Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "CNBC"
channel.
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@Beyonder8335 "I farm myself, CO2 levels are not giving you record yields lmao. Yields overall trend up because we just get better at farming over time."
This is ALSO true. but clearly you are not a scientist, and don't know plant biology. CO2 makes plants grow bigger, faster, and are more water efficient and drought resistant. This is known and proven science, and has been for decades.
" 2023 was a fairly severe drought year, worst since 2012. "
nice cherry pick. and the guy was claiming we had a drought THIS year, in 2024. You proved me right. But, since you're only considering recent years, from 2012 to 2023, yes, a 2023 drought would seem horrible to you. News Flash, history began prior to 2012,a nd we've had FAR worse droughts in the past than ANYTHING we've seen since 2012.
And where we farm, we didn't lose crop yields in 2023. Why? Because we did things right, at the right times. We planted at the right time, to let the plants grow past their critical period before the minor drought set in, and they helped shade the soil. and so the plants survived teh drought better. Anyone could have and should have done the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Beyonder8335 I appreciate that you seem like a person interested in genuine discussion. not common anymore online.
"That said if we’re talking 2023 you clearly just didn’t have it that bad there."
no, we had a drought for sure, killed lawns, crops, etc. But only those who were negligent lost crops. Most people have irrigation, others planted early enough, etc. And the drought was minor compared to droughts of the past. People have short memories.
CO2 absolutely plays a part though. Go research greenhouse farming. They did actual studies on plant growth and found plants liked 800-1200ppm, and so that is a common range greenhouses keep their CO2 levels at. we went from 200ppm to 400ppm in about 150yrs, and plants you farm die at CO2 levels of around 150-180ppm. We were on the verge of the mass extinction of most life on earth, including most human life, if the CO2 levels had continued to decline. The greatest explosion in plant and animal diversity in history on earth occurred when CO2 levels were around 4000ppm. Also, research "Stomata" in plants. As CO2 levels rise, the stomata levels in plants change, making them need less water, making them more water efficient and drought resistant. And this is helping to regreen the Sahara, as well as other water retention methods (which have also been demonstrated all over the US by permaculture farmers, including in deserts).
"I don’t know why you’re trying to spin this into me only acknowledging 2012 through present, I just used it as an example because it was the most recent drought of similar severity. Never once said there hadn’t been worse droughts before."
I do this because usually in debates online with uninformed people (which I will not group you into that category), such as many in this comment thread, they ignore historical data. The Climate Change politicians and activists have brainwashed the masses into thinking there is no climate data prior to the 1970s. when in reality there is tons going back a long time, it just disproves their narrative to talk about anything prior to the 1970s. And anytime they claim we're seeing a "record" temp or something like that, it's almost always false, and the real record was set some time between 1850 and 1970. So when people limit the dates of comparison, I automatically assume that is what they are doing, as it's the case 99.9% of the time I get into debates with people online. Those people literally ARE cherry picking the data to suit their narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GreatLakesGirl311 It was many degrees warmer, globally, in the 1930s and 1940s, than it is today.
Your orchards didn't die off back then, and they wont die off now. they produced crops then, and they will now. They need CO2 to grow and produce crops.
At 150-180ppm CO2 all plant life on earth dies, except grasses. we were down to 200ppm at teh start of the industrial revolution. On teh verge of mass extinction!
We are at ~400ppm today, and at most we've seen 0.7C global average temp rise. Most people can't even tell the difference.
Arctic ice extent keeps reaching or exceeding it's 30yr average nearly every year.
Sea Levels are not rising any faster than they ever have. Globally, sea levels aren't rising at all. Some places are rising, some decreasing. This is mostly due to tectonic plate movements. and when you average ALL sea level changes everywhere on earth at the same time, it averages to zero net sea level rise globally. and all the WEF climate tyrants own coastal properties and mansion son the coasts. Insurance companies are not raising rates for coastal properties due to risk of sea level rise either. Banks are still heavily investing in coastal developments and properties. L
Literally every single climate doom prediction in the past 150yrs has failed to come true.
"A 5th grade science class would easily understand all the information I have shared here."
no, they wouldn't. you've stated nothing factually true. nothing substantiated by scientific fact. They need to know a bunch of physics, math, thermodynamics, and chemistry principles to have the full picture. and by teh time I get around to explaining it all to them in a way they'd understand (and I can), they'll be in 6th grade at least.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature, that is a law of physics and chemistry. you cannot just wish it away and deny it. it remains true. you can literally do a science experiment at home to prove it, and people have done it hundreds of times since the 1950s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tjs200 it's not about knowing how much grid energy there will be, it's about knowing how much grid energy there NEEDS to be.
It's simple. calculate how many vehicles are driving on teh roads and how much they drive on average. teh gov has the data via vehicle registration and fuel taxes (how many gallons are purchased) and the gov tracks how much fuel is produced and imported/exported so they know total consumption.
From all that data we can convert fuel energy to equivalent electrical energy needed to convert all that transportation over to Electric, and we get a total power consumption needed per year, that is currently not being drawn from teh grid today. the electrical grid only has enough production to support a certain nominal continuous load each day, with limited excess ramp up capacity. When you add the needed electrical energy to the grid fro all those vehicles, you see the problem.
We also know how much electricity a single coal, oil, or nuclear power plant can generate.
To add that much nominal electric capacity to the grid we divide the electricity total needed to power all those EVs by the capacity of one of those power plant options (lets use nuclear, the safest and cleanest energy source in history). This tells you how many power plants you need to construct. that number comes out to be ~1,500 new power plants. Thus, if you built one new power plant every week, for 30yrs, you'd eventually have the needed 1500 new power plants.
If you build them slower, it will take longer, which is what is happening as we speak. thus, a full transition to 100% EVs will not happen in less than 30yrs, assuming we set to work tomorrow at an industrial pace far faster than we're capable of today. so it will likely take more like 50+yrs to make the transition at best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1