The Global Warming Scam!

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
902
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Better question would be where did the person who came up with the 12 year PNR limit get their information from for their conclusion? However where I got my information is primarily from keeping up with NASA, and I made my own conclusions from there.
given the exponential gains we are having in all areas, population, overall emissions and so on, don't you think it will be sooner? Esp with the increasing problems with droughts, wildfires, stronger and more common hurricanes, etc?

I honestly do not know if it is going to be 12 or 50 it doesn't change we need do something about it, also that is not a detailed enough explanation why we should accept your conclusion.

Does it factor less ice means faster warming (because there is less of it, ice area reflects sunlight too) the effect that has on currents like the gulf steam? there is a ton of details at work here. I assume such projections are aided by computer models with all these countless factors imputed in them, with the projected growth rate we are on currently.

in the end i strongly disagree with 80 years given the observable changes and impacts we see in the present.
 
Last edited:

Isle

Est. Contributor
Messages
150
Role
Diaper Lover
The OP really needs to educate himself. There is no evidence that solar activity causes the global warming of the past 200 years, and there is a direct correlation between CO2 emissions and warming. Strange that we still need to have this discussion when the serious discussion is how bad its going to get, how and even if we can get out of this mess.
Even if we can meet the Paris goals, we have set in motion a series of events that we cannot control. The permafrost is melting and no one knows how much methane is trapped there and will be released. Once the ice and snow are gone and not longer serve to reflect radiation back off the surface of the earth, the result is hard to predict. In this century it looks like a good part of the planet may be too hot to sustain life. The window for hominid life is very narrow. Putting it bluntly we are looking at an extinction event. So if voices sound hysterical, there is good reason.
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
The OP really needs to educate himself. There is no evidence that solar activity causes the global warming of the past 200 years, and there is a direct correlation between CO2 emissions and warming. Strange that we still need to have this discussion when the serious discussion is how bad its going to get, how and even if we can get out of this mess.
Even if we can meet the Paris goals, we have set in motion a series of events that we cannot control. The permafrost is melting and no one knows how much methane is trapped there and will be released. Once the ice and snow are gone and not longer serve to reflect radiation back off the surface of the earth, the result is hard to predict. In this century it looks like a good part of the planet may be too hot to sustain life. The window for hominid life is very narrow. Putting it bluntly we are looking at an extinction event. So if voices sound hysterical, there is good reason.
If a study was never conducted how would we know if the solar flares affect the earth's climate or not? I'm sorry but that is completely arrogant to dismiss solar flares affecting earths temperature. I really don't think you studied that enough to come to that conclusion. And CO2 emission studies have been done by political scientist NOT Independent scientist. Information is not valid if there's conflict of interest funding involved. Why do people fight Independent funding to assure there no political influence on the final data interpretation? What do they got to hide? Don you't think that seems to be a bit dishonest and shady ways to be funded?
 

Andybun

Est. Contributor
Messages
101
Role
Diaper Lover
Solar flares
Any shortwave radio enthusiasts will tell you that there's no real abnormality with them.
But we can go beyond this even. Solar flares are getting measured and the vast majority are a, -b and -c flares flares . Now what you are talking about are the so called M- and flares X-flares which can be enough to cause power outages and to stop radio communication. While it is true that X-flares do happen, they don't happen that often.
Besides all of that, the sun has its own cycle which varies from 12 to 17, sometimes even 18, 19 years. You have a phase with relative high activity and then comes a phase of low activity, in which we are currently still in. While we are still getting occasional flares, we are yet waiting for the next sun cycle to start, and therefore a rise in solar activity, rather being in the middle of a cycle. The sun is currently taking a break, which has lasted already longer than any known break so far. Oh and I forgot to add that in order to have a flare you need sunspots first. Something we are running low on for the past couple of years.
And then you can visit websites such as https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity or https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux . But be warned it is quite some work to work through some basic stuff before you can read most of these but one can learn ;)

I'm not saying that solar activity has no influence in it, but it is one influence we can't guard from unless we literally 'switch off' the light. No sun, no life. It is as easy as that.
 
Last edited:

SorcerorElf

Est. Contributor
Messages
180
Role
Diaper Lover
If a study was never conducted how would we know if the solar flares affect the earth's climate or not? I'm sorry but that is completely arrogant to dismiss solar flares affecting earths temperature. I really don't think you studied that enough to come to that conclusion. And CO2 emission studies have been done by political scientist NOT Independent scientist. Information is not valid if there's conflict of interest funding involved. Why do people fight Independent funding to assure there no political influence on the final data interpretation? What do they got to hide? Don you't think that seems to be a bit dishonest and shady ways to be funded?
I'm an electrical engineering major, so I know what I'm talking about here. Coal and oil power plants take a lot of people and infrastructure to operate (trains/pipelines to deliver fuel, boilers, cooling systems, etc, plus people to run/maintain those systems), whereas wind and solar require almost none after the initial instillation (mostly just occasional grid/plant maintenance).

