The theory of 'Man Made Climate Change' caused by CO2 is a MYTH, since CO2 is so *horrible* at being a greenhouse gas. GH gasses are supposed to stop black body radiation from leaving the planet+atmosphere at night (which is how the planet cools), thereby keeping the earth warmer. But CO2 only affects a TINY fraction of the IR energy. MOST of that energy is kept on the planet by WATER ("the other greenhouse gas"). Additionally CO2 is at equilibrium between rain, plants, and the temperature of large bodies of water. Hockey stick graphs that have tracked CO2 since 1958 and TRIED to claim the CO2 is causing the warming NOT ONLY fail to take into consideration that warmer water (from temp cycles and active volcanoes) RELEASES CO2, but MOST of the numbers since 1958 were apparently tracked at MAUNA LOA, an ACTIVE VOLCANO in Hawaii (and YES, volcanoes gas TREMENDOUS amounts of CO2, even from soil [for miles around them], with MOST of the world's carbon existing in the MANTLE, where LAVA comes from).

Still, energy/cost efficient air conditioning IS a good idea. If I owned the place I live in, I'd try to set up smart fans and dampers in the attic, trap heat when cold, ventilate when hot, use prevailing wind with rooftop spinners, things like that. I mean we ALL want to save MONEY, right? So WHY CAN'T "THEY" JUST SAY "LESS EXPENSIVE" INSTEAD???

If the science is too difficult for you, maybe just don't go announcing it to everyone. You're embarrassing yourself and honestly it's making a bunch of us feel a bit awkward just being in the same community. There's nothing wrong with being a simpleton, but announcing it to the world by yelling in all caps about things that are evidently far beyond your grasp is right at the top of the cringe scale.

In fairness, you may still be getting paid to post stuff like this- it's possible that you're evil rather than stupid - but I don't know if there's the ROI on it even for BP or Exxon to justify maintaining that astroturf by this point. These claims are almost as fossilised as the fuels they are selling us to help extinguish our grandchildren.

eh, I do my posting for free. It's a public service!!! [gotta get the word out]

By the way - the science of CO2 should be obvious to someone who took college chemistry. Or high school chemistry. Just study what an equilbrium reaction is. if you have EVER done a phosphate titration, you'll understand this, too. If you have NOT done anything like that, well, that explains a lot...

I made this graphic I have been posting a lot online, explaining in detail what I mentioned in my original post in this thread. It has charts and explains things more. You would have no trouble finding it if you are interested. It has science in it. Have fun refuting it. ( You can see it in #ClimateChangeHoax )

Some of us have done more than high school chemistry and understand why your purported science isn't.

CO2 as a greenhouse gas is a theory that fits the facts quite well. Whether it's the only one, or if the causes are not all man made is beside the point if we can see that higher water temperatures correlate increasingly well with extreme weather events.

Whether it's as part of an attempt to reverse the increase of atmsopheric CO2, or simply to reduce our dependency on energy sources we don't control, I don't see what's wrong with trying to reduce our energy use and switching to renewables.

The "hockey stick graph" is universal at all CO2 monitoring stations all over the world.

Thinking you are the first to think of a possible problem with data collection in a field you have no expertise in is the definition of hubris. To then fail to consider that there's a reason the Mauna Loa is fit for purpose and use your ignorance to invalidate (in your mind) and entire planet's data collection is psychotic, not just scientifically illiterate.

It's a complete myth - hoax even - that volcanoes emit huge quantities of CO2 and that they have any significant part to play in climate change.

The fact that this is easily researched and the quantities of CO2 emitted in an eruption easily established just shows what a complete load of cobblers you are talking - to the extent that any sane person has to question absolutely anything else you have to say on the subject. An eruption of a volcano adds a tiny fraction of 1% of human's CO2 output to the total.

Seriously, go and do a little research and then come back and quote your sources to justify your claim. Or maybe even question why you are such a diehard climate denier clinging to such provably false facts.

The more appliances such as these aircons, electric cars, domestic heat pumps etc can adapt to consume 'cheap' electricity, the smoother the consumption curve will be, until you will basically have a flat demand, and no 'cheap rate' electricity - at least not in the sense we now know it where night-time electricity is cheaper because of reduced demand. Instead what will probably happen is that the cost of electricity will depend almost totally on available supply rather than demand. This in turn means that when intermittent sources (wind / solar) are plentiful, prices will be low, which in a subsidy-less world would mean that wind/solar become less economically feasible to operate.

That in turn means that pricing will be being updated 'on the fly' (and appliances will be following suit). With mass adoption, that could lead to situations where the 'clever' appliances are all dumbly switching on at the same time as electricity gets cheap, electricity demand spikes as do prices, and said dumb smart appliances switch off again. Rinse and repeat. Only half joking there... there needs to be a bit more additional smarts into these 'smart' appliances. To our advantage, it will be decades before these appliances become commonplace enough to trigger grid problems.

And the great long-term benefit (assuming no stupid smart behaviour as above) is the smoothing of demand, which would reduce stress on the grid infrastructure.

Yes - the higher cost of electricity is usually due to varying demand.

Nuclear power has to maintain relatively constant power levels due to the physics.

Steam plants burning fossil fuels can more readily adjust to demand, but it is more economical to run them at relatively high power levels all of the time, and it takes quite a bit of time to shut them down and start them back up again.

Gas turbine and Diesel "peaker" plants are designed to quickly handle varying demand but since they only run some of the time (and often at lower efficiency, as I understand) the electricity they produce is MORE EXPENSIVE.

And when the wind does not blow, or there is overcast (or night), "green" power isn't going to help much.

The only practical thing left for varying demand is hydro-electric, and there are only so many dams.

So CONSTANT DEMAND (especially using offpeak power) IS a great idea, if you can offset usage from peak times that way. In my case the utility is charging differently for different time slots, so I run dishwashers and laundry and (sometimes) A/C during off-peak whenever I can. Not always possible, but I try. It saves money. If this were AUTOMATIC somehow, it would save money and ALSO even out demand somewhat.

Makes total sense.

Apart from Hydro, maybe we could harness some other type of potential energy?

I was thinking, 7 billion humans times the weight of their middle finger, hovering 2 inches above the shift key???

Anyhow, joking aside, the storage of this renewable stuff to smooth out the peaks is an issue.

Or else - only use it when you have it? So - no smelting or factories running except when the sun is shining or wind blowing? Maybe good old market pricing of electricity will sort that one out though.

Lastly, with this salty idea for air conditioning - what happens if it turns out cool the next day? Your investment in electricity is wasted. And - why do we need anything better than freezing and melting water? it seems like an invention for invention's sake.

Bill Gates and air CON sounds like a plan to deprive people of air... After all Bill Gates supports depopulation.

Is there anything wrong with lowering the population through passive means? For example, lowering birth rates. It's probably the surest way to fight global warming.

It's called Eugenics and certain Austrian painter has been thinking of that a lot too...

Eugenics was based on pseudoscience pushed by the American medical community:

[1]Trickle Down Episode 1: Bad Seed (Part 1) In the early 20th century a psychologist named Henry Herbert Goddard aimed to prove that “feeblemindedness” was a hereditary trait.

[1] https://m.soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/unlocked-trickle-down-episode-1-bad-seed-part-1