Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1341  
Old 04.04.2013, 09:07
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
If you consume it (drink, burn, whatever), it produces CO2.

Tom
...yes but in a closed circle of a (relatively) few months. Ever heard of the carbon cycle?

The millions of years involved in the fossil fuel cycle is quite another matter.
Reply With Quote
  #1342  
Old 04.04.2013, 09:11
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,790
Groaned at 151 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 4,757 Times in 1,873 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
If you consume it (drink, burn, whatever), it produces CO2.

Tom
Again, the straw man argument that boils down to 'save the planet, kill yourself'
Reply With Quote
This user groans at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1343  
Old 04.04.2013, 09:26
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
How do you get off-peak power from Solar (when it is dark!)
You store it up somewhere else when it's light, or you use a different energy source when it's dark.
Reply With Quote
  #1344  
Old 04.04.2013, 09:30
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You can keep saying it, but a lie repeated often enough is still a lie. AGW/ACC is not a proven theory; in fact it is not even a generally agreed-upon theory.
Nothing in science is a proven theory. The science behind climate change is as settled as most science ever gets.

Quote:
And, BTW, every point that disagrees with you is not automatically a straw-man argument. I've never heard that phrase used so much...
Indeed, only the arguments that are made against positions no-one has made are straw men.

Quote:
I don't think you know your core philosophy, except to disagree with others. You ignore anything that doesn't agree with AGW/ACC, and label everything else as a straw-man argument...
False.

Quote:
The two of you are so full of the Environmental Kool-Aid that there's no room for any other thought between you, and no matter how many others disagree with you two, you continue to label & dismiss. When you can't make any points, you change the subject. I've stopped trying to argue the science with you two, because your vapid close-mindedness is utterly appalling.
You never started arguing the science. It's been logical fallacies, ad hominem and misdirection the whole way through.

Last edited by drsmithy; 04.04.2013 at 10:16.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1345  
Old 04.04.2013, 10:05
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
My premise? I was just looking at the data in the best source the UK Met office graph here.
That graph is measuring how far above previous temperatures current temperatures are. So long as it's above the horizontal black line that marks "0", temperatures are higher (ie: rising).

Quote:
Actually the trend in rising temperatures was for around 80 years from 1920 to 2000, look at this UK Met office graph; not a century or two.
That graph only goes back to 1850, and the trend of rising since then is clear. It just gets more significant from the early 1900s.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1346  
Old 04.04.2013, 10:07
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Doesn't Solar Power have to do something with sunshine ??
Indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #1347  
Old 04.04.2013, 10:13
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Again, I'm still waiting for the answers to these specific questions which Ive asked you repeatedly, and which you are incapable of answering. Your arguments and attacks are full of non-sequitors (like the above quoted statement. You've responded with attacks, and links to info that do not answer the specific questions)
Again, as we're going in circles here... I've posted links to papers, websites, videos that address your questions, all of which you have ignored, and then you claim that I haven't addressed your questions. These links that you continue to ignore, call into question the methodologies, the assumptions, and the results of the pro-AGW/ACC scientists. Where some of the papers agree with the pro-AGW/ACC crowd, they show that there are massive variations in all aspects of this theory, ranging from opinions regarding the cause of any perceived climate change to the degree of change actually observed. When I post this information, you ignore it, and your doppelganger calls it "Denialist rubbish."

The Environmental Movement is making sweeping statements about the trend of global climate, based on information that is woefully incomplete. Many of these scientists use samples of convenience, using either weather data (such as local temperatures/precipitation rates) that they themselves can access at a low cost (because it is local to themselves, or easily available over the Internet), or data that has been obtained by others. For data that they cannot obtain for whatever reason, they substitute statistical extrapolation, which may or may not be accurate. Further, for values that are not measured, these scientists substitute assumed constants, zero out the values, or ignore them altogether. These are the flaws of data collection and methodology.

