|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 11, 2023 23:52:16 GMT
Same for yours I guess. But my truth is flexible unlike religious ones or yours? Mine changes by proof, science, persuasion. I believe I am pretty much alone on this site in changing my mind and seeking compromise. I would not have thought so. Your compromise is insistent you are right whereas my compromise allows that I may be wrong Yet the story these many threads tell is different. If you searched the word apologies within them nearly all would be mine. I admit the difficulties with EV's my opposition does not echo. Where I cannot compromise is in what I see as facts, such as the chemistry of Co2 and water vapour in the atmosphere. Those facts are facts. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 12, 2023 7:38:51 GMT
It may well be as no one I know disputes warming is occurring. What is unproven is that C02 is the culprit and to what degree the climate is warming. Nothing in science is ever proven. But the evidence is very strong that it is Co2 that A; Gives earth its ambient temperature B; Is causing the increase. Both untrue. There's plenty of evidence of warming occurring without rises in CO2 which definitively prove the theory wrong. You've been given many instances but you just ignore them. And there's more evidence that warming causes a rise in CO2 than the other way round. The causal link of CO2 and warming has NEVER been proved - all attempts to show it in the Earth's system have failed. As for hurricane Freddy or whatever it is that's almost certainly caused by the warming of the ocean's surface. And the warming of the ocean's surface is almost certainly caused by ocean currents. And ocean currents are not yet understood by scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 9:05:41 GMT
Nothing in science is ever proven. But the evidence is very strong that it is Co2 that A; Gives earth its ambient temperature B; Is causing the increase. Both untrue. There's plenty of evidence of warming occurring without rises in CO2 which definitively prove the theory wrong. You've been given many instances but you just ignore them. And there's more evidence that warming causes a rise in CO2 than the other way round. The causal link of CO2 and warming has NEVER been proved - all attempts to show it in the Earth's system have failed. That's like claiming your central heating doesn't necessarily warm homes because every now and then they get hotter because they catch fire. Very occasionally some other effect changes the earths temperature, but the reason the earth is its average temperature is sunlight hitting it and co2 trapping infrared heat. Do tell, how do ocean currents warm the surface? Where do they get their energy to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 12, 2023 9:50:31 GMT
Both untrue. There's plenty of evidence of warming occurring without rises in CO2 which definitively prove the theory wrong. You've been given many instances but you just ignore them. And there's more evidence that warming causes a rise in CO2 than the other way round. The causal link of CO2 and warming has NEVER been proved - all attempts to show it in the Earth's system have failed. That's like claiming your central heating doesn't necessarily warm homes because every now and then they get hotter because they catch fire. Very occasionally some other effect changes the earths temperature, but the reason the earth is its average temperature is sunlight hitting it and co2 trapping infrared heat. Do tell, how do ocean currents warm the surface? Where do they get their energy to do this. The surface of what, the ocean or the landmass? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 10:30:34 GMT
That's like claiming your central heating doesn't necessarily warm homes because every now and then they get hotter because they catch fire. Very occasionally some other effect changes the earths temperature, but the reason the earth is its average temperature is sunlight hitting it and co2 trapping infrared heat. Do tell, how do ocean currents warm the surface? Where do they get their energy to do this. The surface of what, the ocean or the landmass? The ocean. The claim is "And the warming of the ocean's surface is almost certainly caused by ocean currents" |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 12, 2023 11:34:19 GMT
The surface of what, the ocean or the landmass? The ocean. The claim is "And the warming of the ocean's surface is almost certainly caused by ocean currents" Are you denying or confirming this? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 12, 2023 13:46:29 GMT
Lets talk about business though since Zanny understands business.
Farmers have fields right. You will notice a lot of Britain is farmland. You will notice some fields are used for crops and some are unsuitable for crops because they are on the sides of steep hills. Where a field is on a steep hill the farmers uses that for grazing sheep and cows. This farmland can not be used for building houses so it is very cheap, and the land that can't be famed with crops is cheaper for this reason. Hills are those things which have a side in every direction, including south. In Britain to attain the maximum solar radiation you need trackable solar panel which will adjust their angle to the horizontal between about 30 and 40 degrees and rotate according to the time of day. However such a mechanism is very expensive, so you would get more energy by fixed panels and more of them. If you had a south facing hill of about 30 - 40 degrees you would not even need any mountings for the panels. You could take them out of the truck, each would have a micro inverter and all you would need to do is wire them up and lay them flat on the ground, and that's it. The kind of investment returns you can achieve doing this is around 20-40% per year.
Do you know why farmers are not doing this?
