GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,136]

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

Even ten years ago, there were legitimate climatologists who had rational doubts about climate change, including whether it was caused almost entirely by human activity.

However, in that period of time, the science got better and no one, I mean no one in the field believes that warming is not happening and it’s due to climate activity. The meta-study done that showed 97% of papers supported man-made global warming was done by someone who was a skeptic. He stopped being a skeptic after that.

The same has happened in many fields.

Evolution wasn’t widely accepted in biology until well after Darwin’s death.

The expanding universe theory had several serious opponents right up until the early 1970s.

The belief that ulcers were caused by stress lasted into this millennium.

The evidence of all of these things is now crystal clear. There are no serious scientists who are published in the field that believe otherwise.

Right now, if you don’t think human caused warming is a thing, you’re not just in the minority of people in the field, you’re all alone.

You’re ignoring evidence.

You’re calling into question studies that have been confirmed and re-confirmed.

You’re ignoring models from 30 years ago that were actually optimistic. It turned out reality was worse.

You’re raising arguments that have already been dealt with over and over and over again.

In other words, you’re Fred Hoyle:

Fred Hoyle was an expanding universe denier. By 1970 it was clear to anyone with a brain that the theory Hoyle dubbed “The Big Bang” was correct in every important detail.

Despite this, Hoyle worked out a theory that made it look like the universe was expanding, but wasn’t. He presented his initial findings (pre-publication) to an audience in London. A young graduate student pointed out his calculations were flawed and his theory couldn’t possibly be right  (that young graduate student was Stephen Hawking).

Anyone who doesn’t believe the theory that the world is getting warmer and it’s our fault isn’t a “skeptic” or “outsider” or “maverick” or “free thinker”, they’re just denying the evidence.

Man-made global warming is as certain as the spherical nature of the earth or the fact that cigarettes immensely increase your risk of lung cancer and heart attack.

Anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell something. Most likely oil or coal.

Your central figure of your topic has a problem... Expanding universe is based on red shift... which we know is false due to Hubble constant we know is false(all you have to do is triangulate on Jupiter) and quasars which also prove it is false, along with latest nail in its coffin from the James Web Telescope...  The only reason Red Shift still has ANY credibility is due to near objects for which it can be ~close enough and since we do not have any better explanation.  Also gets back we have no uniform field theory or whichever name you wish to call it in Physics that explains that which we see.  Latest Baloney with zero evidence trying to "help" our abysmal unified field theory of the universe is "dark matter" and quantum mechanics for which we have zero evidence of how anything interacts, but must take it on faith it is true...    And Macro Evolution: You truly have to be a religoius zealot to believe that.  Go take cellular biology and with a straight face say by random chance any of that could happen even when you KNOW all those processes and "parts" break down near instantly and the kicker?  There is no known operational force which could randomly produce even partial parts of said cell and you religious cultists play make believe whole functioning cells are viable. 

"Science" today is a religious cult

But do prattle onwards...

[Rob Plant + 2,647]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

coal mining can actually be purified to become something green,

Utter garbage!

[TailingsPond + 491]

On 4/17/2024 at 3:42 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Your central figure of your topic has a problem... Expanding universe is based on red shift... which we know is false due to Hubble constant we know is false(all you have to do is triangulate on Jupiter) and quasars which also prove it is false, along with latest nail in its coffin from the James Web Telescope...  The only reason Red Shift still has ANY credibility is due to near objects for which it can be ~close enough and since we do not have any better explanation.  Also gets back we have no uniform field theory or whichever name you wish to call it in Physics that explains that which we see.  Latest Baloney with zero evidence trying to "help" our abysmal unified field theory of the universe is "dark matter" and quantum mechanics for which we have zero evidence of how anything interacts, but must take it on faith it is true...    And Macro Evolution: You truly have to be a religoius zealot to believe that.  Go take cellular biology and with a straight face say by random chance any of that could happen even when you KNOW all those processes and "parts" break down near instantly and the kicker?  There is no known operational force which could randomly produce even partial parts of said cell and you religious cultists play make believe whole functioning cells are viable. 

"Science" today is a religious cult

But do prattle onwards...

So what is your proposed theory if the universe is not expanding?  A static universe? Creation?

Quantum mechanics works very well.  It is weird but has been tested by numerous experiments.  Photoelectric effect, atomic emission spectroscopy, vibrational and rotational spectroscopy, etc.  Energy and space is absolutely quantized.

If you have no other plausible explanations maybe leave these topics to the real scientists.  Many much greater minds have considered these questions.

 

Edited April 18 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,409]

Hubble's Law is a robust principle in cosmology.

