Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 19, 2017, 06:33:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
104713 Posts in 2391 Topics by 1092 Members
Latest Member: Cruces
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Environmental issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] Print
Author Topic: Environmental issues  (Read 184448 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #400 on: January 18, 2017, 12:54:41 PM »


As long as they don't change the methodology, that will always be true.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #401 on: January 18, 2017, 10:57:53 PM »

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/nyt-hid-numbers-hottest-year-record/#.WIA-4Q2C8kt.facebook
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #402 on: January 18, 2017, 11:15:53 PM »


-59 in Alaska right while the hottest year ever story again goes to print.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/weather/2017/01/18/50-below-recorded-in-interior-as-cold-snap-settles-on-alaska/

Weather or climate, warning is less when you measure it than when you adjust it.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #403 on: February 24, 2017, 09:09:47 PM »

http://kirkmellish.blog.wsbradio.com/2017/02/23/just-how-warm-any-chill/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #404 on: February 25, 2017, 01:02:22 AM »

second post

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #405 on: February 26, 2017, 03:41:16 PM »

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 762


« Reply #406 on: February 28, 2017, 12:23:32 PM »

Climate change. What an MIT Professor dedicated to the subject for more than 30 years has to say about it.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #407 on: March 15, 2017, 04:11:33 PM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/science/great-barrier-reef-coral-climate-change-dieoff.html?emc=edit_ta_20170315&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7410


« Reply #408 on: March 21, 2017, 08:15:55 AM »

Barrier reef not in danger???:
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/great-barrier-reef-expert-dont-trust-climate-alarmists/
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 762


« Reply #409 on: March 21, 2017, 10:36:00 AM »


Nature has existed since the beginning of time, in a state of perpetual perfection unto itself, regardless of what man did or did not "think" about it, and it will continue to do so, for as long as man is or isn't here, man himself, being a part of the same system and just as subjective to nature as anything else.

Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15153


« Reply #410 on: March 23, 2017, 11:26:15 PM »


The media would never lie to us. They are Professional Journalists! With credentials!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #411 on: March 24, 2017, 12:18:39 PM »

GM:  "The media would never lie to us. They are Professional Journalists! With credentials!"

And that's why they covered this science story so widely and boldly...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170306091927.htm

Cold extermination: One of greatest mass extinctions was due to an ice age and not to Earth's warming
Date:  March 6, 2017
Source: Université de Genève

The Earth has known several mass extinctions over the course of its history. One of the most important happened at the Permian-Triassic boundary 250 million years ago. Over 95% of marine species disappeared and, up until now, scientists have linked this extinction to a significant rise in Earth temperatures. But researchers have now discovered that this extinction took place during a short ice age which preceded the global climate warming.
------------------------------------------------------

Can someone please link the NY Times coverage of this catastrophic global warming refutation.

Correction coming soon to the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24732-2005Jan20.html
Extinction Tied to Global Warming
Greenhouse Effect Cited in Mass Decline 250 Million Years Ago
January 21, 2005

Oops.  No so!


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #412 on: March 26, 2017, 12:01:00 AM »

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/simple-chart-destroys-the-liberal-climate-change-scam?utm_source=FBLC&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=LC
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #413 on: April 04, 2017, 09:48:49 AM »

Ken Haapala of the Science and Environmental Policy Project
http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2017/TWTW4-1-17.pdf

In the 30 years between the 1979 Charney report to the National Academy of Sciences on an investigation of the possible effects of increased carbon dioxide on the earth’s temperatures to the 2009 EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, endanger human health and welfare, government-funded Climate Studies have largely turned from empirical science to dogma – a belief system unsubstantiated by physical evidence.

The Charney report included some of the nation’s best meteorologists and climate researchers and the report recognized that laboratory tests demonstrated that the direct influence on global temperatures from doubling carbon dioxide would be minor – possibly unmeasurable.

