- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,592
- Reaction score
- 28,962
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yes, if it were all CO2 then the Antarctic would have seen similar warming, and it has not!
Ugh!
If only the scientists who specialize in this area and have devoted their careers to it knew as much as you do!
Only a psychopath would try to gaslight a trained scientist into believing that a scientifically-understood phenomenon is only in their heads and somehow a result of a mere psychological problem.
It's laughable that you also try to compare consensus level findings with religion just because scientists who have read the evidence call you out on your repeated non-sense.
With you, the dogma is never ending. That's why you have to continue creating strawmen and mischaracterizations. That's all pundits really have in their ideological repertoire because the people doing the real work think you're wacko.
Maybe if you want to really get epistemological, you should take this discussion to the philosophy section, rather than pretend it has any relevance whatsoever to climate science.
Still no contributions to the discussion, I see!
It seems that you are the one imagining a conversation.You mean the imaginary conversation where you’ve proved all the published scientists are wrong?
Still no contributions to the discussion, I see!
It shows his capacity level of understanding the sciences in my view.
Heat pumps do need supplemental heat in the winter, how much depends on where you live. In AZ where winters are mild, they work fine with little or no assist.. In areas where winters are COLD, forget the standard heat pump. However, if the soil in your area is moist, you can use an earth coupled heat pump. Where the soil is dry, heat transfer is minimal. Your heat SINK, or source, will be tubing buried deep (8 ft or so and long enough to do the job) that you run water through to extract heat from the moist soil. Or, a well if you don't have enough acreage to put in enough tubing. The "outside" unit will be a water tank with heat exchanger, and can be installed in your basement if you have one, and will not have a noisy outside fan. Air is no longer your heat sink.I don't buy that argument. Heat is heat, and the costs are involved in how much heat is being exchanged.
I don't buy that argument. Heat is heat, and the costs are involved in how much heat is being exchanged.
Once the outside temperature drops into the low 20's then (air source) heat pumps require supplemental (back-up) heat. Most heat pumps are equipped with electric resistance "back-up" heating elements (glorified toasters) which are quite expensive to run.
Well... Mine works just fine for years now, even into the 20's the few times we see it. Are you up with the latest tech?
Yes, your article shows the BTU capacity is reduced. They don't stop working. Now an old one I had would stop working, but modern ones fair quite well.Probably not since I live in a short and mild winter climate.
https://www.nordicghp.com/2015/12/air-source-heats-pump-cold-climates/
Yes, your article shows the BTU capacity is reduced. They don't stop working. Now an old one I had would stop working, but modern ones fair quite well.
OK, I should have stated that better. Most of the year, where I live, the unit will serve as an air conditioner to cool the building and for a few weeks it will be used to help heat the building. The BTU rating of a unit (thus affecting its cost and power consumption) required to adequately cool the building may not be sufficient to heat the building without a back-up heating source during very cold weather.
True. You simply don't plan for average weather, unless you prefer to do that.
Yes, your article shows the BTU capacity is reduced. They don't stop working. Now an old one I had would stop working, but modern ones fair quite well.
Please note the thread title and OP.
You're not really responding to anything I'm saying though, except to make sociopathic analyses of my character, as though I have a mental health problem that prevents me from interpreting science properly. The thread premise of eschatology is kind of laughable in the first place, but you're not even on topic anymore.
You're crazy. :shrug: Glad I took the time to participate in this thread, I'll know to avoid your threads in the future since you exhibit sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. Trying to disguise gaslighting as science is a big red flag. Thank goodness the science world doesn't kowtow to people such as yourself.
When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science. Post #1 repeated for your convenience.
I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.
One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.
Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.
. . . Like I said, you've burned your bridges. You attacked my character with sociopathic intrigues, which makes me question if you're a scientist at all. Have a nice day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?