The Anthropocene

[Crick]

I commented and quoted from your links, showing they are wrong and crick has no reply to those comments

I try to reply when your comments are intelligible, rational and pertinent. But that's not often, is it...

 

[Crick]

you are funny as hell, you are very popular (in your own mind) and beings how you are so well liked, when nobody responds to your big red post, that means you are right

crick, you are such a joke, pathetic

Can you not read?

DOES ANYONE HERE BESIDES POSTER ELEKTRA BELIEVE I HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MY POINT?

This is asking the forum readers if they think I have failed to demonstrate my point. This forum is filled with people who dislike me and would like nothing better than to tell my I have failed and that my denier opponent has trounced six ways from Sunday. But no one has done so. I will let you attempt to figure out why.

 

[elektra]

Can you not read?

DOES ANYONE HERE BESIDES POSTER ELEKTRA BELIEVE I HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MY POINT?

This is asking the forum readers if they think I have failed to demonstrate my point. This forum is filled with people who dislike me and would like nothing better than to tell my I have failed and that my denier opponent has trounced six ways from Sunday. But no one has done so. I will let you attempt to figure out why.

yesterday 70,000 tons of CO2 was emitted into the atmosphere, today 70,000 tons of CO2 was emitted into the atmosphere, tomorrow 70,000 tons of CO2 will be emitted into the atmosphere by the manufacturing of Wind Turbines.

CO2 levels are increasing, wind and solar manufacturing is responsible for the increase

 

[Crick]

yesterday 70,000 tons of CO2 was emitted into the atmosphere, today 70,000 tons of CO2 was emitted into the atmosphere, tomorrow 70,000 tons of CO2 will be emitted into the atmosphere by the manufacturing of Wind Turbines.

CO2 levels are increasing, wind and solar manufacturing is responsible for the increase

For every one of those 70,000 tons emitted, how much is NOT emitted because those new turbines are on line? And though the turbines only get built once, the CO2 not getting emitted because they're their goes on day after day after day after day, for a good 20 years.

 

[elektra]

For every one of those 70,000 tons emitted, how much is NOT emitted because those new turbines are on line? And though the turbines only get built once, the CO2 not getting emitted because they're their goes on day after day after day after day, for a good 20 years.

wind turbines are not displacing the need for electricity, they are too inefficient and too intermittent

if wind turbines provided the electricity we need, the manufacturing of them would of stopped decades ago

70,000 tons of CO2 emitted everyday, building wind turbines, which are so weak they do not meet the increase in the demand for electricity

Why do you think California has to import electricity, no state has worked harder installing solar and wind industrial projects.

California is also suffering brown outs. California is suffering.

 

[Crick]

I can come up with no reasonable explanation for the responses you provide to the information I post. You're constantly making vague statements that cannot withstand the slightest bit of examination. Your second sentence there: "if wind turbines provided the electricity we need, the manufacturing of them would of stopped decades ago". Do you actually believe that makes sense to ANYONE? Wind turbines are growing at a tremendous pace but still only generate 6.59% of the world's energy (Global wind energy share in electricity mix 2021 | Statista). Has ANYONE EVER claimed or even suggested or hinted or eluded or implied that wind turbines provide all the electricity we need? Of course not. And even if every kilowatt of the Earth power needs were somehow being met by wind turbines, as you are perfectly aware that need is still constantly growing. Until that stops, whatever technology we're using will have to constantly increase. So, no, the manufacturing of them would not "of" stopped. And "decades ago"? "Decades ago"??? What the holy fuck are you talking about?

Would you like to go on to your next rhetorical gemstone? "...Building wind turbines which are so weak they do not meet the increase in the demand for electricity". Would you like to examine what you've actually said here, what it actually means and how well it actually reflects against actual god damned fucking REALITY?

I know this thread has embarrassed the shit out of you. Doubling down has not helped. I suggested what you should have done many posts back. I wasn't kidding and I wasn't trying to set you up. Just stop posting this illiterate nonsense about wind turbines and heavy industry and the rest of your babble. Just stop. Talk about whatever else you like. Talk about ECS and TCR. Accuse NOAA of falsifying data. Explain how climate scientists are all getting rich. Bring up the cloud controversy or ask why people are ignoring water vapor. You've seen that no one else posts in this thread. It bores the shit out of them and they're not interested. If we stop, no one will notice and no one will care. The thread will slowly shuffle off the bottom of the page and go to that great thread graveyard on the back pages. Or maybe someone will actually hijack it to talk about the Anthropocene again.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Bullshit, large numbers of wind turbines are being built because that creates the most profit for the government politicians and the rich.


and how in the hell will you not have to replace wind turbines? we have already replaced every single first generation wind turbine.