The report also identified educated guesses – estimates – that the CO2 influence might be greatly enhanced by increases in water vapor – the dominant greenhouse gas. If correct, this positive feedback would greatly multiply any increase from CO2. The report recognized that the warming would occur in the atmosphere, and that we did not have comprehensive measurements of atmospheric temperatures. Thus, the hypothesis of significant atmospheric warming from increased water vapor could not be tested.

[Now, of course, it can be, and is, being tested.]

In March 1990, Science Magazine published a paper by Roy Spencer and John Christy describing a method of using data collected from NOAA polar orbiting weather satellites to comprehensively calculate atmospheric temperatures for virtually the entire globe, except for the extreme poles. These data cover about 97 to 98 percent of the globe, including oceans, deserts, mountain ranges, jungles, etc. where there are few surface instruments. Initially, certain small errors in calculation were discovered, including orbital decay. These were acknowledged and corrected. This is how science advances.

These data, published monthly, are independently calculated by two other entities and are independently verified by four sets of weather balloon data using different instruments. The government-sponsored United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and the EPA largely ignore the atmospheric data, which is far more comprehensive and better tested than surface data.

[Not only are the satellite data more comprehensive and better tested than surface data, they haven’t been tampered with. Government-funded warmists at NOAA and other agencies have systematically altered historical surface temperature data by lowering temperatures that were recorded decades ago, and raising temperatures that have been reported recently. The surface temperature record has been so badly corrupted that it is doubtful whether it can be used to prove anything at all. Yet government-funded warmists rely on it to the exclusion of the transparent satellite data.]

Unfortunately, subsequent government-funded research went from properly testing the educated guesses (hypotheses) in the Charney Report to using them to create fear of global warming, now called climate change. Economically drastic programs and government policies have been justified based on these untested guesses.

From 1993 to 2016, the US government spent over $40 Billion on what government entities classify Climate Science – and has produced no refinement to the 1979 Charney Report.

[Where did that $40 billion go? It didn’t buy any battleships, or pay for the construction of transcontinental highways. An enormous portion of it must have gone into the pockets of “scientists” who were generating the scary reports that left-wing government agencies wanted.]

Independent scientists and climate researchers have produced far better estimates of the influence of CO2, based on empirical (scientific) observations. But that research is not included in official government publications.

Public policies on energy and the environment should be based on the best available empirical science, not on incomplete studies, which have become dogma.

On March 29, the U.S. House Committee on Science Space & and Technology held a hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method” featuring climate scientists John Christy, Judith Curry, Michael Mann, and Roger Pielke Jr., who recently left the field, in part because of abusive tactics by certain members of Congress. Comparing the written testimony of John Christy with that of Michael Mann provides a stark illustration of the difference between empirical science and scientific dogma.

[http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/science-vs-dogma-on-climate.php]
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #414 on: May 18, 2017, 11:08:41 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/18/climate/antarctica-ice-melt-climate-change.html?emc=edit_ta_20170518&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #415 on: May 28, 2017, 10:29:15 PM »

Contrary to my gut impression of ships sailing a north passage, Russian activities in the Arctic etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#1e64ab728921
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7410


« Reply #416 on: May 29, 2017, 06:42:52 AM »

Why is it that we don't hear of this?  That NASA data shows the Arctic has rebounded to levels from 40 yrs ago?

No reports on CNN.  This is against the media political academic corporate climate change lobby so we never hear of it.


But a climate change mantra drone would ask:

What about Greenland glaciers melting and cracking. or the West of Antartica melting?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #417 on: May 30, 2017, 11:58:17 AM »

Too good to not expand, repeat and distribute...

quote author=Crafty_Dog link=topic=1118.msg103968#msg103968 date=1496028555]
Contrary to my gut impression of ships sailing a north passage, Russian activities in the Arctic etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#1e64ab728921


Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:

“Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps”

“2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse”

“An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea”

The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.

To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.

The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15153


« Reply #418 on: May 30, 2017, 11:59:51 AM »

I was told that the science was settled.


