Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Ceepea said:
Did you watch the video? lol

It works, there have been subsequent press releases since that one back in 2013.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246558/IBM_solar_energy_tech_claims_to_harness_power_of_2_000_suns

Computerworld - IBM, working with other researchers, has announced an "affordable photovoltaic system that can concentrate solar radiation 2,000 times."

A byproduct of the system is that it also produces a massive amount of heat. That heat can be harvested to perform other functions, such as desalinating water and creating cool air in sunny, remote locations where they are often in short supply, the IBM researchers said.

The High Concentration PhotoVoltaic Thermal (HCPVT) system can convert 80% of the incoming solar radiation into useful energy.






They're claiming to have reached 80% efficiency.
Click to expand...
you have my attention now.

seriously, 80% total efficiency?

 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Ceepea said:
That's what it says.... lol

I'm not a solar energy expert... but its cool tech, nevertheless.
Click to expand...
now if only the Sierra Club allows these things to be built..

maybe this technology will bring less super damaging SHADE to the delicate desert eco-system that despises SHADE in all it's forms...

seriously. SHADE

thats why the proposal for Calif's newest solar program was stopped, "the creatures of the sonoran desert cant stand SHADE".
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Ceepea said:
Did you watch the video? lol

It works, there have been subsequent press releases since that one back in 2013.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246558/IBM_solar_energy_tech_claims_to_harness_power_of_2_000_suns

Computerworld - IBM, working with other researchers, has announced an "affordable photovoltaic system that can concentrate solar radiation 2,000 times."

A byproduct of the system is that it also produces a massive amount of heat. That heat can be harvested to perform other functions, such as desalinating water and creating cool air in sunny, remote locations where they are often in short supply, the IBM researchers said.

The High Concentration PhotoVoltaic Thermal (HCPVT) system can convert 80% of the incoming solar radiation into useful energy.






They're claiming to have reached 80% efficiency.
Click to expand...
I watched a quick video of a plant in action on the first link from 2014, the second had no video on my ipad. I didn't see a video on the link from IBM News either. If they have attained it, I apologize.

I welcome advances in solar energy technology. The sooner we get it, the sooner we won't have to endure the crackpots and Eco-Loons trying to sabotage our economy and standard of living. Whatever will they do with themselves? Oh yeah, restrict the size of our sodas and stuff.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
No one is spending a lot of time on the issue because there is nothing man can do about it.

These scientists get lots of money to study co2, they're not going to cut their nose off to spite their face.
Click to expand...
but you can attach "and global warming" to anything and get that sweet grant money, kynes even said so.

yet there is a greenhouse gas that is literally 500 TIMES MORE POWERFUL than CO2 and kynes can;t even find one single study anywhere to back him up on his back of the eggo box math and claim?

either one or both of his retarded talking points must be abandoned.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
so as long as we keep Co2 at less than 96% of the atmosphere, we are doing better than venus.

that really takes the pressure off.

even though it is a WEAK greenhouse gas, concentrations approaching 100% will naturally cause considerable greenhousing.

since we are at 0.035%, we arent in any danger of going venusian.
Click to expand...
If CO2 levels rise higher than about 600PPM it starts causing significant changes to the environment, it's around 400PPM right now and raising at a rate of about 2PPM per year... You do the math
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
in the past (as previously cited) the earth has had 15x more co2, Naturally.
Click to expand...
since we're at about 400 ppm of CO2 right now, when have we ever been at (400 x 15 = ) 6,000 ppm of CO2?

please cite.

thanks in advance!

red's penis, whose sexual abilities you know not.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
since we're at about 400 ppm of CO2 right now, when have we ever been at (400 x 15 = ) 6,000 ppm of CO2?

please cite.

thanks in advance!

red's penis, whose sexual abilities you know not.
Click to expand...
"Carbon dioxide is well mixed in the Earth's atmosphere and reconstructions show that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere varied from as high as 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago in ancient-Earth biospheres to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

The recent phenomenon of global warming has been attributed primarily to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm to 395 ppm as of 2013, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. The daily average at Mauna Loa first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013. It is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating. An estimated 30–40% of the CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes. which contributes to ocean acidification. The present concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is the highest in the past 800,000 years and likely the highest in the past 20 million years. Although CO2 concentrations have varied significantly over the course of Earth's 4.7 billion year geologic history and ancient-earth biospheres, the scientific consensus is that the present-day biosphere can be damaged if CO2 concentrations surpass 550 parts per million."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
If CO2 levels rise higher than about 600PPM it starts causing significant changes to the environment, it's around 400PPM right now and raising at a rate of about 2PPM per year... You do the math
Click to expand...
assuming your claims are accurate, if things keep going, in a few hundred years we might have a problem.

since the earth has NATURALLY experienced co2 levels in the 7000 ppm (yes, Seven Thousand, not a typo) range, your claim is dubious at best.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"Carbon dioxide is well mixed in the Earth's atmosphere and reconstructions show that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere varied from as high as 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago in ancient-Earth biospheres to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

