Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
11 crawler(s) on-line.
 113 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 AndreasM

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 AndreasM:  13 secs ago
 sibbi:  7 mins ago
 saimo:  22 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  22 mins ago
 vox:  34 mins ago
 kolla:  44 mins ago
 Mr_DBUG:  45 mins ago
 Gunnar:  1 hr 24 mins ago
 retrofaza:  1 hr 36 mins ago
 A1200:  1 hr 48 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 Next Page )
Poll : Should Elon Musk revolutionize Computer World again?
I*m OK with the Computers of Today!
All Computers of Today thrill like Pancakes!
No, Shut the #### up!
Yes of Course Elon Musk should create a Team!
Shut down the Internet and all Computers!
There can`t be a Computer Ferrari anymore!
This Shit will #### you up!
 
PosterThread
MEGA_RJ_MICAL 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 2-Nov-2022 4:34:58
#221 ]
Super Member
Joined: 13-Dec-2019
Posts: 1200
From: AMIGAWORLD.NET WAS ORIGINALLY FOUNDED BY DAVID DOYLE

I believe the Commodore Amiga Global Alliance can stop global warming.

And Tabor can replace nuclear power plants.

Discuss.





/m

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 2-Nov-2022 5:54:23
#222 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3621
From: Germany

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote:
cdimauro Quote:

World close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown, warn major studies

According to Dyson we should "adapt" to all of this.

Maybe to discover that it's not possible, but then it's too late and you cannot go back...


You are misrepresenting Freeman Dyson's position again. We believes in reducing CO2 but that we are not on the edge of global destruction and oil and gas should still be used. We should "adapt" by creating new technology to address the problem instead of a ridiculous zero CO2 emissions energy policy.

Has Dyson thought what happens if its predictions will reveal to be wrong? And if the humankind will be already on a point of not return? What happens then?
Quote:
The article you linked is more scare mongering.

Scared of the reported facts?

BTW it's from a UN agency: NOT from a fitness girl...
Quote:
It took 75 years of industrialization, wars and abuse of Earth (forest, peat bog and other environmental destruction) for temps to rise about 1 degree Celsius. A study of the Jet Stream which has a major affect on weather shows large changes in the Jet Stream over the last 1000 years and the current Jet Stream is within the normal range and is predicted to stay withing the normal range until about 2060 even though it appears to have shifted toward the polls.

So, is it the only responsible for the current and future situation? Isn't CO2 guilty?
Quote:
Is THIS the Real Reason Weather is Getting Wilder?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlkfMYgWUtA

https://maiyamay.com/about
Geoscience Communicator.

I’m a storyteller, filmmaker, and content creator. I host a show called Weathered For PBS Terra. I also dabble in the fitness influencer world.


No comment...
Quote:
The world needs a better energy plan and cooperation not hysteria, fear mongering and a zero emissions energy policy. We have had major setbacks.

o The 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan caused nuclear power to be abandoned all over the world also due to fear mongering. There needed to be some reevaluation of where nuclear plants are built and getting rid of excess nuclear weapon stockpiles of Plutonium for rods was a bad idea. This was an older plant built in 1971 while the technology has dramatically improved.

o China has leveraged the cheapest possible energy sources so they have a competitive advantage. They are an industrialized nation expanding the use of coal which has about twice the CO2 footprint of natural gas.

o The war in Ukraine has caused the increased use of coal in Europe and other nations. War machines use a huge amount of fuel and have a large carbon footprint.

A good energy plan is simple. A large scale move to nuclear power and elimination of coal could cut CO2 emissions nearly in half. Industrial production and electric vehicles in large cities would have cheap electricity which would reduce CO2 emissions further. Nuclear power added on a large scale would go a long way to solving the global warming. There is no need to eliminate oil and gas as the combo is good for remote locations and poor nations.

I feel like many people don't understand and appreciate the importance of energy which they have taken for granted. We can see the effects of restricting oil and gas energy because that is what Russia has done due to the war in Ukraine. This is actually on a relatively small scale yet the result is higher prices and a shift to dirtier energy sources like coal that produce more CO2. Food prices have skyrocketed as fuel is used for most of farming activities, for fertilizer production and for transportation to markets. Transportation costs and heating costs are up (wood or coal may be used instead of natural gas). Industrial output is down and a nearly worldwide recession was quickly caused. There may be thousands of poor people in Africa and the Middle East who die of starvation and, if temperatures drop, poor people may freeze to death. All of this was after heavy investment by Europe in renewable energy which already drove up the price of energy in many countries. This energy problem is nothing compared to a zero CO2 emissions energy policy and even worse a zero CO2 emissions energy policy with no nuclear.

Energy costs as a percentage of average income (hypothetical)

0%-25%
Examples: unrestricted energy gives what we are used to
Result: everyone is happy and has lots of disposable income

25%-50%
Examples: Ukraine War oil and gas reductions, elimination of coal, high percentage of green energy
Result: protests of high energy prices and inflation, socialist nations running up debt to subsidize energy and keep citizens happy but causes more inflation, windfall taxes and political demands on energy companies reducing energy output, small scale starvation and freezing to death of the poor, industrial output drops and economies drop to recession levels, unemployment increases

50%-75%
Examples: zero CO2 emissions energy policy (no oil and gas), only nuclear and green energy
Result: mass protests and rioting against high energy prices and hyper inflation, socialist nations unable to subsidize energy anymore with hyper inflation, large scale starvation and freezing to death of the poor, industrial output collapses and economies drop into depression

75%-100%
Examples: zero CO2 emissions and no nuclear energy policy, green energy only
Result: governments collapse or overthrown and wars, fiat currencies worthless as precious metals and barter returns, populations devastated by war, violence/crime, starvation and freezing to death, industrial collapse ends machinery and green energy production, return to Dark Ages and majority of surviving population returns to subsistence farming

The higher percentages are my expectation of what would happen with a quick transition to the energy policy that environmental extremists want. A slower transition is unacceptable even though a quick transition may not be possible because of limited materials and limited scalability. Boosting oil and gas to reduce coal use and CO2 is unacceptable in the short term. Nuclear is unacceptable to many of them and takes years to build plants. Global destruction is imminent so we must return to the Dark Ages! It fits their anti-business socialist agenda but they may not like the result of their energy policies. Since the world is not aggressively building out nuclear energy and energy demand is growing, oil and gas seem like a good investment. We may be able to stop using coal but it will increase the demand for other energy and oil and gas are the quickest and cheapest replacements. Trying to eliminate oil and gas will make it very valuable and it will certainly fail without a major nuclear build out and likely with it. Green energy production will increase slowly and at a high cost but the technology will improve over time, time the extremists say we don't have. It would be nice if we were smarter about energy but it sure looks like we will have to learn the hard way and "adapt".

I never stated that we should immediately switch-off oil, gas, and even coal. This takes time because nuclear plants need some years for being built, as well as hydrogen plants & distributions net, new wind & solar plants, enforcing and adapting the energy grid, adding the needed new accumulation systems, and so on.

I think that we should do our best to speed-up on all this to reach the mentioned goals, investing A LOT on that.

Here is where we disagree, because you always think to the business and accuse people to be socialists (which is NOT a bad thing. At all. But I don't want to discuss about politics here: we're already OT).

But what you don't see is that all those activities will be NEW business opportunities. So, you can be sure that rich people will continue to make a lot of money out of that. So, business is safe.

Of course, this might be at the expense of the current lobbies, if they don't recycle their business and invest on the new activities.

To me it looks like you want to protect the dinosaurs that made money with oil and gas and don't want to change their businesses. Which is typical for Conservatives / Right-wings people.

