Sea level rise

@wildgrass said
Any comments related to the conversation we were having about energy efficiency? If conservatives were interested in improving energy efficiency through consumer choice, they should be massively expanding energy star, not defunding it.

It was defunded? I can't find anything to verify that claim?

@metal-brain said
It was defunded? I can't find anything to verify that claim?

I've posted several references. In this case it was defunded in several official budget proposals but eventually saved from defunding by other law makers. Try googling "energy star republican" or "energy star conservative".

From the guy who led a transition team after Obama left office: "Our view is that Energy Star is good insofar as it’s voluntary and not so good that taxpayer dollars are used to run it."

https://e360.yale.edu/features/killing-energy-star-a-popular-program-lands-on-the-trump-hit-list

@metal-brain said
For the last time...it is too expensive!

No, it clearly isn't;

https://www.agrisales-inc.com/philips-100-watt-heat-bulb
"Philips 100 Watt Heat Bulb...$6.25"

$6.25 is too expensive? That's not particularly expensive for a UK light bulb and that's actually cheaper than most other 100 Watt incandescent bulbs I have seen on sale in the UK. And I am sure I can find some even cheaper if I search for long enough. So why do so many people buy them if they are "too expensive"? You make no sense.

@humy said
No, it clearly isn't;

https://www.agrisales-inc.com/philips-100-watt-heat-bulb
"Philips 100 Watt Heat Bulb...$6.25"

$6.25 is too expensive? That's not particularly expensive for a UK light bulb and that's actually cheaper than most other 100 Watt incandescent bulbs I have seen on sale in the UK. And I am sure I can find some even cheaper if I search for long enough. So why do so many people buy them if they are "too expensive"? You make no sense.

Mine are $1.49 per bulb. You are lying.

Do you expect us to ignore the obvious because you are so narcissistic? You are making a fool of yourself.

@metal-brain said
Mine are $1.49 per bulb.

So what?

You are lying.

About what?

Here are some very cheap ones;
https://www.aliexpress.com/popular/far-infrared-lamp.html

Sublink;

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32826813511.html?spm=2114.search0302.3.136.411343bb5IpNdl&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_0,searchweb201603_0,ppcSwitch_0&algo_pvid=4528680e-5b72-4430-a149-7a994996944d&algo_expid=4528680e-5b72-4430-a149-7a994996944d-19
"...
Far Infrared Ceramic Emitter Heating Light Lamp ...
US $1.33 - 1.41 100W (+ various lower wattage options )
..."

Thus Mine (above) are $1.41 per bulb AT MOST.
That is CHEAPER than yours so HOW can they be "too expensive"?

P.S. I have links to EVEN CHEAPER ones but cannot show those links here because too long and despite me trying to edit them here about ten times, they keep being automatically shortened so that they then will not open from this post and so far I found no way around that.

@humy said
So what?

You are lying.

About what?

Here are some very cheap ones;
https://www.aliexpress.com/popular/far-infrared-lamp.html

Sublink;

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32826813511.html?spm=2114.search0302.3.136.411343bb5IpNdl&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_0,searchweb201603_0,ppcSwitch_0&algo_pvid=4528680e-5b72-4430-a149-7a994996944d&algo_expid=4 ...[text shortened]... ally shortened so that they then will not open from this post and so far I found no way around that.

Not including shipping. You have failed. You are a liar.

All the bulbs you have claimed are affordable are too expensive. You cannot fool us all by omitting shipping costs.

@metal-brain said
Not including shipping.

ARR, I honestly didn't spot that "shipping" bit! So you were correct about that. But, still that doesn't amount to much (actually, nothing if you live in China!) so, unless you are so poor you cannot afford to pay a lousy ~$3, this is STILL not "too expensive" for your fictitious 'chicks' where you live. You CAN pay ~$3, right?

Thus yet again I completely destroyed your argument for not banning those iridescent light bulbs NOT designed purely for heating.

