The future climate - the planet is giving us a glimpse

[Into the Night]

The first photovoltaic cell was developed in 1954, a mere 68 years ago. Manufacture of cells and panels is now quite automated, but solar power is still the most expensive method of generating electricity, watt for watt.
They also, of course, don't work at night.

The power inverter is the cheapest part of the system. We stamp out semiconductors like cookies now. Even bricks like that are pretty cheap. They are just simple transistors and diodes.
The panels are expensive. That's a lot of silicon wafer to start with...just for a single panel. They are also susceptible to damage from a lot of hazards.

 

[Into the Night]

So you're saying all the claims you are making cannot be corroborated by reputable, peer reviewed science.

Science does not use consensus.
Repetition fallacy (chanting).

 

[BartenderElite]

In 20 years, the entire globe could be covered by a shallow ocean, with everyone living in boats. And I think many on the right will still say "none of their predictions came true! Nothing to worry about here...."

 

[Into the Night]

In 20 years, the entire globe could be covered by a shallow ocean, with everyone living in boats. And I think many on the right will still say "none of their predictions came true! Nothing to worry about here...."

So you believe the story of Noah's ark occurred.

 

[archives]

Science does not use consensus.
Repetition fallacy (chanting).

You can always count on “birdman” to continue on with the false paradigm, and when requested to document his “opinions,” you’re sure to get s scientific looking babble from some obscure contrarian and his latest study, I believe last time it was a weatherman in Wales

Predictable, similar to his defense of the Big Lie, just throw out some debunked “proof” and present it as real

 

[Bigdog]

CO2 is NOT a thermal insulator. Indeed, it conducts heat better than any other common gas. This is one of the reasons we use it in fire extinguishers.
CO2 will put out a fire in two ways:
1) Removing thermal energy from the fire by conducting heat away rapidly.
2) Displacing oxygen.

This breaks the fire 'triangle' in two places, and CO2 is cheap and leaves no lasting residue. This is why it is most commonly used for aircraft extinguishing systems and in aircraft hangars. In more advanced systems in hangars, it is combined with a foaming agent, trapping CO2 in the foam and smothering the flames. That system is usually installed in larger hangars due to it's expense. It can be used against type A, B, and C fires. It is ineffective against class D fires.

It has nothing to do with heat conduction. That is a bogus claim.

Yes, it's main purpose is simply to displace the oxygen, and because it happens to come out Cold, it also cools the fuel.

"The solar radiation that makes its way to Earth is either absorbed by the surface of the Earth or reflected back to space. When solar radiation is reflected from Earth’s surface back into space, the wavelengths of the solar radiation become elongated and shift toward the infrared region of the spectrum. This is where the problem with gases such as carbon dioxide comes into play. At longer radiation wavelengths, thermal radiation no longer passes through the molecule back into space; rather, the energy is absorbed, and then reflected back to Earth’s surface."

https://www.powermag.com/carbon-dioxide-and-the-fundamentals-of-heat-transfer/

It does not break the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[volsrock]

So you're saying all the claims you are making cannot be corroborated by reputable, peer reviewed science.

what did the science say about the massive heat wave of 1936?


Exxon and man sure as hell had nothing to do with it...so explain what it was?

 

[cancel2 2022]

In 20 years, the entire globe could be covered by a shallow ocean, with everyone living in boats. And I think many on the right will still say "none of their predictions came true! Nothing to worry about here...."

Waterworld was a shitty film and a fantasy, is Kevin Costner your go to climate advisor now?

 

[cancel2 2022]

what did the science say about the massive heat wave of 1936?


Exxon and man sure as hell had nothing to do with it...so explain what it was?

They try to ignore the period between 1910 to 1940 as they can't explain it. It takes somebody like Judith Curry to attempt to find an explanation.

A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/early-20th-century-global-warming/

 

[cancel2 2022]

what did the science say about the massive heat wave of 1936?


Exxon and man sure as hell had nothing to do with it...so explain what it was?

The early 20th century warming: Anomalies, causes and consequences

Gabi Hegerl, Stefan Bronniman, Andrew Shurer, Tim Cowan

Abstract: “The most pronounced warming in the historical global climate record prior to the recent warming occurred over the first half of the 20th century and is known as the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW). Understanding this period and the subsequent slowdown of warming is key to disentangling the relationship between decadal variability and the response to human influences in the present and future climate. This review discusses the observed changes during the ETCW and hypotheses for the underlying causes and mechanisms. Attribution studies estimate that about a half (40–54%; p > .8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950 was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases and natural forcing, offset to some extent by aerosols. Natural variability also made a large contribution, particularly to regional anomalies like the Arctic warming in the 1920s and 1930s. The ETCW period also encompassed exceptional events, several of which are touched upon: Indian monsoon failures during the turn of the century, the “Dust Bowl” droughts and extreme heat waves in North America in the 1930s, the World War II period drought in Australia between 1937 and 1945; and the European droughts and heat waves of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Understanding the mechanisms involved in these events, and their links to large scale forcing is an important test for our understanding of modern climate change and for predicting impacts of future change.”

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wcc.522

 

[AProudLefty]

Waterworld was a shitty film and a fantasy, is Kevin Costner your go to climate advisor now?

The ocean isn't shallow in Waterworld, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes you are. You are saying that the meteorologists and climatologists are liars.

Word stuffing. I never said any such thing.

 

[AProudLefty]

Word stuffing. I never said any such thing.

Denying your own argument again?

 

[Into the Night]

You can always count on “birdman” to continue on with the false paradigm, and when requested to document his “opinions,” you’re sure to get s scientific looking babble from some obscure contrarian and his latest study, I believe last time it was a weatherman in Wales

Predictable, similar to his defense of the Big Lie, just throw out some debunked “proof” and present it as real

Word stuffing. URL worship. Argument of the Stone fallacy. No argument presented. Trolling.

 

[Into the Night]

It has nothing to do with heat conduction.

Yes it does.

That is a bogus claim.

No it isn't.

Yes, it's main purpose is simply to displace the oxygen, and because it happens to come out Cold, it also cools the fuel.

You just contradicted yourself. You are now locked in paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational.

"The solar radiation that makes its way to Earth is either absorbed by the surface of the Earth or reflected back to space.

Okay.

When solar radiation is reflected from Earth’s surface back into space, the wavelengths of the solar radiation become elongated and shift toward the infrared region of the spectrum.

Reflection does not change the frequency of light reflected.

This is where the problem with gases such as carbon dioxide comes into play.

There is no problem with carbon dioxide.

At longer radiation wavelengths, thermal radiation no longer passes through the molecule back into space; rather, the energy is absorbed, and then reflected back to Earth’s surface."

No. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot reduce entropy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat always flows from hot to cold. NEVER THE REVERSE.

https://www.powermag.com/carbon-dioxide-and-the-fundamentals-of-heat-transfer/

False authority fallacy.

It does not break the laws of thermodynamics.

It does. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

what did the science say about the massive heat wave of 1936?

The same thing it says today. Nothing. Science isn't data.

Exxon and man sure as hell had nothing to do with it...so explain what it was?

Weather.

 

[Into the Night]

Denying your own argument again?

LIF. Trolling.

 

[AProudLefty]

LIF. Trolling.

Denying what you said. Trolling.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You don't get to speak for all meteorologists and climatologists.

Squawkie and company don't even understand the significance of ice core samples. They just parrot the ones the oil company sponsored studies tell them to.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This planet has been here 4.5 billion years give or take and you think that a couple of decades of poorly explained climate change are significant?