What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,830
Reaction score
10,401
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
It's only being debated by idiotic deniers. For the vast majority of scientists, the issue has already been settled for a long time.
Conclusion. In the title of this paper, we asked “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,830
Reaction score
10,401
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Dumb ass, the peak of the interglacial was over 8000 years ago, and it has been cooling gradually for 6000 years.
The earth is still 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles and the sea level is 26 ft below the peak sea level of the previous interglacial cycle.

There is no data to support what you are claiming.

Temperatures will rise and fall during glacial and interglacial cycles. It is the nature of a bipolar glaciated world. Temperatures are precariously close to the threshold for extensive continental glacial in the Northern hemisphere. It is for this reason that our planet experiences frequent and seemingly drastic temperature fluctuations and environmental uncertainty.

Englander 420kyr CO2-T-SL rev.jpg
 
Last edited:

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
11,129
Reaction score
12,033
Points
2,288
No kidding. But when their hard work goes toward a stupid cause.....you end up with the highest electricity prices in the world.
Yes, but they work so hard at fucking everyone and themselves over and over and over. It's rather remarkable.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
207
Points
143
No they're serving their own agendas.

There is no formula where solar alone will power the entire country 24/7

An agenda to have less? Who in the hell would be part of an agenda like that. Also, you don't need any formula for solar power. We know how much electricity the U.S. uses both day and night. All we need to do is build enough solar panels to match it.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
207
Points
143
Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

Yes. I heard that skip in the record before. And it was refuted.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,413
Reaction score
8,550
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
The Green Party.
Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less? Having clean air and water over most of the nation is having less? Increasing food production while using less water, and increasing the income of the farmer is having less? Not having whole watersheds poisoned by mountain top mining or aquifers poisoned by fracking is having less? Having men and women working in clean air and surroundings putting in and maintaining renewables is having less? You prefer men dying in the 40's and 50's from black lung? Your whole argument here is a red herring. It is false, and just plain wrong.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,576
Reaction score
16,645
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less? Having clean air and water over most of the nation is having less? Increasing food production while using less water, and increasing the income of the farmer is having less? Not having whole watersheds poisoned by mountain top mining or aquifers poisoned by fracking is having less? Having men and women working in clean air and surroundings putting in and maintaining renewables is having less? You prefer men dying in the 40's and 50's from black lung? Your whole argument here is a red herring. It is false, and just plain wrong.
Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less?

Really. Having less power, less reliable power at a higher cost is having less.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
16,113
Reaction score
5,721
Points
290
An agenda to have less? Who in the hell would be part of an agenda like that. Also, you don't need any formula for solar power. We know how much electricity the U.S. uses both day and night. All we need to do is build enough solar panels to match it.
And how many solar panels is that?

And how many batteries?

 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,576
Reaction score
16,645
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less? Having clean air and water over most of the nation is having less? Increasing food production while using less water, and increasing the income of the farmer is having less? Not having whole watersheds poisoned by mountain top mining or aquifers poisoned by fracking is having less? Having men and women working in clean air and surroundings putting in and maintaining renewables is having less? You prefer men dying in the 40's and 50's from black lung? Your whole argument here is a red herring. It is false, and just plain wrong.

Economics, not really a liberal thing.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,413
Reaction score
8,550
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less?

Really. Having less power, less reliable power at a higher cost is having less.
So Texas is shutting down usable coal fired plants as it increases solar and wind because that makes economic sense.
And how many solar panels is that?

And how many batteries?

As many as needed.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,413
Reaction score
8,550
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
Economics, not really a liberal thing.
LOL President Bush, the senior, minor recession at the end of his term. President Clinton, tax increase, and record economic growth, actually paid down the national debt a bit. President Bush, junior, worst recession in our history, verging on a depression at the end of his term. President Obama, takes over during the worst of that recession, and brings the economy back with unemployment down to pre-recession levels. President Trump, inherits and economy that is hitting on all eight, and by his terrible handling of the pandemic, creates havoc with our economy. And you say liberals don't understand economics? LOL
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,576
Reaction score
16,645
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
LOL President Bush, the senior, minor recession at the end of his term. President Clinton, tax increase, and record economic growth, actually paid down the national debt a bit. President Bush, junior, worst recession in our history, verging on a depression at the end of his term. President Obama, takes over during the worst of that recession, and brings the economy back with unemployment down to pre-recession levels. President Trump, inherits and economy that is hitting on all eight, and by his terrible handling of the pandemic, creates havoc with our economy. And you say liberals don't understand economics? LOL

LOL President Bush, the senior, minor recession at the end of his term.

Liar.
Real GDP Q2 91 +6.2%
Real GDP Q3 91 +5.3%
Real GDP Q4 91 +3.8%
Real GDP Q1 92 +6.4%
Real GDP Q2 92 +6.9%
Real GDP Q3 92 +6.1%
Real GDP Q4 92 +7.1%

1632591853247.png



And you say liberals don't understand economics?

Only because it's true.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,576
Reaction score
16,645
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,830
Reaction score
10,401
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
207
Points
143
The Green Party.

You must be crazy. Despite what you may think, anybody who is a member of the green party are just humans like anybody else. I'm sure they enjoy being able to get food in cans. Buying disposable diapers. Drive cars, etc etc. etc. The problem is that being wasteful is not only cheaper, but give the companies who are responsible for it more profit. They say that a rich person would sell you the rope you are going use to hang him with if he thought he would make a buck. The vast majority of companies or corporations are downright evil.

If there is something illegal that they think that they can get away with, they are likely to do it. Because any punishment they might receive is so slight that it is worth taking the risk. Also, companies tend to fold up after they've polluted some area and leave it to the government to clean up. Since the super fund project began around 1980, as of 2019, nearly 30 years later, 431 sites have been cleaned up to a sufficient degree to be removed from the super fund site list. 1344 remain. And more are probably being added all the time.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
207
Points
143
Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less? Having clean air and water over most of the nation is having less? Increasing food production while using less water, and increasing the income of the farmer is having less? Not having whole watersheds poisoned by mountain top mining or aquifers poisoned by fracking is having less? Having men and women working in clean air and surroundings putting in and maintaining renewables is having less? You prefer men dying in the 40's and 50's from black lung? Your whole argument here is a red herring. It is false, and just plain wrong.

Post #479 may interest you.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top