@humy said
ARR, I honestly didn't spot that "shipping" bit! So you were correct about that. But, still that doesn't amount to much (actually, nothing if you live in China!) so, unless you are so poor you cannot afford to pay a lousy ~$3, this is STILL not "too expensive" for your fictitious 'chicks' where you live. You CAN pay ~$3, right?

Thus yet again I completely destroyed your argument for not banning those iridescent light bulbs NOT designed purely for heating.

You want me to pay over 100% more for a light bulb. FAIL!

Enough of the silly digressions. Sea level rise is not rising at an alarming rate.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492

There is no evidence man is the main cause of GW today.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

@metal-brain said
You want me to pay over 100% more for a light bulb.

If it means you, like most other people that use those iridescent light bulbs NOT designed purely for heating, stop using them purely for lighting rather than heating, then yes.
That way the ban will STOP people wasting energy that way.

Enough of the silly digressions. Sea level rise is not rising at an alarming rate.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492

There is no evidence man is the main cause of GW today.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

@metal-brain said


There is no evidence man is the main cause of GW today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

"...The table below (derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models) shows changes in radiative forcing between 1979 and 2016.[19] The table includes the contribution to radiative forcing from carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O); chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 12 and 11; and fifteen other minor, long-lived, halogenated gases.
...
(large data table shown here)
...
The table shows that CO2 dominates the total forcing, with methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) becoming relatively smaller contributors to the total forcing over time.[19] The five major greenhouse gases account for about 96% of the direct radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gas increases since 1750.
...
Most of this increase is related to CO2. For 2013, the AGGI was 1.34 (representing an increase in total direct radiative forcing of 34% since 1990). The increase in CO2 forcing alone since 1990 was about 46%.
..."

Completely conclusive to anyone using more than one brain cell or any normal person not with crazed delusions and not particularly lacking in intellect.





Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise; Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica; Nature volume 517, pages 481–484(2015)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
"...twentieth-century global mean sea-level (GMSL) ...
...
and find a rate of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 of 1.2 ± 0.2 millimetres per year
...
...indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010,
..."

So this data indicates that there is an apparently general trend of a recent increase rate of sea level rise.

@humy said
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

"...The table below (derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models) shows changes in radiative forcing between 1979 and 2016.[19] The table includes the contribution to radiative forcing from carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O); chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 12 and 11; and fifteen other minor, long-lived, ...[text shortened]... ata indicates that there is an apparently general trend of a recent increase rate of sea level rise.

Wikipedia is not proof of anything to anyone using more than one brain cell or any normal person not with crazed delusions and not particularly lacking in intellect.

If an ape could operate a computer and type he could rewrite the theory of evolution on wikipedia. I should create a wikipedia page called "humy ignorance" to prove you are stupid.

There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. That is nothing more than an educated guess.

@metal-brain said
Wikipedia is not proof of anything to anyone using more than one brain cell or any normal person not with crazed delusions and not particularly lacking in intellect.

Wikipedia pages are written and edited by many experts including many scientists.
If there were things said in them that were obvious lies to scientists then at least some of those same scientists would have edited out those lies from the Wikipedia pages a long time ago.
The data and known scientific facts I have shown you on those Wikipedia pages that prove you wrong are not lies and anyone would have to have either crazed delusions and/or be lacking in intellect to think otherwise.

Are you implying some part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing is a lie? If so, specify exactly which part...

@humy said
Wikipedia pages are written and edited by many experts including many scientists.
If there were things said in them that were obvious lies to scientists then at least some of those same scientists would have edited out those lies from the Wikipedia pages a long time ago.
The data and known scientific facts I have shown you on those Wikipedia pages that prove you wrong are not ...[text shortened]... f the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing is a lie? If so, specify exactly which part...

Then why is the Artificial Phobos hypothesis still on Fred Singer's wikipedia page? I proved that false over a year ago because you alarmist wackos insisted it was true because you were so zealous to discredit him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Is it because you keep putting it up after someone else takes it down?

There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. That is nothing more than an educated guess.