The recent phenomenon of global warming has been attributed primarily to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm to 395 ppm as of 2013, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. The daily average at Mauna Loa first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013. It is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating. An estimated 30–40% of the CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes. which contributes to ocean acidification. The present concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is the highest in the past 800,000 years and likely the highest in the past 20 million years. Although CO2 concentrations have varied significantly over the course of Earth's 4.7 billion year geologic history and ancient-earth biospheres, the scientific consensus is that the present-day biosphere can be damaged if CO2 concentrations surpass 550 parts per million."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
Click to expand...
wikipedia again?

seriously, you cant believe anything writ there.

co2 as been cycled into and out of the ocean since the oceans first formed, and yet sea water remains hospitable to all manner of life

the 7000ppm co2 in the cambrian period was largely absorbed into the oceans during the subsequent cooling period (which still happened despite the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere) so these claims are doubly dubious, beyond the questionable source.

and if you know so much about past Co2 levels, why the fuck did i have to prove that levels were higher in the past in an earlier exchange?

were you feigning ignorance or is this newfound wikiwisdom?
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
venus: 96% co2
earth: 70% nitrogen

thats not very comparable.

Edit: and mercury's temps are "lower' because it has no atmosphere, thus one side is hotter than a pistol, and the other side is colder than a witch's tit in a brass brassiere.

the hot side is Fuckin Hot and the cold side is Fuckin Cold so the average is "pretty hot"

it's a planetary McDlt
Click to expand...
All I meant by that was that each gas is the most common on their respective planets.

I don't know that I would say they aren't comparable.

Earth's history is full of battles where armies of 60k have defeated 100 k armies.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
All I meant by that was that each gas is the most common on their respective planets.

I don't know that I would say they aren't comparable.

Earth's history is full of battles where armies of 60k have defeated 100 k armies.
Click to expand...


as long as Co2 doesnt get it's hands on Longbow technology, i think we got time...
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
wikipedia again?

seriously, you cant believe anything writ there.

co2 as been cycled into and out of the ocean since the oceans first formed, and yet sea water remains hospitable to all manner of life

the 7000ppm co2 in the cambrian period was largely absorbed into the oceans during the subsequent cooling period (which still happened despite the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere) so these claims are doubly dubious, beyond the questionable source.

and if you know so much about past Co2 levels, why the fuck did i have to prove that levels were higher in the past in an earlier exchange?

were you feigning ignorance or is this newfound wikiwisdom?
Click to expand...
Again, you make the same claims conservapedia does.. you can go back like 10 pages to see it for yourself
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Again, you make the same claims conservapedia does.. you can go back like 10 pages to see it for yourself
Click to expand...
so, my accurate, sourced and cited statements are somehow culled from "conservapedia" while your direct references to wikipedia (which has already been demonstrated INCOMPETENT and IRRELEVANT) are authoritative.

IF conservapedia has accurate information, that is pure chance.
IF wikipedia has accurate information, that too is pure chance.
since you are the only one citing conservapedia, and only you and bucky seem to think wikipedia is valid, that means your statements are also INCOMPETENT and IRRELEVANT

if F=MxV is scrawled on a men's room wall does that mean Isaac Newton was full of shit?

yeah, of course it does.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
so, my accurate, sourced and cited statements are somehow culled from "conservapedia" while your direct references to wikipedia (which has already been demonstrated INCOMPETENT and IRRELEVANT) are authoritative.

IF conservapedia has accurate information, that is pure chance.
IF wikipedia has accurate information, that too is pure chance.
since you are the only one citing conservapedia, and only you and bucky seem to think wikipedia is valid, that means your statements are also INCOMPETENT and IRRELEVANT

if F=MxV is scrawled on a men's room wall does that mean Isaac Newton was full of shit?

yeah, of course it does.
Click to expand...
Conservapedia denies anthropogenic climate change > you deny anthropogenic climate change

Nothing much more needs to be said after that...

lol

You also think Venus is hotter than Earth because it's closer to the Sun even though Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun and not as hot as Venus

No wonder you people don't like Cosmos

rofl
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Conservapedia denies anthropogenic climate change > you deny anthropogenic climate change

Nothing much more needs to be said after that...

lol

You also think Venus is hotter than Earth because it's closer to the Sun even though Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun and not as hot as Venus

No wonder you people don't like Cosmos

rofl
Click to expand...
i do not "deny" anthropogenic Climate Change", i QUESTION IT, and that makes you furious.
the one denying is you, denying that there are holes in the theory, the assumptions are dubious, and the proponents spend most of their time LYING ABOUT IT

i think venus is hotter than the earth cuz if gets 2x more solar radiation than the earth, and has a thick insulating atmosphere

i think mercury AVERAGES cooler than venus, because it has NO insulating atmosphere, despite it's proximity, resulting in super hot and super cold areas depending on which side of the planet you measure.

the moon also has an extremely hot side, and a side that approaches zero degrees kelvin, based on which side is facing the sun.

Moon, sun side temp : 123 C, 253 F, 396 K
Moon, dark side temp : -153 C, -243 F, 120 K

Mercury sun side temp : 427 C, 801 F, 700 K
Mercury dark side temp: -173 C -279 F, 100 K

with an insulating atmosphere temps can become higher (like putting on a sweater) and more stable through highs and lows (like putting on a sweater)

see how that works?

i already elucidated all this shit, you really do suck at this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top