It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


For a couple hours today, all Germany's electrical power will be supplied by renewable energy

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:41 AM
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

And you post this from a man who in that same page wrote and claims and I quote;

The world probably needs to get back to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if truly radical climate change is to be avoided.

Really?... and who told him that "Earth must have ONLY 350ppm of CO2 in it's atmosphere"?...

Who made him, or any other AGW religious fanatic the "know it all of what Earth NEEDS"?...


posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:44 AM

Originally posted by dmsuse
wind and solar could easily power the world if we had better battery technology

we need to invest hugely in battery research.

And batteries are "environmentally friendly"?

What do you think is needed to build batteries, and what do you think happens to batteries once their lifespan runs out?

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk

Who are you supposed to be? Chief engineer at Exxon/General Electric or something?

Obviously when you are shown FACTS the only counter-argument you can provide is to claim that person must work for oil companies or other power companies and have been paid to show how wrong your RELIGION is...

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
This report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which indicates renewables can provide 80% of the worlds energy needs within four decades, with solar being at the heart of this forecast.

You mean the same people who tried to get rid of the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, and the same people who were caught in lies like "the Himalayans will melt by 2035" and posting pictures of polar bears who were safe and claiming "they are going to die!!!"?...

edit on 11-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk

Come on Blue! Its kind of difficult to have a senseible conversation when you have members, like Aim64C, continuously citing that,

You think that is cool?

It's not like the AGW religious fanatics act like ONLY THEM have a direct line with the spirit of Mother Earth and she is constantly telling them EXACTLY what she needs.... Right?...

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
No I don't but scientists have by conducting something called an experiment. Its called global climate modelling.

Oooh, you mean the same "COMPUTER MODELS" which many scientists have found to be completely flawed?...

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.



Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005

PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 3.0 (September 9, 2007)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.

In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Just watch what the OP will respond to facts...

edit on 11-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:51 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Firstly I see no need for the aggression piling out of every word you have typed.

On the climate modelling, I looked at the links to the research papers and it is good to see scientists willing to challenge the status quo, if it is based on solid methodology and good science. None of these studies pointing out problems means climate change isn't happening though, which is generally agreed upon in the scientific community as shown by the thousands of studies(a simple Google scholar search highlights this) supporting the fact of climate change.

EVEN if climate change was not occurring or not at least as a result of human activity, there are still many reasons to convert to sustainable, non-polluting energy sources. The health benefits, the protection of the natural world. I mean do you (and your family) want to have to continue breathing in pollutants from cars, airplanes, power plants?

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Have no fear, mr. ignorant solution guy is here!

3D Solar, Re-Design, Archimedes Tower of Solar Cells

This might answer some of the issues that you have outlined.

It's sad to say, that I had this designed when I was 15 and took it 10 steps further already lol!

I'm not convinced that this is the solution, but it's fruit for thought!

Nature has already shown the best designs!
STOP TRYING TO BE BETTER THAN MOTHER EARTH, adopt her means and be one!

edit on 11-7-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: additional statement

btw... I'm stilling awaiting someone to challenge this idea, or at least provide some opinions. It would be great if you could contribute something! Well, you or anybody... doesn't really matter to me.

edit on 11-7-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: additional statement

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:34 AM
Why only for the "next couple of days?"

That's a waste of technology...

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by Serenity777

If you look at the opening post it describes why. Because that day in Germany, a national public holiday, is historically the day when the least amount of power is used throughout the country.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in