So, long term, renewable energy is cheaper than coal or oil, and does not produce CO2. People can argure about it, but any reliable source on Google will verify the above.
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Increased solar activity is a CONTRIBUTING factor, the real issue is the skyrocketed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with other greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases have the effect of blocking transmission and radiation of long IR (heat, basically). Yes, that means that a lower percent of solar IR gets in. That's not the issue, the problem is that lower and lower amounts of IR get back out, raising the planet's blackbody temperature. The thing to keep in mind here is that there's effectively an infinite supply of incoming solar energy (not actually true, but for all practical purposes here it is) but a finite quantity of stored heat. Do the math yourself, at a certain point the decreased input is more than offset by the decreased output.

The hole in the ozone layer is caused by a few things, the largest source ozone decomposition is actually UV radiation (no, it's not ionizing and y'all best learn the difference). This is actually a good thing, we want and need the ozone layer to absorb UV; and in the normal course of events the more ozone will be generated to replace what's "destroyed" by UV. The use of CFCs and related compounds created a secondary decomposition system, but one that didn't have any sort of regeneration involved decreasing the overall amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere. What most people don't realize is just little UV actually makes it to the planet's surface - the vast majority is absorbed in the upper atmosphere (like higher than planes usually fly). And without that protection . . . well, skin cancers would be the least of your worries.

The fission reactions in nuclear reactors can, in fact, be slowed down. You're right that, technically, they can't be turned off, but that has more to do with the impracticality of sticking moderators between every single atom of fuel. On the other hand, by using those same moderators, operators can radically slow the rate of triggered fission reducing the energy output of the pile to effectively natural nuclear decay. One of the issues with early reactor design was making it so that reactors would "fail" into the highest rate of energy production. This was, in part, one of the major causes of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (there were other, bigger problems here, but it was a factor). Any reactor designed and built in the last 30 years has the opposite philosophy - in the absence of power, coolant, etc, the reactor "fails" into "safe" condition. That is, the moderator elements are fully deployed into the core preventing as much fission as they possibly can.

tldr; greenhouse gases are the big problem, not solar activity - CFCs destroy ozone - modern nuclear reactors are safe and effective - ignorance is no excuse
Again why take even a moderate risk on a nuclear power plant, when you can do the same and with hydrogen or other alt energies? I don't understand why people think it's ok to take these unnecessary risk when there's better tech available. Now I will agree with you after verifying this with my dad who is a scientist. You are correct there is a way to make nuclear reactors more safer and more productive. But again I just don't see the point when you also consider the risk of transporting the radiative material. Especially in cases of unpredictable storms or weather that could either crash an airplane carrying it. This could land god knows where and could possibly making people very sick or landing up in the wrong peoples hands.

You do have to understand my thinking, I like to question things and enjoy philosophizing and questioning already known information. I know all of the so called "trusted" data, you don't need educate me on middle school global warming propaganda. I'm here to question everything. Scientist make mistakes their also human, nothing wrong with double checking the data and ESPECIALLY checking who funds these experiments! We have scientist on both sides studying this and they do NOT agree on the data. They come from many different political backgrounds not involved with their work and their main goal is to present the data as it is! Not influenced by damn politics! Independent Scientist are equally qualified as Political scientist. Why in the world would I trust a political scientist over Independent funded non Political Scientist? It's not mainly about CO2 that I still disagree with you. Much more concerning environmental concerns that I believe need more attention, than gas blowing out cows asses. Traemo you and others continue to ignore hemp oil? Would you like to talk about that or you also anti hemp?
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Solar flares
Any shortwave radio enthusiasts will tell you that there's no real abnormality with them.
But we can go beyond this even. Solar flares are getting measured and the vast majority are a, -b and -c flares flares . Now what you are talking about are the so called M- and flares X-flares which can be enough to cause power outages and to stop radio communication. While it is true that X-flares do happen, they don't happen that often.
Besides all of that, the sun has its own cycle which varies from 12 to 17, sometimes even 18, 19 years. You have a phase with relative high activity and then comes a phase of low activity, in which we are currently still in. While we are still getting occasional flares, we are yet waiting for the next sun cycle to start, and therefore a rise in solar activity, rather being in the middle of a cycle. The sun is currently taking a break, which has lasted already longer than any known break so far. Oh and I forgot to add that in order to have a flare you need sunspots first. Something we are running low on for the past couple of years.
And then you can visit websites such as https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity or https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux . But be warned it is quite some work to work through some basic stuff before you can read most of these but one can learn ;)

