Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

it can't be "nuke or solar." it will have to be a combination of the two. we could nearly eliminate gas/diesel powered autos/trucks in a matter of a few years. build a series of nuclear plants across country to power electric interstates slotted exactly like the tracks we plugged up & ran our toy electrics. build elec. powered vehicles with backup batteries big enough for 250 miles for when on backroads. the French (of all people) have led the way in small-scale nuclear plants. they came up with a simple design, and built a buttload of them identical. cheaper by the dozen, economy of scale... most folks would eventually end up with a solar charging station at home for private vehicles. maybe cover the outside of the auto in photoelectric paint so your battery would charge as you drove, on a pretty day?

There are going to be no inundated cities with MILLIONS killed SIMULTANEOUSLY from both heat AND cold,

there's going to be no hunger.

The planet has rarely produced less than 25% too MUCH food each year since the middle of the 1960s.

Warm optima like we're in produce all the food.

Even a semi-literate inner-city child learns GLACIERS

grow less food

than warm sunny agricultural days.

Every single word of all this fake alarm is purest fraud.

Warm Optima aren't disasters: the word Optimum was invented to describe periods like now and they only get MORE optimum being MORE WARM, with LESS ICE.

The Atmosphere's not a heater:

The very first step in calculating the temperature of the planet

is the r.e.d.u.c.t.i.o.n. of temperature to that produced by 71% sunlight,

after the atmosphere reduces the amount of energy warming it 29%.

It's not possible for the planet to get warmer due to standard astrophysical reasons: we're in the era of less circular orbit eccentricity

which limits how much warmth we have and we know - the NEXT STEP: is life dying off, with glaciation.

Overall planet temperature is known to be caused by the shape of the orbit at the time. More regular, circular orbits - leave us warmed more by the Sun's heat

and create the optimum type conditions we're near the end of now.

Times named by biologists an Optimum for the fact warmth is best globally for life.



In fact it's even faked that adding CO2 to air can warm it.

There's only one law in all thermodynamics which contains a chart of Energy Constants for the atmospheric gases.

It's named "The Ideal Gas Law" and it's a law of thermodynamics

that has two parts:

Part I is the equation: PV = nRT.

Part II is the chart named "The Chart of Specific Heats of Gases.''

That chart contains the chart of energy constants of gases, which is put into the process of solving Atmospheric temperature in place of "R",

in the equation of the law: which is PV = nRT.

The chart is here: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

and in the subchart Energy Constants for ''R" are named and assigned with both CO2 and Air written out by name: with CO2 being assigned the LOWER energy constant.

The lower energy constant mandates addition of CO2 to air will lower it's temperature. Oh, DoH!

Yeah, that's right, which is why your handlers didn't talk to you about gas laws existing and being necessary for resolving their temperatures.

Regarding all these peoples' FAKE claims addition of cooling GHGs can warm the planet - we know why the planet actually undergoes

optimum interglacials and

death bringing glaciations, and it's got zero to do with the type coolant gases comprising the Atmosphere.

I highlighted the last 30 seconds of this 3 minute video explaining what point we're at now.

https://youtu.be/6lbJrvtxWNE?t=179

"We are currently in an orbit ideal for glaciation."

There are quite a few tutorials explaining this. Since it's real science the "magic makes more energy come out by making less go in" church hasn't been able to alter it,

the same way they can't alter the charts of Sunlight Top of Atmosphere vs Mean Sea Level showing the cooling GHGs doing the vast majority of the cooling

which is the very first step of solving for Earth temperature.


https://goo.gl/1DFfDm


The real scientific world knows why our planet has the temperature profiles it has at various times and states clearly that

The GAS CO2 can be seen CLEARLY in the above chart contributing to the 29% cooling that's the first step in solving planet temperature.

The Milankovitch Cycles: you'd think the kooks who thought less energy coming into the planet makes more go out would know about this since it's the

actual science

of what causes warm periods and cold ones in Earth history.

https://goo.gl/gq6uS6

"History of Climate/History of Ice Ages/What causes Ice Ages" above summed up as "Milankovitch Cycles Explained.''

Every word these apocalyptic end-of-the-worlders say regarding the physics of what cold light blocking nitrogen baths do, is fake.

Which is why they screech curse and go blind before the'll watch the fraud they're claiming be researched and compared to the planet's actual sciences.

It's not all those other ones that are named "The Sewers" of science.

