Comments by "romanmir01" (@romanmir01) on "Extreme Weather & Climate Change" video.

  1. Sweden? Yeah, why don't you look at countries that actually matter and produce something everybody wants, like China, Japan, Germany. Sure, in Germany there is now the current craze, being scared of nuclear, I guess they are worried about tsunamis there. Idiots. Japan has stopped all of its nuclear reactors. China is building a hundred or so right now. WHO is going to be doing MORE with LESS pollution in 20 years from now? CHINA.
    1
  2. You said 'nothing else is happening'. I am quite certain many things are happening. Hey, I am not going to argue that all sorts of stuff can be responsible for the increase of energy within the planet, humans CAN be responsible. My points are: 1. This is not something we KNOW to be the real deal. 2. The best way for the people to reduce their own emissions is to force the gov'ts to let go of the economy completely and let the people work on it without barriers. I want a nuclear powered car.
    1
  3. SOLAR? At best (clear days all the time and solar panels that move to point at the Sun), you can get 50% of the power rating averaged over the day. For fixed direction installations, that drops to a third. So 100 watts of maneuverable solar panel corresponds to 50 watts of average power for perfect weather conditions and 100 watts of fixed direction solar panel under the same conditions corresponds to about 33 waters of average power over the day.
    1
  4. The remaining big negative factor for solar is land use. It requires a lot of land to set up an installation of 2.2 GW average power. For maneuverable panels, you'd need almost 9 square kilometers of light gathering area (at 500 W per square meter). For fixed panels, that's 13 square kilometers of light gathering area. There's a modest hidden inefficiency here since solar panels intercept some light for panels behind them when the Sun is near the horizon.
    1
  5. Climate changes all the time. Temperatures go up and down, whatever. At some point the Earth's atmosphere was filled with hydrogen sulfide (5-7%), no human could live through that.
    1
  6. Why the fuck wouldn't magnetic fields be responsible, you dumb shit, are you sure that the magnetic fields of this planet are not preventing the solar wind from heating up our atmosphere to a MUCH higher temperature than what we have here? You never heard of the magnetosphere? Why don't you read a book. Sun spots - that's exactly it. Combination of unstable magnetosphere and a huge increase in solar wind output, wow, a complete impossibility for those 2 separate events to cause heating? idiot
    1
  7. BTW, how well do we understand INTERACTION between higher Sun activity output and a simultaneous flip of the magnetic field, which could mean that there is some form of instability in the magnetosphere as a result of it? Solving an equation with more than 1 variable becomes tricky, but solving variable with this many variables is somehow easy and we know for a fact what's actually happening? I bet a weakened magnetic field around the planet + huge increase in sunspots DOES heat up atmosphere
    1
  8. I know, I read the studies and I like to dig into the scientific stuff. We have ice core data for a few hundred thousand years, again: nothing compared to the actual lifespan on this planet.
    1
  9. Anyway, you should start a company, building something in alternative energy and put your money where your mouth is. Oh, wait, US gov't did that, put tax money into 'alternative energy' failed miserably time and again. As to hydro - where ever there is a way to suck out some power out of hydro, they have done it already. In any case this does nothing for all the energy needs, this does nothing for all of the oil usage - diesel, gas, even agricultural nitrates. You are a ignorant of scale.
    1
  10. You are such a dumb shit, not only are trees renewable material, but the stuff that they tout as 'renewable energy' consists of all sorts of plants - from hemp to soy to algae, whatever. You are an idiot, it's unbelievable.
    1
  11. Green energy is a pipe dream, a political BS term coined by socialists who are set on destroying property and individual rights. If they actually cared about CLEAN energy, they would be protesting every coal and hydro and diesel power plant out there and would be PROMOTING nuclear - which is the cleanest and the most able to run our economies form of energy we have so far. Oil, gas, nuclear, coal, diesel, hydro - those are real sources of energy. Everything else is puny scale, irrelevant.
    1
  12. Oh, god, I guess that's why they don't actually grow pine-trees on pine-tree farms in order to have a stock for the Xmas time. Oh, wait, they DO grow pine trees just in time for Xmas. Sure, trees take longer time than other plants, but whatever, it's within our lifetimes that we can see multiple generations of trees grown for this purpose, and saying that it's not renewable is really retarded, because we absolutely can renew this, just not extremely quickly. WHICH IS MY POINT - it's puny.