Too good to not expand, repeat and distribute...

quote author=Crafty_Dog link=topic=1118.msg103968#msg103968 date=1496028555]
Contrary to my gut impression of ships sailing a north passage, Russian activities in the Arctic etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#1e64ab728921


Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:

“Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps”

“2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse”

“An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea”

The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.

To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.

The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #419 on: May 30, 2017, 12:32:18 PM »

I see the article is dated 2015.  Some receding since then, therefore all the measurable damage [natural fluctuation] happened in the last two years.  Al Gore was more prescient than we knew.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #420 on: June 01, 2017, 08:51:51 AM »

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617309666?np=y&npKey=94c4b9d1d75cf06a75fe82c2fae0bd131d9bbe79ff212244524405327fa7e2b6
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7410


« Reply #421 on: June 02, 2017, 06:00:12 AM »

No fan of Trump defends his Paris accord decision:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448201/paris-agreement-trump-right-pull-out
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7410


« Reply #422 on: June 02, 2017, 04:46:43 PM »

gypsy moth invasion this year

here is what they can do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymantria_dispar_dispar#/media/File:Gypsy_Moth_Defoliation_Snow_Shoe_PA.jpg
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #423 on: June 04, 2017, 05:11:10 PM »

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

http://fairfaxfreecitizen.com/2017/06/04/31487-u-s-scientists-reject-global-warming-hoax/
http://www.petitionproject.org/

31,487 U.S. Scientists Reject Global Warming Hoax
Posted On 04 Jun 2017By : Jonathon Moseley3 CommentsTag: Aristotle, carbon dioxide, climate change, cold fusion, consensus, Earth's orbit, environment, Fleischmann–Pons, Frederick Seitz, geologic history, global warming, Global Warming Petition Project, greenhouse gases, Hoax, IPCC, Japan, Kyoto, natural climate cycles, Nobel Prize, Oak Ridge, Petition Project, physicists, scientists, Sir Francis Bacon, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United Nations, University of Utah
0
A growing list of 31,487 U.S. scientists (and counting) has signed a petition strongly rejecting as unproven the hypothesis of man-made global warming or climate change. These signers include four NASA astronauts, at least two Nobel Prize winning physicists, 9,029 Ph.D.s  and some of the nation’s top climatologists. Only U.S. scientists are included in this particular petition. Only relevant scientific fields are included.

The “Global Warming Petition Project” includes a dramatically strong statement to which 31,487 scientists have already signed their names.  [above]
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7410


« Reply #424 on: June 04, 2017, 05:48:08 PM »

Think of the bright side .  Many people are making a lot of loot with climate change hypothesis / hoax:

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/al-gore-net-worth/

Like I posted before if alternative energy is so good for the economy then why doesn't silicon valley?hollywood/harvard endowments  put their own darn money into it.

Who is stopping them??

Leave my hard earned tax dollars alone !
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #425 on: June 05, 2017, 12:38:00 AM »

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #426 on: June 06, 2017, 09:20:48 AM »

http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.FRCeo69o.enxFvU54.dpbs

View it all.  Nothing unprecedented is happening with the climate.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7410


« Reply #427 on: June 06, 2017, 09:32:28 AM »

Doug,

For the LEFT this is an inconvenient truth!

Will Gore back his millions??

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #428 on: June 07, 2017, 02:24:13 AM »

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7410


« Reply #429 on: June 12, 2017, 09:17:26 AM »

I thought green energy is huge for the economy? 

How come GE did not crush it?:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/markets-verdict-jeff-immelt-131441299.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #430 on: June 15, 2017, 09:13:14 AM »

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/04/hot-magma-is-melting-greenland-ice-can-windfarms-save-it/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #431 on: June 20, 2017, 10:32:50 PM »

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/

Partially challenged by this:  https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/no-tesla-batteries-are-not-a-global-warming-disaster

Also see:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 01:14:50 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #432 on: June 21, 2017, 07:58:21 AM »

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/

Partially challenged by this:  https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/no-tesla-batteries-are-not-a-global-warming-disaster

Also see:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

'World's quickest car', the Tesla I drove is not any kind of economy car:  http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/07/technology/motor-trend-tesla-acceleration/index.html
All wheel drive cornering and 15-85mph acceleration in about 2 seconds, it's more like a ride at the fair.  Amazing software control of everything from self drive mode to the charging of the battery.  You buy this car because you like that sort of thing.  Don't buy it save energy or to eliminate emissions because it doesn't.  The Nissan Leaf is more comparable to a conventional car. 