No, you can't eliminate the most efficient mobile energy source on the planet

by claiming you'll put a nuclear power plant alongside the road every few miles.

armedoldhippy said:

it can't be "nuke or solar." it will have to be a combination of the two. we could nearly eliminate gas/diesel powered autos/trucks in a matter of a few years. build a series of nuclear plants across country to power electric interstates slotted exactly like the tracks we plugged up & ran our toy electrics. build elec. powered vehicles with backup batteries big enough for 250 miles for when on backroads. the French (of all people) have led the way in small-scale nuclear plants. they came up with a simple design, and built a buttload of them identical. cheaper by the dozen, economy of scale... most folks would eventually end up with a solar charging station at home for private vehicles. maybe cover the outside of the auto in photoelectric paint so your battery would charge as you drove, on a pretty day?

Click to expand...

As innovative and charming as it sounds to have nuclear reactors everywhere you look.

Of course your strange worship of government authority would lead to the same thing here as happened in France. When they f*** up they simply don't tell you.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pot...nt-so-high-its-a-secret-2013-3?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

Here's France having nuclear plant meltdowns and just hiding it because after all: what with the magical gassiness

making more energy come out of things it makes less go into, who's got time for the truth?

Obviously not France with it's "Let's put nuclear reactors everywhere we can find a flat spot" fixation.

The lying liars club doesn't want you to know that 94% of all Earth history is spent in conditions too cold for life to do well or even exist over most of the planet.

https://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000 BP.gif

Note how there's not a single time in all Earth history since life began, when warmth was bad.

They're just a bunch of frauds, which is why every single syllable that leaks out of their fraudulent heads is immediately - upon the most cursory critical scientific inspection,

found to be nothing but one endless string of screeching lies to the point of claiming that the cold light blocking Nitrogen atmosphere heats the Earth more than if there were no atmosphere at all.

Those of you with scientific educations & experience know one of the definitions of non-atmosphere conditions

is that an object having none is by definition as hot as it can be made with the energy available to warm it.

Notice the timings and the peaks of the actual temperature of the planet,

and where the temperature of the planet now sits, on the back side of the warm spike.

That's because we are entering an eccentric orbit cycle that's going to last between one and several hundreds of thousands of years.

You can see very clearly what the truth is, and the people in here saying warmth is a danger are simply lying.

They're also lying when they say there's a chance we aren't at the end of the warm period we're in.

We could have anywhere from none, to 20,000 more years of marginal warmth but there is NO doubt where we are on the historical planet temperature cycles.

https://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000 BP.gif

Just like there is NO doubt the Atmosphere doesn't warm the planet. We know the temperature of the planet and it's 29% cooler because of the Atmosphere.

EVERYONE including the frauds claiming it does, admit that the very first step in solving for Earth's temperature is reducing it that 29% the Atmosphere doesn't let reach the planet.

The frauds just claim magic makes more energy come out of the planet every time the Atmosphere makes less go in.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance

Halfway down: "About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/EnergyBalance/images/reflected_radiation.jpg

The very name of the CHART on N.A.S.A.s site is "Reflected Radiation."

Here's the fake part a couple of paragraphs down. "29% less in makes more than 100% come back out."

From the NASA tutorial on the magic that "makes more come out every time it makes less go in," same page as above:

"Effect on Surface Temperature

The greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere."

Yes. "29% less energy in makes the planet 30 degrees warmer than if 100% went in, by making the 29% less go in."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance

Following having just written: ""About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system,"

they're ready to confess the stunning reveal: the very same atmosphere making 29% less energy radiate to the surface thus "leaving the planet and atmosphere to account for 71% of sunlight energy,"

is now, "The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy."

But wait why stop there, with 29% less in makes 100% come back out?

Let's up the Conservation of Energy crass, shameless violation to 117% coming out because 29% less goes in.

"As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat—equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. "

Crass, shameless, open, transparent fraud a 12 year-old can see violates the fundamentals: Conservation of Energy itself.

There are lessons online for eleven year olds, 5th graders - teaching them more energy can't come out of objects less goes in.

I actually like the idea of hydrogen power for transportation. The technology for converting water into hydrogen and oxygen using solar energy is already being developed. When completed and scaled up, I could see existing gas stations being utilized to dispense hydrogen thus helping with the problem of infrastructure. I think Toyota already has a hydrogen car on the market with greater range than electrics.

1G12 said:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7]

Click to expand...

Its a mad lefty socialist organization, out to control every aspect of humanity, one world gov run by the UN is the aim, ya going to need something scary for the people to give up their sovereignty and vote that shit in,

its a giant CON, without any scientific reality's

It has nothing to do with giving up sovereignty. It's not even socialist. It's cleaning up our own back yards.

But I can tell you with confidence that the same people who created campains to tell people smoking was good for you, are the same people telling us Climate Change is bogus. They were hired by the oil companies. Fuck even oil companies admitted it after their own study leaked.

kickarse said:

Its a mad lefty socialist organization, out to control every aspect of humanity, one world gov run by the UN is the aim, ya going to need something scary for the people to give up their sovereignty and vote that shit in,

its a giant CON, without any scientific reality's

Click to expand...