Windbags Are Moneybags

 

[Crick]

Windbags Are Moneybags

So if we find a young windbag we can get rich?

 

[elektra]

So if we find a young windbag we can get rich?

If you are Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barrack Obama, or Joe Biden

wind turbines alone, pollute the atmosphere with 70,000 tons of CO2 a day.

 

[Crick]

If you are Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barrack Obama, or Joe Biden

wind turbines alone, pollute the atmosphere with 70,000 tons of CO2 a day.

I suggest you review the calculations in post #125 of this thread. The wind turbines installed just in 2022 PREVENTED the emission of more than 650 billion pounds of CO2. In 2023, those same turbines prevented the emission of somewhere between 663 billion and 1 trillion, 500 billion pounds of CO2. In 2024, they'll do it again. In 2025, they'll do it again. In 2026, they'll do it again. In 2027, they'll do it again. In 2028, they'll do it again. In 2029, they'll do it again. In 2030, they'll do it again. In 2031, they'll do it again. In 2032, they'll do it again. In 2033, they'll do it again. In 2034, they'll do it again. In 2035, they'll do it again. In 2036, they'll do it again. In 2037, they'll do it again. In 2038, they'll do it again. In 2039, they'll do it again. In 2040, they'll do it again. In 2041, they'll do it again. In 2042, they'll do it again.

In case you weren't keeping track, that somewhere between 13 trillion 260 billion pounds and 30 trillion pounds of CO2 NOT EMITTED.

Are you beginning to get the fucking picture?

 

[ding]

Geologic Eras are vast stretches of time, almost inconceivable to our brief life spans. There is something strange about being at the beginning of what is likely a new era,and being of the species that defines it

Canada’s Crawford Lake could mark the beginning of the Anthropocene

The mud of a Canadian lake holds an extremely precise record of humans’ influence on Earth. But the Anthropocene isn’t an official geologic epoch yet.

www.sciencenews.org

…Still, attempting to define the Anthropocene in geologic terms underscores humanity’s rapid and intense impact on the planet, Turner says. “We’ve become a geological force.”

It's a sad day when science colludes with politics. Really not much different than when religion colluded with politics.

 

[elektra]

Are you beginning to get the fucking picture?

Your own source (the blatantly biased and unreliable Stop These Things at How Much CO2 Gets Emitted to Build a Wind Turbine?) calculated 241.85 tons of CO2 to manufacture a wind turbine

We all get the picture, to make lil cricket's argument, the weight of a 9 year old wind turbine is used, with the inflated nameplate capacity of a brand new Wind Turbine which is much larger today than it was 9 years ago.

Such dishonesty, using the weight of 10 year old wind turbines, coupled with the nameplate capacity of a modern wind turbine, which is not the amount of electricity produced, just what it could do in theory, in a laboratory, on paper.

Wind turbines today, July of 2023 weigh 2250 tons, not the weight of a wind turbine of August of 2014 which is a tenth. 241 tons is what crick uses.

Dishonest as it gets.

Crick, you wind turbine can not state, guarantee it will operate 24 hours. Most do not. The wind dies down to nothing most nights.

Crick, a coal plant operates over a 1000 days, continuously providing electricity

A wind turbine is nothing, 1000's are nothing. 100,000 are nothing. 300,000 are useless. How many do we need? Millions? As if that is better than one coal plant.

 

[elektra]

I try to reply when your comments are intelligible, rational and pertinent. But that's not often, is it...

No, that is an excuse, very lame. Beings how you are very well liked, your words, if that post is true, we should see at least 10 thanks, if we do not see 10, this is another lie of cricks.

 

[Crick]

It's a sad day when science colludes with politics. Really not much different than when religion colluded with politics.

What are you talking about? How is science colluding with politcs?

