For all of you tree hugging leftists.....
- Thread starter TwinDegrees2
- Start date
Ha! How smart am I!?! Coming to the right conclusion without even reading it!
Green energy is so much cheaper that the current Adm. is jacking up gas prices to $3.50 a gallon so people will buy subsidized electric cars.
It is estimated it would take 14,000,000 million acres of solar panels to meet our current electrical needs.
And only if the solar panels were installed in Arizona. Triple that if installed in Indiana.
And if Germany is so sold on green energy, why are they so happy that they now have the Russian pipeline supplying them with fossil fuels?
And do some research on the green foot print of an electric car.
I mean, Biden has done nothing that has affected the short-term gas prices. I've been over this elsewhere, so I'm not going to do it again. Also, the article I posted references prices from 2020. How would you propose that Biden affected those prices? There's just no truth to this statement.
Good thing solar isn't the only renewable energy source. Does the fact that solar would take up a lot of space mean that the greenhouse effect isn't real? Because that's what we're talking about.
The fact that they still need fossil fuels for now doesn't disprove that they are transitioning away from it. Germany plans to be carbon-neutral in their electricity production by 2050. Does the fact that Germany (and every country) can't stop using fossil fuels cold turkey mean that the greenhouse effect isn't real? Because that's what we're talking about.
No need, I'm aware of the problems and they appear to still be better than gas cars long term, and would improve as the electricity that powers them is created more cleanly. Does the fact that there are problems with electric cars mean that the greenhouse effect isn't real? Because that's what we're talking about.
Last edited:
They are backing it because it's making them more money. They also understand that besides nuclear, there is no other alternative that is even remotely close to taking over.
How do you know they haven't? The ones that speak out don't get to have their voices heard by the masses.
Renewables are not cheaper than fossil fuels. They are much more heavily subsidized.
You Asked: How Much Does the U.S. Subsidize Renewable Energy Versus Fossil Fuels?
The answer might seem cut and dried, but it’s not as simple as you might think.
Do you deny that Obama oversaw the highest gas prices ever until more recently Biden with much lower prices during Trump in between?
Democrats vs. Republicans – Gas Prices of the Last 100 Years
I Drive Safely has put together this infographic to take a look at gas prices during every presidential term in the last century, what do you think?www.idrivesafely.com
Jesus this is delusional. Gas prices didn't start to spike until after Biden was in office.
Wind is even less effective, so I don't know why you're celebrating so much on this notion.
Sure, but they are signing their death warrant, much like Texas experienced. When you get away from fossil fuels to a point where you don't have it in an emergency. People will die. It's sheer stupidity.
Apparently you aren't aware of ALL of them...
Here's a little experiment for you guys. Should hopefully show that the method of calculating the temp of the Earth by averaging the sunlight over the entire surface is actually bad science.
All we have to do is look at the Moon. The surface of the Moon that is hottest in the Sun is 127 C. The formula to calculate average temperature of a planet is the fourth root of (solar irradiance - albedo)/(4 x 5.7604^-8). So the solar irradiance at the Moon is 1370. There is no atmosphere so you have nothing to subtract. 4 x 5.6704^-8 = 2.268^-7. So we are left with the fourth root of 1370/2.268^-7 which equals 278.78 K or 5.63 C. But wait, how can that be? The dark side is MUCH colder than the side that gets sunlight right? Shouldn't the calculated average be much colder?
Hmm, ok well what if I do this. Instead of multiplying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant by 4, let's leave it be to see what temp would be in direct sunlight. So now we have the fourth root of (1370/5.6704^-8) which equals 394.25 K or 121.1 C. That's pretty much spot on since NASA tells us the area of the Moon in the Sunlight is 127 C. (BTW if you multiply the Stefan-Boltzmann constant by 2 which spreads the sunlight over half of the Moon then the average temp of the Moon in the Sun would be 58.3 C. Of course without more info it's hard to determine how accurate that is but it doesn't seem unreasonable.)
So this experiment shows that you can calculate the temp of a black body very accurately in direct sunlight but there's some major issues when calculating the average temp if you try to spread the light over the entire surface.
Soooo, let's move on to the Earth. Climate science claims that the Sun is only capable of warming the Earth to -18C and a greenhouse effect (backradiation) is how it warms to an average of 15C. Well if we use our calculation it would look like this (fourth root (1370-(1-.31))/(4 x 5.6704^-8)). This equates to 254 K or -19.15 C. Great, so what does this prove? Since the actual average temp of the Earth is much warmer, all this proves is that they used the same/similar calculation to come to this conclusion. But we saw how this method distorted the average temp of the Moon. Can we trust it?