I'm not saying that solar activity has no influence in it, but it is one influence we can't guard from unless we literally 'switch off' the light. No sun, no life. It is as easy as that.
I thought that was a fair pleasant response Andy! Yes what you say sounds correct and will check that website out. Now since you say the sun is taking a break could that in theory be the reason we have recently had colder temperatures in the winter the last couple of years, at least here in the USA?
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I'm an electrical engineering major, so I know what I'm talking about here. Coal and oil power plants take a lot of people and infrastructure to operate (trains/pipelines to deliver fuel, boilers, cooling systems, etc, plus people to run/maintain those systems), whereas wind and solar require almost none after the initial instillation (mostly just occasional grid/plant maintenance).

So, long term, renewable energy is cheaper than coal or oil, and does not produce CO2. People can argure about it, but any reliable source on Google will verify the above.
Yes I have no problem with renewable energy like I stated in my previous comment im for hemp oil, hydro, further researching magnetic energy, and some solar. But I don't really care so much for CO2. I'd be more concerned with toxins coming out if factories like heavy metals, rather than the big bad CO2 monster. I believe large wildfires "keep in mind before man they occur naturally in nature". Also volcanoes produces way more CO2 to be worried about than emissions from hemp oil. I do agree that oil, coal is dirty. I do however do not believe in attacking poor peoples wood stoves like these loons wanted to do. Wood burns naturally in nature especially natural wildfires. Now the problem would be if it burned houses with all kinds of toxic chemicals, that again is much more concerning than CO2.
 

Andybun

Est. Contributor
Messages
101
Role
Diaper Lover
I thought that was a fair pleasant response Andy! Yes what you say sounds correct and will check that website out. Now since you say the sun is taking a break could that in theory be the reason we have recently had colder temperatures in the winter the last couple of years, at least here in the USA?
I'm not quite sure on that. Well, personally I'm a bit wary blaming low sun activity exclusively for what felt like colder winters more recently.
I tend to think that the low sun activity as well as the rather rapid pole cap movement of late may play a bigger role in it. In fact the magnetic northern pole is wandering that quick currently that the NASA/NOAA fails to keep up with the speed of the movement. Every time they release a new correction chart for GPS, the pole had wandered a few miles further east.
Further, I think I read somewhere that low sun cycles lead to more catastrophic years, decades and sometimes even centuries in all regards. And in conjunction with the pole cap movement to complete different scenarios compared to the one we live in today.
If you look at the function of the pole caps as being our source of the earthes magnetic shield in space you may also understand that if the pole moves, the entire magnetic shield moves and bends into another direction.
Just like a magnet pushed and pulled over iron glitter to put it more picturesque. What will happen is that the iron glitter will follow the magnetic poles if the magnets pole is pushed around. Some will get absorbed at the poles end until its Magnetic capacity is reached and from there you can pull traces of iron glitter following the pole.
I'm no scientist by all means. More like a hobby astronomer and (shortwave-) radio listeners. But by all means, these two hobbies are much more connected than a simple first glance can show.
 

Traemo

Est. Contributor
Messages
968
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Carer
Again why take even a moderate risk on a nuclear power plant, when you can do the same and with hydrogen or other alt energies?
And where, precisely, do you propose we get all the hydrogen to replace existing plants? Yeah, it's the most common element in the galaxy, but that doesn't make it easy to actually get ahold of. If you're going to suggest electrolysis of water, that's a not starter - even if you use it to fuel a fusion reactor. And now we've got more ionizing radiation and decaying reactor cores. Other alternative sources aren't consistent - the sun doesn't shine 24/7, nor does the wind blow all the time. Not everyone is close enough to oceans to use wave power, geothermal isn't available everywhere, . . . .
Yeah, alternates exist, and will be preferable ONCE all the practical hurdles have been overcome.
I don't understand why people think it's ok to take these unnecessary risk when there's better tech available.
"Better" being highly subjective here - I don't think that solar or wind is a better technology right now - both are too inconsistent to supply modern power grids reliably.
But again I just don't see the point when you also consider the risk of transporting the radiative material. Especially in cases of unpredictable storms or weather that could either crash an airplane carrying it. This could land god knows where and could possibly making people very sick or landing up in the wrong peoples hands.
Here's a relevant question: what do you actually know about the transport of materials intended for use in fission reactors, at all stages starting from when it's mined? My background includes inspecting and regulating parts of the supply chain; I find your concerns here nigh foundless.
It's not mainly about CO2 that I still disagree with you. Much more concerning environmental concerns that I believe need more attention, than gas blowing out cows asses.
If it's not CO2, and it's not solar activity (recall, the sun has done this before without the average global temp spiking this fast and this high) what is the cause of the recent climatic shift?
Traemo you and others continue to ignore hemp oil? Would you like to talk about that or you also anti hemp?
I fail to see the relevance of hemp, or its products, to this discussion. Also, Red Herring, Strawman, Ad Hominem
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
409
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
given the exponential gains we are having in all areas, population, overall emissions and so on, don't you think it will be sooner? Esp with the increasing problems with droughts, wildfires, stronger and more common hurricanes, etc?

