The Earth is Cooling and the Climate Extremists (Democrats) are a threat to Democracy

[BuckSwope 654]

5 hours ago, lod001 said:

We are never getting off this rock without help from a much more advanced civilization. Odds used to be nuclear war would finish us off. Now, the odds are we wipe ourselves out with a killer man made virus. 

Also, we are never going to be able to control the climate. It will do what it does and the idea that ending 'fossil fuels', (btw, it doesn't come from fossils, oils is a renewal resource, generated from the inner earth), is simply ridiculous with the current population. Simply impossible. I used to believe the peak oil BS. Now we could run out if we use it faster than it is produced in the ground but make no mistake, oil is required on this rock.

Let's just ask them, ffs.   Isn't that why our goverment is finally getting around to talking about UFOs and stuff? 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

8 hours ago, Baker Boy said:

Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/glacier-national-park-is-replacing-signs-that-predicted-its-glaciers-would-be-gone-by-2020/ar-BBYJejT?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=spartandhp

id love to grab one of those signs and hang it up in my den.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Here you go. make it your wallpaper lol.

 

 

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

2 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

Talk about moving goal posts - we've gone from global climate change to Wyoming winter change!! 

  

Whatever, I am more in line with what @RLLD posted above.   To me it just makes common sense to not want to destroy the place we live in, so the climate freaks don't bother me too much either.    I think what we really don't seem to talk about it projection models of possible sea level rises and how we are going to prepare for that displacement of people and other issues that might come with that.   It's dumb to talk all doom and gloom and force people to use paper straws, but I will take that over pretending nothing is happening.  

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,970]

Climate change or not, I think everyone will agree that pollution is bad and we should aim to reduce it as much as possible. But saying it like that doesn’t make anyone a fortune or get votes.  

[avoiding injuries 1,517]

On 2/19/2023 at 8:57 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Climate change or not, I think everyone will agree that pollution is bad and we should aim to reduce it as much as possible. But saying it like that doesn’t make anyone a fortune or get votes.  

 But that’s what got us here. Nobody wants to pollute, but when you agree it’s ”bad”, the slope comes out and panic freaks get all up in a tizzy. Stop littering and keep the outside looking nice. We’ll never combat what other countries are doing with our small, capable changes. Sorry for my racist rant. 

[League Champion 1,896]

2 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

We’ll never combat what other countries are doing with our small, capable changes. Sorry for my racist rant. 

Exactly. It's not this Country that the World needs to worry about. Do you think Biden would ever put pressure on China to clean up their act?? Nope!!! 

[BuckSwope 654]

12 minutes ago, League Champion said:

Exactly. It's not this Country that the World needs to worry about. Do you think Biden would ever put pressure on China to clean up their act?? Nope!!! 

Well, they are polluting it up making all our crap for us.   Of course we won't tell them to knock it off.  

[Big Guy 1,410]

The Earth is Cooling and the Climate Extremists (Democrats) are a threat to Democracy

[jerryskids 6,580]

1 hour ago, Big Guy said:

The Earth is Cooling and the Climate Extremists (Democrats) are a threat to Democracy

What is the purpose of this post?   

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

30 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What is the purpose of this post?   

I think he agrees with us that the left are horrible people 

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. This means that it causes an effect like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping heat and warming up the inside.”

Meanwhile in Los Angeles 

 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

It's snowing today in LA County, that means climate change is FAKE.

Focking clown show.

[The Real timschochet 6,482]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

It's snowing today in LA County, that means climate change is FAKE.

Focking clown show.

It’s amazing that they keep doing this. 

[jerryskids 6,580]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It's snowing today in LA County, that means climate change is FAKE.

Focking clown show.

And here I thought snow in LA County was extreme weather which means that climate change is REAL.  

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s amazing that they keep doing this. 

How is the earth warming if the earth is cooling?

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

And here I thought snow in LA County was extreme weather which means that climate change is REAL.  

The greater point is that you can't take the weather on one day and either prove or disprove 100 years of data.  It's stupid when liberals do it, it's stupid when conservatives do it.

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

9 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

The greater point is that you can't take the weather on one day and either prove or disprove 100 years of data.  It's stupid when liberals do it, it's stupid when conservatives do it.

There are studies in this thread proving the earth has been cooling for 8 years. Why was the northern hemisphere covered in a sheet of ice a mile deep 10,000 years ago?