I, on the other hand, put the Humanity at the center: I care about Human Beings and I think that we should do the best to reduce their problems and save as many as possible of them. If this is at the expense of money and/or rich people, I don't care at all: "Life First" (cit.).

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
amigang 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 2-Nov-2022 6:29:46
#223 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Posts: 2018
From: Cheshire, England

@matthey

Quote:
0%-25% Examples: unrestricted energy gives what we are used to Result: everyone is happy and has lots of disposable income


Everyone is happy? Not if the climate science is right and huge global changes happen, seen the fires in Australia or California? See Pakistani under water. Plus also both time power grid when down in huge areas of the country, except for houses that did have them annoying solar and battery system you seem to be ageist.

Quote:
25%-50% Examples: Ukraine War oil and gas reductions, elimination of coal, high percentage of green energy Result: protests of high energy prices and inflation, socialist nations running up debt to subsidize energy and keep citizens happy but causes more inflation, windfall taxes and political demands on energy companies reducing energy output, small scale starvation and freezing to death of the poor, industrial output drops and economies drop to recession levels, unemployment increase


Lol, just look up Norway, they invested early in renewable, hydroelectric power plants and tidal power and now have the cheapest form of energy. Plus your still not acknowledging that the cheapest way to produce energy now is wind, yes there are issues like energy storage and location, but when it works, it really works well
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/

Im sure energy storage problem can be solved, like I said old electric car battery can have a second life as grid batteries, there the option of pumping water up a mountain when to much energy in the grid and releasing back down, but also a interesting one I read about it sand battery, basic super heat sand, which can really hold heat and then cool it with water to make steam when required, there so many great ideas out there.

Just seen this video of a nearly off grid hotel, they cleverly use regen on lifts so when it goes down they capture the energy, it just better thinking of how energy is used like this that can solve problem.
https://youtu.be/J4aTcU6Fzoc

Quote:
75%-100% Examples: zero CO2 emissions and no nuclear energy policy, green energy only Result: governments collapse or overthrown and wars, fiat currencies worthless as precious metals and barter returns, populations devastated by war, violence/crime, starvation and freezing to death, industrial collapse ends machinery and green energy production, return to Dark Ages and majority of surviving population returns to subsistence farming


The sad thing is, this is the likely out come as it seem very unlikely where going to hit the climate goal of just 1.5%. I really hope the science is wrong.

But like I tried to demonstrate even with the climate argument put to one side, renewable can still make sense to go after for its health befits, long term use, energy security, off gird ability, and costs continue to fall.

Last edited by amigang on 02-Nov-2022 at 06:55 AM.
Last edited by amigang on 02-Nov-2022 at 06:31 AM.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
fishy_fis 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 2-Nov-2022 6:54:10
#224 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2004
Posts: 2156
From: Australia

@amigang

Quote:
Not if the climate science is right and huge global changes happen, seen the fires in Australia or California?


There's zero evidence that the fires in Australia had anything to do with "climate change".
They happen regularly here and always have.
There was arson involved in the recent big one, and also an incompetent government that changed the status quo with the requirements in burning off that existed previously.

Also, there's plenty of "climate science" suggesting that man's influence in climate change is nigh on inconsequential.

Im not suggesting either side of the coin is accurate, but I have zero doubt that things aren't nearly as catastrophic as the media, or others that financially benefit from painting things a certain way suggest.
You can't use terms like "climate science" while disregarding one set of findings.
That's not how science works, nor what "science" means.

Ever look at how hot and dry Australia was a century ago?

As it always has climate changes. It's what climate does.

There's been times over the last century where its hotter and dryer than it is currently and times when it was cooler and wetter.
In fact the last few years its been cooler and wetter than the few years preceding that.
There's just not as much money involved in grants to study it than those supporting the current political trends.

All this said though, it's silly for us (humans) not to try to do better than we currently are.
Solar power in places like Aus. shouldnt just be encouraged, but mandatory. It may not be an all encompassing solution, but it sure as heck doesnt hurt.

Last edited by fishy_fis on 02-Nov-2022 at 06:58 AM.
Last edited by fishy_fis on 02-Nov-2022 at 06:55 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
amigang 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 2-Nov-2022 7:04:52
#225 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Posts: 2018
From: Cheshire, England

@fishy_fis

Quote:
There's zero evidence that the fires in Australia had anything to do with "climate change". They happen regularly here and always have.


Ok then the fires that happened in Europe and the uk, plus here in the uk we passed 40.5c for the first time.

Plus I really hope the science is wrong, like I said in another post even with climate taken to one side there other compelling reason for trying to go renewable, there not going to cause a oil spill or earthquakes (fracking), Health issues etc, so like you said it doesn’t hurt to try when it really make sense, but unfortunately due to lobby group, corrupt gov etc, even when it makes sense they seem to be holding back the tech.

Last edited by amigang on 02-Nov-2022 at 07:08 AM.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 2-Nov-2022 7:49:05
#226 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4394
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@amigang

Ignore how hot it actually got, because freak high temperatures are part of the natural variation. Instead, look at the frequency. The fact that in our temperate zone we appear set a new hottest day ever every other summer compared to the trend across the entire time we've kept records suggests that there is an upwards trend in temperature.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 2-Nov-2022 8:15:55
#227 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 2859
From: Trondheim, Norway

What takes place on land means little compared to what goes on in the oceans. CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, but only to a certain point and when that point is reached, “showdown” will happen fast - really fast.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 4-Nov-2022 6:26:26
#228 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1968
From: Kansas

cdimauro Quote:

Has Dyson thought what happens if its predictions will reveal to be wrong? And if the humankind will be already on a point of not return? What happens then?


I can't speak for Dyson but there are only 2 options.

1. Stop all non-essential CO2 energy use cold turkey which will likely result in global chaos, wars, depression and rolling back technology 100 years.
2. Continue ahead and try to improve technology to address climate and take the chance that humankind will survive.

cdimauro Quote:

Scared of the reported facts?

BTW it's from a UN agency: NOT from a fitness girl...


I'm not scared of imminent climate change effects at all.

BTW Fitness girl interviewed scientists who have climate models like your UN alarmists.

cdimauro Quote:

So, is it the only responsible for the current and future situation? Isn't CO2 guilty?


CO2 is not the only reason for temperature increases. There are many other greenhouse chemicals.



Water vapor isn't shown but can contribute more to the greenhouse effect than CO2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#Atmospheric_CO2_and_the_greenhouse_effect Quote:

Though water is responsible for most (about 36-70%) of the total greenhouse effect, the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas depends on temperature.


Solar radiation affects the water vapor and is likely the least understood part of climate modeling. Trees and vegetation have a cooling effect. Deforestation is responsible for nearly 1/3 of the CO2, about as much as coal which is the leading cause, and we lost the cooling effect.



Some or the temperature change could be normal climate change. At the beginning of the industrialized age and up until about 1900 we were still down about 1 degree Celsius from the Little Ice Age (when Greenland was abandoned by the Vikings after the Medieval Warm Period allowed them to colonize it, which likely occurred during a solar maximum and solar minimum). Some scientists were more worried about global cooling still up into the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling Quote:

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.


It's global cooling! Imminent danger! Something must be done immediately! Oh wait, false alarm. It's now global warming! Imminent danger! Something must be done immediately!

cdimauro Quote:

I never stated that we should immediately switch-off oil, gas, and even coal. This takes time because nuclear plants need some years for being built, as well as hydrogen plants & distributions net, new wind & solar plants, enforcing and adapting the energy grid, adding the needed new accumulation systems, and so on.

I think that we should do our best to speed-up on all this to reach the mentioned goals, investing A LOT on that.


