NASA: direct proof of man caused GW

[Geeko Sportivo]

We already know that man is causing damage to the ozone layer, as provem by the release of fluorocarbons into the atmosphere that caused the hole in the OZONE LAYER.

Now that hole has mostly repaired itself through time by the world banning Freon with chlorine. Once chlorine reaches the ozone layer, ultraviolet radiation from the sun converts it into a reactive substance, which then destroys ozone molecules. ... Even though levels of these substances in the atmosphere reduced drastically over the years, the ozone hole will only fully recover in coming decades.

So we know what caused the hole now, and we know what is helping it repair.

And the ozone layer reduction is what causes global warming.

Now if the world could reduce all of the OZONE LAYER KILLERS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, WE CAN SAVE THE OZONE LAYER- THUS SAVE THE PLANET!

 

[Micawber]

And that is why republicans hate democracy


They insist America is not a democracy for a reason

Yep, reminds me of agent 86. "Would you believe..."

We are not a democracy we are a republic!

'Ok how about 'we are not a democracy, we are a federal republic with a democratic tradition!''

Ok how about a representative democracy with state sovereignty!

Finally: Ok we are a democracy.


hey fucktards, if we are not a democracy, what the fuck is the voting shit all about?

 

[serenity]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-carbon-emissions-nasa-study/

great how the date of this thread is 4 days from now. Hint it is hyperbole added to hypothetical values.

 

[Nordberg]

There has been no doubt from the beginning. You can always find someone, somewhere who will say the opposite of 97 percent of scientists and claim that is the real expert. This is an old right-wing tactic. But we will suffer and the following generations will suffer more. We have one small planet and we are turning it into a toilet.

 

[Micawber]

There has been no doubt from the beginning. You can always find someone, somewhere who will say the opposite of 97 percent of scientists and claim that is the real expert. This is an old right-wing tactic. But we will suffer and the following generations will suffer more. We have one small planet and we are turning it into a toilet.

Then why is it always Primavera? On the bright side the earth will shake us off like fleas, according to Prof. George Carlin

 

[evince]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-carbon-emissions-nasa-study/

In a first-of-its-kind study, NASA has calculated the individual driving forces of recent climate change through direct satellite observations. And consistent with what climate models have shown for decades, greenhouse gases and suspended pollution particles in the atmosphere, called aerosols, from the burning of fossil fuels are responsible for the lion's share of modern warming.




It’s over idiots


The wealthy oil companies made fools of republicans with lies

 

[evince]

And the correct level of fettering these entities with regulations and taxes keeps their power at bey to protect democracy

In a first-of-its-kind study, NASA has calculated the individual driving forces of recent climate change through direct satellite observations. And consistent with what climate models have shown for decades, greenhouse gases and suspended pollution particles in the atmosphere, called aerosols, from the burning of fossil fuels are responsible for the lion's share of modern warming.




ITS OVER


ITS PROVEN SCIENCE

 

[evince]

The science is settled

 

[Wolverine]

Science

You hate it


And math


And history


In fox you trust

You hate science actually!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-carbon-emissions-nasa-study/

Okay, let's say this is 100% accurate. Since we know that wind and solar cannot supply our energy needs and are grossly expensive, and won't even reduce CO2 as Germany, and now California, is proving, what's your answer to this problem?

 

[LV426]

Okay, let's say this is 100% accurate. Since we know that wind and solar cannot supply our energy needs and are grossly expensive, and won't even reduce CO2 as Germany, and now California, is proving, what's your answer to this problem?

200 years ago, coal couldn't supply the energy needs for the Industrial Revolution, but it eventually did become enough to supply our energy needs while reducing the cost.

It just takes time to develop.

Clearly, the status quo isn't working or tenable.

 

[Into the Night]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-carbon-emissions-nasa-study/

Define 'global warming'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis of this type. The ones that are used by NASA (approx 7500) are not spread uniformly (a biasing factor) and are not read at the same time by the same authority (another biasing factor). The raw data is biased. It is garbage.

Further, to do a statistical analysis, you MUST declare the variance used and justify it. You MUST calculate the margin of error and present it with the data. Only unbiased raw data may be used. You cannot used biased data or cooked data.

Further, statistical math makes use of random numbers for selection and normalization purposes. This takes away the ability of statistical mathematics to predict anything. Statistical math is a good tool to summarize past or present data, but it cannot predict the future.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

200 years ago, coal couldn't supply the energy needs for the Industrial Revolution, but it eventually did become enough to supply our energy needs while reducing the cost.

It just takes time to develop.

Clearly, the status quo isn't working or tenable.

So? With wind and solar you are up against physical limits. The wind has to blow and there is only so much energy in that air motion when it does. The capture and conversion of that wind energy is limited by the size of the wind turbine you can physically build.

