patrick.net

OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething says

Sure. You finally figured out the contradiction in what you were saying, then pretend you used the 'supplemental' qualification all along so you can try to spin the bullshit that it's my fault because I couldn't 'read' that.

Just because I don't live in a state with a shitty power grid does not mean I'm wrong. https://www.generatorsource.com/blog/October-2023-(1)/How-Does-Your-State-Rank-In-Power-Grid-Reliability.aspx

Wind works just fine in my state. At no point did I ever say it was 100% going to be wind based. If you live near the infrastructure and understand what you're looking at you'd know. I do. I see the windmills everyday and my neighbors are in the industry. I've been informed by people I know about our grid. We live in the middle of nowhere for IL where someone snaps a transmission pole it's out for 3 seconds.

It was one of the reasons on my checklist to not live in CA. Between fires and potential massive earthquakes along with extreme taxation and housing prices it looked like a miserable place to live besides weather. Gas prices, homelessness and traffic being other factors. I do my research. I did this for CO as well. IL as well for reasons to leave. Nothing was compelling to leave.

Wind is a great backup and support if part of another plant needs maintenance. And it supplements in warm summer weather when AC is on. I'm happy to have it and never have to worry about a fridge or freezer thawing out and $2k worth of food going to shit. Outside of Southeast, most CA people don't even need AC yet the grid is shit.

WookieMan says

"Wind is a great backup and support if part of another plant needs
maintenance."

Wind and solar are the most expensive power sources on the planet because they
require watt for watt backup turbines to keep supplying the grid with steady power.
Therefore, they are dirty, because they emit a lot of CO2 and the power they supply
is not free. Wind and solar are based on fraud.

WookieMan says

Just because I don't live in a state with a shitty power grid does not mean I'm wrong.

Yes it does.

The_Deplorable says

Wind and solar are the most expensive power sources on the planet because they
require watt for watt backup turbines to keep supplying the grid with steady power.
Therefore, they are dirty, because they emit a lot of CO2 and the power they supply
is not free. Wind and solar are based on fraud.

He won't listen. Because he would have to admit he fucked up.

OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething says

"He won't listen. Because he would have to admit he fucked up."

Heh... A wind farm without a backup turbine is an impossibility.
Take it to the bank.

The_Deplorable says

Heh... A wind farm without a backup turbine is an impossibility.
Take it to the bank.

It's possible. Just not reliably dispatchable power for the grid. Thus it won't 'work'.

This is the part Wookie doesn't get.

^
Was that not obvious? I can see what's in front of me. I can see water levels when I travel to the same place. I can hear when the tornado sirens go off and nothing happens. Don't even lose a branch. Been in a tropical storm and laughed. It was a joke of a storm compared to the midwest. It's all clickbait at this point.

We get Cat 1-2 winds every summer, microburst, derechos, F1-2 tornados Might lose a shingle, but it's nothing.

DeportLibtards says

They are completely rational since it's been proven that EVs are worse for the environment than ICE cars.

https://slaynews.com/news/ai-led-study-confirms-climate-change-narrative-hoax/

The AI-led and human-checked review found:

Human CO₂ (just 4% of the carbon cycle) sinks into oceans and forests in 3-4 years, not centuries like the IPCC claims.

Temperature leads CO₂, not the reverse – think 800-year ice core lags and 2020’s lockdown “no-blip” at Mauna Loa.
IPCC models exaggerate warming (0.5°C/decade vs. reality’s 0.13°C).
Solar activity and natural cycles steal the show.

“The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as [Michael E.] Mann, [Gavin A.] Schmidt, and [Zeke] Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny,” the paper concludes.

Been there!

Patrick says

Ah, yes Plymouth Rock. Home of the Johnny-come-lately colonists.

Yet, the rationale given for "Arctic panic" of the current admin is "receding ice". So they seem to buy that GW BS too.

Obligatory: Dan Britt - Orbits and Ice Ages, The History of Climate"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

EDIT: I know it's a badtube link, but one of the key points of this talk is that up until ~50 million years ago, there were no ice caps. What happened is that India collided with South Asia, raising the Himalayas and the Tibeten Plateau. This exposed gigatons of rock to weathering, which sucked all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. This made the climate of the Earth susceptible to the Milankovich cycles (variations in the Earth's orbit and nutation) and led to periodic ice ages ever since.

Not only are the Chindians fucking with our country's jobs, but the very earth of India and South Asia have been fucking with the climate for 50,000,000 years.

Fuck Mt. Meru, I want temperate climate worldwide.

My take is who cares? The data you present makes sense to me, but we can't make a difference in anything either way. Our orbit isn't perfect. We move 1 mile closer temps might jump 0.1ºF. We're just spinning around this sun of a bitch with no control.

Given the distance CO2 is a none factor. Solar flares from the sun. Ice caps melt. Tectonic plates move. Which is the cause of water level rise? Yet we place it on CO2 that helps trees and crops grow that are good for us. So we have food and move "if" the water level rises.

All the facts for anything get buried at the end. I always start at the bottom of an article and go up. You can lie and get away with it with most people. I tend to read online content backwards.

It's important to point out that the climate has always varied and that humans are not a significant influence on it because right now there is an attempt to grab power and reduce our standard of living by declaring a "climate emergency".

The sun's energy output is not constant, so no clear conclusion about humans causing anything can't be made, ever.

Also, global warming occurred at the same time on Mars and Titan, too.

@MolotovCocktail That's super interesting.

Got a link?

Found one:

https://johnstonsarchive.net/environment/warmingplanets.html

Mars: Various spacecraft have observed Mars from orbit from 1971 to the present, many able to provide a long baseline of climate observations. In 2001 Malin et al. (2001) found that images of Mars' south polar cap taken one Martian year apart showed small retreats (of about 1-3 meters) in the cover of frozen carbon dioxide. This frozen CO2 sublimes directly from ice to gas in Mars' thin atmosphere. Observations over the next few Martian years' (one Martian year = 1.88 Earth years) showed continuing retreat, resulting in expanding pits in the residual polar cap (Benson and James, 2005; Thomas et al., 2005; James et al., 2007). This retreat has now been observed over four Martian years.
Several global warming believers have been quick to state that this is a regional climate change. However, Fenton et al. (2006) and Fenton et al. (2007) have identified trends in changes in the reflectivity of the surface dust on Mars from 1976 to 2000. From observed albedo changes they have used models to estimate a global annual air temperature increase of 0.65° C. The direct cause of this predicted temperature change is a change in the distribution of darker dust on Mars' surface, and the resulting warming could be a factor in the retreat of Mars' south polar ice. One proposed root cause of this climate change could be slight shifts in Mars' axial tilt or orbital eccentricity: such changes have also been proposed as key drivers in changing Earth's climate between glacial and interglacial conditions (i.e. starting and ending ice ages). These shifts involve very long timescales on Mars as well as Earth, making this an inadequate explanation for the changes observed currently. Internal variations in Mars' climate, as opposed to influences from solar output changes, are likely at work, but this issue is unresolved.