I don't think our energy vision is that different but I don't see it being done, especially aggressive nuclear expansion. I don't think the hydrogen plants make sense without nuclear generated electrify. Hydrogen is clean but the energy density is poor and storage tanks are large and expensive. Without nuclear, renewables wouldn't even be able to generate enough electricity for the power grid let alone hydrogen production.

cdimauro Quote:

Here is where we disagree, because you always think to the business and accuse people to be socialists (which is NOT a bad thing. At all. But I don't want to discuss about politics here: we're already OT).

But what you don't see is that all those activities will be NEW business opportunities. So, you can be sure that rich people will continue to make a lot of money out of that. So, business is safe.

Of course, this might be at the expense of the current lobbies, if they don't recycle their business and invest on the new activities.

To me it looks like you want to protect the dinosaurs that made money with oil and gas and don't want to change their businesses. Which is typical for Conservatives / Right-wings people.

I, on the other hand, put the Humanity at the center: I care about Human Beings and I think that we should do the best to reduce their problems and save as many as possible of them. If this is at the expense of money and/or rich people, I don't care at all: "Life First" (cit.).


Socialists are bad at economics or they wouldn't be socialists. I know I can't change the world as nobody listens to me so I just figure out how to make money off the ignorant which is much easier than making it off smart people. I am overweight in energy investments some of which includes green/renewable energy which have been laggards. I see BP under pressure to pay for welfare in the UK to avoid windfall energy taxes and have to rethink about investing in socialist nations. Their socialist government was wrong on energy, I got it right and they take my money. That's the problem with socialism. No incentive.

amigang Quote:

Everyone is happy? Not if the climate science is right and huge global changes happen, seen the fires in Australia or California? See Pakistani under water. Plus also both time power grid when down in huge areas of the country, except for houses that did have them annoying solar and battery system you seem to be ageist.


Everyone should be happy with cheap energy and more disposable income. I never said I was against solar and battery systems on houses. There are places where solar is a good investment. I just don't want to be forced to subsidize it.

amigang Quote:

Lol, just look up Norway, they invested early in renewable, hydroelectric power plants and tidal power and now have the cheapest form of energy. Plus your still not acknowledging that the cheapest way to produce energy now is wind, yes there are issues like energy storage and location, but when it works, it really works well
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/


Renewables can work on a small scale but there can also be issues. I don't know about wind being the best either. The wind is inconsistent and needs to be in a place with consistent wind but not too much or damage can occur. I thought hydroelectric and geothermal produced energy could be the cheapest but have very limited locations. This can be seen by following the aluminum production to Iceland, Norway and Canada. Cheap energy is a competitive advantage. That would be great if renewable energy was cheaper than coal generated energy without subsidies. That should mean nobody would build coal plants any more. Why is China building coal plants both in China and for their Belt & Road Initiative partners?

kolla Quote:

What takes place on land means little compared to what goes on in the oceans. CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, but only to a certain point and when that point is reached, “showdown” will happen fast - really fast.


Some scientists believe that ocean acidification caused mass extinctions in the past. The Permian-Triassic extinction event (Great Dying) about 251.9 million years ago and the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event about 201.3 million years ago, among others, are believed to have had ocean acidification. The CO2 levels were believed to be more than ten times the current levels yet sea life survived.



Some scientists believe the most recent Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction 66 million years ago and caused by an asteroid impact also had ocean acidification at a lower CO2 concentration that was only a few times greater than today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceou-Paleogene_extinction_event#Marine_fossils Quote:

Further analysis shows that several processes were in progress in the late Cretaceous seas and partially overlapped in time, then ended with the abrupt mass extinction. The diversity of marine life decreased when the climate near the K–Pg boundary increased in temperature. The temperature increased about three to four degrees very rapidly between 65.4 and 65.2 million years ago, which is very near the time of the extinction event. Not only did the climate temperature increase, but the water temperature decreased, causing a drastic decrease in marine diversity.


Here we had 3-4 degrees Celsius temperature increase. The majority of the extinctions came from the impact winter (global cooling) afterward which blocked off the sun for years. With asteroid impact damage, a possible tsunami, large temperature swings, reduced sun and freezing temperatures for years, animals still survived even if most of the dinosaurs did not.

Does CO2 concentration even correlate to temperature?



https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Reconstruction-of-CO2-and-temperature-over-the-Earths-history-This-does-not-indicate-a_fig1_297917740

It's difficult to know who to believe sometimes. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation. I tend to believe that the Earth's climate is incredibly difficult to model and that history provides evidence that it is buffered enough to not be in imminent danger of destruction. Natural climate change is more variable than some people understood but it is easy to blame all weather on man made climate change. Weather used to be blamed on the gods but now we are the gods.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 4-Nov-2022 6:51:57
#229 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1637
From: Melbourne, Australia

@matthey

Quote:
matthey wrote:

I can't speak for Dyson but there are only 2 options.

1. Stop all non-essential CO2 energy use cold turkey which will likely result in global chaos, wars, depression and rolling back technology 100 years.
2. Continue ahead and try to improve technology to address climate and take the chance that humankind will survive.

https://youtu.be/DgUbivnweuo

Last edited by agami on 04-Nov-2022 at 06:52 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 4-Nov-2022 16:02:29
#230 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1968
From: Kansas

agami Quote:

https://youtu.be/DgUbivnweuo


lol

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
amigang 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 4-Nov-2022 16:57:58
#231 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Posts: 2018
From: Cheshire, England

@matthey
Quote:
There are places where solar is a good investment. I just don't want to be forced to subsidize it.

Iike i pointed out earlier, Oil, gas & Nuclear all recive higher subsidize! Plus like I said i would like all subsidize remove.

Quote:
That would be great if renewable energy was cheaper than coal generated energy without subsidies. That should mean nobody would build coal plants any more. Why is China building coal plants both in China and for their Belt & Road Initiative partners?


Please Read
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-overinvested-coal-power-heres-why

Markets and goverment setup of energy market is complex and not as simple as you think, in a true fair open market, the cheapest form of producing energy should win out, in a normal market, but the energy sector is far from fair or perfect.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 4-Nov-2022 17:39:45
#232 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 2859
From: Trondheim, Norway

@matthey

Noone is talking about “the end of life” as such, that’s not the issue. Likely end of modern civilization and in many ways end of life as we currently know it, yes, no doubt.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 4-Nov-2022 18:42:48
#233 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 2859
From: Trondheim, Norway

Btw, isn’t it ironic how it’s considered radical to conserve and conservative to make radical changes?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nonefornow 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 4-Nov-2022 21:55:28
#234 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 29-Jul-2013
Posts: 339
From: Greater Los Angeles Area

@amigang

Quote:
Quote:
There are places where solar is a good investment. I just don't want to be forced to subsidize it.

Iike i pointed out earlier, Oil, gas & Nuclear all receive higher subsidize! Plus like I said i would like all subsidize remove.


I read somewhere that Tesla moved operation from California to Texas and received (or will receive) $60 million is subsidy. While the $ amount may not be correct or the final, what is certain is that Texas taxpayers are footing the bill. So did California taxpayers for some time.

Currently the Federal Government is allowing a 30% credit on Income Taxes for any new solar equipment put into production.

But here in California everyone is waiting for the CPCU ruling on the Net Energy Metering. That is the amount of credit that customers receive on their utility bills when their rooftop solar panels generate more energy than they consume.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 5-Nov-2022 6:58:05
#235 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3621
From: Germany

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote:
cdimauro Quote:

Has Dyson thought what happens if its predictions will reveal to be wrong? And if the humankind will be already on a point of not return? What happens then?