There's ongoing refinement in measuring the exact value of H₀ (Hubble's Constant). Different methods provide slightly different results, leading to a current range around 70 (km/s)/Mpc (kilometers per second per megaparsec).

One megaparsec (Mpc) is equivalent to roughly 30,856,775,815,000 Astronomical Units (AU).

Jupiter is about 5.2 AU distant from the Sun.

 

So, Jupiter is 0.000000000000017 of a Mpc away from the sun. Thus, 0.000000000000017 x 70 Km/sec = 0.000000000012 Km/s.

 

Over a year (which has about 32 billion seconds), Hubble's Law, using the current constant, = about 380 meters/year for Jupiter's "recession" from the Sun, based on a simplified application of Hubble's Law.

 

Observation of Jupiter doesn't provide relevant information to challenge Hubble's Law, due to the vast difference in scale and the nature of the phenomena involved.  These are REALLY small angle differences over time in triangulation, particularly with observation of an EXTENDED object, like a planet.

 

For sure, astronomers/cosmologists are famous for "extrapolating on a point" (Hubble's Law is a good example). That's why I never go beyond two significant digits in any astronomical analysis.  YMMV about this.

 

Triangulation of Jupiter may be a valid method of challenging Hubble's Law, given enough years of observation and fully considering the orbital mechanics of our Solar System that could interfere with Hubble's Law recession.  Earth-based measurements require taking atmospheric effects into consideration, which can EASILY overwhelm small angular measurements.

 

We ain't have had space-based measurements long enough to make use of triangulation of local objects to challenge Hubble's Law.  Even then, it's a real challenge to measure such small angular changes due to the orbital mechanics of the space-based platform.

 

Cepheid variable stars represent a very valuable "standard candle" (I hate that term) for distance measurements. They are a remarkable example of how different astronomical tools work together to unveil the "secrets of the universe".

 

"Science as a cult"?  Yeah, I'm sure that's how past Popes dealt with it.

 

"Religion as a cult" makes more sense to me.  Again, YMMV.

 

.

 

 

 

.

Edited April 17 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 491]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 Go take cellular biology and with a straight face say by random chance any of that could happen even when you KNOW all those processes and "parts" break down near instantly and the kicker?  There is no known operational force which could randomly produce even partial parts of said cell and you religious cultists play make believe whole functioning cells are viable.

Have you ever seen a bubble?  It looks very much like a cell.  There are known forces that produce bubbles.

We know amino acids can be produced by inorganic processes and they can form simple peptides.

[Ecocharger + 1,382]

Oil demand is hot and getting hotter, showing that fossil fuel demand continues to ramp up to all-time record high levels.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Oil-Demand-Jumped-To-5-Year-Seasonal-High-in-February.html

https://www.ief.org/_resources/files/news/monthly-oil--gas-review/04-24.pdf

"Oil demand in JODI-reporting countries rose by 1.2 mb/d in February and was up 1.1 mb/d year-on-year. The month-on-month gain was driven by gasoline and jet fuel demand. Gasoline demand was at a 5-year seasonal high. "

"Another major driver of higher oil demand was India’s oil demand, which jumped to an all-time high in February, while its product exports rose to a seasonal high, the data compiled by JODI showed.

In February, India’s total product demand rose by 265,000 bpd to an all-time high of 5.59 million bpd."

[Ecocharger + 1,382]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

Have you ever seen a bubble?  It looks very much like a cell.  There are known forces that produce bubbles.

We know amino acids can be produced by inorganic processes and they can form simple peptides.

There is a world of difference between "can" or "might" and actual scientific observations.

That is the gap where climate scientists have been largely swallowed into a veritable black hole of partial and incomplete modeling.

Edited April 17 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,382]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Haha you say current and then quote data from 2022.

Ive been over this once and already called you out for re-posting the same garbage over and over again without putting back a counter argument when we prove you wrong.

You need help!

Rob, you failed to respond to the data. I simply pointed that out to you and you refuse to respond.

Here is the data again, to which you have not responded.

Here is what the current report from the EPA states,

"In 2022, 83.0 percent of the energy used in the United States on a Btu basis was produced through the combustion of fossil fuels. The remaining 17.0 percent came from other energy sources such as hydropower, biomass, nuclear, wind, and solar energy,” 

The bigger picture shows that

"Central Asian states have doubled their coal-based power generation capacity over the past decade, with plans for further expansion."

"The IEA estimates that China's coal-fired power generation increased by almost 7% in 2023."

"Last year, global operating coal capacity increased by 2% as the world added a total of 69.5 gigawatts of coal fired power.