Next, these scientists publish their results, again applying further statistical analysis to the raw data generated by their experimentation/calculation (again, getting farther from observed data, often much farther even than my "anecdotal" evidence). The scientists, as ethics require them, state that "If you assume x and y are correct, then the value of z is such and such..." This paper then gets peer-reviewed and placed into the general body of literature, as it is a correct and good paper, so long as the original assumptions hold true... What happens next is where the travesty truly begins- these papers begin to be cited in literature reviews by others, mostly graduate students, but other research scientists as well. These citations take the second half of the statement ("the value of z is such and such") from numerous papers, ignoring the underlying assumptions (which might never have been true) and paint this over-bleak, over-exaggerated Doomsday scenario, which is then picked up by the environmentalist organizations and further transformed into an easily digestible press release, that is then happily parroted in the mainstream media. The original research scientists often don't realize (or care) that their work is being mis-cited and misrepresented in this manner; they're more concerned with how many times their paper is cited.

Additionally, many scientists are sponsored by private interests, and this is very important in understanding the results of their research, as the money source does appear to have a significant impact on the interpretation of results. Pharmaceutical research is especially troubled by this dilemma, where scientists flat-out fake results, because they are afraid of having wasted millions of dollars on failed research (that, truly, even with a failed result still has value as it teaches us which avenues not to pursue) and subsequently losing future funding, or even their job. Scientists sponsored by pro-AGW/ACC organizations tend to have a surprisingly high level of "concurrence" with that philosophy; it is also important to note that this is true for the other side of the argument, which again just points to my position of "hardly a proved science."

As to your repeated persistence regarding burning fossil fuels and the environment- I never once stated that burning more fossil fuels wouldn't have an impact on the environment, nor denied that burning less wouldn't be beneficial. If you look at my post, my comment was regarding the overzealous, overeager mindset that has rushed to judgement that addressing the fossil fuel use is the best means or the only means of impacting the environment.

Human history is full of examples of good intentions gone bad, where individuals tried to do the "right thing" when, in hindsight, they were doing something that was incredibly harmful. I would opine that many of the larger problems humanity faces stem from well-meaning efforts by uninformed individuals or organizations. All this stems from incomplete understanding and information, which is quite literally where the climate debate rests today. One side of this debate repeatedly says "the science is settled," which is patently untrue, the other side of this debate wants to continue to question the original, unproved premise and the latter faction is not a minority in this debate, as the Environmental Movement would like us to believe.


Quote:
View Post
Again, more name calling and attacks instead of useful info on the topic. You say that you "dont quote statistics and science", and call me a bigot of scientism...
I call a spade a spade... Like I've repeatedly said, I've tried to address your points, but when I either successfully address a point or provide further information, it gets ignored and dismissed as "rubbish" or a "straw man." I don't quote statistics and science because anybody can find anything on the Internet, and citation wars are just the tech-era version of He Said/She Said (I've pointed this out as well, but you also ignored it) which goes in the same circles that we are now in, but much more quickly. Finally due to the persistence of yourself and your doppelganger, I did post a link to the type of information that was claimed by the two of you to be a reliable type of information (peer-reviewed papers), and again without any proof that the link was even viewed, it was dismissed.

Your reliance on "science" DOES make you a bigot of scientism. Many of the issues that the climate debate seeks to address cannot be addressed by science (see my questions about the actual temperature of the Earth, or how much precipitation falls on Earth in a given day, which haven't been answered- these values would be indispensable in a complete understanding of the Earth's climate, a fact that the Environmental Movement continues to ignore). Further, science doesn't even have an answer for whether what is happening is "normal" or "good"; the science cannot begin and has not begun to touch these questions.

You talk about returning things to "normal," but you never answered MY question as to what "normal" is. The Environmental Movement arbitrarily put a peg on the historical timeline, somewhere before the Industrial Revolution, but some put this peg much farther back, ignoring all the change before and since this point. Then you claim that it will take 1000 years to return things to this arbitrary "normal," which shows you are completely unaware of the efforts to develop technologies that will counteract the "CO2 problem" in fractions of this time (some have claimed to be able to offset CO2 emissions in less than a decade, entirely with existing technology) which is shocking as you present yourself as someone devoted to the environment...