I can't speak for Dyson but there are only 2 options.

1. Stop all non-essential CO2 energy use cold turkey which will likely result in global chaos, wars, depression and rolling back technology 100 years.
2. Continue ahead and try to improve technology to address climate and take the chance that humankind will survive.

The second is not an option, because you don't want to see if, at a certain point in time, you reached the point of not return, right?

The first one as it's formulated isn't realistic: it's just an exaggeration to emphasize the bad things that you reported, with the purpose of rejecting this option because you don't like it. In fact, nobody thinks that we should immediately drop the current energy sources.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Scared of the reported facts?

BTW it's from a UN agency: NOT from a fitness girl...


I'm not scared of imminent climate change effects at all.

That was evident.

But talk with the people on your country which were devastated from some hurricane, tornado, fire, etc., since those phenoms had a HUGE increase in frequency and power: they might share a very different opinion...
Quote:
BTW Fitness girl interviewed scientists who have climate models like your UN alarmists.

Which are... a niche. Since almost all scientists share a completely different opinion (and published papers).
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

So, is it the only responsible for the current and future situation? Isn't CO2 guilty?


CO2 is not the only reason for temperature increases. There are many other greenhouse chemicals.


Good. Then you can see the role which had CO2 and methane. Methane = the gas which should be reduced, as I've said before.

Now imagine to remove CO2 and methane from this table...
Quote:
Water vapor isn't shown but can contribute more to the greenhouse effect than CO2.

Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#Atmospheric_CO2_and_the_greenhouse_effect [quote]
Though water is responsible for most (about 36-70%) of the total greenhouse effect, the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas depends on temperature.


Solar radiation affects the water vapor and is likely the least understood part of climate modeling.

Well, if it depends on the temperature, then you understand why we should stop the temperature increase by reducing the emissions of the above gases (which is what we can do more easily since we can control them much better than the water vapor).
Quote:
Trees and vegetation have a cooling effect. Deforestation is responsible for nearly 1/3 of the CO2, about as much as coal which is the leading cause, and we lost the cooling effect.


That's why we have to stop the deforestation as well: another thing that we've control of.
Quote:
Some or the temperature change could be normal climate change. At the beginning of the industrialized age and up until about 1900 we were still down about 1 degree Celsius from the Little Ice Age (when Greenland was abandoned by the Vikings after the Medieval Warm Period allowed them to colonize it, which likely occurred during a solar maximum and solar minimum). Some scientists were more worried about global cooling still up into the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling Quote:

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.


It's global cooling! Imminent danger! Something must be done immediately! Oh wait, false alarm. It's now global warming! Imminent danger! Something must be done immediately!

Please, stop this pathetic dramatization and have a deeper look at what you reported. I quote and highlight the relevant parts for you:

Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Understood?

Whereas the scientific literature of THIS time says something different, right? But you don't like it...
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

I never stated that we should immediately switch-off oil, gas, and even coal. This takes time because nuclear plants need some years for being built, as well as hydrogen plants & distributions net, new wind & solar plants, enforcing and adapting the energy grid, adding the needed new accumulation systems, and so on.

I think that we should do our best to speed-up on all this to reach the mentioned goals, investing A LOT on that.


I don't think our energy vision is that different but I don't see it being done, especially aggressive nuclear expansion.

That's because governments takes too much care of the greediots or even depends on them for governing (see here in Germany).
Quote:
I don't think the hydrogen plants make sense without nuclear generated electrify.

Hydrogen shouldn't be generated using nuclear energy.
Quote:
Hydrogen is clean but the energy density is poor and storage tanks are large and expensive.

Hydrogen as an energy vector is one of the best, but the current problem is that it's expensive to be produced. Despite that, it's good for replacing the oil used on trucks, instead of moving them to enormous batteries which need a nuclear plant nearby to be charged at reasonable speed.
Quote:
Without nuclear, renewables wouldn't even be able to generate enough electricity for the power grid let alone hydrogen production.

Exactly. What the greeidiots don't understand is that we need a good mix of different energy sources to sustain our activities and nuclear should be part of it.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Here is where we disagree, because you always think to the business and accuse people to be socialists (which is NOT a bad thing. At all. But I don't want to discuss about politics here: we're already OT).

But what you don't see is that all those activities will be NEW business opportunities. So, you can be sure that rich people will continue to make a lot of money out of that. So, business is safe.

Of course, this might be at the expense of the current lobbies, if they don't recycle their business and invest on the new activities.

To me it looks like you want to protect the dinosaurs that made money with oil and gas and don't want to change their businesses. Which is typical for Conservatives / Right-wings people.

I, on the other hand, put the Humanity at the center: I care about Human Beings and I think that we should do the best to reduce their problems and save as many as possible of them. If this is at the expense of money and/or rich people, I don't care at all: "Life First" (cit.).


Socialists are bad at economics or they wouldn't be socialists. I know I can't change the world as nobody listens to me so I just figure out how to make money off the ignorant which is much easier than making it off smart people. I am overweight in energy investments some of which includes green/renewable energy which have been laggards. I see BP under pressure to pay for welfare in the UK to avoid windfall energy taxes and have to rethink about investing in socialist nations. Their socialist government was wrong on energy, I got it right and they take my money. That's the problem with socialism. No incentive.

Again, you're moving to politics whereas I was talking about solving our current issues. Your statements about socialism is a clear Red Herring that you're using to protect your interests or the ones of Conservatives like you that see the current changes on the energy sources as a treat to your business. This doesn't change neither rebuts what I've written before.

However I find it very "curious" that Conservatives are very often Christians, but they completely ignore the gospel which clearly reports not even a socialist system but even a communist one (GOSH!!! ) if we take a look at how the first Christians communities were living.

Coherent people...
Quote:
amigang Quote:

Everyone is happy? Not if the climate science is right and huge global changes happen, seen the fires in Australia or California? See Pakistani under water. Plus also both time power grid when down in huge areas of the country, except for houses that did have them annoying solar and battery system you seem to be ageist.


Everyone should be happy with cheap energy and more disposable income. I never said I was against solar and battery systems on houses. There are places where solar is a good investment. I just don't want to be forced to subsidize it.

And nobody is forcing you.
Quote:
amigang Quote:

Lol, just look up Norway, they invested early in renewable, hydroelectric power plants and tidal power and now have the cheapest form of energy. Plus your still not acknowledging that the cheapest way to produce energy now is wind, yes there are issues like energy storage and location, but when it works, it really works well
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/


Renewables can work on a small scale but there can also be issues. I don't know about wind being the best either. The wind is inconsistent and needs to be in a place with consistent wind but not too much or damage can occur. I thought hydroelectric and geothermal produced energy could be the cheapest but have very limited locations.

That's the problem and why I haven't mentioned them before: they have a very limited scope. Whereas the other energy sources can be widely adopted, worldwide.
Quote:
This can be seen by following the aluminum production to Iceland, Norway and Canada. Cheap energy is a competitive advantage. That would be great if renewable energy was cheaper than coal generated energy without subsidies. That should mean nobody would build coal plants any more. Why is China building coal plants both in China and for their Belt & Road Initiative partners?

Because it's more convenient to China, evidently.

As it's also evident that we have to add proper/related taxes for goods coming from this country.
Quote:
kolla Quote:

What takes place on land means little compared to what goes on in the oceans. CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, but only to a certain point and when that point is reached, “showdown” will happen fast - really fast.


Some scientists believe that ocean acidification caused mass extinctions in the past. The Permian-Triassic extinction event (Great Dying) about 251.9 million years ago and the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event about 201.3 million years ago, among others, are believed to have had ocean acidification. The CO2 levels were believed to be more than ten times the current levels yet sea life survived.



