Windmills create warming

[ding]

Researchgate is what you linked to. There is no scientific study on researchgates site. I was right when I said you are delusional

I bet you think seas aren't rising because you saw some photos. Am I right?

 

[ding]

Researchgate is what you linked to. There is no scientific study on researchgates site. I was right when I said you are delusional

Do you believe there is a GHG effect?

 

[elektra]

Would you like to debate this in the Bull Ring with me? Because I'm about two seconds away from creating a call out thread. Pop off again.

Would i rather be in a call out thread or stay in this one where you refuse to acknowledge that solar panels dissipate the suns light as heat because of the inefficiency of solar panels.

Ding, I would like to debate this here. Of course the obvious answer to you ding is you wont debate in this thread hence you wont anywhere else.

Repeat your failed replies in another thread where nobody cares? I see why you would like that.

Have a good day ding

 

[ding]

Would i rather be in a call out thread or stay in this one where you refuse to acknowledge that solar panels dissipate the suns light as heat because of the inefficiency of solar panels.

Ding, I would like to debate this here. Of course the obvious answer to you ding is you wont debate in this thread hence you wont anywhere else.

Repeat your failed replies in another thread where nobody cares? I see why you would like that.

Have a good day ding

Nope. I'd prefer to expose your ignorance in the Bull Ring.

 

[Paddlefoot]

 

[konradv]

…and the Epstein Files don’t exist. Does anyone trust this man anymore?

 

[sealybobo]

'Stealing the wind': Nations actually fighting over using too much AIR! * WorldNetDaily * by Bob Unruh

'They also are being shown to affect meteorological and atmospheric conditions'

www.wnd.com

Why didn't they follow the science...my god they've killed us all by making it worse

Recently I learned two things. Texas has completely privatized their energy. They are not on the national grid so if things go bad, Texans are fucked. And they got fucked recently in that winter storm remember that?

Also Texas has the most windmills. Don't you find that interesting? You guys talk so much shit about windmills. I also noticed on my show Mountain Men these guys all buy little windmills and it changes their lives. And solar panels. No more generators or hauling in gas. So really you guys are hypocrites.

Texas has the most wind turbines and generates the most wind energy in the U.S., leading by a significant margin over states like Iowa, Oklahoma, and California, thanks to its vast open spaces, strong wind resources, and supportive policies. While Texas leads in total generation, Iowa stands out for having the highest percentage of its electricity come from wind power.

How do you reconcile this in your minds?

 

[EMH]

I bet you think seas aren't rising because you saw some photos. Am I right?

Why can't you show us photos of ocean rise?

 

[ding]

Why can't you show us photos of ocean rise?

Let's ask google?

Photographs can't accurately measure ocean rise because of constant changes like tides, currents, and land movement (subsidence/uplift), making a single snapshot unreliable; instead, scientists use precise tools like satellites with radar altimeters and land-based tide gauges for consistent, long-term data compared to fixed benchmarks, providing accurate absolute and relative sea level measurements. While old photos can offer historical clues (like biological markers), they lack the precision and global consistency of modern methods.

Why Photographs Fail

• Tidal Fluctuations: The ocean's surface rises and falls dramatically with tides, meaning a photo could capture high tide one day and low tide another, giving vastly different water levels.
• Local Factors: Waves, currents, wind, and even land sinking (subsidence) or rising (uplift) change water levels at specific spots, making a general picture misleading.
• Lack of Scale & Fixed Reference: A casual photo doesn't have a precise, unchanging reference point (like a GPS-linked benchmark) to measure against, and water lines can be fuzzy.

How Scientists Actually Measure Sea Level

• Satellites (Altimetry): Radar or laser pulses are sent from space to the ocean surface, measuring the time for the echo to return, giving precise height data globally.
• Tide Gauges: Physical "rulers" on coasts record water levels relative to the land, providing crucial local data.
• GPS: Used on tide gauges and land to track vertical land movement, correcting for land changes that affect relative sea level.

Historical Photos as Clues (Not Proof)

• Old photographs can be useful historical markers, especially if they show stable biological features (like salt marshes) or fixed structures, helping scientists understand past sea levels in specific locations, but they aren't precise instruments for global measurement.

 

[ding]

Recently I learned two things. Texas has completely privatized their energy. They are not on the national grid so if things go bad, Texans are fucked. And they got fucked recently in that winter storm remember that?

Also Texas has the most windmills. Don't you find that interesting? You guys talk so much shit about windmills. I also noticed on my show Mountain Men these guys all buy little windmills and it changes their lives. And solar panels. No more generators or hauling in gas. So really you guys are hypocrites.

Texas has the most wind turbines and generates the most wind energy in the U.S., leading by a significant margin over states like Iowa, Oklahoma, and California, thanks to its vast open spaces, strong wind resources, and supportive policies. While Texas leads in total generation, Iowa stands out for having the highest percentage of its electricity come from wind power.

How do you reconcile this in your minds?

That's not entirely correct. There are some interstate connections. But the vast majority of Texas power is generated in state. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

How do I reconcile using renewables? It's easier to reconcile believing renewables can serve a niche than it is to believe that renewables can totally replace fossil fuels for generating electricity. How do you reconcile that idiocy?

 

[konradv]

That's not entirely correct. There are some interstate connections. But the vast majority of Texas power is generated in state. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

How do I reconcile using renewables? It's easier to reconcile believing renewables can serve a niche than it is to believe that renewables can totally replace fossil fuels for generating electricity. How do you reconcile that idiocy?

Fossil fuels will always have the niche of the source of last resort. If you don’t need it, why use it?

 

[ding]

Fossil fuels will always have the niche of the source of last resort. If you don’t need it, why use it?

With regard to generating electricity, how will changing loads - up or down - be managed using renewables and nuclear? It can’t. The only technology that can swing on demand are gas and coal fired plants.

But setting that aside, the stated goal was net zero emissions by 2035 which means no fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

If you don’t need it, why use it?

Why not use it?

 

[konradv]

With regard to generating electricity, how will changing loads - up or down - be managed using renewables and nuclear? It can’t. The only technology that can swing on demand are gas and coal fired plants.

But setting that aside, the stated goal was net zero emissions by 2035 which means no fossil fuels.

When the demand is necessary, that’s where you turn and that’s exactly what I said!

 

[konradv]

Why not use it?

Pollution.

 

[ding]

When the demand is necessary, that’s where you turn and that’s exactly what I said!

I'm not sure we can count on that as fossil fuels get phased out more and more.

 

[ding]

Pollution.

I'm not seeing a lot of pollution where I live. The Clean Air Act of 1970, solved much of that with major reductions in regulated pollutants through technology like catalytic converters and stricter standards for vehicles and industry.

Are you talking about CO2?

 

[konradv]

I'm not seeing a lot of pollution where I live. The Clean Air Act of 1970, solved much of that with major reductions in regulated pollutants through technology like catalytic converters and stricter standards for vehicles and industry.

Are you talking about CO2?

No CO2 with wind or solar.

 

[ding]

No CO2 with wind or solar.

CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle for which most life on this planet depends upon. During the last glacial period the planet came close to not having enough CO2 to sustain plant life. Had this occurred all higher life forms of animals would have perished along with plants.

 

[ding]

No CO2 with wind or solar.

What's wrong with CO2?