[The Real timschochet 6,482]

13 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

How is the earth warming if the earth is cooling?

Please attend a science class in any high school or college and ask this question. After the inevitable laughter, derision and mockery from your classmates, the instructor will gently respond to you that the earth is warming, and that this causes extreme surface weather including ice storms. And that the warming is caused by man’s consumption of fossil fuels. 
 

Or you can continue to read conservative blogs and listen to talk radio. The choice is yours. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

5 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

There are studies in this thread proving the earth has been cooling for 8 years. Why was the northern hemisphere covered in a sheet of ice a mile deep 10,000 years ago?

No there aren't, there are tweets.  And even if it's true, it's 8 years, as opposed to decades of data showing that we're warming.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,970]

27 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It's snowing today in LA County, that means climate change is FAKE.

Focking clown show.

Climate change isn’t fake. It’s been changing forever.  There are rock walls under the glaciers. 

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Please attend a science class in any high school or college and ask this question. After the inevitable laughter, derision and mockery from your classmates, the instructor will gently respond to you that the earth is warming, and that this causes extreme surface weather including ice storms. And that the warming is caused by man’s consumption of fossil fuels. 
 

Or you can continue to read conservative blogs and listen to talk radio. The choice is yours. 

If manmade C02 has contributed 50% more atmospheric C02 in the last 15 years than natural C02, why has the earth been cooling for the past 8 years?

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

5 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

No there aren't, there are tweets.  And even if it's true, it's 8 years, as opposed to decades of data showing that we're warming.

NOAA data isn’t legitimate? That’s the argument you are going with?

[jerryskids 6,580]

9 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

The greater point is that you can't take the weather on one day and either prove or disprove 100 years of data.  It's stupid when liberals do it, it's stupid when conservatives do it.

True.  It's also true that 100 years vs 8 years is mice nuts in the giant scheme of billions of years of geological, solar, orbital etc. evolution.  And as I pointed out recently, we are naturally warming from either coming out of an ice age or being in an interglacial (warming) period of an ice age for the past 10,000 years.

I'm not saying we aren't contributing to warming, but there are other, potentially much larger factors also at play.

[Horseman 2,377]

I generally don't like the idea of most of the world's glaciers shrinking in recent years.  It's too bad we have to make it political, but, these two posts hit the nail on the head.

On 2/21/2023 at 3:29 PM, League Champion said:

Exactly. It's not this Country that the World needs to worry about. Do you think Biden would ever put pressure on China to clean up their act?? Nope!!! 

On 2/21/2023 at 3:25 PM, avoiding injuries said:

We’ll never combat what other countries are doing with our small, capable changes. Sorry for my racist rant. 

I'll keep saying it until it sinks in; we could go 70% electric vehicles tomorrow in the US and it would only make up for the carbon output China puts out making cement alone.  One single product of China's.  If you want to stop or greatly reduce carbon output you have to start with China otherwise everything else you're doing is fruitless.  

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

3 hours ago, Horseman said:

I generally don't like the idea of most of the world's glaciers shrinking in recent years.  It's too bad we have to make it political, but, these two posts hit the nail on the head.

I'll keep saying it until it sinks in; we could go 70% electric vehicles tomorrow in the US and it would only make up for the carbon output China puts out making cement alone.  One single product of China's.  If you want to stop or greatly reduce carbon output you have to start with China otherwise everything else you're doing is fruitless.  

C02 is a grift. The data shows it is not causing the earth to warm. We are at near record low concentration of C02. Ideal level for plant life, i.e.; human sustenance, is 2X to 3X the current 400 ppm.

[RLLD 4,145]

3 hours ago, Horseman said:

I generally don't like the idea of most of the world's glaciers shrinking in recent years.  It's too bad we have to make it political, but, these two posts hit the nail on the head.

I'll keep saying it until it sinks in; we could go 70% electric vehicles tomorrow in the US and it would only make up for the carbon output China puts out making cement alone.  One single product of China's.  If you want to stop or greatly reduce carbon output you have to start with China otherwise everything else you're doing is fruitless.  

Correct. Moreover, we empower China ever more with these moronic policies....and they would see us dominated and remove ALLLLLLL of these social progressive nonsese.....China is the biggest threat to everyone.....