Some scientists believe the most recent Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction 66 million years ago and caused by an asteroid impact also had ocean acidification at a lower CO2 concentration that was only a few times greater than today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceou-Paleogene_extinction_event#Marine_fossils Quote:

Further analysis shows that several processes were in progress in the late Cretaceous seas and partially overlapped in time, then ended with the abrupt mass extinction. The diversity of marine life decreased when the climate near the K–Pg boundary increased in temperature. The temperature increased about three to four degrees very rapidly between 65.4 and 65.2 million years ago, which is very near the time of the extinction event. Not only did the climate temperature increase, but the water temperature decreased, causing a drastic decrease in marine diversity.


Here we had 3-4 degrees Celsius temperature increase. The majority of the extinctions came from the impact winter (global cooling) afterward which blocked off the sun for years. With asteroid impact damage, a possible tsunami, large temperature swings, reduced sun and freezing temperatures for years, animals still survived even if most of the dinosaurs did not.

Does CO2 concentration even correlate to temperature?



https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Reconstruction-of-CO2-and-temperature-over-the-Earths-history-This-does-not-indicate-a_fig1_297917740

It's difficult to know who to believe sometimes. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation. I tend to believe that the Earth's climate is incredibly difficult to model and that history provides evidence that it is buffered enough to not be in imminent danger of destruction. Natural climate change is more variable than some people understood but it is easy to blame all weather on man made climate change.

I think that you still didn't got the point on the whole discussion.

Yes, we had disasters in the past caused by natural events and related climate changes.

However the point is the currently we're the ones contributing to them.

But the more important point is that we don't want to risk the extinction of our species due to that!
Quote:
Weather used to be blamed on the gods but now we are the gods.

That's the point! And we can have the chance to change what we started. For our safety and the permanence of our species on this planet.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 5-Nov-2022 23:21:11
#236 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1968
From: Kansas

amigang Quote:

Iike i pointed out earlier, Oil, gas & Nuclear all recive higher subsidize! Plus like I said i would like all subsidize remove.


It depends on the location but here in the U.S. I believe green/renewable energy is more subsidized than oil, gas and nuclear. It is difficult to say exactly what qualifies as a subsidy or how much to tax though. Take the following liberal website complaining about oil and gas subsidies.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-energy-timeline/ Quote:

2008 Annual tax subsidies for renewable energy shoot past those for oil and gas.

2009 President Obama’s stimulus package includes $90 billion for energy efficiency and renewable-energy projects, including wind and solar electricity generation, fuel cells, and electric vehicles.


Renewable subsidies surpassed oil and gas subsidies in 2008 and then added more in 2009 according to the website. Renewable energy is often subsidized at multiple levels including R&D (research & development), E&P (exploration and production), equipment/land/buildings, sales, distribution and installation. Oil and gas was primarily subsidized at the E&P level but some subsidies have been cut, taxes added and regulations added. The largest oil and gas subsidy attacked in the article is the "depletion allowance".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion_allowance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depletion_(accounting)

Likely because of liberal bias, wiki has it under "oil depletion allowance" but it applies to mining, timber and other natural resource reserves. The idea is that the reserves of a resource are an asset that depreciate as the resource is used up. That likely gets lumped in with the lack of carbon tax "subsidy" by liberals. Large oil and gas production businesses have not received the depletion allowance for a long time. Liberals would like to tax and regulate oil and gas production out of existence while heavily subsidizing renewable energy. Oil and gas investment has been defunded and pressure placed on banks and funds to not loan cash for projects so oil businesses have to be self funding and very conservative with their capital expenditures.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/04/us-uk-pledge-end-overseas-oil-gas-financing-519573 Quote:

The United States, the U.K. and some 20 other countries and financial institutions pledged on Thursday to stop public financing for most overseas oil and gas projects by next year, though the agreement included wide latitude for participants to set their own exemptions and many of the world’s leading backers of those projects declined to sign on.


https://thehill.com/policy/finance/572444-democratic-bill-would-force-fed-to-defund-fossil-fuels/ Quote:

Three progressive House Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday that would force the Federal Reserve to break up banks if they do not reduce the carbon emissions they finance in line with the Paris climate accord.


The effort to defund oil and gas has been happening in Europe as well.

https://350.org/defund-fossilfuels-europe/ Quote:

The proposed Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) from Greece, Albania to Italy is part of the “Southern Gas Corridor” — a 3,500km chain of proposed mega-pipelines that would pump 10 billion cubic metres of gas from Azerbaijan to Europe every year. This pipeline would destroy Europe’s climate targets, increase energy dependence on oppressive political regimes and have unacceptable impacts on the communities on its path. In Melendugno, Southern Italy – residents and olive farmers have been resisting the pipeline. Companies researched: BP, SOCAR, SNAM, Enagas, Fluxys, AXPO

Over 50 years of gas drilling by Shell and Exxon Mobil has caused many earthquakes in the local area damaging people’s homes and local buildings. Thousands of people have been demonstrating for an end to the gas production. Companies researched: Shell, Exxon Mobil

A proposed new 235km gas pipeline has received ‘Project of Common Interest’ status from the European Union and aims to double the amount of gas that can be piped across the Pyrenees mountains. Companies researched: Enagas, GRTgaz, TIGF (TIGF became Teréga in March 2018)

The proposal by Swedegas for a new Liquefied Natural Gas terminal to import gas would be contradictory to Sweden’s plans to go fossil free. Companies researched: Enagas, Fluxys

Having been banned and pushed back in many European countries, England is one of the last places where the shale gas industry is attempting to frack. Hundreds of community groups have sprung up to actively resist them. Companies researched: Cuadrilla, INEOS, Third Energy, Europa Oil & Gas


Liberal extremists blame reliance on oil and gas as the problem but infrastructure was defunded. Not only could gas have come from Azerbaijan for Europe but it could have come from the Energy Triangle in off shore Israel/Greece through the EastMed pipeline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EastMed_pipeline Quote:

The Energy Triangle of Greece, Cyprus, and Israel signed an intergovernmental agreement for the EastMed gas pipeline in Tel Aviv on 20 March 2019 in the presence of United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in a sign of support from Washington for the project. American interest on the pipeline is explained by Washington's demand that its European partners maintain a diversification policy of their energy imports. The pipeline will diversify European gas supplies and lessen dependence on Russian Natural Gas.

...

In January 2022, the United States announced withdrawal of support as the project is not seen as economically viable or environmentally friendly, meaning the project is likely to be cancelled and replaced with an energy connection between Egypt and Greece. U.S. House of Representatives members, Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida) and Nicole Malliotakis (R-New York), have questioned the Biden administrations reversal on the project in view of Europe's deepening dependency on Russian gas.


At least the Energy Triangle natural gas is used to supply electricity to Europe but there should be multiple gas pipelines into Europe so it is not reliant on Russian gas. Western liberal environmental extremists come in and sabotage energy projects.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/austria-sues-european-union-gas-nuclear Quote:

Austria is taking the European Union to court over plans to characterize natural gas and nuclear power generation as sustainable energies amid efforts to fight climate change.

The Austrian government on Friday filed a lawsuit with the EU's top court over the classification used to define clean energy resources. The EU's executive Commission plans to add certain nuclear and gas plants next year to a list that helps investors determine which projects are sustainable.

Austria's environment minister, Leonore Gewessler, warned that the measure could "greenwash" nuclear power and gas despite the environmental damage they cause.


