A gift for HHO Skeptics!

[chefdave]

Ironc thing is i live in very far north of scotland and within a 50 mile redius of me is enough wind farms plus tidal power to produce so much engery we cannot use it. Then scots gov is building the biggest off shore wind farm in the world est £1 billion pounds. Yet this energy cannot reach the major cities in scotland and we have highest electrcity bills. Reason given it is too sifficult to connect you national grid. Unmmmm too many people on £100k salaries achieving nothing. Scotland could sell this energy to england which has a massive short fall in capicity. Go figure the poltics coz i cant.

[oil pan 4]

Off shore wind power is one of the most expensive ways to generate power yet devised.

Off shore wind definitely deserves to be in the unicorn corral.

[Xist]

Build a space station with enough solar panels to cast a shadow. Focus that shadow on the president so I never need to see him again. That solves some problem.

[chefdave]

Hi oil pan 4 well that makes sense. Oil workers need new jobs to replace ones on rigs.

[tcaud]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I ran some numbers after fukashima nuclear power disaster , if Japan bought all the solar panels on earth it wouldn't even be enough to replace their nuclear power generation.

Yes and that waste has to go somewhere.

Plus you are worrying about how much consumers use. Consumers don't really use a whole lot of power. Where I work we use enough electricity to power a 2,500 square foot home for a family of 5 for 10 to 12 years and we use that much power every single day.

Do you always knee-jerk react before speaking? Learn some history. 15 years ago the governor of California got replaced due to blackouts. I see us heading in the same direction.

Oh yeah the situation is real bad. The polar ice caps should have melted in 2010.
If past performance is any indication of future results the global warming thing is being over stated by at least 20,000%.

Do your reading.

[oil pan 4]

I donly plenty of reading.
Man made global warming is mass hysteria. But lucky for us that mass hysteria is starting to pass.
Most people now don't believe global warming is a threat. Even then at the highest point of global warming mass hysteria in 2008 to 2010 only 15% of registered voters believed that global warming was a problem that had to be fixed right now.
In the word of dianne fienstine:
"We have the votes and that's all that matters"

Some of the California government got replaced 15 years ago. All that did is build a few solar farms and install a bunch of transmission capacity. They kicked the can down the road far enough for the next generation to deal with.

[JockoT]

2016 has seen a record surge in atmospheric CO2, to a level not seen in 800,000 years. The implications of these new atmospheric measurements for the targets agreed under the Paris climate pact, are quite negative, say observers.

Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016 - BBC News

[oil pan 4]

Good I hate winter.

Plus 2016 was the super el nino. The weather in 2016 was perfect for me. So you are not going to convince me warmer is bad.

I'm 4,300 feet above sea level rising sea levels are not my problem. Plus sea levels have risen 300' since the last ice age. Everyone acts like the sea level should not move. Stopping or slowing down that rise is like stopping the tides.

[JockoT]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I'm 4,300 feet above sea level rising sea levels are not my problem.

Good for you. That's you hunky dory.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by tcaud

Yes and that waste has to go somewhere.



Do you always knee-jerk react before speaking? Learn some history. 15 years ago the governor of California got replaced due to blackouts. I see us heading in the same direction.



Do your reading.

Though I may differ with Oil Pan 4 about global warming, I agree with him that much of it is hysteria. It is very evident the planet is warming. 97% of scientists agree with this. What they don't tell you is how many of these same scientists disagree as to the "why" of global warming.

The Paris agreement seeks to lock the world's industrial societies into a multi-trillion dollar (euro ) solution to stop global warming when it ignores many other inputs into the equation.

I have mentioned in other posts how the oceans act as a tremendous buffer to absorb CO2 and sequester it. The Cliffs of Dover are a testament to some of that ability. We always look to the terrestrial forests and forget the fecund biosphere that resides in the first few meters of the oceans as well as on it's floor. Many areas of our oceans are not healthy. The Paris Agreement ignores this man made input. We may do better to study our effects on oceans and their ability to absorb CO2.

The Paris Agreement also ignores Albedo. Our cities and towns change the environment around them by the simple fact our constructs absorb the sun's output and turn it into heat, for the most part. Our farming and forestry practices, though often seen as insignificant to our warming trend, have impactful effects on albedo. We should study these effects more thoroughly.

There are more areas that need study and are getting far less funding and scrutiny because they are not directly CO2 related.

We just may concentrate on industrial and transportation cuts in CO2 and find out it was only a small part of the equation and we have doomed ourselves and following generations to a financial burden that we needed not have carried.