Bazaar!
Explain how examining all the current peer reviewed scientific literature with a panel of scientists from all around the world on a subject is without any scientific reality. What else is there to look at? The above post is a very, very strange statement indeed.
I'm quite sure some of these scientists are from countries that are anything but lefty socialist as well.

Again, you're obviously not paying attention to your church's teachings.

Click to expand...

Now my church is a dictionary? Didn't they give you a dictionary when you went to college?

green·house
ˈɡrēnˌhous/Submit
noun
a glass building in which plants are grown that need protection from cold weather.

You don't even know what greenhouse gas means. Prove me wrong stupid.
They may not have dictionaries at church but that's not the point.

1G12 said:

Bazaar!
Explain how examining all the current peer reviewed scientific literature with a panel of scientists from all around the world on a subject is without any scientific reality. What else is there to look at? The above post is a very, very strange statement indeed.
I'm quite sure some of these scientists are from countries that are anything but lefty socialist as well.

Click to expand...

Rubbery figures are not science, plenty of EX IPCC scientists out there who agree,
they might not understand the socialist aspect of it, but still agree its one big CON, and all about the transfer of OUR $ to others, you just have to figure out who the others are, and where the $ will end up

maybe some of you need to go back thru a bit of history and see who set it all up, and who financed it, its all about mad lefty/socialist elites doing the work for the $ conjures, and make you vote for your own economic and social slavery, with scary tales of doom
CO2 follows heat not drives it, the sea is not rising any greater rate than it has since the last ice age, the planet is cruising along very nicely at the moment, nice and calm, ya can't say the same thing about the fanatical believers tho, they do tend to get a bit hysterical at times


it should be called Common Core Climate Change

kickarse said:

Rubbery figures are not science, plenty of EX IPCC scientists out there who agree,

Click to expand...

Name one.

kickarse said:

maybe some of you need to go back thru a bit of history and see who set it all up, and who financed it,

Click to expand...

Who.

kickarse said:

CO2 follows heat not drives it

Click to expand...

No one said it drives it, and no.... it doesn't follow anything except a low pressure system.

kickarse said:

, the sea is not rising any greater rate than it has since the last ice age,

Click to expand...

When the last ice age melted it flooded the Bering Land Bridge didn't it (it's now the Bering Strait)? I agree, the oceans are not rising greater than they did when the ice age glaciers melted. Sheesh.

kickarse said:

the planet is cruising along very nicely at the moment, nice and calm, ya can't say the same thing about the fanatical believers tho, they do tend to get a bit hysterical at times

Click to expand...

Don't move to Florida or the south pacific, or the indian ocean, or ...:

Kiribati
Like many Pacific islands, Kiribati faces serious threats from rising sea levels.


Tuvalu


So ya... "the planet is cruising along very nicely at the moment"
For you. For now.

kickarse said:

Its a mad lefty socialist organization, out to control every aspect of humanity, one world gov run by the UN is the aim, ya going to need something scary for the people to give up their sovereignty and vote that shit in,

its a giant CON, without any scientific reality's

Click to expand...

maybe some of you need to go back thru a bit of history and see who set it all up, and who financed it, its all about mad lefty/socialist elites doing the work for the $ conjures, and make you vote for your own economic and social slavery, with scary tales of doom

Click to expand...

Dude, that sounds like a lot of work. Can you do this for me? Go through history and tell me who set up and financed the global climate change conspiracy?

You're saying weather scientists, geologists, oceanographers, astronomers, etc. working for the last 200 years have been getting payed by left wing socialist elites to lie and falsify data, plant fake fossils, manipulate world governments. All to get us chained in economic and social slavery by tricking people into believing that the climate is changing? You really need to explain this more thoroughly I have no idea why someone would go to all that trouble. When we are already in economic and social slavery.

And how climate change gives us socialism, in other words a free education, public transportation, and free health care. That'd be nice but I don't see how climate change pays for all that.

And the global elites. I think what you consider a leftist global elite is very different to what global elites were 100 years ago or 50 years ago. And I think the real global elites are very different from what you consider global elites.

Actually the people telling you more energy leaks out of a rock every time magic insulation makes less leak in, are the same people telling you pot is like heroin.

TychoMonolyth said:

It has nothing to do with giving up sovereignty. It's not even socialist. It's cleaning up our own back yards.

But I can tell you with confidence that the same people who created campains to tell people smoking was good for you, are the same people telling us Climate Change is bogus. They were hired by the oil companies. Fuck even oil companies admitted it after their own study leaked.

Click to expand...

And Oil Companies are a major source of GHG fakery money.

