20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: garbageface

Now tell us how you really feel about Trump... /sarc

I was a Sanders guy, but I don't see how that relates to the topic.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

H2 car example (25 years ago a University built one)

No big trick to get an internal combustion engine to run on Hydrogen.

And the a-holes pushing Carbon taxes ignore it and the inherently safe reactors but some ATS people are willing to ignore that to keep parroting the big lie.. So who is on who's payroll I wonder?

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: Justoneman

I'll have to check it out, but my post was directed more at UK truth.

My only concern with hydrogen vehicles is the water vapor exhaust . If we had millions of them spewing out water vapor me thinks that might have an effect on local weather patterns. Otherwise I like what Honda is doing with hydrogen fuel cells.

What I would like to see is a mixture of safe nuclear using thorium(hopefully fusion within the next couple decades). coupled with solar shingles and a power wall provided by solar city. To power our homes, businesses, and full electric vehicles.

Lubricants and plastics can be made almost entirely from hemp and other bio materials. Not to mention electric vehicles do not require motor oil.

Well ok, hemp is a good idea but these same a-holes IMHO have went out their way, i am thinking the Newspaper magnate Hearst and his family, and are holding hemp products back to be able to profit (greed again) on wood pulp based items.

We have various ways to use the H2 for energy. The University was going to crack H20 on demand but had to settle for 1st H2 cylinders and then moved to a Solar version of the car...

a reply to: Justoneman

There are no intrinsically safe nuclear reactors currently available for commercial construction as far as I know. Even if there were, there's still all those nasty bits left over. While fusion does seem to offer some promise, there's been no breakthrough as of yet. Containing the sun inside a magnetic field is proving to be difficult.

Hydrogen is not a primary means of energy, it is a form of energy storage for energy generated by other means.

The University was going to crack H20 on demand but had to settle for 1st H2 cylinders and then moved to a Solar version of the car...

What do you mean by this? You realize it takes more energy to generate hydrogen from water than the hydrogen provides in the end?

Has there been any proven records of the frequencies output from the Sun changing? Cosmic radiation level, for example, is a factor in high altitude ionization contributing to more or less other solar radiation frequencies making through the atmosphere to heat or lessen the heating of Earth. How about cosmic radiation levels from non-solar space sources?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

There are no intrinsically safe nuclear reactors currently available for commercial construction as far as I know. Even if there were, there's still all those nasty bits left over. While fusion does seem to offer some promise, there's been no breakthrough as of yet. Containing the sun inside a magnetic field is proving to be difficult.

Hydrogen is not a primary means of energy, it is a form of energy storage for energy generated by other means.

Yet the designs have been out there for literally years, i gave an example here earlier in the thread. THAT is what the whole problem is, good ideas skipped so we keep oil then fake a crisis with CO2 for taxation. Connecting the dots is pretty easy if you will.

a reply to: Justoneman

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

www.skepticalscience.com...

It is actually really not difficult to understand; the crap we are spewing into our atmosphere cannot leave the earth's atmosphere because of conditions inherent (like gravity).

Not really rocket science.

originally posted by: tkwasny
Has there been any proven records of the frequencies output from the Sun changing? Cosmic radiation level, for example, is a factor in high altitude ionization contributing to more or less other solar radiation frequencies making through the atmosphere to heat or lessen the heating of Earth. How about cosmic radiation levels from non-solar space sources?

Not to my satisfaction to be honest. I am saying we are at a place in history were we are observing historical levels of magnetic field movement if you consider the other times it happened there wasn't a scientific based society like we have become. The social engineers have been fanning their flames and some people are buying it so they get to keep the BS up, is my take. Now we have some others in the Scientific community brave enough to say "The Emperor has no clothes".

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

www.skepticalscience.com...

It is actually really not difficult to understand; the crap we are spewing into our atmosphere cannot leave the earth's atmosphere because of conditions inherent (like gravity).

Not really rocket science.

And you are a rocket scientist or Chemist or Physicist? THE THEORY has failed to predict, period , exclamation point!