Worldwide, coal-fired power plant retirements were only 21.1 GW in 2023—the lowest capacity retired since 2011."

 

[Ecocharger + 1,382]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Youre cherry picking now to try to justify your failure with the figures.

Ive already called you out on this one too, go back and re-read my post as youve clearly forgotten already, I even highlighted the 2% for you! remember now?

And yes of course growth of 19% in any industry is a disaster isnt it, Good grief man!

Hint 19% growth is exceptional growth.

Rob, you are apparently numerically challenged, growth rates in the negative range are nothing to laugh about, that is a disaster for anyone hoping for a transition to EVs. It means that a sales meltdown is underway for the EV sector, which is no laughing matter for you.

Again, here is the data, and since last November the year on year growth rates are negative, which means that sales levels for EVs are in a disastrous fall.

"The latest forecasts from global technology intelligence firm ABI Research find that global Electric Vehicle (EV) sales are expected to grow by 21% in 2024 and 19% in 2025. This represents a significant decline from growth rates of 31% in 2023 and 60% in 2022."

So we have a clear downward trend, 60% - 31% - 21% - 19% - <0% since November 2023...disaster, meltdown.

 

Edited April 17 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,382]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

We werent discussing EV's we were discussing coal fired powergen and its rapid decline!

Stay on topic and stop defelecting!

I think you mean "deflecting"...you seem to be deflecting yourself.

[turbguy + 1,409]

5 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Utter garbage!

I'm not so sure.  I've observed many open pit surface coal mines that have been reasonably restored to greenfields.  Then, mountain tops in West Virginia seem to be scrapped away, which is REALLY expensive to rehabilitate  I don't know how you can "rehabilitate" an underground coal mine, since it wasn't "green" to start with.

A real "non-green" issue with most coals is "where do you put the residuals" (ash)? 

Clean ash (such as fly ash) can be useful, and actually sold if the un-burned carbon content is really low. If it is "clean enough", it can be a reasonable substitute for Portland cement.

Bottom ash (the "real estate" that falls or drips to the bottom of the firebox), not so much...but some use it for a substitute for more expensive grit blasting media.  Wear your PPE when using it! 

After using it for a grit substitute, it's STILL THERE (plus whatever it strips off a substrate), just much finer.

Edited April 17 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 491]

44 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

There is a world of difference between "can" or "might" and actual scientific observations.

That is the gap where climate scientists have been largely swallowed into a veritable black hole of partial and incomplete modeling.

Sure but have you seen a cell under a microscope?  I have, a direct observation.

This dope writes things like "make believe whole functioning cells are viable."  Does he really not believe in cells?

I doubt he believes in black holes too.

 

 

 

Edited April 17 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 491]

11 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Clean ash (such as fly ash) can be useful, and actually sold if the un-burned carbon content is really low. 

 

Yep

Fly ash can be used to make more expensive concrete.  A good example of a waste to revenue process.

[notsonice + 1,087]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil demand is hot and getting hotter, showing that fossil fuel demand continues to ramp up to all-time record high levels.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Oil-Demand-Jumped-To-5-Year-Seasonal-High-in-February.html

https://www.ief.org/_resources/files/news/monthly-oil--gas-review/04-24.pdf

"Oil demand in JODI-reporting countries rose by 1.2 mb/d in February and was up 1.1 mb/d year-on-year. The month-on-month gain was driven by gasoline and jet fuel demand. Gasoline demand was at a 5-year seasonal high. "

"Another major driver of higher oil demand was India’s oil demand, which jumped to an all-time high in February, while its product exports rose to a seasonal high, the data compiled by JODI showed.

In February, India’s total product demand rose by 265,000 bpd to an all-time high of 5.59 million bpd."

Oil demand is hot and getting hotter??????

 

hot off the press at Oilprice.com

Oil Plummets over 3% as Stockpiles Override Iran-Israel Conflict

By Tom Kool - Apr 17, 2024, 11:47 AM CDT

Only two days ago analysts were predicting oil over $100 a barrel, but by Wednesday midday, crude prices were nose-diving by close to 3% as demand concerns heavily outweighed the prospect of a wider regional conflict in the Middle East. 

[notsonice + 1,087]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Rob, you failed to respond to the data. I simply pointed that out to you and you refuse to respond.

Here is the data again, to which you have not responded.

Here is what the current report from the EPA states,

"In 2022, 83.0 percent of the energy used in the United States on a Btu basis was produced through the combustion of fossil fuels. The remaining 17.0 percent came from other energy sources such as hydropower, biomass, nuclear, wind, and solar energy,” 

The bigger picture shows that

"Central Asian states have doubled their coal-based power generation capacity over the past decade, with plans for further expansion."