With solar it is the watt density of sunlight, coupled with the availability of that sunlight. Solar doesn't work at night. Solar doesn't work well in overcast.

Both are highly variable in output and all storage methods available are costly, and more importantly, only necessary because of the irregular and unpredictable nature of wind and solar output.

Thus, both require massive back up generation sources that are reliable when solar and wind don't work. Germany found this out the hard way.

So, duplication of generation sources and the inefficiency of taking these off- and on-line have dramatically raised the cost of generation. Couple that with a grotesquely expensive "smart" grid that doesn't even work well and the cost goes up again. Worse, electricity is horribly inefficient at things like heating homes in colder climates and would bankrupt most people trying to do it, so you need an alternative there too.

As for sources, it goes like this:

About 100 years ago oil was just becoming the preferred source of energy
About 200 years ago coal was just becoming the preferred source of energy
About 300 years ago we chopped down forests for energy.

The solution is obvious. About 75 years ago we invented nuclear power. That should become our preferred source of electrical generation along with hydroelectric where available. The back up to that should be natural gas for quick response to peak loads and such. We should abandon wind and solar relegating them to niche sources of little relevance. For portable fuel we should go to ammonia or liquid hydrogen in fuel cells and add it to existing infrastructure (eg., gas stations, pipelines, tank farms, etc.) Battery cars are a dead end.

 

[LV426]

So? With wind and solar you are up against physical limits.

No, you're confusing finite supplies of fossil fuel, which does have physical limits, with renewable energy, which does not.

The wind has to blow and there is only so much energy in that air motion when it does.

Well, good thing that air currents exist and wind perpetually blows across the planet because of gravity.

Good thing the sun won't die for another billion years.

The capture and conversion of that wind energy is limited by the size of the wind turbine you can physically build.

So? Build a lot of them. We have the space.

With solar it is the watt density of sunlight, coupled with the availability of that sunlight. Solar doesn't work at night. Solar doesn't work well in overcast.

And coal and oil plants can't operate if it gets too hot or too cold...as we have seen in Texas this year.

The sun doesn't run out...but oil reserves do.

Both are highly variable in output and all storage methods available are costly, and more importantly, only necessary because of the irregular and unpredictable nature of wind and solar output.

Which will only get better as it's developed and commercialized further. The ceiling for renewables is high, if not infinite, but the ceiling for fossil fuels is low and is getting lower each day more is extracted from the reserves.

Also, oil extraction isn't even really worth it anymore...neither is natural gas.

Since 2015, over 200 natural gas companies have gone bankrupt to the tune of over $130 BILLION.

How many renewable companies went under since 2015?

 

[LV426]

Thus, both require massive back up generation sources that are reliable when solar and wind don't work. Germany found this out the hard way..

No they didn't find this out the hard way...

Last year, Germany had a surplus of energy that resulted in price discounting for its neighbors.

So when you say "Germany found that out the hard way" what you really mean is that "private companies weren't making money anymore because renewables are so cheap and plentiful."

So you are swapping "Germany" with "private companies" and pretending they're the same thing.

Is Germany Making Too Much Renewable Energy?
February 10, 2021
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/10/is-germany-making-too-much-renewable-energy/

 

[Into the Night]

In a first-of-its-kind study, NASA has calculated the individual driving forces of recent climate change through direct satellite observations.

Define 'climate change'. There is no 'driving force' of something you can't define. You can't observe something you can't define, even with instruments.

And consistent with what climate models have shown for decades,

Computer generated random numbers are not data.

greenhouse gases

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics, which you apparently deny.

and suspended pollution particles in the atmosphere, called aerosols,

Define 'pollution'. Buzzword fallacy.

from the burning of fossil fuels

No one burns fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Burning oil or natural gas produces carbon dioxide and water. Burning coal produces carbon dioxide only.

Carbon dioxide is not magick. It has no capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.

are responsible for the lion's share of modern warming.

You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

Science

You deny it. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

flat earthers

The was shown to be round by the ancient Greeks. If you want to ignore that, that's your business.

and AGW deniers

Define 'global warming'. Yes...I deny your religion.

share one thing in common, no common sense.

Religion isn't 'common sense'. Make no mistake about that.

........sooo embarrassing this 'debate' is still alive in 'Murica

The Church of Global Warming is worldwide. It does not debate. It does not converse. Like most fundamentalist style religions, it simply declares and calls that a 'proof'.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

it’s over



You believed the lies of wealthy fucks and sold yourself out to them




Dumb bastages

What's over?

 

[Into the Night]

It is remarkable that the exact same people who deny AGW-climate change are precisely the exact same people who hollered that COVID was a hoax. What are the odds?

Very high. These are both fundamentalist style religions, and they both stem from the Church of Karl Marx.