That's why government employees screaming that more energy comes out every time a magical gassiness makes less go in, were seen in ClimateGate talking about "Had a GREAT meeting with oil executives today!" etc.


It's your church. You should known Oil Companies FOUNDED the American and British enviromental campuses on universities.

Like I said it's your church: you should have known who you were joining.

Everything sounds like a lot of work when it's too much fact checking for you to realize your church is telling you the same gases making 29% less energy warm the planet,

make more than 100% of available energy come out of it.

therevverend said:

Dude, that sounds like a lot of work. Can you do this for me? Go through history and tell me who set up and financed the global climate change conspiracy?

You're saying weather scientists, geologists, oceanographers, astronomers, etc. working for the last 200 years have been getting payed by left wing socialist elites to lie and falsify data, plant fake fossils, manipulate world governments. All to get us chained in economic and social slavery by tricking people into believing that the climate is changing? You really need to explain this more thoroughly I have no idea why someone would go to all that trouble. When we are already in economic and social slavery.

And how climate change gives us socialism, in other words a free education, public transportation, and free health care. That'd be nice but I don't see how climate change pays for all that.

And the global elites. I think what you consider a leftist global elite is very different to what global elites were 100 years ago or 50 years ago. And I think the real global elites are very different from what you consider global elites.

Click to expand...

Your scam has nothing with the past 200 years I showed you yesterday the actual calculation of the planetary temperature.

THERE'S NOTHING but the 29% COOLING by the GHGs in the real calculations.

It's obvious checking THAT was too much for you, too.

Even shown the calculations you're still barking that magical gassiness makes more energy come out of rocks it makes less go into.

And that the planet is warmer than if 100% of sunlight energy warmed it.

It's why they have to flee everywhere they're seen barking the fake sh**.

All anyone has to do is look up ''International Standard Atmosphere and see the values these peoples' church comes up with,

vs the real temperature values when the temperature is properly calculated.

They calculate the temperature of the planet wrong and come up 33 degrees short.

Which is why they then are forced to claim ''Uh magical gaissiniess what doan't nobody really undurstand, had dun made moar enurgy come out of a rock it dun made less enurgy go into yaW!''


I gave em access to actual tutorials explaining how the actual global surface and atmospheric temperature are calculated.

When you're a math fraud you definitely despise presentation of information about how things are ACTUALLY calculated.

Yamaha's 29% Thingy Explained

Yamaha's 29% Thingy Explained

To get a good understanding of the greenhouse effect, you have to look at reflection and wavelength, and/or by looking at the Earth's energy balance.

Most of our heat comes from the sun, but a smaller share comes from the internal heat of the earth, but the internal heat from inside the earth is reasonably consistent and can be ignored for the sake of this argument. Stored heat is also important, and that, for example, explains why the lowest sunshine day of the year (December 21) isn't the coldest day of the year, but to keep this reasonably short, lets ignore stored heat too.

The heat in / heat out balance works kind of like this:

71% of the energy we get from the sun warms the earth, 29% is directly reflected back into space.
Of that 71%, 59% is returned to space from the atmosphere and just 12% is returned to space from the surface. That's the atmospheric blanket effect in a sense. Most of the heat, in the form of infra-red light has to travel through the atmosphere to leave the earth and the greenhouse effect reflects that light, just like colored dye in water reflects light, where clear water mostly lets light pass through it.

Atmospheric circulation plays a role too, so do clouds, but lets ignore that for now as well. The greenhouse effect, caused by CO2 or other greenhouse gas, H20 or CH4 (H20 in clouds is different, that's tiny ice particles), but water vapor, which, in the air is invisible to our eyes. They work in essentially the same way as putting colored dye in water, the colored water absorbed and reflects more light than clear water, and the sky, to infrared light, is opaque with greenhouse gas. That Opaqueness can only be removed by reducing the amount of greenhouse gas. It can't be removed by adding other gas, so the greenhouse effect is essentially, directly tied to the total amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

What Greenhouse gas does is it affects the 12% and 59%, and the rate and way that heat leaves the earth. If heat leaves the earth more slowly, the earth gradually warms.

What "global cooling" gases do, doesn't undo what greenhouse gas does. That's not possible, any more than it's possible to make a dye in water stop being opaque by adding another color.
Global cooling gases do exist, but they work in a different way, by affecting the 71%-29% ratio.

Volcanic gas, for example, raises the 29% of immediate reflection and that cools the earth. Volcanic cooling however is quite temporary, lasting a few years at most, but that's basically the gist of things, what reflective to visible light gases can be used to raise the 29% so that the thicker blanket of greenhouse gas is counteracted...but largely not practical.

From the web site Earth Science Stack Exchange