Quote:
View Post
You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder about 'anti-capitalism', looking for anything that threatens the current state of affairs and label it as such. Building and attacking the straw man over and over....
I feel I have to be wary of the environmentalists that point at businesses (such as your favorite whipping-boys: Big Auto and Big Oil) and scream (directly or indirectly) "Big EVIL Company" while ignoring that the organizations that make up the Environmental Movement are also large wealthy organizations that exist to serve their self-interests. Further, you ignore that government bureaucracy is the largest and most wealthy form of organization on the planet (especially examples like the US government) that also has its own agenda (or agendas, depending on the bureaucracies involved). I see you villifying the former organizations, while giving the other two types of organization a pass, as many environmentalists do. None of this changes the fact that your "documentary" is a really a video editorial, and a poor one at that...

Quote:
View Post
nonsense
Another example of your willing avoidance of actually discussing contrarian arguments.

Quote:
View Post
Your right, but I've never been confronted with so many straw-man arguments.
Disagreement with your points doesn't constitute a straw-man. Nor does argument-by-metaphor. Again, your doppelganger is singlehandedly attempting to redefine "straw-man" as "any argument that disagrees with drsmithy and (by extension) pilatus1."

Quote:
View Post
I can only speak for myself, but I haven't labeled or dismissed you. (seems to be your strategy, no?) Same goes for changing the subject.
You've tried to label me as "lazy and unable." Your doppelganger keeps calling me a "bingo card of denialist rhetoric." You keep trying to "move on" past points with which you disagree, so that you may continue to posit your questionable theories, a classic "dismissive" technique. As to changing the subject, I've worked very hard to try to keep the debate centered on AGW/ACC, a theory with which I disagree, but it keeps being dragged into discussions of electric cars, or who uses what oil...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1348  
Old 04.04.2013, 10:19
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Nothing in science is a proven theory. The science behind climate change is as settled as most science ever gets.
False. Nope. Not even close. Climate change is probably one of the most hotly contested subjects in science, and this is ignoring the larger philosophical/ethical questions that science cannot even begin to address. Again, apologist behavior.


Quote:
View Post
Everything I've called a straw man argument, is.
By your "definition"...


Quote:
View Post
False.
Oookaaayy... Show me where you haven't ignored, dismissed or labelled as a "Straw-man" a contrarian argument... I haven't seen one bit on this thread...


Quote:
View Post
You haven't argued _any_ science yet that I've seen.
I have argued plenty of science, but you think its "Denialist rubbish" so I guess that doesn't count...
Reply With Quote
  #1349  
Old 04.04.2013, 10:29
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Additionally, many scientists are sponsored by private interests, and this is very important in understanding the results of their research, as the money source does appear to have a significant impact on the interpretation of results.
[...]

Quote:
You've tried to label me as "lazy and unable." Your doppelganger keeps calling me a "bingo card of denialist rhetoric." You keep trying to "move on" past points with which you disagree, so that you may continue to posit your questionable theories, a classic "dismissive" technique. As to changing the subject, I've worked very hard to try to keep the debate centered on AGW/ACC, a theory with which I disagree, but it keeps being dragged into discussions of electric cars, or who uses what oil...
Undoubtedly written without the merest hint of irony.
Reply With Quote
  #1350  
Old 04.04.2013, 10:36
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
False. Nope. Not even close. Climate change is probably one of the most hotly contested subjects in science, [...]
Indeed. Probably the most scrutinised science since Evolution, and faced with near identical detractors using near identical techniques.

Yet still the vast majority of evidence agrees with it (as it did with evolution).

Bodes quite well.

Quote:
[...] and this is ignoring the larger philosophical/ethical questions that science cannot even begin to address. Again, apologist behavior.
What "philosophical/ethical" questions might that be ?

Quote:
By your "definition"...