[Hardcore troubadour 14,970]

China has developing nation status. Amazing all those civilizations are still developing when they had a few thousand years head start on the US. 

[MDC 7,157]

Past 8 years were the hottest on record. 2022 was only the 5th or 6th hottest tho. Global cooling!

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Past 8 years were the hottest on record. 2022 was only the 5th or 6th hottest tho. Global cooling!

The NOAA says otherwise 

[supermike80 1,812]

Funny how you're not allowed to mention blizzards in California because it's an anomaly.  But a hurricane during hurricane season?

 CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

[MDC 7,157]

40 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

The NOAA says otherwise 

No, they didn’t.

Quote

NOAA had released highlights from its most recent annual global climate report showing the planet’s average land and ocean surface temperature was 1.55 degrees Fahrenheit higher in 2022 than the 20th century average, which was 57 degrees F. This rise in temperature is part of an upward trend going back decades.

But Steve Milloy, who is on the board of a think tank that publishes content denying the existence of climate change, claimed “NOAA makes it official” that the “last 8 years” of temperature data show a “global cooling” trend.

That’s wrong. NOAA actually said the opposite.

“The planet continued its warming trend in 2022,” the agency’s press release said, “with last year ranking as the sixth-warmest year on record since 1880.”

Link

HTH

[The Real timschochet 6,482]

6 hours ago, Horseman said:

I generally don't like the idea of most of the world's glaciers shrinking in recent years.  It's too bad we have to make it political, but, these two posts hit the nail on the head.

I'll keep saying it until it sinks in; we could go 70% electric vehicles tomorrow in the US and it would only make up for the carbon output China puts out making cement alone.  One single product of China's.  If you want to stop or greatly reduce carbon output you have to start with China otherwise everything else you're doing is fruitless.  

I’m not sure I agree fully with this argument but I think it’s pretty reasonable, much better than “there is no climate change happening!” 
 

It seems to me the answer is not to limit carbon fuels but to come up with an alternative to them that both the USA and China will accept. I believe we are at the threshold of that alternative, which is nuclear fusion. We should make a huge investment in this area. 

[jerryskids 6,580]

31 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I’m not sure I agree fully with this argument but I think it’s pretty reasonable, much better than “there is no climate change happening!” 
 

It seems to me the answer is not to limit carbon fuels but to come up with an alternative to them that both the USA and China will accept. I believe we are at the threshold of that alternative, which is nuclear fusion. We should make a huge investment in this area. 

We should continue to invest in nuclear fusion, but we already have the answer, which is the nuclear fission technology we've harnessed for decades.  If we invested a fraction of a fraction of the money into Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) that we have in getting another femtowatt out of batteries, we'd have been done a long time ago.

Quote

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors. SMRs, which can produce a large amount of low-carbon electricity, are:

• Small – physically a fraction of the size of a conventional nuclear power reactor.
• Modular – making it possible for systems and components to be factory-assembled and transported as a unit to a location for installation.
• Reactors – harnessing nuclear fission to generate heat to produce energy.

Learn more about nuclear fission and energy.

Advantages of SMRs

Many of the benefits of SMRs are inherently linked to the nature of their design – small and modular. Given their smaller footprint, SMRs can be sited on locations not suitable for larger nuclear power plants. Prefabricated units of SMRs can be manufactured and then shipped and installed on site, making them more affordable to build than large power reactors, which are often custom designed for a particular location, sometimes leading to construction delays. SMRs offer savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand.

One of the challenges to accelerating access to energy is infrastructure – limited grid coverage in rural areas – and the costs of grid connection for rural electrification. A single power plant should represent no more than 10 per cent of the total installed grid capacity. In areas lacking sufficient lines of transmission and grid capacity, SMRs can be installed into an existing grid or remotely off-grid, as a function of its smaller electrical output, providing low-carbon power for industry and the population. This is particularly relevant for microreactors, which are a subset of SMRs designed to generate electrical power typically up to 10 MW(e). Microreactors have smaller footprints than other SMRs and will be better suited for regions inaccessible to clean, reliable and affordable energy. Furthermore, microreactors could serve as a backup power supply in emergency situations or replace power generators that are often fuelled by diesel, for example, in rural communities or remote businesses.