It's because the government are stopping them. There is a long waiting list for approval and inadequate grid connections.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 12, 2023 13:54:06 GMT
What facts and figures. And why have you hijacked yet another thread on your own mislead vanity of owning an EV? Weird, you raised EV's getting stuck. It was a relevent question... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 12, 2023 14:00:27 GMT
Still more verbal diarrhoea in a thread that seems dedicated to those who don’t understand the difference between climate and weather… Defention....Meteorology is the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena, including both weather and climate.....Anything else you require help with? It may help if you understood that you CANNOT have one whithout the other.. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 12, 2023 14:03:54 GMT
Global warming is well evidenced from millions of readings from hundreds of scientific institutes. What caused snow historically can be looked up if people are interested. What's causing the unusual weather we have seen with ever increasing frequency is global warming. There's no need to hit the panic button unless of course Cyclone Freddy crosses the entire Indian ocean without losing power and hits your country with 100mph winds Freddy breaks another record as the longest lived cyclone ever. weather.com/storms/hurricane/video/freddy-hits-record-for-longest-lived-tropical-cyclone-on-approach-toWell you are... |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 14:06:49 GMT
The ocean. The claim is "And the warming of the ocean's surface is almost certainly caused by ocean currents" Are you denying or confirming this? I'm denying it, but I await the evidence or clarification from Steppenwolf. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 12, 2023 14:08:26 GMT
I would not have thought so. Your compromise is insistent you are right whereas my compromise allows that I may be wrong Yet the story these many threads tell is different. If you searched the word apologies within them nearly all would be mine. I admit the difficulties with EV's my opposition does not echo. Where I cannot compromise is in what I see as facts, such as the chemistry of Co2 and water vapour in the atmosphere. Those facts are facts. Of course those facts are facts but what are not facts are to what level any effect happens, what other factors are at work to mitigate that effect and if the atmosphere behaves as predicted on concentrations that vary. So it is those 'facts' that you are basing your position of no compromise on. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 14:13:23 GMT
Lets talk about business though since Zanny understands business. Farmers have fields right. You will notice a lot of Britain is farmland. You will notice some fields are used for crops and some are unsuitable for crops because they are on the sides of steep hills. Where a field is on a steep hill the farmers uses that for grazing sheep and cows. This farmland can not be used for building houses so it is very cheap, and the land that can't be famed with crops is cheaper for this reason. Hills are those things which have a side in every direction, including south. In Britain to attain the maximum solar radiation you need trackable solar panel which will adjust their angle to the horizontal between about 30 and 40 degrees and rotate according to the time of day. However such a mechanism is very expensive, so you would get more energy by fixed panels and more of them. If you had a south facing hill of about 30 - 40 degrees you would not even need any mountings for the panels. You could take them out of the truck, each would have a micro inverter and all you would need to do is wire them up and lay them flat on the ground, and that's it. The kind of investment returns you can achieve doing this is around 20-40% per year. Do you know why farmers are not doing this? It's because the government are stopping them. There is a long waiting list for approval and inadequate grid connections. Bit off topic, but did you see the reservoir solar panels on BBC click? Such a simple idea but brilliant. build a raft of solar panels all sitting at about 40 degrees, park it behind a dam (easy access to the power grid) but the clever thing was a little electric motor rotates the thing in the water to follow the sun. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 12, 2023 14:19:18 GMT
Yet the story these many threads tell is different. If you searched the word apologies within them nearly all would be mine. I admit the difficulties with EV's my opposition does not echo. Where I cannot compromise is in what I see as facts, such as the chemistry of Co2 and water vapour in the atmosphere. Those facts are facts. Of course those facts are facts but what are not facts are to what level any effect happens, what other factors are at work to mitigate that effect and if the atmosphere behaves as predicted on concentrations that vary. So it is those 'facts' that you are basing your position of no compromise on. Indeed. There reaches a point where you have to trust the research of those dedicated to the job. At that point you make your judgements based on what you read and how many scientists support the conclusions. At this time the consensus is that while we cannot calculate every nuance of cause and effect, we can say the trend is and will be upwards. That this will change the climate and this will over all be detrimental. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 12, 2023 14:39:13 GMT
Of course those facts are facts but what are not facts are to what level any effect happens, what other factors are at work to mitigate that effect and if the atmosphere behaves as predicted on concentrations that vary. So it is those 'facts' that you are basing your position of no compromise on. Indeed. There reaches a point where you have to trust the research of those dedicated to the job. At that point you make your judgements based on what you read and how many scientists support the conclusions. At this time the consensus is that while we cannot calculate every nuance of cause and effect, we can say the trend is and will be upwards. That this will change the climate and this will over all be detrimental. There are many people dedicated to the job who disagree with the ones you follow who are dedicated to the job. Trusting the research is of course the issue and therein lies the problem in that the research has, over the last few years, turned up predictions and conclusions that are at serious odds with the observations. This has resulted in a lowering of trust in that research and in those predictions issued with some alacrity but with variable accuracy. The language of the scientists who believe in AGM is what has told the tale. The terms deniers, flat earthers and charlatans are common currency to describe those who dispute the 'consensus' and whose research indicates conclusions at odds with the consensus. These terms should never be the currency between scientists researching what is purported to be an emergency. |
|