Oookaaayy... Show me where you haven't ignored, dismissed or labelled as a "Straw-man" a contrarian argument... I haven't seen one bit on this thread...
A straw man argument is an argument made against a misrepresentation of someone else's postion.

A reasonably textbook example is about a page or two back, where someone tried to argue that the commies - sorry, environmentalists - want us to all go back in time and live the caveman lifestyle.

Quote:
I have argued plenty of science, but you think its "Denialist rubbish" so I guess that doesn't count...
You've linked to a standard set of sources, mostly of people who aren't even in the field, that have already been refuted (or shown to be wrong) numerous times.
Reply With Quote
  #1351  
Old 04.04.2013, 10:50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
That graph is measuring how far above previous temperatures current temperatures are. So long as it's above the horizontal black line that marks "0", temperatures are higher (ie: rising).
Read it carefully, you're wrong there. Temperatures are only rising year-on-year if the distance to the zero line is increasing. However even the most cursory of glances shows a fairly constant long-term warming trend.

As anyone that bothers to look into it knows there was an exceptional peak in the late 90s due to an unusually strong el nino. I've seen some research to suggest the current relative hiatus is down to solar activity (or lack of it). I've also seen stuff to suggest we will pay for this big time in 10 or 20 years.

I've said it before - there is nothing new about climate change, it has been going on since the earth had an atmosphere. It is the speed of that change that has the potential to kill most of us because both many eco systems and agriculture simply won't be able to keep pace. The 20s and/or 30s could be very troubling.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1352  
Old 04.04.2013, 10:56
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Indeed. Probably the most scrutinised science since Evolution, and faced with near identical detractors using near identical techniques.

Yet still the vast majority of evidence agrees with it (as it did with evolution).

Bodes quite well.
Again, untrue. This isn't the lie you can keep repeating, because there are people like myself around to point out the lie... But hey, keep blasting out your hot air... maybe then AGW/ACC will actually be proven to occur...



Quote:
View Post
What "philosophical/ethical" questions might that be ?
So you don't miss it this time... What is the "normal" state of the environment? Is it "good" to attempt to further alter the evolution of the environment by attempting to counteract one possible man-made influence with another man-made influence? What frame of reference have we to determine that everything that's happening isn't just a "normal" phenomenon, attributable to a planet with a sentient species? What is the ultimate end-goal of this Environmentalism? What is going to happen to all this structure and organization devoted to saving the environment if the environment is "saved"? Are these scientists even interested in saving the environment or are they interested in continuing to posit a problem so that they may continue to justify their careers?


Quote:
View Post
A straw man argument is an argument made against a misrepresentation of someone else's postion.

A reasonably textbook example is about a page or two back, where someone tried to argue that the commies - sorry, environmentalists - want us to all go back in time and live the caveman lifestyle.
Unfortunately for your claim, there are environmentalists that want humanity to do just that, so no, this isn't a "straw man" argument. Nice try, though... And I'm still waiting for you to show where you've given any type of consideration to a contrarian POV.


Quote:
View Post
You've linked to a standard set of sources, mostly of people who aren't even in the field, that have already been refuted (or shown to be wrong) numerous times.
I linked to a list of peer-reviewed papers (again, allowing you to define the terms of what is a valid resource- you asked for "peer-reviewed" and you got it, then ignored it), you linked to some pop-science climate analysis site that was hardly accurate and then ignored the poster that pointed this out to you... Also, if all 1100+ papers have been so thoroughly refuted, as you claim, it should now be easy for you to answer MY request for evidence of the same...

So, once again, you keep saying the same crap over and over, as if it were true the first time. Repetition doesn't bring truth, but hey what's truth compared to environmental dogma?
Reply With Quote
  #1353  
Old 04.04.2013, 11:04
3Wishes's Avatar
Moderately Amused
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bern area
Posts: 11,144
Groaned at 87 Times in 83 Posts
Thanked 18,847 Times in 8,391 Posts
3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Genuine question here. A few years back there were huge heat waves across Europe that killed plenty of people. The explanation in the media, with various scientists parading across the screen, was global warming/climate change causing the polar ice to melt too fast, meaning less cooling in summer months. Ok, didn't sound TOO outrageous.