"The IEA estimates that China's coal-fired power generation increased by almost 7% in 2023."

"Last year, global operating coal capacity increased by 2% as the world added a total of 69.5 gigawatts of coal fired power.

Worldwide, coal-fired power plant retirements were only 21.1 GW in 2023—the lowest capacity retired since 2011."

 

The bigger picture..............."Central Asian states........

 

only a fool , such as yourself , would buy your BS babble

Central Asian states???????Are we talking Kansas....ha ha ha as we were discussing the United States and you are trying to paint Central Asian states as the bigger picture......Only a Russian would believe your BS

Comrade .....the Central Asian states are diddly

if you have been to any of the Central Asian states you would know they are ex soviet states that were left to rot and die.....

the collective generation capacity has doubled........ 2 times diddly is double diddly

Here is a good example of real power demand

Power plants in Uzbekistan generated over 74 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2022, up three billion kilowatt-hours in the previous year. The production increased each year under consideration.Aug 7, 2023

 

Electricity generation in Uzbekistan 2016-2022 - Statista

Statista

https://www.statista.com › ... › Energy

 

 

Compare the  capacity of one the Central Asian States to one of the US States

How about  Iowa in 2022.....................

Iowas consumption was 72,982,198 MWH 

or 78982 Billion WH

 

or 79 Billion KWH

Iowa itself is bigger than the biggest Central Asian State of Uzbekistan

 

so move to one of  your big Central Asian States and go all coal. We will not miss you

 

Edited 22 hours ago by notsonice

Edited April 17 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,382]

24 minutes ago, notsonice said:

Oil demand is hot and getting hotter??????

 

hot off the press at Oilprice.com

Oil Plummets over 3% as Stockpiles Override Iran-Israel Conflict

By Tom Kool - Apr 17, 2024, 11:47 AM CDT

Only two days ago analysts were predicting oil over $100 a barrel, but by Wednesday midday, crude prices were nose-diving by close to 3% as demand concerns heavily outweighed the prospect of a wider regional conflict in the Middle East. 

A one-day blip headline. Look at overall demand for oil, which is at an all-time high and growing.

[Ecocharger + 1,382]

21 minutes ago, notsonice said:

The bigger picture..............."Central Asian states........

 

only a fool , such as yourself , would buy your BS babble

Central Asian states???????Are we talking Kansas....ha ha ha as we were discussing the United States and you are trying to paint Central Asian states as the bigger picture......Only a Russian would believe your BS

Comrade .....the Central Asian states are diddly

if you have been to any of the Central Asian states you would know they are ex soviet states that were left to rot and die.....

they collective generation capacity has doubled........ 2 times diddly is double diddly

Here is a good example of real power demand

Power plants in Uzbekistan generated over 74 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2022, up three billion kilowatt-hours in the previous year. The production increased each year under consideration.Aug 7, 2023

 

Electricity generation in Uzbekistan 2016-2022 - Statista

Statista

https://www.statista.com › ... › Energy

 

 

Compare the  capacity of one the Central Asian States to one of the US States

How about  Iowa in 2022.....................

Iowas consumption was 72,982,198 MWH 

or 78982 Billion WH

 

or 79 Billion KWH

Iowa itself is bigger than the biggest Central Asian State of Uzbekistan

 

so move to one of  your big Central Asian States and go all coal. We will not miss you

 

Edited 22 hours ago by notsonice

I guess you have trouble finding Asia.

[notsonice + 1,087]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

A one-day blip headline. Look at overall demand for oil, which is at an all-time high and growing.

one day blip????

you are a fool 

reality ......as demand concerns...have persisted for a long time with Chinas Real estate recession that has been going on now for 2 years and no end in sight

Even the prospect of a major  war in the Mid east oil patch does not support Oil............ouch

back to the fact

 

crude prices were nose-diving by close to 3% as demand concerns heavily outweighed the prospect of a wider regional conflict in the Middle East.

[notsonice + 1,087]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you have trouble finding Asia.

Comrade you are thinking the backwater countries in the Central Asian states are the bigger picture?????

you need to get out more...take a trip to one of them and  tell me it is the happening place in the world

GDP of your future home of King Coal??????????
Tajikistan	10.49 billion USD ‎(2022)
Kyrgyzstan	11.54 billion USD ‎(2022)

 

 Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan

 

[Rob Plant + 2,647]

14 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Rob, you failed to respond to the data. I simply pointed that out to you and you refuse to respond.

Here is the data again, to which you have not responded.