Well the Earth is different because it has an atmosphere. What if our atmosphere doesn't trap heat and make it hotter, but just prevents the heat it does see and keeps it around longer. Well the best way to calculate that would be to see what the average temp would be in the sunlit area. So we use (fourth root (1370(1-.31))/(2 x 5.6704^-8)) which equals 302.15 K or 29 C OR 84.2 F. Well once again, we can't know for sure how accurate that is without more detailed info on the average temp of the Earth that is in the Sun.
Well we saw how close our calculation was for the Moon that direct sunlight was able to do, maybe we can glean something from doing the same calculation for Earth. So, if we do our calculation for direct sunlight we have (fourth root (945.3/5.6704^-8) = 359.32 K or 86.17 OR 187.1 F. WTF!? That's hotter than any place on Earth?! Well, the Earth IS mostly water, so there's less surface to heat at such a high temp. In any case, with the last two calculations, if true, demonstrates that there is NO need for a magical back radiation (that defies thermodynamics) and instead insulates heat in on the dark side so it doesn't escape quite so quickly.
All we have to do is look at the Moon. The surface of the Moon that is hottest in the Sun is 127 C. The formula to calculate average temperature of a planet is the fourth root of (solar irradiance - albedo)/(4 x 5.7604^-8). So the solar irradiance at the Moon is 1370. There is no atmosphere so you have nothing to subtract. 4 x 5.6704^-8 = 2.268^-7. So we are left with the fourth root of 1370/2.268^-7 which equals 278.78 K or 5.63 C. But wait, how can that be? The dark side is MUCH colder than the side that gets sunlight right? Shouldn't the calculated average be much colder?
Hmm, ok well what if I do this. Instead of multiplying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant by 4, let's leave it be to see what temp would be in direct sunlight. So now we have the fourth root of (1370/5.6704^-8) which equals 394.25 K or 121.1 C. That's pretty much spot on since NASA tells us the area of the Moon in the Sunlight is 127 C. (BTW if you multiply the Stefan-Boltzmann constant by 2 which spreads the sunlight over half of the Moon then the average temp of the Moon in the Sun would be 58.3 C. Of course without more info it's hard to determine how accurate that is but it doesn't seem unreasonable.)
So this experiment shows that you can calculate the temp of a black body very accurately in direct sunlight but there's some major issues when calculating the average temp if you try to spread the light over the entire surface.
Soooo, let's move on to the Earth. Climate science claims that the Sun is only capable of warming the Earth to -18C and a greenhouse effect (backradiation) is how it warms to an average of 15C. Well if we use our calculation it would look like this (fourth root (1370-(1-.31))/(4 x 5.6704^-8)). This equates to 254 K or -19.15 C. Great, so what does this prove? Since the actual average temp of the Earth is much warmer, all this proves is that they used the same/similar calculation to come to this conclusion. But we saw how this method distorted the average temp of the Moon. Can we trust it?
Well the Earth is different because it has an atmosphere. What if our atmosphere doesn't trap heat and make it hotter, but just prevents the heat it does see and keeps it around longer. Well the best way to calculate that would be to see what the average temp would be in the sunlit area. So we use (fourth root (1370(1-.31))/(2 x 5.6704^-8)) which equals 302.15 K or 29 C OR 84.2 F. Well once again, we can't know for sure how accurate that is without more detailed info on the average temp of the Earth that is in the Sun.
Well we saw how close our calculation was for the Moon that direct sunlight was able to do, maybe we can glean something from doing the same calculation for Earth. So, if we do our calculation for direct sunlight we have (fourth root (945.3/5.6704^-8) = 359.32 K or 86.17 OR 187.1 F. WTF!? That's hotter than any place on Earth?! Well, the Earth IS mostly water, so there's less surface to heat at such a high temp. In any case, with the last two calculations, if true, demonstrates that there is NO need for a magical back radiation (that defies thermodynamics) and instead insulates heat in on the dark side so it doesn't escape quite so quickly.
temperature of the moon - Google Search
www.google.com
Last edited:
How does US energy subsidies affect the prices in the rest of the world, because it's cheaper in other places, too.Renewables are not cheaper than fossil fuels. They are much more heavily subsidized.
You Asked: How Much Does the U.S. Subsidize Renewable Energy Versus Fossil Fuels?
The answer might seem cut and dried, but it’s not as simple as you might think.news.climate.columbia.edu
In raw dollars no, but when adjusted for inflation, yes. Calvin Coolidge's prices were higher. But, the point of my post was to show that it doesn't really matter who's president, gas prices are affected much more greatly by other things. On average, prices are lower under Democrats when accounting for inflation. Hardly supports your point that "every time a Dem is in charge, gas prices sky-rocket" or whatever it was.
Agreed. Does that mean he was the cause. Does correlation always equal causation? What Biden policies have affected gas prices in 2021.
Good think wind is not the only available supplement to solar.