    1
  13. Burning wood is renewable, it's retarded NOT to understand that very simple concept (there is nothing simpler than that - trees grow, thus they are RENEWABLE material) Oil is considered not renewable because there is no huge number of plants and animals being turned into oil on daily basis and it takes millions of years for oil to be created from all the biological stuff Trees grow in years. We have perfectly renewable source of energy in them. Of-course burning them is not as clean as nuclear
    1
  14. In 2007, the world used the equivalent of 113,900 terawatts hours of fossil energy. Replacing those terawatts hours with non-fossil energy would be the equivalent of constructing an extra 6,020 nuclear plants across the globe, or 14 times the number of nuclear power plants in the world today. In renewable energy terms, it is 133 times the amount of solar, wind and geothermal energy currently in use on the planet. SCALE.
    1
  15. 200 years of record keeping out of 4.5 billion years of this planet's existence. Yeah.
    1
  16. I am not going to bother with THAT nonsense. 4.5 BILLION years. 200 years of that is 0.000004% 4 millionth of 1%. Yeah, that's how we do statistics now? Even 1,000,000 years out of 4.5 billion is 0.02% or 2 hundreds of 1%. Makes sense, why don't we approach ALL our science this way, I bet it will all get so much clearer.
    1
  17. I am 100% PRO nuclear, how do you read my comments and figure I am anti-nuclear power? 100% for it and I was born in Ukraine. Renewable energy is puny, it's a joke, it's not on the scale of what we use. Besides, renewable energy absolutely does NOT mean no CO2 for some reason. Didn't you know that burning wood is very much RENEWABLE? Did you KNOW that wood grows, it's literally trees, do you know that it renews? It's all energy of the Sun - this 'renewable' stuff. But it's puny.
    1
  18. Wow, you are pretty stupid, aren't you. Didn't you say: Millions and millions of workhours have been spent by others on this? So are you telling me it was done by 1 person? I can hire an army of people and spend any amount of time if the gov't is footing the bill and I'll make a killing taking a few percentage points on top, you ditz.
    1
  19. I can definitely spend millions and millions of work hours if gov't decided to pay me for it, I could spend billions and even trillions of work hours, as long as gov't was footing the bill. What's your point, dumb shit?
    1
  20. "could very well take care of our energy needs" - said somebody without any understanding of the scale. "Now they arent very efficient (yet) so not many people say it should be a prime source just to pad out oil." - said somebody who doesn't understand efficiency. "Firewood on the other hand would need HUGE tracts of land to keep up with daily demands." - said somebody who doesn't understand the point of puny amount of 'renewable' vs what's used.
    1
  21. Again: that's my point you are making for me. Trees are a RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE. But it's PUNY compared to our DEMAND for energy levels and thus it's not good, even though IT IS RENEWABLE, you .... expletive deleted. One of these days you'll understand, but I suppose today is not that day.
    1
  22. Ok, Doc, flying into thunderstorm to capture bolts of lightning. I read that book about 35 years ago first time. Do it. Invest.
    1
  23. So you don't want to spend YOUR money on projects that markets have no interest in and where technology is clearly inferior, but you are clearly welcoming government wasting other people's money that way. Hypocrisy is obvious, but it's not new.
    1
  24. oh, good, so now you are down to correlation between CO2 and whatever the temperature change they are observing currently. So nothing else is happening, currently, ha? Nothing at all is happening? No near reversal of the earth magnetic field (magnetic flip of the Earth), no study of the Zürich number, showing that the sunspots had been more frequent since the 1940s than in the previous 1150 years? Nothing is happening.
    1
  25. "Obviously induced by a man" - I like the use of the word 'obviously' from this guy.
    1
  26. CO2 tracked to its origins? You can track all of the CO2 to its origins? Hey, I am no expert on tracking single molecules to their origins, but is THAT your argument? CO2, by the way, is not the only 'green gas' out there, there are plenty of them, Methane is many times as 'green' of a gas as CO2. Sulfides and traces of radioactive stuff that comes out of coal burning power stations are also not healthy. So, when are you going to replace those with hundreds of new nuclear power plants?
    1