Here is what the current report from the EPA states,

"In 2022, 83.0 percent of the energy used in the United States on a Btu basis was produced through the combustion of fossil fuels. The remaining 17.0 percent came from other energy sources such as hydropower, biomass, nuclear, wind, and solar energy,” 

The bigger picture shows that

"Central Asian states have doubled their coal-based power generation capacity over the past decade, with plans for further expansion."

"The IEA estimates that China's coal-fired power generation increased by almost 7% in 2023."

"Last year, global operating coal capacity increased by 2% as the world added a total of 69.5 gigawatts of coal fired power.

Worldwide, coal-fired power plant retirements were only 21.1 GW in 2023—the lowest capacity retired since 2011."

 

Sigh! its like trying to debate with a barnacle.

[Rob Plant + 2,647]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

growth rates in the negative range

This comment shows you have no clue what utter rubbish your are spouting!

Growth is growth it isnt negative! I presume you are trying to articulate that the growth rate percentage is reducing.

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

"The latest forecasts from global technology intelligence firm ABI Research find that global Electric Vehicle (EV) sales are expected to grow by 21% in 2024 and 19% in 2025.

Either you struggle with the English language or your struggle with math, or maybe its both!

Ive highlighted the word "grow" for you from your own post.

Show me how you can have "negative growth"

Growth dropping to a huge 19% in 2025 is still exceptional growth in what is now becoming a market with many players, increasing competition and driving costs down. This is from your own post FFS!

Is the company you work for experiencing growth of 19%? if so wow thats amazing, well done!

Edited April 18 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,647]

14 hours ago, turbguy said:

I'm not so sure.  I've observed many open pit surface coal mines that have been reasonably restored to greenfields.  Then, mountain tops in West Virginia seem to be scrapped away, which is REALLY expensive to rehabilitate  I don't know how you can "rehabilitate" an underground coal mine, since it wasn't "green" to start with.

A real "non-green" issue with most coals is "where do you put the residuals" (ash)? 

Clean ash (such as fly ash) can be useful, and actually sold if the un-burned carbon content is really low. If it is "clean enough", it can be a reasonable substitute for Portland cement.

Bottom ash (the "real estate" that falls or drips to the bottom of the firebox), not so much...but some use it for a substitute for more expensive grit blasting media.  Wear your PPE when using it! 

After using it for a grit substitute, it's STILL THERE (plus whatever it strips off a substrate), just much finer.

I agree with your general points, however I think Specinho was saying this "coal mining can actually be purified to become something green"

If he meant after coal mining has stopped then yes old mining areas can become greener obviously as nature recovers. He does refer to a town which took 20 years to do this (and a lot of effort).

I will put his comment down to English being his second language and lost in translation.

[Rob Plant + 2,647]

This weeks powergen by industry type in the UK

A paltry 11.8% from FF!

Please also note the cost and emissions when its predominantly renewables (free energy).

[notsonice + 1,087]

On 4/17/2024 at 11:05 AM, Ecocharger said:

Rob, you are apparently numerically challenged, growth rates in the negative range are nothing to laugh about, that is a disaster for anyone hoping for a transition to EVs. It means that a sales meltdown is underway for the EV sector, which is no laughing matter for you.

Again, here is the data, and since last November the year on year growth rates are negative, which means that sales levels for EVs are in a disastrous fall.

"The latest forecasts from global technology intelligence firm ABI Research find that global Electric Vehicle (EV) sales are expected to grow by 21% in 2024 and 19% in 2025. This represents a significant decline from growth rates of 31% in 2023 and 60% in 2022."

So we have a clear downward trend, 60% - 31% - 21% - 19% - <0% since November 2023...disaster, meltdown.

 

growth rates in the negative range are nothing to laugh about, that is a disaster for anyone hoping for.????
and growth rates in Oil demand are in a negative range.......

that is a disaster.................yep for Oil and those who hold onto their clunkers

 

Oil price is going down (negative growth ha ha ha) these days  meaning demand sucks again

well the Iran -Israel bump lasted for how many days??????

Shale Oil Production Growth Is Slowing Down

By Irina Slav - Apr 18, 2024, 11:00 AM CDT

• Oilfield service veteran David Messler suggested last month that oil production in the shale patch may be nearing its peak and consequent plateau.
• EIA forecasts a 16,000-bpd increase in oil production from the shale patch in May.
• When the illusion of unending U.S. shale oil supply growth shatters, the fallout will be significant.

Edited April 18 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,087]

5 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

This weeks powergen by industry type in the UK

A paltry 11.8% from FF!

Please also note the cost and emissions when its predominantly renewables (free energy).

look at that price....rock bottom......30.20  and at the same time Nat Gas gen in the UK is max 11.8 percent of the market.........