Look up what type of power caused more of the outages in Texas. Also look up images of wind turbines functioned in the snow. Also, who says we can't switch to renewables for normal power generation and have a couple fossil plants available to spool up in emergencies?
Ok.
No not always, but when you have both Obama AND Biden saying that gas prices will necessarily skyrocket and no new drilling consecutively, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that they are having a negative effect.
Only other one at this time is hydro and the greens are against that. Can't claim nuclear because technically it's not renewable.
I never said it was only wind that caused the problem. It was renewables.
New drilling under Biden: https://www.audubon.org/news/despite-pledge-ban-it-oil-and-gas-permitting-under-biden
I can claim nuclear because I support it as part of a diversified electrical production grid (though I think older plants need to be shut down and replaced with newer, safer ones). But why are you leaving out biomass? Geothermal? No one is suggesting we rely on simply one method of electricity generation.
No it wasn't, and the fact that you think it was just shows you're not paying attention. Were renewables the problem when the same thing happened in 2011? How about in 1989? If renewables can't work because it might get too cold sometimes, then how the hell does Norway get almost 100% of its electricity from renewables? Just because Texas can't figure out how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
There were frozen wind turbines in Texas, sure, but 1. that doesn't mean that wind turbines can't function in the cold, and 2. that doesn't change the fact that most of the outages in Texas were from the failure of natural gas.
Texas' problem was a lack winterization across ALL power sources, nothing more:
Why Wind Turbines In Cold Climates Don’t Freeze: De-Icing And Carbon Fiber
Turbines in colder climates are typically equipped with de-icing and other tools, such as built-in heating. In Texas, it's not usually necessary.
www.forbes.com
But, even if you were right about everything in this post, does that mean the greenhouse effect isn't real?
Well, you haven't accounted for the moon's albedo, so you didn't even do that calculation right. You've also acknowledged with your "the average temp of the moon in the sun would be...." statement that the part of the moon that's NOT in the sun pulls down the average temperature of the entire moon. But on Earth, you keep trying to calculate only the part of the Earth that's in the sun and then call that the average temperature of the Earth. They are, very clearly, two different things.
I'll say one last thing about it and them I'm done, because it's really simple. To calculate the average temperature of a planet receiving energy from the sun, you have to account for fact that the entire surface area of the planet, not just half of it, receives solar energy. In a 24-hour period, the sun shines on the entirety of the Earth's surface. It heats all parts of the surface equally at any given latitude (or rather, hypothetical lines drawn perpendicular to the sun's terminator aka lines parallel to the direction of incoming radiation) OVER THE COURSE OF TIME. The pre-albedo and at a right angle solar irradiance of 1360 is necessarily a measurement that includes "per second." For half of the seconds, any given point on the planet does not receive any energy, so you cannot calculate a temperature for the ENTIRE planet that does not account for this time. You consistently want to talk about only the half of the planet that's in the sunlight. Your calculation would be correct if the Earth were a hemisphere that always faced the sun.
If I stood in front of an open oven that sent thermal radiation toward me at a constant rate to every point on my body, it would warm the skin temperature on the side facing the oven, right? Let's say I stand there for 60 minutes, and in that time, I receive 100 oven-heating units and it raises my front-side skin temperature by 10 degrees. So, my front side is 10 degrees warmer, my back side is 0 degrees warmer. My average skin temperature is 5 degrees warmer than it was before. Not particularly useful for any practical purpose, but that's the math. Now, if instead of facing the oven for 60 minutes, I continually rotate. In that 60-minute timeframe, I would still receive 100 oven-heating units (disregarding that I'm not shaped like a sphere). Hopefully, you'll agree that my average skin temperature would again rise by 5 degrees (I'm the same object and I received the same amount of radiation in the same amount of time). But, this time, there would be no point on my skin that is 10 degrees warmer than it was.
Your version of this calculation would give you 10 degrees of warming instead of 5 because "in the real world" the heat from the oven is only hitting half my body. While that's true in any given moment, it's not true over the course of the 60 minutes. While sunlight only hits half the Earth in any given instant, it hits the entire Earth equally in any 24-hour (or multiple thereof) period.
I know you still think I'm wrong, and that's fine. Take it up with some physicists. If they've so obviously gotten it wrong to this point, you should easily be able to convince a bunch of them (you know, the ones who aren't in on the hoax, but who just don't realize their mistake).
Last edited:
More and more auto companies are going electric. In fact Scandinavian Volvo will be 100% electric in a few years. Also GM and Ford is ramping up big time as well along with Germany’s Mercedes. Whether these companies agree that the internal combustion engine contributes to climate change, I don’t know but it is clear they believe their future depends on developing EV technology
Volvo Cars to be fully electric by 2030
Volvo Cars is committed to becoming a leader in the fast-growing premium electric car market and plans to become a fully electric car company by 2030.