The CO2 factor depends on how we power our grid, in manufacturing and for charging.  Powering via electricity is not cleaner when the marginal unit of energy is produced with the same fossil fuels.

Tesla is building all-solar charging stations, and for early, buyers, usage is free.  But real charging happens at home and at work on the mix of the local grid.  In most places, if you add any usage and especially night time usage, the extra energy will come from fossil fuels, coal or natural gas.  Besides expensive and relatively low capacity, solar and wind are not very reliable at night.

We should build nuclear capacity to power the grid if we want a shift of transportation to electric and be carbon free.  Otherwise run the cars directly on natural gas. 


Sourcewatch should do a source watch report on themselves.  What a one-sided, ad hominem attack that was.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #433 on: June 21, 2017, 10:48:39 AM »

Battery production, battery lifespan, and battery disposal present serious issues which invariably are unaddressed by green propaganda.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15153


« Reply #434 on: June 24, 2017, 03:58:18 PM »

Battery production, battery lifespan, and battery disposal present serious issues which invariably are unaddressed by green propaganda.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #435 on: June 26, 2017, 01:59:25 PM »

https://www.mercatornet.com/harambee/view/reinventing-mankinds-most-essential-technology/20018
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #436 on: June 30, 2017, 08:03:29 AM »

Toxic Waste From Solar Panels: 300 Times That of Nuclear Power

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/29/toxic-waste-from-solar-panels-300-times-that-of-nuclear-power/
Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Japan-tries-to-chip-away-at-mountain-of-disused-solar-panels?page=2
« Last Edit: July 08, 2017, 12:22:03 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15153


« Reply #437 on: June 30, 2017, 11:10:54 AM »

Toxic Waste From Solar Panels: 300 Times That of Nuclear Power

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/29/toxic-waste-from-solar-panels-300-times-that-of-nuclear-power/
Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Japan-tries-to-chip-away-at-mountain-of-disused-solar-panels?page=2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emBY6phmn9E

And nukes can't do cool stuff like set birds on fire!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41052


« Reply #438 on: August 07, 2017, 09:07:16 PM »

http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15153


« Reply #439 on: August 09, 2017, 10:16:23 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764208/Child-miners-aged-four-living-hell-Earth.html

Child miners aged four living a hell on Earth so YOU can drive an electric car: Awful human cost in squalid Congo cobalt mine that Michael Gove didn’t consider in his ‘clean’ energy crusade
Sky News investigated the Katanga mines and found Dorsen, 8, and Monica, 4
The pair were working in the vast mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo
They are two of the 40,000 children working daily in the mines, checking rocks for cobalt


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764208/Child-miners-aged-four-living-hell-Earth.html
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #440 on: August 10, 2017, 12:08:47 PM »


This is a great find!

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.  “Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

----------------
This matches what I have posted here and what I told a liberal, Yale-educated friend recently.  He asked something like, do I really deny global warming and all the science behind it?  I told him I think it is 2 1/2 to 7 times overstated and THAT is backed up in science too.
---------------

Article continued:

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”

There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.

While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.

So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.

Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova, Picture: australianclimatemadness.com
Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova, Picture: australianclimatemadness.comSource:Supplied
“It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.”

Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.

He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’s blog for climate sceptics.

He is about half way through his series, with blog post 8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday.

When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.

“It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”

Link again:  http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9056


« Reply #441 on: August 14, 2017, 04:26:58 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zk7Xfyv6k4

"On balance, I don’t see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming. [Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don’t think it’s a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/why-global-warming-alarmism-is-wrong.php




Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!