In comparison to existing reactors, proposed SMR designs are generally simpler, and the safety concept for SMRs often relies more on passive systems and inherent safety characteristics of the reactor, such as low power and operating pressure. This means that in such cases no human intervention or external power or force is required to shut down systems, because passive systems rely on physical phenomena, such as natural circulation, convection, gravity and self-pressurization. These increased safety margins, in some cases, eliminate or significantly lower the potential for unsafe releases of radioactivity to the environment and the public in case of an accident.

SMRs have reduced fuel requirements. Power plants based on SMRs may require less frequent refuelling, every 3 to 7 years, in comparison to between 1 and 2 years for conventional plants. Some SMRs are designed to operate for up to 30 years without refuelling.

What is the status of SMRs?

Both public and private institutions are actively participating in efforts to bring SMR technology to fruition within this decade. Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in May 2020, is producing energy from two 35 MW(e) SMRs. Other SMRs are under construction or in the licensing stage in Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States of America.

More than 70 commercial SMR designs being developed around the world target varied outputs and different applications, such as electricity, hybrid energy systems, heating, water desalinisation and steam for industrial applications. Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed.

Read how international collaboration will help bring SMRs, including microreactors, to fruition.

SMRs and sustainable development

SMRs and nuclear power plants offer unique attributes in terms of efficiency, economics and flexibility. While nuclear reactors provide dispatchable sources of energy – they can adjust output accordingly to electricity demand – some renewables, such as wind and solar, are variable energy sources that depend on the weather and time of day. SMRs could be paired with and increase the efficiency of renewable sources in a hybrid energy system. These characteristics position SMRs to play a key role in the clean energy transition, while also helping countries address the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Efforts to achieve the target of universal access to energy, SDG 7, has made visible progress; however, gaps are still prevalent, mainly concentrated in remote and rural regions. As global efforts seek to implement clean and innovative solutions, the increased use of renewable energy coupled with the introduction of SMRs has the potential to fill such gaps.

Find out how nuclear can replace coal as part of the clean energy transition.

• The IAEA has established the Platform on SMRs and their Applications, a one-stop shop for countries to coordinate support related to all aspects of SMR development, deployment, oversight and their electric and non-electric applications, such as use in district heating and desalination systems.
• The IAEA is assessing the level to which existing IAEA safety standards can be applied to innovative technologies. The IAEA expects to publish a Safety Report on the applicability of IAEA safety standards to SMR technologies in 2022.
• The IAEA’s Technical Working Group on Small and Medium Sized or Modular Reactors (TWG-SMR) and the SMR Regulators' Forum unites experts to discuss challenges and share experiences related to the development and future deployment of SMRs.
• The IAEA fosters sustainable nuclear energy development. The IAEA hosts technical meetings, produces scientific and technical publications and facilitates coordinated research projects.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs

But we don't, because... we can only speculate.  

[The Real timschochet 6,482]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

We should continue to invest in nuclear fusion, but we already have the answer, which is the nuclear fission technology we've harnessed for decades.  If we invested a fraction of a fraction of the money into Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) that we have in getting another femtowatt out of batteries, we'd have been done a long time ago.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs

But we don't, because... we can only speculate.  

We don’t because it makes people nervous due to the waste created, and the possibility of meltdown. That’s really what it comes down to. Personally I agree with you but I’m not sure that we can get past the opposition- and yes it’s mostly from liberals. 
 

Fusion on the other hand produces no waste. Which is a great attraction. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,970]

The whole no nukes movement was from idiot leftist activists and the stooges in Hollywood and music.  And as usual, the morons got  it wrong and the rest of us paid.  They haven’t been right on anything significant since Vietnam. But today they would be fine with Vietnam if Obama or Biden were in charge.  

[jerryskids 6,580]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

We don’t because it makes people nervous due to the waste created, and the possibility of meltdown. That’s really what it comes down to. Personally I agree with you but I’m not sure that we can get past the opposition- and yes it’s mostly from liberals. 
 

Fusion on the other hand produces no waste. Which is a great attraction. 

Not arguing, but I'm confident that fractions of the time and money could have solved the waste problem.  We don't know tho, because we haven't invested to find out.

[nobody 2,578]

Climate "scientists" are worse than epidemiologists at predicting things.

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

12 hours ago, MDC said:

No, they didn’t.

HTH

I post data from NOAA and your rebuttal is a link from fake fact-check.org leftist clowns. Shocking. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

Diz doesn't invest in stocks because they lose money