No nuclear and no natural gas will result in extreme energy prices for many nations. Energy is being shut down including natural gas and infrastructure that we need today and good energy alternatives for the future are being taken away.

amigang Quote:

Please Read
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-overinvested-coal-power-heres-why

Markets and goverment setup of energy market is complex and not as simple as you think, in a true fair open market, the cheapest form of producing energy should win out, in a normal market, but the energy sector is far from fair or perfect.


China doesn't have layer after layer of green/renewable subsidies that make it cheaper and it is not taxing coal, oil and gas into oblivion. Local coal has a cost advantage in not needing to be transported as far as well. China is slow to change and the government micromanages everything not that the West is any smarter as I've just shown. Ironically, China dominates solar panel production with over 2/3 of global production, economies of scale are important for lowering costs and transportation costs would be lower but they are still building coal plants. I don't think coal subsidies are the main reason but maybe fewer renewable energy subsides and less defunding of coal, oil and gas energy than the West means renewable energy doesn't compete as well. Solar may not be able to scale fast enough for their needs so they retain coal use for energy diversification and national security reasons. Other nations make similar national security decisions. Most of the U.S. energy subsidies were defended as encouraging domestic production for national security reasons before the extreme renewable subsidies to save the planet at the expense of the U.S. economy.

Last edited by matthey on 05-Nov-2022 at 11:25 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
MEGA_RJ_MICAL 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 6-Nov-2022 0:39:56
#237 ]
Super Member
Joined: 13-Dec-2019
Posts: 1200
From: AMIGAWORLD.NET WAS ORIGINALLY FOUNDED BY DAVID DOYLE

Quote:

kolla wrote:
Btw, isn’t it ironic how it’s considered radical to conserve and conservative to make radical changes?


I am not sure, friend kolla, through what wild pair of lenses you're looking at the world.

Conservatives want to stick to burning dead dinosaurs, they like good old nuclear family, dislike globalization.

Radicals want to quickly switch to alternative fuels, they are fine with all kinds of ghastly concocted genders and familial unions, and they want to erase long standing borders.

The designations "Conservative" and "Radical" seem pretty fitting to me.

/M!

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 6-Nov-2022 3:16:36
#238 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1968
From: Kansas

cdimauro Quote:

The second is not an option, because you don't want to see if, at a certain point in time, you reached the point of not return, right?

The first one as it's formulated isn't realistic: it's just an exaggeration to emphasize the bad things that you reported, with the purpose of rejecting this option because you don't like it. In fact, nobody thinks that we should immediately drop the current energy sources.


It's not that there are only 2 choices and there should be something reasonable between but that is how the lines of battle between the two opposing forces are drawn. There certainly are people who think we should immediately drop the current energy sources. I don't think you realize how extreme the liberals are. This zero CO2 policy including shutting down currently operating and planned projects is happening now. The Ukraine war is not the only reason why energy prices are up.

cdimauro Quote:

That was evident.

But talk with the people on your country which were devastated from some hurricane, tornado, fire, etc., since those phenoms had a HUGE increase in frequency and power: they might share a very different opinion...


I prefer to look at the data.

Does Hurricane Ian Plus an Unusually Quiet Hurricane Season Cast Doubt on Climate Change?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuwA3wWQ538 Quote:

But since we started keeping records in 1851, the number of hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. has actually trended slightly down making the link between global warming and hurricanes confusing at best.


Fires because of drought?

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/us-precipitation-1901-2019-a-decade-by-decade-look Quote:

Conclusions

It is obvious that most regions of the country have seen an increase in precipitation over the past three decades, with this trend most pronounced in the northeast quadrant of the contiguous U.S. The southwestern quadrant of the country has not seen this increase; it also has not seen much, if any, decrease in precipitation, but rather a pronounced fluctuation between very dry winters and very wet winters.




https://www.nps.gov/articles/climate-change-in-the-southwest-past-climate.htm Quote:

To understand the full range of natural climate variability in the Southwest, scientists use several types of proxy records— mainly tree-ring records—to extend the climate record back thousands of years. Annual tree-rings grow in proportion to the amount of summer precipitation, so tree-ring records are used throughout the Southwest to reconstruct past dry and wet periods. The tree-ring records show that although past droughts were of about the same severity and affected the same amount of land area as droughts in the instrumental record, these past droughts lasted for much longer (Herweijer et al. 2007). One of these droughts was centered around AD 1150 (Cook et al. 2004, Ni et al. 2002, Salzer and Kipfmueller 2005). Another widely recorded drought occurred in the late 1200s and lasted for several decades (Grissino-Mayer 1996, Ni et al. 2002). Scientists have speculated that this drought was responsible for the collapse of the Ancient Puebloan culture in the region, but this hypothesis is now hotly debated (Woodhouse 2004).


The Southwest has dry and variable weather. It has had non man influenced long droughts that are much worse than today.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/climate-change-and-tornadoes-any-connection/ Quote:

Climate change may be the existential threat of our lives, yet when it comes to in-your-face weather, tornadoes are in a class of their own. Fortunately, human-warmed climate isn’t making violent U.S. tornadoes any more frequent. However, climate change may be involved in some noteworthy recent shifts in the location and seasonal timing of the tornado threat.


The following link has data that backs up that strong tornados are not increasing.

https://www.ustornadoes.com/annual-tornadoes/

My state of Kansas has the 2nd most annual number of tornados behind Texas which has much more area. By area, Kansas may have the most tornados. Is there a reason why the Wizard of Oz started with a Tornado in Kansas?

The number of violent storms rate EF4 or EF5 is down (only 1 this year and 3 last year).

https://www.ustornadoes.com/violent-ef4-ef5-tornadoes/

Sorry, the up to date pic is interactive and doesn't display well. There is an older pic from the site which I like but it isn't up to date although it shows the same downward trend for strong tornados (increase in weak tornados which are rarely deadly may be due to better detection and reporting).



Is the current climate blame game superstition, expectant pre-alarmism or media misinformation and disinformation?


cdimauro Quote:

Which are... a niche. Since almost all scientists share a completely different opinion (and published papers).


Why assume they didn't publish? It's important to have different diverse opinions. That is how new opinions are formed rather than follow the other lemmings.


cdimauro Quote:

Good. Then you can see the role which had CO2 and methane. Methane = the gas which should be reduced, as I've said before.

Now imagine to remove CO2 and methane from this table...


Methane is being reduced here in the U.S. Of course the oil and gas industry is targeted first with new regulations to monitor old wells even though they are not the primary source of methane emissions.

https://grist.org/article/crazy-clip-shows-what-happens-when-you-connect-gas-bags-to-cows/ Quote:

Cows are already the nation’s single largest source of methane, a greenhouse gas produced by oil extraction, decomposing trash, and the guts of grazing animals that’s as much as 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide. A single cow farts and belches enough methane to match the carbon equivalent of the average car. According to a 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report, the world’s 1.4 billion cows produce 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than the entire transportation sector.




Cow fart bags! Actually belches produce more methane but the bag is attached to their stomach. Recall that earth used to by populated by herds of animals back when temperatures were higher and before humans killed the majority of them off. Maybe not just CO2 was many times higher than today but maybe methane too?

cdimauro Quote:

Well, if it depends on the temperature, then you understand why we should stop the temperature increase by reducing the emissions of the above gases (which is what we can do more easily since we can control them much better than the water vapor).


If solar radiation has a compounding effect with the water vapor to affect temperatures, shouldn't we look at the current solar radiation to see if that is causing the warming.



We have been in the Modern Maximum but we may be coming out of it. There is also a shorter 11 year solar cycle of solar irradiance variations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum

cdimauro Quote:

Please, stop this pathetic dramatization and have a deeper look at what you reported. I quote and highlight the relevant parts for you:

Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Understood?

