that was not quite obviously what we were talking about.

You should take your ball and go home, champ.

*nods*

See ya!

Now Entering Phase Three: Queew unilaterally declarin' victory. VICTORY, DAMMIT!

 

[von_Bismarck]

The one where you argued that it isn't true that solar and electricity are 2% of <electricity> production versus 20% for nuclear because I didn't specifically delineate it as electricity production...as if that was not quite obviously what we were talking about.

You should take your ball and go home, champ.

*nods*

See ya!

That was a fact check, champ, not an argument. My point was specifically to nuclear energy, which in general is becoming comparatively prohibitively expensive, anyway. I haven't made any claims about current rate of solar and wind production in this latest exchange, despite your assertion.

This whole exchange has been very embarrassing for you.

 

[nowisthetime]

What part of NON-RENEWABLE energy sources do 'tards not get?

Do you know how many years it takes for fossil fuels to form?


Basic fucking middle school Environmental Science no matter how long the tedious fool decides to write a long thesis.

The worst fool is the fool who thinks he knows more than anyone else but doesn't know shit.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

What part of NON-RENEWABLE energy sources do 'tards not get?

Do you know how many years it takes for fossil fuels to form?


Basic fucking middle school Environmental Science no matter how long the tedious fool decides to write a long thesis.

The worst fool is the fool who thinks he knows more than anyone else but doesn't know shit.

If you're referencing Yappo here, it's probably due to his "darwinism evolution."

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[gunthernehmen]

What part of NON-RENEWABLE energy sources do 'tards not get?

Do you know how many years it takes for fossil fuels to form?


Basic fucking middle school Environmental Science no matter how long the tedious fool decides to write a long thesis.

The worst fool is the fool who thinks he knows more than anyone else but doesn't know shit.

What part of wind and solar can't support an industrial society do YOU not understand?.

 

[Que]

What part of wind and solar can't support an industrial society do YOU not understand?.

Nonsense. Phrodeau showed the math. As long as you shield the entire planet, including the oceans, with solar panels that convert 100% of the sun's energy hitting the earth and send the electricity from the sunny side to thr dark, it is totally doable on solar alone.