As Lincoln so eloquently stated, "you can fool some of the people most of the time and most of the people some of the time"

I would add and a few every time will believe any BS if the people bringing it make you feel good about it and there are others that never fall for it.... Which of the 4 choices you are decides a lot about your beliefs.

a reply to: Justoneman

Yet the designs have been out there for literally years, i gave an example here earlier in the thread.

Thorium reactors?

Show me an example of a commercially viable power producing plant of this type on this planet.

Let me guess, you watched a youtube video....

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

Yet the designs have been out there for literally years, i gave an example here earlier in the thread.

Thorium reactors?

Show me an example of a commercially viable power producing plant of this type on this planet.

Let me guess, you watched a youtube video....

Sure since no one has been allowed to build one I can not and you know it. You are focused on small issues that do not push the idea forward. But, the research on Thorium is very interesting. There are small units that encapsulate radioactive matter in boron that would power a small neighborhood. Do some research I am giving out clues....

a reply to: Justoneman

Carbon Dioxide in the last two Ice Age was 3 to 4 times more PPM than today, so I am not sold and have never been sold on the Rothschild propaganda that Global Warming is caused by CO2.

a reply to: Justoneman

I've looked at Thorium.

There is no boogeyman stopping anyone from developing thorium reactors, it's being done.

Still has nasty fission products associated with energy production.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Justoneman

Carbon Dioxide in the last two Ice Age was 3 to 4 times more PPM than today, so I am not sold and have never been sold on the Rothschild propaganda that Global Warming is caused by CO2.

Yes and here as another tidbit to make the point about the lies.


dailycaller.com... r&utm_medium=Social

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

I've looked at Thorium.

There is no boogeyman stopping anyone from developing thorium reactors, it's being done.

Still has nasty fission products associated with energy production.

yea yea, you might just know it all sarc/.... I hear you believing what you wish while I see the situation differently from my point of view and observations over time.

a reply to: D8Tee

Thorium can be used in reactors that are already on the market. The current issue is making sure the fuel is stable enough to use safely which takes years. Thorenergy is currently doing their second 5 year test of a thorium fueled reactor. In order to verify the positive results of the first test. Thorium should have been used from the beginning but you get far less bomb making material (plutonium) from thorium reactors.

Still more studies

www.dailygalaxy.com...

ETA

dailycaller.com... ter&utm_medium=Social

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: D8Tee

Thorium can be used in reactors that are already on the market. The current issue is making sure the fuel is stable enough to use safely which takes years. Thorenergy is currently doing their second 5 year test of a thorium fueled reactor. In order to verify the positive results of the first test. Thorium should have been used from the beginning but you get far less bomb making material (plutonium) from thorium reactors.

DING DING DING. The war machine needs their resources and the hell with what the world really needs.

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: D8Tee

Thorium can be used in reactors that are already on the market. The current issue is making sure the fuel is stable enough to use safely which takes years. Thorenergy is currently doing their second 5 year test of a thorium fueled reactor. In order to verify the positive results of the first test. Thorium should have been used from the beginning but you get far less bomb making material (plutonium) from thorium reactors.

Right.
Reactors that are not intrinsically safe.
The clean up costs for Fukishima (if you can even put a price tag on this) is currently estimated to be 188 billion dollars.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: D8Tee

Thorium can be used in reactors that are already on the market. The current issue is making sure the fuel is stable enough to use safely which takes years. Thorenergy is currently doing their second 5 year test of a thorium fueled reactor. In order to verify the positive results of the first test. Thorium should have been used from the beginning but you get far less bomb making material (plutonium) from thorium reactors.

Right.
Reactors that are not intrinsically safe.

The word is inherently but you are starting to read up now, I can put up with the naivety if I can get people to think outside of that box of BS we are being fed out of to make the carbon taxes happen.

ETA

Off topic but i have found your opinions interesting in the other forums. Please, do not take my brashness at this point as not liking how you think.