I honestly do not know if it is going to be 12 or 50 it doesn't change we need do something about it, also that is not a detailed enough explanation why we should accept your conclusion.

Does it factor less ice means faster warming (because there is less of it, ice area reflects sunlight too) the effect that has on currents like the gulf steam? there is a ton of details at work here. I assume such projections are aided by computer models with all these countless factors imputed in them, with the projected growth rate we are on currently.

in the end i strongly disagree with 80 years given the observable changes and impacts we see in the present.
I'm factoring in several different things, this includes environmental and technological factors, one of the major technological factors is Fusion power, assuming France can get its reactor online in or around 2025. Fusion power itself should be able to provide far more power than a single Fission power plant assuming a fusion reaction can be sustained. China is also making great strides with Nuclear Fusion as well, and I'm willing to be they'll get a reactor online by 2030, espiecally considering they are the number 1 source of carbon footprint (excluding Volcanos)
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
902
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I'm factoring in several different things, this includes environmental and technological factors, one of the major technological factors is Fusion power, assuming France can get its reactor online in or around 2025. Fusion power itself should be able to provide far more power than a single Fission power plant assuming a fusion reaction can be sustained. China is also making great strides with Nuclear Fusion as well, and I'm willing to be they'll get a reactor online by 2030, espiecally considering they are the number 1 source of carbon footprint (excluding Volcanos)
where are you getting that fusion is past a theatrical state?
and how do you know it will not be fear mongered to death like even by MrGnome, not fully understanding radiation amounts even with fission reactors? (was really hoping they would reply to that)
 
Last edited:

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
409
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
still theories and development, that is way off from stating "assuming France can get its reactor online in or around 2025."
Not way off at all, and yes it is still in development, however the fact that 1. we have China that has achieved fusion and 2. that it is a breakthrough seems to suggest that 3. it is no longer a theory in the sense that we are making guesses based on observations, but rather something that we know can be done.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
902
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Not way off at all, and yes it is still in development, however the fact that 1. we have China that has achieved fusion and 2. that it is a breakthrough seems to suggest that 3. it is no longer a theory in the sense that we are making guesses based on observations, but rather something that we know can be done.
they have NOT!
they made a step closer to achieving it, but right now its STILL PURE THEORY! read what you linked CLOSELY. The reason for this is we really do not know the safety implications of actually getting energy from it, they ave not drawn energy from it and other factors still make it up in the air at the moment, like the practicality of it.

It is a great stride for sure but saying we will have a working reactor based on this in 2025 is grossly misunderstanding the situation.
 
Last edited:

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
409
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
they have NOT!
they made a step closer to achieving it, but right now its STILL PURE THEORY! read what you linked CLOSELY
I did, and it actually does say that they have achieved fusion albeit briefly, it no longer is just pure theory.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
902
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
China’s “artificial sun” has for the first time achieved a plasma central electron temperature of 100 million degrees celsius, marking a key step in China’s future fusion reactor experiment

The experimental data obtained establishes an important foundation for the development of clean fusion energy.

The Chinese artificial sun’s can be said to reach the ignition condition of nuclear fusion.

PURE THEORY STILL! so assuming you did read it, you are not understanding what they are saying esp to think you will have a reactor by 2025. Something amazing needs to happen for that to happen, something none of us foresee.
 
Last edited:

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
409
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
The fact you had to copy and paste the part that proves your Pure theory comment wrong seems to be rather hilarious.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
902
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
All I am going to say is everything you said so far, like the 80 year thing for the point of no return, and having a fusion reactor by 2025 has no factual backing. You have not shown enough proof to show why these year marks are possible.
 
Top