 

[elektra]

What are you talking about? How is science colluding with politcs?

sad, go educate yourself, crick, most of us understand

And why did you skip my comment? Running from another post you can not dispute

We all get the picture, to make lil cricket's argument, the weight of a 9 year old wind turbine is used, with the inflated nameplate capacity of a brand new Wind Turbine which is much larger today than it was 9 years ago.
Such dishonesty, using the weight of 10 year old wind turbines, coupled with the nameplate capacity of a modern wind turbine, which is not the amount of electricity produced, just what it could do in theory, in a laboratory, on paper.
Wind turbines today, July of 2023 weigh 2250 tons, not the weight of a wind turbine of August of 2014 which is a tenth. 241 tons is what crick uses.
Dishonest as it gets.
Crick, you wind turbine can not state, guarantee it will operate 24 hours. Most do not. The wind dies down to nothing most nights.
Crick, a coal plant operates over a 1000 days, continuously providing electricity
A wind turbine is nothing, 1000's are nothing. 100,000 are nothing. 300,000 are useless. How many do we need? Millions? As if that is better than one coal plant.

 

[Crick]

We all get the picture, to make lil cricket's argument, the weight of a 9 year old wind turbine is used, with the inflated nameplate capacity of a brand new Wind Turbine which is much larger today than it was 9 years ago.

1) I am using YOUR source
2) A wide range of turbine sizes are available. No one is being forced to buy 15 MW turbines
3) As size goes up, the electrical output of a wind turbine increases faster than the mass of its base and tower
4) The larger the turbine, the faster it pays for itself. The CO2 released during production is made up for in days while the unit will keep spinning for decades

Such dishonesty, using the weight of 10 year old wind turbines, coupled with the nameplate capacity of a modern wind turbine, which is not the amount of electricity produced, just what it could do in theory, in a laboratory, on paper.

Again, this is YOUR fucking source and a source blatantly opposed to wind turbines

Wind turbines today, July of 2023 weigh 2250 tons, not the weight of a wind turbine of August of 2014 which is a tenth. 241 tons is what crick uses.
Dishonest as it gets.

Fuck you. Show us a lie. I am not responsible for your mistakes.

Crick, you wind turbine can not state, guarantee it will operate 24 hours. Most do not. The wind dies down to nothing most nights.

Crick, a coal plant operates over a 1000 days, continuously providing electricity

A wind turbine is nothing, 1000's are nothing. 100,000 are nothing. 300,000 are useless. How many do we need? Millions? As if that is better than one coal plant.

As I've illustrated several times now, a thousand wind turbines, just like one wind turbine, will make up for the CO2 of their construction in a matter of days. That your argument is nothing but "Look, big numbers, big numbers" without ANY exploration or explanation of what those numbers actually mean is ignorant and disingenuous bullshit.

 

[elektra]

1) I am using YOUR source

From 2014, and at that the article clearly states they are only using part of the wind turbine.

Lil cricket, cling to what you must. Foolishly.

 

[elektra]

2) A wide range of turbine sizes are available. No one is being forced to buy 15 MW turbines

????? I have a choice of where my electricity comes from? I am being forced to buy expensive electricity from 15 mw turbines. And of course let us not forget that the higher they are rated the more subsidy is given to the fat rich corporations, foreign and domestic.

 

[elektra]

Again, this is YOUR fucking source and a source blatantly opposed to wind turbines

Fuck you. Show us a lie. I am not responsible for your mistakes.

Yes my source, citing part of wind turbine, from 2014, from a thread that is from 2016. It is not a mistake to discuss just part of a wind turbines cost to the environment. The mistake is when crick took part of a wind turbine from 10 years ago, and then did the math as if crick was representing the entire wind turbine.

Wind turbines today weigh 2500 tons, lil cricket used 241 tons from 2014 to do his/her calculations. Lil cricket also used today's installed capacity with the weight of a wind turbine from 10 years ago.

Nothing is more dishonest

 

[elektra]

As I've illustrated several times now, a thousand wind turbines, just like one wind turbine, will make up for the CO2 of their construction in a matter of days. That your argument is nothing but "Look, big numbers, big numbers" without ANY exploration or explanation of what those numbers actually mean is ignorant and disingenuous bullshit.

If wind turbines are so profitable, how come no free democratic society's free market builds them without huge government subsidies?

sorry, but when you increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, that is an increase, you never make it up. Hell cricket, you never calculated the trees and vegetation destroyed installing wind turbines.

What do my big numbers mean? More pollution created building inefficient wind turbines that also use a disproportionate amount of raw materials.

I am sorry I can not explain it down to a level that your education would understand.