Fast forward to last week, with media and scientists trying to explain this long, exceptionally cold winter in Europe. The answer? Global warming/climate change causing the polar ice to melt, changing the jet stream path so it stays lower for longer.

Well, which is it? We're getting hotter because the polar ice is melting, we're getting colder, or somehow both?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank 3Wishes for this useful post:
  #1354  
Old 04.04.2013, 11:07
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Genuine question here. A few years back there were huge heat waves across Europe that killed plenty of people. The explanation in the media, with various scientists parading across the screen, was global warming/climate change causing the polar ice to melt too fast, meaning less cooling in summer months. Ok, didn't sound TOO outrageous.

Fast forward to last week, with media and scientists trying to explain this long, exceptionally cold winter in Europe. The answer? Global warming/climate change causing the polar ice to melt, changing the jet stream path so it stays lower for longer.

Well, which is it? We're getting hotter because the polar ice is melting, we're getting colder, or somehow both?
For the Global Warming crowd, its both (as they like to take the position that whatever is happening is a cause or result of Global Warming). For those of us more intelligent, the answer is that we don't understand global climate well enough yet to make these claims...
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
This user groans at Jobsrobertsharpii for this post:
  #1355  
Old 04.04.2013, 11:10
PaddyG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pensier, Fribourg
Posts: 9,243
Groaned at 118 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 16,857 Times in 5,912 Posts
PaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Well, if Global Warming can cause hotter Summers and colder Winters, I'm all for it.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank PaddyG for this useful post:
  #1356  
Old 04.04.2013, 11:21
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
If energy schemes like the UK's Green Deal are successful, homes and buildings with solar panels can feed surplus electricity back into the national grid.
Ah, using solar panels to charge electric cars over night
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1357  
Old 04.04.2013, 11:28
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You store it up somewhere else when it's light, or you use a different energy source when it's dark.
About "You store it up somewhere else" -you know the electricity industry have been searching and failing to find an efficient way to store electricity for over 100 years; so they do not have to sell electricity cheaper during off-peak periods. I think the chances of a breakthrough in the near future are practically zero.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1358  
Old 04.04.2013, 11:43
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ZH
Posts: 142
Groaned at 4 Times in 4 Posts
Thanked 147 Times in 80 Posts
mustard has earned some respectmustard has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Ah, using solar panels to charge electric cars over night
Charging overnight would use the national grid, and unused solar power generated during the day is sent to the grid.
Reply With Quote
  #1359  
Old 04.04.2013, 11:45
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Charging overnight would use the national grid, and unused solar power generated during the day is sent to the grid.
To this poster's point:

Quote:
View Post
About "You store it up somewhere else" -you know the electricity industry have been searching and failing to find an efficient way to store electricity for over 100 years; so they do not have to sell electricity cheaper during off-peak periods. I think the chances of a breakthrough in the near future are practically zero.
How is it stored until someone uses it?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1360  
Old 04.04.2013, 11:49
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
...
Fast forward to last week, with media and scientists trying to explain this long, exceptionally cold winter in Europe. The answer? Global warming/climate change causing the polar ice to melt, changing the jet stream path so it stays lower for longer.

Well, which is it? We're getting hotter because the polar ice is melting, we're getting colder, or somehow both?
One winter in one region is WEATHER, not Climate. Weather is something that happens over a short period of time and/or localised. Climate happens over a long period of time over wider areas, ultimately the whole planet.

If you research the last few months you will find there are other regions that were abnormally warm. It is the balance between these local effects that tells us if the planet is warming or cooling. For March yes, Europe was exceptionally cold as was to a lesser degree the USA. The polar regions, central Asia and North Africa were all too warm. Greenland and the Arctic Ocean exceptionally so.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:31.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0