The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

THAT is not the stupidest thing you've ever said.
But it is close.

Go learn thermodynamics, meteorology, physics, and since your being stupid, geology.
You didn't watch the video, did you?

I love talking about geology. Do you know why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet? Were you even aware it did?
glacial mininum and interglacial maximum.jpg



Oxygen isotope curve (δ18O) for the past 10 million years (data from Zachos et al., 2001) (© Copyright Smithsonian Institution)
 
Last edited:
You didn't watch the video, did you?

I love talking about geology. Do you know why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet? Were you even aware it did?
View attachment 608880


Oxygen isotope curve (δ18O) for the past 10 million years (data from Zachos et al., 2001) (© Copyright Smithsonian Institution)
Nice.

Anything else of zero relevance to post.
 
Nice.

Anything else of zero relevance to post.
It's relevant to you thinking that it's stupid to believe we are in the middle of an ice age. Except for meteorology, I've forgotten more than you ever knew about those subjects you keep suggesting I bone up on. You strike me as some one who is all fur coat and no knickers. You don't have enough sand in your pants. You only think you do.

So is it your strategy to systematically dismiss every piece of evidence that disputes your beliefs... you know... like paleo-climates?
 
Nice.

Anything else of zero relevance to post.
There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

Here are a few:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).
 
You're right!

You're much better at psych than you are at math and science.

Is it too late for you to change your major?
I'm pretty good at all three. I'm retired after all. So I must have done something right. Just finished a round of golf. You?

I bet you were a math teacher.
 
5.6 billion :abgg2q.jpg:

Biden left over 70 billlion in weapons in Afghanistan.

Another climate k00k thread that's a dud.
 
Because when you make errors in psych, it's a lot less obvious than your math and science errors.
That's disappointing. That doesn't look like the answer to my question.

I've only been wrong once in my life and that was when I thought I was wrong about something and later discovered I was really right. It's why you are drawn to me like a moth to a flame. You don't even realize it's happening. It's beyond your control.
 
That's disappointing. That doesn't look like the answer to my question.

I've only been wrong once in my life and that was when I thought I was wrong about something and later discovered I was really right. It's why you are drawn to me like a moth to a flame. You don't even realize it's happening. It's beyond your control.

Tell me again how reflecting 5% of solar energy back to space makes us cooler than reflecting 30% back to space. That was awesome!!!
 
Tell me again how reflecting 5% of solar energy back to space makes us cooler than reflecting 30% back to space. That was awesome!!!
Thanks for proving my point. You'd have to read the two papers I already gave you. They just used satellites to measure the before and after. :rolleyes:
 
Thanks for proving my point. You'd have to read the two papers I already gave you. They just used satellites to measure the before and after. :rolleyes:

I understand that you can't refute my point about albedo.
And that you ignored the portion of the two papers that say
the heating at point of use offsets any potential cooling at the panel.
And that you don't understand net.
 
I understand that you can't refute my point about albedo.
And that you ignored the portion of the two papers that say
the heating at point of use offsets any potential cooling at the panel.
And that you don't understand net.
Two scientific papers say otherwise.
 

Forum List

Back
Top