No you can't claim nuclear, because that's not a "renewable" source, and that was the original criteria. Renewable. I support nuclear too and I think we need to go that route. But it's not renewable.
I did the exact same calculation on the Moon as the Earth, so I don't know what you're talking about saying I'm only averaging half of the Earth and not the Moon. The amount of solar energy hitting the Moon is roughly 1370 w/m^2. The Moon has an albedo of about 3-12% depending on the phase of the Moon. So no, I didn't really calculate it that wrong since 3% off is pretty much nothing. 12% wouldn't change much either. At 3% it goes from 121 C to 117C and at 12% it goes from 121 C to 109 C. Still a hell of a lot more accurate than the averages (-23 C and 5 C).
I showed you that the real world calculation is MUCH more accurate for both the Earth and the Moon. How is that not abundantly apparent? The Sun does not hit half of the planet half of the time. So you need to calculate it as such. I don't know why that isn't obvious because that's how the real world works.
Are you seriously trying to say that the area of the Earth AND Moon NOT in the Sun are receiving solar energy? Ok, maybe a TINY amount is, but it's just that. A tiny amount and most likely extremely insignificant.
You're WAY to stuck on averages of an entire sphere. Calculating an average is great for hypotheticals, but last I checked we don't live on a flat Earth. It's not reality. It dilutes the real world heating potential of the Sun too much and it's caused our society to create a make believe system to try and understand our system. I've demonstrated multiple times now that if you calculate the Suns energy properly, that it has more than enough heating potential to create our climate with no need for a backfeeding event (which again, is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics)
First of all your body is more of a cylinder than a sphere. If you were calculating as a sphere then the average wouldn't be 5, it would be 2.5. You would have gone from 10 to 2.5 to average over the entire sphere. I think we can both agree that 5 would have been somewhat accurate because that would have been the average of the side that faces the oven at any time, but 2.5 is meaningless because not every side of your body/sphere can be in the heat all the same time.
You are wrong, and there are many scientists/physicists that know this fact, so I don't need to. What needs to happen is for people such as yourself to understand that the science that you prescribe to isn't the only theory out there as they like to make it seem. You also need to understand that simply because the government backs one particular theory doesn't mean it's the correct one. The debate is far from over.
Last edited:
Because governments are forcing it. What are they supposed to do, slit their own throats?More and more auto companies are going electric. In fact Scandinavian Volvo will be 100% electric in a few years. Also GM and Ford is ramping up big time as well along with Germany’s Mercedes. Whether these companies agree that the internal combustion engine contributes to climate change, I don’t know but it is clear they believe their future depends on developing EV technology
Volvo Cars to be fully electric by 2030
Volvo Cars is committed to becoming a leader in the fast-growing premium electric car market and plans to become a fully electric car company by 2030.www.media.volvocars.com
How do higher prices for a barrel of oil make oil companies more money? Seriously?
Last edited:
Caused by their support of climate change science?
Price of oil fluctuates wildly all the time. Are you suggesting there is a long term increase caused by the oil and gas industries support of climate change science?
Here’s one study in Exxon’s climate denial history
Oil companies discourage climate action, study says
Harvard researchers have turned a spotlight on the sometimes subtle, yet effective, strategies employed by oil companies to foster doubt and delay action on climate change.
news.harvard.edu
Last edited:
Just curious how many of you would choose if you were responsible for what you use vs what do I plug in or pump from? All very easy to say . I have heated for 30 +years on my own. I may use $50-75 or so worth of fuel on processing using wood destined for trash pile somewhere. If you had to generate what your electric car used to charge would you feel the same? Doubtful. I recycle more than most of you and not on a save the planet crusade but using what is available at cheapest cost. Not everyone can I know but if you had to generate what you use would you feel the same about it vs being able to pay a higher cost for convenience to still feel all green about yourself?
I like a phrase droit has been saying. “Does this mean the greenhouse effect isn’t real?”
No that's not what I said at all...Caused by their support of climate change science?
Price of oil fluctuates wildly all the time. Are you suggesting there is a long term increase caused by the oil and gas industries support of climate change science?
Here’s one study in Exxon’s climate denial history
Oil companies discourage climate action, study says
Harvard researchers have turned a spotlight on the sometimes subtle, yet effective, strategies employed by oil companies to foster doubt and delay action on climate change.
You said hey support climate change science. You also said they support higher price oil. Correct?
Yes, but I didn't say that was why oil prices went up...
I had a well written article that talked about how the oil and gas companies were backing climate change but it was a while back and haven't been able to find it again. Higher prices of oil makes them more money per barrel. It's not rocket science.
How then are oil companies profiting off of supporting climate change?