Whereas the scientific literature of THIS time says something different, right? But you don't like it...


There were more than a few peer reviewed articles supporting global cooling.



At least then different scientific opinion was accepted rather than being attacked. The data set they had was small. Actually, it is still small. The natural trend of the global climate may actually be toward global cooling as carbon becomes trapped and volcanic activity decreases.

cdimauro Quote:

That's because governments takes too much care of the greediots or even depends on them for governing (see here in Germany).


I don't think it is greed. Many Western nations bought into the liberal green energy policies which quickly became no emissions including nuclear energy because of liberal extremists. Well, Russia was subsidizing green energy groups and their propaganda so they could sell the West oil and gas.

cdimauro Quote:

Hydrogen shouldn't be generated using nuclear energy.


You are aware that energy is needed to create Hydrogen and green energy needed to create green Hydrogen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen Quote:

Green hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water is less than 0.1% of total hydrogen production.


Nuclear energy is not a good source of electricity for electrolysis? The advantage of Green Ammonia to reduce the carbon footprint of fertilizer is not appealing too?


cdimauro Quote:

Again, you're moving to politics whereas I was talking about solving our current issues. Your statements about socialism is a clear Red Herring that you're using to protect your interests or the ones of Conservatives like you that see the current changes on the energy sources as a treat to your business. This doesn't change neither rebuts what I've written before.


Much of the energy problem is related to failed politics and bad economics though.

cdimauro Quote:

However I find it very "curious" that Conservatives are very often Christians, but they completely ignore the gospel which clearly reports not even a socialist system but even a communist one (GOSH!!! ) if we take a look at how the first Christians communities were living.


You are ignoring the importance of freedom of choice. Christian communes were on a small scale of like minded people working together. Modern communism/socialism is excessive government force (force is the only way a government operates) and sabotage by people who skip the work but are first in line for the handouts.

Here is a related article that also rejects Christian communism.

https://thoughtleader.co.za/greta-thunberg-the-bible-and-capitalism/

It also touches on the role of socialism in the climate change debate.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Sanders_Spam/comments/yl17au/greta_thunberg_its_time_to_overthrow_capitalism/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-end-capitalism

Is this a back door attack on capitalism by socialism? Absolutely. Climate change is very polarizing which is why there are only 2 choices when there should be more than 2 choices. The following is a video I was watching that describes it as quasi-religious and talks about Greta and other socialists calling for the abolishment of capitalism. It started with talking about the EU deciding to ban the sale of internal combustion engines by 2030.

Russians fleeing Kherson? Life in recently liberated Ukrainian towns | Rock Rachon | TVP
https://youtu.be/bpYiI0RRSFQ?t=1199

They talk about the socioeconomic impact which will be that many people won't be able to afford a vehicle. The commentator says, "if we make the decision that we want to be weak and green then that is the decision", "this is not a struggle against the end of the world as some would like to present it particularly the green side", "so if you're against fossil fuels and you have no replacement, the only consequence is going to be that people get poorer". The commentator is making the same points I'm trying to make and this short news segment covers it well. The socialists extremist green agenda is still alive and pushing even as the Russian war continues and energy dependent industry leaves Europe.

Last edited by matthey on 06-Nov-2022 at 07:13 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 6-Nov-2022 8:32:59
#239 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3621
From: Germany

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote:
cdimauro Quote:

The second is not an option, because you don't want to see if, at a certain point in time, you reached the point of not return, right?

The first one as it's formulated isn't realistic: it's just an exaggeration to emphasize the bad things that you reported, with the purpose of rejecting this option because you don't like it. In fact, nobody thinks that we should immediately drop the current energy sources.


It's not that there are only 2 choices and there should be something reasonable between but that is how the lines of battle between the two opposing forces are drawn. There certainly are people who think we should immediately drop the current energy sources. I don't think you realize how extreme the liberals are. This zero CO2 policy including shutting down currently operating and planned projects is happening now.

I see extremists at both sides.
Quote:
The Ukraine war is not the only reason why energy prices are up.

In fact it wasn't the Ukraine war that causes this: the energy market got crazy raising the prices already the year before.

The main problem, at least in Europe, is that Germany was pushing to do not have anymore long term contracts with gas vendors, rather to negotiate the prices each time. This was shown to be a complete failure, that the war happened after "just" exacerbated.

The silly thing is that the great Chancellor Angela Merkel was so blind during her governments that she only worked to get the cheapest price for gas and oil, to make the German industry more competitive. So, she worked only on that direction by making Germany almost completely dependent from external countries, which means mostly from Russia. And she was so blind that this was the "Plan A" but she had no "Plan B"!
What happens if there are external energy supplier? This very simple question hasn't floated around her mind, and now that it happened then Germany is found VERY vulnerable!
We were lucky only because the weather is getting so crazy that temperatures are MUCH higher than in current period compared to the past. That's why we mostly haven't yet turned on the boilers and this saved A LOT of gas. So, at least for this winter we are safe. But the next one is a big question mark IF we don't replace the imports from Russia (on January will start the big restrictions for them).
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

That was evident.

But talk with the people on your country which were devastated from some hurricane, tornado, fire, etc., since those phenoms had a HUGE increase in frequency and power: they might share a very different opinion...


I prefer to look at the data.

Does Hurricane Ian Plus an Unusually Quiet Hurricane Season Cast Doubt on Climate Change?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuwA3wWQ538 Quote:

But since we started keeping records in 1851, the number of hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. has actually trended slightly down making the link between global warming and hurricanes confusing at best.

Again the fitness girl? I prefer to bring you some studies, instead of promo video, by a quick search using global warming hurricanes as keywords:

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/index.html
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3184/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/

I stop here, because there tons of studies that I can bring.

As you can see, the studies are honest saying that there's no 100% proof that those effects are caused by human activities (however it's absolutely proved that a certain temperature increase was certainly caused by them), but there are strong evidence for it.
Quote:
Fires because of drought?

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/us-precipitation-1901-2019-a-decade-by-decade-look Quote:

Conclusions

It is obvious that most regions of the country have seen an increase in precipitation over the past three decades, with this trend most pronounced in the northeast quadrant of the contiguous U.S. The southwestern quadrant of the country has not seen this increase; it also has not seen much, if any, decrease in precipitation, but rather a pronounced fluctuation between very dry winters and very wet winters.




https://www.nps.gov/articles/climate-change-in-the-southwest-past-climate.htm Quote:

To understand the full range of natural climate variability in the Southwest, scientists use several types of proxy records— mainly tree-ring records—to extend the climate record back thousands of years. Annual tree-rings grow in proportion to the amount of summer precipitation, so tree-ring records are used throughout the Southwest to reconstruct past dry and wet periods. The tree-ring records show that although past droughts were of about the same severity and affected the same amount of land area as droughts in the instrumental record, these past droughts lasted for much longer (Herweijer et al. 2007). One of these droughts was centered around AD 1150 (Cook et al. 2004, Ni et al. 2002, Salzer and Kipfmueller 2005). Another widely recorded drought occurred in the late 1200s and lasted for several decades (Grissino-Mayer 1996, Ni et al. 2002). Scientists have speculated that this drought was responsible for the collapse of the Ancient Puebloan culture in the region, but this hypothesis is now hotly debated (Woodhouse 2004).


The Southwest has dry and variable weather.

The fact that there are more precipitations in some areas doesn't mean that the same is happening on others areas.

In fact, some areas are becoming more dry and more prone to fires. Some areas are even turning into deserts (like my beloved Sicily, unfortunately).
Quote:
It has had non man influenced long droughts that are much worse than today.

