swansont

Why not? If someone says something blatantly untrue, isn't it intellectually dishonest not to consider all the possibilities? There's lying and ignorance. What other possibility is there for blatant untruths? I know that in certain conversations, pointing out someone's error is considered rude. But that's not the paradigm under which science discussion operates. As have I. And just scientists — no need to disparage them by calling them nerds. Which, given your position here, I'm sure you'll you'll agree.

Instantly switching to EVs is not a workable scenario for the near future. We don't have the manufacturing capacity to come anywhere close to doing that, even in the next several years.

Your thread is also about the future, so the point about local generation is part of the discussion. Instantly switching to EVs is a valid premise but switching to rooftop solar is not?

In a discussion about new sources of energy, surely pointing out that pumped storage does not represent a new source can be stipulated to without any other entanglements?

Yes, but that's completely beside the point I was discussing in that particular post.

Did I say your argument is wrong? Did I not, in fact, say that your qualitative argument is correct?

So it's impossible for a disagreement to be based on one person lying? That's what you're implying here. If that's how they want to run things, I am not going to say they are wrong. Sometimes that's all you have when a person shows up and isn't arguing in good faith.

So length and time are physical entities? Do you have evidence for this?

Objections raised here notwithstanding...

And that's an issue...for you. It does not make that statement true for other people. That's incomplete, or wrong. If I want to go somewhere, detouring near a massive object will not, in general, shorten my path.

But at the end of it all, you have more energy available to you. Solar is a source. If all you do is pump water up and then let it fall through a turbine, you have an energy deficit. In the eia energy budget, it's a negative value. Hydrogen would be that way, too. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Because of biology, or because of cultural norms and constraints? Here are six current ones. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/ More, if you go into the history books

I think it's the opposite. Consumers don't choose how an electrical provider makes electricity, the utility does. You can't tell the difference between a kWh of electricity that comes from a coal plant vs one that comes from wind, solar or hydro. Is it added cost? $0.69 in 1970 translates to $4.55 today Passenger cars in 1970 average 14 mpg. In 2005, it was 22 mpg http://www.alabamawise.org/whats-your-home-mpg-rating/ if you're driving an SUV that gets 14 mpg, gas costs about the same in terms of purchasing power and driving range. Multiple places do this. It actually increases the energy demand, because it takes more energy to pump the water up than you get back. But it's cost-effective and helps solve the issue of meeting peak demand

Efficiency may not be your point, but the numbers you use are wrong if you don't take it into account. If you cut a certain amount of fossil fuel delivery, it doesn't have to be replaced with the same amount of electrical capacity if the electrical system is more efficient. If you are going to quantify it, you need to use the right quantities. Your qualitative argument is correct. The argument you are making points to the problem of having largely ignored AGW for so long, because replacing and expanding power generation infrastructure takes time. The longer we delay, the more of a crisis it becomes.

I couldn't find it in the record. I thought that all reactions were recorded. If not, that's my mistake.

For the US, correct? Distributed generation mitigates this to some extent. You don't need to transmit rooftop PV, for example. Also, electrical is more efficient for cars than fossil fuels (and to a lesser extent, for heating). Eliminating fossil fuels is not a 1:1 trade if replaced by electrical - you're replacing a ~20% efficient engine with a motor that's more like 80% efficient.

If you mean your reputation, no, you aren't. As I write this, you have gotten exactly one reaction, in your first post of this thread, and it was an upvote. It's not even a matter of canceling a downvote — your posts have received exactly one reaction. It was green Context matters, and you have provided none. In the thread in question, nobody has been called a liar, nor a troll (searching on those specific terms). I have already addressed the other two terms, but that doesn't seem to have impacted your position.

It did not address the OP, so no, it's not. It doesn't address the discussion in the article, nor any effects of AGW. This is why I split this into a new thread for discussion. (original thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120579-climate-science-was-wrong/) I agree with iNow - without examples, it's hard to take such complaints seriously. (The proper procedure is to use the report post function, which identifies the post to the staff) We've run across a fairly significant population who don't actually know what an ad hominem is, and there are also others who can't distinguish between being personally attacked and having their argument attacked. These groups overlap to some degree. For example, using a description of "ignorant" (your example) is not inherently an insult. Ignorance means not knowing something, and everyone is ignorant on a great many topics. It can be used as an insult, as can other words, and it could be applied to a person or an argument, but without context there's just no way to tell. (I find two uses in that thread. One applied to a person, with regard to their article, the other to an argument. Neither was used as an insult) The one time in that thread that someone said STFU it was about someone bringing up an irrelevant article in TIME, which has nothing to do with the topic. It's like telling someone to stop interrupting you while you have a conversation. You might consider that to be an affront, but it's in response to rude behavior and not uncalled for (especially if lesser efforts have failed) Again, we prefer it if staff were notified and so we can take care of it, but to a certain extent, community peer pressure is a viable tool to keep discussion on target. Such as asking of you have anything relevant to say on the topic.

Companies will usually opt for the cheaper alternative, since it means making more money. Green (solar/wind) is now cheaper in many areas, and imposing a cost on GHG emissions tips the balance even more. Part of the reason the US has seen a boom in solar these past few years is because of government programs that were implemented as part of the stimulus a decade ago.

Yes. If your issue with the paradox is that relativity doesn't explain it, you need the experiment to eliminate the possibility that the clocks are simply running at different inherent rates. Experiments need to be able to confirm what you're looking for while also eliminating alternate explanations.

Sure. It’s straightforward. You make a clock with a different frequency. As Mordred said, it’s experimental validation.

! Moderator Note Moved to the lounge, as there is no physics discussion being offered.

My point is if you never compare the clocks in a single frame, you can't show that the different clock rates are due to relativity.

(emphasis added) There are a number of claims here that you have not shown are true, and basing a discussion on false premises leads to a flawed conclusion.

Another thing the OP's scenario lacks (as suggested by between3and26characterslon) is that there is no situation where all of the clocks can be compared side-by-side to confirm that they run at the same rate. You haven't actually demonstrated that it's relativity that is causing the different rate, as opposed to a clock that just runs slower.