The increase in temperatures is proven, as I've said before. From the first link that I've shared:

The IPCC AR6 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that it is unequivocal that humans have caused the earth’s climate to warm, with a likely human contribution of 0.8 to 1.3 degrees Celsius to global mean temperature since the late 1800s
Quote:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/climate-change-and-tornadoes-any-connection/ Quote:

Climate change may be the existential threat of our lives, yet when it comes to in-your-face weather, tornadoes are in a class of their own. Fortunately, human-warmed climate isn’t making violent U.S. tornadoes any more frequent. However, climate change may be involved in some noteworthy recent shifts in the location and seasonal timing of the tornado threat.


The following link has data that backs up that strong tornados are not increasing.

https://www.ustornadoes.com/annual-tornadoes/

My state of Kansas has the 2nd most annual number of tornados behind Texas which has much more area. By area, Kansas may have the most tornados. Is there a reason why the Wizard of Oz started with a Tornado in Kansas?

The number of violent storms rate EF4 or EF5 is down (only 1 this year and 3 last year).

https://www.ustornadoes.com/violent-ef4-ef5-tornadoes/

Sorry, the up to date pic is interactive and doesn't display well. There is an older pic from the site which I like but it isn't up to date although it shows the same downward trend for strong tornados (increase in weak tornados which are rarely deadly may be due to better detection and reporting).



Is the current climate blame game superstition, expectant pre-alarmism or media misinformation and disinformation?

Well, those medias include NASA, as I've reported before and I briefly quote here:

While most models show either no change or a decrease in hurricane frequency in a warmer climate, a greater proportion of the storms that form will reach very intense (Category 4 or 5) levels. In other words, while there may be fewer storms, the ones that form have a greater chance of becoming stronger.

The chart that you reported is showing a decrease of the strong tornadoes, but a net increase of the weak ones. At least in your country.

In fact, tornadoes increased a lot in Europe in the last years, and become more violent. In the past they were very very rare and limited in power: now it's the exact opposite.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Which are... a niche. Since almost all scientists share a completely different opinion (and published papers).


Why assume they didn't publish?

In fact I haven't stated this. I've just said that they are the vast minority.
Quote:
It's important to have different diverse opinions. That is how new opinions are formed rather than follow the other lemmings.

Nothing to say about that. The important thing is that studies are published and subject to peer reviews.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Good. Then you can see the role which had CO2 and methane. Methane = the gas which should be reduced, as I've said before.

Now imagine to remove CO2 and methane from this table...


Methane is being reduced here in the U.S. Of course the oil and gas industry is targeted first with new regulations to monitor old wells even though they are not the primary source of methane emissions.

https://grist.org/article/crazy-clip-shows-what-happens-when-you-connect-gas-bags-to-cows/ Quote:

Cows are already the nation’s single largest source of methane, a greenhouse gas produced by oil extraction, decomposing trash, and the guts of grazing animals that’s as much as 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide. A single cow farts and belches enough methane to match the carbon equivalent of the average car. According to a 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report, the world’s 1.4 billion cows produce 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than the entire transportation sector.




Cow fart bags! Actually belches produce more methane but the bag is attached to their stomach.

I know it as well and this is another problem to be addressed by using tools like that and systems that collect biomass from the farms. As well as a reduction on consuming meat.
Quote:
Recall that earth used to by populated by herds of animals back when temperatures were higher and before humans killed the majority of them off. Maybe not just CO2 was many times higher than today but maybe methane too?

Sure, but you want to reach the same point? I don't think that our ancestors were so common on those periods, right?
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Well, if it depends on the temperature, then you understand why we should stop the temperature increase by reducing the emissions of the above gases (which is what we can do more easily since we can control them much better than the water vapor).


If solar radiation has a compounding effect with the water vapor to affect temperatures, shouldn't we look at the current solar radiation to see if that is causing the warming.



We have been in the Modern Maximum but we may be coming out of it. There is also a shorter 11 year solar cycle of solar irradiance variations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum

Which is reducing but temperatures are still increasing.

Plus, there's the proof the human activities caused the increase of them (see above). And they continuing...
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Please, stop this pathetic dramatization and have a deeper look at what you reported. I quote and highlight the relevant parts for you:

Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Understood?

Whereas the scientific literature of THIS time says something different, right? But you don't like it...


There were more than a few peer reviewed articles supporting global cooling.



At least then different scientific opinion was accepted rather than being attacked. The data set they had was small. Actually, it is still small.

I've nothing to say about that, as long as published articles are being peer-reviewed.

However the numbers and trends are quite evident, as you can see from the chart.
Quote:
The natural trend of the global climate may actually be toward global cooling as carbon becomes trapped and volcanic activity decreases.

There's no evidence of it. At least not yet. Temperatures are only increasing...
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Hydrogen shouldn't be generated using nuclear energy.


You are aware that energy is needed to create Hydrogen and green energy needed to create green Hydrogen?

Sure, but maybe I wasn't clear before: it's better to use the nuclear plants to serve our power greed instead of producing Hydrogen.

Hydrogen could be produced "offline" with other systems.
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen Quote:

Green hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water is less than 0.1% of total hydrogen production.


Nuclear energy is not a good source of electricity for electrolysis? The advantage of Green Ammonia to reduce the carbon footprint of fertilizer is not appealing too?

Nuclear energy could be used, for course, but they are critical to sustain our power grids, as I've said before.

Solar or wind systems are better candidates for producing Hydrogen, because they have variable outputs that could be better be "absorbed" by this activity (if you produce less or more Hydrogen it only affects the amount that could be shipped). Whereas they are very bad for serving power grids, which need a predictable and fast scaling energy supply chain to "immediately" serve the punctual needs of the cities or industries.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

Again, you're moving to politics whereas I was talking about solving our current issues. Your statements about socialism is a clear Red Herring that you're using to protect your interests or the ones of Conservatives like you that see the current changes on the energy sources as a treat to your business. This doesn't change neither rebuts what I've written before.


Much of the energy problem is related to failed politics and bad economics though.

Which involve all politics / politicians, whatever is their orientation.
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

However I find it very "curious" that Conservatives are very often Christians, but they completely ignore the gospel which clearly reports not even a socialist system but even a communist one (GOSH!!! ) if we take a look at how the first Christians communities were living.


You are ignoring the importance of freedom of choice. Christian communes were on a small scale of like minded people working together.

Nevertheless, they were sustained by some principles which should be still valid even nowadays. What I've reported is because I'm not ignoring what was written; rather the exact contrary.

In fact, you should "not serve Mammon", right? Whereas you're always talking of business, business, business = Mammon.
Quote:
Modern communism/socialism is excessive government force (force is the only way a government operates)

The same happens also on non-communism/social governments: force is always used, in different forms.
Quote:
and sabotage by people who skip the work but are first in line for the handouts.

Being in favor of social measures / welfare doesn't necessarily mean supporting parasitics.

I'm totally against them and I don't like that my money should be used by/for them.

I think that if someone is able to work, then is should do it: otherwise he should take advantage of other peoples taxes.

Besides that, I'm absolutely in favor of a good welfare system that helps people which have lost jobs, have health issues, and so on.

That's the reason why I've decided to move to more north Europe instead of going back to US (I'm a citizen): I want to leave on a country where the State gives more help in those situations.

P.S. Too long post: I don't read it again for fixing typos or grammar mistakes.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
MEGA_RJ_MICAL 
Re: Poll: Elon Musk buy Twitter or Amiga?
Posted on 6-Nov-2022 9:31:31
#240 ]
Super Member
Joined: 13-Dec-2019
Posts: 1200
From: AMIGAWORLD.NET WAS ORIGINALLY FOUNDED BY DAVID DOYLE

PADDING

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle