# Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion



## qubit (Feb 9, 2015)

That's the newspaper headline, anyway. (See the latest update below for the proper context of this sentence)

So, could the "global warming" crisis just be one big scandal?

From what I've read, the earth is actually due an ice age anytime now, which would kinda put a spanner in the works of the global warming advocates. Oh dear.

I'm not completely sure, but I'm leaning towards scandal. There's just too much power, politics and money corrupting the science with something like this. Looks like all those who suspected that the "global warming" crisis of the last 20+ years was just a scam to foist higher taxes and "green" policies aka austerity on everyone, may just be right.

Have a read and let us know what you think.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html


*UPDATE 18SEP17*

I'm no longer leaning towards scam given the evidence all around me. See my full explanation here.


*UPDATE 31JAN21*

The thread title has since been changed by a mod, so my first sentence now doesn't make sense. To understand it, the thread title was initially the same as the article that I linked to: "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever". In other words, it's the newspaper saying this, not me. Alas, that story is now behind a paywall, too.

Nowadays, I'm fully in the camp that global warming, is man made, as the evidence is overwhelming. Going by geological records, we're actually due another little ice age, yet the climate is doing the exact opposite.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 9, 2015)

I have pretty much no doubt that dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as we have been doing forces an acceleration to the next ice age.  It accelerates warming which will eventually lead to massive arctic ice sheet melting that will screw up the global sea currents that prevent another ice age.  That's pretty much the whole concept of "global warming" (more acurately described as "climate change") in a nutshell, and it's pretty well founded in base concept, temperature fiddling or not.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 9, 2015)

I have doubted the man made global warming theory for years.

We are mere inconsiderate specks, the sun spits its fun at us daily and has a much greater influence on our weather.

I think we are naiive in thinking that  a global instant ban on fossil fuels would change anything, whether in the short or long term.
Its all bollocks dreamt up by the Greens to lever a bit of political influence and tv time.

The damage, if there is any, has been done.


----------



## qubit (Feb 9, 2015)

Caps, you're agreeing with me. I find this unacceptable.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 9, 2015)

Me too, we will have to agree to agree this time .....  grrrrrrr.........


----------



## erocker (Feb 9, 2015)

It doesn't matter. Seriously, people can whine and moan about it one way or the other and it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Anything done by political leaders on the subject tends to be financial or political in nature. Again, nothing accomplished. Until we're either all burning to a crisp or freezing our butts off, nothing substancial will be done about it.

I'll just sit over here and wait for nature to rain down the apocalypse.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 9, 2015)

ah thats better......just chucked a few big lumps of coal on the fire.  I would burn wood but my ancestors burned it all about 400 years ago.

Nice and toasty now. 

The rise in sea levels is a worry for low lying areas though especially those that are centres of wealth..i mean population.  I live on a hill about 50 metres above a tidal estuary so rising sea levels dont bother me.

They can beat their chests all they like but have you seen the shit going on in China and India with regards air pollution?

Theres some good stuff on youtube about the Dutch  efforts to keep back the tides.

Whatever the truth or the longterm reality or consequences, man will adapt. 
One decent sized Coronal Mass Ejection in our direction will screw us beyond comprehension anyway.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 9, 2015)

Man will adapt, and so will life in general for that matter.  Just won't be what we're familiar with today by any means.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 9, 2015)

I think that the Earth is warming thanks to us humans but not by nearly the amount some scientists state. The best we can probably do is recycle, make sure we aren't dumping tons of crap into our atmosphere and keep the water supply clean. Anything else is just political mumbo jumbo.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 10, 2015)

I think it's irrelevant.  We could/should do a lot better about how we produce energy and we should take the highroad regardless of what impact, if any, there is on the planet.  For example, we should be shutting down all of the coal power plants and replacing them with nuclear.  Also, build more mass transit in cities like LA and get serious about finding a solution to long distance travel without burning thousands of gallons of fuel.


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 10, 2015)

Definitely a... well, not a scandal, more like a conspiracy to defraud us of our money and freedom.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 10, 2015)

Since we started farming we have sculpted the earth to suit us and we don't suit ice ages so I say calm down but Still do all we can cos runaway warming would be no better than a ice age. Obv


----------



## twilyth (Feb 11, 2015)

I don't really see how creating a myth of human created climate change benefits anyone.  I think carbon exchanges are a scam that only benefits big institutional investors like Goldman Sachs, but they have many other ways of raping and pillaging that they don't need to go that particular route.  Pretty much the same thing goes for any other conspiracy angle you can think of.

There does seem to be a correlation between atmospheric gases like CO2 and methane and global climate.  However the models used to predict the effect of these gases seem to be woefully imprecise.  In particular, they seem to be able yet to take into account things like the biological response of plants to changes in the mix of gases, increase in cloud cover, changes in ocean currents, etc.

And because weather is such a chaotic system, even small imperfections in modeling might have huge impacts in terms of predictions being inaccurate.

That said, we seem to have been in a warming cycle for at least a few decades now so I think we at least have to be open to the possibility that continuing to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere could have some undesirable effect.


----------



## LightningJR (Feb 11, 2015)

95%+ of scientists agree global warming is accelerated greatly by humans. I tend to trust scientists over most since they peer review their research and they usually do their work out of raw curiosity.. I mean without scientists where would the world be? Every advancement is because of them, we couldn't even have this conversation without them. If one thinks about this objectively it is quite clear.

"defraud us of our money and freedom" is probably the most hilarious thing I have read in a while. When people live in such a small bubble and think of only themselves this is how they feel.


I am saddened that we may not be able to change the future much though.


----------



## THE_EGG (Feb 11, 2015)

I've always thought that 'global warming' is real just not as bad as most people make it out to be. I remember seeing on TV a documentary about ice ages and so on and that because the Earth - although appears to have a circular orbit around the Sun - slowly gains speed over many years and is slingshotted away slowly from the Sun as it overcomes a fraction of a the Suns gravity year by year only to come back closer to the Sun once it loses speed, again year by year. This happens over a VERY long time and apparently coincides with the ice ages. The documentary also claimed that we were exiting the closest orbit phase atm and are heading back further away meaning an ice age should be coming in the very distant future.

Do I think emissions caused by human activity contribute to 'global warming'? Yes BUT a lot less than what most people would think. I think the pollution is more of an issue to our health (e.g. see Beijing, Shanghai or Los Angeles) rather than the Earth's health. I know there was a conspiracy theory that this whole 'Global Warming' thing became really big over the past 20 years because there hasn't been any large scale wars or political issues to accelerate technology (e.g. space race between USA and USSR, Cold War, Vietnam War etc). The 'global warming' theory was claimed to be exploited to accelerate technology as it put fear into the general public just as a war would. This meant we would continue advancing as a society without the need for wars.


----------



## a111087 (Feb 11, 2015)

christopher booker is a proponent of "intelligent design".... might as well print that article and wipe your ass with it


----------



## silkstone (Feb 11, 2015)

I'll just leave this here: http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/temperature-data-is-not-the-biggest-scientific-scandal-ever/


----------



## RCoon (Feb 11, 2015)

While I categorically disagree with that article (it's written by Chris Booker for Christ's sake!), the government has nothing to gain from a scandal like that. The damage is done, and the population of the earth will continue to burn fossil fuels until the earth is asunder. It is not a scandal, granted the data is probably woefully inaccurate, but the correlations exist regardless. No matter how accurate the data is, if we told countries to shut down the oil fields or the earth will burn alive tomorrow, they'd ramp up production to make as much money as possible beforehand so they could spend it.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 11, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> 95%+ of scientists agree global warming is accelerated greatly by humans.


It actually is 99.5% (year 2008 data, probably higher now). Only good post in this thread though

In case anyone cares about science:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/sbsta40/SB40_research_dialogue_hezel_wgI.pdf

"NVIDIA lied about GTX 970, the silicon and microchip industry profits do not exist, you have been mislead. It's a doomed industry, just made up to benefit bankers and investors."


----------



## Frick (Feb 11, 2015)

I honestly don't see the problems people are having with green tech, or that what we do have consequences. Stand behind an old diesel Peugout a few minutes and then make up your mind if it's bad for you and nature or not. Or go to Shanghai during exhaust peak and acknowledge that it'll go on. If mankind dissapeared tomorrow the globe would heal quickly, but we won't so it won't. There's a new AMD GPU on the horizon, we need those rare earth metals damnit, damn the consequences!



W1zzard said:


> It actually is 99.5% (year 2008 data, probably higher now). Only good post in this thread though
> 
> In case anyone cares about science:
> https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/sbsta40/SB40_research_dialogue_hezel_wgI.pdf



They've all been bought by hookers and meth.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 11, 2015)

Frick said:


> There's a new AMD GPU on the horizon, we need those rare earth metals damnit, damn the consequences!









This is what Newscientist wrote about a year ago about the Sun, Man and global warming.

i dont think they are politicised. I think its a well respected publication though,  its worth a 90 sec read.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...owest-low-in-four-centuries.html#.VNsm9fmsWSo

And one it links too about what can be done.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261-world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html


----------



## bnjohanson (Feb 11, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I have pretty much no doubt that dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as we have been doing forces an acceleration to the next ice age.  It accelerates warming which will eventually lead to massive arctic ice sheet melting that will screw up the global sea currents that prevent another ice age.  That's pretty much the whole concept of "global warming" (more acurately described as "climate change") in a nutshell, and it's pretty well founded in base concept, temperature fiddling or not.




As has been the case many thousands of times before in this planet's history and prior to man, the industrial revolution, and cow farts ever existed...


----------



## metalslaw (Feb 11, 2015)

I think we will see some climate change over the next 100 years. In terms of it being catastrophic, we don't really know.

The facts are that we are pumping the air full of co2 while deforesting the world. And that won't really stop until we start running out of non-renewable resources. When that happens, most of the problem ceases to exist.

In terms of the earth's health. It will recover regardless (over time). For us humans though, I think we will suffer more at the point when we run out of fossil fuels, then by how the climate changes over the next 20 or so years.


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 11, 2015)

"The arrogance of mankind is thinking nature is under our control.."


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 11, 2015)

Tge one crucial fact all the 50% of scientists (it's not 95%) who think climate change is manmade is that the Earth constantly has warmed up and cooled down and we are in one of those warming trends, that had humans been really technically savvy 200 years ago would have been predicted.

How much hubris do we need to have to think the world revolves around us? The sun, Earth's tilt, volcanoes, and slightly varying distances from the sun are what affect our climate more than anything else.


----------



## bnjohanson (Feb 11, 2015)

metalslaw said:


> I think we will see some climate change over the next 100 years. In terms of it being catastrophic, we don't really know.
> 
> The facts are that we are pumping the air full of co2 while deforesting the world. And that won't really stop until we start running out of non-renewable resources. When that happens, most of the problem ceases to exist.
> 
> In terms of the earth's health. It will recover regardless (over time). For us humans though, I think we will suffer more at the point when we run out of fossil fuels, then by how the climate changes over the next 20 or so years.




"we" ??? Let's not conveniently gloss-over the FACT that a volcanic eruption just the size of St/ Helens in 1981 belched more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind has since The Industrial Revolution of the early/mid 1800's up to that point in the early 1980's....

...this persistent assumption and delusion of grandeur applied to man as whole by many humans is a serious flaw, of many of course, in the human condition and will unfortunately continue unabated to create motivations by man to engage not only into some unbelievably stupid acts, but the myriad of unintended consequence that we have been guilty of since our inception. THAT is the real danger of mankind....


----------



## metalslaw (Feb 11, 2015)

Source?

Because from what i've read just now, it's the complete opposite.

(But, i'm always open minded. Find me a source to change my thoughts on this.)


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 11, 2015)

metalslaw said:


> Source?


Not sure what info specifically you are requesting, but if you are looking for an intro to the science, try:








no flashy animations like in popular tv shows, but no bs inflated for drama either, touches the majority of climate related subjects, no math required.

If you want to have a really deep understanding of all the issues involved:
https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=-XXv-cvA_iBFxhFMRdhNkGckOuVLxlYi


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 11, 2015)

Deforestation is admittedly more of an issue than raw co2 output, but combined the two effects are accelerating the warming process beyond any doubt.

The idea that people seem to think mankind is a fart on this planet at this point is frankly disturbing.  I mean, what's more influential to this planet if not us?  Have you seen the earth from space?


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Feb 11, 2015)

Ice Age? The earth is only 6000 years old so that can't be true...Global warming is just the Creators/Gods love warming the earth. Just pray harder and everything will be okay!

j/k

Edit - My point is it will take every person, organization and religion to make a change this profound. When you have people that believe the unbelievable, even when presented with scientific PROOF, how can we (all humans) be expected to change because it will require a massive shift from the vast majority of humans on how we treat the planet.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 11, 2015)

Sure all of the human population can fit in the state of Texas but that doesn't mean our effect on this planet is negligible. If that were the case why have environmental laws? The truth is this ant pile of a species has a great impact on the global environment. The line of reasoning that we are small and therefor have no impact is asinine.  

Out of all the possible warming sources to this Global System there is no source adequate enough to explain the rapid warming we are experiencing other than it being anthropomorphic.


----------



## rruff (Feb 11, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> It actually is 99.5% (year 2008 data, probably higher now). Only good post in this thread though.



The real scandal is that the pundits can so thoroughly confuse the issue with BS.


----------



## Luka KLLP (Feb 11, 2015)

Us humans have come to dominate this planet with our technologies and discoveries, I just hope we use these technologies and discoveries the right way, ie: make sure we don't destroy this planet and all the species on it. Get into more durable energy sources, preserve the nature and wilfdlife etc.

The sad part about all this stuff about CO2 output etc. is that is will only work if done on a global scale. If the Dutch government here went full on solar panel/ windmills it won't make a difference if China and other countries keep spewing out all sorts of filth into the air...


----------



## Frick (Feb 11, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> How much hubris do we need to have to think the world revolves around us? The sun, Earth's tilt, volcanoes, and slightly varying distances from the sun are what affect our climate more than anything else.



Everything's part of the equation, even my beautiful 1991 Volvo. While our hubris is a thing to be critical about for sure, this is not the occasion to be philosophical about it and wash your hands and say "'tis a thing we cannot know" and pretend it's nothing. In a way it is nothing in that we probably can't/won't do anything about it, but the problem is still there.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 11, 2015)

It's amusing that people don't seem to be reading the science (it's quite dull).  That the pollutants that we have created in the past few couple hundred years are contributing to warming is widely accepted.  The problem is the interpretation, it's almost biblical - you can make it sound anyway you want it too.  The facts are pretty self evident and the warming is happening.  The inter-stadial we are in (the little warm bit between ice ages) is of no consequence right now.  Likewise, the solar patterns of the sun, they are of no consequence to the argument.  What is relevant is if mankind is accelerating climate 'change'.  Yes.  Duh.  
Do volcanoes do worse than us?  Of course.  Their emissions can be huge and they have an effect very quickly.  Our contribution is low level but sustained however as opposed to brief and massive.  The volcano is a stab with a machete, we are simply paper cuts every day but in the long run, it's going to affect us.
Our weakness also lies in our transience.  As industrial creatures we have been around for barely a century or so - a fleeting blink in a very old timeline, the geological processes the naysayers jump to mention take tens of thousands of years to progress.  We are generally inept at making decisions based longer than our own lifetimes - we are insignificant in that picture. 

Climate change is also dumping more CO2 into the ocean, a vast heat sink which has helped offset temp rise as measured by the air.  However CO2 is an acid in water and the increased acidification of the oceans (and the temp rise of the water) is already having an effect.  The air temp, the ice ages etc are all irrelevant to us now but the ocean's health is far more worrying.  If you require proof of ocean changes you can observe the past few decades of hurricane activity (warm seas = more intensity), coral reef destruction (acid sensitive), jellyfish blooms and degradation of sub surface ice sheets.

It's a no brainer really.  It's not going to kill us yet but it will change how we live in the next few centuries but you'll all be dead by then.  And also, what's the point in worrying because while we are all run by massive capitalist corporations, we're doomed to live subservient lives, pretending we're free and living on Soma and false importance.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 11, 2015)

It seems none of the hyteria proponents have followed up on the clear evidence in ice layers and sediment layers that the Earth has thousands of times over millions of years heated up and cooled down,sometimes alot, sometimes a little. The Earth will keep on doing this, regardless of how much hubris humans have about their impact on temperature.

And really, for people to be all aghast on our "impact", while using electricity and/or batteries, on their poisonous component computers, which have also robbed the soil of the miniscule rare earth minerals is downright hypocracy. Just my two cents.


----------



## 64K (Feb 11, 2015)

I found this site to be interesting.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html


"The hottest period in human history was 7,500 to 4,000 years ago. Long before humans invented industrial pollution."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2117056


----------



## rruff (Feb 11, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> And also, what's the point in worrying because while we are all run by massive capitalist corporations, we're doomed to live subservient lives, pretending we're free and living on Soma and false importance.



One reason I'm not too worked up about climate change... we will face a much bigger crisis within the next few decades when consumer capitalism becomes obsolete.

BTW, did ya'll know we are currently living in an ice age, and have been since proto-humans walked the earth?







We are currently in a inter-glacial (warm) period within this ice age. The big ice sheets we had 25k years ago were more the norm that what we have now.







That's another reason why I'm not too worried about our fossil fuels warming the planet. And another is that fossil fuels will become too inefficient to use before we are able to have a really serious effect on the climate.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 11, 2015)

Less than 100 years of industrialization has changed this 4.54 billion year old planet? So lets tax the weather...That'll fix it!
Now the  warming "pause" is being _blamed _to the oceans acting like a Heat Sink...imagine that, the ocean doing what it's supposed to do!


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Feb 11, 2015)

Give me a break, qubit. How I wish it were just a "hoax" but the most plausible and believable signs all point to not. And like there isn't _tons_ of "money" in oil and coal etc. I just don't buy that conspiracy argument at all and never did. It just does not jibe with common sense. Neil Degrasse Tyson is in it for the cash?

And SK-1 the point is the _accelerated rate_ at which the oceans are now warming and the poles melting…etc etc


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 11, 2015)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> And SK-1 the point is the _accelerated rate_ at which the oceans are now warming and the poles melting…etc etc



Accelerated compared to what? A bunch of broken weather models or the tinkered with (climate gate 1.0,2.0 and now this) climate data?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png


----------



## metalslaw (Feb 11, 2015)

bnjohanson said:


> "we" ??? Let's not conveniently gloss-over the FACT that a volcanic eruption just the size of St/ Helens in 1981 belched more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind has since The Industrial Revolution of the early/mid 1800's up to that point in the early 1980's....





W1zzard said:


> Not sure what info specifically you are requesting, but if you are looking for an intro to the science, try:i



Sorry W1zzard, was asking 'source' for bnjohanson's claim of St Helens ejecting more co2 than what mankind has done. Should have been a bit clearer there I guess, and quoted regardless of being next post.

Anyway, here is what I found regarding his claim, http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html


----------



## qubit (Feb 11, 2015)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Give me a break, qubit.


Ok, have a KitKat.


----------



## 64K (Feb 11, 2015)

qubit said:


> Ok, have a KitKat.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 11, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> 95%+ of scientists agree global warming is accelerated greatly by humans. I tend to trust scientists over most since they peer review their research and they usually do their work out of raw curiosity..





W1zzard said:


> It actually is 99.5% (year 2008 data, probably higher now). Only good post in this thread though





rruff said:


> The real scandal is that the pundits can so thoroughly confuse the issue with BS.



Time for enlightenment.  This 97%-99 stuff is made up. let's do a little research.
"The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research."

Read how the "Vast majority" claim was kinda...wrong. Honestly makes me embarrassed to say I'm from Illinois 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 11, 2015)

Turning into a readaphon article slapdown thread this I think it truly is a great divider but a sobering thought is half the world cant see this debate and its fair to say we're ripping the raw materials out right now to sort that out cos that lot(the great unconnected) alsoo want all that the west have and it might cost the earth to get it so roll on to point b the bigger war its gotta be coming right that or the big starve.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 11, 2015)

I don't think another ice age is an avoidable occurance.  I'm not an idiot.

I do think we are accelerating the rate at which it occurs, and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring quite a bit of facts about mankinds more than average impact in his brief time on this world.

Deforestation COUPLED with the CO2 increase is our biggest issue.  If we keep up the rate of destruction of our one oxygen renewal source, we'll have bigger things to worry about than our global temperature.


----------



## Bansaku (Feb 11, 2015)

Climate change is very real folks! It is just than us Humans have zero impact on what Mother Earth does. CO2 is NOT pollution, rather vital food for those green things we call plants that create that stuff we breathe, oxygen. It is nothing more than the new boogyman or God tax; both are unseen yet are believed in.

Man made climate change is BS. Man made environmental change, well, no argument there.


----------



## Arctucas (Feb 11, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> 95%+ of scientists agree global warming is accelerated greatly by humans. I tend to trust scientists over most since they peer review their research and they usually do their work out of raw curiosity.. I mean without scientists where would the world be? Every advancement is because of them, we couldn't even have this conversation without them. If one thinks about this objectively it is quite clear.
> 
> "defraud us of our money and freedom" is probably the most hilarious thing I have read in a while. When people live in such a small bubble and think of only themselves this is how they feel.
> 
> ...




Climate change is a natural occurrence. The planet warms and cools based on many factors, over many millennia. Solar activity is probably the most significant factor. 

To believe than mankind has any meaningful influence, whether positive or negative, is the absolute height of human arrogance and conceit. 

To believe that the proponents of man-made global warming have your, or anyone else other than their own, best interest at heart is not only foolish, but dangerous.

Why? Because they know it is unprovable either way, and they can make money and exert influence and control over the people by their fear-mongering.

You may be amused, however, if you were serious, you would do more research and not take a few examples of what a certain group of scientists who have a vested interest in proving their hypothesis report, thereby validating your own belief, and look at the counter-point evidence. In other words, look at both sides before you presume to know how someone 'feels'.


----------



## MilkyWay (Feb 11, 2015)

Even if you don't believe or interpret the science one way or another, there are socio economic reasons to reduce emissions and increase efficiency. Air pollution itself is a major health concern in some cities.

What i read is that we are fucking up the natural carbon cycle and that's our problem. What i don't know is how much extra trapped carbon needs to be in the atmosphere for it to be a problem over and above the natural cycle? If we are fucking up the cycle then that means sea pollution and urbanisation is as big a problem as air pollution.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 12, 2015)

Something to note about the affect of carbon on the oceans is that much of the atmospheric carbon gets dissolved and deposited in the oceans in the form of carbonic acid.  From Nat Geo.



> For tens of millions of years, Earth's oceans have maintained a relatively stable acidity level. It's within this steady environment that the rich and varied web of life in today's seas has arisen and flourished. But research shows that this ancient balance is being undone by a recent and rapid drop in surface pH that could have devastating global consequences.
> 
> Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the early 1800s, fossil fuel-powered machines have driven an unprecedented burst of human industry and advancement. The unfortunate consequence, however, has been the emission of billions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans. This has benefited us by slowing the climate change these emissions would have instigated if they had remained in the air. But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain.


----------



## LightningJR (Feb 12, 2015)

Arctucas said:


> Climate change is a natural occurrence. The planet warms and cools based on many factors, over many millennia. Solar activity is probably the most significant factor.
> 
> To believe than mankind has any meaningful influence, whether positive or negative, is the absolute height of human arrogance and conceit.
> 
> ...




Thinking that 7 billion people can affect the climate of the world is far from arrogance. I would maybe give that to you if we were only just pushing 1 billion but 200 years have passed and now we are 7.25Billion on this planet.

With the population growing as it is and China & India, the two largest countries in population, continuing their industrial revolution things will get worse.

The thing is I don't come to any conclusions based on my own interests, the only thing I look for it facts and the truth. I can be persuaded if the facts take me there. I see zero reason to believe the big oil & gas companies, they have every reason to protect their interests and their billions of dollars. I don't understand the argument that these reputable scientists are lying to me and trying to make money. Please show me the evidence, it's all I ask. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.

This quote "To believe that the proponents of man-made global warming have your, or anyone else other than their own, best interest at heart is not only foolish, but dangerous." can be flipped to support the side of man made global warming and it fits much easier.

In response to this quote "Climate change is a natural occurrence. The planet warms and cools based on many factors, over many millennia. Solar activity is probably the most significant factor." This information is very important and any self respecting scientist will take into account all the the necessary variables.


I try my best to put myself in on the opposite side of the argument in order to understand my views. It's one of the ways I come to the conclusions of my own beliefs. I also do this with the god debate, but that's another thread. When I think about it the only reason that I can come up with that would persuade me is that scientists have missed something huge that they have not taken into account. this bit of evidence would disprove the whole premise of man made global warming. But until then I see no good reason to think otherwise.

Just like that one scientist that had direct links between vaccines and mental deficiencies, the scientific community tested his theories and he was heavily disproven. I hold the scientific community to a high standard because they hold themselves to the same standard. You should too.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 12, 2015)

> Thinking that 7 billion people can affect the climate of the world is far from arrogance. I would maybe give that to you if we were only just pushing 1 billion but 200 years have passed and now we are 7.25Billion on this planet.



There are some animals that actually outnumber us by a large margin, but the thing is, none consume the same average resources as a human does.  We eat a metric button (that's a scientific term, people) of resources compared to any animal.  And our population is only growing.

If you don't think we have an impact on "mother nature" at this point, you are just burying your head in the sand to be honest.  Your attitude certainly isn't arrogance, but it is hiding from an issue.

The issue may be blown out of proportion.  But it does exist...  denying that is just foolish.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

@LightningJR The evidence in this being a big moneymaking scheme by Liberals, is, at least in the U.S. In for instance, pollution credits. I don't know how it is is in the rest of the world, but here it is a means to support and prop up so called green businesses that couldnt sell their ass if it was free, and to charge these pollution credits to big manufacturing companies. Supposedly, this money is to fix the environment, but in reality, its just a bribe instigated on big companies to keep whatever emmissions they had previously.

One of the biggest proponents here is Al Gore. He's made alot of money scaring people with his own cherry picked "facts", yet...he owns a house that has a monthly electricity bill of over $3,000. Duplicity to the max. Or another one who loves hysteria is Leonardo DiCaprio. Several years ago, he attended a climate change conference in SE Asia. How did he get there? By private jet. Yep, duplicity to the max.

And then there are some of the good people on TPU, who sound as if they believe these few, Liberal-funded scientists and think the world is about to end. And all this brainwashed hand-wringing happens on their elecrically powered pc's, tablets, and phones. And if that's not enough, you don't even want to know what very harmful metals and chemicals are in them, and the water table pollution that was instigated in the extraction of them. Duplicity, again.

The only way I can believe someone is truly against global warming is for them to renounce all technology and raise animals and crops on a farm, without powered anything, like the Amish do. And even then, you'll be contributing to the calamity that mankind is supposedly committing, because you'll be burning wood for a fire and your animals will be emitting methane.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 12, 2015)

is air pollution a major problem: yes
should we be doing something about it: yes and we are

is icemelt likely to speed up the occurrence of a ice age fk no: are you retarded ?
ICE Melts people even if you dumped a massive chunk of it in the sea you are not likely to lower the temp enough to affect the thermal mass of the planet especially when you consider how much extra heat  we are keeping in,
any drop in sea-temps over the long term is going to be offset by the extra energy we are keeping in.
now there may come a point someday where the atmosphere will  become so clogged with various types of crap that there will be a reduction of sunlight to the point of causing a serious catastrophe when you factor in the natural cycle of the planet, but that is at least a few hundred years away  and no matter what we do or do not do that cycle will contiune,it would be a exersise in curbing the "severity" nothing else


----------



## LightningJR (Feb 12, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> @LightningJR The evidence in this being a big moneymaking scheme by Liberals, is, at least in the U.S. In for instance, pollution credits. I don't know how it is is in the rest of the world, but here it is a means to support and prop up so called green businesses that couldnt sell their ass if it was free, and to charge these pollution credits to big manufacturing companies. Supposedly, this money is to fix the environment, but in reality, its just a bribe instigated on big companies to keep whatever emmissions they had previously.
> 
> One of the biggest proponents here is Al Gore. He's made alot of money scaring people with his own cherry picked "facts", yet...he owns a house that has a monthly electricity bill of over $3,000. Duplicity to the max. Or another one who loves hysteria is Leonardo DiCaprio. Several years ago, he attended a climate change conference in SE Asia. How did he get there? By private jet. Yep, duplicity to the max.
> 
> ...



Well I do agree duplicity is BS, some high profile people like to be very outspoken about certain issues and they just go and do whatever the hell they want. Greed and self interest, which also leads to corruption, like in politics, seems to be a human condition. Once you mentioned "Liberals" you lost much of your credibility (to me, not that it matters or that you even care) both parties are corrupt and each has their own agenda. I always wondered if people decide their party affiliation based on their views or do their party affiliation dictate them...

Once you inject the idea that it's a liberal scam the other side can say that's it's a conservative scam when conservatives deny it, it's a it's a never ending shit circle that will get no one anywhere. I am concerned about the facts and only that. The 95% of scientists is a huge number and the probability of those being "in on the scam" is very low especially when these scientists are from all over the world. Also something can be a fact and still be making people lots of money, how do you know these liberals, like you say, are just making money from the truth?

There's also a big difference between people using a pc/laptop/tablet etc. and billion dollar corps in oil/gas/coal, etc. These people have all the control, consumers will consume what they can afford. Until the people are given an alternative they will change very little. I don't know all the nuances of how to change the world but I would bet that if we have the people with all the money and power change the people will have little choice but to do the same.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 12, 2015)

try and keep the politics out of the discussion it never ends well


----------



## LightningJR (Feb 12, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> try and keep the politics out of the discussion it never ends well


I agree, indeed.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> try and keep the politics out of the discussion it never ends well



Unfortunately, this "science" is so firmly and incestuously wrapped with politics it cannot be discussed seperately, because it's an agenda on either side.  For that reason, this is a science thread that I vote closed.

Lightning, I don't know where I ever mentioned a party. Liberal is a doctrine, not a party in the U.S. at least, diametrically opposed to Conservative. Both major parties in our country have liberal and conservative members. The belief in or not of man's contribution to climate change is broken down on those doctrines, not political parties. I for one do not belong to any party and vote my conscience always, and only after becoming throughly familiar with the issues. So...there is no reason to have lost you!


----------



## LightningJR (Feb 12, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Unfortunately, this "science" is so formly and incestuously wrapped with politics it cannot be discussed seperately, because it's an agenda on either side.
> 
> Lightning, I don't know where I ever mebtioned a party. Liberal is a doctrine, not a party in the U.S. at least, diametrically opposed to Conservative. Both major parties in our country have liberal and conservative members. The belief in or not of man's contribution to climate change is broken down on those doctrines, not political parties. I for one do not belong to any party and vote my conscience always, and only after becoming throughly familiar with the issues. So...there is no reason to have lost you!



haha, well my knowledge of another countries politics isn't wide enough yet.  It's good to see I have been found.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> haha, well my knowledge of another countries politics isn't wide enough yet.  It's good to see I have been found.



By the way, if you are sincerely interested, don't take the 95% of scientist number as fact.  In truth, the more studies you look at, not interpreted by politicians, you'll see it's about 50/50.


----------



## metalslaw (Feb 12, 2015)

Nevermind the title on this video, but this guy analyses the climate change debate quite well with his whiteboard.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

metalslaw said:


> Nevermind the title on this video, but this guy analyses the climate change debate quite well with his whiteboard.



Very good find! What I heard toward the end of his video is something both sides should take from this. Do your own research. Don't take politicians proclamations. Come to your OWN conclusions.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

Way to have a mature and sensible debate guys............

I;m impressed  !!!


If Parliament had spent this much airtime on the subject at least one pervert, paedophile or comnman would have been exposed by now and the argument would have been diverted by scandal.

DONT BELIEVE POLITICIANS  .......................they bullshit for a living.

If you feel you can do your bit, do it.  Ive got kids who i love, i dont want their kids to grow up asthmatic or plueritic or worse.
Have strong convictions and shout them from the rooftops.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

metalslaw said:


> Nevermind the title on this video, but this guy analyses the climate change debate quite well with his whiteboard.


That's pretty much what Freeman Dyson (physicist that cites economists and climatologists) concluded in a short article titled "The Question of Global Warming."  When I read it, it was available in its entirety for free.  Now, apparently, it requires a subscription to read so, here's what I wrote about it as I was reading through it back in 2011:


			
				FordGT90Concept said:
			
		

> He is a world renowned physicist and mathematician that cites the works of Keeley (who pioneered CO2 research), Nordhau (economist that did a fiscal policy analysis of climate change), and Zedillo (an author that cites many resources from economists to oceanographers, to climatologists, and key people inside of governments that have political interest in climate change).
> 
> Just read the damn thing--its only three pages long.  In his conclusion, he explains, perfectly, your view point and why you are so insistent on being correct.
> 
> ...


linkage

He's wrong that rising oceans would reduce resources.  Those resources were exploited long ago.  The displacement of people would be bad but realize that the oceans rise slowly and people can adapt to slow change like it wasn't even change in the first place.


Obviously he's a climate change advocator because he says "A" is the "only choice."  Absolutely wrong.  Merely the debate that took place around 2010 caused a massive socio-political rift in the USA.  Both the A (Democrats) and B (Republicans) went to their respective corners and argued their case until the alarmism died down and both sides more or less forgot about it.  Freeman Dyson put the tab of implementing changes to reverse climate change at some where around $10 trillion globally if memory serves and that wasn't counting the damage to all the sacrifices that would have to be made.  That would bankrupt the world which also leads to wars and wars lead to massive pollution aggravating the climate.  The costs are huge for "A" and "B."  I'd argue they are about equal which is why it is debated at all.

And again, I refer to my first post in this thread: I'll call it point "C" and what Freeman Dyson concluded similarly:  When you have to spend money on something anyway (e.g. a power plant, a car, a transit system, electronic devices, light bulbs, etc.), everyone collectively just needs to weigh economic cost with environmental cost as well as invest in new technology like fusion power and genetically modified trees that are especially effective at processing CO2.  Instead of coal or natural gas, build nuclear.  Instead of a buying a big pickup, buy a crossover SUV.  Instead of expanding roads in cities, expand mass transit systems that would be almost emission free if they're powered by predominantly nuclear.  Instead of buying a passive PFC AC-DC converter that is <70% efficiency, buy one that is 85+ certified that could get up to 95% efficiency.  Instead of buying incandescent bulbs, buy LED.  This is the happy medium that not only reduces emissions, most are close to or more cost effective (e.g. an LED bulb will last many, many, many incandescent lifespans) than their environmentally unfriendly counterpart.


Yes, for example, there's a lot of naysayers out there that still hate the idea of nuclear but these are often the same people that press the alarm button on climate change.  Would these people rather have "A" or "C" since they don't believe "B" is an option?  And before any of you start throwing "green" out there, let me point you to this that shows thermal solar and wind have double the cost of nuclear.  Photo voltaic is a third more but production of all solar and wind is a function of space which is more precious than electricity.


I took his "challenge:"


----------



## silkstone (Feb 12, 2015)

I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change deniers until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

Once again the Welsh have got it nailed

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-developers-8609939
only the first bit on the vid is in Welsh



(The film Twin Town is set in this " Pretty Shitty City"  if you like lunacy watch it.  Nothing to do with global warming btw)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change *deniers* until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!







You're making me quote my quote of me quoting myself:


FordGT90Concept said:


> FordGT90Concept said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Bottom line: *science doesn't give to alarmism.* There's obviously forces at play that have an agenda (majority) and they are *vilifying those that don't* (minority).


I don't confirm nor deny because I can't *prove* either way.  Atmospheric CO2 & CH4 are rising and that's a provable fact.  Everything that comes after that is *postulation*.  We're heading into uncharted territory with only theory to shine a potential path.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Feb 12, 2015)

Threads too long to read through, and I don't have time for reading articles...

Either way, I've always been an opponent of man made global warming theory, there is not enough evidence that global temperature doesn't normally fluctuate significantly over the short term. And because the accuracy of our long term measurements is very limited, and the timescale resolution is much larger any of these short term (100 year) changes will not be seen at all. If our data sets in the past are of resolutions of the order of 1000s of years, we can make no scientifically based assumptions about the current global temperature.

I guess one of the reasons the argument is popular among politicians is because it allows them to draw people away from problems like waste disposal, externalization of costs/consequences, among many others...


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change deniers until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!



I totally agree. The only situation where scientists go against science and all the scientific data. 40% of all electricity is still produced by burning coal. 80% by burning coal and other stuff.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> I totally agree. The only situation where scientists go against science and all the scientific data. 40% of all electricity is still produced by burning coal. 80% by burning coal and other stuff.


You forgot the exception to the rule--the one country that pushed forward with cuclear despite Chernobyl NPP reactor 4 explosion and the Three Mile Island incident: France.




<10% from burning


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change deniers until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!



50% each side roughly. One of the biggest divisive issues in across the world.

Now, please watch the video, and Ford's post above. The debate is wrong. It should not be about whether it is human caused...thats unprovable either way. It should be on what can we do to help make things better whether its human assisted or not.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You forgot the exception to the rule--the one country that pushed forward with Nuclear despite Chernobyl NPP reactor 4 explosion and the Three Mile Island incident: France.


When was the last nuclear incident in france?

With thorium cycle reactors I think it will be the main way forward for a long while, the main problem with nuclear power ATM is the waste, not the danger of chernobyl lile incidents. This is another thing that is hugely blown out  of proportion by politocians and the media.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Now, please watch the video,



Which one Dude ?


This one?



 
Youll laugh your bollocks off. (might need subtitles though)


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You forgot the exception to the rule


France is the part of the world, so I did include it and did not forget it  ... too bad it didn't offset the percentage much.
Nuclear energy is great and can be safe. But, even if all is perfect in that regard, the earthquake or tsunami fucks it up.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

Shock absorbers mitigate earthquakes.
Waterproofing and backup systems mitigate excessive water.
Fast breeder reactors can't meltdown.



GorbazTheDragon said:


> When was the last nuclear incident in france?


If memory serves, a very minor incident occurred decades ago.  No radiation leaked to the atmosphere (much like Three Mile Island).

Edit: Yup, 1993 at Cadarache.  It was caused by a sodium explosion while they were dismantling a reactor.

There was also an incident at the facility in 2009 caused by plutonium dust accumulating in glove boxes.  Both incidents were related to experimental technology, not mainstream power production reactors.  Just looking at those, no incidents in France since the at least the 80s as far as I can tell.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Shock absorbers mitigate earthquakes.
> Waterproofing and backup systems mitigate excessive water.
> Fast breeder reactors can't meltdown.




It didnt help in Fukoyama.

Politicians decide which fuels we burn.    ..........and they are liars. Im not trying to politicize this but its true.


If we all try and do a bit..........something.......simple shit like recycling, turning the heat down and "put a jumper on" like my mother used to say when there were electricity blackouts in the 70's.

Do we want to leave this shit for our kids to pick up?

Tidal/ solar  energy is the way to go.  youtube it, there are some good projects out there.


----------



## RCoon (Feb 12, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> the earthquake or tsunami fucks it up.



Actually, the incompetence of the board caused the issue with tsunami braking the whole place. The guy who designed it recommended a much higher sea wall for the site. The guys who wanted to save money refused, built a much shorter one, and that bloody stupid human greed incident made the situation far worse than it should have been. If they had, in the first place, made the wall at a height that was originally recommended, the damage would have been far far more limited.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Tidal/ solar energy is the way to go.



Gravity is the best form of renewable energy. Tidal messes up the jetstreams, and solar is extremely expensive and requires real estate. That and old people don't like the look of solar panels, so they refuse them despite the fact they can get them for free and makes their electricity bill cheaper.

Thorium reactors are pretty blood perfect. They don't melt down. The only reactors that melt down are the ones that are build by incompetent shortcutting tools, or the ones that were designed 60 years ago. The only reason there's a great bloody crack in one of the walls in Britains oldest reactor, is because it was supposed to be decommissioned YEARS ago. Unfortunately the hippies didn't want a reactor, and Britain can't afford to lose the energy production, so they're running it into the ground while they get the hippies off their back, or fracking starts ramping up.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Feb 12, 2015)

Basically it just comes down to where you put the things... Obviously there is an inherently higher risk if you are on a faultline, and especially on a tsunami affected coast. These are avoidable factors, and Frace is a great place for nuclear power generation because it lacks many environmental dangers that exist elsewhere.

As for human greed, I don't think we would be as reliant on hydrocarbon fuels if it wasn't for political lobbying. In fact basically every social problem of the modern world can be traced back to greed in one way or another


----------



## vega22 (Feb 12, 2015)

too many things point to it (global warming) happening for it to be fake imo.

how much impact our actions have on it? well i am open to debating that if anyone wants to. i mean our records only show what we know is a tiny amount of data on the temps of the globe so any real predictions made from such limited data are just as limited.

i voted, *Leaning towards no, but not really sure, *because while i doubt the data has been faked it would not shock me with "our" media.

i mean is there really a spoon?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> It didnt help in Fukoyama.


RCoon got it.  It was humans to blame, not the concept of fission power or even nature.  Nature just gave it the shove necessary to push it over the edge.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Tidal/ solar  energy is the way to go.  youtube it, there are some good projects out there.


RCoon got that one too.  Also consider power transmission losses and where tidal power is even an option.  Let's also not forget the sun only shines less than 50% of the time (cloud cover/seasons), only four hours give or take is at peak production, and including batteries in any solar system throws costs off the charts.



GorbazTheDragon said:


> Basically it just comes down to where you put the things... Obviously there is an inherently higher risk if you are on a faultline, and especially on a tsunami affected coast. These are avoidable factors, and Frace is a great place for nuclear power generation because it lacks many environmental dangers that exist elsewhere.


California has a lot of nuclear power plants and none of them melted down yet.  Granted, they were built 30 years ago and don't have adequate protection from tremors...



GorbazTheDragon said:


> As for human greed, I don't think we would be as reliant on hydrocarbon fuels if it wasn't for political lobbying. In fact basically every social problem of the modern world can be traced back to greed in one way or another


Right you are.  It was the oil and coal lobbies that got the moratorium on nuclear power put in place.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Feb 12, 2015)

Solar is not and will never be a viable power source for a global scale, the storage requirements would make it far too inefficient.

It is ok for local remote requirements, the observatory my father works at (ALMA) for example, the local conditions make solar power viable for daytime use, and the relatively constant and predictable power use makes creating a power storage system, wheter electric or mechanical (water pumping) relatively viable due to the limited need for large margins.

Except because of reasons they still use diesel generators, despite the fact that the fuel costs would be higher than the installation and maintainance costs of a solar (with or without storage system) after under a decade of operation...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

Correct.
There are systems like the Dinorwig power station again in Wales, which have the capacity to use a renewable source of fuel and to supply it when required.

It uses cheap electricity to pump water up a mountain, when power is needed the water pours through a hydroelectric turbine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Energy storage is a massive problem. Nature endowed us with massive reserves.....stored.

Theres no quick fix or easy solution.
If it took us 200 years to f*** it up it might take another 200 to sort it out.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> Except because of reasons they still use diesel generators, despite the fact that the fuel costs would be higher than the installation and maintainance costs of a solar (with or without storage system) after under a decade of operation...


Diesel runs at night and there's really no grid they could plug in to. XD




CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Correct.
> There are systems like the Dinorwig power station again in Wales, which have the capacity to use a renewable source of fuel and to supply it when required.
> 
> It uses cheap electricity to pump water up a mountain, when power is needed the water pours through a hydroelectric turbine.
> ...


Never heard of that before, neato.  It was effectively a nuclear battery for storing excess power at night for peak load during the day.  They could have fewer nuclear facilities and get the same output by increasing efficiency.  Quite brilliant albeit a very costly project.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Never heard of that before, neato. It was effectively a nuclear battery for storing excess power at night for peak load during the day. They could have fewer nuclear facilities and get the same output by increasing efficiency. Quite brilliant albeit a very costly project.




I was working at a new gas power plant down the road from here  it provides twice as much electricity than Wales needs.


http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/1628694/rwe-npower/about-us/our-businesses/power-generation/pembroke/

The liquified natural gas comes from Oman in the Gulf.  Apparently very energy efficient. There are 5 massive jet engines inside that building.

We werent allowed to take photos so if any body wants to see them give me a shout..


----------



## metalslaw (Feb 12, 2015)

Ok, even though this post will take this topic a little 'off-topic'. In the grand scheme of things, I believe it's more alarming than the potential of climate change.

Now, climate change may or may not happen... the science says yes, but the outcome may or may not be catastrophic. I don't know. But the following quoted post I believe will regardless.

Anyway, this is a post I made on another forum in regards to the "global debt" crisis, but i'll requote it here in it's entirety. The start references how the monetary system is nearing a breaking point(s) (GFC mark 2/3/4/5etc) at some time within the next decade or 2.

"It's a pyramid scheme built around the consumption of non-renewable resources. (i.e. a "fractional reserve banking system" powered by "oil, coal, and gas")

What could go wrong?... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Seriously though. Even with a concerted push to renewable resources, we will still see the system collapse at some point in the near future (within about 10-20 years).

I'm talking countries going 'broke', stock markets crashing beyond repair, and most companies closing down. Followed by mass unemployment, civil unrest, hyper inflation, wars, famines, etc.

We in australia will actually fair quite well compared to other countries. We still have stacks of uranium and coal which we can use to buy some of the remaining oil (in the future). We also have a very small population (by comparison to most other countries), a quite decent sized farmable landmass, and a healthy economy. Plus we aren't gun crazy like the US.

Some countries are going to suffer from massive famines that will cull the population by billions within 1 or 2 decades (at that breaking point)... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Anyway, not many ppl think like me, nor think this will happen. I think it's a fantasy to think it won't, unfortunately. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Here's something to think about though.

Sitting in front of your computer, just have a look around at alllllllll that plastic you can see. Literally, it's friggen used in almost everything!

And plastic is made from oil (even if it's only a few percent of a barrel of oil. And at some point... it will run out... no if's no buts.

Sure we can 'grow' some oil. But at the rate we are using it, we won't even come within a percent or 2 of what we are using atm.

The fact is, we barely have 15 years worth of oil left in the world. We simply won't have enough to power our consumer based society in the future beyond that point."


And while i'm adding some food for thought, I rewatched a good vid about 'growth'. It's by a mathematician in the US, just talking about 'growth'... (and yep, the title doesn't reflect the actual video... It's just good old facts and figures.











Thoughts?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

metalslaw said:


> Thoughts?



Yep.       Bollocks.

Sounds like a politician to me. Baffle them with bullshit.......i've been doing it for years.


Shame he doesnt offer any solutions.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I was working at a new gas power plant down the road from here  it provides twice as much electricity than Wales needs.
> 
> 
> http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/1628694/rwe-npower/about-us/our-businesses/power-generation/pembroke/
> ...


The problem with natural gas is it converts CH4 into CO2.  Yes, it is cleaner than coal but still dirty.

I never realized they could produce 400 MW.  Most nuclear reactors are 250-500.  Bet their fuel consumption is ridiculous.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change deniers until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!



By the way, I needed to further respond. Just your phrasing is an indicator you are one of the fanatics that have been led by politicians who have their own agenda is staggering. An equal amount of scientists on each side have their figures to support whether global warming is accelerated or not by humans. It's unprovable. Perhaps a more intelligent response is needed by all, as the whiteboard video shows. We need to change the debate and fanaticism of both sides from whether humans accelerated it to: What can we do to make things better in case the climate does go to shit.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

I wouldn't go that far...

Also, the wonderingmind42's video wasn't about "making things better."  That was my counter argument (plan C, not his A or B).  Wonderingmind42's video served two purposes: 1) sell a book and 2) convince people it's worth spending trillions on..._something_...to prevent an alleged "catastrophe."


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I wouldn't go that far...
> 
> Also, his video wasn't about "making things better."  That was my counter argument.  His video served two purposes: 1) sell a book and 2) convince people it's worth spending trillions on...something...to prevent an alleged "catastrophe."


That certainly was his purpose, but most of it makes sense. It's about coming to your own learned conclusion, not spouting out what a news media reporter said, or what a politician endorses. Intelligent minds, i would expect to be able to stop debating the wrong thing, which is what the world is currently doing. And he did after all, urge people to investigate and read, and make their own conclusions.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The problem with natural gas is it converts CH4 into CO2. Yes, it is cleaner than coal but still dirty.
> 
> I never realized they could produce 400 MW. Most nuclear reactors are 250-500. Bet their fuel consumption is ridiculous.




I never saw what went on in the stacks or heard anything about it but i would think the majority of the carbon is captured somehow. The gas comes on massive ships with  pressurised orbs inside, its supercooled and under pressure. Apparently if one of these ships blew up there would be quite a large bang









FordGT90Concept said:


> I wouldn't go that far...
> 
> Also, his video wasn't about "making things better."  That was my counter argument.  His video served two purposes: 1) sell a book and 2) convince people it's worth spending trillions on...something...to prevent an alleged "catastrophe."




I know.. a bit flippant, but its easy to spread doom and gloom, especially if you are making money out of it, i watched that vid a while ago and yes facts and figures are great, if he has inspired people to make a difference good, but he offers no solutions.

Would the Victorians have burnt less fossil fuels if they knew the consequence?
Fossil fuels were THE main driver of the industrial revolution.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Feb 12, 2015)

I have to agree, the fact that oil will run out is or should be a major concern is not related to climate change, rather the economic effects. Even though i am heavily opposed to the idea of human caused climate, I am an even bigger advocate for alternative energy sources, but it is a complex point of view to have, one that requires a relatively in depth understanding of fuels, industrial processes, and chemistry, and sadly the large portion of the public doesnt invest the time into informing themselves about such matters, and by doing so place themselves at the mercy of politicians and the media...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Would the Victorians have burnt less fossil fuels if they knew the consequence?


They did know the consequences: see all of the fires that took out huge swaths of cities.  That was better than the alternative of being cold and doing back-breaking labor.


This was on the end of my last post but I made the edit too late so sticking it here:
Come to think of it, I don't think anyone actually explained to me what the environmentalists were going to do to prevent that "catastrophe" other than the dead horse arguments of solar and wind?  Nuclear takes care of 60% and about 30% comes from transportation.  It's kind of funny that those electric cars they love so much are made from lightweight carbon materials such as plastic and carbon fiber--both of which are oil products.  So you can't even make your super-duper efficient electric car without first getting your hands on copious amounts of oil.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Would the Victorians have burnt less fossil fuels if they knew the consequence?
> Fossil fuels were THE main driver of the industrial revolution.


 
You're correct.  In fact, we would have nothing now, and you and I would not be able to converse like this accross the big pond were it not for the discovery and use of fossil fuels.  Even the side that believes humans are the cause of global warming (which btw, denies all the Earth's history of heating and cooling over and over) would not want to give up all the modern technological things that are parts of our life, which was why I said  a few pages back my reference to living like the Amish in the U.S. do.

EDIT: @FordGT90Concept: Just above this you pointed out my worst pet peeve which I talked about a bit earlier.  That pet peeve is duplicity.  Your hybrid car is an excellent example!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

PVC jacket on cables is made from oil...


Relevant:


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 12, 2015)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> I have to agree, the fact that oil will run out


It won't run out anytime soon (unconventional oil), and you can make oil from coal for which there are even more reserves (over 100 years with current known proved recoverable at current use, 250 years for US with US owned reserves, 2007ish data)


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Feb 12, 2015)

I dont understand why people 'hate' fossil fuels, the only reason I can think of is the media. It is completely irrational, modern society is how it is because of fossil fuels, we are now at a point where we can (and should) move on to the next step. And guess what, in 100 odd years we will have to replace that. There is nothing wrong with that, that is exactly how everything on earth works. It evolves, it changes depending on the necesities.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Feb 12, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> It won't run out anytime soon, and you can make oil from coal for which there are even more reserves


You can make oil from plants


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They did know the consequences: see all of the fires that took out huge swaths of cities. That was better than the alternative of being cold and doing back-breaking labor.



Different period in history, the industrial revolution started about 150 years after the Great Fire of London. If this is what you speak

We would ALL still be doing back breaking labour if steam power hadnt helped us along the way.


My friends across the pond will probably never heard of Fred Dibnah....find 30 minutes for this guy.


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 12, 2015)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> I dont understand why people 'hate' fossil fuels, the only reason I can think of is the media.


There is nothing to hate, just can't use fossil fuels without affecting ecosystem and climate


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Different period in history, the industrial revolution started about 150 years after the Great Fire of London.


I was thinking more Chicago but...all the same.  There was copious amounts of coal around prior to the oil boom then lots of refinery, well, and derrick mishaps.  Can't forget all of the deaths in coal mines too.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 12, 2015)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> You can make oil from plants


not nearly enough for what we use as fuel. very good point though, should we plant the globe to make oil for our cars or food for the hungry?

edit, quick math:
biofuel plant yield: 1000 g/m²
at 0.77 g/ml = 0.8 liters of fuel per m² of farming
at 23 MJ/liter = 18 MJ per m² = 18 GJ per km²
18 GJ = 2940 bboe (barrels of oil equivalent)
area of the US: 700,000 km²
-> 2 billion barrels per year
US oil consumption = 7 billion barrels per year


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> not nearly enough for what we use as fuel. very good point though, should we plant the globe to make oil for our cars or food for the hungry?




Have you seen the damage these oil palms are causing.?

they are buldozing huge swathes of rain frorest for this shit.  Again causing long term damage to communities half a globe away from the consumer.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Feb 12, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> not nearly enough for what we use as fuel. very good point though, should we plant the globe to make oil for our cars or food for the hungry?


Same for the coal-oil process, it has quite a high energy requirement, and oil essentially turns into a method to transport the energy, which iw fine, but why use underground coal supplies when there are already copious amounts of carbon availabe to us, which is already partially hydrogenated, and would require less energy to turn into raw hydrocarbons.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Have you seen the damage these oil palms are causing.?
> 
> they are buldozing huge swathes of rain frorest for this shit.  Again causing long term damage to communities half a globe away from the consumer.


 
Now that is something everyone can agree on.  Other than the oceans, the Tropical Rainforests are the biggest producer of oxygen.  We're screwing our entire race as well as weather patterns when you remove them.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Now that is something everyone can agree on.  Other than the oceans, the Tropical Rainforests are the biggest producer of oxygen.  We're screwing our entire race as well as weather patterns when you remove them.




Western Govts have to reduce their carbon footprint by using renewable resources, they dont careless that in pristine parts of the world unscrupulous politicians rape the forests to line their pockets.

Beautifu;l parts of the world turned into monocultures, literally no insects, birds, small mammals just palms.  Oil factories paying poor wages to people who dont have a choice.

Meanwhile our own politicians pat each others backs cos we are using a renewable resource.

I read recently that only 4 % palm oil in a can of fuel reclassifies it.

When diesel engines were invented by Benz they ran on veg oil as can my car now, straight from the shelf into my fuel tank.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I read recently that only 4 % palm oil in a can of fuel reclassifies it.


Here in Germany, a few years back, we introduced 10% bioethanol fuel, up from 5%, and huge drama started about people thinking/claiming their car engines will break


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

It trashes fuel economy though. 18.3 mpg turns into 13.5 mpg on 85% ethanol.  CO2 emissions are about equal according to the EPA.  Performance on ethanol was reduced.

10% isn't going to effect the vehicle much unless it's really old but I'd argue that the environmental impact due to reduction in fuel economy makes it not even worth doing.  Using the #2 product (food) to produce the #1 product (energy) is silly when there's far better ways to meet energy needs.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> Here in Germany, a few years back, we introduced 10% bioethanol fuel, up from 5%, and huge drama started about people thinking/claiming their car engines will break



And  i bet none of them did.

A good friend of mine goes to local chip shops, buys the old chip oil  (you know  ..fish and chips) runs it through a couple of filters and bingo  ! ....fuel.
I have to admit though it stinks when a car running on chip fat goes past.
You still have to pay duty and taxes to use it though, in fact you have to get a permit off the Govt to make sure you are not robbing them.  you have to document mileages and such.
 F****g laughable really.

Provided the weather isnt too cold and it doesnt solidify in your tank veg oil, palmoil, sunflower, all work well.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It trashes fuel economy though. 18.3 mpg turns into 13.5 mpg on 85% ethanol.  CO2 emissions are about equal according to the EPA.  Performance on ethanol was reduced.
> 
> 10% isn't going to effect the vehicle much unless it's really old but I'd argue that the environmental impact due to reduction in fuel economy makes it not even worth doing.  Using the #2 product (food) to produce the #1 product (energy) is silly when there's far better ways to meet energy needs.


 
I think the Brazilians have it right.  Didn't they convert all the country to pure ethanol for cars?  And they are sourcing it correctly too, by using sugar cane, which is much more efficient in the distillation process than corn, which the U.S. uses.  That shows the problem you bring up, using a food source that needs large tracts of land just to make a little bit of ethanol is folly.  The Brazilians, by using sugar cane, produce a large volume of ethanol at a much reduced land space.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 12, 2015)

I recently had a problem with my snow blower and did some research.  It seems that ethanol when mixed with gas can be corrosive since the ethanol sucks in moisture from the air.  I don't think that's as much of a problem for fuel injected engines or for parts that are designed to corrosion resistant but apparently for things like lawn mowers and snow blowers that use normal carburetors, it's still a problem


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

Wahey....       thats what you call gas. !

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/11/gas-bag-vehicles.html









If you are Scottish, ethanol is for drinking, any other use is considered a waste.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> And  i bet none of them did.
> 
> A good friend of mine goes to local chip shops, buys the old chip oil  (you know  ..fish and chips) runs it through a couple of filters and bingo  ! ....fuel.
> I have to admit though it stinks when a car running on chip fat goes past.
> ...


It can.  Ethanol burns hotter and faster which means it can burn off lubricating fluids that gasoline otherwise wouldn't.  Putting 100% ethanol in virtually any engine not made for at least 85% will destroy it.  10% would take a long time to do enough damage that it fails though.



rtwjunkie said:


> I think the Brazilians have it right.  Didn't they convert all the country to pure ethanol for cars?  And they are sourcing it correctly too, by using sugar cane, which is much more efficient in the distillation process than corn, which the U.S. uses.  That shows the problem you bring up, using a food source that needs large tracts of land just to make a little bit of ethanol is folly.  The Brazilians, by using sugar cane, produce a large volume of ethanol at a much reduced land space.


They're destroying rain forest to get only a few years of crops out of the land before the soil is depleted then...here comes the oil-based fertilizers.  The reason why corn is used in the States is because there is a surplus of it.  We have to stockpile it anyway to feed humans and livestock so there is plenty around.  Farmers, at first, supported the idea of ethanol because it eliminates the surplus driving prices for corn up.  But that surplus is now gone and, coupled with the drought out west,  meant ranchers had to sell off massive numbers of cattle because they couldn't afford the now-expensive corn-based feed to supplement their diet.  It's also driving up the price of a lot of grocery store items from cereals to milk and eggs.  We may not directly consume a lot of corn but we certainly do indirectly.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

twilyth said:


> I recently had a problem with my snow blower and did some research.  It seems that ethanol when mixed with gas can be corrosive since the ethanol sucks in moisture from the air.  I don't think that's as much of a problem for fuel injected engines or for parts that are designed to corrosion resistant but apparently for things like lawn mowers and snow blowers that use normal carburetors, it's still a problem




stick one of these in the fuel line.


in line diesel filter   about 2 quid. Dont be concerned that it is for diesel engines it traps shit and water.

  Storage is where it picks up the h20. So try and keep fuel tanks full and throw any old stuff away if youve had it more than 6 months ish.  It is ofte why a lawnmower wot start from season to season, old fuel.


Vodka is basically diluted flavoured ethanol


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

Yeah Ford, you've got a good point there.  We're screwed whichever way we go with cars.  Unless we can cheaply design hydrogen-fueled cars which produce only water.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Feb 12, 2015)

What about hydrogen fuel? More efficient process and easier to source the reactants.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Yeah Ford, you've got a good point there.  We're screwed whichever way we go with cars.  Unless we can cheaply design hydrogen-fueled cars which produce only water.


It's not the fuel cell that's the problem, it's the fuel.  Producing significant quantities of hydrogen is not cheap.  Not to mention, unless that hydrogen is, itself, produced from water, it'll create problems of its own down the road. I don't know how many gallons of water a city like LA would produce but it would not be insignificant.


Fun fact: USA produced more than double the amount of ethanol Brazil did in 2011.  There's a bunch of other aspects compared here (2010 figures where Brazil produced more):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_by_country#Comparison_of_Brazil_and_the_U.S.

The only reason why USA doesn't change to sugarcane to meet federal demands for ethanol is because no one has the equipment to do sugarcane and they're not about to go buy it.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> What about hydrogen fuel? More efficient process and easier to source the reactants.




storage is the problem. you need to use it as you are making it. It is easy to make and very explosive.

I have made and ignited hydrogen  ( or Browns Gas) in my back yard. Believe me it is frightening.

I used a car battery charger, 2 stainless steel plates and a tub of water. Simple and very effciient but not safe. i was making a system to introduce hydogen into the diesel line in my ancient Hilux

You wouldnt want hydrogen in any quantity near you.












I cant belive it

version  2 at the back of my shed



 

 



Adding hydrogen can make the dieseel 30 % more efficient


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Producing significant quantities of hydrogen is not cheap. Not to mention, unless that hydrogen is, itself, produced from water, it'll create problems of its own down the road. I don't know how many gallons of water a city like LA would produce but it would not be insignificant.


I think it's not the quantity of water that's issue, there is plenty of hydrogen in water (two thirds of every molecule), it's the energy of the chemical bonds between oxygen and hydrogen in water molecule. You have to spend lots of energy to break it by electrolysis and get the hydrogen in gas form that needs to be liquefied for storage by spending even more energy to cool it to low temp. Most of the energy spent for all that processing and storage would come from fossil fuels anyway.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> storage is the problem. you need to use it as you are making it. It is easy to make and very explosive.
> 
> I have made and ignited hydrogen  ( or Browns Gas) in my back yard. Believe me it is frightening.
> 
> I used a car battery charger, 2 stainless steel plates and a tub of water. Simple and very effciient but not safe.


Which is why it is expensive.  It has to be chilled into liquid hydrogen which is costly.

Edit: BiggieShady beat me to it.

Hydrogen powered cars simply aren't feasible without fusion power to cheaply extract and liquefy it (or rather, make it economically viable).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which is why it is expensive.  It has to be chilled into liquid hydrogen which is costly.
> 
> Edit: BiggieShady beat me to it.
> 
> Hydrogen powered cars simply aren't feasible without fusion power to cheaply extract and liquefy it (or rather, make it economically viable).




That hydrogen cell in the pics in my last post runs off the car battery. that electricity produces the hydrogen , it supplements the fuel rather than replacing it.

What about the KERS system?









?.

 SAAB used to have a similar system years ago again not a fuel replacement but all these small efficiences add up


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

Still burning fossil fuels.  The objective is to move electricity generation and transportation completely away from fossil fuels.  That would cut emissions by ~90%.  The remaining 10% would be far more difficult to reduce and isn't really feasible to eliminate.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 12, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Way to have a mature and sensible debate guys............
> I;m impressed  !!!





silkstone said:


> I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change deniers until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!



Mature and sensible till the warmest people get offended that their religion is being called out and start with the name calling.  So typical.

And here's some more proof this 95%-97% consensus lie is just that...a lie.  What a propagation of lies!
*Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims*
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
Ill be glad to remove this Arrow from your quiver...sir. 


> Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.


----------



## rruff (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't confirm nor deny because I can't *prove* either way.  Atmospheric CO2 & CH4 are rising and that's a provable fact.  Everything that comes after that is *postulation*.  We're heading into uncharted territory with only theory to shine a potential path.



I don't think it is all that important to know how much effect our man-made greenhouse gases have. It's a fairly minor blip compared to other forces on long time scales, and we are going to quit burning fossil fuels at some time in the not too distant future. I think it is good to realize first that *we are currently in a major ICE AGE*. We just happen to be in a warm inter-glacial period within that ice age. Normal earth temperature was ~20F warmer 100 million years ago than it is in our current period.






You know that cold spell 25k years ago where much of the northern hemisphere was covered by an ice sheet several thousand feet thick? That is more the norm than the exception. And we are due for another cold spell.











I mean *check out that ice sheet!* That is expected to return in the not too distant future (within a couple thousand years) if we do nothing. Granted, these greenhouse gases may have undesirable effects in the shorter term, but honestly no one really knows if it will be a net negative or positive. Many coastal areas will have issues with rising oceans, but large expanses of land in high latitudes will become arable and livable. Total earth rainfall should increase. The problem is that we don't understand what is effecting the climate well enough to predict what effect our actions will have.

At any rate, we *will* want to do something to prevent the next glaciation. Doing stuff to make the earth a little warmer now does not seem to be a big problem in light of that.


----------



## rruff (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Producing significant quantities of hydrogen is not cheap.



It takes more energy to produce hydrogen from water than what we get from it in energy, though that isn't necessarily a problem if we use something like solar to produce it. Hydrogen is a real bitch to store and deal with though. Doesn't seem like a good choice for replacing fossil fuels.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2015)

rruff said:


> You know that cold spell 25k years ago where much of the northern hemisphere was covered by an ice sheet several thousand feet thick? That is more the norm than the exception. And we are due for another cold spell.


You got that backwards.  We're leaving the ice age...rapidly.  It likely won't come back for millions of years.  People should get used to the idea of higher sea levels because it's practically an inevitability.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 12, 2015)

Its all a Ponzi Scam


----------



## rruff (Feb 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You got that backwards.  We're leaving the ice age...rapidly.  It likely won't come back for millions of years.  People should get used to the idea of higher sea levels because it's practically an inevitability.



How did you deduce that?


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 12, 2015)

People overestimate our atmosphere ... human emissions are clearly visible in this video and almost all absorbed by plant life at spring, but excess of CO2 always remain in atmosphere each year and that makes the global trend


----------



## INSTG8R (Feb 12, 2015)

I have been watching Years of Living Dangerously on Discovery and it's pretty clear the amount of damage we have done.Great series so far.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 12, 2015)

If it bleeds it leads.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

INSTG8R said:


> I have been watching Years of Living Dangerously on Discovery and it's pretty clear the amount of damage we have done.Great series so far.


When you watch series like that, you have to remember, they are not entirely objective. The ultimate goal is ratings. That is why it's important to seek out as much boring source data as possible.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 12, 2015)

Dont believe media at all. We should be worried about the crap the FDA approves for use in food and slam those companies for fact their additives contribute to Cancer.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 12, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Mature and sensible till the warmest people get offended that their religion is being called out and start with the name calling.  So typical.
> 
> And here's some more proof this 95%-97% consensus lie is just that...a lie.  What a propagation of lies!
> *Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims*
> ...



You've got to be kidding me. That Forbes link was for a contributor, That guy works for the heartland institute!! 

These guys also denied that tobacco caused cancer (in the 90's). The article is political BS.

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

I stick to my previous comments.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> You've got to be kidding me. That Forbes link was for a contributor, That guy works for the heartland institute!!
> 
> These guys also denied that tobacco caused cancer (in the 90's). The article is political BS.
> 
> ...


So, it's fair to say you are one of the ones who would rather argue till death whether humans are responsible or not (and accomplishing nothing but engaging in rhetoric), instead of finding a middle ground to agree to do what we can to improve our environment and clean things up a little and try to make things a little better?

As for your deriding the Forbes article, that doesn't change the fact that Cook is the "source" that most politicians with an agenda refer to regarding the 97% of scientists believing we are responsible. If you go and do your own research, you'll find just as many scientists who say the evidence is inconclusive, and you'll see that Cook, who was funded by liberal interest groups is on the take.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 12, 2015)

All politicians are doing is trying to milk people of more money to fatten their wallets not improve human life. Notice how a side only gets richer where the people they made promises to only get poorer.

If politicians did give a damn why doesnt the US have a cross country and in city mass transit rail system? Invested in by politicians?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2015)

Tony Blair. Former GB prime minister was paid $ 440000 for a 2 hr speech.

He didnt need to rob us when he was in charge after  all hes only worth by his estimates 25 million quid.
He lives in  6.5 million pound house.

I agree with what @rtwjunkie says. 

Goodnight.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> You've got to be kidding me. That Forbes link was for a contributor, That guy works for the heartland institute!!
> 
> These guys also denied that tobacco caused cancer (in the 90's). The article is political BS.
> 
> ...



I can source the same damning evidence from many other places. The message is true and clear. You just happen to hate the messenger.
As I said earlier... Arrow from quiver is removed.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> I can source the same damning evidence from many other places. The message is true and clear. You just happen to hate the messenger.
> As I said earlier... Arrow from quiver is removed.



Then do it. While your at it, show me some *recent peer reviewed* papers that deny climate chance.

If you are going to argue against the science, you have to use something a little more reliable to support your argument.

Also individual graphs do not prove anything without the scientific analysis and conclusions that need to go with them.

Look I can do the same:


----------



## twilyth (Feb 13, 2015)

I think someone else alluded to this but there seems to be a tendency to see these issues in black and white.  Either the premise is absolutely, 100% true or it's 100% bullshit.  It's never one or the other when it comes to research and to try to frame the argument that way is disingenuous at best.  As @silkstone points out, expertise in analyzing the data is often as important as the data itself and if you have a bias, you can always find results to support your bias.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Also individual graphs do not prove anything without the scientific analysis and conclusions that need to go with them.
> 
> Look I can do the same:



Ummm What are you talking about? Like I posted even one graph in this entire thread. Your anger is making you blind.

And why would I post a peer reviewed paper *BASED ON FLAWED DATA?*


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 13, 2015)

Global warming   truth or lie its an excuse for gov to tax you more
scientist will promote what ever will generate the most research grants for them

less than 30 years ago  the big fear was a new ice age and so many scientist pushed for research grants to investigate this   then when the grants dried up   they promoted this "new" Theory of global warming  that got the wallets open for research grants Governments go along with this because they can TAX you to invest in measures to cope with these theory's

The earth through global Vulcanism kicks out so much sulpher di oxide  and methane each year that mans contribution don't really matter.

Earth as a Lump of metallic rock is cooling    HAS BEEN SINCE IT FORMED
it will only get hotter as a result of our local star turning into a RED GIANT

by the time that happens who the f**k is going to be around to worry about that


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Ummm What are you talking about? Like I posted even one graph in this entire thread. Your anger is making you blind.
> 
> And why would I post a peer reviewed paper *BASED ON FLAWED DATA?*



If the data is flawed, the peer review, in most cases, will pick up on that. Just because someone doesn't like the data, doesn't mean that it's flawed. There is an actual reliable process that we use to discover if data is flawed. It's called the peer-review process (part of the larger scientific method).

The graph comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, but rather a counter to other graphs being posted. I am not angry at all, just shocked.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

twilyth said:


> I think someone else alluded to this but there seems to be a tendency to see these issues in black and white.  Either the premise is absolutely, 100% true or it's 100% bullshit.  It's never one or the other when it comes to research and to try to frame the argument that way is disingenuous at best.  As @silkstone points out, expertise in analyzing the data is often as important as the data itself and if you have a bias, you can always find results to support your bias.


Actually, Silkstone hasn't done anything except distinguish himself as an extremist who refuses to intelligently analyze the situation, and keeps spouting that the only truth is his side. I'm trying to get people to see the argument is pointless, because the date is inconclusive on both sides. It can't be proved either way.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

rruff said:


> How did you deduce that?


Ocean carbon release 'ended last Ice Age'
Those same "burps" are happening now.  It's due to pressures changing on the ocean floor and it's positive feedback.  As large quantities of CH4 are released, they increase atmospheric temperatures which causes ice to melt releasing trapped CO2.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> There is an actual reliable process that we use


So I missed the part of you being a climate scientist. Worried about your funding getting cut? Now I understand.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, Silkstone hasn't done anything except distinguish himself as an extremist who refuses to intelligently analyze the situation, and keeps spouting that the only truth is his side. I'm trying to get people to see the argument is pointless, because the date is inconclusive on both sides. It can't be proved either way.



There is no debate in the scientific community about the fact that humans affect the climate. Kinda like how scientist have also proven that the earth is not the centre of the universe and is actually more than a few thousand years old and evolution is a fact.

What is the point in arguing a truth?

Show me some science that backs up your claims and I will analyse it with you until the sun goes down.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

Correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> It has been proven. There is no debate in the scientific community about the fact that humans affect the climate. Kinda like how scientist have also proven that the earth is not the centre of the universe and is actually more than a few thousand years old and evolution is a fact.
> 
> What is the point in arguing a truth?
> 
> Show me some science that backs up your claims and I will analyse it with you until the sun goes down.


No debate? Where have you been? It's not been proven either way! There is scientific debate on this all the time, and neither side can prove that humans are or are not the cause. You're supposedly a teacher. I would have expected more from someone who is charged with developing a thirst for learning in people, and teaching them not to listen to actors and politicians who have only gotten one-sided facts. I'm disappointed in you. Educators should be those most with a thirst to learn truth, not be fanatics.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Correlation does not imply causation.



It doesn't, that's why there is so much more to research than looking at a graph. However, the data presented can be used to eliminate options or debunk theories.
A graph of CO2 emissions vs. temperature change means that we can not say (from looking at the data) that emissions don't drive climate change, nothing more.

For example, the driving force behind climate change is solar activity can be dis-proven by looking at the data.









rtwjunkie said:


> No debate? Where have you been? It's not been proven either way! There is scientific debate on this all the time, and neither side can prove that humans are or are not the cause. You're supposedly a teacher. I would have expected more from someone who is charged with developing a thirst for learning in people, and teaching them not to listen to actors and politicians who have only gotten one-sided facts. I'm disappointed in you. Educators should be those most with a thirst to learn truth, not be fanatics.



I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There is no scientific debate on the issue. Show me where you are getting this information.

Correction - What I meant to say is that it is the only theory. It obviously hasn't been proven as theories are never and can never be proven. Even the theory of gravity is unproven. But, everyone here knows that, right?

Edit - And as you correctly pointed out, I am a science teacher. You'd think I'd have to keep up to date on these issues and understand them, wouldn't you?

If you are truly interested in learning. This was released by the WH.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

Take a look at the FAQ and also pay special attention to "What is and is not debated among climate scientists about climate change?"

Edit 2 - And here's an easier read: http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-joins...ter-senators-reaffirming-scientific-consensus
It should give you an idea as to where the scientific community stands.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

Ohhhhh, the WH, yeah, that most liberal of any presidency, including FDR.  The same liberals that have pushed so strongly to have only their cherry picked reports scaremongered to the public so as to be able to sell pollution credits to industry that do nothing to reduce pollution.  The same people that have propped up so-called green businesses that without serious infusions of government cash would not have been able to sell their shirts if they were free.  You're a scary teacher.  When things are not proven yet, it is a teacher's responsibility to present both arguments to their students, but you strike me as the type who presents only the liberal agenda to the kids.  How do I know you don't?  Because you said earlier you had no idea so many people were in denial.  That's a biased statement, not an educated one.

As to your assertion of keeping up with things, perhaps you'd like to know that I also have insight into teachers through personal connections, and it's creepy what teacher's don't keep up on.  Really, you are not very educated if you see no debate.  There is debate everywhere.  You just choose to read what is put forth by liberal media and politicians and actors, and call it the truth.  A truly educated person would want to investigate things themselves, and WANT to learn all they could.  A truly open-minded educator should want to find out where all sides can reach middle ground, not act like a zealot and insist their side is the only one.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Ohhhhh, the WH, yeah, that most liberal of any presidency, including FDR.  The same liberals that have pushed so strongly to have only their cherry picked reports scaremongered to the public so as to be able to sell pollution credits to industry that do nothing to reduce pollution.  The same people that have propped up so-called green businesses that without serious infusions of government cash would not have been able to sell their shirts if they were free.  You're a scary teacher.  When things are not proven yet, it is a teacher's responsibility to present both arguments to their students, but you strike me as the type who presents only the liberal agenda to the kids.  How do I know you don't?  Because you said earlier you had no idea so many people were in denial.  That's a biased statement, not an educated one.
> 
> As to your assertion of keeping up with things, perhaps you'd like to know that I also have insight into teachers through personal connections, and it's creepy what teacher's don't keep up on.  Really, you are not very educated if you see no debate.  There is debate everywhere.  You just choose to read what is put forth by liberal media and politicians and actors, and call it the truth.  A truly educated person would want to investigate things themselves, and WANT to learn all they could.  A truly open-minded educator should want to find out where all sides can reach middle ground, not act like a zealot and insist their side is the only one.



There is political debate, no scientific debate. No theory is proven, but I still teach the theory of gravity and Newton's laws.

I also don't teach 'the controversy', am I going to burned on a cross for heresy?

I teach science. Everything is based on scientific evidence and supported by science, not politics, spritual mumbo-jumbo or hearsay. To say that there is debate or even that there are alternate theories would be a plain lie.

Even West-Virgina and Texas finally removed any reference to 'debate' in their text books!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Methane (CH4)


			
				ORNL said:
			
		

> Cyclic changes in Earth’s orbital parameters are evident through 8 glacial cycles. EPICA and Vostok data are in close agreement over the period of the Vostok record (see Graphics). The earliest 4 glacial cycles appear to exhibit less influence of the precessional (22,000-year) component, which involves the time of year when the earth is closest to the sun. *Pre-industrial methane fluctuations are between 300 and 800 ppb. Recent Southern Hemisphere concentrations of atmospheric methane are over 1700 ppb, and Northern Hemisphere methane concentrations are over 1800 ppb.*



800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)


			
				ORNL said:
			
		

> Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between *170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv)*, corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of *386 ppmv*, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.


Methane = 3.27 fold increase
Carbon dioxide = 1.7 fold increase

Methane is about 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a green house gas.

Which number is more alarming?


Moreover, the best theory for the phenomena of the Bermuda Triangle is massive methane releases (can rapidly sink ships and cause radial engines to fail).  Most of these occurred in the 20th century where warming is well documented and human CO2 emissions were nothing like today.  If we're in an ice age now (albeit minor one), we're heading for the opposite of it now.  I'm not so sure humanity can do anything to stop these massive CH4 releases.  On top of that, we know less about the ocean floor than we do about the moon.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Methane (CH4)
> 
> 
> 800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
> ...



Carbon dioxide?
1.8 ppmv for CH4 vs. 386 ppmv for CO2

1.8 ppmv of CH4 is roughly equivalent to 38 ppmv of CO2.

Edit - Some more handkerchief math.

CO2 up by ~90 ppm
CH4 up by roughly 1.3 ppm (equivalent to 27 ppm CO2)

CO2 seems to be the bigger problem.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

Wow, the level of brainwashing is unreal, to deny that scientists cannot agree on whether mankind has caused global warming. Unbelievable. Two groups, each funded by their politically diametric groups, its no wonder. At least I can see that for what it is and acknowledge it.

Unsubbing, because I've learned in my life that fanatics believe one thing, and will never acknowledge that their view may jave some holes. It's impossible to have a learned discussion with them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Carbon dioxide?
> 1.8 ppmv for CH4 vs. 386 ppmv for CO2
> 
> 1.8 ppmv of CH4 is roughly equivalent to 38 ppmv of CO2.


That's what is getting the research grants because it is a hot phrase but, correlation does not imply causation.

You're forgetting the component where CH4 releases can cause the temperature to jump quite rapidly (in global terms anyway) which causes glaciers and the ice caps to release CO2.  Even if we shut down everything that emits CO2, that CH4 will still be released which keeps CO2 rates climbing, just not as fast. Not only that, but the heating caused by CO2 + CH4 causes permafrost to melt releasing even more CH4.  CH4 acts as the trigger which determines how much CO2 is released.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> There is no debate in the scientific community about the fact that humans affect the climate.


 Maybe you missed this... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Maybe you missed this... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html



Nope - It was written by the same guy who backs creationism over evolution. He also believes that asbestos and 2nd hand smoke is harmless. He actually seems to be against science in general.

Here's some information on the writer's beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Views_on_science



rtwjunkie said:


> Wow, the level of brainwashing is unreal, to deny that scientists cannot agree on whether mankind has caused global warming. Unbelievable. Two groups, each funded by their politically diametric groups, its no wonder. At least I can see that for what it is and acknowledge it.
> 
> Unsubbing, because I've learned in my life that fanatics believe one thing, and will never acknowledge that their view may jave some holes. It's impossible to have a learned discussion with them.



Support your statements with science. That's all I ask. I have shown you where that the scientific community explicitly state that there is no debate on climate change (apart from a few smaller niggling details). Did you even read them?
The only other argument here is that the scientific community is corrupt. It'll take be too long to write a full counter to this, but this article  outlines where the money for climate research actually goes: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012...iven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/

I believe in Ohm's law, does that also make me a fanatic?


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> He also believes that asbestos and 2nd hand smoke is harmless. He actually seems to be against science in general.


 
He was referring to White asbestos..*.relatively harmless *white asbestos.  Sorry my good man. Nice try. Typical of the warmest strategy though. 
Paint anyone that dares to disagree as crazy. Way to fill the pews of your church!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

Human-related CH4 releases are going to start going up rapidly as natural gas replaces oil and coal.  The infrastructure alone is expected to vent 2.7% ± 0.6% to the atmosphere simply as a function of working.  As already pointed out, a little CH4 goes a long way.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (citing Department of Energy sources)
Humanity is blamed for 15% of new CO2 emissions but 36% of new CH4 emissions since preindustrialization.  Humanity can have a huge impact on CH4 because it naturally is only found in trace amounts.  The permafrost and ocean releases can also have a profound impact for the same reason.

There are some pictures lower down on that page that show what I'm talking about.  Compare CFCs, to CH4, to CO2.  Nitrogen is another potential factor that is grossly understated but it isn't where near as potent as CH4.

We also can't forget water vapor.  From same link above:


			
				Dr. Wallace Broecker said:
			
		

> I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor.


There are at least three major components to global temperatures and way too much focus is placed on the second one which is a complete disservice to the other two.  You know when you're trying to find something but don't see it because it is right in front of you?  I get the sense that is the net effect the IPCC had on this field of research (25 years dedicated to CO2).  They want to scapegoat CO2 for ill-conceived reasons just like nuclear was scapegoated.  We shot ourselves in the foot with the latter; I see no reason why we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot with the former as well.


This is why I checked "not sure" in the poll.  There are too many holes to be certain of anything other than basic facts (atmospheric CO2 & CH4 are rising; global average temperature is rising).


----------



## LightningJR (Feb 13, 2015)

Finally got through all the pages I had missed. I have to say rtw you have lost me once again. You tend to call people fanatics and extremists once they show quantifiable evidence and also questioning their integrity. You have also unsubbed from this thread which only reminds me of a kid rage quitting a game. You sound the most like a bought politician.

This thread has had me thinking but also has not swayed me away from human accelerated global warming.

I look at Ford's posts and are thoroughly perplexed by the numbers, I wish we had a resident PH.D Climate Scientist here to respond to his findings.

I am also not finding the 50/50 deny/agree that was proposed to me anywhere. When there's a debate they have 1 for and 1 against but that's not representative of the full community.

Nice to see silkstone here, a science teacher, he/she is seems to be the most qualified in this area so far, I am interested to continue reading this thread.


----------



## rruff (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Ocean carbon release 'ended last Ice Age'
> Those same "burps" are happening now.  It's due to pressures changing on the ocean floor and it's positive feedback.  As large quantities of CH4 are released, they increase atmospheric temperatures which causes ice to melt releasing trapped CO2.



The article states that our oceans are *absorbing* CO2 not "burping" it (or CH4). Nothing about CH4 at all... nothing about never seeing an ice age again.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

I blame Google and my reading comprehension.  Here's the right path:
Methane clathrate

Specifically:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/old-gas-new-gas/3


			
				American Scientist said:
			
		

> Under pressure and low temperature, methane (which normally boils at -161 degrees Celsius) forms a thermodynamically stable association with water. These solids are called methane hydrates, examples of a broader class of structures, the clathrates.
> 
> What's stable at one temperature and pressure may not be at another. Under ambient conditions at sea level, methane is a gas, water a liquid. But in the permafrost and deep at sea, the weak hydrogen bonds between water molecules reinforce the still weaker forces between CH4 and H2O to create an aggregate made of a water cage around one or more methane molecules.
> 
> Methane hydrates are white solids, less dense than water. They remain on the seafloor only because they are agglomerated with rocks and mud. (There, opportunistic evolution has led a variety of species to use the methane in situ, as a carbon and energy source.) Under the weight of 1,000 meters of ocean, methane hydrate is stable to about 12 degrees, and because the seafloor is colder than that, the ice-like hydrates form spontaneously wherever methane is available. Brought up to the surface the hydrates fall apart to methane and water.


There's documentation of seeing this trapped methane releasing both in permafrost (northern Russia) and on the ocean floor.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Human-related CH4 releases are going to start going up rapidly as natural gas replaces oil and coal.  The infrastructure alone is expected to vent 2.7% ± 0.6% to the atmosphere simply as a function of working.  As already pointed out, a little CH4 goes a long way.
> 
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (citing Department of Energy sources)
> Humanity is blamed for 15% of new CO2 emissions but 36% of new CH4 emissions since preindustrialization.  Humanity can have a huge impact on CH4 because it naturally is only found in trace amounts.  The permafrost and ocean releases can also have a profound impact for the same reason.
> ...



You're right. CH4 is another big concern, but I believe it's more difficult to deal with as it's related to our eating habits and population size.



SK-1 said:


> He was referring to White asbestos..*.relatively harmless *white asbestos.  Sorry my good man. Nice try. Typical of the warmest strategy though.
> Paint anyone that dares to disagree as crazy. Way to fill the pews of your church!



Second hand smoke is also harmless, right? And evolution is a lie?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> You're right. CH4 is another big concern, but I believe it's more difficult to deal with as it's related to our eating habits and population size.


Difficulty doesn't minimize importance. XD


I think we should be taking every dollar that would be put into natural gas and instead invest it in nuclear.  I do believe the largest consumer of natural gas so far is the electricity industry and what they're doing is replacing coal-fired plants with natural gas turbines because 1) gas is slightly cheaper than coal per MWh and 2) EPA regulations have made new coal plants a non-starter.  It is a mistake to consider this "alternative" an alternative at all.  They're both bad.

coal/oil is predominantly carbon + oxygen = carbon dioxide
methane is a very lengthy chain that results in methane + oxygen = carbon dioxide + water vapor

We're taking one  molecule of the #3 green house gas (methane) and combining it with two oxygen molecules to form one molecule of the #2 green house gas (carbon dioxide) and two molecules of the #1 green house gas (water vapor).  This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.   We need to leave it in the dirt.  Sure we can capture and use methane that is being vented to the atmosphere anyway but no one should be digging up buried reserves of this stuff to burn.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Difficulty doesn't minimize importance. XD
> 
> 
> I think we should be taking every dollar that would be put into natural gas and instead invest it in nuclear.  I do believe the largest consumer of natural gas so far is the electricity industry and what they're doing is replacing coal-fired plants with natural gas turbines because 1) gas is slightly cheaper than coal per MWh and 2) EPA regulations have made new coal plants a non-starter.  It is a mistake to consider this "alternative" an alternative at all.  They're both bad.
> ...



I agree that nuclear is much better than any fossil fuel, assuming its well planned and managed/maintained. The waste is very worrisome, but there are some very new and cleaner nuclear technologies that governments should be throwing money at.

Regarding CH4, difficulty doesn't make it any less important. However, tackling the easier one first makes sense. 
The extraction of natural gas does contribute a large amount of methane into the atmosphere (around the same amount as rice cultivation). However, even when considering that CH4 is about 21-times more potent than CO2, it's still better than coal and oil.


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I believe in Ohm's law, does that also make me a fanatic?


For someone who doesn't know what the Ohm law is, that even makes you dangerous


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2015)

@silkstone

*Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.*

_Prov._ People who are able to do something well can do that thing for a living, while people who are not able to do anything that well make a living by teaching.

From George Bernard Shaw






just to substantiate this a bit.....

my Dad would loved to have been a playwright, ended up being head of the English dept in a notable British private school.
My stepmother was a nuclear physisist, when she retired she worked for free to promote the teaching of physics in schools especially encouraging females.

I dont trust  the opinions of media, politicians or teachers.
As we all know, you can spin these things any way you like.

There are too many agencys with too much vested interests to get an unbiased untainted CONCLUSIVE answer, and therein lies the rub........

the cause isnt the problem...........the solution most definitely is.
And yes i have followed and reread all of this thread, it interests me to hear attitudes and opinions from different people, i dont have to agree with any of them.


This shit will affect our kids and their kids, that is the important thing.

When the solution is found someone is gonna make a fortune...


oh and by the way methane is a naturally occurring substance which is regularly released by seismic changes,

http://www.examiner.com/article/fis...hane-releases-on-days-of-intense-earth-wobble

"Earth Farts"


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> However, even when considering that CH4 is about 21-times more potent than CO2, it's still better than coal and oil.


I don't know how you figure that.  Because energy density (MJ/l) of natural gas is lower than diesel/gasoline, we have to burn a lot of it to get the equivalent energy.  The exhaust is more water vapor than carbon-dioxide but that's still an awful lot of two things we need less of, not more.  Coal has other particulates that make it much worse than oil unless it has been scrubbed of those emissions (advanced coal facilities).  Yes, burning methane is better than venting it but ideally, it just stays where it is.

I also don't figure out you think CO2 is "easier." Forest fires release CO2 and virtually all animals exhale CO2.  It's an inescapable gas.  We can only reduce industrialized sources.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> oh and by the way methane is a naturally occurring substance which is regularly released by seismic changes,
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/fis...hane-releases-on-days-of-intense-earth-wobble


"Intense earth wobble" likely causes ocean floor pressures to shift which, in turn, causes that methane hydrate to release.  There's a ton of evidence out there (like that one) that methane is running away.  It just isn't easy to track because they're very quick events and can happen anywhere on some 60-80% of the Earth.

For all we know, it could be responsible for taking MH370 out of the air too.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> For all we know, it could be responsible for taking MH370 out of the air too.




and the mystery surrounding Bermuda triangle.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> *Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.*



Way to go supporting your arguments, attack the person. You have no knowledge of me personally nor my motivations to get into teaching but, please keep the ignorance coming as that's how arguments are won.

Opinions have nothing to do with it. It's not like scientists sit around in a room brainstorming ideas that sound good and say:
a: "Hey! we can push this down people's throats and make a ton of money!
b: "That's a good idea, but how the hell will we get away with it?
a: "Because .... We're scientists! People will have to believe us. Mwuhahahaha (evil laugh)"

There is actual work that is done. To forgo even reading it, or even worse, claim it doesn't exist, is ignorance of the highest level. Especially when that ignorance drives your argument.




FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't know how you figure that.



The average emissions rates natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.

Natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant (than oil).

So far the arguments boil down to:
a) the scientific community are corrupt (biggest scandal since the lunar landings!)
b) The scientific community disagree - Challenge: find how many peer review papers challenge the current model for climate change vs. those that back it.
c) They did some scientific mumbo jumbo to the numbers that I don't understand, so they must be false!
d) How dare you be so arrogant to suggest that humans have any influence on the planet we inhabit!

I'll let all those following the thread come to their own conclusions.

Note: There are other less prominent theories than ones centring on CO2 emissions, but human activity is at the centre of all of them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> The average emissions rates natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.
> 
> Natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant (than oil).


Half as much carbon oxide and double the water vapor.  That's really, really bad as far as green house gas emissions is concerned.  Nuclear and coal also produce water vapor in cooling towers and no one really gives a thought.  Unlike methane though, coal and nuclear can have an enclosed radiator stopping the water vapor from leaving the facility albeit at a substantially higher construction cost.


Wallace Broecker has a good point about water vapor and that translates to cloud coverage.  Here's an interesting read on that topic but there's only 39 years of data (and most of that is human observation--not satellite) available on it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/
In short, cloud coverage has decreased 1.56% in this time and a separate study speculated that a 1-2% increase would cause global cooling and a 1-2% decrease would cause global warming.  What's worse is that fossil records can't tell us a whole lot about cloud coverage historically so that 39 years of observations is all we have.


National Science Foundation webcast on the subject (43 minutes long, a minute long intro, 11 minutes of explaination, the rest is journalist questions):
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/clouds/webcast.jsp

Important to note that the type of clouds matter.  High altitude, thin clouds act as a greenhouse gas (positive feedback); low altitude, thick clouds act as a mirror (negative feedback).


			
				David Randall said:
			
		

> The best current estimates of cloud feedback on global warming is it will be a moderate positive feedback--but there is a significant amount of uncertainty there.  It's possible that, eventually, when we have enough observations to see what really happens, it will turn out to be a negative feedback.  But it is also possible that it will turn out an even stronger positive feedback.  So it works both directions.


He goes on to say that we need more satellite observations.  Long story short, this is where weather prediction weighs into climate predication and, as we all know, weather predication isn't the best.

He also confirms that there is a "tremendous amount of uncertainty" related to CH4 and CO2 escaping the ocean and permafrost.

He says that clouds are responsible for 1/3 ("just a rough number") of the uncertainty with IPCC estimates.

"Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get."

Here's another crucial point: aerosols.  Aircraft exhaust doesn't seed big cumulonimbus clouds that cause negative feedback; no, they seed high altitude cirrus clouds that cause positive feedback.  As such, aircraft may have a much larger impact on heating the surface of the earth than just through CO2.


----------



## metalslaw (Feb 13, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> When you watch series like that, you have to remember, they are not entirely objective. The ultimate goal is ratings. *That is why it's important to seek out as much boring source data as possible.*



I lol'ed because it's so true


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 13, 2015)

metalslaw said:


> I lol'ed because it's so true


+1, always drill down through the layers of pop sci reports to find the original source


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

@silkstone I've been convinced not to unsub. No, I did not read the WH link you gave. The White House has never hosted a paper, study or link that doesn't support the President's views on a subject. And we know what the current president's views on the subject are. Therefore it's tainted.

As to scientists being altruistic and neutral, I wish it were so. Anyone who has ever read research grant requests to universities knows that scientists do indeed have an agenda and a theory, that they want money to try and prove. And those grants do not all come from universities. Many sources of funding come from politically affiliated groups and think tanks.  To think that they have zero influence is the very essence of gullibility,

Perhaps you are confused as to what is being argued here. Perhaps you are under the assumption that we are arguing that the Earth is currently warming. On that point, there IS complete consensus. 30 years ago when I was in high school there was consensus that we were in a cooling period. The Earth has done this thousands of times over millions of years. It is therefore impossible to prove without a doubt that man is the cause now, because our existence on this rock is such a flyspeck of time, we have nothing to compare it to.

Now, were man around for 500,000 years it would be much easier to point to man being the causation or not.  And on that point, there is not complete consensus.  Even if that number were 97% of scientists  thinking mankind is the culprit, which it certainly isn't, that still means that there is debate.  Therefore, your assertion that there is no debate is false.  Additionally, your expressed disbelief that anyone believed anything other than your belief, indicates that you have chosen to spend all your time among like-minded people, which certainly affects your viewpoint.  It's a human trait, that people engage in all the time on any number of subjects, so I cannot fault you for that.  The real challenge, is to overcome that basic trait, and acknowledge that there are views in the world that are not your own, and that just because you believe something to be right, doesn't make it so.

That's why I have called you out so much on here.  You appear to be the one person in this thread that is thoroughly intractable in your belief.  Prove that you can use the intelligence you have, and step one centimeter out of your corner, and admit that perhaps there is a middle ground.  Maybe it's man plus the Earth's normal warming, or maybe it's just possible that man has no influence.  We have a very small set of time to use for results, therefore it's hard to say for certain.  Or maybe, you might even take a big step out of your corner and concede the debate is the wrong one.

Perhaps the debate should be what can we do to limit our pollution damage to the environment, and make our water, air and soil cleaner for breathing, drinking and eating.  I for one, think our energies would be better served there than being pawns for two diametrically opposed political groupings, because this debate has always been politically motivated and funded by both sides.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Way to go supporting your arguments, attack the person. You have no knowledge of me personally nor my motivations to get into teaching but, please keep the ignorance coming as that's how arguments are won.




it was teachers in the plural.
I dont know you nor your motivations, i would hope that you are motivated for all the right reasons.

Our kids can easily be fed bullshit in schools, by teachers, but thats another debate.

The solution is our biggest problem. I am yet to be convinced that man is the sole cause or even a major factor in the long term. As whatever ultimately happens it will boil down to the survival of the fittest.

Even if the case was proved definitively that man  is the only reason warming ids hapenning, so what? What does that actually give us? Nothing....someone to blame? someone to sue?

We in the Western world polluted the environment for years, pollution of all kinds, ok.....lets stifle development in the far East because they are polluting.
Double standards? Rational thinking?     definitely political and economic reason there aplenty before you get into the moral aspect.

Ultimately the argument boils down to money.  Is it worth spending money on it.





im so immature but this is relevant


----------



## metalslaw (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> a) the scientific community are corrupt (biggest scandal since the lunar landings!)
> b) The scientific community disagree - Challenge: find how many peer review papers challenge the current model for climate change vs. those that back it.
> c) They did some scientific mumbo jumbo to the numbers that I don't understand, so they must be false!
> d) How dare you be so arrogant to suggest that humans have any influence on the planet we inhabit!



I'm,
e) It doesn't matter who is right. We are running an experiment right now, and over the next century or 2, we will know the result. A conclusion cannot be made til the experiment has run it's course.

i.e. This will play out regardless, as we burn every available non renewable resource available til they are exhausted. This may take only 20 years, or this may take 100 (i.e. by slowing down the change, it 'may' help).

But it all comes back down to this,

The climate change experiment we are running has sooo many variable, that deciding if the experiment needs tinkering really doesn't matter. We are burning everything available... and we will see what happens.

And because money rules the world... We Will Burn Every Fossil Fuel Til We Run Out!


On a side note, the amount of political rhetoric in this thread actually astounds me. I know we have similiar political debate over here in aus, but to me, politics isn't science, so I don't really listen to any political views on this.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> As to scientists being altruistic and neutral, I wish it were so.


About that, there was a conference about climate change of climatologists and it was focused on how they speak about the topic.  He made the issue clear with one simple question: How many of you here identify with conservatives?  Two or three out of a hundred or so raised their hand.  He then, talking to the rest of the room, told them they need to consult with those guys before publishing their paper to push the publication towards neutrality.

This is a huge problem, especially in this field of research.  I wish I knew where I saw that--it was great.




metalslaw said:


> On a side note, the amount of political rhetoric in this thread actually astounds me. I know we have similiar political debate over here in aus, but to me, politics isn't science, so I don't really listen to any political views on this.


*cough*political science*cough*

Science delivers the facts; politics delivers the response.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Second hand smoke is also harmless, right? And evolution is a lie?



Hear are some straws...now you do the grasping.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> @silkstone I've been convinced not to unsub. No, I did not read the WH link you gave. The White House has never hosted a paper, study or link that doesn't support the President's views on a subject. And we know what the current president's views on the subject are. Therefore it's tainted.
> 
> As to scientists being altruistic and neutral, I wish it were so. Anyone who has ever read research grant requests to universities knows that scientists do indeed have an agenda and a theory, that they want money to try and prove. And those grants do not all come from universities. Many sources of funding come from politically affiliated groups and think tanks.  To think that they have zero influence is the very essence of gullibility,
> 
> ...



There was more than one link. I purposely provided more as you might think that the WH one was biased. How about the AAAS short article? How about searching out some research papers on climate change rather than just news articles and blogs? The research is really quite easy to understand and you can get the main findings from the abstracts and conclusions without delving in to the deeper science. If you only choose articles from reputable journals, you'll know that the science will be sound.

You seem to mis-understand my position. Could the theory of human driven climate change be wrong? Of course it could, but it is an accepted theory* and has yet to be disproved.

It's the best we have until someone comes up with better, and people have been trying. So far, none have come close.

*Note I'm using the scientific definition of theory, which is quite different from the everyday usage.

Do I think it will be dis-proven? Not likely. Once something has risen to the level of a theory, the science is generally quite accurate, but it will definitely be expanded upon and new details will emerge once the research has progressed further.
Kind of like Newtonian mechanics. Not false, but there is more to it.

Also, very rational how you have to disagree with something just because the opposing political party holds that view. Really no analysis needed? "He thinks this way, it would be blasphemy for me to agree?"
But, from what I understand of US politics, that's how things are done there. Even good ideas are rejected by the opposition just because.



SK-1 said:


> Hear are some straws...now you do the grasping.



I don't see how. The man is a crock ...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

As I pointed out in my last post, there's two huge unknowns with the current theory:
1) clouds, or more broadly, weather
2) the trapped component in permafrost and the ocean floors
Both have the potential to break CO2 as the primary culprit.  #1 will take decades yet to answer; #2 has no timeline.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As I pointed out in my last post, there's two huge unknowns with the current theory:
> 1) clouds, or more broadly, weather
> 2) the trapped component in permafrost and the ocean floors
> Both have the potential to break CO2 as the primary culprit.



But, you can't argue that they are until models can account for it. So far, all the models/theories/descriptions point to human activity and they are backed with reliable science. There is no debate on this issue (amongst scientists).
I could say it is caused by whale farts because that seems quite logical to me, but unless I have something to back up my claim, no one is going to take it seriously.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

Your words Silkstone: *an *accepted theory.  A theory is not an accepted fact.  At least you have finally relented from your hardcore assertion that the only accepted view is that man is the cause of global warming.  I commend you for taking that brave step.

But I assure you, nothing will ever get accomplished to cleaning our air, soil and water as long as the debate centers on "whodunnit."  All sides need to agree to disagree, accept that each side has good points, and then work toward making our world safer for our bodies.  Imagine what could be done if the great minds set aside the current debate and focused on action.

Also, you keep going towards the assertion there is no debate.  Even Ford's post about the 100 scientists points to the fact there is not a consensus.  Wherever there is not 100% agreement on any subject, there is debate.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

I don't think you understand the word theory.

Can you define it?

Whodunnit is an integral part of it. Stemming the source is an important measure.
If it were up to the political eggheads/industry lobbyists, people would still be denying that climate change (irrelevant of the cause) was a thing. That used to be the argument.

Urgh, I just found out that these people still exist! http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ange-exist-the-senate-is-about-to-let-us-know

Edit - Here's an easy read for those that are unwilling to wade through academic research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I generally don't like quoting Wikipedia as it's not the most reliable source of information. But, it's written for the general audience.

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


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I don't think you understand the word theory.
> 
> Can you define it?
> 
> ...


 
Finding a culprit does nothing to fix something, if all the energy is spent arguing who that culprit is.  If the source this one time out of thousands of warming periods IS humans, it would not make the assumptive fix any more palatable.  Assuming that, we would have to reduce our population by half, and go back to living as prehistoric humans pre-fire, in order to stop emitting CO2 in the amounts that alarmists think we are influencing global warming with.  Are YOU willing to do that?

You're assuming I am not a well-educated man.  You know nothing of me.  A theory is a  scientifically acceptable general principle or principles offered to explain certain phenomena.  Junior high school stuff.

What do those key words point to?  Not fact. It indicates it is plausible, which I have never said it wasn't.  I merely point out that it's not the only accepted viewpoint.  And as to people still denying it, you're not paying attention.  This thread and the poll is an indication that people still deny humans as the cause, in great numbers.  Try as you might, you cannot separate this from the political eggheads.  They have the agendas on both sides, and they fund the research.  As I said earlier, I wish all scientists could be neutral, but alas, they are human.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2015)

Lets say coal didnt burn, if mans only source of heat through history was timber we would all have been doomed long ago with the rates of deforestation during the 15th 16th centuries.

Its ironic that if man hadnt burnt coal we would never have had the technology to detect it in the atmosphere anyway.
Coal was the making of us and it could be the breaking of us too.


I once spent a year with a gang of men all with heavy machinery digging out and replacing the ground that a town gas site used to sit on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas  rampant pollution in every town across the Britain til North sea gas came along. Not entirely relevant but from an historical point of view interesting. They had a lot of these in the States as well. I learnt a lot about pollution while i was doing that.
I  worked along side a Canadian scientist who verified/classified the shit we dug out. He had spent the previous 5/6 years cleaning up contaminated sites in the Arctic, abandoned fuel depots left behind by US forces after the cold war.
The pollution he saw in this site was worse than anything he had seen anywhere, these sites were everywhere. I bet your town has or used to have a Gas Street, thats where they made the gas by cooking coal.

A by product of gas production was coke which we all know was necessary to produce steel rather than iron.



silkstone said:


> There is no debate on this issue (amongst scientists).



wrong.



silkstone said:


> If it were upto the political eggheads, people would still be denying that climate change (irrelevant of the cause) wasn't a thing. That used to be the argument.



couldnt agree more.

On a side note your use of

a)
b)
c)

was commendable, only a teacher...


the Guardian link is an interesting read.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

The definition is kind of paraphrased, but that's the gist.

A *scientific theory* is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported *theories* are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

As to the culprit. How can you justify to an industry to stop burning coal, if you can't prove that coal is one of the driving forces?

@ CAPSLOCKSTUCKON The big debacle is that poorer nations don't want to spend a disproportionate amount of money on climate change mitigation as they can reliably say that they are not the cause. More heavily industrialized nations can deny that they are the cause so they won't have to face the brunt of the costs.

I concede that removing the threat of legal action against the biggest perpetrators would hasten the response. No company want's to ever have to pay damages.


----------



## 64K (Feb 13, 2015)

Well, there is this

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

but I don't think it matters a lot how the climate is being affected by humans. The Earth cycles through hot/cold periods anyway. If humans had never existed that would still be true.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> But, you can't argue that they are until models can account for it. So far, all the models/theories/descriptions point to human activity and they are backed with reliable science. There is no debate on this issue (amongst scientists).


In reality, the DOE puts new emissions of CO2 since preindustrialization at ~85% from "natural" sources.  You're effectively arguing that 15% is going to make or break the ecosystem and that, bluntly, is unrealistic.  Excusing preindustrialization, that number falls to 3.225% of the sum that is in the ecosystem.  CO2 is currently rising at a rate of about 2 ppmV/year (0.5%).


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

64K said:


> Well, there is this
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
> 
> but I don't think it matters a lot how the climate is being affected by humans. The Earth cycles through hot/cold periods anyway. If humans had never existed that would still be true.


 
Let us postulate, and for the sake of argument, take the 97% as an actual representation of the number of scientists who agree on humans being the cause.  97% is not 100%.  That indicates there is not complete agreement.  Where there is not complete agreement, there is debate, and that has been my point all along: It's not unanimous, so the assertion that no one disagrees with the theory is a statement that is false.

It might be a minor point, but again, human nature tends to do that, wrapping one's own beliefs into the "everybody thinks like I do, so what's wrong with you?" line of thinking.  We tend to want to disassociate our own viewpoint from ourselves and wrap it in the credibility of numbers, so there is the tendancy to claim your view is just like everyone else's.

@silkstone Thank-you for your exact definition of a theory, which is better than the simpler version I know/remember


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In reality, the DOE puts new emissions of CO2 since preindustrialization at ~85% from "natural" sources.  You're effectively arguing that 15% is going to make or break the ecosystem and that, bluntly, is unrealistic.  Excusing preindustrialization, that number falls to 3.225% of the sum that is in the ecosystem.  CO2 is currently rising at a rate of about 2 ppmV/year (0.5%).



They actually seem to be purposely misquoting Dr. Wallce Broecker. He is talking about massive climate shifts in history, not the current one that we are seeing now.
*
I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor.*

The reliability of that link is highly dubious, not to mention stupidly outdated.



rtwjunkie said:


> Let us postulate, and for the sake of argument, take the 97% as an actual representation of the number of scientists who agree on humans being the cause.  97% is not 100%.  That indicates there is not complete agreement.  Where there is not complete agreement, there is debate, and that has been my point all along: It's not unanimous, so the assertion that no one disagrees with the theory is a statement that is false.
> 
> It might be a minor point, but again, human nature tends to do that, wrapping one's own beliefs into the "everybody thinks like I do, so what's wrong with you?" line of thinking.  We tend to want to disassociate our own viewpoint from ourselves and wrap it in the credibility of numbers, so there is the tendancy to claim your view is just like everyone else's.
> 
> @silkstone Thank-you for your exact definition of a theory, which is better than the simpler version I know.



Okay then, there is overwhelming conscientious. We live on a planet where people believe all kinds of ridiculous things, there are always going to be people that disagree on any issue you look at. 

After all, even common sense is not that common - Voltaire


----------



## 64K (Feb 13, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Let us postulate, and for the sake of argument, take the 97% as an actual representation of the number of scientists who agree on humans being the cause.  97% is not 100%.  That indicates there is not complete agreement.  Where there is not complete agreement, there is debate, and that has been my point all along: It's not unanimous, so the assertion that no one disagrees with the theory is a statement that is false.
> 
> It might be a minor point, but again, human nature tends to do that, wrapping one's own beliefs into the "everybody thinks like I do, so what's wrong with you?"  We tend to want to disassociate our own viewpoint from ourselves and wrap it in the credibility of numbers, so there is the tendancy to claim your view is just like everyone else's.



Well said and I will just throw this in from my own experience. My Brother in Laws Daughter has a Masters in Marine Biology and the University that she went too offered to pay her tuition to get her PhD and she turned them down because of the pressure to take up Liberal views if she became involved with them.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Feb 13, 2015)

Do humans affect climate change? Yes

If humans didn't exist would there still be climate change? Yes

Seems moot to me


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I generally don't like quoting Wikipedia as it's not the most reliable source of information. But, it's written for the general audience.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


Need I remind you that Galileo Galilei was in the scientific minority when he published Dialogues and that got him put in house arrest after an 8 month long trial.  Morale of the story: one or more of those in the minority may be absolutely right and gets shunned for being so.  You know, like Tesla/Westinghouse vs Edison/GE.  Time is ultimately the decider.  Tesla, despite being shunned, won out over Edison, Einstein beat out Newton's theory of gravity, and so on.

When all of the indicators are pointing in one direction, it's nigh impossible to determine which actually started the ball rolling until one of them deviates.  CH4, for example, did deviate so in a few decades as that CH4 is broken down in the atmosphere, we should learn how much of an impact it has or didn't have.



silkstone said:


> They actually seem to be purposely misquoting Dr. Wallce Broecker. He is talking about massive climate shifts in history, not the current one that we are seeing now.
> *
> I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor.*
> 
> The reliability of that link is highly dubious, not to mention stupidly outdated.


Don't see how that is relevant to what I was talking about.  I was citing the DOE figures on that page on the analysis of man-made versus natural sources of various greenhouse gases.

How is that bolded statement inaccurate regardless of the timeframe it refers to?  I do admit it does have a lot of inaccuracies on the analysis but not the raw facts.  Case in point, water vapor is responsible for 36–70% of the greenhouse effect, not 95%.  I can't be arsed to dig through 20 PDF files to find those numbers at DOE.

Only five years and not much has changed in that period other than IPCC making everyone angry that wasn't a fanatic then backpedaling.



rtwjunkie said:


> Let us postulate, and for the sake of argument, take the 97% as an actual representation of the number of scientists who agree on humans being the cause.  97% is not 100%.  That indicates there is not complete agreement.  Where there is not complete agreement, there is debate, and that has been my point all along: It's not unanimous, so the assertion that no one disagrees with the theory is a statement that is false.


Also bare in mind that these are not direct opinions of the scientists but rather a synopsis of the papers they published.  Whomever did this study did incorrectly classify some of these.  As far as I know, a polling of the actual climatologists has never been done in very specific terms ("earth is warming yes/no", "is it predominantly caused by human activity yes/no").  The only poll I'm aware of was of all types of scientists and not just climatologists and the result was about 55% yes to the question of just warming, not who caused it.  Granted, this was years ago so it probably would have changed by now.

When you just look at studies, you have to look at the money and the money is really only flowing to CO2 studies that all more or less confirm what satellites tell us: CO2 is rising 2 ppmV.  There's other fields of study, arguably far more important to this problem (like weather) that are getting virtually no funding.  This minority doesn't get many papers published because there simply isn't resources (money) to drive up enough interest to do it.  As such, that 97% figure is very, very biased and I wish people would stop using it to prove a point.  The only conclusion can be drawn from it is that most of the research money has gone to CO2 (which shouldn't surprise anyone).


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

There are also people that believe homoeopathy, it doesn't mean that modern medicine doesn't work.

Looking at the references on the page, there are some that are 20 years old. That is pretty old.

Galileo was basically the father of the scientific method and strictly speaking it wasn't his theories that he was jailed for, it was his beliefs. Before his time, we had philosophy, not science as we know it today.

Edit - That linked article is from "plant fossils of West Virginia" That should tell you all you need to know irrelevant of the fact that it is a blog article.

Edit 2: They even state on one of their pages "this page contains facts and figures about *U.S. coal resources* that every American should know. If you dislike America or capitalism you should not read this page. Go instead to this page."

Translated "If you don't agree with us, you are an unpatriotic commie and should go read some socialist shit"


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

I made a big edit that you probably missed.



silkstone said:


> Looking at the references on the page, there are some that are 20 years old. That is pretty old.


Off topic but IPCC was formed in 1990 with >50% certainty of warming and CO2 being connected to it.



silkstone said:


> Galileo was basically the father of the scientific method and strictly speaking it wasn't his theories that he was jailed for, it was his beliefs. Before his time, we had philosophy, not science as we know it today.


He was jailed for believing Copernicus was right about heliocenterism and he refused to deny that belief, therefore insulting the Catholic Church.  FYI, Copernicus would have suffered the same fate but he died of internal bleeding and paralysis before the Inquisition could get their hands on him.  Both men waited until after the age of 70 to publish their works knowing what awaited them if they did.



silkstone said:


> Edit - That linked article is from "plant fossils of West Virginia" That should tell you all you need to know irrelevant of the fact that it is a blog article.
> 
> Edit 2: They even state on one of their pages "this page contains facts and figures about *U.S. coal resources* that every American should know. If you dislike America or capitalism you should not read this page. Go instead to this page."


If you find a better source that breaks down natural and man-made greenhouse gas emissions, let me know.  I did some searching and found nothing.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 13, 2015)

So, is the "science" of climate change still viable after the data has been shown to be manipulated and the "scientists" proven to be more corrupt than politicians?

It seems to me that if the people who believe in the catastrophic c02 driven global warming theory should probably address all those stories that constantly drip out of the media about falsified data, adjustments, and poor methodology to the temperature figures.

Oh, and someone let Al Gore know the South Pole isn't melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage reached record levels for April 2014, hitting 3.5 million square miles — the largest on record.

It was a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center(NSDC). April 2014 beats the previous sea-ice coverage record from April 2008 by a whopping 124,000 square miles.

But the sky is falling and climate change is more dangerous than Islamic terrorist.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> So, is the "science" of climate change still viable after the data has been shown to be manipulated and the "scientists" proven to be more corrupt than politicians?


I think so...about CO2 and temperatures anyway.  Satellites fixed most of the issues there and since the satellites launched, they paint a convincing trend.  There's still a lot of aspects that are underserved though.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Impacts_on_the_overall_greenhouse_effect

Some of the data in the link you provided is referenced, but a lot of is not. I can not see where they are getting a lot of their numbers from.

The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has actually decreased:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming/

and there is also a very complex relationship between CO2, CH4 and where the water vapor ends up in the atmosphere
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

We do not have the complete picture yet, of that I am sure. However, all current evidence points to human activity as the cause of the current change in climate.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> weather


weather is not climate. climate is the weather averaged over a long time. so .. "omg it's cold this winter, must be global warming" no .. "omg it's so hot this summer, we have a drought, thanks global warming" no


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> When you just look at studies, you have to look at the money and the money is really only flowing to CO2 studies that all more or less confirm what satellites tell us: CO2 is rising 2 ppmV.  There's other fields of study, arguably far more important to this problem (like weather) that are getting virtually no funding.  This minority doesn't get many papers published because there simply isn't resources (money) to drive up enough interest to do it.  As such, that 97% figure is very, very biased and I wish people would stop using it to prove a point.  The only conclusion can be drawn from it is that most of the research money has gone to CO2 (which shouldn't surprise anyone).



You misunderstand how the science is done. They don't get paid to prove a hypothesis. The money is there to investigate a question or problem.

A basic example might be, "What drives climate change?" (although that is far to broad of a question to investigate). They might get an answer that points to CO2 or something else entirely. All the findings are published, whether their hypothesis was correct or not.

Even if all the scientists were solely doing research on CO2, they would state a negative conclusion to their hypothesis and indicate where further research needs to be done.
It is not a case of money is going in to research on CO2, so scientists are finding that CO2 is the cause. That's just not how it works.

Regarding the quote. He is not saying that the current change in climate is caused by water vapour in that quote.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html


Already found that and it doesn't do a breakdown comparison of natural vs manmade.  It only catalogues manmade.  I suppose one could crunch all those numbers to generate figures but, no time for that.



silkstone said:


> Some of the data in the link you provided is referenced, but a lot of is not. I can not see where they are getting a lot of their numbers from.


I believe it is sourced from this quote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142


			
				gavin said:
			
		

> Making some allowance (+/-5%) for the crudeness of my calculation, the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about *60-70%* and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!).


Reading the rest of it sounds like it fluctuates wildly and no one really knows.



silkstone said:


> The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has actually decreased:
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/


It's by a "Guest Blogger" and just reading the first part...'nuff said.




silkstone said:


> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming/


Published 2010 and as demonstrated by the previous link, water vapor fluctuates wildly. Would need to compare that article to a more recent article to see if it still holds water or not. 



silkstone said:


> and there is also a very complex relationship between CO2, CH4 and where the water vapor ends up in the atmosphere
> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html


Dated 2008.  That NSF webcast was in 2010 so it's a little more current than that link.



silkstone said:


> We do not have the complete picture yet, of that I am sure. However, all current evidence points to human activity as the cause of the current change in climate.


Not so fast.  Human activity has very little impact on water vapor and most sources say the effect of water vapor is very debated.



W1zzard said:


> weather is not climate. climate is the weather averaged over a long time. so .. "omg it's cold this winter, must be global warming" no .. "omg it's so hot this summer, we have a drought, thanks global warming" no


Watch the NSF video.  You need weather (specifically where water vapor is in the atmosphere) in order to accurately predict climate.  His goal is, by 2030, to be able to accurately predict water vapor's effect on the climate through the end of the 21st century.

Why it matters? A thick cloud has a 2 watt per meter squared negative feedback which adds up to a lot that is reflected instead of absorbed.  Why that matters is because if that cloud is over the arctic, it's impact is near zero due to the ice under it having the same effect.  On the other hand, if that cloud is over the ocean (very dark and absorptive), the negative impact is potentially "tremendous" depending on time of day, density of the cloud, and how much surface it covers.



silkstone said:


> The money is there to investigate a question or problem.


And that "question or problem" was CO2 over, and over, and over again.  Other factors were largely ignored.



silkstone said:


> Regarding the quote. He is not saying that the current change in climate is caused by water vapour in that quote.


I didn't claim that.  I said that water vapor is undeniably the #1 greenhouse gas.  There's a lot of debate about the specificity because...there's so much we don't know or have the capacity to measure/predict.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2015)

Wheres the best place to go to find 97% of scientists who agree that man caused climate change.......a conference on global warming.-------  F.......g brilliant ?  

If you went to a baking convention you might find quite a lot of people there who like cakes !


Heres a scientist i trust in a respected publication, not much to read, i promise.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/03/brian-cox-scientists-climate-change


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 13, 2015)

It's okay to be wrong about global warming, by the time you are proven wrong you'll be long dead ... because that's what really matters, who is right and who is wrong


----------



## silkstone (Feb 13, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Heres a scientist i trust in a respected publication, not much to read, i promise.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/03/brian-cox-scientists-climate-change



As Brian Cox rightly points out, by even debating the issue, I'm giving a sense of legitimacy to climate change denier claims 
I guess I should stop now. There is no point.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I'm giving a sense of legitimacy to climate change denier claims
> I guess I should stop now. There is no point.



There is every point. stick to your convictions.

Right or wrong is of no consequence...what  we *do *about it is.


Bowing out


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

I'm out too, since no one has addressed a good explanation for the falsification of the temperature readings that was the original point of this thread.  It just seems to me, were it so clear, there would be no reason to change the data readings from what they were originally were at so many weather stations.

BTW, @silkstone, I don't think there is a person alive that denies climate is changing.  

No hard feelings on my part!   Greater minds than us will solve this someday.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Right or wrong is of no consequence...what  we *do *about it is.


Queue the politics.  Case in point: Kyoto Protocol.



rtwjunkie said:


> Greater minds than us will solve this someday.


I don't think there is anything to "solve" per say.  As @CAPSLOCKSTUCK said, it's the doing that needs doing.

I look at it this way: 10 years ago nuclear power was a non-starter.  Now most countries are actively pursuing it (US has 5 reactors planned or in progress, for example) or seriously considering it.  That may not be much but that is some doing getting done.  It translates to  upwards of five large coal/natural gas power plants that won't be built.  I don't think that's enough to make anyone happy but it is a silver lining everyone should be able to get behind.  So all of this noise about climate change did not fall on deaf ears.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Queue the politics.  Case in point: Kyoto Protocol.
> 
> 
> I don't think there is anything to "solve" per say.  As @CAPSLOCKSTUCK said, it's the doing that needs doing.
> ...


 
More doing getting done:  Burlington, VT became the first U.S. city to have all of its electricity supplied from renewable sources, split among three different sources:  Solar, Hydro from the local river and a wood/trash fired plant.  They are independant now of the rest of the grid.  Yeah, the wood plant is a pollutant, but it's a start.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I look at it this way: 10 years ago nuclear power was a non-starter. Now most countries are actively pursuing it (US has 5 reactors planned or in progress, for example) or seriously considering it. That may not be much but that is some doing getting done. It translates to upwards of five large coal/natural gas power plants that won't be built. I don't think that's enough to make anyone happy but it is a silver lining everyone should be able to get behind. So all of this noise about climate change did not fall on deaf ears.


What we (1st world) do, doesnt matter at all. What matters is how China, India and similar developing countries progress. And who are we to deny them growth. Look at how many power plants China is bringing online each year, look at their coal consumption, now add some growth for the next 20 years


----------



## DannibusX (Feb 13, 2015)

Oh look.  The same old argument.  There's lots of this on General Nonsense.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> What we (1st world) do, doesnt matter at all. What matters is how China, India and similar developing countries progress. And who are we to deny them growth. Look at how many power plants China is bringing online each year, look at their coal consumption, now add some growth for the next 20 years


China has 23 nuclear reactors with 26 under construction and even more planning. Four >1000 MW reactors went critical in 2014.  China is also financing and building reactors in other countries like Pakistan and Argentina.

Nuclear is expanding in India albeit not as fast.  India's largest nuclear reactor to date (917 MW) went critical just 3 months ago.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2015)

DannibusX said:


> Oh look.  The same old argument.  There's lots of this on General Nonsense.



It isnt a General Nonsense topic and it hasnt been discussed in a non sensical way.

Well within the rules of this forum i think.
The fact that   W1zz has had an input ( throughout the discussion) and that none of the mods have had any reason to call anyone out justifies my words.

I for one have enjoyed it, its been stimulating and very informative.

I would be interested to hear how you voted.

EDIT     sorry i should have tagged @W1zzard in.


----------



## REAYTH (Feb 13, 2015)

TheMailman called it years ago. He said the UN was basically the worlds corrupt HOA buying scientist to hike tax rates. Pretty obvious he was right at this point.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 13, 2015)

Anyone who tells you "the science is settled" has never performed a scientific experiment in their life. Science is not a thing that can be "settled." We have prevailing theories of course and sometimes, rarely, they can be considered laws of nature. But even those laws are tweaked over time as we develop better tools to do our "science" with. Currently the majority of climate scientists believe the earth is warming thanks to man. It probably is. The real debate is what impact does man have on climate. Nobody knows. Our tools are not refined enough to make proper measurements (as we have learned from the past 15 years) and we don't have enough raw data to put together models that make sense. There isn't much else to say on the matter other than there are people who claim to be doing science when in fact they are pushing a political agenda. Science, like all fields, is not free from people who are crooked.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> China has 23 nuclear reactors with 26 under construction and even more planning. Four >1000 MW reactors went critical in 2014.


Nuclear in China is single digits percent. They have 2 million(!!) people working in state owned coal mines

the better unit to use for your argument is kWh (= energy = joules)

"In 2012 gross electricity generation was 4994 TWh (not including Hong Kong) on IEA figures, this being 3785 TWh from coal, 86 TWh from gas, 97 TWh from nuclear, 872 TWh from hydro, and 147 TWh from non-hydro renewables"

2013 data:






16,000 MW installed, produced 104 TWh. 16000 * 365 * 24 = 140 TWh peak = on average they are running at 74% of max load


----------



## twilyth (Feb 13, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> What we (1st world) do, doesnt matter at all. What matters is how China, India and similar developing countries progress. And who are we to deny them growth. Look at how many power plants China is bringing online each year, look at their coal consumption, now add some growth for the next 20 years





FordGT90Concept said:


> China has 23 nuclear reactors with 26 under construction and even more planning. Four >1000 MW reactors went critical in 2014.  China is also financing and building reactors in other countries like Pakistan and Argentina.
> 
> Nuclear is expanding in India albeit not as fast.  India's largest nuclear reactor to date (917 MW) went critical just 3 months ago.


Both India and China have growing demand for energy that will continue to outstrip whatever they can produce domestically.  That tends to favor the development of renewable sources like wind and solar.  This is especially true of China that has steadily increased the amount of energy it imports, including coal.  They tend to be a bit paranoid about relying on external sources which is a big part of the reason that they have made developing solar technologies a priority.  But it also applies to nuclear.

The cost per watt of solar has been dropping in a fairly linear fashion for decades and efficiency continues to rise.  At some point it will just make more economic sense to use renewables rather than hydrocarbons.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> state owned coal mines



and have you seen what they describe as coal in China

We call it "brown coal" or orimulsion, its shit. We refused to burn it in the uk because it is so polluting.

In Wales we are lucky, sorry, rephrase, were lucky to have the finest coal in the world, anthracite.  It drove the industrial revolution it also powered Queen Victorias own ship.   Merthyr Tydfil was the first industrialized area in the world, take a walk around there today, you would never think it.
The enormous steel factory in Port Talbot is now owned by TATA the Indian steel giant, oddly they are cutting production here and increasing it in India. The steel works in Ebbw Vale stretched for 9 miles down one valley  -all gone.

Unfortunately the local superpower at the time kind of took it off us (wealthy English landlords) coal, iron and copper masters, as set in print by Alexander Cordell in "the rape of the fair country". Incidentally Welsh mined slate was said to have roofed the world, all of the viable slate has gone as well. Swansea was known as "Copperopolis" f*** all copper left now.

The heavy industries have moved on leaving some of the unhealthiest populations in Europe, 3 generations of some families havent worked in some households.

Maggie Thatcher closed the mining industry even though it was a quality product with high demand.

Im ranting i know, but my point is and i'll take you back to the title  "the rape of the fair country"  we were raping our natural resources 250 years ago, we havent stopped and we havent learned the lessons from an ecological social or moral point of view. And we are still f*****g our people in the arse by removing the wealth.

Progress ? but what is the cost.
Politicians, with their agendas set policy, hindsite is supposed to make us wiser. Sometimes i have my doubts.

KYOTO   ....bollocks..........from what i can remember a big chunk of the invited delegates dont even attend.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 13, 2015)

twilyth said:


> fairly linear fashion


your chart has an exponential scale btw

but yes, I agree, it is one possible approach: we push research to bring down cost of solar (which motivates china to do so as well), or we research it and give it to them for free, so we save money in the long run not having to fix the climate



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> and have you seen what they describe as coal in China


yup yup, "brown coal" here in German too. btw, in 2012 we mined more of it than China 

edit:

just found this


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 13, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> we push research to bring down cost of solar (which motivates china to do so as well),




The EU recently imposed extreme taxes to reduce the amount of cheap solar equipment coming in from China, they were concerned the relative cheapness would damage EU industry's competitiveness.

Anthracite......relatively good
bituminous and brown, extraordinarily bad   - hence the smog, sulphur emissions.


----------



## DannibusX (Feb 14, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> It isnt a General Nonsense topic and it hasnt been discussed in a non sensical way.
> 
> Well within the rules of this forum i think.
> The fact that   W1zz has had an input ( throughout the discussion) and that none of the mods have had any reason to call anyone out justifies my words.
> ...


I wasn't saying it was a General Nonsense topic, just saying there's a ton of it there.  All of everything you guys are discussing are there for everyone to read and bask in misinformation, consensuses or whatever other information sways your argument.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> Nuclear in China is single digits percent. They have 2 million(!!) people working in state owned coal mines
> 
> the better unit to use for your argument is kWh (= energy = joules)
> 
> ...


16,000 MW is an old figure.  As of right now, they have 20,115 MW in operation, 28,461 MW under construction,  40,820 MW planned at coastal locations, and 27,900 MW planned at inland location.  By 2025, they will likely have 117,296 MW worth of nuclear power which is nearly a 583% increase in increase in output compared to today.  They're going to overtake every other country on that image by almost double.

As of 2011, EIA put these predictions on Chines power production:


			
				EIA said:
			
		

> Electricity generation increased by more than 89% since 2005, and EIA projects total net generation will increase to 7,295 TWh by 2020 and 11,595 TWh by 2040, nearly three times the generation level in 2010.


We'll use the 2020 figure because it should be close to the 2025 figure I gave above (because more plants could exit planning and enter construction).
117,296 MW * 365.25 * 24 h = 1,028,216,736 MWh
Move the decimal 6 places and we get 1,028 TWh.  1028 TWh out of 7,295 TWh brings us to *14%* up from 2% in 2013 in just 12 years.  Their goal is 150 GW by 2030 and it looks like they're on track to get there.

This is completely consistent with I said.  Many countries were tepid about nuclear until about 2005-2010 and they reconsidered (about the time of the 2007 IPCC report).  Interest fell off in 2011 with the Fukishima disaster and came back after a 2013 self-imposed moratorium to reconsider designs and vulnerable sites.  Now the world has gone back to being serious about nuclear.  That fact  goes in the "win" column.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 14, 2015)

I think nuclear power is currently stuck in a very uncomfortable position. One of the few advantages it has (cleaner than coal) is being threatened by solar panels.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 14, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> weather is not climate. climate is the weather averaged over a long time. so .. "omg it's cold this winter, must be global warming" no .. "omg it's so hot this summer, we have a drought, thanks global warming" no


You are right in that it is not global warming, The correct terminology is Climate Change, and this is only true if a pattern of change can be seen.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 14, 2015)

Fourstaff said:


> I think nuclear power is currently stuck in a very uncomfortable position. One of the few advantages it has (cleaner than coal) is being threatened by solar panels.


Explain how Nuclear is cleaner overall, is that during the construction, implementation, or residual phases? (just messin with ya )


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> your chart has an exponential scale btw
> 
> but yes, I agree, it is one possible approach: we push research to bring down cost of solar (which motivates china to do so as well), or we research it and give it to them for free, so we save money in the long run not having to fix the climate


Would you believe I meant log linear?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

Fourstaff said:


> I think nuclear power is currently stuck in a very uncomfortable position. One of the few advantages it has (cleaner than coal) is being threatened by solar panels.


Solar panels are only okayish for peak power (if it is cloudy, it isn't of much use).  Nuclear is excellent for base load.  If you have 10 nuclear reactors, a solar power plant near a city may prevent you from needing an 11th but it cannot replace the necessity of those 10 nuclear reactors.  The way grids are usually set up is like this:
Base (24/7): nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, and increasingly natural gas with wind supplementing as available (natural gas fills in the gaps)
Peak (noon to 3 PM): natural gas and solar (natural gas fills in the gaps)

Solar isn't a threat to anything unless you're in a really remote place with low wind speeds (like space).


Also bare in mind that PV panels are deliberately dark in color. 


The reason why nuclear fission is better than everything except nuclear fusion is because of physics.  Uranium is extremely energy dense (3,359,167 times more dense than coal).  When a coal plant and a nuclear plant are operating normally, the nuclear plant's only potential environmental emission is water vapor while coal vents that and much more.  A single nuclear reactor can eliminate thousands of square miles worth of solar panels.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

If solar is cheap enough, all you have to do is split water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burn the hydrogen when there's no sun.  That could also eliminate transmission losses.  You would just pipe the hydrogen from wherever its made to where it would be burned.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

If you can't turn hydrogen into liquefied form, it is extremely dangerous to trap, never mind transport.  Solar would never get ahead in that process and I'd argue it probably can't even get ahead producing electricity for the grid as well as breaking up water.  Water is already precious in much of the world so using it for energy production away from bodies of water doesn't lead anywhere good.  The only way to get ahead using hydrogen is by way of fusion.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

I wouldn't be quite so dismissive.  Most current solar panels are less than 20% efficient.  In fact it's probably not much better than 15% on the outside.  So just doubling the efficiency w/o increasing the cost would probably make that economically feasible.  In terms of transporting it, I'm sure we could find a way if there were an economic incentive.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

I do believe there are about ~40% efficient panels available now.  They don't change the calculus because there are severe limitations on space and time.  Traditional power plants have neither of these shortfalls (or at least not to the same, massive extent).

Also bare in mind that most PV panels are black which means they provide positive feedback in terms of atmospheric warming (absorbs instead of repels).  Thermo solar is greener in this regard because they are comprised of a mostly mirror surface but at a lower efficiency.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Solar panels are only okayish for peak power (if it is cloudy, it isn't of much use).  Nuclear is excellent for base load.  If you have 10 nuclear reactors, a solar power plant near a city may prevent you from needing an 11th but it cannot replace the necessity of those 10 nuclear reactors.  The way grids are usually set up is like this:
> Base (24/7): nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, and increasingly natural gas with wind supplementing as available (natural gas fills in the gaps)
> Peak (noon to 3 PM): natural gas and solar (natural gas fills in the gaps)
> 
> ...



Now then, if we make a nice band of solar cells running from Japan to Morocco we will not need to worry too much about base load, peak power, and the jazz.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

Now you're just being ridiculous.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

For cities, space might be an issue, but for most places it's not.  Even at the low efficiency levels of most panels in use now, you can install enough to meet most of the needs of residence.  Most of the cost comes from installing battery systems to capture excess power for later use.  And the more efficient panels become, the fewer are needed.  The fact that there are PV cells that exceed that level of efficiency is essentially irrelevant because they cost much more to produce - at least currently.  However as the efficiency of mass produced panels reaches 25-30%, that will make a huge difference in what is possible.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

World's largest solar plant: http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/ivanpah-solar-project#.VN8HrDh0weM
377 MW occupying 3,500 acres

The smallest nuclear reactor that operated in the USA in 2009 was 478 MW Fort Calhoun, NE--the reactor that was surrounded by water a few years ago when the Missouri River flooded.   It occupies 660 acres.

Fort Calhoun is 41 years old and should have been decommissioned a long time ago (it was retrofitted recently to fix deficiencies so it's going to be going for at least a decade more).  Ivanpah, on the other hand, is brand spanking new.

Moreover, that 377 MW figure isn't in hours which doesn't figure in day cycles.  NREL (company building it) claims *1,079,232 MWh/yr*.  Fort Calhoun, on the other hand, is good for *4,261,454 MWh/yr*.  More than four times the power generation per year in a five times smaller footprint.  If Ivanpah weren't built in a desert and did not get a $1.6 billion federal grant, it never would have happened.  Let us also not forget that Ivanpah will burn natural gas too.

Fort Calhoun can't hold a light to newer reactors.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 14, 2015)

Why is there so little mention of tidal energy ?

Renewable, clean and efficient.
Tidal lagoons are a brilliant way of storing capacity.
Sure not applicable everywhere, but none of the methods of production are.

The biggest nay sayers to this green resource strangely are the greens themselves citing resettlement of migratory birds and stupid shit like that.

The birds will move on.

We need massive govt backed incentives and innovation.
We all need to start thinking outside the box.

Oh. And dont forget cow farts. Not as ridiculous as it sounds.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

This is the largest tidal generator in the world being constructed now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incheon_Tidal_Power_Station

This one number explains why there are so few:


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The station is expected to generate up to 2.41 TWh of energy annually upon its completion in June 2017.


Compare that number (*2,410,000 MWh/yr*) to the two above.  They're built as a seawall first and power generation is a bonus.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> World's largest solar plant: http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/ivanpah-solar-project#.VN8HrDh0weM
> 377 MW occupying 3,500 acres
> 
> The smallest nuclear reactor that operated in the USA in 2009 was 478 MW Fort Calhoun, NE--the reactor that was surrounded by water a few years ago when the Missouri River flooded.   It occupies 660 acres.
> ...


That's a ridiculous comparison.  I would hope you know the difference between PV solar and thermal solar.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

Thermal has lower operational and construction costs.  PV are not suitable for large scale production like you see at Ivanpah.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Thermal has lower operational and construction costs.  PV are not suitable for large scale production like you see at Ivanpah.


Yeah, and?  You gave that project as an example of how much space is needed for solar.  Now you're admitting that PV and thermal aren't comparable.  You should try to make up your mind.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

Name one grid solar power plant that uses PV then I can use that to generate a comparison.  If you can't find one, my point has been adequately made.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

PSEG in my state has pv panels up on every telephone pole.  I drive by hundreds of them every day.  And these have been up for at least the past couple of years.  There's also a multi-acre generation facility used by a local college.  So I'm afraid you haven't made your point.


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 14, 2015)

We have to use more eco approaches, but as far as I know, Earth goes through a reboot cycle regularly. It's sort of a time when things are craped and started over. On smaller or larger scale. Magentic poles shift, ice ages etc...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

twilyth said:


> PSEG in my state has pv panels up on every telephone pole.  I drive by hundreds of them every day.  And these have been up for at least the past couple of years.  There's also a multi-acre generation facility used by a local college.  So I'm afraid you haven't made your point.


I can use the multi-acre facility if you have a kWh figure for it.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I can use the multi-acre facility if you have a kWh figure for it.


I have no idea but here is the fact page for PSEG - https://pseg.com/family/pseandg/solar4all/index.jsp


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

125 MW https://pseg.com/info/media/pdf/solar4all_factsheet.pdf

They only estimate the total area of the pole panels as 140 acres which is inadequate to make broader assumptions.

Since Ivanpah is basically ideal conditions for solar energy, the ratio of MW to MWh should be about equal.  I'm assuming the 125 MW figure itself already includes the efficiency improvements (if there are any).  So...

Ivanpah = 3202 h/yr
PSEG = *400,309 MWh/yr*

Yup, still a pittance by comparison, just more distributed which translates to less efficiency in DC -> AC conversion.  Ivanpah is steam or natural gas -> AC.  Which reminds me, these numbers may be way off because Ivanpah has natural gas included.


Since I did the least powerful nuclear reactor in the USA already, maybe we should take a look at the most which is at Palo Verde near Phoenix, AZ.  Like Ivanpah, Palo Verde has three reactors where Ivanpah has three solar plants.
#1: 1,311 MW
#2: 1,314 MW
#3: 1,317 MW
Total capacity: *31,199,935 MWh/yr*
Land: 4,000 acres

Both Ivanpah and Palo Verde are in the desert so this is a very 1:1 comparison.  They even occupy about the same space (4000 vs 3500 acres).  You would need 30 Ivanpahs to equal the output of this one nuclear generation facility (164 square miles).  To put that into context, that is about the size of New Orleans, LA, covered in reflectors.  Meanwhile, Palo Verde only occupies 6.25 square miles which is the size of a small city.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

I'm not sure what your point is.  You originally invoked Ivanpah to claim that PV solar would take up too much land but much of the PSEG installation doesn't use any land since they install the panels on rooftops and on telephone poles.  You can't install thermal solar that way so you can't compare the two.  

How many millions of acres of roof tops do you think we have in the US?  How much more electricity will be generated when the efficiency of mass produced panels goes from 10-15% to 30% or more?

Obviously nuclear has a higher energy density.  You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to figure that out but that was never an issue.


----------



## xfia (Feb 14, 2015)

I put leaning no but not sure. whatever label they want to put on it makes no difference to me. 7 billion people, carbon emissions.. and all that affect the planet. the past 200 years did some damage.. nearly a blink of an eye in the life of the earth yet the future can be painted grim.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

twilyth said:


> I'm not sure what your point is.


Solar is sad, unless you're in space.  Doesn't matter if it comes from PV or thermal, the end numbers paint the same picture: you need a lot of surface area to generate a noteworthy amount of power.



twilyth said:


> You can't install thermal solar that way so you can't compare the two.


Actually, you can.  Make a parabolic dish, stick a metal can on it with a pipe running two and fro with a pump and a simple steam turbine, generator, and conendsor set up and you got yourself a miniature solar thermal power plant.  Not as practical as PV for that kind of application but it works.



twilyth said:


> How many millions of acres of roof tops do you think we have in the US?  How much more electricity will be generated when the efficiency of mass produced panels goes from 10-15% to 30% or more?


Around here they'd either be covered in leaves, dust, or snow for half of the year.  Their efficiency is also diminished for two reasons: 1) doesn't track the sun greatly diminishing their energy potential; 2) they have to use means of converting DC to AC that are far less efficient than that of solar thermal.  I would also be doing a grave injustice if I failed to convey the fact you're talking about a lot of hidden construction and waste costs as well as the fact PV cells lose output capacity often before the initial investment is paid off.  Or how about the fact that solar gets the largest subsidies in the world for energy in an effort to make it look like it costs less.

Even if they reached 70% efficiency at the panel (which will never happen anyway) and completely excluding the conversion deficits down the line to make it usable, you're still only working with a few hundred watts per meter squared at most.  The only way to increase that is to put the panel in space and it still possesses very finite limitations.

The bottom line is it is a specialized source of energy for specialized uses.  It isn't suitable for powering the masses.  The proof is in the numbers: as of 2013, solar comprised of 0.23% of the total power produced in the USA.  Geothermal is almost double that.  Solar is a hype train with with a 1 cylinder moped engine.  Yes, yes, _the future_!  The future is fusion, not solar.  Any dollar that is spent on solar that isn't going to fusion is a wasted dollar.  Think Solyndra.  Think those massive subsidies.  Think Department of Energy hardly investing anything in fusion.  It's backwards thinking just like the moratorium on fission was.  Shooting ourselves in the foot once apparently wasn't enough.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Solar is sad, unless you're in space.  Doesn't matter if it comes from PV or thermal, the end numbers paint the same picture: you need a lot of surface area to generate a noteworthy amount of power.
> 
> Around here they'd either be covered in leaves, dust, or snow for half of the year.  Their efficiency is also diminished for two reasons: 1) doesn't track the sun greatly diminishing their energy potential; 2) they have to use means of converting DC to AC that are far less efficient than that of solar thermal.  I would also be doing a grave injustice if I failed to convey the fact you're talking about a lot of hidden construction and waste costs as well as the fact PV cells lose output capacity often before the initial investment is paid off.  Or how about the fact that solar gets the largest subsidies in the world for energy in an effort to make it look like it costs less.
> 
> ...



Actually, I think solar makes sense for some situations. Apple (well known to be money minded) is investing solar. Still very niche at this point, but if price falls by another magnitude things will get pretty serious. After all, DC is good for long distance transmissions, and surprise, surprise! Solar produces DC. 

Speaking of efficiency, I think newer ones are pretty good. At least, good enough for Morocco to actually build significant solar infrastructure (in a desert, no less).

May I remind you that fusion is still 50 years from us, the same position it has been since 1950s . Fission is a good friend of solar energy currently (when the sun is not shining), at least until we finally get fusion. As of now, commercial fusion is sci-fi, fission is 

Finally, US is pretty bad at solar panel manufacturer, so bad that companies needed to beg the govt to prevent Chinese manufacturers to flood the market. The shame .


----------



## nolafotoknut (Feb 14, 2015)

When talking solar energy, it seems most people only think of solar panels powered by the sun; however, windmills use a form of solar energy, wind, and can produce electricity as well.  These windmill farms can be built on land or in the ocean.

As with any type of solution, there are consequences to windmill farms (e.g. time, research, funding, changes in landscape, bird mortality, and other wildlife fatalities).

With that being said, no "solution" to "global warming" is going to resolve everything.

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/how-do-wind-turbines-work


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Solar is sad, unless you're in space.  Doesn't matter if it comes from PV or thermal, the end numbers paint the same picture: you need a lot of surface area to generate a noteworthy amount of power.
> 
> 
> Actually, you can.  Make a parabolic dish, stick a metal can on it with a pipe running two and fro with a pump and a simple steam turbine, generator, and conendsor set up and you got yourself a miniature solar thermal power plant.  Not as practical as PV for that kind of application but it works.
> ...



I assume you know that no new thermal solar projects are being build because they aren't cost effective - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...lar-energy-some-technologies-really-are-dumb/

As for what would work or not in your area, I'm not prepared to take your word for that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

Fourstaff said:


> Actually, I think solar makes sense for some situations. Apple (well known to be money minded) is investing solar. Still very niche at this point, but if price falls by another magnitude things will get pretty serious. After all, DC is good for long distance transmissions, and surprise, surprise! Solar produces DC.


Because of the government. Read: massive tax writeoffs so they can pay less in taxes than they already do.  Bad policy begets bad decisions which begets bad economic results.  It's more of a PR stunt than something practical.



Fourstaff said:


> Speaking of efficiency, I think newer ones are pretty good. At least, good enough for Morocco to actually build significant solar infrastructure (in a desert, no less).


Because property values in deserts are literally dust cheap.  Large solar facilities simply don't exist in high property value areas because the value of the property itself makes it a poor investment.



Fourstaff said:


> May I remind you that fusion is still 50 years from us, the same position it has been since 1950s . Fission is a good friend of solar energy currently (when the sun is not shining), at least until we finally get fusion. As of now, commercial fusion is sci-fi, fission is


Lockheed Martin is convinced they'll have a working prototype in 10 years with the aim of producing 100 MW of power in a package that fits in the back of a straight truck.



Fourstaff said:


> Finally, US is pretty bad at solar panel manufacturer, so bad that companies needed to beg the govt to prevent Chinese manufacturers to flood the market. The shame .


Because China copied US designs without the massive investment costs those US companies took on.  It's effectively patent infringement and you know how much China cares about those (hint: they don't).  China is infamous for producing illegal knockoffs.



nolafotoknut said:


> When talking solar energy, it seems most people only think of solar panels powered by the sun; however, windmills use a form of solar energy, wind, and can produce electricity as well.  These windmill farms can be built on land or in the ocean.


Wind turbines have the same problem as solar: there's a finite density.  Go below that and efficiency drops substantially for those in the wake of the first.  I'm well aware that the sun powers way more than even mankind does through all sources but that's not the point of this discussion.  The point is that solar/wind for mainstream power generation is simply not realistic. 



twilyth said:


> I assume you know that no new thermal solar projects are being build because they aren't cost effective - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...lar-energy-some-technologies-really-are-dumb/
> 
> As for what would work or not in your area, I'm not prepared to take your word for that.


Ivanpah is being constructed *right now*.  It isn't quite finished yet.  There's four reasons why they're rare:
1) Location.  Specifically, it has to meet two criteria:
1a) Has to be close to a place where peak power is in great demand. Ivanpah, that is Los Angeles.
1b) Needs cheap access to a form of oil or natural gas to fill in the gaps (e.g. cloudy days). Ivanpah, that's natural gas.
2) The price of coal and natural gas have to be high to justify using the more expensive solar.  Right now, both are stupid cheap.
3) Power companies don't even think about building without massive public funding.  Ivanpah, that starts at $1.6 billion in a federal loan and who knows how much more California dished out.
4) Their power generation figures in theory rarely line up with reality.  Ivanpah, is 40% below target.

Now, there is one interesting thing in that link and that is Warren Buffet buying a PV plant near Ivanpah covering about equal amount of space: Antelope Valley Solar Projects which weighs in at 579 MW.  They don't give MWh/yr rating so I have to base it on the same rating for what Ivanpah _should_ be producing: 3202 h/yr * 579 MW = *1,853,958 MWhr/y* which is close to Incheon Tidal Power Station but still a far throw from the weakest of nuclear power plants.

Ivanpah's underperformance was blamed on cloudier than anticipated weather so Antelope Valley Solar Projects could easily be bitten by the same bug seeing how they are relatively close together.

And on top of that, you clearly didn't read the whole thing.  This guy is like my brother from another mother:


			
				James Conca said:
			
		

> At this level of operation, over 20 Ivanpahs (at a cost of $50 billion) would be needed to produce the 9 billion kWhs that a single nuclear reactor produced last year. *40 Ivanpahs, costing about $85 billion and having triple the carbon footprint, are needed to replace the loss of the two reactors at California’s San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station*.


California is infamous for bad policies like this.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Ivanpah is being constructed *right now*.  It isn't quite finished yet.  There's four reasons why they're rare:
> 1) Location.  Specifically, it has to meet two criteria:
> 1a) Has to be close to a place where peak power is in great demand. Ivanpah, that is Los Angeles.
> 1b) Needs cheap access to a form of oil or natural gas to fill in the gaps (e.g. cloudy days). Ivanpah, that's natural gas.
> ...


What I said was "*no new *thermal solar projects are being buil[t]."  The fact that this project is still under construction is irrelevant.  And as I keep saying, PV solar doesn't require thousands of acres of *LAND *to work.  You haven't given any information to contradict that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

I did a major edit more directly addressing the link.

As for your new post. Yes it does.  PV may be higher efficiency but the numbers are still ridiculously short of everything else.  The Forbes/Conca link even points that out clearly.  Two nuclear reactors cost less than these projects, have an expected service life of 60 years versus 25 years, and produce power at a cost of 2 cents/kWh versus 9-12.  Solar checks all of the "lose" boxes except they win the hippy/environut vote for all of the wrong reasons.

Solar that isn't concentrated in a location like these large scale plants create massive grid problems because it's nigh impossible to regulate.


----------



## rruff (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Solar is sad, unless you're in space.  Doesn't matter if it comes from PV or thermal, the end numbers paint the same picture: you need a lot of surface area to generate a noteworthy amount of power.



The amount of surface area needed to supply the whole world's power needs with solar is quite feasible. Note that this is 100% of all energy consumed, not just our electric consumption, and it is projected to 2030:
http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

There is no shortage of useless land in the places where solar works the best. 

Solar panels are insanely cheap even now. You can buy a pallet of good quality US made panels for $1/W shipped to your door. PV is easily more cost effective now than solar thermal. PV in some locations is the cheapest method for producing electricity period.

All the talk about how renewables can't work is nonsense. The closer you get to 100% of supply the more difficult it becomes, but even that is feasible with current tech. Not current infrastructure however. We'd need a balanced variety of sources. We'd need a connected grid with smart metering to encourage conservation when the supply is limited (or projected to be) and encourage use and storage when it is abundant, and produce hydrogen and run other processes when there is excess. 

It isn't done because we have more cost effective solutions given our current infrastructure and price of fossil fuels, but we will have no problems producing energy when that is no longer the case. That's even assuming that there are no important advances in technology.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I did a major edit more directly addressing the link.
> 
> As for your new post. Yes it does.  PV may be higher efficiency but the numbers are still ridiculously short of everything else.  The Forbes/Conca link even points that out clearly.  Two nuclear reactors cost less than these projects, have an expected service life of 60 years versus 25 years, and produce power at a cost of 2 cents/kWh versus 9-12.  Solar checks all of the "lose" boxes except they win the hippy/environut vote for all of the wrong reasons.
> 
> Solar that isn't concentrated in a location like these large scale plants create massive grid problems because it's nigh impossible to regulate.


OK, so?  You keep bringing up the issue of nuclear when you're the only person talking about it.  How many times to I have to restate what the original point was?

edit:  and there's no issue with PV solar.  It feeds directly into the grid just like the PSEG project.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

rruff said:


> The amount of surface area needed to supply the whole world's power needs with solar is quite feasible. Note that this is 100% of all energy consumed, not just our electric consumption, and it is projected to 2030:
> http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127
> 
> There is no shortage of useless land in the places where solar works the best.
> ...


Solar doesn't work without the grid and the grid really doesn't care for solar.  In order to make the grid work with solar, it HAS to have a massive natural gas component because nuclear has a month long reaction period, coal has a 48 hour reaction period, and natural gas has a 4 minute reaction period.  Solar IS natural gas.  They are inseparable unless you're happy with daily brownouts and blackouts.  I don't care how much you love solar, embrace the water vapor and CO2 that comes with it.

The entire US is broken into three grids: East, West, and Texas.  The sun shining in California can cause problems two time zones over.  This is why that New England power outage spread like fire causing multiple states to lose power.  All of these individual reactors were seeing spikes and their safeties triped disconnecting them from the grid to save their own equipment.  In order to prevent solar from doing the same thing, plants of all kinds in the area have to anticipate how much energy is going to come from solar and wind because they have no means to turn it off.  In order to shield the grid from this chaos, they have to build double the capacity in natural gas to compensate for the variables natural gas and solar put on the system.



twilyth said:


> OK, so?  You keep bringing up the issue of nuclear when you're the only person talking about it.  How many times to I have to restate what the original point was?
> 
> edit:  and there's no issue with PV solar.  It feeds directly into the grid just like the PSEG project.


PV solar cells are dirty in the sense that require a lot of mining and industrial processes in order to make a pittance of energy.  Conca covered that in his article.

PV is rife with "issues," you're simply choosing to ignore them.  PSEG only works because of various fast-reacting gas power plants:
https://www.pseg.com/family/power/fossil/stations/index.jsp
1,209 MW here
 756  MW there
376 MW here too
516 MW of you guessed it!
 617 MW of figure it out yet?
...I don't think I need to go through the rest of them...

There's plenty there to cover every drop of that 180W they're getting from solar...10 fold.


Moreover, PV produces DC.  It does not go "directly into the grid."  It is converted to AC and the voltage is stepped up in order to match the line voltage.  What is produced at nuclear/coal/gas plants skips the DC->AC part and goes straight to the transformers.  This is a win for thermal solar and wind because both skip the DC->AC conversion as well.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Solar doesn't work without the grid and the grid really doesn't care for solar.  In order to make the grid work with solar, it HAS to have a massive natural gas component because nuclear has a month long reaction period, coal has a 48 hour reaction period, and natural gas has a 4 minute reaction period.  Solar IS natural gas.  They are inseparable unless you're happy with daily brownouts and blackouts.  I don't care how much you love solar, embrace the water vapor and CO2 that comes with it.
> 
> The entire US is broken into three grids: East, West, and Texas.  The sun shining in California can cause problems two time zones over.  This is why that New England power outage spread like fire causing multiple states to lose power.  All of these individual reactors were seeing spikes and their safeties triped disconnecting them from the grid to save their own equipment.  In order to prevent solar from doing the same thing, plants of all kinds in the area have to anticipate how much energy is going to come from solar and wind because they have no means to turn it off.  In order to shield the grid from this chaos, they have to build double the capacity in natural gas to compensate for the variables natural gas and solar put on the system.


I'm getting really tired of repeating myself so if you can't keep up you can have this conversation with yourself.  Repeating the same issues I've already responded to and shown to be nothing but straw men isn't how you go about discussing something.  You only do that when you're primary purpose is to perpetuate a discussion that you've already lost.  So unless you can come up with something new, I'm outta here.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2015)

rruff said:


> Solar panels are insanely cheap even now. You can buy a pallet of good quality US made panels for $1/W shipped to your door. PV is easily more cost effective now than solar thermal. PV in some locations is the cheapest method for producing electricity period.


Important footnote: 1W only on clear sky days for a few hours.  They don't compare, at all, with base power generation.  This is why Fort Calhoun, a 42 year old power plant, beats the top five solar power facilities in the world combined.  It doesn't go off 75% of the day.  In 2009, in fact, it delivered 102% of what was expected from it.  Moreover, it only cost $178 million back in 1973 (~$1 billion in today's dollars which is half the cost of Antelope Valley Solar Projects or Ivanpah). It cost less than $500 million to retrofit a few years ago, and is expected to operate with minimal interruption at least until 2033 (60 year service life).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 14, 2015)

First serious scientific assessment of apocalyptic risks has been published

A team from Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute and the Global Challenges Foundation has come up with the first serious scientific assessment of the apocalyptic risks we face.


A few of the scenarios arise from events that are out of our control - such as an asteroid hitting the Earth or the eruption of a supervolcano - but most emerge from human advancements.

Some of these developments, particularly those that are technological, have the potential to bring great benefits humans - but could also lead to our demise.

The report states: 'This is a scientific assessment about the possibility of oblivion, certainly, but even more it is a call for action based on the assumption that humanity is able to rise to challenges and turn them into opportunities.'

*Global pandemic  *


An apocalyptic disease would be incurable (like Ebola), nearly always fatal (like rabies), extremely infectious (like the common cold) and have long incubation periods (like HIV).

If these devastating features were to occur in a single pathogen - influenza is already capable of combining features from different viruses - then the death toll would be extreme.

While significant resources have been dedicated to medical research and combating disease, modern transport and dense populations allow infections to spread quickly.




Deadly: An apocalyptic disease would be incurable (like Ebola), nearly always fatal (like rabies), extremely infectious (like the common cold) and have long incubation periods (like HIV), the report suggests

*Supervolcano *

The danger of a supervolcano - one capable of producing an eruption 1,000 times larger than normal - is the amount of aerosols and dust sent into the atmosphere.

This dust would absorb the Sun's rays and cause a global 'volcanic winter' - with effects similar to those of an asteroid impact or a nuclear war.

With technology currently available, there is little that could be done to prevent the damage.

*Artificial intelligence *





*COOL PIC eh   *


*Artificial intelligence*:
Perhaps the most-discussed apocalyptic threat, this refers to the development of machines and software with human-level intelligence

Perhaps the most-discussed apocalyptic threat of the moment, this refers to the development of machines and software with human-level intelligence.

Such intelligences could not be easily controlled - either by the groups creating them, or some international body - and would probably be able to boost their own intelligence.

And if they decide humanity if of no value, they will be driven to build a world without humans.

But such artificial intelligence could easily combat most other risks in the report - making it a tool of great potential.

At the moment, no one knows whether there is a real risk of extreme machine intelligence and the researchers therefore give it a wide estimate of probability.

*Extreme climate change *

Scientists currently predict climate change caused by human activity - adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere - could mean average global temperatures increase by 4C.

But there is a risk that the warming could be much more extreme than the estimates suggest - and rise up to 6C.

The impact would be strongest in poorer countries, which would become uninhabitable, the research concludes, and lead to mass deaths, famines and mass migration.

*Synthetic biology *

Genetic engineering of super-organisms could be beneficial for humanity. But the release of a super-organism that targets humans, or a crucial part of the ecosystem, could end in disaster.

This could either be leaked accidentally - unintentionally from a laboratory - or deliberately - in instances of bio-warfare or bio-terrorism.

The impact could be worse than any natural pandemic.

Currently, attempts at regulation or self-regulation are in their infancy, and may not develop as fast as research does.

*Asteroid impact *

It might sound like the stuff of science-fiction - but a major asteroid impact could lead to the end of the world.

Large asteroid collisions – with objects 5 km or more in size – happen about once every 20 million years and would have an energy a 100,000 times greater than the largest bomb ever detonated.

A land impact would destroy an area the size of a nation like the Netherlands.

Should an asteroid hit, destruction would be caused by the clouds of dust shot into the atmosphere - affecting climate, food supplies and creating political instability - rather than the initial impact.




End of the world: Large asteroid collisions – with objects 5 km or more in size – happen about once every 20 million years and would have an energy a 100,000 times greater than the largest bomb ever detonated


*Ecological collapse*

A complete breakdown of the global ecosystem - often leading to mass extinction.

The likelihood of this depends on the extent to which humans are dependent on the ecosystem. Some lifestyles, for example, could be sustained if they were independent from the network. 

Whether this can be achieved on a large scale in practice, especially during a collapse, will be a technological challenge, and whether it is something that is wanted, is an ethical question. 

*Nanotechnology*

 The release of a super-organism that targets humans, or a crucial part of the ecosystem, could end in disaster
Super-precise manufacturing on an atomic level could create materials with new properties - such as being highly resilient or 'smart' - that would be highly beneficial. 

These manufacturing technologies could offer some of the world's biggest problems - including the depletion of natural resources, pollution, climate change, clean water and even poverty.

But it could also lead to the creation of  large arsenals of conventional or more novel weapons made possible by atomically precise manufacturing. 

*Nuclear war*

The fear of an apocalyptic nuclear war between Russia and the US gripped the global community for decades. 

That threat may have reduced, but the potential for deliberate or accidental nuclear conflict has not been reduced, with some estimates putting the risk in the next century at around 10 per cent. 

Whether the war has a larger impact would depend on whether it triggered a 'nuclear winter' - the creation of a cloud of smoke high in the atmosphere that would block the Sun's rays, plunging temperatures below freezing, and possibly destroy the ozone layer. 


In order for this to happen, the bombs would have to start massive firebombs that could lift the dust into the atmosphere. 

The effects would lead to the disintegration of the global food supply - making widespread starvation and the collapse of states likely. 




*Bad local governance* 

This refers to two main categories of government disasters - failing to solve major solvable problems and actively causing worse outcomes. 

An example of the first would be failing to alleviate absolute poverty; of the second, constructing a global totalitarian state.

Changes in technology, politics and society could lead to the creation of better governments, but it could also give us those that are much worse. 





*Global system collapse *

This broad term refers to an economic or societal collapse on a global scale that involves civil unrest and a breakdown of law and order that makes the continuation of human life impossible on Earth. 

There are too many unknown factors to predict how likely this outcome would be but such effects have been observed in intricately-connected systems like ecology and finance. 

The possibility of collapse is more acute when several networks depend on each other. 

Unknown consequences

An umbrella category that represents all of the unknown unknowns - risks we have not thought about or appear extremely unlikely in isolation. 

Together they recommend a significant apocalyptic threat.  






Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ear-holocaust-SUPERVOLCANO.html#ixzz3RlNBir4O


----------



## rruff (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Important footnote: 1W only on clear sky days for a few hours.  They don't compare, at all, with base power generation.  This is why Fort Calhoun, a 42 year old power plant, beats the top five solar power facilities in the world combined.  It doesn't go off 75% of the day.  In 2009, in fact, it delivered 102% of what was expected from it.  Moreover, it only cost $178 million back in 1973 (~$1 billion in today's dollars which is half the cost of Antelope Valley Solar Projects or Ivanpah). It cost less than $500 million to retrofit a few years ago, and is expected to operate with minimal interruption at least until 2033 (60 year service life).



You keep quoting random numbers that aren't relevant. What is relevant is the total cost and the method needed to supply the energy. Who ever suggested solar (alone) could be a base power source? We currently have zero storage in electric delivery, so of course you need power plants that can vary their output quickly. But what if you add say 1 day of storage (could be hydrogen produced during excess capacity), plus a few simple methods to encourage use during peak production times? Solar, wind, and other methods become very viable then. 






"*Utility-scale solar power can now be delivered in California at* *prices well below $100/MWh ($0.10/kWh)* less than most other peak generators, even those running on low-cost natural gas. Lower solar module costs also stimulate demand from consumer markets where the cost of solar compares very favorably to retail electric rates."

Nice little discussion of the electric cost comparisons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

CO2 emissions:


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 15, 2015)

So, after 10 and a half pages, does anyone on here have any desire to discuss the subject of the original post? I for one, find it quite interesting that if the conclusion is so certain that mankind is responsible for the warming, there would be no reason to alter the temperature data up from the real readings formerly recorded.

Thats the one thing everyone has avoided like the plague. Oh, and where is @qubit at, LOL? He started thread that is almost to the end of 11 pages and not participated. Very masterfully done!


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 15, 2015)

Science never fails. And in other news...Butter is now fine! Thanks for being consistent Mr.Science!


> Researchers claim dietary advice around fat consumption, followed by millions for 30 years, should never have been issued


http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...any-solid-scientific-evidence-study-concludes
The Science is OVERE!!!  Rolling my big hazel eyes....


----------



## xfia (Feb 15, 2015)

wrap that stick of butter in raw bacon.. mmm 
I have been reading for years that fake butter is crap for you.. 
I get fb updates from http://www.mercola.com/ ya know reminds me to care


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 15, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Thanks for being consistent Mr.Science!



Science is consistent, it's the interpretation of data and results that differs


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 15, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> Science is consistent, it's the interpretation of data and results that differs


 Silence and its interpretations are synonymous. Sorry.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 15, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Silence and its interpretations are synonymous. Sorry.


Don't apologise


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 15, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> Don't apologize


Okay... I take it back.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> *Extreme climate change *
> 
> Scientists currently predict climate change caused by human activity - adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere - could mean average global temperatures increase by 4C.
> 
> ...


That really hasn't changed since the 1995 IPCC report.


----------



## 64K (Feb 15, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> So, after 10 and a half pages, does anyone on here have any desire to discuss the subject of the original post? I for one, find it quite interesting that if the conclusion is so certain that mankind is responsible for the warming, there would be no reason to alter the temperature data up from the real readings formerly recorded.
> 
> Thats the one thing everyone has avoided like the plague. Oh, and where is @qubit at, LOL? He started thread that is almost to the end of 11 pages and not participated. Very masterfully done!



Clear and concise yet again rtwjunkie. Well done.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

rruff said:


> Nice little discussion of the electric cost comparisons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source


Look at the DOE estimates table.  Nuclear ($96.1/MWh) and natural gas ($64.4/MWh) is still cheaper than PV ($130/MWh).



rruff said:


>


Nuclear is less than Solar PV by a large margin (three fold?).

For the record: wind is the best form of solar energy available but it has copious amounts of flaws as well.



rtwjunkie said:


> So, after 10 and a half pages, does anyone on here have any desire to discuss the subject of the original post? I for one, find it quite interesting that if the conclusion is so certain that mankind is responsible for the warming, there would be no reason to alter the temperature data up from the real readings formerly recorded.
> 
> Thats the one thing everyone has avoided like the plague. Oh, and where is @qubit at, LOL? He started thread that is almost to the end of 11 pages and not participated. Very masterfully done!


It doesn't really matter.  We know CO2 is rising, we have ideas for why, we (everything in the atmosphere) are in this together so where it specifically comes from is rather moot.  It poses a potential threat so we should be doing what we can to minimize our contributions (e.g. stop killing off forests and stop burning so many fossil fuels).

It's a lot like hitting your head on a wall.  You don't need to know why you're doing it to know that you should stop doing it.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 15, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> So, after 10 and a half pages, does anyone on here have any desire to discuss the subject of the original post? I for one, find it quite interesting that if the conclusion is so certain that mankind is responsible for the warming, there would be no reason to alter the temperature data up from the real readings formerly recorded.


OK, I'll jump in and say the evidence isn't conclusive and those that want it to appear to be so are willing to alter existing data to fit in with their theories. Until empirical proof can be shown otherwise of natural increases and causation of climate change then they are chasing their tails. I wouldn't be willing to speculate on a cause, but I am willing to say climate change is real.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 15, 2015)

The climate has changed since its inception....incredible as it seems.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Look at the DOE estimates table.  Nuclear ($96.1/MWh) and natural gas ($64.4/MWh) is still cheaper than PV ($130/MWh).


I guess you didn't bother looking into how the various nat gas figures were arrived at.  Hint - combined cycle usage won't be applicable in most locations.  So really the appropriate figure for nat gas is really $128/mwh and not $64.  IOW, about the same as PV solar.  And btw, those solar figures are a year old.  The cost per mwh for solar drops every year.  That's not the case with nat gas.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because property values in deserts are literally dust cheap.  Large solar facilities simply don't exist in high property value areas because the value of the property itself makes it a poor investment.



Lucky for us, there are lots of deserts which we can use. 



FordGT90Concept said:


> Lockheed Martin is convinced they'll have a working prototype in 10 years with the aim of producing 100 MW of power in a package that fits in the back of a straight truck.



I am not convinced until they out the first prototype. 



FordGT90Concept said:


> Because China copied US designs without the massive investment costs those US companies took on.  It's effectively patent infringement and you know how much China cares about those (hint: they don't).  China is infamous for producing illegal knockoffs.



Sounds like patenting is preventing a full blown solar revolution, not material costs. Sounds like solar will make much more sense for countries who have little respect for patents (see: developing countries). 

I personally have a strong belief in solar power: its more reliable and predictable than wind, more plentiful than hydro, and its fuel is free.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> The climate has changed since its inception....incredible as it seems.


Yup, "climate change" doesn't imply warmer or colder, wetter or drier, sunnier or cloudier.  All it implies is that it is different, for better or worse.



twilyth said:


> I guess you didn't bother looking into how the various nat gas figures were arrived at.  Hint - combined cycle usage won't be applicable in most locations.  So really the appropriate figure for nat gas is really $128/mwh and not $64.  IOW, about the same as PV solar.  And btw, those solar figures are a year old.  The cost per mwh for solar drops every year.  That's not the case with nat gas.


Natural gas is dropping too (for the past year anyway):
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/natural-gas.aspx?timeframe=1y
It is subject to change with supply and demand.

You're right, it was wrong of me to take the cheapest one.  I'm in no way advocating natural gas but it is what is replacing coal and supplementing solar/wind.



Fourstaff said:


> Lucky for us, there are lots of deserts which we can use.


But there isn't a lot of demand for electricity in those deserts (Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Reno, and Las Vegas are the exceptions to the rule).  Transmitting electricity over long distances has it's own problems.  For example, energy lost as heat subtracts away from the efficacy of solar systems due to location.  You might be producing power at 40% in a desert using PV panels but figure in the transmission costs and it may fall to 30%.  That 10% difference can make or break solar projects.



Fourstaff said:


> I am not convinced until they out the first prototype.


Same, but I am hopeful.  Lockheed has a strong track record of doing the thought-to-be impossible.



Fourstaff said:


> Sounds like patenting is preventing a full blown solar revolution, not material costs. Sounds like solar will make much more sense for countries who have little respect for patents (see: developing countries).


Perhaps but that doesn't change the fact that solar power density is extremely low (~250 W/m2 at max if memory serves--disregarding time of day, cloud cover, the entire spectrum of radiation, and at 100% efficiency).



Fourstaff said:


> I personally have a strong belief in solar power: its more reliable and predictable than wind, more plentiful than hydro, and its fuel is free.


Actually, it is neither more reliable, nor more predictable than wind.  Wind is very easy to predict because it operates as a function of well understood concepts (high pressure, low pressure, storm systems, etc.).  We can guesstimate a week in advance what the wind will be like with a great degree of accuracy.  Solar, as demonstrated by Ivanpah, can throw up completely different figures than anticipate just because of minor cloud cover which ties back into the cloud effect on climate change question.  We can't accurately predict what clouds are going to do to the climate and we also can't accurately predict what clouds are going to do to solar power systems.  Clouds have little impact on surface wind.

Hydro, disregarding the impact on the local ecosystem, is the best source of energy but industrialized countries have already fully exploited this resource to a degree that is reasonable.  Hydro as a new energy source is only plausible in countries where it hasn't already been exploited (e.g. third world nations).

PV fuel is the panels themselves excited by light radiation.  The panels are not free and they come at large environmental costs compared to the electricity they yield.  @rruff inadvertently pointed this out a few posts back.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

Different type of PV cells have different spectral responses.  So some will produce more power in diffuse light filtered by clouds than others.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 15, 2015)

Unsu u u u u  bed.

Getting back into my bunker.


Making electricity from hot air.

  ps    having margarine on my toast , i dont believe the c....s about that either.
I might have a glass of red wine with it because thats ok as well.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

twilyth said:


> Different type of PV cells have different spectral responses.  So some will produce more power in diffuse light filtered by clouds than others.


Yes...my point is, of all energy sources, solar is just about the least dense because it is a function of surface area.  They contribute to atmospheric warming through production as well as absorption (as opposed to reflection) of solar energy; thusly, the environmental impact is linear.  About the only place where the absorption is neutralized is on asphalt roof tops with a clear view of the sun because the asphalt has the same effect.  Building the solar panel itself can only be mitigated, not eliminated, through industrial and mining processes.

Solar is much more effective outside of Earth's atmosphere.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That really hasn't changed since the 1995 IPCC report.



What that scientists  "currently" predict.

Says it all.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

Well...CO2 keeps rising at a relatively constant rate and that's mostly what they were looking at back in 1990, 1995, and then in 2001, and 2007.  Based on that one metric, their predictions shouldn't have changed.




Keep the line going and it hits where it is now: ~400 ppmV.

If you think about it, ~310 to ~400 in 55 years is a pretty rapid change.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 15, 2015)

I officially declare....
Mine was the shortest unsubbing in history.
97% of unsubbing scientists agree with me.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yes...my point is, of all energy sources, solar is just about the least dense because it is a function of surface area.  They contribute to atmospheric warming through production as well as absorption (as opposed to reflection) of solar energy; thusly, the environmental impact is linear.  About the only place where the absorption is neutralized is on asphalt roof tops with a clear view of the sun because the asphalt has the same effect.  Building the solar panel itself can only be mitigated, not eliminated, through industrial and mining processes.
> 
> Solar is much more effective outside of Earth's atmosphere.


What are you talking about?  Warming through absorption?  That's not going to affect climate.  Do you understand how greenhouse warming works?  Certain gases trap infrared radiation in the atmosphere preventing them from being reflected back into space.  That happens all over the globe not just in specific locations.  The amount of atmospheric warming from pv cells is negligible.

I think someone already posted this but here it is again - the carbon footprint for solar is virtually zero compared to other sources of power


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

On average, 2 W/m2 are absorbed from the sun which contributes to heating of the atmosphere.  The surface type, itself, effects that.  The darker the surface, in general, the more is absorbed as opposed to reflected.  Cadmium telluride to produce PV is very dark; the mirrors used on thermal solar are extremely reflective.  Of course there's a lot of surface area on the planet but every little bit matters.

When a material absorbs the energy outright, the warming is done instantly making greenhouse gases moot.  If the surface reflects it, the density, type, and altitude of the greenhouse gases determine, on average, how much is reflected back at Earth and this cycle repeats until the energy either leaves the Earth or it is completely absorbed in the atmosphere or on the Earth.

Imagine if the entire planet had a mirror finish.  Earth wouldn't be very warm because even with an unchanged amount of green house gases, most of that energy will escape because the Earth absorbs very little of it.


http://www.firstsolar.com/en/solutions/fuel-displacement




PV by itself may have a tiny bit lower CO2 emissions than nuclear but when you add the natural gas in required to supplement solar, PV isn't even close.  Even if people are putting these panels on their own houses and connected to the grid for night power, those natural gas plants have to be built to fill in the gaps.  I already demonstrated this happened in a big way at PSE&G.

I can't find the page your picture is on.  I'm really curious what that asterisk is for.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> On average, 2 W/m2 are absorbed from the sun which contributes to heating of the atmosphere.  The surface type, itself, effects that.  The darker the surface, in general, the more is absorbed as opposed to reflected.  Cadmium telluride to produce PV is very dark; the mirrors used on thermal solar are extremely reflective.  Of course there's a lot of surface area on the planet but every little bit matters.
> 
> When a material absorbs the energy outright, the warming is done instantly making greenhouse gases moot.  If the surface reflects it, the density, type, and altitude of the greenhouse gases determine, on average, how much is reflected back at Earth and this cycle repeats until the energy either leaves the Earth or it is completely absorbed in the atmosphere or on the Earth.
> 
> ...


http://misfitsarchitecture.com/2013/06/

So you're seriously going to argue that radiant heat from solar panels will contribute to climate change?  Unbelievable.

As for the need to supplement PV with other dispatchable power sources - so what?  The whole point here is to reduce the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere.  PV does that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

twilyth said:


> http://misfitsarchitecture.com/2013/06/


That's a blog hotlinking images and taking them out of context with a lot of dead links.



twilyth said:


> So you're seriously going to argue that radiant heat from solar panels will contribute to climate change?  Unbelievable.


It matters in the big picture especially when you're talking about covering hundreds of square miles in these things.  It's like the antithesis of a rain forest in terms of climate.



twilyth said:


> As for the need to supplement PV with other dispatchable power sources - so what?  The whole point here is to reduce the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere.  PV does that.


I always look long term (100+ years) not short term.  Every little bit counts if the goal is to reduce human contributions of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane to the atmosphere.  Sure PV reduces it some, but not enough for the simple fact it isn't a base load power source.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 15, 2015)

Here we go. This is another reason to question the entire premise.

*Humans the main cause of glacier melt worldwide*
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/08/14/glacier-melt-global-warming/14064023/

*One Of The Largest Glaciers On Earth Melting Due To Global Warming*
http://au.ibtimes.com/one-largest-glaciers-earth-melting-due-global-warming-1415715

Now lets quote the scientist.


> According to Rintoul, it was too soon to say if the melting of the glacier was a result of global warming. He said that their observations could not tell how things had changed over time. His reason was that it was the first time that measurements were made in that area.



Again...this is not a good way to fill the church pews.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's a blog hotlinking images and taking them out of context.
> 
> 
> It matters in the big picture especially when you're talking about covering hundreds of square miles in these things.  It's like the antithesis of a rain forest in terms of climate.
> ...


First of all, the whole idea of PV contributing significantly to warming the atmosphere is ridiculous.  If you can provide something to substantiate that claim, fine, but I doubt that you can.  I'll wait though.

And if you're looking 100 years ahead, you shouldn't assume that PV tech will remain static - right?  You're being just a tad bit inconsistent there don't you think?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

There's already two obvious problems with CdTe...
1) Cadmium is toxic and uncontained unlike uranium fuel.
2) Tellurium is as rare as platinum.
Mass, cheap production is unrealistic for a long period of time.  As demand increases, so will the price.



twilyth said:


> First of all, the whole idea of PV contributing significantly to warming the atmosphere is ridiculous.  If you can provide something to substantiate that claim, fine, but I doubt that you can.  I'll wait though.


This doesn't talk about in the warming sense (I sourced most of that information from that NSF video a while back) but it does talk about some numbers in regards to what stays and what goes: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/Solar_GlarePotentialWL.pdf

More generally:
http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html
Especially note this image:




Left is good, right is bad.  PV panels deliberately transition the balance in their area from left to right.  The more of the planet they cover, the worse it gets.  Note the areas on the right that are especially dark: they're forests which are really, really good at taking only what they need and sending the rest back.  This is why deforestation is a double whammy for warming (less reflected, less CO2 turned into O2).



twilyth said:


> And if you're looking 100 years ahead, you shouldn't assume that PV tech will remain static - right?  You're being just a tad bit inconsistent there don't you think?


It won't, but the amount and types of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth largely won't.  You can't get 1+1=10.  Solar is a finite resource.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> [1]There's already two obvious problems with CdTe...
> 1) Cadmium is toxic and uncontained unlike uranium fuel.
> 2) Tellurium is as rare as platinum.
> Mass, cheap production is unrealistic for a long period of time.  As demand increases, so will the price.
> ...


1.  Again I have to repeat myself.  In the future I'm just going to ignore those points you don't seem to grasp.

The fact of the matter is that PV tech is constantly changing and if you'd read that blog you would understand that there are safer alternatives that rely on safe chemical compounds.

2.  Well duh.  No one is claiming that PV panels don't absorb heat.  The issue is whether or not the amount absorbed is meaningful and it isn't.  At least you haven't provided any reason to believe that  it is.

3.  What does this even mean?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

1. I dislike repeating myself too. 

2. Enjoy some reading.  Long story short: if the albedo of the panels isn't equal to or greater than the surface without the panel, they'll contribute to atmospheric warming.

3. Wall of math for you.  Long story short: ~2.88 kWh/day/m2 is the absolute maximum of solar energy that reaches the surface of the Earth (all types, no clouds, correct alignment, no dust).  This is figuring 30% lost due to the atmosphere.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 1. I dislike repeating myself too.
> 
> 2. Enjoy some reading.  Long story short: if the albedo of the panels isn't equal to or greater than the surface without the panel, they'll contribute to atmospheric warming.
> 
> 3. Wall of math for you.  Long story short: ~2.88 kWh/day/m2 is the absolute maximum of solar energy that reaches the surface of the Earth (all types, no clouds, correct alignment, no dust).  This is figuring 30% lost due to the atmosphere.


In other words, you have no proof of any kind that PV panels would contribute a significant amount to warming the atmosphere.


----------



## entropy13 (Feb 15, 2015)

Wait, so what is essentially being said is that there is an industry (or conspiracy) with less money and less power than the oil industry being able to outspend and overpower the latter?

Because according to the conspiracies themselves the two biggest industries in the world in terms of money and power are the oil industry and the military industry (which pays lip service to "going green", and gets involved in wars for the sake of oil apparently). Yet somehow they are being overwhelmed by the "go green" industries?


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

I honestly don't know what the point is - at this point.  Ford keeps making ridiculous arguments that have no apparent basis in fact and clings to them like they're some sort of life preserver.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

twilyth said:


> In other words, you have no proof of any kind that PV panels would contribute a significant amount to warming the atmosphere.


It depends on where they are built.  I'm not talking about mining/manufacturing costs either.


Let's see how much surface area of ideal solar conditions one would need to equal Fort Calhoun's 4,261,454 MWh/y...
2.88 kWh/day * 365.25 = 1,051.92 kWh/y
4,261,454 MWh/y / 1.05 MWh/y = 4,058,527.62 meters squared or 1.57 square miles or *1002.89 acres*

Remember, this is ideal conditions and no power at night.  Fort Calhoun resides on *660 acres* and it is in no way remarkable.

Now Palo Verte: *7530.83 acres* of ideal panels compared to *4000 acres* of land it sits on.

These panel acres are in terms of packed together, next to each other, and tracking the sun.  This isn't even possible so it would inevitably take more room.

Remember, these figures are real (nuclear) versus imaginary (ideal solar).


Edit: Interesting note: solar may catch up to nuclear if it is in space, in geosynchronous orbit, and tracks the sun.  It would only lose power when in Earth's shadow which is likely only 1/3 of the day.  The rest of the time, it would be getting 100% power and not a curve due to losses in the atmosphere (especially due to angle).


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

Give it up dude.  It's a ridiculous argument for which you have no proof.  Continue posting about it if you must but no is buying it and more importantly, no one cares.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

The math is proof.  You choose not to acknowledge it.  Obviously no one cares or they would be scoffing at solar like I do and virtually everyone else that looked at the math.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The math is proof.  You choose not to acknowledge it.  Obviously no one cares or they would be scoffing at solar like I do and virtually everyone else that looked at the math.


All your so-called "math" shows is that dark surfaces radiate heat.  Woo-hoo


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 15, 2015)

twilyth said:


> Give it up dude.  It's a ridiculous argument for which you have no proof.  Continue posting about it if you must but no is buying it and more importantly, no one cares.


The dude is saying that in that left&right image on the right side, where sahara is red - it would be yellow if it were covered in solar panels ... arguably based on difference in albedo of sahara sand and the panel


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> The dude is saying that in that left&right image on the right side, where sahara is red - it would be yellow if it were covered in solar panels.


LOL.  Yes.  I think I can see that now.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

twilyth said:


> All your so-called "math" shows is that dark surfaces radiate heat.  Woo-hoo


Up to ~325 W/m2 which is significant.



BiggieShady said:


> The dude is saying that in that left&right image on the right side, where sahara is red - it would be yellow if it were covered in solar panels ... arguably based on difference in albedo of sahara sand and the panel


Yes! Edit: Well, no.  deserts have low albedo.  Plant life is what increases albedo the most.  Solar panels in deserts and on top of dark roofs are perfectly fine.  It's everywhere else that's a problem.



twilyth said:


> LOL.  Yes.  I think I can see that now.


Finally!


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

Sure, whatever you say.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 15, 2015)

twilyth said:


> All your so-called "math" shows is that dark surfaces radiate heat.  Woo-hoo



Also remember that solar PV offsets coal power. So you're really comparing the heat absorbed from the pv cells to the heat generated from burning coal. I'm pretty sure it's negligible.

When using solar for heating water vs. electricity or gas it really does make sense. Coal stands at about 31% average efficiency with solar at a guestimate of well over 80%

Every energy source turns into heat in the end. It's the efficiency at capture that is important when considering any kind of warming effect.
All the energy converted into electricity eventually gets converted into heat.

PV work on absorption of light, so direct comparisons are difficult. However, the overall heat output of all the power-stations (fossil fueled or note) is negligible when compared with the effect of the increased levels of greenhouse gasses.


----------



## BiggieShady (Feb 15, 2015)

twilyth said:


> LOL. Yes. I think I can see that now.





BiggieShady said:


> arguably based on difference in albedo of sahara sand and the panel



I did edit my post with "arguably" section  it seems to me that panels are made and are great for absorbing and sahara sand is great for reflecting ... or albedo of the sand is greater ... so one solar panel = huge leaf of a high-tech forest


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Also remember that solar PV is offsets coal power. So you're really comparing the heat absorbed from the pv cells to the heat generated from burning coal. I'm pretty sure it's negligible.
> 
> When using solar for heating water vs. electricity or gas it really does make sense. Coal stands at about 31% average efficiency with solar at a guestimate of well over 80%
> 
> ...


Don't waste you time.  I've already made similar arguments but they don't seem to register with Ford.

The less CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more infrared energy gets radiated into space.  Since PV reduce the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere they help to reduce the amount of infrared that gets trapped.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Also remember that solar PV offsets coal power. So you're really comparing the heat absorbed from the pv cells to the heat generated from burning coal. I'm pretty sure it's negligible.


No, it doesn't.  Coal takes 48 to 72 hours to start/stop.  The primary fossil fuel solar and wind compete with is oil, gasoline, kerosene, propane, diesel, and natural gas.  In short, everything you can set a match to and it burns vigorously.  These are known as peak power plants because they can be turned on and off with little side effect and they take very little time (some as low as 3 minutes) to reach maximum output.



BiggieShady said:


> I did edit my post with "arguably" section  it seems to me that panels are made and are great for absorbing and sahara sand is great for reflecting ... or albedo of the sand is greater ... so one solar panel = huge leaf of a high-tech forest


Backwards.  The green on the left side is good.  The red on the right side is bad.  The Sahara is very hot compared to the forests of the Amazon and Africa.  Because of this, deserts are fantastic for solar not just because the sky is usually clear and the property values are low, the albedo of the sand is really low (it absorbs the heat and the lack dry air provides little distortion to the rays) and most solar panel technologies are higher.


----------



## silkstone (Feb 15, 2015)

twilyth said:


> Don't waste you time.  I've already made similar arguments but they don't seem to register with Ford.
> 
> The less CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more infrared energy gets radiated into space.  Since PV reduce the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere they help to reduce the amount of infrared that gets trapped.



I guess we should cut down all the trees on the planet too. They are too damn good at absorbing the sunlight!



FordGT90Concept said:


> No, it doesn't.  Coal takes 48 to 72 hours to start/stop.  The primary fossil fuel solar and wind compete with is oil, gasoline, kerosene, propane, diesel, and natural gas.  In short, everything you can set a match to and it burns vigorously.  These are known as peak power plants because they can be turned on and off with little side effect and they take very little time (some as low as 3 minutes) to reach maximum output.



Yes, but if it they are set up in conjunction with another source. That's 1 less coal plant you need to build.

Edit - there are better sources than solar. The nuclear reactors that feed on nuclear waste and spit out low-half-life waste seem to be the way forward, but for the politicians blocking the technology  (molten salt reactors and another which I forget the name of)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I guess we should cut down all the trees on the planet too. They are too damn good at absorbing the sunlight!


Noooo, they absorb UV but reflect a lot of visible and thermal energy.  That's why on a bright sunny day, plants often still feel cool (relatively anyway) to the touch.  UV radiation in sunlight is actually pretty weak compared to visible and thermal.

Edit: Linkage  There was a better one than this with more exact figures but I lost it.
50% thermal
40% visible
10% ultraviolet



silkstone said:


> Yes, but if it they are set up in conjunction with another source. That's 1 less coal plant you need to build.


If you mean solar + natural gas, yes, but that trend was forming regardless due to economic factors.  Obama/EPA has put in place what is effectively a cap and trade system which weighs heavily against coal in addition to natural gas price coming way down and supply going way up.  Coal's outlook was decent looking coming in to the 21st century (because it is still abundant and cheap) but now, coal is pretty much dead last.


----------



## newconroer (Feb 15, 2015)

erocker said:


> It doesn't matter. Seriously, people can whine and moan about it one way or the other and it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Anything done by political leaders on the subject tends to be financial or political in nature. Again, nothing accomplished. Until we're either all burning to a crisp or freezing our butts off, nothing substancial will be done about it.
> 
> I'll just sit over here and wait for nature to rain down the apocalypse.



You might be sadly quite right that either way, it's all inevitable. However the problem is when it leaves the hands of the politicians and falls into the hands of individuals, vigilante groups and all out liberal whackos. Because like this 'animal rights' movement, it's one more thing shoved down our throats daily - to the point where we have to live in a society pushed to the edge by one more paranoia.

I shouldn't have to sit by the window at a restaurant in London, so I can watch my SUV and ensure it doesn't get keyed, slashed or blown up by ignorant mis-informed Facebook youth, or some eco-terrorist.


So if you're correct and it doesn't matter, then we need to teach that to people so they'll stop making it miserable for every one else, to listen to them moan about how we're raping the planet.
RAPE RAPE RAPE I say! It's OUR planet to do with as we see fit - whether you believe in God putting humans here, or not, we dominate and run the planet. I don't give a sh*t what happens in two thousands years, we live in the now.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Noooo, they absorb UV but reflect a lot of visible and thermal energy.  That's why on a bright sunny day, plants often still feel cool (relatively anyway) to the touch.  UV radiation in sunlight is actually pretty weak compared to visible and thermal.


Wow.  You really do just make this shit up as you go along don't you?  I've got one word for you, please look it up - transpiration - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

That too.  Clouds tend to form over massive forests as well (perhaps as a function of transpiration) which have a really high albedo.


----------



## DinaAngel (Feb 15, 2015)

The more trees we cut down in Brazil and Africa then the less co2 will be turned into oxygen. But these days trees and plants rot because of insects and bacteria and so the co2 goes up into atmosphere when they rot. Before this bacteria existed then we had peak of oxygen on earth.

But there's more cars on earth than its people, and if u visit China capital u will notice the thick foul car smoke covering whole city. They can't even see the sun at times.

Also the more Greenland ice melts the more sea levels rise and the more pressure on vulcanos since theyr like pimples they will burst. And example Yellowstone has enough ash to cover 90% of earth atmosphere. And those works like mirrors. It's happened before and this is why it's deadly to breathe it it's glass shards. And it would mean constant night for months probably 160 minus degrees Celsius

Some places on Greenland the ice is 4km thick so its a lot of water.
also the sea current that goes down at south Greenland it's saltwater. And Greenland is freshwater. And freshwater is lighter than saltwater so current will stop eventually.

Also the amount that melts per day is so much atm that we will see water levels rise a lot. all of Greenland contains enough freshwater to make sea levels like 25 meters globally

If u calculate how much co2 a car made in 90s and then find out how much 7 billion of them puts out in one day. It's enough to cover all of America with a deadly layer. I believe 60% co2 is deadly in the air

Try calculate it yourself


----------



## rruff (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yes...my point is, of all energy sources, solar is just about the least dense because it is a function of surface area.  They contribute to atmospheric warming through production as well as absorption (as opposed to reflection) of solar energy; thusly, the environmental impact is linear.  About the only place where the absorption is neutralized is on asphalt roof tops with a clear view of the sun because the asphalt has the same effect.  Building the solar panel itself can only be mitigated, not eliminated, through industrial and mining processes.



Starting to think you are just making stuff up. For one I already showed you that only a tiny fraction of earth's surface area would be needed. This is from Sandia Labs: http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar FAQs.pdf

"Sunlight has by far the greatest theoretical potential of all earth's renewable energy sources... *there is more solar energy striking the earth's surface in 90 minutes than the world wide energy consumption from all sources in one year.*"

Or here: http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

About 0.2% of the earth surface in solar PV could supply the projected total world energy consumption in 2030. Or maybe a figure that is easier to grasp, *the same surface area that is currently covered by pavement in the US would be enough to supply all US energy*. 

Desert surfaces are not that reflective anyway. The albedo (reflectivity) of sand and dry dirt is in the .15-.45 range. That means it already absorbs more than it reflects. The albedo of a typical solar panel is ~.20. It's hardly any different. Plus it's converting 15-20% of the incident radiation into electricity rather than heat. *So the amount of incident solar energy that would heat the air is on average less, not more than if the panel wasn't there. *


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

rruff said:


> Starting to think you are just making stuff up. For one I already showed you that only a tiny fraction of earth's surface area would be needed. This is from Sandia Labs: http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar FAQs.pdf
> 
> "Sunlight has by far the greatest theoretical potential of all earth's renewable energy sources... *there is more solar energy striking the earth's surface in 90 minutes than the world wide energy consumption from all sources in one year.*"
> 
> ...


Thanks for showing up Ford's bullshit.  I think he relies on the fact that no one will be willing to make the effort to fact check him.  He certainly doesn't fact check himself.


----------



## xfia (Feb 15, 2015)

there is a solar roadway project.. pretty awesome stuff with led lights and room for all the cables you want. I cant remember the figure but what they said was a pretty small fraction of roadways being redone could supply more than enough power in the usa.

http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml the videos will probably make you a supporter


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 15, 2015)

rruff said:


> Starting to think you are just making stuff up. For one I already showed you that only a tiny fraction of earth's surface area would be needed. This is from Sandia Labs: http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar FAQs.pdf
> 
> "Sunlight has by far the greatest theoretical potential of all earth's renewable energy sources... *there is more solar energy striking the earth's surface in 90 minutes than the world wide energy consumption from all sources in one year.*"


1) You can't cover the whole planet (ecological disaster).  You can't even cover large swaths of it for the same reason.
2) Most of the solar energy hits the oceans.  That energy is crucial to keeping the Earth a relatively stable temperature.  Interrupting it is very unwise.
3) Human population and energy needs are expected to continue to rise.  Humans need three things: space, food, and energy.  Solar energy sacrifices the first two in the name of the third.  This is a lot like ethanol to me.  Corn for energy or corn for food?  Most sensible people should choose food for numerous reasons;  solar radiation is a huge component of food production.  There's only specific locations where solar energy makes sense.  Anywhere solar energy competes with food, we need to choose food.  You can't build them in forests.  Mountain tops usually have huge construction/maintenance impediments on top of lack of demand.  I could go on.  I'm not going to do the math but what is absolutely certain is that there is a point, even if it were completely free, the cons will exceed the pros.  It may not be at 2030, it may not be at 2100, but it is there and it is sooner than anyone would like it to be.



rruff said:


> Desert surfaces are not that reflective anyway. The albedo (reflectivity) of sand and dry dirt is in the .15-.45 range.


30% is the global average.  In other words, that's average.



rruff said:


> That means it already absorbs more than it reflects. The albedo of a typical solar panel is ~.20. It's hardly any different. Plus it's converting 15-20% of the incident radiation into electricity rather than heat. *So the amount of incident solar energy that would heat the air is on average less, not more than if the panel wasn't there. *


The only solid albedo number I saw so far is from that Oregon link which said 30%.  Those panels should be fine in a desert but the desert surface should be checked for albedo first.  If it has particularly high albedo (e.g. your link's 45% number), it really shouldn't be built there.  If you leave the albedo of 45% alone and build where it is 15% increasing it to 30% through the reflectivity of the panels, it effectively cools the planet a tiny bit which is a win in my book.  This is especially true in deserts where there's little to no humidity.




xfia said:


> there is a solar roadway project.. pretty awesome stuff with led lights and room for all the cables you want. I cant remember the figure but what they said was a pretty small fraction of roadways being redone could supply more than enough power in the usa.
> 
> http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml the videos will probably make you a supporter


See thread: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/solar-roadways.202415/

It fails the basic math test in virtually every department (monetary cost, electrical cost, electrical generation, and so on).


----------



## rruff (Feb 15, 2015)

xfia said:


> there is a solar roadway project..



It's total nonsense. A road surface is about the worst possible place to put solar panels.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 15, 2015)

i wanted to do the math, but then i found that link:

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tec...ls-actually-contribute-to-climate-change.html

some good thoughts on albedo of solar cells


----------



## xfia (Feb 15, 2015)

rruff said:


> It's total nonsense. A road surface is about the worst possible place to put solar panels.



I guess you skipped the videos.. haha  really think it would be that bad?


----------



## twilyth (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 1) You can't cover the whole planet (ecological disaster).  You can't even cover large swaths of it for the same reason.
> 2) Most of the solar energy hits the oceans.  That energy is crucial to keeping the Earth a relatively stable temperature.  Interrupting it is very unwise.
> 3) Human population and energy needs are expected to continue to rise.  Humans need three things: space, food, and energy.  Solar energy sacrifices the first two in the name of the third.  This is a lot like ethanol to me.  Corn for energy or corn for food?  Most sensible people should choose food for numerous reasons;  solar radiation is a huge component of food production.  There's only specific locations where solar energy makes sense.  Anywhere solar energy competes with food, we need to choose food.  You can't build them in forests.  Mountain tops usually have huge construction/maintenance impediments on top of lack of demand.  I could go on.  I'm not going to do the math but what is absolutely certain is that there is a point, even if it were completely free, the cons will exceed the pros.  It may not be at 2030, it may not be at 2100, but it is there and it is sooner than anyone would like it to be.
> 
> ...


@rruff - see what I mean?


----------



## rruff (Feb 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Humans need three things: space, food, and energy.  Solar energy sacrifices the first two in the name of the third.  This is a lot like ethanol to me.  Corn for energy or corn for food?



You really went off the rails! Space? We have orders of magnitude more worthless desert than would be needed. If you don't like that, they can be put them on roofs. Food? Have no idea what you are thinking there. Solar PV would not be put on arable land and would not effect food production in the slightest.  



> The only solid albedo number I saw so far is from that Oregon link which said 30%.  Those panels should be fine in a desert but the desert surface should be checked for albedo first.  If it has particularly high albedo (e.g. your link's 45% number), it really shouldn't be built there.  If you leave the albedo of 45% alone and build where it is 15% increasing it to 30% through the reflectivity of the panels, it effectively cools the planet a tiny bit which is a win in my book.  This is especially true in deserts where there's little to no humidity.



You seem to be ignoring the fact that 15-20% of the incident radiation on a panel is converted to electricity rather than heat. 

But lets say we go crazy and put up enough panels to supply 100% of the world's energy by 2030. Those panels would cover ~0.2% of the earth's surface. Now let's pretend they actually *do* heat the air more than if they didn't exist, by 10% of the solar energy hitting them. The earth currently absorbs ~70% of the solar energy that hits it, so this would represent .002x.1/.7= .0003 factor increase in energy absorbed. *1 in 3500*. Care to guess how much that would increase the earth's temperature? It would be a complicated calculation to do properly, but you don't need to bother to know that it is infinitesimally small. 

The *sun's output already varies by >3x that amount* over the course of a decade, and we see no appreciable effect from it on temperature.


----------



## rruff (Feb 15, 2015)

xfia said:


> I guess you skipped the videos.. haha  really think it would be that bad?



I saw them when they came out. Made me really sad that so many people sent them money and they got so much press. It is a really, really stupid idea. 

Here is a video that addresses some of the problems:


----------



## xfia (Feb 15, 2015)

seems like a bunch of fud to me to worry about anything but how much sun panels will get.. doesn't really matter where you put a coal plant since it just pollutes. a few of the things in that video came to mind for me but lets be real about it.. that guy just insults everyone's intelligence with several easy argued points and doesn't even really make a complete point. obviously your not going to make every damn road solar and put all of your eggs in one basket. maybe just a little to innovative for some humans to see the possibilities.. hard to get most humans to even take out the trash on garbage day and use the recycle bin let alone stop using shitty asphalt when there is more reliable and cost effective options.


----------



## rruff (Feb 15, 2015)

xfia said:


> seems like a bunch of fud to me to worry about anything but how much sun panels will get..



You don't think it should matter that the *cost would be several times more* to build panels you can drive on? And I'm being generous... I bet it's >10x more expensive; life cycle cost per energy output.

It isn't _innovative_, it's stupid... dumb... idiotic... impractical by a huge degree.


----------



## xfia (Feb 16, 2015)

o well.. I dont want to argue about it..


----------



## silkstone (Feb 16, 2015)

rruff said:


> You don't think it should matter that the *cost would be several times more* to build panels you can drive on? And I'm being generous... I bet it's >10x more expensive; life cycle cost per energy output.
> 
> It isn't _innovative_, it's stupid... dumb... idiotic... impractical by a huge degree.



People said the same thing about the first computers.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Einstein


----------



## twilyth (Feb 16, 2015)

Where I'm at, one place put rooves over what is at least 10 acres of parking lots.  On top, they have solar panels.  This seems like a much more cost effective way to exploit open space that is paved over.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 16, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> i wanted to do the math, but then i found that link:
> 
> http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tec...ls-actually-contribute-to-climate-change.html
> 
> some good thoughts on albedo of solar cells


Pretty much what I said but they keep justifying solar by comparing with technologies like coal.  That's a false assumption because, as repeatedly pointed out, coal is being killed off due to economic factors and solar can't exist in a grid without something like natural gas. Change the grid to 80% nuclear and 20% solar, for example, and solar is going to have a larger negative impact on climate than nuclear even though nuclear is doing the heavy lifting.

Edit: Also unlike coal and natural gas, nuclear doesn't have to vent any heat to the atmosphere (think nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier).  We have to be more economical about what we do with the waste from reactors and cooling towers are a big no-no due to water vapor.



rruff said:


> You really went off the rails! Space? We have orders of magnitude more worthless desert than would be needed. If you don't like that, they can be put them on roofs. Food? Have no idea what you are thinking there. Solar PV would not be put on arable land and would not effect food production in the slightest.


There's one really big problem with deserts: the population density is extremely low thusly their demand for energy is also low.  Most of the population, no matter what country you look at, lives on the coasts followed by the rivers.  Deserts tend to be devoid of both of these things (exception, lower Nile river).

New Jersey's PG&E solar facility looks like it built on land that could support crops.



rruff said:


> You seem to be ignoring the fact that 15-20% of the incident radiation on a panel is converted to electricity rather than heat.


No, I'm not.  That's coming from the 70% that is absorbed.



rruff said:


> But lets say we go crazy and put up enough panels to supply 100% of the world's energy by 2030. Those panels would cover ~0.2% of the earth's surface. Now let's pretend they actually *do* heat the air more than if they didn't exist, by 10% of the solar energy hitting them. The earth currently absorbs ~70% of the solar energy that hits it, so this would represent .002x.1/.7= .0003 factor increase in energy absorbed. *1 in 3500*. Care to guess how much that would increase the earth's temperature? It would be a complicated calculation to do properly, but you don't need to bother to know that it is infinitesimally small.


By your numbers, 100% reaches the panel from the sun - 30% reflected + 15-20% absorbed for electricity = 50-55% waste as heat.  That would have to be compared to the albedo of where the panels are built to get a figure what net impact it would have warming.

We're also not figuring in that a lot of solar panels only rotate on one axis (or none) and not two.  The albedo shifts dramatically as the angle changes.  This 30% figure comes from the panel pointing directly at the sun.  

No, it's not infinitely small because we have that problem of greenhouse gases.  The more albedo is changed from background, the more they heat the atmosphere.  Every little bit of human impact that isn't offset can contribute to warming.

Also, you're forgetting that 100% solar is not doable.  It needs to be supplemented with at least natural gas to provide power at night.



rruff said:


> The *sun's output already varies by >3x that amount* over the course of a decade, and we see no appreciable effect from it on temperature.


But everytime the sun is +/-3* you're always adding that heat could otherwise have been reflected on top of the greenhouse gases that provide positive feedback.  The numbers may be small but the impact from one car is small too.



twilyth said:


> Where I'm at, one place put rooves over what is at least 10 acres of parking lots.  On top, they have solar panels.  This seems like a much more cost effective way to exploit open space that is paved over.


That's a prime example of how to do solar right.  Makes people happy from their cars not getting hot, doesn't waste space that isn't already wasted, and likely has about equal average albedo.

I'm not saying solar has a place because it does.  Just not as a major component of the grid.  We shouldn't be incentivizing power companies to build solar farms.  Let the people do that and as a function of the grid, the power companies have to respond to it.


----------



## rruff (Feb 16, 2015)

silkstone said:


> People said the same thing about the first computers.



Really. They said "computers are almost getting cheap enough to be feasible... hell *why don't we make computers that we can drive on *and that light up at night! Wouldn't that be freakin cool!?"

They are a total joke. No one with the tiniest bit of sense regarding practical inventions and the science involved would support these things.

Einstein would shit bricks if he knew you were quoting him in defense of this nonsense.


----------



## xfia (Feb 16, 2015)

at ces there was a remote control car pc


----------



## twilyth (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm not saying solar has a place because it does.  Just not as a major component of the grid.  We shouldn't be incentivizing power companies to build solar farms.  Let the people do that and as a function of the grid, the power companies have to respond to it.


I'm pretty sure that at this point no one really cares what you have to say.  I don't think it matters to you how many times you're proven to be in error, you just pretend like it never happened and continue to make completely unsubstantiated statements or ones where the evidence you cite doesn't support the claim for which it is cited.

The most recent example is your response to Wizzard's post.  He cited an article that completely blew your idea about solar panels contributing to atmospheric warming out of the water and this was your response.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Pretty much what I said but they keep justifying solar by comparing with technologies like coal.  That's a false assumption because, as repeatedly pointed out, coal is being killed off due to economic factors and solar can't exist in a grid without something like natural gas. Change the grid to 80% nuclear and 20% solar, for example, and solar is going to have a larger negative impact on climate than nuclear even though nuclear is doing the heavy lifting.



In fact, what the article says is:



> *What Does All This Have To Do With Solar Panels Contributing To Climate Change?*
> Photovoltaic panels range from blue to black but they are smooth and have an albedo around 0.3. But it is not the albedo itself that matters, it is the relative change in albedo from the status quo. Since most solar panels are roof-mounted, and most roofs are covered in dark tar paper shingles, covering the roof with solar panels may actually represent a positive change in reflectivity.But what if the panels are mounted on a hypothetical perfectly reflective surface and the solar panels absorb 30% of the solar energy that hits them? The average insolation, or the amount of the sun's energy hitting the earth, is approximately 6 (kWh/m2)/day. This means that, on the average day in the average location, the solar panels would absorb 1.8 kWh per square meter per day. The same solar panel, assuming a 15% efficiency would generate 0.9 kWh of electricity per square meter per day.
> *So Solar Panels Do Contribute To Climate Change?*
> Well no, not exactly. Even if solar panels absorb twice as much heat energy as they generate (and keep in mind that we are using very liberal estimates and the actual amount of heat created is much less) this is not the end of the story. Electric generating plants are only about 31% efficient, meaning that 2.9 kWh worth of fuel (almost 10,000 BTU) need to be combusted to generate 0.9 kWh of electricity. So the power plant directly adds at least 1.6 times more heat to the atmosphere than the solar panels. And keep in mind that the numbers for the solar panels are overestimates, while the numbers for the power plant are much more realistic.As if that didn't totally dispel the myth, we haven't even addressed greenhouse gas emissions yet. Naturally solar panels don't generate any greenhouse gas emissions, but coal-fired power plants emit about 2 pounds of carbon dioxide for every kWh. This CO2 builds up in the atmosphere and continues to have a warming effect for a long time. So, not only do solar panels add less heat to the atmosphere, but they also don't emit any greenhouse gasses.



In other words, it calls bullshit on the claim that you spent several pages defending.  And yet somehow you still seem to believe that people will take what you have to say seriously.  How does that work exactly?  I'm really curious to know.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 16, 2015)

They're comparing solar to coal.   Coal is a dying breed. Nuclear eliminates most of those problems by not needing to exhaust with little to no CO2 emissions.

On the points that are relevant, I could go line by line quoting where I said pretty much the exact same thing before the link was posted.

Example.  Article says:


> But it is not the albedo itself that matters, it is the relative change in albedo from the status quo.



I said two pages ago:


FordGT90Concept said:


> 2. Enjoy some reading.  Long story short: if the albedo of the panels isn't equal to or greater than the surface without the panel, they'll contribute to atmospheric warming.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They're comparing solar to coal.   Coal is a dying breed. Nuclear eliminates most of those problems by not needing to exhaust with little to no CO2 emissions.
> 
> On the points that are relevant, I could go line by line quoting where I said pretty much the exact same thing before the link was posted.


I'm sure you believe you can.  Just like you believe the article is really about coal when the title is "Do Solar Panels Actually Contribute To Climate Change?"  But sure, I understand.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 16, 2015)

See edit.  Virtually everything in that part of the article you quoted I either said before it was added to this thread or debated after.

The morale of that article is that solar does but coal is far worse.  I wouldn't dispute that.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Nuclear eliminates most of those problems by not needing to exhaust with little to no CO2 emissions.


Pretty sure most people would rather an increase in CO2 in their backyard and no Nuclear waste.
But if you don't mind living next to one .....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 16, 2015)

I wouldn't because they're far safer than coal.  People get sick living downwind from a coal power plant.  People don't get sick living downwind from a nuclear reactor unless it ejects massive amounts of radiation which is really, really rare.  Off the top of my head, I can only thing of two times this happened: Chernobyl NPP Reactor 4 and Fukushima Daiichi.  That's only two plants out of 566 built as of 2011: 0.35%.  The only people that got sick from the former were those working at the facility; I don't believe there's any reports of confirmed illness from Fukushima. We learned a lot from both incidents and there are means to prevent those exact same disasters from happening again.

Edit: Moreover, these disasters had little direct impact on temperature.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> See edit.  Virtually everything in that part of the article you quoted I either said before it was added to this thread or debated after.


Right.  Except for the part about the fact that PV does NOT contribute to global warming despite what you've said multiple times before that.  Since you seem to have forgotten though, let me refresh your recollection.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Yes...my point is, of all energy sources, solar is just about the least dense because it is a function of surface area.  They contribute to atmospheric warming through production as well as absorption (as opposed to reflection) of solar energy; thusly, the environmental impact is linear.  *About the only place where the absorption is neutralized is on asphalt roof tops with a clear view of the sun because the asphalt has the same effect.*  Building the solar panel itself can only be mitigated, not eliminated, through industrial and mining processes.


You then spent the next couple pages trying to defend this ridiculous idea only to be proven wrong.  But of course I'm sure that I'm just misinterpreting what you actually meant, right?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 16, 2015)

*cough*


FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm not talking about mining/manufacturing costs either.


When figuring in the mining, manufacturing, shipping, and set it up somewhere where the albedo is lower than the background, PV does contribute to warming. The author of the article was trying to justify it by comparing the electrical output to the dirtiest technology around, not the cleanest.

What you quoted from me was only talking about albedo (which is pretty clear) and that statement is still absolutely true.  The EPA link and TreeHugger link confirm it.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I wouldn't because they're far safer than coal.  People get sick living downwind from a coal power plant.  People don't get sick living downwind from a nuclear reactor unless it ejects massive amounts of radiation which is really, really rare.  Off the top of my head, I can only thing of two times this happened: Chernobyl NPP Reactor 4 and Fukushima Daiichi.  That's only two plants out of 566 built as of 2011: 0.35%.  The only people that got sick from the former were those working at the facility; I don't believe there's any reports of confirmed illness from Fukushima. We learned a lot from both incidents and there are means to prevent those exact same disasters from happening again.
> 
> Edit: Moreover, these disasters had little direct impact on temperature.


So cancer clusters and increases in reported birth defects are excluded because they can't be directly correlated to the Nuclear plants?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 16, 2015)

The total death toll for nuclear energy to date is 2 if memory serves and those were they were result of Chernobyl NPP 4.  Another 20-40 (I forget the exact number), also at Chernobyl, were diagnosed with "acute radiation syndrome" which is directly linked to the meltdown. Thyroid cancers can absolutely be linked to nuclear disasters as well.  People need iodine supplements to fight off the radiation exposure and if they don't get it, they can get thyroid cancer.  Cancer was a common killer before nuclear power was invented and it remains that way today.  There is natural radiation everywhere on Earth.  Inside the nuclear facility and outside of the reactor core likely have the least amount of radiation on the planet.  They monitor for changes 24/7.  So, if you live next to a nuclear power plant and get cancer and that reactor has never released any radiation, there is definitively no correlation.  There's layers after layers of armor shielding everyone and everything from that radiation.

Bottom line is that if there is a nuclear power plant and a coal power plant right next to each other and you lived downwind from them, the coal power plant is far more likely to kill you than the nuclear power plant.


I think I've said all that needs to be said in this thread so I feel it is time that I bow out.  Too much pounding on the keyboard and not enough getting done.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> *cough*
> 
> If you mine the mining, manufacturing, shipping, and set it up somewhere where the albedo is lower than the background, PV does contribute to warming. The author of the article was trying to justify it by comparing the electrical output to the dirtiest technology around, not the cleanest.
> 
> What you quoted from me was only talking about albedo (which is pretty clear) and that statement is still absolutely true.  The EPA link and TreeHugger link confirm it.


Hmm, it would seem you forgot about this post which showed that the albedo of most surfaces is about the same as most solar panels.



rruff said:


> Starting to think you are just making stuff up. For one I already showed you that only a tiny fraction of earth's surface area would be needed. This is from Sandia Labs: http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar FAQs.pdf
> 
> "Sunlight has by far the greatest theoretical potential of all earth's renewable energy sources... *there is more solar energy striking the earth's surface in 90 minutes than the world wide energy consumption from all sources in one year.*"
> 
> ...


But even if we didn't have that data which @rruff was kind enough to provide, the fact remains that when compared to the amount of heat generated by conventional power generation, the "heat" produced by PV panels is much more than offset.  To quote from the article which *cough* agrees with you


> Electric generating plants are only about 31% efficient, meaning that 2.9 kWh worth of fuel (almost 10,000 BTU) need to be combusted to generate 0.9 kWh of electricity. So the power plant directly adds at least 1.6 times more heat to the atmosphere than the solar panels.


BTW, this is the second time I'm quoting this passage so I'd appreciate it if you would at least read what is being posted before responding.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 16, 2015)

As you said, the directly attributable death toll is around 43, but of course we all know that figure is much higher.
Nuclear plants aren't foolproof and accidents will continue to happen.
America is just one nation to have incidents occur, more will happen eventually, either by man's ineptitude or by natures intervention.
I know I would rather live near any other power generating method such as Wind farms, Hydro, Coal or Steam fired generators, or Solar as there is far less inherent danger from any of those, but this is off topic for this thread so I will leave it at that.
As for the topic at hand, there is far to much inconclusive theories prevailing as to the cause of Climate Change, at least there is a quorum in agreeance that Climate Change is real.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 16, 2015)

twilyth said:


> Hmm, it would seem you forgot about this post which showed that the albedo of most surfaces is about the same as most solar panels.
> 
> 
> But even if we didn't have that data which @rruff was kind enough to provide, the fact remains that when compared to the amount of heat generated by conventional power generation, the "heat" produced by PV panels is much more than offset.  To quote from the article which *cough* agrees with you
> ...


Just throwing some facts at you...

Nuclear is 3,412 / 10,479 * 100 = 32.56% efficient on average for 2012.

Nuclear is not combusted.  A single kg of uranium has 7,641,301,623,966 BTUs of energy: Source + MJ to BTU conversion.

All of the heat in a nuclear power plant is trapped inside the facility because it has no gaseous exhaust.  The only way excess heat vents to the atmosphere is by way of cooling.  A nuclear power plant could be built that doesn't waste this.  For example, it could be used to heat homes and offices using the piping system itself as a radiator.  Yes, it is introducing heat to the environment that wouldn't be otherwise but very little of it goes to waste.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Just throwing some facts at you...
> http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=107&t=3
> Nuclear is 3,412 / 10,479 * 100 = 32.56% efficient on average for 2012.
> 
> ...


Another attempt at obfuscation I see.  I know it's pointless to try to point out your mistakes - at least as far as your concerned.  But I'm fairly confident I've made my point to anyone still reading this train wreck.


----------



## xfia (Feb 16, 2015)




----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 16, 2015)

No, I'm just showing how what you quoted is talking about coal (22,748 BTU/kg) and not nuclear.  Nuclear fission is a completely different animal.  As to the other points, I already beat them to death.  I'm not going to repeat myself on those fronts.  I am thorough for a reason.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm not going to repeat myself on those fronts.


Promise?


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Bottom line is that if there is a nuclear power plant and a coal power plant right next to each other and you lived downwind from them, the coal power plant is far more likely to kill you than the nuclear power plant.


+1

go look for number of coal-pollution related deaths in china



silkstone said:


> People said the same thing about the first computers.





			
				my university professor (who helped invent dram back in the day at ibm) said:
			
		

> back when computers came out, they seemed to be about as useful for the average person as a space station is for an old lady


----------



## rruff (Feb 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Bottom line is that if there is a nuclear power plant and a coal power plant right next to each other and you lived downwind from them, the coal power plant is far more likely to kill you than the nuclear power plant.



The bottom line is whether you'd rather live with coal, nuclear plus *nuclear waste, *or solar, wind, natural gas, hydro, geothermal, etc.


----------



## rruff (Feb 16, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> my university professor (who helped invent dram back in the day at ibm) said:
> back when computers came out, they seemed to be about as useful for the average person as a space station is for an old lady



And they were. Because they were huge and expensive. 

That isn't relative at all to the absurdity of "solar freakin roadways!". This is taking a technology that is barely viable in the best of circumstances, and putting it in an environment where it will never be viable. And for no good reason. There is nothing *gained* by putting them in roads, and there are a 1001 reasons not to. 

I guess I'm learning why they were able to get so much press and funding.


----------



## DinaAngel (Feb 21, 2015)

rruff said:


> And they were. Because they were huge and expensive.
> 
> That isn't relative at all to the absurdity of "solar freakin roadways!". This is taking a technology that is barely viable in the best of circumstances, and putting it in an environment where it will never be viable. And for no good reason. There is nothing *gained* by putting them in roads, and there are a 1001 reasons not to.
> 
> I guess I'm learning why they were able to get so much press and funding.


Yeah its for good reasons we use black top. It's a waste product from oil refinerys.
and the whole point of the solar freaking roadways was to use waste product. It's so facepalm


----------



## silkstone (Feb 21, 2015)

rruff said:


> And they were. Because they were huge and expensive.
> 
> That isn't relative at all to the absurdity of "solar freakin roadways!". This is taking a technology that is barely viable in the best of circumstances, and putting it in an environment where it will never be viable. And for no good reason. There is nothing *gained* by putting them in roads, and there are a 1001 reasons not to.
> 
> I guess I'm learning why they were able to get so much press and funding.



That's the whole point. Even the most absurd ideas can yield positive results. 
Hell even if they don't, it's promising that we are still coming up with these ideas. Even if the majority fail, a minority are likely to succeed and revolutionize the industry.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 22, 2015)

silkstone said:


> That's the whole point. Even the most absurd ideas can yield positive results.
> Hell even if they don't, it's promising that we are still coming up with these ideas. Even if the majority fail, a minority are likely to succeed and revolutionize the industry.



+1   innovation.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 24, 2015)

http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml
Peer reviewed.....


> *Abstract*
> An irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model is designed to empower even non-specialists to research the question how much global warming we may cause. In 1990, the _First Assessment Report_ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed "substantial confidence" that near-term global warming would occur twice as fast as subsequent observation. Given rising CO2 concentration, few models predicted no warming since 2001. Between the pre-final and published drafts of the _Fifth Assessment Report_, IPCC cut its near-term warming projection substantially, substituting "expert assessment" for models' near-term predictions. Yet its long-range predictions remain unaltered. The model indicates that IPCC's reduction of the feedback sum from 1.9 to 1.5 W m-2 K-1 mandates a reduction from 3.2 to 2.2 K in its central climate-sensitivity estimate; that, since feedbacks are likely to be net-negative, a better estimate is 1.0 K; that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline; that global warming this century will be < 1 K; and that combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels will cause < 2.2 K global warming to equilibrium. Resolving the discrepancies between the methodology adopted by IPCC in its _Fourth_ and _Fifth Assessment Reports_ that are highlighted in the present paper is vital. Once those discrepancies are taken into account, the impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century, and even as far as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC's current projections.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 27, 2015)

Seeing as this article relates to climate data I thought I would post it here, instead of creating a new thread.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncom...-America-rose-FOUR-INCHES-just-two-years.html
Basically it shows an unprecedented increase in sea levels, that may become part of a future trend.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 27, 2015)

The *North Atlantic Oscillation* (*NAO*) is a climatic phenomenon in the North Atlantic Ocean of fluctuations in the difference of atmospheric pressure at sea level between the Icelandic low and the Azores high. Through fluctuations in the strength of the Icelandic low and the Azores high, it controls the strength and direction of westerly winds and storm tracks across the North Atlantic. It is part of the Arctic oscillation, and varies over time with no particular periodicity

The NAO was discovered in the 1920s by Sir Gilbert Walker. Unlike the El Niño-Southern Oscillation phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean, the NAO is a largely atmospheric mode. It is one of the most important manifestations of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic and surrounding humid climates.










Winter index of the NAO based on the difference of normalized sea level pressure (SLP) between Lisbon, Portugal and Stykkisholmur/Reykjavík, Icelandsince 1864, with a five year moving average (black)


Interesting, i reckon.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 27, 2015)

More interesting is the apparent fact the North Atlantic ocean started in 1860.


----------



## DinaAngel (Mar 2, 2015)

Just calculate how much ice there's on Greenland and convert ice to water in liters and compare to current ocean volume in liters. Ud be suprised


Some places on Greenland the ice is 4km thick. And all of Greenland is freshwater ice. And freshwater is lighter than saltwater so it would go on top


Greenland might be bare land in 20 years with the insane melting ongoing that goes faster and faster.

I still laugh thinking denmark owns it. I'm looking forward seeing them start building city's When most of denmark will be underwater. Greenland will be not submerged. The sea levels was once 300 meters taller but I think we will see 30 meters globally. Since some water went to the core of earth and dragged under continental plates


----------



## DinaAngel (Mar 2, 2015)

1 thing that people keep forgetting is that more sea levels will pop vulcanos like pimples or zits.

In example norway some places the terrain goes up by 2 cm per year because of the ice weight from last ice age 10 000 years ago. Also USA is doomed if Yellowstone goes off. literally next ice age would start a year after the vulcano went off. Since north of earth would be covered in ash that reflect 100% light For 8 months if not more. That could become minus 80 Celsius on average to 127 as 127 minus is max for a planet generally without a sun in space


----------



## DinaAngel (Apr 14, 2015)

Apparently sea levels will vary due to the moon's mass. So 20 meter sea levels globally was incorrect to the current science model. But for all we know it might be 5 meter globally. Biggest impact will be south of equator. In Norway there will be 2 meter max on current model


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 14, 2015)

Must be a slow day in Norway for you to keep resurrecting this old thread


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 14, 2015)

I know its "only" Florida but this is quite good

http://cegis.usgs.gov/video/30m/FloridaSLR.swf

press the play button.

@dorsetknob   its a slow day everywhere if you havent got GTA V


----------



## Bansaku (Apr 15, 2015)

Since the time Earth was able to support life, the average temperature for hundreds of millions of years has been 24'C. At an average temperature of just over 14'C, we are technically still in the end of the last ice age. People freak out when the glaciers melt but ya know what, they aren't supposed to be here. Climate change is very real, been a constant since this planet was formed. To think mankind can play a role in expediting the process is lunacy. Mother Earth just laughs at us.

Waste of time, resources, money, and common sense. CO2 is now the new 'God'; invisible, all around us, and can be brought under control with mere coin. Ya....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 15, 2015)

Bansaku said:


> To think mankind can play a role in expediting the process is lunacy.







CFCs put a massive whole in the ozone layer; dams, deforestation, and hunting have killed off numerous species of animals; and the landscape of the planet has forever been altered by mankind (e.g. open pit mines and cities of steel).  Even if the human contribution to the atmosphere is small compared to natural processes, it is still undeniably a contribution that wouldn't be there now in the absence of humanity.

If you look outside your nearest window right now, you'll likely see some kind of infrastructure like a road.  That wasn't there 1000 years ago.  In that time, that road, by itself, may have contributed to climate change depending on the albedo if it.  All of the plant life that used to live there was also killed which means less CO2 processed on an annual basis.  We also can't forget all the animals and insects that called it home or relied on it for sustenance.  The butterfly effect is very applicable here--on a massive scale when you consider how much of the planet humanity has turned into a concrete jungle over the last 100 years.

To declare mankind having no effect on climate is ignorance.  If you want a direct example: there was a link a while back that showed that large wind farms affect atmospheric temperature which may lead to changes in weather and thus, climate.


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 15, 2015)

Every person on this planet can fit on the island of Maui. Overpopulation lol. This planet can recover from what ever we can throw at it.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 15, 2015)

Methane is a greenhouse gas
Anyone know how much natural methane humans contribute to the ecosphere each day ?

reason i ask is i just ripped a smelly snorter


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 15, 2015)

Less than the methane cattle put out...which we eat.  They're bonafide farting machines.


----------



## MrGenius (Apr 15, 2015)

Like _any_ of this _really_ matters. Let me tell you something about the absence of humanity. In the grander scheme of things, there's nothing we could ever do to make any lasting effect on this planet. Humans will go extinct. In a couple million years, all traces of mankind will have vanished from existence. We won't last an entire blink of the cosmic eye. Here today, gone tomorrow. And who cares? Do you think the Earth cares if we live or die? Long after we're gone the Earth will continue to recycle all the landmasses through tectonics. The climate will continue do whatever it will do whether we're here or not. The "environment" in total will eventually be effectively recycled/repurposed/reused beyond what's imaginable to us. Talking about the "environment" like it's something that's possibly sustainable, manageable, or something we can have any long term effect on is a joke. Nature's got it in for all of _us_, actually, including itself. Everything's on its way out, one way or another, and there's not a thing that can be done about it. Nothing ever stays the same. Things will always become more disordered and chaotic. Entropy always increases, it's the law(of thermodynamics). So the entire Universe eventually goes to shit whether you like it or not. It's all just gonna end up in one big supermassive black hole in the end anyway.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 15, 2015)

Methane and the human effect on global warming


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 15, 2015)

I posted this pic a few weeks ago on this thread and noone ran with it...cows have got a lot to answer to.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 22, 2015)

*Overall, just over 60 per cent of Americans believe global warming is taking place and nearly half blame humans*

Here is a Yale University study as reported by GB press with interactive stuff to click on 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...reveals-spread-opinion-climate-change-US.html


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 22, 2015)

Unfortunately there is little that the First World Countries can Do about Global warming.
They Can Warn Encourage ect BUT its the Third word Countries in the end that MATTER
My Thoughts and Reasons for that Statement are as follows

ACTION on Global Warming Costs Money and resources
....................................and..............................................................
While the First world Countries have a standard of living that the Second world and especially the THIRD WORLD aspire to They The Second  and especially the THIRD WORLD will  Industrialise their Infrastructure as cheaply as they can to achieve the same or similer standard of living.
It Does not Matter one carbon unit what the west does if China India Pakistan ect are burning Dirty Coal and Oil to fuel Third world to FUEL ECONOMIC INDUSTRIALIZATION
This Desire for a Western first world standard of living. also DRIVES economic MIGRATION  as seen by Europe via Africa and the USA via Central America


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 22, 2015)

If memory serves, that's only about 7% higher than it was a decade ago.  Gallup is probably a better source anyway:





Those numbers closely match Democrat/Independent/Republican figures.  Conservatives won't respond to a threat unless it's a barrel pointing in their face; on the other hand, liberals tend to be more open-minded on environmental matters.  2013 data but still makes the point:






And while we're looking at polls, here is a related, recent one:





Oh, and looky there, another poll that specifically looks at political affiliation and how imminent the threat of global warming is.


Morale of the story: those numbers aren't going to change much more.  Most people have went to their respective corners and aren't going to leave.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 22, 2015)

Methane production from cows accounts for 1/4 of all methane released into the atmosphere according to the EPA. Keep in mind that we breed *a shit ton* of cows here in 'Merica. *fart*


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 22, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Keep in mind that we breed *a shit ton* of cows here in 'Merica. *fart*



Mc SpewBerger wiv frie;s  duh and Supersize it wiv my Coke pls


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 22, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Mc SpewBerger wiv frie;s  duh and Supersize it wiv my Coke pls


Could you say that again? I speak English, not stupid.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 22, 2015)

At Least in 'Merica. *fart* You Eat your Hormone loaded Bovines
In India they are ""SACRED  HOLY AND WORSHIPPED"" and as such just wander around Shitting and Farting


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Apr 22, 2015)

This is an interesting thread, but the last few pages have been particularly odd. 

1) Polling people is not a way to determine reality.  We can cite a billion polls, but that doesn't determine facts.  If that logic held water, then women would have already ended their suffrage (right to vote), dihydrogen monoxide would be banned (who really needs water any ways), and autism spectrum disorders would be cured by the anti-vaccination crowd.

2) Humans having no effect on the world because of "how insignificant" we are is crap.  Ozone hole, that's humanity.  Light pollution visible from space, that's humanity.  Chernobyl exclusion zone, humanity again.  What about the dams which provide water to the US southwest?  Citing our insignificance somehow forgets that 6 billion of even something small amounts to something substantial.

3) Don't believe there's a consensus on the issue?  Perhaps you need to get in line.  There's a section of the population which believes that water has a memory, and somehow arsenic can cure your ailments due to the memory of that water.  There's a significant contingent of people who believe that crystal have their own innate power field, and that said field can cure disease.  Without singling out any specific denomination; their are faith healers who claim to cure diseases, who have never once actually cured any.  While a complete consensus is nice, it's hardly necessary to start working towards some reasonable changes.  Even with a 99% consensus, that doesn't mean the other side is worth giving equal attention.

4) Don't believe in global warming, fine.  Don't believe in global cooling, fine.  Somehow take umbrage with the term "climate change," fine.  I implore you to go to Beijing between events for the outside world.  I implore you to remember Pittsburgh from the late eighties and early nineties.  Both places allowed you the opportunity to chew the air, and require actions to fix the environmental crap storm us humans created.  Environmental protection regulation aren't just about making life difficult for businesses, sometimes it's about cleaning up what people have done.  Focusing back on Pittsburgh, today it's a clean metropolis that's known more for technology than the coal dust from the steel industry.  Perhaps sometimes we can agree on things which make life difficult, so that our lives are worth living.

5) "Greenhouse gasses" is the most idiotic term possible.  Want to know what else is a greenhouse gas. water vapor.  Assuming we could somehow remove most of the CO2 in the atmosphere, remove all the methane, and still somehow live on the planet we'd need to put some of those gasses back for fear of freezing to death.  The atmosphere exists partially to trap heat from the sun, and make the planet habitable.  If you didn't want any of that you could happily live on Mars.  People rail against the emission of greenhouse gasses, without for a moment considering what is actually a necessity.  Removing this term from the discussion is necessary, because too many people demonize it without understanding why. 



Presumably we'd also like an answer to the question originally posed by the OP.  In my opinion, this is less of a scandal than the report anti-vaxers use as the basis for their argument.  Other scientists have come forward, and cited discrepancies.  The discrepancies have been logged, assessed, and functionally dismissed.  The reasoning is simple, this is based off of weather, not climate.  Somehow people still conflate the two.  By that logic I can determine that the entire world is experiencing the precursor to a flood designed to wipe out humanity, based on the increased annual rainfalls at my home.  Climate is not equal to weather, and neither of them can be observed with a few fixed points.

As to the articles cited, maybe you should read more than just the headlines.  The author is hard right line.  He begins with a confirmation bias, towards proving that humans don't influence climate.  He cites climate scientists, who have the same confirmation bias.  The circular logic starts there, and he concludes with this one scientist being his only source.  Sounds fishy, because if there was a conspiracy more than one person should be able to disprove it, no?  Never mind the US geological survey claiming that the scientist was an idiot.  Never mind the lies about his academic past (professor of geology retired since 1996 and the university never had a climatology department).  Once you've finished overlooking glaring flaws in the argument; this article is one guy confirming what he thinks with the ideas of another guy, who has no qualifications and data to support his assertions, and is all built on the supposition that the entire rest of the scientific community is secretly in a cabal that is hiding the truth from everyone.  If that doesn't define paranoia I'm not sure what does.



Edit:

Perhaps my biases should also be explored prior to considering my words.  

I support nuclear power, because it's the only way that coal and oil can ever be truly retired and still maintain our quality of life.  

I support vaccinations.  Just because the disease is rare, doesn't mean you should prevent little Timmy from getting a shot.  Herd immunity only works when most people do it, and Autism spectrum disorders can't be factually linked to vaccinations.

I support government imposed environmental restrictions, but hate the EPA.  Stopping people from burying drums of benzyne in the desert is necessary, but telling somebody they can't build their house on this specific strip of land, while their neighbors have been there for ten years, is an abuse of power.  Additionally, if whales are the only thing you can claim as a successful defense, and their population was climbing before you were created, your success rate is exactly nothing.

Finally, I support science.  If your idea has facts, relevant data, and can withstand the academic Thunderdome you should be listened to.  Studying gender diversity is not science, religious studies is not science, and the artistic manipulation of facts is not science.  All of these people try to use science, and they're wrong.  Science cannot be bent to prove your points, and doing so will get you the academic bitch slap you deserve.


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 24, 2015)

The science is over....? The sky is still falling...for the most part....


> *DURHAM, N.C. *– A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> “Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,” Brown said. “Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.”


https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models


----------



## twilyth (Apr 24, 2015)

So if it's not the worst case scenario, then everything is dandy?  You're not just a half glass full kinda guy but a half of a glass is really 2 gallons guy.


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 24, 2015)

No man. You get me all wrong. I'm *all about* the mongering of fear.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 24, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> This is an interesting thread, but the last few pages have been particularly odd.
> 
> 1) Polling people is not a way to determine reality.  We can cite a billion polls, but that doesn't determine facts.  If that logic held water, then women would have already ended their suffrage (right to vote), dihydrogen monoxide would be banned (who really needs water any ways), and autism spectrum disorders would be cured by the anti-vaccination crowd.
> 
> ...



I loathe this thread and those like it because it always brings out the fucking lunatics.  You however made me breathe a little more easily.  Each time some fuckwit cites pseudo science, or watch some argument get cobbled together with incongruous factoids from the press, I'll think of what you wrote and be happier again.




Oh and for this:



SK-1 said:


> The science is over....? The sky is still falling...for the most part....
> 
> https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models



Read this:

http://www.livescience.com/39250-global-warming-pacific-cooling.html


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 24, 2015)

So according to the new study...now the changes are down to ‘natural variability’? Who da thunk?
You can not compare thousands of years of temperatures with ANY credibility. You don't use ten different yardsticks and measuring devices and protocols and then just "calibrate" them to suit an ideological agenda.
The computer models are as accurate as animated wrinkle-remover commercials.

'Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.'
There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed.

'Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.'

Middle of the road...So normal.


----------



## qubit (Apr 27, 2015)

It's almost May, but arctic conditions of -8 centigrade are hitting the northern UK and Ireland!



> "It looks like we are staying fairly unsettled into the start of May with temperatures average or a bit below average."



http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/bri...-blast-as-temperatures-plummet-11363977930215

_Doesn't_ mean that global warming is not happening of course and the weather is rather chaotic, but weather events like this look a bit embarrassing to anyone trying to show that the world is warming up.


----------



## twilyth (Apr 27, 2015)

Isn't the mild weather you normally get in the UK and Northern Europe due to the N. Atlantic haline conveyor?  That's supposed to break down as more ice melts and you have more fresh water entering the system.

It might be a little like the problem with the jet stream.  As you get lower temperature gradients at the higher latitudes, the jet stream is more likely to meander like it did this winter in N. America.


----------



## qubit (May 4, 2015)

Climate change has wide consensus among scientists, yet whether it's real or not is ultimately a _political_ decision, never mind the actual _facts_ of the case. So, it's the opinion of vested interests in government that decides whether it's true or not, then. I know this isn't new, but seriously, you can't make this shit up, ffs. 

The article is from January, but it's still relevant.

http://bangordailynews.com/2015/01/22/politics/senate-not-ready-to-tie-climate-change-to-mankind/


----------



## dorsetknob (May 4, 2015)

think you mean
*Thermohaline circulation*

and yes in conjunction with the jet stream they inter react with each other to drive the European weather 

Much in the same way El Nineo  drives pacific weather patterns


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 4, 2015)

qubit said:


> Climate change has wide consensus among scientists, yet whether it's real or not is ultimately a _political_ decision, never mind the actual _facts_ of the case. So, it's the opinion of vested interests in government that decides whether it's true or not, then. I know this isn't new, but seriously, you can't make this shit up, ffs.
> 
> The article is from January, but it's still relevant.
> 
> http://bangordailynews.com/2015/01/22/politics/senate-not-ready-to-tie-climate-change-to-mankind/



I read all that link....how stupid am i ?
US politicians debating climate change.? 
UK ones are bad enough.

So the general consensus in that debate was
"We dont know"
or
" we dont know enough"
or
" those who are talking about it dont know what they are taliking about"

I think this thread should have a simple yes / no vote..bit late in the day to suggest it now but if you check the poll and chuck out the undecideds there is a winner, on TPU anyway.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 4, 2015)

qubit said:


> Climate change has wide consensus among scientists, yet whether it's real or not is ultimately a _political_ decision, never mind the actual _facts_ of the case. So, it's the opinion of vested interests in government that decides whether it's true or not, then. I know this isn't new, but seriously, you can't make this shit up, ffs.


I'll clarify...
Scientific fact: the atmosphere is warming.
Scientific fact: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising.
Scientific fact: atmospheric methane levels are rising albeit not as steadily.
Scientific fact: water vapor is the #1 green house gas (some 99%).
Scientific uncertainty: the impact of water vapor is strongly linked to weather patterns and weather is very difficult to accurately model; water vapor, thusly, is difficult to account for in climate models.  Even those charged with modeling this (a NOAA scientist in Denver) believe that correcting the models won't change the consensus already formed around carbon dioxide.
Politics: given the above, what do we _do_?

The debate comes from politics because there's literally an infinite number of options ranging from status quo to full-on-crisis mode.  The conservative types prefer status quo (thrive on order) while the progressive types prefer crisis (thrive on chaos).  The solution resides somewhere in the middle.  I could give examples from the USA but being that this is politics, it varies widely depending on the country.


----------



## R-T-B (May 4, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Methane production from cows accounts for 1/4 of all methane released into the atmosphere according to the EPA. Keep in mind that we breed *a shit ton* of cows here in 'Merica. *fart*



This is more an argument against the dairy/meat industry than global warming, to be honest.

And you'll agree with me after driving down the I5 corridor and seeing the literal "turd mountains" they make by the roadside farms in Northern Cal...


----------



## qubit (May 4, 2015)

@FordGT90Concept You have given a balanced and reasoned argument once again in the climate debate. You must stop it at once! <my best cross face> 

You have just made a nice illustration of just how dirty politics is. In the end, I have a partially skeptical hat on whether climate change is caused by human activity or not, because of all the politics and corruption that infests science at this level, so I just don't know what to believe. All I can say for certain, is that the climate today in sunny Blighty certainly feels different to what I remember 20 or 30 years ago and there seem to be more weather " extreme world records" reported on the weather news nowadays.


----------



## Caring1 (May 4, 2015)

Easiest way to judge changes in weather is by flora and fauna and how they are reacting.
It's coming in to winter and it's mid to high 20's (celcius) still and birds are still mating and fruit is still growing on my trees, that isn't normal. Storms also feel more frequent and more violent.


----------



## DinaAngel (May 4, 2015)

Bansaku said:


> Since the time Earth was able to support life, the average temperature for hundreds of millions of years has been 24'C. At an average temperature of just over 14'C, we are technically still in the end of the last ice age. People freak out when the glaciers melt but ya know what, they aren't supposed to be here. Climate change is very real, been a constant since this planet was formed. To think mankind can play a role in expediting the process is lunacy. Mother Earth just laughs at us.
> 
> Waste of time, resources, money, and common sense. CO2 is now the new 'God'; invisible, all around us, and can be brought under control with mere coin. Ya....


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

Too bad it's not enaugh trees on earth anymore. within 1000 years oxygen levels will drop by almost 10%

mostly due to amount of people on earth and cars and all flames we create globally.

So in theory we will not be able to breathe within 2000 years time.

Currently it's at 21%

But as we cut more trees, we lower the years until tht.
the race to space begins


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 4, 2015)

qubit said:


> You have just made a nice illustration of just how dirty politics is. In the end, I have a partially skeptical hat on whether climate change is caused by human activity or not, because of all the politics and corruption that infests science at this level, so I just don't know what to believe. All I can say for certain, is that the climate today in sunny Blighty certainly feels different to what I remember 20 or 30 years ago and there seem to be more weather " extreme world records" reported on the weather news nowadays.


As I pointed out a few posts ago, we undeniably are.  Coal is carbon.  Oil is hydro-carbon.  Both have been trapped for millions of years.  We're taking both out of the ground and burning it (combining it with atmospheric oxygen) which means we've taken carbon that was previously removed from the environment and introduced it back into the environment as carbon dioxide.  We're also undeniably doing it at a rate that exceeds what plant life and algae can process (as @DinaAngel pointed out).  These things combined can account for the steady rise in CO2 and fall in O2.

I'm a skeptic in that "correlation does not imply causation."  Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas which contributes to warming doesn't imply the observed warming is primarily caused by it.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't be proactive in trying to do right by nature.


----------



## DinaAngel (May 4, 2015)

qubit said:


> @FordGT90Concept You have given a balanced and reasoned argument once again in the climate debate. You must stop it at once! <my best cross face>
> 
> You have just made a nice illustration of just how dirty politics is. In the end, I have a partially skeptical hat on whether climate change is caused by human activity or not, because of all the politics and corruption that infests science at this level, so I just don't know what to believe. All I can say for certain, is that the climate today in sunny Blighty certainly feels different to what I remember 20 or 30 years ago and there seem to be more weather " extreme world records" reported on the weather news nowadays.


the normal weather is constant storms, currently since the last iceage theres been very unnatural clear weather. calm before the storm u could say.

the north pole might shift to alaska within 10k years if the earths mantle doesnt have much changes or lava and magma change stays as it is. but yellowstone will go off before that so its very unsure. also the deep layers on the tactile layers might change. time will tell where equator will be.

earth will slowly rotate less and less over time and have less of a magnetic field. 10k years is alot. even the moon will be further away. tiny changes is very big impact on things.
if the earth went a moon length further away from the sun. then we would expect 5 C  difference


----------



## Aquinus (May 4, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm a skeptic in that "correlation does not imply causation." Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas which contributes to warming doesn't imply the observed warming is primarily caused by it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be proactive in trying to do right by nature.


True, but this isn't just about higher temperatures but rather large swings in temperature. Severe weather events usually come out because of a large low and high pressure systems colliding. If the difference in temperature between the two fronts is bigger, it will result in more severe weather (more precip, more wind, etc.) So just for the sake of the argument, we should acknowledge that "global warming" is a misnomer. While the earth's temperature is gradually increasing, the number of severe weather events have increased at a much higher rate. Adding instability to the atmosphere might in and of itself, be more dangerous than just the actual change in temperature alone.

I would hate to see what weather events would be like by the time O2 concentrations are half of what they are now.


----------



## DinaAngel (May 4, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> True, but this isn't just about higher temperatures but rather large swings in temperature. Severe weather events usually come out because of a large low and high pressure systems colliding. If the difference in temperature between the two fronts is bigger, it will result in more severe weather (more precip, more wind, etc.) So just for the sake of the argument, we should acknowledge that "global warming" is a misnomer. While the earth's temperature is gradually increasing, the number of severe weather events have increased at a much higher rate. Adding instability to the atmosphere might in and of itself, be more dangerous than just the actual change in temperature alone.
> 
> I would hate to see what weather events would be like by the time O2 concentrations are half of what they are now.


earths population will start to go down within 500 years i expect due to weather.
most people live in areas very easly harmed by storms and insane rainfall. dams would collapse, etc. type 5 tornadoes every week etc.

also too much rain will make difficult to grow things. also IF a super vulcano went off then i wouldnt be suprised seeing earths population halfed.

its almost better to just drill out a super vulcano to release the tension atm.

higher sea = more pressure on vulcanos


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 4, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> the normal weather is constant storms, currently since the last iceage theres been very unnatural clear weather. calm before the storm u could say.


But places like the Sahara, Dead Sea, and Death Valley haven't seen major storms in a very, very long time.  Weather is a nuanced thing and very geographical which is why it is so difficult to model and predict.




Aquinus said:


> While the earth's temperature is gradually increasing, the number of severe weather events have increased at a much higher rate. Adding instability to the atmosphere might in and of itself, be more dangerous than just the actual change in temperature alone.


Severe weather events should lead to a cooling of the atmosphere though and there is another correlation there: severe weather events have been decreasing.  This, alone, could account for the warming.  Weather has shaped the Earth far more so than the greenhouse gases.

In climate literature, they talk about weather variability and uncertainty, never "increase in severe weather."  That's alarmism from activists and the media.  If anything, the climate literature is inclined towards the opposite (less variability).  Yet again, another correlation: temperature increasing and weather variability decreasing.  One could cause the other or perhaps no causation at all.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 4, 2015)

As oxygen is *21%* of dry air, the inspired oxygen pressure is 0.21×(100−6.3)=19.6 kPa at sea level. Atmospheric pressure and inspired oxygen pressure fall roughly linearly with altitude to be *50%* of the sea level value at 5500 m and only *30%* of the sea level value at 8900 m (the height of the summit of Everest)

I dont think oxygen depletion will be the problem so much as the increased CO2 levels. Humans survive and thrive at comparitively  low oxygen levels at altitude.


As a side note my Stepbrother was on Everest at altitude when the quake struck....here is his report on Sky news.
http://news.sky.com/video/1471991/surreal-moment-at-everest-base

he is home safe and well.


----------



## DinaAngel (May 4, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Severe weather events should lead to a cooling of the atmosphere though and there is another correlation there: severe weather events have been decreasing.  This, alone, could account for the warming.  Weather has shaped the Earth far more so than the greenhouse gases.


yeah earth is complicated. so many things effect so many other things. another C jump would devastate weather globally


----------



## DinaAngel (May 4, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> As oxygen is *21%* of dry air, the inspired oxygen pressure is 0.21×(100−6.3)=19.6 kPa at sea level. Atmospheric pressure and inspired oxygen pressure fall roughly linearly with altitude to be *50%* of the sea level value at 5500 m and only *30%* of the sea level value at 8900 m (the height of the summit of Everest)
> 
> I dont think oxygen depletion will be the problem so much as the increased CO2 levels. Humans survive and thrive at comparitively  low oxygen levels at altitude.
> 
> ...


the pressure you showed is at one location i assume? the pressure isnt globally if its not avarage.
dont forget that mountains and location has a big impact on pressure


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 4, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> the pressure you showed is at one location i assume? the pressure isnt globally if its not avarage.
> dont forget that mountains and location has a big impact on pressure



yes indeed, however, i think the correlation between altitude and O2 levels is more significant than the small oxygen level changes  due to atmospheric pressure. Pressure has more effect on weather than O2 levels, unless of course the weather is carrying pollutants or their precipitates i.e acid rain.


----------



## Aquinus (May 4, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In climate literature, they talk about weather variability and uncertainty, never "increase in severe weather." That's alarmism from activists and the media. If anything, the climate literature is inclined towards the opposite (less variability). Yet again, another correlation: temperature increasing and weather variability decreasing. One could cause the other or perhaps no causation at all.


I think you misunderstand what I was talking about. I was talking about severity, not frequency. You can have fewer events that are more severe in nature and that is what I was getting at (albeit poorly.) That's what I've been observing at least but, I'm not qualified to make that determination, although I do have friends who are. I'm using severe as a relative term, all severe weather is severe, the question is severe in relation to what.

Your right, there may be no correlation. The atmosphere is a complex system, but I suspect alterations of temperatures at different levels in the atmosphere play a part, winds certainly do and winds are determined by pressure and temperature. Either way, I didn't mean to imply temperature alone is the cause but rather  temperature variations in the atmosphere. Bigger highs and lows will produce bigger weather events, and I think that's what we're seeing. Not more events in general but more of the big kind and less of the small.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 4, 2015)

Tornadoes






Not much change.





Strong tornadoes trending down.


Hurricanes -- Something interesting here.

From NOAA, same source as above:




Shows an increasing trend and the article says as much but notice how it ends in 2006.

From NOAA with data through 2012:




The initial NOAA article was written during a particularly active year.  The larger trend is downwards, like the severity of tornadoes.


In the past 3 years, there's been a pretty major shift on thinking about climate's impact on extreme weather.  The data simply doesn't correlate with the alarmism.


----------



## SK-1 (May 4, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Not much change.
> 
> 
> In the past 3 years, there's been a pretty major shift on thinking about climate's impact on extreme weather.  The data simply doesn't correlate with the alarmism.



What is this..... common sense trickery? Ur gonna piss off a lot of warmest with this highly controversial "common sense approach"of yours.


----------



## DinaAngel (May 6, 2015)

when the sea currents stop weather will change globally. Norway is gonna get soo cold. The uk won't be snow protected anymore it will be much colder.
Sahara is probably going to become solid land on its own eventually

Greenland ice is freshwater. So it will become a layer on top of the sea. It will take a couple thousands of years to merge.

The sea current begin at Greenland. It looks like a whirlpool tht would suck down a small boat or people.
sea currents have stopped before in time. But this time when we exist


----------



## remixedcat (May 6, 2015)

well one thing's for sure I wish teh heat would go to the PNW where everyone whines about a lack of summer there/it's too cold there and leave us mid atlantic/midwesterners alone!!! it';s 15 above normal and it sucks. everyone can't take this anymore. and no pools or lakes are open so you're stuck at home. or you gotta travel to a place with an indoor pool and look funny. 

and nobody is selling pools yet either. 

mid 80s isnt till freakin july weather!!! it's supposed to be 60s and 70s here!!


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> Sahara is probably going to become solid land on its own eventually



The Sahara is the largest Sand Desert in the world   that's pretty much solid land now

facepalm


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> Greenland ice is freshwater. So it will become a layer on top of the sea. It will take a couple thousands of years to merge.


They mix immediately.


Currents may slow but they will not stop.  So long as there exists a temperature differential, convection will occur.


----------



## SK-1 (May 9, 2015)

*Adviser to the Australian PM says climate change is a 'hoax'*

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Australia's Business Advisory Council has said that climate science is mostly "dud predictions", adding that "The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN".

Newman reports to Tony Abbott, the Australian Prime Minister, and was appointed by Abbott himself to chair the Business Advisory Council, and has been a critic of climate science for quite sometime. Newman has put out a few false statements, including* "95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error"*.

While this might sound like a crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy post, scientists don't exactly have all the answers when it comes to weather. Especially when there's trillions of dollars of trade at stake in virtually every industry thanks to 'climate change', and with YouTubers like Suspicious0bservers showing us that our Sun can influence the weather here on Earth, maybe this is something we need to be talking about?
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/45058/advisor-australian-pm-climate-change-hoax/index.html


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 9, 2015)

What you bolded is prefaced as a "false statement..."


----------



## Mr McC (May 10, 2015)

A quick survey: http://moronwatch.net/2013/02/10-questions-for-climate-change-deniers.html

It is easy to find evidence of scams seeking to take advantage of the need to combat pollution/climate change, that, unfortunately, is an inevitable part of all human activity; however, the need still exists.

Put it another way, does the fact that some people feign a disability or illness to receive charity mean that charity, by definition, entails giving to the undeserving?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 10, 2015)

Well, well, lets hope Maurice doesnt get dismissed as a loony cos he sounds like the wrong person to be making statements like that.

Its a good way to make people disbelieve the theory actually....let a known liar spout his mouth off.  Happens all the time.


Hahahahaha       moronwatch...........moron is the Welsh word for a carrot.


----------



## Mr McC (May 10, 2015)

Moronwatch, indeed


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 10, 2015)

Mr McC said:


> Put it another way, does the fact that some people feign a disability or illness to receive charity mean that charity, by definition, entails giving to the undeserving?



which church did you hear that one in ?


----------



## dorsetknob (May 10, 2015)

Mr McC said:


> A quick survey: http://moronwatch.net/2013/02/10-questions-for-climate-change-deniers.html
> 
> It is easy to find evidence of scams seeking to take advantage of the need to combat pollution/climate change, that, unfortunately, is an inevitable part of all human activity; however, the need still exists.
> 
> Put it another way, does the fact that some people feign a disability or illness to receive charity mean that charity, by definition, entails giving to the undeserving?



The Fact that your pointing to a site with the part title MORONWATCH
    oh i cant be bothered  i can watch morons here


----------



## Mr McC (May 10, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> which church did you hear that one in ?



The Latter Day Church of Unrepentant Sodomites


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 10, 2015)

I will not be goaded into suggesting what might have attracted you there.


----------



## Deelron (May 10, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> well one thing's for sure I wish teh heat would go to the PNW where everyone whines about a lack of summer there/it's too cold there and leave us mid atlantic/midwesterners alone!!! it';s 15 above normal and it sucks. everyone can't take this anymore. and no pools or lakes are open so you're stuck at home. or you gotta travel to a place with an indoor pool and look funny.
> 
> and nobody is selling pools yet either.
> 
> mid 80s isnt till freakin july weather!!! it's supposed to be 60s and 70s here!!



No thanks, I like my weather up here in the PNW, thanks . There's plenty of summer.


----------



## SK-1 (Jun 5, 2015)

More Official"Fiddling".... 

*NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’...*

*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years. 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/n...a-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/*


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 5, 2015)

@SK-1
Steady on are you posting for a friend that's going blind


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 5, 2015)

It's big news.


----------



## REAYTH (Jun 5, 2015)

I would like to know how the IPCC directly links fixing the environment with raising taxes and subsidizing failed business models politicians have investments in. I ask because honestly that's the only thing I have seen come out of "Global Warming/Global Change". 

Sorry if I don't have much faith in multi-national projects. They almost ALWAYS have corrupt money involved and failed ideas that only benefit investors. F-35 anyone?

Not saying global warming isn't real. Just question how much of it is the responsibility of man and how much of the alarmist mentality is an excuse to bomb the populous of this planet with more taxes.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 5, 2015)

Something I never quite understood in these "debates", on one hand you have multi-national scientific collaborations, mountains of peer reviewed work and incredible data gathering and implementation. On the other hand you have random meteorologists and bloggers making claims against. I will never understand the need for people to try and make it seem like the information weighting on this topic is anywhere fair or balanced.







There is huge fame for those who can effectively dispute things in science. It's a wonder why it always ends up in peoples blogs and opinion sections of the newspapers.


----------



## Haytch (Jun 5, 2015)

They had to ban my favourite Hairspray because of CFC's, but it was okay back then to perform 18 Nuclear tests in the sea and on the ground.

There is a Youtube video clip showing all the nuclear tests performed since day 1 and I think you will find it unbelievable if you have not already seen it.

Oh, and they got rid of the McDonalds packaging from back in the day because it was not biodegradable, that has to amount to something~


----------



## SK-1 (Jun 5, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> It's big news.


lol...took a second.


----------



## SK-1 (Jun 5, 2015)

magibeg said:


> Something I never quite understood in these "debates", on one hand you have multi-national scientific collaborations, mountains of peer reviewed work and incredible data gathering and implementation. On the other hand you have random meteorologists and bloggers making claims against. I will never understand the need for people to try and make it seem like the information weighting on this topic is anywhere fair or balanced.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh its the re-occurring lie graph. Where did this statistic originate Mag?


----------



## SK-1 (Jun 5, 2015)

magibeg said:


> There is huge fame for those who can effectively dispute things in science. It's a wonder why it always ends up in peoples blogs and opinion sections of the newspapers.



Cough...ummm http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.abstract


----------



## magibeg (Jun 5, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Cough...ummm http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.abstract



I'm assuming you didn't actually read that did you?

"Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature."


If you would like to discuss the science of it like the good old days on general nonsense i'm afraid I just don't have the time anymore. As time goes on the evidence for global warming is only getting stronger, the models become more refined, sea level rises, CO2 levels increase, and who knows how long it will be until the remaining doubt is dispersed, perhaps never.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 5, 2015)

Haytch said:


> They had to ban my favourite Hairspray because of CFC's, but it was okay back then to perform 18 Nuclear tests in the sea and on the ground.
> 
> There is a Youtube video clip showing all the nuclear tests performed since day 1 and I think you will find it unbelievable if you have not already seen it.
> 
> Oh, and they got rid of the McDonalds packaging from back in the day because it was not biodegradable, that has to amount to something~



That is a false equivalency argument. I recommend this video however in case you are wondering what the world would have been like if they didn't ban CFC's.


----------



## SK-1 (Jun 6, 2015)

magibeg said:


> Here we present an *updated* global surface temperature analysis


Updated to suit a fucking transparent agenda!You don't use ten different yardsticks and measuring devices and protocols and then just "calibrate" them to suit an ideological agenda. Jesus Christ... I won't resort to name calling XD... but you cant be serious... And WTF is a general nonsense? You have time to post here so Im assuming you can at least source one little thing for me. You know, your little trademark "consensus" internet meme... There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 6, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Updated to suit a fucking transparent agenda!You don't use ten different yardsticks and measuring devices and protocols and then just "calibrate" them to suit an ideological agenda. Jesus Christ... I won't resort to name calling XD... but you cant be serious...



At the risk of getting into another endless argument, scientists generally are on a bit of the more conservative side of things. The updated changes are an attempt to correct the cooling bias that has been present in the surface temperature record.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

If I post peer reviewed articles on the literature would you ever adjust your opinion anyway?



SK-1 said:


> And WTF is a general nonsense? You have time to post here so Im assuming you can at least source one little thing for me. You know, your little trademark "consensus" internet meme... There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.



I've posted many things on scientific consensus in the past.

The one you're referring to i believe is this one: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Or heck, can even just go over to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It's actually quite hard to find opposition in the scientific world. Best i can do is this:

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the *American Association of Petroleum Geologists*,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 6, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Updated to suit a fucking transparent agenda!



You do realize new data is always coming in and leaving these models static would be quite idiotic?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2015)

REAYTH said:


> Sorry if I don't have much faith in multi-national projects. They almost ALWAYS have corrupt money involved and failed ideas that only benefit investors. F-35 anyone?


The problem with F-35 is the bar keeps moving.  USA invites another country into the project and they make new demands that Lockheed has to meet or give up the contract.  It is called development hell in programming.  Now imagine what development hell is like when there's dozens of computers, weapon systems, and if the damn thing doesn't work 100% right, could kill a lot of people.

Luckily, Lockheed is charging forward with the project and it sounds like everyone involved will still get their aircraft.


----------



## kerlin219 (Jun 6, 2015)

Haha never mind global warming we have bigger problems if this is truehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-s-magnetic-field-flip-could-happen-sooner-than-expected/


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 6, 2015)

kerlin219 said:


> Haha never mind global warming


Global warming is so 1970's, don't you know it's called climate change now?
Has been for quite a while.


----------



## kerlin219 (Jun 6, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> Global warming is so 1970's, don't you know it's called climate change now?
> Has been for quite a while.


Haha yeah I know but the vote was for global warming crisis scandal , anyway I am waiting for the aliens or asteroids or nuclear war whatever happens first.


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 6, 2015)

We can speculate as to which country will be the new equatorial holiday destinations while waiting for Yellowstone to blow and the Earth to flip.


----------



## kerlin219 (Jun 6, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> We can speculate as to which country will be the new equatorial holiday destinations while waiting for Yellowstone to blow and the Earth to flip.


Haha awesome


----------



## Haytch (Jun 7, 2015)

Ok, I do believe that climate change can be a real problem in the near/late future.  We are the human race have the potential to really destroy the planet!
I would also like to point out that we have had ice-ages in the past as well as 1 documented great flood.
Having said all that, I would lastly like to point out that targeting the 'little people' to help prevent any possible future global climate change that could destroy us is plausible but the real major players are always the 'big people'. 
I like to think that 1 nuclear test would be close to a billion people using CFC's for a life-time. Yes, I am just making my figures up and I have no grounds for proof, but I am not the rich person flying to work in my private jet everyday, so what would I know. . .
I have noticed climate change over the years. It use to be warmer in winter and cooler in summer, pretty much all over the world. I have also seen data indicating that this is just a natural part of Earth's evolution and an ongoing cycle.
Personally, I have no idea. Let's just blame Nutella for cutting down all the Palm tree's.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 7, 2015)

If we are playing the Blame Game 
then Lets blame *US* English for Global Warming.

After all planet earth was just chugging along nicely untill good old Britania decided that EMPIRE and the Needs of......... Demanded better guns ships Trains roads bridges ect to help her hold sway over the competing rest of Europe.
FOR THE EMPIRE we Industrialised on a scale never seen before 
We gave the world the Industral revolution.
Others had to do the same to try and compete

SO ITS OUR FAULT are you happy now you can blame some one


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 7, 2015)

Nuclear detonations have a short term warming effect where greenhouse gasses have a long term effect amplifying the atmospheric entrapment of solar radiation.  In other words, setting off a nuclear bomb causes massive heating for a fraction of a second; water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane causes heating over large swaths of the Earth for years.




dorsetknob said:


> If we are playing the Blame Game
> then Lets blame *US* English for Global Warming.
> 
> After all planet earth was just chugging along nicely untill good old Britania decided that EMPIRE and the Needs of......... Demanded better guns ships Trains roads bridges ect to help her hold sway over the competing rest of Europe.
> ...


I blame all the planets and animals that died in mass extinction events that caused these massive deposits of carbon and methane.


----------



## erocker (Jun 7, 2015)

I blame windbags.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 7, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> If we are playing the Blame Game
> then Lets blame *US* English for Global Warming.
> 
> After all planet earth was just chugging along nicely untill good old Britania decided that EMPIRE and the Needs of......... Demanded better guns ships Trains roads bridges ect to help her hold sway over the competing rest of Europe.
> ...




yes it is your fault and you stole all the Welsh coal and iron to do it .  !!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_the_Fair_Country


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 7, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> yes it is your fault and you stole all the Welsh coal and iron to do it . !!!!



English Greed and capital investment 
welsh labour ...................coal and steel workers
Scottish Engineers  and the rest is history


----------



## magibeg (Jun 7, 2015)

Haytch said:


> Ok, I do believe that climate change can be a real problem in the near/late future.  We are the human race have the potential to really destroy the planet!
> I would also like to point out that we have had ice-ages in the past as well as 1 documented great flood.



I don't know anything about a great flood, but I do know we have had lots and lots of ice ages. They track fairly closely with Milankovitch cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles



Haytch said:


> Having said all that, I would lastly like to point out that targeting the 'little people' to help prevent any possible future global climate change that could destroy us is plausible but the real major players are always the 'big people'.
> I like to think that 1 nuclear test would be close to a billion people using CFC's for a life-time. Yes, I am just making my figures up and I have no grounds for proof, but I am not the rich person flying to work in my private jet everyday, so what would I know. . .



Little people aren't really being targeted at all. Imagine your CFC comparison for a moment. Lets say it is discovered that CFC's are bad, and a politician (or group) wants to make the world a better place so they straight out ban them. It is never fully explained why, people are just pissed that they can no longer use their favorite hairsprays. So the people don't elect the person in the next election, and the new person promptly brings back CFC's.

"Little people" are being targeted with information so they can make educated decisions. Because the developed world is essentially all democracies people have to want a change to happen for it to happen.



Haytch said:


> I have noticed climate change over the years. It use to be warmer in winter and cooler in summer, pretty much all over the world. I have also seen data indicating that this is just a natural part of Earth's evolution and an ongoing cycle.
> Personally, I have no idea. Let's just blame Nutella for cutting down all the Palm tree's.



Climate change caused by man at this point is still basically unnoticeable on a local scale. Data implying it is just a natural cycle doesn't really exist in the scientific community, and is mostly claimed by bloggers.

I've probably already said too much and will probably be nit picked to death by people on here.


----------



## kerlin219 (Jun 8, 2015)

magibeg said:


> I don't know anything about a great flood, but I do know we have had lots and lots of ice ages. They track fairly closely with Milankovitch cycles.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
> 
> ...


Yeah IL start for one you used wiki as a backup to your claim anybody can write whatever on wiki , second thing no such thing as true democracy it's the same as the commies looks good on paper but doesn't work BUT it's the best we have, same principal as commies though the people are viewed as sheeple or useful idiots I believe Karl Marx came up with that one.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 8, 2015)

kerlin219 said:


> Yeah IL start for one you used wiki as a backup to your claim anybody can write whatever on wiki , second thing no such thing as true democracy it's the same as the commies looks good on paper but doesn't work BUT it's the best we have, same principal as commies though the people are viewed as sheeple or useful idiots I believe Karl Marx came up with that one.



The reason for Wikipedia is that it's something that everyone has access to it as opposed to many peer reviewed articles which tend to be blocked by pay walls. Even then scientific papers are vastly different than articles you read in the usual news (which are usually much much less reliable than wikipedia funny enough). 

For example if you actually want to know about the milankovitch cycle with any sort of confidence you'd probably have to read several papers in the least. One that details what the cycles are, one that details the range of the cycles, one that details the seasonal forcing it creates, one that details the degree of the forcing, one that details the historical changes from it, and one that checks the confidence levels of the previous studies.

As for the democracy comment, I maintain that it is much easier to get certain things done when the people actually want that thing done.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2015)

Yeah.  Asking people to do away with carbon is like asking them to stick a knife in their eye.  CFCs are much easier to concede because there are many alternatives that work just as well.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 8, 2015)

kerlin219 said:


> Yeah IL start for one you used wiki as a backup to your claim anybody can write whatever on wiki , second thing no such thing as true democracy it's the same as the commies looks good on paper but doesn't work BUT it's the best we have, same principal as commies though the people are viewed as sheeple or useful idiots I believe Karl Marx came up with that one.



Communism is an economic system, democracy is a political system. You're comparing apples to oranges like most climate deniers do in their arguments.


----------



## REAYTH (Jun 8, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Communism is an economic system, democracy is a political system. You're comparing apples to oranges like most climate deniers do in their arguments.


Exactly. Capitalism works where Communism doesn't.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 8, 2015)

REAYTH said:


> Exactly. Capitalism works where Communism doesn't.



Which has absolutely no relevance to the original point being replied to.



magibeg said:


> Little people aren't really being targeted at all. Imagine your CFC comparison for a moment. Lets say it is discovered that CFC's are bad, and a politician (or group) wants to make the world a better place so they straight out ban them. It is never fully explained why, people are just pissed that they can no longer use their favorite hairsprays. So the people don't elect the person in the next election, and the new person promptly brings back CFC's.
> 
> "Little people" are being targeted with information so they can make educated decisions. Because the developed world is essentially all democracies people have to want a change to happen for it to happen.





kerlin219 said:


> no such thing as true democracy it's the same as the commies looks good on paper but doesn't work BUT it's the best we have, same principal as commies though the people are viewed as sheeple or useful idiots I believe Karl Marx came up with that one.



The word you are looking for is oligarchy, which has nothing to do with Marx or 'sheeple' and is the complete opposite principle to a democracy.

[Edited for clarity]


----------



## REAYTH (Jun 8, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Which has absolutely no relevance to the original point being replied to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was agreeing with you. Saying its apples and oranges.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 8, 2015)

There is literally no point (other than wasting your own time) arguing about matters of science on the internet when you don't have the raw data in front of you. You also need years and years of specialized knowledge in the field to truly understand the data and be able to draw some conclusions about it. What's more, as far as global warming/climate change goes, there is nothing that any of us on this forum (or any forum for that matter) can do about it, whether it is real or a hoax. Politicians and un-elected bureaucrats make all the decisions for us and they rarely listen to reason. They mainly listen and endorse ideas that will make them rich. So just remember that when you type breathlessly about something way out of your scope of intelligence and beyond your ability to enact change.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 8, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> There is literally no point (other than wasting your own time) arguing about matters of science on the internet when you don't have the raw data in front of you. You also need years and years of specialized knowledge in the field to truly understand the data and be able to draw some conclusions about it. What's more, as far as global warming/climate change goes, there is nothing that any of us on this forum (or any forum for that matter) can do about it, whether it is real or a hoax. Politicians and un-elected bureaucrats make all the decisions for us and they rarely listen to reason. They mainly listen and endorse ideas that will make them rich. So just remember that when you type breathlessly about something way out of your scope of intelligence and beyond your ability to enact change.



You would be great at parties 

Magibeg: Hey Easy Rhino, what do you think about x?
Easy Rhino: I'm not qualified to comment on x and neither are you.
Magibeg: So how about y then?
Easy Rhino: See above.

Poking fun aside, that reasoning is generally why it's best to listen to the scientists about subjects in their field as opposed to making our own assumptions and claims.


----------



## REAYTH (Jun 8, 2015)

magibeg said:


> You would be great at parties
> 
> Magibeg: Hey Easy Rhino, what do you think about x?
> Easy Rhino: I'm not qualified to comment on x and neither are you.
> ...


What if you like to watch polar bears drown?


----------



## kerlin219 (Jun 9, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> There is literally no point (other than wasting your own time) arguing about matters of science on the internet when you don't have the raw data in front of you. You also need years and years of specialized knowledge in the field to truly understand the data and be able to draw some conclusions about it. What's more, as far as global warming/climate change goes, there is nothing that any of us on this forum (or any forum for that matter) can do about it, whether it is real or a hoax. Politicians and un-elected bureaucrats make all the decisions for us and they rarely listen to reason. They mainly listen and endorse ideas that will make them rich. So just remember that when you type breathlessly about something way out of your scope of intelligence and beyond your ability to enact change.


Agee 100% great post


----------



## kerlin219 (Jun 9, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Communism is an economic system, democracy is a political system. You're comparing apples to oranges like most climate deniers do in their arguments.


Yeah an economic system started by a political movement


----------



## magibeg (Jun 9, 2015)

kerlin219 said:


> Yeah an economic system started by a political movement



Yea, a political movement started by the peoples will for one to happen.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 9, 2015)

REAYTH said:


> What if you like to watch polar bears drown?



They Swim rather well with good long distance endurance
they also Shit in the water they swim in


----------



## silkstone (Jun 9, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> What's more, as far as global warming/climate change goes, there is nothing that any of us on this forum (or any forum for that matter) can do about it, whether it is real or a hoax. Politicians and un-elected bureaucrats make all the decisions for us and they rarely listen to reason. They mainly listen and endorse ideas that will make them rich. So just remember that when you type breathlessly about something way out of your scope of intelligence and beyond your ability to enact change.



There's plenty people can do, just like we have done many times in the past.


----------



## kerlin219 (Jun 10, 2015)

silkstone said:


> There's plenty people can do, just like we have done many times in the past.


Care to expand on that.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 10, 2015)

kerlin219 said:


> Care to expand on that.



Not sure exactly what you're asking for here, do you mean things like the creation of human rights? Workers rights? Social security? Clean Air Act? (things pertaining to just the United States) or are you referring to a more broad sense of anytime people have banded together to progress society such as nearly every time a dictator has been toppled or nearly every charity on earth. That is just scratching the surface of the broadness of what you're asking for. Popular opinion has all the power. That's why even horrible places like north korea rely so heavily on brainwashing to get the peoples favor. Even their leaders fear the people during times of unrest.


----------



## kerlin219 (Jun 10, 2015)

magibeg said:


> Not sure exactly what you're asking for here, do you mean things like the creation of human rights? Workers rights? Social security? Clean Air Act? (things pertaining to just the United States) or are you referring to a more broad sense of anytime people have banded together to progress society such as nearly every time a dictator has been toppled or nearly every charity on earth. That is just scratching the surface of the broadness of what you're asking for. Popular opinion has all the power. That's why even horrible places like north korea rely so heavily on brainwashing to get the peoples favor. Even their leaders fear the people during times of unrest.


Was leaning more towards when have we actually stopped the destruction of the planet as global warming (climate change) is supposedly threatened to do, but you came up with good examples of how we have changed our current path good post


----------



## SK-1 (Jun 13, 2015)

This is climate change...in action. Because, you know... it was all based on "science." The media treats fear like a one night stand...
Their predictions from 2008 for TODAY. Milk was supposed to be $15.99 a gal. Gas $9.99 a gal. Fear mongering from the sky is falling crowd.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2015)

*Going way off topic here...*


magibeg said:


> Popular opinion has all the power.


I'd argue not.  Nuclear weapons were developed around the world in secret.  Thousands of detonations of nuclear weapons have also occurred in secret.  Popular opinion had little to no effect on the trajectory of nuclear weapons.  The decommissioning of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons were accomplished through back room negotiations (specifically, the START programs).  Public opinion actually has surprisingly little effect when you look at the fabric of history.  Prime example: popular opinion is almost always against war but human history is littered with it.  Democracy is a façade to hide the power plays.



magibeg said:


> That's why even horrible places like north korea rely so heavily on brainwashing to get the peoples favor.


Brainwashing?  No, that's more prevalent in the West.  North Koreans live in an information black hole.  They know nothing outside of what they're told.  Can sheep be brainwashed or are they simply functioning on what they know to be true?  Case in point: they know that if they speak against the Dear Leader, they'll be reprimanded likely for life.  It's obedience through conditioning, not brainwashing.  Brainwashing is living with the belief you are free but guess what are most doing almost every day?  Working to pay off debts.  Most of us live under a system of indentured servitude; the only reason we don't call it out for what it is because it is the modern day normal.  We're all notches in massive cogs whom no one has absolute control over.   This speech comes to mind:












magibeg said:


> Even their leaders fear the people during times of unrest.


That's a personality trait common with all dictators.  I believe it is narcissism.  When they see control slipping, they instantly turn their attention to their own survival and run--usually trying to flea the country.  Again, won't happen in North Korea because most of the population knows no alternative.


*Back on topic...*
As I said previously, the only solution to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the foreseeable future is nuclear fission and fusion.  The only way we stop using anthropomorphic reserves of carbon is to completely and utterly replace them.  Any carbon that is needed otherwise (e.g. to produce plastics) would have to be extracted from the atmosphere.


The current strategy of improving fuel economy and using more biofuels only slows the trend but will fail to stop it.

Ethanol, without engines specifically designed to run on exclusively ethanol (Cummins is working on one), actually end up saving nothing.  In an E85 Ready gasoline engine, the loss in power when running on E85 is compensated by higher fuel consumption so all savings are wiped out from having used gasoline in the first place.  When you factor in all the carbon costs to produce E85 compared to gasoline, E85 ends up being much worse at the end of the day per distance traveled.

B20 is cheaper than petro diesel because of subsidies.

I could go on...


----------



## qubit (Jun 25, 2015)

"*Britain braced for mini-ice age as temperatures are set to drop to a 300-year low*" reports a news article.

But it won't save us from global warming, apparently.

Have a read and see what you think. With so much politics and money meddling with the science, I still don't know what to believe when it comes to global warming. All I can say with some certainty, is that the weather seems a bit different to what I remember as a kid and that can happen by natural weather changes as well as man made.



> If you were enjoying the current warm spell, enjoy it while it lasts as forecasters have warned that the UK could enter a mini-ice age.
> 
> A Met Office-led study in conjunction with scientists at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Reading, found that a return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States.
> 
> But the study, which was published in the Nature Communications journal, added that the freeze will not be enough to halt global warming.



http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/bri...-set-to-drop-to-a-300-year-low-11363988285992


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 25, 2015)

They Said this in the 70s


qubit said:


> "*Britain braced for mini-ice age as temperatures are set to drop to a 300-year low*" reports a news article.



Old News indeed   who's bucking for another University researcher grant then

In Other News Scientist Clone Mammoths and Mcdonnalds say they will sell big McMammoths burgers

Global warming will be a fact when good old Sol goes into its red giant stage of life
till then there is no real need to worry we got a few years before that happens


----------



## magibeg (Jun 26, 2015)

qubit said:


> s and money meddling with the science, I still don't know what to believe when it comes to global warming. All I can say with some certainty, is that the weather seems a bit different to what I remember as a kid and that can happen by natural weather changes as well as man made.



I don't know where everyone gets the idea that money meddles with science.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011...sts-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/

That is a bit of an older article but it helps explain the insanity of claiming such a position.


Also the reason why it is now called "climate change" is because changes will not be a linear warmth over the whole world. Britain is very susceptible  to influences from the golf stream for example. If you look at where Britain is on a map, it's as north as James bay in Canada. To my knowledge Britain is actually supposed to get colder as the golf stream shuts down.



dorsetknob said:


> They Said this in the 70s
> 
> 
> Old News indeed   who's bucking for another University researcher grant then
> ...




They didn't say this is the 70's. I challenge YOU to find scientific articles from the 70's saying such things. The few that do talk about cooling refer to the heavy use of aerosols causing a cooling effect. The media ran with it unfortunately and now there is this misconception that there was a 70's cooling scare. Heck at least wikipedia something before you take a position on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Global_cooling


Also that's not how university research grants work.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 26, 2015)

magibeg said:


> I don't know where everyone gets the idea that money meddles with science.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2011...sts-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/
> 
> ...



You forgot to re quote this


dorsetknob said:


> In Other News Scientist Clone Mammoths and Mcdonnalds say they will sell big McMammoths burgers




Now Thats Important News for the couch potatoe's


----------



## magibeg (Jun 26, 2015)

If they are able to create a mammoth burger, i'm definitely game to try it. Just not sure what elephant meat tastes like, would have to wait for reviews.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 26, 2015)

magibeg said:


> If they are able to create a mammoth burger, i'm definitely game to try it. Just not sure what elephant meat tastes like, would have to wait for reviews.




I cant wait around for elephant reviews i would much rather base my opinion on unfounded speculation.

I vote McRhinoceros burgers especially if they have HBM sauce.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 26, 2015)

magibeg said:


> I don't know where everyone gets the idea that money meddles with science.



Money pays for Science "Fact"   if the science throws up things Money dont like it gets Buried

If Pepsucki fund research about Artificial sweeteners and the science say they give you cancer of the nutsack then its in Pepsucki interest not to publish the science papers they own/paid for the Research
Ie
If an Academic is doing paid research. the people paying own that/their Research its up to them if they allow it to be published

Yes ITS HAPPENED and its Always happining you only hear about it if the Research is leaked to the press / world



magibeg said:


> If they are able to create a mammoth burger, i'm definitely game to try it. Just not sure what elephant meat tastes like, would have to wait for reviews


Mammoth meat has been eaten and by people of this time frame
specimens from Siberia have been dug up from the perma frost (Nature's Iceland Freezer Food Center) and cooked and consumed


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 26, 2015)

If you genuinely want your money (pennies per day)  to pay for proper science, crunch for TPU or any other epic team 

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/

takes a couple of minutes to set up.

plenty of info here
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/forums/world-community-grid-wcg.68/


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 26, 2015)

Out of Curiosity *Sulfur dioxide* one of the worst green house gasses how much does man pump into the Atmosphere each year
and in contrast how much does Nature pump into the Atmosphere each year

AND AS A GREEN HOUSE GAS explain this
Volcanoes releasing sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere are the reason behind the temperature not rising as high as expected between years 2000 and 2010, according to a new study.

Ryan Neely, lead author of the study, said that sulfur dioxide emissions rise up to some 12 to 20 miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere. Here, the gas reacts with other compounds in the aerosol and forms sulfuric acid and water, which later fall back to earth. These water particles reflect sunlight and cool the earth.

WEl WELL well ain't that confusing a green house gas that cools and not raises temps
AIN'T SCIENCE WONDERFUL


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 26, 2015)

I blame God.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 26, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I blame God.


Wrong one the other guy is the one smelling of Fire and brimstone
OR to be Political Correct  which God ???
( God's)


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 26, 2015)

How many of the worlds Volcano's are what they call *Sulfur dioxide emmiters*
there is Mt Erebus in Antarctica Popocatepetl in mexico. some in the Philippines
the Ring of fire
Nature is its Own polluter each of those volcano's are major  *Sulfur dioxide emmiters  with outputs* measuring 10's thousands of TONS each year


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 26, 2015)

from Wiki...

The element's largest commercial use (after mostly being converted to sulfuric acid) is to produce sulfate and phosphate fertilizers, because of the relatively high requirement of plants for sulfur and phosphorus. Sulfuric acid is also a primary industrial chemical outside fertilizer manufacture. Other well-known uses for the element are in matches, insecticides and fungicides.

sulphur is pretty useful stuff, another one of natures miraculous balancing acts.
it is more amazing that we are here in the first place rather than we "possibly"  fukd it all up.


----------



## Schmuckley (Jun 26, 2015)

Umm..
Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow.
If you were say..trying to grow some kind of unspecified plants..
They would need Carbon Dioxide, and the more they got,the better they'd grow and the more oxygen they would produce.
There is no global warming;Contrary to the "green-oriented" "kids" shows that replaced Saturday morning cartoons.The facts say it's not happening.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 26, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Umm..
> Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow.
> If you were say..trying to grow some kind of unspecified plants..
> They would need Carbon Dioxide, and the more they got,the better they'd grow and the more oxygen they would produce.
> There is no global warming;Contrary to the "green-oriented" "kids" shows that replaced Saturday morning cartoons.The facts say it's not happening.



Illegal growers of pot/maryjane/weed/reefer have been known to grow in sealed polytunnels with elevated levels of CO2  to promote higher and faster growth with a Better end Product.

Just saying  not recommending


----------



## qubit (Jun 27, 2015)

magibeg said:


> I don't know where everyone gets the idea that money meddles with science.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2011...sts-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/
> 
> That is a bit of an older article but it helps explain the insanity of claiming such a position.



Claiming money corrupts science is insanity is it? Really? How naive.

That article explains why the scientists are in it for the money, but I never said they were. However, money, politics and especially, _power over others_, go hand in hand, so it's in the politician's interests to push this crap down our throats and claim it's man-made so they can peddle austerity measures of one kind or another at us, including being extremely anti-car (emissions). I don't claim to know the mechanics of how all this goes on, but one way or another people are profiting off the "climate change" hype.

All I do know for certain is that the climate does seem different and it does seem warmer than I remember. Also, I keep hearing of weather extremes records being broken in the weather news, so something is happening all right.

Why exactly it's happening, whether totally man-made, totally natural, or more likely, a blend of the two, I don't know. From what I understand, no scientist can definitively tell you that it's man doing it either, so I certainly can't make that claim.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 27, 2015)

@qubit, you're correct.  Until Scientists can all be self-funded, the results will always be skewed toward the government, political group, foundation, or university which funds the research through grants.  Unless someone has worked in the field of grant writing and approval, they would have no idea that yes, researchers do indeed write up their requests for money to support their research by aligning with the goals of the person or persons with the money strings.  Otherwise, they shan't part with the money.

In addition, in no way shape or form, should we attribute a neutral, altruistic mentality on all scientists.  Many of them have their own theories, ideas and beliefs, and research tends to support that direction, so even being self-funded would not end any bias in research.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 28, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> @qubit, you're correct.  Until Scientists can all be self-funded, the results will always be skewed toward the government, political group, foundation, or university which funds the research through grants.  Unless someone has worked in the field of grant writing and approval, they would have no idea that yes, researchers do indeed write up their requests for money to support their research by aligning with the goals of the person or persons with the money strings.  Otherwise, they shan't part with the money.
> 
> In addition, in no way shape or form, should we attribute a neutral, altruistic mentality on all scientists.  Many of them have their own theories, ideas and beliefs, and research tends to support that direction, so even being self-funded would not end any bias in research.



There's too much to respond to here in this thread so I'm just picking this as it's the most recent.

Quite often people misunderstand what is actually being researched while research is being done. If I was working at my local university in the earth sciences I would propose something along the lines of "CO2 tracking between the periods of x to y". Depending on the results maybe I then do more research "Possible causes for CO2 changes at z location between periods x and y".  Granted at each step of the progression my work is being peer reviewed to check for errors in methodology. You then get dozens, possibly hundreds of similar studies on the matter, in which case you start getting more collaborative works that reference the prior works.

With the exception of a few large international/multi-institution collaborative mega studies such as the IPCC the vast majority of support comes from smaller studies with data points all going in the same direction.

The system isn't perfect, but it works no way like the people here imply it does as far as the scopes of studies that are usually done, and it is greatly underplayed how difficult it would be to get that many scientists and that many studies in that many different areas to agree on approximately the same thing.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 29, 2015)

@magibeg, you are correct, all research is going in the direction that the climate is changing. It is on the issue of why that said research is subject to the whims and beliefs of who is funding it, and thus the "why" is not conclusive. It could be man made. It could be one of the thousands of up and down climate changes the Earth has always gone through. Or it could be a combination.

Also, I would not spoken about the influence of grant suppliers if I didn't have some insight into the subject.  Suffice it to say, the holders of the money only rarely support research for the purposes of finding an answer, no matter what it may be.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 29, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> @magibeg, you are correct, all research is going in the direction that the climate is changing. It is on the issue of why that said research is subject to the whims and beliefs of who is funding it, and thus the "why" is not conclusive. It could be man made. It could be one of the thousands of up and down climate changes the Earth has always gone through. Or it could be a combination.
> 
> Also, I would not spoken about the influence of grant suppliers if I didn't have some insight into the subject.  Suffice it to say, the holders of the money only rarely support research for the purposes of finding an answer, no matter what it may be.



This is true. Though I would still argue about where the influences lie. The fossil fuel industry is orders of magnitude larger than green energy, and I would argue based on policy that the government itself isn't bias towards global warming being real so much as it's trying to react to it now. I'm just not understanding what the government incentive would be if global warming existed that wouldn't upset the also held belief that the same governments are also in the pocket of big oil.


----------



## broken pixel (Jun 29, 2015)

Scientific data is always fudged when it has to do with climate change, GMOs, cancer research,  alternative energy technology, etc. When it effects giant coporations pocket books they pay scientists to lie, omit and delete data. 

Our society in a whole is ruled by sociopath oligarchs. :*(


----------



## magibeg (Jun 29, 2015)

broken pixel said:


> Scientific data is always fudged when it has to do with climate change, GMOs, cancer research,  alternative energy technology, etc. When it effects giant coporations pocket books they pay scientists to lie, omit and delete data.
> 
> Our society in a whole is ruled by sociopath oligarchs. :*(



So what you're telling me is that all the worlds scientists are in on this and the data is always fudged. So in your opinion what would it take to prove anything to you? It appears you just discounted effectively all research done on nearly any topic.


----------



## broken pixel (Jun 29, 2015)

Not all but many are seduced by money. When it has to do with effecting big corporations they will find a way even though other scientific data that goes against the bough data is overlooked. Monsanto bought out Bill Nye to be on the side of GMOs.

You really need to grasp the reality that money and greed are a very dangerous thing when it effects the planet that sustains our very lives. 

Do some research on a guy called Royal Rife & the AMA. Also look at the Pharmaceutical Industry that will release a drug deemed to be safe then later have to recall that product. The world we all live in is full of lies and deseption on the part of the big players that effect everything.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 29, 2015)

broken pixel said:


> Not all but many are seduced by money. When it has to do with effecting big corporations they will find a way even though other scientific data that goes against the bough data is overlooked. Monsanto bought out Bill Nye to be on the side of GMOs.
> 
> You really need to grasp the reality that money and greed are a very dangerous thing when it effects the planet that sustains our very lives.
> 
> Do some research on a guy called Royal Rife & the AMA. Also look at the Pharmaceutical Industry that will release a drug deemed to be safe then later have to recall that product. The world we all live in is full of lies and deseption on the part of the big players that effect everything.



I'm actually PRO GMO's to be honest. Royal Rife didn't have a cure for cancer and his methods don't make sense.

You are much more conspiracy theory than you realize.


----------



## broken pixel (Jun 29, 2015)

Enjoy the poison & you need to research out side the box for a change. 

I guess you enjoy modified food from a chemical corporation? You do know Monsanto is responsible for many, many bad things. 

Why do you think Monsanto spends so much money lobbying congress so they dont have to  lable there franken foods to the public? 

Agent Orange, PCBs, the list goes on.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 29, 2015)

broken pixel said:


> Enjoy the poison & you need to research out side the box for a change.
> 
> I guess you enjoy modified food from a chemical corporation? You do know Monsanto is responsible for many, many bad things.
> 
> ...



We can't have a meaningful discussion on this. By your very nature anything i bring to the table you will claim is falsified data. If GMO's were good for you for example, what proof could i even possibly bring to the table that you would accept anyway?


----------



## broken pixel (Jun 29, 2015)

You can't because the long history of Monsanto plus all the data that proves they harm the environment and its inhabitants. The fact that nature is better off without humans farking with it is a good argument plus the horrible things Monsanto has developed and been a part off and has willingly ignored the health of millions for their chemical profiteering. You would make a good lobbyist or politician. 

Why did Congress do this? Why would Monsanto need protection? 
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-pro...ng-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml

http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp

http://earthjustice.org/features/ourwork/timeline-monsanto-s-chemical-romance#

Go find some good stuff about Monsanto, I doubt you can. 

Monsanto, killing softly since the 1900s.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 29, 2015)

magibeg said:


> We can't have a meaningful discussion on this. By your very nature anything i bring to the table you will claim is falsified data. If GMO's were good for you for example, what proof could i even possibly bring to the table that you would accept anyway?



Golden rice is a pretty good thing. That's GMO.


----------



## SK-1 (Jun 29, 2015)

Psssst...the debate on GMO is over.



> Estimates of the numbers of meals consumed by feed animals since the introduction of GM crops 18 years ago would number well into the trillions. By common sense alone, if GE feed were causing unusual problems among livestock, farmers would have noticed. Dead and sick animals would literally litter farms around the world. Yet there are no anecdotal reports of such mass health problems.



As Dr. Steven Novella notes


> We now have a large set of data, both experimental and observational, showing that genetically modified feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There does not appear to be any health risk to the animals, and it is even less likely that there could be any health effect on humans who eat those animals.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/

Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 29, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Psssst...the debate on GMO is over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Omg.... it has happened. We are in agreement lol


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 1, 2015)

magibeg said:


> Omg.... it has happened. We are in agreement lol


Oh I know we agree on several things. It's just that _one little _issue that we're gonna have to say that old saying..."We'll just have to agree to agree that I'm right." XD   Or something like that.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 1, 2015)

qubit said:


> "*Britain braced for mini-ice age as temperatures are set to drop to a 300-year low*" reports a news article.
> 
> But it won't save us from global warming, apparently.
> 
> ...



It's better phrased as "Climate change"

Washington state seems to be getting the warming bit of it though.  It was 100F here the other day, and 90F today.  That's sick and wrong on a level that should only be reserved for Californians.


----------



## qubit (Jul 1, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> It's better phrased as "Climate change"
> 
> Washington state seems to be getting the warming bit of it though.  It was 100F here the other day, and 90F today.  That's sick and wrong on a level that should only be reserved for Californians.


Well, when I say the weather seems different here in the UK, I mean warmer, so this agrees with what the scientists are saying about the world getting warmer.

Whether there's gonna be some mini ice age like that article says, or just a bit of cooling from the slowing or stopping of the gulf stream, that's certainly not happening now. Maybe later, who knows?


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 1, 2015)

qubit said:


> Well, when I say the weather seems different here in the UK, I mean warmer, so this agrees with what the scientists are saying about the world getting warmer.
> 
> Whether there's gonna be some mini ice age like that article says, or just a bit of cooling from the slowing or stopping of the gulf stream, that's certainly not happening now. Maybe later, who knows?



I'll agree with that.  "Who knows?" is about as far as I take the "it'll start a new ice age" portion of the argument.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jul 1, 2015)

broken pixel said:


> You can't because the long history of Monsanto plus all the data that proves they harm the environment and its inhabitants. The fact that nature is better off without humans farking with it is a good argument plus the horrible things Monsanto has developed and been a part off and has willingly ignored the health of millions for their chemical profiteering. You would make a good lobbyist or politician.
> 
> Why did Congress do this? Why would Monsanto need protection?
> http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-pro...ng-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079
> ...



Monsanto /= GMO
Plus cross-breeding etc. should have the same effects since genetically the end results are more or less the same.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 1, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Oh I know we agree on several things. It's just that _one little _issue that we're gonna have to say that old saying..."We'll just have to agree to agree that I'm right." XD   Or something like that.



It's ok, you'll learn I'm right one day over a beer


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 1, 2015)

qubit said:


> Well, when I say the weather seems different here in the UK, I mean warmer, so this agrees with what the scientists are saying about the world getting warmer.
> 
> Whether there's gonna be some mini ice age like that article says, or just a bit of cooling from the slowing or stopping of the gulf stream, that's certainly not happening now. Maybe later, who knows?


That's the whole point of the climate change argument, it isn't about whether the world is cooling or heating, it's about extremes of weather.
England's climate may become more tropical with severe tropical storms, possibly cyclones as well as the benefit of generally warmer climes.
I used to laugh when England reported a heat wave with highs around 25c, when that is a warm winters day where I live.
Now England is passing 30c more often.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 1, 2015)

Its 07.20 and it is 26 degrees in my house in Wales, the last time i can remember temps like this was 1976.

I have noticed this warm weather is on a 39 year cycle.............. does that make me a scientist ?

I am not used to it and i dont like it..........does that make me a politician ?


----------



## broken pixel (Jul 9, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 9, 2015)

Well I didn't get any damn money! lol. But in all seriousness...What a hack piece of journalism.


----------



## haswrong (Jul 9, 2015)

the human type global warming began long time ago before industrial society, when human started forming terrain (deforestation) and redirecting rivers to places where it wouldnt support natural ecosystem, but just the actual human needs or underground water to create aqueducts. as humans grew in numbers, the agriculture and food production became the pillar of it, and the methane production was an interesting side effect  today, when human population is at the peak of growth, unable to agree on decreasing the number of members in a peacefull manner and enjoying doing so in hostile manner, in society where every individual is pushed to perform some kind of work to earn the needed drug dosage it is dependent upon with life (money), thus transform energy, and effectively amplifying any heat production not only with body, but with any contraption it puts to use, theres no turning back under the invisible dome of methan 


.:.:.:.  *pray to the methane god of doom! *


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 9, 2015)

haswrong said:


> .:.:.:.  *pray to the methane god of doom! *



Behold the Human worshipers of the god Methane


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 11, 2015)

*Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet.


The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...un-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

*


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 11, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep'



Ha ha ha and pigs will fly   ( no not in Optica aircraft or pink floyd Ballons)
this is the real World not Telly Tubby land.

Edit
Oh it was reported in the Daily mail   and their source was the Onion supported by the huffinton post and the National Inquirer

so it must be true Snigger


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 11, 2015)

Gotta love the daily mail, it's always good for a laugh.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

Reading back through the thread and reading how the arguments evolve is extremely amusing.

Stage 1: Deny that CO2 changes drive climate change
-> CO2 levels don't affect the planet in anyway. Volcanoes and cows are much more damaging!
Stage 2: Deny that it's a man-made problem
-> What, scientists say CO2 does affect the climate? Well, there's no evidence man is the cause.
Stage 3: Deny the evidence
-> There is evidence? Well then, the scientists don't agree on the evidence.
Stage 4: Attack the character
-> Wait ... They do agree? Then those scientists are liberal hacks/just after the money

Edit - Forgot a stage


----------



## ShiBDiB (Jul 11, 2015)

Never knew one thread with so much FUD would last so long...


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here already, but "Merchants of Doubt" is a must watch if you want to understand the "politics" behind the science.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

magibeg said:


> This is true. Though I would still argue about where the influences lie. The fossil fuel industry is orders of magnitude larger than green energy, and I would argue based on policy that the government itself isn't bias towards global warming being real so much as it's trying to react to it now. I'm just not understanding what the government incentive would be if global warming existed that wouldn't upset the also held belief that the same governments are also in the pocket of big oil.


But also bare in mind that the some 97% of "climate scientists" are liberal leaning.  So you got commerce on one side that prefers the status quo because it is the most economical and you have scientists on the other side with a green activist slant on the other that demand ending the status quo (very uneconomical).  Polar opposite point of views which leads to politicization.  It the role of government to decide what to do.  One of the most extreme proposal out there is a carbon tax.  USA, so far, hasn't done that but it has placed extreme requirements on not only vehicle emissions but also fuel economy requirements.  Yes, yes, the left will argue it's not enough but the right will also argue doing more would destroy the economy and make better solutions economically unattainable.  Believe it or not, this is government at work: compromising.

Freeman Dyson (physicist) wrote an article about the incremental approach above being the only sensible solution to the "problem" regardless if the "problem" actually exists.  He explicitly names bioengineering trees to better process CO2 may be the answer, and he's absolutely right.  Most people don't realize that we are the cusp of a genetic age where we build machines to sequence and produce DNA chains as desired.  Where we literally "grow" solutions to problems using cells instead of iron.  So even if there is a "problem" (Dyson argues it is bad computer models), we're coming up with solutions faster than the "problem" grows.  The pessimism is completely unwarranted--radical solutions (e.g. carbon tax) even less so.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 11, 2015)

> But also bare in mind that the some 97% of "climate scientists" are liberal leaning.



I remember reading professors and college students in general tend to lean left.  So it's a little deeper rooted than that...  of course, you can always argue that "all smart people are leftists," but I don't think anyone here is that dumb.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> But also bare in mind that the some 97% of "climate scientists" are liberal leaning.



American's really love to 'label' people. It's a very tribal and polar way of thinking that I have never really understood. Whether they are 'liberal learned' or not makes no difference to the science. A catholic scientist came up with the first birth control pill. Needless to say, the science he carried out was independent of his political/theological beliefs.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Freeman Dyson (physicist) wrote an article about the incremental approach above being the only sensible solution to the "problem" regardless if the "problem" actually exists.  He explicitly names bioengineering trees to better process CO2 may be the answer, and he's absolutely right.  Most people don't realize that we are the cusp of a genetic age where we build machines to sequence and produce DNA chains as desired.  Where we literally "grow" solutions to problems using cells instead of iron.  So even if there is a "problem" (Dyson argues it is bad computer models), we're coming up with solutions faster than the "problem" grows.  The pessimism is completely unwarranted--radical solutions (e.g. carbon tax) even less so.




Yet, if people don't make a noise about it, from where does the impetus to innovate these solutions come?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 11, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I remember reading professors and college students in general tend to lean left.  So it's a little deeper rooted than that...  of course, you can always argue that "all smart people are leftists," but I don't think anyone here is that dumb.


 
Actually, to go further, nearly all college educators and administrators are liberal/left leaning.  This goes to what Silkstone up above seems to find blasphemous, that most scientific research that is university funded is funded to support liberal political views, because that is where the grant money comes from.  I'm not bashing it, just stating a fact.  So most research of this sort will support the ideals/goals of the money holders.  It's just the way it is.

It's not a love of labeling anyone.  It just is what it is.  People that decry labels are usually that way because they are cognizant of what label they fall under.  Everyone has a belief in multitudes of subjects.  The only way to not "label" someone is if they had no beliefs, or all peoples shared the same belief.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, to go further, nearly all college educators and administrators are liberal/left leaning.  This goes to what Silkstone up above seems to find blasphemous, that most scientific research that is university funded is funded to support liberal political views, because that is where the grant money comes from.  I'm not bashing it, just stating a fact.  So most research of this sort will support the ideals/goals of the money holders.  It's just the way it is.
> 
> It's not a love of labeling anyone.  It just is what it is.  People that decry labels are usually that what because they are cognizant of what label they fall under.  Everyone has a belief in multitudes of subjects.  The only way to not "label" someone is if they had no beliefs, or all peoples shared the same belief.



Yet it is possible to hold different beliefs from both the left and right side of the political camp. What does that make a person?

I'll bite anyway. Alright, where is the source saying that 97% of scientists are 'lefties'? or is this just anecdotal or maybe they are just liberal because their data doesn't support what some people are spouting?

I'm reading a lot of FUD in these arguments with no evidence to back up any of the claims.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Yet it is possible to hold different beliefs from both the left and right side of the political camp. What does that make a person?
> 
> I'll bite anyways, alright, where is the source saying that 97% of scientists are 'lefties'? or is this just anecdotal?


 
That is what is described in most countries as a moderate.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> That is what is described in most countries as a moderate.



Not really. Someone can have extreme views that lie on both sides and are as far from moderate as any on either side. As a Brit, I always find it strange how far people on the other side of the pond accept their labels even going as far as identifying themselves by either 'Republican' or 'Democrat.' What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Not really. Someone can have extreme views that lie on both sides and are as far from moderate as any on either side. As a Brit, I always find it strange how far people on the other side of the pond accept their labels even going as far as identifying themselves by either 'Republican' or 'Democrat.' What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?


 
No one said it invalidates an argument if someone's political belief is different.  There is the very real situation though, and I can only speak about U.S. universities, that the studies done by scientists who receive grants from those universities, get those grants by aligning the study with the political viewpoint already held by the academics and administrators who hold sway over the school and its funds.  Therefore, results are indeed corrupted and suspect. 

Theoretically, in the perfect world you seem to espouse, but which exists nowhere, the politics would not matter to the science.  Indeed, all rational people wish it were so, I can imagine.  I however, am a realist, and see things for what they are, and understand science will never be free of political beliefs and machinations.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> No one said it invalidates an argument if someone's political belief is different.  There is the very real situation though, and I can only speak about U.S. universities, that the studies done by scientists who receive grants from those universities, get those grants by aligning the study with the political viewpoint already held by the academics and administrators who hold sway over the school and its funds.  Therefore, results are indeed corrupted and suspect.
> 
> Theoretically, in the perfect world you seem to espouse, but which exists nowhere, the politics would not matter to the science.  Indeed, all rational people wish it were so, I can imagine.  I however, am a realist, and see things for what they are, and understand science will never be free of political beliefs and machinations.



i'm not saying they are not, but why do you believe that universities are liberally aligned?
Even if I were to agree that politics influences what gets researched, I can see how anyone can believe that it holds such an influence on the conclusions reached by studies.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I remember reading professors and college students in general tend to lean left.  So it's a little deeper rooted than that...  of course, you can always argue that "all smart people are leftists," but I don't think anyone here is that dumb.


Yeah, it's much more broad than that but what comes to mind is a climate conference where that subject was raised.  The speaker asked everyone who identifies as "conservative" to raise their hand.  Out of a room of hundreds, only three raised their hand.  The speaker implored the other 97% to ask those three to review their articles on climate before publishing in order to make the wording more neutral.  That's where the politicizing of the issue starts.



silkstone said:


> American's really love to 'label' people. It's a very tribal and polar way of thinking that I have never really understood. Whether they are 'liberal learned' or not makes no difference to the science. A catholic scientist came up with the first birth control pill. Needless to say, the science he carried out was independent of his political/theological beliefs.


It's left brained versus right brained.  It's polar because it _is_ polar.  And it absolutely does make a difference.  Case in point: a conservative leaning scientist is more inclined to research cost effective ways to scrub coal power plant emissions (e.g. by using algae) over researching climate change.  The latter so outnumber the former though that there is excessive focus on the problem and little focus on solutions.

In your example: birth control pills are infinitely better than performing abortions.  Scientists like to research the lesser of two evils to prevent the exercise of a greater evil.  




silkstone said:


> Yet, if people don't make a noise about it, from where does the impetus to innovate these solutions come?


It's called capitalism.  There is a ton of money to be made in bioengineering, for example.  The research is happening right now--it just isn't mainstream yet.

Ellon Musk didn't create Tesla Motors to save the planet; he did it to make money off of Hollywood actors and actresses that are dissatisfied with their Toyota Priuses.




silkstone said:


> I'll bite anyway. Alright, where is the source saying that 97% of scientists are 'lefties'? or is this just anecdotal or maybe they are just liberal because their data doesn't support what some people are spouting?


I'd have to dig through a 50 page thread at GeneralNonsense to find the video.  It was a recorded conference at university.

Here's an article more broadly on the subject: Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll (55% Democrat, 32% Independent, 6% Republican; 81% are or lean Democrat).  Scientists that work in the private sector are the least likely to identify as Democrat (*cough*the ones actually working on solutions*cough*).


----------



## nolafotoknut (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> i'm not saying they are not, but why do you believe that universities are liberally aligned?
> Even if I were to agree that politics influences what gets researched, I can see how anyone can believe that it holds such an influence on the conclusions reached by studies.


I have three degrees from multiple universities in different states, including an MBA and currently working on my second Master's. Being an older student, I have personally experienced the liberally aligned universities.  I believe these universities are shaping and molding our youth with their beliefs to become liberals because these students don't know better have have not experienced life yet.  If you think about it, who do most people look to as role models?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Not really. Someone can have extreme views that lie on both sides and are as far from moderate as any on either side. As a Brit, I always find it strange how far people on the other side of the pond accept their labels even going as far as identifying themselves by either 'Republican' or 'Democrat.' What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?


You should read this: The Science of Politics and the Conquest of Nature


			
				Patrick J. Deneen said:
			
		

> The modern period also saw the reason for scientific inquiry shift from merely understanding how nature was governed to understanding how human beings could master it. Nature became not subject but object; and human inquiry was set not only in service of understanding politics, but manipulating nature for political ends.


Science today can't use the same definition of a few hundred years ago.  It is no longer just about understanding all natural things.  Remember, history only remembers the victors and politics are very much at play over determining the winner of competing theories.

Case in point: I believe there is more evidence to support the "expanding Earth theory" over the "Pangaea theory" but because the general consensus refuses to take a second look with modern data (mostly from deep ocean scans), we're stuck with the same old outdated theories.

Another example: the noise that string and membrane theories make even though we know they are inaccurate.  That's that liberal groupthink at play.


I'll end with another great quote from that article:


			
				Patrick J. Deneen said:
			
		

> This transformation, of course, describes the birth of liberalism — the philosophy that sought to liberate humans from the constraints of a prior approach to political philosophy that was content, in the words of Machiavelli, to settle for “imagined republics and principalities.” It was in order to effect this end that the revolution of the sciences first articulated by Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes was embraced: *To secure human liberty, political science must become a theoretical science, while natural science must be treated as a practical science, in the specific sense that it would be a realm of human action and freedom.* Within the horizon of a determined political setting — the liberal state — human beings would achieve a form of security and a new kind of liberty — the absence of constraint — through the *conquest of nature*.





			
				Patrick J. Deneen said:
			
		

> A fundamental debate between ancients and moderns revolves around the question of which conception of human nature is more correct — one oriented toward the *attainment of virtue* within a fixed natural order, or one based upon the expansion of satisfactions of human self-interest through the *conquest of nature*.


Liberals are turning from the modern definition of liberalism to the ancient definition.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yeah, it's much more broad than that but what comes to mind is a climate conference where that subject was raised.  The speaker asked everyone who identifies as "conservative" to raise their hand.  Out of a room of hundreds, only three raised their hand.  The speaker employed the other 97% to ask those three to review their articles on climate before publishing in order to make the wording more neutral.  That's where the politicizing of the issue starts.



Which conference? I can't find anything. Anecdotal?




FordGT90Concept said:


> It's left brained versus right brained.  It's polar because it _is_ polar.  And it absolutely does make a difference.  Case in point: a conservative leaning scientist is more inclined to research cost effective ways to scrub coal power plant emissions (e.g. by using algae) over researching climate change.  The latter so outnumber the former though that there is excessive focus on the problem and little focus on solutions.
> 
> In your example: birth control pills are infinitely better than performing abortions.  Scientists like to research the lesser of two evils to prevent the exercise of a greater evil.


Left-brained and right brained is another myth, there is no such thing! Why would a 'liberal-thinking' scientist not want to research CO2 scrubbing methods? It really seems like you are making things up in your head to justify your arguments.



FordGT90Concept said:


> It's called capitalism.  There is a ton of money to be made in bioengineering, for example.  The research is happening right now--it just isn't mainstream yet.
> 
> Ellon Musk didn't create Tesla Motors to save the planet; he did it to make money off of Hollywood actors and actresses that are dissatisfied with their Toyota Priuses.



I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but didn;t Ellon Musk just give away his patent portfolio on Telsa? Not very capitalist of him!



FordGT90Concept said:


> I'd have to dig through a 50 page thread at GeneralNonsense to find the video.  It was a recorded conference at university.



So a random video and your mind is made up?



FordGT90Concept said:


> Here's an article more broadly on the subject: Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll (55% Democrat, 32% Independent, 6% Republican; 81% are or lean Democrat).  Scientists that work in the private sector are the least likely to identify as Democrat.



A poll funded by oil companies lobby groups. Must be legit!



nolafotoknut said:


> I have three degrees from multiple universities in different states, including an MBA and currently working on my second Master's. Being an older student, I have personally experienced the liberally aligned universities.  I believe these universities are shaping and molding our youth with their beliefs to become liberals because these students don't know better have have not experienced life yet.  If you think about it, who do most people look to as role models?



Anecdotal evidence based on your own (subjective) experience? And no, in my experience, students do not look up to their lecturers. Pity is a word that might be thrown around, but never admire! I've spent a bit of time in university, never once do I remember climate change being discussed.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Left-brained and right brained is another myth, there is no such thing! Why would a 'liberal-thinking' scientist not want to research CO2 scrubbing methods? It really seems like you are making things up in your head to justify your arguments.


Not a myth.  There are clear trends in many facets of life that can be surmised from political beliefs (e.g. conservatives tend to watch Jay Leno over David Letterman).



silkstone said:


> I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but didn;t Ellon Musk just give away his patent portfolio on Telsa? Not very capitalist of him!


You're talking about greed.  Ellon Musk is not a greedy man.  Capitalism responds to emotions (e.g. bull and bear markets) but it has no emotions.



silkstone said:


> A poll funded by oil companies lobby groups. Must be legit!


Pew Research Center is a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization that does international polling and is very well respected.  In terms of polling, only Gallup really compares but Pew tends to do more broad research (like science and religion) where Gallup is mostly focused on politics.


----------



## nolafotoknut (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Which conference? I can't find anything. Anecdotal?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, your experience trumps anyone else's in this forum? And yes, teachers and professors are role models!


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'd have to dig through a 50 page thread at GeneralNonsense to find the video. It was a recorded conference at university.



to save you the bother 
watch this








enjoy


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Anecdotal evidence based on your own (subjective) experience? And no, in my experience, students do not look up to their lecturers. Pity is a word that might be thrown around, but never admire! I've spent a bit of time in university, never once do I remember climate change being discussed.


 
I envy you! You were very lucky not to have had any professors who taught THEIR opinion, instead of neutral knowledge facts, and you are lucky you never had to witness any eager young college students with no world experience lapping up the total tripe  being spewed by said opinionated professors, as a thirsty dog laps from a bowl on a hot day.

I guess it's very lucky for you that your anecdotal experience gave you neutral teachers only concerned with teaching facts, and not interpretations.  Again, I envy you!

This is a ten year old study, but I venture it is more true today than ten years ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

I spent the last hour trying to find that video but I can't.  These discussions on climate change or so frequent and so long-winded that finding the premium meat is laborious work. 


Edit: I'm still looking but there are 100 threads and many of them have over 100 posts.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Not a myth.  There are clear trends in many facets of life that can be surmised from political beliefs (e.g. conservatives tend to watch Jay Leno over David Letterman).


It is a myth. Your link is about genetic/hormonal influences on political affiliation, it might as well be a nature vs. nurture piece. However, I'm guessing you're folks were republicans. I have studied a little neuroscience. Not enough to have any real expertise, but enough to know that it is a new, interesting field of study and one that very few conclusions are made.



FordGT90Concept said:


> You're talking about greed.  Ellon Musk is not a greedy man.  Capitalism responds to emotions (e.g. bull and bear markets) but it has no emotions.


Gordon Gekko would disagree. Unchecked capitalism is inherently greedy, without it, capitalism would not function. It's only a bad thing when it becomes 'above all else'.
An interesting read: http://www.economist.com/node/1119945



FordGT90Concept said:


> Pew Research Center is a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization that does international polling and is very well respected.  In terms of polling, only Gallup really compares but Pew tends to do more broad research (like science and religion) where Gallup is mostly focused on politics.



So a political lobby group funded by the oil industry is a group you want to trust when discussing climate change? I bet you still smoke Marlboro too, as that is safe, right?



FordGT90Concept said:


> I spent the last hour trying to find that video but I can't.  These discussions on climate change or so frequent and so long-winded that finding the premium meat is laborious work.




Don't mean to keep you looking for sources. However, you have to admit, that if such a radical statement is that hard to find (I spent 20-mins on google), it might not be all that salient. I'm sure if it was 97%, a lot of people would have picked up on it in their arguments too.



rtwjunkie said:


> I envy you! You were very lucky not to have had any professors who taught THEIR opinion, instead of neutral knowledge facts, and you are lucky you never had to witness any eager young college students with no world experience lapping up the total tripe  being spewed by said opinionated professors, as a thirsty dog laps from a bowl on a hot day.
> 
> I guess it's very lucky for you that your anecdotal experience gave you neutral teachers only concerned with teaching facts, and not interpretations.  Again, I envy you!
> 
> This is a ten year old study, but I venture it is more true today than ten years ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html



"The study was sponsored by the Randolph Foundation, a private philanthropy that funds many conservative organizations, such as Americans for Tax Reform, the Independent Women's Forum, and right-wing pundit David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture."

So ... it does confirm that there is a higher ratio of liberals to conservatives in academia, but not to the extent reported as it really over-represented doctoral institutions.

It did not prove any sort of liberal bias in the hiring/promotion of faculty. So no liberal conspiracy there. Phew!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Don't mean to keep you looking for sources. However, you have to admit, that if such a radical statement is that hard to find (I spent 20-mins on google), it might not be all that salient. I'm sure if it was 97%, a lot of people would have picked up on it in their arguments too.


Like I said, it was a conference about how climate change is discussed within the scientific community.  It's a really obscure video and that little experiment was only the opener for it making it clear to everyone in the room there's a reason to be concerned.

The good sources like that are drowned out by all of the noise of generic political/news articles.  I found that back before the internet dug its teeth into climate change and trashed the search results.  The same thing has happened to the internet and marijuana searches.

I really want to find it but it is literally a needle in a haystack.  The thread I'm looking at now is 600 days old.  The one I need to find is probably 3-5 years old.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> "The study was sponsored by the Randolph Foundation, a private philanthropy that funds many conservative organizations, such as Americans for Tax Reform, the Independent Women's Forum, and right-wing pundit David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture."
> 
> So ... it does confirm that there is a higher ratio of liberals to conservatives in academia, but not to the extent reported as it really over-represented doctoral institutions.
> 
> It did not prove any sort of liberal bias in the hiring/promotion of faculty. So no liberal conspiracy there. Phew!


 
Now compare what you just said, decrying the study as faulty because of it's political bias, with what you stated on the previous page in post #523:  "What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?"


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Like I said, it was a conference about how climate change is discussed within the scientific community.  It's a really obscure video and that little experiment was only the opener for it making it clear to everyone in the room there's a reason to be concerned.
> 
> The good sources like that are drowned out by all of the noise of generic political/news articles.  I found that back before the internet dug its teeth into climate change and trashed the search results.  The same thing has happened to the internet and marijuana searches.
> 
> I really want to find it but it is literally a needle in a haystack.  The thread I'm looking at now is 600 days old.  The one I need to find is probably 3-5 years old.



Save the effort, I will concede that it probably does exist. We'll argue the point of it. A scientist's interpretation may indeed also be influenced by one's belief's. This would fit in well with a radical constructivist's view of scientific endeavor and what it all means.

The data, however, is black and white. The point that i'm guessing you will argue is that they are only looking at causation through a pair of liberal goggles. However, science is done based on a process of elimination. They can only really come to a conclusion once they have discredited all other causes.



rtwjunkie said:


> Now compare what you just said, decrying the study as faulty because of it's political bias, with what you stated on the previous page in post #523: "What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?"



Difficult to refute when someone uses your own arguments against you! If you read again, I actually didn't discredit the "study". I use the word in the loosest sense as the "study" is not exactly science.
Scientifically speaking, out of 1,643 members of faculty at 81 doctoral, 59 comprehensive and 43 liberal arts institutions, 73% identify as liberal.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Difficult to refute when someone uses your own arguments against you! If you read again, I actually didn't discredit the "study". I use the word in the loosest sense as the "study" is not exactly science.


 
Alright I concede that I did stretch the study concept into the science realm a bit.  

I just wanted to make my point that neither of us can really refute the other's argument simply because of the sources!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

Ran across a relevant quote in a thread 1161 days old:


			
				Jacob Bronowski said:
			
		

> No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power. … The time has come to consider how we might bring about a separation, as complete as possible, between Science and Government in all countries. I call this the disestablishment of science, in the same sense in which the churches have been disestablished and have become independent of the state.


1971

Edit: Ahahaha! I'm not even back to the "Climate Gate" megathreads!


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Alright I concede that I did stretch the study concept into the science realm a bit.
> 
> I just wanted to make my point that neither of us can really refute the other's argument simply because of the sources!



 Agreed. However, I know that I don't trust that big tobacco, big chemical or big oil hold me in their best interests.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Ran across a relevant quote in a thread 1161 days old:
> 
> 1971



Urgh ... Really, science is equivalent to religion? Yes. Let government act without any information. While we are at it, lets separate government from economics, medicine, military, ... Let's even remove government from politics, that sounds like a good idea.


----------



## OneMoar (Jul 11, 2015)

this thread has derailed harder then a AMTrack loaded with orphans while crossing a bridge over a  500FT Gully 
please make it stop ....


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> this thread has derailed harder then a AMTrack loaded with orphans while crossing a bridge over a  500FT Gully
> please make it stop ....



Ha! I think I might have drank too much this evening. Apologies.
Back on topic:
The data is not able to attribute climate change to:
Cows,
Volcanoes,
The clouds,
The sun,
The moon,
and the stars in the sky ... Sorry getting off track again. Think I need some sleep.

The data is not able to eliminate fossil fuels as being the cause.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

Because the computer models do a very poor job at modeling all those points of data.  If you look back at "global warming" articles just 10 years ago, a lot of them predicted New York City would be under water by now.  It should give you an idea of how inaccurate the predictions have been.

Case in point: clouds (aka water vapor) can have a massive positive and negative on climate.  The models often used a fixed number for albedo instead of modeling weather as well.  The models are fundamentally flawed.

Even irregular events like forest fires have massive impacts on climate on many levels.  They cause short term heating where the fires actually are but the smoke they produce is usually white and cloud-like.  Down wind, that white smoke causes solar energy to be reflected instead of absorbed causing minor but measurable cooling.  At the same time, the amount of CO2 released as well causes a more long term warming effect as well as the damaged trees having a very long term effect of not removing as much CO2 from the atmosphere.  There are so many data points to consider on top of the fact that forest fires aren't a regular thing.  The models just end up being wrong.

There are lots of correlations but there simply isn't enough data to prove causation.



silkstone said:


> Urgh ... Really, science is equivalent to religion? Yes. Let government act without any information. While we are at it, lets separate government from economics, medicine, military, ... Let's even remove government from politics, that sounds like a good idea.


Bronowski used separation of church and state as an example of what is necessary with science and state.  It goes back into that political science argument where the two are intrinsically linked even though they ought not be.



silkstone said:


> Your link is about genetic/hormonal influences on political affiliation, it might as well be a nature vs. nurture piece.


It's more nature than nurture.  Case in point: if you're easily startled, you're more likely to be a conservative than a liberal (fight-or-flight mechanism).


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because the computer models do a very poor job at modeling all those points of data.  If you look back at "global warming" articles just 10 years ago, a lot of them predicted New York City would be under water by now.  It should give you an idea of how inaccurate the predictions have been.
> 
> Case in point: clouds (aka water vapor) can have a massive positive and negative on climate.  The models often used a fixed number for albedo instead of modeling weather as well.  The models are fundamentally flawed.
> 
> ...



Okay, on the data side of things. The rise in CO2 levels can only be attributed to human factors, agreed? Data is data, and we have a lot of it. The interpretations might vary slightly until a general contentious is reached on what it all actually means. Every other cause of rising CO2 levels has been ruled out. Process of elimination.


With regards to the models, they are just that. Very few in the scientific community disagree that CO2 is driving climate change. Not based on models, based on data. Scientists interpretations of said data have been reviewed multiple times and there is no disagreement that the data shows CO2 as a cause of climate change. Well, it's either that or someone dropped a big-ass block of dry ice on us from outer-space without us noticing!

With regards to models predicting the future changes (as it seems you are bunching these two 'models' together. They have been more accurate predicting changes than not. The melting ice-caps, extreme whether. Where there have been some inaccuracies, many more predictions have been accurate, especially over the 10-year time-frame. They are considered to be generally accurate and while not predicting everything, they do give a good general overview of what is happening.

Scientists don't do their work based on models, they do it based on the data they have and use models to come up with predictions as to what will happen. In that sense there is disagreement as to the specifics, as they are only hypothesis at the moment, but everybody is saying that nothing good will come of this!



FordGT90Concept said:


> Nowhere in my quote mentions religion.  That's all you.



"I call this the disestablishment of science, in the same sense in which the churches have been disestablished and have become independent of the state."


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Okay, on the data side of things. The rise in CO2 levels can only be attributed to human factors, agreed? Data is data, and we have a lot of it. The interpretations might vary slightly until a general contentious is reached on what it all actually means. Every other cause of rising CO2 levels has been ruled out. Process of elimination.


Negative.  Because the surface of the Earth warmed, trapped sources of CO2 are releasing (glaciers and permafrost).  So no, the use of the word "only" is erroneous.



silkstone said:


> With regards to the models, they are just that. Very few in the scientific community disagree that CO2 is driving climate change. Not based on models, based on data. Scientists interpretations of said data have been reviewed multiple times and there is no disagreement that the data shows CO2 as a cause of climate change. Well, it's either that or someone dropped a big-ass block of dry ice on us from outer-space without us noticing!


Actually, they do.  You have to be careful with polling data because they ask very specific questions and get very specific responses.  For example, the "97% of climate scientist believe in global warming" figure is just that: 97% percent of climate scientists believe the surface temperature of the Earth is warming.  When they go further and ask whether or not it is caused by man, less than 60% say it is (this figure almost exactly mirrors the climate scientists that identify themselves as Democrat).  When asked if it is dangerous, the number falls even lower.  Thanks to satellite-based temperature data, it is surprising 3% disagree warming is occurring.  When you get into the details though, the shades of gray appear.

And before you ask for a source, it was a US News link magibeg posted in one of those dozens of threads I was looking through.



silkstone said:


> The melting ice-caps, extreme whether. Where there have been some inaccuracies, many more predictions have been accurate, especially over the 10-year time-frame. They are considered to be generally accurate and while not predicting everything, they do give a good general overview of what is happening.


Extreme weather is not increasing (there was a better source for that but again, drowned out by the noise).  Ice coverage is decreasing in some places (particularly Arctic) and growing in others (particularly Antarctic).



silkstone said:


> Scientists don't do their work based on models, they do it based on the data they have and use models to come up with predictions as to what will happen. In that sense there is disagreement as to the specifics, as they are only hypothesis at the moment, but everybody is saying that nothing good will come of this!


CO2 is plant food.  CH4 should be the greater concern in the atmosphere because it only leaves by way of breaking down.



silkstone said:


> "I call this the disestablishment of science, in the same sense in which the churches have been disestablished and have become independent of the state."


I ninja edited.  He never said science was a religion (see atheism for an example where it is but that's going off topic).


----------



## magibeg (Jul 11, 2015)

Sorry guys, was busy looking at wedding venues.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."


Also for CO2, we know the leading cause is from fossil fuels due to carbon isotopes.

CH4 is much less of a concern because it has a much shorter circulation period so it cannot accumulate the same way CO2 does. It also isn't even close to the same concentration levels. We discussed this already: http://www.generalnonsense.net/showpost.php?p=49137&postcount=91

I hope this was to the point enough.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Negative.  Because the surface of the Earth warmed, trapped sources of CO2 are releasing (glaciers and permafrost).  So no, the use of the word "only" is erroneous.


Yes, trapped sources of carbon, but no to permafrost and glaciers, though they do contribute, negative feedback is a bitch 




FordGT90Concept said:


> Actually, they do.  You have to be careful with polling data because they ask very specific questions and get very specific responses.  For example, the "97% of climate scientist believe in global warming" figure is just that: 97% percent of climate scientists believe the surface temperature of the Earth is warming.  When they go further and ask whether or not it is caused by man, less than 60% say it is (this figure almost exactly mirrors the climate scientists that identify themselves as Democrat).  When asked if it is dangerous, the number falls even lower.  Thanks to satellite-based temperature data, it is surprising 3% disagree warming is occurring.  When you get into the details though, the shades of gray appear.
> 
> And before you ask for a source, it was a US News link magibeg posted in one of those dozens of threads I was looking through.



Nope. 97% of climate scientists agree that it is 'very likely due to human activities."  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Even assuming you are right, and it's 60%. That is not the same as saying 40% say it is definitely not due to human activities. 60% is still an overwhelming majority. If 60% of people agreed on most things, we'd have a very peaceful world.
Regarding your inference to 60% being Democrat, try to remember that not all scientists are American. I'm pretty sure that a lot of them would not identify themselves as 'Democrat'.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Extreme weather is not increasing (there was a better source for that but again, drowned out by the noise).  Ice coverage is decreasing in some places (particularly Arctic) and growing in others (particularly Antarctic).


Arctic ones are. Antarctic, probably not yet: Which is a very good thing.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

By the way, the 'contributor' you linked to is not a scientist, but a lobbyist/lawyer. I think he also lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry trying to promote smoking as an expression of freedom. He works for the Heartland institute. A basic google search will bring up his credentials and who he is paid by. Seriously, watch "Merchants of Doubt" I think he is actually in it.



FordGT90Concept said:


> CO2 is plant food.  CH4 should be the greater concern in the atmosphere because it only leaves by way of breaking down.



Sunlight is plant's 'food', they used CO2 to respire. More CO2 (most probably) does not mean more plants, just like more oxygen does not mean more people.
The relationship is actually quite complex. In simple terms it is down to the law of limiting factors. For a (incomplete) overview, see here: http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/content/filerepository/CMP/00/001/068/Rate of photosynthesis limiting factors.pdf

However 'hoping' that an increased rate of photosynthesis will balance out the negative effects of global warming is pretty wishful thinking.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Nope. 97% of climate scientists agree that it is 'very likely due to human activities."  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


No, that source is looking exclusively at published articles.  It doesn't ask anyone's opinion.  I quote:


> We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.


That's hardly scientific.  All that really amounts to is that climatologists are getting a lot of money to research climate change and that shouldn't surprise anyone (pretty much exclusively the only contracts available since the first IPCC report in the early 1990s).  Additionally, the criteria they used for categorizing articles has been heavily criticized and there are a lot of garbage references..

It should also be strongly noted that this article is written by John Cook, the founder of Skeptical Science blog.  He profits directly from the climate change alarmism (estimated value $21,000) by way of accepting donations.  Website was founded in 2007.  He published his first book on climate change in 2011.  As far as I can gather, he is not a climatologist (has a degree in physics and is pursuing a degree in psychology).



silkstone said:


> 60% is still an overwhelming majority. If 60% of people agreed on most things, we'd have a very peaceful world.
> Regarding your inference to 60% being Democrat, try to remember that not all scientists are American. I'm pretty sure that a lot of them would not identify themselves as 'Democrat'.


The actual number was 54% (55% call themselves Democrat) and even 60% doesn't constitute an "overwhelming majority."  It is simply a "majority."  60% is what got us Obamacare and the outcome of that is far from "peaceful."  55.5% is what got us the slew of recent SCOTUS rulings and those have hardly had "peaceful" outcomes either.  You're not going to get "peaceful" unless it is unanimous (100%).



silkstone said:


> By the way, the 'contributor' you linked to is not a scientist, but a lobbyist/lawyer. I think he also lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry trying to promote smoking as an expression of freedom. He works for the Heartland institute. A basic google search will bring up his credentials and who he is paid by. Seriously, watch "Merchants of Doubt" I think he is actually in it.


I put that text in parenthesis for a reason.  The original study that looked at extreme weather events, I believe, was performed by NOAA.  Out of the four categories they looked at, only one increased (I believe it was flooding).  As I pointed out, the good dissenting articles are quickly buried by the noise on the internet for any and everything that supports climate alarmism likely because they get a lot more hits.  I'd have to dig through thousands of posts to find it.



silkstone said:


> However 'hoping' that an increased rate of photosynthesis will balance out the negative effects of global warming is pretty wishful thinking.


Plants are ultimate what puts carbon back in the dirt.  Killing off plants contributes to increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 because less carbon can be removed from the atmosphere on an annual basis.  The same also applies to algae and other ocean-based carbon dioxide consuming plants and organisms.

Bioengineering plants can lead to species of plants that excel at photosynthesis (e.g. remove the fruit bearing from a species and devote it all to creating carbon-full root nodules).  Farmers could plant those as part of conservation program and disc them into the ground permanently removing a massive amount of carbon from the atmosphere.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jul 12, 2015)

Currently, IMHO, the biggest problem is that all the "leading and respected" journals are not really entertaining 2 sides of the argument: its either you are a climate change advocate, or you are an idiot and we will not publish your paper. Unfortunately, this does not lead to a healthy debate. This gap is filled by funding from companies vested in denying climate change (think Big Oil Co.), damaging credibility and allowing strawman arguments.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> No, that source is looking exclusively at published articles.  It doesn't ask anyone's opinion.  I quote:
> 
> That's hardly scientific.  All that really amounts to is that climatologists are getting a lot of money to research climate change and that shouldn't surprise anyone (pretty much exclusively the only contracts available since the first IPCC report in the early 1990s).  Additionally, the criteria they used for categorizing articles has been heavily criticized and there are a lot of garbage references..
> 
> It should also be strongly noted that this article is written by John Cook, the founder of Skeptical Science blog.  He profits directly from the climate change alarmism (estimated value $21,000) by way of accepting donations.  Website was founded in 2007.  He published his first book on climate change in 2011.  As far as I can gather, he is not a climatologist (has a degree in physics and is pursuing a degree in psychology).



NASA quotes a couple of other research papers too and some conference proceedings. Regardless, Skeptical Science is a well respected blog, not alarmist. It presents straightforward information. Who were the $21,000 worth of donations from and how many donors?



FordGT90Concept said:


> The actual number was 54% (55% call themselves Democrat) and even 60% doesn't constitute an "overwhelming majority."  It is simply a "majority."  60% is what got us Obamacare and the outcome of that is far from "peaceful."  55.5% is what got us the slew of recent SCOTUS rulings and those have hardly had "peaceful" outcomes either.  You're not going to get "peaceful" unless it is unanimous (100%).



In a block and white issue, 60 to 40% would not be a huge majority, but when there are more than two options, it does become an overwhelming majority. If you ask 100 dinner guests whether they want spaghetti, fajitas, chilli, stir-fry, curry, .... and 60% respond that they want spaghetti, you are gonna be cooking spaghetti. If they were asked about red or white whine and 60% said they wanted red, you'd be buying both red and white wine. It's all about context.

In the context of scientists agreeing on a cause, 60% is a majority.



FordGT90Concept said:


> I put that text in parenthesis for a reason.  The original study that looked at extreme weather events, I believe, was performed by NOAA.  Out of the four categories they looked at, only one increased (I believe it was flooding).  As I pointed out, the good dissenting articles are quickly buried by the noise on the internet for any and everything that supports climate alarmism likely because they get a lot more hits.  I'd have to dig through thousands of posts to find it.


There is no green conspiracy in this. That some predictions come true and others do not isn't evidence that climate science is flawed. If all hypothesis' we correct, there would be no science. It's just the basis behind science works. You are looking into an area of research that is related to climate change but vastly different from other areas.

There is the past, then the future. Looking into the past is very easy and it is clear that it is CO2 and driven by human actions. Looking into the future is more difficult and is where more (complex) models come in. That something doesn't happen as predicted does not that any of the science is wrong and it should all be thrown away. It means that the model should be updated with the new data to, hopefully, make better predictions.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Plants are ultimate what puts carbon back in the dirt.  Killing off plants contributes to increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 because less carbon can be removed from the atmosphere on an annual basis.  The same also applies to algae and other ocean-based carbon dioxide consuming plants and organisms.
> 
> Bioengineering plants can lead to species of plants that excel at photosynthesis (e.g. remove the fruit bearing from a species and devote it all to creating carbon-full root nodules).  Farmers could plant those as part of conservation program and disc them into the ground permanently removing a massive amount of carbon from the atmosphere.



Yes! This! This is where the debate should be! What can we do to reduce/mitigate climate change?



Fourstaff said:


> Currently, IMHO, the biggest problem is that all the "leading and respected" journals are not really entertaining 2 sides of the argument: its either you are a climate change advocate, or you are an idiot and we will not publish your paper. Unfortunately, this does not lead to a healthy debate. This gap is filled by funding from companies vested in denying climate change (think Big Oil Co.), damaging credibility and allowing strawman arguments.



Unfortunately, it is all the funding from companies and the strawman arguments that are the source of the debate. Do you think that these big companies have not funded their own research into climate change? If there were evidence that it were not man-made, would it not be published?


----------



## Fourstaff (Jul 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Unfortunately, it is all the funding from companies and the strawman arguments that are the source of the debate. Do you think that these big companies have not funded their own research into climate change? If there were evidence that it were not man-made, would it not be published?



Self serving would be what is expected for big companies (after all, they answer to their shareholders who demands max profits). What I am asking is for a more impartial view, for some perverse reason we are not getting any. 

To make matters interesting, Shell is taking "we must cut down CO2 emissions" stance. http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> NASA quotes a couple of other research papers too and some conference proceedings. Regardless, Skeptical Science is a well respected blog, not alarmist. It presents straightforward information. Who were the $21,000 worth of donations from and how many donors?


It's a private blog.  The $21k figure comes from estimated domain name valuation.  "Respected" and "blog" is an oxymoron.

That also doesn't change the fact that is very abnormal for scientific journals to publish a collation of other journals.  There is no new research presented--it's everyone else's research.  Seriously, if you did what Cook did and submitted it for your graduating thesis, good chance you'd get flunked.  The only reason why it was published and why it got so much attention is because the subject matter is extremely popular at the time of publication and among publishers.  In publishing it, it added fuel to the politicization fire. 




silkstone said:


> In the context of scientists agreeing on a cause, *60% is a majority*.


There, now you're learning.  But lets wrap this back into the point above.  Natural science cares nothing of percentage of agreement on anything; only provable facts.  By so many people dragging this dead beat article into the discussion, they themselves are turning the subject into political science, not natural science.  Consensus only proves consensus, not natural science.  The natural science, if it exists, is found in the articles supposedly cited (again, note how short the reference list is).  



silkstone said:


> There is no green conspiracy in this. That some predictions come true and others do not isn't evidence that climate science is flawed. If all hypothesis' we correct, there would be no science. It's just the basis behind science works. You are looking into an area of research that is related to climate change but vastly different from other areas.


The only "predications" that came "true" were those that were Nostradamus-like.  You know, things like saying glaciers will melt.  Well no shit Sherlock.  That doesn't take in to account the fact they grow in the winter.  It's the cycle that maters, not any singular event.  Sure, it trends one way for a while but then it trends the other way for a while.  There isn't enough data to make predictions that are remotely accurate and certainly not long term accurate.



silkstone said:


> Yes! This! This is where the debate should be! What can we do to reduce/mitigate climate change?


Because there is no debate.  It's Freeman Dyson's analysis at work (technology is advancing faster than climate change).  Here's one of Dyson's articles: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society (published 2007).  Here's one quote that should be brought into this discussion:


			
				Freeman Dyson said:
			
		

> There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global.


He is right; the satellites show the bulk of the warming is in the northern hemisphere:





There is significant cooling too though.  Here's an excellent quote that explains some of the pattern above:


			
				Freeman Dyson said:
			
		

> Everyone agrees that the increasing abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has two important consequences, first a change in the physics of radiation transport in the atmosphere, and second a change in the biology of plants on the ground and in the ocean. Opinions differ on the relative importance of the physical and biological effects, and on whether the effects, either separately or together, are beneficial or harmful. The physical effects are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind-strength and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase “global warming”. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. *The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime.* The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's a private blog.  The $21k figure comes from estimated domain name valuation.  "Respected" and "blog" is an oxymoron.



So he didn't receive $21k in donations and isn't profiting from it? NYT and WP praised the blog, that's as close as you are going to get to being praised.



FordGT90Concept said:


> That also doesn't change the fact that is very abnormal for scientific journals to publish a collation of other journals.  There is no new research presented--it's everyone else's research.  Seriously, if you did what Cook did and submitted it for your graduating thesis, good chance you'd get flunked.  The only reason why it was published and why it got so much attention is because the subject matter is extremely popular at the time of publication and among publishers.  In publishing it, it added fuel to the politicization fire.


You've never heard of a meta-analysis?



FordGT90Concept said:


> There, now you're learning.  But lets wrap this back into the point above.  Natural science cares nothing of percentage of agreement on anything; only provable facts.  By so many people dragging this dead beat article into the discussion, they themselves are turning the subject into political science, not natural science.  Consensus only proves consensus, not natural science.  The natural science, if it exists, is found in the articles supposedly cited (again, note how short the reference list is).



Natural science concerns itself with hypothesis and theories (not the same thing) nothing is taken to be a fact in science. Historic climate change is a theory, not a hypothesis.
I'm not sure how it's being politicized by saying 97% of scientists concur that climate change is real and influenced by human activity. The point of the analysis was not to look into the science behind climate change. I don't understand what is wrong with the references, if you understand how referencing works. If you state that xxx said "yyy" then you cite it. It doesn;t tell you anything about the instruments used in the study, whether they are valid or not. That is what the peer-review is for.



FordGT90Concept said:


> The only "predications" that came "true" were those that were Nostradamus-like.  You know, things like saying glaciers will melt.  Well no shit Sherlock.  That doesn't take in to account the fact they grow in the winter.  It's the cycle that maters, not any singular event.  Sure, it trends one way for a while but then it trends the other way for a while.  There isn't enough data to make predictions that are remotely accurate and certainly not long term accurate.



It does take into account the annual cycles.

Other predictions that have come true:
A warming of 0.55C (a little lower at 0.39C, but still statistically significant)
The rise in atmospheric CO2
Drought-prone regions recieving less rainfall
Antarctic ice beginning to crack and crumble
More extreme weather

Using 20-year old, basic models and knowing the computer processing power of the time, it's pretty remarkable that any are correct.



FordGT90Concept said:


> He is right; the satellites show the bulk of the warming is in the northern hemisphere:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And there in lies the bulk of the problem. Colder areas getting warmer. Less Ice, higher sea level. Less permafrost, higher carbon dioxide.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> So he didn't receive $21k in donations and isn't profiting from it? NYT and WP praised the blog, that's as close as you are going to get to being praised.


We have no idea how much he received.  Both are leftist publications. 



silkstone said:


> I'm not sure how it's being politicized by saying 97% of scientists concur that climate change is real and influenced by human activity.


You just did it again.  Cook examined publications and did not poll climatologists.  The rest of what you said there more closely matches Pew Research Center's finding (which you criticized as being funded by "big oil") and the number they come up with is 84%.  That's self-identified "scientists" which includes all fields of study.

Again, remember that some 81% of scientists lean liberal and this is reflected in all of the scientists versus public questions asked by Pew.  The scientists' perspective, so long as that strong majority remains, will remain skewed to the left.  Which brings me back to the point that none of this matters.  It's the dogma Dyson talks about.



silkstone said:


> 1) A warming of 0.55C (a little lower at 0.39C, but still statistically significant)
> 2) The rise in atmospheric CO2
> 3) Drought-prone regions recieving less rainfall
> 4) Antarctic ice beginning to crack and crumble
> 5) More extreme weather


1) Uh, that's my point.  The model was wrong.  Even Dyson wouldn't argue against a slight increase in warming but what is debated is the significance of it.  The models consistently overestimate warming which leads to alarmism.  The models are pretty consistently inaccurate at predicting (off by 29% in your figure which is huge).  If they published that prediction with a standard deviation of +/-29%, no one would take it seriously.

2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are climbing on pretty much a straight line.  Anyone with a straight edge and the line graph can figure that out.  Not exactly noteworthy.

3) Not true.  Places like Arizona got record rainfalls.  The quote I gave from Dyson explains pretty clearly why that is.  This is a myth.

4) That is a function of glaciers.  Not noteworthy.

5) Already demonstrated that isn't true.  The number and severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, and typhoons has been falling.  Dyson explains why that is as well (water vapor easily overpowers carbon dioxide and extreme weather occurs where it is hot and moist).


----------



## Fourstaff (Jul 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Look again at the picture.  Look at the poles.  Note they don't have a color. Note what that means.



Note says: "Grey areas represent missing data". Based on that map itself, we cannot really tell what is happening in the poles.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2015)

Fourstaff said:


> Note says: "Grey areas represent missing data". Based on that map itself, we cannot really tell what is happening in the poles.


How did I miss that?  It makes sense though because the orbit of the satellites tends to be just north of the equator.  I wonder why NASA hasn't launched a satellite that orbits longitudinally to fill in those holes.  Dyson's logic dictates that the Arctic should have the largest temperature difference on the entire planet if non-vapor greenhouse gases are to blame.  The red blips over Alaska and Siberia suggest that may be the case but missing data is missing data.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> He is right; the satellites show the bulk of the warming is in the northern hemisphere:


Coincidence that the bulk of the land mass is north of the Equator and they retain heat more than the oceans.
Australia shows significant warming also on that graphic.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2015)

Remember, that image shows average temperature change over 30 years, not actual temperatures.  Assuming greenhouse gases (non-water vapor) are to blame for Australia's increase, it is likely due to the Australian Outback being dry.  Greenhouse gases could also explain the warming in the Rocky Mountains but it doesn't explain the cooling on the Great Plains.

Europe being hotter is an anomaly but that probably has more to do with currents in the Atlantic Ocean than anything else.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 12, 2015)

I don't even full understand what everyone is arguing about here anymore. Even the numbers Ford posted shows a scientific consensus on the matter.

The world IS warming. (ie there is more energy entering the system than currently leaving it)

Humans are the cause. This is a done deal lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2015)

magibeg said:


> Even the numbers Ford posted shows a scientific consensus on the matter.


Only because they are like-minded individuals.  The "heretics" are ignored but that doesn't make them wrong.  Consensus doesn't make natural laws.

Even though many countries have done a lot to change the rate of fossil fuel combustion in the past decade, it has had little to no impact on atmospheric CO2.  The cause doesn't matter; the actions we take to correct it does (assuming it is even something dangerous at current levels which is extremely debatable).



magibeg said:


> The world IS warming. (ie there is more energy entering the system than currently leaving it)


And the solutions are actually quite simple.  If you haven't read that Dyson article, I recommend you do.  All we need to really do is make sure that the carbon agriculture plants take out of the air is committed to the dirt instead of being reintroduced to the ecosystem.  He concluded that to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, we only need to grow top soil by 1/100ths of an inch per year.  Carbon dioxide is not a bad thing and corn is very, very efficient at removing it from the atmosphere.



magibeg said:


> Humans are the cause. This is a done deal lol


There are many, many causes.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been in flux since the atmosphere first formed on Earth.  We contribute but we aren't the sole cause.  We aren't even the majority cause (organic decomposition and oceanic releases are the largest).


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 12, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Ha ha ha and pigs will fly   ( no not in Optica aircraft or pink floyd Ballons)
> this is the real World not Telly Tubby land.
> 
> Edit
> ...




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 12, 2015)

P4-630 said:


> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm


We're Doomed
where is that Vogon hyperspace bypass construction ship Never one around when you want one

Ps i got my towel and babel fish


----------



## magibeg (Jul 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Only because they are like-minded individuals.  The "heretics" are ignored but that doesn't make them wrong.  Consensus doesn't make natural laws.
> 
> Even though many countries have done a lot to change the rate of fossil fuel combustion in the past decade, it has had little to no impact on atmospheric CO2.  The cause doesn't matter; the actions we take to correct it does (assuming it is even something dangerous at current levels which is extremely debatable).



So instead you're giving an impossible scenario for evidence, because regardless of what evidence is generated you can ALWAYS claim bias. If that is truly your point of view you should never discuss this subject again, because you will never bring anything to the table.



FordGT90Concept said:


> And the solutions are actually quite simple.  If you haven't read that Dyson article, I recommend you do.  All we need to really do is make sure that the carbon agriculture plants take out of the air is committed to the dirt instead of being reintroduced to the ecosystem.  He concluded that to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, we only need to grow top soil by 1/100ths of an inch per year.  Carbon dioxide is not a bad thing and corn is very, very efficient at removing it from the atmosphere.



That only works if we don't use the top soil again. It gets cycled through plants because they take on carbon, die, and as it decomposes it returns to the atmosphere as a gas, usually methane. Dyson's method makes no sense in relation to how the cycle actually works.



FordGT90Concept said:


> There are many, many causes.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been in flux since the atmosphere first formed on Earth.  We contribute but we aren't the sole cause.  We aren't even the majority cause (organic decomposition and oceanic releases are the largest).



There are indeed many causes, and you are being pedantic or you don't understand the carbon cycle. We are a small part of a cycle as a total but we're introducing carbon that was previously removed from the cycle, that's the issue. The carbon cycle is about 750 gigatons and we're adding about 29 gigatons to the cycle every year. The ocean absorbs about 40% of our emissions (which is part of what is causing ocean acidification). So are you arguing that we're not causing the increase or were you just trying to convolute the issue by mentioning that the actual cycle is (obviously) much bigger than our contribution?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 12, 2015)

magibeg said:


> I don't even full understand what everyone is arguing about here anymore. Even the numbers Ford posted shows a scientific consensus on the matter.
> 
> The world IS warming. (ie there is more energy entering the system than currently leaving it)
> 
> Humans are the cause. This is a done deal lol



You had me up until your last line about Humans.  THAT is what has not been proven.  Remember, the Earth has heated and cooled by large amounts, thousands of times, and Humans are but a flyspeck on the timeline.

Indeed, if you are so convinced Humans are the cause, I challenge you to give up any use of power, be the first, which means no posting on TPU, no using electronic devices, no using private or public transport to go to work, don't even heat your house with a wood fire.  See how silly that is?  But that points out the very hypocrisy of Human alarmists...willing to point the finger, but unwilling to take all the necessary steps.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2015)

Could care less about global warming, with over-fishing, or fish in the Pacific eating too much plastic crap, dead zones of fishing, cattle that is force fed corn lowering the nutritional value, geneticically modified foods lowering the nutritional quality of foods, and a recent study I read last week of the over-consumption of water and how almost half of all water basins are using more water than they can replenish....  I have no doubt humans will have a mass famine, or diluted food supply to not create enough energy for a productive society.

Overpopulation is going to kill humanity unless people begin getting spayed or neutered, not global warming.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-show-how-the-world-is-running-out-of-water/


----------



## magibeg (Jul 12, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> You had me up until your last line about Humans.  THAT is what has not been proven.  Remember, the Earth has heated and cooled by large amounts, thousands of times, and Humans are but a flyspeck on the timeline.
> 
> Indeed, if you are so convinced Humans are the cause, I challenge you to give up any use of power, be the first, which means no posting on TPU, no using electronic devices, no using private or public transport to go to work, don't even heat your house with a wood fire.  See how silly that is?  But that points out the very hypocrisy of Human alarmists...willing to point the finger, but unwilling to take all the necessary steps.



Your argument is nonsense.

I can recognize the fact that alcohol is bad for me, prove that alcohol is bad for me, and still drink alcohol. It's about moderation. Who taught you ideas that silly that the world only works in black and white? I'm not even going to get into the ramifications that would occur if this was applied to everything in life.

You tell me to remember that the earth has heated and cooled in the past, do you know why? Did you even put in proper study before you make broad assumptions that everything is normal? Did you ever wonder why CO2 is considered both a cause and historically an amplifier or climate? Did you even know that bit of information I just mentioned?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2015)

magibeg said:


> So instead you're giving an impossible scenario for evidence, because regardless of what evidence is generated you can ALWAYS claim bias. If that is truly your point of view you should never discuss this subject again, because you will never bring anything to the table.


I think it doesn't matter.  As I've said repeatedly, we know two things: 1) atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising (CH4 for that matter as well) and 2) global average surface temperature is trending upwards over the past 30 years.  There is an undeniable correlation between 1 and 2 but that doesn't prove causation.  The only thing debatable is whether or not 1 and/or 2 are even dangerous should current trends continue.  We have very little control over 2 (it's very weather-based) so even setting the aforementioned debate aside, is it worth attempting to alter the trajectory of 1?  We can't definitively answer that because the prediction models are notoriously inaccurate.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't care what a collation of research papers that contain "global warming" says because it doesn't amount to anything practical.  This entire discussion doesn't actually amount to anything practical because I think we all know what we, individually, can do to reduce our individual carbon-dioxide footprint.  Biologists (bioengineering plants), physicists (alternative sources of energy), and economists (make alternatives cheaper) ultimately have to find the long term answer.  We could reasonably get to a point where we over-control carbon-dioxide as well which would be detrimental to plants.



magibeg said:


> That only works if we don't use the top soil again. It gets cycled through plants because they take on carbon, die, and as it decomposes it returns to the atmosphere as a gas, usually methane. Dyson's method makes no sense in relation to how the cycle actually works.


Imagine growing a corn crop but instead of harvesting it, we chop it all down and layer dirt on top of it.  As all that mass decomposes, most of the carbon should be trapped and next year, you'll have better top soil than you started with while at the same time removing an enormous amount of carbon from the atmosphere.



magibeg said:


> There are indeed many causes, and you are being pedantic or you don't understand the carbon cycle. We are a small part of a cycle as a total but we're introducing carbon that was previously removed from the cycle, that's the issue. The carbon cycle is about 750 gigatons and we're adding about 29 gigatons to the cycle every year. The ocean absorbs about 40% of our emissions (which is part of what is causing ocean acidification). So are you arguing that we're not causing the increase or were you just trying to convolute the issue by mentioning that the actual cycle is (obviously) much bigger than our contribution?


You've only said that a dozen times and the solution is right above.  The carbon original came from plants and we can use plants to control it as well.

The source of carbon doesn't matter.  All that matters is whether we need to change it or not.  Carbon-dioxide is as natural as oxygen; there's no reason to demonize it.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think it doesn't matter.  As I've said repeatedly, we know two things: 1) atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising (CH4 for that matter as well) and 2) global average surface temperature is trending upwards over the past 30 years.  There is an undeniable correlation between 1 and 2 but that doesn't prove causation.  The only thing debatable is whether or not 1 and/or 2 are even dangerous should current trends continue.  We have very little control over 2 (it's very weather-based) so even setting the aforementioned debate aside, is it worth attempting to alter the trajectory of 1?  We can't definitively answer that because the prediction models are notoriously inaccurate.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is I don't care what a collation of research papers that contain "global warming" says because it doesn't amount to anything practical.  This entire discussion doesn't actually amount to anything practical because I think we all know what we, individually, can do to reduce our individual carbon-dioxide footprint.  Biologists (bioengineering plants), physicists (alternative sources of energy), and economists (make alternatives cheaper) ultimately have to find the long term answer.  We could reasonably get to a point where we over-control carbon-dioxide as well which would be detrimental to plants.
> 
> ...




Dysons solution is not that simple. It's gassing from bacteria breaking down the corn that releases methane which turns into CO2 which would be the problem. You would have to grow the corn, flatten it, sterilize the land or bury it meters deep THEN grow on top of it. In earths history there was actually a carbon crisis once caused by trees. Originally there wasn't anything to break down wood so it caused a massive carbon sink until a type of bacteria formed which could break it down and release it back into the atmosphere.

I like where he's coming from but it won't work. Not to mention we would suffer from the case of treating the symptoms not the disease.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2015)

We can collect methane using tarps and use it instead of oil for energy (also a means to generate profit from the land during the process).  The majority of carbon is still in the dirt even after it stops venting gases.

A side benefit to the process is all that moisture the plants collected will find its way back into the natural water cycle instead of being transported to dryer bins where the vapor is vented to atmosphere.


Carbon dioxide is not a disease.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 12, 2015)

magibeg said:


> I don't even full understand what everyone is arguing about here anymore. Even the numbers Ford posted shows a scientific consensus on the matter.
> 
> The world IS warming. (ie there is more energy entering the system than currently leaving it)
> 
> Humans are the cause. This is a done deal lol


Mankind is the cause, urban sprawl and it's associated build up and removal of trees contributes.
Cities retain heat more than flora, as cities grow, temperatures rise also, or at least that is my belief.
If you look at the graphic showing areas of increased heat, it is along coastlines where most population is concentrated.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 12, 2015)

magibeg said:


> Your argument is nonsense.
> 
> I can recognize the fact that alcohol is bad for me, prove that alcohol is bad for me, and still drink alcohol. It's about moderation. Who taught you ideas that silly that the world only works in black and white? I'm not even going to get into the ramifications that would occur if this was applied to everything in life.
> 
> You tell me to remember that the earth has heated and cooled in the past, do you know why? Did you even put in proper study before you make broad assumptions that everything is normal? Did you ever wonder why CO2 is considered both a cause and historically an amplifier or climate? Did you even know that bit of information I just mentioned?


My argument is not nonsense. But for the record, use your eyes and read.  I said it was silly, and that silliness had a purpose.  To point out your duplicity.  You don't get to contribute to the problem that YOU say is human caused, and not curtail the very activities which you think humans are conducting to be the cause of climate change.  

And do YOU know the history of the world? You seem more than ready to imply that the world has been an even keeled paradise temperature for hundreds of millions of years that was only changed by the merest blink of an eye of several thousand years of human civilization.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We can collect methane using tarps and use it instead of oil for energy (also a means to generate profit from the land during the process).  The majority of carbon is still in the dirt even after it stops venting gases.
> 
> A side benefit to the process is all that moisture the plants collected will find its way back into the natural water cycle instead of being transported to dryer bins where the vapor is vented to atmosphere.
> 
> ...




No, but human tap water even in the States is not recommended to be consumed without being filter, and Brita filters only remove 96% of pharmaceuticals, reverse osmosis/distilled is the only way for a human to drink healthy and pure water which requires more water to produce, I believe it like 3 gallons to every 1 gallon once converted.  As I linked a couple posts up, over half the worlds water basins are running out, and I do not believe this is due to global warming, but overpopulation.

Point being, with the watered down food supply, and other health problems cause by a corrupt food system, I really think the discussion in our society should not be so focused on global warming compared to healthy water, when it rains or this vapor method you are talking about occurs, do you think you are getting pure benefits? No, you are getting landfills in every state in America with water draining trickling, drip drip drip, and it enters the water basin streams underground, tap water only has filtered so much.    I promise you crop growers don't spend extra money filtering that tap water that the plants consume... and we in turn the plants.   xD

Humans will continue to grow sicker and weaker and more tired over the years.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2015)

In terms of immediate importance, climate change is so low as to not even register.  It's a distraction from things that matter right now like the fact California had to put in place mandatory water conservation measures because of drought.  And before someone jumps and says climate change is to blame for that, no, it isn't.  Most of the water is used in agriculture and California's climate was never suitable for the amount of agriculture that California has today.  California uses aqueducts to bring water to their farmland from other states--water those states should have every right to use (especially Nevada).  California is feeling the effects of a century of liberalism (forcing nature to bow to man's whim).  California is going to have come to terms with reality sooner or later.


It could be related to overpopulation but the immediate crisis could have been averted through water conservation.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 12, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> My argument is not nonsense. But for the record, use your eyes and read.  I said it was silly, and that silliness had a purpose.  To point out your duplicity.  You don't get to contribute to the problem that YOU say is human caused, and not curtail the very activities which you think humans are conducting to be the cause of climate change.
> 
> And do YOU know the history of the world? You seem more than ready to imply that the world has been an even keeled paradise temperature for hundreds of millions of years that was only changed by the merest blink of an eye of several thousand years of human civilization.



Your argument was complete nonsense in relation to having people drop off the face of the earth who think CO2 is a problem. If I point out that there is a water shortage do i stop drinking water forever? It's an idiotic argument.

I never claimed to know the history of the world, I only wish that people would actually study the subject you talk about. Of course the world has changed, but changes happen for a reason. The important question to ask is "WHY" things change not the fact they do. Whenever the climate changes there is always some sort of forcing behind that change.

This is probably the best explanation of my views:

http://www.generalnonsense.net/showpost.php?p=39031&postcount=1


----------



## magibeg (Jul 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We can collect methane using tarps and use it instead of oil for energy (also a means to generate profit from the land during the process).  The majority of carbon is still in the dirt even after it stops venting gases.
> 
> A side benefit to the process is all that moisture the plants collected will find its way back into the natural water cycle instead of being transported to dryer bins where the vapor is vented to atmosphere.
> 
> ...



The scales that would be required to gather methane using tarps, while also trying to grow more plants to further bury on tarps would be extremely difficult. I can't see this working on any kind of scale. For all your skepticism on so many subjects I'm surprised you don't see how difficult this would be to pull off.

Comparing it to a disease was simply saying that we're not tackling the cause of the problems, just treating the symptoms, which is the worst way to solve any problem.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2015)

magibeg said:


> The scales that would be required to gather methane using tarps, while also trying to grow more plants to further bury on tarps would be extremely difficult. I can't see this working on any kind of scale. For all your skepticism on so many subjects I'm surprised you don't see how difficult this would be to pull off.


As I said, the bulk of the carbon is the plant matter itself and it will stay in the ground.  If you're really that concerned about gases escaping, we already have a wide selection of biodegradable plastics that could be used for this purpose.

New land fills are already deploying similar techniques and using it to power their garbage truck fleet.

It doesn't stop with agriculture either.  Cities that have leave collection programs could adopt a policy of not letting the decaying plant matter sit in the open where the decomposition vents to atmosphere.  They can either bury it on a daily basis or they can put it in an industrial compost bin that also collects the CH4.  Right now, most municipalities don't do anything with the pile for months and when they do, they make no effort to keep the carbon in the ground (often just push it on to a nearby field).




magibeg said:


> Comparing it to a disease was simply saying that we're not tackling the cause of the problems, just treating the symptoms, which is the worst way to solve any problem.


We're never going to do away with anthropomorphic carbon.  It's too useful.  Better top soil techniques not only improve the amount of farmable land on Earth but also reduce the amount of fertilizer required which is principally also an oil product.  It's win-win-win.  The only loser is the farmer because during this process, the land isn't likely to make much money.  Governments need to implement radical, carbon-conscious conservation programs like this so farmers will do it.  Most modernized countries already have field conservation programs but they don't weigh in how they could improve committing carbon to the ground.

In the USA, the Secretary of Agriculture could probably make this change without needing Congress to approve.



I think you're missing the point that Dyson is trying to make.  Carbon dioxide is a very common element and there are a lot of things humanity can do to change the balance in either way.  We're not talking about spent uranium here which is undeniably harmful to organic life.  We're talking about a gas we exhale and plants require to survive.

You're responses continue to stink of alarmism: you want to punish man for using anthropomorphic carbon by taking it away.  If we stopped all burning, the best case scenario is atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would maintain at over 400 ppm.  Many alarmists claim that is too high; the path you desire is not a solution.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As I said, the bulk of the carbon is the plant matter itself and it will stay in the ground.  If you're really that concerned about gases escaping, we already have a wide selection of biodegradable plastics that could be used for this purpose.
> 
> New land fills are already deploying similar techniques and using it to power their garbage truck fleet.
> 
> It doesn't stop with agriculture either.  Cities that have leave collection programs could adopt a policy of not letting the decaying plant matter sit in the open where the decomposition vents to atmosphere.  They can either bury it on a daily basis or they can put it in an industrial compost bin that also collects the CH4.  Right now, most municipalities don't do anything with the pile for months and when they do, they make no effort to keep the carbon in the ground (often just push it on to a nearby field).



The problem I see with this is that you have to sequester the carbon at a greater rate than (rain)forests are being destroyed. You also need the land to do it on, which is not a cheap commodity. Also the total animal and plant Carbon content of the planet is only 560 GT, compared to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere which is 800GT (Oelkers, E. H. & Cole, D. R. Carbon dioxide sequestration: a solution to the global problem. _Elements_*4*, 305-310).

We've seen a rise of roughly 26% in atmospheric CO2 since 1959 (http://co2now.org/current-co2/co2-now/annual-co2.html) Which means that we would need to grow a hell of a lot of plants just to bring it down to previous levels.. I daren't even imagine the amount of fresh water that would be needed.

Interesting reading: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/soil-carbon-storage-84223790

But, this would only work when also reducing the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't understand where this support of the oil/coal industry is coming from. There are much cleaner, safer, energy secure technologies available now. Adopting them would not be expensive, they would actually create a huge amount of jobs and mitigate the monopoly that fossil fuels have on the market/economy.

BTW C02 isn't an element.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2015)

36,000 lbs of CO2 per acre of corn
90 million acres of corn in the USA
=
3.24 trillion pounds of CO2 per year
2205 pounds per metric ton
=
1.47 GT (0.2% of your 800 GT figure) per year only in corn, only in the USA, we could bury in a year.

Assuming the target is 280ppm CO2 and current is somewhere around 400ppm, it would take approximately 120 years of burying all of the corn crops to reach that target--assuming no new anthropomorphic contributions of carbon dioxide which is about 30 GT/year.  We can drop that to 17 GT/year by simply replacing all coal power plants with nuclear.

So how do we increase the amount of CO2 processed?  Corn greenhouses that have 24/7 light and forced airflow increasing the flow of CO2 rich air across the plants.  Because placing these on land would be detrimental to the cause, they would have to be placed on self-contained barges at sea and they would have to specialize in sweet corn (the stalks are buried while they are still green).  Their roofs would be composed of slatted mirrors that can rotate to let sun and rain in or close to reflect sun to space (high albedo compared to the ocean/sea background) and provide desalinated water and artificial light.  If they are anchored to the sea floor, they can use tidal and wave energy to produce electricity to power its functions.  If desalination is required, it would probably have to use nuclear power.




silkstone said:


> I don't understand where this support of the oil/coal industry is coming from.


Coal is still cheap and very plentiful.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 36,000 lbs of CO2 per acre of corn
> 90 million acres of corn in the USA
> =
> 3.24 trillion pounds of CO2 per year
> ...



Oh, I understand where it is coming from on the industrial/economic side of things. Just I don;t understand individuals who are more in support of continuing the use of fossil fuels over fading them out by using better technology.

With regard to your calculations, You are assuming a 100% efficiency. The paper you linked talks about managing their fields to help sequester carbon, but to do that, there has to be some economic benefit to the farmers (capitalism). Also, while corn may be cheap, agricultural land is not. You'd also need to do a cost analysis of growing that much corn and compare it to other methods to see if it made sense. As far as I can tell, there is no benefit to an individual to bury that much corn rather than putting it to other uses. Where would the money come from?
At least with solar/wind/nuclear, you are getting something that you can sell from your investment. Burying all the corn grown is pretty ridiculous, I don;lt know what to say about the practicality of growing corn on the sea


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2015)

I figured for 70% of carbon committed to dirt, 30% reintroduced to the atmosphere.

No-till doesn't work for crops like corn because of the big stalks.  Crops like soybeans can use no-till and because time is money, it costs farmers less.  The problem comes from crop rotation.  Whenever a farmer harvests a crop that requires tilling, they have to till it.

For harvesting corn for the explicit purpose of burying carbon would have to be fully funded by government through conservation programs already in place.  Instead of planting native prairie grass, they would plant corn, chop, and bury it (not sure if discs can handle it--might require specialized equipment the Department of Agriculture would own).

The whole barge concept would be something philanthropical greenies could do.  For example, imagine parking them off the coast of Africa.  They remove carbon from the atmosphere, reflect some sunlight to prevent heating of the oceans, produce high quality soil that has to be deposited on land where new farms could be established, they provide some sweet corn for food, provides full-time employment for some and a lot of part-time employment during harvest every few months, and can desalinate a lot of water that is safe for consumption.


Solar/wind/nuclear only reduce how much carbon is being added to the atmosphere; they do not remove the ~240 GTs of carbon that is already present.  If we are serious about tackling the atmospheric carbon problem, we have to do both: reduce emissions and remove as much as possible of what is already there.  Note: the most economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon is to process recently deceased plants into propene and similar compounds that can be commoditized/processed into other goods.


----------



## newconroer (Jul 13, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Umm..
> Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow.
> If you were say..trying to grow some kind of unspecified plants..
> They would need Carbon Dioxide, and the more they got,the better they'd grow and the more oxygen they would produce.
> ...



Ugh, Captain Planet and his gay Earth /Wind /Fire thing(why did they have to make him camp anyways?) destroyed Saturday morning cartoons.

Global warming stresses me none. There's more pressing matters, such as why they replaced Bandit in Johnny Quest, with that silly useless girl..


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> For harvesting corn for the explicit purpose of burying carbon would have to be fully funded by government through conservation programs already in place. Instead of planting native prairie grass, they would plant corn, chop, and bury it (not sure if discs can handle it--might require specialized equipment the Department of Agriculture would own).



Then the question will be raised if your growing corn just to bury it  why ?
that crop could be sold to feed the world
In Case you Americans are un aware there is vast area's of the world that are on a Starvation level of existance


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2015)

1) 75% of a kernel of corn (edible part) is composed of starch (*C6*H10O5).  Note the carbon content.

2) Transporting crops long distances almost always involves burning fossil fuels.

3) The more of the plant that is buried, the more carbon is taken out of the atmosphere.


A note to my previous post: reasons why greenhouse is ideal and why that 36,000 lb figure is low:
1) can reasonably get three or more crops per year instead of one; remember, we don't have to wait for it to dry before chopping.
2) corn can purge CO2 from a 1 meter circumference around the plant in 5 minutes; when it runs out of CO2, it simply stops processing it.  Active airflow, especially using compressors and large collection area could reasonably double the amount of CO2 the plants are given access to.
3) giving corn access to all of the water it needs (e.g. hydroponics)  makes the only limiting factor sunlight.
4) that figure is based on non-ideal climate (Michigan versus, for example, Iowa) and a breed of corn designed for food production, not CO2 processing
5) artificial lighting means CO2 processing never stops (24 hours per day versus ~12 and only 4 hours or so of those being peak)

I think 100,000 lbs of carbon dioxide per acre is completely achievable.  200,000 lb/acre may even be attainable if all of the above were done.


Why corn?  It's a large plant that grows relatively quickly and there's already a lot of research that has been done to make them more resistant to pests and disease.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 1) 75% of a kernel of corn (edible part)


And those overweight stars and strippers still not thinking about feeding the world

here is a suggestion for you   import India's Dead you can bury them as well to help fertilize the corn your going to plow straight back into the ground 
side + 
you also cut down on carbon being burnt in India as the widows cannot chuck themselves into the funereal pyre's


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2015)

If the barges were built, park them in the Indian ocean and they can provide a steady flow of sweet corn.  Only one rule really needs to be followed: if you don't eat it, bury it.  Don't refrigerate and definitely don't freeze it (the environmental cost of cooling erases the benefit of growing it in the first place).

Remember, if someone eats a vegetable or fruit over meat, their carbon footprint is substantially reduced.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If the barges were built, park them in the Indian ocean and they can provide a steady flow of sweet corn. Only one rule really needs to be followed: if you don't eat it, bury it. Don't frigate and definitely don't freeze it (the environmental cost of cooling erases the benefit of growing it in the first place).



do i detect the whiff of condesending bullshit Spinning in the breeze !!!?  i sure do

You just gone from growing it to bury.... to growing it to eat Wuckin hippcritter


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 14, 2015)

When plants grow, they pull CO2 out of the air.  When we bury it, that carbon contributes to topsoil reducing its impact on the atmosphere.  Quite simple but it goes against conventional wisdom because its not profitable.


----------



## Schmuckley (Jul 14, 2015)

newconroer said:


> Ugh, Captain Planet and his gay Earth /Wind /Fire thing(why did they have to make him camp anyways?) destroyed Saturday morning cartoons.
> 
> Global warming stresses me none. There's more pressing matters, such as why they replaced Bandit in Johnny Quest, with that silly useless girl..



I'm sure "Hadji" is "not PC" these days.


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 14, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> *Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet.
> 
> 
> The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.
> ...





dorsetknob said:


> Ha ha ha and pigs will fly   ( no not in Optica aircraft or pink floyd Ballons)
> this is the real World not Telly Tubby land.
> 
> Edit
> ...





Caring1 said:


> Gotta love the daily mail, it's always good for a laugh.


Don't deny science...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/world/sun-irregular-heartbeat-ice/


----------



## Schmuckley (Jul 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 1) 75% of a kernel of corn (edible part) is composed of starch (*C6*H10O5).  Note the carbon content.
> 
> 2) Transporting crops long distances almost always involves burning fossil fuels.
> 
> ...



How do you get 3 crops a year without fertilizer?
Here's what the earth that they get fertilizer from looks like:





Miles and miles of it used to be woods,and they still have to truck the fertilizer to where the corn is;because corn does not grow where is the fertilizer is from.
Picture how big that bucket is:  http://farmfutures.com/cdfm/Faress1/osty/QF5077/stripmine.jpg
It's a 60 yard bucket.Usually you can't see anything but the moonscape,there's a little green in the background of that pic.
Your avg 70,000 lb dump truck holds 8 yards of dirt.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 14, 2015)

Breaking News
Monsanto announce patent for_ Soylent Green_
buy your shares in Monsanto Now before the price goes through the ceiling





dont forget to wash it down with


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 15, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Breaking News
> Monsanto announce patent for_ Soylent Green_
> buy your shares in Monsanto Now before the price goes through the ceiling




I should have mine supplied free by the State, is there a form to fill in ?


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

a glass of the beer a day keeps the Doctor away  

for caps


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> How do you get 3 crops a year without fertilizer?


Good question and I don't know what corn needs, nutrient wise, to answer it.

Most fertilizers (especially ammonia) are composed of nitrogen and nitrogen can be manufactured anywhere (air is 78% nitrogen) with enough power.  Considerations would have to be made for nitrogen waste though.

Strip mines are usually used for coal or metals.  Chemical fertilizers usually aren't sourced that way.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Chemical fertilizers usually aren't sourced that way.


No they are a product of the Oil /chemical industry and the resultant energy cost to process coal and oil into chemical fertilizer ( Not Very Green unlike _Soylent Green )_

_Not as safe as you might think either as the Indians living in the aftermath of Bhopel_

_


FordGT90Concept said:



			Strip mines are usually used for coal or metals. Chemical fertilizers usually aren't sourced that way.
		
Click to expand...


Many a pacific island was stripped mined for its Guano  ( that's bird shit in case you were unaware)
this pratice only reduced / stopped when it became possible and cheaper to artificially manufacture it_


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 15, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> No they are a product of the Oil /chemical industry and the resultant energy cost to process coal and oil into chemical fertilizer ( Not Very Green unlike _Soylent Green )_
> 
> _Not as safe as you might think either as the Indians living in the aftermath of Bhopel_
> 
> ...


 
Phosphate is strip-mined though http://thephosphaterisk.com/phosphate/mining , and isn't that one of the major components in most fertilizers?  It stimulates healthy root growth.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

All nitrogen fertilizers are made from ammonia (NH3), which is sometimes injected into the ground directly. The ammonia is produced by the Haber-Bosch process.[5] In this energy-intensive process, natural gas (CH4) supplies the hydrogen and the nitrogen (N2) is derived from the air. This ammonia is used as a feedstock for all other nitrogen fertilizers

All phosphate fertilizers are obtained by extraction from minerals containing the anion PO43−. In rare cases, fields are treated with the crushed mineral, but most often more soluble salts are produced by chemical treatment of phosphate minerals. The most popular phosphate-containing minerals are referred to collectively as phosphate rock. The main minerals are fluorapatite Ca5(PO4)3F (CFA) and hydroxyapatite Ca5(PO4)3OH. These minerals are converted to water-soluble phosphate salts by treatment with sulfuric or phosphoric acids. The large production of sulfuric acid as an industrial chemical is primarily due to its use as cheap acid in processing phosphate rock into phosphate fertilizer. The global primary uses for both sulfur and phosphorus compounds relate to this basic process.

In the USA in 2004, 317 billion cubic feet of natural gas were consumed in the industrial production of ammonia, less than 1.5% of total U.S. annual consumption of natural gas.[76] A 2002 report suggested that the production of ammonia consumes about 5% of global natural gas consumption, which is somewhat under 2% of world energy production.[77]

Ammonia is produced from natural gas and air.[78] The cost of natural gas makes up about 90% of the cost of producing ammonia.[79] The increase in price of natural gases over the past decade, along with other factors such as increasing demand, have contributed to an increase in fertilizer price


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2015)

Yeah...pretty much what I said.  CH4 comes from plant decay so ammonia can be produced pretty much for free.

I'm not sure how much phosphate, if any, corn requires.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> so ammonia can be produced pretty much for free.





dorsetknob said:


> The cost of natural gas makes up about 90% of the cost of producing ammonia.[79] The increase in price of natural gases over the past decade, along with other factors such as increasing demand, have contributed to an increase in fertilizer price



Even in the land of the Free and brave  The cost of natural gas makes up about 90% of the cost of producing ammonia
so i don't know how you have the NERVE to say 





FordGT90Concept said:


> so ammonia can be produced pretty much for free.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2015)

The idea of removing carbon from the atmosphere relies on massive decomposition.  Decomposition produces natural gas:
*natural gas* from decomposition + *nitrogen* from the air + nuclear power which is required for all other functions = almost free ammonia

It is better to trap natural gas rather than vent it because natural gas is about 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  Turning it into ammonia to go back into the plants is probably more environmentally friendly than burning it anyway.  Yet another win-win-win situation.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> + nuclear power



you forgot about 3 mile island Chernobyl  wind scale fuckajima and the fear Nuclear put into the ill informed masses of the world


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2015)

It would likely use a pebble bed reactor which is incapable of melting down.  They also aren't fussy about fuel source.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> the fear Nuclear put into the ill informed masses of the world


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2015)

You do know that the "fear" is wholly sponsored by the coal and oil industry which kill thousands every year.  Only a few dozen people ever died from nuclear and they were people at Chernobyl during and shortly after the explosion.  Nuclear is among the safest energy sources man has devised.

Fusion would be ideal and perhaps those nuclear fission reactors could be replaced as the technology improves.  They should be able to supply their own hydrogen to boot.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

And Japan once one of the most heavy user of nuclear power 30% of total capacity went from 50 reactors to ZERO 

The last of Japan's 50 reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012,[18] leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for the first time since 1970.

And this was as a result of the "fear"which you say is wholly sponsored by the coal and oil industry

Grow up Get off your ass even look to wilki crap for info if need be


An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, stated that "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by the Fukushima disaster, and called for a reduction in the nation’s reliance on nuclear power

_*Don de la fordgtconcept Quixote* find another windmill to tilt at_


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> And Japan once one of the most heavy user of nuclear power 30% of total capacity went from 50 reactors to ZERO


They needed to verify the integrity of the reactors post-tsunami to make sure another Fukashima wasn't in the works.  The core itself can only be checked when it is in cold shutdown. I'd probably do the same thing in their situation.  The operator of Fukashima lied about how bad the damage was so it escalated as they tried to bury it.  If they were up front that it was really bad, it probably wouldn't have gotten as bad as it did.  USA could have had ships there within days to pump water over the reactors to stop it from getting worse.  It was NEI measuring radiation outside the facility that proved Fukashima's operator was lying and the exclusion zone was put in place.



dorsetknob said:


> The last of Japan's 50 reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012,[18] leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for the first time since 1970.


They're starting some of them back up.  More detailed info here.  24 reactors are in the process of getting approval to restart.  Japan did not benefit from the shutdown:


			
				WNA said:
			
		

> JAIF has said that increased fuel imports are costing about ¥3.8 to 4.0 trillion ($40 billion) per year (METI puts total fossil fuel imports at ¥9 trillion in FY2013). The trade deficit in FY2012 was ¥6.9 trillion ($70 billion), and in 2013 ¥11.5 trillion ($112 billion), up 65% on 2012's figure. For fiscal 2013 the trade deficit was ¥13.75 trillion ($134 billion), 70% up on FY 2012, according to the Ministry of Finance. The total trade deficit from April 2011 to end of March 2014 was thus ¥23.25 trillion ($227 billion), compared with previous surpluses of at least ¥2.5 trillion per year (¥6.6 trillion in 2010).


Only 5 reactors are going to be permanently shutdown because they're small and very old (40+ years).  It's more economical to build a new reactor than get those restarted.



This is irrelevant anyway.  The reactors on barges would be closer in design to what is in nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers than what is used for grid power generation.  I can't recall any scenarios where radiation was leaked from them.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This is irrelevant anyway. The reactors on barges would be closer in design to what is in nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers than what is used for grid power generation. I can't recall any scenarios where radiation was leaked from them.



And the Russian submarine fleet they have a spotless record on Nuclear Safety

Apart from the Subs that sank or caught on fire that is


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2015)

Kursk is the only one that came to mind.  There were concerns that it leaked radiation but it did not (it successfully went into cold shutdown).


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Kursk is the only one that came to mind. There were concerns that it leaked radiation but it did not (it successfully went into cold shutdown).



there is one sitting at the Bottem of the Alantic ocean suffered reactor fire and failure
fully armed with nuclear missiles ( leaking radiation into the surrounding water )
Its too Deep and in to poor a condition to salvage
another sits in the Archangel/white sea in similer condition again to difficult and costly to salvage

those are the one's Russia HAD TO ADMIT TO   there are probably others not admitted to (Kremlin Secrets)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2015)

What were their names?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 15, 2015)

_Thresher_ (SSN-593), the first submarine in its class, sank April 10, 1963 during deep-diving trials after flooding, loss of propulsion, and an attempt to blow the emergency ballast tanks failed, causing it to exceed crush depth. All 129 men on board died. Location: 350 km (190 nmi) east of Cape Cod.
_Scorpion_ (SSN-589), a _Skipjack_-class submarine, sank May 22, 1968, evidently due to implosion upon reaching its crush depth. What caused the _Scorpion_ to descend to its crush depth is not known. All 99 men on board died. Location: 740 kilometres (400 nmi) southwest of the Azores.
*Soviet Union[edit]*








K-27




K-141




K-159
The location of sunken nuclear submarines in the Arctic

K-27: The only Project 645 submarine (a variant of the Project 627 November class with liquid metal cooled reactors), it was irreparably damaged by a reactor accident (control rod failure) on May 24, 1968. 9 were killed in the reactor accident. After shutting down the reactor and sealing the compartment, the Soviet Navy scuttled it in shallow water (108 ft (33 m)) in theKara Sea on September 6, 1982,[1] contrary to the recommendation of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA).[2]
K-8: A Project 627 November class submarine was lost on April 11, 1970 while being towed in rough seas following a fire on board. The submarine was initially evacuated, but 52 reembarked for the towing operation. All hands on board were lost (52), while 73 crewmen survived on the rescue vessel.[1]Location: Bay of Biscay, 490 kilometres (260 nmi) northwest ofSpain in the North Atlantic Ocean.
K-219: A Project 667A Yankee I class sub was damaged by a missile explosion on October 3, 1986, then sank suddenly while being towed after all surviving crewmen had transferred off. 6 crew members were killed. Location: 950 kilometres (510 nmi) east of Bermuda in the North Atlantic Ocean.
K-278 _Komsomolets_: The only Mike-class sub built sank due to a raging fire April 7, 1989. All but 5 crewmen evacuated prior to sinking. 42 died, many from smoke inhalation and exposure to the cold waters of the Barents Sea. A total of 27 crew members survived.
Soviet submarine K-429 sank twice, but was raised after each incident.
EDIT
sorry there are 2 more

K-141 _Kursk_: The Oscar II class sub sank in the Barents Sea on August 12, 2000 after an explosion in the torpedo compartment. See Kursk submarine disaster. All 118 men on board were lost. All except the bow section was salvaged.
K-159: The hulk of the decommissioned Soviet-era November class submarine sank in the Barents Sea on August 28, 2003, when a storm ripped away the pontoons necessary to keep it afloat under tow. Nine men died in the accident.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

*@FordGT90Concept *

*Enough detail for you Don Q   ( look i see a windmill   charge )*
*



*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2015)

Scorpion and Thresher: "Once the two wrecks had been visited, and the radioactive threat from both was established as small, Ballard was able to search for Titanic."  Makes sense.  The water is extremely cold down there so even if the containment structure failed, it's cold enough to keep the core from melting down.

K-27: "The K-27 was officially decommissioned on 1 February 1979[1] and its reactor compartment was filled with a special solidifying mixture of furfuryl alcohol and bitumen during the summer of 1981 to seal the compartment to avoid pollution of the ocean with radioactive products."  It appears there is disagreement on whether or not it needs to be properly decommissioned.

K-141: Is Kursk.  It was properly recovered and dismantled.

*K-159*: Is a threat and needs to be recovered (plans are in the works).

*K-8*: Very little info on this submarine.  Appears to be a threat and no plans to recover.

K-219: Is below crush depth.  Radiation leaking should be minimal.

K-278: Contained.

K-429: Contained and decommissioned.

Appears only two require attention.  Note that most of these submarines are 40+ years old.  Modern nuclear submarines have very different reactor designs.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

"" Glad to see you have Extended your Education  hope you remember the information or its been a pointless exercise ""


----------



## qubit (Jul 24, 2015)

Oh look, an inconvenient truth for climate alarmists.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...orld_returns_to_sea_ice_levels_seen_in_1980s/


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2015)

Relevent Dyson quote is relevant:


			
				Freeman Dyson said:
			
		

> When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. *We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.*


----------



## magibeg (Jul 24, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Relevent Dyson quote is relevant:



Meanwhile...

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ay-2015-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2015)

Correlation does not prove causation.


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 25, 2015)

YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE VENAL, WEIRD AND CREEPY TO WORK IN CLIMATE SCIENCE. BUT IT CERTAINLY HELPS…

The cream of the crop!
*

Dr Rajendra Pachauri – former chairman of the IPCC*

_(Alleged) sexual harassment; rank hypocrisy; greed; baseless smearing

*John Cook – President Obama’s favourite inventor of climate factoids*

Dishonesty; fabrication; smearing; promulgation of junk science (notably the false “97 per cent Consensus” claim); identity theft

*Peter Gleick – President (and co-founder) of environmental think tank the Pacific Institute*

Dishonesty; identity theft; smearing; document faking; libel

*Michael Mann – Creator of the Hockey Stick; inventor of Mann-made global warming; Nobel Prize “winner”*

Indefatigable promulgation of junk-science; vexatious litigation; data-fiddling; bullying

*David Suzuki – Canada’s Al Gore*

Dirty Old Man; greedhead

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rk-in-climate-science-but-it-certainly-helps/







_


----------



## magibeg (Jul 26, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE VENAL, WEIRD AND CREEPY TO WORK IN CLIMATE SCIENCE. BUT IT CERTAINLY HELPS…
> 
> The cream of the crop!
> 
> ...




You actually believe that?.....

My favorite there is probably Michael Mann. I'll quote from your article:



> *Michael Mann – Creator of the Hockey Stick; inventor of Mann-made global warming; Nobel Prize “winner”*
> 
> _Indefatigable promulgation of junk-science; vexatious litigation; data-fiddling; bullying
> 
> Never in the field of heroic non-achievement has a scientist achieved such prominence on the basis of so little. Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick – once the IPCC’s single-most-promoted piece of “evidence” for the threat of man-made global warming – has been repeatedly exposed as a worthless fabrication. Yet despite this – and all those Climategate emails revealing “Mike’s nature trick” to “hide the decline” and showing him to be an intolerant thug by no means averse to trying to destroy the careers of scientists or journal editors who dared to disagree with him – Mann still has tenure as director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State and still commands high fees on the lecture circuit. In almost any field other than climate science, certainly if he worked in the private sector, his failures would have surely have got him fired by now._



What I love the most about this one in particular is that the hocket stick chart has been one of the most criticised charts in all of climate science most likely..... and yet it has been repeatedly found to be correct. Over and over again it has been verified. The only controversy is the fact that it had controversy, to this day the graph is actually being expanded upon because of how correct it was.

Those 2 climategate e-mails are also hilarious choices if you actually read the e-mails they were coming from, or had any context at all.

David Suzuki being a dirty old man is also a classic, how dare he charge $30K to give a speech, definitely not to cover some of his time, the fact he had to fly there (also fly a few of his assistants, also pay the assistants), bring equipment with him, stay at a hotel etc etc. The asking for  body guard of attractive female students? Awesome, that definitely sounds like a crazy request that many make while creating their list of requirements. Take Van Halen famously saying no brown M&M's for his munchies, the reason for hiding a crazy request is to make sure the other person actually read through the contract.

I hope you don't seriously believe what you're reading here?


----------



## magibeg (Jul 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Correlation does not prove causation.



Very good, that's the perfect way to ignore all other evidence, and an excellent point which can be applied indefinitely.

If you would like to argue correlation and causation as well I would love it, tell me more about how causation of variables isn't far and away the most important aspect of the scientific method. Literally the most important thing in the process of discovery. I realize of course you would taking a cheap shot and ignoring all other factors but given you don't seem to learn when we talk for hours I'm not quite sure where to go with you anymore.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 26, 2015)

Earth's climate is controlled by two major factors:
1) sun which should be in solar minimum but has had an awfully active minimum.  Flares are occurring more frequently than expected.
2) water vapor.  Very little information is known about changes in atmospheric water vapor despite it being 97% responsible for greenhouse radiation.  A minute change is all it takes for the changes in temperatures that have been measured.
3) cloud cover is a huge factor in terms of warming/cooling.  The models are years away yet from being able to simulate it to a reasonable degree and even so, it is strongly connected to weather which is very difficult to forecast more than a few days out.
4) CH4 has been rising faster than CO2 yet little focus is placed on it despite it being 20 times more potent per volume as a greenhouse gas.  The models did not forecast nor explain why CH4 stopped increasing for a few years a while back.
5) Wind plays a huge component of CO2 absorption on land because without wind, the air is not stirred and it does not come within reach of the plants to remove it from the air.  A simple average decrease in wind speeds can lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2.

I could go on and on.  There's too many variables to single out any one source as the cause.  Many are likely the cause but there's not enough information to weed out which are responsible and to what extent.  The overemphasis on carbon dioxide has created major deficits in research on other areas.  I suspect carbon is playing a minor role compared, especially, to average albedo (function of cloud cover).


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 26, 2015)

*The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'...OR..."How Bullshit Spreads"

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 27, 2015)

Have to sign in to read it but I suspect it is related to that Skeptical Science blog "research" we discussed a few pages back.  In short, that's not an opinion of "scientists" but rather search results from a database query for specific words ("carbon dioxide" and "climate change" I believe).  There's never been a poll done of "climate scientists" but when "scientists" are polled, the result was 84% believe warming is caused by human activity.  Note that it deliberately left carbon dioxide out of the question.

13% lower than Skeptical Science would have everyone believe and likely even lower if carbon were injected into the question.


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 27, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Have to sign in to read it


Strange... I just did a generic google search with "Man made Climate change consensus lie" and I get a link with no sign in...

By
JOSEPH BAST And

ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
825 COMMENTS
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.







ENLARGE
GETTY IMAGES/IMAGEZOO
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findingswere published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

_Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite._


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2015)

And to show you how futile this whole thing is:



FordGT90Concept said:


> Earth's climate is controlled by two major factors:
> 1) sun which should be in solar minimum but has had an awfully active minimum.  Flares are occurring more frequently than expected.



We have argued this before, and we know it's not the sun. There has been no significant changes in solar energy reaching the earth. You bring it up every 6 months or so anyway even though we know the sun is not the abnormal variable.



FordGT90Concept said:


> 2) water vapor.  Very little information is known about changes in atmospheric water vapor despite it being 97% responsible for greenhouse radiation.  A minute change is all it takes for the changes in temperatures that have been measured.



We have argued this before as well. 

"Basically water vapor is a feedback element and not a forcing element. The amount of water vapor increases when the temperature increases and decreases as the temperature decreases, and does so quickly.

The maximum (upper level) estimate on water vapors effect is about 70%.

CO2 is roughly 9-26% of total forcing. At the beginning of the industrial revolution CO2 was at 280ppm and we're now at about 392ppm. That is a significant increase in solar forcing. Although each year man only contributes a comparatively small portion of the CO2 emissions compared to the earth it's CO2 which is added to the cycle and accumulates. That's why the CO2 ppm increases by nearly 3 per year."

I admit I added more than needed to that line there, but I also find it interesting that when I wrote that in 2010 it was at 392ppm and right now we're at 402.80. So closer to 2ppm per year increase.



FordGT90Concept said:


> 3) cloud cover is a huge factor in terms of warming/cooling.  The models are years away yet from being able to simulate it to a reasonable degree and even so, it is strongly connected to weather which is very difficult to forecast more than a few days out.



Here is a convolution of the issue in terms of figuring out the finer details of what's happening. Are you implying that the changes in climate can be explained by clouds or are you simply nit picking something in particular in a way to discredit the science?

Continuing on anyway, the studies that have been done so far have come back with conflicting results with some showing a positive feedback and others showing a negative feedback.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Generally it appears that clouds are rather neutral and that altitude and thickness are both factors. Why you mention the inability to perfectly predict weather is beyond me, it's much easier to predict long term trends than short term ones.



FordGT90Concept said:


> 4) CH4 has been rising faster than CO2 yet little focus is placed on it despite it being 20 times more potent per volume as a greenhouse gas.  The models did not forecast nor explain why CH4 stopped increasing for a few years a while back.



Yes we have discussed this before as well. Here is another quote from years ago:

""if methane is at .85ppm and it goes to 1.79 that's an increase of lets say 1.1ppm of methane. Because it's 25 times more potent (although its non-accumulative so it's actual forcing amount is less) we can argue that an increase of 1.1ppm ofmethane would be roughly equal to an increase of 27.5ppm of CO2.

Right now the CO2 ppm is increasing by about 2ppm per year. So that means every 14 years or so CO2 creates as much radiative forcing as the increase in methane since 160 years ago. There is simply not enough methane to do it."

So that addresses the impact of CO2 vs CH4. You SHOULD also know by now that methane doesn't accumulate because of its relatively short lifespan. I even sent you this link explaining the sources of methane http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-sources

So either you don't remember any of our discussions on the matter, or you choose to ignore it, or you just like to make things up as you go. No one is wondering why CH4 stopped increasing, it accumulates based on a balance of release and how quickly it breaks down.



FordGT90Concept said:


> 5) Wind plays a huge component of CO2 absorption on land because without wind, the air is not stirred and it does not come within reach of the plants to remove it from the air.  A simple average decrease in wind speeds can lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2.



We discussed this too! And you're wrong again. You really should remember the things we talk about. Have you ever wondered why if someone passes wind in the same room as you that you can smell it even though there is no wind in your house (I assume)?

It's called Brownian Motion. It's pretty important for you to know about it given the subject you're trying to discuss, it's like you haven't studied this at all?

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

Wind does play a role of course, but the atmosphere is very well mixed wind or not. So your entire statement here is incorrect. No, just wrong.



FordGT90Concept said:


> I could go on and on.  There's too many variables to single out any one source as the cause.  Many are likely the cause but there's not enough information to weed out which are responsible and to what extent.  The overemphasis on carbon dioxide has created major deficits in research on other areas.  I suspect carbon is playing a minor role compared, especially, to average albedo (function of cloud cover).



We could go on and on about how you seem to have absolutely no knowledge on the subject you seem committed to talking about. Can you in the least remember our conversations that we keep having about the exact same things over and over. At this point I can literally take any argument you bring forward and copy+paste an explanation from conversations we have had in the past about the exact same things. You just carefully slide from one argument to the next until we are full circle again.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Strange... I just did a generic google search with "Man made Climate change consensus lie" and I get a link with no sign in...
> 
> By
> JOSEPH BAST And
> ...




There is so much wrong with this article it actually hurts my head, but I would have to write an equally long article or longer to rebut it. The hilarious thing is that its main point that it built the article around is wrong.

They didn't claim 97% of the worlds scientists, they claimed 97% of the worlds CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. From the heading of the nasa page:

*Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree*

I love the fact that the very first thing mentioned is a strawman argument. I mean heck, an introductory starting point on the matter from the first couple paragraphs of Wikipedia is an effective method for countering what is effectively a blog post.

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

The perfect gif for the situation:

http://i.imgur.com/uZC5fF9.jpg


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 27, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
> 
> Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.













magibeg said:


> We have argued this before, and we know it's not the sun. There has been no significant changes in solar energy reaching the earth. You bring it up every 6 months or so anyway even though we know the sun is not the abnormal variable.


Except that Earth was hit by a solar flare in 2014 and solar flares were in the news in 2013 due to their strength.  When coupled with the discovery that Earth's magnetic field is weakening, more solar energy is reaching Earth's surface.  The theorized explanation for this is magnetic pole reversal--a poorly understood phenomena that is likely beginning to happen now.  It doesn't stop there because the magnetic field changes are symptomatic of changes at the core.  NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used the data to correlate surface temperatures and found that temperatures didn't actually start increasing "until about 1930."  Remember, that relies on climate models which can be heavily debated.  Back on topic, most alarmists peg 1870-1880 as the beginning of the industrial revolution/increase in carbon dioxide.  JPL shows that the industrial revolution didn't have a measurable impact on temperature until at least 1930; moreover, JPL can't rule out the unknown or uncertain (e.g. the magenetic field weakening may have begun at about that time but we had no means to measure it).



magibeg said:


> "Basically water vapor is a feedback element and not a forcing element. The amount of water vapor increases when the temperature increases and decreases as the temperature decreases, and does so quickly.
> 
> The maximum (upper level) estimate on water vapors effect is about 70%.


You know that is *vast* oversimplification.  Water vapor:
1) reduces temperature through reflecting solar radiation with thick clouds.
2) reduces temperature through precipitation
3) increases temperature through humidity
4) decreases temperature in the form of snow reflecting solar radation
5) increases temperature through high, thin cirrus clouds that are far more effective at trapping solar radiation than carbon dioxide.
...and I'm certain I'm forgetting a lot.   The estimations are bullshit because it requires modeling and there are no systems on the planet that can accurately model the effect of water vapor on climate.  They're getting closer but still have a long ways to go.


Now I'm going to blow your mind.  From the links above, we know that Earth's magnetic field is in flux and the sun is more active than it should be.  From the synopsis above about clouds, we know that they have an enormous impact on surface temperature.  The Jet Propulsion Laboratory ties them together:


> Since scientists know air temperature can't affect movements of Earth's core or Earth's length of day to the extent observed, one possibility is *the movements of Earth's core might disturb Earth's magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds*. This could affect how much of the sun's energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.


Certainly it doesn't account for all of the warming but it does account for some of it especially if those clouds formed by cosmic radiation take the shape of cirrus clouds.



magibeg said:


> CO2 is roughly 9-26% of total forcing. At the beginning of the industrial revolution CO2 was at 280ppm and we're now at about 392ppm. That is a significant increase in solar forcing. Although each year man only contributes a comparatively small portion of the CO2 emissions compared to the earth it's CO2 which is added to the cycle and accumulates. That's why the CO2 ppm increases by nearly 3 per year."


a) that's a massive range (do I smell guesswork?)
b) carbon dioxide levels are relatively constant all around the world and they can't pin down an absolute figure from it?
c) what your article neglects to mention is that about 40 ppm are removed from the atmosphere every year through photosynthesis and some is reintroduced through decomposition.  Freeman Dyson describes many ways to measure and control carbon emissions released through decomposition.




magibeg said:


> I admit I added more than needed to that line there, but I also find it interesting that when I wrote that in 2010 it was at 392ppm and right now we're at 402.80. So closer to 2ppm per year increase.


The rate is falling.  Gee, I wonder why?




magibeg said:


> Here is a convolution of the issue in terms of figuring out the finer details of what's happening. Are you implying that the changes in climate can be explained by clouds or are you simply nit picking something in particular in a way to discredit the science?
> 
> Continuing on anyway, the studies that have been done so far have come back with conflicting results with some showing a positive feedback and others showing a negative feedback.
> 
> ...


They are not neutral because weather changes constantly but if it is changing on a trend towards warming, it single handedly can explain the warming.  That leads to questions of why it is trending towards warmer which begs more questions than begets answers.  My point: carbon dioxide may easily be a scapegoat for something far more complex because of the ease of measuring carbon dioxide.  It may very well be a placebo for something else.  The laser like focus carbon dioxide gets causes other factors to be ignored--factors that could have far greater consequences (e.g. changes in rain patterns).  Aquifers depleting (due to reduced precipitation and lack of conservation), for example, represent a far greater threat than the measured increase in carbon dioxide.




magibeg said:


> Right now the CO2 ppm is increasing by about 2ppm per year. So that means every 14 years or so CO2 creates as much radiative forcing as the increase in methane since 160 years ago. There is simply not enough methane to do it."
> 
> So that addresses the impact of CO2 vs CH4. You SHOULD also know by now that methane doesn't accumulate because of its relatively short lifespan. I even sent you this link explaining the sources of methane http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-sources


Except that it *is increasing* because of fracking, permafrost melting, and the stark increase in human and livestock numbers.




Methane increased by 125% in the same period carbon dioxide increased by 43% while being 20+ times more potent for a greenhouse effect.  The life span matters not because it's being contributed to the atmosphere faster than it is being removed.  If carbon dioxide is a culprit, methane must be too.  To deny one is to deny the other.




magibeg said:


> Wind does play a role of course, but the atmosphere is very well mixed wind or not. So your entire statement here is incorrect. No, just wrong.


So if I measure CO2 I exhale, it will not be greater than the level of CO2 measured in the middle of a crop field at high noon? Wind rapidly accelerates the mixing which is why hurricanes and tornadoes happen.


Are you seeing my point yet?  If Earth's surface temperature is rising by 1 C/year (it's closer to 0.2C per decade if memory serves), it could likely be broken down into, for example:
0.4 C carbon dioxide
0.3 C water vapor (includes cloud formation due to cosmic radiation)
0.2 C methane
0.1 C other

That's not only reasonable from a scientific standpoint but also in terms of expectations of how the climate, as a whole, works.  Carbon dioxide is not the sole culprit but it may very well be the majority culprit.  Understanding all components of the temperature change is critical to responding to it.


To your second post and SK-1's WSJ article, I think you missed the point the article is trying to make: is the observed warming dangerous?  Overwhelming consensus is "no" in the "foreseeable future."

The reasonable assumption is that an alternate form of energy (e.g. fusion) will supplant fossil fuels (including coal, oil products, and natural gas) as the dominant fuel source.  All it boils down to at that point is good conservation measures ensuring more carbon finds its way into the soil than into the air.


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 27, 2015)

magibeg said:


> There is so much wrong with this article it actually hurts


 Its true then...Facts hurt.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 27, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Except that Earth was hit by a solar flare in 2014 and solar flares were in the news in 2013 due to their strength.  When coupled with the discovery that Earth's magnetic field is weakening, more solar energy is reaching Earth's surface.  The theorized explanation for this is magnetic pole reversal--a poorly understood phenomena that is likely beginning to happen now.  It doesn't stop there because the magnetic field changes are symptomatic of changes at the core.  NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used the data to correlate surface temperatures and found that temperatures didn't actually start increasing "until about 1930."  Remember, that relies on climate models which can be heavily debated.  Back on topic, most alarmists peg 1870-1880 as the beginning of the industrial revolution/increase in carbon dioxide.  JPL shows that the industrial revolution didn't have a measurable impact on temperature until at least 1930; moreover, JPL can't rule out the unknown or uncertain (e.g. the magenetic field weakening may have begun at about that time but we had no means to measure it).



Are you trying to imply that solar flares and the earths magnetic field are the things creating climate change? It doesn't match observations at all. And there is no problem with global warming starting in approx the 1930's, i'm not sure why you consider that an issue.



FordGT90Concept said:


> You know that is *vast* oversimplification.  Water vapor:
> 1) reduces temperature through reflecting solar radiation with thick clouds.
> 2) reduces temperature through precipitation
> 3) increases temperature through humidity
> ...



Most of what you're describing are things you experience by changes in weather, not climate.

1. Depending on the clouds they can actually absorb solar radiation giving a warming effect (dark clouds can absorb sunlight)
2. Temperature dropping from precipitation is usually weather related, such as a cold front moving into the area anyway, generally a heat transfer as opposed to causing cooling.
3. I don't know enough about 3 to comment too much, other than the fact water content is increasing with time https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-humidity
4. snow is indeed an excellent reflector, but only forms in certain conditions. Also you're generally talking about weather now.
5. Yes clouds can increase and decrease the amount of solar energy being trapped in earths atmosphere

You actually started with the original estimate of 97% of greenhouse gas forcing. Also no one considers rain or snow to be part of water vapor. Figuring out how much energy certain gases contribute isn't as impossible as you make it seem. If you would actually look up the information instead of just making things up as you go along you could really learn something about it. Easier still is to measure the changes over time from gas concentrations. You can look at the spectrum of the suns energy hitting and leaving the earth (pre and post atmosphere) and see the changes. Certain gases only effect certain known ranges.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Now I'm going to blow your mind.  From the links above, we know that Earth's magnetic field is in flux and the sun is more active than it should be.  From the synopsis above about clouds, we know that they have an enormous impact on surface temperature.  The Jet Propulsion Laboratory ties them together:
> 
> Certainly it doesn't account for all of the warming but it does account for some of it especially if those clouds formed by cosmic radiation take the shape of cirrus clouds.



That doesn't match any of our observations at all. You are literally making them up as you go and there is no supporting evidence. It also doesn't explain important factors like dipping energy levels radiating out from the earth at spectrum that are NOT water related, it doesn't explain the dips in energy from CO2 and CH4. I believe you said to me "correlation doesn't imply causation". 




FordGT90Concept said:


> a) that's a massive range (do I smell guesswork?)
> b) carbon dioxide levels are relatively constant all around the world and they can't pin down an absolute figure from it?
> c) what your article neglects to mention is that about 40 ppm are removed from the atmosphere every year through photosynthesis and some is reintroduced through decomposition.  Freeman Dyson describes many ways to measure and control carbon emissions released through decomposition.



a) Was just pulling from the complete known range available. I like to be honest about the numbers.
b) Of course we can't pull an absolute figure, it's constantly changing. Have you read about the carbon cycle? It changes season by season with a general upward curve.
c) That is completely misleading. That is the "cycle" part of the carbon cycle which is an important thing for you to learn to understand if you are going to debate it. Approx 40 ppm are also RELEASED during the same period of time that it is removed. That is how the cycle works.









FordGT90Concept said:


> The rate is falling.  Gee, I wonder why?



Because my estimate was off it would appear.

2005 –  2014       21.06 ppm      2.11 ppm per year 

1995 –  2004   18.67 ppm          1.87 ppm per year 

1985 –  1994       14.24 ppm      1.42 ppm per year 

1975 –  1984     14.40 ppm      1.44 ppm per year 

1965 –  1974      10.56 ppm        1.06 ppm per year 

1960 –  1964      3.65 ppm        0.73 ppm per year (5 years only)




FordGT90Concept said:


> They are not neutral because weather changes constantly but if it is changing on a trend towards warming, it single handedly can explain the warming.  That leads to questions of why it is trending towards warmer which begs more questions than begets answers.  My point: carbon dioxide may easily be a scapegoat for something far more complex because of the ease of measuring carbon dioxide.  It may very well be a placebo for something else.  The laser like focus carbon dioxide gets causes other factors to be ignored--factors that could have far greater consequences (e.g. changes in rain patterns).  Aquifers depleting (due to reduced precipitation and lack of conservation), for example, represent a far greater threat than the measured increase in carbon dioxide.



That doesn't match observations as well as showing a misunderstanding of weather and convection currents. There is a reason no one really claims it. You can't just make something up and claim that's what's happening, especially when it is an even less complete view than our current understanding.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Except that it *is increasing* because of fracking, permafrost melting, and the stark increase in human and livestock numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know why you chose a graph whose scale is in 100's of years. If only we had some sort of information somewhere about this topic.... oh wait there is.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

CH4 has an increased radiative forcing of .49W/M2
CO2 has an increased radiative forcing of 1.88W/M2

Looks like an open and shut case to me?

There is actually a lot of information on the matter if you would choose to investigate it. Lifespan is extremely important for long term damage. CH4 is a problem but it's not as significant as CO2. Infact CH4 emissions have actually been dropping over time.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/atmospheric-concentration-of-ch4-ppb-1

And fear not, using a chart with reasonable time scales, CH4 is estimated to have a roll off.



FordGT90Concept said:


> So if I measure CO2 I exhale, it will not be greater than the level of CO2 measured in the middle of a crop field at high noon? Wind rapidly accelerates the mixing which is why hurricanes and tornadoes happen.



That is a straw man argument and you know it. A better test would be to breathe into a stagnant room, seal it off and come back to it later to see how well it is mixed. The answer is very well mixed. I'm not discounting the effect wind can have on mixing, it's part of the same system, but fact of the matter is that these gases are well mixed.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Are you seeing my point yet?  If Earth's surface temperature is rising by 1 C/year (it's closer to 0.2C per decade if memory serves), it could likely be broken down into, for example:
> 0.4 C carbon dioxide
> 0.3 C water vapor (includes cloud formation due to cosmic radiation)
> 0.2 C methane
> ...



Except you seem to have no understanding as to how to get the right numbers or why they're happening. CO2 is both an amplifier and a driver, water vapor is only an amplifier, methane makes up for less than a quarter of the temperature forcing of CO2. It is understanding the why that makes these things important. 



FordGT90Concept said:


> To your second post and SK-1's WSJ article, I think you missed the point the article is trying to make: is the observed warming dangerous?  Overwhelming consensus is "no" in the "foreseeable future."
> 
> The reasonable assumption is that an alternate form of energy (e.g. fusion) will supplant fossil fuels (including coal, oil products, and natural gas) as the dominant fuel source.  All it boils down to at that point is good conservation measures ensuring more carbon finds its way into the soil than into the air.



I didn't really want to tackle blog posts that shoot out huge amounts of misleading information.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 27, 2015)

magibeg said:


> Are you trying to imply that solar flares and the earths magnetic field are the things creating climate change? It doesn't match observations at all. And there is no problem with global warming starting in approx the 1930's, i'm not sure why you consider that an issue.


They contribute to changes in the climate, yes.  JPL said as much.

CH4 and CO2 started rising around 1870.  When accounting for the changes in the core of the Earth, the Earth didn't start warming until 60 years later.  That's a massive delay and strongly suggests it is a correlation between carbon dioxide and/or methane (both rose significantly during that period) and temperature, not a causation.




magibeg said:


> 1. Depending on the clouds they can actually absorb solar radiation giving a warming effect (dark clouds can absorb sunlight)


You do realize there is no such thing as "dark cloud" from the sun's perspective, right?  It's dark on Earth because virtually no sunlight is reaching the Earth's surface--most of it is bounced back into space.



magibeg said:


> 2. Temperature dropping from precipitation is usually weather related, such as a cold front moving into the area anyway, generally a heat transfer as opposed to causing cooling.


How frequently it happens or doesn't happen as well as the strength of the system strongly impacts climate.



magibeg said:


> 3. I don't know enough about 3 to comment too much, other than the fact water content is increasing with time https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-humidity


Hence, it is warmer.  Chicken or the egg?



magibeg said:


> 4. snow is indeed an excellent reflector, but only forms in certain conditions. Also you're generally talking about weather now.


No, I'm not.  We had record low snow coverage in my area for the past few years.  At a time when sunlight should be reflected, it was absorbed because it was hitting dark soil instead of bright white snow.  This makes the climate warmer.



magibeg said:


> 5. Yes clouds can increase and decrease the amount of solar energy being trapped in earths atmosphere


Depending on the type and location they can:
1. reflect it into space.
2. absorb it in the cloud itself
3. reflect it back to Earth
I must stress that most of the water vapor in the atmosphere takes the shape of invisible humidity, not clouds.  If it is in the form of clouds, it can have a positive, negative, or neutral affect on temperature.



magibeg said:


> That doesn't match any of our observations at all. You are literally making them up as you go and there is no supporting evidence. It also doesn't explain important factors like dipping energy levels radiating out from the earth at spectrum that are NOT water related, it doesn't explain the dips in energy from CO2 and CH4. I believe you said to me "correlation doesn't imply causation".


Stop confusing the two.  Yes, we know CO2 and CH4 numbers have changed and all measurements we take confirm that; however, that doesn't completely explain the symptom which is Earth warming ("our observations").  As demonstrated by JPL, it does explain some of the warming and I never suggested it explains all of it.   



magibeg said:


> 1985 –  1994       14.24 ppm      1.42 ppm per year
> 
> 1975 –  1984     14.40 ppm      1.44 ppm per year


Why the anomaly?  Let me guess: the switch from ice core samples/terrestrial based measurements to satellite based.



magibeg said:


> CH4 has an increased radiative forcing of .49W/M2
> CO2 has an increased radiative forcing of 1.88W/M2


You do realize that assuming greenhouse gases caused the entire change in temperature (which is not the case), 79% is by carbon dioxide and *21% is by methane*.



magibeg said:


> That is a straw man argument and you know it. A better test would be to breathe into a stagnant room, seal it off and come back to it later to see how well it is mixed. The answer is very well mixed. I'm not discounting the effect wind can have on mixing, it's part of the same system, but fact of the matter is that these gases are well mixed.


I was pointing out that you missed my point.  Photosynthesis is extremely efficient at removing carbon from the atmosphere but it is limited in how much it can remove if the air isn't stirred bringing more carbon dioxide to the surface of plants during the day.



magibeg said:


> I didn't really want to tackle blog posts that shoot out huge amounts of misleading information.


It doesn't have misleading information.  It's showing that the alarmism in publications has dropped significantly over the past decade.  It also shows several of these "97%" figures have been discredited by way of cherry picking or seeking answers to deliberately vague questions.


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 28, 2015)

More Climate Deception.... 
*Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA*

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”


 
The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.


 

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.


 
The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.


----------



## magibeg (Aug 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They contribute to changes in the climate, yes.  JPL said as much.
> 
> CH4 and CO2 started rising around 1870.  When accounting for the changes in the core of the Earth, the Earth didn't start warming until 60 years later.  That's a massive delay and strongly suggests it is a correlation between carbon dioxide and/or methane (both rose significantly during that period) and temperature, not a causation.



It's not _just _methane and it's not primarily methane like you imply. 

Here's why you're wrong:

1. The amount of energy radiated from the sun at the wave lengths which methane interacts is less than the equivalent wavelengths which CO2 interacts with.
2. The total amount of radiative forcing that methane can do compared to CO2 isn't enough.
3. Methane has a lifespan that is too short in the atmosphere to accumulate without heavy release

Those are the reasons scientists in the field don't agree with you. Methane is a factor but a lesser factor compared to CO2. Stop trying to state otherwise, you're wrong.




FordGT90Concept said:


> You do realize there is no such thing as "dark cloud" from the sun's perspective, right?  It's dark on Earth because virtually no sunlight is reaching the Earth's surface--most of it is bounced back into space.



The particulates within clouds, elevation and other factors can affect how clouds interact with the sun, also you should at least read the wiki article before you comment on something.

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

I apologize for my poor choice of terminology.



FordGT90Concept said:


> How frequently it happens or doesn't happen as well as the strength of the system strongly impacts climate.



You're wrong. Precipitation is usually the effect of a convection current. Colder area moving into a warmer area. The precipitation itself isn't because the energy was somehow drained from the earth.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Hence, it is warmer.  Chicken or the egg?



This is a gross misunderstanding on your part. You should read about it before you make those claims.



FordGT90Concept said:


> No, I'm not.  We had record low snow coverage in my area for the past few years.  At a time when sunlight should be reflected, it was absorbed because it was hitting dark soil instead of bright white snow.  This makes the climate warmer.



You're talking about an amplifier. You should really looking into understanding drivers and amplifiers.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Depending on the type and location they can:
> 1. reflect it into space.
> 2. absorb it in the cloud itself
> 3. reflect it back to Earth
> I must stress that most of the water vapor in the atmosphere takes the shape of invisible humidity, not clouds.  If it is in the form of clouds, it can have a positive, negative, or neutral affect on temperature.



You still don't understand the nature of water vapor in the atmosphere. You should do further research on amplifiers, and drivers.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Stop confusing the two.  Yes, we know CO2 and CH4 numbers have changed and all measurements we take confirm that; however, that doesn't completely explain the symptom which is Earth warming ("our observations").  As demonstrated by JPL, it does explain some of the warming and I never suggested it explains all of it.



This whole comment here is based on ignorance. Who says it doesn't explain the symptoms? Are you taking into account ONLY the driving of the climate and not the amplifiers? No scientific paper i know of claims what you're saying.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Why the anomaly?  Let me guess: the switch from ice core samples/terrestrial based measurements to satellite based.



Don't know, you could look it up however.



FordGT90Concept said:


> You do realize that assuming greenhouse gases caused the entire change in temperature (which is not the case), 79% is by carbon dioxide and *21% is by methane*.



No one is assuming the entire change is being done by any single factor as there is a lot of factors at play, however i'm not sure of your obsession with fixing 1/5th of the problem. Also the fact that methane quickly disappears in the atmosphere relative to CO2 and as such can more easily be corrected.



FordGT90Concept said:


> I was pointing out that you missed my point.  Photosynthesis is extremely efficient at removing carbon from the atmosphere but it is limited in how much it can remove if the air isn't stirred bringing more carbon dioxide to the surface of plants during the day.



I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. Your assumption about plants is wrong. You don't really know what you're talking about here.



FordGT90Concept said:


> It doesn't have misleading information.  It's showing that the alarmism in publications has dropped significantly over the past decade.  It also shows several of these "97%" figures have been discredited by way of cherry picking or seeking answers to deliberately vague questions.



It is absolutely misleading.

"97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

That is the statement. It is correct. The blog makes an incorrect statement trying to attack it.

You guys post blogs, post from think tanks funded by big oil.


I give you a challenge..... where is the opposing science? I don't mean blogs, or Watts, i mean real scientists publishing real papers which come to different conclusions than the likes of the IPCC.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 12, 2015)

Spoiler: FLUFF



Edit: Disagreement on controlling soot and methane and its effect on temperature: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cutting-soot-methane-may-not-slow-climate-change/  To my point that albedo is critical:


			
				Steven Smith said:
			
		

> We know that black carbon has a disproportionate effect in the Arctic in part because if you deposit black soot on snow or ice, that's extra warming that doesn't occur here.


...and soot travels by wind making weather important.

More on that later...





magibeg said:


> It's not _just _methane and it's not primarily methane like you imply.
> 
> Here's why you're wrong:
> 
> ...


You missed my point...again.  If greenhouse gasses were solely to blame for the increase in temperature, there would not be a 60 year delay between the changes in the two.



magibeg said:


> The particulates within clouds, elevation and other factors can affect how clouds interact with the sun, also you should at least read the wiki article before you comment on something.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing
> 
> I apologize for my poor choice of terminology.


Clouds don't "interact" with the sun.  Poor choice of terminology again. 



magibeg said:


> You're wrong. Precipitation is usually the effect of a convection current. Colder area moving into a warmer area. The precipitation itself isn't because the energy was somehow drained from the earth.


Precipitation is effectively condensation.  Condensation is the same function through which sweat works.  Rain can drop the temperature of the environment by several degrees by itself even disregarding the cloud forcing because it brings the cold in the upper atmosphere down to the surface.



magibeg said:


> This is a gross misunderstanding on your part. You should read about it before you make those claims.


I have and I think you just want to believe the scapegoat that is carbon dioxide is to blame for everything.  It is not.  It is a relatively small piece of a planet-sized puzzle.



magibeg said:


> You're talking about an amplifier. You should really looking into understanding drivers and amplifiers.


And?  Are you denying that albedo has an impact on climate?  The weather changed and over time, it is causing the climate to change.



magibeg said:


> You still don't understand the nature of water vapor in the atmosphere. You should do further research on amplifiers, and drivers.


You like to dismiss its importance because it isn't so easily translated into climate models.



magibeg said:


> This whole comment here is based on ignorance. Who says it doesn't explain the symptoms? Are you taking into account ONLY the driving of the climate and not the amplifiers? No scientific paper i know of claims what you're saying.


Water vapor has gotten cents on the dollar of research funding compared to carbon dioxide.  As far as I know, only a NOAA facility in Colorado is seriously looking at it.  Papers will take decades to write because there simply isn't enough computer horsepower to model it.



magibeg said:


> No one is assuming the entire change is being done by any single factor as there is a lot of factors at play, however i'm not sure of your obsession with fixing 1/5th of the problem. Also the fact that methane quickly disappears in the atmosphere relative to CO2 and as such can more easily be corrected.


Case in point: hydrogen powered vehicles were frequently discussed as the solution to electric vehicles and carbon vehicles.  As you know, hydrogen vehicles exhaust water vapor.  If we don't fully understand how water vapor plays into climate, we could be creating problems worse than carbon dioxide.  That's why it is important to understand all facets of the problem to come up with a solution.  It doesn't make any sense to dig one grave by placing the dirt in the gave we dug previously.

Unless you can convince people to stop eating meat, methane is not a problem that will go away.



magibeg said:


> I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. Your assumption about plants is wrong. You don't really know what you're talking about here.


My point is wind is important not just because of its effect on water vapor but also because of its effect on processing carbon dioxide.



magibeg said:


> "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
> 
> That is the statement. It is correct. The blog makes an incorrect statement trying to attack it.


It is not.  You quoted NASA paraphrasing Cook which I already covered and that article covers as well.  They did not poll the scientists.  They effectively did a database search for keywords in abstracts.  They didn't vet those abstracts for content and they also eliminated many articles that were contradictory simply because those articles didn't use the keywords they searched for.  As the article shows, when asking these scientists for their opinion directly, many disagreed with Cook's conclusions.  Cook's paper is effectively a self-fulfilling prophecy that has been regurgitated repeatedly to fill preexisting self-fulfilling prophecies.





magibeg said:


> I give you a challenge..... where is the opposing science? I don't mean blogs, or Watts, i mean real scientists publishing real papers which come to different conclusions than the likes of the IPCC.


I don't have access to an academic database so I can't sate your curiosity.  I've stated many times before that there is research into other causes of warming like methane (and some suggest models grossly underestimate the climate forcing effect of methane at that), albedo and weather (NOAA facility in Colorado which admitted they don't know yet how much effect clouds have on climate), and the core of the earth (Jet Propulsion Laboratory which showed changes in Earth's core have an impact on climate--and begets many more questions that aren't yet answered).  *No one is saying carbon is not a factor; they all say it isn't the only factor.* IPCC was created specifically to investigate carbon dioxide so, unsurprisingly, their results are focused almost entirely on carbon dioxide.




Spoiler: Related: Resource Depletion



http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16391040


			
				BBC said:
			
		

> And while demand for resources from an exploding and wealthier population soars, finding and extracting new sources of supply is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive.
> 
> For example, oil companies have to look further and drill deeper to find dwindling reserves of *oil*, meaning the *cost of an average well has doubled* in the past ten years, while new *mining* discoveries have been largely flat despite a *fourfold increase in exploration costs*.
> 
> A recent survey by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found a shortage of key minerals and metals could "disrupt entire economies". It compiled a "critical list" including *lithium*, which is widely used in batteries and wind turbines, *cobalt*, again a key component in rechargeable batteries, and *tantalum*, which is used in mobile phones and computers.





			
				BBC said:
			
		

> *Demand for water* over the next 30 years is projected to *rise by almost a half* at a time when the groundwater table in many regions of the world is falling and large areas are suffering from shortages due to drought, large-scale irrigation, pollution, dams and even war.





			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Urbanisation displaces millions of hectares of high-quality agricultural land each year - McKinsey estimates that *prime land equivalent in size to Italy could be sacrificed to expanding cities* in less than 20 years.





			
				BBC said:
			
		

> At the same time, tens of thousands of square kilometres of pristine forest are cut down to grow crops needed for *food, of which we will need 70% more* by 2050 to feed the world's massively expanding population, according to the United Nations.


Climate needs to be considered when crafting solutions to the aforementioned problems; resource depletion is a far more urgent problem than climate.


----------



## qubit (Aug 23, 2015)

> Did you feel warm in July? You weren’t the only one. Latest figures show that July was the hottest month on Earth since records began in 1880. Now, 2015 is set to become the warmest year on record, researchers say.



There you have it, global warming is real. Now we need that mini ice age that's been reported about to come along and cool the planet down again.

www.iflscience.com/environment/july-was-hottest-month-record


----------



## de.das.dude (Aug 23, 2015)

Global warming is there, but our contribution to it is pretty insignificant IMO.
In a natural environment, everything balances itself out. 


I feel the same way about the energy crisis, its too exaggerated. I grew up in school hearing that our energy will run out in the next 20 years, but new oil wells are being discovered everyday(ok maybe not everyday).
Plus our technology is getting better and more efficient on a daily basis, plus a lot of our energy now comes from renewable resources and nuclear.

taking the efficiency calculations, if we say that every 5 years our stuff becomes 2x efficient then that would mean we have almost an infinite amount of time before running out. Kind of like the half life of radiation.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 23, 2015)

I watched "Day after tomorrow" the other day again and I laughed hard when they made a huge discovery that it has already happened 10.000 years ago. And then they claimed humans are responsible for the latest weather catastrophy. How? I didn't know human race had million of cars and heavy industry and millions of cow farts 10.000 years ago to cause all this. We already know ice age happened before for real. We are destroying environment, there is no doubt in that. But we aren't destroying it in such way. It's not temperature that does the most harm, it's all the chemical crap we dump into environment and no one seems to be doing a mass panic about it. People and scientists complain and then it just fades away after 3 days. But the "global warming" panic is going and going like a broken record that keeps on skipping to the beginning as soon as it ends...


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 23, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I watched "Day after tomorrow" the other day again and I laughed hard when they made a huge discovery that it has already happened 10.000 years ago. And then they claimed humans are responsible for the latest weather catastrophy. How? I didn't know human race had million of cars and heavy industry and millions of cow farts 10.000 years ago to cause all this. We already know ice age happened before for real. We are destroying environment, there is no doubt in that. But we aren't destroying it in such way. It's not temperature that does the most harm, it's all the chemical crap we dump into environment and no one seems to be doing a mass panic about it. People and scientists complain and then it just fades away after 3 days. But the "global warming" panic is going and going like a broken record that keeps on skipping to the beginning as soon as it ends...



I don't really remember "DAT" but given that it occurred in the past all that is being said is that we are speeding up the processes with our man made machines. We dig up lots of fossil fuels that were tucked under the Earths crust and then burn them. Nature never did that and doesn't do that.

Sure lots of things we do is detrimental and yes they should all be taken seriously. However, when you have people saying pollution isn't hurting the environment, tree cutting isn't impacting the environment or that burning fossil fuels has no effect on the environment then you better hope there is a huge debate and noise until the right thing is done.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 23, 2015)

de.das.dude said:


> Global warming is there, but our contribution to it is pretty insignificant IMO.
> In a natural environment, everything balances itself out.


Earth is largely a closed system.  If you take carbon out of the ground and burn it, it goes into the atmosphere.  It _would_ balance itself out given enough time but It's not a stretch of the imagination that humanity is extracting and burning carbon at a rate faster than nature can process it.



RejZoR said:


> It's not temperature that does the most harm, it's all the chemical crap we dump into environment and no one seems to be doing a mass panic about it. People and scientists complain and then it just fades away after 3 days. But the "global warming" panic is going and going like a broken record that keeps on skipping to the beginning as soon as it ends...


Very true.  Just think of the pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides that are manufactured and deployed on a daily basis.  It is a _massive_ amount.  Humanity hasn't and isn't doing very right by nature.

Part of me thinks the premise of a carbon tax, for example, is right because it adds economic cost to changing the balance of nature.  At the same time, what would that tax revenue go to?  "Green" projects that are notoriously corrupt?  There should be monetary cost for destroying the environment to disincentive people from doing it but there's no practical means to implement, enforce, and undo the damage.

I think the best we can do, for now, is throw IPCC in the garbage and replace it with a global conservation program--a program, for example, that would see the surplus of crop products in the United States and implore Brazil to buy it instead of tearing down more of the Amazonian forest.  On agreement, UN environmentalists will move in to the area that is no longer needed for human use and work to return it to nature (planting native trees and the like).  There's a similar story to this occurring in Montana where they're bringing back the prairie and some buffalo.  The locals don't like it because it may cost them their livelihood but the environment is something we all share.

There are practical, sensible solutions to the problems we face.  The only reason why we don't is because there isn't an imminent danger.  You know what they saw about boiling a frog, right?


If this post comes across as me being a green thumb, I'm far from it.  I'm a realist.  There doesn't have to be a problem to know we can improve.  Aircraft wings made 100 years ago worked but the wings we build today are far more efficient, for example.  We're eventually going to have to address the issue of environmental efficiency.  No sense in not starting today.



In semi-related news, there's literally so much shit (and I mean pig shit, chicken shit, cow shit, etc.) in this area that farmers are buying land just to have a place to dump the shit.  I think a small does of conservation (like packing dirt on top of that shit to trap it) in the right places would go a long way towards reducing atmospheric carbon.


----------



## erocker (Aug 23, 2015)

For those who like visuals, here's the globe's CO2 map. Carbon Monoxide is also in there:


----------



## SK-1 (Aug 24, 2015)

The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 24, 2015)

So I guess my question has to be, why would the Government and scientist hype this so much and lie so much about it?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 24, 2015)

Money.  Carbon is to industry as carbon tax is to government.

They aren't lying per say, they're just neglecting to mention the degree of uncertainty and the story gets retold as a statement of fact rather than probability.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 24, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Money.  Carbon is to industry as carbon tax is to government.
> 
> They aren't lying per say, they're just neglecting to mention the degree of uncertainty and the story gets retold as a statement of fact rather than probability.



Yeah but that is to be expected of the government. They'll tax anything they can get away with real or fake if they can get away with it for as long as they can. I'm not sure that should be used as an indicator for truth or fabrication only a reminder of how politics work.

What about the lot of scientist, what have they to gain? Money as well?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 24, 2015)

Millions of dollars went to carbon research grants; billions to "green" companies (i.e. Solyndra, Ford Motor Company, etc.).

Like I said, the scientists did their job by giving degrees of uncertainty.  It's everyone that regurgitates it as fact that misconstrues it.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 24, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Millions of dollars went to carbon research grants; billions to "green" companies (i.e. Solyndra, Ford Motor Company, etc.).
> 
> Like I said, the scientists did their job by giving degrees of uncertainty.  It's everyone that regurgitates it as fact that misconstrues it.



Well we record temperature right? Year after year we go back and look at how hot the world was globally and compare it to previous results. Is the world not getting hotter with the results we have? Isn't past results certain?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 24, 2015)

Temperature is highly variable and the degree to which the Earth allegedly warmed is miniscule.  No, the past results aren't certain because there is variability in...everything.  Time of day matters, the method to measure matters, the accuracy of the instruments matter, and so on.  It is within the degree of certainty to say July was not and was the warmest month on record.


----------



## BiggieShady (Aug 24, 2015)

AphexDreamer said:


> Is the world not getting hotter with the results we have? Isn't past results certain?


Of course, and that irrefutable fact is preventing us to burn oil/coal guilt free ... if only we could prove that world climate was changing anyway regardless of our burning, we would continue unhindered because all we really want is our fun not to be spoiled by guilt.


FordGT90Concept said:


> Temperature is highly variable and the degree to which the Earth allegedly warmed is miniscule.  No, the past results aren't curtained because there is variability in...everything.  Time of day matters, the method to measure matters, the accuracy of the instruments matter, and so on.  It is within the degree of certainty to say July was not and was the warmest month on record.


That'd make sense if there were only one thermometer in the world ... and the owner is a raging alchoholic


----------



## SK-1 (Aug 30, 2015)

This is just another reason to doubt.... 2014...Summer of the dragonfly... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=439&v=qI31a2L1Olw


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 8, 2015)

Scientists have vastly underestimated how many trees are living on the planet, a new study has revealed.










A Yale University report has estimated that there are more than three trillion trees worldwide - around eight times more than some previous estimates.

However, experts were quick to point out that deforestation is still a major threat as around 15 billion trees are lost each year.

They also added that number of trees on Earth has almost halved since the beginning of human civilisation.

Since the start of human civilisation around 11,700 years ago the total number of trees has fallen by around 46 per cent, it estimates.

The researchers  collected on-the-ground data for the number of trees in more than 400,000 plots of forest from all continents except Antarctica.

They used satellite imagery to assess how the density of trees in the plots was related to local characteristics such as the climate, vegetation, soil conditions and the impacts of human activity, and used the information to build models for the number of trees in various regions.

The global map generated suggests there are around 3.04 trillion trees, or around 422 for each person, on Earth.

A country-by-country breakdown reveals there are more than three billion trees in the UK, or around 47 for each Briton, while in Ireland there are some 709 million trees, equating to 154 for each person.

The highest densities of trees are found in the forests of the sub-Arctic regions of Russia, Scandinavia and North America, but the largest forest areas were in the tropics, which are home to around 43 per cent of the world's trees.

The information on tree populations will help efforts to model global systems such as carbon storage, the changing climate and the distribution of animal and plant species, the researchers said.

Lead author Thomas Crowther, post-doctoral fellow at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, said: 'Trees are among the most prominent and critical organisms on Earth, yet we are only recently beginning to comprehend their global extent and distribution.

'They store huge amounts of carbon, are essential for the cycling of nutrients, for water and air quality, and for countless human services.

'Yet you ask people to estimate, within an order of magnitude, how many trees there are and they don't know where to begin,' he said, adding he was 'certainly surprised' to find the estimate was in the trillions.

He said: 'We've nearly halved the number of trees on the planet, and we've seen the impacts on climate and human health as a result.

'This study highlights how much more effort is needed if we are to restore healthy forests worldwide.'

The study was prompted by a request by Plant for the Planet, a youth initiative leading the United Nations Environment Programme's 'billion tree campaign', for baseline estimates of tree numbers to help set targets for for tree-planting initiatives.

The previous global estimate was of just over 400 billion trees worldwide.

The study was published in Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14967.html


*How many trees are there in the world?*


----------



## SK-1 (Sep 9, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Scientists have vastly underestimated how many trees are living on the planet, a new study has revealed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They also blew the total ocean sea-life count by a factor of only... 10
*THERE ARE 10 TIMES MORE FISH IN THE SEA THAN WE THOUGHT*
http://www.popsci.com/article/there-are-10-times-more-fish-sea-we-thought


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 14, 2015)

I found this posted on reddit but I can't verify its source https://i.imgur.com/pLFblKg.jpg

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3kw8wr/awesome_response/


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 14, 2015)

AphexDreamer said:


> I found this posted on reddit but I can't verify its source https://i.imgur.com/pLFblKg.jpg
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3kw8wr/awesome_response/


That's a politician being a politician. After all that's the same UN that's watching ISIS kill thousands of human beings which is causing the immigration issue in Europe, Russia invading sovereign nations and people using chemical warefare without repercussions except getting an updated delivery system of said chemical warefare. The EXACT THINGS the UN is supposed to stop. Yet we are to believe their tax plan......err scientific reports are to be taken seriously?

Sorry but the UN has a credibility problem.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 14, 2015)

California is responsible for California's drought.


----------



## CjStaal (Sep 15, 2015)

I had no idea so many people in this forum think global warming is a scam. It most definitely is not. Look at the water shortages in California. The reason the shortages are there is because their water resoviors were up north, to take in the melting snow in the mountains. Since there hasn't been snow since it's been so warm for so long, they have no water. Take a look at the temperature records in the past 100 years and tell me, how many cold vs hot records have been broken? Much more hot than cold. The Earth is heating, and it's from us.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> California is responsible for California's drought.


the law of diminishing returns

you cannot take more than is supplied  (by Nature in this case)   which is what California's doing.
you want more   then you have to source alternative supplies

California should invest in a Water Pipeline from the North  it needs water more than Oil


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 15, 2015)

Those who follow climate-change matters are well aware that in one important respect - that is, temperatures measured around the world - there hasn't actually been any climate change for the last fifteen years or thereabouts. Now, a new report from the British weather bureau says that this lack of global warming may persist for a while.
The Met Office scientists say that a long-foretold El Nino is at last starting to kick off in the Pacific Ocean. This will probably cause significant warming. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), another ocean mechanism in the Pacific, also looks set to bring some warmth.
But, no doubt upsettingly for some, there's a third and very powerful factor to consider: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
The AMO has actually been heating the world up since the mid-1990s, though not strongly enough to raise temperatures, but now it looks set to swing into a negative phase and cool the planet off, probably for a long time, as AMO phases typically last several decades. The Met Office's new report (pdf), just out today, has this to say about the AMO:
The current warm phase is now 20 years long and historical precedent suggests a return to relatively cool conditions could occur within a few years ... Observational and model estimates further suggest AMO shifts have an effect on global mean near-surface temperatures of about 0.1°C. A rapid AMO decline could therefore maintain the current slowdown in global warming ...
The Met Office doesn't care for phrases such as "hiatus" or even "pause" to describe the absence of global warming for the last fifteen years or so: it describes the flat temperatures as a "slowdown".
But it's all the same thing. One should note that the Met Office report is strongly hedged – its title even ends in a question mark, in the style of headlines-to-which-the-answer-is-no. But it isn't just the Met Office that believes the AMO may be headed into a cold spell. Scientists studying Atlantic hurricanes have noted that these massive storms have been mostly less common and less
powerful in recent years, and the suggestion is that this trend may be set to continue, with the underlying mechanism being a switch in the AMO to a negative phase.
Meanwhile, it appears quite possible that 2015 will be a record warm year globally – though not in Europe or America. However, as NASA climate chief Gavin Schmidt pointed out in 2013, "one more year of numbers isn't in itself significant".
Just as it took quite a few years before the hiatus could be said to be ongoing, it will require several years of climbing temperatures before it can be said to be over. Those climbing temperatures may be imminent - but they just may not be, either.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 15, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> California should invest in a Water Pipeline from the North  it needs water more than Oil


No, first thing they need to do is redesign their water system to collect rain water that falls on cities like Los Angeles instead of sending it directly into the ocean.

Second thing they need to do deliberately and systematically reduce the population in the south.

Third thing they need to do is stop trying to grow every damn type of crop in central California and switch to species that are native to the climate.

Fourth thing they need to do in the South is like Phoenix as done: severely restrict water use for lawns and make it permanent with high fines.  People will be forced to grow species that are native to the climate that don't require constant watering.

Fifth thing they need to do is to change policies to disincentives people from living in the mountain side forests and provide incentives for them to move away.  Forest fires are a natural thing and wasting water putting out fires is very, very wasteful.  Forest fires are part of nature's rejuvenation process.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2015)

What we need to do is start building and perfecting desalination plants. Israel did it, I am sure they would lend us the design for an F-18 or two.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 15, 2015)

Desalination requires power.  The only source of clean, reliable power available right now is nuclear power.  Nuclear power is not a good idea on a fault line.

There's ultimately no  substitute for nature.  Even a brief shower dumps more water on land than a large desalination plant could process in a year.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Desalination requires power.  The only source of clean, reliable power available right now is nuclear power.  Nuclear power is not a good idea on a fault line.
> 
> There's ultimately no  substitute for nature.  Even a brief shower dumps more water on land than a large desalination plant could process in a year.


There are already like 5 nuclear plants in California.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 15, 2015)

There's only two reactors left and both are operating at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant:
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/

https://www.google.com/maps/place/D...2!3m1!1s0x80ecfdc9ded1a09b:0x14546b020e931c01

Probably the only reason why they're still running is because it is so far from any population centers.


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2015)

I sure as hell wouldn't want to live near a nuclear plant near a fault line. Fusion power may become a reality in another decade.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 15, 2015)

Never mind building a water pipline  here is the PROPER AMERICAN WAY OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM.



Spoiler:  HOW TO SOLVE THE AMERICAN WATER CRISIS 



Wars Have been fought ove access to Oil and countries invaded to ensure supplys and when Wars are fought over Water the USA will invade Canada


----------



## qubit (Sep 15, 2015)

@dorsetknob Yeah, that will definitely "solve" it.


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Never mind building a water pipline  here is the PROPER AMERICAN WAY OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Without oil the Western Nation's economies would grind to a halt. Imagine being hungry and there is no food at your grocery store because a truck (lorry) driver couldn't put diesel in his rig to deliver.

Unrestricted flow of oil is a matter of National Security for both of our countries.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There's only two reactors left and both are operating at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant:
> http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/D...2!3m1!1s0x80ecfdc9ded1a09b:0x14546b020e931c01
> ...


There used to be more. Thanks for the enlightenment. I guess they closed down the ones to the north. Even still they could easily build desalination plants using either one of those reactors and that would free up a ton of water for Cali. That and not letting run off go into the F#$KING ocean. Its funny one of the most liberal/eco states in the Union has the WORST environmental issues. ALL of their issues were made by poor government management and zero to do with the actual environment.

Just goes to show you anything with "eco" involving the government is just code words for high taxes. That fixes everything! MORE MONEY!


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 15, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its funny one of the most liberal/eco states in the Union has the WORST environmental issues.


Do you think deregulation or a different government is going to fix California's problems. California has a water problem because they simply use more than gets replenished. California isn't the only state that's eating up aquifers for things like farming.

Also, lets put everything into perspective. More people live in California than in Canada. That's a lot of people and not much water. It's simply unsustainable as it stands right now.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Do you think deregulation or a different government is going to fix California's problems. California has a water problem because they simply use more than gets replenished. California isn't the only state that's eating up aquifers for things like farming.
> 
> Also, lets put everything into perspective. More people live in California than in Canada. That's a lot of people and not much water. It's simply unsustainable as it stands right now.


Yes it will. Look up Delta smelt and a simple thing such as regulating yard water would change everything. California's water issue 100% from crappy government and moronic liberal policies.

Shutting the boarders would help also.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 15, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yes it will. Look up Delta smelt and a simple thing such as regulating yard water would change everything. California's water issue 100% from crappy government and moronic liberal policies.


Tell that to midwestern states that are dying up their aquifers because of farming on a mass scale. You don't need to be liberal to be stupid about water management, that's my point. Look at Arizona and Phoenix. Plenty of Republicans and they'll be out of water before you know it.

I find your reasoning to be overly partisan and missing the point.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Tell that to midwestern states that are dying up their aquifers because of farming on a mass scale. You don't need to be liberal to be stupid about water management, that's my point. Look at Arizona and Phoenix. Plenty of Republicans and they'll be out of water before you know it.
> 
> I find your reasoning to be overly partisan and missing the point.


Phoenix Arizona would have been dead a 100 years ago if they had California's policies. Its not partisan. Its just fact.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 15, 2015)

The mailman is so complacent because he has his own water supply

As long as he can piss into a 2 ltr diet coke bottle he has his own water supply


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> The mailman is so complacent because he has his own water supply
> 
> As long as he can piss into a 2 ltr diet coke bottle he has his own water supply


I'm far from smug. All you have to do is a little research and cut out the emotion and the evidence presents itself. Simply there is a drought in California because of crappy government actions based mostly off partisan politics and raw emotion. Its exactly what is being accused of me. However if you do just 10 minutes of research you will find it has nothing to do with "climate change" and everything to do with big government thinking they know everything.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/forget-the-missing-rainfall-california-wheres-the-delta-smelt-1430085510


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 15, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I'm far from smug. All you have to do is a little research and cut out the emotion and the evidence presents itself. Simply there is a drought in California because of crappy government actions based mostly off partisan politics and raw emotion. Its exactly what is being accused of me. However if you do just 10 minutes of research you will find it has nothing to do with "climate change" and everything to do with big government thinking they know everything.


I'm sure that the fact that the sierra nevada having less and less average snow pack every passing decade has nothing to do with it. I also know someone who grew up in Phoenix and I've had discussions about water with him and I can say that your statement is false. They waste it pretty bad which is why they won't have in a few decades. People in Pheonix still water their lawns despite the local shrubbery is anything but grass.

Keep drinking the kool aid TMM. I won't stop you but, you're only kidding yourself.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I'm sure that the fact that the sierra nevada having less and less snow pack every passing decade has nothing to do with it. I also know someone who grew up in Phoenix and I've had discussions about water with him and I can say that your statement is false. They waste is pretty bad which is why they won't have in a few decades.
> 
> Keep drinking the kool aid TMM. I won't stop you but, you're only kidding yourself.


Edit: I misread.

When you pump the majority of fresh water out of state into the ocean you have less water to make snow in the region. Its pretty simple. Also you are deflecting from the point.

A simple change in policy would fix California in less than 6 months. Again, bad government.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 15, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> That's due to population growth not policies. Also you are deflecting.


...and California isn't growing? That's a laughable statement.


TheMailMan78 said:


> When you pump the majority of fresh water out of state into the ocean you have less water to make snow. Its pretty simple. Also you are deflecting from the point.


I should run that by the meteorologist friend. I have a feeling that's the biggest load of BS I've heard in a long time.


TheMailMan78 said:


> A simple change in policy would fix California in less than 6 months. Again, bad government.


Calif. is far worse than 6 months away from recovery. They're really f**ked.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> ...and California isn't growing? That's a laughable statement.


California isn't growing to the point it would be in a drought no. Its not.



Aquinus said:


> ...and California isn't growing? That's a laughable statement.
> 
> I should run that by the meteorologist friend. I have a feeling that's the biggest load of BS I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Calif. is far worse than 6 months away from recovery. They're really f**ked.


Run it by whoever you want. Do you think snow magically appears on top of mountains?
http://www.onthesnow.com/news/a/15171/ask-a-weatherman--where-does-snow-come-from-

Take away the moisture and guess what.....NO SNOW.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 15, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Run it by whoever you want. Do you think snow magically appears on top of mountains?


Of course not, but water from oceans evaporates too which turns into what? Rain and snow... 

Rivers don't flow upstream and turn into snow, water evaporates *everywhere* and that includes the ocean, not just fresh water.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Of course not, but water from oceans evaporates too which turns into what? Rain and snow...
> 
> Rivers don't flow upstream and turn into snow, water evaporates *everywhere* and that includes the ocean, not just fresh water.


No water on the ground means no moisture rising. Its simple science.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 15, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No water on the ground means no moisture rising. Its simple science.


Most of the moisture delivered to the western seaboard is from water evaporating off the ocean; consider winds and the jet stream. Your argument would describe the drought in the mid-west, not California.

It's not "simple science," you're over simplifying it... but go ahead and think you know more about weather than people who spend their lives studying it.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 15, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No water on the ground means no moisture rising. Its simple science.



And the Oceans 

The total *area* of the Earth is approximately 510 million square kilometers and the *oceans* cover about 71 percent of the Earth's *surface*, which is about 360 million square kilometers. There are a total of 5 *oceans*, and they are the Arctic, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, and the Antarctic *Ocean*.

water is evaporating and falling as rain and snow   just not so much in the places it used to  its falling elsewhere contray to popular belief there is more snow falling in parts of antartica than in the past  while other parts are losing ice


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 15, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Tell that to midwestern states that are dying up their aquifers because of farming on a mass scale. You don't need to be liberal to be stupid about water management, that's my point. Look at Arizona and Phoenix. Plenty of Republicans and they'll be out of water before you know it.
> 
> I find your reasoning to be overly partisan and missing the point.


Yes, Nebraska is full of pivots powered by the Ogallala aquifer.  Iowa is starting to see problems with falling water tables too but for a different reason: watering animals.


As for what this conversation has turned into, remember the mountains and California has a lot of them.  It generally does not rain on the east side of mountains in the Rockies because they dropped their payload getting over them on the west side.  If there's no water between mountain ranges, there will be virtually no rain dumped on the next mountain range.


The Antarctic ice shelf is growing; the Arctic ice shelf is shrinking.  Despite that, I remember news headlines 10 years ago about ships being able to move freely around the Arctic today.  Those statements are obviously false.  In fact, a lot of the predictions about weather related to climate change have been false.  Climate and weather models are too crappy to be remotely accurate.  And remember, even the satellite-measured warming operates on a margin of error and, year over year, that margin could indicate the entire gamut from drastic cooling to drastic warming.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Sep 15, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I'm sure that the fact that the sierra nevada having less and less average snow pack every passing decade has nothing to do with it. I also know someone who grew up in Phoenix and I've had discussions about water with him and I can say that your statement is false. They waste it pretty bad which is why they won't have in a few decades. People in Pheonix still water their lawns despite the local shrubbery is anything but grass.
> 
> Keep drinking the kool aid TMM. I won't stop you but, you're only kidding yourself.



Yeah how about someone who lives here now? We have 4 years worth of Colorado river allowance stored underground. Ie if tomorrow the colorado was completely dry, lake mead? gone, lake havasu? gone, lake powell? gone we would still have 4 years of water providing we didn't cut back at all from our current usage.

This "friend" of yours is either made up or a complete idiot.

Global warming has nothing to do with the California situation. Not being able to supply half a state with 4.4 million acre feet a year has no relation to the climate and everything thing to do with crappy politics. That's not even taking into account the fact that the allotments were handed out during a time when rains were well above average and there aren't actually 16.7 million acre feet to divide up. Even if there were, California's running into trouble because they were overdrawing and taking more than the 4.4 million acre feet allotment. AZ made sure to take our full allotment and store what we don't use, but Colorado has been letting theirs run down into the lakes where CA has essentially been stealing it for years.

They have become dependent on that excess and now that it's not there to take they are realizing how f'd they are.
California supplies too much of the nations food. The state can't take the load anymore. So that avacado you're eating in NY = 74 gallons of CA water. CA has been exporting water in the form of food to states with more than enough of it while it has too little of its own. That lb of beef in NY? 1800 gallons of CA water.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM

There is an entire half of the country with 44 + inches of rain each year being supplied food from an area they gets less than 20. They don't send the equivalent water used back. Instead they get flooded. Whatever mismanagement has happened in the cities with consumers it pales in comparison to the agriculture deals made.

Is the climate and soil better? yes, do the states getting the food who have an abundance of water need to give some back for the amount used to make their food? YES!

We have oil pipelines, make water ones. DONE. (it's not like CA can't afford to pay for the water used either)

But no the US is only a nation when taking credit, never when dealing with issues. And CA is just eyeing our storage in AZ drooling failing to realize that there are states with crap tons of rain who are taking their water and give none back.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 15, 2015)

Only way I'd agree to pipelines is if:
a) California pays for them...ALL OF IT.
b) the state it pulls water from determines how much goes into the pipeline.

If you think seriously about that idea, the only place with an abundance of water they aren't using is New England.  A pipe over 2,600 miles long...is ridiculous.  I suppose the Great Lakes states also have more water than they need but, even there, you're talking about 2000 miles of pipes.

It makes more sense to cut California off and funnel that water into the Midwest's aquifers where productivity is much higher at much lower costs.


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2015)

From what I've read California is fundamentally broken. Too much entitlement thinking going on there.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 15, 2015)

64K said:


> From what I've read California is fundamentally broken. Too much entitlement thinking going on there.



when the big quake comes and most of California slides into the pacific the California problem will be solved.....


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 15, 2015)

yogurt_21 said:


> Yeah how about someone who lives here now? We have 4 years worth of Colorado river allowance stored underground. Ie if tomorrow the colorado was completely dry, lake mead? gone, lake havasu? gone, lake powell? gone we would still have 4 years of water providing we didn't cut back at all from our current usage.


Are you joking? 4 years isn't much time. Simple fact is that Pheonix is unsustainable be it 4 years or 40 years. Sooner or later, it's going to completely dry up as more is being used than is being replenished.


yogurt_21 said:


> This "friend" of yours is either made up or a complete idiot.


You don't see me throwing around insults. Do think think that helps your argument? 

I'm not disagreeing with you but, don't kid yourself. Phoenix is just as f**ked as California is but, for different reasons.

Also global warming is a misnomer, it's global climate change. Not every place across the planet is getting less rain or hotter temperatures. Simple fact is what California is doing is unsustainable, I don't disagree with that. My point is that farmers would still pull water out of the ground for farming and there are always going to be companies and people who think their need for water is more important than someone else.


FordGT90Concept said:


> If you think seriously about that idea, the only place with an abundance of water they aren't using is New England.


For New Hampshire, it helps when most of the lakes are surrounded by mountains. We also get a ton of snow and rain that comes up the eastern seaboard so a lot of it stays here. New England is in a much different position than California, that's for sure. Also New England is anything but flat, it's not just piping you would need but, lot, and lots, of pumps. You would probably need to construct a lot of reserviors as well to hold it while it gets there. You can't just run a several thousand mile long pipe.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 16, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Also global warming is a misnomer, it's global climate change.


Which is also a misnomer because if man never existed, the climate would still change.  Case in point: all of that oil in the middle east strongly suggests that area was once covered in lush forest/jungle.  It hasn't been that in over 10,000 years (when man first learned to document what he/she saw).  There is absolutely nothing unnatural about climate changing.  The only thing we can pin on man, at this point, is the relatively high levels of atmospheric CO2.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There is absolutely nothing unnatural about climate changing.


I wouldn't call "climate change" a misnomer however, I tend to agree that it would occur with or without humanity. I think the question is how much we've been accelerating it and how much different it would be without humanity. I would find it hard to believe that humanity doesn't play any role however I don't think we're the sole reason for it. I do think it has more to do than with just CO2, though. The earth is a rather complex system and I suspect we still don't understand a good chunk of it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 16, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I think the question is how much we've been accelerating it and how much different it would be without humanity.


I suspect not much on both accounts.  Most credible sources on climate aren't sounding the alarm for today, they're sounding it for the future.  They warn about reducing CO2 output today so it doesn't exceed a threshold in the future.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Sep 17, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Are you joking? 4 years isn't much time. Simple fact is that Pheonix is unsustainable be it 4 years or 40 years. Sooner or later, it's going to completely dry up as more is being used than is being replenished.
> 
> You don't see me throwing around insults. Do think think that helps your argument?
> 
> ...



Um yeah, you fail at analysis. I still see no evidence you weren't simply lying about your "friend" to make a point. Whereas many members can vouch for me when I say I'm from AZ. Erocker's even shipped stuff to me here. If you find that accusation insulting it's meant to be. Don't lie and claim you know all about where I live, I take offense to it.

In case you missed it, CA is out of water now, well really 2 years ago (save for Lake Tahoe which as big as it is, is only a short term fix). AZ won't be out of water until exactly 4 years after the Colorado completely dries up assuming we don't curtail our usage by 1 drop. It hasn't yet btw and isn't going to for some time to come. The most that will happen is Lake Mead will drop below 1025ft and we will see our Colorado allotment drop by 480,000 acre feet (from 2.8 million to 2.32 million acre feet) . That will affect CAP farmers but not residential. Nevada also sees a drop which is pretty ridiculous when you see how little they get as it is.

While were on this subject Farmers in CA have priority draw due to grandfathered water rights. CA is trying to change that but its the way things are. Farmers in AZ (excluding Wilcox, AZ) get CAP water. That is Central Arizona Project and their access to it expires in 2030. Not sure what they're going to do about that but its not my problem. So no we are nowhere near as screwed as CA. AZ has always understood it was a desert and we took precautions in the 80's to assure that ground pumping was limited as well as made many other concessions to ensure we could endure long droughts. Wilcox, AZ again is the exception but they did that to themselves. CA was in denial and has ignored the problem. I lived there in the 80's and 90's (moved to AZ in 96) when we had droughts (milder of course) and they threw on the low flow toilet and shower head requirements and called it good. No ground pumping restrictions, no long term plans, just the low flows aimed at those who use such a small portion of the states water.

CA made its bed by ignoring the problem. Much like the nation is ignoring it now. They don't realize what will happen to the price and supply of food if CA farming goes belly up.

AZ on the other hand hasn't been hit anywhere near as bad by the drought, our rain hasn't been too far below average and the White Mountains (which flow into the White, Black, and then Salt Rivers) haven't been as badly affected as the Sierra Nevadas. Population in the valley has grown but we've planned for it. That's why right now someone in CA is being fined for watering their lawn while someone in AZ is actively pumping reclaimed grey water irrigation onto his, or using a drip system to water his desert landscape. You are talking about 2 very different cultures here.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2015)

Congress has kowtowed to California since before California even applied for statehood.  There's not much California asked for and didn't receive throughout its history, the rest of the country be damned.  Examples:
-Nevada's and Arizona's water? They got it.
-The mountain ranges that have known precious metal claims?  You bet.
-High speed railroad between very distant cities?  Of course.
-"You're state is too big, we need to make it smaller" to which California replied, "like hell you will."
-I believe it's the only state that policies its borders for "illegal" produce.
-USA adopts most environmental standards California adopts first.
-Truck trailers often now have those panels on its belly because trailers that don't have those cannot enter California.

The list is literally endless.  USA still kowtows to California.  I wouldn't be surprised if California demands access to AZ's water reserves and Congress forces AZ to hand it over on a gold platter.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Sep 18, 2015)

^Oh yeah we're aware CA is after it. Not sure when that will all go down but it will likely set the precedent going forward. If CA gets access to AZ's reserves look for a renegotiation of the Colorado allotments. I guarantee CO doesn't get anywhere near as much in that circumstance (which again would be pretty ironic considering it's the Colorado river lol). 

If CA starts chipping away at our storage I could see a strong push against alfalfa and cotton farming in AZ as well as a restriction on golf courses and sod farming. Consumers will likely get the low flows as well but we've know that was coming anyways. 

In the end it will be another band aid rather than an actual fix, CA still won't have enough water and it will put pressure on AZ, NV, CO, and NM who all have their own issues to deal with. I still say create more reservoirs in states with more rainfall and build pipelines to the west. But that's likely fantasy land at this point. The east won't care until it hits them directly in the wallet and in the mouth.


----------



## SK-1 (Sep 19, 2015)

*You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile, you MUST comply.*
*Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics*
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/s...secute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m9Nfrgvl


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 19, 2015)

They cite:
Institutionalizing Delay
Doubt Is Their Product
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
Merchants of Doubt
The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth
The Climate Deception Dossiers
...they don't seem very academic.


Pretty sure the _Citizens United v. F.E.C._ decision guts Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act:


			
				Citizens United v. F.E.C. said:
			
		

> First Amendment protection extends to corporations.


http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=clevstlrev


			
				Political Gangsters said:
			
		

> Like any criminal statute, the racketeering statute can be broken down to specific essential elements that must be present to constitute the crime.  Two main elements must be present to form a racketeering action.  First, *the actor must obstruct, delay, or affect commerce*.  And second, *the actor must do this through robbery or extortion*.
> ...
> An obvious obstruction or effect on commerce would be a *restriction upon the sale of goods or the transport of goods*, but the courts in the past have required less action than that.
> ...
> "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or *fear, or under color of official right*."


I think RICO applies more to these scientists than the organizations they accuse.  Case in point: try to buy an incandescent light bulb today or gasoline that isn't tainted with ethanol.  As for extortion, what is the "Carbon Tax?"  I don't think Shukla et. al. can prove or even suggest the lobbying the accused has allegedly done can even be considered extortion.  These professors-turned-activists don't have a leg to stand on it when it comes to RICO.


----------



## SK-1 (Sep 28, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which is also a misnomer because if man never existed, the climate would still change.  Case in point: all of that oil in the middle east strongly suggests that area was once covered in lush forest/jungle.  It hasn't been that in over 10,000 years (when man first learned to document what he/she saw).  There is absolutely nothing unnatural about climate changing.  The only thing we can pin on man, at this point, is the relatively high levels of atmospheric CO2.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 30, 2015)

Cold Atlantic 'blob' puzzles scientists


----------



## magibeg (Sep 30, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Cold Atlantic 'blob' puzzles scientists



That is actually really really bad news. Large "blobs" of water that are no longer being properly conveyed throughout the ocean.


----------



## magibeg (Sep 30, 2015)

http://www.jconline.com/story/news/...cientists-think-climate-change-real/72969934/

Another survey showing incredible solidarity among climate scientists.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 30, 2015)

> We surveyed the biophysical science *faculty of the Big Ten universities* in the US to ascertain (1) their beliefs about climate change, (2) their beliefs about climate science, (3) where they get their scientific information, and (4) their cultural and political values.


That population is overwhelmingly liberal ergo expected to respond favorably to "climate change" regardless of their research/credentials.

Figure 1 is interesting though on that link.  Natural resource professors are more skeptical than the rest but when it comes to "human-caused temperature rise," engineers are overwhelmingly skeptical.  Sure, 85% of the surveyed engineers still say humans caused rise in temperature but you can clearly why this topic is political: engineers are far more likely to be conservative than liberal.  The survey reflects that.



magibeg said:


> That is actually really really bad news. Large "blobs" of water that are no longer being properly conveyed throughout the ocean.


That's not what they're speculating in the article.  The best hypothesis now is that it's from the glacieral meltwater from Greenland failing to mix with the salt water of the ocean.  Nothing is certain at this point though.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 30, 2015)

Can anyone explain to me who was responsible for global warming prior to the industrial revolution? Did you aliens from another galaxy cause it?


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 30, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Can anyone explain to me who was responsible for global warming prior to the industrial revolution? Did you aliens from another galaxy cause it?



Did you not know or understand  
There is no global warming  ( There is Climate Change as Always ).
that will come when the Sun runs out of hydrogen to burn and then starts on its helium
That's the start of the Suns old age when it turns into a red Giant
As the Sun expands  it turns into a red Giant  (it will start to heat up the earth) till it is big enough to adsorb the earth

Until the Sun Expands   the earth is like a poker pulled from a fire  " Slowly cooling"


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 30, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Did you not know or understand
> There is no global warming  ( There is Climate Change as Always ).
> that will come when the Sun runs out of hydrogen to burn and then starts on its helium
> That's the start of the Suns old age when it turns into a red Giant
> ...



i do understand that. so it wasn't aliens then? darn.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 30, 2015)

To many  ( Smart and not so smart ) people confuse Global warming with Climate change.

Global warming is when Planet Earth Gets Warmer  ( that means a external heat source that heats the planet more than the planet  loses  ie a net gain in heat)
Earth formed as a coelessing ball of gas and other debris 
from liqued rock it has cooled to form a skin which we live on for it to get warmer an external heat source must act on it   like a expanding red giant sun

for comparison  take a red hot poker from a forge
pull it out and watch it cool   the only way to cause it to warm is to supply another energy source such as moving a heat source nearer such as dragging the forge to the poker or high energy infra red heat source

that poker is planet earth   IT is Slowly Cooling and will continue to cool until the sun expands and heats it up

Climate Change is the poker removed from the fire   and blown on by drafts   sure you can get it to glow and raise the surface temp  from changing the surounding atmosphere but its still overall cooling .

People need to stop confusing Global warming with Climate change


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 30, 2015)

Who is confusing what now?


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 30, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Who is confusing what now?



Mankind waits for sun to expand   ....then we will have Global warming
its so simple
Climate change on the other hand is not so simple or easily solved


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 30, 2015)

yes, but who is confusing the two?


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 30, 2015)

It all starts with the thread title Post  
start with the poll
*Do you think that the "global warming" crisis is a massive scandal?*
29 pages later and over 700 posts with the majority then talking about Climate Change

*Climate Change *is NOT  *Global warming*


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 30, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> It all starts with the thread title Post
> start with the poll
> *Do you think that the "global warming" crisis is a massive scandal?*
> 29 pages later and over 700 posts with the majority then talking about Climate Change
> ...



and? does this mean aliens could be responsible for climate change? please say yes.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 30, 2015)

its 29 pages and 700+ posts   aurguing about climate change   not global warming

The planet is cooling down till the sun expands  parts of the surface are experiencing CLIMATE CHANGE  always has and always will until its enveloped by the sun

in the end Its a pointless (thread)

in post  #143

i said 


dorsetknob said:


> Earth as a Lump of metallic rock is cooling HAS BEEN SINCE IT FORMED
> it will only get hotter as a result of our local star turning into a RED GIANT
> 
> by the time that happens who the f**k is going to be around to worry about that



i ain't changed my opinion



Easy Rhino said:


> and? does this mean aliens could be responsible for climate change? please say yes.


I know what your doing and you have my SUPPORT
your trying to get the* thread bounced to GN *


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 1, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Can anyone explain to me who was responsible for global warming prior to the industrial revolution? Did you aliens from another galaxy cause it?


The last time atmospheric CO2 exceeded 400ppm was _5 million_ years ago.  It was approximately 290 ppm in 1870.  We're at just shy of 400 ppm as of August.


----------



## magibeg (Oct 1, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> its 29 pages and 700+ posts   aurguing about climate change   not global warming
> 
> The planet is cooling down till the sun expands  parts of the surface are experiencing CLIMATE CHANGE  always has and always will until its enveloped by the sun
> 
> ...



Unfortunately it appears you don't know about the life cycle of our sun. The sun is actually brighter now than it was a billion years ago, and it will be even brighter in the future. The earth will be on an extremely long term general warming trend, not a cooling one.

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/The Website/evolution.html

"Since its birth 4.5 billion years ago, the Sun's luminosity has very gently increased by about 30%.3  This is an inevitable evolution which comes about because, as the billions of years roll by, the Sun is burning up the hydrogen in its core.  The helium "ashes" left behind are denser than hydrogen, so the hydrogen/helium mix in the Sun's core is very slowly becoming denser, thus raising the pressure.  This causes the nuclear reactions to run a little hotter.  The Sun brightens."

Thank you for what I assume will be a changing of your opinion given this new information you have learned.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 1, 2015)

your post just adds to the crap in this thread
you assume and presume to much


----------



## Assimilator (Oct 1, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> your post just adds to the crap in this thread
> you assume and presume to much



You're telling the guy who's posting verifiable, cited facts that's *he's* posting crap, while your posts consist of nothing but poorly-worded assertions that "global warming doesn't exist" and "climate change is the cooling of the planet". I suggest you refer to a dictionary for the definition of the word "change".


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 1, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The last time atmospheric CO2 exceeded 400ppm was _5 million_ years ago.  It was approximately 290 ppm in 1870.  We're at just shy of 400 ppm as of August.



So 5 million years ago aliens caused climate change/ global warming?


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 1, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> You're telling the guy who's posting verifiable, cited facts that's *he's* posting crap,


*Never said that*
*What i said was*
*


dorsetknob said:



			your post just adds to the crap in this thread
		
Click to expand...


There is a lot of Crap in this thread 
again i re-iterate
 just adds to the crap in this thread  and to re-emphasis i never said 
magibeg was posting crap
Just that he was adding to the Crap already posted*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 1, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> So 5 million years ago aliens caused climate change/ global warming?


I've been trying to find theories about what caused CO2 to rise/fall during the Pliocene period and I'm coming up blank.  You're guess is as good as mine.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 1, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I've been trying to find theories about what caused CO2 to rise/fall during the Pliocene period and I'm coming up blank.  You're guess is as good as mine.



It was aliens. You see, since the industrial revolution aliens have been repopulating Earth and their repopulation is causing CO2 levels to rise. If we can find and exterminate the alien scum we will have solved the global warming/climate change crisis!


----------



## 64K (Oct 1, 2015)

According to Climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer PhD aliens are causing global warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/do-aliens-cause-global-warming-the-data-say-yes/


----------



## magibeg (Oct 1, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I've been trying to find theories about what caused CO2 to rise/fall during the Pliocene period and I'm coming up blank.  You're guess is as good as mine.



You're at the point now where paywalls for scholarly papers will become a problem as well as finding the specific experts who focus on those areas. I'm hesitant to give information because i'm not confident enough in it, but there has been times throughout history where sharp rises and falls of CO2 have coincided with algae blooms in the oceans. (There are so many more factors to this so please take it as one of many contexts)

Large geological events such as caldera's also have large effects, not just directly but indirectly. Anytime there is a large extinction event. At one point the formation of trees locking away carbon before bacteria could release it caused a severe drop in CO2 levels.

This is a very deep rabbit hole.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 1, 2015)

Down went Alice


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 1, 2015)

magibeg said:


> That is actually really really bad news.


Run for your lives!!! We're ALL going to DIE! lulz...


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 1, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> its 29 pages and 700+ posts   aurguing about climate change   not global warming
> 
> The planet is cooling down till the sun expands  parts of the surface are experiencing CLIMATE CHANGE  always has and always will until its enveloped by the sun
> 
> ...



If you're going to live and die by terminology, then the title of the thread is: 
*The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever*

The thread originally asks whether the alteration of temperatures, recorded at particular locations, being altered to normalize results to a theoretical model is important.  That theoretical model has created allowances for increased average temperatures, and the harvested data did not support said theoretical model.  Scientists chalked up said discrepancies as problematic, and to normalize data to their conclusions they altered temperature data to account for "imprecision" in the instrumentation.  In the scientific world, that should get you crucified.  You create a model, falsify data to match the model, and in the process justify a lie with data.  That is unacceptable.

People have run with said banner, and taken it to both sides of the climate change debate.  Deniers say this is a situation where all data should be thrown out, because of lies by some.  Supporters say the significance of the data is negligible, given the weight of the other data.  Reasonable moderates condemn the lie, and ask whether we actually have enough data to model anything.  


On a separate note.

Citing surveys, like Magibeg did, is not bringing facts to the table.  If you surveyed the average Saudi citizen they'd believe in Allah, the average resident of the US believes in the Bible, and the average resident of Lancaster PA would still use a horse as their common means of travel.  Surveys, by their nature, aren't a way to gather facts.  Facts exist outside the realm of opinion, and opinions are what surveys gather.



Easy Rhino said:


> So 5 million years ago aliens caused climate change/ global warming?



The Pliocene ended with a rather spectacular number of different thing going on at once.  Water from the ice caps began to cool the oceans.  The Albedo of the planet decreased on average.  The oceanic heat conveyor started up, which today delivers equitorially heated water northward and colder waters southward.  We experienced a massive extinction event, due to a supernova ionizing our atmospere and functionally removing the ozone layer.  All of these events, on a geologic time frame, occurred in rapid succession.  What one event caused CO2 levels to decline may be impossible to tell, or more importantly it may have been a series of events.

As far as global warming occurring then, not as far as I can discern.  The relatively large amount of evaporation of water, into a greenhouse gas (yeah, people often forget water vapor is a greenhouse gas) may have actually been a huge factor here.  Our current oceanic heat conveyor didn't move warm waters north, so the equator baked in more intense heat.  The CO2 level may have been a factor of so very many living things, but that's largely conjecture.  Scientist, to my understanding, have yet to explain how much CO2 would occur naturally as metabolic byproducts before it was locked away during the extinction events which give us our current rich hydrocarbon deposits.

In short, my understanding is the Pliocene was less global warming, and more a renaissance for organic chemistry.  I could be wrong, but it seems like there's no way to get a definitive answer on that particular point.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 1, 2015)

> This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
> 
> _Data source: NOAA, 2015 5 _




I'm sure it's been said already but i can't read posts in this thread - it infuriates me.

Even if it's not getting as hot as predicted - the oceans are.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 1, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm sure it's been said already but i can't read posts in this thread - it infuriates me.
> 
> Even if it's not getting as hot as predicted - the oceans are.



I think it is pretty reasonable to say that given accuracy of measuring the ocean's temperature in 1880 that 0.5 degrees is within the realm of error. i mean, alien tech was still pretty good back then.


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 1, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> I think it is pretty reasonable to say that given accuracy of measuring the ocean's temperature in 1880 that 0.5 degrees is within the realm of error. i mean, alien tech was still pretty good back then.


Apparently time started in 1880.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 2, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Apparently time started in 1880.



You didn't get the memo? So called climate scientists are worse than Young Earth Creationists!


----------



## qubit (Oct 2, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Can anyone explain to me who was responsible for global warming prior to the industrial revolution? Did you aliens from another galaxy cause it?


It was the little green ones. Or was it the blue ones? I can't remember now, it was all such a long time ago, lol.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 2, 2015)

qubit said:


> It was the little green ones. Or was it the blue ones? I can't remember now, it was all such a long time ago, lol.



Don't be racist!


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 2, 2015)

Can somebody call somebody else a Nazi, or maybe something else?

That seems the fastest way to have a thread put out of its misery.  I'll start.  I'm a horrible Nazi.  No, I am.  No, I am.  Screw you!


And so, I demonstrate sanity for wanting this thread put down, and insanity where I insult myself.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 2, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Can somebody call somebody else a Nazi, or maybe something else?
> 
> That seems the fastest way to have a thread put out of its misery.  I'll start.  I'm a horrible Nazi.  No, I am.  No, I am.  Screw you!
> 
> ...



I think the mods are trolling us by allowing this garbage heap of a thread to exist.


----------



## qubit (Oct 2, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Don't be racist!


lol sorry! 



Easy Rhino said:


> I think the mods are trolling us by allowing this garbage heap of a thread to exist.


Now you've hurt my feelings.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 2, 2015)

Chose


----------



## magibeg (Oct 2, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> If you're going to live and die by terminology, then the title of the thread is:
> *The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever*
> 
> The thread originally asks whether the alteration of temperatures, recorded at particular locations, being altered to normalize results to a theoretical model is important.  That theoretical model has created allowances for increased average temperatures, and the harvested data did not support said theoretical model.  Scientists chalked up said discrepancies as problematic, and to normalize data to their conclusions they altered temperature data to account for "imprecision" in the instrumentation.  In the scientific world, that should get you crucified.  You create a model, falsify data to match the model, and in the process justify a lie with data.  That is unacceptable.
> ...



There is actually already a hard answer for the question i had posted previously. If this study isn't trusted either there isn't much more than can be done as far as convincing.

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

"Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous United States (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting."




lilhasselhoffer said:


> On a separate note.
> 
> Citing surveys, like Magibeg did, is not bringing facts to the table.  If you surveyed the average Saudi citizen they'd believe in Allah, the average resident of the US believes in the Bible, and the average resident of Lancaster PA would still use a horse as their common means of travel.  Surveys, by their nature, aren't a way to gather facts.  Facts exist outside the realm of opinion, and opinions are what surveys gather.



The citing surveys is from earlier arguments about the scientific support behind "man-made" global warming, but I understand it looks quite out of context.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 2, 2015)




----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 2, 2015)

magibeg said:


> There is actually already a hard answer for the question i had posted previously. If this study isn't trusted either there isn't much more than can be done as far as convincing.
> 
> On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record
> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
> ...



I appreciate your perspective, and you've done a good job offering facts.  Facts that aren't related to the original discussion.

The original article, buried in link after link, did not base any assumptions on North American data corruption.  If you'd bothered to read all the way back to the source data (unlike the article's author), you'd know it's about South American data tampering.  Here's the link that started it all: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/



Through it all, people have been manipulated by a crappy grasp of facts, a tenuous grip on factual sources, and a political agenda intent upon being pushed.  Whether you agree with it or not, the agenda is obfuscating fact and your citation of unrelated data is...I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming ignorance.  Please, just let this die.  It's a propaganda piece, that only serves to label the author as either an idiot or an ideolog.  No mater what our personal beliefs, this is just getting silly.  Arguing unrelated facts only demonstrates we've driven the discussion into the ground, rubbed it in until it was only dust, and then kept going until the friction atomized the dust.



*conversation to myself, not an insult to anyone*
You sir, are a Nazi.  No, I am.  No, I am.  Idiot!  Jerk!  I feel insulted.  I've insulted myself.  

For the love of all that is holy, please end this discussion.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 2, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> No mater what our personal beliefs, this is just getting silly. Arguing unrelated facts only demonstrates we've driven the discussion into the ground, rubbed it in until it was only dust, and then kept going until the friction atomized the dust.


Allow me to edit your post

"No mater what our personal beliefs, this is just getting silly. Arguing unrelated facts only demonstrates we've driven the discussion into the ground, rubbed it in until it was only dust, and then we made it into a Hot Curry   so hot that we puked up the Data and regurgtated it because it left a Bad Taste in our Mouth."

there that's better


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 2, 2015)

I'm glad to see @lilhasselhoffer bring some sanity to this discussion and bring it back to the whole point of the thread!

The thread was not about climate change or global warming or whatever we want to call it and whether or not it's happening.  It's not about who is responsible.

The question was do you think it's a scandal for scientists who are believers in human causation to throw out the data from sensors which did not indicate any warming data?  The fact that they did that is not in question.  What is an issue is whether this is ethical, moral or any other kind of acceptable.

As @lilhasselhoffer pointed out, scientists in any other field would have been crucified for throwing out data that did not support their premise.


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 2, 2015)

magibeg said:


> On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record
> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf


Temp record is unreliable

"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflectingheat source." (Watts 2009)


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 7, 2015)

Its not up for debate!!!... This is an excellent example of why people are skeptical.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2015)

I'm not sure what "data" he is talking about.  There was a "pause" about 2003-2010 but it has ended:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 7, 2015)

And, we're back to arguing whether climate change is a thing.

I need a drink.



Is global warming real?  By definition no.  Global warming is what people called it when average surface temperatures increased, but it doesn't account for severe weather.
Is climate change real?  Demonstrably, yes.  We're getting more, and more severe, storms that at any time in the recorded past.
Is a researcher altering data that big of a deal?  Yes.  They should be crucified.  You F*** with science by lying, you don't get to do it any more.  You're always welcome to be proven wrong, but lying is unacceptable.


Now, the biggie.  Is climate change man made?  This is what people are arguing over, and it has a slant toward politics.  Bible thumpers say that man believing they altered God's creation is hubris.  Hippies believe that nuclear power is killing everyone, and the corporations are polluting the world.  Slightly less crazy people believe in a conspiracy of lizard men who are terraforming the planet into a new paradise for them.  Compounding all of this, there is a viable scientific argument for both sides of the coin.  If you can take one lie, and completely throw away all of the contradictory data, the opposition can do the same.  By that low standard, all data is worthless.  We haven't just lost data, we've spent millions, or at this point billions, on data that doesn't matter.

I'm just asking for reason here.  I'm asking for science.  I'll even concede to the biblical for theatrics.  Scientists found lying get crucified, literally offering them eye-for-an-eye justice.  They crippled humanity's ability to reason, so they get removed from the discussion.






Have I been crazy enough for both sides yet?  Can we sit down to the freaking table, and talk?  

I don't care whether you believe or don't believe in man made global climate change.  If you somehow don't believe in climate change, you're a moron.  Look out your windows, and you can see dramatic events happening.  Time after time we hear about "storms of the century" happening, and the last time we heard it was less than a decade ago.  Does it matter what caused it, when New Jersey and New York are buried in hurricanes?  What about Europeans experiencing unusually dry summers that damage agriculture?  Perhaps the encroaching deserts in China are an indication that something is changing?  It doesn't matter if man caused climate change, we need to start reacting to it.  Yeah, part of the solution is finding the source of the problem.  The only issue with that is that the system may be too complex to find a singular source.  Can we stop arguing if we're at fault, and just start tackling the issues.

I'm not opposed to arguing a contentious point, but jebus.  Arguing who started a fire isn't exactly a useful pursuit as the house burns around you.  You evacuate the house and put out the fire.  Likewise, we're experiencing enormous natural events and instead of preparing for them we run around screaming post-facto.  I'm close enough to South Carolina now to know what utter crap is going down there.  In a country that many see as the wealthiest (though definitely not the most successful) we've got a third world nation within an 8 hour drive of the capital.  Can we finally stop asking about the blame, and just strart preparing for the crap?  Please?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Is climate change real?  Demonstrably, yes.  We're getting more, and more severe, storms that at any time in the recorded past.


The images on this link are dead but the message is still there:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/extreme.asp
Reported tornadoes have gone up but that may be entirely unrelated to climate (e.g. the installation of Doppler RADAR); however, the severity of tornadoes not increasing.
Precipitation may be increasing but could easily be caused by pollution rather than climate.  Vapor tends to condense around particulate matter and that's undeniably increased since the industrial age.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. "  Even the most liberal models of precipitation change only estimates 15% more precipitation from storms.

I have huge doubts about these models because, for example, look at this year. Each tropical storm may bring more moisture but there really hasn't been many.  In the aggregate, they still give a liberal estimate (based on models) of 10% at most.

Put bluntly, this particular alarmism hasn't panned out.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> ...we're experiencing enormous natural events and instead of preparing for them we run around screaming post-facto.


Because the same people arguing for global warming are also against implementing the most effective tools we have against it (like nuclear fission) and they're ignorant of agricultural techniques that vastly reduce atmospheric carbon.  They prefer making a lot of noise and accusing carbon dioxide of virtually everything (forgetting they're exhaling it).




lilhasselhoffer said:


> Can we finally stop asking about the blame, and just strart preparing for the crap?


You say this like hurricanes are new.  They are not and that's a risk everyone that lives on the east and south coast take.  Hurricanes will come and they will do damage.  It's inevitable; the only question is when.  The same can be said of earthquakes on the west coast and tornadoes in the Midwest.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 7, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The images on this link are dead but the message is still there:
> http://www.wunderground.com/climate/extreme.asp
> Reported tornadoes have gone up but that may be entirely unrelated to climate (e.g. the installation of Doppler RADAR); however, the severity of tornadoes not increasing.
> Precipitation may be increasing but could easily be caused by pollution rather than climate.  Vapor tends to condense around particulate matter and that's undeniably increased since the industrial age.
> ...



There's a long answer to this, but for once I'll be brief.  Tornadoes in the Midwest are a BS way to gauge climate.  They're an excellent way to gauge local weather, but not a global indicator.

You haven't addressed desertification.  You've yet to address why states that are hundreds of years old (New Jersey, South Carolina, Louisiana) have seen once in a century storms all in the last decade.  Heck, precipitation is part of the measurement of climate, and you've even stated directly that that may be increasing.

People tend to forget that climate change doesn't have to be just warming or cooling.  There's subsequently vast differences in interpretation of data.  Let me be clear on why I've said what I've said.

1) Climate change includes swings in temperature beyond historical standards.
2) Climate change includes a sustained and measurable difference in temperature over a period of recorded time, given constant conditions.  
3) Climate change is not some wonky tree hugger walking out into the forest and measuring temperature, then taking readings from an entirely different location, and claiming that because temperatures recorded rose there must be global warming.
4) Climate change by nature includes precipitation.  Snow, rain, and hail all matter when considering weather.  Whether it be the severity of a hurricane, or why crops continue to fail, precipitation is a huge component of our climate.



Before you label me an alarmist, let's fact check.
1) Pro nuclear power.
2) Against the EPA as it is.  The organization is a club to beat businesses, not a scalpel to cut away diseased old businesses that pollute.
3) Completely against the endangered species act, as it has demonstrably benefited no animals.

Seems like I'm less alarmist, and more pragmatist,  Utility, specifically that in saving human life, is a more chief concern than an agenda.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 7, 2015)

Ummmm...@lilhasselhoffer regarding the "non-help" of the endangered species act....how soon you forget about the enormous success of the American Alligator, nearly wiped out 4 decades ago, and now so plentiful in the wild from eastern Texas up to Arkansas, throughout all of Louisiana, Mississippi, South Alabama, Florida, coastal Georgia, the South Carolina LowCountry and coast, and coastal North Carolina that in nearly every one of those states there is a very generous hunting season now which doesn't even dent the population?

Or, the Bald Eagle, which now has multiple nesting mated pairs in every state except Hawaii (for obvious reasons, because it was never there), arising like a Phoenix from the ashes under its protection and the reduction/elimination of DDT which weakened eggs?

I'm also pro-nuclear, and againt the EPA as it is, and fairly against government involvement.  But some things just work, like the Endangered Species act, and were the right thing to do.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 7, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Ummmm...@lilhasselhoffer regarding the "non-help" of the endangered species act....how soon you forget about the enormous success of the American Alligator, nearly wiped out 4 decades ago, and now so plentiful in the wild from eastern Texas up to Arkansas, throughout all of Louisiana, Mississippi, South Alabama, Florida, coastal Georgia, the South Carolina LowCountry and coast, and coastal North Carolina that in nearly every one of those states there is a very generous hunting season now which doesn't even dent the population?
> 
> Or, the Bald Eagle, which now has multiple nesting mated pairs in every state except Hawaii (for obvious reasons, because it was never there), arising like a Phoenix from the ashes under its protection and the reduction/elimination of DDT which weakened eggs?
> 
> I'm also pro-nuclear, and againt the EPA as it is, and fairly against government involvement.  But some things just work, like the Endangered Species act, and were the right thing to do.



Bullshit and propoganda, to be crass and direct.


The bald eagle population was on the decline due to use of the pesticide DDT.  Once we stopped using it, completely unrelated to the ESA, the bald eagle population began to recover.  Ironically, this was a success for the EPA.

The American Alligator also did not benefit from the ESA listing them as endangered.  A concerted effort by conservationists was responsible for their captive breeding programs, with releases back into the wild.  If the ESA hadn't existed they still would have made a comeback, largely due to breeding by people who now slaughter them for food and leather.  They are functionally the nastiest cows, or perhaps the scaliest pigs, that humans have decided to preserve.  Again, the ESA didn't directly prevent their extinction, people searching for a profit did.  Heck, the ESA could only have protected their natural habitat.  Given the vast range of habitats they live in, you could call most of the areas you cited protected by that standard.  This would mean the ESA could entirely prevent any new construction, their only real power.  The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for hunting and captive breeding programs.

You forgot the whales.  That's the other big stick people use.  The whales, whose population was very poorly tracked until recently, stopped being hunted en mass in the late 1800's, but the ESA listed them.  Whenever they delisted whales they called that a triumph, despite literally doing nothing to help them.

What about the various other species we are just finding?  How do you square they with a listing of endangered species?  What about all of the species delisted because of poor counting?  


If you'd like this expounded on, Penn & Teller did an excellent episode of Bullshit on the topic.  While they gloss over a lot of the facts (it's only half an hour long), it's all there.  The ESA is crap, because it doesn't do anything but restrict development.  Conservationalists, entirely independent of the ESA, are who save endangered species.



Edit:
Care for some numbers?  I would.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ndangered-species-act-percent-taken-off-list/

Of the species on the ESA 1.3% have been delisted.  A greater number were removed due to poor counting, or being extinct before listing. 

Your "successful" law is prohibiting land owners from developing property arbitrarily, encourage shoot-shovel-and-shutup, and it costs millions of dollar per year.  I'd objectively call that a failure.  I may despise the EPA, but even they show a better track record than the ESA.

Edit:
Minor mistakes corrected, and expounded on bald eagle.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 7, 2015)

Except, conservationists did nothing to help the alligator until it was listed under ESA.  They were just watching it disappear prior to that.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 7, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Except, conservationists did nothing to help the alligator until it was listed under ESA.  They were just watching it disappear prior to that.



Factually incorrect.

http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/library/reports/Citizens_Guide_ESA.pdf

The conservation started in 1967, 5 years prior to the ESA as we know it.  Read page 25 of the linked document (27 listed in the PDF, but 25 printed into the pamphlet).  They claim that the ESA was the source of recovery, but state that the fish and wildlife service (a segment of the DNR) actually made the plan and executed the recovery effort.  Prior to 1973 the ESA was a useless document, which basically outlined what a recovery plan was.  If I can cite a source that would love for the ESA to be more encompassing, and prove my point, you know the law is crap.

Again, the ESA is claiming successes because it was in place when the recovery occurred.  They didn't enact the recovery, but they were there to take the credit.  Smell like bull s***, looks like bull s***, therefore it must be bull s***.



I'm not saying conservationalists deserve a back seat.  Their efforts were and are monumental.  What I'm saying is the ESA isn't a tool for them, it's a tool to control development.  Again, that Bullshit episode from Penn & Teller put it into concise terms.



Edit:
Jebus, I've turned a climate change thread into an environmental protection debate.  I'm sorry for getting off topic here.  This has to stop, so whatever is said next on the topic, consider it the end for me.  I started with a request to focus on the topic, and I've digressed.  My apologies.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You haven't addressed desertification.  You've yet to address why states that are hundreds of years old (New Jersey, South Carolina, Louisiana) have seen once in a century storms all in the last decade.  Heck, precipitation is part of the measurement of climate, and you've even stated directly that that may be increasing.


And you stated directly ("desertification") that precipitation may not be increasing, but displacing.  Some places are getting wetter while other places are getting drier; however, distinguishing this effect from el nino and el nina isn't exactly plausible so, I stand by what I quoted from Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 7, 2015)

My apologies as well!  I seconded the motion a page back to re-focus on the scientists throwing out data and whether it is acceptable.


----------



## Schmuckley (Oct 7, 2015)

Global warming is a sham.Created by the UN to make you poorer.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 7, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Global warming is a sham.Created by the UN to make you poorer.


 
Again, off subject.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 7, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And you stated directly ("desertification") that precipitation may not be increasing, but displacing.  Some places are getting wetter while other places are getting drier; however, distinguishing this effect from el nino and el nina isn't exactly plausible so, I stand by what I quoted from Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.



Let's take your statement to its logical extreme, and test the voracity of the claim.

Tomorrow precipitation in North America stops.  Asia picks up the slack, and experiences all the precipitation that North America has lost.  You've got a net 0 change in precipitation.  As a result, North America becomes a desert, and Asia floods constantly.  By the reasoning you've provided, this is not climate change.  By observation, it is climate change.


I know the example is extreme, but arguing anything less is arguing degrees of an absolute.  You could rightly claim I am only looking at the extreme, but it takes that to make my point.  A 10% decrease here and a 10% increase there is petty, and arguably a weather pattern.  Turning into a desert, as parts of China are doing right now, is that taken to its extreme.  It is a demonstrable truth.  How does a temporary weather pattern, like el nino or la nina, explain such a permanent change?



As an FYI, if I were you I'd have called me out with California.  Current theories are that changes in evaporation have shifted the jet stream, which is why California is experiencing the droughts it has been.  Arguably, that evaporation rate cannot be explained by a minor shift in temperatures, so the complexity of climate change is beyond current modelling.  There is no answer from the climate change supporters on this issue, that doesn't require a belief that its man made climate change.  As I'm not sold on that theory, I'd have been put into a hard place to answer without violating my own beliefs.  Food for thought.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Tomorrow precipitation in North America stops.  Asia picks up the slack, and experiences all the precipitation that North America has lost.  You've got a net 0 change in precipitation.  As a result, North America becomes a desert, and Asia floods constantly.  By the reasoning you've provided, this is not climate change.  By observation, it is climate change.


Never said it wasn't climate change.  I've said numerous times in this thread that the climate is always changing.  Arizona getting flooding (literally 15 hours ago) is a prime example of that.  You were talking about incidence and intensity of severe weather events and there is little to no empirical evidence to support that claim and much to the contrary.  Weather patterns may be shifting which is translating to climate change but the aggregate does not show incidence and intensity changing, only location (displacement).  You even supported that by mentioning South Carolina getting hit by a "100 year hurricane."  Let's throw New York and New Jersey into that same pile having been hit by a major storm a few years ago that put New York City under several feet of water.  These storms typically hit the gulf but changes in the Atlantic cause these storms to track north more often than they used to.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> A 10% decrease here and a 10% increase there is petty, and arguably a weather pattern.


Weather over time is climate.

Oh, that 10% from Geophysics is what they modeled as change from a few years ago to 2100.  They aren't claiming a sudden change (not implying you suggested that, just making sure that's clear).




lilhasselhoffer said:


> How does a temporary weather pattern, like el nino or la nina, explain such a permanent change?


http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina_new_faq.html


> Q. Is there such a thing as "normal", aside from El Niño and La Niña?*
> 
> A. Over the long-term record, sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific diverge from normal in a roughly bell-curve fashion, with El Niño and La Niña at the tails of the curve. Some researchers argue there are only two states, El Niño and non-El Niño, while others believe either El Niño or La Niña is always present to a greater or lesser degree. According to one expert, NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, El Niños were present 31% of the time and La Niñas 23% of the time from 1950 to 1997, leaving about 46% of the period in a neutral state. *The frequency of El Niños has increased in recent decades, a shift being studied for its possible relationship to global climate change.*
> 
> ...





lilhasselhoffer said:


> Arguably, that evaporation rate cannot be explained by a minor shift in temperatures, so the complexity of climate change is beyond current modelling.


I wholly agree with that and most skeptics do too.  The models have generally been inaccurate and the "pause" from 2003-2010 is demonstrable proof of that.  That happened hot on the heels of the "global warming" controversy booming with Al Gore making a ton of noise.  None of the models suggested there wouldn't be any average warming in that period yet that is exactly what transpired.


If you haven't noticed, I'm not squarely on either side.  There are facts which I can't deny (CO2 rising, NOx rising, CH4 rising) but the theories and conjecture (e.g. frequency/intensity of storms) that is generated from those facts leave much to be desired.  I have faith in historic records; not future guesswork.


----------



## 64K (Oct 7, 2015)

It's been posted on this thread from several people with links, myself included, that the Earth cycles through warm periods and ice ages naturally before humans had the ability to impact the climate very much at all. I think all that the scientists can really say is that humans are contributing to the warming this time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2015)

64K said:


> I think all that the scientists can really say is that humans are contributing to the warming this time.


I generally agree but the wording is too liberal.  I'd say the opposite which can hardly be argued against: "all that the scientists can really say is that human activity is not cooling the planet."  Merely by living, our metabolic rate causes us to give off a lot of body heat.  The cumulative effect of this is obvious in cramped rooms with a lot of people and inadequate cooling getting hot fast.  Additionally, the byproduct of almost all industrial processes is heat.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 7, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Never said it wasn't climate change.  I've said numerous times in this thread that the climate is always changing.  Arizona getting flooding (literally 15 hours ago) is a prime example of that.  You were talking about incidence and intensity of severe weather events and there is little to no empirical evidence to support that claim and much to the contrary.  Weather patterns may be shifting which is translating to climate change but the aggregate does not show incidence and intensity changing, only location (displacement).  You even supported that by mentioning South Carolina getting hit by a "100 year hurricane."  Let's throw New York and New Jersey into that same pile having been hit by a major storm a few years ago that put New York City under several feet of water.  These storms typically hit the gulf but changes in the Atlantic cause these storms to track north more often than they used to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I thoroughly don't understand your point.

It seems like we're agreeing on some of the fundamental issues, yet this particular quote is where I lose the train of thought: 


FordGT90Concept said:


> The images on this link are dead but the message is still there:
> http://www.wunderground.com/climate/extreme.asp
> Reported tornadoes have gone up but that may be entirely unrelated to climate (e.g. the installation of Doppler RADAR); however, the severity of tornadoes not increasing.
> Precipitation may be increasing but could easily be caused by pollution rather than climate.  Vapor tends to condense around particulate matter and that's undeniably increased since the industrial age.
> ...



It was my interpretation that at this point you were arguing that severe weather events weren't on the rise.  You cited tornadoes as proof.  I believe that was inadequate to cover the range of severe weather events, so I cited what people arguably pay the most attention to.  Events so catastrophic as to only occur once every century, which are definitely more than that frequent in just the last two decades.

From there it was my understanding that you basically argued that the people waving their arms and calling for some sort of action were alarmists.  That's where I've taken issue.  While the alarmists saying the apocalypse is nigh are morons, they really aren't the majority of people.  Informed people are generally raising the flag about severe weather events, which are more than anecdotally linked to climate change.  Preparing for severe weather event is what politicians are not doing, under the auspices that global warming must not exist therefore severe weather shouldn't happen.  That sort of short sightedness is galling, and often why people fly the banner of climate change denial. 


Where exactly did my reasoning jump the tracks?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2015)

I cited tornadoes and hurricanes ("tropical cyclone activity") as proof.   To a lesser extent, precipitation as well (jury is still out on that one).



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Events so catastrophic as to only occur once every century, which are definitely more than that frequent in just the last two decades.


False.  I quoted Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory saying that connection isn't proven and here's a quote from Weather Underground which says much the same:


> Hurricane experts are divided on to what degree global warming has affected the number and intensity of hurricanes, and a recent consensus statement by 125 hurricane scientists (see below) concluded:  Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, *no firm conclusion can be made on this point*.


And have another that goes up to 2012:


> While there is still lots of caterwauling about Hurricane Sandy and climate, it is telling that this new update shows that the last five years record the lowest period of landfalling hurricane intensity of any five-year period dating all the way back to 1900.


There's nothing out of the ordinary in terms of hurricane activity.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Informed people are generally raising the flag about severe weather events, which are more than anecdotally linked to climate change.


Then they are ill-"informed" because there's little to no evidence to support that.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Preparing for severe weather event is what politicians are not doing, under the auspices that global warming must not exist therefore severe weather shouldn't happen.


The first part is true but not the last part.  Preparation costs money and governments are usually reactive, not proactive.  They don't shore up levies and the like until after they failed--after they can't be ignored.  This extends to almost everything infrastructure related and is in no way exclusive to where climate change/global warming is concerned.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> That sort of short sightedness is galling, and often why people fly the banner of climate change denial.


Denial is human nature...a coping mechanism.  We tell ourselves everything is okay until we know it isn't.  To not do so is a sign of depression or, at bare minimum, a pessimistic outlook on life.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> Where exactly did my reasoning jump the tracks?


You keep perpetuating the myth that weather is being effected by the observed 0.6C rise in global temperatures.  There's little to nothing to suggest what we have witnessed (in terms of extreme weather events) is outside of normal parameters.  Remember, the bulk of the observed warming is over the Arctic ice cap.


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 7, 2015)

Senator SK-1: “Mr Muir, do you believe that global warming is causing the Oceans to rise as Al Gore has said over and over?”

Mr Muir: “Of course I do. Al Gore is 100% correct.”

Senator SK-1: “Then can you tell me why Al Gore bought a $9M beachfront mansion at sea level with the proceeds of his global warming movie and not a mansion on a mountain?”

Mr Muir: “……………. silence and crickets.”... lol just lol...

And people.....A quick investigation would reveal that almost all the scientists paychecks come from governments. If they keep Lying the paychecks come in, if they tell the truth, they no longer have a job.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2015)

Almost all environmental research is conducted by governments though.  Businesses would rather pay to bury environmental information than publish it.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 7, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Senator SK-1: “Mr Muir, do you believe that global warming is causing the Oceans to rise as Al Gore has said over and over?”
> 
> Mr Muir: “Of course I do. Al Gore is 100% correct.”
> 
> ...



By that logic then, cigarettes are good for you.

It was governmental investigations into smoking which eventually demonstrated that smoking has very real negative impacts on your health.  If it followed your logic, then wouldn't the conclusion have been either smoking decreases stress, or perhaps inconclusive results that they would have found?  Devil's advocate here.

In reality, you have a point.  Eggs.  I was party to the odd show there.  One study finds eggs are healthy, the next shows they're high in bad cholesterol, and the next shows them a part of any balanced breakfast.  Ironically enough, those results equated to massive investments in "independent" research grants.  What's the old phrase?  Money talks, but bulls*** walks.




FordGT90Concept said:


> I cited tornadoes and hurricanes ("tropical cyclone activity") as proof.   To a lesser extent, precipitation as well (jury is still out on that one).
> 
> 
> False.  I quoted Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory saying that connection isn't proven and here's a quote from Weather Underground which says much the same:
> ...



No, you seem to be relying heavily on single sources.  The weather underground article is interesting, but it's one resource with very little backing.  The fluid laboratory article is interesting, but again they are one source.  I'll do you one better, and introduce a whole society of skeptics: http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

These skeptics have well researched, peer reviewed papers.  Despite this, you'd claim that they were "misinformed."  That would imply that the publishers of their papers (including meteorological societies) are either equally misinformed, or so incompetent as to print works without fact checking.  I can believe it if these people published in Rolling Stone, but not when one conclusion is reached from multiple avenues of research.  


I have yet to touch to rise in temperature that is "observed."  You saying I'm perpetuating that myth is absolutely fallacious.  Quote where I said it, and I'll gladly admit that I was incorrect.  What I'm perpetuating is the idea that climate change exists, and it's happening.  What I continue to say is that the BS temperature reading don't matter, because we can observe climate change qualitatively, without need for quantitative measures.  I wouldn't give a crap about a 10C change if it didn't influence us, but it's causing severe weather phenomena. 

We *NEED* to prepare for these disasters, yet instead of doing that we're bickering over whether global warming is real and exactly how much humanity has played a part in it.  Who gives a flying crap?  We need to make sure crap like New Orleans, New Jersey, and South Carolina are planned for.  Debating anything else is telling the victims of natural disaster that they matter less than obstinacy.

If religion stands in the way of the, F*** religion.  If skepticism stands in the way of this, F*** skepticism.  We can all argue theory and philosophy whenever we're sure a disaster won't turn everyone into animals, fighting over what little remains after mother nature decides to show humanity that we aren't special.  That is my argument.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> No, you seem to be relying heavily on single sources.  The weather underground article is interesting, but it's one resource with very little backing.  The fluid laboratory article is interesting, but again they are one source.  I'll do you one better, and introduce a whole society of skeptics: http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm
> 
> These skeptics have well researched, peer reviewed papers.  Despite this, you'd claim that they were "misinformed."  That would imply that the publishers of their papers (including meteorological societies) are either equally misinformed, or so incompetent as to print works without fact checking.  I can believe it if these people published in Rolling Stone, but not when one conclusion is reached from multiple avenues of research.


Skeptical Science is ran by John Cook, the same guy that created the shame, frequently quoted "97% of climate scientists" "study" which literally only amounted to a keyword search of abstracts in one database of academic papers (by the way, Cook isn't even a "climate scientist").  It is a global warming alarmist blog and always has been.  It is not a reliable source because they don't publish anything that is, ironically enough, "skeptical" of the IPCC and similar organizations that make alarmist statements.  They've always been a "global warming" advocacy group.  There was never any skepticism.  It's a dubious domain name to try to draw in the general public that is skeptical about climate change to bombard them with pro-climate change propaganda.


Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory published the facts as we know them.  They are the original, reliable source for extreme weather event collation and analysis.

You know those models The Weather Channel and pretty much every other meteorologist in the country uses to predict the path of Hurricanes?  GFDL created them.  Who you think I'm going to trust: the experts that are the reason you know you're the potential path of a Hurricane or an Australia activist blogger?  The two are leagues apart and any comparison is insulting to GFDL and NOAA at large.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> I have yet to touch to rise in temperature that is "observed."  You saying I'm perpetuating that myth is absolutely fallacious.  Quote where I said it, and I'll gladly admit that I was incorrect.  What I'm perpetuating is the idea that climate change exists, and it's happening.  What I continue to say is that the BS temperature reading don't matter, because we can observe climate change qualitatively, without need for quantitative measures.  I wouldn't give a crap about a 10C change if it didn't influence us, but it's causing severe weather phenomena.


The "observed" was a statement of fact (NOAA satellites launched in the 1980s).  The "myth" was about warming increasing frequency and intensity of storms which is not true.  I only provided the former to make it clear what context the latter is derived from.

And your last sentence YET AGAIN perpetuates the myth.  There is no clear indicators that severity/intensity of storms has anything to do with global temperature change--at least not yet.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> We need to make sure crap like New Orleans, New Jersey, and South Carolina are planned for.


You know what they say about building a house on sand, right?  The only legitimate solution is relocation and who is a fan of that?

As for planning, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "plans never survive first contact with the enemy."


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 7, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> By that logic then, cigarettes are good for you.


Im sorry, are you equating Cancer and Al's lunacy? If so, I can't understand your crazy moon language. :/


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 7, 2015)

SK-1 said:


> Im sorry, are you equating Cancer and Al's lunacy? If so, I can't understand your crazy moon language. :/



No.  Al Gore is an idiot, who has made millions off of nothing.  I equated the researchers who sought out whether smoking causes cancer, to those seeking climate change.

Edit:
Let me reframe that.  I meant to equate the statement that scientist searching for a link between cancer and cigarettes would have asked for more studies, if they could actually be bought out by industry 100% of the time.

You propose that these meteorologists have been bought out by grants, yet you see them coming to conclusions without the ever popular "more research is needed to provide adequate evidence."  

Seems to be a tenuous connection, if its meant as anything more than a comment in jest. 




FordGT90Concept said:


> Skeptical Science is ran by John Cook, the same guy that created the shame, frequently quoted "97% of climate scientists" "study" which literally only amounted to a keyword search of abstracts in one database of academic papers (by the way, Cook isn't even a "climate scientist").  It is a global warming alarmist blog and always has been.  It is not a reliable source because they don't publish anything that is, ironically enough, "skeptical" of the IPCC and similar organizations that make alarmist statements.  They've always been a "global warming" advocacy group.  There was never any skepticism.  It's a dubious domain name to try to draw in the general public that is skeptical about climate change to bombard them with pro-climate change propaganda.
> 
> 
> Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory published the facts as we know them.  They are the original, reliable source for extreme weather event collation and analysis.
> ...



I don't give a flying crap about that website.  It could be a yahoo answers page for all I care.  Pay attention the the linked articles, and where they appear.  I thought you'd do a bit more research, than simply dismiss work because it comes from someone you disagree with.  The information source is what matters.  National meteorological society, decently peer reviewed journals, and the like.  That looney may have compiled them, but what matters is the sources.

I find it funny that you trust a bunch of scientists on one hand, and dismiss others out of hand.  As yet you've provided no reasoning for that.  Additionally, your argument about a hurricane being accurately reported by NOAA is bull.  I got to be in an area where a hurricane wasn't going to make land fall, but in the middle of the storm suddenly the NOAA report changed landfall to where I was.  80 miles away from their predictions.  Calling them accurate is like saying a doctor should use a hatchet on you, instead of a scalpel. 



As far as houses built on sand, get the heck out of here.  That is the dumbest argument anyone could make.  Tell me one place on Earth not prone to natural disasters, that humanity could live.  Such an argument is a waste of time, because its only answer is that you have a crap premise.

As far as planning, that's a pretty worthless way to address an issue.  Let's not plan, because plans don't work 100% of the time, is the way you run a fast food restaurant.  Let's plan for 80% of feasible disasters is how you run a fortune 500 company.  I've never asked for a bullet proof plan, only one that lets people sleep safely.  Christ, our airports add huge waits, fees, and hassel because a few planes were used as weapons.  If the same care was offered to disaster planning we'd have already rebuilt New Jersey and New Orleans.  Instead, New Orleans still bears the scars of its destruction, and New Jersey isn't anywhere near fully healed.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 8, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I don't give a flying crap about that website.  It could be a yahoo answers page for all I care.  Pay attention the the linked articles, and where they appear.  I thought you'd do a bit more research, than simply dismiss work because it comes from someone you disagree with.  The information source is what matters.  National meteorological society, decently peer reviewed journals, and the like.  That looney may have compiled them, but what matters is the sources.


It is as I described: cherry picking quotes that support alarmism.  GFDL, on the other hand, provides the conclusions of 125 scientists _debating_ about whether or not the observed extreme weather patterns had anything to do with the global change in temperature.  The consensus they formed was one of indecision citing "evidence for and against."  It wasn't one-sided like Skeptical Science.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> I find it funny that you trust a bunch of scientists on one hand, and dismiss others out of hand.  As yet you've provided no reasoning for that.  Additionally, your argument about a hurricane being accurately reported by NOAA is bull.  I got to be in an area where a hurricane wasn't going to make land fall, but in the middle of the storm suddenly the NOAA report changed landfall to where I was.  80 miles away from their predictions.  Calling them accurate is like saying a doctor should use a hatchet on you, instead of a scalpel.


I like scientists that don't have ulterior motives.  NOAA, as far as warming is concerned, has been the most neutral governmental organization I've seen on the subject.  GFDL, as well as analysis of weather's effect on warming at Boulder Labs, are especially noteworthy in this regard.

80 miles is better than 800 miles.  Computer models still suck but it's the best available and they originated at GFDL.  I suspect the models will catch up as Boulder Labs completes it work on modelling weather over the next several decades.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> As far as houses built on sand, get the heck out of here.  That is the dumbest argument anyone could make.  Tell me one place on Earth not prone to natural disasters, that humanity could live.  Such an argument is a waste of time, because its only answer is that you have a crap premise.


Why the hostility?  I can name one place for sure: Yucca Mountain.  It's also a matter of probability:


			
				NOAA said:
			
		

> •24 of these 30 systems have made landfall in the NWS Charleston, SC 'County Warning Area'. Of these, only 2 (*Hugo-1989 and Gracie-1959*) were major (Category 3-5) hurricanes.


It was time.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> I've never asked for a bullet proof plan, only one that lets people sleep safely.


What is the National Hurricane Center?  What more do you want (rhetorical question)?


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 8, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It is as I described: cherry picking quotes that support alarmism.  GFDL, on the other hand, provides the conclusions of 125 scientists _debating_ about whether or not the observed extreme weather patterns had anything to do with the global change in temperature.  The consensus they formed was one of indecision citing "evidence for and against."  It wasn't one-sided like Skeptical Science.
> 
> 
> I like scientists that don't have ulterior motives.  NOAA, as far as warming is concerned, has been the most neutral governmental organization I've seen on the subject.  GFDL, as well as analysis of weather's effect on warming at Boulder Labs, are especially noteworthy in this regard.
> ...




You know, I can't tell if you're trolling me, or just haven't read through everything.  You link to the GFDL Wikipedia page.  Jesus, that's a low bar of proof.


How about we fix that?  How about we search what they've published, related to hurricanes.  How about you do some reading here, because I'm sick and tired of you using a source which disagrees with your own conclusions:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes


The conclusion, in case you don't read it for yourself, is that they predict hurricanes are becoming more severe.  They conclude that frequency may either decrease or remain constant, but the magnitude of rainfall will be 10-15% higher.  Seems like they're agreeing with what I said.

Not enough proof?  They cite three studies that propose a new model, back the model up and remove the man made warming conclusion, and then utilize current models and data to prove the voracity of the first two studies.

Seem like you cherry picked tornadoes, and I focused on hurricanes.  To prove your point you'd have to prove climate change influences no severe weather phenomena, while to be right I only have to demonstrate one that climate change does impact.  It isn't a fair competition, but that's why I've come to my conclusions.




As to Yucca Mountain, get serious.  Fit just 10% of the world population there, and I'll admit you've got a point.  For now, you've cited that location because it was deemed safe for nuclear waste storage.  It took how many years to find it, and how many billions of dollars just to make it fit for that purpose?  If I live in tornado alley I get tornado insurance.  If I live near the ocean I get flood insurance.  Our government is debating whether or not our policy should be written on parchment or paper, instead of looking at the policy terms.  Instead of planning people are seeking to levy blame.  Denying climate change is idiotic.  Denying global warming, global cooling, or temperature models that only use data from the last decade isn't stupid.  Problem is, people equate denying crappy science with denying monumental truths.  The argument that all climate change can be denied, because some jerk-offs decided to falsify a portion of data is moronic.  Likewise, people preying off of guilt due to man made climate change is stupid. 

Reasonably, we should be able to continue the debate about where something comes from and still prepare for what it brings.  In reality, it seems that every opportunity for us to mitigate severe weather disasters is hampered by those denying that such a thing is possible.



Edit:
Maybe I've yet to make myself clear.  Planning for these events isn't the same as accurate reporting on them.

Do you know why New Orleans was so bad?  It was because NOAA had indicated evacuations so often that people became numb to it after some time.  Unsurprisingly, after the half dozenth evacuation, that turned out to be for nothing, people stop paying the huge costs to evacuate.  By the time the national hurricane center competently predicted Katerina, people were trapped already.

Additionally, 80 miles versus 800 is crap accuracy for a hurricane location.  800 miles would be predicting "this will hit Florida somewhere, unless it hits a neighboring state."  Being 80 miles off, to account for inaccuracies you'd have to have 160 miles of coast evacuated for safety.  Let's say you only evacuate a 1 mile distance inland.  160 square miles of people to evacuate would break any emergency services, by sheer volume.  

If you really want to make the argument that 80 miles off is acceptable, demonstrate the plan that accepts 160 square miles of people into the surrounding area without breaking everything.  We couldn't during Sandy.  We couldn't during Katerina.  We are kinda there with South Carolina (largely because a state of emergency was declared more than 24 hours in advance).  If you call that adequate preparation, I'm never going anywhere that relies upon your planning skills.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 8, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You know, I can't tell if you're trolling me, or just haven't read through everything.  You link to the GFDL Wikipedia page.  Jesus, that's a low bar of proof.
> 
> 
> How about we fix that?  How about we search what they've published, related to hurricanes.  How about you do some reading here, because I'm sick and tired of you using a source which disagrees with your own conclusions:
> ...


a) I already linked GFDL previously and since you didn't care to look at it, I provided a dumbed down version courtesy Wikipedia.
b) That link is the exact link I provided previously (post #744).
c) Read post #744  and subsequent posts (e.g. the 15% "liberal estimate") for a response to the rest of this post.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 8, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> a) I already linked GFDL previously and since you didn't care to look at it, I provided a dumbed down version courtesy Wikipedia.
> b) That link is the exact link I provided previously (post #744).
> c) Read post #744  and subsequent posts (e.g. the 15% "liberal estimate") for a response to the rest of this post.



Post 759.

lilhasselhoffer said: ↑
Informed people are generally raising the flag about severe weather events, which are more than anecdotally linked to climate change.

Then they are ill-"informed" because there's little to no evidence to support that.



Square that for me.  Your own example, of informed people, proves me right.  Explain your comment.  More importantly, include the whole quote rather than mining it for your ends.

*It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are model-estimated changes with considerable uncertainty (e.g., aerosol effects).*
*Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. *
*There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.*
*Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.*

1) Green house gasses released by humans cannot be directly related to climate change.  We're on the same page here.
2) 2-11% increase in intensity on average.  This is what I said, but you continue to deny.
3) We could have a slight decrease, or stay with the same number of severe storms.
4) 10-15% greater rainfall within 100 km.


Let's agree that the global warming part of this is BS.  The entire rest of the statement agrees that more severe storms are predicted, and it has direct relations to shifts in climate.  What is your defense, when the article you quoted is against you?


So we're clear, I had read earlier when you linked the article, but it just now dawned on me to defeat you with your own support.  It was an oversight.  When you started to just link to Wikipedia, I found it an insult to the factual basis of your argument.  Your support being wikipedia is, let's be fair, equivalent to having no factual support.




Edit:
Dang it.  Changed instance of "sever" to severe.

Edit:
Maybe I haven't been clear.  I'm not arguing that people caused global warming.  I'm arguing that climate change is a real thing.  That distinction may be where our arguments are differing.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 8, 2015)

2) The 2-11% number comes from IPCC, not GFDL.  Note how GFDL frames it using probability ("likely," "would," "assuming").
3) Note the lack of alarmism.
4) Like #2, note the use of probability ("likely," "model-projected").

They never make the claim the models are correct.   It's simply their best educated guess which makes sense because more heat should translate to more moisture which, in turn, should translate to more fuel for tropical storms but as noted by #1, there's no proof of it yet.

This particular article only talks about tropical storms.  It says nothing to the other types of severe weather which, for the time being, agree with GFDL that there's no evidence to support the idea that intensity/frequency is increasing.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 8, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 2) The 2-11% number comes from IPCC, not GFDL.  Note how GFDL frames it using probability ("likely," "would," "assuming").
> 3) Note the lack of alarmism.
> 4) Like #2, note the use of probability ("likely," "model-projected").
> 
> ...



I can respect that the GFDL is skeptical about the IPCC.  Personally, I think we can agree that the IPCC is less scientific and more alarmist crap.  At the same time, they indicate that a shift in climate will directly lead to more severe hurricanes.  Hurricanes are a weather phenomena.  It therefore must be conceded that more extreme weather events are linked to climate change.

I agree that human causation research is crap, and draws broad conclusions on very little data.
I agree that tornadoes demonstrably don't yet show a marked increase in intensity.
At the same time as I agree to these conclusions, I admit that I'm being obtuse intentionally.  I've said that climate change is linked to more severe weather, and my qualification only requires one positive example to be true.  The counter point must therefore be that climate doesn't influence weather phenomena severity, a substantially more difficult proof that we likely don't have enough data to do thoroughly.  When you set the terms of the discussion, they are often unfair to the opposing point.



As far as the lack of alarmism, let's unpack that statement.  The GFDL is skeptical of the IPCC, but still uses their data.  If they had sufficient reason to doubt their data, then utilizing it would be astoundingly irresponsible.  Every scientist understands GIGO, so why would a respectable scientist even debase themselves with garbage data? 

We'll forego this particular study for a moment.  How about we look at other studies from the GFDL:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...g-2013-a-u-s-focused-analysis/menu./sec./home.
-Droughts in the Midwest in 2013 are at least partially blamed upon climate changing, with a focus on human causation
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/story.108
-Changes in Pacific wind patterns are at least partially to blame for drought, and a depression of the average global temperature
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...nhouse-gases-and-ozone-levels/menu./sec./home.
-Observed decreases in precipitation cannot be accounted for with natural variation, and are thus attributable to human caused sources.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...-of-the-south-asian-monsoon/menu.no/sec./home.
-Human caused climate change has demonstrably decreased the average intensity of monsoons in Asia.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...e-of-anthropogenic-aerosols/menu.no/sec./home.
-The Indian monsoon season is demonstrably shifting earlier, beyond natural variation, due to human caused events.



That's just the first two pages of their highlighted research.

Tell me again, how the GFDL is proving that climate change has no influence on severe weather phenomena.  Tell me while somehow factoring out drought, monsoons, and hurricanes.  If you can still argue your point, despite the data you yourself seem quick to cite, then I'll stop arguing.  Continuing to argue with someone, who cannot change their opinions based upon the overwhelming evidence they themselves provide, is arguing with a brick wall.  I'd be more tactful if my source was the GFDL, but they weren't.  You gave them to me, and said they support your opinions.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 8, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> At the same time, they indicate that a shift in climate will *could* directly lead to more severe hurricanes.


FTFY  There is evidence pointing in both directions right now; hence, inconclusive.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> We'll forego this particular study for a moment.  How about we look at other studies from the GFDL:
> http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...g-2013-a-u-s-focused-analysis/menu./sec./home.
> -Droughts in the Midwest in 2013 are at least partially blamed upon climate changing, with a focus on human causation
> http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/story.108
> ...


I take it you didn't read any of these.  Example:


> http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/story.108
> By modifying the winds in the models to reproduce the observed winds only in the tropical Pacific, the authors show that these changing winds can drive both the hiatus in global warming and drought conditions over the southwestern U.S. (see figure). If the observed wind changes are a result of natural variability, this suggests that both the hiatus and the drought over the southwestern U.S. are the product of natural variability of the climate system.


GFDL fundamentally does models and they try to make various models line up with what was observed.  Every article you linked has varying degrees of probability written into it.  They describe what they simulate, not necessarily what actually transpired--that's for NOAA to do.

It should be noted that the droughts have largely ended since publication of that article (unless your name is California):
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

You can look back at 2013 on this page:
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/ChangeMaps.aspx

I'm sure GFDL is very interested in that remarkable shift from east of the Rockies to west of the Rockies.


The early onset of monsoons (observed) may be caused by aerosols (GFDL modeled) which, over time, could change climate.  The monsoons are not considered severe weather events by themselves.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 8, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> FTFY  There is evidence pointing in both directions right now; hence, inconclusive.



No.

They say that changing climate, as per the IPCC's models, is "likely."
They definitively say that their models, given this input, demonstrate stronger hurricanes. 
This means that if climate does not shift, their model predicts no change.  If the climate does shift, the model predicts more severe weather.


You continue to try and move the ball on this, but probability inferred in one part of a statement doesn't make the entire statement a probability.  If I release a ball is will fall toward the center of gravity for the Earth.  I might not release the ball, but if it is released there is a 100% chance it will drop based upon our understanding of gravity.  You can argue that gravity doesn't work as we model it, but the burden of proof becomes yours.  You need to propose an alternative, and demonstrate your theory is accurate.


To date you haven't proposed an alternative for more severe weather, that isn't based upon climate change.  Do so, and we can discuss something.



Edit:
I do like the silent edits to your points.

I did read them.  You'll note my summary at the bottom of the links.

Your point that severe weather events eventually end is just stupid.  I say this, because the alternative is that something like a hurricane will last forever.  A drought is an event, desertification is climate change.  

A climate change, wherein precipitation decreases, produces a massive drought.  A climate change, wherein vapor levels increase in the atmosphere increase produces stronger hurricanes.  As you so fondly pointed out; weather is what it's doing today, climate is weather over time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 8, 2015)

The alternatives are being worked on by Boulder Labs.  Supercomputer power is presently inadequate to complete their work.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 8, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The alternatives are being worked on by Boulder Labs.  Supercomputer power is presently inadequate to complete their work.



This is just getting silly.  

"Just wait, my supercomputer will prove you wrong" isn't an answer.  It's a retort from a 5 year old.

I'll gladly change my opinion once there is solid proof to the contrary.  For now, the evidence points to climate influencing severe weather events.  


For the record, I hope they disprove the link.  At the same time, that doesn't matter.  What I would like isn't fact.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 8, 2015)

Models ran 10 years ago haven't been very accurate in predicting what is happening today (exceptions being the really simple ones like atmospheric CO2 levels).  What leads you to believe that the models being used today are any more accurate about what will be happening in 2025?   New models and new systems for processing them are required.  This is why I focus on past data (like GFDL concluding no changes in tropical cyclone activity yet) and not future data which so far has been notoriously inaccurate.  "For now" there is no link between the two; only an assumption there will be a link in the future.  Said differently, no link has been proven so there is nothing yet to "disprove."


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 8, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Models ran 10 years ago haven't been very accurate in predicting what is happening today (exceptions being the really simple ones like atmospheric CO2 levels).  What leads you to believe that the models being used today are any more accurate about what will be happening in 2025?   New models and new systems for processing them are required.  This is why I focus on past data (like GFDL concluding no changes in tropical cyclone activity yet) and not future data which so far has been notoriously inaccurate.  "For now" there is no link between the two; only an assumption there will be a link.



Did I cite a 10 year old model?  

The models from the 90's that I cited were later corroborated with data, and subsequent models largely proved their conclusions were accurate.  They didn't make specific predictions, they cited trends.  Storms will be more severe.  Precipitation has changed from historic records.  They utilize their information to predict trends, because accurately predicting actual weather is laughable.


As far as model accuracy, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.  Because past models needed tweaking, our current models don't matter.  That's dismissing science which doesn't agree with your preconceptions.  Models are built on data, data is harvested over time, therefore models evolve over time.  It's pretty foolish to dismiss all models, and supplant them with whatever you think is accurate.  Do I think the models will be the same in a decade, no.  Do they offer us a look at the possible future given our knowledge, yes.  

If your logic were extrapolated to particle physics we'd never have moved to quantum mechanics.  Our observable world runs by these rules, and as we get smaller the rules change.  People would have decided that all of physics was wrong because of something as relatively simple as black body radiation, and stated Newtonian motion was therefore wrong.  Seems rather foolish in those terms, but it's what you're suggesting we do with climate data until a unifying supercomputer can model all of it.  I'd prefer a 90% answer today, than no answer for a decade.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 8, 2015)

Named Cyclones by Year





United States Weather Bureau was founded in 1870 (note the jump).  The first radiosonde was used by the United States Weather Bureau in 1937. Flights into tropical storms and hurricanes did not start until 1943 with the Hurricane Hunters.  Weather RADARs were developed and used in the 1950s and on.  Satellites were used since the 1960s.

The only solidly consistent data is from the 1960s onward.  Prior to the 1960s, many systems went undetected.  There are two clear trends in that period: 1970-1994 was a "quiet period" and 1995-2010 was an "active period."  Since then, we've been in a "quiet period" again.  I tried to do some digging and I haven't turned out any theories for what caused that.

Going back to GFDL, evidence for warming-linked hurricanes exists in the "active period" but does not exist in the "quiet period" before and after.  This is why their findings are inconclusive.  The mechanism between the two periods is not yet known; hence, this statement:


> It is *premature to conclude that human activities*--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--*have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity*. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are model-estimated changes with considerable uncertainty (e.g., aerosol effects).


That is the natural conclusion seeing the data.  There are trends but they don't appear to be linked.

You're focusing on the models which are still designed to predict increases in tropical cyclone activity.  We have no way of judging--right now--if those models are remotely accurate or not.  Considering the last part of what I quoted, GFDL displays a great deal of uncertainty.

The reason why Boulder Labs and supercomputer technology is important is it can potentially fill the gaps in models that are currently missing.  The effect of albedo on surface temperatures is the principle goal of Boulder Labs' work.  That's a massive component that's missing from hurricane models: we have a good idea of water temperature and air temperature but not of the storm's absorption/reflection of solar energy and how that translates to the overall power of the system.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 8, 2015)

I'm getting tired of this, and you really don't seem to want to make any concessions to the facts that are presented by your own sources.  Continuing to argue, when the intention of words is lost to quibbles over a desired interpretation is draining.

If you'd like to continue on, go ahead.  I'm tired of having to define every single word, untwist grammatical constructs used to justify your points despite what is presented, and positive denial of what is being presented.


You win.  You win because relenting is the only rational thing to do here.  I'm tired of fighting the denial nuts, the tree hugging nuts, and those who have such a rigidity of thought that they can see a meaning to words that their organization doesn't imply to an unbiased mind.  Wait for the supercomputer to model the data, I'm going to spend the weekend volunteering in South Carolina's relief effort.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Oct 8, 2015)

qute  of a fragment of a post some postes above " The only solidly consistent data is from the 1960s onward. Prior to the 1960s, many systems went undetected. There are two clear trends in that period: 1970-1994 was a "quiet period" and 1995-2010 was an "active period." Since then, we've been in a "quiet period" again. I tried to do some digging and I haven't turned out any theories for what caused that."unquote
Its not easy tweaking seosors ,and establising methodoligies?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 9, 2015)

I had a lot here but discovered it has already been done.
Overview
Detailed Timeline

TL;DR: The graph trends upwards to 1935 not because the number of tropical storms necessarily grew but our capability to detect and record them did.  I quote:


			
				NOAA said:
			
		

> 1935: A hurricane warning service is established; The Smithsonian Institution begins making long-range weather forecasts based on solar cycles; floating automatic weather instruments mounted on buoys begin collecting marine weather data.


Excepting 1983 (which was an abnormally quiet year) and 2005 (which was an abnormally active year) activity has been pretty steady (relatively speaking).


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 9, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I had a lot here but discovered it has already been done.
> Overview
> Detailed Timeline
> 
> ...



I'm calling weasel bullshit here.  I'm calling it, and I'm going back on my earlier comment.  Seeing this is getting me pissed off enough to make a liar out of myself.


The argument was whether or not the severity of hurricanes was influenced by changes to the climate.  We agreed on utilizing GFDL as a source, because it is reasonably unbiased in findings.  We even agreed that the number of hurricanes was largely consistent, based upon the data.


I argued that severity was increasing.  You argued that the link was tenuous.  I argued that your own factual source, at least half a dozen articles, proved your point was inaccurate.  You weasel out of the argument by interpreting the intention of a scientific report, rather than using the words they put to paper.  You aren't an honest operator here, you're coming into the debate with an agenda that you need to prove, no matter how you have to twist the words in order to come to the conclusion you want.



I was willing to stop there.  It's frustrating when your opposition bogs down the argument by playing the "define every word and give it full context" tactic.  It's designed for idiots, who know that their points aren't strong enough to stand on their own, without adding enough caveats.  Utilizing that logic, you can make anything mean anything with enough twisting.  I wanted to stop here, because you don't have an argument.  You have a massive time sink.  I was fine to stop here.

You follow up my last comment, with a chart of the number of hurricanes.  You add the caveats that the last 40 years of data is all that we have with certainty, and you graph the number of events without any metric for severity (naming isn't a metric, a class 3 and 5 could both be named).  You use this data to "prove" that the earlier statements are correct, only instead of focusing on where the scientists themselves put the emphasis, you create an outright lie to justify the conclusion you want.

Bullshit.


Either you're a liar, or an idiot.  I can't reasonably call you an idiot, so you're a liar.  Whether it's dishonesty to yourself, or just inability to recognize the lie, it doesn't matter.  Read the data, then read their conclusions once more.  Here's a refresher:

*It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are model-estimated changes with considerable uncertainty (e.g., aerosol effects).*
*Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. *
*There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.*
*Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.*

Your data proves just one part of that conclusion:
*This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.*

Despite this very clear link, you've bastardized your data to mean that points 3 and 4 are somehow inaccurate.  You look at the data and conclusions from your own source, written clear as day, and come to the opposite conclusion.  I can only assume you're a liar.  Idiots would have cited Fox News and the GOP.  You've gone out of your way to cite credible bodies, yet jettison their conclusions when they don't fit your notions.  It takes a feat of mental gymnastics akin to the truthers to look at all of the presented information, and somehow come to the conclusion you've come to.




Now I'm done.  I have nothing else worth saying, because a dishonest player isn't worth having an argument with.  A decade ago I argued that Global Warming was a scam, because the scientific data disproved it.  Today I argue that climate change is real, and it is influencing the severity of weather phenomena.  The scientific research agrees with me, and it's been proven by both the facts you've provided and the conclusions that scientists have put to academic papers.  To state the opposite, based upon potential future proof from a new supercomputer, is just idiotic.  Worse yet, what happens if your supercomputer agrees with the facts already presented?  After this much mental gymnastics, I'd be hard pressed to see you not calling it bunk because the input data was limited.  

Kinda seems like part of your earlier argument was also based off of the "potential" statement making the conclusion irrelevant.  Ironically, your whole argument is based upon the potential of a new super computer.  I'll be generous here, and call that unintentional duplicity.

If you're going to argue a point with science you have to accept data as facts.  Whenever the data is reviewed, you can interpret it however you'd like.  If you're going to argue a deep seated and irreversible belief, and guise it in the mask of science, you can stop talking now.  The religious guise creationism in "intelligent design."  Climate change denial guises their argument in "limited or potentially corrupt data."  Somehow though, climate change deniers are always quick to offer facts that support their side.  That's implicit bias, in the arena of the hard sciences, makes you worse than a half-wit.  Leave biases at the door, or don't use science.  You've demonstrated a massive twisting of words, blatantly cherry picking quotations, and offering unrelated facts as "proof."  I can't argue with a zealot, because there is no end game.  There is no reason.  There is only a point, to which reality shall bend in its service.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 9, 2015)

This should make it clearer what I was talking about:




Note the jump up between 1869 and 1870; also note the jump up between 1934 and 1935.  I was explaining how those jumps were benign.

I'm still surprised how consistent it is from the period of 1935 to 1960.  They must have had a lot of assets to track down storms.

GFDL focused on hurricanes since 1950 but they reference as far back as 1878.  I'll quote GFDL on this since they practically took the words out of my mouth:


			
				NOAA GFDL said:
			
		

> However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based "observing network of opportunity." We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is *not significantly distinguishable from zero* (Figure 2).


Here's something I didn't surmise from that chart:


			
				NOAA GFDL said:
			
		

> In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic.


Another important quote:


			
				NOAA GFDL said:
			
		

> Owing to the large interannual to decadal variability of SST and hurricane activity in the basin, Bender et al (2010) estimate that *detection of this projected anthropogenic influence on hurricanes should not be expected for a number of decades.* While there is a large rising trend since the mid 1940's in category 4-5 numbers in the Atlantic, our view is that these data are not reliable for trend calculations, until they have been further assessed for data homogeneity problems, such as those due to changing observing practices.


So...I'm just going to wait a few more decades and see what GFDL and Boulder Labs turn up.


I like how they use the phrase "greenhouse warming" instead of "global warming."  It's much more accurate.



@lilhasselhoffer: The last three bullets I have largely ignored are all based on IPCC's models.  I have zero faith in those models.  I also have my doubts about point #3 because if you read it, they take two models that cap out at an intensity of category 3, stretch them to reach category 5 (which are infrequent) then apply their new model to create projections to 2100. So, alarmist IPCC data on top of a model that deliberately deviates from the historic record and you get those numbers.  They're job is to project so I don't blame them for doing what they did but, again, I cite that last quote: "detection of this projected anthropogenic influence on hurricanes should not be expected for a number of decades."  We won't know if their models are correct--or far from it--for many years yet.  I focus on what we _know_ and what we do know shows no connection, whatsoever, between hurricanes and "greenhouse warming."  In fact, they expand the "unknown" to include many more areas like aerosols and volcanic activity.  More research is needed but rewinding to why I originally quoted you:


lilhasselhoffer said:


> Is climate change real?  Demonstrably, yes.  We're getting more, and more severe, storms that at any time in the recorded past.


"More severe storms" compared to "the recorded past" is "demonstrably" false.

We've been talking a lot about sea cyclones; the same is true of land cyclones:








I see decreasing intensity here, not increasing.  GFDL is likely asking the same questions of tornadoes as they are of hurricanes.  Note that these graphs start with the Army using RADAR for weather; it doesn't have the confusing pre-RADAR data.  Observations are also better because people often live where tornadoes form and, if they don't, there's evidence a tornado was there.


I get it.  You're upset that a hurricane landed close to home.  It's very upsetting but it's easy to declare the world is on fire standing right next to a forest fire.  Take a step back, look at the bigger picture, and greenhouse warming doesn't paint a severe weather picture.  It could in the future but right now it simply doesn't.  What happened to South Carolina, New York, New Orleans, and New Jersey was a case of probability.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 9, 2015)

I think I'm going to unsub. I have to side with @lilhasselhoffer on this one. I don't appreciate context-sensitive claims to how things are worded. It's an example of a bad argument.

I think I'm going to stick to listening to people I know who are actually meteorologists with degrees on the matter and can describe this stuff. Knowing a bit about Ford's political views, it doesn't surprise me that he remains a climate change denier.

Lastly, climate change doesn't simply mean more catastrophic events, it does mean more significant storms. That doesn't mean hurricanes and tornadoes are going to be relatively stronger but, thing like rainfall; how often and how much, probably is a better indicator. Once again though, none of these trends are going to simply up or down just because of how dynamic the atmosphere is but, that doesn't mean it isn't changing and that we're not responsible for accelerating it.

A great example of this is rainfall totals. There are bigger swings than there used to be between mins and maxes. So while strong storms might not be much stronger or more frequent but, the amount of precipitation has been impacted in a way where it can be very dry or very wet but, standard deviation seems to be growing over time which would indicate that there are periods of time where there is extra rain fall and less rainfall depending on the location.

Either way, this conversation is getting a little stupid and I need to disconnect myself from it before I start saying things about people's intelligence that will land me an infraction.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 9, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I think I'm going to stick to listening to people I know who are actually meteorologists with degrees on the matter and can describe this stuff. Knowing a bit about Ford's political views, it doesn't surprise me that he remains a climate change denier.


This "matter" is above meteorology pay grade.  The "matter" is about modeling fluids to fill in observational gaps as well as analyzing historic trends.

"Climate change denier," that statement pisses me off to no end.  To quote myself on the last page:


FordGT90Concept said:


> I've said numerous times in this thread that the climate is always changing.






Aquinus said:


> A great example of this is rainfall totals. There are bigger swings than there used to be between mins and maxes. So while strong storms might not be much stronger or more frequent but, the amount of precipitation has been impacted in a way where it can be very dry or very wet but, standard deviation seems to be growing over time which would indicate that there are periods of time where there is extra rain fall and less rainfall depending on the location.


Your second statement is false.  Greenhouse warming causes the temperature not to fall as much at night.  Mins are higher, maxes are slightly higher. Source.  Most sources (including that one), say total global precipitation is increasing and I pointed at that in post #744 (the original response to @lilhasselhoffer):


FordGT90Concept said:


> Precipitation may be increasing but could easily be caused by pollution rather than climate.  Vapor tends to condense around particulate matter and that's undeniably increased since the industrial age.


GFDL article that has been referenced here many times (revised in 2015) brings into question aerosols and other pollutants.  The increased precipitation is likely a combination of more heat (promotes evaporation) and more particulates (promotes condensation).  Modeling of particulates isn't very mature yet so the jury is still out on that.


Only 1 (precipitation) of 4 (precipitation, tornadoes, hurricanes and can't ever remember the fourth) extreme weather events can be linked to greenhouse warming at this time.  I've made that statement several times throughout this thread as well--it is still true and will likely remain true for decades yet.


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 9, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Knowing a bit about Ford's political views, it doesn't surprise me that he remains a climate change denier.


And...the cat is out of the bag! Glad you understand this man-made global warming scam is ALL about politics!


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 9, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Only 1 (precipitation) of 4 (precipitation, tornadoes, hurricanes and can't ever remember the fourth)



another one is the Methane Cloud expressed by Climatologist as they Spout their opinion (one Side or the other )
This Thread deserves to die   it unfortunately has not


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2015)

Digging up an old post but it provides some context why I'm posting this here.  Japan's nuclear power industry is slowly crawling back...


dorsetknob said:


> The last of Japan's 50 reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012,[18] leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for the first time since 1970.


Japan fires up second reactor since Fukushima disaster


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 17, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Digging up an old post but it provides some context why I'm posting this here.  Japan's nuclear power industry is slowly crawling back...
> 
> Japan fires up second reactor since Fukushima disaster


Good. They will need the extra energy to power their space heaters for the coming ice-age. :/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weath...-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 17, 2015)

This thread still exists?

This pains me.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2015)

Think of it as the TPU recycle bin where everything remotely related to climate gets dumped.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2015)

I was thinking a few days ago that if the arctic ice cap continues to melt and the climate of northern Canada, Russia, Alaska, and Scandinavia warms, does that not also mean that vegetation would follow it?  This should, in turn, translate to more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere on a yearly basis where atmospheric CO2 is increasing the most.  I think, instead of trying to paint CO2 as bad and a global effort to limit it, we should instead take the Teddy Roosevelt approach and try to protect the havens for vegetation (especially forests and jungles).  Examples would be to put pressure on South American countries to not continue to destroy the forests, pass regulations to limit human expansion behind the vegetation expanding north, and reinstating Dust Bowl-like policies that encouraged landowners to grow trees.  The global goal should be a net growth in CO2 reclamation per square mile.  This is a much more attainable and practical goal; it also serves near immediate benefits in terms of wild life.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 17, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I was thinking a few days ago that if the arctic ice cap continues to melt and the climate of northern Canada, Russia, Alaska, and Scandinavia warms, does that not also mean that vegetation would follow it?  This should, in turn, translate to more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere on a yearly basis where atmospheric CO2 is increasing the most.  I think, instead of trying to paint CO2 as bad and a global effort to limit it, we should instead take the Teddy Roosevelt approach and try to protect the havens for vegetation (especially forests and jungles).  Examples would be to put pressure on South American countries to not continue to destroy the forests, pass regulations to limit human expansion behind the vegetation expanding north, and reinstating Dust Bowl-like policies that encouraged landowners to grow trees.  The global goal should be a net growth in CO2 reclamation per square mile.  This is a much more attainable and practical goal; it also serves near immediate benefits in terms of wild life.



You're missing the part where you melt the icecaps and start a new iceage from the shutdown of the ocean conveyor system.

Gah, how are you drawing me into this?!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2015)

The ocean conveyors are solar powered.  Cold fresh water hitting the salty ocean water causes temporary changes but, ultimately, the power of the sun will reign again.

Should the arctic ice cap literally be no more, polar species will likely go extinct (like the polar bear) so the picture I painted isn't entirely rosy.



R-T-B said:


> Gah, how are you drawing me into this?!


Because it's an interesting thought?


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 17, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because it's an interesting thought?



This whole thread is what I would coin "painfully interesting."


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 17, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I was thinking a few days ago that if the arctic ice cap continues to melt and the climate of northern Canada, Russia, Alaska, and Scandinavia warms, does that not also mean that vegetation would follow it?  This should, in turn, translate to more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere on a yearly basis where atmospheric CO2 is increasing the most.  I think, instead of trying to paint CO2 as bad and a global effort to limit it, we should instead take the Teddy Roosevelt approach and try to protect the havens for vegetation (especially forests and jungles).  Examples would be to put pressure on South American countries to not continue to destroy the forests, pass regulations to limit human expansion behind the vegetation expanding north, and reinstating Dust Bowl-like policies that encouraged landowners to grow trees.  The global goal should be a net growth in CO2 reclamation per square mile.  This is a much more attainable and practical goal; it also serves near immediate benefits in terms of wild life.



Thousands of square miles of rainforest is cleared in the Amazon each year to make way for farming land - a pattern of destruction that takes place all around the world.
But despite this, the planet has got greener in the past decade, with the total amount of plant coverage increasing overall.
The increase is so noticeable that the world's trees and plants now store almost four billion more tonnes of carbon than they did in 2003.
This is thanks to tree-planting in China, forest regrowth in former Soviet states because of abandoned farms, and more lush savannas because of higher rainfall.

Scientists analysed 20 years of satellite data and found an increase in carbon, despite ongoing large-scale tropical deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia, according to research published on Monday in Nature Climate Change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ers-reveals-huge-expansion-world-s-trees.html

And to debunk this 97% B.S. once and for all... The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

http://www.ff.org/the-97-percent-solution/


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2015)

The problem is that, due to the way the Earth rotates and the way the sun hits it, North and South Hemispheres generally don't mix air unless a tropical storm passes through.

It takes a long time for CO2 average to decrease because they absorb a lot during spring and summer but dump a lot back in fall.  Deforestation a century ago may be contributing to higher than normal CO2 levels now in the northern hemisphere so the deforestation in the Amazon may lead to higher than normal CO2 levels in the southern hemisphere a century from now.  It's the aggregate we have to look at--not short term.

I think the millions of acres especially in Canada and Russia that turn from white to green would be massive compared to the change noted from Russia farms and China trying to combat smog.  The equatorial jungles and forests may also spread north assuming the precipitation levels maintain.


----------



## qubit (Nov 8, 2015)

How to deal with global warming in the hottest regions of the world.

www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/07/h1how_to_build_a_city_fit_for_50_heatwavesh1


----------



## Sasqui (Dec 1, 2015)

More gasoline on the fire:

*German Scientist Accused NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations*

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...t-accuses-nasa-massive-alteration-temperature



> In a presentation at the 2012 EIKE Climate Conference in Germany, Professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert, a retired geologist and data expert from the University of Paderborn, said that he examined publicly available archived temperature records from 1,153 weather stations around the globe going back to 1881 and found evidence of “massive” tampering by GISS between 2010 and 2012.
> 
> Ewert noticed that “the temperature data of Reykjavik [Iceland] and Nuuk Nuur [Greenland] had been changed retroactively,” veteran German television journalist Gunter Ederer writes. The 2012 data was higher than the temperatures recorded before 2010.


----------



## silkstone (Dec 1, 2015)

Sasqui said:


> More gasoline on the fire:
> 
> *German Scientist Accused NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations*
> 
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...t-accuses-nasa-massive-alteration-temperature



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center#Foundation_and_funding
http://www.desmogblog.com/friedrich-karl-ewert


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 1, 2015)

Shit run out of popcorn


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 2, 2015)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Sasqui (Dec 2, 2015)

silkstone said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center#Foundation_and_funding
> http://www.desmogblog.com/friedrich-karl-ewert



So totally where politics and science meet.  The timing of the article certainly isn't any coincidence


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 7, 2015)

SCIENTISTS ENLIST THE BIG GUN TO GET CLIMATE ACTION: FAITH
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-06-15-15-25
PARIS (AP) -- The cold hard numbers of science haven't spurred the world to curb runaway global warming. So as climate negotiators struggle in Paris, some scientists who appealed to the rational brain are enlisting what many would consider a higher power: the majesty of faith.

It's not God versus science, but followers of God and science together trying to *save humanity and the planet*, they say.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 7, 2015)

I hope that isn't directed at the USA.  USA was largely formed to get away from "The Church" vis-à-vis "Pope."

I find it very ironic that the most religious are the most conservative and the most conservative are the ones staunchly opposed to any kind of "climage change" related changes.  This article seems to be preaching to a choir that left the premises years ago.


And after all of this time, I can't believe they still don't get it.  The solutions aren't in broad reaching regulations, recommendations, and laws; the solutions are in technology.  USA didn't agree to the Tokyo Protocol but that didn't stop the EPA from increasing requirements which lead to major innovations by the big three auto manufacturers which translates to pretty big reductions in CO2; at the same time, it lead to increased vehicle purchasing costs which the market doesn't seem to mind.  Why?  Because better fuel economy.  When you show someone a Ford Escape from a decade ago getting 24 mpg compared to a Ford Edge today that can hit 35 mpg.  That's really all the convincing a lot of people need.  Consumers will make the better choice when they directly benefit from it.

Coming back to the article: religion provides guidance but what use is guidance when there is nothing to guide to?  If it is riots in front of coal power plants, what does that accomplish?  Making power more expensive for everyone, that's what.  See, that's the wrong outlook--attacking carbon (which we're all exhaling right now).  The only thing faith leaders can do right now that would make a huge difference is being very vocal about support for nuclear.  If people got excited about nuclear energy like they did back in the 1950s and 1960s and ground work was laid all around the world for a mass conversion to nuclear for coal, oil, and natural gas burning power plants, not only could electricity prices decline thanks to efficient, economical designs that are easily replicated but human carbon emissions would fall around 30-50% globally and permanently.

Talking about greenhouse gases is only the subject of the sentence--it lacks a predicate.  People understand better fuel economy just like they understand lower electric bills.  Leave the emissions improvements out of the discussion but log it for the IPCC to ogle over.


*TL;DR:* You don't need to convince the world to reduce carbon emissions; you only need to convince consumers the cleaner option is better by offering them something else in return.  It really is that simple: it's capitalism.


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 7, 2015)

Well if Katy P says so...It must be true.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 14, 2015)

I havent made a valuable contribution on TPU all day so.......

Rising global temperatures and melting glaciers are not only affecting our weather systems, they are also causing days to become longer. 







The research was published in the journal Science Advances.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 17, 2015)

*Humans have been harming Earth for 6,000 years
*
In a study that examined the distribution patterns of species over the past 307 million years, researchers have pinpointed a 'tipping point' when mankind's activities began changing ecosystems.

The researchers, whose work is published in the journal Nature, ( < quite complicated)  evaluated changes in plant and animal organisation over the past 307 million years.






Smithsonian Magazine (< a lot easier to understand)


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 17, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Humans have been harming Earth for 6,000 years



I blame GOD the Jews and the bible
according to the fairy book god created the Earth 6000 years ago and so that's when the problem started


----------



## qubit (Dec 17, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> I blame GOD the Jews and the bible
> according to the fairy book god created the Earth 6000 years ago and so that's when the problem started


Ahmen brother!


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 17, 2015)

there is a new* god* on the block


----------



## 64K (Dec 17, 2015)

I wouldn't pin the 6,000 year old history of Earth on all Christians and Jews. It's obvious that the Earth has been around for billions of years. You can't really pin the 6,000 year old Earth myth on the Bible either. Genesis 1:2 says "The Earth was formless and void.....". The word "was" in the original Hebrew elsewhere in the Old Testament is also translated as "became" so you could read Genesis 1:2 as "The Earth became formless and void....." It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible how old the Earth is.

Edit for clarity: There could have been billions of years in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2


----------



## Frick (Dec 17, 2015)

Personally I blame qubit for everything. EVERYTHING.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 17, 2015)

Frick said:


> Personally I blame qubit for everything. EVERYTHING.



Now and Forevermore.

Amen


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 17, 2015)

64K said:


> I wouldn't pin the 6,000 year old history of Earth on all Christians and Jews. It's obvious that the Earth has been around for billions of years. You can't really pin the 6,000 year old Earth myth on the Bible either. Genesis 1:2 says "The Earth was formless and void.....". The word "was" in the original Hebrew elsewhere in the Old Testament is also translated as "became" so you could read Genesis 1:2 as "The Earth became formless and void....." It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible how old the Earth is.
> 
> Edit for clarity: There could have been billions of years in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2



Not to mention, how long were each of the creation "days"?  Everything in there is representational, told by people in their limited means of explaining things that happened without any actual scientific knowledge of the Earth.


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 17, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not to mention, how long were each of the creation "days"? Everything in there is representational, told by people in their limited means of explaining things that happened without any actual scientific knowledge of the Earth.



Questions to be Asked in your southern white Baptist church /chapel   somewhere in middle/southern USA


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 17, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Questions to be Asked in your southern white Baptist church /chapel   somewhere in middle/southern USA


LOL, none of the above!


----------



## 64K (Dec 17, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not to mention, how long were each of the creation "days"?  Everything in there is representational, told by people in their limited means of explaining things that happened without any actual scientific knowledge of the Earth.



The people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old use the verse below to define a day as a thousand years with God even though it's beyond any doubt that the Earth is billions of years old.

2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

but that's all I'm going to say on this before I get swatted with a rolled up newspaper by a mod for going way off topic.


----------



## qubit (Dec 17, 2015)

Frick said:


> Personally I blame qubit for everything. EVERYTHING.


Hot damn so do I!!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 18, 2015)

Aircraft contrails could be 'unintentionally' changing the atmosphere and exposing us to more solar radiation, researchers warn.







There isn't enough data to support how much of an effect the icy haze left by airplanes has had, but researchers believe it might be altering the climate system.
'This haze is caused by airplanes, and it is gradually whitening blue skies,' said Charles Long of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory, at a press conference this week at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting.
'We might be actually conducting some unintentional geoengineering here.' 
( I feel the Hand of @qubit at work)

*HOW JET TRAILS BLOCK SUNLIGHT *




The phenomenon occurs when aircraft fly above 25,000ft, where the air temperature is around minus 86F.

This causes water vapor emitted by the engines to crystallze  and form the familiar white streaks across the sky, known as contrails.

These can be short-lived.

But if there is already a significant amount of moisture in the atmosphere they can linger for hours, as the excess water vapor from the engines tips the surrounding air past its saturation point.

This acts as a catalyst to speed up the natural process of cloud formation.

Cirrus clouds – the wisp-like formations seen at high altitude – begin to form around the contrails.

Scientists say these grow into thin layers of cloud and can cover up to an astonishing 20,000 square miles of sky

The level of moisture in the air at high altitudes is unrelated to weather conditions at ground level, which is why it is possible to see contrails on a clear day.

Reading University's Professor Keith Shine, an expert in clouds, said that those formed by aircraft fumes could linger 'for hours', depriving those areas under busy flight paths of summer sunshine.

Experts have warned that, as a result, the amount of sunlight hitting the ground could be reduced by as much as 10 percent. ......


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 18, 2015)

*The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.“Many of the thermometer sites have been contaminated,” Christy said, adding that poor siting “increases the warming rates.”
*

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/e...that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/#ixzz3ueYjrXc6


----------



## Melvis (Dec 18, 2015)

In my 35yrs on this crappy planet its only got hotter and hotter and hotter...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 18, 2015)

Melvis said:


> In my 35yrs on this crappy planet its only got hotter and hotter and hotter...



Ive been here for 50..............chill man.    ( all global temp related issues are @qubit 's fault)


@SK-1  they say a picture speaks a thousand words...........your pics pretty much sum it up. Theres shit everywhere.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 18, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Aircraft contrails could be 'unintentionally' changing the atmosphere and exposing us to more solar radiation, researchers warn.


Finally!  Some sense!  It's not just the ice clouds though--they're also  depositing carbon dioxide up where plants can't consume it.  If you go back several pages where I was talking about JPL looking at when the global temperature actually started to rise (about 1930, not late 1870s), it coincides with air traffic.  I suggested the impact of aircraft being underestimated back in 2010.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 18, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Finally!  Some sense!  It's not just the ice clouds though--they're also  depositing carbon dioxide up where plants can't consume it.  If you go back several pages where I was talking about GFDL looking at when the global temperature actually started to rise (1900s, not late 1870s), it coincides with air traffic.




tons of info was provided post 9/11, sift through the chaff for the wheat as we all know, lots of these figures are influenced by poiticians and other interested parties ( and @qubit )

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=contrails after 9/11


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 18, 2015)

Here's a detailed article about cirrus clouds and why they complicate things:
http://people.atmos.ucla.edu/liou/Cirrus_&_Climate.pdf

In short:
-they're difficult for climate models to predict
-their effect on temperature is difficult to measure
-the size (from about 10 µm to 2000 µm) and shape (bullet rosettes, aggregates, hollow columns, and plate) of the ice crystals varies its impact on infrared radiation (contributes to warming) and solar albedo (contributes to cooling)
-not only can aircraft contrails seed cirrus clouds, aerosols do too

An interesting quote from that article:


> An analysis of cirrus cloud cover in Salt Lake City based on surface observations revealed that a substantial increase in cirrus clouds occurring in about 1965 coincided with a sharp increase in domestic jet fuel consumption in the mid-1960s.



I wouldn't be surprised if, in 20 years or so, the world will have to make a decision between aircraft operating at high altitudes where fuel consumption is better but they form cirrus clouds or  operating at low altitude where fuel consumption is poor but cirrus clouds do not form.

In time, we may discover that even though aircraft don't contribute a huge amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, they may be the main culprit in terms of warming due to the formation of clouds and depositing CO2 where it is most effective as a greenhouse gas.


I'd rather Lockheed Martin finish their fusion reactor and commercial aircraft start running on fusion power (zero emissions).


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 18, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'd rather Lockheed Martin finish their fusion reactor and commercial aircraft start running on fusion power (zero emissions).



"And piloted by Wookies on work visa's "


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 18, 2015)

...or AI. 

Drone commercial airliners can't be far off especially considering about half of airline accidents are due to pilot error.


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 18, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> or AI



Now would that be "Hal"  but after the budget cuts you lose the "H" and get a substuted i instead of the l


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 18, 2015)

ILS

An *instrument landing system* (*ILS*) is a ground-based instrument approach system that provides precision lateral and vertical guidance to an aircraft approaching and landing on a runway, using a combination of radio signals and, in many cases, high-intensity lighting arrays to enable a safe landing.

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


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 7, 2016)

2015 may NOT have been the hottest year on record after all: Satellite data shows temperatures were lower than first thought


For months, reports have claimed 2015 was the hottest year on record, with temperatures reaching unprecedented levels globally. By studying satellite data, the results contradict the previous readings and predictions made using land-based weather stations.








The satellite readings were taken from the lower atmosphere. 

They show that the temperature anomaly for December 2015 was 0.44°C (0.79°F), which was up from November's 0.33°C (0.59°F), said the experts from University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

Over the course of 12 months, this made 2015 the third warmest year since satellite records began in 1979, with an average global temperature of 0.27°C (0.49°F) above the average. 

This is lower than the combined average temperature taken using land and sea-based equipment, which found the temperatures were 0.97°C (1.75°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F) in November alone. 

Based on the satellite data, 1998 holds the record for the warmest year at 0.48°C, followed by 2010, at 0.34°C (0.61°F). 

The most recent data has been published online by Dr Roy Spencer, a meteorologist at UAH.





According to NOAA, November 2015 was the globe's warmest November on record, the seventh consecutive month to reach a new high. A climate update from NOAA also noted a record-warm average temperature for 2015 through the end of November (pictured)


----------



## SK-1 (Jan 7, 2016)

^omg...How on EARTH (no pun intended really) can one still be so sure of this "Science"?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 8, 2016)

Somewhat related: Brown declares state of emergency at Porter Ranch amid massive gas leak

Natural gas is really no cleaner than oil/coal.  That one leak, right now, makes up for 25% of California's methane emissions and methane is 20+ times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  It's quickly taking over coal as USA's top energy source:


----------



## magibeg (Jan 10, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> ^omg...How on EARTH (no pun intended really) can one still be so sure of this "Science"?



Newtons laws of gravitation were overturned by relativity? How can we ever trust "science".


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 10, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Newtons laws of gravitation were overturned by relativity? How can we ever trust "science".


wait until a politician tells you about science
you can Trust a politician


----------



## SK-1 (Jan 12, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> wait until a politician tells you about science
> you can Trust a politician


----------



## SK-1 (Jan 12, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Newtons laws of gravitation were overturned by relativity? How can we ever trust "science".


I know right? Seems like a million years since I first posted pictures of all the bogus NOAA/NWS temp reporting station locations over at GN. Long time no speak. Hope things are well up north!


----------



## magibeg (Jan 13, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> I know right? Seems like a million years since I first posted pictures of all the bogus NOAA/NWS temp reporting station locations over at GN. Long time no speak. Hope things are well up north!



Everything was wonderful until El-Nino seems to have left us. Now it's just snow snow snow . It's not that I dislike snow, it's more that it ruins my drive into work. My commute was 2.5 hours today.... 1 way!!!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 13, 2016)

National Center for Atmospheric Research says new machine 100,000 times faster than home PC.   ( or about 4 times faster than my Xeons )





This photo taken May 5, 2015, shows the Yellowstone supercomputer at the NCAR Wyoming Supercomputing Center west of Cheyenne, Wyo. A new supercomputer is set to begin operations in 2017, and it will be one of the fastest computers in the world.


The National Center for Atmospheric Research says Cheyenne will be at least 2 ½ times faster than the Yellowstone supercomputer in Wyoming, which currently ranks among the 60 fastest computers in the world.

Cheyenne will be capable of 5.3 quadrillion calculations, also called petaflops, per second.

This speed will enable it to make more detailed climate predictions, like regional modelling of effects, and help answer difficult climate change questions.

And, it will display results in higher resolution.

The new supercomputer will be more efficient, using 10 percent less energy than Yellowstone consumes, and taking up a third of the space.

Cheyenne could help researchers to determine whether the California drought is a product of climate change, or what the effect of climate change will be on future droughts and arctic sea ice, along with other pressing climate issues.

When the new computer is up and running, it will work side-by-side with the old one, though they won't be working in direct coordination, AP says.

Yellowstone has been used since 2012 to study climate change, weather, and other earth science research.

More than 2,200 scientists from over 300 universities and federal labs have tapped into its capabilities.

Supercomputers don't just work on one project at a time, but split the time and bandwidth for many researchers


----------



## silkstone (Jan 13, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Newtons laws of gravitation were overturned by relativity? How can we ever trust "science".



A sarcasm tag is really needed here as from this post, and especially the reply, I can't tell if you are being serious.


----------



## SK-1 (Jan 13, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Everything was wonderful until El-Nino seems to have left us. Now it's just snow snow snow . It's not that I dislike snow, it's more that it ruins my drive into work. My commute was 2.5 hours today.... 1 way!!!





silkstone said:


> A sarcasm tag is really needed here as from this post, and especially the reply, I can't tell if you are being serious.


This new development will surely help both of these issues. Deep snow and deep shit. 
*‘Global warming’ could cause humans to develop webbed feet, cat’s eyes and gills.*​
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01...s-to-develop-webbed-feet-cats-eyes-and-gills/


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 13, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> *‘Global warming’ could cause humans to develop webbed feet, cat’s eyes and gills.*



All ready happened    they live in Norfolk UK


----------



## silkstone (Jan 19, 2016)

I hate to re-kindle the dying flame of this thread but still want to present one last argument. And it's a basic appeal to one's common sense.

The majority of fossil fuel deposits were formed 300 million years ago, when the earth was covered by swampy forests. The CO2 content was pretty damn high at this point, with animal life being restricted to the oceans. This plant life went through cycles of life and death (as does all life) and sequestered carbon into the ground in the form of peat. The peat is what eventually turned into the fossil fuels we use today. This gradually reduced the carbon content in the atmosphere to such a point that animal life was able to evolve and live on the surface of our planet.

By allowing all this sequestered carbon to re-enter we are moving closer to having a "pre-historic" atmosphere, not conducive to life on the surface.

Yes, other gasses contribute to the greenhouse effect, and yes the proportion of sequested CO2 (over 300 million years) re-entering the carbon cycle is low (compared to the total), but CO2 is the only gas re-entering our atmosphere in sufficiently large quantities to have much of an effect on the climate.

To understand the various cycles, is to understand the earth, and I would encourage all to do a little further research into the underlying principles at work behind all of this. You don't have to have a degree to understand many of the fundamentals, and indeed, I never let school get in the way of my own education (to paraphrase Mark Twain). But you must look into the science that these models are built upon, and evaluate their validity before making your judgement.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 19, 2016)

silkstone said:


> Yes, other gasses contribute to the greenhouse effect, and yes the proportion of sequested CO2 (over 300 million years) re-entering the carbon cycle is low (compared to the total), but CO2 is the only gas re-entering our atmosphere in sufficiently large quantities to have much of an effect on the climate.


Methane...





As humans are switching from oil and coal to natural gas, the amount that reaches the atmosphere through natural and mechanical means is soaring.  It's flammable, it's far more potent than CO2, and as a percentage of the atmosphere, it has increased faster than CO2.

On another thread, I compared two graphs of methane levels and temperature--methane explained anomalies in temperature CO2 could not (like the 2000-2004 "pause" in warming).

Why does CO2 get all of the attention?  Because it's easier for green thumbs to squawk at diesel trucks on the highway than at the hunk of steak on their plate.

In America, at least, the coal and oil industries have been pushing advertising hard for natural gas fired power plants.  They're trying to legitimize natural gas as being "clean" so it doesn't get stigmatized like coal and oil.  Sure it's not as dirty as coal, especially, because it doesn't have lots of particulate matter but it is NOT clean.  I posted about this specific topic earlier on this page.


So much attention has been given to CO2 that all of the other factors (like cirrus cloud formations and methane) have been largely ignored.  There's far more warning signs for methane (see link) and cirrus (discussed previously) than there ever were for CO2.  Hell, the most logical explanation for the loss of ships/aircraft in the Bermuda and Dragon Triangles is massive ocean floor methane releases.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 19, 2016)

"You I said thanks." and i just created my own personal methane cloud


----------



## silkstone (Jan 19, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Methane...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree. Methane also has a large effect. Again, mining of fossil fuels (of all types) releases methane into the atmosphere. Wikipedia has some good info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

I don't think any scientist would disagree that there is more than one gas involved in the current situation we find ourselves. However it is easier to look for alternate transport and energy sources than it is to look for alternate food sources. Note that methane emissions are not caused purely by agriculture, Fossil fuels cause a similar quantity of methane emissions. Add that to the CO2 emissions and you start to see a solution.

The fact that methane is sequestered from the atmosphere much more quickly than carbon means that carbon has longer lasting effects.

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

Edit - The imbalance in the carbon cycle caused by CO2 compared with Methane is, I believe, magnitudes of orders higher, but I don;t have the time to look for reliable sources at the moment. I'll take a look tomorrow.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 19, 2016)

We're adding CH4 to the atmosphere much faster than it is being removed (which is why it is rising).  CO2 is measured in parts per million where CH4 is measured in parts per billion.  Ehm, 1.8 ppm CH4 versus 400 ppm CO2.  When you weigh in CH4 could be 100 times more portant CO2 as a greenhouse gas, a tiny change in CH4 results in a massive impact on climate--far greater than CO2.  Where CO2 levels are more or less leveling off; CH4 levels continue to climb rapidly.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 19, 2016)

Again, one more reason we need to move away from using fossil fuels.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2016)

The only path to "move away" from fossil fuels is to have a better alternative available in the market.  What would that be?  Remember, alternatives need to be competitively priced and readily available to be adapted by said market.


Additionally, moving away from fossil fuels doesn't solve the increasing amount of flatus nor the growing inefficiency of the atmosphere breaking it down.  CH4 breaks down into H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere (both also greenhouse gases); however, CH4 does not break down unless in the presence of OH of which amounts are decreasing.  Eliminate all mechanical sources of CO2 and CH4 but natural occurances of CH4 will continue to be a problem.

At the end of the day, atmospheric CH4 and CO2 are merely symptoms of a cause: human overpopulation.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 20, 2016)

And so, your solution would be what . . . world war?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2016)

One child per female limit, globally.  Every generation approximately halves the human population.  Lift the restriction when safe levels are reached.  China did similar to control their population growth.

It's a consequence of not enough war, famine, and disease which has kept the human population in check until the 20th century.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 20, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> One child per female limit, globally.  Every generation approximately halves the human population.  Lift the restriction when safe levels are reached.  China did similar to control their population growth.
> 
> It's a consequence of not enough war, famine, and disease which has kept the human population in check until the 20th century.



Trouble with that idea is its not culturally acceptable 
your example of china  has resulted in a population inbalance where girl children were killed ( because everyone wanted sons ) in the past   and now Vast number of Chinese men do not have wives  women are kidnaped to become captive brides for these men  in increasing numbers
you and the world need to review their idea's   not everyone can afford a mail order bride from Russia


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2016)

The alternatives are much, much worse.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 20, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The alternatives are much, much worse.



I agreee soyent green taste horrible


----------



## silkstone (Jan 20, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> One child per female limit, globally.  Every generation approximately halves the human population.  Lift the restriction when safe levels are reached.  China did similar to control their population growth.
> 
> It's a consequence of not enough war, famine, and disease which has kept the human population in check until the 20th century.



You do realize that this is implausible right? Renewables are a reality. This borders on insanity.

[Edit] - If you actually look into the Science and politics of overpopulation, the stats are pretty debatable. I'm not that well-versed in the topic (beyond flawed common-sense arguments) so I can't really play devils advocate on this one.
I'd be interested in learning more about the topic though, if anyone else is well versed in the socio-political side vs. scientific evidence.
From what I do understand about the arguments, it is all about blaming those pesky 
Chinese/poor-people for all the worlds problems.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2016)

Define "renewable."  If you're talking biological (e.g. ethanol and biodiesel): CO2, yes because the aggregate removes CO2 from the atmosphere; CH4, no because decomposition of plant life releases large amounts of CH4 which the atmosphere is already struggling to cope with.

I do not classify wind/solar/geothermal/hydro as renewable.  You're replacing nature with something mechanical.  All of them have unintended negative effects on nature (kills birds/function of surface area/degradation of rock structure/devastating to downstream wild life).

Humanity is going to have to face reality eventually:





FYI, that chart ends in about 2000...we're off the chart now (>1800).

Mankind has a long history of using technology to afford further population growth (sharpened stones to improve efficiency of the hunt and aqueducts making dry land farmable are two examples).  Due to mechanization and genetically modified organisms, food supply is relatively secure.  The new problems that aren't so easy to tackle are atmospheric in nature and not just greenhouse gases.  If technology does not provide a solution (e.g. an efficient means of producing OH from H2O) the atmosphere will eventually become poisonous.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 20, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Define "renewable."  If you're talking biological (e.g. ethanol and biodiesel): CO2, yes because the aggregate removes CO2 from the atmosphere; CH4, no because decomposition of plant life releases large amounts of CH4 which the atmosphere is already struggling to cope with.
> 
> I do not classify wind/solar/geothermal/hydro as renewable.  You're replacing nature with something mechanical.  All of them have unintended negative effects on nature (kills birds/function of surface area/degradation of rock structure/devastating to downstream wild life).
> 
> ...



Again you're overstating the impact of Methane. For reference, the general life cycle of methane is ~20 years, compared to ~100 years for CO2 and ~100,000 years for phosphorus 
(not that the phosphorus cycle and carbon cycle are anyway related, it's just a fun fact).  It's all about them cycles. Your also ignoring the fact that a fossil fuels emitt roughly equal amounts of methane as agriculture.

And again, your solution boils down to kill all humans. I have yet to read a viable alternate way of reducing the magnitude of the enhanced greenhouse effect.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2016)

And you're missing the fact that the cycle is saturated--it cannot handle the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere already, nevermind the amount we're adding annually.

Even if you eliminate the industry/transportation sources of methane (which all indicators point it growing due to governmental action against CO2), agriculture is still producing more CH4 than the cycle can handle.


I never said "kill all humans."  I said population control which aides the environment in far more ways than just greenhouse gasses.

The only way to control CH4 without reducing human population is mass producing hydrodxl radicals (they're toxic to life) and venting them into the air.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 20, 2016)

Cut beef production.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 20, 2016)

Stupidest comment in this thread for a while and the award goes to


FordGT90Concept said:


> The only way to control CH4 without reducing human population is mass producing hydrodxl radicals (they're toxic to life) and venting them into the air.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 20, 2016)

7.4.5.1 Changes in the Hydroxyl Radical Over Time

Pre-industrial to present estimates on decrease in atmospheric hydroxyl radicals is <10% to 33% (a subject of debate).  Estimates of atmospheric hydroxyl radicals projecting to 2100: +5% to -19% from present.  Remember, we want more hydroxyl radicals to combat the CH4 that is already in the atmosphere.  Decreases in hydroxyl radicals inevitably translates to extended CH4 lifespan in the air.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 21, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The only way to control CH4 without reducing human population is mass producing hydrodxl radicals (they're toxic to life) and venting them into the air.



Erm, no. We could also reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and meat.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2016)

Good luck with that:


----------



## silkstone (Jan 21, 2016)

Very well, I guess the best place to start with these eugenics projects would be in the richer nations. Poor people contribute very very little in the way of greenhouse gasses.

By rich people, I mean anyone living on more than $2 a day. Lets just prevent them from having more children and the problem would be solved!

Here's a link to base some further research on:
http://sciencenordic.com/well-heeled-leave-biggest-carbon-footprint


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 21, 2016)

People earning less than $ 2.00 a day are unable to buy beef.

Perhaps the heatwave affecting areas of cattle production will help to even out the balance.?

Are we victims of our own greed? or gullible to the marketing that force feeds inefficient and wasteful food production on us.?

World grain reserves are so dangerously low that severe weather in the United States or other food-exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis next year, the United Nations has warned.
Failing harvests in the US, Ukraine and other countries this year have eroded reserves to their lowest level since 1974. The US, which has experienced record heatwaves and droughts in 2012, now holds in reserve a historically low 6.5% of the maize that it expects to consume in the next year, says the UN.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/gl...reached-their-lowest-level-in-almost-40-years


​


----------



## Frick (Jan 21, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Are we victims of our own greed? or gullible to the marketing that force feeds inefficient and wasteful food production on us.?
> ​



Those are - largely - statements, not questions.


----------



## xfia (Jan 21, 2016)

will global markets crash?
will consumerism win?
are global markets crashing?
is consumerism winning?
@CAPSLOCKSTUCK I would rather eat less organic food than eat that artificial gmo crap. Here in the US they cant keep enough organic food on the shelves. Part of it is we have all been education about it and 90% percent of us are pissed off and ready to get what we want. The crashes that are going on seems to be apart of economic re localization.
DEATH TO MONSANTO! WE ARE THE 90%??


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 21, 2016)

I said I'd stop responding to this thread, but at this point I'm frustrated at the rather crap level of consistency that I'm seeing here.

From the 28th page of this discussion:


FordGT90Concept said:


> Which is also a misnomer because if man never existed, the climate would still change.  Case in point: all of that oil in the middle east strongly suggests that area was once covered in lush forest/jungle.  It hasn't been that in over 10,000 years (when man first learned to document what he/she saw).  There is absolutely nothing unnatural about climate changing.  The only thing we can pin on man, at this point, is the relatively high levels of atmospheric CO2.



From the 35th page of this discussion:



FordGT90Concept said:


> Define "renewable."  If you're talking biological (e.g. ethanol and biodiesel): CO2, yes because the aggregate removes CO2 from the atmosphere; CH4, no because decomposition of plant life releases large amounts of CH4 which the atmosphere is already struggling to cope with.
> 
> I do not classify wind/solar/geothermal/hydro as renewable.  You're replacing nature with something mechanical.  All of them have unintended negative effects on nature (kills birds/function of surface area/degradation of rock structure/devastating to downstream wild life).
> 
> ...






If I didn't know better, I'd say that somebody had slipped me the brown acid.  In one instance I argue that climate change is a thing, and that man needs to do something about it.  I'm then told that climate change is BS, and it'd occur completely without man.

In less than 10 pages of discussion the person who told me this has now decided that population control and genocide is our best solution.

WTF?


I couldn't make this s*** up if I tried.  So tell me now, what's the logic?  I haven't seen a single fact presented here that should turn somebody denying relevance into somebody calling for murders on the order of death camps.  I haven't seen any justification for further shrinking of the birth rate, especially not justification in large 1st world countries where the birth rate is already surprisingly low.  I haven't seen any justification for killing all life to make the temperature more stable (releasing radical chemicals doesn't just kill humans, those radicals damage DNA).

Can you say heel-turn into insanity?  Can you say bat-s*** crazy?  Most importantly, can you say unstable person who shouldn't be allowed to play with a soup spoon, because they might decide that the person eating across from them is going to steal their food and thus deserves to be murdered?  The proposed solution is to "fix" things by introducing a completely unknown element into a complex system, that's toxic to a large portion of the system, and hope that fixes things.  This is either the plot of a B sci-fi movie, or insanity and hubris that hasn't been rivaled in the course of human history.  I can't decide which, but listening to it now is both frightening and sheds a weird light on the previously reasonable discussion.


Edit:


xfia said:


> will global markets crash?
> will consumerism win?
> are global markets crashing?
> is consumerism winning?
> ...



?

Genetic modification is a fundamental part of agriculture.  Those orange carrots, they're the product of selective breeding.  Selective breeding is modifying the genetic makeup of an organism based upon desired outcome, via controlled breeding.

Do you like wheat, corn, or bananas?  You're chowing down on items bred for specific traits for generations.  In the case of bananas we've actually gotten to the point where consumer bananas are all clones, to the point where we can no longer grow bananas from seeds.  Sci-show did an excellent job covering the topic on youtube,

Best yet, do you know why India has the population it does today?  It sure as hell isn't because of its food output.  Look up Norman Borlaug.  By introducing hybridized crops into the third world he save millions, if not billions, from death by starvation.

Believing that Monsanto's scientific modification of genes is anything new is hubris.  The methodology may be new, but humanity has been genetically modifying its animals and plant since the inception of agriculture.  If that's somehow impossible to see, tell me how a modern day cow would have fared a few hundred years ago?  It didn't, cows were selectively bred from Aurochs.


Believe that GMO is bad, but if you decide that your backwards belief means that people should starve you are a monster.  There's a special place in hell for you, right next to Tantalus.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 21, 2016)

@lilhasselhoffer
See post   #860​


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 21, 2016)

I saw this the other day, and even though I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore, it was too interesting not to share.  

Dr. Michio Kuko sounds hopeful because of market forces that Greenhouse effects are temporary.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 21, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> @lilhasselhoffer
> See post
> #860​



I'm sorry, I have no clue what this means.  I've been following the posts passively, as this thread made the front page.  I see the reason for the conclusions, but how exactly we got from "it's not our fault" to "kill most of the humans" is just...I can't square it up.


Edit:
Check that.  There's one way I could conceive it happening.  Clockwork Orange style programming, but all of the screens are playing the greatest clips from Bender.  The focus would be on the global warming "solution" episode where they proposed killing all robots, while the filler would be Bender yelling "Kill all humans!"

Wow, Futurama and a Clockwork Orange reference.  I think that was enough crazy for me for today.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> If I didn't know better, I'd say that somebody had slipped me the brown acid.  In one instance I argue that climate change is a thing, and that man needs to do something about it.  I'm then told that climate change is BS, and it'd occur completely without man.


First quote, I said climate is always changing (true).  The topic was about CO2 at the time and that statement was explicitly responding to the CO2 question.

The second quote is about CH4 which, nevermind climate, is a dangerous, volatile gas.  The comment about population control applies to levels of CH4 rising, food and water shortages, land shortages, and so on.  CH4 is a much bigger problem than CO2 because it is much more difficult to combat.


See the Kissinger Report.  Population control is not a new idea and it certainly isn't my idea. I'd argue it is an inevitability unless humans master space travel soon.




rtwjunkie said:


> I saw this the other day, and even though I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore, it was too interesting not to sharw.
> 
> Dr. Michio Kuko sounds hopeful because of market forces that Greenhouse effects are temporary.


Kaku has always been an optimist.

He's wrong: nuclear receives no subsidies.  Solar does.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 21, 2016)

How on earth is CH4 a bigger problem and more difficult to combat!

Science disagrees with you on it being a bigger problem, and the solutions to rising CO2 levels and CH4 levels are the same!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2016)

Compare:
















"The solutions" are not "the same."  Earth already has an extremely effective tool for dealing with CO2; it does not for CH4.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 21, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> First quote, I said climate is always changing (true).  The topic was about CO2 at the time and that statement was explicitly responding to the CO2 question.
> 
> The second quote is about CH4 which, nevermind climate, is a dangerous, volatile gas.  The comment about population control applies to levels of CH4 rising, food and water shortages, land shortages, and so on.  CH4 is a much bigger problem than CO2 because it is much more difficult to combat.
> 
> ...



I would ask that you read that one more time.  I gave you the page number partially so you could look back if you believed the quote was unfairly taken out of context, and partially so that I could be assumed to not be altering the facts.

What you said is global climate change is a misnomer.  You said that this change wasn't man made, and that the only thing we could attribute to man is a relatively high level of CO2.

None of that discussion was about which greenhouse gas is being put out.  You interjected the fact that all man was responsible for was CO2 increase.  I didn't argue it then because by your own logic, which demonstrates consistency throughout the discussion, CO2 was a relatively weaker influence on atmospheric conditions.


I'm not asking for a lot here.  What I'm asking is for you to start squaring your beliefs, and make them consistent.  You've bounced back and forth on the fundamentals, and none of the data which has been presented here would be a reason for such a change.



So help me explain the fundamentals, and square up your reasoning to some consistent logic.
1) Does climate change exist?
2) Assuming you answered yes to question 1 (because you have agreed to that implicitly in the past), is it anthropogenic?
3) If you answered no in question 2, how does murdering a bunch of humans and preventing births help to address it?
4) Assuming you answered yes in question 2, why did you initially say that man wasn't responsible?
5) Assuming that you answered anything but "new data changed my opinion on the topic" for 4, why does CO2 versus CH4 emission matter?  While arguably the impact is greater, anthropogenic causes are by definition a product of human influence.  Square the initial statement with the recent statement that humanity will pay for its decisions with the initial statement that it isn't our actions.


Here's the point that I get to discover whether you're an ideolog or a reasonable operator.  A reasonable operator looks back at their statements, and if the dissonance between initial points and current theory is great enough they admit to being wrong.  There's no shame in being wrong, only shame in not being able to admit that you can't see it.  An ideolog will continue to spout whatever they believed most recently, and hold that to very disparate ideas are somehow the same.  I have enough respect for you that I hope you are a reasonable operator.  At the same time, I've learned that assuming reasonable motivation from someone is never a good place to start when it comes to big ideas.  

Please, give me a reason to believe that this discussion can bear some fruit.  Tell me it's not another debate that can't be had because of an underlying unreasonable difference.  I've stayed out of this discussion for a long time to try and lend perspective, but what I'm seeing is about as consistent as vegetable soup.  Take this opportunity to reevaluate what it is you want to say, because it's starting to get contradictory.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2016)

1) Yes, climate is always changing.
2) I don't know.  Surely there are human contributions involved but I can't definitively say those contributions are solely nor mostly to blame.
4) I said man has undeniably contributed to CO2 rising levels.  See #2 for why I don't/won't go further than that.
5) "Versus?"  @silkstone said "CO2 is the only gas re-entering our atmosphere in sufficiently large quantities to have much of an effect on the climate."  That's not true because of CH4.  Both are greenhouse gases and the anthropogenic warming (should it be occurring) are a combination of the two (as well as about a dozen other factors).


I like to not leave a footprint so I am of the mind that the atmospheric conditions of 1700 are preferable to the conditions of today.  Anything that moves the composition of the air towards what they were in 1700 is a good thing in my mind.  I don't care about the squabbles of "global climate change," I look at CH4 being more than double what it was just 300 years ago and I say "that's a problem."  I look at CO2 and reach a similar conclusion (albeit not as alarmed):





I look at cloud information saying there wasn't cirrus clouds over Salt Lake City before man took to the sky and today, there are cirrus clouds present over that airspace 60% of the time.  These are obvious problems and we should be course correcting for them.  Whether or not "climate change" is correlated or not matters not to me.  At the same time, I caution that reducing CO2 emissions should not come with an increase in CH4 (which is the current trend).  They all need to be addressed, simultaneously.


The spike in CH4 and CO2 in the graphs I've posted are undeniably due to human activity.  There is no other plausible explanation.  Again, I won't explicitly tie those jumps to climate.  Climate is far too complex and there are far too many questions lingering to reach that conclusion at this point.


----------



## xfia (Jan 21, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I said I'd stop responding to this thread, but at this point I'm frustrated at the rather crap level of consistency that I'm seeing here.
> 
> From the 28th page of this discussion:
> 
> ...


I know the story of the banana..  
Monsanto practice kills and is proven to do so..  they sell seeds to farmers and those seeds are made to work with Round Up. The worst pesticide ever that harms humans bees and the earth itself. 
If im going to hell for wanting healthy change in the world then I gladly go to the light of flames and watch from above into the depths at those who thought they universally understood everything.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 21, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Compare:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Methane is 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period"

I'm not sure how that statement is meant to make any sense at all! Very dodgy trying to credit the source of the statement to Nasa too!

I'm not sure what I am meant to be seeing in the comparison. Alaska emissions of CH4? You have Sarah Palin up there, right, and she does talk a lot (. . .) that could account for 50% of the increase in CH4 emissions during that period.

If you look into the Chemistry/Physics of the GH effect, you will see that the additional energy retained/absorbed due to methane is around 1/3 of that due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

This thread really highlights the point that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

Edit - I just read your post. I meant that "CO2 is the only gas re-entering our atmosphere in sufficiently large quantities to have THIS much of an effect on the climate." i.e. CH4 increases alone cannot account for the imbalance we are seeing. I've already agreed that CH4 is a greenhouse gas and DO have AN effect.

Edit 2 - I've been looking for a recent video describing why we should move away from fossil fuels even if we consider the whole climate change thing irrelevant.
The basis was that non-point source emissions are known to have very negative effects on people's health. It is a given. You live in a city with more air pollution, you're more likely to get sick. You sit in a garage running an electric car, you'll be okay. Change that to a V6 and you're not going to be feeling well after just 5 minutes.

How can you say that reducing air pollution is a bad thing?

Edit 3 - This a fun watch:


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2016)

silkstone said:


> I'm not sure what I am meant to be seeing in the comparison. Alaska emissions of CH4? You have Sarah Palin up there, right, and she does talk a lot (. . .) that could account for 50% of the increase in CH4 emissions during that period.


The massive shift on an annual basis CO2 goes through that CH4 does not.  CO2 is relatively easy to control with the appropriate technology and investment (available now) but that is not the case with CH4.



silkstone said:


> How can you say that reducing air pollution is a bad thing?


CO2 nor CH4 is "air pollution."  CO, O3, SOx, NOx, Pb, and aerosols are. In the case of your car, it's the CO that kills you first.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 21, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The massive shift on an annual basis CO2 goes through that CH4 does not.  CO2 is relatively easy to control with the appropriate technology and investment (available now) but that is not the case with CH4.
> 
> 
> CO2 nor CH4 is "air pollution."  CO, O3, SOx, NOx, Pb, and aerosols are. In the case of your car, it's the CO that kills you first.



No, but lets move to renewables to reduce air pollution anyway.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2016)

Ethanol, Biodiesel, hydro, solar = destroys habitats
Geothermal = may cause earthquakes (not unlike fracking), limited availability
Wind = kills birds, is unreliable, and only economically feasible due to energy subsidies
Solar = decreases albedo (increasing surface temperatures), available only half of the day (give or take), is potentially unreliable (weather pending), and only economically feasible due to energy subsidies
Did I miss any?

All combined they are inadequate to fulfill the energy needs of today (nevermind the future) without changing the face of the earth forever (in a bad way).


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 21, 2016)

xfia said:


> I know the story of the banana..
> Monsanto practice kills and is proven to do so..  they sell seeds to farmers and those seeds are made to work with Round Up. The worst pesticide ever that harms humans bees and the earth itself.
> If im going to hell for wanting healthy change in the world then I gladly go to the light of flames and watch from above into the depths at those who thought they universally understood everything.



Let's get our terminology clear then.  The reason I've stated what I have is that GMO is thrown around as if a curse, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means.

What you seem to be against is one type of modified plants, which are designed for higher yields and resistance to pesticides.  You seem to be against the use of pesticides as well.  I'm willing to give you that (and agree to some extent), but neither of these things are inherent to GMO.  Both of them are things which you hate, that one corporation is doing.  I'm just asking you to separate GMO from the unique brand of GMO that you don't want.  Hating Monsanto is alright, but hating GMO as a whole isn't.

Seriously though, Norman Borlaug.  If you can do research on his contributions, and see that he himself defines his process as genetic modification, while condemning the work I don't know if you're human.  Seeing someone capable of relieving so much suffering, simply by hybridizing plants for agriculture, is astonishing.  Condemning it outright means a death sentence for most of the world.



FordGT90Concept said:


> 1) Yes, climate is always changing.
> 2) I don't know.  Surely there are human contributions involved but I can't definitively say those contributions are solely nor mostly to blame.
> 4) I said man has undeniably contributed to CO2 rising levels.  See #2 for why I don't/won't go further than that.
> 5) "Versus?"  @silkstone said "CO2 is the only gas re-entering our atmosphere in sufficiently large quantities to have much of an effect on the climate."  That's not true because of CH4.  Both are greenhouse gases and the anthropogenic warming (should it be occurring) are a combination of the two (as well as about a dozen other factors).
> ...



Respectfully, I don't care about the argument from Silkstone.  I don't care because it isn't relevant to the question at hand.

The question at hand is of your consistency of argument. 


You stated that climate change might or might not be a thing, and that you were going to wait for supercomputer models to verify its voracity.  Fine.  I think it's crap, but that's besides the point.  You state that the only thing we're sure of is that man has increased the atmospheric levels of CO2.  I cited that post, because your words are quite clear there.


I'll let you extrapolate what you will, but there's two clear conclusions here.  First, you either didn't know about the CH4 levels at the time, or were intellectually dishonest with the conclusion that CO2 was all humanity was putting into the atmosphere faster than it could be cycled out.  You're welcome to tell me which, but either conclusion means you missed a fact that you are focusing on hard right now.  A fact that you believe justifies some insane measures of action be taken immediately.  Finally, you don't have a consistent stance.  In the beginning, the climate change wasn't anthropogenic.  Whenever other people said it was happening, you denied that it was anthropogenic, and attributed it to regular geological and atmospheric cycles.  Now the cause of the changes is all humanity's fault.  It doesn't matter what compound it is we're releasing, but it is humanity doing this.


You've yet to square the two statements.

Why does this matter?  When I, and others, suggested something needed to be done you were staunchly opposed.  It doesn't exist, therefore it can safely be ignored.  Now, you're here suggesting population control.  Which is it?  If humanity is doing it, murder is an excellent way to mitigate it.  If humanity isn't responsible, you're advocating for murder.  Are you a monster, a savior, or just someone who can't really form a coherent logic because of the conflicting nature of their beliefs?  I've asked that simple question, and have yet to receive a simple answer.  Let's try one last time to get a clear statement.


I assume that you think climate change is real.  I assume that you believe humans have had a direct impact (as your CH4 and radical particle data suggests).  I finally assume that, given your stated stance of population control, you believe that humanity has a direct impact on climate.

Given all of these assumptions, how do you square them with your earlier statements that a new model of climate might disprove the theory of climate change being largely anthropogenically driven, and even stating that CO2 was the only thing that was being worried about:


FordGT90Concept said:


> I suspect not much on both accounts.  Most credible sources on climate aren't sounding the alarm for today, they're sounding it for the future.  They warn about reducing CO2 output today so it doesn't exceed a threshold in the future.




Edit:
Let me take a wild stab here, and try to help you.

In post 629 you make reference to CO2 and CH4 being linked.  A fair assertion.  When you respond to me two pages later CO2 is the only concern.  You're now to the point where CH4 is the primary issue, with CO2 being a supplementary issue.

It's like pinning jello to a wall.  Whenever you need to argue a specific point, the other item is forgotten.  Then an alternative point comes up, and that previous argument is cast aside.

I could buy this entirely if you stuck with the denial side of anthropogenic climate change.  While I think it's a backwards statement, at least is shows consistency in the message.  You started with "humanity might be involved," traveled to "I'm waiting for the supercomputers to tell us is humans can have any impact," and are now at "kill most humans so that the problem can be fixed."

I can't understand that level of change in logic.  You haven't provided me a guide to understanding the logic.  All I can read from this thread is that you have plenty of arguments for things, yet no string to tie these things into a coherent logic.  Can you provide that logic, or will you continue moving the goalposts of the argument such that the discussion is pointless?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2016)

I hate these posts about rhetoric and not substance.  Don't count on me replying to more rhetoric because no one learns anything from it...



lilhasselhoffer said:


> First, you either didn't know about the CH4 levels at the time, or were intellectually dishonest with the conclusion that CO2 was all humanity was putting into the atmosphere faster than it could be cycled out.


I've know about CH4 being problematical since at least 2007 (posts on General Nonsense).  I just didn't mention it because it wasn't pertinent to the thread until Silkstone's post.  The post you insist on quoting, I was giving an example; it was never intended to be all inclusive like it seems you wish it were.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> A fact that you believe justifies some insane measures of action be taken immediately.


Negative.  It's the aggregate (over fishing, crop surplus dwindling, rising CO2, rising CH4, increasing cirrus cloud formations, moving from coal and oil to methane for energy, increasing frequency and severity of water shortage, rate of species extinction increasing, and so on) that draws the conclusion of overpopulation.  If you want an immediate solution to all of those problems, reducing human population is the only one that checks all of the boxes.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Whenever other people said it was happening, you denied that it was anthropogenic, and attributed it to regular geological and atmospheric cycles.


No, I said climate is always changing.  Human activity may be influencing climate but it doesn't matter.  We need to focus on what we know which is very clearly demonstrated by those graphs I posted.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Now the cause of the changes is all humanity's fault.


Depends on what you're talking about.  Overfishing?  Absolutely.  Ocean acidification?  I'm not sure.  When you're talking about "cause" for climates to change, that's a huge field of grays, not blacks and whites.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> You've yet to square the two statements.


No, you want me to stick a few correlations in the holy grail basket called "global warming" and imply they have causations.  I'm not going to do that until there's are far fewer questions marks.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> When you respond to me two pages later CO2 is the only concern.


Responding to a reply about CO2.  To bring up CH4 again would be to go off topic.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> You're now to the point where CH4 is the primary issue, with CO2 being a supplementary issue.


CH4 is a bigger problem in the long term because it much harder to combat.  That isn't "primary" or "secondary."  It's a statement of fact.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> You started with "humanity might be involved,"...


In specific details, humans are definitely involved.  Case in point: there wouldn't be cirrus clouds over Salt Lake City without aircraft.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> ...traveled to "I'm waiting for the supercomputers to tell us is humans can have any impact,"...


Generally, this is where I'm sitting.  CO2 is well understood but there's many other fields of climate that are not.  CH4 and weather are examples.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> ...and are now at "kill most humans so that the problem can be fixed."


@silkstone suggested that, not me.  I responded to the theoretical and in doing so, I never suggested "kill."


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 21, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I hate these posts about rhetoric and not substance.  Don't count on me replying to more rhetoric because no one learns anything from it...
> 
> 
> I've know about CH4 being problematical since at least 2007 (posts on General Nonsense).  I just didn't mention it because it wasn't pertinent to the thread until Silkstone's post.  The post you insist on quoting, I was giving an example; it was never intended to be all inclusive like it seems you wish it were.
> ...




We're supposed to be having a discussion here.  You aren't having a discussion, you're introducing multiple logically inconsistent points, and coming up with radically different conclusions based upon who you are talking to.  Either that means your argument is based upon nothing tangible, it's based on a point being communicated ineptly, or you are a troll trying to get laughs.

The final point is unlikely at best, so we can disregard it.

The second point is a strong possibility.  You've thrown many a figure out there, that you've then contradicted by saying that despite the information you're ignoring it until a supercomputer can crunch the numbers.  That's a rather mealy mouthed answer to the original question posed, about climate change.  I'll accept it, but that really means you need to sit out of the discussion.  By your own logic, none of this data means anything without an accurate model to tell us what it's doing.

Where I'm sticking this is that your argument is an unintelligible mess of disparate facts woven together with a logical bias from the beginning.  Whenever somebody says climate change is a thing, you differ from the present accumulated knowledge, because a model of sufficient complexity hasn't been demonstrated.  Instead of stopping there though, you tell us that CO2 is the only thing that can be linked to humanity.  This contradicted earlier statements that CO2 and CH4 emissions were somehow linked.  That would be acceptable, if you didn't proceed to explicitly state that humans were responsible, and would have to come to terms with out CH4 output.  So which is it?  Is it humans substantially influencing climate change?  Is it a case where you changed beliefs?  Is it a case where no matter what facts are presented you'll move the goal posts to get what you want as an answer?


I'm done again.  You can't be discussed with, because every time an argument is made you redefine the goal posts.  In one instance, humans have to come to terms with everything, and are a significant factor.  In the next instance, it's still a question of whether climate change exists.  I congratulate you on continuing this discussion well past the point of covering the facts.  To any still reading, please understand that this is pointless and not informative.  You can argue with a climate change denier, and understand how their facts influence their interpretation.  You can argue with a climate change support, and get their facts.  Whenever a person can't decide what they believe, but they can throw a grotesque amount of contradictory data and ideas in your path, then the discussion needs to die.  Good day.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 21, 2016)

Again with this? Don't you people know it is silly to argue over these numbers because we don't know if the numbers are accurate. We also don't really know to what extend humanity is causing warming if there is any. I mean, you could argue until you are blue in the face but it won't change anyone's mind who makes policy decisions on these things because those people are already bought and paid for. So unless you have a fat bank account shut up.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 21, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> @silkstone suggested that, not me. I responded to the theoretical and in doing so, I never suggested "kill."



I should probably apologize for that. I know you didn't say to 'kill all humans,' but your arguments sounded like justification for a global eugenics project. People tried such things in the past (for different reasons) with horrifying results.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2016)

@lilhasselhoffer: You talk about "goal posts."  In my mind, you're talking about different fields so the goal posts never moved--they are unique.  To say the outcomes of games played on their respective fields (factors of climate) are related creates hundreds of questions I don't have answers for (wind, illness, type of grass, ball inflation level, barometric pressure, time of day, etc.).

Indecisiveness is my nature; I deal with facts as they present themselves and only draw conclusions when a) I'm comfortable doing so or b) am forced to due to a time pressure.


----------



## magibeg (Jan 22, 2016)

It was an issue a few pages back that 2015 might not have been the hottest year on record. Clearly no one has bothered to check up after the fact but here we go:

"Not only was 2015 the warmest worldwide since records began in 1880, it shattered the previous record held in 2014 by the widest margin ever observed, a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164

So we broke the record for hottest, then broke a record for how much we have been breaking records


----------



## silkstone (Jan 22, 2016)

On this topic, debate outside of the scientific community is pointless, unless you have the time to do lots of reading, as no one has enough in-depth knowledge to fully support their position.

The arguments can generally be split in to two sides. Those who trust in Science and the Scientific process and those that believe the Scientific method can not be trusted.

Unfortunately, there are more and more people (especially in the US) who are not being taught Science and so when they see evidence from two competing sources, they are generally unable to evaluate the validity and thus choose the one that suits them. It's a huge move (socially) backwards and empowering to those in positions of power over others.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 22, 2016)

magibeg said:


> It was an issue a few pages back that 2015 might not have been the hottest year on record. Clearly no one has bothered to check up after the fact but here we go:
> 
> "Not only was 2015 the warmest worldwide since records began in 1880, it shattered the previous record held in 2014 by the widest margin ever observed, a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said."
> 
> ...


Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://go.nasa.gov/1ZQwf63


----------



## Frick (Jan 22, 2016)

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/


----------



## silkstone (Jan 22, 2016)

Frick said:


> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/



Another move away from science and because it doesn't suit everyone's politics (/is inconvenient)

It's particularly concerning (though somewhat unsurprising) that the Heartland Institute are at it again, they seem to decry/reject anything and everything that supports the evidence for human influenced climate change.

That wouldn't really bother me so much, if every study they funded didn't fit their political agenda and their own funding sources were transparent.

They are the most shady foundation out their, yet so many deniers seem to parrot their arguments.

They are effective, i'll give them that, but its modern-day corruption and propaganda at its finest.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 22, 2016)

silkstone said:


> Unfortunately, there are more and more people (especially in the US) who are not being taught Science and so when they see evidence from two competing sources, they are generally unable to evaluate the validity and thus choose the one that suits them. It's a huge move (socially) backwards and empowering to those in positions of power over others



I do take a little bit of issue with this generalized statement about US children not being educated on this.  I can't speak for all of them, but I can speak about my children's school. 

A few years ago, when my youngest was in High School, they spent a number of weeks on the subject of climate change.  Both the textbooks and the teacher taught from a neutral standpoint.  Statistics were given, as well as the effects climate change have had on a number of factors, including an increase in natural disaster events.  Then as to the cause, each side's argument was put forth neutrally, the teacher never giving their personal opinion.  In culmination, the students were then required to write a term paper on their own view of what the main causes were, and recommend ways to deal with climate change going forward.

I was actually very pleased that it was presented in this manner, and was very educational.  Just my two cents on this, which certainly cannot be a response for all education systems in the U.S. but only my small slice.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 22, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Methane...



I do tend to fart alot the past few years. I see a trend evolving here...


----------



## silkstone (Jan 23, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> I do take a little bit of issue with this generalized statement about US children not being educated on this.  I can't speak for all of them, but I can speak about my children's school.
> 
> A few years ago, when my youngest was in High School, they spent a number of weeks on the subject of climate change.  Both the textbooks and the teacher taught from a neutral standpoint.  Statistics were given, as well as the effects climate change have had on a number of factors, including an increase in natural disaster events.  Then as to the cause, each side's argument was put forth neutrally, the teacher never giving their personal opinion.  In culmination, the students were then required to write a term paper on their own view of what the main causes were, and recommend ways to deal with climate change going forward.
> 
> I was actually very pleased that it was presented in this manner, and was very educational.  Just my two cents on this, which certainly cannot be a response for all education systems in the U.S. but only my small slice.



You do realize that is a prime example of my point, right? 

That is not how science is done and this leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and an erosion of trust in science.

"Then as to the cause, each side's argument was put forth neutrally"

Science does not follow a debating process. It is not the same as politics, where two sides might argue their points to legalizing same-sex marriage or not. If they were asked to make a judgement on the causes, then they would need an idea as to the 'weight' of the scientific evidence on each 'side.' It's a little like giving them Aristotle's theory about gravity and Newton's theory side-by-side and asking which one they feel is correct or even giving students the young-earth argument vs. the theory of evolution and saying, these are the two sides, which one is right?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 23, 2016)

silkstone said:


> You do realize that is a prime example of my point, right?
> 
> That is not how science is done and this leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and an erosion of trust in science.
> 
> ...



The object was to get them thinking, asking questions and researching.  It was good preparatory work for college.  The most important thing a university education provides isn't the information given.  It is getting people to analyze, question and think for themselves.  The uneducated mindset truly only spouts what was given to them, no thinking involved.  Those are the truly dangerous people because they are so easily swayed.  This class gave them a head start on college level classes.


----------



## HossHuge (Jan 23, 2016)

Air pollution is what I'm concerned about mostly.  Whether you believe in "man-made" climate change or not, you can't deny that air pollution related diseases are on the rise.  

I can't believe this thread has gotten to 36 pages and I haven't seen it yet.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2016)

In the context of climate, "aerosols" is used more often to describe air pollution than "pollution."  Oldest reference (almost a year ago):


FordGT90Concept said:


> Here's another crucial point: aerosols.  Aircraft exhaust doesn't seed big cumulonimbus clouds that cause negative feedback; no, they seed high altitude cirrus clouds that cause positive feedback.  As such, aircraft may have a much larger impact on heating the surface of the earth than just through CO2.



I doubt anyone here would argue air pollution is a good thing.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 23, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> The object was to get them thinking, asking questions and researching.  It was good preparatory work for college.  The most important thing a university education provides isn't the information given.  It is getting people to analyze, question and think for themselves.  The uneducated mindset truly only spouts what was given to them, no thinking involved.  Those are the truly dangerous people because they are so easily swayed.  This class gave them a head start on college level classes.



If it were to be done neutrally, It would go something like this: The teacher would teach the carbon and water cycle. Talk about the science behind the greenhouse effect and how it works (including the physics behind GH gasses). Link the two with the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Then assign an essay on climate change (might give a title or leave it open). They would then go away and do their own research, citing where their information was obtained. This is assuming they have access to a scientific database.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2016)

silkstone said:


> Link the two with the enhanced greenhouse effect.


Therein lies the problem.  Changes in greenhouse gasses are only relevant when trying to reconcile observed temperature versus a preindustrial temperature in models.  No doubt a correlation exists but correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 23, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Therein lies the problem.  Changes in greenhouse gasses are only relevant when trying to reconcile observed temperature versus a preindustrial temperature in models.  No doubt a correlation exists but correlation does not imply causation.



You do understand the science behind how GH gasses absorb energy, yes? This is not something that is difficult to determine. It can be reproduced in the lab.

You are saying that the mass of gas (quantity of volume if you like) has nothing to do with the total radiant energy absorbed?


----------



## xfia (Jan 23, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> The object was to get them thinking, asking questions and researching.  It was good preparatory work for college.  The most important thing a university education provides isn't the information given.  It is getting people to analyze, question and think for themselves.  The uneducated mindset truly only spouts what was given to them, no thinking involved.  Those are the truly dangerous people because they are so easily swayed.  This class gave them a head start on college level classes.


I had some good teachers at school in the US that would spend their own money on paper to print out packets for a week instead of using old books with misinformation.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2016)

silkstone said:


> You do understand the science behind how GH gasses absorb energy, yes? This is not something that is difficult to determine. It can be reproduced in the lab.
> 
> You are saying that the mass of gas (quantity of volume if you like) has nothing to do with the total radiant energy absorbed?


The extra greenhouse gasses undeniably cause some warming but it most definitely doesn't add up to 100% of the change.  Case in point: they say 2015 was the warmest year on record.  I'd argue that has a lot to do with limited snow coverage at the end of the year more than anything else.  Places that usually had feet of snow on the ground at the end of the year didn't have any snow coverage until this year.  That causes the earth to warm when it should have been cooling.  The models in use now don't account for albedo.  Everyone is quick to blame greenhouse gasses when they aren't the only factor at play.

Going further, last year was much the same here.  The reason for this is because the jet stream stayed far north most of the winter months.  This is likely because of el nino, not greenhouse gasses.  Greenhouse gasses likely contributed to a slight warming but not the bulk of it.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 23, 2016)

So understanding the Physics behind greenhouse gasses is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect? You do realise that 90% of the absorption of radiant energy occurs because of the atmosphere, right?

Here's a basic overview of the Physics: http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

And here's a breakdown of the numbers: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation_hays/

This is not statistics, looking for correlation. There is the same correlation in dropping something and knowing it will fall. Maybe the mass of the planet didn't pull it down, it could have been the underground, invisible, spaghetti monster with his multitude of arms.

To even think that surface ice has much of an influence is just crazy talk.


----------



## magibeg (Jan 23, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Therein lies the problem.  Changes in greenhouse gasses are only relevant when trying to reconcile observed temperature versus a preindustrial temperature in models.  No doubt a correlation exists but correlation does not imply causation.



Sure, that's great and all if you ignore known properties of chemistry and physics. Not sure why it seems people believe that CO2 was discovered to be a greenhouse gas after the world started warming. Its properties have been known for hundreds of years.


----------



## SK-1 (Jan 26, 2016)

Wait wait... I think I found out why they stopped using that old fashioned crappy satellite temp data. 
http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/2011-Global-Temperatures-are-inWERE-ALL-DOOMED-1145


----------



## Caring1 (Jan 26, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Wait wait... I think I found out why they stopped using that old fashioned crappy satellite temp data.


I think infra red satellite temperature recordings will be more accurate than the old terrestrial data they have been using.
As the picture shows, the land based sites aren't always in an optimal position.


----------



## SK-1 (Jan 26, 2016)

Yes Caring1. Sometimes I forget I'm posting in a Tech site. I have a bad habit of being a Sarcastic Ninja (rip WileE  )  It's obvious the sat data would be more reliable but it doesn't fit the warmest narrative. Hard to accurately measure anything with a faulty ruler.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 26, 2016)

Right, so temperatures aren't going up and the weather isn't changing, it's all a global conspiracy designed to attack your way of life.


----------



## SK-1 (Jan 26, 2016)

silkstone said:


> Right, so temperatures aren't going up and the weather isn't changing, it's all a global conspiracy designed to attack your way of life.


And speaking of warmest narratives...News flash..They have always changed... Sup with you?


----------



## xfia (Jan 26, 2016)

There is only a hole in the ocean in the golf of mexico and a hole in the atmosphere.. yes temps have always changed naturally but this time industrial revolution has added factors to the point of where no one can say what will happen for sure.
Will the ring of fire incinerate all the garbage in the ocean?  seems like maybe yes unless garbage has a conscious and is swimming all its pieces into perfect position on hunch.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 26, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> And speaking of warmest narratives...News flash..They have always changed... Sup with you?



And round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Busted "science". 
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/


----------



## LightningJR (Mar 7, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Busted "science".
> http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/



Very reputable looking web site... 

I don't understand why so many people think man made global warming isn't a problem, can people not fathom that over 7 billion people will affect the climate of the world? Or is it political, do people just believe what their party tells them to believe like blind sheep? Or is it religious, do they think god wont allow us to destroy ourselves? Or do people just have a distrust of Scientists and if people do then why? I don't fully understand how they can ignore all the brilliant minds telling us what they are seeing, they have the expertise in these sort of things, it's baffling to see people pick and choose based on random bullshit.

I am not old enough to have experienced the time when cigarettes were considered healthy but I have read about it, stupidity can get you killed.

Everything that you see around you was because of scientists and inventors, great minds. The lifespan in developed worlds is in the 80's or high 70's all because of brilliant minds but no, none of that matters, man made global warming is wrong because I said so... because the internet comment section said so, because the politician I like said so, because god said so, because I have family that works in oil, because I like my big trucks and doing whatever I want, because scientists are full of shit trying to make money, the oil companies are on the people's side, they don't want to make money, I like all the things the scientists say are bad.. Scientists say evolution is real, god says it isn't, scientists are the devil..

Is any of this the thinking of the climate deniers?? Please clarify for me.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 7, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> Very reputable looking web site...



Glad you depend on looks for your scientific analysis. Nooice....



LightningJR said:


> I am not old enough to have experienced the time when cigarettes were considered healthy


Young and naive...yes I was too. But don't worry. Wisdom will bestow it's amazing presence to you with age. 

The good thing about facts? They T-bone feelings.


----------



## LightningJR (Mar 7, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Glad you depend on looks for your scientific analysis. Nooice....



You're right, looking like a website from 2005 doesn't mean it's not legit, showing no credentials or scientific background from the author does.



SK-1 said:


> Young and naive...yes I was too. But don't worry. Wisdom will bestow it's amazing presence to you with age.
> 
> The good thing about facts? They T-bone feelings.



I would agree with you if it were 10 years ago and I was 18 but I have grown a lot on many things. As time goes by and people get 40, 50 and older wisdom fades and is replaced by conspiracies. Much worse than naivete since growing stops and regression starts.


I agree facts trump feelings, it's one of the biggest issues with climate deniers.

You have no reply to the specifics of what I said below what you quoted? If so I can only conclude that you have no credible argument.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 7, 2016)

Radiosondes are basically weather baloons that measure the temperature as they rise through the atmosphere.  They give a snapshot of atmospheric temperature rather than surface.

Greenhouse gases cause solar radiation to reflect back to the surface (causing surface temperature warming) rather than be absorbed in the atmosphere.  How much energy the atmosphere absorbs should be more or less constant and the radiosonde reflects that.


----------



## newconroer (Mar 7, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> You're right, looking like a website from 2005 doesn't mean it's not legit, showing no credentials or scientific background from the author does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am actually less worried about who is right or who is wrong. What concerns me is how YOU might turn around and tell ME that I should STOP doing what I am doing, because YOU are worried about something.

This could apply to global warming, smoking(second hand included), abortion, gun control, affirmative action, etcetc.

People seem to think 'science' and 'facts' trump the unfortunate reality that people WANT and NEED and the human race IS the DOMINANT species and will do WHATEVER it WANTS WHENEVER IT WANTS to on planet Earth.

This idea that we'll take a bunch of science theories, postulate and present them to the world from 'credible' sources and then somehow change people's mind, is lofty at best.

The real crime is when these efforts fail, so we resort to harsh tactics, of which eventually lead to violence.

Tolerance is an odd thing these days ; lots of preachers and few practitioners.


----------



## LightningJR (Mar 7, 2016)

newconroer said:


> I am actually less worried about who is right or who is wrong. What concerns me is how YOU might turn around and tell ME that I should STOP doing what I am doing, because YOU are worried about something.
> 
> This could apply to global warming, smoking(second hand included), abortion, gun control, affirmative action, etcetc.
> 
> ...




Yeah that's a whole different issue, people's selfishness. If we all keep changing nothing then we will destroy ourselves and we'll deserve it.

I am not the one to tell anyone to stop anything, I don't have the answers to all of the world's problems. I think politicians need to start the change since they have most of the power.

Empathy is another big problem, a lot of people don't give a shit because they will probably be dead by the time the real shit starts so some people just don't give a rats ass which is extremely short sighted and makes me very angry.


----------



## rruff (Mar 7, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> I think politicians need to start the change since they have most of the power.



Nah.... politicians have to cater to their masters as well as public opinion. The masters like the status quo apparently, so the propaganda supports it enough to create confusion. 

I'm not all that worried about global warming. In a few decades AI will make consumer capitalism obsolete, and most people will no longer serve an economic function. Reduced consumption and depopulation would be the "natural" outcome, and that would tend to solve a lot of our resource issues.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Trump!
 If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.


----------



## LightningJR (Mar 7, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Trump!
> If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.



Watch the video I linked above. He gives many ways of showing that the world is warming. Can you refute every point with other facts??


----------



## jaggerwild (Mar 7, 2016)

OK,
global warming then why are countries causing sever weather? That's right man made weather, It's OK yer young n all. The earth was here long before us and it will be here long after us, only real question is will we be here. Buy a diesel if you think global warming, lots of people talk about it. Mean while there eating meat buying egg's in Styrofoam , blah blah blah. Back to my hamburger, yum!!!!


----------



## LightningJR (Mar 8, 2016)

jaggerwild said:


> OK,
> global warming then why are countries causing sever weather? That's right man made weather, It's OK yer young n all. The earth was here long before us and it will be here long after us, only real question is will we be here. Buy a diesel if you think global warming, lots of people talk about it. Mean while there eating meat buying egg's in Styrofoam , blah blah blah. Back to my hamburger, yum!!!!



I didn't understand any of this. Sorry.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 8, 2016)

FYI, that video says "we are gonna get more intense storms, more droughts and floods" twice and that's false.  There has been no discernable change in cylcone activity (tropical nor land), the observed storms are inside of normal expectations, and not "more droughts and floods"--the location of droughts and floods move.  Places that are generally dry could get more precipitation where places that usually get a lot of precipitation can get drier; the aggregate is about the same in terms of precipitation--maybe a little more because a warmer atmosphere holds more.  In short, the weather argument he used there hasn't really panned out and there's no expectation of getting documentation to prove it for decades at the earliest.

There was a lengthy discussion on this a while back...


The most damaging facet of a warmer planet is the sea rising.  Most of the human population is located in coastal regions and they may have to move in land.  Are we talking a Water World scenario?  Absolutely not.

Ocean acidifcation may prove to be far worse than warming in terms of environmental disasters.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 8, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> FYI, that video says "we are gonna get more intense storms, more droughts and floods" twice and that's false.


Trying to convince a Warmest? Good luck!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 8, 2016)

They'd have to argue with GFDL--the NOAA research laboratory responsible for oceanic and atmospheric modeling.


----------



## LightningJR (Mar 8, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Trying to convince a Warmest? Good luck!



When I understood that you were calling me a "warmest" I loled, truly. I didn't know there was an *ist word for it. lol. Funny. I am not an *ist anything concerning global warming. I just trust the thousands of scientists and agree that we are the largest cause of the climate change. If they were to start to to find their experiments wrong or the trend reversing or anything like that I wouldn't hold on to the belief like the religious. If I am an *ist anything it's a truthist. If the NOAA study is vetted and scientists vouch for the numbers I would listen.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 8, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> When I understood that you were calling me a "warmest" I loled, truly. I didn't know there was an *ist word for it. lol. Funny. I am not an *ist anything concerning global warming. I just trust the thousands of scientists and agree that we are the largest cause of the climate change. If they were to start to to find their experiments wrong or the trend reversing or anything like that I wouldn't hold on to the belief like the religious. If I am an *ist anything it's a truthist. If the NOAA study is vetted and scientists vouch for the numbers I would listen.



Can people stop repeating the notion that scientists agree on climate change? The "thousands" of scientists mark is nonsense. The large majority of them are not climate scientists and of those they have not had access to the primary sources. They simply read the review and agreed with it.


----------



## LightningJR (Mar 8, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> They simply read the review and agreed with it.



Is that right? Know that from experience or just making an unfounded claim?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 8, 2016)

Science is not a democracy: numbers do not matter; confirmation of hypothesis through testing and observation does.


----------



## LightningJR (Mar 8, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Science is not a democracy: numbers do not matter; confirmation of hypothesis through testing and observation does.


I agree.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 8, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Science is not a democracy: numbers do not matter; confirmation of hypothesis through testing and observation does.



I'm back here again, because you can't really let this end.  At the same time, you say some of the dumbest things I have ever seen.  They aren't dumb because they are wrong, they're dumb because they contradict what you said earlier.

I agree with the above quote.  97% of the reviewed abstracts, based upon harvested data, came to the conclusion that climate change exists and is human driven.  You can find the summary here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm.  Note a few things.  This isn't about opinions, but about the peer reviewed conclusions of studies.  The people reviewing the reviews were not paid, and each review was subsequently review by another individual to eliminate personal biases.  Finally, the reviewers aren't from one location, so any cultural bias towards a specific conclusion was mitigated.  The hypothesis was tested, and the data points were abstracts from other studies.  This is reviewing the data for trends to establish whether a hypothesis was accurate, or in short terms "the scientific process."  You'll note that personal biases were isolated, and reasonably accounted for, thus removing any reasonable assertion that this was about the opinion of any individual author or study.


Your response to this has historically been that you'll wait for the results of new model X, or new technique Y before you come to a conclusion.  That's bullshit.  I can't put this any less bluntly.  Science isn't a debate or a democracy, but what it does is cull through its results and determine which are statistical outliers.  12000 peer reviewed papers represents a sufficient enough test sample to work with.  Of those 12000 papers, less than 480 come to the conclusion that either climate change isn't happening or it isn't human driven.  We're going to use the "or" condition here to give you the widest margin of error.

Tell me, what does one more study provide?  One study would represent 0.008% uncertainty, if it said climate change fell into the "or" category.   

Your entire earlier arguments were literally hinging upon one more result.  A result which may or may not be an outlier, but either way it doesn't represent a statistically significant amount of information to disprove the given hypothesis that humans are causing climate change.  So I ask you, are you actually backing your conclusions on science at this point?  The answer is an unequivocal no.  You are a creationist.  Your god is shrinking into narrower and narrower margins, but instead of simply saying that it's your unsubstantiated belief you want to argue about how the great flood could theoretically happen if there was an ice shield above the Earth.  That sort of duplicity is poisonous.  Your continued pedaling of it is a disgrace to you and anyone who agrees with your thoughts.  



If you were an objective scientist, you'd back out of this debate right now.  You aren't.  You've proven that you have an ideological bend, and you're going to keep the discussion going until you can grasp at some straw which will make your ideology somehow concrete.  You've literally spent pages waffling on the topic, and you follow up all of that with the above statement.  You have literally told us your stance, and followed it up with a statement which proves your ideology inconsistent.  This is what is so frustrating.  You're trying to act as if you can use science, because you play by its rules.  Whenever asked to follow those rules you say the jury is still out, because there's still a study going on somewhere.  I'd find this a contemptible stance if this was the first time you had it.  At this point, I'm only coming back here to call you out on the hypocrisy because somebody might believe the crap you're selling is science.  

If you want to be an idealog, be an idealog.  If you want to be a scientist, be a scientist.  Bastardizing science to support your ideology, despite the fact that it disproves it, is unacceptable.  I'll continue to call you out if you keep doing this.  Putting off the discussion because tests are still running, when a comically large amount of the results have already disproven your hypothesis, retards everyone.  I can't abide willful ignorance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 8, 2016)

We've already been over Skeptical Science and, specifically, Cook's study.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 8, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We've already been over Skeptical Science and, specifically, Cook's study.



Small words.  

You dismissed the results out of hand, because the person behind the study had ideological biases which you did not agree with.  This was allowed because you decided to change your argument to wanting one more study to be done.

I dismiss your point out of hand, because your model will be based upon data that was harvested previously.


Tell me, you claim impartiality, yet have a defined ideology.  You claim science supports you, yet cannot find a study supporting your conclusion without there being at least 8 others which counter it.  You claim that further models are necessary.  At what point is there sufficient proof?  You've made one of the greatest slippery slope arguments on the planet.  Just one more study will prove everything.  But, why is that study different?  What happens if the study is run again, and the opposite conclusion is reached?  What happens to all that other data, that you've decided doesn't matter?

In short, you don't want an answer.  You want this to go on until people either can't continue the fight, or you get the results you want.  If that's your science, call me a religious zealot.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 8, 2016)

Doing a database search and publishing your result constitutes nothing more than what it is.  The terms used injects a huge amount of bias and other than the fact the search is being performed upon scientific articles, the entire concept of what Cook did serves no purpose other than to politicize and polarize the real research lying underneath which is extremely detailed and nuanced as all scientific research papers are.

Additionally, research is usually conducted where funds are directed.  Research on climate has overwhelmingly concentrated on carbon dioxide.  The database (thusly search) is biased at its core.  As previously stated (_numerous times_), there are many fields of study that are lagging way behind that play a role whose signifance is presently unknown.  There is no doubt a few of these articles included in the database that Cook may or may have not found because they hit or missed his keywords.

I'd argue all articles that cite Cook should be reviewed for bias if not considered political propaganda at face value.  I can think of no reason why any value-added scientific article would have need nor want to cite Cook in the first place.

Going further, the way Cook's paper is framed (which you didn't fall into that trap, kudos) is as extrapolating the database search to mean "climate scientists agree with" which is patently false.  Pew Research and others have surveyed the actual scientists and not their papers and they conclude 87-90% (pending on membership, working Ph. D., or climate scientist) of scientists agree "climate change is mostly due to human activity."  7-10% is a pretty far off for a supposedly scientific article (speaking of Cook, of course), don't you think?

But I've already said all of this and, for whatever reason, you either choose to ignore it or dismiss it.  If that doesn't satisfy you, well, I don't care.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> You want this to go on until people either can't continue the fight, or you get the results you want.  If that's your science, call me a religious zealot.


I "want" what "to go on?"


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 9, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Doing a database search and publishing your result constitutes nothing more than what it is.  The terms used injects a huge amount of bias and other than the fact the search is being performed upon scientific articles, the entire concept of what Cook did serves no purpose other than to politicize and polarize the real research lying underneath which is extremely detailed and nuanced as all scientific research papers are.
> 
> Additionally, research is usually conducted where funds are directed.  Research on climate has overwhelmingly concentrated on carbon dioxide.  The database (thusly search) is biased at its core.  As previously stated (_numerous times_), there are many fields of study that are lagging way behind that play a role whose signifance is presently unknown.  There is no doubt a few of these articles included in the database that Cook may or may have not found because they hit or missed his keywords.
> 
> ...



Holy crap, I get it now.  

You never seem to fully read anything.  You argue dogma.  When confronted with demonstrable facts you argue nuance in order to obfuscate the truth.  You're arguing god of the margins.


It took me far too long to see this, but your response to that tire of the future thread has finally let me put two and two together.  Between utterly missing what was presented, and then spending no effort to critically deconstruct an idea, you recklessly come to a conclusion grounded by nothing.


First off, the terminology search wasn't Cook's study.  You're actually citing an earlier piece, and the search term was "global warming."  The fact that you couldn't even be bothered to read an abstract points to utterly poor follow through.  The Cook piece did search the abstracts for the key words global warming and climate change.  It parsed out 12000 of these reports, and then the abstracts were reviewed.  From reading the abstracts, they determined which of three states the paper had.
1) Climate change is happening, humans cause it
2) Climate change isn't happening
3) Climate change is happening, humans aren't the cause
Of those papers, less than 480 fall into categories 2 and 3.  This was a word search to pull their sample pool, then a review and re-review process to determine what the abstract actually implied.  Again, you've discounted this, based presumably off the piece done by James Powell (an utterly garbage puff piece, that has already been discounted).  You've never really answered that particular question, and based upon your defense you seem to be conflating the two.


Why call this god of the margins?  I've seen this before.  When presented with a contradiction you'll find one source that either disagrees, or doesn't agree exactly, and as there isn't 100% consensus you posit there must not be a viable conclusion.  When asked to review the big picture, you need to reject it because your ideology isn't compatible with the vast majority of the data.  Hell, at this point your entire argument is to wait for a bigger supercomputer to model climate.  Said supercomputer will be tested for accuracy based upon...drum roll please...exactly what data?  If it's the information we've harvested to date, then you have to have one massive case of cognitive dissonance to both trust the data and reject the conclusions based upon it.  If you say they'll model a decade, then check accuracy against actual results it'll be years before you have enough data to be reasonably sure that you're isolated any outlier data.  What you're actually asking for is a few years for the computer, another few years to test and refine models, and then after a couple of decades we can come to some conclusion.

That's the god of the margins.  God must exist, so there must be proof.  I can delay the science disproving god, simply by asking for more tests.  I can change my definition of God, so that nobody can disprove it.  There are things that currently cannot be explained, so my God must be behind them.


Jesus, I feel stupid.  I should have seen this earlier.  You'll continue to argue no matter what information is provided.  No amount of proof will ever be enough.  No model or data will ever be acceptable, because you never have to come to a conclusion if you just keep calling for more studies.  It's an argument against a freaking congressman.  It's easier to kick the can on down the line than it is to actually do something.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 9, 2016)

It was the Cook study:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...F866609C9F91F33E782.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Read the first sentence of the abstract.  Step #1 was to exclude all articles that did not contain those two very specific terms in the abstract and both terms are extremely biased.  So of course it's going to come back with a near 100% agreement because that's all he searched for.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 9, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It was the Cook study:
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...F866609C9F91F33E782.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org
> 
> Read the first sentence of the abstract.  Step #1 was to exclude all articles that did not contain those two very specific terms in the abstract and both terms are extremely biased.  So of course it's going to come back with a near 100% agreement because that's all he searched for.



?

Search terms that would also fall under that broad category.

"Conclusively proving that climate change is a statistical anomaly, rather than an actual effect."
"Modeling how climate change influences the life cycle of the sea anemone."
"Global warming and other fear mongering; measuring the psychological response to reporting in the media."
"Global warming conclusively linked to solar cycle."

All four of these titles would fall into the 480 articles not conclusively linking humans as a causation for global warming.  That's rather clearly spelled out in their abstract.  You again seem to be mistaking the earlier article's clear bias with the new one.


Why search these two terms?  It's simple, scientific abstracts are designed to catch the attention of a reader.  As such, they use trendy words.  Put simply, your abstract sells yourself for future work.  A trendier, or more hot-button issue can propel you into a huge grant and continued studies.  The huge amount of studies created in a decade would take as long to individually catalog and analyze, with the vast majority yielding no direct results for your study.  How then could you effectively parse through a mountain of work, knowing that trending topics will always be referenced in an abstract?  Oh, that's right.  You parse through the mountain by finding popular key words about your topic, which by nature hold no bias without context. 

How about this, you define two other terms that should be used.  Remember, the terms must magically have no bias as per your claims.  The terms have to produce a significant amount of abstracts.  In this particular case asking for just 75% of what was cited isn't an unreasonable qualifier.  Remember that you also can't appreciably increase the number of abstracts.  Each one has to be read, reviewed, and added to a listing by two volunteers (with any discrepancies being addressed by another volunteer).  Now, you've also got to make sure that your team has any inherent biases accounted for.  Let's start throwing out terms that cannot be used, and why:
1) Temperature - Too broad, as it covers everything from metallurgy to gemography
2) Precipitation - Again, too broad. 
3) Warming - Too broad, and inherently biased based upon your criteria
4) Climate - This is interesting, but likely a problem as biological organisms generally have their locations, and thus preferred climate, information logged.
....


Do you get it yet?  You're still using a god of the margins argument.  You don't agree with their search terms, but you haven't proposed your own.  Hell, you haven't even explained why the terms are inherently biased without any provided context.  The reason Cook's study has validity is the fact that he didn't just ctrl-f for a result, he setup an abstract review to verify the conclusions.  You haven't acknowledged the work provided to find reviewers that were both not motivated by profit, and whose inherent biases were negated by blind reviews and varying background.  You're throwing out a huge amount of work because you don't like the search terms based on the bias *you* assign them.  Find your margins elsewhere, real science has already bitch-slapped your conclusion into last week.  The only people still arguing the point either want to argue that the minutia somehow invalidates the conclusions because of the bias they inject, or they are arguing a dogma that cannot be wrong lest it shatter the carefully constructed illusion they have made for themselves. 


Of course, _you're more than welcome to prove otherwise_.  As you're so fond to point out, do some science on your own if your hypothesis disagrees with the conclusions drawn.  As yet you've only cited that you think there's a bias in the process, but not proven a damn thing is incorrect or biased.  

Edit:
Too much work for you to do all of this?  That's absolutely fine.  I have a simpler logical question which you can answer.  Maintaining output gasses is an absolute drain on cars.  The reverse pressure, and required temperature of the catalytic converter drags down fuel efficiency substantially.  The automotive industry has money, and they have a huge incentive to prove CO2 emissions aren't related too climate change.  If they could do that, they could save billions by having catalytic converters removed from cars.  Given financial incentives such as that, why aren't they commissioning reviews of abstract like this.  For a less than $100,000 invested they stand to make billions.  Car manufacturers aren't stupid, so why are they not disproving the vast conspiracy you are implying?    

If it's acceptable to make any accusation, and thereby negate your opposition without any backing, your computer models are absolute crap because they don't accurately start by modeling the variations in gravitation experienced across the surface of the planet.  Gravitation will influence the properties of the fluids in the atmosphere, thereby making any models which wants a resolution of a few hundred miles completely inaccurate without the millions of data points for varying gravitation accounted for.

Of course, I've done more to prove why your assumptions are accurate than you've felt necessary.  You say there's an inherent bias, without any context.  I provide a concrete variable that is unaccounted for.  Tell me, can you science?  Are you just going to continue arguing about your margins?  Are you going to explain why words somehow have bias, when put into a demonstrable context they can mean the exact opposite of what you seem to imply?  I'll not be holding my breath.  Creationists never managed to do that.  They never gave an answer as to why the science was broken.  I'm just going to sit here for a few moments, and bask in the glorious stupidity of the Creation Museum.  A "museum" where dinosaurs and cave men (not neanderthals, cave men) lived side-by-side like a rejected Flintstones cartoon. 


Tell me how you're any different than that.  No, demonstrate you are superior.  Hiding behind one study here and another there is not proof.  It's proof that you can win by modifying the rules on the fly.  It's proof you're willing to drag out the discussion until you win because your opponents are exhausted simply negating the crazy you perpetuate.  This is why the god of the margins arguments "work."  You can never be wrong if you change the margins.  It's a great tactic...for the adolescent and people whose dogmatic beliefs cannot be shattered, lest they have to square a broken dogma with reality.






Allow me to make this simple, by posing a hypothetical situation.  You feel threatened, presumably by me because of this exchange.  To prove your point, you search out the terms in all of my responses.  You find one with the terms "kill," "you," and "in your sleep."  You argue to the judge that because it is in one post, it's a blatant threat.  He reviews the quote, and it reads: "There are few things which *kill *me more than arguing against an irrational player.  All _*you*_ get is a response that forces your hand, and requires giving up your objectivity to fighting them on their own level.  It seems like the only way to escape that labor is *in your sleep*, where at least their chatter can be silenced momentarily."  The judge asks you if you are absolutely serious, and responds that context matters.  The words, on their own, aren't biased.  Arguing that they are means you're either a fool, or shouldn't be trusted with anything sharper than a soup spoon.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 9, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> How about this, you define two other terms that should be used.


Just "climate" would suffice in my opinion.  Yes, you'll get a mountain of documents which a separate program should be written for to categorize each document from those that are irrelevent (e.g. your biological example) to those that explicitly use political terms (e.g. "global warming" and "global cooling").  If I were to improve upon Cook's methods, I think I would focus on the documents that fall between those two extremes.  The program would separate them including emphisizing the sentence(s) in which "climate" was used.  If there's a reasonable number of documents, those are the ones the volunteers would have to read and categorize.  If there was still a mountain, I'd further improve the algorithm to attempt to single out those that discuss climate on a large scale (at least continental or ocean scale).  That should be sufficient to get to the meet which volunteers would read and categorize.


Then again, I would argue this is pointless.  It's not applicable science.  It's an analysis of published climate documents.  What is applicable science is knowing that CO2 and CH4 has risen drastically over the past century and generally what caused it.  Talk is cheap.  We should _do_ something about it and the only economic and environmental solution is advancements in energy technology.

Even your average hill billy that believes the world is flat, that man never walked on the moon, and that atmospheric CO2 levels have not changed would buy a hydrogen powered vehicle if fuel was cents on the dollar compared to gasoline.  The two (economic and environment) are not intrinsically opposed.  That is where the future lies, not this unproductive bickering.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> Given financial incentives such as that, why aren't they commissioning reviews of abstract like this.  For a less than $100,000 invested they stand to make billions.  Car manufacturers aren't stupid, so why are they not disproving the vast conspiracy you are implying?


...volumes could be written on this but I think I can briefly sum up the jist of it:

Broadly: Only about 50% of the public (according to Pew Research) believe global warming is caused by human activity.  Public perception plus the work of lobbyists have completely stopped envrionmental legislative action in the US Congress.   What regulations have been put in place come from the EPA acting under the direction of Obama which, when necessary (e.g. the coal power plant restrictions) have been fought in court and won because the EPA illegally expanded its powers to act. In terms of protecting their investments, they clearly have already succeeded.

Narrowly: The EPA's emissions requirements on vehicles are inside of constraints the automative industry can work with.  Further, those requirements apply uniformily accross all participants in the market so why fight it when all of the costs are passed on to the consumer?  I know one individual that works inside the automotive industry (I forget the name, his position, and who he worked for--it was in Truck Trend years ago) said that they'll fight the government if/when the government makes unreasonable demands.  For the time being, it is cheaper to comply than to fight it.  And remember, they've been able to not only clean up emissions but improve fuel economy because the burn is more thorough. They can sell improved fuel economy especially when fuel is ~$4/gallon.  Tying back to my previous point, this improvement in emissions and fuel economy has been brought about through advancements in technology (electronics, materials, and machining).


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 9, 2016)

*February may have been the warmest month on record, but we don’t know for sure — despite reports to the contrary*

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...nth-but-we-do-not-know-for-sure/#.Vt-wbZwrJaQ


----------



## rruff (Mar 9, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You'll continue to argue no matter what information is provided.  No amount of proof will ever be enough.



Welcome to 99% of humanity.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 9, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


>


I bet the horse really died from man made global warming.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 9, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> *February may have been the warmest month on record, but we don’t know for sure — despite reports to the contrary*
> 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...nth-but-we-do-not-know-for-sure/#.Vt-wbZwrJaQ


A man after my heart.


			
				Tom Yulsman said:
			
		

> I carry on in this beat because I believe my job as a journalist is to bear witness to events, to help explain them, and to put them in proper context. I’m sure that this is also what motivates Eric Holthaus, a journalist who has done excellent work.
> 
> But if in bearing witness as journalists our testimony becomes exaggerated or even inaccurate, then the credibility of journalism in general suffers.
> 
> In addition to being a journalist, I’m also a professor of journalism. So I think I have a particular responsibility to focus on issues like this. That’s why I decided to take a detailed look at this one story, and to try to set the record straight — as a cautionary tale for all journalists who struggle to cover this complex topic.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 9, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Just "climate" would suffice in my opinion.  Yes, you'll get a mountain of documents which a separate program should be written for to categorize each document from those that are irrelevent (e.g. your biological example) to those that explicitly use political terms (e.g. "global warming" and "global cooling").  If I were to improve upon Cook's methods, I think I would focus on the documents that fall between those two extremes.  The program would separate them including emphisizing the sentence(s) in which "climate" was used.  If there's a reasonable number of documents, those are the ones the volunteers would have to read and categorize.  If there was still a mountain, I'd further improve the algorithm to attempt to single out those that discuss climate on a large scale (at least continental or ocean scale).  That should be sufficient to get to the meet which volunteers would read and categorize.
> 
> 
> Then again, I would argue this is pointless.  It's not applicable science.  It's an analysis of published climate documents.  What is applicable science is knowing that CO2 and CH4 has risen drastically over the past century and generally what caused it.  Talk is cheap.  We should _do_ something about it and the only economic and environmental solution is advancements in energy technology.
> ...



?

You say that climate change may or may not exist.  You say that may may or may not be responsible.  You hinge all of this argument on a new model, that will be taking in old data as a source of initial settings to help develop a predictive algorithm.  You're, by very definition, arguing the margins here.  More frightening, you say "science isn't a democracy," and follow it up with "most Americans don't believe in climate change according to a Pew study."  Do you really want such duplicity, or is this another "honest" mistake?  I'll say this, your argument is face palmingly stupid with regards to congress.  The EPA was given some pretty sweeping powers a long time ago, and enacting restrictions on emissions is largely something that they can do without the direct approval of congress.  If you'd like a brief synopsis I'd suggest Forbes' piece: http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/18/ep...ngress-opinions-contributors-allen-lewis.html


You follow this up with a diatribe about what emissions you care about.  This is after you went off on a ran about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in a different thread.  You criticized the fact that they'd still emit water vapor, which is a green house gas.  You made said criticism with the statement that "changing one green house gas for another is not a solution."  All the while failing to understand that complete combustion of hydrocarbons produced CO2 and H2O already.  

You criticize word choices, because in your magical world a word has bias.  In your magical reality there's no case in which a person, seeking funding for research, would use a word in a context which can either be for or against your own preconceived notions.  The evidence to the contrary not withstanding, you want work to be done again, without ever adequately explaining why your injected bias is reasonable doubt.  When confronted you say that you know better than anybody else, but are unwilling to actually stand and defend your position by doing a damn thing but cite individual studies.  



All of this is galling, and absolute bullshit.  What you then go on to do is insulting.

You don't understand chemistry, or combustion physics.  Your patently moronic statements about the process demonstrate this without a doubt.  I'm going to take the time to educate you, but god knows you'll find a selective interpretation that agrees with you crap somehow.

A combustion engine sucks in cool dense air, and adds particulates of fuel.  It compresses this mixture, and then ignites the fuel.  The combustion reaction produces thermal energy, water, carbon dioxide, and radical particles (usually hydroxyls because complete combustion cannot occur in the time allowed).  The compressed gas dramatically increases its pressure, because of suddenly having more particles and heating up (that old ideal gas law, PV=nRT).  This wall pressure is transferred into linear motion by a piston, that is pushed along its travel length because the gasses exert more force on the piston.  The hot gasses are then vented into the atmosphere.  The efficiency at which they are expelled is determined by the pressure and temperature of the exhaust vent and its surroundings.  In order to remove the radical particles, which generally decompose into dangerous green house gasses, we pass the exhaust gas through a catalytic converter.  Said converter uses a reversible chemical process and a catalyst to convert radicals into CO2 and the like.  Of course, for that to work the catalyst has to be heated and pressurized, meaning the engine's venting of exhaust gasses is hampered.  This means the intake air is less dense (because venting is hampered), which means less energy produced by forcing the combustion to occur with less fuel.  A complete combustion reaction isn't what makes an engine more efficient, because you can get that by running lean on the fuel-air mixture.  What makes an engine more efficient is cool air intake (more O2 to combust), finer atomization of the fuel (more reactive area for combustion), or more complete venting of exhaust gasses (relating back to the input air having more O2). 

If you really know somebody in the automotive industry, and that's what they told you, then they were making a rather substantial assumption.  They were assuming that a catalytic converter was mandatory (because of the EPA rules).  If you've got a set output temperature and pressure, then the only way to get better efficiency is to pull more energy from the fuel.  At the same time, it's trying to increase efficiency by fractional percentages.  Removing the catalytic converter increases efficiency dramatically (think 20-30% minimum).  You seem rather big into the whole making assumptions before defining them thing, which is why so much of what you say needs to come with a salt grain bigger than an elephant.  Between that, and selecting how you want to address your critics (again, god of the margins), I don't know what exactly is holding your beliefs together other than an unwaivering dogma.  Dogma isn't science.

Go to a mechanic.  Make sure they're a true motor head, and ask them what's the first thing they remove from a car whenever it's just going to be a racer.  After they laugh, and cite the interior/trim, ask them about the stuff that isn't connected to the body.  There are two answers that I've been given.  On older cars, it's the muffler.  The two justifications are to make it louder, and to remove back pressure from the engine.  The next answer I get is the catalytic converter.  Anybody with experiencing in actual mechanics says that the thing is a heavy chunk of metal, that makes the engine breathe through a straw.  While technically inaccurate, a gearhead that can barely spell catalyst knows that the converter is a drag on performance.  

Automotive companies could save huge amounts of money by not including catalytic converts.  They include them because a $300 part would cost them thousands of dollars in EPA fines.  Despite this, the automotive industry has lobbyists in the EPA and congress.  They're fighting for more time to meet emissions standards, and ideally they're fighting for emissions standards to be regulated by somebody other than the EPA.  If that's not clear, let's talk about our European brethren, who are spending millions on lobbyists to help write new emissions standards that benefit the automotive market: http://corporateeurope.org/power-lobbies/2015/09/power-car-industry-lobby-makes-scandal-inevitable

I find it insulting that you pretend to speak with authority.  You do so, while demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding that could be described as equal parts shocking and criminal.  You don't want to actually have a discussion, you want to dictate the minority of studies that agree to your preconceptions as facts, and pretend that everything else is biased.  It's insulting when someone tries to play scientist, and fails so hard at it.  Please, just stop.  We understand you believe something (though what seems to change depending upon who's calling you out).  We understand that you don't have a grasp on the topics, and don't seem to want to invest the time unless the abstract agrees with your preconceived notions.  I won't even call bullshit on that.  I just want you to be honest.  You have a bias that cannot be addressed with facts.  Said bias is not supported by the majority of the science.  


This is the argument for a god.  Allow me to be brutally honest one last time.  The evidence for a god is not good.  Despite that, I believe in a higher power.  A higher power that doesn't give a crap about humanity as individuals, but does have a vested interest in kicking off the universe (though meddling in its current state is something that either cannot or is chosen not to be done).  What science supports that?  None.  Can I justify my statements?  No.  If confronted with a definitive explanation of the origin of the universe, would I stop believing in this higher power?  Yes.  Do I accept that there are people who may share all of my beliefs, except for that last bit?  Yes.  I respect these people not for their blind faith, but for the fact that they know not to use science to justify their faith.  They divorce the two.  You try and marry faith to science, and nobody is happy.  Stop trying to make that marriage.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 9, 2016)

I said "volumes" for a reason; a parsed version is going to leave a lot out.  I could go on, but I digress.  I knew this sort of response was coming and furthers my conclusion that discussing _anything_ with you isn't worth my time since you already have _all_ of the answers.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 9, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You're impossible.
> 
> And I said "volumes" for a reason; a parsed version is going to leave a lot out.  I could go on, but I digress.  I knew this sort of response was coming and furthers my conclusion that discussing _anything_ with you isn't worth my time.


 
Slow clap.


You can't understand how a combustion engine works.  You can't tell me why there's bias in a word.  You can't even read all the way through the things you cite.


It's god of the margins.  You argue it all you'd like, but it should be apparent to anyone that you don't know what the hell it is you're talking about more often than should be allowable.  I shouldn't be this floored, but you're resolving this with "I'm going home."  Bravo.  It's exactly what I should have expected.  


Before we go on, let's cover what you've missed in your defenses.
1) The study used biased words, which you can't display as biased.  You can't do so because a word is not biased without context.  It's like saying "albino" is racist, when describing a lab rat with white fur and pink eyes.
2) You don't understand how combustion works.  This is demonstrated by your criticism of a hydrogen vehicle, specifically by stating that a hydrogen vehicle would produce water, and changing combustion for hydrogen would be trading one green house gas (CO2) for another (H2O).
3) You don't understand how a combustion engine works.  Namely how removing a catalytic converter would dramatically increase output energy and engine efficiency.
4) You want to wait for another computer model to "prove" or "disprove" climate change.  Of course, we've glossed over the years of input data required to generate any model.  The take away is either you trust the current data (which is almost universally demonstrating climate change being man made), or you're calling for another decade of twiddling thumbs until you have something which you could still call BS on when it's done because it wasn't 100% accurate.
5) You've continued to bastardize science, and change targets whenever pinned in an argument.  If CO2 is an issue, you move to methane.  Methane an issue, you move onto the fact that CO2 is still a thing.  One study proves you wrong, cite a single contradictory study and completely deny that there's a demonstrable trend in the data.  A summary of abstracts counters your point and demonstrates a trend, call it biased despite the insane lengths that have been gone to to remove the bias (because an earlier summary was entirely biased).


Where's you god?  I ask, because this has been done before.  It's been a staple of creationists.  After them, the anti-vaccination crowd used this argument style.  They based everything on a discredited paper, but the mountains of evidence could be brushed aside (who the f*** thought measles would be a thing again in our lifetime).  You're treading a well worn path.  You're using the same arguments and tactics.  If having that explained to you is somehow offensive, then you should really take a look at yourself.


A decade ago I could reasonably say that global warming was worthy of a lot more study before conclusions were drawn.  5 years ago you could reasonably state that global warming wasn't a thing, but that we should frame the research as climate change.  It's now 2016.  Studies from a decade worth of research have demonstrated that climate change isn't something a person can deny based upon available data.  Continuing to ask for more studies isn't unreasonable, but acting as though current data doesn't demonstrate a trend is so backwards that you have to completely forego scientific research if you want to deny it.  The problem is you're not willing to admit the science doesn't agree with you.  You want to use science to prove your points, and deny it when it doesn't agree.  Stop it.  You don't get to choose.  Pretending that there's a reasonable debate, so we need to wait another decade for any conclusions, is lying.  It's trying to make science bend to ideology.  Stop it, or be prepared to be as discredited as the incompetents who've failed before you.  I can only tell you that if I was in the same boat as a creationist or anti-vaccination zealot I'd seriously think that my point was wrong.  That level of stupid doesn't wash off.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 9, 2016)

I don't know why I bother but you've finally given me something I can respond to:
1) Using the phrase "global warming" excludes articles that concluded the opposite ("global cooling") as well as those that are either inconclusive, states no opinion, nor determine the climate is stable.  Cook deliberately ignored the latter group which actually comprised of the majority of articles (>66%).
2) And?  It's a statement of fact.  Going further, which I didn't do previously, I believe we can strike a balance with the water cycle from producing/consuming hydrogen fuel.  It may involve simply bottling the oxygen and hydrogen separately and storing the resulting water so it is never introduced to the atmosphere; thusly, the atmosphere isn't treated as a sink for human activity.
3) I never said anything about removing catalyitic converters (or about catalyitic converters).  More thorough combustion is used to reduce NOx emissions especially in diesel engines.  It reduces the need for DEF but emissions controls have gotten so strict (especially in the USA), DEF is effectively mandatory.
4a) I really don't care about proving anything.  All I know is there are gapping holes in specific fields of atmospheric research that need filling.
4b) I never suggested "twiddling thumbs."  I suggest (and always have) action through the discovery and application of technology.
5) I've been very consistent in saying CO2 is an issue.  As for methane, see point 4a.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 9, 2016)

Text wall warriors, ACTIVATE!


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 9, 2016)

@TheMailMan78

with some posts i just need more screen space to read them


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 11, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't know why I bother but you've finally given me something I can respond to:
> 1) Using the phrase "global warming" excludes articles that concluded the opposite ("global cooling") as well as those that are either inconclusive, states no opinion, nor determine the climate is stable.  Cook deliberately ignored the latter group which actually comprised of the majority of articles (>66%).
> 2) And?  It's a statement of fact.  Going further, which I didn't do previously, I believe we can strike a balance with the water cycle from producing/consuming hydrogen fuel.  It may involve simply bottling the oxygen and hydrogen separately and storing the resulting water so it is never introduced to the atmosphere; thusly, the atmosphere isn't treated as a sink for human activity.
> 3) I never said anything about removing catalyitic converters (or about catalyitic converters).  More thorough combustion is used to reduce NOx emissions especially in diesel engines.  It reduces the need for DEF but emissions controls have gotten so strict (especially in the USA), DEF is effectively mandatory.
> ...



May I buy from your dealer, or perhaps inquire as to what your prescriptions are.  It seems like there's some disconnect between reality and you.

To that end, stay away from the science.  You've already gotten enough wrong.  Before we continue, I'd like you to look up the definition for a few things.  *Abstract* (in regards to summation of a report), *bias*, *context,* and* inconsistent*.

1) An *abstract* is a summary of a scientific paper.  Theoretically you could study climate change, and never include that particular term in the abstract.  If you'd like to argue semantics, let's play.  The terminology excludes conclusions like "global cooling is a myth," and "global cooling is real and human driven."  You continue to be stuck on not getting why the context matters, and trying to explain this should be insulting.  If you still don't get it, let's find an example.  Wow, how about people you've quoted before: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Sweet jesus, would you look at that.  The abstract contains "global cooling," yet the conclusion is that it's bogus.  It's almost like...what's that word...of right, it's *CONTEXT*.  

It's why Powell's study was crap (search term = proves it exists), and dismissed in favor of a less biased improvement by Cook (search term to cull list, double blind review to determine what conclusions were drawn).  Can you claim some *bias*, yeah.  There aren't infinite amounts of time, resources, or funds so corners were cut.  He didn't have all the scientific papers read, though that particular bias was addressed by a survey of the scientist writing the papers.  That particular survey concluded that 97.2 percent of the results point to human caused global warming.  So, 97.1% of abstracts conclude global warming is man made, and 97.2% of surveys from the authors said the same.  In something this large a 0.1% discrepancy is statistically insignificant, but even if you used the lower results you've got 2 standards of deviation (and then some) saying it's man made and real.  Let;s even stretch, and say that the responding scientists were gamed in such a way as to prefer one conclusion.  How were those results divided again?  The remaining results fall into one of several categories, so let's be intellectually honest and list them:
a) Climate change isn't real.
b) Climate change is real, but humans have not impact.
c) Climate change is real, and humans have no impact.

If this were Powell's study, you'd be 100% right to call crap.  He searched keywords, and never bothered to read abstracts.  This is Cook's effort.  Abstracts categorized which of 4 possible responses the studies came to.  97% said that it was man made and real.  If Cook was truly trying to game the system then why have four categories?  Why not two?  The differentiation exists because context matters.


2) Don't argue hydrogen fuel cells here.  You just demonstrably don't understand them.  In short, 2H2O+energy=2H2+O2.  Water plus energy makes two reactive gasses which can be recombined to make energy and water.  You carry around the H2, because it's reactive.  You pull O2 from the atmosphere because it's comparatively stable and immensely abundant in our atmosphere.  This is why hydrogen fuel cells that expel water have an H2 tank, but no O2 tank.

Your complete misunderstanding of having to sequester O2 is baffling.  You'd store it somewhere, for what?  As the cell converts the H2 into water you'd pull O2 from the surrounding air.  It makes no sense to store to O2 from electrolysis, you vent it into the atmosphere.  As previous threads demonstrated, to even change to composition of the atmosphere by 1% would require every human to have a lifetime supply of H2 at all times.

Again, you completely and fundamentally misunderstand the chemistry, the lack of impact on the water cycle (take liquid water, eject vapor, vapor reaches saturation and condenses into liquid water), or the sheer volume of what humans would have to do in order to actually have an impact.


3) You apply my words* inconsistently*, and your own seem to have a fluid definition.

I said that removing a catalytic converter would dramatically increase engine performance.  The point was why the automotive industry would not lobby to disprove that human CO2 emissions, specifically from automobiles, influenced climate change if they could.  I gave you an alternative to explaining your ideas through a constant wash of singular studies.  I asked you why people who stand to have a huge financial gain wouldn't spend a bit of money to prove studies like Cook's wrong.  An industry that already spends millions on trying to make regulations on emissions less stringent.  Your response is breathtakingly idiotic.

You cited EPA regulations on emissions, to which I linked an article about why the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed the right to regulate this.  If your conclusion is what you've stated in the past, specifically that you're waiting on another computer model to demonstrate whether human induced climate change is even a thing, then simply demonstrating that the EPA is full of crap would allow catalytic converters to disappear.  Engines run more efficiently over night, and there's an expensive bit removed from the car.  

You haven't yet explained why the automotive industry wouldn't counter studies like Cook's if there's so much evidence to the contrary.  The implication is either they can't (agreeing with the science that says we have a hand in climate change), or an industry that spends millions on lobbyists wouldn't spend a few hundred thousand to both decrease their costs and remove a huge ongoing expense.


4) I'd like to not address this.  I really don't feel like I can't.  You've cited the need for accurate models.  You've cited the Boulder labs computer as being somehow conclusive.  This has been done in several posts, but 765 is my particular favorite.  

Let's start this off by saying screw the 10 year predictions.  Now that we're starting clean, what are you calling for?  You want a complex model based upon historic data.  The point of this thread was whether altering data was something to be concerned about.  Why hello Ouroboros, how does your tail taste today.  You're calling for humanity to not acknowledge climate change, be responsible for our actions despite potentially having no effect, and calling for us to disregard the old data for any trends.  What?  This absolutely psychotic mix of denial and acceptance is impossible to have without some dogma allowing it to exist.  It'd do Schrodinger proud.


5) Slow clap.  

CO2 is an issue, even if there's no such thing as man induced climate change.  Do you see why you sound incompetent making that argument?  If CO2 is really an issue, and we are making it in the quantities we can measure, then climate change induced by humanity is real and the only question remaining is how much and when it will occur.  If that's the conclusion, we need to do something now, which doesn't jibe with the stoic "don't jump to conclusions" you want to project from the GDFL. 

Arguing the opposite, climate change isn't happening.  If it isn't happening, then we can do whatever we want.  The EPA's mission to regulate emissions is a huge drag on our economy, and we should do away with it immediately.  If we literally can't do anything, then why the heck am I spending money on feel good crap?  




Most galling of all, you almost wear the hat of somebody worth listening to.  It took me quite some time to get it, but the gaps in your understanding of things are just amazing.  Not using the atmosphere as a sink for anything is a joke.  To make that even remotely feasible I'd suggest you stop breathing now.  The problem is nobody in their right mind believes this is possible, unless we leave Earth.  Needing to have something akin to an oil reserve if we transition to hydrogen based cars is insanely backwards, as storing volatile gasses is idiotic compared to simply keeping the water around.  You continue to simply gloss over counter points which you seem to not understand, yet somehow feel completely informed on (ie: how the contact patch on a tire works, and why its area is independent of tire geometry).  Worst yet you inject your interpretation into things.  A scientist saying "there is a high correlation between x and y" in your world still means that there's doubt.  That same scientist should tell you there is a high degree of correlation between thalidomide intake and birth defects.  It's not 100%, but to the laymen (ie: us) they are saying "you shouldn't take thalidomide while pregnant."  It's galling, because people like that, who don't understand scientists have specific word choices as insulation, still claim gravity is only a theory.  

I honestly hope I'm just the most dense person here, and everyone else already saw the hastily constructed house of cards you've relied on.  Moving the target, claiming bias because of interpretations you inject, completely changing the argument when you've said something goofy, and then simply changing your words post facto to mean something entirely different is dishonest at best.  You've managed to weasel around everything by blatantly disregarding the content of your own argument, and then propped it up with a study to appear to have legitimacy.  

There's no discussion here.  There's you dictating what you feel like today.  Today you want science and technology.  Yesterday you wanted human accountability.  Weeks ago you wanted everyone to just stop calling for any changes for a few decades, so we could have what you thought was an accurate enough model to determine if this was even a thing.  It's great.  We're playing football against a child, who whenever cornered simply moves the goal line back 50 yards and changes a few rules.  I don't even care what you believe in.  I just want some intellectual honesty, and some damn consistency.  Consistency on something worth while, not on incontrovertible facts.  It's a fact that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gasses.  You can't even consistently state whether humanity has any impact, knowing that both of these gasses are being emitted in huge quantities by us.  Jesus, jello has more solidity and backbone.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 11, 2016)

Why did I bother?  <insert defininition of insanity here>


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 15, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Why did I bother?  <insert defininition of insanity here>



Right, it's like when you have nothing to say, and argue in circles, it's frustrating.

I appreciate the moral high horse.  You've yet to square the crap that has come out of your mouth.  I'll bullet point it, being biased because ten pages of contradictions is pretty nuts.

1) You don't believe in climate change.  This is based upon conflicting data.
2) You do believe CO2 emissions and CH4 emissions impact the climate.
3) You do believe that humans are producing these gasses in, what you said, was alarming amounts.
4) You want another couple of decades to determine if climate change is real, based upon a new computer model fed old data.
5) Despite said couple of decades needing to pass, you believe any call to action is inappropriate.
6) Despite the call to action being inappropriate, you're calling for population control and suggesting "humanity must pay for its actions."
7) Despite the complete backwards and contradictory nature of 5 and 6, you now claim technology is going to solve things.
8) You inject your own bias into studies, by selectively deciding on the meaning of words.  "There is a high correlation" means "there is some factor of doubt."  "There is a general consensus" becomes "science isn't based upon democracy, and therefore no conclusion can be drawn."  Best of all, there's no possibility of context meaning a damn thing.  Articles whose abstracts include the phrase "global cooling" must negate the idea of climate change, while abstracts with the phrase "global warming" must support the conclusion. 
9) Studies can be thrown out based upon whether you like researchers or not.  All studies must therefore be completely worthless, because humans have biases.  Hell, it's not like a biased person can make a well constructed study including double blind testing, candidates without conflicts of interest, and candidates from a diverse enough pool to negate cultural biases.  I mean nobody currently running testing, to the FDA standards for drugs, is working for the companies that make those drugs, right?  Well I'll be damned, I guess you should stop taking drugs and eating 90% of food if that's your stance on testing.


You know, I'd be happy to stop the argument here.  You've argued against about a dozen people, who've already simply thrown up their hands because talking to you is arguing with a zealot.  Your dogma must be true, and it will change without ever having to change.  You say things that are monsterous, without the slightest bit of sarcasm.  Your points sound as if coming from two people with radically different ideals.  What's worse, you haven't stopped for just a minute to review all of the crap you've said, and piece it together.

I could continue pointing out hypocrisy.  I could go through dozens of pages of quotes, and link back to you citing singular studies and extrapolating what you want from them by interpreting the, rather...uniquely.  I'm tired of this crap.  Let me put it simply.  Galileo went up against dogma, and stood for the truth which the church would not agree to.  I believe you fancy yourself that kind of person.  The problem is everyone fancies themselves a genius.  Most of us aren't Galileo, and Galileo wasn't one to sit on his hands for decades whilst someone defined the mathematics of orbital motion before he came to a reasonable conclusion. 

So let's be Galileo.  Let's not find the mathematics, because that's largely not necessary to propose a concept.  You have nothing to say here.  You've contradicted yourself left and right, with the only real constant being "do nothing until more data is present."  Do we need to calculate what level of emissions causes irreparable climate change?  No, the IPCC is largely basing numbers off of BS predictions.  You seem to think everyone of an opposing view wants magic numbers.  Do we need to understand that emissions are impacting our climate?  Absolutely, but you've stated time and again that emissions are bad but since we don't have quantitative numbers we can't do anything.  Do we need more research?  No.  What we need is people to come together and drop dogma.  Drop the denial, and drop the screaming banshees that believe the world will end tomorrow unless we pray to evergreen Jesus.  You're more than welcome to spend the time and effort researching the issue, to define what we need to do to get to a desired point, but we don't need that to start agreeing to common sense things.  Don't believe me, then I'd suggest you leave your comfort zone.  There are places on Earth that aren't the Midwest, and they demonstrate the impact man can have.  Pittsburgh, circa the 80's and 90's.  Los Angeles, any time people are traveling to work.  Beijing...let's call it any time that there isn't an event.

Climate change is nebulous.  Let me put it into simple terms.  All of the places above have a micro-climate similar to hell.  The air can be chewed, it's hotter than any of the surrounding locations, and this is a direct result of humans.  You're more than welcome to argue what the impact is on a global scale.  Arguing that nothing be done until either we magic technology that fixes all of it, or until you have the research into everything you think is necessary, is twiddling thumbs.  It took an economic crash to rebirth Pittsburgh.  To this day you can still find places where the bricks are ashen from the mills.  So we're clear, doing everything without regard for cost is crap.  To make positive change we could do little things.  Let's start by removing ethanol from fuel, because that's a waste of both corn and tax dollars.  The Kyoto accords aren't exactly insane, so how about shooting for them?  Maybe we push for better sorting of waste, so that biological materials are separated and the resulting methane decomposition can be burned off for electricity.  Asking for roads to be replaced by solar panels, and having windmills everywhere is stupid, but that nuance of response to available information is where you want to consider everyone against you a radical.  Demanding action isn't demanding we burn the world, it's acknowledging the reality that 100% certainty and accurate modeling is a pretty unreasonable demand when only crazy people of each side can't agree to reasonable responses.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 15, 2016)

*sigh* Why do you constantly try to vilify and berate me?  I'm only replying to this because I _must_ be insane:


lilhasselhoffer said:


> 1) You don't believe in climate change.  This is based upon conflicting data.





FordGT90Concept said:


> No, I said *climate is always changing*.





lilhasselhoffer said:


> 4) You want another couple of decades to determine if climate change is real, based upon a new computer model fed old data.





FordGT90Concept said:


> No, I said *climate is always changing*.





lilhasselhoffer said:


> 5) Despite said couple of decades needing to pass, you believe any call to action is inappropriate.





FordGT90Concept said:


> I suggest (and always have) *action through the discovery and application of technology*.





lilhasselhoffer said:


> 6) Despite the call to action being inappropriate, you're calling for population control and suggesting "humanity must pay for its actions."


Should technology fail to provide a solution.  If you look at the context population control was brought up, it was responding to a hypothetical.  It is a solution but far from the best solution. 

And that quote?  I can't find that I ever said it.  The closest to it is this:


FordGT90Concept said:


> Humanity is going to have to face reality eventually:


I stand by all of the quoted statements in the context they were made.  I still believe CH4 is an elephant in the room no one is talking about.  The amount of CH4 in the atmosphere isn't enough to do much now but over the next hundreds or thousands of years, it will become an unavoidable problem unless technology finds a way to combat it.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 15, 2016)

Global Warming,Global Cooling, Acid Rain, The Population Bomb, Holes in the Ozone, China Syndrome, Y2K2, Chernoble, Killer Bees, AIDS, Coral Reefs dying, Killer Smog, Traffic Gridlock, Alien Abductions, Fossil fuels depleted by 1982, 200 million enviro refugees by 2010, Arctic gone by 2015, Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035, James Hansen's Tipping Point by 2008, Al Gores, Tipping Point by 2016, Global Warming, Climate Change, we survived it all in just the last 25 years or so...Imagine that!
The sky will continue to fall for some people....No matter what common logic and facts dictate....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 15, 2016)

Pretty sure the Earth couldn't even have 7 billion people if we didn't already make vast improvements in agriculture, water, and health.  Our success as a species is the only reason why CO2 has become an issue in the first place.  Solve the CO2 issue, something else will come next.


----------



## Frick (Mar 15, 2016)

So this thread is still going? I'm doing my part, I recently got my old Volvo going. It smells awful.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 15, 2016)

Frick said:


> So this thread is still going? I'm doing my part, I recently got my old Volvo going. It smells awful.


I fired up my old Lawnboy. Every time I fire her up, 3 squirrels 2 gophers and a Shrew kick the bucket.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 15, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> *sigh* Why do you constantly try to vilify and berate me?  I'm only replying to this because I _must_ be insane:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I insist on calling out the crap that you're spewing.

Define climate.  Define weather.  Define event.


You have mutable definitions for each.  You say climate is always changing, but that's crap.  Climate is general weather patterns over an extended period of time.  You've used this definition in the past when arguing severe weather events.  In this case you decide that climate is something constantly changing because the summed total is constantly shifting slightly.  You are deciding to change definitions to suit your argument.  It's like waiting until the day it rains in the desert, and arguing that the single event changes the average by some appreciable amount.

You claim that technology is the magical solution to everything.  That's relatively new, and I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around such a statement.  It's interesting that you've gone back and edited previous posts, so that there's no point in trying to make you honest to your past statements,  That should really be the sign that you're not an honest operator, but I'll give you the fact that this is somehow what you've been playing towards the entire time.  Square the point with reality.  In reality technology is only a fragment of what we are doing as humans, and its as much the cause of this as anything else.  Burning fossil fuels generates carbon dioxide.  Generating an abundance of foods has led to more waste, and the drive to consume less efficient products (read: cows generate huge amounts of methane and take enormous amounts of energy for relatively low nutritional values).  The magical excuse that technology will fix everything is demonstrably stupid, yet now you want to hide behind it?


This is the point that is baffling me most though.  You consistently apply science inconsistently.  You want climate to be unrelated to weather events in one instance, yet in another climate would necessarily have to include those events.  You want to wait on models, yet in the next you discount the models as simply part of the larger climate data.  You claim that there's enough deniability from one group of scientists that calling for any action is irrational, yet in the next find it viable to answer a theoretical situation which you say is an impossibility.  If you were trying for devil's advocate, then you really didn't separate it from anything else you are saying.



I'm willing to accept the idea that climate change doesn't exist.  I'm willing to accept that humans somehow aren't the primary motivation.  These particular ideas are counter to the set of facts that is being presented, but maybe we're looking at the wrong piece of the puzzle.  What I can't abide is pretending you've a superior argument based upon what you have provided.  You argue points countering one another, with such vast inconsistencies that there needs to be a dogma behind them to make them work.  Words have no meaning which can be agreed to on a consistent basis, and you believe that interjected conclusion you've made, that fly in the face of the conclusions presented in the abstract, are viable because you don't read the hundreds of pages of data that were analyzed.  You then criticize the word choice in abstracts, because you don't like them.  Where's the consistency?  Where's the objectivity?  

Oh, that's right.  Neither of these things matter to you.  If you don't like a conclusion you can simply wave it away.  There's no need to actually address what an author says, you cite biases you want to have about the authors, and disregard their work.  I've seen these tactics before, which is what angers and saddens me.  The same exact crap comes from god of the margins, anti-vaxxers, and other fringe elements that desire to dictate reality to you. 



What I really, really can't stand is bastardization of a good study.  Let's do a little search of some research papers, and test your 60% conjecture.  It's limited, but we'll use google scholar (2000-2011).  We'll look at the first page, and cover the results.  
Global Warming: 730,000 results
Results confirming, and man made: 9
Results confirming, not man made: 0 
Results neither confirming nor denying: 1
Results denying climate change: 0

Global cooling: 710,000 results
Results confirming (warming), and man made: 1
Results confirming (warming), not man made: 1 - this is about volcanic eruptions
Results neither confirming nor denying: 8 - this is hard to show, but most focused on dinosaurs
Results denying climate change: 0

It's highly unscientific, because I don't have double blind testing, and I'm biased at demonstrating your assertion is hollow.  What I don't have to do though is go through thousands of papers, or even provide context.  You stated 60% of papers would have included the term "global cooling," and thus that 97% figure is crap.  What I've demonstrated is that there are a ton of papers on global cooling, but unless you're interested in the plieoscene it's pretty much irrelevant.  You've stated a study was wrong because of you unfounded biases, that even a cursory freaking google search can demonstrate is blatantly wrong.  Let's do the math.  11 total results speaking about the topic directly.  10 suggest climate change is real and man made.  That's 90.9% that agrees with the climate change hypothesis.  The study cited 97%.  Let's go with the lower number.  Basically a 91% agreement on conclusions from abstracts, based on varying data.  There's a difference between voting on the truth, and it being apparent from the abundance of data provided.  I haven't done "climate change," though you're welcome to provide its results.



Why do I berate you?  If you were a scientist, as you try to be, the community would have already branded you incompetent and asked you kindly to get the hell out.  Utilizing pseudoscience, outright lies, and fabrications to prove your dogma require somebody to call you out.  Nobody else seems to have to fortitude for it.  I'm game.  There are few things I care about deeply, but watching somebody try to use science to support dogma that can't be held together rationally is something that gets me angry even after the third long week of yard work and a miserable job.  Science separates us from those who seek another dark age of religion.  You may call me whatever you'd like, but if you try the scientific route, and it's just a mask for a dogmatic belief, I'm going to try to eviscerate every ounce of stupidity that I can find.  I'll start with words whose definitions are plastic.  We can proceed to utilizing individual studies as counter points, functionally making any discussion an infinite grind because the interpretations from the abstracts aren't even being taken at face value.  We can end on dismissal of works that don't fit your mold, based upon some unproven bias which can be demonstrated unreasonable with even the slightest modicum of effort.  An effort you are unwilling to provide, though you happily throw artificial numbers at the situation and interpolate results based upon nothing.  You've really hit the trifecta of poor arguments via the authority of science here. 

The layman has problems seeing how poorly constructed the argument is here, because you throw a bunch of numbers and graphs at the problem.  I applaud the effort to obfuscate the truth, because the tactic is hard to dispel.  At the same time, intellectual honesty on the matter is something I value.  You've not been able to demonstrate that.  More importantly, the use of editing makes it impossible to consider you honest.  I'd gladly argue with anyone, assuming I could just erase all my mistakes post facto.  The problem is that's not a discussion.  I have no problems with being corrected, but arguing with someone who decides to rewrite history is...impossible.  When the lies and half truths can be wiped clean once detected you really aren't a human being.  You're a crappy google search.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 15, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I insist on calling out the crap that you're spewing.


Opened minded Liberal FTW


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 15, 2016)

Climate is an aggregate of weather, true, but everytime you add a number to an average and the result is not equal to the average, the average (climate) changes; thus, climate is always changing.  I don't believe, like you apparently want me to, that all changes in climate are inherently bad.

To the larger picture (as repeatedly demonstrated), I'm far more concerned about the specifics.  Weather is a specific and so is CO2.  I can't control climate because it is an effect, not a cause, but I can control my emissions of CO2 to a degree.  See why I care about the latter (weather, CO2) and not the former (climate)?

Going even broader, this is where the communication failure has occured between the science (80%+ agreement) and the people (50% agreement).  The topic is always framed as a massive sweeping debate which creates legitimate concerns among especially conservative people that won't react unless the problem is starring them in the face.  Let's throw the term "climate change" aside for a minute and also all of the other contributors and focus on just CO2.  There is numerous examples in world history where a similar focus has occured and legal action took place compensating for it.  Two examples off the top of my head are O3, CFCs, and leading fuel.  The correct approach should have been showing people that CO2 is rising astronomically from pre-industrial levels, we can definitively proof human activity is to blame for that rise, and we should take these steps (enumerated) to correct it.  The "global warming" and "climate change" debates never would have occured.  Sure, just like the oil industry complained about leading and manufacturers complained about CFCs, governments around the world rapidly moved to ban the practices because there's no arguing with a graph.

TL;DR: "climate change" is an effect, not a cause.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> What I really, really can't stand is bastardization of a good study.  Let's do a little search of some research papers, and test your 60% conjecture.  It's limited, but we'll use google scholar (2000-2011).  We'll look at the first page, and cover the results.
> Global Warming: 730,000 results
> Results confirming, and man made: 9
> Results confirming, not man made: 0
> ...


I already like this better than what Cook did.  It's a result I would expect from a scientific community.  That is, about the same number for warming/cooling with only a handful making extremely specific claims.  At the same time, is Cook one of those that fall under "Results confirming, and man made: 9?"  If yes, then you can clearly see why I have a problem with what Cook did.


I am not a scientist and I never claimed to be.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 15, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Opened minded Liberal FTW



?

One, not liberal, more of a Libertarian.  Unfortunately that particular monicker was tainted.

Two, what does this add to the discussion?  If the implication is that I'm hard line for cliate change being a thing, then yes.  If it can conclusively be demonstrated otherwise then I'm willing to change my mind.  The simplest answer is that there are billions to be made if we can conclusively prove that humans aren't influencing climate.  Why wouldn't companies spending millions of lobbyists spend a few hundred thousand proving it was a falsehood?  Consider me old fashioned, but self interested parties set to gain huge amounts of money would reasonably do so.  If they could, then why haven't they?



Edit:


FordGT90Concept said:


> I already like this better than what Cook did.  It's a result I would expect from a scientific community.  That is, about the same number for warming/cooling with only a handful making extremely specific claims.  At the same time, is Cook one of those that fall under "Results confirming, and man made: 9?"  If yes, then you can clearly see why I have a problem with what Cook did.
> 
> 
> I am not a scientist and I never claimed to be.



Allow me to be blunt.  If you aren't a scientist, but you're willing to interpolate an abstract for a result, it's just wrong.  An abstract boils huge amounts of data into a single page, and as such is never designed to be interpreted.  To do so is...let's just call it missing the forest for the lichen on the trees.


I don't personally like Cook.  I've read other work by him, and he seems to be irrationally in favor of the green movement.  I'm talking green tax credits, and the whole ball of annoying 1st world whacks.  While I personally would like to punch his smug face, that doesn't mean the study is terrible.  To maintain any viability within the community you need to be unbiased (which is why Powell's name doesn't come up any more in rational rings).  Cook did that by having the abstracts read by two separate entities, and categorized in one of a few broad groups.

I don't personally like the divisions.  Again, I can't fault them though.  Cook went in wanting this to be proven man made, the problem is that papers are....let's call it less than fantastic on the description.  The whole Plieoscene impact on the Global Cooling side of things is a real pain as far as results.  Cook dealt with any inherent bias about the terms by having the abstracts read.  It's about as good as you can expect, because this was unpaid.  In an ideal world Cook would have gone through significantly more terms, but again science and research are beholden to money.  At some point you have to ask whether more efforts will return more rewards.  I personally think Cook chose the easy way out here, but again I can't fault the effort.

I guess we agree on Cook being...a less than ideal person.  Where we have to disagree is on whether or not he did enough to make his project reasonably free of bias.  I can't begrudge those efforts, even if every ounce of me despises what he is.  Sometimes even the devil can be right, no matter how much we personally despise them.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 15, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> ?


Not surprising in the least.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 15, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Not surprising in the least.



I applaud the low bar.  Nothing to add to the discussion, and a massive chip on the shoulder.  Please, tell me how I'll be voting for Hillary.  Tell me how I didn't vote for Romney in the last elections.  Better yet, tell me how morally superior I think I am because I'm from somewhere specific or went somewhere specific.  I'll bet on the trolling first, then the inferiority complex.  Extra points if you follow up with the claim of me being an SJW.  Heck, I could use a good laugh based around someone trying to figure out what I am.  It's always interesting.


Back on topic, do you have anything to add, or are you just trying to get a rise?


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 15, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I applaud the low bar.  Nothing to add to the discussion,blaaa blaaa blaaa and a massive chip on the shoulder. blaaa blaaa blaaa It's always interesting. blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa....
> 
> 
> Back on topic, do you have anything to add, or are you just trying to get a rise?


Dismissive, arrogant and condescending. Its a trait/character flaw with you guys.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 18, 2016)

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201602


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 19, 2016)

But the SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!
*Plants may be better at acclimatising to rising temperatures and contribute less to carbon dioxide in a warming world than some have previously thought, a new study suggests*!!!
"Maybe some of our models are over-predicting the degree to which plant respiration will cause accelerating feedback that speeds up climate change," said Professor Peter Reich, an ecologist and plant physiologist from the University of Minnesota who led the study published today in Nature.
Part of the problem is there is a* lack of basic science on plant respiration*, especially how plants acclimatise to changing environments.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-...less-less-of-a-global-warming-problem/7248052

                                                                                                           THE SKY IS FALLING!!!


----------



## Frick (Mar 22, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Heck, I could use a good laugh based around someone trying to figure out what I am.  It's always interesting.



Well, I do know what diagnose you have. 
But at this point that's like knowing the sun is hot.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 22, 2016)

Hate this thread but where relevant science pops up...

*Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years*

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2016)

Its all @qubit 's fault.......


----------



## qubit (Mar 22, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Its all @qubit 's fault.......


Definitely!


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 22, 2016)

I complained here years ago the thanks means nothing. We put a limit on the amount you can hand out /day at OCF. That keeps the thanks whoring to a minimum when you only have 10 /day. 

/sorry about OT.


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 25, 2016)

The SKY is still Falling! What a F'n scam!!

_NASA scientists have shattered the conventional wisdom that Antarctica's ice surface is shrinking and revealed that the amount of ice is in fact growing.
Though accepting that glaciers are still shrinking because of man-made global warming, the new study published in the Journal of Glaciology suggests that recent gains more than offset losses elsewhere._

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...-that-Antarctica-is-actually-gaining-ice.html


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 26, 2016)

Old news conveniently ignored
and can i edit your text


SK-1 said:


> NASA scientists have shattered the conventional wisdom that Antarctica's ice surface is shrinking and revealed that the amount of ice is in fact growing.
> Though accepting that glaciers are still shrinking because of man-made global warming, the new Revised study REpublished in the Journal of Glaciology suggests that recent gains more than offset losses elsewhere.



There that looks better

In Other News The UN Plans to Ban the use of Ice Cubes in Cold Drinks Because of Global Warming and the Imminent shortage of Ice


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 26, 2016)




----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 26, 2016)

Soon to be Banned because of Global Warming


----------



## SK-1 (Mar 26, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Soon to be Banned because of Global Warming


I just drove through Kentucky. I could smell the bourbon.


----------



## magibeg (Apr 17, 2016)

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4f6f6g/science_ama_series_we_just_published_a_study/

Can ask the authors of one of the 97% studies about climate change or how they got their numbers.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 17, 2016)

It's John Cook, again; Pew Research is a far better source.


----------



## magibeg (Apr 17, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's John Cook, again; Pew Research is a far better source.



Are you implying he has a flawed methodology? Any particular arguments with how that study was done? What about the other authors, are they bad too? Why is a meta-analysis research paper less reliable than pew research?

Are you referring to this paper by Pew Research? http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-15-12 Global Warming Release.pdf


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 17, 2016)

We thank you for watching our sponsors advertisements and now return you to the TAG TEAM Climate FREESTYLE Kick the Shit out of each other Contest

ROUND ? who gives a .......................k


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 17, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Are you implying he has a flawed methodology? Any particular arguments with how that study was done? What about the other authors, are they bad too? Why is a meta-analysis research paper less reliable than pew research?


Look back a few pages at the extended debate with @lilhasselhoffer.



magibeg said:


> Are you referring to this paper by Pew Research? http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-15-12 Global Warming Release.pdf


http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/




Pew *asked* the scientists what they believed rather than assuming using database searches.  As you can see in the table, a strong majority agree (88-90%) but that's pretty far from Cook et. al. 97% that gets regurgitated over and over and over.  That said, Pew did all scientists across a broad range of topics; narrowing it down to just Earth scientists, it moves up to 93%.


That said, I really don't care what the numbers say--I just hate Cook being cited repeatedly when his work is a shoddy source from someone that has a strong opinion on the subject.  It gets *way* more attention than it deserves.  How often do you hear of Pew's numbers except from me?  'Nuff said.

I wish someone would interview the minority for an extended explanation as to why they disagree.


----------



## magibeg (Apr 17, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Look back a few pages at the extended debate with @lilhasselhoffer.
> 
> 
> http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/
> ...



Before I get started I want to point out a couple things:

1. You clearly didn't read the study
2. The pew research study doesn't research the same thing as the study I posted
3. The Cook study you just referenced is not the same study as the one you think you're talking about

I'm afraid we might already be off to a hopeless start as before a discussion can begin we're already off topic.

So let's start over shall we?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

First I recommend you actually read the study which was only published on April 13th because if you plan to debate or argue a topic you should consider learning what you're actually arguing against. As it stands right now you have no idea what you're talking about based on your above statements.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 17, 2016)

1. I read enough to see it's pretty much the same damn thing (2013) updated for 2016.
2. I know that; I'd argue what Cook has done, did, and will do, is frivolous.
3. See #1.

I've said my peace on this subject.  Cook is not worth my time.

Edit: I've read more of it and now I want to punch Cook in the gut.  See #2.


----------



## magibeg (Apr 17, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 1. I read enough to see it's pretty much the same damn thing updated for 2016 (this is the third or fourth time he's done it).
> 2. I know that; I'd argue what Cook has done, did, and will do, is frivolous.
> 3. See #1.
> 
> I've said my peace on this subject.  Cook is not worth my time.



John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8,Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13,Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3 and Ken Rice15

It is a shame you simply discard all these scientists and this study simply because you dislike 1 person. Interesting that you take a survey of opinions over a meta-analysis of studies as well.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 18, 2016)

Note how of all of the studies in Cook's 2016 article, Cook's 2013 represents the upper extreme (as in the very top).

I don't have a problem with the articles cited on their own (except Cook's).  I have a problem with Cook's 2013 meta-analysis and this new meta-analysis which includes--and emphasizes--the old.  Without Cook, would this meta-analysis even exist?  I suspect not.  I believe you overstate the importance of the other people listed.

We knew, going back to 1991 that most (~66%) scientists believed the global average temperature was rising and every time asked since, it ticked up little by little to ~90% in 2015.  If you want the opinion of the scientists, that's it.

Neither of the Cook papers have any reason to exist.  In fact, I'd argue Cook's papers have a lot to do with why the US public is 50/50 on "climate change."  The fact it is so heavily cited puts emphasis on frivolous numbers and not on function.  It pretty much killed discussion of the latter because it's a huge bulls-eye for politicization.


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 19, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Are you implying he has a flawed methodology?


There is no consensus approaching 97 percent. 
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.
Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.
*And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.*



Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 19, 2016)

The wording of the question dramatically changes the response. The "less than half" qualifier is likely why that particular survey only got 30% in favor.  When they ask broadly about anthropomorphic warming, you'll see the 90%+ agreement but still less than 97% unless you're only looking at published papers.


Again, more broadly, it doesn't matter.  Just from the carbon-13 levels in the atmosphere, we know our burning of fossil fuels is changing the composition of the atmosphere.


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 22, 2016)

http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/

When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new _Climate Hustle_ movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s_An Inconvenient Truth_. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.


----------



## qubit (Apr 22, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/
> 
> When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new _Climate Hustle_ movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s_An Inconvenient Truth_. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.


Whatever the truth on global warming, I seem to remember that Inconvenient Truth was debunked as scare tactics with little evidence to back it up.

I couldn't agree more that it's the science that should talk and only the science. However, there's too much corruption from vested interests, money and politics/power grabs for me to trust either side since this isn't science, but bullshit being spread in the name of science, with the truth all mixed up in it in one dirty shit pie.

The climate hustle website is currently down, btw.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 22, 2016)

> It's just you. http://www.climatehustle.com is up.



http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/

Good now if it was down.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 22, 2016)

Keep saying "Its Not Global warming"   Earth as a Planet is very slowly cooling and will do untill the sun goes to its red giant phase of its life

WHAT WE ARE/MAY BE EXPERIENCING IS CLIMATE CHANGE


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 25, 2016)

Well shit! A greener planet...Now we're all doomed. 
*Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.
A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.*
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346


----------



## qubit (Apr 29, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Keep saying "Its Not Global warming"   Earth as a Planet is very slowly cooling and will do untill the sun goes to its red giant phase of its life
> 
> *WHAT WE ARE/MAY BE EXPERIENCING IS CLIMATE CHANGE*


Yes indeed, the climate has always changed throughout the ages, so I'm not surprised that it's changing now.


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 29, 2016)

qubit said:


> Yes indeed, the climate has always changed throughout the ages, so I'm not surprised that it's changing now.


The "Sky is falling"crew is desperately trying to make that a bad word. Their movement has bastardized the word Climate Change to be synonymous man-made global warming. Too bad for them. Transparent, straw-man arguments eventually get exposed.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 29, 2016)

Its the sun man

NOT

The son of man.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 29, 2016)

it's so funny people still even debate this.

we normally have 20% melt during the summers on the poles. 2015 we had over 50% melt.

north pole was 12c higher this winter than average and most of greenlands glaciers are expected to go this summer.

nobody  can argue against the world is warming, average for the northern hemisphere is up 2c since the figures shown at the environmental summit in paris last year. which for those paying attention was what they said could be the low side of what will happen by 2100. already happened in under a year. at this rate will smash the 6c rise they said was the high end prediction for 2100 before 2050.

it aint the sun causing it, the solar effect on earth has been measured and has been declining since the 70s. yet the earth still gets warmer.

never, ever, ever in the known history of this planet has the co2 ever gotten over 400 part per mil. we have now smashed that record and it keeps on climbing. but it aint people having an effect on the climate, honest...


----------



## qubit (Apr 29, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> The "Sky is falling"crew is desperately trying to make that a bad word. Their movement has bastardized the word Climate Change to be synonymous man-made global warming. Too bad for them. *Transparent, straw-man arguments eventually get exposed.*


Yeah, incredibly they do. Just witness the various scandals getting exposed in the UK where I live. Unfortunately, there are probably many more that never go uncovered.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Its the sun man
> 
> NOT
> 
> The son of man.


Nah, it's gawd wot did it.


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 29, 2016)

vega22 said:


> never, ever, ever in the known history of this planet has the co2 ever gotten over 400 part per mil. we have now smashed that record and it keeps on climbing. but it aint people having an effect on the climate, honest...


 But that's just it...  You say "never, ever,ever in the known history"...that my friend is up for debate! 
The unknown history of our planet outweighs the known history by a HUGE margin. There is no arguing, that in a Geological sense, Man has been here a literal *BLINK* of an eye. 100 years of industrialization vs what?...Billions of years of planet existence at a minimum. Our scientist _try_ to peer back into time using a variety of tools...some are semi accurate while some suck Spider Monkeyballs.  The ice core Co2 readings for instance. We now know, UV light that happens penetrates the ice, can screw up the algae co2 analysis big time. Why didn't these brilliant people consider this years ago? The answer to my rhetorical question lol...FUNDING!!


----------



## vega22 (Apr 30, 2016)

only in the minds of the weak and the halls of corruption is it up for debate. in the real world we can see what is happening without the need for big business and corporations telling us "the truth".

do you really think oj couldn't get his hands in those gloves so no way he could of killed his wife?

have you spent much time on the poles?

spent a lot of time watching glaciers?

i haven't either but i hold the words of those who do in much higher regard than any lab jockey from bumsville university who was paid to write a paper "disproving" anything.

the big point you really seem top have missed. if people are the cause or not, matters not. not 1 fucking bit. it is happening and if we do nothing to stop it we are about to lose 60% of all our major cities all over the world. the major ports which every person in the modern world relies on for import/exports are about to be gone.

i cant wait, my house is going to become beach front property and the value will skyrocket. but not everyone is in that boat.


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 30, 2016)

vega22 said:


> only in the minds of the weak and the halls of corruption is it up for debate. in the real world we can see what is happening without the need for big business and corporations telling us "the truth".


Because the Gov. never ever lies...




vega22 said:


> i hold the words of those who do in much higher regard than any lab jockey from bumsville university who was paid to write a paper "disproving" anything.


To think only "lab jockeys from bumsville" disagree with the fictional 97% shows me you have very narrow paths of thought   This subject requires an open mind and no blinders. Especially if you want others to even consider your views.



vega22 said:


> if people are the cause or not, matters not. not 1 fucking bit. it is happening and if we do nothing to stop it we are about to lose 60% of all our major cities all over the world. the major ports which every person in the modern world relies on for import/exports are about to be gone.


Dr.Evil might be a strong influence here. After all...he wants to control the weather too. 
Oh and stop with the fear mongering please! Its like beating a dead horse and you guys lose credibility! The list of *Failed global warming predictions is laughable... fucking amazing! *
vega22 you want to talk about Weak Minds? All the Hurricanes and extreme weather??? WTF? Its been a record period of  NO EXTREME WEATHER.  You have google so you can search but, here is just a tidbit/sample of their extraordinary lies.










Now I'm going to burn some plastic...


----------



## vega22 (May 2, 2016)

all depends on the government.

american government has been lying about it not happening for years.

just like they say fracking is safe too. not because it is the truth but because it makes more money for them.

where do you live dude?

no extreme weather?

 europe has been hit with snow this week.

spain hit with hail the size of baseballs which destroyed many cars and killed livestock.

but hey, there is no extreme weather going on....


----------



## dorsetknob (May 2, 2016)

vega22 said:


> where do you live dude?
> 
> no extreme weather?
> 
> ...


snigger THERE IS No Extreme Weather for computer Geeks living in moms basement
Food ordered online and delivered to the door.
Online shopping ... virtual Dating

Meanwhile in Liberia the Refugee's are waiting for the Mediterranean Sea to Ice over like Alaska so they can walk to Europe


----------



## SK-1 (May 5, 2016)

The IPCC found in 2013 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/a...is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/#ixzz47lopAl8N


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 5, 2016)

Yup, if higher global average temperatures do have an impact on cyclonic activity, it will be several more decades before there's any conclusive evidence to prove it.

Considering there's already many decades of data, I'd call the odds pretty slim.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 13, 2016)

a good gif








http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/spiralling-global-temperatures/


----------



## JunkBear (May 13, 2016)

Guys I will use a citation I heard on Quebec television about power electric lines worker in north. The guy was telling that before even the neck-mouth warmer was getting stuck with ice due to difference between body and outside temperature. Now its so warm due to global warming that even in far north they dont even need to cover their mouth anymore. Which makes it easier to work but soil is softer so its harder for trucks to roll on muddy ground.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 13, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think it's irrelevant.  We could/should do a lot better about how we produce energy and we should take the highroad regardless of what impact, if any, there is on the planet.  For example, we should be shutting down all of the coal power plants and replacing them with nuclear.  Also, build more mass transit in cities like LA and get serious about finding a solution to long distance travel without burning thousands of gallons of fuel.



Agreed, it is irrelevant whether it is a scam or not, the fact is we need to move to a more green economy A) because it will provide better paying long term jobs (my cousin recently graduated from community college to do maintenance on windmills) B) our own health and air will improve, less nasty stuff in the air and wind currents the better for everyone C) Coal and fracking, separately in their own ways do pollute ground water one way or another, whether it be a little bit of this chemical dripping here or there during the process or transportation (not saying a lot does), which seeks into the underground wells a lot of small cities draw from.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 19, 2016)

Methane produced by livestock farming accounts for around 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions in the form of flatulence and belching, according to official estimates.








Researchers at Aarhus University in Denmark believe they may be able to reduce this by feeding cows oregano to alter the balance of bacteria in their digestive systems.

Dr Kai Grevsen, a senior researcher involved in the project, told NPR: 'Oregano has essential oils with a mild antimicrobial called carvacrol, which can kill some of the bacteria in the cow’s rumen that produce methane.


According to a recent UN report, farm animals release a total of 80 million metric tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, which is 23 times more potent at warming the planet than carbon dioxide. 

As a result scientists have been trying for years to come up with different ways to prevent them from belching and flatulence.

Many of the previously tested remedies have been promising, for example adding the chemical, 3NOP to cattle feed cut the emissions from a sample of cows by 30 per cent.

The study is building on previous the work that looked at 3NOP and will go on until 2019.

They will be using Greek oregano because of its high concentration of belch-suppressing oil. They hope this method will cut methane by 25 per cent.

Dr Greveson also said cows lose a lot of their energy through the process of releasing methane.

He hopes the energy saved by blocking the methane-producing bacteria will allow the cow to generate more milk and therefore be beneficial to farmer.

It is also still unknown what the milk from oregano-fed cows will taste like, but in previous studies there were no hints of the flavour of pizza or spaghetti in the final product, Dr Greveson assures.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 19, 2016)

Dairy cows are a very small percentage of the cows out there; most are raised for slaughter.  I doubt oregano would have any impact on the flavor of the meat.

I applaud them for looking for practical solutions to the methane problem.


----------



## Caring1 (May 19, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Dairy cows are a very small percentage of the cows out there; most are raised for slaughter.  I doubt oregano would have any impact on the flavor of the meat.


Maybe they could add some garlic to that and we could have pre-seasoned cows.


----------



## jaggerwild (May 19, 2016)

My thoughts 









4.5 billion years old, yeah were killing it.........


----------



## SK-1 (May 19, 2016)

I believe this is George's 3rd appearance in this thread. He also has an awesome monologue on the way Political Correctness has fucked shit up so bad.


----------



## jaggerwild (May 19, 2016)

I'm old what can I say, forgot i posted this already


----------



## SK-1 (May 19, 2016)

Haa! Right on... I wasn't trying to call you out or anything...Hell, I think I may have even posted it once!
Edit: Found the PC one. This is epic.


----------



## jaggerwild (May 19, 2016)

I'm differently abled but never diagnosedOH I suffer from Lookism as well 



 By the way, the SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!


----------



## SK-1 (May 20, 2016)

I just wish they would cram some more shit down our collective throats!!! Oh wait... get ready to swallow another load :/
http://portlandtribune.com/sl/30784...l-board-bans-climate-change-denying-materials

In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools.
“It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” said Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux in board testimony. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”


----------



## Schmuckley (May 21, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> I just wish they would cram some more shit down our collective throats!!! Oh wait... get ready to swallow another load :/
> http://portlandtribune.com/sl/30784...l-board-bans-climate-change-denying-materials
> 
> In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools.
> “It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” said Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux in board testimony. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”


In future news: SJWs riot @ Oregon university over banning of Hot Pockets due to fake ingredients.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2016)

Pre-industrial era was much cloudier than previously thought:








The new data will "slightly reduce and sharpen the projections for temperature during the 21st century."


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 7, 2016)

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/spiralling-global-temperatures/


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 7, 2016)

See above: the "baseline" in the corner is wrong.


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 8, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> See above: the "baseline" in the corner is wrong.


I can understand having a 50 year period for the baseline to average out temperatures to measure change against, but I'm not clear on how they measured global temps in 1850. Obviously their measuring instrumentation wouldn't be calibrated to todays standards or as accurate.


----------



## Deeveo (Jun 8, 2016)

Little Ice Age might skew that spiral "a bit". It's always good to take care of your environment though, it's a lot nicer having some clean air to breath instead of some smoke.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> I can understand having a 50 year period for the baseline to average out temperatures to measure change against, but I'm not clear on how they measured global temps in 1850. Obviously their measuring instrumentation wouldn't be calibrated to todays standards or as accurate.


I posted an article about how they got those temperatures a long time ago.  Basically, there were taken by seafaring vessels and terrestrial observations.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 8, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Obviously their measuring instrumentation wouldn't be calibrated to todays standards or as accurate.




Thermometers were invented 300 years ago and are easy to calibrate.....freezing point and boiling point of water.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2016)

Analog thermometers lack the precision to declare the world is warming/cooling by the degree it is claimed to be warming today.  That graph relies heavily on computer models to fill in the blanks and smooth out the rough edges.  Models that are still missing a lot of data, especially on clouds.


http://press.cern/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change


> The measured sensitivity of aerosol formation to amines came as a surprise, and points to a potentially significant climate cooling mechanism. Moreover, since amine scrubbing is likely to become an important technology for capturing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuelled power plants, this effect is likely to rise in future.


That article stresses that the effect of cosmic radiation on the climate is still largely unknown.


----------



## SK-1 (Jul 21, 2016)

*More scandal... XD *
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/
NOAA claims global temperatures are the hottest ever, based on some rather spectacular junk science.* NOAA doesn’t actually have any temperature data over most of the land surface.*
And they* made up much *of their southern hemisphere ocean data.
The US has NOAA’s best data, and almost half it is also *fake.

This date in 1934 may have been the hottest in US history. The map below shows actual temperatures, not the “heat index.” Almost two-thirds of the US was over 100F on July 21, 1934 – with temperatures of 115 in Missouri and South Dakota, and 113 in Minnesota.*




*
*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2016)

The U.S. coast is in an unprecedented hurricane drought — why this is terrifying

The prediction of more, stronger tropical storms hasn't panned out.  In fact, the reverse has proven true at this point.



SK-1 said:


> *More scandal... XD *
> http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/
> NOAA claims global temperatures are the hottest ever, based on some rather spectacular junk science.* NOAA doesn’t actually have any temperature data over most of the land surface.*
> And they* made up much *of their southern hemisphere ocean data.
> ...


That was the dustbowl, wasn't it?  Or not long after anyway.


----------



## carex (Aug 5, 2016)

very simple you make people believe global warming is happening and justify the so called *water prices as well as human killing*...if you then convert it to say hydrogen related products available from maybe water it will still be as expensive or even more expensive than petrol or diesel cause you have the buy new stuff for that too.
Humanity will suffer until they be more educated and stop fighting .... today they can take money and go against their own people without thinking twice that one day maybe 10years later the things they are being part of if achieved will kill his family every damm second


----------



## Ahhzz (Aug 5, 2016)

carex said:


> very simple you make people believe global warming is happening and justify the so called *water prices as well as human killing*...if you then convert it to say hydrogen related products available from maybe water it will still be as expensive or even more expensive than petrol or diesel cause you have the buy new stuff for that too.
> Humanity will suffer until they be more educated and stop fighting .... today they can take money and go against their own people without thinking twice that one day maybe 10years later the things they are being part of if achieved will kill his family every damm second


Joined just to say something like "global warming justifies the human killing".....


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 16, 2016)

Is it possible to get an unbiased summary of the two opposing sides here? 

So one can look at the "facts" of both sides? 
Or is this an unreasonable feat?


----------



## dorsetknob (Aug 16, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Is it possible to get an unbiased summary of the two opposing sides here?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Aug 16, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Is it possible to get an unbiased summary of the two opposing sides here?
> 
> ?





Yes.



Global warming is a direct consequence of natural cycles of the sun slightly exaggerated by man.



BOOM !!!!


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 16, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> *More scandal... XD *
> http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/
> NOAA claims global temperatures are the hottest ever, based on some rather spectacular junk science.* NOAA doesn’t actually have any temperature data over most of the land surface.*
> And they* made up much *of their southern hemisphere ocean data.
> ...



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



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.
> 
> The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth energy systems analyst and environmental economist Zeke Hausfather,[10] who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[11] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[12]
> 
> ...



tl;dr Steve Goddard is a crank, you're a crank, and the majority of this thread is utter bulls**t.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Aug 16, 2016)

I blame @qubit


----------



## dorsetknob (Aug 16, 2016)

I Blame *R-T-B *
*He answered @qubit * in post 2


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Aug 16, 2016)

He enjoys global warming i reckon


----------



## dorsetknob (Aug 16, 2016)

frogs View of CO2 Carbon Credits


----------



## SK-1 (Aug 19, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard
> 
> 
> 
> tl;dr Steve Goddard is a crank, you're a crank, and the majority of this thread is utter bulls**t.



So It's Goddards fault 1936 was the hottest year on record. Got it.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 19, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> So It's Goddards fault 1936 was the hottest year on record. Got it.


On Earth as an overall record?
Not in my country, there were below average regions, and above average regions, overall it was an average year.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 19, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> He enjoys global warming i reckon
> 
> View attachment 77954



My air conditioner's general inability to work and the increasingly high temperatures in the coastal states beg to differ.

Also, it's 95 tomorrow in my state.  I'm going to die.


----------



## Nobody99 (Aug 19, 2016)

People don't get that weather is not the same as climate and that in the long term the warming that is happening is only going to be steeper because of the chain reactions like the escape of methane from permafrost. You don't have to even look at the sensor data you just have to look at the land and how it changes overtime, you can't restore Arctic ice and you can't return gas released from earth. You don't require sensor data when all you need is to look at the environmental changes and what they mean.

And if you want to blame someone for these conditions, you know who makes the laws.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 24, 2016)

What's the point of the debate? To blame the natural disasters on us vs nature?

Id imagine those arguing that human caused gcc is real are doing it to encourage limiting emissions and encourage other environmentally friendly practice while those saying it's not are simply trying to reduce spending/taxes and other economical factors?

GCC or not pollution is real and nonrenewable energy is costly and limited so we should all be wanting to switch over to renewable and if it consequently helps mitigate human caused gcc great. Those non debate issues alone should be worth exiting the burning of fossil fuels or at least with limiting it as much as possible.

http://thesolutionsproject.org


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 24, 2016)

Nonrenewable energy is generally a lot cheaper than renewable, and I mean a lot.  Coal is pretty much the cheapest and most plentiful there is but it has been made cost prohibitive by taxes, fines, and fees.  Those laws and penalties have made natural gas surge in the last decade to the point of almost taking over 1st position from coal.  Natural gas is cleaner than coal but it's like replacing lung cancer with asthma.

Renewables have grown (like a few percentage points versus double-digits of natural gas) but the cost of investment versus return on investment is very lopsided.  Almost all renewables are a function of surface area which translates to land rent and where electricity is most needed, the land is also valuable (Las Vegas being the outlier).  It effectively cancels itself out without subsidies to tip the balance.  Remove all of the subsidies and most of them won't be built anymore.

The only near-term solution is nuclear and, the huge irony here is that your conservative, "meh" on ACC types are in favor of it while your liberal, "ACC is real" types are against it (generally, always exceptions).  Nuclear energy is making a come back but when you look at the projections, it is a whimper, not a roar.  To get away from fossil fuels, we need a roar.  Case in point: China is going to add a lot more capacity in coal than they are in anything else, including nuclear.  If that trend doesn't change, well, the air be getting dirtier, never mind the atmospheric carbon.  And remember, coal exhaust is carcinogenic unless it has been scrubbed.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 24, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Nonrenewable energy is generally a lot cheaper than renewable, and I mean a lot.  Coal is pretty much the cheapest and most plentiful there is but it has been made cost prohibitive by taxes, fines, and fees.  Those laws and penalties have made natural gas surge in the last decade to the point of almost taking over 1st position from coal.  Natural gas is cleaner than coal but it's like replacing one form of lung cancer with another.
> 
> Renewables have grown (like a few percentage points versus double-digits of natural gas) but the cost of investment versus return on investment is very lopsided.  Almost all renewables are a function of surface area which translates to land rent and where electricity is most needed, the land is also valuable (Las Vegas being the outlier).  It effectively cancels itself out without subsidies to tip the balance.  Remove all of the subsidies and most of them won't be built anymore.
> 
> The only near-term solution is nuclear and, the huge irony here is that your conservative, "meh" on ACC types are in favor of it while your liberal, "AAC is real" types are against it (generally, always exceptions).  Nuclear energy is making a come back but when you look at the projections, it a whimper, not a roar.  To get away from fossil fuels, we need a roar.  Case in point: China is going to add a lot more capacity in coal than they are in anything else, including nuclear.  If that trend doesn't change, well, the air be getting dirtier, never mind the atmospheric carbon.  And remember, coal exhaust is carcinogenic unless it has been scrubbed.



Long term renewable pays out. The switch will be the hardest and most costly but once the infrastructure is in place the long term effects will be overwhelmingly positive. 

If you look at that link I posted they have a unique plan per state to get the job done.

There isn't even a need for nuclear. Although I'd much prefer it over the burning of fossil fuels with something like thorium reactors, renewable works we just need a consciousness shift.

China scares me because it shows just how bad people are willing to let things get and still be complacent. They'd rather buy bottled clean air then fight for or demand for change and we are no different.


----------



## Ahhzz (Aug 24, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> What's the point of the debate? To blame the natural disasters on us vs nature?
> 
> Id imagine those arguing that human caused gcc is real are doing it to encourage limiting emissions and encourage other environmentally friendly practice while those saying it's not are simply trying to reduce spending/taxes and other economical factors?
> 
> ...


Excuse me sir, you may see the doorman for your exit!! There will be no such thing as logic introduced here!! We simply want to prove the other wrong!!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 24, 2016)

On another note, the idea of a scandal of such epic proportions by scientists around the world is very difficult to reconcile.

What would motivate such a global and overwhelming majority of scientists to perpetuate such a scandal?

Is this the same rational flat earth believers go through to justify their belief the earth is flat despite a global consensus and concrete evidence suggesting the contrary?


----------



## BiggieShady (Aug 24, 2016)

I can't remember when I wrote on paper last time ... it was ages ago, when did that transition happen 
Similar will happen with energy, very very slowly phasing out dirtiest forms.
For electricity in my country it's mostly hydro power, then fuels then wind and solar ... they are phasing out fuels and pushing with wind turbines lately


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 24, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Long term renewable pays out. The switch will be the hardest and most costly but once the infrastructure is in place the long term effects will be overwhelmingly positive.
> 
> If you look at that link I posted they have a unique plan per state to get the job done.
> 
> ...


We've been over this many times in this very thread.  I'll sum it up briefly: whenever a power company is looking to build a solar power plant, the first question they ask themselves is "how far is it to a natural gas pipeline?"  Why, because "green" is not available 24/7 yet electricity demand is 24/7.  You cannot have one without the other.  For every MW you add of "renewable" you need equal capacity in nonrenewable (e.g. 500MW solar plant needs a 500MW gas turbine).  Why natural gas?  A cloud covers the panels, it can turn in a matter of minutes to fill in the gap and go off when the cloud passes.

Their "project" clearly hasn't gone under the scrutiny of electrical engineers.  It just isn't feasible without a huge investment in energy storage which is a very expensive and finite thing.

Add on top of that the costly maintenance and short lifespan of these things.  Power generation would mirror our other infrastructure where they nature destroys them faster than we can fix them.  This is the path to economic ruin, not growth.

Nuclear has provided ~20% of the USA's power since the 1980s, despite the moratorium on new facilities.  Hell, nuclear is so valuable today, the oldest (1973) and weakest (476 MW) nuclear power plant in the USA was literally _surrounded_ by water in 2011 was retrofitted to return to operation in 2013.  They wouldn't do that if there was any better alternative.

China's growth demands electricity and they won't be the last.  India, Brazil, Nigeria, etc. are also surging and their need of electricity will follow.



BiggieShady said:


> I can't remember when I wrote on paper last time ... it was ages ago, when did that transition happen
> Similar will happen with energy, very very slowly phasing out dirtiest forms.
> For electricity in my country it's mostly hydro power, then fuels then wind and solar ... they are phasing out fuels and pushing with wind turbines lately
> View attachment 78233


It's pretty clear your country is importing a lot of electricity.  And note how low renewables are compared to the rest: hardly noteworthy.



AphexDreamer said:


> What would motivate such a global and overwhelming majority of scientists to perpetuate such a scandal?


Because the proposed solutions are economically devastating.  The reasonable solutions (like nuclear) are largely ignored.  If a country like the USA changed over to a predominantly nuclear base energy generation, our carbon footprint would fall by over 60%.  Like I said, we need a "roar" but we have a "whimper."

I think the status quo will largely prevail (the most growth coming from natural gas, not renewables) until fusion power becomes a reality.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 24, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We've been over this many times in this very thread.  I'll sum it up briefly: whenever a power company is looking to build a solar power plant, the first question they ask themselves is "how far is it to a natural gas pipeline?"  Why, because "green" is not available 24/7 yet electricity demand is 24/7.  You cannot have one without the other.  For every MW you add of "renewable" you need equal capacity in nonrenewable (e.g. 500MW solar plant needs a 500MW gas turbine).  Why natural gas?  A cloud covers the panels, it can turn in a matter of minutes to fill in the gap and go off when the cloud passes.
> 
> Their "project" clearly hasn't gone under the scrutiny of electrical engineers.  It just isn't feasible without a huge investment in energy storage which is a very expensive and finite thing.
> 
> ...



I take it you are assuming strictly solar? This is not the case there at least several different way per state of achieving renewable energy aside from solar that work any time of day.

The technology exists and isn't an economic detriment, we just need the political and social will to go through with it.
http://www.nap.edu/read/12619/chapter/1


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2016)

Wind falls in the same category as solar.  If the wind is not blowing hard enough or it is blowing too hard, something has to fill in the gaps and that's usually natural gas.

Geothermal is very limited in where it can be used and, like fracking, it can cause artificial earthquakes.

Hydropower capacity almost at peak already globally.  There isn't really room to expand it without destroying a lot of natural habitat.  USA has been destroying more dams than it has been building.

"Biopower" translates to more fertilizer (which is largely produced from oil).  Additionally, that article talks about burning wood which could lead to mass deforestation (already a huge problem globally) and all of the heavy machinery and transportation involved translates to a net increase in atmospheric carbon.  The idea is self-defeating.


Why do I single out wind and solar?  Quote from your link:


> Solar and wind renewable resources offer significantly larger total energy and power potential than do other domestic renewable resources.


The other's combined realistically can't go over 20% without completely destroying the environment.

Have another quote:


> A principal barrier to the widespread adoption of renewable electricity technologies is that electricity from renewables (except for electricity from large-scale hydropower) is more costly to produce than electricity from fossil fuels without an internalization of the costs of carbon emissions and other potential societal impacts. Policy incentives, such as renewables portfolio standards, the production tax credit, feed-in tariffs, and greenhouse gas controls, thus have been required, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be required, to drive further increases in the use of renewable sources of electricity.


Note how they are always quick to point out carbon cost but fail to weigh in the environmental cost of "green" energy.  Case in point, there's video of a bald eagle getting killed by wind turbine.  If that were me or you, we'd be fined $5000.  I believe they also don't pay DOT fees for transporting all of those oversized pieces (including wear and tear on roads).  PV panels?  Crapload of electronic waste once their service life is up. 


Anyway, this document was published in 2010 and the rosy picture it paints for renewables hasn't panned out.  It likely never will.

I already stated how renewables can't produce power on demand (excepting being hydro so long as there is sufficient water in the reservoir).  Another factor that hugely holds renewables back is the fact it can't be produced where it is consumed.  The farther the energy is transported, the more that is lost.


----------



## Nobody99 (Aug 25, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PV panels? Crapload of electronic waste once their service life is up.


Seems like there should be higher VAT for panels which aren't that much energy efficient because when they produce less energy over years they are less likely to be kept around.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Another factor that hugely holds renewables back is the fact it can't be produced where it is consumed.


That is exactly the advantage of renewable energy, sun is everywhere only when it goes down but you can have PV panels on a mountain to where you couldn't transport wired electricity or build a pipeline. You can choose any place on earth and deploy the solar panels there which means that you don't have to depend on the non-renewable energy and its resellers. It is like open source - you can use it anwhere without being dependant on some company. Granted storage of renewable energy is still a problem but this should change in a few years with cheaper and better accumulators. Graphene accumulators!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2016)

Case in point: New York City uses a lot more electricity than the surface area of it provides in solar.  Solar also, in no way, eliminates the need for a robust grid because half of the day, it produces nothing.  Storing electricity costs more than producing electricity.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 25, 2016)

Lol "rosey picture it paints"? It's quite a realistic one. Wind energy has been on the rise and even more so since the article was posted. Better battery storage technologies are being developed and the social stigma is slowly changing.

I don't think wind mills are going on an bird eating rampage but if they are you should really start a public awareness campaign.

Yes of course solar and wind will be the majority providers. The sun alone is radiating light, what beats the energy output of the sun, nothing.

Every single place on Earth that habits 1st world human beings sees some sun or some wind on a daily basis.

"Together with similar studies from the USA and Europe, we busted the myth that renewable energy cannot supply base-load demand. The old myth was based on the assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations, for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy systems in our computer models easily supplies base-load demand, although they have no base-load power stations. The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on winter evenings following overcast days when the wind is low. That’s when existing peak-load power stations, hydro and gas turbines burning biofuels, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation. For a predominantly renewable electricity system, base-load power stations are redundant."

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/another-myth-busted-on-the-road-to-100-renewable-electricity-52178


----------



## Nobody99 (Aug 25, 2016)

Full solar is not yet possible but it hopefully soon will be especially in houses (so less urbanized cities) where people could install battery pack and with energy efficient electronic devices of today that is possible. And cities will probably use solar farms on the outskirts.



AphexDreamer said:


> burning biofuels


Biofuels are also detrimental to the environment because of the deforestation and they should really be produced in temperate regions because less carbon is released into the atmosphere because less vegetation is destroyed. Reforestating the desert and then producing biofuel there would be like the perfect choice if it were so easy.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Yes of course solar and wind will be the majority providers. The sun alone is radiating light, what beats the energy output of the sun, nothing.


The atmosphere which reflects, absorbs, and distorts it.



AphexDreamer said:


> "Together with similar studies from the USA and Europe, we busted the myth that renewable energy cannot supply base-load demand. The old myth was based on the assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations, for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy systems in our computer models easily supplies base-load demand, although they have no base-load power stations. The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on winter evenings following overcast days when the wind is low. *That’s when existing peak-load power stations, hydro and gas turbines burning biofuels, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation.* For a predominantly renewable electricity system, base-load power stations are redundant."


Yay for fossil fuels! Right?  In this case, renewable is not clean.  Nuclear fission may not be renewable but it is clean.  Nuclear fusion is renewable and clean.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 25, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Nuclear fission may not be renewable but it is clean.  Nuclear fusion is renewable and clean.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 3, 2016)

As much as i hate bumping this thread,............there is good news today. The US and China have ratified the world's first comprehensive climate deal









http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-37265541


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 3, 2016)

Obama grinning like a fool. XD


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 3, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Obama grinning like a fool. XD




the 2nd pic looks like Obama farted and Xi Jinping caught a whiff of it.


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 3, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> the 2nd pic looks like Obama farted and Xi Jinping caught a whiff of it.


I think Jinping always looks like that.....


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 13, 2016)




----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 13, 2016)

Not a coincidence:


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 13, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


>


Excellent!!!

oh, wait. in b4 "lies!!!"


----------



## SK-1 (Sep 14, 2016)

My graph isn't nearly as pretty or artsy but... looks like we're all gonna burn...smh


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 14, 2016)

This is just...I don't know what it is...education system brainwashing maybe?
21 kids suing the Obama administration for not doing enough to slow climate change

I think they're arguing that there should be no minimum age to vote.  Or at least that is why they're being represented by an adult on their behalf...I guess.

Long story short, the lead plaintiff had her house flooded in Louisiana a month ago--a flood she blames on climate change.

I highly doubt the judge will believe the argument that stopping CO2 emissions is going to stop flooding in Louisiana.  She can't prove she was damaged by the Obama administration (the defendant), she can only prove she was damaged by an "act of god."

Reading further, I get the distinct impression of bad parenting off of what these kids have said (one says he is more concerned about climate change than anything else, including schooling).


----------



## SK-1 (Sep 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This is just...I don't know what it is...education system brainwashing maybe?
> 21 kids suing the Obama administration for not doing enough to slow climate change



Not surprised in the least. The Global Warming Movement is nothing than a fuckn Money Grab anyway you look at it.


----------



## Rockarola (Sep 15, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Case in point: New York City uses a lot more electricity than the surface area of it provides in solar.  Solar also, in no way, eliminates the need for a robust grid because half of the day, it produces nothing.  Storing electricity costs more than producing electricity.


Case in point: the US is not the world...some places uses insulation in stead of AC or heating. Some places actually give tax rebates to companies building "green" buildings. Some places do not subsidise the energy sector, unless it's sustainable energy...some places do not treat the world like it's an infinite resource.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 15, 2016)

Rockarola said:


> ...some places uses insulation in stead of AC or heating.


Every house in this area is insulated with central heating and cooling.



Rockarola said:


> Some places actually give tax rebates to companies building "green" buildings.


Energy companies in the USA provide rebates to replace older equipment with Energy Star compliant equipment.  There's also rebates for solar panels and wind turbines.



Rockarola said:


> Some places do not subsidise the energy sector, unless it's sustainable energy


Something 70-90% of the energy subsidies in the USA go to "sustainable energy."


USA is second only to China (because of the Three Gorges Dam) in renewable power generation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources


----------



## Rockarola (Sep 15, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Every house in this area is insulated with central heating and cooling.
> 
> 
> Energy companies in the USA provide rebates to replace older equipment with Energy Star compliant equipment.  There's also rebates for solar panels and wind turbines.
> ...


...and yet the US burns through water (how is your lawn looking?), oil (everybody loves a V8, right?) and energy (I've lived in the south,  and it's cheaper to run the AC than trying to fix your house.)


----------



## Bones (Sep 15, 2016)

And here's even more proof of it.


----------



## Rockarola (Sep 15, 2016)

Bones said:


> And here's even more proof of it.
> View attachment 78787


10/10 would be trolled again.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 15, 2016)

Rockarola said:


> ...and yet the US burns through water (how is your lawn looking?), oil (everybody loves a V8, right?) and energy (I've lived in the south,  and it's cheaper to run the AC than trying to fix your house.)


It rained 7 inches here in the last week so my lawn is looking great.  For the record, I never water my lawn unless it is newly seeded grass.

Oil production in the USA has fallen off because demand for oil has fallen off.

USA is an economic power house because of the abundance of energy.


----------



## Rockarola (Sep 15, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It rained 7 inches here in the last week so my lawn is looking great.  For the record, I never water my lawn unless it is newly seeded grass.
> 
> Oil production in the USA has fallen off because demand for oil has fallen off.
> 
> USA is an economic power house because of the abundance of energy.


It seems like you have all the right answers, never mind that the US consumes ridiculous amounts of water, energy and resources...beyond what is needed. 
The US is an economic powerhouse, because it's one of the largest first world nations on earth, with plenty of natural resources (so far) and a large production of goods (which is going in a downward spiral) 

You are pretty good at dodging the hard questions, it's always about how great you are doing NOW...I'm a bit more worried about the future, but I hope you enjoyed your 7" of rain.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 15, 2016)

I think market forces establish "what is needed" far better than mere opinion.

I'm more worried about growing and spreading political instability (US elections and political strife, China and Japan's economy collapsing, Brexit, growing Russian imperialism, North Korea building nuclear weapons, and so on) far more so than environmental change.  Hell, I'm more concerned about the poaching of elephants than I am about average temperatures going up a few degrees.


----------



## Unter_Dog (Sep 15, 2016)

Rockarola said:


> It seems like you have all the right answers, never mind that the US consumes ridiculous amounts of water, energy and resources...beyond what is needed.
> The US is an economic powerhouse, because it's one of the largest first world nations on earth, with plenty of natural resources (so far) and a large production of goods (which is going in a downward spiral)
> 
> You are pretty good at dodging the hard questions, it's always about how great you are doing NOW...I'm a bit more worried about the future, but I hope you enjoyed your 7" of rain.


production of goods spiraling......http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimed...jpg?uuid=12753a28-f2a5-11e5-908d-0015c588dfa6 (fastest link i could find at midnight)

just production of crap anybody can make and high labor mfg are spiraling 

I do totally agree that the US Suburb heavy model is wasteful versus the European multi family model


----------



## SK-1 (Sep 15, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


>


The more I look at this one, the more I laugh and smh..The graph is incredibly misleading... and short in terms of geological history, it commits the same "hockey stick" error for which Al Gore was infamous. We've been exiting an ice age during the entire timespan covered by this infographic, which is the other reason it's deceptive. And the rapid off shoots at the bottom are merely projections! Give me a break man! Lol. The SKY IS FALLING!! (maybe? xD) For most of Earth's history, the temperature has been warmer, and sea levels have been higher than they are right now. You can try again, though, climate alarmists. I'm sure plenty of sheeple will lap this nonsense right up.

People are starting to come around!! Light at the end of the tunnel!
*Sarkozy comes out of the closet as a climate skeptic*
*“Climate has been changing for four billion years,” the former president said according to AFP. “Sahara has become a desert, it isn’t because of industry. You need to be as arrogant as men are to believe we changed the climate.”
http://www.thelocal.fr/20160915/sarkozy-turns-climate-sceptic-in-battle-for-the-elyse*


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 15, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Not surprised in the least. The Global Warming Movement is nothing than a fuckn Money Grab anyway you look at it.



Does that some how negate the fact that global warming is happening and its occurring at a faster pace due to anthropogenic means?


SK-1 said:


> The more I look at this one, the more I laugh and smh..The graph is incredibly misleading... and short in terms of geological history, it commits the same "hockey stick" error for which Al Gore was infamous. We've been exiting an ice age during the entire timespan covered by this infographic, which is the other reason it's deceptive. And the rapid off shoots at the bottom are merely projections! Give me a break man! Lol. The SKY IS FALLING!! (maybe? xD) For most of Earth's history, the temperature has been warmer, and sea levels have been higher than they are right now. You can try again, though, climate alarmists. I'm sure plenty of sheeple will lap this nonsense right up.
> 
> People are starting to come around!! Light at the end of the tunnel!
> *“Climate has been changing for four billion years,” the former president said according to AFP. “Sahara has become a desert, it isn’t because of industry. You need to be as arrogant as men are to believe we changed the climate.”
> http://www.thelocal.fr/20160915/sarkozy-turns-climate-sceptic-in-battle-for-the-elyse*





SK-1 said:


> The more I look at this one, the more I laugh and smh..The graph is incredibly misleading... and short in terms of geological history, it commits the same "hockey stick" error for which Al Gore was infamous. We've been exiting an ice age during the entire timespan covered by this infographic, which is the other reason it's deceptive. And the rapid off shoots at the bottom are merely projections! Give me a break man! Lol. The SKY IS FALLING!! (maybe? xD) For most of Earth's history, the temperature has been warmer, and sea levels have been higher than they are right now. You can try again, though, climate alarmists. I'm sure plenty of sheeple will lap this nonsense right up.
> 
> People are starting to come around!! Light at the end of the tunnel!
> *Sarkozy comes out of the closet as a climate skeptic*
> ...



I think your missing the point. 

At least what my point is. 

Temperatures matter. I think we can agree on that much at least? If things ever got too hot that would suck or if things got too cold that would suck too.

Earth has been really hot before and really cold before, we agree on that.
The earth has also been changing temps on its own for all its life, I also agree with this. At least on its own meaning through natural means, like sun, orbits, its own atmosphere and its own volcanic explosions and meteors and what not.

However, that tiny curve you see at the end, that is the point. That projection which is the dashed part (not the solid black line) is a the most likely path although sure not guaranteed. 

But take a real good look at that solid line, the solid black one, that indicates that there is some sort of influence to the way we know temps to fluctuate normally by natural means alone.  

Now what we can do is say, oh ok, something is cause the temps to rises faster than they should. Lets turn to nature and see what is causing it. So we have, and we can't find a source to explain it naturally and accurately as it is. If you know of a source and have evidence that shows that a natural source would cause temps to rise as quickly as they are then please share it with scientists around the world but be prepared to have it falsified, because that is what scientists do. Scientists earn more recognition and fame for proving something to be false than they do for showing a claim to be true.

So if you think you have data and evidence to show that the warming is certainly and unquestionably done naturally you have a moral obligation to share it.


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 16, 2016)

Please. As is always the case, data and evidence are not the word of the day. He's using Sarkozy as a reference point??


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 16, 2016)

Ahhzz said:


> He's using Sarkozy as a reference point??



Please Please You Cannot use Sarkozy as a reference point   he is just to Small


----------



## Bones (Sep 16, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Does that some how negate the fact that global warming is happening and its occurring at a faster pace due to anthropogenic means?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's an article on that which states these periods of both, global warming and cooling do occur naturally for the following reason(s). 
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/

Be sure to read the entire article top to bottom.

This has been going on since the sun has been shining so this thing about "Global Warming" being caused solely by man is BS. 100 years or so isn't nearly enough time to gather any meaningful data to truly state it's for the reasons said to be causing it - With the age of the earth being what it is, the period of time since the industrial age began is barely even noticeable. 
It's also known we've been warming up since records began to be kept anyway, this period starting not long at all after the ending of the little ice age so* if basing things from that point of time you will see temps climbing overall up until today. *With this recent forecast of expected solar activity we may well see a reversal in temp trends but only for a small amount of time.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 16, 2016)

If we can't rely on data and evidence then what can we rely on? And whatever that may be can it be more reliable than data and evidence?

So yea I've heard of the Maunder Minimum, but the change in suns output during a solar minimum is well... minimal. I encourage you to look and see by how much the suns output of solar radiation increase and decrease during any stage of its life cycles. We are talking about 0.25 percent difference. The Suns output is quite stable. Check out the suns TSI.

In terms of the Maunder Minimum and the mini ice age it isn't conclusive as to what caused the ice age to begin with. Some speculate a huge volcano eruption but we don't know for sure.

Also note that the current speculation is of a volcanic eruption. Hinting that it was a change in the earths atmosphere that would be necessary to cause such an event.

Think about what would happen if we covered the Earth in a giant sheet of metal just around the exosphere or if we put the Earth in a glass globe do you think that would effect the temps in any way?

Might be an interesting test to try at home although not easy and this is pretty much what computer simulations do just in greater details taking into account albedo and what not. Take a glass globe and a light as a heating source. Play around with the idea of increasing the heating source by .25 percent up or down. Go crazy and increase the heating source by .7 percent. Try different size globes and different types of plastic or glass, have one clear with white spots. Have a way to measure the inside of it. See which effects it the most. The type of shielding (aka atmosphere), the sun light? Do both play an equal effect? Consider the known data of the sun, its variance and what we know of green house gases. Might not be totally indicative of the Earth's climate system but it would be interesting to try out.


----------



## Bones (Sep 16, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> If we can't rely on data and evidence then what can we rely on? And whatever that may be can it be more reliable than data and evidence?



What I said was there isn't yet enough recorded data,_ not_ that either evidence or data itself cannot be trusted. 
If talking about periods such as the ice age for example from it's beginning to it's conclusion, the amount of accurately recorded data we have records of doesn't nearly stretch far enough to establish it as "So" for X reason(s) but we can and do observe the effects it had by said evidence. 
The little ice age that occured in the 1600-1800's in itself isn't much of an indicator except that the sun went through a period of lesser solar output, that being a norm for it to do along it's life-cycle. Man wasn't a factor in that or in the eventual recovery of temps from that time onward, at least up until the late 1800's when data began to be gathered and kept. 

Now..... To be fair I cannot say man himself isn't a factor in some way,_ that's certainly possible_ but do remember how powerful nature itself is - Just when you think you've beaten it, mother nature comes around and B-slaps you with how powerful we aren't, including how much influenence we really don't have. 

She's gonna do what she's gonna do. 
Just sayin....



AphexDreamer said:


> So yea I've heard of the Maunder Minimum, but the change in suns output during a solar minimum is well... minimal. I encourage you to look and see by how much the suns output of solar radiation increase and decrease during any stage of its life cycles. We are talking about 0.25 percent difference. The Suns output is quite stable. Check out the suns TSI.
> 
> In terms of the Maunder Minimum and the mini ice age it isn't conclusive as to what caused the ice age to begin with. Some speculate a huge volcano eruption but we don't know for sure.
> 
> ...



Look up the effects that took place in 1883 when Krakatoa went off, we do have accurately recorded info on that proving what effects it had globally. BTW it is a proven fact when a volcano goes off it releases an insane amount of these gases, not much you can do about that and it goes on even today. However you are correct in that it could be a volcano went off and contributed to things as they were at that time. Too many "Could Be's" to nail it down to a singular cause or even specific multiple causes, until rock-solid proof comes up we really won't know what caused things to be as it was back then - All we have is speculation, nothing more.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 16, 2016)

Yea that comment on evidence and data was to Ahhzz above.

Yea but remember that speculation involves firm evidence.

It is true that if the sun were to get really intense we'd fry, really weak we'd freeze. But it is also true if we had a thick layer of CO2 or methane we'd be more like Venus or no atmosphere more like Mars. Now I'll admit both are not perfect examples. Since mars is already further from the sun it could be argued that it isn't the atmosphere but its distance from the sun. Or that Venus is closer to the sun and therefore hotter because of that.

But remember what are hottest planet is. It isn't Mercury, its Venus. Mercury is far closer to the sun than Venus yet it isn't the hottest? Why not?

Green house gases play a big role.
And simple logic dictates that if we fill the air up with more of them, something is going to happen?  You could say yea but the atmosphere just farts it out or something. But it isn't. We can measure it and its climbing.

Make of it what you will...


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 16, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> But remember what are hottest planet it. It isn't Mercury, its Venus. Mercury is far closer to the sun than Venus yet it isn't the hottest? Why not?



Mixture of geo magnetic fields atmosphere and planetary rotation all have an effect along with that lump of rock in orbit around the Earth ( Called the moon )


----------



## Recon-UK (Sep 16, 2016)

All i know is i am British i can't do 30c, -2 - 15c is my comfy temp.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Mixture of geo magnetic fields atmosphere and planetary rotation all have an effect along with that lump of rock in orbit around the Earth ( Called the moon )



You mean the moon is blocking sun light?
By how much does the rotation of the planet effect the temperature of said planet? 
Doesn't the magnetic field come from the planets rotation? So in essence you just mean planet rotation?


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 16, 2016)

No i don't


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> No i don't


Well alright then thank you this has been very productive


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 16, 2016)

A Geo magnetic field helps to stop the solar wind stripping Atmosphere
Example
earths liquid iron core creates and maintains earths geo magnetic Field and thus reduces erosion of the atmosphere by the Solar wind
mars by Contrast has virtualy no geomagnetic field and has lost most of its atmosphere over eons
As for the moon Blocking Sunlight ( and Radiation )
Let me Ask you   have you experienced a total Solar Eclipse   I have and i can assure you there is a noticeable Drop in Temp for the period of the Eclipse
Then there is that Rock we call the Moon
Its Gravity and earths Rotation Drag both the Atmosphere and the ocean causing Weather patterns around the world   these weather patterns Distribute both hot and cold weather around the world In conjunction with
Earths Rotation resulting in Day Temps higher than Night   ( that Damm sunlight and Radiation this time being blocked by planet Earth).

So as i Said


dorsetknob said:


> Mixture of geo magnetic fields atmosphere and planetary rotation all have an effect along with that lump of rock in orbit around the Earth ( Called the moon )



Now Did i really need to explain that to you
Are you now HAPPY i Explained my comment in this Draging on pointless thread!!!


----------



## Recon-UK (Sep 17, 2016)

That all explains the tropical weather we had this week.
What a train wreck, 27c!!!!!!! i could cook you know!!!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 17, 2016)

I blame @qubit


----------



## Bones (Sep 17, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Yea that comment on evidence and data was to Ahhzz above.



I stand corrected and do apologize for that. 



AphexDreamer said:


> Yea but remember that speculation involves firm evidence.


Speculation is more of a guess than anything else in an attempt to provide some kind of explanation and it's not always based on firm evidence - That's why it's more of a guess than something concrete. 

Can speculation actually be useful?
Why yes it can be as long as it's treated for what it is and nothing more. That's when the required step of proving it comes in and if proven then it's no longer speculation since speculation by it's very definition isn't proof of anything. 

Do recall we "Knew" what dinosaurs for example looked like and it was said for many years that X dinosaur looked like "This" and that..... Then more evidence came into play and changed things around. These appearances they thought were correct were based on speculation derived from what was understood at the time concerning things such as basic anatomy yet over the course of time were proven incorrect. Even now these definitions could be changed yet again because more knowlege gained could eventually prove these changes to be correct or at least closer to what really was. 

Even Einstein's theories are now being called into question in some ways now because of what has been learned since he stated his theories - Although these have been used repeatedly as they were stated some are now beginning to see evidence (Speculate) about at least some of it not being exactly "Correct". The more we learn and discover the more past theories will change since _theories are based on knowlege held at the time such speculation is made_. 

Another good example is electricity itself - It was thought for years it moved from positive to negative yet the opposite was eventually proven true (Neg to Pos) BUT it's still thought of and taught that way because it "Works". 



AphexDreamer said:


> It is true that if the sun were to get really intense we'd fry, really weak we'd freeze. But it is also true if we had a thick layer of CO2 or methane we'd be more like Venus or no atmosphere more like Mars. Now I'll admit both are not perfect examples. Since mars is already further from the sun it could be argued that it isn't the atmosphere but its distance from the sun. Or that Venus is closer to the sun and therefore hotter because of that.But remember what are hottest planet is. It isn't Mercury, its Venus.
> Mercury is far closer to the sun than Venus yet it isn't the hottest? Why not?



Mercury has no atmosphere of any kind to either help insulate it either for or against heat - Venus does. 



AphexDreamer said:


> Green house gases play a big role.
> And simple logic dictates that if we fill the air up with more of them, something is going to happen?  You could say yea but the atmosphere just farts it out or something. But it isn't. We can measure it and its climbing.
> 
> Make of it what you will...



I do.... And I say there are simply too many external factors at work to go chalking it up to a singular thing as what's said about greenhouse gases specifically being "It" and it alone..... Logic sometimes may dictate one thing but reality makes it another. Sorry but it's nothing but BS to me - Speculation proves nothing, theories themselves can only suggest but not provide any real proof. 
Done.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 17, 2016)

Bones said:


> I stand corrected and do apologize for that.
> 
> 
> Speculation is more of a guess than anything else in an attempt to provide some kind of explanation and it's not always based on firm evidence - That's why it's more of a guess than something concrete.
> ...



Hmm. I mean theories are based on real proof. At least scientific theories like Evolution and Gravity. Its not really meant to go the other way around at least in science. You don't say a theory and then go out to set it right. You observe document record, analyze and all the information you collect suggest a reason why, that why is the theory. If I make a guess and provide no real proof its just a guess. But a guess is not a speculation and its not a theory. They are not all the same thing. A speculation made without any evidence isn't a speculation. If I say the sun is going to explode tomorrow and show nothing for it its just a crazy guess. If I say its going to rain tomorrow because the air pressure is rising and I can see rain clouds forming than that is a speculation. 

Let me ask  you this. 

Would any amount of evidence change your mind about anthropogenic climate change?


----------



## Bones (Sep 17, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Hmm. I mean theories are based on real proof. At least scientific theories like Evolution and Gravity. Its not really meant to go the other way around at least in science. You don't say a theory and then go out to set it right. You observe document record, analyze and all the information you collect suggest a reason why, that why is the theory.



I agree  - You first come up with a hypothesis/idea as to what you are trying to define in the first place because if you don't know that then what are you doing?
Next, speculation about the idea is done to try and sort out the what's, how's and why's including what to look for and how to go about looking for it, all this affecting the next step.

Formulate, observe, gather data, record data, establish a baseline for said data by reviewing it, test to confirm baseline is good for starting reference and retest again.... And again..... And again while recording what actually happens then review it against the baseline to see if and what changes took place, make notes of these changes, double-check and record that data, restest yet again as before.... It goes on and on.
It's not about making anything "Right" because that means you've already decided what is and is not to yourself if you try and do this. Unfortunately some scientists actually do just that (They are human you know) and yes it happens on both sides of the ball.



AphexDreamer said:


> If I make a guess and provide no real proof its just a guess. But a guess is not a speculation and its not a theory. They are not all the same thing. A speculation made without any evidence isn't a speculation. If I say the sun is going to explode tomorrow and show nothing for it its just a crazy guess. If I say its going to rain tomorrow because the air pressure is rising and I can see rain clouds forming than that is a speculation.



That depends on one's meaning of it as spoken or the symantics of it, context could also be something to consider if it's being used the same or differently.

I could say it's gonna rain tomorrow with the same observations you've made but do I mean where I am or just somewhere closeby.... Or maybe just somewhere in the world itself?  (Context used for the statement)
I could also say the sun will go up tomorrow as you have.... Personally I do doubt it myself but then again do you or even I "REALLY KNOW"?
Of course not.



AphexDreamer said:


> Let me ask  you this.
> 
> Would any amount of evidence change your mind about anthropogenic climate change?



Depends on the evidence and I don't mean fancy charts and what-not because I can make those to support my view all day long and call it "Evidence" which it would not be.... Let me go out and see it for myself, up close and firsthand.


----------



## qubit (Sep 17, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Hmm. I mean theories are based on real proof. At least scientific theories like Evolution and Gravity. Its not really meant to go the other way around at least in science. You don't say a theory and then go out to set it right. You observe document record, analyze and all the information you collect suggest a reason why, that why is the theory. If I make a guess and provide no real proof its just a guess. But a guess is not a speculation and its not a theory. They are not all the same thing. A speculation made without any evidence isn't a speculation. If I say the sun is going to explode tomorrow and show nothing for it its just a crazy guess. If I say its going to rain tomorrow because the air pressure is rising and I can see rain clouds forming than that is a speculation.
> 
> Let me ask  you this.
> 
> Would any amount of evidence change your mind about anthropogenic climate change?


That's quite true about what a theory is.  Shame the general population doesn't tend to understand this and accuse someone of having a "theory" in an attempt to downplay or destroy there opponent's argument's credibility, which is really stupid. 

I'd just like to add that there is such a thing as a theory without evidence in science: it's called a hypothesis. These are still more than wild guesses though like one might have in a casual conversation.

A hypothesis will involve a good amount of logical reasoning, based on some observed phenomena and may quite often include complex mathematics, which may have been peer reviewed. A great example of a hypothesis is the well known "string theory".

While there's lots of high level maths to suggest that this could be real, there's absolutely zero observational evidence of it due to the difficulty of testing it. It would really be better to call it the string hypothesis, but it's probably a bit too awkward to say "hypothesis" every time, kind of a tongue twister, lol. Scientists still understand it to be a hypothesis though and generally don't go round in circles over it with believers making up strawman arguments.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 18, 2016)

Bones said:


> Depends on the evidence and I don't mean fancy charts and what-not because I can make those to support my view all day long and call it "Evidence" which it would not be.... Let me go out and see it for myself, up close and firsthand.



What do you mean by up close and firsthand?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2016)

qubit said:


> That's quite true about what a theory is.  Shame the general population doesn't tend to understand this and accuse someone of having a "theory" in an attempt to downplay or destroy there opponent's argument's credibility, which is really stupid.


I think they understand very well that chaos is nature and nature is chaos.  Until something happens that can be directly attributed to global climate change (e.g. sea level rising) and it happens at a pace is that is clearly threatening (e.g. NYC permanently under water in five years), they just don't care (and why should they? worrying about something these individuals have no control over borders on insanity).  For most people, putting food on the table and paying the bills are far more pressing matters than doom and gloom fear monger products and services.

TL;DR: Your average person doesn't care about the science behind it--only how it impacts them now or in the immediate future.


Case in point: that lawsuit/CNN article I linked to.  The "general population" doesn't blame that Louisiana August flooding on "climate change."  That's just weather.  "Climate change" in a lot of ways, has become a scapegoat and/or substitute for "act of god."


----------



## qubit (Sep 19, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think they understand very well that chaos is nature and nature is chaos.  Until something happens that can be directly attributed to global climate change (e.g. sea level rising) and it happens at a pace is that is clearly threatening (e.g. NYC permanently under water in five years), they just don't care (and why should they? worrying about something these individuals have no control over borders on insanity).  For most people, putting food on the table and paying the bills are far more pressing matters than doom and gloom fear monger products and services.
> 
> TL;DR: Your average person doesn't care about the science behind it--only how it impacts them now or in the immediate future.
> 
> ...


I wasn't actually talking about the meaning of theory in response to climate change so much, as simply the way the word is used and understood, but I can see why in the context of this thread you'd think I did.  I think if this misconception could be corrected for most people, it would help somewhat with getting people to understand real science and real facts instead of believing in garbage like young earth creationism and flat earth which just retards mankind's overall knowledge and technical progress and is hence a

Anyway, in the context of the thread, I think it's undeniable now that the climate is changing. However, how much of it is man made? I still dunno, because there are so many vested interests with money to try and make us think one way or another that the science can be corrupted and I'm sure has been to some extent. Therefore, it's hard to trust the data that people keep posting up on here and elsewehere.

Just thinking about it logically though, mankind is spewing out an ever increasing amount of carbon dioxide and other crap into the atmosphere, as well as felling the all important rainforests. On top of that, this has been going on for the last 2-300 years since the industrial revolution, so it stands to reason that the earth's climate will be affected eventually and that eventually seems to be right now. Hence, I think that mankind is at least partially responsible for this global warming / climate change, with perhaps the rest of it being the planet's natural cycle. However, we're apparently actually headed for another ice age, making mankind's effect much bigger than it seems at first glance, if true.


----------



## magibeg (Sep 19, 2016)

I still don't know why this thread continues to rage on, 99% of the arguments thrown around in here don't actually explain the changes occurring. It's so simple....

1. The solar radiance of the sun is a known value, it doesn't explain the changes.... and it couldn't anyway because
2. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling, it's only the troposphere that is warming because
3. The albedo of the earth at the frequencies that CO2 reflects light is changing, so less energy at those wave lengths are being released into space. So less energy is being reflected back through the upper atmosphere.

I have yet to see an argument from those that disagree with the climate scientists that have a valid explanation for why the upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming, and the sun can be ruled out as a factor. And to please Ford, I will note that yes, frequencies which interact with methane have also been greatly affected.

The final fun fact is that using math, scientists can actually calculate how much energy is hitting the earth from the sun (the sun's radiance, the earths atmosphere, and the earths average albedo are all known values) and how much is being reflecting back into space.

And before the pedantic squad jumps on me, yes, the scientists know the earths climate is always changing.... they're the ones who discovered it.


----------



## Recon-UK (Sep 19, 2016)

I like ice cream.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 19, 2016)

congratulations
*Recon-UK*
*you made the 1100 th Post*
*(if you use your mouse wheel to scroll the entire thread   you have just used enough energy to raise global temps by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%  ( + or - 10% )*


----------



## Recon-UK (Sep 19, 2016)

Damn did not even notice and it had to be about ice cream o.0


----------



## qubit (Sep 19, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> Damn did not even notice and it had to be about ice cream o.0


Yes, shame on you!


----------



## Rockarola (Sep 21, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think market forces establish "what is needed" far better than mere opinion.
> 
> I'm more worried about growing and spreading political instability (US elections and political strife, China and Japan's economy collapsing, Brexit, growing Russian imperialism, North Korea building nuclear weapons, and so on) far more so than environmental change.  Hell, I'm more concerned about the poaching of elephants than I am about average temperatures going up a few degrees.


The market forces decides what is "wanted", not what is needed...it's economics 101.
You seem like an intelligent person, so I'll choose to believe that you are being deliberately ignorant about the consequences of the average temperatures going up "a few degrees"...and I'll also assume that you live in a place that's at least 20m above current sea-level, otherwise you'll have to be one hell of a swimmer!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 21, 2016)

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise/2702/


> The result was an estimate of sea level rise of 28 to 98 centimeters (a maximum of more than three feet) by 2100


2100-2013 = 87 years
28 / 87 = 0.29 cm/year
98 / 87 = 1.13 cm/year

*0.29-1.13 cm/year by 2013 estimates*

Actual?
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/

*0.03 cm/year*

I think we'll survive, don't you?


----------



## magibeg (Sep 22, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise/2702/
> 
> 2100-2013 = 87 years
> 28 / 87 = 0.29 cm/year
> ...



Not sure where you're getting the 0.03cm per year from. The site you linked says 3.4mm is the current rate, which is .34cm per year which puts you off by a factor of 10. So yea we're basically right in line with what is expected.

Actually some neat info on that website:

"This increases confidence that these models are reliable under present-day conditions, despite the fact that the models’ current rate of rise, 3.7 millimeters per year, is significantly higher than shown by observations. Since these coupled models do not include ice sheet instabilities, their projections very likely represent a “lower bound” for future sea level rise."


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2016)

I failed at metric conversion, big surprise there, being 'Merican and all. 

Point is, it's at the bottom of the spectrum, not the top.  People have plenty of time to adopt to the rising sea level.  It's not suddenly going to rise a meter overnight.

As ice melts, it cools the oceans which, in turn, cools the atmosphere slowing the rate of rise.


----------



## magibeg (Sep 22, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I failed at metric conversion, big surprise there, being 'Merican and all.
> 
> Point is, it's at the bottom of the spectrum, not the top.  People have plenty of time to adopt to the rising sea level.  It's not suddenly going to rise a meter overnight.
> 
> As ice melts, it cools the oceans which, in turn, cools the atmosphere slowing the rate of rise.



Unfortunately all of your assumptions here are effectively dead wrong.

The rate that the sea level is rising is accelerating, and the risk to large jumps due to ice shelf stability is ever more present. No one is claiming it'll suddenly make a large jump out of nowhere.

Interestingly enough when the ice melts it changes the earths albedo which is actually a positive feedback loop. I'm sure you know if I have a glass of water with an ice cube in it the overall temperature of the system is increasing as the ice melts.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 22, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I failed at metric conversion, big surprise there, being 'Merican and all.
> 
> Point is, it's at the bottom of the spectrum, not the top.  People have plenty of time to adopt to the rising sea level.  It's not suddenly going to rise a meter overnight.
> 
> As ice melts, it cools the oceans which, in turn, cools the atmosphere slowing the rate of rise.


To be more clear with the positive feedback loop when ice melts.

Ice helps reflect earth's rays back into space, as do clouds. Less ice or clouds means lowering albedo means less reflection means more abosorbtion. The ocean being dark in color then absorbs more heat, heating up the oceans faster, releasing more greenhouse gases and further contributing to the melting of ice...


----------



## Caring1 (Sep 22, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> To be more clear with the positive feedback loop when ice melts.
> 
> Ice helps reflect earth's rays back into spsce...


????????


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 22, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> ????????


Space typo or the reflection bit?

White surfaces reflect light as opposed to darker surface which absorb light.


----------



## Caring1 (Sep 23, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Space typo or the reflection bit?
> 
> White surfaces reflect light as opposed to darker surface which absorb light.


Yep, but reflects the Sun's rays back out, not the Earth's.


----------



## magibeg (Sep 25, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Yep, but reflects the Sun's rays back out, not the Earth's.



Far as i'm concerned they're ours, we touched them last . Otherwise we'd never have any moonlight


----------



## SK-1 (Sep 27, 2016)

All the talk about the horrible Man Made Climate fuckup during the debate last night made me get a FEVER! Hot Topic!


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 27, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> All the talk about the horrible Man Made Climate fuckup during the debate last night made me get a FEVER! Hot Topic!


"Snigger"
so much Hot air and Spewing of Green house Gas'es by want to be (President).s
*Kyoto Protocol* What happened there America
just like 2 world Wars   your late for the Party and yes you got the Invite Early !!!!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 27, 2016)

Rising sea levels are threatening the majority of NASA's launch pads and multi-billion dollar complexes famous for training astronauts and launching historic missions into space.

From Cape Canaveral in Florida to mission control in Houston, Texas, the US space agency is busily building seawalls where possible and moving some buildings further inland.

Five of the seven major NASA centers are located along the coast, because being close to the water is a logistical necessity for launching rockets and testing spacecraft.






Many NASA centers have already faced costly damage from encroaching water, coastal erosion and potent hurricanes.

The most iconic launchpad lies in Florida at the Kennedy Space Center, the liftoff point for the Apollo missions to the moon and many space shuttle flights over the past three decades.

'We are acutely aware that, in the long-term sense, the viability of our presence at Space Coast is in question,' said Kim Toufectis, a facilities planner in NASA's Office of Strategic Infrastructure to Gizmodo.

According to NASA's planning and development office, rising sea levels are the single largest threat to the Kennedy Space Center's continued operation


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 27, 2016)

Tops exploding rockets or terrorists tampering with their hydrogen storage tanks?  Someone fell off their rocker.

That said, a "planning and development office" should consider the worst case scenario would considering new projects.  Because sense.


----------



## qubit (Sep 28, 2016)

@CAPSLOCKSTUCK That photo is amazing.  Must be timelapse surely? Is that curved streak of light a rocket taking off? Can't quite work out what it is.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 28, 2016)

qubit said:


> @CAPSLOCKSTUCK That photo is amazing.  Must be timelapse surely? Is that curved streak of light a rocket taking off? Can't quite work out what it is.




An Atlas V rocket lifting off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station’s Launch Complex 41, illumining nearby Kennedy Space Center’s dune restoration site. Photo Courtesy Tony Gray/NASA


----------



## magibeg (Oct 7, 2016)

Hopefully Cape Canaveral will do ok today. The eye wall is dangerously close to it....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 7, 2016)

Time to move it inland if it isn't. XD


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 7, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Time to move it inland if it isn't.



More useful advice would be move to higher Ground ( much higher  )


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 10, 2016)

Ffycin anhygoel
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=welsh+to+english

Wales is known for its spectacular mountain ranges and thousands of people set off to climb to their peaks every year.

But some could soon be booted off the list of mountains and be downgraded to hills.

This is due to rising sea levels, which could mean the mountains no longer measure 2,000ft (or 609.6m) above sea level - the height required to have the status of a mountain.

Two mountains at risk are Mynydd Graig Goch and Tal y Fan, in Snowdonia .

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-mountains-could-soon-downgraded-12001774


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 10, 2016)

THE WELSH COULD TAKE A HIKE TO THOSE SUMMITS

and all could take a stone and also have a Dump  at the Top  that will raise the Summit height a few hundred feet
Oops   that worked in the Film


----------



## BiggieShady (Oct 10, 2016)

Bones said:


> Look up the effects that took place in 1883 when Krakatoa went off ...


Strictly for mass comparison Krakatoa spewed 20 million tons of sulfur into the atmosphere instantly, we inject 10 billion tons of carbon each year ... if Krakatoa had measurable effect, why wouldn't this?
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

The only scientific way we can get rid of all that excess accumulated CO2 is to let plants and algae turn it into sugars, then we using microorganisms turn it into alcohol, and the whole humanity has to drink itself stupid  it'll be 7 decade binge with a 3 decade hangover ... halt all production, it's your duty to sacrifice your brain cells


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 10, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> it'll be 7 decade binge with a 3 decade hangover ... halt all production, it's your duty to sacrifice your brain cells



The Youth of Britain have been doing this for decades  "its called the Club 18-40 rite of passage "
There are Campain medals for Mallaga Magaluff Benidorm Iana knappa kos Tenby
 Drunk Brits on Holiday Are Well Known and have a  Fearsome Reputation


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 10, 2016)

Nature and Planet earth keep giving the finger 
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/731/20130305/sulfur-dioxide-volcanoes-keeping-earth-cool.htm


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 13, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Nature and Planet earth keep giving the finger
> http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/731/20130305/sulfur-dioxide-volcanoes-keeping-earth-cool.htm


#*volcanolivesmatter 
*


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 13, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Nature and Planet earth keep giving the finger
> http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/731/20130305/sulfur-dioxide-volcanoes-keeping-earth-cool.htm




the last paragraph

But overall these eruptions are not going to counter the greenhouse effect. Emissions of volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gas emissions from human activity just continue to go up," said Brian Toon of CU-Boulder's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 13, 2016)

Sulpher emmissions from Volcanos regulary contribute 2% of  global sulpher levels
EVERY YEAR nothing man can do to change that and that goes way higher temp with EVERY FRESH VOLCANIC ERUPTION


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 13, 2016)

Sulfur...there's a crapload of that involved with extracting tar sand oil:





See the yellow?  Sulfur.  I wouldn't be surprised if what you're looking at there is more than all of the volcanos spews out on an annual basis.


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 13, 2016)

Volcanos spew it thousands of feet into the atmosphere. That sulfur pictured appears to be contained in a small area.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 14, 2016)

Sulfur reacts to just about everything.  Sulfur dioxide is what volcanoes spew out.  Sulfur + oxygen (present in air) = sulfur dioxide.  Sulfur dioxide is that offensive odor rotting eggs give off.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 14, 2016)

Some intresting reading here
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/151
little excerpt
Most Common Gases


Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are the most common volcanic gases.

Other Gases


In lesser amounts, volcanoes release carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon disulfide (CS2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), hydrogen flouride (HF), boron, hydrogen bromine (HBr), mercury (Hg) vapor, organic compounds, even gold. From Cadle (1980).
Mercury is released by most volcanoes and has been measured at Kilauea, Mauna Loa, Hekla, Erebus, at Mount St. Helens (Siegel and Siegel, 1987). Kilauea produces about 270 tons of mercury each year and has been identified as the source for mercury on Oahu, 320 km away.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 20, 2016)

*Strange purple sea creatures found in deep ocean trenches*

Scores of spectacular and rare under sea species have been found by expeditions this year to some of the deepest trenches in the Pacific Ocean.

They include strange purple orbs, "mud monsters" and a bizarre swimming sea cucumber reminiscent of a flying Mary Poppins.

Another voyage found around 500 new undersea methane vents off the US west coast.

This doubles the number of known seeps, bubbling up a powerful greenhouse gas.

The gas vents were found by an expedition mounted by Dr Robert Ballard, the man who first located the wreck of the Titanic

More here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37706202  and photo's as well


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 20, 2016)

Spoiler


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 21, 2016)

First new Nuclear reactor (1.2 GW) in USA comes on line since 1996:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/us/tennessee-nuclear-power-plant/index.html


----------



## Caring1 (Oct 21, 2016)

But can it do 88 MPH?


----------



## remixedcat (Oct 21, 2016)

_Copy/pasted from a very good source in the financial markets:_


All of you that are concerned about the planet and global warming/climate change need to read up on this. 

The Rothschilds have been controlling the economy, the trade deals, the banks, etc. They have gotten to their heights by screwing over the average person to make themselves rich 

beyond anything we can imagine.

If you haven't even heard of them or learned of their corruption I suggest you do so before you click the link I will present below.

Some notes about why I am discussing this: Roths have placed Hillary on their payroll, They, in addition to Soros, Rockefellers (the ones that ruined my state, WV), the Bushes, They have pockets deeper than anyone on this planet, The celebs you see flaunting their "wealth" are peasants compared to Soros and his ilk. 

They have an agenda that's darker than any. They see younger people getting more ahead, more wealth, more power. They wish to end that. They wish to enslave us further. The biggest and best way to do this is thru population control methods like weather manipulation, GMOs, disease, poverty, etc. 

They havve been ramping up the above mentioned activities in desperation of control being taken away from them. They are manipulating the eco minded people by "graciously donating" to charities and activist associations (and highly manipulating them) that the eco minded supports. They take advantage of good hearted people that have concern for the planet and it's sickening. 

Please read the link below to learn more about this and educate yourself who is really responsible for the climate change. Because it's not you it's THEM that are causing the planet to suffer. 


http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/rothschilds-and-the-geoengineering-empire/ 

A vote for Hillary is a vote to let this abuse of mother earth continue. We cannot let this destrruction of the planet continue if we want to stay here. 

http://www.neonnettle.com/features/...hillary-s-economic-policy-before-she-even-ran


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 21, 2016)

Political hogwash.


----------



## Rockarola (Oct 23, 2016)

remixedcat said:


> _Copy/pasted from a very good source in the financial markets:_
> 
> 
> All of you that are concerned about the planet and global warming/climate change need to read up on this.
> ...


I think your tinfoil hat might be a little too tight..."a very good source in the financial market", and no direct link. Mentioning Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Soros and Clinton in the same post...I think your source might be Alex Jones, please prove me wrong with links to credible sources.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2016)

Rockarola said:


> I think your tinfoil hat might be a little too tight.



More like faint and disorientated from blood loss Reason ( AMT ! )


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 24, 2016)

remixedcat said:


> _Copy/pasted from a very good source in the financial markets:_
> 
> 
> All of you that are concerned about the planet and global warming/climate change need to read up on this.
> ...



I can't find the "mark as spam" button.

Oh wait, this isn't my email.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2016)

Thread needs a 10,000 volt jump in it  for lightin it up and here is a link 
Hi @carex enjoy
http://planetxnews.com/2015/11/23/r...ystem-now-approaching-our-inner-solar-system/


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 24, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Thread needs a 10,000 volt jump in it  for lightin it up and here is a link
> Hi @carex enjoy
> http://planetxnews.com/2015/11/23/r...ystem-now-approaching-our-inner-solar-system/



No.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> No.


""No """
its just as Relevant as other LINKS
More  Science and entertainment than a cat that's spinning in a cement Mixer


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 24, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> ""No """
> its just as Relevant as other LINKS



Especially the links prefixed with a smiley AND IN ALL CAPS I'm guessing?

This feels suddenly like a "Trump is awesome" facebook page.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2016)

Sorry Porn is not Allowed


R-T-B said:


> This feels suddenly like a "Trump is awesome" facebook page.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 24, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Sorry Porn is not Allowed



It's ok he has a toupee.

I'd better stop now...


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> It's ok he has a toupee.


not a rug its a vajazzle  and there i stop


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 24, 2016)

Its a Merkin because he is a twat.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2016)

Always wondered why Lots of Americans Shortened  American to Merkin

  think i now understand


----------



## ne6togadno (Oct 24, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Sulfur dioxide is that offensive odor rotting eggs give off.


it is hydrogen sulfide that smells like rotten eggs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide


----------



## remixedcat (Oct 26, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> I can't find the "mark as spam" button.
> 
> Oh wait, this isn't my email.


Hmmm go ahead and belive the hippie crackpots that have no scientific or financial background then


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 26, 2016)

remixedcat said:


> Hmmm go ahead and belive the hippie crackpots that have no scientific or financial background then



I don't believe anyone on science issues without sources that are reputable.

By the way, I probably qualify as a hippie, sans drugs.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 26, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> By the way, I probably qualify as a hippie, sans drugs.



Or An Athlete   ( you could specilise in the Triple jump, high  jump, and long jump )


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 31, 2016)

Only 5 min in and I'm not sure what to expect but it seems well produced so far.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 31, 2016)

DiCaprio says China "seems to be transitioning to renewables."  Bullshit.  He clearly did not do his research:
http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...nue-to-use-coal-as-a-major-generating-source/






European and American emissions are down because the manufacturing jobs have been displaced to China.  The only way China stays competitive is with cheap energy and that's coal's middle name.

This video is big on pointing figures and short on permanent, reasonable solutions, just like every other.


Now an Indian lady promotes solar.  Panels are not cheap and storage is extremely expensive with a short lifespan.  It is not a practical solution which is why it's use remains few and far between.


Renewables, renewables, renewables, also known as "blah, blah, blah."  Renewables only work where appropriate.  They do not represent a "permanent, reasonable solution."  I'm not just talking about USA either, I'm talking everywhere, especially Africa and South America that will eventually supplant China as centers for manufacturing.


Let's put solar into context:  The most you can reasonably get from a square meter of surface at peak hours of the day is 250w of electricity.  I have a really small space heater right next to me that oscillates based on ambient temperature.  When it is running, it draws some 1200-1400 watts of electricity.  That's five cubic meters of surface area during broad daylight.  What of the night when it has to work the hardest?  I'm not going to run the numbers but the problem becomes massive, and fast.  That's not even considering the environmental costs of building solar panels and batteries.  There's only so much the sun can do and while you're doing that, your making the surface under it unusable for plants which are nature's solution to atmospheric carbon.  It's a no-win situation.  It's a money pit.  This is why solar trails behind and always will.  Wind is far better in this regard.

I'm not making this shit up.  Consult the China graph above.  Note the change in solar versus the change in wind.  That is not merely a coincidence.  It's a physical and economic fact.

For the record, land here costs $13,000 per acre to buy, nevermind all of the taxes and crap that go along with it.  No one in their right mind will build solar around here.  It just doesn't make sense from any aspect.


Edit: Something related I just realized.  I don't really care about rising sea levels (which this video mostly focuses on) because I'm over 1000' above sea level...as are most people that identify as conservatives/republicans.  The left? The people that are behaving most alarmist about climate change? Almost exclusively live in coastal regions.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/State-States-Political-Party-Affiliation.aspx
Illinois (most of the population lives in the Chicago area which borders the Great Lakes), Alaska (very low population density), and South Carolina are the only exceptions to the rule.

Interesting chart here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
If you sort by CO2 emissions per capita, the state, you have to go all the way down to the 10th on the list to find a state that doesn't solidly report Republican.

On the flip side, D.C. has little in the way of manufacturing and most of the energy is imported from the surrounding states.  Most of their emissions come from traffic but with mass transit systems, even that is relatively low.  The one in second has my intrigued: New York.  Looking at the chart provided, the reason is obvious: natural gas supplementing nuclear and hydro.


----------



## 64K (Oct 31, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> DiCaprio says China "seems to be transitioning to renewables."  Bullshit.  He clearly did not do his research:
> http://instituteforenergyresearch.o...nue-to-use-coal-as-a-major-generating-source/
> 
> 
> ...



I guess DiCaprio hasn't spent much time in Beijing

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/beijing-pollution-before-after-smog-pictures/


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 31, 2016)

Yeah, USA emits a lot of carbon dioxide but it is mostly soot free.  We've gone to great lengths to curb particulate matter in the air and it shows.  China needs to do the same but they can't because of economic pressures.  It would cost money including ongoing costs that would make production in China less profitable so the producers will get their product made elsewhere.  It's a catch-22.

I'm with Freeman Dyson on this.  The solution to climate change is technology.  Instead of trying to attack carbon dioxide directly, money should be channeled to investments in next generation energy and food production.  I think the equivalent of a Manhattan Project for fusion energy would accomplish this.  Once solutions are discovered, efforts need to be redoubled to make it safe and cheap so it can be rapidly deployed all over the world (including third world nations) so there's no incentive to burn coal anymore.  Finally, triple-down on the effort to make the technology compact enough to be deployed widely in vehicles.  I believe, by 2100, we could literally not produce any energy from fossil fuels anymore.  By 2200, CO2 levels would return to 1700s levels.  CH4 may still be a problem though.  I'm glad DiCaprio touched on that point.


Edit: So their other solution is carbon tax so take from Peter and give to Elon Musk so he can build giant battery factories.  Elon Musk failed to note that those "Gigafactories" require a massive mining and refining operation. Picture the operations we have now for coal but instead of black, the resource is white.  Even without considering the environmental impact of that, consider the fact that the lithium supply right now already can't compete with demand (electric cars, smartphones, tablets, watches, etc.): The era of the electric car promises a lithium mining boom, but new lithium startups are floundering.  He didn't talk at all about how they intend to charge these batteries and that has its own environmental cost.


Edit: Not-so-fun fact, lithium-ion batteries only last about 2-3 years regardless of use.  Instead of an oil addiction, if Musk has his way, we'll have a lithium addiction.


Edit: Still think nuclear fusion is the future and nothing else.  The future is very bleak without it.  On that front, some good news earlier this year I missed:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/18/scientists-make-another-breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion/


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 10, 2016)

In response to Ford.

China's renewable is growing. That doesn't mean its gone from 0 to 200 in one night.
Yes China is still heavily using non-renewable but that doesn't negate the fact that their renewable sector is growing.
"Data from China's National Energy Administration (NEA) shows installations were up 60 percent in 2014, and up 35 percent in the first nine months of 2015, to 37.45 GW."

Renewable might not currently be a 100% end all solution to fossil fuels, but there is no reason to utilize it to its full extent to minimize the need for fossil fuels.
The film wasn't trying to say America did this this, India did that, it was just trying to show the impacts of green house gases, how we are all responsible for it and how we should be pushing harder then ever to minimize our use of fossil fuels.

For example I don't think it would be to far-fetched to cover the cost of AC using solar energy. Especially when considering how the sun must be shining to make those hot days really unbearable. I'm actually exploring doing this myself once I save up.

Lets see...

3500 watts for central 2.5 ton AC unit. 
255 watt solar panel that takes up about 1 square meter (With a rating of 232W PTC). 
So 3500 / 232 = 15 panels so less than 15 square meters of space.
I've got more than enough space on my roof to place those.
Will cost me a just shy of $3500 just for the panels.

Panels have a 20 year warranty and are known to generally lose a 1% of efficiency every year so I'd probably add 1 or 2 panels more.
Then I'd need a charge controller + 500
Power Inverter + 400 or so.
Storage Battery + 400 or so.

So total 4800 lets say 5000 for everything wires and tax and what not.
When can I expect to get that paid off?
Depends on much I use the AC. Lets say I use the AC 18 hours a day.
Lets say I typically pay 12 cents per kilowatt per hour.
That is $1972.35 per year I save on AC alone.
So within 2 and a half years I'll have made the money back I put into the project, only have lost about 2.5 % efficiency in my panels.
I will have minimized my green house gas emissions and my lowered my bill for some time there after.
I'll be investing in renewable energy.
Once the 20 years are up I will have saved 34,000 on my AC assuming no damage to the panels.

Now realistic threats to this project?
Bird poop/Stains of sorts in general?
Hurricane damage/Damaging Weather in general?
Legal battles/HOA.

Its not science fiction people are successfully harnessing the energy of the Sun.
This project in particular might be a bit ambitious but still possible.

Solar Technology is improving and potential costs and maintenance can go down with time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 10, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> China's renewable is growing. That doesn't mean its gone from 0 to 200 in one night.
> Yes China is still heavily using non-renewable but that doesn't negate the fact that their renewable sector is growing.
> "Data from China's National Energy Administration (NEA) shows installations were up 60 percent in 2014, and up 35 percent in the first nine months of 2015, to 37.45 GW."


You missed the point: China is going to add far more natural gas capacity in the next 20 years than renewable energy capacity.  China is the poster child of what _not_ to do.  His goal was to say "look at this country" and "we can do that too."  Denmark is a far better example than China.



AphexDreamer said:


> Renewable might not currently be a 100% end all solution to fossil fuels, but there is no reason to utilize it to its full extent to minimize the need for fossil fuels.
> The film wasn't trying to say America did this this, India did that, it was just trying to show the impacts of green house gases, how we are all responsible for it and how we should be pushing harder then ever to minimize our use of fossil fuels.


Investing in nuclear fusion makes far more sense.  All of that money squandered on building turbines and solar panels becomes trash the moment fusion becomes a deployable technology.



AphexDreamer said:


> For example I don't think it would be to far-fetched to cover the cost of AC using solar energy. Especially when considering how the sun must be shining to make those hot days really unbearable. I'm actually exploring doing this myself once I save up.
> 
> Lets see...
> 
> ...


One huge problem: solar panels only produce their stated capacity (255w) at peak hours of the day. You're going to need more panels and batteries.  Batteries only last a few years and they're costly to replace.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/solar-energys-duck-curve/


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 10, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You missed the point: China is going to add far more natural gas capacity in the next 20 years than renewable energy capacity.  China is the poster child of what _not_ to do.  His goal was to say "look at this country" and "we can do that too."  Denmark is a far better example than China.
> 
> 
> Investing in nuclear fusion makes far more sense.  All of that money squandered on building turbines and solar panels becomes trash the moment fusion becomes a deployable technology.
> ...



I agree fusion is a fantastic concept and deserves investing as well and thankfully there are strides being made there too.
China just recently kept fusion going for a full minute I believe?
That however has no ETA and should be explored in tandem with other renewable technologies.

I realize that issue which is why I chose AC as my first choice.
I'll only run it when its hot and it should be especially hot when its sunny. Of course it can still be cloudy and hot hence batteries.

The duck curve you mention shouldn't be an issue for my single house electricity usage pattern.
However, I can see it being a valid point if everyone were to have the same pattern of electrical usage.
By that type of mass adoption rate I'd hope to see the Grid be a rare last resort for most homes while most relying on battery storage (most likely) or wind (less likely but still possible) rather than the Grid when sun is down.

As far the degradation of batteries I'm sure they will degrade. Although Tesla is about to release the solar roof shingles and a new battery until then assuming the battery lasts 2-3 years and cost me an extra 400-500, the cost of maintenance for the system still yields a profit.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 10, 2016)

Savings, not profit.  You're also not figuring everything else like cooking appliances, garage door openers, computers, ghost devices (plugged in, drawing power, not in use), and so on.

In my case, energy consumption is the least in the summer and the most in the winter.  Solar doesn't help here.  You need the power at night and snow covering the panels is a perpetual problem.  If you went strictly solar, it could literally kill you in a blizzard where you can't clean the panels.

Wind is generally a better power source but wind is, at times, unpredictable.

I think if a nation were truly serious about massively deploying a gridless energy system, the best solution is a wind + gas turbine combination, no batteries.  Yes, you need to buy natural gas but the turbine only spools up to fill in gaps in current.  It can produce reliable electricity without the efficiency lost in batteries.  What's more, in periods where power is too much, both turbines can stop themselves so you don't need a grid to consume the excess.

Don't forget the environmental cost of dead batteries.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 10, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Savings, not profit.  You're also not figuring everything else like cooking appliances, garage door openers, computers, ghost devices (plugged in, drawing power, not in use), and so on.
> 
> In my case, energy consumption is the least in the summer and the most in the winter.  Solar doesn't help here.  You need the power at night and snow covering the panels is a perpetual problem.  If you went strictly solar, it could literally kill you in a blizzard where you can't clean the panels.
> 
> ...



I think your missing my point.

Which is to minimize fossil fuel usage, that much is possible in some respects.
Yes savings makes sense. I see it as a profit as well since electricity costs money and this is generating me money at no extra cost once I break even.

I'm not figuring everything else because that is not what my goal is (currently at least). Ideally I'd like everything to run on renewable but realistically I see it possible to start of on specifics and hope to work my way up. AC being the first milestone or perhaps something else useful but smaller.

Yes I can see winter being tougher for solar panel but also not impossible. We keep snow off of many things we can keep snow off of panels as well. Heck Alaska uses solar although I'm not sure to what extent. I know they have a 2 kW solar array for a village.

I'm not sure why you rule out batteries? Unless its just that you rule it out based on current modern battery technologies?
The batteries can be recycled I know of a place that takes them near me.

I'm all for other methods as long as the end result is a less negative impact on the environment.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 10, 2016)

Most power companies will charge you for putting in panels so, no, you don't make profit.  Reason: the duck bill.  You're giving them current when they don't need it and you're creating a problem after the sun goes down that they have to deal with lest transformers explode.  You're investment is directly and indirectly costing them money and, so far, the power companies have won the argument that they need to be paid.


Enjoy some light reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling

Recycling is a complicated, costly process.  Just because a place "takes batteries" doesn't mean they actually recycle them.



AphexDreamer said:


> I know they have a 2 kW solar array for a village.


Likely built on a millionaires vacation house.  2 kW is literally 10 meters squared of panels...virtually nothing.


----------



## SK-1 (Nov 13, 2016)

*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway*

*Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*

*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*

*Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.*

*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.*

*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.*

*Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * * 
* * * * * * 
I must apologize.

I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported 
by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago.

This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?


Oh...and all the violent weather... smh
https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/tornadoes-low-2016-fall-update 

Now...8 continuous months of cooling...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






*


----------



## magibeg (Nov 15, 2016)

I don't think I've ever seen graphs that look like that for those periods of time, where did you find them?


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 15, 2016)

magibeg said:


> I don't think I've ever seen graphs that look like that for those periods of time, where did you find them?



It's a really, really dark place.. kinda stinky at times......



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606


"_Warmer to much-warmer-than-average conditions dominated across much of the globe's surface, resulting in the highest temperature departure for June since global temperature records began in 1880. This was also the 14th consecutive month the monthly global temperature record has been broken—the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The June 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous record set in 2015 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). June 2016 marks the 40th consecutive June with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average."_


----------



## SK-1 (Nov 16, 2016)

magibeg said:


> I don't think I've ever seen graphs that look like that for those periods of time, where did you find them?





Ahhzz said:


> It's a really, really dark place.. kinda stinky at times......
> 
> No...I didn't pull this from Al Gore's asshole...
> http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
> http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/rss-land/


----------



## magibeg (Nov 17, 2016)

Ahhzz said:


> It's a really, really dark place.. kinda stinky at times......
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Alright then, I'm extra confused now haha. I clicked all links and seem to have missed where those graphs have come from. I'm not 100% sure what the baseline for them is because it doesn't make sense if you were keeping track of historical averages.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 17, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Alright then, I'm extra confused now haha. I clicked all links and seem to have missed where those graphs have come from. I'm not 100% sure what the baseline for them is because it doesn't make sense if you were keeping track of historical averages.


I was being flippant. The statement I made had absolutely nothing to do with the graphs/links I posted, and everything to do with where he pulled the graph from.
The graph he's constructed supposedly comes from those links. They deal with weighted temperatures in different layers of the atmosphere, and even those pages say specifically "_The plot shows the warming ot the troposphere over the last 3 decades which has been attributed to human-caused global warming" (.165K/decade)_ as well as "_The plot shows the cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past 3 decades.  This cooling is caused by a combination of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases.  During the most recent decade, the rate of cooling has reduced substantially. "_
 Thanks for reinforcing Global Warming


----------



## magibeg (Nov 18, 2016)

Ahhzz said:


> I was being flippant. The statement I made had absolutely nothing to do with the graphs/links I posted, and everything to do with where he pulled the graph from.
> The graph he's constructed supposedly comes from those links. They deal with weighted temperatures in different layers of the atmosphere, and even those pages say specifically "_The plot shows the warming ot the troposphere over the last 3 decades which has been attributed to human-caused global warming" (.165K/decade)_ as well as "_The plot shows the cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past 3 decades.  This cooling is caused by a combination of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases.  During the most recent decade, the rate of cooling has reduced substantially. "_
> Thanks for reinforcing Global Warming



It is just getting very difficult to follow the global warming denier crowd as the data continues to pile up.


----------



## SK-1 (Nov 25, 2016)

magibeg said:


> It is just getting very difficult to follow the global warming denier crowd as the data continues to pile up.



Dude, I can relate..It's even MORE difficult for all us _"Round Earthers"_ to follow the Corrupt Data and Crooked Scientists crowd!
For instance.
*
Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after poring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton.
"We know that sea ice in the Antarctic has increased slightly over the past 30 years, since satellite observations began. Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these new findings suggest it may not be anything new."
The findings demonstrate that the climate of Antarctica fluctuated significantly throughout the 20th century and  indicates that sea ice in the Antarctic is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than that of the Arctic, which has experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century.*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...gbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/


----------



## IRQ Conflict (Nov 25, 2016)

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## SK-1 (Nov 28, 2016)

*Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.*
*Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions.  OOPS!!! *

Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’

The slowdown in warming was, she added, real, and all the evidence suggested that since 1998, the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century.
Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record. According to satellite data, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-rise-not-man-emissions.html#ixzz4RL9c0GdX


----------



## magibeg (Nov 29, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Dude, I can relate..It's even MORE difficult for all us _"Round Earthers"_ to follow the Corrupt Data and Crooked Scientists crowd!
> 
> 
> For instance.
> ...



That is a strawman argument. No one is claiming the antarctic ice should be shrinking. In fact cases have been made that much of it is growing because the warming temperatures are bringing increased precipitation. If you're going to try to disprove global warming at least use actual arguments.




IRQ Conflict said:


> I'll just leave this here.



I wish I could sit and watch that video with you in person. There is too much content to cover otherwise.



SK-1 said:


> *Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.
> Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions.  OOPS!!! *
> 
> Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’
> ...



I wish you would actually use sources other than the likes of the daily mail and the telegraph. I don't even know what you're talking about when it comes to the stall....

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

You can look up temperature graphs all day long. I can only argue with you if you're willing to at least accept reality.


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 1, 2016)

magibeg said:


> You can look up temperature graphs all day long. I can only argue with you if you're willing to at least accept reality.


1st Observation...You haven't resorted to name calling yet! Kudos! Nothing like keeping it civil...
2nd Observation...You need another Reality check! 

*Record cold coming to ‘almost entire USA’ – Low temperature records set to be SHATTERED
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11...ld-anomaly-forecast-across-almost-entire-usa/*


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 1, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> *http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11...ld-anomaly-forecast-across-almost-entire-usa/*



You can't seriously consider these sources anything related to being credible...  I mean, come on, climatedepot?


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 1, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> You can't seriously consider these sources anything related to being credible...  I mean, come on, climatedepot?


Doesn't fit your narrative. I understand.

Dr. Pielke has published over 370 papers in peer-reviewed journals with over 34000 citations. H-Index 85 and an i10 index of 340... But he doesn't fit your narrative and I totally understand.
https://twitter.com/RogerAPielkeSr


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 1, 2016)

Shit thread. Full of opinions and half asses studies. People using limited data to back up climate denial. Standard protocol really.

Global systems don't follow binary codes of constant increase. Ocean acidification is greater threat and ocean warming. Giant heat sink right there. Mother nature's safety measure. But, once oceans heat enough, air temps back up...

A few studies or hundreds from one author is still simply one author. The majority of climate science easily trends towards change and man made change. Using minority science is fair but usually misguided.

All studies quoted here should at least be researched thoroughly before blindly posted in the post truth fashion of things these days.

I hate this thread.


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 1, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> 1st Observation...You haven't resorted to name calling yet! Kudos! Nothing like keeping it civil...
> 2nd Observation...You need another Reality check!
> 
> *Record cold coming to ‘almost entire USA’ – Low temperature records set to be SHATTERED
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11...ld-anomaly-forecast-across-almost-entire-usa/*


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 1, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Doesn't fit your narrative. I understand.
> 
> Dr. Pielke has published over 370 papers in peer-reviewed journals with over 34000 citations. H-Index 85 and an i10 index of 340... But he doesn't fit your narrative and I totally understand.
> https://twitter.com/RogerAPielkeSr



No, it doesn't make sense that if he's that legit he'd resort to getting published in ClimateDepot...  surely he has a peer reviewed journal you can cite and then we'd accept it?  It's pretty cut and dry.  Nothing to do with my narrative and more to do with challenging random web links being the order of the day of all sane people.


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2016)

IRQ Conflict said:


> I'll just leave this here.


Sounds like a conspiracy theory truther troll post, especially when you say "I'll just leave this here".  Best off in GN.

@the54thvoid I agree with everything except hating this thread.


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 1, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> I hate this thread.





qubit said:


> I agree with everything except hating this thread.


Eco Rumour

"" The Mods Promised to close thread when it reaches 1200 posts ""  maybe


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Eco Rumour
> 
> "" The Mods Promised to close thread when it reaches 1200 posts ""  maybe


Nooo, don't wanna close it! Climate change is an endless debate with new stuff to talk about all the time.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Dec 1, 2016)

qubit said:


> Nooo, don't wanna close it! Climate change is an endless debate with new stuff to talk about all the time.


 Yes, but sadly it doesn not come with a free endless aupply of popcorn or what have you prefer.
Fliping a coin for the keep thread alive/lock thread is also viable.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 1, 2016)

Frankly, this isn't a political issue, but a scientific one (politics just decided to stick it's nose into it).  That's the only thing saving it from GN.

And I say that with a burning hatred for this thread, for what it's worth.  This is like the cesspool of TPU when it comes to the crowd it attracts (though the regulars behave, for the most part).


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Frankly, this isn't a political issue, but a scientific one (politics just decided to stick it's nose into it).


And politics inevitably taints everything it touches.  I hate it too.

As I explained in my OP, it's the meddling of politics in climate science which has caused me to not completely trust the consensus that the amount of global warming that we're seeing is man made. However, there is a certain logic to it, even without looking at hard numbers, corrupted by politics and money or not.

Thinking about it, the industrial revolution started 150-200 years ago. Since then man has been chucking all sorts of pollutants into the air and at an increasing rate, while at the same time cutting down the rainforests. Therefore, it stands to reason that after such a long time raping the earth we'd eventually have a measurable impact on it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 1, 2016)

Politics ~= Policy

When a group of people (in this case scientists) insist on changing policy, the subject matter is made political.  When you're talking about something that is as far reaching as carbon dioxide, you're going to see those in favor of changes and those not in favor go to their respective corners.  The former shouts from the mountains about an ecological disaster while the latter does the same about economic disaster.  Both sides have merits and it is the politicians job to hammer out a compromise to satisfy both sides as much as possible.

This sort of thing played out previously with leaded fuels.  In 1996, it was made illegal to add lead to gasoline because of the impact it had on air quality and lead poisoning.
http://web.mit.edu/ckolstad/www/Newell.pdf


Think of the consequences if carbon dioxide and methane were treated the same:
-people wouldn't be able to get to work without their cars
-the transportation of goods would seize without trucks and trains
-coastal cities would descend into chaos because there's no way to get food from where it is produced to them
-agricultural production would be reduced massively due to lack of machinery to mass produce crops and fertilizers to increase yields
-all cattle would have to be slaughtered because they're too polluting (no more beef)
-the capacity of the grid to deliver reliable electricity would be halved--this would stop most industry
-rolling blackouts and brownouts would be common.
-virtually all resources would become more scarce due to a massive reduction in mechanization

The list is virtually endless. From that short list, you can envision a damn near apocalyptic scenario.


On the opposite side:
-oceans rising causing coastal populations to relocate
-increased likelihood of draughts or flooding
-ability to produce crops may become more unstable due to changing climates
-increased rate of species extinction

No where near as apocalyptic as the former set but not good either.


What governments are doing already is the compromise:
-deploying renewables where reasonable
-suspending moratorium on nuclear energy
-renewable fuel standards where some fuel is sourced from crops
-increased fuel economy standards
-requiring the use of more efficient lighting, heating, and air conditioning
-tax credits on green alternatives
-building infrastructure and new buildings planning for ocean rise

Yeah, some people argue it is not enough but it's better than doing too much of either.


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2016)

@FordGT90Concept It's true the only way to stop having an impact on the planet is to go back to the stone age and I certainly don't want that.

Nicely put.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 3, 2016)

No more politics please UNLESS it is "directly" relevant to the topic, if you want to have a discussion on best, worst or mediocre presidents either take it to PM or GN.


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 4, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> No, it doesn't make sense that if he's that legit he'd resort to getting published in ClimateDepot...  surely he has a peer reviewed journal you can cite and then we'd accept it?  It's pretty cut and dry.  Nothing to do with my narrative and more to do with challenging random web links being the order of the day of all sane people.


Myopic? Dr. Pielke has published over 370 papers in *peer-reviewed journals with over 34000 citations*. Good grief man! Should I hold your hand and read them all to you too??? smh...



R-T-B said:


> Frankly, this isn't a political issue,


I needed a good laugh. Thanks!


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 4, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Myopic? Dr. Pielke has published over 370 papers in *peer-reviewed journals with over 34000 citations*. Good grief man! Should I hold your hand and read them all to you too??? smh...



It surely shouldn't be hard to find one then.

My point is people on twitter can claim whatever they want.  I can claim to have over double that within 5 minutes if I wanted...  I'm not doubting him as much as doubting random web links, as any good practitioner of science should.

I verified his credentials myself, but thanks for your help.  I was more making a point on citations than climate change...  something that you apparently missed completely.

My views on climate change are clear, as I go with what the majority of scientists have concluded.  That does not mean I questioned Dr. Pielke's credentials, I actually was pretty sure he was legit from the get go.  I just like to see better citation practice than is being shown here.

Honestly, the actual issue of climate change is a bore to me, as each side is so fenced in and won't give any ground regardless of what is presented.  That's why I attack other problems in the debate rather than the debate itself.


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 4, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> It surely shouldn't be hard to find one then.


Not hard at all for us with no blinders. Why do Liberals expect everyone to do the work for them? Seriously? I literally didn't read the rest of your diatribe. Your first sentence is all that is necessary. Proof on a golden platter would never be enough for you guys lol. Chicken Little FTW!!!


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 4, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Not hard at all for us with no blinders. Why do Liberals expect everyone to do the work for them? Seriously? I literally didn't read the rest of your diatribe. Your first sentence is all that is necessary. Proof on a golden platter would never be enough for you guys lol. Chicken Little FTW!!!



Diatribe?  I'm sorry, I'm not certain you understand I don't give a shit about the climate change debate.  My little "rant" was about how you give all intellectuals a bad name with your behavior thus far.  Sadly, it is only continuing.  It's part of why I hate this thread.

Here's a hint: try reading the posts you reply too.  Then maybe you won't look so foolish.  Take YOUR blinders off.



> Why do Liberals expect everyone to do the work for them?



I expect everyone making a claim to supply evidence to support their claim.  That's called the "burden of proof."

This includes pro-global warming advocates, by the way.


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 4, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Diatribe?  I'm sorry, I'm not certain you understand I don't give a shit about the climate change debate.  My little "rant" was about how you give all intellectuals a bad name with your behavior thus far.  Sadly, it is only continuing.  It's part of why I hate this thread.
> 
> Here's a hint: try reading the posts you reply too.  Then maybe you won't look so foolish.  Take YOUR blinders off.
> 
> ...



Intellectuals... LOL! You misspelled idiots! I have a hint for you too....Instead of blind insults try critical thinking.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 4, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Intellectuals... LOL! You misspelled idiots! I have a hint for you too....Instead of blind insults try critical thinking.



Those weren't blind insults.  You literally admitted you didn't read my post.  If that isn't blinders what is?

Try reading it, you might get why I called you "foolish."  It wasn't an insult, it was a nudge that you are not doing yourself any favors here.

Also, you are on a forum of intellectual types.,, and intellectualism and critical thinking are literally one and the same:


Wikipedia:


> An *intellectual* is a person who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality of society, and proposes solutions for the normative problems of that society, and, by such discourse in the public sphere, he or she gains authority within the public opinion.



Don't poke fun at things just because they don't line up with your belief system.  That IS "blinders on" to the most extreme.

This whole thread right now makes me sad.  Out.


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 4, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Those weren't blind insults.  You literally admitted you didn't read my post.  If that isn't blinders what is?


Life is too short to read innuendo and BS?


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 4, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Life is too short to read innuendo and BS?



Really dude, read my post.  You're making a complete ass of yourself over nothing.


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 4, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Really dude, read my post.  You're making a complete ass of yourself over nothing.


No...you are dude! read everything and you will agree! I bet you a steak dinner!

And you're not even out! You have more gusto that that!



R-T-B said:


> My views on climate change are clear, as I go with what the majority of scientists have concluded.


OK, this is where the rubber meets the road... Are you ready to lose a debate?






This is what you are referring to right?


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 4, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> This is what you are referring to right?



No, the actual majority is much lower, though I don't care to debate actual climate change.  It's not really a strong belief of mine either way and it's way too dramatic for me.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 4, 2016)

100% of my family agree its bloody freezing this morning and i should light our coal fire to toast our toes.

FTW........


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 4, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Good grief man! Should I hold your hand and read them all to you too??? smh...


Carefull he might ask you to do that and round it off with some heart throbbing HOT PORN story's to raise his Temps



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> 100% of my family agree its bloody freezing this morning and i should light our coal fire to toast our toes.
> 
> FTW........


Or an English Holiday home


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 4, 2016)

The burning of English holiday homes in Wales did very little to contribute to global warming. It did however give the Welsh a warm glow.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 4, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> I bet you a steak dinner!


Since beef production hasn't been a factor either. 

In all seriousness, I think we can all agree that the climate is changing but, there is disagreement on how and why it's changing. Some people say it's humanity and some people say it's the natural evolution of the planet but, in reality, it's probably somewhere in between... but to say that the climate isn't changing is straight up false. I know people who have degrees in meteorology and what people don't understand is that our climate has so many factors that it's very hard to determine why something occurs because of all the other things a single change can impact. A small change can lead to other small changes which can lead to other small changes that eventually start a trend and identifying these things is very hard, so modelling them is even harder because you're trying to describe something without necessarily having a completely picture of the interactions in the atmosphere.

Either way, I leave this to the people who have dedicated their lives to studying it and attempting to understand it. Anyone who thinks they can simplify a complex problem that these people can't figure out completely themselves is merely delusional.


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 4, 2016)

Remember...none of this is political  

*My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic
My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.
"More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?"12/4/2016

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518
Shhhh! Man-made Global Warming is "A" political...See?




*​


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 4, 2016)

Shame I can't read the rest of it without paying.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 4, 2016)

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12...elke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 4, 2016)

> There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather.


Yup.


> We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.


And yup.


> There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.


Because sense.

Of note: it is pretty damn difficult these days to find these articles that focus on weather.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 5, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> Since beef production hasn't been a factor either.
> 
> In all seriousness, I think we can all agree that the climate is changing but, there is disagreement on how and why it's changing. Some people say it's humanity and some people say it's the natural evolution of the planet but, in reality, it's probably somewhere in between... but to say that the climate isn't changing is straight up false. I know people who have degrees in meteorology and what people don't understand is that our climate has so many factors that it's very hard to determine why something occurs because of all the other things a single change can impact. A small change can lead to other small changes which can lead to other small changes that eventually start a trend and identifying these things is very hard, so modelling them is even harder because you're trying to describe something without necessarily having a completely picture of the interactions in the atmosphere.
> 
> Either way, I leave this to the people who have dedicated their lives to studying it and attempting to understand it. Anyone who thinks they can simplify a complex problem that these people can't figure out completely themselves is merely delusional.



There is actually little to no disagreement on why the climate is changing, and I think part of the problem is that people seem to think there is some sort of in between ground when the reality is very different. To be clear no climate scientist would ever argue that the climate doesn't change on its own, but they would argue that there would always be a mechanism for a change to occur. The first steps when trying to explain why the climate is changing was by using the usual known causes. For example here is the current state of what it looks like in the most broad stroke possible:

1. The solar radiance of the sun has remained relatively constant (this is your main energy in source naturally)
2. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling, only the troposphere is warming (that narrows down the possible range of where the changes are taking place)
3. The albedo of the earth at the frequencies that CO2 reflects light is changing, so less energy at those wave lengths are being released into space. So less energy is being reflected back through the upper atmosphere. (Identifying where the missing energy is going)

The basis behind the science is actually an energy in/out problem. The devil is in the details. The given scenario says that we have to be warming, the variation in the climate models is from trying to take into account positive and negative feedback loops. Take for example there being little evidence of more powerful storms for example, it's such a broad definition to figure out and they are complex systems in their own right. While warmer waters might produce more powerful hurricanes, there could also be an increase in wind sheer that effectively cuts it off at the head. That being said, NASA says the following:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php
"William Lau, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, concluded in a 2012 paper that rainfall totals from tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic have risen at a rate of 24 percent per decade since 1988. The increase in precipitation doesn’t just apply to rain. NOAA scientists have examined 120 years of data and found that there were twice as many extreme regional snowstorms between 1961 and 2010 as there were from 1900 to 1960."

So taking multiple factors into account I have yet to see a single explanation for global warming that satisfies the warming lower atmosphere temperatures, cooling upper atmosphere, changes of the earths albedo, no significant change in the suns radiance, and no significant change in the earths yaw/tilt. This is the general consensus view I just spit out to you and why that is the view being held.


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 5, 2016)

magibeg said:


> There is actually little to no disagreement on why the climate is changing


Myopic at best!  Canada must sell the most Kick Ass set of blinders ever made! It looks like you must have 2 pairs?  See...comments like yours make me think you have very narrow paths of thought. I realize your guys are in your own bubble but, people just might think differently. That actually offends you? Right? Other people thinking a little differently. 'Tis bad.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 5, 2016)

magibeg said:


> So taking multiple factors into account I have yet to see a single explanation for global warming that satisfies the warming lower atmosphere temperatures, cooling upper atmosphere, changes of the earths albedo, no significant change in the suns radiance, and no significant change in the earths yaw/tilt.


Urban areas warms lower atmosphere because of absorbing solar radiation and releasing it as heat that 100+ years ago was reflected.

Aircraft producing cirrus clouds reside in the upper troposphere which acts as a constant barrier between it and the upper atmosphere exaggerating the temperature differential.

Carbon dioxide may be the greatest factor but it is far from the only factor.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 5, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Myopic at best!  Canada must sell the most Kick Ass set of blinders ever made! It looks like you must have 2 pairs?  See...comments like yours make me think you have very narrow paths of thought. I realize your guys are in your own bubble but, people just might think differently. That actually offends you? Right? Other people thinking a little differently. 'Tis bad.



You really didn't read his followup to that, did you?

He never said it was certainly man made, he said it's an energy in/out problem.  No scientist has legitimately disputed that simple fact, as it is measurable.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 5, 2016)

SK-1 said:


> Myopic at best!  Canada must sell the most Kick Ass set of blinders ever made! It looks like you must have 2 pairs?  See...comments like yours make me think you have very narrow paths of thought. I realize your guys are in your own bubble but, people just might think differently. That actually offends you? Right? Other people thinking a little differently. 'Tis bad.


I think it's time for you to take a break from this thread, you appear now unable to post here without attitude or insult.


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 5, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Shame I can't read the rest of it without paying.


https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/12/03/roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 5, 2016)

Being heretical merely means going against the normal perceived or accepted ideology. It infers no status.
Unfortunately, labeling yourself as a heretic is an active positioning of 'down trodden' in an attempt to garner underdog status.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 5, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Urban areas warms lower atmosphere because of absorbing solar radiation and releasing it as heat that 100+ years ago was reflected.
> 
> Aircraft producing cirrus clouds reside in the upper troposphere which acts as a constant barrier between it and the upper atmosphere exaggerating the temperature differential.
> 
> Carbon dioxide may be the greatest factor but it is far from the only factor.




Those are definitely factors, however they are orders of magnitude outside of the requirements to explain the effects. For example the urban heat effect doesn't come close to explaining the ocean heat content which is where most of the energy is being absorbed.






The problem with the cirrus clouds attempt at explanation is that they interact with a different wavelength than the loss of energy is showing.








the54thvoid said:


> Being heretical merely means going against the normal perceived or accepted ideology. It infers no status.
> Unfortunately, labeling yourself as a heretic is an active positioning of 'down trodden' in an attempt to garner underdog status.



I strongly encourage everyone to actually find out who Dr Roger Pielke Jr actually is. The way he is being described seems to imply he's a climate researcher when he is actually a political scientist. The reason some scientists spoke out against him was that he was misquoting their work and suggesting the opposite of what their studies were claiming. To be clear his PhD is in political science. And the claim is that the researchers are trying to politicize the issue?


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 5, 2016)

magibeg said:


> I strongly encourage everyone to actually find out who Dr Roger Pielke Jr actually is. The way he is being described seems to imply he's a climate researcher when he is actually a political scientist. The reason some scientists spoke out against him was that he was misquoting their work and suggesting the opposite of what their studies were claiming. To be clear his PhD is in political science. And the claim is that the researchers are trying to politicize the issue?



"_His interests include understanding the politicization of science; decision making under uncertainty; policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade; and professional sports._"

"_Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), an M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado Boulder._"

"_Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions." He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."_"

Even this PoliSci major "_has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science_".


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 5, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Those are definitely factors, however they are orders of magnitude outside of the requirements to explain the effects. For example the urban heat effect doesn't come close to explaining the ocean heat content which is where most of the energy is being absorbed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both warm the troposphere which in turn, heats the ocean.  Said more accurately: heat transfers from the warmer of the two to the colder of the two.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 5, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Both warm the troposphere which in turn, heats the ocean.



Yea but that doesn't really workout from a mathematics standpoint. Think of how extreme the heat island effect would have to be over such an incredibly massive area to make up for where 90%~ of the global heat uptake is going. A quick google shows that 3% of the earth is urbanized, which would require an incredible heat offset to affect the other 97% to that degree.

The effect of clouds can be measured by looking at the earths albedo. The below link has a ton of information on the matter and should clear up the attempt at a heat island or cirrus cloud explanation. The heat island effect wouldn't be much different than adjusting albedo for the area.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84499


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 5, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Yea but that doesn't really workout from a mathematics standpoint. Think of how extreme the heat island effect would have to be over such an incredibly massive area to make up for where 90%~ of the global heat uptake is going. A quick google shows that 3% of the earth is urbanized, which would require an incredible heat offset to affect the other 97% to that degree.


Think about how much heat a nuclear reactor like Devil's Canyon puts directly into the water.



magibeg said:


> The effect of clouds can be measured by looking at the earths albedo. The below link has a ton of information on the matter and should clear up the attempt at a heat island or cirrus cloud explanation. The heat island effect wouldn't be much different than adjusting albedo for the area.
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84499


I see correlation:








Areas of urbanization that also have massive amounts of agriculture tend to be blue.  Areas of urbanization without agriculture tend to be blue.

Yeah, yeah, lots of...well, pretty much every kind of air pollutant comes off of cities.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 5, 2016)

For the sake of fun lets look at Devils Canyon. It appears to be capable of an output of 18,000 GW-h per year. According to the EPA in relation to the above graph:

"an increase of 1 unit on this graph (1 x 1022 joules) is equal to approximately 18 times the total amount of energy used by all the people on Earth in a year.4"

And according to the IEA global power consumption was 157,485 TW-h in 2013. So now we have a few numbers that we can work with here we can say that it would take 8749.16 Devils Canyons to supply all forms of energy for humanity for the year of 2013. *So in order to cause the oceans to tick up a single 1e+22 joule of energy would require 157,485 Devil's Canyons with a 100% efficient heat pump going into the ocean.* In addition to that, the assumption would be that the ocean also isn't radiating out that additional energy as well so the amount of energy required would be far far greater.

Onto the next point, you shouldn't see too much correlation as the paper specifically stated that:

"The maps above show how the reflectivity of Earth—the amount of sunlight reflected back into space—changed between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. This global picture of reflectivity (also called albedo) appears to be a muddle, with different areas reflecting more or less sunlight over the 12-year record. Shades of blue mark areas that reflected more sunlight over time (increasing albedo), and orange areas denote less reflection (lower albedo).

Taken across the planet, no significant global trend appears. As noted in the anomaly plot below, global albedo rose and fell in different years, but did not necessarily head in either direction for long."

So basically it appears to be a wash in terms of what the global albedo looks like in the past nearly 12 years although they do note that additional information is required.

Regardless if the issue was with the heat island effect or cirrus clouds it would have a much more visible impact. Basically neither of your proposed explanations hold up to measurements.


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 5, 2016)

I think we've gotten there.....


----------



## magibeg (Dec 5, 2016)

Ahhzz said:


> View attachment 81653
> 
> 
> I think we've gotten there.....



You clearly missed out on Devil Canyon's to ocean heat content fun


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 5, 2016)

magibeg said:


> For the sake of fun lets look at Devils Canyon. It appears to be capable of an output of 18,000 GW-h per year.


Not sure where you're pulling that from.  It outputs 2.24 GW of electricity, not heat.  As of 2015, it takes on average 10,458 BTUs to produce 1 kWh of electricity.

1 BTU = 1,054.500 Joules

19,635,840,000 kWh
205,351,614,720,000 BTUs
216,543,277,722,240,000 Joules or 2.16 x 10^17 Joules
Only about 20-45% of that is converted to electricity.

That's a crapload of heat and only from one...relatively average nuclear reactor.


Have another correlation:





Remember the westerly winds.  That swept pattern over the Atlantic could easily be the result of the cirrus clouds being blown there from all of that heavy airline traffic.  Pretty much a line there connect to Europe too (Paris/London).


----------



## magibeg (Dec 5, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Not sure where you're pulling that from.  It outputs 2.24 GW of electricity, not heat.  As of 2015, it takes on average 10,458 BTUs to produce 1 kWh of electricity.
> 
> 1 BTU = 1,054.500 Joules
> 
> ...



I pulled the 18,000 GW-h because they generate that much power over 1 year as listed in their info. Just saying 2.24 GW-h is useless because we're looking at yearly changes and they will have variance. 18,000 GW-h over approx 8760 hours per year works out to an average of 2.054 GW-h.

You are correct that I didn't calculate for wastage however. So if we were at 157,485 before the number would most certainly be quite a bit lower but still in the 10's of thousands. And to be very clear that is to go up a single point on that chart. Furthermore that's assume no energy gets redistributed at all. So basically the oceans sitting in a perfect insulator getting 10's of thousands worth of Devils Canyon plants pumping heat into it for years.

So to reiterate no matter how hard you try to spin it you can't attribute the warming to nuclear reactors or cirrus clouds. They are many orders of magnitude off of what's required and are somewhat known values. It would be akin to lighting a match in a stadium and blaming it on temperature rise. I don't know why you try so hard to come to difficult conclusions than the scientists who actively study those subjects.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 5, 2016)

It's a combination of all of the above.  Not one singular thing.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 6, 2016)

*Google Says It Will Run Entirely on Renewable Energy in 2017*

"Unlike carbon-based power, Mr. Kava said, wind supply prices do not fluctuate, enabling Google to plan better. In addition, the more renewable energy it buys, the cheaper those sources get. In some places, like Chile, Google said, renewables have at times become cheaper than fossil fuels."

Good step in the right direction.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 6, 2016)

Except that wind still has to be supplemented with natural gas for when the wind doesn't blow...or blows too hard.


----------



## slozomby (Dec 6, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Except that wind still has to be supplemented with natural gas for when the wind doesn't blow...or blows too hard.


that depends on how much storage is attached and what percentage of capacity is used. its entirely possible to run equipment on solar/wind alone.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 6, 2016)

Storage costs more than production by more than a 1000 fold. Lithium-ion is about $145/kwh.  USA average natural gas is $0.073/kwh.  Unless you're talking some other form of storage?


----------



## slozomby (Dec 6, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Storage costs more than production by more than a 1000 fold. Lithium-ion is about $145/kwh.  USA average natural gas is $0.073/kwh.  Unless you're talking some other form of storage?


of course storage costs more than production. but you don't continuously pay for storage. you buy it and the costs get spread over multiple years so spead over 10 years that $145/kwh is $0.00166/operational hour.

but that isn't the point. the point being if you wanted to go to a pure renewable datacenter running solely on wind/solar it can be done without relying on any other fuel source for normal operations.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 6, 2016)

Lithium-ion only lasts 2-3 years...and then it contributes to the growing e-waste problem.  If you look at that middle link, lead-acid batteries are actually more environmentally friendly because recycling is easy and profitable.  Natural gas electricity production is copper (generator), iron (turbine), and cow farts (fuel): all plentiful and, except the latter, easily recycled.

And you're just talking storage.  That energy to store had to come from somewhere and that has costs too.  There's really only two choices: storage (potential energy) and grid (kinetic energy).  Could storage replace the grid?  Maybe someday but I caution about the above.  The grid is mostly environmentally friendly because pretty much all of it is recyclable.  Storage...especially the highly portable types...not so much.

Didn't say it was impossible.  I think the figures for themselves.  "Green" today is so myopic.


----------



## slozomby (Dec 6, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Lithium-ion only lasts 2-3 years until it is garbage.
> 
> Didn't say it was impossible.  I think the figures I just gave speak for themselves.



which is why most datacenters use lead/acid batteries for the gap between grid and generator.

even figuring a lifespan of 2 years for lithium its still less than a penny per operational hour.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 6, 2016)

There was a massive edit in case you missed it...

Lead-acid batteries are a completely different animal from lithium-ion.  Namely, they like to be fully charged all of the time: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_the_lead_acid_battery

They take 8+ hours to charge from depleted and they discharge fast (usually measured in minutes, not hours).  They're very good for filling in gaps in power supply and they're good environmentally but they suck in the portability department and have a service life of three years.

A lithium battery by itself is worthless.  It needs to be charged first and likely repeatedly.  It sits on top of a power source, it does not replace it.  The question is not natural gas versus battery or wind versus battery, it's grid versus battery, stationary versus portable, massive capacity with high efficiency versus low capacity with low efficiency, it's long term investment versus short term investment.


Since we're talking a datacenter, the cheapest, economical, relatively clean solution is wind + natural gas on location with lead-acid battery to fill the gaps as the natural gas turbine spools up and down opposite the wind turbines.  Under high wind conditions, the natural gas turbine would be off.  In no wind conditions, the natural gas turbine would be operating at high RPMs.  That said, natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels but it is still a fossil fuel.

The problem with Google's article occurs in the second sentence:


> Next year, it said, all of that energy will come from wind farms and solar panels.


That doesn't work economically without the grid to fill in the gaps and dispose of excessive power.  And...well.. there's the asterisk the headline is missing in the next power:


> This is not to say that Google computers will consume nothing but wind and solar power. Like almost any company, Google gets power from a power company, which operates an energy grid typically supplied by a number of sources, including hydroelectric dams, natural gas, coal and wind power.


What this article fails to do is point out the problem Google is creating for its utilities: they have to add on-demand power generation capacity to offset the unreliability of wind & solar.  I went into that in another thread not that long ago.


----------



## slozomby (Dec 6, 2016)

yes batteries need to be charged. however there is an assumption that has been made here that might not be true. which is they are buying the wind power and not generating it. when generating an excess of the charging cost is non existent. and when charging is not required they can sell off excess.

there is nothing saying there isn't a grid backing the wind generation. as long as they produce more energy than they consume its a net positive.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 6, 2016)

It's moving garbage from one dump to another instead of recycling it.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 7, 2016)

Tidal barrages....short term pain, long term gain.


Thats Wales sorted.......

http://www.reuk.co.uk/wordpress/tidal/severn-barrage-tidal-power/

http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/cardiff/

http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 7, 2016)

That does an enormous amount of environmental damage for only 8.6GW of electricity bursts and 2 GW continuous (Severn Barrage).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 7, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That does an enormous amount of environmental damage for only 8.6GW of electricity bursts and 2 GW continuous (Severn Barrage).



 i thought the 8.6 GW figure sounded familiar

_India's clean energy progress takes a couple more tangible steps as the country surpasses 8.6 GW of solar PV capacity installed and gives its approval to ratify the Paris Agreement._

Read more: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/det...fies-paris-agreement_100026348/#ixzz4S9FkLn57


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 7, 2016)

PV is okay as long as it is being installed on roof tops (opposed to buying up land explicitly to populate it with solar collectors).  PV has economic problems right now, especially on the recycling side.  PV also requires attachment to the grid and the construction of fast response power generation (e.g. natural gas turbines).

FYI, USA has 25 GW of installed photovoltaic capacity.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 8, 2016)

The oldest living animals in the world, quahog clams, (yes, its their real name... even though it sounds like an STI ) have revealed 'worrying' data about man-made climate change.

Scientists studied the growth rings on the shells of clams and were able to map out the oceans temperature over the past 1,000 years.

Normally, changes in the Earth's climate and atmosphere are driven by natural changes in the ocean.

But the study claims to reveal that this pattern has flipped since the industrial revolution, when humans started emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases.

Professor Ian Hall of Cardiff University,  



Spoiler










 who co-led the study, told the Independent 

The researchers collected 21 live and dead clam shells from the North Iceland Shelf, 263 feet (80 metres) deep into the ocean.

The clams were dated using radiocarbon dating and by counting the rings on their shells.

Chemical components of the shells, known as isotopes, were measured to determine the ocean's temperature from AD 953–2000.


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 8, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The oldest living animals in the world, quahog clams, (yes, its their real name... even though it sounds like an STI ) have revealed 'worrying' data about man-made climate change.
> 
> Scientists studied the growth rings on the shells of clams and were able to map out the oceans temperature over the past 1,000 years.
> 
> ...


Lies! Lies!!! The Media lies!!! Repeal Obamacare!!!


*edit*
Oh, that's just wrong...
_"In 2013, a quahog clam known as Ming, believed to be the world's oldest animal at 507 years old, was killed by scientists trying to tell how old it was._"


----------



## qubit (Dec 14, 2016)

Now some climate change denying moron over at right-wing Breitbart wants to shoot climate scientists for using the peer review process. I give up. 



> Another day, another dangerous claim from far-right opinion blog Breitbart. Usually, their reporting doesn’t warrant a response article as their unproven allegations are easily and quickly dismissed by fact, but when they begin to threaten scientists with violence, it is obvious that the affable façade of the so-called alt-right is just a front for the unsavoury views of people who want to silence their opponents by any means necessary.
> 
> Climate denier James Delingpole wrote an article for Breitbart recently, titled "When You Hear A Scientist Talk About ‘Peer Review’ You Should Reach For Your Browning" – a sentence taken almost word for word from the Nazi play “Schlageter”.
> 
> Although the author appears to be familiar with pre-war German plays, he seems to not really get what the peer review process, in terms of scientific research, is all about. So what does peer review mean?



www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/the-meaning-of-peer-review-explained-so-that-even-breitbart-writers-can-understand


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 14, 2016)

qubit said:


> Now some climate change denying moron over at right-wing Breitbart wants to shoot climate scientists for using the peer review process. I give up.
> 
> 
> 
> www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/the-meaning-of-peer-review-explained-so-that-even-breitbart-writers-can-understand



And Stephen Bannon from there is now running Trump's campaign and soon to be Counselor to the President.  Great world, eh?

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


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

qubit said:


> Now some climate change denying moron over at right-wing Breitbart wants to shoot climate scientists for using the peer review process. I give up.


Breitbart is just reporting on another article:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/how-many-scientific-papers-just-arent-true/

Article can be summed up by this statement:


> The US National Science Foundation recently reminded us that a scientific finding “cannot be regarded as an empirical fact” unless it has been “independently verified.” Peer review does not perform that function.



It cites this report on the IPCC: http://www.interacademycouncil.net/File.aspx?id=27669
The relevant part:


> The review process is a fundamental step for ensuring the quality of assessment reports. The Committee found that some existing IPCC review procedures are not always followed and that others are weak. In particular, Review Editors do not fully use their authority to ensure that review comments receive appropriate consideration by Lead Authors and that controversial issues are reflected adequately in the report. Staff support and/or clarification of the roles and responsibilities of Review Editors could help them provide the proper oversight. In addition, the large number of review comments may distract Lead Authors from fully addressing the most important issues. Having Review Editors identify the key issues that must be addressed would ensure that these issues receive due consideration. Allowing Lead Authors to document only their responses to noneditorial comments would reduce their administrative burden.



I think there is quite a lot of merit there.


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Breitbart is just reporting on another article:
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/how-many-scientific-papers-just-arent-true/
> 
> Article can be summed up by this statement:
> ...


So, because you feel "there is quite a lot of merit there", we'll ignore the "Reach for your Browning " part of the statement...


----------



## magibeg (Dec 14, 2016)

I've posted this before and I'll post it again. Deniers love to poke holes at peer review, but they fail to put into scale just how 1 sided the research really is. He isn't wrong that peer review isn't a perfect system, but you can build confidence levels by taking into account multiple areas of research. The reason why deniers are not skeptics is because they don't use empirical evidence to support their position. Their strongest argument is and will always be the ever shrinking gap of the unknown.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 14, 2016)

This thread ceased to be relevant some while back. Those who deny climate change or man's part in it will never accept the huge majority view, no matter what evidence is shown. Time and time again the same voices shout down the bulk of evidence decrying some left wing liberal conspiracy. Ignoring all the while the conservative funded, normally fossil fuel interest lobby groups funding much research.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

magibeg said:


> I've posted this before and I'll post it again. Deniers love to poke holes at peer review, but they fail to put into scale just how 1 sided the research really is. He isn't wrong that peer review isn't a perfect system, but you can build confidence levels by taking into account multiple areas of research. The reason why deniers are not skeptics is because they don't use empirical evidence to support their position. Their strongest argument is and will always be the ever shrinking gap of the unknown.


One verified paper is worth more than 13,950 unverified papers combined.  That chart means little more than there's a lot of interest in a topic.


----------



## qubit (Dec 14, 2016)

magibeg said:


> The reason why deniers are not skeptics is because they don't use empirical evidence to support their position. *Their strongest argument is and will always be the ever shrinking gap of the unknown.*


Sounds like a religion. Don't need facts for that, just blind faith.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> One verified paper is worth more than 13,950 unverified papers combined.  That chart means little more than there's a lot of interest in a topic.



Are you serious?  If you have a paper that comes to a conclusion and the result turns out to be random, than a support study that verifies claims is also equally likely to be incorrect. That's why it takes hundreds of studies in supporting subjects in high confidence levels to support a theory to a high confidence level. This chart shows outcomes of studies. This should show that there is basically a 0 confidence level for denying climate change. How can you even possibly come to that conclusion that one verified paper is worth more than 13,950 unverified ones?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

We've been over that before.  The metrics they used to classify articles as pro-/anti-anthropomorphic climate change was extremely biased in favor of pro-.

Because something that is verified can also be applied.  The article gave a great example of a pharmaceutical company testing 53 cancer peer-review papers and only 6 could be verified: 89% is as good as toilet paper.

Can you be absolutely certain that similar numbers aren't reflected in that same chart you keep posting?  IAC wasn't certain.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We've been over that before.  The metrics they used to classify articles as pro-/anti-anthropomorphic climate change was extremely biased in favor of pro-.
> 
> Because something that is verified can also be applied.  The article gave a great example of a pharmaceutical company testing 53 cancer peer-review papers and only 6 could be verified: 89% is as good as toilet paper.
> 
> Can you be absolutely certain that similar numbers aren't reflected in that same chart you keep posting?  IAC wasn't certain.



You miss the entire point of the chart. The point is that there is essentially NO EVIDENCE to support the denier position. Where is the research? There is barely any.

If you do a generic attack on peer review and research in general I have no idea how to help you because that means you're discounting scientific research for a biased for a biased article. Worse still is that the article linked doesn't even mention the fields that we're talking about.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

And what if those 24 alleged articles are verified?  They are no less important.

Here's the relevant part of the Spectator article:


> Which brings us back to the matter of public policy. We’ve long been assured that reports produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are authoritative because they rely entirely on peer-reviewed, scientific literature. A 2010 InterAcademy Council investigation found this claim to be false, but that’s another story. Even if all IPCC source material did meet this threshold, the fact that one out of an estimated 25,000 academic journals conducted an unspecified and unregulated peer review ritual is no warranty that a paper isn’t total nonsense.
> 
> If half of the scientific literature “may simply be untrue,” then half of the climate research cited by the IPCC may also be untrue. This appalling unreliability extends to work on dietary cholesterol, domestic violence, air pollution – in short, to all research currently being generated by the academy.


I quoted the IAC report earlier.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And what if those 24 alleged articles are verified?  They are no less important.
> 
> Here's the relevant part of the Spectator article:
> 
> I quoted the IAC report earlier.



You are coming off as someone who doesn't actually know how scientific research is done. The reason your article is written that way is because it's a scam. It's fake news that doesn't even apply to what the author is writing about. They took information that doesn't apply to the climate research field and applied it to it and literally made a hypothetical scenario of lies. Literally a situation that wouldn't pass peer review.

When you say verified, do you even know what you're talking about? When we talk about peer reviewed papers do you know what that is?

Lets take the chart I posted earlier. So you have those 24 papers that in some way refute global warming. You could have literally 1 paper that refutes it that past peer review. The other 23 papers could be papers that are also peer reviewed that verify the first paper, you don't know the distribution and you can't make a distinction in most cases.

Many papers rely on the validity of previous papers in order for their experiments to work. In fact that in itself improves the validity of the previous paper. Do you know what you're actually arguing here?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Lets take the chart I posted earlier. So you have those 24 papers that in some way refute global warming. You could have literally 1 paper that refutes it that past peer review. The other 23 papers could be papers that are also peer reviewed that verify the first paper, you don't know the distribution and you can't make a distinction in most cases.


Exactly my point.  It works both ways.



magibeg said:


> Many papers rely on the validity of previous papers in order for their experiments to work. In fact that in itself improves the validity of the previous paper. Do you know what you're actually arguing here?


It does not.  If that original paper was never verified/invalid, all subsequent papers that cite it lose one of their legs.  What you're talking about is effectively gossip which is the inherent danger of peer-review and the focus of the Spectator article.

Again, that chart is pointless.  It proves nothing other than there's a lot of interest in the subject.


----------



## qubit (Dec 14, 2016)

@FordGT90Concept I haven't forgotten about your reply to me, buddy. Thing is I have to do a lot of careful reading to answer you properly which I can't do at the moment. On top of that, skim reading your conversation with magibeg, you both seem to be right, which is making my head spin a little.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Exactly my point.  It works both ways.
> 
> 
> It does not.  If that original paper was never verified/invalid, all subsequent papers that cite it lose one of their legs.  What you're talking about is effectively gossip which is the inherent danger of peer-review and the focus of the Spectator article.
> ...



Ok i'm going to have to try this again because there still seems to be some sort of gap of understanding going on. *Ignoring the fact that your article is fake news attributing a study that has nothing to do with the topic we're talking about* I listed an absolutely insane scenario where 1 paper is then verified by 23 other papers. That distribution will never happen, unfortunately that is also too small of a sample size to work with. When dealing with thousands of papers you will have situations where there are papers that indirectly validate other papers with similar results.

An example of building upon prior papers would be like the following scenario:

Someone tests the ballistics of a cannon ball to figure out how to calculate aim better and makes a prediction for where a cannon ball should land given an amount of force. A followup paper still using the previous paper as a basis uses the same ballistics calculation to figure out how a different object like a bullet behaves and correctly predicts where a bullet will land. The 2nd paper doesn't directly verify the original paper but it does still test some degree of validity of it by building upon it.

I would strongly encourage you to read more about this subject before you continue to argue.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

magibeg said:


> Ignoring the fact that your article is fake news...


Proof?  It cited lots of good sources and I easily pinpointed what it was referring to in the IAC report which directly ties to IPCC's report. The Spectator article does it in a casual way (the whole article is written that way), sure, but the IAC report speaks for itself.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Proof?  It cited lots of good sources and I easily pinpointed what it was referring to in the IAC report which directly ties to IPCC's report. The Spectator article does it in a casual way (the whole article is written that way), sure, but the IAC report speaks for itself.



You're right, the IAC report does speak for itself:

"“On behalf of the InterAcademy Council and the IAC committee that authored the report reviewing the processes and procedures of the IPCC, we are pleased that so many of our report’s recommendations were adopted today by the IPCC in Abu Dhabi. We are grateful to the U.N. and IPCC for seeking an independent review by the IAC and for acting on our report. We hope our report will continue to inform management of the IPCC as it carries out its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change science.”"

There is no scandal here. Your fake news site just makes it seem like there is.


----------



## 123zorn (Dec 14, 2016)

Global CO2 levels are one piece of data that is pretty indisputable, even amongst the deniers.  What is the effect of global CO2 levels?  When was the last time that there were global CO2 levels at the current one?  What was the evidence of climate at the time that CO2 levels were at these numbers (oh gosh, it was warmer on a global scale the last time this happened, imagine that)?  What is the effect of these CO2 levels upon people, plants, animals, oceans, etc.?  Isn't this important?  Isn't this worthwhile to determine these effects?  Is the globe and its climate something of value to research?

The idea that man, while spewing enormous amounts of various gasses and particulates at rates that are far in excess of what has ever historically been produced into our common atmosphere, has no overall effect upon global climate is pretty far fetched at this point.  Deniers for the most part are true believers and have little respect or understanding of science or the scientific method.  While science is sometimes wrong, when there is sufficient research, it is usually right.  Do we have enough research?  Maybe, or maybe not.  But deniers are often trying to cut or discredit research into global climate effects.  This suggests that there are other reasons for such denier claims beyond any potential scientific dispute.  An example of this is typically based upon financial reasons such as when Exxon (of which I am a stockholder) specifically funds 'directed research' to debunk and politically slander less directed research.  Then hires political/infotainment groups to push its less than rigorous findings as an equal counterpoint (when in actuality it is far from equal) into the public discourse when the vast majority of the public has no clue or background (and why would they when its just a struggle to pay the mortgage).  We have seen this behavior before, time and time again when findings and solutions may be in conflict with profit (the tobacco industry is the prototypical example).

Unfortunately we live in a era where public policy discourse is more a matter of who shouts the loudest, longest, and pays for the most airtime using the most convincing actors.  Developing a body of evidence based upon rigorous scientific research and deriving findings (either positive or negative) based upon such evidence and then cooperatively developing policies that will address such findings is where we should be going vs developing belief/political systems to dispute science and research.  It is ultimately destructive to ignore the power of science (the method is its most valuable contribution to society, even if most of society could not come close to articulating it).

There are global effects of human activity.  Who really knows if there is a tipping point or not, until we have hindsight.  The issue is certain human activity over the long term can be /has been affecting global climate, based upon the HUGE, VAST, OVERWHELMING SUPER-MAJORITY of scientific evidence.  There is little credible scientific evidence showing that emissions has had no effect upon overall climate. 

Given evidence, should we not have discourse on how to mitigate human impacts to minimize negative outcomes?  Climate change is undeniably happening (not just supported by science, but also by the insurance industry), and it will have pretty far-reaching consequences (sea level rise is just one of the effects, and farcically stating that you live 50M over current sea level is just childish as a counterpoint).

Climate change is happening.  Human activity is either a contributor or a significant factor (this is where deniers' belief system comes into conflict with evidence).  We should be discussing how to minimize human effects, not the belief (against a preponderance of evidence) that humans have no effect.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

magibeg said:


> You're right, the IAC report does speak for itself:
> 
> "“On behalf of the InterAcademy Council and the IAC committee that authored the report reviewing the processes and procedures of the IPCC, we are pleased that so many of our report’s recommendations were adopted today by the IPCC in Abu Dhabi. We are grateful to the U.N. and IPCC for seeking an independent review by the IAC and for acting on our report. We hope our report will continue to inform management of the IPCC as it carries out its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change science.”"
> 
> There is no scandal here. Your fake news site just makes it seem like there is.


Never said they didn't fix it (I assumed they made some changes because this report was back in 2010).  That doesn't invalidate the article saying peer-review has systemic weaknesses.  And again, where's the proof it's "fake news?"


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Never said they didn't fix it (I assumed they made some changes because this report was back in 2010).  That doesn't invalidate the article saying peer-review has systemic weaknesses.  And again, where's the proof it's "fake news?"



Semantics really.  It's intentionally misleading news.  Neither are worth defending and represent extremely poor journalism.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

Article itself pays very little mind to the IPCC (two paragraphs), just used it as a reference.

The 2007 IPCC report did have serious problems which the IAC report covered (e.g. overemphasizing points which has very little empirical support for like worsening tropical storms).  The 2014 IPCC report dialed the alarmism way back.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Article itself pays very little mind to the IPCC (two paragraphs), just used it as a reference.



Which is also frankly pretty bad journalism.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Never said they didn't fix it.  That doesn't invalidate the article saying peer-review has systemic weaknesses.



If you actually read through the report the IAC released it says nothing of systemic weakness. Your article took an issue with psychology papers, loosely quoted an IAC release and connected them. This is fake news. It's a tabloid that has misleading information at best and straight up lies at worst. Heck the IAC report was released 6 years ago, and it wasn't even a negative report.

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter 5 - Conclusions.pdf

They made some suggestions to further improve their process. I have included a link to the conclusion. I'm not sure how many reports you have read but this one is relatively positive in tone.

It also says nothing of the weakness of the peer reviewed system.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Which is also frankly pretty bad journalism.


In your opinion.  I don't see a problem with it.  The article is fundamentally about peer review and politics.  IAC's report was specifically about that.  It may be old but it is still relevant to the subject matter.  That said, the Spectator piece references studies all the way back in 1982.



magibeg said:


> If you actually read through the report the IAC released it says nothing of systemic weakness.


Didn't say it did.  IAC saw specific problems with the review process and offered specific recommendations to address them.


Hell if I know why this turned into a big debate because it frankly doesn't deserve it.  Here's what happened:
1. qubit cite IflScience.com
2. IflScience.com was attacking Breitbart for publishing red meat.  It's what they do, seriously.  Why does that surprise anyone?
3. I looked past both of those at the original source: Spectator.co.uk  The original source is the only one worth looking at any more.  Everyone should realize that by now.

The original source has "quite a lot of merit," I said, and I'll continue to stand by those words.  How does it relate to climate change?  No clue because no one has really done a comprehensive study of all of these peer reviewed articles to separate the meaningful from the meaningless as well as weed out duplicates and articles that don't particularly present anything new.  Do I care?  Not at all other than scoffing at that picture @magibeg posted (again).


----------



## magibeg (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Didn't say it did.  IAC saw specific problems with the review process and offered specific recommendations to address them.



Indeed they did. However your statement says nothing about the severity or the reason for the recommendations. The way described in the article implies the IPCC was doing something either improper or incorrect. That is not the case. Instead due to the large scope they were recommending mostly organizational changes to cope with the many fields and research and large amount of organization required to generate a more effective report.

No where is it even hinted at that the conclusions for the report were improper or poorly done. Your article is fake news.

Edit - There is nothing wrong with the graph I posted. It shows that there is essentially no evidence against the general consensus of global warming. 24 Peer reviewed articles. That's it.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In your opinion.



It's pretty much a journalistic consenus that if you cite a source, it should be used to support your claim and not just for padding it's credibility.

I have not the time to read these documents right now, but it sounds to me from your description that what was done is a nearly universally condemned practice in journalism circles.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The original source has "quite a lot of merit," I said, and I'll continue to stand by those words.  How does it relate to climate change?  No clue because no one has really done a comprehensive study of all of these peer reviewed articles to separate the meaningful from the meaningless as well as weed out duplicates and articles that don't particularly present anything new.  Do I care?  Not at all other than scoffing at that picture @magibeg posted (again).



Don't they use multiple different methods and check the results?
And then those results all lead to the same conclusion right?

And then for the papers rejecting it only about 24 papers say it isn't happening?
While the vast majority of computer simulations, math, models, etc... say it is?

And the article is saying what? That peer reviewed papers are not perfect?
They say half of peer reviewed papers are untrue and then say half of the 13,000 papers saying climate change is real may be untrue, so then what? 6,500 papers are legit through their estimations? And what about the papers rejecting it? Does that leave 12 papers in favor of there being no climate change? Does this change anything?

Why do I feel like all we get from the other side is red herrings and nothing really notably substantial to the science behind there not being anthropogenic climate change?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

AphexDreamer said:


> Don't they use multiple different methods and check the results?
> And then those results all lead to the same conclusion right?


They should, yes, doesn't mean it happens though.



AphexDreamer said:


> And then for the papers rejecting it only about 24 papers say it isn't happening?


The vast majority of articles don't state an opinion because that's not their objective.  That graphic doesn't specify methodology so I can't say whether or not those that are in the affirmative column aren't just those that were neutral, for example.  As I said before, I don't really care either way because the data itself is important, not this graphic claiming they are this or that.



AphexDreamer said:


> While the vast majority of computer simulations, math, models, etc... say it is?


They also say there are a lot of unknowns.  Computer simulations and models have to be continually updated as more information becomes available.



AphexDreamer said:


> And the article is saying what? That peer reviewed papers are not perfect?


It doesn't talk about the papers themselves, more the process is inconsistent per publication and generally inadequate.  Additionally, how people cite "# peer reviewed papers" as proof of something significant when, they mean nothing without verification.



AphexDreamer said:


> They say half of peer reviewed papers are untrue and then say half of the 13,000 papers saying climate change is real may be untrue, so then what? 6,500 papers are legit through their estimations? And what about the papers rejecting it? Does that leave 12 papers in favor of there being no climate change? Does this change anything?


Perhaps, perhaps not.  Point is, we don't really know.  See the above statement (these numbers fundamentally mean nothing).

I haven't looked at _any_ of these papers so I have no idea what they say.  For all I know, those 12 papers may have just discovered that something else couldn't explain the change in observed temperature.  In its own way, it could confirm the majority.



AphexDreamer said:


> Why do I feel like all we get from the other side is red herrings and nothing really notably substantial to the science behind there not being anthropogenic climate change?


Because I don't think the sticking point is the science, it's the response.  Assuming anthropomorphic climate change is occurring what do we do about it?  If your answer is no more coal power, like Clinton said, you're talking about tens of thousands of jobs lost in Wyoming, Kentucky, and West Virginia.  The politicians that represent those people have motivation to detest the claims because you're talking serious economic damage if anything drastic were to happen legislatively.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Dec 14, 2016)

Climate change is a serious deal to the military. They're preparing for the effects of rising sea levels and mass migrations.

https://climateandsecurity.org/2016...y-thinks-climate-change-is-serious/#more-9182

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-idUSKCN11K0BC

Coal power is an old technology. Funding it makes no sense. Those jobs are lost and gone, never to come back. This same issue is going to affect millions more across the globe thanks to the progression of automation and AI. However, that's an entire discussion all on its own.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2016)

33% of the power in USA still comes coal...61% in China...


----------



## 123zorn (Dec 14, 2016)

And here we go down the rabbit hole.

Why is one discounting the peer review process? 
Why is it 'news' that peer review (as most processes) may need improvement?
Why is it 'news' that journals have different processes that may not be consistent?
Why is it 'news' that some papers may not meet certain standards of rigor after the above is considered?
Why is it 'news' that some work may not be well done?

Discounting peer review and throwing peer review out as a problem is an attempt to discredit scientific discourse.  This is spreading FUD, not evidence, not critique, not substantive.  This is pretty clearly an attack on the FINDINGS, not via the scientific process nor via evidence based discussion, but nearly solely based on FUD.  I will draw the logical conclusion that it is a denier/skeptic outlook that is driving this directed attack (and yes it is an attack) to discredit an entire body of scientific evidence by throwing doubt upon the process while choosing to be silent about the actual conclusions that may be appropriately drawn from the entire body of research.  Now the process may have some flaws for some of the papers, that is why there are repeated and repeated and repeated looks and tests and multiple lines of questions and multiple instigators that validate this body of research. 

Perhaps I should ask,

Why is it NOT news that there is little evidence contrary to anthropomorphic climate change?
Why is it that science and evidence is being sold as products of political conspiracy/controversy?
Why is it that the financial backing of such studies of non-anthropomorphic climate change is via industry?

Balance is the key.  Saying we don't know implies more uncertainty than is supported by the evidence.  A more balanced and appropriate statement of 'the preponderance of evidence is that there is anthropomorphic climate change that could be mitigated through concerted and consolidated policies' would meet the bill.

Climate change is happening.  Period.  At least a part of it is caused by human activity.  Period.  Arguing over peer review processes is purely an attempt to not address the identified problem.

To say that one cannot advocate for moving from coal to a more efficient and effective (when all costs are considered) fuel seems to indicate that evidence will not sway your belief.  Natural gas is more efficient, a primary reason for the decline of coal is the low price for each BTU of energy, especially when the pollution and particulate impacts of coal are considered. Coal is declining, and should decline given the alternatives, propping it up will be ineffective and would contribute to economic inefficiencies.  This is not a Clinton/Obama deal (saying that it was a Clinton deal has strong implications regarding your ability to separate the political from that which is evidence based), coal was a declining industry when fracking ramped, natural gas deposits were opened up, and energy costs took a nosedive.  Should BTU costs treble, then coal may once again rise as a low priced BTU alternative, but until then it is unlikely.   

Now if your argument is that known anthropomorphic climate change has been politicized inappropriately, I will agree entirely and ask why you posted and supported a FUD article with a seemly sole purpose of avoiding discussion of the problem that should be discussed.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 14, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I haven't looked at _any_ of these papers so I have no idea what they say.  For all I know, those 12 papers may have just discovered that something else couldn't explain the change in observed temperature.  In its own way, it could confirm the majority.



I like how you are appealing to the I don't know when plenty of people have reviewed the papers and drawn conclusions. If you don't know then why do you make a claim?


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 15, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 33% of the power in USA still comes coal...61% in China...



And plunging rapidly in the USA, you might note.  That was kind of his point.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 15, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> And plunging rapidly in the USA, you might note.  That was kind of his point.


That's ok, let him keep saying that till the last percent.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 15, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> And plunging rapidly in the USA, you might note.


Because natural gas (##GT where GT is Gas Turbine) is cheaper (at least in the USA).




That's economics making the decision for electric providers, not climate change.


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 15, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> And plunging rapidly in the USA, you might note.  That was kind of his point.


yeah, that's about to change....


----------



## qubit (Dec 15, 2016)

Here's one for the climate change deniers to waive about as "proof" it's not happening. 



> Stay warm, guys: newly released NASA images show the brutal polar vortex that's descended upon North America this week, and is predicted to bring record low temperatures to the US and Canada.
> 
> The data was captured by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on board NASA's Aqua satellite, and it shows the air temperature around 5,500 metres or 18,000 feet above the ground, which is currently as low as –40 degrees Celsius (–40 Fahrenheit).



http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-the-polar-vortex-is-back-with-a-vengeance


----------



## john_ (Dec 15, 2016)

I am not a scientist to say with certainty no, but it does look like the weather is changing. In Athens we see less and less snow every new year and in my mother's village that it is about 70 kilometers north from Athens, lemon and orange trees are growing much more easily and produce much more fruits compared to the past.


----------



## qubit (Dec 15, 2016)

john_ said:


> lemon and orange trees are growing much more easily and produce much more fruits compared to the past.


Nice to see something good associated with global warming for once.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 16, 2016)

CNN put up a website focused on the 6th mass extinction event that has begun:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/12/specials/vanishing/

TL;DR:
1. Climate Change (loss of coral reefs)
2. Agriculture (so much land is claimed for humans to live on, for livestock, and for crop production, the amount left to nature is dwindling)
3. Wildlife Crime (poaching and capturing wild animals for sale as pets)
4. Pollution (plastic ending up in oceans...and animals)
5. Disease (especially killing amphibians)


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> CNN put up a website focused on the 6th mass extinction event that has begun:
> http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/12/specials/vanishing/
> 
> TL;DR:
> ...



We'll need to adapt to these changes.  Already squid numbers and jellyfish blooms are happening more often.  Changes in ocean temps lead to other animals flourishing as others die off (thanks dinosaurs!).

But, I don't like squid and jellyfish..... bleugh.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 5. Disease (especially killing amphibians)



Stay away from me!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 16, 2016)

The Japanese trawl for jellyfish off the Welsh coast..........i provided data after i found one of their tracking devices on a beach......


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The Japanese trawl for jellyfish off the Welsh coast..........i provided data after i found one of their tracking devices on a beach......


That must cost them something in Diesel, probably the most expensive jellyfish on the planet, no wonder we have global warming!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 16, 2016)

The research being undertaken was to do with global warming and how it affects oceans and the movement of water.

Apparently jellyfish cant think for themselves as to where they travel and are a good indicator of change.

Lots of UK produced fish and shellfish end up in Japan, mostly by air freight.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The research being undertaken was to do with global warming and how it affects oceans and the movement of water.
> 
> *Apparently jellyfish cant think for themselves* as to where they travel and are a good indicator of change.
> 
> Lots of UK produced fish and shellfish end up in Japan, mostly by air freight.



Clearly not otherwise they would not be living off the coast of Wales!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 16, 2016)

You,ve got to be bloody hungry to eat jellyfish.
Just the thought of it turns my stomach.

Sardines are a common catch round here  recently and there are a lot more whales, porpoise and dolphins seen off the coast.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> and there are a lot more whales, porpoise and dolphins seen off the coast.



Don't try fishing for those though, or Steve Irwin's ghost will haunt you for life.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 16, 2016)

Basking shark  (the big buggers with massive mouths) are often caught.
Warmer waters bring more krill along with the predators that eat them.

Come whale watching in Wales .!!


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Basking shark  (the big buggers with massive mouths) are often caught.
> Warmer waters bring more krill along with the predators that eat them.
> 
> Come whale watching in Wales .!!



I've been whale watching here in the Pacific Northwest.  They are smelly things when they exhale...  and that's as nice as I can put it.


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Come whale watching in Wales .!!



NO !!!!!   Sorry I've Seen the local women (  )


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> NO !!!!!   Sorry I've Seen the local women



I could do something really mean right now, but I won't.

I'll just giggle.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 16, 2016)

Bastards....

Im telling Wendy on you lot.


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Bastards....
> 
> Im telling Wendy on you lot.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Bastards....
> 
> Im telling Wendy on you lot.



It's ok.  Dorset is known for a different thing, afterall:







Now that was kinda mean.  I'm going to go away, now...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 16, 2016)

Obesity among Welsh women has a direct correlation with global warming. Mainly to do with the consumption of icecream and blue pop.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Obesity among Welsh women has a direct correlation with global warming. Mainly to do with the consumption of icecream and blue pop.



Thanks for bringing it back to the subject.


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 16, 2016)

In Wales  they call them Loppies  
because they got lop sided short legs on one side because of constantly walking on hills " short legs stop them from falling on the Steep hillsides


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> In Wales  they call them Loppies
> because they got lop sided short legs on one side because of constantly walking on hills " short legs stop them from falling on the Steep hillsides



Thank you.

I did not know that.

I will totally pull this out at the next awkward dinner conversation.  (It should get rid of awkward/unwanted guests quickly)


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 16, 2016)

It should be spelled with a double L

Lloppies




















In its annual Arctic Report Card , the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday tallied record after record of high temperatures, low sea ice, shrinking ice sheets and glaciers.

Study lead author Jeremy Mathis, NOAA's Arctic research chief, said it shows long-term Arctic warming trends deepening and becoming more obvious, with a disturbing creep into seasons beyond summer, when the Arctic usually rebuilds snow and ice.






http://www.noaa.gov/


----------



## john_ (Dec 16, 2016)

qubit said:


> Nice to see something good associated with global warming for once.


No, no, no no no no. It's NOT good. My mother's village is not the whole planet Earth. So, while it is good for lemon trees and oranges trees, it is probably not so good for other plants. And most importantly, while it might look good to have less cold every winder in Athens, it probably also means that other places of the planet, that where hotter than Athens but fertile, could be facing problems like desertification.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 16, 2016)

john_ said:


> could be facing problems like desertification.



I love dessert!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 17, 2016)

Kara Sea and Barents Sea stands out in that picture.  The positioning of that hot spot is rather odd...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 17, 2016)

97.2% of scientists agree that this thread has contributed significantly to the amount of hot air circulating on this website.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 17, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Kara Sea and Barents Sea stands out in that picture.  The positioning of that hot spot is rather odd...



Those types of heat maps can look really strange because it's not related to how warm the area is but how warm it is compared to average. Could even be a case of a persistent high pressure system or a shift in ocean currents but I really have no idea at all haha


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 17, 2016)

The heat is most likely coming from the Atlantic but there's really no thermal signature that indicates that.  I'm thinking the heated current that used to pass through the Fram Strait stopped moving.  The Beaufort Gyre also isn't as cold.


----------



## qubit (Dec 21, 2016)

Snow falls in the Sahara desert for the first time in 37 years. More "ammo" for the climate change deniers. In reality, it's just a freak event.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Sahara-time-37-YEARS.html?ito=social-facebook


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Dec 21, 2016)

Sorry I have not experienced a desert,but from what I've read/ heard temperatures reported are low as waters freezeing point or maybe lower ,so if precipitation in form of snow in a desert... well I leave it for your imagination, you are typing about a desert|sand not a salt plain desert like at or above 12000ft.
Smog is if if it aint an unquestionable after effect by human/s activity.
There are of options for a "greener" outlook yet all disturb the global economics, undeterminable.
I'd like to think that mankind could mastered more than fision since fision,practicly...?
Humans beeing humans do I fail at stuping downandorandorup level,worth my energy?No so far and a predictable no further, to be proven wrong gladly.
Ps: there is no smiley "depicting" a  retarded'whatemacallithuman' ,a smiley peeling a bannana does not cut it.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 21, 2016)

It's not just cold that is an ingredient for snow, moisture is also necessary and that's where deserts tend to struggle.


----------



## john_ (Dec 21, 2016)

First snow in 37 years.

I think the correct question here is how often was snowing in the Sahara desert, 100 or more years ago.


----------



## magibeg (Dec 22, 2016)

john_ said:


> First snow in 37 years.
> 
> I think the correct question here is how often was snowing in the Sahara desert, 100 or more years ago.



There is a clue from the article:

"The Sahara Desert covers most of Northern Africa and it has gone through shifts in temperature and moisture over the past few hundred thousand years.

Although the Sahara is very dry today, it is expected to become green again in about 15,000 years."


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 22, 2016)

"People lived on the edge of the desert thousands of years ago[37] since the last ice age. The Sahara was then a much wetter place than it is today. Over 30,000 petroglyphs of river animals such as crocodiles[38] survive, with half found in the Tassili n'Ajjer in southeast Algeria. Fossils of dinosaurs, including _Afrovenator_, _Jobaria_ and _Ouranosaurus_, have also been found here."
wilki


Cave man Started Global warming by burning things in the Ice Age to keep warm


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 10, 2017)

A 70-mile long crack in the Larsen C ice shelf grew another shocking 11 miles in December alone. That leaves just 12 miles before an iceberg the size of Delaware ( or a quarter the size of Wales) snaps off into the Southern Ocean.

Lead researcher, Swansea University's Professor Adrian Luckman, said the iceberg was now 'hanging by a thread'.

When it calves off, the Larsen C Ice Shelf will lose more than 10 per cent of its area, fundamentally changing the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula, and making the shelf less stable, the experts said.

The current event is not an ice shelf collapsing, but Larsen C may, in years or decades to come, follow the course of the Larsen B Ice Shelf which splintered and collapsed in the space of a month in 2002, they said.

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Luckman, said: 'If it doesn't go in the next few months, I'll be amazed.


----------



## qubit (Jan 10, 2017)

I'm sorry Caps, but that's not happening, because global warming isn't happening, just like the esteemed president-elect Trump says.

There, fixed!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 10, 2017)




----------



## qubit (Jan 17, 2017)

I think this is a good explanation of why we can't just pin today's climate change on the planet and that it's man that's done it.

The article shows a great XKCD infographic explaining it.

http://www.sciencealert.com/why-4-5...mperatures-can-t-explain-climate-change-today


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 17, 2017)

The info grahic is reeeeeeaàly long on mobile in landscape........


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 10, 2017)

Here's a really unexpected turn of events:
The blue-collar climate plan

GOP-proposed carbon tax.

Why it might work?  Deregulate environmental protections and replace the lot of them with taxes (including carbon tax) to disincentives using pollutants.  Give profits back to citizens to invest.

I approve of this idea.  Instead of the EPA harassing people and businesses, change the market to achieve the same goal.  People will pay more for fuel and the like but they can use the refund/credit, for example, on a down payment for a hybrid car or to offset the additional cost if they have to stick with an oil burner.


Trump hasn't commented on it yet so there's no guarantee it could happen but this is seriously an about-face that at least has a chance.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 10, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Trump hasn't commented on it yet so there's no guarantee it could happen but this is seriously an about-face that at least has a chance.



Reading the article, it said the backers themselves would be "very surprised" if Trump went for it.

That being said, a snowballs chance in hell is better than no chance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 10, 2017)

I think it will boil down the actual proposal that lands on his desk.  If it restructures environmental regulations in a way that is great for the environment and economy, I think he'll sign it.  If it ends up being a cash grab like the stimulus package back in 2009, he'll veto it.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 8, 2017)

14 August 1912 , Rodney and Otamatea Times


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 9, 2017)

Well, so much for people claiming that it was created in the last 30 years.


----------



## qubit (Jun 9, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> 14 August 1912 , Rodney and Otamatea Times


That's a great find, Caps. Shows that man made climate change is nothing new and was realized well over 100 years ago.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2017)

A New Zealand publication.  Too bad it doesn't cite a source.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 9, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A New Zealand publication.  Too bad it doesn't cite a source.




The clipping from 14 August 1912 was published in the Rodney and Otamatea Times and found online at the National Library of New Zealand.

The four-sentence article was sandwiched between an article on a skipping machine and another about a proposed Russian tunnel that would connect the Black and Caspian Sea.

The piece had also appeared in Australian newspapers - on 10 July 1912 in the Shoalhaven Telegraph and then in the Brainwood Dispatch on 17 July of the same year. 


*The 'greenhouse' effect was officially first discovered in 1824 by a French mathematician and physicist, Joseph Fourier.*

He calculated that if take into account the size of the sun and Earth and the distance between them then the earth should be far cooler than it actually is


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2017)

But who did the math to get the 2:7 ratio that was the inspiration for that piece?  A source should have been cited for that.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 9, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> But who did the math to get the 2:7 ratio that was the inspiration for that piece?  A source should have been cited for that.



So far back in time you're asking for a bit much there.  However, from1994:

https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html



> Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.



So in the 1990's the ratio would be 1:2.8 (or 2:5.7).  Factor in cleaner methods in the 90's and the old article at 2:7 wouldn't seem too far off the mark, even if it was wrong.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 9, 2017)




----------



## Steevo (Jun 9, 2017)

I doubt that he could account for the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the earths core, or knew that the core was molten metal and rock. I believe its estimated that between 20 and 44 TW of power in the form of heat is emitted from the earth each day by the earth itself, and between 14 and 20 of that is estimated to be from fission reaction and nuclear decay. Some project the earth will still have a molten core by the time the sun dies, some argue that with the half life of the highly active elements such as uranium being half depleted already we may cool faster now, but still on a scale of millions of years. 

The core is slowly cooling over time, the amount of decay will lessen, and no amount of solar activity will warm it back up until our sun expands (a few billion years if not more) as at starts fusing heavier elements and its outer layers envelope and dissolve earth. 

So in the big picture, global warming of a couple degrees is only temporary, but we have a lot of cities on the coasts, and lower salinity will cause unknown changes in the oceans. What do we do, continue to release gasses that cause the temperature of earth to increase and hope that the earth is capable of correcting itself? Or lower our impact and continue to take measurements and perform closely monitored experiments so we can learn what will most likely happen naturally?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> So far back in time you're asking for a bit much there.


Is it really though?  Without having attributions, it comes across as a phony.



the54thvoid said:


> However, from1994:
> 
> https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html


IPCC was formed in 1988 to research the impact of greenhouse gasses on climate.  The sirens on coal were blaring long before climate became a concern.  For example, the 1952 Great Smog of London.




the54thvoid said:


> So in the 1990's the ratio would be 1:2.8 (or 2:5.7).  Factor in cleaner methods in the 90's and the old article at 2:7 wouldn't seem too far off the mark, even if it was wrong.


Indeed the estimation was close which is why I expected attribution of some kind.  The lack of attribution makes me suspicious.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jun 9, 2017)

I'd differ to Quoting Bender : kill all humans.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 9, 2017)

OH NO! GLOBAL WARMING! 





Oh wait... Nevermind...


----------



## magibeg (Jun 11, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> OH NO! GLOBAL WARMING!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You do realize that trying to measure a change with a graph in 100,000 increments for an event that has happened over 100 years won't accurately display?


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

magibeg said:


> You do realize that trying to measure a change with a graph in 100,000 increments for an event that has happened over 100 years won't accurately display?


Yes. Indeed that's the entire point... the "global warming" that we have experienced is absolutely minuscule and irrelevant compared to Earth's own natural cycles, and moreover fits perfectly into that natural cycle as expected regardless of human intervention.


----------



## qubit (Jun 12, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> Yes. Indeed that's the entire point... the "global warming" that we have experienced is absolutely minuscule and irrelevant compared to Earth's own natural cycles, and moreover fits perfectly into that natural cycle as expected regardless of human intervention.


You've chosen one dodgy graph that appears to support your global warming hoax idea when there's tons of good evidence that it's real. Just look through this thread for lots of examples


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

qubit said:


> dodgy graph



See, that's exactly the sort of confirmation bias that allows things like this to continue. I've read the thread. I am aware of all the science involved.
When data supports your conclusion, it's "evidence." When data doesn't support your conclusion, it's "dodgy." 
That's absolutely antithetical to the very core of science. Every data source, every experiment should be collected and performed with the intent to *disprove* a hypothesis. The scientific method is skeptical by design. And yet somehow we have this cult that believes that any assault on a hypothesis should be met with lashing out and ridiculing dissenters (not saying you personally, but in general.) 

One graph is not the point. The point is that the cherry picked data from the last hundred years shows a rise that doesn't tell the entire story. Zoom out to include other (also proven scientifically sound) more long term studies of tree core sampling, ice core sampling, and geological evidence, and you see that the rise we are experiencing now has nothing to do with human intervention, as the cycle has been going on for millennia. A myopic view of climate change is not science. A true scientist would seek to put the data in context with the bigger picture before determining a causal relationship. 

But hey, that doesn't bring in the grant money.


----------



## qubit (Jun 12, 2017)

Most scientists in the world agree that climate change is real - that "consensus" they keep talking about on the news. I've seen enough climate change (and especially warming) in the time I've lived on this planet and looked at various articles over time that I tend to believe them now. My worry was that the science was corrupted by vested interests, but it doesn't look like that's the case. In short, I was somewhat skeptical when I first started this thread almost 2 years ago, but not anymore.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 12, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> Yes. Indeed that's the entire point... the "global warming" that we have experienced is absolutely minuscule and irrelevant compared to Earth's own natural cycles, and moreover fits perfectly into that natural cycle as expected regardless of human intervention.



We as temporal shit clingers on this rocky planet have the incapacity to realise beyond our own existence the damage we can add to that natural cycle.  Life is not permanent and we as a species are no different.  Your point is probably not a denial of global warming but is instead now framed in the position of, "what's it matter anyway - the planet has cycles we cannot control".  And unfortunately you are quite correct.  The planet has a way of doing what it pleases, as does the sun, the magnetosphere and other such cosmic entitities that dont really care what we do, and dont care when we die off.

However, it would be quite nice and thoughtful that if the natural destructive geoglacial cycles were to resume in a few thousand years from now, that we could at least not fuck things up BEFORE then?  You know, focus on finding solutions to the problems that will hit us hard one day.



> See, that's exactly the sort of confirmation bias that allows things like this to continue. I've read the thread. I am aware of all the science involved.
> When data supports your conclusion, it's "evidence." When data doesn't support your conclusion, it's "dodgy."
> That's absolutely antithetical to the very core of science. Every data source, every experiment should be collected and performed with the intent to *disprove* a hypothesis. The scientific method is skeptical by design. And yet somehow we have this cult that believes that any assault on a hypothesis should be met with lashing out and ridiculing dissenters (not saying you personally, but in general.)
> 
> One graph is not the point. The point is that the cherry picked data from the last hundred years shows a rise that doesn't tell the entire story. Zoom out to include other (also proven scientifically sound) more long term studies of tree core sampling, ice core sampling, and geological evidence, and you see that the rise we are experiencing now has nothing to do with human intervention, as the cycle has been going on for millennia. A myopic view of climate change is not science. A true scientist would seek to put the data in context with the bigger picture before determining a causal relationship.



The irony.  You say that science is benefitted by a skeptical view and that it is myopic to ignore the data.  The data has not been ignored and the vast majority (even from companies like Exon in the 70's) understand that the climate is accelerating faster now than it has done for centuries and that humans are the 'likely' contributor to that model.  Just because there are one or two outliers, does not make it a worthy debate.  

Also, the EPICA graph has errors due to compaction of ice and CO2 being 'squeezed' out.  Article here to explain:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

NASA (or is it the man ands this is all false news?)

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What Exxon knew.....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Notably - they also spent millions to debunk the science.  Obviously - it still has a knock on effect and many people still doubt the science because (like Bob Dole who claimed milk was a carcinogen just like tobacco) powerful American lobbies make the masses confused.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ge-deniers-even-exxon-s-ceo-has-abandoned-you

And it is so amusing that people think those ultra rich corporations who rely on the product which is at the forefront of the cause of warming are telling you the truth.

One fucking word for those that haven't learned the lesons of the past.  Tobacco.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

qubit said:


> Most scientists in the world agree that climate change is real - that "consensus" they keep talking about on the news. I've seen enough climate change (and especially warming) in the time I've lived on this planet and looked at various articles over time that I tend to believe them now. My worry was that the science was corrupted by vested interests, but it doesn't look like that's the case. In short, I was somewhat skeptical when I first started this thread almost 2 years ago, but not anymore.



You've seen enough global warming in the time you've lived on the planet...? So you've noticed >1 degree Celsius change in global average temperature over your lifetime?


----------



## qubit (Jun 12, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> You've seen enough global warming in the time you've lived on the planet...? So you've noticed >1 degree Celsius change in global average temperature over your lifetime?


haha, very funny. There have been so many "unseasonally" warm periods in the weather reports lately that it's not just my subjective impression that it feels warmer overall where I live in sunny Blighty. And all those extreme weather events that seem to be getting more frequent lately.

Also, you can't conveniently ignore the other bit I said about seeing the evidence for it.

Look, if you wanna be a climate change denier, be my guest. Heck, Trump is so you must be right, lol.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 12, 2017)

qubit said:


> haha, very funny. There have been so many "unseasonally" warm periods in the weather reports lately that it's not just my subjective impression that it feels warmer overall where I live in sunny Blighty. And all those extreme weather events that seem to be getting more frequent lately.
> 
> Also, you can't conveniently ignore the other bit I said about seeing the evidence for it.
> 
> Look, if you wanna be a climate change denier, be my guest. Heck, Trump is so you must be right, lol.


I'd like to apologize to others living on the planet, who weren't able to affect the recent election in the United States of Assholes, on behalf of any of those USAers who like to use #45* as an excuse for the way they behave, or the stances they take...


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

qubit said:


> haha, very funny. There have been so many "unseasonally" warm periods in the weather reports lately that it's not just my subjective impression that it feels warmer overall where I live in sunny Blighty. And all those extreme weather events that seem to be getting more frequent lately.
> 
> Also, you can't conveniently ignore the other bit I said about seeing the evidence for it.
> 
> Look, if you wanna be a climate change denier, be my guest. Heck, Trump is so you must be right, lol.



Well, the data says it's been >1 degree Celsius over your lifetime. So whether you've seen the evidence or not, you would not be able to feel a difference. Moreover, if we want to get anecdotal here, where i live it is currently 77 degrees Fahrenheit. The average for today in previous years is 92. So personal experiences are meaningless here. 

As for Trump, I am definitely not a supporter, and while I can understand your misconception I'd rather stay on topic here.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> We as temporal shit clingers on this rocky planet have the incapacity to realise beyond our own existence the damage we can add to that natural cycle.  Life is not permanent and we as a species are no different.  Your point is probably not a denial of global warming but is instead now framed in the position of, "what's it matter anyway - the planet has cycles we cannot control".  And unfortunately you are quite correct.  The planet has a way of doing what it pleases, as does the sun, the magnetosphere and other such cosmic entitities that dont really care what we do, and dont care when we die off.
> 
> However, it would be quite nice and thoughtful that if the natural destructive geoglacial cycles were to resume in a few thousand years from now, that we could at least not fuck things up BEFORE then?  You know, focus on finding solutions to the problems that will hit us hard one day.
> 
> ...



Oh I don't for a second believe that a corporation would tell a truth that doesn't fit their narrative. But that's also a good reason to be skeptical of global warming. There are plenty of people making lots of money off global warming scares.

My point isn't that we shouldn't fix a problem we are causing. My point is that the increase in temperatures we are experiencing fall perfectly in line with the natural cycles, therefore a causal relationship cannot be established.

The Epica graph is not the only one that shows the same temperature history. The article you cited doesn't say anything about errors in the temperature data, but rather casts into doubt on previous data that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, because it seems that the temperature drop happened before increases in CO2 levels.

The NASA data only shows CO2 levels, and makes the argument that CO2 levels result in higher temperatures without providing any temp data to compare to. Here, I'll help.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









Doesn't look like that huge spike in CO2 did much of anything to the temperature. Note that the quick "swings" in temperature get more wild closer to the present because we have more, and more accurate measurements, not because the temperature swings are more violent. As you can see, around 130,000 before present, global temps were higher with a lower CO2 level.

And none of that "graph is too far out to show the anomaly." Both graphs are on the same scale, and you can clearly see the jump in CO2 levels at the beginning (present) of the graph. There simply is no corresponding jump in temperature outside of the norm.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 12, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> You've seen enough global warming in the time you've lived on the planet...? So you've noticed >1 degree Celsius change in global average temperature over your lifetime?



Hell yes, but I'm in the pacific region where the el nino and el nina effects hammer us and we're the rough end of the average.

When I was a kid, the snowfall here was consistent and heavy in the winter.  Now, we're lucky to get any.



> Doesn't look like that huge spike in CO2 did much of anything to the temperature



Are we looking at the same graph?  The CO2 spikes correspond directly to the temp peaks.

Look at it, man:


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Hell yes, but I'm in the pacific region where the el nino and el nina effects hammer us and we're the rough end of the average.
> 
> When I was a kid, the snowfall here was consistent and heavy in the winter.  Now, we're lucky to get any.
> 
> ...



Yes, that's my point. The extreme spike in CO2 levels at present has not resulted in a correlation of a spike (above the normal cycle) in temperature.

Moreover, if you look at the raw data, the temperature spikes before CO2 spike occurs. So that in itself disproves a CO2-temp causal relationship (though it leaves the possibility that there is a temp-CO2 causal relationship.)


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 12, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> Yes, that's my point. The extreme spike in CO2 levels at present has not resulted in a correlation of a spike (above the normal cycle) in temperature.
> 
> Moreover, if you look at the raw data, the temperature spikes before CO2 spike occurs. So that in itself disproves a CO2-temp causal relationship (though it leaves the possibility that there is a temp-CO2 causal relationship.)



Even the overlay I did shows a degree of reactionary delay to the spikes (you can't see it because the x axis is offset in how I cheaply photoshopped it, move it a bit and you'd see my point).

In short, we probably won't see the consequences of our action for maybe 500 years.  By then, we'll be powerless to do anything.  I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be in that boat.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

Same graph for 50k years.











And 2k years






\


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Even the overlay I did shows a degree of reactionary delay to the spikes.



As I said, the reactionary delay is in the CO2 spikes, historically. The temperature spikes happen before the CO2 spikes, therefore there is no causal relationship. 

If it wasn't clear, those graphs are backwards, ie. the present is on the left side, and time goes backward as you go right. So even with your (by your own admission) bad overlay, you can see that the temp spikes happen first. So how exactly does CO2 cause temp spikes if the temp spikes happen first?


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 12, 2017)

...

Try reading somtheing that doesn't fit your narrative.

https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm

The weird as fucking shit thing is this:

1) If climate change isn't happening - thank fuck - we're not doomed.
2) If climate change is happening and we do nothing because of selective ignorance - we're fucked.erated warming

I said ages ago I would stop coming in here, not because I dont want to hear opposing opinions but because the opposing opinions are packed full of selective pseudo science.  Fact is that he massive (and I mean huge) majority of evidence backs accelerated warming, vast majority of scientists and governments and even the big fossil fuel companies admit it to an extent.

But still, people say no, it snowed here in May - the planets not getting hotter.

You can't fight ignorance - its why we still have terrorism.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 12, 2017)

Antarctica is impacted the least by human CO2 emissions because the bulk of the emissions are in the north hemisphere.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 12, 2017)

There are two conclusions I can garner from that (not listing them in preferential order, these are honest questions):

1.)  Science is wrong up to now, something else is causing the warming, but the same warming action is also effecting the CO2 level in some odd way.

2.)  Our method of measuring ancient CO2 levels is flawed.  I'm actually curious how we measure that, anyways?  I'm guessing via geology.  Maybe whatever we measure has a delayed impact and we are getting a delayed CO2 reading?  Now I'm curious.



the54thvoid said:


> ...
> 
> Try reading somtheing that doesn't fit your narrative.
> 
> ...



That's basically why I defer to those "in the know."  Selective science should be damned to the 6th level of hell.  I let people who actually spent a lifetime studying this do the thinking for me.  I don't claim to be an expert.  Beware those who do without credentials to prove it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 12, 2017)

1) Carbon-13 is the isotope that is growing and it is principally introduced to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.  Science is not wrong that CO2 is rising and it is largely caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.  That said, CH4 is rising too (not clear if because of larger animal populations for human consumption, thawing permafrost, something else, or a combination of all) and the impact of water vapor (clouds) have on climate models needs to be improved.

2) Antarctica CO2 sampling is done via ice cores.  As I said before, Antarctica is impacted the least by human activity because most of the human CO2 production is in the northern hemisphere.  So yeah, CO2 rising has a latent and averaging effect on Antarctica ice samples.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> ...
> 
> Try reading somtheing that doesn't fit your narrative.
> 
> ...




All of the global warming "science" and all of the justification and mental gymnastics that are done to support it, hinges on the answer to one question:

"Is there an anomalous increase in temperature that corresponds to an increase in human-caused CO2 emissions?"

The answer to that question is no, clearly illustrated by the fact that the current trend of increase in temperature is not anomalous, nor does it quantitatively correspond to increased human emissions. Therefore no amount of justification, whether it be ice levels, sea levels, or whatever else you want to measure, will make it so. 

That's the only thing that matters. If there is no anomalous warming, then global warming simply is not real. It can't get any simpler than that.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 12, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> All of the global warming "science" and all of the justification and mental gymnastics that are done to support it, hinges on the answer to one question:
> 
> "Is there an anomalous increase in temperature that corresponds to an increase in human-caused CO2 emissions?"
> 
> ...



As I pointed out, it's not so simple.  Our method of measuring CO2 needs to be evalauted before we can conclude that the model is completely flawed, as correlation between the two is clear, just maybe not as we initially observed it (the way it's presented, it looks more like high temps cause CO2).  We need to understand this system.  We also need to ensure our measurements are accurate and on target.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 12, 2017)

NOAA's sea surface temperature satellites disagree with you (1984-1998):



Slight cooling at the poles is caused by melting ice.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 12, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> NOAA's sea surface temperature satellites disagree with you (1984-1998):
> 
> 
> 
> Slight cooling at the poles is caused by melting ice.



I'm refering mostly to the measurements we are discussing which are thousands to hundreds of thousands of years old.  I'm assuming those satellites were not in operation then.

My most likely explanation is the (likely geologic) way we identify old CO2 levels is flawed and has a time delay.  But whatever it is, it warrants an explanation.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 12, 2017)

Satellite data obtained after 1984 was used to calibrate the ice core samples.

CO2 trapped in ice cores occurs at the time of freezing and it stays there until the ice is thawed.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 12, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Satellite data obtained after 1984 was used to calibrate the ice core samples.
> 
> CO2 trapped in ice cores occurs at the time of freezing and it stays there until the ice is thawed.



Interesting.

A lot of unanswered questions but I'm not nearly educated enough to answer them, nor do I want to dedicate my life to doing so, so I'm out.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 12, 2017)

I would like to publicly apologize for reopening this thread.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 12, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> As I pointed out, it's not so simple.  Our method of measuring CO2 needs to be evalauted before we can conclude that the model is completely flawed, as correlation between the two is clear, just maybe not as we initially observed it (the way it's presented, it looks more like high temps cause CO2).  We need to understand this system.  We also need to ensure our measurements are accurate and on target.



That I can agree with. If we did indeed find that our method of measuring either temperature or CO2 in history is flawed, then we would have to reevaluate the conclusion. I'm not denying that at all, and if that became the case then I would absolutely reexamine my stance. However, it is highly unscientific to put the cart before the horse and provide a conclusion first, then find data to support it while ignoring the data that doesn't. That alone is reason for me to be skeptical. We shouldn't say "Global warming is truth until we find out otherwise." On the contrary, good science demands every theory be considered false until proven true. We shouldn't deem that it's correct under the assumption that we will later find out that our data is flawed. 
And it IS that simple. The hypothesis is that human emissions are causing a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere which results in anomalous high temperatures. That statement is not supported by data, therefore it is scientifically false. The temperature changes experienced are not anomalous. They follow the same pattern that the earth has followed before humans even existed, much less emitted greenhouse gasses. The fact that historic temperature data is wholly ignored is enough for me personally to be skeptical of the conclusion, as it should be for any scientist. 



FordGT90Concept said:


> NOAA's sea surface temperature satellites disagree with you (1984-1998):
> 
> 
> 
> Slight cooling at the poles is caused by melting ice.



Once again, we're talking about the scale of millennia. I do not in any way deny that there has been an increase in global temperature since humans began emitting quantities of CO2. Global temperatures have indeed risen. There is no doubt about that. The point is, these temperature changes are not *anomalous.* They are not unexpected, even given a complete absence of human intervention, and indeed even in the midst of human intervention still do not result in anomalous temperature change.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 13, 2017)

Alright I have returned just for you.

First off i'd like to start by saying my complaint about the time scales wasn't because it makes the data any more or less significant historically, it's because the changes are happening at such a rapid pace the resolution of the graph doesn't work properly. It becomes more obvious in the CO2 graph you posted later on mind you.

2nd, you need to realize that *CO2 is not a driver of climate change*. No scientist claimed it was, and that was never implied to be the case with global warming. The earths climate has many natural oscillations such as the PDO (pacific decadal oscillation), the AMD (Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation), and Milankovitch cycles (there are many more but these are 3 main players in temperature variation). The reason i'm telling you this is because implying that there isn't a relationship between a couple of graphs you posted earlier is simply not true, however the relationship isn't what you think it is.

CO2 behaves as an amplifier to global changes in temperature which causes larger swings in temperature than the above mentioned cycles would achieve on their own. When the earth warms from a Milankovitch cycle it causes a series of positive (and some negative) feedback loops to take place, one of which is CO2 being released from being locked away in permafrost.

I'm going to let you learn about that process first before posting anything else. At this point it appears to me that you fail to understand even the most simple principals of climate change or why CO2 is expected to follow temperature rise.


----------



## Boosnie (Jun 13, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> Yes, that's my point. The extreme spike in CO2 levels at present has not resulted in a correlation of a spike (above the normal cycle) in temperature.
> 
> Moreover, if you look at the raw data, the temperature spikes before CO2 spike occurs. So that in itself disproves a CO2-temp causal relationship (though it leaves the possibility that there is a temp-CO2 causal relationship.)



Ok wait.
So you think that the increase of greenhouse gases must immediately generate a global spike in temperature?
Let me be more clear, just for the two of us be on the same level: when you close the windows in a 2000sqf room you expect the average temperature of the room to rise immediately to that day sun output?
Fine scientist you are.

BTW, you can't take a graph that correlates 2 variables in a many variables system and then say "Here! See!? NO CAUSATION AT ALL!! There, up the ass climatologists!"

There are several basic and advanced principles, motions, interactions and speeds to take into account.
Such as earth tilt and orbit, oceans thermal capability, ice surface albedo, forested surface etc etc.

Nitpicking a graph and shout "AHA!" is not very helpful in any way.

One thing one can surely extrapolate from those graphs and from the last century of recordings, is that after a low in temp, there are several thousand years of steady rise, capping in a 6 or 5 degree celsious increase. Over 5.000 years.
In the last century alone, with the sun seemingly going thowards an historically low activity phase, the global mean temperature rose 0.9 degrees.

That's the only point a discussion in a forum can establish for sure based on the actual evidence.

A graph is no evidence, otherwise we can accurately state that importing lemon from Mexico saves US drivers from certain death.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 13, 2017)

Boosnie said:


> otherwise we can accurately state that importing lemon from Mexico saves US drivers from certain death.








Pull over Carefully to avoid Tailgaters and buy your Mexican Lemonade


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 13, 2017)

magibeg said:


> Alright I have returned just for you.
> 
> First off i'd like to start by saying my complaint about the time scales wasn't because it makes the data any more or less significant historically, it's because the changes are happening at such a rapid pace the resolution of the graph doesn't work properly. It becomes more obvious in the CO2 graph you posted later on mind you.
> 
> ...



I'm just going to ignore your patronizing and focus on a couple of pieces.
"2nd, you need to realize that *CO2 is not a driver of climate change*. No scientist claimed it was."
That is simply not true, and you know it. The main cause cited is always human emissions of CO2 (among other gasses to a lesser extent.) A quick google search is enough to disprove that statement right there. Moreover, your own statements say that you don't believe that. You're arguing semantics. What is the difference between saying that CO2 is a driver of climate change, and saying that CO2 is the driver of amplification of climate change? We all agree here that the earth follows natural cycles, so when we say that CO2 is the driver of climate change, obviously we are talking about the change to those cycles, and the amplification of those cycles as you said. On top of that, you said yourself that CO2 release is a natural part of those cycles. We aren't arguing about whether those cycles exist. We are arguing about whether human emissions have had a relevant effect on them. That is the main talking point in "global warming." Nobody here is going to deny that climate change does happen. We're talking about the human effect. That is what is up for debate.

The truth however, is that there is simply no amplification of those cycles due to human intervention. The data shows that. Wider swings in temperature were experienced long before humans started emitting CO2. And that is the crux of the issue. Not whether climate change does happen (as it obviously does) but rather does human intervention have any effect. The data says no.

As for the resolution of the graphs, that is absolutely my point. On a time scale long enough to see the climate cycles of the earth, the current trend towards hotter temperatures is insignificant, and not anomalous. The fact that you can't see it on a longer time scale IS THE POINT. If you cherry pick data from the present and present it on a shorter timescale, it become significant and anomalous, yes. But that is the point. If you zoom in further, say to six months, temperatures will have skyrocketed by tens of degrees! (at least in the northern hemisphere) We're all doomed!
But that doesn't tell the whole story does it?

Or lets put it another way: you say that the graph isn't high enough resolution to see the uptick. You're basically saying that the uptick is not statistically significant enough to be seen on the graph. Which means by proxy that the uptick is not an anomaly. We can see plenty of other swings on the 



Boosnie said:


> Ok wait.
> So you think that the increase of greenhouse gases must immediately generate a global spike in temperature?
> Let me be more clear, just for the two of us be on the same level: when you close the windows in a 2000sqf room you expect the average temperature of the room to rise immediately to that day sun output?
> Fine scientist you are.
> ...



You didn't read it all didya?

See, this is the type of sheep mentality that I'm talking about. The argument is always "this is too complicated for you to understand."
And see, the difference between my graphs and the lemons graph, is that no scientist has ever claimed that lemon imports are related to highway fatalities. But they HAVE claimed that CO2 emissions result in anomalous high global temperatures. And they've done so by zooming in the graphs to the point that it looks anomalous. If a scientist DID claim that lemon imports were related to highway fatalities, you'd call him a nut job. So why do climate scientists cherry picking data to make the graphs look scary get a pass?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2017)

Put simply, average temperature hasn't changed much between 0-1750 but it has increased significantly between 1750-now.  We know the output from the sun hasn't changed significantly which is Earth's primary energy source.  We know atmospheric levels of CO2, CH4, and high-altitude clouds have increased significantly--all three are greenhouse agents.  No change in energy input + significant change in Earth's ability to retain heat = elevated average temperatures (especially at night).  The diagnosis fits the symptoms.

At this point, what happened >2000 years ago really doesn't matter.  The high levels of CH4 and CO2 is unnatural.  The last time CO2 was this high (~410 ppm and growing) was when dinosaurs walked the Earth.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 13, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Put simply, average temperature hasn't changed much between 0-1750 but it has increased significantly between 1750-now.  We know the output from the sun hasn't changed significantly which is Earth's primary energy source.  We know atmospheric levels of CO2, CH4, and high-altitude clouds have increased significantly--all three are greenhouse agents.  No change in energy input + significant change in Earth's ability to retain heat = elevated average temperatures (especially at night).  The diagnosis fits the symptoms.
> 
> At this point, what happened >2000 years ago really doesn't matter.  The high levels of CH4 and CO2 is unnatural.  The last time CO2 was this high (~410 ppm and growing) was when dinosaurs walked the Earth.



But it does really matter. Because the earth has seen higher temperatures as part of its natural cycle without nearly as high a CO2 concentration. And our currently high CO2 concentration has not produced a significantly anomalous spike in temperature. Moreover, the idea that the temperature didn't change much from 0-1750 simply isn't true. See the last graph I posted. Around what looks like 1550-1600 the earth experienced a much higher spike in temperature than we are experiencing now, with no significant change in CO2. In fact the average global temperature is lower now than it was then. And though there is an upward trend in the last 100 years, it corresponds perfectly as normal with the rest of the data, regardless of the CO2 concentration.

The earth has experienced relative temperatures ranging between -2 and +1.5 degrees compared to present without any human intervention at all in the past 2000 years. And yet somehow the current rise of little more than half a degree in the last 100 years is somehow caused by human intervention? It simply makes no sense.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 13, 2017)

Guys, we do not have instruments accurate enough to judge changes in climate across 2 billion years... The question is, should we transfer all of our wealth to a small group of individuals who claim they are going to save the planet using carbon credits based on zero actual evidence, or do we simply go on living our lives and progressing slowly with tech advances that are making the earth a less dirty place?


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 13, 2017)

Easy Rhino said:


> Guys, we do not have instruments accurate enough to judge changes in climate across 2 billion years... The question is, should we transfer all of our wealth to a small group of individuals who claim they are going to save the planet using carbon credits based on zero actual evidence, or do we simply go on living our lives and progressing slowly with tech advances that are making the earth a less dirty place?


The problem is that too many people with the ability to change things are retarding and preventing those tech advances with the battlecry of "Fake Science", with the sole purpose of lining their pockets. Whether or not humankind is a major source of the temperature changes, or the CO2 does this, or the yen does that, the facts of oil and coal being "dirty" energy sources are indisputable, but too many people with power wouldn't make "enough" money allowing technology to shift away from those industries to "cleaner" ones, and so they do everything they can to prevent them. \

And honestly, your statement of "zero actual evidence" is indicative of that mindset.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 13, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> The problem is that too many people with the ability to change things are retarding and preventing those tech advances with the battlecry of "Fake Science", with the sole purpose of lining their pockets. Whether or not humankind is a major source of the temperature changes, or the CO2 does this, or the yen does that, the facts of oil and coal being "dirty" energy sources are indisputable, but too many people with power wouldn't make "enough" money allowing technology to shift away from those industries to "cleaner" ones, and so they do everything they can to prevent them. \
> 
> And honestly, your statement of "zero actual evidence" is indicative of that mindset.



Please provide me raw data points for temperatures taken during the rise of the Cro-Magnon. And there is no conspiracy to thwart tech advancements for renewable energies. If there were, Elon Musk would be out of business.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 13, 2017)

My wife actually worked for a development company in the late 90s/early naughts. They were working on a rechargeable battery which was lasting longer than the current rechargeables, and was destined for large cells for electric cars. The process was purchased, and the company rejoiced. Then they discovered the parent company several times removed was Exxon Mobile. The process never surfaced again that she, or any of the R&D group she still talks with, ever saw.

Anyone who believes that "dirty" power industries are rushing to support new, cheaper, cleaner energy at their own expense is part of the problem.

Also, your original quote said nothing of "Cro Magnon". Yet another issue of people with that mindset: change their statements based on responses.
"That house is white!" "No, it's just white on this side because I haven't finished painting it yet: the other sides are light blue" "That house was white 78 years ago! Disprove that! See?! Still right!"


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 13, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> The problem is that too many people with the ability to change things are retarding and preventing those tech advances with the battlecry of "Fake Science", with the sole purpose of lining their pockets. Whether or not humankind is a major source of the temperature changes, or the CO2 does this, or the yen does that, the facts of oil and coal being "dirty" energy sources are indisputable, but too many people with power wouldn't make "enough" money allowing technology to shift away from those industries to "cleaner" ones, and so they do everything they can to prevent them. \
> 
> And honestly, your statement of "zero actual evidence" is indicative of that mindset.


Coal is still by far and away the most economically viable source of energy. If clean tech were more economically viable, everything would have changed over by now, simply by virtue of greed. When old tech becomes less viable than new tech, industries shift to the new tech. Not before. So the question becomes "why?" Why should we change over to clean energy sources? Or more specifically, why should we pay MORE for clean tech? There has to be a reason. So the reason comes in the shape of a bogey man called global warming. The "conspiracy" is not on the side of old tech. Keeping old tech is the default, until something more viable comes along. The "conspiracy" is on the side of clean energy, which needs a reason other than being viable, in order for the new upstarts to take a slice of the pie.

And I don't want anyone to think I'm against clean energy advancements. I'm absolutely for them. I am, however, against using questionable science and scare tactics to push them. 

As for what @Easy Rhino said, I've provided the closest thing to real data we have about temperatures during the rise of the Cro-Magnon. It is definitely not as good as actually taking temperatures, but it's all we have. Few would contest the validity of the science behind the different measuring techniques scientists use to determine those temperatures. And those data points show that there is no anomalous rise in temperature.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 13, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> My wife actually worked for a development company in the late 90s/early naughts. They were working on a rechargeable battery which was lasting longer than the current rechargeables, and was destined for large cells for electric cars. The process was purchased, and the company rejoiced. Then they discovered the parent company several times removed was Exxon Mobile. The process never surfaced again that she, or any of the R&D group she still talks with, ever saw.
> 
> Anyone who believes that "dirty" power industries are rushing to support new, cheaper, cleaner energy at their own expense is part of the problem.
> 
> ...



You have still not provided RAW data points for the period in question. My original statement is clear. We lack instrumentation accurate enough to come to any real conclusion on climate change. So unless you can provide said data any argument made today using data from the past 100 years is irrelevant given the age of the earth. 

Also, battery technology has vastly improved since the 90s rendering your conspiracy theory debunked.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 13, 2017)

Easy Rhino said:


> You have still not provided RAW data points for the period in question. My original statement is clear. We lack instrumentation accurate enough to come to any real conclusion on climate change. So unless you can provide said data any argument made today using data from the past 100 years is irrelevant given the age of the earth.
> 
> Also, battery technology has vastly improved since the 90s rendering your conspiracy theory debunked.


https://theconversation.com/the-thr...climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368
here's some facts for ya 
_
"The speed at which CO₂ is rising has no comparison in the recorded past. The fastest natural shifts out of ice ages saw CO₂ levels increase by around 35 parts per million (ppm) in 1,000 years. It might be hard to believe, but humans have emitted the equivalent amount in just the last 17 years._"

and no, my conspiracy fact is not "debunked" simply because battery technology has improved. It could have been improved faster if Exxon Mobile hadn't bought up a new technology.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 13, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> https://theconversation.com/the-thr...climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368
> here's some facts for ya
> _
> "The speed at which CO₂ is rising has no comparison in the recorded past. The fastest natural shifts out of ice ages saw CO₂ levels increase by around 35 parts per million (ppm) in 1,000 years. It might be hard to believe, but humans have emitted the equivalent amount in just the last 17 years._"
> ...



The article you linked does not contain RAW data from that time period. No such data exists. You do know that when they develop these theories they use more recent data and then develop an algorithm that seems to fit the trend, right? You do know that the cro-magnon man was unable to fathom the idea of a thermometer, right? So my point stands that all arguments using data today is irrelevant. So again my main argument stands. We do not have accurate instruments to draw a conclusion! 

"it could have improved faster" actually you do not know that. Again your theory is debunked. Going back through some of your other posts it seems you make some pretty big assumptions to form your opinions on things. I won't bother responding to you until you can show you have the ability to think at a higher level.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> Coal is still by far and away the most economically viable source of energy.


False, natural gas is presently the cheapest source of energy. Only geothermal is cheaper but limited availability.  Wind is cheaper only because of subsidies.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 13, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> False, natural gas is presently the cheapest source of energy.


http://www.computerworld.com/articl...e-cheapest-source-for-new-electric-power.html

"
_Last year, the average "levelized cost" or total cost of generating power from solar worldwide dropped 17% percent, onshore wind costs dropped 18% and offshore wind turbine power costs fell 28%, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).





Department of Energy
"Well, after the dramatic cost reductions of the past few years, unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world -- sometimes by a factor of two," Michael Liebreich, chairman of the Advisory Board at BNEF, said in the report._
"


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 13, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> https://theconversation.com/the-thr...climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368
> here's some facts for ya
> _
> "The speed at which CO₂ is rising has no comparison in the recorded past. The fastest natural shifts out of ice ages saw CO₂ levels increase by around 35 parts per million (ppm) in 1,000 years. It might be hard to believe, but humans have emitted the equivalent amount in just the last 17 years._"
> ...


 
What IS debunked however, is Magibeg's claim that no scientist has ever claimed that CO2 was the main factor in "global warming." So... thanks. 


FordGT90Concept said:


> False, natural gas is presently the cheapest source of energy.
> https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf



Not when considering the cost of creating and moving infrastructure. We do indeed use natural gas where it can be most cheaply retrofitted: residential (and to a lesser extent, commercial) heating.
Sure, it's cheaper by the unit so to speak. But I'm talking the whole picture. The cost and time before ROI are far higher for large scale energy production than coal, if for no other reason than that the infrastructure is already in place.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> http://www.computerworld.com/article/3190409/sustainable-it/unsubsidized-wind-and-solar-now-the-cheapest-source-for-new-electric-power.html
> 
> "
> _Last year, the average "levelized cost" or total cost of generating power from solar worldwide dropped 17% percent, onshore wind costs dropped 18% and offshore wind turbine power costs fell 28%, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
> ...


DoE's Levelized Costs include Solar - PV and Solar - Thermal.  They disappoint and that's not going to change.  Reason: DoE considers the cost of producing power 24/7.  Solar creates a massive hole.



Papahyooie said:


> Not when considering the cost of creating and moving infrastructure. We do indeed use natural gas where it can be most cheaply retrofitted: residential (and to a lesser extent, commercial) heating.
> Sure, it's cheaper by the unit so to speak. But I'm talking the whole picture. The cost and time before ROI are far higher for large scale energy production than coal, if for no other reason than that the infrastructure is already in place.


DoE takes into account that as well (transmission costs).  It's about electricity generation strictly, not heating.  These guys:


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 13, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> DoE takes into account that as well (transmission costs).



Actually, I apologize. I didn't read your link before answering, as I was just reading articles about this very subject yesterday. Turns out you have newer information than I was reading. After skimming it, I see that the paper does indeed take that into account. I'll read the whole thing. If this is indeed true, it's great news!

EDIT: (except for the fact that the solar and wind crowd will still stir up the anti-fracking scares...)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2017)

Ehm, Does the production of natural gas from shales cause earthquakes? If so, how are the earthquakes related to these operations?


> To produce natural gas from shale formations, it is necessary to increase the interconnectedness of the pore space (permeability) of the shale so that the gas can flow through the rock mass and be extracted through production wells. This is usually done by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). Fracking causes extremely small earthquakes, but they are almost always too small to be a safety concern. In addition to natural gas, fracking fluids and salt water trapped in the same formation as the gas are returned to the surface. These wastewaters are frequently disposed of by injection into deep wells. *The injection of wastewater and salt water into the subsurface can cause earthquakes that are large enough to be felt and may cause damage.*


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 13, 2017)

I'm not sure about other places, but where I come from there is an entire industry dedicated to transporting and disposing of the waste water, that was a big boon for job growth for a long time. I'll have to ask around, but I'm almost certain they didn't just inject it back into wells. The wells they dug were filled in with sand (yet another transportation industry that sprung up.) I'm pretty sure they took the waste water to treatment plants.

Regardless, all of that is solvable. If natural gas has indeed surpassed coal for direct energy production, that's great news. The cleanliness and efficiency possibilities are far higher than coal... the problem has been the infrastructure cost.


----------



## Boosnie (Jun 14, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> Coal is still by far and away the most economically viable source of energy.



Where's the data about that?



> If clean tech were more economically viable, everything would have changed over by now, simply by virtue of greed.



What's exactly the machanism of greed? could you elaborate on that? Please, provide hard data as this is central to your beliefs of a climate change scam.
(please remember data is here not intended as a plot of two seemengly interacting variables. Thanks)



> When old tech becomes less viable than new tech, industries shift to the new tech. Not before.



In fact "The Industry"(what industry? which kind?) is never ever delaying new technologies to maximize the profit/investment ratio of the old ones. Expecially in those markets where a handful of companies share a single, global market.



> So the question becomes "why?" Why should we change over to clean energy sources? Or more specifically, why should we pay MORE for clean tech? There has to be a reason.



Why? why one would never ever be walking down the street without breathing a host of carcinogens and smelling the great smell of the past century?

[diesel exaust composition]




Why would one turn on the AC in his apartment knowing the majority of the energy is being produced a few feet over his head by a source he has already paid for for the next 20-30 yrs that use a kind of fuel that's not suceptible from scarcity, economic crisis, market fluctuation?
Why, knowing the basic fact that CO2 is venomous and contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect, one should ever want that the people who make decisions and regulations will look at the future as a better place than it is now?

And do we pay more?
Are we paying the majority of the investment in clean tech research? Nope, _The Industry_ is. Do we asked _The Industry_ for a shift in research in clean tech? nope, they did that because they knew all along that the time would have come that the shift was inevitable and they reacted. Go look where the biggest renewable projects are in costruction right now.



> So the reason comes in the shape of a bogey man called global warming. The "conspiracy" is not on the side of old tech. Keeping old tech is the default



So now is the old tech is the default and the greed mechanism is gone. This _The Industry _is very shady.



> until something more viable comes along. The "conspiracy" is on the side of clean energy, which needs a reason other than being viable, in order for the new upstarts to take a slice of the pie.



Oh, I see. We need something more viable for _The Industry, _not for the general wellness of the population.
You know, Renewable sources are cheaper than mining and burning, and require less maintainance. In fact, hydro power has been exploited as the first preferable energy source all around the world(set aside America where oil oligarcs have run the country since 1910). We know that burning coal is bad for everyone since the first British Industrial Revolution.

[RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: COST ANALYSIS SERIES: HYDROPOWER]




It's difficult to look at the actual data and see a conspiracy.
Surely is difficult to make assumptions without keeping up with the news; prices change over time when a new, better tech tries to replace a century old, everywhere present technology.

[Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis]





> And I don't want anyone to think I'm against clean energy advancements. I'm absolutely for them. I am, however, against using questionable science and scare tactics to push them.



Obviously you want not. One can not act against his own benefit and safety.

Unless...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 14, 2017)

Boosnie said:


> Why would one turn on the AC in his apartment knowing the majority of the energy is being produced a few feet over his head by a source he has already paid for for the next 20-30 yrs that use a kind of fuel that's not suceptible from scarcity, economic crisis, market fluctuation?


Because no AC is hell, especially in the central/eastern continental USA.  Not concerned about what is happening 20-30 years down the road when we feel like we're dying today.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 14, 2017)

Boosnie said:


> Where's the data about that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


- Where's the data about that?
On google. 
As already said, the information I had was older than what Ford posted, so that statement may be incorrect. I've already addressed that.

-What's exactly the machanism of greed? could you elaborate on that? Please, provide hard data as this is central to your beliefs of a climate change scam.
(please remember data is here not intended as a plot of two seemengly interacting variables. Thanks)

I'm not really sure greed has data points. Asking for data points for something that is simply a matter of logic is misdirection. On top of that, if you had read my post with an intent to understand rather than to rebut, you'd realize that I don't believe there is a scam at all. 

-In fact "The Industry"(what industry? which kind?) is never ever delaying new technologies to maximize the profit/investment ratio of the old ones. Expecially in those markets where a handful of companies share a single, global market.
Any industry. On the whole, industry resists changes in technology until a new technology shows a greater cost/benefit ratio (including the cost of building infrastructure, etc) than the old tech. It's why the military still uses weapons and radios that were invented in the 60's. It's why ATM's still use windows 3.1 or BSD or Windows XP. And it's why 40% of America's energy is still on coal. Coal has continuously shown to be more cost effective than a switch to newer alternatives. (As I said, that may not be the case in light of the information that Ford posted, which is very recent. 

-Why, knowing the basic fact that CO2 is venomous and contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect... 
Debatable. In fact we're debating it right here in this thread. Welcome. See a page or two back. You're out of your element, Donny. 

-And do we pay more?
Yes. If the plant producing your energy switched from coal to natural gas, you would see a rise in energy costs until the plant was operating in the green (meaning it had achieved return on investment and was making a profit.) This could happen in several ways, i.e they might forgo a large increase in cost and settle for a longer ROI time in order to keep the market stable, or if the plant was part of a larger nationwide company the cost might be spread among customers in order to keep any one place from experiencing a large cost increase. Either way... it must be paid for, and the customer will pay it one way or another. 

-Are we paying the majority of the investment in clean tech research? Nope, _The Industry_ is. Do we asked _The Industry_ for a shift in research in clean tech? nope, they did that because they knew all along that the time would have come that the shift was inevitable and they reacted. Go look where the biggest renewable projects are in costruction right now.
I agree. They know that the shift is inevitable. But it won't shift until its cost feasible. That's just how business works. 

-It's difficult to look at the actual data and see a conspiracy.
As I said... I agree. I wasn't the one who posited there was one.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 15, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> I'm just going to ignore your patronizing and focus on a couple of pieces.
> "2nd, you need to realize that *CO2 is not a driver of climate change*. No scientist claimed it was."
> That is simply not true, and you know it. The main cause cited is always human emissions of CO2 (among other gasses to a lesser extent.) A quick google search is enough to disprove that statement right there. Moreover, your own statements say that you don't believe that. You're arguing semantics. What is the difference between saying that CO2 is a driver of climate change, and saying that CO2 is the driver of amplification of climate change? We all agree here that the earth follows natural cycles, so when we say that CO2 is the driver of climate change, obviously we are talking about the change to those cycles, and the amplification of those cycles as you said. On top of that, you said yourself that CO2 release is a natural part of those cycles. We aren't arguing about whether those cycles exist. We are arguing about whether human emissions have had a relevant effect on them. That is the main talking point in "global warming." Nobody here is going to deny that climate change does happen. We're talking about the human effect. That is what is up for debate.




CO2 isn't a driver of climate change, it is just part of a larger climate cycle. Historically CO2 increases react as an amplifier.

CO2 is however currently driving anthropogenic climate change in spite of other natural climate cycles that are currently taking place. This is not arguing semantics, this is a fundamental understanding of how climate works and the current issues with climate change today and why it's important. This process actually answers the rest of your paragraph.

If you wish to discuss if the current CO2 that is released is in fact man made or not, that is actually a simple matter of looking at carbon isotopes. So if you're willing to accept CO2 as a climate amplifier in this case, and knowing that CO2 is a very well studied gas with known properties, it shouldn't be hard to come to the same conclusion as nearly every scientist in that field of study.



Papahyooie said:


> The truth however, is that there is simply no amplification of those cycles due to human intervention. The data shows that. Wider swings in temperature were experienced long before humans started emitting CO2. And that is the crux of the issue. Not whether climate change does happen (as it obviously does) but rather does human intervention have any effect. The data says no.



Well the problem here is that you're using very localized data with your graphs as opposed to much more global temperature composites. Your 400~ year ago jump in temperature disappears for example once you equalize with more data points.









Papahyooie said:


> As for the resolution of the graphs, that is absolutely my point. On a time scale long enough to see the climate cycles of the earth, the current trend towards hotter temperatures is insignificant, and not anomalous. The fact that you can't see it on a longer time scale IS THE POINT. If you cherry pick data from the present and present it on a shorter timescale, it become significant and anomalous, yes. But that is the point. If you zoom in further, say to six months, temperatures will have skyrocketed by tens of degrees! (at least in the northern hemisphere) We're all doomed!
> But that doesn't tell the whole story does it?
> 
> Or lets put it another way: you say that the graph isn't high enough resolution to see the uptick. You're basically saying that the uptick is not statistically significant enough to be seen on the graph. Which means by proxy that the uptick is not an anomaly. We can see plenty of other swings on the



I don't feel you understood my point at all. If you're looking for drastic spikes of temperature you won't see it in long term graphs because it has a smoothing effectively applied to the data otherwise it would be a horrendously jagged mess that would be unreadable. A perfect example of this is even your CO2 graph that was posted earlier. If you were trusting the graph data you'd assume that CO2 levels would be at roughly 375ppm today, however we are closer to 407ppm. Your graph is not adequate to show the severity of the rapid changes taking place.



Papahyooie said:


> You didn't read it all didya?
> 
> See, this is the type of sheep mentality that I'm talking about. The argument is always "this is too complicated for you to understand."
> And see, the difference between my graphs and the lemons graph, is that no scientist has ever claimed that lemon imports are related to highway fatalities. But they HAVE claimed that CO2 emissions result in anomalous high global temperatures. And they've done so by zooming in the graphs to the point that it looks anomalous. If a scientist DID claim that lemon imports were related to highway fatalities, you'd call him a nut job. So why do climate scientists cherry picking data to make the graphs look scary get a pass?



As some members may vouch who I have discussed topics with in the past, i absolutely read everything.

As far as cherry picking data goes, you're the one selecting graphs that don't accurately display the information, or don't display relevant information to the argument at hand (such as choosing localized data points).


I'm going to throw an edit down here because I don't feel you have a full understanding of "why" humans are considered to be a cause of global warming.

-Global temperatures appear to be rising
-The upper atmosphere is cooling
-The amount of energy the earth has been getting from the sun hasn't changed significantly
-The amount of energy leaving the earth has been dropping at the specific wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

And that is essentially the TL;DR argument for man made global warming.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 15, 2017)

Easy Rhino said:


> Guys, we do not have instruments accurate enough to judge changes in climate across 2 billion years...



That's highly debatable.  I'm pretty sure geologic samples and frozen ice, as mentioned, is very measurable.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 15, 2017)

Coming from someone who did geology and climatology at university, the further we go back beyond about 500 million years ago, the harder it is to get data which is reliable for the temperatures and CO2 concentrations experienced by the planet, mostly due to the fragmentation, damage (metamorphic alteration etc) and destruction of the rock record, there is also a much more limited set of proxies that can be used to collect the data. Once we have the Cambrian explosion it becomes easier as there is a lot more carbonate formation which can be readily used to estimate temperatures. 

We have very good records from foraminifera for the last 10 million years and that record is getting more complete for the last 60 million years thanks to the ocean drilling projects and alike sampling the sea floor mud. All these records are showing that we have or almost have the highest CO2 levels in the last 50 million years and if that doesn't rate as significant, then I have no idea what does.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 15, 2017)

Easy Rhino said:


> Please provide me raw data points for temperatures taken during the rise of the Cro-Magnon. And there is no conspiracy to thwart tech advancements for renewable energies. If there were, Elon Musk would be out of business.



Renewable energy techs have been heavily delayed on a worldwide scale for the past 30-40 years at least, through constant lobbying and geopolitical nonsense. Its not a conspiracy, its just lots of people and countries with power that like to make money. In the exact same way Trump is now pushing for Coal and shit, he needs to create jobs and does something that worked well 30 years ago, meanwhile the world is past that and everyone frowns at his idea.

The only reason Elon Musk is now popular is because people can make money off renewable tech, and even the big corporations are invested in it in some way. Power has moved towards renewable energy, and businesses now don't want to miss out on the hype that surrounds it.

It never is, and it never was idealism or 'doing what is right', it is always about power and money. Regardless, the change still is too slow. Take a good look at Shell's business decisions for one, and how they chime on about renewable energy towards the public, but have kept expanding fossil fuel ventures worldwide over the past few dozens of years. The hypocrisy is literally unlimited.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 15, 2017)

magibeg said:


> As some members may vouch who I have discussed topics with in the past, i absolutely read everything.



We've already had this same discussion, you and I, several years ago on GN. And I absolutely beg to differ that you read everything, as evidenced by the fact that you apparently didn't read the quote to which I was replying when I said "You didn't read it all didya?" That wasn't aimed at you.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 17, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> We've already had this same discussion, you and I, several years ago on GN. And I absolutely beg to differ that you read everything, as evidenced by the fact that you apparently didn't read the quote to which I was replying when I said "You didn't read it all didya?" That wasn't aimed at you.



I do read everything, unfortunately I simply quoted and read your response in the quote, which didn't show that you had quoted someone else to write that line. I also thoroughly encourage you to refute through research my points I made above.

I would especially like you to debate CO2 as a greenhouse gas or the variables that drive long term climate.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 18, 2017)

We already know how this is going to go. You're going to spout off all sorts of terms and figures of which the layman has no understanding. Which is fine, because the layman generally has no understanding of much of science in general. But you're going to use them to call me ignorant. You always do. Which is, in a way, true. I have no doubt that you have more knowledge of the justifications of global warming. But here's my point: It doesn't matter how you come to your conclusion. Because your conclusion is wrong. The reason the spike doesn't show up on my graph is not because of the time resolution of the graph. The reason is that <1 degree Celsius over 100 years is insignificant enough to be completely irrelevant when the graph shows natural swings of 3.5 degrees C over roughly the same amount of time, and swings of upwards of 16 degrees over much longer time periods. 
So I don't really care to debate about the hows and whys, when the IF doesn't even hold water. Let's completely get rid of the graphs, bypass all the resolution and smoothing nonsense and take the raw data points. A climb of .5 degrees Celsius is not anomalous in any way. It is in fact to be expected considering we are in a natural warming period. There is simply no compelling reason to believe that the Earth is warming faster than it should. So until I see some actual raw data that either says the earth is warmer than we think it is (it isn't) or that our methods of measuring past temperatures through proxies are faulty (possible, but unlikely) then no, I don't want to debate the variables that drive long term climate change. Because the answer to that is "the Earth." I'm sure you could lose anybody, myself included, in all the complicated math that it surely took to come up with the hockey stick graph. But that's really my point. I need no justification for my viewpoint because it is evident already from the raw data. 
Fact: The Earth has experienced completely natural temperature changes that are more drastic than our current rate of change, with no human intervention. Therefore, there is no reason to ask why we are having an unusual period of warming. It is not unusual according to the data. To me, that's the end of discussion. But of course there's a whole industry out there that would love to justify putting the fossil fuel industry out of business. And seeing as how they can't make it on their own through merit of their effectiveness... bleeding hearts and government backing go a long way to getting people to adopt inferior technologies before they're ready.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 18, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> Fact: The Earth has experienced completely natural temperature changes that are more drastic than our current rate of change, with no human intervention. Therefore, there is no reason to ask why we are having an unusual period of warming. It is not unusual according to the data. To me, that's the end of discussion. But of course there's a whole industry out there that would love to justify putting the fossil fuel industry out of business. And seeing as how they can't make it on their own through merit of their effectiveness... bleeding hearts and government backing go a long way to getting people to adopt inferior technologies before they're ready.


I'd like to see some evidence for your claims that the earth has seen such rapid temperature changes in the past, because nobody here is claiming that the earth hasn't seen 0.5 degree changes in the climate in the past, it is the rapidity and the fact that we are continuing at add additional CO2 into the atmosphere to amplify the warming (and thus the rate of temperature change) that is important here. If nothing is done, the rate of warming we are currently seeing will push us well past the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum which is the hottest the planet has been since the dinosaurs became extinct. If you think that isn't important, then maybe look at how much the glaciers have already retreated globally and how much sea ice has been lost in the arctic. 



Spoiler: Relevant video for your beliefs


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 19, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> I'd like to see some evidence for your claims that the earth has seen such rapid temperature changes in the past, because nobody here is claiming that the earth hasn't seen 0.5 degree changes in the climate in the past, it is the rapidity and the fact that we are continuing at add additional CO2 into the atmosphere to amplify the warming (and thus the rate of temperature change) that is important here. If nothing is done, the rate of warming we are currently seeing will push us well past the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum which is the hottest the planet has been since the dinosaurs became extinct. If you think that isn't important, then maybe look at how much the glaciers have already retreated globally and how much sea ice has been lost in the arctic.


Read the thread.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> Fact: The Earth has experienced completely natural temperature changes that are more drastic than our current rate of change, with no human intervention. Therefore, there is no reason to ask why we are having an unusual period of warming. It is not unusual according to the data. To me, that's the end of discussion. But of course there's a whole industry out there that would love to justify putting the fossil fuel industry out of business. And seeing as how they can't make it on their own through merit of their effectiveness... bleeding hearts and government backing go a long way to getting people to adopt inferior technologies before they're ready.


They usually involved something catastrophic like an asteroid colliding with the Earth or a super-volcano erupting.  There's been nothing of the sort in the past 100 years.  Imagine if Yellowstone decided to erupt tomorrow.  That's a recipe for a mass extinction event.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 19, 2017)

Why people argue about something they have little knowledge of against people who spend their lives following evidence will forever dumbfound me.


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 19, 2017)

jmcslob said:


> Why people argue about something they have little knowledge of against people who spend their lives following evidence will forever dumbfound me.


Sometimes an outside perspective brings clarity to what can be an issue clouded with preconceived concepts and incorrect teachings.


----------



## qubit (Jun 19, 2017)

jmcslob said:


> Why people argue about something they have little knowledge of against people who spend their lives following evidence will forever dumbfound me.


I'm sorry, but how can you possibly say that facts and the scientific method Trump delusions, bias and truther conspiracy theories?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 19, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> Sometimes an outside perspective brings clarity to what can be an issue clouded with preconceived concepts and incorrect teachings.


That's a great point...
It's not the case here but a great point none the less...or is it... touche


----------



## Boosnie (Jun 19, 2017)

Oh, The Irony








https://arstechnica.com/business/20...useum-is-installing-solar-panels-on-its-roof/


----------



## qubit (Jun 19, 2017)

Boosnie said:


> Oh, The Irony
> 
> View attachment 89209
> 
> ...


Oh fuck that's funny.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2017)

Cost a lot more than $8k to install.


----------



## Derek12 (Jun 19, 2017)

And we didn't went to the moon 
And vaccines cause autism 
And the cure of cancer was discovered but Big Pharma is hiding it.
And the earth is flat.
Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere.
I won't buy them.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 19, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They usually involved something catastrophic like an asteroid colliding with the Earth or a super-volcano erupting.  There's been nothing of the sort in the past 100 years.  Imagine if Yellowstone decided to erupt tomorrow.  That's a recipe for a mass extinction event.



That simply isn't true. There wasn't such an event at every up and down swing of the global temperature. It has happened on schedule for millions of years. If such an event were responsible for every swing to the top and bottom limit, life would have never evolved to the point it has. 



jmcslob said:


> Why people argue about something they have little knowledge of against people who spend their lives following evidence will forever dumbfound me.



Once again, that's the mentality I'm talking about. The "evidence" can be seen to be manipulations just by looking at my first post in this thread (post number #1337, which I believe to be appropriate). Anybody can take any slice of the historical temperature data and make it look like the sky is falling. Sure, I'm mostly a layman. I understand that there are definitely people smarter than me, and more knowledgeable on the subject. But I don't find it unwise to look at the data for oneself. What I posted is raw data points (gathered through proxy, sure) with no adjustments. It doesn't vibe with the "official" story. So it is not foolish to question, instead of blindly following the "smart people" because they said so. 

The official story says that the earth is warming at an alarming and anomalous rate. The data shows that it is not anomalous at all (as long as you take in enough data points over a long enough time period instead of taking a single slice.) So who is foolish? The man who questions it? Or the man who follows the line "Trust me because you're not smart enough to understand" ?


----------



## Steevo (Jun 19, 2017)

I'm all for improvements, but lets not mistake action for production, if we took all the coal power offline today society would fall apart by tomorrow. 

There is no "renewable" today that can replace coal directly or as efficiently except nuclear, and people are scared of that boogeyman because they are stupid. I'm not going to say that we are the most enlightened board on the internet, but as a whole we sure are a bit above the curve, but lets just stop for a few minutes and think of someone we all know who is average, and realize that half of humanity is dumber than they are. They vote, they breed (usually more than intellectuals) and generally fuck up the planet and their trailer.

Irregardless of what we do today, we are tied to carbon and only where we are due to mastering it like our ancestors mastered fire as a condensed energy source. There is simply no way that we are going to change in time, so our next efforts shouldn't be on "the sky is falling" but on what do we do about a hundred years of carbon emissions? Where do we want to be in the next 100 years as far as space travel, technology? Who cares.... all that requires more energy and realistically solar isn't going to get a plane from LA to NYC in a few hours, the energy is just not there. We need a energy breakthrough and solar, wind, and other green and feel good BS isn't it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> That simply isn't true. There wasn't such an event at every up and down swing of the global temperature. It has happened on schedule for millions of years. If such an event were responsible for every swing to the top and bottom limit, life would have never evolved to the point it has.


Temperature is not something one can measure back more than a few hundred years, only guesstimate based on life that was living in the area at the time as well as influencers like CO2, CH4, solar cycles, and so on.  On top of that, temperature is usually latent.  For example, a super volcano erupts, the Earth cools for years because of ash blocking out the sun then the temperature rises as the ash falls but the ejected greenhouse gases remain raising aggregate temperature.

The only temperature data that can be solidly relied on didn't start coming until after WWII.  Decent data was recorded starting around the American Civil War.


EPICA was an ice-core project which had a primary objective of building a record of CO2 data as well as using deuterium decay to guesstimate temperature.  The EPICA data suggests we should be in an ice age right now.  The opposite is true.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 19, 2017)

And there we have it folks. Confirmation bias at its finest. The scientists are all smarter than you, and their word is law and if you disagree you are an ignorant luddite.

... Except when the science (such as paleoclimatology) contradicts what you believe. Then it's not good enough and only a "guesstimate", even though pretty much the entire scientific community regards the proxy measurements used by paleoclimatologists as valid and reliable. But when you contradict the global warming conclusion, you're ridiculed because "pretty much the entire scientific community accepts it."

I shouldn't have bothered...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2017)

The observed average global temperatures rising along with observed rises in greenhouse gas have been taken by satellites over the past 30 years.  What happened before that tells us the trends we're seeing now is unnatural.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 19, 2017)

And the CO2 samples taken from ice and geological cores along with temperature data taken from tree ring and other samples have been recorded for millennia. And they say it's not unnatural. But if we're being honest, no matter how many times I say that, no matter what the data says, you'll dismiss it. So I'm wasting my time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2017)

Show me a source that claims as you do that isn't paid for by the oil/coal industry.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 19, 2017)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwj5pJOk68rUAhUT7GMKHVWZCbAQFghEMAM&url=http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFtA4bTgD7EDLqZcQCDnAibKHMdew&sig2=ZOHo9EyvqToWgm7Npbi05A

The danger of CO2 is the infrared absorption. However H2O is the primary greenhouse gas.

Still stands to reason, that until we get on nuclear base load all this squabbling means, and does exactly nothing. Solar is still a joke, sure it can help in some areas, but how about we tap the exhaust pipes from every step of the manufacturing process for solar and count that cost?

Aluminum frames, copper wiring, petro rubber insulation, silicon panel, tin, lead for solder, steel screws and racks to hold batteries, lithium, carbon, more petro plastics to hold the batteries, all the exhaust to bring them from all around the world.

Musk is a genius for milking carbon credits to the tune of billions in profit from taxes and then able to sell them like get out of jail free cards to VW and others.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 19, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Show me a source that claims as you do that isn't paid for by the oil/coal industry.


Show me one that I've posted here that was.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2017)

You've been posting graphs without understanding the significance of them.  That's why I'm asking you to provide a source that backs up your perspective.


Case in point.  Your post:


Papahyooie said:


> \


You claimed that second picture was meaningful, right?  That's from ice cores.  @magibeg retorted with this:


magibeg said:


> Well the problem here is that you're using very localized data with your graphs as opposed to much more global temperature composites. Your 400~ year ago jump in temperature disappears for example once you equalize with more data points.


Note the scales: 2000 years versus 600.  As he said, localized data isn't reliable for calculating global averages.  The ice core temps are in flux because temperatures are naturally in flux.  It's the average that matters in terms of climate.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 19, 2017)

We're just gonna go around and around in a circle aren't we? 

Yes, I absolutely note the scales. And that's my point. Considering ice cores are one of the few sources we DO have for long term temperature and CO2 content, I'd say they're pretty relevant.
I can take a small slice of data and ignore the rest to make it look like the sky is falling too (which magibeg and the world in general has done.) 



That doesn't mean it tells the whole picture. And yes, I realize that it's localized data... mostly because there aren't any ice cores in the middle of africa.... But those composited from ice cores and tree ring data show the same thing. 
Of course, we don't have tree ring data as far back as we have ice core data, so at a far back enough time period, ice core data is the ONLY thing we have, after even geologic evidence fails us. 

What you're essentially saying is that ice core data is not an acceptable proxy measure. The data obtained was calibrated to zero using modern global temperature. So as the global temperature rose and fell, it is to be expected that the ice data would show corresponding rise and fall (within reason, as locality is also a big factor, I agree. That's why smaller movement isn't taken as a significant factor.) So you're basically saying the usage of ice core data as a proxy is not scientific. Which is fine I suppose. But as I predicted, you're using selective reasoning to call me ignorant. I'm not "posting graphs without understanding the significance of them." I do understand their significance. If your qualm is with the fact that I didn't provide source citation, if you think it is false data, then google search ice core temp data and you will find the exact same graphs and where they came from. They are raw data points, not filtered through any normalization or modeling like the hockey stick graphs are. No predictions, no formulations. Raw data. 

Either way, I've already addressed every single one of these points several times. But by all means... continue to call my intelligence into question. That's how you win an argument after all, right?


----------



## magibeg (Jun 20, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> We're just gonna go around and around in a circle aren't we?
> 
> Yes, I absolutely note the scales. And that's my point. Considering ice cores are one of the few sources we DO have for long term temperature and CO2 content, I'd say they're pretty relevant.
> I can take a small slice of data and ignore the rest to make it look like the sky is falling too (which magibeg and the world in general has done.)
> ...



Alright I'm going to try to hold out an olive branch here and try to apply some perspective, I won't use graphs or fancy terminology.

In my view of the world everything can be quantified if you have knowledge and measurements of enough variables and many scientists also share that view, in many cases that is what drives them to become scientists in the first place. When looking at climate or weather what you really have is a really big puzzle with a lot of moving parts. So when you have data that swings up a certain number of degrees you have to remember that there needs to be a definitive reason why it happened because of conservation of energy.

A couple years ago we had a cool summer in north america and at least in my area, we had a bone chilling winter. Now the interesting thing about that is when you measured the temperature of the entire globe the earth had still warmed that year, but an entire continent was colder than usual! That's because the heat didn't disappear, it was located in Asia, the Arctic, Australia, numerous other places were scorching hot that offset the cooler than usual temperatures in north america due to a persistent high pressure system in the arctic that pushed cool air downward.

The Atlantic has been calmer than usual the past couple of years on the hurricane front, and many have speculated that it flies in the face of climate change where the belief is that more energy in the atmosphere means more powerful storms. As it turns out warmer water in the pacific affects trade winds that cause wind sheering to slice the top off of tropical depressions which prevents them from becoming more severe.

In the Antarctic there are many locations where despite warming temperatures there is an increase of snow fall and thickening of ice shelves. Dry air isn't very effective at holding moisture so warming the air (as long as it still stays below freezing) actually causes an increase in snow fall.

You might be wondering where I'm going with these statements. The point I am trying to make is that all changes occur for a reason, sometimes in unexpected ways. As ford touched on to some extent when you have a wild temperature swing there has to be a reason why such a swing exists. Given that we seem to have trouble agreeing on anything, I'd like you to at least get into a mindset of explanation. There is no international conspiracy collaborating for global warming, though i'm certain there are people looking to take advantage and misrepresent it, as there is on the other side where oil companies (though not anymore) claim it doesn't exist. The scientists are just looking for explanations which match their observations, and that explanation is global warming.

So when you show me changes in raw data, remember that each change needs to have a reason for why.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 20, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> What you're essentially saying is that ice core data is not an acceptable proxy measure.


Temperature is derived from deuterium proxy, not observed.  One reference point of data in a literal world of variables.  Climate is an average over time, over a large area.  EPICA is one sample at one location, performed over almost a decade analyzing about 700,000 years worth of ice.



Papahyooie said:


> They are raw data points, not filtered through any normalization or modeling like the hockey stick graphs are. No predictions, no formulations. Raw data.


In just the last century, atmospheric CO2 has increased approximately 51%.





Atmospheric CH4 has increased by approximately 157%.


----------



## qubit (Jun 21, 2017)

Global warming is a "myth" lol.

33.9C in the UK today, hottest for 40 years. Nothing cold about that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40353118


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 21, 2017)

Or never mind that last year was the hottest on record and the number of broken temperature records world wide was crazy, including a large number which had stood for a very long time.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 21, 2017)

qubit said:


> Global warming is a "myth" lol.
> 
> 33.9C in the UK today, hottest for 40 years. Nothing cold about that.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40353118





Nuckles56 said:


> Or never mind that last year was the hottest on record and the number of broken temperature records world wide was crazy, including a large number which had stood for a very long time.



I told myself I was going to let this go, but I'd just like to ask one last question... If a person comes in here and says "It snowed this winter in my town, and it hasn't done so in decades. Global warming is a lie" then the response will be "You don't understand climate science. Climate change can actually cause it to get colder in some places due to the extreme complexity of climate and weather patterns, you're just ignorant." 

But the above two statements, which are just as unscientific, get a pass. Wonder why that is. 

I'd also like to mention that both statements would also be true if the earth were on a natural warming cycle (it is) and there were no man-made warming.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 21, 2017)

When you have had the two hottest years on record back to back, you do have to wonder why that is, surely? I would expect if it was a natural process, most likely you would have 2015 as the hottest year on record and then 2016 as a cooler year, but lo and behold we have 2016 as an even hotter year.


----------



## bug (Jun 21, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> 14 August 1912 , Rodney and Otamatea Times


I'll see your newspaper and rise you mine: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html


----------



## Steevo (Jun 21, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> I told myself I was going to let this go, but I'd just like to ask one last question... If a person comes in here and says "It snowed this winter in my town, and it hasn't done so in decades. Global warming is a lie" then the response will be "You don't understand climate science. Climate change can actually cause it to get colder in some places due to the extreme complexity of climate and weather patterns, you're just ignorant."
> 
> But the above two statements, which are just as unscientific, get a pass. Wonder why that is.
> 
> I'd also like to mention that both statements would also be true if the earth were on a natural warming cycle (it is) and there were no man-made warming.




The thing is, I think they are blowing it out of proportion, but at the same time none of us have an exact idea of what higher CO2 in the atmosphere will do, there are so many factors in play that it's a waiting game. But when areas experience massive changes to their biome that has existed for thousands of years, and it's only started happening in the last 100......

The reason we would like the CO2 rise to stop is so we can get a good grip on how things are now, how they interact, what changes will come and be able to predict it instead of react to it.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 21, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> When you have had the two hottest years on record back to back, you do have to wonder why that is, surely? I would expect if it was a natural process, most likely you would have 2015 as the hottest year on record and then 2016 as a cooler year, but lo and behold we have 2016 as an even hotter year.



That doesn't even make any sense. The natural warming and cooling cycles are multiple thousands of years long, with smaller trends up and down in between. Nothing about the natural process would require subsequent years to alternate between hotter and cooler... 



bug said:


> I'll see your newspaper and rise you mine: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html



I don't know if it was in this thread or the one on GN, but long long ago, I mentioned the global cooling scares. If I recall correctly, both Ford and Magibeg denied any such claims ever existed.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 21, 2017)

Ice ages do not show up like clockwork. I find it incredibly dumb to draw a conclusion based of an event that happens at very large time scales and with little sample data , statistically speaking. Even at lesser time scales the climate is very difficult to predict. I am sure pollution applied an offset to these events but the error intervals we are dealing with are so huge it may not even matter. Approaching this matter with ultimatums such as "pollution will kill as all in 50 years" or "nope it has no effect , it's just a conspiracy" is just plain stupid and it shows how little most people actually know and understand.

CO2 and other gases being dumped in the atmosphere are very real and permanent thing however , the most important word here is *permanent. *And it sure as hell has an effect that is measurable. It dose not dictate climate change as a leading term as of yet in the grand scheme of things but it dose have a negative effect to us even right now.


----------



## bug (Jun 21, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Ice ages do not show up like clockwork. I find it incredibly dumb to draw a conclusion based of an event that happens at very large time scales and with little sample data , statistically speaking. Even at lesser time scales the climate is very difficult to predict. I am sure pollution applied an offset to these events but the error intervals we are dealing with are so huge it may not even matter. Approaching this matter with ultimatums such as "pollution will kill as all in 50 years" or "nope it has no effect , it's just a conspiracy" is just plain stupid and it shows how little most people actually know and understand.
> 
> CO2 and other gases being dumped in the atmosphere are very real and permanent thing however , the most important word here is *permanent. *And it sure as hell has an effect that is measurable. It dose not dictate climate change as a leading term as of yet in the grand scheme of things but it dose have a negative effect to us even right now.


Well, if the keyword is "permanent", then we're safe. Plants recycle CO2 for us 

(Joking, of course, because plants do not infinite capacity to do so. Yet CO2 is part of nature's cycle, releasing it is not permanent by any definition.)


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 21, 2017)

bug said:


> Well, if the keyword is "permanent", then we're safe. Plants recycle CO2 for us
> 
> (Joking, of course, because plants do not infinite capacity to do so. *Yet CO2 is part of nature's cycle, releasing it is not permanent by any definition*.)



Not the CO2 we release , that's not natural thats why I said is permanent  , plants absorb CO2 within certain limits like you said. At the same time forests are being cut down like mad , so pretty much all man-made emissions are continuously accumulating. And I don't see that changing  anytime soon.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 21, 2017)

Would it be wort having a list of names on the first page indicating what side (or not) everyone is on? Or would that be a complicated and needless thing to do?

I'm interested in the idea so that we can see if anyone sways from one side to another as a result of this 58 page debate.
Maybe a google doc would do well and link it up on the original page?


----------



## magibeg (Jun 22, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> That doesn't even make any sense. The natural warming and cooling cycles are multiple thousands of years long, with smaller trends up and down in between. Nothing about the natural process would require subsequent years to alternate between hotter and cooler...



When it comes to global temperature averages the jumps actually aren't very large year to year without an unexpected catalyst, however localized temperatures can have significant changes in those same time frames.... even entire continents. The graph in the article below shows a very consistent trend when looking at global averages.

http://www.popsci.com/climate-change-infographic-our-warming-planet




Papahyooie said:


> I don't know if it was in this thread or the one on GN, but long long ago, I mentioned the global cooling scares. If I recall correctly, both Ford and Magibeg denied any such claims ever existed.



That's because it was a media scare not a scientific one. During that time frame there was many more scientific articles talking about global warming than global cooling.

Go to page 8 to check:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Perhaps funnier still is that of the few peer reviewed articles talking about global warming, much of the discussion was that it was man made cooling due to the release of sulfur into the atmosphere from coal plants.

Also I take it you didn't like my olive branch?


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 28, 2017)

https://xkcd.com/1732/


----------



## qubit (Jun 28, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> https://xkcd.com/1732/


I'm sorry, but that steep temperature rise right at the bottom is inconvenient so I'll just ignore it.  Phew! I'm so glad that doing this keeps the world from warming!!!


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 28, 2017)

qubit said:


> I'm sorry, but that steep temperature rise right at the bottom is inconvenient so I'll just ignore it.  Phew! I'm so glad that doing this keeps the world from warming!!!


That seems perfectly reasonable, I don't know why anyone is worrying at all, we should finish burning all the fossil fuel reserves on the planet and completely deforest it all as well, who do these future generations think they are, believing that it should stay in the ground and that trees belong somewhere outside of movies and other electronic media


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 28, 2017)

"...paved paradise, put up a parking lot..."


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 28, 2017)

We countered his hard data with a webcomic! That'll show him!


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 28, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> We countered his hard data with a webcomic! That'll show him!


Oh heaven forbid, there's actually data to go with an image....

*Sources*
The image attributes climate data sources as "Shakun et al. (2012), Marcott et al. (2013), Annan and Hargreaves (2013), HadCRUT4, IPCC":


Shakun et al. (2012) - Nature, (pdf)
Marcott et al. (2013) - Science, (pdf)
Annan and Hargreaves (2013) - Climate of the Past (pdf)
HadCRUT4 - Official site
IPCC -Official site



 


really would hate to think that someone discounts facts because they're provided with pretty pictures. but then, I've seen worse in this thread alone...


----------



## Boosnie (Jun 29, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> We countered his hard data with a webcomic! That'll show him!



What hard data?
That correlational graph you post over and over?


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 29, 2017)

So, @Papahyooie, I see you online, and saw you on earlier in another thread... I've provided data for my webcomic. Anything to add? Or would you just like to concede that maybe there's something to this "warming" thing?


----------



## erocker (Jun 29, 2017)

So many years later and I'm still waiting on solutions to "global warming" from "political leaders" that doesn't involve money as the "solution". I trust science. I do not trust "scientists" paid by governments to show favorable results on the side of money redistribution to the governments for the cause.


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 29, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> https://xkcd.com/1732/


"Limits of this data:
Short warming or cooling spikes might be smoothed out. But only if they're small or brief enough".

Except for the latest one, of course, which "proves global warming is caused by human actions".  We can't smooth that spike out...or we'd have no proof of our point. Not only that. But if you look at it carefully, it clearly shows that the current temperature isn't significantly higher than it has been in the past at certain pre-industrial periods. What? Higher by maybe .2°C(if that's even to be believed). It's a gross representation of the facts at best. It's not actual data. It's a comic. Or basically a joke.

Try again.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 29, 2017)

Ahhzz said:


> So, @Papahyooie, I see you online, and saw you on earlier in another thread... I've provided data for my webcomic. Anything to add? Or would you just like to concede that maybe there's something to this "warming" thing?



|                                |
v That down there... v 



MrGenius said:


> "Limits of this data:
> Short warming or cooling spikes might be smoothed out. But only if they're small or brief enough".
> 
> Except for the latest one, of course, which "proves global warming is caused by human actions".  We can't smooth that spike out...or we'd have no proof of our point. Not only that. But if you look at it carefully, it clearly shows that the current temperature isn't significantly higher than it has been in the past at certain pre-industrial periods. What? Higher by maybe .2°C(if that's even to be believed). It's a gross representation of the facts at best. It's not actual data. It's a comic. Or basically a joke.
> ...



Basically, even if I provide HARD data, raw data points that have not been run through any sort of smoothing or computer model, you'll still pick the one that has been manipulated to fit a narrative. 
So there's really nothing I can do, is there? You've already made up your mind, and proven that you will ignore data that doesn't fit what you want to hear. 
Believe me, I'm not scared of your vastly superior intellect and unassailable scientific conclusions...
There's just not really any point in me participating in the conversation any longer, is there?


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 30, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> |                                |
> 
> There's just not really any point in me participating in the conversation any longer, is there?



That pretty much sums up this entire thread. There's noone here that will change their mind because of "fake data" from the other side.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 30, 2017)

erocker said:


> So many years later and I'm still waiting on solutions to "global warming" from "political leaders" that doesn't involve money as the "solution". I trust science. I do not trust "scientists" paid by governments to show favorable results on the side of money redistribution to the governments for the cause.


As much as I hate to admit it, CAFE worked.  Light duty, full size pickups a decade ago would never dream of hitting 20 mpg (unless diesel).  Today, most of them are 20+ highway.  Most new cars are 30+ mpg.  Baby diesels are starting to show up as options in pickups and turbocharged, smaller displacement engines are becoming the norm.  That said, this progress is also driven by customers because of the $4/gallon scare ~2009.  People know it's going to happen again, it's just a matter of when.

EPA putting incandescent bulb manufacturers out of business created a drive for CFL and LED lights which has reduced residential lighting power consumption.

Energy Star program has lead to the development of more power efficient furnaces, air conditioners, refrigerators, microwaves, TVs, and other appliances.  80plus (private, not government) has done the same for electronic power supplies.


On the power generation side of things, the wind subsidy programs have lead to power companies investing heavily in wind turbine installations around here. I think my power company has actually added all of their new capacity in the last decade in the form of wind.  That said, the low cost of natural gas has mostly driven to the transition to a cleaner grid.


Even though USA keeps growing. Energy demand has remained steady or fallen.  Sadly, it's not enough in terms of global surface temperatures but it's still baby steps towards a more eco-friendly economy.

I still think Freeman Dyson's path is the best the USA is going to manage (and did, as described above).


----------



## qubit (Jun 30, 2017)

erocker said:


> So many years later and I'm still waiting on solutions to "global warming" from "political leaders" that doesn't involve money as the "solution". *I trust science. I do not trust "scientists" paid by governments to show favorable results on the side of money redistribution to the governments for the cause.*


This is exactly what made me skeptical about global warming / climate change when I started this thread a couple of years ago. However, there's now clearly enough evidence that climate change isn't a myth which I've experienced myself and all those reports of extreme record this or that as well as the melting ice caps and more that has convinced me. Trump is truly a deluded moron for denying this, removing all the climate change stuff from the White House website and pulling out of the Paris agreement.


----------



## bug (Jun 30, 2017)

qubit said:


> This is exactly what made me skeptical about global warming / climate change when I started this thread a couple of years ago. However, *there's now clearly enough evidence that climate change isn't a myth* which I've experienced myself and all those reports of extreme record this or that as well as the melting ice caps and more that has convinced me. Trump is truly a deluded moron for denying this, removing all the climate change stuff from the White House website and pulling out of the Paris agreement.


I think you're looking at the wrong problem. The question was never _if_ the climate changes. The climate is always changing. The questions are whether the changes we're seeing now are caused by us and whether a warmer planet is actually a worse planet.


----------



## r9 (Jun 30, 2017)

I know I'm contributing for sure, just enter my mining room. lol


----------



## qubit (Jun 30, 2017)

bug said:


> I think you're looking at the wrong problem. The question was never _if_ the climate changes. The climate is always changing. The questions are whether the changes we're seeing now are caused by us and whether a warmer planet is actually a worse planet.


Yes, my point is that it's man-made, obviously. It's happening far too fast for it to be a natural cycle.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 30, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As much as I hate to admit it, CAFE worked.  Light duty, full size pickups a decade ago would never dream of hitting 20 mpg (unless diesel).  Today, most of them are 20+ highway.  Most new cars are 30+ mpg.  Baby diesels are starting to show up as options in pickups and turbocharged, smaller displacement engines are becoming the norm.  That said, this progress is also driven by customers because of the $4/gallon scare ~2009.  People know it's going to happen again, it's just a matter of when.
> 
> EPA putting incandescent bulb manufacturers out of business created a drive for CFL and LED lights which has reduced residential lighting power consumption.
> 
> ...



Someone I know had a client say last week "Man, I love my new SUV! Gets 44MPG!!"
She replied "Absolutely!!! Thanks Obama!!"
They walked away.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 30, 2017)

Bush and Obama both tightened the requirements.  Bush did most of the legal work because of a lawsuit levied against the government in 2006.

That said, did CAFE even matter? The price of fuel skyrocketing lead to increased demand for fuel efficiency, which caused a spike in sales of unibody (lighter) crossovers versus body-on-frame SUVs.  10 years ago the roads were ruled by body-on-frame SUVs.  Today, there's less than a dozen body-on-frame SUVs left.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 30, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> .....
> 
> That said, did CAFE even matter? ......


There will never be any way to know. We can speculate. Experts can speculate. Idiots _will_ speculate. We'll never know.


----------



## erocker (Jun 30, 2017)

qubit said:


> This is exactly what made me skeptical about global warming / climate change when I started this thread a couple of years ago. However, there's now clearly enough evidence that climate change isn't a myth which I've experienced myself and all those reports of extreme record this or that as well as the melting ice caps and more that has convinced me. Trump is truly a deluded moron for denying this, removing all the climate change stuff from the White House website and pulling out of the Paris agreement.


In my area Im experiencing cooler temps than normal. We dont use global warming anymore its climate change. You didn't even read over the Paris climate deal. Its not a deal at all. It's globalist tax/theft.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 30, 2017)

Remember the oceans: they take up 70% of the surface of the Earth.  It doesn't take much heating of the oceans to offset cooling on land.  This is why, at the beginning of the thread (referring to similar thread on the now-defunct General Nonsense), I was adamant that satellites are the key to temperatures.  Over the last decade, they confirmed what was observed over the decade before, and the decade before that: each warmer than the set before it.

The only climate change we've really seen so far is the receding of the northern ice cap.  The short term effect of that is cooling.  The long term effect is even more heat and higher ocean levels.  I don't think we've seen much in the way of actual climates changing yet that isn't arctic.  Climate change means significant changes in vegetation.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 1, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Remember the oceans: they take up 70% of the surface of the Earth.  It doesn't take much heating of the oceans to offset cooling on land.  This is why, at the beginning of the thread (referring to similar thread on the now-defunct General Nonsense), I was adamant that satellites are the key to temperatures.  Over the last decade, they confirmed what was observed over the decade before, and the decade before that: each warmer than the set before it.
> 
> The only climate change we've really seen so far is the receding of the northern ice cap.  The short term effect of that is cooling.  The long term effect is even more heat and higher ocean levels.  I don't think we've seen much in the way of actual climates changing yet that isn't arctic.  Climate change means significant changes in vegetation.



I think you'll find this news interesting then, just released within the past 24 hours:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998


----------



## qubit (Jul 1, 2017)

erocker said:


> In my area Im experiencing cooler temps than normal. We dont use global warming anymore its climate change. You didn't even read over the Paris climate deal. Its not a deal at all. It's globalist tax/theft.


I know they renamed it to climate change, but overall the planet is getting warmer, which is where the energy for these more extreme weather events is coming from.

You're right though, I haven't read the Paris climate deal and I'm not surprised that politicians are using climate change to foist various unnecessary austerity measures on the likes of us. I've seen this kind of crap in all these "green" policies being pushed out in England alone.

I'd have said that Trump may possibly have been right to pull out of it if he hadn't been such a climate change denier. However, wouldn't it be better to stay in and be part of the deal and use his influence to make it better for everyone?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 1, 2017)

I briefly looked at the Wikipedia page for it and it left a knot in my stomach.  It both doesn't really do anything except create a very large fund (not sure where the funds for it is coming from) and allow UN oversight of submitted, internal plans.  Why the knot?  It comes across me as something akin to a wiretap: UN oversight of government environmental policy.  I assume the funding comes from dues paid to the UN and the UN will use that position to dangle refunds over countries.  It makes a lot more sense for countries to take the initiative themselves and not pay foreign bureaucrats to dangle a carrot over their head.

I have no problems with Trump pulling out of it.  Hell, if UN took that money ($200 billion/year if memory serves) and put into fusion development...need I say more?  Technology is really the only permanent solution.  What good has bureaucracy done anyone?

It just strikes me as odd how USA is the only UN member to not be part of it.  My guess is that access to any of that $200b/yr is conditional on signing the agreement.  In other words, everyone (including Obama) was effectively bribed to participate.


Edit: I don't know if this is legit but it gives a strong impression that the Obama administration tried to hide how much USA paid the UN (2010-2016):
http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/EYEontheUN/un_101/facts/?p=15

Obama lost the election and a bill got passed in the 2016 lameduck session requiring the State Department to keep track of all money sent to the UN.  2014 estimate was $48 billion.  2017, so far, the State Department is failing to keep track of it.


2012 source: US paid 22% of UN's budget 2000~2015.

2009 source, but probably most credible: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/09/17/budget-believe-billion.html

Two major takeaways:
1) UN's budget process is more confusing than Congress's
2) USA is UN's sugar daddy (2007 budget vote was 142-1, that 1 "no" vote was USA under the Bush administration).


----------



## magibeg (Jul 2, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I briefly looked at the Wikipedia page for it and it left a knot in my stomach.  It both doesn't really do anything except create a very large fund (not sure where the funds for it is coming from) and allow UN oversight of submitted, internal plans.  Why the knot?  It comes across me as something akin to a wiretap: UN oversight of government environmental policy.  I assume the funding comes from dues paid to the UN and the UN will use that position to dangle refunds over countries.  It makes a lot more sense for countries to take the initiative themselves and not pay foreign bureaucrats to dangle a carrot over their head.
> 
> I have no problems with Trump pulling out of it.  Hell, if UN took that money ($200 billion/year if memory serves) and put into fusion development...need I say more?  Technology is really the only permanent solution.  What good has bureaucracy done anyone?
> 
> ...




I think you misunderstand the Paris climate agreement. It is a non-binding agreement with no enforceable requirements where countries come together to agree to attempt to do something for a common goal. It's essentially countries saying we have a problem and we should probably do something about it so i agree to try. It is more of a symbolic agreement which is why some complained that it didn't go far enough. The shock came where Trump backed out of an agreement that basically was just acknowledging that there was a problem, and it is to note he doesn't believe in climate change anyway so he is following his belief system.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 2, 2017)

magibeg said:


> ...no enforceable requirements...


Knowledge is power and the sharing of knowledge is binding.  More specifically, it empowers the UN to metaphorically look over governments' shoulders.  It's kind of like the difference between attacking someone outright versus telling someone "I'm going to attack you" but you won't know when, you won't know with what, and you won't know how.  It's a boogey man in the closet.  Whenever a signed government makes a policy decision, it no longer is about "what is best for me (which naturally includes environmental concerns)," it becomes "what is the United Nations going to approve?"  This is terrible path to follow.


That said, I agree: it would have been symbolic...for the USA.  USA generally doesn't care what the UN says and UN isn't really going to try to enforce anything on the USA because there goes a quarter of their funding.  Trump pulling just cements what would have happened in practice.

Countries like the Netherlands can't afford to pull out because they're literally underwater.  There's a lot of small coastal countries that can't either because they're convinced of a do-or-die situation.  The question is: do big players like China and Russia back out because of Trump?


Edit: Example of my first paragraph (and rolling back into the previous post):
http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/12/what-does-paris-agreement-mean-climate-resilience-and-adaptation


> The vast majority of national climate plans submitted in advance of Paris – known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) – included not only countries’ plans to reduce emissions, but also descriptions of their adaptation goals, priorities, actions and needs.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


$800 million by 2020.  USA only put about a billion into fusion research in 2008, by comparison:






I love bandages to stop bleeding but, there's this wonderful thing called technology, which has developed a gel that can stop bleeding almost immediately.  Fusion is the miracle cure for anthropomorphic global warming, yet we're investing in futile attempts to install pumps and raise levees instead of investing in a more permanent solution with far reaching positive consequences.

Case in point: Haiti used to be lush tropical forest but it is now relatively barren because people chopped down most of the trees to stay warm at night.  If we had fusion designs that were relatively compact and affordable, and other nations invested in setting them up in Haiti, those forests would still be standing.  Not only would that be better for Haitians, it would have also been better for removing carbon from (and other particulate matter) from the air.  Haiti is not a fringe case either: all developing nations require a growing amount of energy.  If no source of cheap, plentiful, reliable, green energy isn't available...there's always shit to burn (metaphorically and literally)...

A similar story could be told for Brazil and destruction of the Amazon forest in the name of planting corn to produce ethanol, to burn in their cars.  Don't get me wrong, corn is great for taking carbon out of the air but that soil can't maintain a good corn crop for many years without heavy use of chemical fertilizers.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 3, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Knowledge is power and the sharing of knowledge is binding.  More specifically, it empowers the UN to metaphorically look over governments' shoulders.  It's kind of like the difference between attacking someone outright versus telling someone "I'm going to attack you" but you won't know when, you won't know with what, and you won't know how.  It's a boogey man in the closet.  Whenever a signed government makes a policy decision, it no longer is about "what is best for me (which naturally includes environmental concerns)," it becomes "what is the United Nations going to approve?"  This is terrible path to follow.
> 
> 
> That said, I agree: it would have been symbolic...for the USA.  USA generally doesn't care what the UN says and UN isn't really going to try to enforce anything on the USA because there goes a quarter of their funding.  Trump pulling just cements what would have happened in practice.
> ...



I think as a Canadian I haven't a different view of the UN than most Americans. The US is a very powerful country and its participation in the UN feels like another form of soft power and global influence that the US can take advantage of (of course not always). Even the Paris Agreement was subject to significant US influence. Now granted soft power is something that is hard to calculate.

In terms of effects your DoD seems to consider climate change to be a very significant security challenge and while the US is a wealthy nation there will still be significant cost preparing coastal cities for the changes that appear to lie ahead.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Edit: Example of my first paragraph (and rolling back into the previous post):
> http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/12/what-does-paris-agreement-mean-climate-resilience-and-adaptation
> 
> $800 million by 2020.  USA only put about a billion into fusion research in 2008, by comparison:
> ...



Hey now, you know I have a soft spot for technology. I actually have no idea why fusion isn't being funded more, other than for political reasons, you'd think it would be an energy sector checkmate of sorts. I actually find my graph to be much more depressing than yours:


----------



## Steevo (Jul 7, 2017)

I can draw graphs about how I could make fusion if they gave me billions of dollars too. 

Fuck fusion for now, Fission with breeder reactors for base load, water purification and start a electric vehicle mandate for large cities and use batteries that idiots are trying to use with solar for grid power for vehicles instead. But nah, nothing will happen and people will keep arguing about the best band-aid for a mangled missing leg, butterfly, or clear....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 7, 2017)

With Westinghouse collapsing and NPPs shutting down all over the place in the USA, power companies don't have the stomach to build or expand NPPs.  Natural gas is too cheap and there's too many subsidies for wind to take a renewed risk on nuclear.

The smallest NPP in the nation (250MW) shutdown a few years back and it's going to cost them $1 billion to decommission it over many years.  It would cost more than that to build a new NPP and get it producing for the grid.  There's too many regulatory hurdles but without those hurdles, the facility could be unsafe/unprotected/vulnerable.  It's a lose-lose situation without a huge investment from the government to make nuclear attractive again.


----------



## qubit (Jul 7, 2017)

Steevo said:


> I can draw graphs about how I could make fusion if they gave me billions of dollars too.
> 
> Fuck fusion for now, Fission with breeder reactors for base load, water purification and start a electric vehicle mandate for large cities and use batteries that idiots are trying to use with solar for grid power for vehicles instead. But nah, nothing will happen and people will keep arguing about the best band-aid for a mangled missing leg, butterfly, or clear....





FordGT90Concept said:


> With Westinghouse collapsing and NPPs shutting down all over the place in the USA, power companies don't have the stomach to build or expand NPPs.  Natural gas is too cheap and there's too many subsidies for wind to take a renewed risk on nuclear.



It's such a big shame that NPPs aren't getting invested in. 

I read a good 7-8 years ago now in a science mag that the modern reactors are much cleaner and _waaay_ safer than the old ones so pose no threat. Also, we can find 100 years at least of storage space for the radioactive waste, at which point technology will have likely been developed to process it into something inert and no longer harmful. As usual, politics and egos fuck everything up.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 7, 2017)

Here's a whitepaper on what nuclear energy costs:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx


----------



## Steevo (Jul 7, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> With Westinghouse collapsing and NPPs shutting down all over the place in the USA, power companies don't have the stomach to build or expand NPPs.  Natural gas is too cheap and there's too many subsidies for wind to take a renewed risk on nuclear.
> 
> The smallest NPP in the nation (250MW) shutdown a few years back and it's going to cost them $1 billion to decommission it over many years.  It would cost more than that to build a new NPP and get it producing for the grid.  There's too many regulatory hurdles but without those hurdles, the facility could be unsafe/unprotected/vulnerable.  It's a lose-lose situation without a huge investment from the government to make nuclear attractive again.




The issue with decommissioning is the black magic boogeyman that idiots fear from nuclear, meaning that a lot of people would rather risk dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air than to let a nuclear plant near them, while holding a save the earth sign. Sure some parts of the plant will remain mildly radioactive for a few years, and some will remain slightly radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarapari meaning the beach could give the maximum 5 year dose allowed to Canadian/US nuclear workers in a couple months. Breeder reactors can reprocess "waste" on site. The radioactive parts can be stored underground, or in water for a few years and then recycled. We could be recycling waste from other plants for fuel. 

Think of a average person, then realize half of the population is dumber than they are, they believe things like the earth is flat, we haven't been to the moon, have no idea how electricity, magnetism, chemistry, or even fucking airplanes work. This is why nuclear power is such a big issue. Once the first Fusion accident happens and gruesome details of instant vaporization of everyone in close proximity, high energy ionizing radiation killing others close by is shown, people will fear it too. Look what happened with Fission in the early stages, it was going to do everything from power your car to make your coffee, and now.......


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 7, 2017)

Decommissioning is costly.  They have to disassemble all components that were exposed to radiation, evaluate them for contamination, then pay for their proper disposal which often includes transportation.  It's a long, costly process.  On top of that, they have to dispose of the spent fuel rods that are usually housed at the facility itself as well as all the contaminated fluids that kept these radioactive components cool (read: stable).

It's not a "boogeyman."  These costs are known even during construction of the facility but are increased through extension of planned lifespan as well as inflation.

"Few years?" Ha! Decades at minimum.  The fuel rods themselves are centuries at minimum.

Breeder reactors take mildly contaminated waste from typical nuclear reactors and make it much, much more radioactive while extracting a lot more energy from it in the process.  In short, you end up with less waste but that waste is far more dangerous. So why aren't there breeder reactors all over the place?  Because they produce plutonium which is fantastic for weaponization.  No one trusts anyone with access to a lot of breeder reactors.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 7, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Decommissioning is costly.  They have to disassemble all components that were exposed to radiation, evaluate them for contamination, then pay for their proper disposal which often includes transportation.  It's a long, costly process.  On top of that, they have to dispose of the spent fuel rods that are usually housed at the facility itself as well as all the contaminated fluids that kept these radioactive components cool (read: stable).
> 
> It's not a "boogeyman."  These costs are known even during construction of the facility but are increased through extension of planned lifespan as well as inflation.
> 
> ...




I was pointing out the radiation standards are a joke, and how the fear of radiation has caused those standards to be what they are. If realistic standards were implemented whats classified as nuclear waste would change significantly, cost of decommissioning would decrease substantially. 

Breeder reactors can be built and designed to generate enriched plutonium, or virtually none with some changes to the fuel matrix. But even the type or design that allows us to create enriched plutonium isn't that bad. On one hand we aren't going past our planet without Plutonium to power RTG's and the last few that we have used we actually had to buy the plutonium from Russia. http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/nasa-wants-to-stop-buying-russian-plutonium/ 
On the other, while we aren't in the cold war anymore, a few high power nuclear weapons to help deter small countries like Iran from building their own and nuking Israel or any nearby country isn't such a bad thing. Insane dictators usually don't respect "please don't do bad things to your people or ours" as much as "if you do this, we will nuke you and if you survive you will be the king of a sea of glass, and a army of skeletons"


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 7, 2017)

The problem with radiation is no specific amount is known to be safe.  It's more about mitigation of risk rather than elimination.

I don't think breeder reactors produce the plutonium suitable for RTGs.  The plutonium is too dirty which causes the containment to decay quickly.  Usually they take U-238, bombard it with neutrons to produce Pu-238 and then extract it while it is stable.  Breeder reactors for electricity generation will keep that Pu-238 in the reactor because it's producing heat that eventually drives the turbines.

Nuclear weapons are useless to all countries except those like Iran and North Korea that really couldn't care less what happens after the weapon is used in anger.  A country like the USA or Russia can't use them as a strike weapon: only in retaliation to a nuclear attack.

Even if a nuclear weapon isn't made from breeder reactor Pu-238, the material itself is dangerous if detonated with conventional explosives because it is extremely radioactive.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 7, 2017)

No known amount..... well, we all live in risk, and flying on a plane gives you a higher dose, as does laying on a beach, or lighting off fireworks....etc

But the radiation nuclear workers and others are expected to sustain is lower than that of coal workers and the public from radioactive elements being released from its combustion. So lets not squabble over semantics, a safe amount is far greater than what is allowed, and sure we are always trying to mitigate exposure and worse case scenario, but its unrealistic to expect a worker to receive less than an airline pilot.

Breeder reactors are exactly how Plutonium is made for these missions. Thus the name Breeder. https://neutronbytes.com/2017/03/05/nasa-re-starts-pu-238-production-at-two-sites/ Its just that the reactors use Neptunium to enrich specifically during a Fission reaction to increase yield, but again, reactor design can create or "burn" newly formed Plutonium depending on design. 

Nuclear weapons are useless against countries like Russia, France, China.... etc as its becomes a zero sum game. They are ONLY effective against smaller countries which cannot retaliate against a nuclear deterrent, the only question then becomes, what do they have to do for us or someone else to use a nuke? North Korea, if they launched an actual weapon against the US for example.... or China, or Korea. Or Palestine, lets say they finally got their hands on one and decided to use it against Israel, what then, you have a country where a large percent of the population feel that Jews are the enemy and are OK with their death.

Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki uninhabitable? Nope, higher power nuclear source means shorter half life and less dangerous byproducts. It would be worse for someone to use conventional explosives and elements with longer half lives. 

Also, Pepto Bismol emits Alpha particles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth-209 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth, as does Plutonium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238 , and Plutonium in non-critical mass can be shielded with a few sheets of paper or aluminum foil https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/docs/APP RPS Pu-238 FS 12-10-12.pdf " Shielding: Pu-238 decays by the alpha emission process,
and these alpha particles can be stopped by material as thin
as a sheet of paper. This greatly enhances radiation protection
safety. Other radioisotopes would require much greater (and
heavier) shielding to protect both the humans working on the
power source and its spacecraft on the ground before launch,
as well as the many radiation-sensitive electronic parts onboard
a spacecraft."
. HMWP are common shields in labs as they absorb the occasional neutron easily with no secondary decay effect.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 7, 2017)

Steevo said:


> But the radiation nuclear workers and others are expected to sustain is lower than that of coal workers and the public from radioactive elements being released from its combustion. So lets not squabble over semantics, a safe amount is far greater than what is allowed, and sure we are always trying to mitigate exposure and worse case scenario, but its unrealistic to expect a worker to receive less than an airline pilot.


Because radiation environments are kept clean purposefully to detect leaks.  Radiation from coal isn't going to escalate to lethal levels in a matter of hours; radiation from a purposeful source of radiation can.  Again, no one has been able to establish what exactly is "safe."  It's more about what is "normal" and "abnormal."  We also know that Acute Radiation Syndrome is real and that, at least in humans, ionizing radiation has the greatest and most immediate effect on the thyroid.



Steevo said:


> Breeder reactors are exactly how Plutonium is made for these missions. Thus the name Breeder. https://neutronbytes.com/2017/03/05/nasa-re-starts-pu-238-production-at-two-sites/ Its just that the reactors use Neptunium to enrich specifically during a Fission reaction to increase yield, but again, reactor design can create or "burn" newly formed Plutonium depending on design.


Anything that adds neutrons is technically a breeder.  Your average nuclear reactor does some breeding as well.  My point stands that breeder reactors for the purpose of generating electricity won't be producing plutonium to use in RTGs.




Steevo said:


> Nope, higher power nuclear source means shorter half life and less dangerous byproducts.


USA selected Nagasaki and Hiroshima as well as detonating the bombs high off the ground to minimize radiation exposure.  Most of it blew out over the Pacific Ocean.  See this if you want to learn about it.



Steevo said:


> Also, Pepto Bismol emits Alpha particles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth-209 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth, as does Plutonium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238 , and Plutonium in non-critical mass can be shielded with a few sheets of paper or aluminum foil https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/docs/APP RPS Pu-238 FS 12-10-12.pdf " Shielding: Pu-238 decays by the alpha emission process,
> and these alpha particles can be stopped by material as thin
> as a sheet of paper. This greatly enhances radiation protection
> safety. Other radioisotopes would require much greater (and
> ...


Alpha isn't the problem, gamma is (ionizing).  Beta is in between in terms of ionization.


----------



## erocker (Jul 7, 2017)

magibeg said:


> I think you'll find this news interesting then, just released within the past 24 hours:
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998


Another .org funded by those who benefit from taxation through climate change. The epitome of propaganda.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 7, 2017)

The original source was the American Meteorological Society:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1


----------



## Steevo (Jul 7, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because radiation environments are kept clean purposefully to detect leaks.  Radiation from coal isn't going to escalate to lethal levels in a matter of hours; radiation from a purposeful source of radiation can.  Again, no one has been able to establish what exactly is "safe."  It's more about what is "normal" and "abnormal."  We also know that Acute Radiation Syndrome is real and that, at least in humans, ionizing radiation has the greatest and most immediate effect on the thyroid.
> 
> 
> Anything that adds neutrons is technically a breeder.  Your average nuclear reactor does some breeding as well.  My point stands that breeder reactors for the purpose of generating electricity won't be producing plutonium to use in RTGs.
> ...



"*Acute Radiation Syndrome* (ARS) (sometimes known as *radiation* toxicity or *radiation sickness*) is an *acute* illness caused by irradiation of the entire body (or most of the body) by a high dose of penetrating *radiation* in a very short period of time (usually a matter of minutes)." 

We aren't talking high doses, or abnormal, we are talking amounts that are experienced by everyone at one point in time or another. I have flown quite a bit, had some Xrays from broken bones, and camped at high altitudes for weeks, so my exposure is probably greater than what is allowed for nuclear workers. This is not the issue, the issue is if we had or have a standard protocol for reprocessing the waste and a realistic view of radiation we wouldn't have such high costs associated with decommissioning. I am not saying to build a plant with less safety or with higher allowable limits during operation, but we KNOW at some point the in operation reactors will be shutdown and there is a unrealistic fear of "waste" that prevents better processing and procedures. We have miles on miles of wasteland that we could bury the useless components in that receive no rain and would make it no more dangerous than uranium in the ground already. Water is a good shield, dump the waste in a sectioned off part of the ocean and then pour concrete over it to seal it until it can safely degrade, sea water already contains uranium.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 7, 2017)

There's only been 22 known cases of ARS (if memory serves) and all of them occurred as Chernobyl NPP.  The strict safety testing at any facility that handles radioactive material is for the express purpose of stopping the problem before it gets to the point of causing ARS.

Nuclear detonations aren't reasonably capable of causing ARS.  Decaying nuclear warheads could.



Steevo said:


> Water is a good shield, dump the waste in a sectioned off part of the ocean and then pour concrete over it to seal it until it can safely degrade, sea water already contains uranium.


Water is corrosive, salt water especially so.  The gamma and beta radiation coming off the spent fuel is also potentially lethal to the wildlife.

The pools they keep spent fuel in have no life in them and they're constantly circulating to prevent the water from boiling.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 7, 2017)

Radon gas
http://www.ukradon.org/information/
http://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...silent-killer-in-the-countryside-2047987.html
and for the USA











Read up on Radon Gas    " Do you feel safe in your home"


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 7, 2017)

I have a radon vacuum in my basement and yeah, I'm concerned about it considering how much time I spend down here.

I'm in high/zone 1.  Even with the radon vacuum installed and functioning, radon tests higher than considered safe.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 7, 2017)

So we are essentially agreeing on everything, "Breeder" reactors that can use reprocessed fuel even if we pay subsidies towards their cost are better for the enviroment overall and could give us the energy to start considering things like CO2 capture or make a 20 year serious dent in carbon emissions if done right and right now. Neither solar or wind have the energy density or infrastructure to make this happen in the next 20 years.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 7, 2017)

I never argued that nuclear is not clean for the environment.  I pointed out why the US market is not considering them in the near future (huge investment, lots of risks).

Your average nuclear reactor (500MW) costs $10-15 billion to reach the point of supplying the grid.  They also usually take about 10 years from securing the funds, to planning, to construction, to certification.

The entire greenie craze (solar and wind) is actually damaging the prospects of nuclear because nuclear is a base-load supply.  It can't respond to solar cycles nor changes in weather.  About the only way there will be a huge transition away from them towards nuclear is by taking subsidies away and putting them towards nuclear.  Realistically, that isn't going to happen.

Fusion is really the only path forward for nuclear future in the next 20-30 years.  That path will only exist if there's research investment however.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jul 8, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There's only been 22 known cases of ARS (if memory serves) and all of them occurred as Chernobyl NPP.  The strict safety testing at any facility that handles radioactive material is for the express purpose of stopping the problem before it gets to the point of causing ARS.
> 
> Nuclear detonations aren't reasonably capable of causing ARS.  Decaying nuclear warheads could.
> 
> ...


I would note that due to past personal experience, I have knowledge that your number is incorrect.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 8, 2017)

Clarification: deaths.  As long as there are iodine tablets available, ARS is rarely lethal.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 8, 2017)

That intense of a beam? Probably not.  Neutron beams that intense don't occur naturally on Earth though.  Hell, photons are harmless too, unless they're weaponized.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jul 8, 2017)

don't bother, my post got deleted,
surely if an experiment/application require an intenser beam with more(more being redundant to intenser in this case?) faster particles could be done.
Anyways I found squat so far related to a corpse of whatever origin going / not going into natural decay in an environment with extreme levels of radiation, tough its just a couple of searches.
le: thought experiment to much for this community?


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 8, 2017)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> le: thought experiment to much for this community?


I think the problem is that your English is so broken that it's hard to understand what you're trying to say. Just an observation.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 31, 2017)

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/30/sib...ses-of-methane-could-pose-broad-problems.html

Great, more greenhouse gases.... Example of positive feedback happening.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 1, 2017)

^ kind of an example of a resource that should be used rather than left alone. Left alone it can explode or simply release into the atmosphere. Used for fuel it will release CO2 instead.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Aug 25, 2017)

*The star that sustains life on Earth has no influence on the current global temperature increase*



Scientists investigating the sun’s influence on the current climate have found that, over the last few decades, there has been no increase in brightness – and instead, they found a slight decrease, suggesting it has not played a role in recent warming

https://www.mpg.de/11447068/climate-engine-earth


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2017)




----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 18, 2017)

sorry but thats the Guy who cherrypicked rules that made pluto a non planet


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2017)

They redefined what a planet was because of new discoveries in other stellar systems.  Pluto didn't meet the requirements.  Fear not though, Planet X may take Pluto's former spot.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 18, 2017)

Sorry and its off topic
but they are considering backtracking and re instating Pluto (ABOUT TIME in my Opinion)
for god sake it has 5 confirmed moons ( more Suspected ) a suspected ring system and it orbits well outside of the inner Oort Cloud for most of its orbit
those other minor planets are justifiably KBO   but pluto is not


----------



## StrayKAT (Sep 18, 2017)

qubit said:


> That's the newspaper headline, anyway.
> 
> So, could the "global warming" crisis just be one big scandal?
> 
> ...



I'm not a denier, but I'm sure some of it is a scam.. simply because of the money and taxes involved, yeah. There's no freaking way people demand/get a hold of tens.. nay, hundreds of billions, purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Especially politicians. And shame on normal people for being that stupid. This is elementary. It's also especially fishy that they ask one country to pay the bulk of their ambitions (i.e. Paris Treaty/US). Even when that country has done much to curb environmental recklessness.

I also hate idealists just out of principle. Especially hysterical ones. I'm all for curbing pollution and recycling, but spare me the apocalyptic tones. It's even more infuriating when mixed with science.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 18, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> It's even more infuriating when mixed with science.


To Extort Tax payers for money


----------



## qubit (Sep 18, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> I'm not a denier, but I'm sure some of it is a scam.. simply because of the money and taxes involved, yeah. There's no freaking way people demand/get a hold of tens.. nay, hundreds of billions, purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Especially politicians. And shame on normal people for being that stupid. This is elementary. It's also especially fishy that they ask one country to pay the bulk of it (i.e. Paris Treaty/US).
> 
> I also hate idealists just out of principle. Especially hysterical ones. I'm all for curbing pollution and recycling, but spare me the apocalyptic tones. It's even more infuriating when mixed with science.


Totally agree that scamming money and imposing unnecessary draconian austerity measures is the order of the day with this and I hate this politically correct BS too. This would also put pressure on scientists to make their data fit what the politicians want, thus wrecking/corrupting the science and hence making me doubt what they're saying.

However, since I made that post over 2.5 years ago (doesn't time fly!  ) I've changed my mind about climate change. Yes, while those corrupting pressures are there on scientists, from everything I've seen, still they're not lying about what's happening. Their claims are backed up by hard evidence that anyone can see without even trying such as the unprecedented melting of the ice at the poles, record weather events eg hurricanes, mud slides, heatwaves etc, to see that the global climate is changing and quickly. Couple that with the sheer speed at which it's happening and I don't think there's much doubt that man has something to do with it. This is true even though the details of this issue isn't completely understood yet.

I really should edit my OP post to reflect my updated viewpoint.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2017)

I'd argue carbon tax and other forms of taxation "solutions" main purpose is scoring political victories.  The _real_ solutions are technology (smart grids, improved fuel efficiency standards, research into battery technology and recycling, research into better and cheaper nuclear fission reactors, research into fusion reactors, deploying smart heating/cooling solutions, etc.) and moratorium on the construction of the worst offenders (especially coal fired power plants).  Countries where the latter is a problem can be solved by the former (e.g. mass produced nuclear reactors can completely negate market for coal).  Even in urban sprawl, planting parks on building roofs instead of a bed of asphalt has numerous benefits and little downsides.  Everyone benefits from a little fresher air from a park like that.

The science is settled.  The time for arguing whether we should do better by our planet and children is over (the fact there was ever an argument is appalling).  It's time to act.  And by act, I mean start a new age that considers environmental impact with every endeavor. A "green age."


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 18, 2017)

Even the Tree hugging anti nucler power Greens now grudgling admit Nucler power is probably our best planned future


----------



## StrayKAT (Sep 18, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'd argue carbon tax and other forms of taxation "solutions" main purpose is scoring political victories.  The _real_ solutions are technology (smart grids, improved fuel efficiency standards, research into battery technology and recycling, research into better and cheaper nuclear fission reactors, research into fusion reactors, deploying smart heating/cooling solutions, etc.) and moratorium on the construction of the worst offenders (especially coal fired power plants).  Countries where the latter is a problem can be solved by the former (e.g. mass produced nuclear reactors can completely negate market for coal).  Even in urban sprawl, planting parks on building roofs instead of a bed of asphalt has numerous benefits and little downsides.  Everyone benefits from a little fresher air from a park like that.
> 
> The science is settled.  The time for arguing whether we should do better by our planet and children is over (the fact there was ever an argument is appalling).  It's time to act.  And by act, I mean start a new age that considers environmental impact with every endeavor. A "green age."



You had me until you yourself steeped a bit into hysteria at the end there..

This kind of stuff makes me want to do nothing, simply out of spite. And I'm not even the worst of opponents.

Besides, I live in Texas. I can survive floods and blistering heat as it is....even when Hollywood actresses say it's divine punishment.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> Even the Tree hugging anti nucler power Greens now grudgling admit Nucler power is probably our best planned future


The problem is government (specifically, regulation) gets in the way of major change.  Yes, things have to be done safely but instead of barking saying "you can't do that," government regulation should come in the form of "do this instead because it's better for everyone."  We need prefab nuclear reactors that are certified safe and install them in a modular environment to meet regional demands.  We seriously need a return of the mid 20th century "can do" mentality.  Even if it's not clearly possible, "can do!"  For how much humanity has advanced in the last 50 years, it seems mired in old ways in a lot of regards.


----------



## StrayKAT (Sep 18, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The problem is government (specifically, regulation) gets in the way of major change.  Yes, things have to be done safely but instead of barking saying "you can't do that," government regulation should come in the form of "do this instead because it's better for everyone."  We need prefab nuclear reactors that are certified safe and install them in a modular environment to meet regional demands.  We seriously need a return of the mid 1900th century "can do" mentality.  Even if it's not clearly possible, "can do!"  For how much humanity has advanced in the last 50 years, it seems mired in old ways in a lot of regards.



On a sidenote, one sad side effect of that Paris Treaty is it destroys any kind of "can do" mentality especially for third world nations. It prevents any of them from even having their own "19th" century industrial age equivalents.

For all of the crap about colonial guilt from Europeans, they sure like to keep them in a state of dependence still.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2017)

StrayKAT said:


> You had me until you yourself steeped a bit into hysteria at the end there..
> 
> This kind of stuff makes me want to do nothing, simply out of spite. And I'm not even the worst of opponents.
> 
> Besides, I live in Texas. I can survive floods and blistering heat as it is....even when Hollywood actresses say it's divine punishment.


It's hysteria to want clean air and clean water?  That's fundamentally what it comes down to.



StrayKAT said:


> On a sidenote, one sad side effect of that Paris Treaty is it destroys any kind of "can do" mentality especially for third world nations. It prevents any of them from even having their own "19th" century industrial age equivalents.
> 
> For all of the crap about colonial guilt from Europeans, they sure like to keep them in a state of dependence still.


I don't support political solutions (that's not even a thing...politics solves nothing...it's like hiring a room full of architects when you only need a single engineer), I support tangible solutions.  Third world nations shouldn't have to experience an industrial age if the technology is made available to them, at a price they can afford, to circumvent it.  I think modular fusion reactors would go a _very_ long way to achieving that.  It's paramount nations with the means puts everything it can afford to making the breakthrough.


----------



## StrayKAT (Sep 18, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's hysteria to want clean air and clean water?  That's fundamentally what it comes down to.
> 
> 
> I don't support political solutions (that's not even a thing...politics solves nothing...it's like hiring a room full of architects when you only need a single engineer), I support tangible solutions.  Third world nations shouldn't have to experience an industrial age if the technology is made available to them, at a price they can afford, to circumvent it.  I think modular fusion reactors would go a _very_ long way to achieving that.  It's paramount nations with the means puts everything it can afford to making the breakthrough.



No, no.. I'm all in with that. Don't get me wrong.

But the whole "time is now" thing sounded a bit apocalyptic. This will move slowly at best. If it was as urgent as some like to say, we're already dead. It's time to prepare to live like Mad Max in that case. Not worry about the air.

I'm also just teasing a bit. You seem more practical than anything.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2017)

Truth is, there's already been actions taken regardless of what Washington thinks.  Miami is elevating roads it is building.  Energy efficiency in cars has gone up substantially because of Corporate Average Fuel Economy and consumer demands for fuel efficiency.  Power companies have put in place a lot of incentives for people to replace old equipment with new, efficient or smart replacements. Power companies are also building wind turbines where they're feasible and adding capacity through natural gas instead of coal.

The thing that inspired the "time to act" is charts like this:





 The things we could do to make this a nonissue, we're not doing.


----------



## StrayKAT (Sep 18, 2017)

I'd actually like to hear more about the state of Miami after the flood is cleared a bit more. Haven't heard much about their progress, and this must've been a huge setback.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2017)

"What will it take for people to recognize that a community of scientists are learning objective truths about the natural world and that you can benefit from knowing about it?" --Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## StrayKAT (Sep 18, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> "What will it take for people to recognize that a community of scientists are learning objective truths about the natural world and that you can benefit from knowing about it?" --Neil deGrasse Tyson



It will take them not taxing people to death and associating with politicians.

That alone would do wonders. Easier said than done though...apparently.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2017)

Simple enough solution: elect better representatives.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 18, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> Sorry and its off topic
> but they are considering backtracking and re instating Pluto (ABOUT TIME in my Opinion)
> for god sake it has 5 confirmed moons ( more Suspected ) a suspected ring system and it orbits well outside of the inner Oort Cloud for most of its orbit
> those other minor planets are justifiably KBO   but pluto is not



It's still a matter of definitions and certainly not a mark against his science credibility.


----------



## StrayKAT (Sep 18, 2017)

Bah! Pluto is definitely a planet. Damn Earth supremacists.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2017)

But it's not because it's part of the Kuiper belt.  The new, IAU definition of planet has three criteria and one of those is that it cleared its neighborhood (the mass of the planet caused objects in the same orbit to fall into it becoming one massive object).  Pluto has a lot of neighbors in its orbit.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 12, 2017)

Wow, having revisited this page after a while its good to read that some people have started to change their minds about Climate change.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 20, 2017)

Solar industry fears for thousands of jobs should U.S. impose import restrictions


> More than 90 percent of the world’s solar panel-making capacity is in Asia, with China accounting for 70 percent of the output followed by southeast Asia, O‘Neil said.


Dirtiest country in the world is producing most of the world's solar panels.  How ironic.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 20, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Solar industry fears for thousands of jobs should U.S. impose import restrictions
> 
> Dirtiest country in the world is producing most of the world's solar panels.  How ironic.



That's more statistical than ironic.  With 1.4 billion people (most populous nation on earth), you'd expect China (an industrial society) to be the worst for polluting as a percentage.  Per capita though, it's well under other countries such as the oil states and the US.


It's their coal consumption that does it: here
For natural gas consumption: here


Wait till India wants it's full share of industrialisation.  It's only smaller than China, population wise.  CO2 time bomb.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 20, 2017)

The vast majority of people in China are still poor-impoverished.  China only recently passed up USA in terms of raw manufacturing.





Something else that article says is that even though solar production is very localized, no one solar company has more than 8% of the global share.  There's a lot of competitors vying for a breakthrough that isn't happening.  That healthy competition is the reason why solar panel prices have fallen by 30%.  At the same time, a lot of innovative solar companies went belly up as well.  The future for solar doesn't look particularly bright, tariffs aside.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 20, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The vast majority of people in China are still poor-impoverished.  China only recently passed up USA in terms of raw manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The article says nothing of solar powers future being negative, quite the opposite. A lot of companies went belly up due to reliance on subsidies. Just like any boom, only the better companies (or more ruthless) will survive.  Solar power is improving its grid contribution and combined advances in battery tech mean it is more and more viable, in the right regions.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 20, 2017)

Battery tech is improving a lot.  Solar tech isn't.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 20, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> The article says nothing of solar powers future being negative, quite the opposite. A lot of companies went belly up due to reliance on subsidies. Just like any boom, only the better companies (or more ruthless) will survive.  Solar power is improving its grid contribution and combined advances in battery tech mean it is more and more viable, in the right regions.



In agreement on this point, though some facts may be in order.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#2cbb805a128c

The thrust is that Solar is "cost effective" because of subsidies.  Said subsidies are going away, and in short order those tax incentives will show what solar really costs.

As said before, nuclear mixed with renewable is the short term solution until more exotic reactors can be proven out.  Maybe future generations can look back on this time as a changing point, but I'm still looking at Solar Roadways and scratching my head as to why the average person is too uninformed to see it was crap.  You know what, screw the average person.  I can see a lack of knowledge there due to specialization.  The blame should be on a media that started pulling for this without spending the 20 minutes necessary to figure out its massive problems.



Additionally, solar cell technology is getting better:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency#/media/File:PVeff(rev170414).jpg

The qualifier there is the common panels you might be buying for a house are not.  Better technology, with a much greater price tag, is not a way forward.  It is a way for people to feel good, while doing bad.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 20, 2017)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> The qualifier there is the common panels you might be buying for a house are not.


Exactly, they're doing some great stuff in labs but it isn't mass produced.


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 20, 2017)




----------



## qubit (Aug 4, 2018)

This heatwave currently affecting the northern hemisphere is awful. The temperature is reaching 40C or more in places like Spain and the more vulnerable people are starting to die.

The weather is getting noticeably hotter here in England, without me even trying to notice it. I seem to remember the predictions reckoning that these unbearable heatwaves would start to really affect us in 30-50 years time, but with what I'm seeing and feeling with my own eyes, along with the often record-breaking weather reports, suggests that it's started already and perhaps the warming is gonna be much more marked than anyone thought. Even the winters now are just mildly cold weather. I'm currently sitting here writing this post at my PC at 1:25 in the morning with the fan on high and it's 31C. It would be totally unbearable without the fan, but is "just" hot and sticky with it on.

I think the world is in for a nasty shock. * No way is this natural, climate change skeptics.*

Sorry for the rant, but I'm really upset about this.

EDIT: wanna clarify that I've noticed the summers getting hotter year on year and winters getting milder year on year.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

I think the real tragedy of climate science is it's controversy has dampened an actual clear and cut concern: pollution. Something people on both sides of the fence could fight, when it comes down to it. We all need to tackle these very tangible problems most of all.

I also don't think hyperbole and apocalyptic scenarios help anything. I'll be upfront - I am actually a religious person, but I've never been into eschatology (nor are a lot of religious people, just to point this out). Spirituality is about seeking contentment and peace, not anxiety and madness. So it's strange to see the same Chicken Little behavior play out in supposed scientific circles. It's like listening to those crazy people  on the street with signs about the "World is Ending!" And if it's not scientists doing it themselves, they're still not stopping politicians and journalists from exaggerating the concerns. Or if this is some kind of tactic to get people to act, it's not going to work. They'll get sick of hearing the whining and just tune out. If you want to solve problems, you have to do better than be emotional and alarmist.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2018)

qubit said:


> This heatwave currently affecting the northern hemisphere is awful. The temperature is reaching 40C or more in places like Spain and the more vulnerable people are starting to die.
> 
> The weather is getting noticeably hotter here in England, without me even trying to notice it. I seem to remember the predictions reckoning that these unbearable heatwaves would start to really affect us in 30-50 years time, but with what I'm seeing and feeling with my own eyes, along with the often record-breaking weather reports, suggests that it's started already and perhaps the warming is gonna be much more marked than anyone thought. Even the winters now are just mildly cold weather. I'm currently sitting here writing this post at my PC at 1:25 in the morning with the fan on high and it's 31C. It would be totally unbearable without the fan, but is "just" hot and sticky with it on.
> 
> ...


Global surface warming enhanced by weak Atlantic overturning circulation

TL;DR: Atlanic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is slowing causing your heat wave.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

For me, it's always been hot as hell in the summer. I live in Texas.

Yet just this last winter, it actually snowed. It hasn't happened in that area since the 80s.

Go figure.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2018)

Because the jet stream was way further south than it should be, likely because of all the polar ice melting in the Arctic.  Same reason why Europe is getting warmer--the water coming south in the Atlantic isn't as cold as it used to be because there's less and less ice to counter the heat coming north.

Once the ice is mostly gone then everyone in the northern hemisphere gets hotter.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

One thing I forgot to mention is why scientists (some) would be so apocalyptic in their rhetoric, when they know full well what kind of weather the Earth has undergone since it's origins. This is peanuts. The planet could endure a million times worse (literally).

Humankind? Not so much. But that's a whole different subject. Don't tell me to "save the planet" when what you actually wish to do is save yourself.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 4, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> One thing I forgot to mention is why scientists (some) would be so apocalyptic in their rhetoric, when they know full well what kind of weather the Earth has undergone since it's origins. This is peanuts. The planet could endure a million times worse (literally).
> 
> Humankind? Not so much. But that's a whole different subject. Don't tell me to "save the planet" when what you actually wish to do is save yourself.



I mean, the planet isn't much fun for humanity without humans.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2018)

Because this (methane tripled since 1700):





1858 ppb now, literally off the chart.

And this (almost doubled since 1700):




408 ppm now so it's gone up 10 ppm in 4.5 years since that graph was made.

Methane has approximately a five year life span and decomposes into carbon dioxide which has 40+.  Cut human output of both, the atmosphere won't return to 1700 conditions for a generation.  The cat is already out of the bag.  The only question is how much damage it does.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> I mean, the planet isn't much fun for humanity without humans.



Don't mind me.. I'm just joking about how some of this stuff is framed. The Earth is the most resilient and badass thing in our daily existence. Respect.

I think all of the drama needs to be canned, and instead, we get people to focus on immediate problems. Little by little, that will help the bigger picture.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2018)

For people that live on coasts, it's already an immediate problem.  All of that Arctic ice water has to go somewhere:





If the ice caps completely melt, everything not dark green will be under water (good bye Florida):





We need fusion power plants and hydrogen powered vehicles and we needed it 30 years ago.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

Too bad. Coastal flooding is a good example of why I say most of the public messaging is more harmful than not. Case in point: Al Gore predicted that New York would already be flooding.

While advocates have legitimate concerns, they tend to overdo it and then lose people permanently because of it.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 4, 2018)

The thing is, all these politicans and scientists should have just stuck with the original findings that we are coming out of an ice age. They didn't need to blame humans and make up and distort data to prove their argument. Also, the jig was up when they started pushing carbon credits. This is all about money. Oh that and not a single prediction of theirs has even been remotely close. Their models suck.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 4, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> For people that live on coasts, it's already an immediate problem.  All of that Arctic ice water has to go somewhere
> If the ice caps completely melt, everything not dark green will be under water (good bye Florida):


Thank goodness only America is affected


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2018)

Easy Rhino said:


> The thing is, all these politicans and scientists should have just stuck with the original findings that we are coming out of an ice age.


That's where we were in 1700.  What we've seen since is something entirely different, unnatural.  



Easy Rhino said:


> Oh that and not a single prediction of theirs has even been remotely close. Their models suck.


Every passing year, we see all of the numbers rise together: more methane, more carbon dioxide, more measured surface temperature, and higher average sea level.  The predictions 20 years ago were that they would continue to rise, and they did.

I was a skeptic three years ago when this thread was created but the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the warming trend.  The causes and effects are well known and understood.  Sure, some models are overzealous in their predictions but the underlying principles are correct.

Theory has become practice in regards to AMOC:
2005: Global Warming May Alter Atlantic Currents, Study Says
2017: Warming could disrupt Atlantic Ocean current
2018: Atlantic Ocean Current Slows Down To 1,000-Year Low, Studies Show


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The causes and effects are well known and understood.



I'm not sure how they are when it's been so muddied with politics and possible tax schemes. Or how can it be so understood when dissenting views aren't even allowed... and actively mocked. Even if such dissenting views may be incorrect, they deserve better than simple villainization and caustic responses. Or painting them all as Trumptards (or _insert vague Redneck reference here_).

Is she a Redneck? 

*







*


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 4, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> I'm not sure how they are when it's been so muddied with politics and possible tax schemes.



That's the beautiful thing about both chemistry and science.  They remain true irrespective of what politics are at play.



StrayKAT said:


> Even if such dissenting views may be incorrect, they deserve better than simple villainization and caustic responses.



I disagree.  Parroting a actively disproven idea is outright dishonest, and mockery should be expected.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> That's the beautiful thing about both chemistry and science.  They remain true irrespective of what politics are at play.



Not this kind. Apparently this type of science thinks something as complex as climate (I dare extend this to the whole solar system actually.. not just Earth in isolation) is "settled". What kind of science suddenly stops inquiry and demonizes people who want to keep unraveling info? The political kind. Or the kind with cranky Italian clerics in the Middle Ages. Either/or.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 4, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Not this kind. Apparently this type of science thinks climate/planetary sciences (I dare extend this to the whole solar system actually) is "settled". What kind of science suddenly stops inquiry and demonizes people? The political kind. Or the one with cranky Italian clerics in the Middle Ages. That's what we're dealing with now, in modern times.



Try making studies based on something other than questionable rheterioc and disproven science.  99% of what gets mocked is basically that.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Try making studies based on something other than questionable rheterioc and disproven science.  99% of what gets mocked is basically that.



The fact that there's any mocking at all is the problem.. along with the drama and end-times whining. None of it belongs in science.

As for mocking, here's a gem:


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2018)

AMOC is one of the areas she was talking about.  In 2016, AMOC's behavior in 2004-2015 was argued to be natural but come 2017, when the natural trend wasn't reversed as it should have been, it becomes clear something is wrong and that there's 30% less ice today in the arctic in September than there was in 1979.


Curry argues that politics have been influencing science and they no doubt have.  There's been a plethora of studies on CO2 with few on everything else (clouds, CH4, ocean currents, jet streams, etc.) but virtually all subsequent studies link back to the elephant in the room: green house gasses are getting out of control.  We measure these things on a daily basis (links above) and on a yearly basis, we see them rising.  Curry nor any other peer reviewed scientist is going to argue it isn't.

The debate is in what to do about it which brings in politics.  Carbon tax is an economic disincentive to use carbon.  I hate the idea too because I strongly feel technology is the answer, not taxation.


Pretty much everything she said in that video I pointed out in the last day. "Thermal inertia in oceans" = AMOC. "50 years" = 40+ years.  This video is two years old, Greenland's ice sheet had a little growth spurt but it's back average melting now.


> A spike in surface melt extent occurred from June 2 to June 9, tying records set on June 4 and 6 in 2010 and 2016. The melt extent reached over 375,000 square kilometers (145,000 square miles), or just over 20 percent of the ice sheet. The main area of increased melting was along the southeastern side of Greenland, extending well inland to regions close to the ice ridge in the southern ice sheet.


Guess where AMOC hits Greenland:





"Trying to pull this off using wind and solar is not going to work." What did I say about fusion?  It's the only completely environmentally friendly technology known to man.  Even eliminates the strip mining (and associated carbon) required to fuel fission power plants.

I agree with her on all points.


I don't mean to sound alarmist because I don't know how Earth's environmental systems will respond to the pressures placed on it.  All I know for sure is that the atmosphere is a tiny, thin layer of gas and human activity over the last three centuries has hugely and measurably changed its composition.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> AMOC is one of the areas she was talking about.  In 2016, AMOC's behavior in 2004-2015 was argued to be natural but come 2017, when the natural trend wasn't reversed as it should have been, it becomes clear something is wrong and that something is that there's 30% less ice today in the arctic in September than there was in 1979.
> 
> 
> Curry argues that politics have been influencing science and they no doubt have.  There's been a plethora of studies on CO2 with few on everything else (clouds, CH4, ocean currents, jet streams, etc.) but virtually all subsequent studies link back to the elephant in the room: green house gasses are getting out of control.  We measure these things on a daily basis (links above) and on a yearly basis, we see them rising.  Curry nor any other peer reviewed scientist is going to argue it isn't.
> ...



I don't think you really are alarmist. And I don't mean to sound dismissive myself. Despite you changing your original position in this thread, I basically agree with your very first post (which didn't sound too "skeptic" to me): It's best to simply take the high road on energy and the environment.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2018)

I should have said General Nonsense which predates this thread by a lot (not sure what year, it's gone now).  I was 100% skeptic at General Nonsense which @magibeg can attest to.  By the time this thread was created, I can't deny the raw trends anymore as attested to in my third post on this thread:


FordGT90Concept said:


> Atmospheric CO2 & CH4 are rising and that's a provable fact.  Everything that comes after that is *postulation*.  We're heading into uncharted territory with only theory to shine a potential path.


Which sounds hilariously similar to that last paragraph above. 

Two things happened between when this thread was created and now:
1) Lockheed Martin went all in with a radical, new compact fusion reactor design.
2) Air Force Research Laboratory created aluminum nanoparticles that efficiently separates hydrogen from oxygen in water. Couple that with GM's Chevrolet ZH2 concept and you have a mobile 25-50 kWh power plant, just add water.

If these technologies pan out over the next ten years and they're followed up with a massive push to roll it out worldwide over the 20 years following that, carbon as an energy source could be obsolete in our life times.  It will still take decades or even centuries for greenhouse gases to return to 1700 levels but it should theoretically happen given enough time and forest conservation.


----------



## qubit (Aug 4, 2018)

@FordGT90Concept Thanks for the links.

Thinking about it, I remember seeing climate articles saying that we're actually a bit overdue a mini ice age, going by the cyclical pattern that the planet goes through. If true, then global warming is actually a whole lot worse since it's completely swamped the ice age we're supposed to be sliding into. I don't know which is worse, hot or cold, as we need the planet to stay as temperate as possible.


----------



## Ahhzz (Aug 4, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I should have said General Nonsense which predates this thread by a lot (not sure what year, it's gone now).  I was 100% skeptic at General Nonsense which @magibeg can attest to.  By the time this thread was created, I can't deny the raw trends anymore as attested to in my third post on this thread:
> 
> Which sounds hilariously similar to that last paragraph above.
> 
> ...


Not a chance in hell. Not as long as the politicians remain in the pockets of oil and, to a minor extent, coal companies. The technologies that have been smothered and retarded due to these companies sitting on patents could have advanced us much more quickly. I don't see that changing any time in our lifetime. Still, nice to hope!


----------



## dorsetknob (Aug 4, 2018)

qubit said:


> Thinking about it, I remember seeing climate articles saying that we're actually a bit overdue a mini ice age, going by the cyclical pattern that the planet goes through.



This was the History/Geography that >(I and others)< was taught when i was at School  (talking about the late 60's early 70's  )
when it was just "Science"
Then Came the institutional Grants and funding for Research and hey >>>> Global Warming Pokes its head up

HINT "they Said with global warming the Atlantic Conveyer would be swiched off / Disrupted with all the cold Polar water pushing South and the Climate of Western Europe warmed (by that Conveyor) called the North Atlantic drift or as it is best known as the Gulf Stream, their weather would actually get colder and wetter.

Some links for further reading if you have time
https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlanti...lowed-15-per-cent-since-mid-twentieth-century
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44875508


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 4, 2018)

I personally think it's all bull manure. Especially because everyone seems to only expect us regular Joes to "change", but the elite is chugging around in big V8 SUV convoys and private jets, not giving one F about it. Get lost. What especially gets on my nerves is all this "we must be more eco!!!!!111" and then everyone goes batshit insane over one thing (CO2) and entirely ignore the other(s). Like, obsessing over temperatures that were doing massive changes before humans or any of our tech even existed and ignoring all the chemicals that humanity pours into ground, rivers and oceans that for a fact affect us in far shorter term. Earth is a supermachine, we may affect it, but it'll do its own thing to achieve equilibrium. Nothing will ever remove massive deposits of toxic residues in ground and shit dissolved in water. If humanity actually cared about things that matter, we could have solved most of ecological issues. But no one is really interested, because this boogeyman "global warming" is on everyone's menu...


----------



## bug (Aug 4, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because the jet stream was way further south than it should be, likely because of all the polar ice melting in the Arctic.  Same reason why Europe is getting warmer--the water coming south in the Atlantic isn't as cold as it used to be because there's less and less ice to counter the heat coming north.
> 
> Once the ice is mostly gone then everyone in the northern hemisphere gets hotter.


Just a few years ago I was reading the the jet stream is moving north, incurring significant additional costs to the aviation industry. Now it's south... This is why I have really lost interest in the subject.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 4, 2018)

qubit said:


> This heatwave currently affecting the northern hemisphere is awful. The temperature is reaching 40C or more in places like Spain and the more vulnerable people are starting to die.
> 
> The weather is getting noticeably hotter here in England, without me even trying to notice it. I seem to remember the predictions reckoning that these unbearable heatwaves would start to really affect us in 30-50 years time, but with what I'm seeing and feeling with my own eyes, along with the often record-breaking weather reports, suggests that it's started already and perhaps the warming is gonna be much more marked than anyone thought. Even the winters now are just mildly cold weather. I'm currently sitting here writing this post at my PC at 1:25 in the morning with the fan on high and it's 31C. It would be totally unbearable without the fan, but is "just" hot and sticky with it on.
> 
> ...



Yep. There is still a natural flow of hot summers and "bad" summers (depends on how you define bad...) but the overall climate is definitely changing. More extreme conditions every where. Rain isnt a drizzle but heavy rain more often than not. Heat waves are hotter and in between those mild winters we get an occasional extreme one as well, such as last year.

Honestly if youre still skeptical about this change... you just dont WANT to see it. Its common for people to run away from problems and this is no different... there is just no running from this.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 4, 2018)

There is literally no data showing humans are causing climate change that cant be explained by a thousand other possibilities far beyond our control. Funny that since this summer is so warm climate activists are backing calling it global warming and saying "see we said more extreme weather!" When just last summer which was mild they were calling it climate change and denying their earlier claims that it will create more extreme weather. Like, pick a position.


----------



## qubit (Aug 4, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Yep. There is still a natural flow of hot summers and "bad" summers (depends on how you define bad...) but the overall climate is definitely changing. More extreme conditions every where. Rain isnt a drizzle but heavy rain more often than not. Heat waves are hotter and in between those mild winters we get an occasional extreme one as well, such as last year.
> 
> Honestly if youre still skeptical about this change... you just dont WANT to see it. Its common for people to run away from problems and this is no different... there is just no running from this.


Yes indeed, there's no way such rapid climate change is natural and all the scientists have the data to prove it now. People should definitely open their eyes and realize it's real and not believe certain politicians who go and hide the information from the official government websites.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 4, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> The fact that there's any mocking at all is the problem.. along with the drama and end-times whining. None of it belongs in science.
> 
> As for mocking, here's a gem:



There is a difference between mocking uncomfortable ideas, and blatantly disproven ones.



Easy Rhino said:


> There is literally no data showing humans are causing climate change that cant be explained by a thousand other possibilities far beyond our control. Funny that since this summer is so warm climate activists are backing calling it global warming and saying "see we said more extreme weather!" When just last summer which was mild they were calling it climate change and denying their earlier claims that it will create more extreme weather. Like, pick a position.



It's always been more extreme weather.  Anyone who changes the narritave over one year is foolish.



bug said:


> This is why I have really lost interest in the subject.



Because the Jet Stream literally went from one extreme to another?

It's quotes like this that make me happy I didn't have kids, because frankly, how can we not be fucked with attitudes like that?


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 4, 2018)

Easy Rhino said:


> There is literally no data showing humans are causing climate change that cant be explained by a thousand other possibilities far beyond our control. Funny that since this summer is so warm climate activists are backing calling it global warming and saying "see we said more extreme weather!" When just last summer which was mild they were calling it climate change and denying their earlier claims that it will create more extreme weather. Like, pick a position.



You keep fooling yourself with those arguments, its clear you choose to blind yourself, nothing amyone says will change that. Just dont try to fool others with it because that just looks sad and infinitely stupid.

There is only one reason to deny climate change and that is because people are invested in something they might lose. That alone should tell you enough and if you cannot see that, all hope is lost.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 4, 2018)

RejZoR said:


> Like, obsessing over temperatures that were doing massive changes before humans or any of our tech even existed and ignoring all the chemicals that humanity pours into ground, rivers and oceans that for a fact affect us in far shorter term.



The accelerated CO2 emission of humanity is the chief arguement here dude.


----------



## bug (Aug 4, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Because the Jet Stream literally went from one extreme to another?
> 
> It's quotes like this that make me happy I didn't have kids, because frankly, how can we not be fucked with attitudes like that?



In this particular case, the statement that jet stream has moved south to Texas because the ice caps have melted is downright idiotic. The subtropical jet stream has always blown over Texas, there was no change there. He was just making up stuff to support his point of view. It's just my job (or will) to set everyone straight on the subject, so I just keep my distance.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> You keep fooling yourself with those arguments, its clear you choose to blind yourself, nothing amyone says will change that. Just dont try to fool others with it because that just looks sad and infinitely stupid.
> 
> There is only one reason to deny climate change and that is because people are invested in something they might lose. That alone should tell you enough and if you cannot see that, all hope is lost.



That isn't always why. It's a good idea to be wary of anyone who wants to criminalize others for vague reasons. That's rule 1 in simply being a damn human being. lol. Or maybe you forgot that? Asians and Europeans especially have a knack for forgetting and seemingly allowing others to exercise power and special privileges over them...for no damn reason at all. It's an unhealthy relationship. Even when they dropped the abuses of nobility, they still clamored after authoritarians and politburos, for some reason.

Unless you're not outright harming and killing people, there's no reason to feel such guilt in one's life. Be it poaching laws circa 1256 AD or carbon tax schemes circa 2017. And if you're easily villainized for simply questioning the "Why" of such things, that's definitely a red flag. It may be that there's validity to a lot of the concerns, but not even being able to question things is where I call shenanigans.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 4, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> The accelerated CO2 emission of humanity is the chief arguement here dude.



What was causing "accelerated CO2 emissions" thousands of years ago when same global warming events occurred repeatedly? Someone was playing with time machine again lol






Whoops! XD

We just happen to be in the warming period of Earth. That's like freaking out about summer during a late winter...


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 4, 2018)

RejZoR said:


> What was causing "accelerated CO2 emissions" thousands of years ago when same global warming events occurred repeatedly? Someone was playing with time machine again lol
> 
> View attachment 104887
> 
> ...



The carbon cycle of the earth obviously.  This isn't a denied principle by climate change warning types. It even has a neat name.  But it is argued the recent changes by man are pushing the carbon cycle to happen much quicker and more severely.

The difference being this fairly massive recent acceleration is measurable in a few decades.  Your scale requires a unit scale of THOUSANDS of years.

Oopsie?


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 4, 2018)

Lol, no it doesn't. You may observe slight changes, but you can't change the planetary shifts that are affected by freaking forces of the universe (sounds a bit poetic, but it's true). Earth will do its cycles whether we're here or not. It's been doing them for thousands of years even when nothing was affecting Earth. And it'll be doing them even when we are affecting it. Earth is a huge machine, our presence is a mere inconvenience for it. Imagine trying to stop a bulldozzer using 1 ton of pebbles. It'll affect it, but it'll just keep on going. That's how much effect we have on Earth.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 4, 2018)

RejZoR said:


> You may observe slight changes


Look at your own graphs recent time acceleration.  Trust me when I say you don't want to magnify that last 10 years.  

The recent changes are not "slight" and the fact is we are acting as a catalyst to your normal cycle, accelerating it far beyond natural, and that can and should scare the shit out of everyone.



RejZoR said:


> sounds a bit poetic, but it's true


Poetic it may be, true it is not.

Thanks for making me pull out my inner yoda.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

RejZoR said:


> Lol, no it doesn't. You may observe slight changes, but you can't change the planetary shifts that are affected by freaking forces of the universe (sounds a bit poetic, but it's true). Earth will do its cycles whether we're here or not. It's been doing them for thousands of years even when nothing was affecting Earth. And it'll be doing them even when we are affecting it. Earth is a huge machine, our presence is a mere inconvenience for it. Imagine trying to stop a bulldozzer using 1 ton of pebbles. It'll affect it, but it'll just keep on going. That's how much effect we have on Earth.



People could just watch a simple "Early Earth" documentary and realize just how badass the Earth is. Massive asteroid bombardment for millions of years, molten surfaces throughout the planet, eons long Ice Ages, super volcanoes going off every day, no atmospheric protections, etc., etc.. It might be the most arrogant statement of Man yet that he's somehow capable of destroying this thing, with his little toy trucks. Not to say there aren't climate changes, but to think it's all manmade is the issue. Or better yet, thinking it can be solved by man as well.. that's arrogant too. All of these rollback efforts wouldn't make a dent.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 4, 2018)

It's also funny how people don't seem to grasp how rejecting the global warming BS and still supporting ecological technologies can be done by one single person (me). I can reject global warming nonsense and still support electric cars that are charged from renewable power sources. Because rejecting global warming BS doesn't mean I don't understand what comes out of a tail pipe of a car or from factory chimneys... I'm not one of those idiots pointing at CO2, I'm the one pointing out what all the other actually toxic chemicals come out of it which no one else seems to care about, coz they are too busy blaming cow farts and some exhaled air...


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 4, 2018)

RejZoR said:


> It's also funny how people don't seem to grasp how rejecting the global warming BS and still supporting ecological technologies can be done by one single person (me). I can reject global warming nonsense and still support electric cars that are charged from renewable power sources. Because rejecting global warming BS doesn't mean I don't understand what comes out of a tail pipe of a car or from factory chimneys... I'm not one of those idiots pointing at CO2, I'm the one pointing out what all the other actually toxic chemicals come out of it which no one else seems to care about, coz they are too busy blaming cow farts and some exhaled air...



The more energy sources, the better. Anyone who would be against something so simple and logical I'd call suspect too. In all cases, I'm wary of any who have something to profit on either side...especially the overly dismissive ones.

The world isn't as full of bandits outright pillaging towns anymore.. but the bandits still exist. They're just smarter and more insidious. And get YOU to part with your money willingly.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 4, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> That isn't always why. It's a good idea to be wary of anyone who wants to criminalize others for vague reasons. That's rule 1 in simply being a damn human being. lol. Or maybe you forgot that? Asians and Europeans especially have a knack for forgetting and seemingly allowing others to exercise power and special privileges over them...for no damn reason at all. It's an unhealthy relationship. Even when they dropped the abuses of nobility, they still clamored after authoritarians and politburos, for some reason.
> 
> Unless you're not outright harming and killing people, there's no reason to feel such guilt in one's life. Be it poaching laws circa 1256 AD or carbon tax schemes circa 2017. And if you're easily villainized for simply questioning the "Why" of such things, that's definitely a red flag. It may be that there's validity to a lot of the concerns, but not even being able to question things is where I call shenanigans.



Www.ww.w.w what?! Does not compute... lol.

Sorry for coming out hard on you here but... this must be said. See this is YOUR point of view and it sounds American - in all the glory of its ignorance. The country with the highest homicide rates in the world that still sells guns freely, no matter how many schools and kids get shot up 'because muh Freedom and muh constitutional rights, durrr'. Just one example of its infinite stupidity and hypocrisy, but worth a mention because it signifies your self destructive culture. Its not about criminalization of ANYTHING and its not even about politics or who rules what or over who. Its not even about individuals. Its about a change in our approach to every system we have. If you reduce the issue to 'some tax or additional pressure on the little man' that just confirms how short sighted you are. And yes, I'm very sorry, but if you are still disputing the obvious today, you fall in the category of Flat-Earthers and anti-vaccination idiots who deserve to be quarantined and shot off to Mars or something.

What surprises me the most is you pulling a Godwin out  of there, and it only deserves the above response.

Oh man. I need to stay out of this thread. It summarizes everything that's wrong with people today.

Even if there was the slightest chance of global warming affecting our everyday lives and us having a chance at influencing that future, why would you NOT agree with trying to do what we can on the largest possible scale... The answer is obvious, but still no one wants to answer it because its an inconvenient truth. Al Gore dubbed it perfectly. The only reason these models and predictions are disputed is because people are afraid they can't do what they've been doing in the same, wasteful way. And yes, any sort of change will take effort, it will cost you a portion of your wealth possibly (but even that is questionable!) and perhaps you will lose some comforts you used to have. The alternative though...? There is none. When this planet becomes even slightly less habitable, the amount of chaos that flows from it will spark conflict everywhere. The ramifications of even the slightest of changes in the timeframes we see them happening in today, are global, they hit everyone, and they will be merciless. Forget the climate itself, consider what *people* will do, first, when all certainties they had are suddenly gone.

Face reality. Until then, I'm out of here...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> It's always been more extreme weather.  Anyone who changes the narritave over one year is foolish.


Which was incorrect (Curry's paper showed that years ago).  The excessive greenhouse gases causes there to be more thermal energy in the atmosphere.  That doesn't necessarily translate to weather of any kind because weather requires other things (like water vapor and variations in temperature).  If it's always hot everywhere, there won't be much in the way of wind (including hurricanes, typhoons, and tornadoes).  If it's always dry heat everywhere, there won't be much in the way of extra precipitation.  "Extreme weather" is the major climate related prediction that put the cart before the horse.  Weather models are notoriously inaccurate.  Applying more heat to them only begets more notoriously inaccurate outcomes.



RejZoR said:


> What was causing "accelerated CO2 emissions" thousands of years ago when same global warming events occurred repeatedly? Someone was playing with time machine again lol
> 
> View attachment 104887
> 
> ...


That's from ice core data.  Let me add observed data since then for you:



It's not 100s of thousands of years anymore (passed that up a long time ago).  CO2 hasn't been this high in over a million years.



StrayKAT said:


> People could just watch a simple "Early Earth" documentary and realize just how badass the Earth is. Massive asteroid bombardment for millions of years, molten surfaces throughout the planet, eons long Ice Ages, super volcanoes going off every day, no atmospheric protections, etc., etc.. It might be the most arrogant statement of Man yet that he's somehow capable of destroying this thing, with his little toy trucks. Not to say there aren't climate changes, but to think it's all manmade is the issue. Or better yet, thinking it can be solved by man as well.. that's arrogant too. All of these rollback efforts wouldn't make a dent.


Earth is a non-sentient mass.  Conservation of mass dictates that it will always be around in one state or another.  Sentient life on Earth, however, is quite delicate.  We're experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction event now.  Mammilian populations have declined by 80% since 1900 with few exceptions (mice, dogs, cats, humans, rats, raccoons, etc.)


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 5, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which was incorrect (Curry's paper showed that years ago). The excessive greenhouse gases causes there to be more thermal energy in the atmosphere.



Overall yes.  But El Nino and El Nina conditions are much more prevalent now, and those in general lead to more severe weather in pacific coast regions and nearby.

I may have been biased there as admitedly, I live in one of those regions.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Earth is a non-sentient mass. Conservation of mass dictates that it will always be around in one state or another. Sentient life on Earth, however, is quite delicate. We're experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction event now. Mammilian populations have declined by 80% since 1900 with few exceptions (mice, dogs, cats, humans, rats, raccoons, etc.)



Also this.  No one is talking about literally destroying the earth.  Even all-out nuclear war could not do that, guys.  We are talking about ending life on earth as we know it.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Aug 5, 2018)

Supposedly clever people still think man made global warming is a thing, how arrogant are you for thinking we have any kind of say on the seasons of this planet we inhabit?

Hottest summer since records began ummmm 200 years ago compared to 15 billion years since the conception of the universe, but hey, 200 years of industrial revolution have destroyed a planet that has seen more extreme weather conditions in a millenia than you could ever dream of


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 5, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Www.ww.w.w what?! Does not compute... lol.
> 
> Sorry for coming out hard on you here but... this must be said. See this is YOUR point of view and it sounds American - in all the glory of its ignorance. The country with the highest homicide rates in the world that still sells guns freely, no matter how many schools and kids get shot up 'because muh Freedom and muh constitutional rights, durrr'. Just one example of its infinite stupidity and hypocrisy, but worth a mention because it signifies your self destructive culture. Its not about criminalization of ANYTHING and its not even about politics or who rules what or over who. Its not even about individuals. Its about a change in our approach to every system we have. If you reduce the issue to 'some tax or additional pressure on the little man' that just confirms how short sighted you are. And yes, I'm very sorry, but if you are still disputing the obvious today, you fall in the category of Flat-Earthers and anti-vaccination idiots who deserve to be quarantined and shot off to Mars or something.
> 
> ...



The "largest possible scale" is impossible. The world is built up of nations. It's not a global society that carries ANYTHING out on a very large scale. And thus, the largest possible scale in the current circumstances just lays the burden on one: The Americans, who you already show to be dismissive towards right off the bat. You want the livelihood and hard work of it's citizens, even while calling them ignorant at the same time. This doesn't bode well. This goes for the UN and Nato and every other supposed global effort. It's just shorthand for "Get the stupid Americans to pay for it."

That said, we'll probably just help out with environmental disasters. That's about the best you can ask for them to do willingly.

Americans aside, things like the Paris Treaty especially weren't good on a large scale no matter how you put it. You don't even have to mention America: It actually created obstacles for smaller/"third world" countries from ever reaping the benefits of their own industrial revolutions. Now that Europe and America and parts of Asia had their own, it was going to snuff out anyone else's chances of achieving the same. So much for actually improving things. It'd inadvertently keep certain countries perpetually in the dark ages.. or at best, make them overly dependent on existing power sources from the bigger countries.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 5, 2018)

I'm sorry but I cannot believe the levels of ego-driven arrogance in this thread.
Evidence for what IS happening doesn't come from one or two scientific fields or observed measurements.
Just because you don't understand the evidence of something or can't fathom it doesn't make it wrong.
There are so many types of science and variables involved here that one human brain couldn't possibly cope with it all...that is unless you're a denier...apparently they have an IQ unseen in all of history.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 5, 2018)

jmcslob said:


> I'm sorry but I cannot believe the levels of ego-driven arrogance in this thread.
> Evidence for what IS happening doesn't come from one or two scientific fields or observed measurements.
> Just because you don't understand the evidence of something or can't fathom it doesn't make it wrong.
> There are so many types of science and variables involved here that one human brain couldn't possibly cope with it all...that is unless you're a denier...apparently they have an IQ unseen in all of history.



I don't see anyone being arrogant in this thread, or making claims to scientific expertise. I for one am calling for less hysteria, and simply defending taxpayers. Anything that destroys the livelihood of people better have some tangible benefit to make it worth it. Even the most pie-in-the-sky social welfare program can provide this much. You could actually win them over if you could do it. Vague claims won't do it. And certainly not fractional reductions of CO2 over centuries. That's almost like some modern (but less bizarre) version of Catholic indulgences. Pay now, to get us out of the Purgatory to come.

Frankly, no one gives a shit. Call them shortsighted or stupid. They still don't give a shit - At the end of the day, putting food on the table (and whatever threatens that) is still more important to them than what happens a hundred years later. Scientists who don't get this must be the eggheads they actually seem to be, unable to relate to practical concerns. And politicians who make appeals this way are highly suspect. Usually wars and massive suppression is needed to get this much money and commitment from people. Now suddenly you just expect them to give it up on purpose?

edit: Also, I should add..or rather repeat.. that I'm not against alternative energy sources especially. And I started in this thread speaking against pollution. These are also the things everyday people know that they can benefit from. Keep things at that, and you can start making allies. This other shit isn't going to help.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 5, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> The "largest possible scale" is impossible. The world is built up of nations. It's not a global society that carries ANYTHING out on a very large scale. And thus, the largest possible scale in the current circumstances just lays the burden on one: The Americans, who you already show to be dismissive towards right off the bat. You want the livelihood and hard work of it's citizens, even while calling them ignorant at the same time. This doesn't bode well. This goes for the UN and Nato and every other supposed global effort. It's just shorthand for "Get the stupid Americans to pay for it."
> 
> That said, we'll probably just help out with environmental disasters. That's about the best you can ask for them to do willingly.
> 
> Americans aside, things like the Paris Treaty especially weren't good on a large scale no matter how you put it. You don't even have to mention America: It actually created obstacles for smaller/"third world" countries from ever reaping the benefits of their own industrial revolutions. Now that Europe and America and parts of Asia had their own, it was going to snuff out anyone else's chances of achieving the same. So much for actually improving things. It'd inadvertently keep certain countries perpetually in the dark ages.. or at best, make them overly dependent on existing power sources from the bigger countries.



No, the burden for environmental improvement was never with the Americans and no they really arent paying for it, quite the opposite. Its one of the largest polluters in the world and the American is the most wasteful citizen on the planet. Regardless even of its place on the social ladder.

This has nothing to do with, once again, world wars and/or the US role in conflict because really, that is all it really pays for and it only does that to further its own interests at the cost of others. Whats really happening is that the US stands to lose the most, along with China, because it has to change the most and that is going to cost influential people money. Its all about that, and that alone. Human lives? Human rights? Everything is secondary to profit. Everything is for sale. Screw ethics, screw common sense, its exactly as you put it: will there be food on the table tomorrow? If that is a perspective you support, that really says it all. You are right, many dont look or think any further than that... but it doesnt mean they shouldnt.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 5, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> The country with the highest homicide rates in the world that still sells guns freely, no matter how many schools and kids get shot up 'because muh Freedom and muh constitutional rights, durrr'.


As someone in a field to know this, school shootings, though sensational, are a minuscule number of gun deaths.  Almost all gun deaths are committed by criminals in gang on gang violence, and no, they didn’t purchase their guns.

It’s really best to have actual knowledge of a subject before discussing, not using mass media as your teacher.  It might also be wise to read all the papers and notes of the U.S. Constitutional writers to understand the reason for gun rights: because no government, even one’s own is to be trusted.

One of the U.S. most liberal states (I use the term because in the U.S. they are the most ant-gun rights), Vermont, who regularly produce progressives and socialists like Bernie Sanders was the first “Constitutional Carry” state, and its citizens still strongly believe in that.  Remarkably, they consistently have one of the lowest murder rates in the nation, yet large numbers of the population own guns.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 5, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> No, the burden for environmental improvement was never with the Americans and no they really arent paying for it, quite the opposite. Its one of the largest polluters in the world and the American is the most wasteful citizen on the planet. Regardless even of its place on the social ladder.
> 
> This has nothing to do with, once again, world wars and/or the US role in conflict because really, that is all it really pays for and it only does that to further its own interests at the cost of others. Whats really happening is that the US stands to lose the most, along with China, because it has to change the most and that is going to cost influential people money. Its all about that, and that alone. Human lives? Human rights? Everything is secondary to profit. Everything is for sale. Screw ethics, screw common sense, its exactly as you put it: will there be food on the table tomorrow? If that is a perspective you support, that really says it all. You are right, many dont look or think any further than that... but it doesnt mean they shouldnt.



The whole point of your ethical concerns is to ensure wellbeing and survival of humankind.. Yet in the same breath, you mock those very things when "wellbeing" and "survival" are applied to immediate concerns - like food. No, humanity's survival has to to be some abstract ideal to you.. Else it's not grand enough or something.

You'll never win anyone over like this. Enviromental concerns have a better chance of improving things when they focus on immediacy as well. People cringe at how pollution immediately effects them, for example. That will work if you drive the point home enough.

Speaking of pollution, you say you care about it, but just earlier, you were singing Al Gore's praises. The guy with a $30,000 utility bill and has 10x the carbon footprint of the average person. Care to explain this?

Not to mention that you expect everyone to just sacrifice taxes and jobs.. and mock them if they don't.. yet you praise a guy who reaps massive benefits in the HERE and NOW.. tons of partnerships with "green" companies, hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech, etc.. He sacrifices nothing and pollutes more to boot. Yet the average Joe or Jane are the bad guys.. because they simply don't hop along unquestioningly to your views.. and because they don't want to sacrifice things either, like Al Gore. Why is he special? Is this even about environmentalism or is it class warfare?


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 5, 2018)

Most wealthy people probably have a massive eco footprint.  I'm not exactly an Al-Gore fan (frankly I think he set us back more than he pushed us forward) but I'd argue he probably is the rule in his income segment, not the exception.



NdMk2o1o said:


> Supposedly clever people still think man made global warming is a thing, how arrogant are you for thinking we have any kind of say on the seasons of this planet we inhabit?



Not as arrogant as people who still refuse to look at established science, I assure you.

I sometimes wonder if locale plays into the politics of this.  For me Climate Change is real and I feel it every day with Washingtons increasingly destructively warmer weather patterns.  I guess someone who isn't in such a hotspot may have an easier time with the denial, and can easily rationalize it with 200 year old selective "peak figures" rather than sensible averages, etc.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 5, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Most wealthy people probably have a massive eco footprint.  I'm not exactly an Al-Gore fan (frankly I think he set us back more than he pushed us forward) but I'd argue he probably is the rule in his income segment, not the exception.



Leonardo DiCaprio also comes to mind. He's always giving talks about this subject.. only to leave and party on a giant yacht and probably spends a large portion of his time in a private jet.

Personally, I've only been on an airliner a handful of times. And barely drive. But I'm not slurping your dicks, so I must be the bad guy.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> For me Climate Change is real and I feel it every day with Washingtons increasingly destructively warmer weather patterns.


It's nearly impossible to tie any weather event to climate change.  We're only talking about an average of 1-2C increase in surface temperature globally which is very mild.  The problem is that it affects oceanic conveyors, atmospheric conveyors, and how much water on the planet is solid which, in turn, influences weather.  "I feel it every day" is weather, not climate.  Climate change causes different species of trees becoming dominant and climate sensitive animals to migrate.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Aug 5, 2018)

Issue = too many people
There will come a time we won't be able to support the world population; food or water. Wars will break out, nations will shatter/fall. People will become more divided.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

According to that link above, nearly 2.5x as many people are born every day as compared to the amount that die. It's estimated the world population will be upwards of 10 billion people by 2050 (that's about 2.8 billion more than there are estimated today).

More people = more polution/less food/less resources

We're are our own worst enemy in this whole thing. People will manipulate information. Others will blindly follow. Others will be in complete denial. Others will fall in the middle......people will fight each other about resources as time progresses due to the continued high population growth. Unless there really is some miracle breakthrough in being able to produce enough food and clean water for the world's growing population, well, we'll end up succumbing to a mass genocide through war, plague, virus or drought. Life on the planet will balance out in due time - whether it is with humans or not. As to when this will happen, I'd venture to guess sometime in the next 50-100 years, barring (as I said), some miracle breakthrough that can solve all our issues.

At least that's how I see it.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 5, 2018)

neatfeatguy said:


> Issue = too many people
> There will come a time we won't be able to support the world population; food or water. Wars will break out, nations will shatter/fall. People will become more divided.
> 
> http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
> ...



Fertility rates are actually declining in one sense. It was once predicted (early 90s/UN report) that there'd be over 10 billion people on Earth by this time. It's not panning out that way. It could be that it's already peaking. If that's the case, I guess you could say sustaining it can be more easily managed.

If that makes you feel better.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2018)

neatfeatguy said:


> According to that link above, nearly 2.5x as many people are born every day as compared to the amount that die. It's estimated the world population will be upwards of 10 billion people by 2050 (that's about 2.8 billion more than there are estimated today).


Which is why Gates, Clinton, and other initiatives are trying to raise the developing world out of poverty as fast as possible (and with a small carbon footprint while they're at it).  The more educated and prosperous, the less likely to have >2 children.  Most of the West has a declining native population which is why they have pro-immigration policies.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 5, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Climate change causes different species of trees becoming dominant and climate sensitive animals to migrate.



And that's precisely what I am talking about.  As I read that I practically had to stop myself from screaming out a list of our latest invasive southern species.

I've observed this over decades, and so have the animals and plants here.  This isn't one incident.



StrayKAT said:


> Fertility rates are actually declining in one sense. It was once predicted (early 90s/UN report) that there'd be over 10 billion people on Earth by this time. It's not panning out that way. It could be that it's already peaking. If that's the case, I guess you could say sustaining it can be more easily managed.
> 
> If that makes you feel better.



Well they already have started falling in the west.  The issue is impoverished regions.  People in poverty do tend to have more children.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 5, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which is why Gates, Clinton, and other initiatives are trying to raise the developing world out of poverty as fast as possible (and with a small carbon footprint while they're at it).  The more educated and prosperous, the less likely to have >2 children.  Most of the West has a declining native population which is why they have pro-immigration policies.



Yet in the same breath, they would promote things like the Paris Treaty that kept the third world from ever achieving their own industrial revolutions and relying on the same energy sources America/China did. And make them dependent on sources from established countries to boot.

That's no way to create prosperous people. In fact, it's more of the same class warfare I'm talking about above - except on national scales.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 5, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Yet in the same breath, they would promote things like the Paris Treaty that kept the third world from ever achieving their own industrial revolutions and relying on the same energy sources America/China did. And make them dependent on sources from established countries to boot.



Why would it be more profitable for them to make their revolution themselves with old tech?

It shouldn't be.  No one is seriously going to rebuild steam era tech for anything but novelty value, nor should they.  Heck, honestly it would be best to skip fossil fuels all together and go with Nuclear, but there are obvious hurdles there...  and terrorism concerns.

Anyways, point is:  That "race" is over, they already lost.  Why in the world wouldn't they at least pay to get up to speed?  It should be CHEAPER than the alternative.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 5, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Why would it be more profitable for them to make their revolution themselves with old tech?
> 
> It shouldn't be.  No one is seriously going to rebuild steam era tech for anything but novelty value, nor should they.  Heck, honestly it would be best to skip fossil fuels all together and go with Nuclear, but there are obvious hurdles there...  and terrorism concerns.
> 
> Anyways, point is:  That "race" is over, they already lost.  Why in the world wouldn't they at least pay to get up to speed?  It should be CHEAPER than the alternative.



It's not about using "steam" in particular -- but anything available and to it's full potential.. without having your hands tied or billions of dollars being allocated to what outsiders say you should do. No one else previously had to worry about this. So they shouldn't either.

edit: I mean, something as basic as building a dam becomes a huge burden, with possible new restrictions on fuel for machinery and steel production. America and China never worried about this (and if anyone had tried to stop it, they'd cause a war anyways)… yet the third world lacks sovereignty and fairness in the matter. And only deserve handouts and pity and directions from your "betters", apparently.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 5, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> It's not about using "steam" in particular -- but anything available and to it's full potential.. without having your hands tied or billions of dollars being allocated to what outsiders say you should do. No one else previously had to worry about this. So they shouldn't either.
> 
> edit: I mean, something as basic as building a dam becomes a huge burden, with possible new restrictions on fuel for machinery and steel production. America and China never worried about this (and if anyone had tried to stop it, they'd cause a war anyways)… yet the third world lacks sovereignty and fairness in the matter. And only deserve handouts and pity and directions from your "betters", apparently.



I really don't see the problem because the accord is both optional and largely focused on carbon emissions, which can be dealt with in a variety of ways.  I guess I would need to research that particular accord more, but I'm fairly sure an educated person like Gates has his reasons and they aren't silly.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 5, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> I really don't see the problem because the accord is both optional and largely focused on carbon emissions, which can be dealt with in a variety of ways.  I guess I would need to research that particular accord more, but I'm fairly sure an educated person like Gates has his reasons and they aren't silly.



Gates is just virtue signaling, after all of the years of those Locutus memes. I sympathize with and like him, but that's no way to deal with your guilt.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 5, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> You keep fooling yourself with those arguments, its clear you choose to blind yourself, nothing amyone says will change that. Just dont try to fool others with it because that just looks sad and infinitely stupid.
> 
> There is only one reason to deny climate change and that is because people are invested in something they might lose. That alone should tell you enough and if you cannot see that, all hope is lost.



You can say I am fooling myself and I can say you are brainwashed. There is only one reason to believe man made climate change and that is so you can invest in the carbon credits scheme.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2018)

Technology created the problem and technology will fix it.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 5, 2018)

Easy Rhino said:


> You can say I am fooling myself and I can say you are brainwashed. There is only one reason to believe man made climate change and that is so you can invest in the carbon credits scheme.



I don't think the average advocate is this way. I think they're being used by those who are. And for some reason, put these people in an untoucable category.. like high priests or something.

Their ideals may be good though..even if a bit zealous and dismissive of others. That's the saddest thing about it.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 5, 2018)

Easy Rhino said:


> There is only one reason to believe man made climate change and that is so you can invest in the carbon credits scheme.



So who gets the big check in the "carbon credits scheme?"  The green energy companies?  The ones that literally need subsidies to survive?  Oh my, I must have missed their scrooge McDuck vaults amongst all the lack of profits they are making.

I certainly don't get any kickbacks.  And you can't say we are brainwashed with any real credibility.  Reading actual science isn't brainwashing.  Ignoring science and spouting a lack of evidence and the same tired disproven facts is.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Technology created the problem and technology will fix it.



I sure hope technology is more reliable than public opinion.


----------



## dorsetknob (Aug 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> go with Nuclear,





StrayKAT said:


> using "steam"


You can't use Nuclear without using Steam (except in Space )
In case you forgot the two Technology are intertwined ( at the moment).
The Main Problem  In Global warming /climate change is Energy consumption and Production


----------



## qubit (Aug 6, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Supposedly clever people still think man made global warming is a thing, how arrogant are you for thinking we have any kind of say on the seasons of this planet we inhabit?
> 
> Hottest summer since records began ummmm 200 years ago compared to 15 billion years since the conception of the universe, but hey, 200 years of industrial revolution have destroyed a planet that has seen more extreme weather conditions in a millenia than you could ever dream of


How can you still maintain this blinkered notion when there's so much hard evidence in this thread and elsewhere that it's man made? This is idiotic, kinda like a flat earther.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 6, 2018)

Flat earth is biggest bullshit ever anyway. It's physically existent, just go into space and look at it ffs. Or travel across it and come back to starting point, you don't fall of an edge... For global warming, there is no denying that global warming exists. What's not so universal is whether it's actually man made. There were global warming and cooling cycles. They happened in cycles WAY before we were even around. If you look at data, it varies even back then. So, just because it's now a bit off than the last one, that doesn't mean Earth will just implode now.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 6, 2018)

RejZoR said:


> Flat earth is biggest bullshit ever anyway. It's physically existent, just go into space and look at it ffs. Or travel across it and come back to starting point, you don't fall of an edge... For global warming, there is no denying that global warming exists. What's not so universal is whether it's actually man made. There were global warming and cooling cycles. They happened in cycles WAY before we were even around. If you look at data, it varies even back then. So, just because it's now a bit off than the last one, that doesn't mean Earth will just implode now.



It's a lot more than a "bit off."


----------



## qubit (Aug 6, 2018)

RejZoR said:


> Flat earth is biggest bullshit ever anyway. It's physically existent, just go into space and look at it ffs. Or travel across it and come back to starting point, you don't fall of an edge... For global warming, there is no denying that global warming exists. What's not so universal is whether it's actually man made. There were global warming and cooling cycles. They happened in cycles WAY before we were even around. If you look at data, it varies even back then. So, just because it's now a bit off than the last one, that doesn't mean Earth will just implode now.


Yeah, as RTB said, it's more than a "bit off". Way more, in fact. Just look at some of the links in this thread showing that it's man-made. You really can't deny it nowadays, as I'm sure you know.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 6, 2018)

Everyone panicking about it, but you can copy my words into a TXT file and back it up in a bunker to read it later that it just won't matter in the end. The cycle will happen with or without our help. And it will achieve equilibrium one way or another. What everyone is freaking out now is preventing the cycle from happening somehow because raised oceans are just so fucking inconvenient.. That's the expectations I'm getting from the people freaking out. It happening now or in 500 years time, like it fucking matters. It'll happen. Just like magnetic poles will invert whether we'll like it or not and just like Earth will keep on cycling around sun and its own axis whether we like it or not. The inconvenience of living during the cycle era just sucks and that's why everyone is freaking out.


----------



## qubit (Aug 6, 2018)

@RejZoR The world is supposed to be gently sliding into another mini ice age (we're overdue) when it's doing just the opposite, heating up rapidly instead. Doesn't that alone tell you something?

That's not me saying about the ice age either, I've read it on the likes of New Scientist etc years ago.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 6, 2018)

Man, I've been reading the same arguments against climate change and man's influence on it for over a decade now "How can we ever have that influence"... its documented, supported by countless measurements, and no matter how many of those you throw in, its still not 'real'. Regardless of all the new research and evidence people still spout the same nonsense.

You can save your breath. People that don't *want* to know, will never know. They will take any straw as a major argument against reality. Its flat-earther / chem trail territory and there is no way anyone will convince them otherwise - until at some point something serious happens in their lives that forces a radical change in one way or another. Is it really that obvious? YES. You just fail to realize it, which is exactly what all those conspiracy theorists fail at regardless of the subject.

Its a bit like religious fanatics, and those still exist too. Both groups are also the same in how they are being used politically and to expand and preserve vested interests. They will use ANY argument as an absolute to deny the whole ecosystem that opposes that. Facts be damned. Science be damned. There are so many similarities its stunning that people don't see it.



StrayKAT said:


> The whole point of your ethical concerns is to ensure wellbeing and survival of humankind.. Yet in the same breath, you mock those very things when "wellbeing" and "survival" are applied to immediate concerns - like food. No, humanity's survival has to to be some abstract ideal to you.. Else it's not grand enough or something.
> 
> You'll never win anyone over like this. Enviromental concerns have a better chance of improving things when they focus on immediacy as well. People cringe at how pollution immediately effects them, for example. That will work if you drive the point home enough.
> 
> ...



I applaud your argumentation but I don't think you understand mine.

I'm not here to win anyone over. I'm way past that, the ship has sailed LONG ago. Today, if you still fail to realize what's happening, you're just a stupid fool and you cannot be helped. The fact that Trump has gained all this traction and got elected, and the power block that supports him speaks volumes of that reality. Its a self-imposed, incredibly short sighted stupidity that counters any kind of sensible move forward. Its that power block also that still supports gun ownership regardless of school shootings and overwhelming evidence that ownership is leading to much higher homicide rates. The similarities are too striking to ignore. You speak of blown up in the media but this isn't about blowing anything up, its about FACTS and NUMBERS that simply don't lie, and school shootings simply stand out as an outrageous example. They happened in Europe, too. But not in the same quantity or frequency, not by long shot. Its a difference so blatantly obvious no amount of media can paint a different picture.

If you really think food on the table tomorrow is the _most important_ and if that is your perspective with regards to climate change then NO, I will never expect you capable enough to understand that its about the day _after tomorrow._ Its about the world your kids will grow up in, not your own egotistical self. Thát is a perspective that has meaning to it and a perspective and time frame that forces people into action against climate change. Food on the table tomorrow is the perspective of the hunter-gatherer up until the industrial revolution. And that is exactly what these anti lobbies are aiming at: the old world, the filthy one based on petrol, heavy machinery and no regard whatsoever for ecological footprint. Because that has always proven to be 'easy money'. And that is also what 'food on the table tomorrow' effectively means: easy money. And who cares what tomorrow really looks like, as long as *your* belly is full, screw everyone else. All it really means is getting fat at the expense of others, and ultimately, at the expense of everyone including yourself.

You can have a look at China where we've outsourced much of our production capacity, and the air quality you will find in large regions of that country as a result of that. People literally die at younger age than they did during the industrial revolution. But hey, surely man can't do that, right? Nahh. Man is also totally not responsible for a sharp decrease in eco diversity, the extinction of hundreds of species already, and removing forests by huge percentage from the face of the Earth. Nah, doesn't exist, those things just vanished all of a sudden. And its obviously also a complete lie that trees support the reduction of CO2 in the air. Those are also totally not related to greenhouse gases at all. Fuck that! We need food on the table tomorrow!

About Al Gore, that is just another example of using the wrong arguments to make a point, so the guy has a footprint, how does that change anything about the message he brought? Why is it good fashion to go into naming and shaming and not speak of the message itself? And what does that way of acting against a difficult message remind you of? Surely I don't have to spell it out, right?

Here's a nice video. Unrelated to this specific topic, but very related to the train of thought some people have shown:

Note very carefully Michelle's wording about flat earth theories. Also note her tone of voice. Its the tone they use in primary school. Don't worry its just 30 seconds in.


----------



## qubit (Aug 6, 2018)

@Vayra86 Well said. The root of it seems to be cognitive dissonance, of which there's plenty to go round, unfortunately.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 6, 2018)

qubit said:


> @Vayra86 Well said. The root of it seems to be cognitive dissonance, of which there's plenty to go round, unfortunately.



The root of every resistance to proven, necessary change is cognitive dissonance.

Nobody is immune to it. I suffer from that with regards to driving a car... there is no way I will ever want my car to drive ME. But realistically? The roads will be much safer, less crowded and used much more efficiently. But you can still find me saying 'I'm going to be a better driver than any self driving car' and 'No way a self driving car will be able to predict every situation right'.

I'm also not happy with the movement against all those things that spice up life, such as eating meat, driving a fast, noisy vehicle and a few dozen other things that evidently can be done more efficiently or are completely unnecessary to do. But to convert that unhappiness to 'man can never influence climate change'.. man that is an illusion I will never be able to live with. Its obvious that when you change a system so radically it will adapt. And we have changed many systems of this planet in a big way.


----------



## qubit (Aug 6, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> The root of every resistance to proven, necessary change is cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Nobody is immune to it. I suffer from that with regards to driving a car... there is no way I will ever want my car to drive ME. But realistically? The roads will be much safer, less crowded and used much more efficiently.


I think I'm pretty resistant to it and doubt that I suffer it about anything. Speak for yourself! 

Now you mention cars, I'm mixed about that, as it will take away, as well as bring benefits. A major benefit for me is a long distance endurance drive, where I invariably tend to sleep at the wheel, so I avoid it, or take extra rest breaks. On the minus side, I love driving and driving the car _my_ way.  I won't be able to do that anymore. These scenarios are just one example.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> So who gets the big check in the "carbon credits scheme?"  The green energy companies?  The ones that literally need subsidies to survive?  Oh my, I must have missed their scrooge McDuck vaults amongst all the lack of profits they are making.
> 
> I certainly don't get any kickbacks.  And you can't say we are brainwashed with any real credibility.  Reading actual science isn't brainwashing.  Ignoring science and spouting a lack of evidence and the same tired disproven facts is.



I am reading a lot of words but not seeing much content. Still not seeing any data that proves humans are causing climate change.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 6, 2018)

Easy Rhino said:


> I am reading a lot of words but not seeing much content. Still not seeing any data that proves humans are causing climate change.



Then you just fail hard at reading, it says everything about you and nothing about the data.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 6, 2018)

Easy Rhino said:


> I am reading a lot of words but not seeing much content. Still not seeing any data that proves humans are causing climate change.



Read.  The.  Last.  2.  Pages.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 6, 2018)

But none of that proves humans are the cause. They just show that humans COULD BE a cause.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 6, 2018)

qubit said:


> @RejZoR The world is supposed to be gently sliding into another mini ice age (we're overdue) when it's doing just the opposite, heating up rapidly instead. Doesn't that alone tell you something?
> 
> That's not me saying about the ice age either, I've read it on the likes of New Scientist etc years ago.



I'm sure all the animals went extinct by past "gently sliding in" ice ages XD


----------



## qubit (Aug 6, 2018)

RejZoR said:


> I'm sure all the animals went extinct by past "gently sliding in" ice ages XD


I take it you've understood and agreed with what I've said and are just having a little joke. 

I'm glad you now realize that this level of climate change is man made.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 6, 2018)

It's not. Just because it's a bit different this time around that doesn't automatically make it a man made problem. That's like going batshit crazy over one winter not being as cold as the one from 5 years ago. Shit happening on Earth that ain't absolutely precise or consistent but was in general within the lines of what happened already many times. Even if you look at the temperature graphs, they don't line up exactly every single time with warming up periods. Sometimes it was way warmer and it took way longer for temps to drop than some other exact same scenario. What makes current situation any different? It's a bit off and "it must be a man made problem" for sure then. It may be slightly affected. Or not at all. Carbon dioxide footprint increased by itself 50.000 years ago. Right? I mean, that's what science says. It increased by levels we're experiencing now. Exactly in line with the global warming and the increase of temperatures. I mean, 1+1=2 everyone? If it increased by same levels in the past, what makes them believe we're now the sole reason for it? Just because we happen to be right here, right now as it's happening? Lol. It's just so funny.


----------



## John Naylor (Aug 6, 2018)

There's no scandal.   No difference than when the subject was smoking and tobacco funded lobbyists where talking about their 85 year old grandfather who smokes 3 packs of lucky strikes a day.  It's no secret that the very same folks (See "Merchants of Doubt) who perpetuated the smoking is harmless agenda for the tobacco companies are now employed by the oil companies.   I'm not sure what is the true scanda a)  The perpetrators of the myth that data adjustment is a scam or b) the people who swallow it up w/o a thought.

a)  I taught Land Surveying and back in the day, we measured distances with a steel tape.  When we got back to the office, we adjusted the measurements ... oh what a scandal !   Those with a inkling of scientific knowledge reading this have recognized by now that the dimensions of any object vary by temperature.  Which is why our field logs recorded the temps at the time of each measurement.  So yes, we 'fiddled" with the data to make it accurate cause otherwise it would be meaningless.

b)  Are we done fiddling ?  Nope .... if we took 3 thermometers out in the field, we'd could get 3 different answers; so each unit is periodically tested against a standardized piece of equipment and a certificate is provided telling u how much we have to "fiddle" with the data to get the correct temperature reading

When measuring for climate change, obviously b) above needs to be done.  But what else ?

Example 1 ... from 1908 to 2014 a monitoring station has been used.  The location is in an open space.  In 2015 a building is constructed which casts a shadow over the monitoring station.  Not only is there the obvious expected change in numbers because of the shade, but wind patterns also change.  The impact of buildings, parking lots which create large "heat sinks" also changes temerature in the area.   So how can there by any comparison of pre and post temp data unless one set of numbers is "fiddled with" to adjust for the fact that conditions which affect measurements have changed ?   This is no different than comparing the cost of GFX cards over 20 years ... have they gone up in proce ?  When you look at the cost adjusted for "2017 dollars", we find that costs were remarkably stable. 

So who's right... the guy who says "Its a scandal in 2000 the top tier GFX card was only $500 , now it's $700 ... or the guy who "fiddles' with the data, makes adjustment for inflation and shows that the top tier $500 GFX card would cost $700 in 2107 dollars ?

https://images.hardocp.com/images/news/1489189662xrJkzvohX8_1_1.png

Example 2 - Over the years, the timing of the temperatures being taken has changed .. so would you say that if the 1990 - 2000 data showed an average of 80 degrees on a particular month over 10 years, then getting 80 (27C) degrees from 2000 - 2010 proves that there is no global warming ?  really ?  Even if the 1990 - 2000 numbers were at taken at 11:00 and the 2000 - 2010 were at 18:00 ?  Isn't it substantially cooler oin the late afternoon ?

Example 3 - What about technology changes.  Back in the day we made calls on land lines, no the cell dominates.  Back in the day, liquid in glass thermometers were used.  Now electronic resistance thermometers are used which automate much of the data collection.  When used 'side by side", it's immediately obvious that they don't record temperatures in the same way.  With elect9onic resistance measurement, the min and max extremes are nerfed a bit.    So how do you compare the years of liquid type versus resistance type if you don't adjust for the discrepancy ?    Science demands that you test the units side by side, record the deviations and then "fiddle" with the data so that any such comparisons actually have meaning.

Example 4 - Another means of determining necessary adjustments comes from comparing neighboring stations.  So you have station A which was used in example 1 and station B which has experienced no change.   From from 1908 to 2014, Station A's monthly averages were 2 degrees below Station B.  from 2015 to present, they are2 degrees above Station B ... is it not prudent to make the corresponding adjustment when comparing data ?

The most ironic thing about his "scandal" is that the adjustments, overall, show less global warming than would otherwise be indicated.  Historically, 3,297 of the 7,279 stations(45%)  in use any point in time starting point since 1801 have had adjustments performed, most occuring in the 30 year period between the 50s and 80s.   Over that time the number and magnitude of the adjustments have been offsetting.    If a teacher grades on a curve and adds +1, +2. +3. +4 on 4 tests and them adjusts -1, -2, -3, -4 on 4 tests the overall class grade doesn't change.

Ocean data received the biggest adjustment ... the original method used was to throw a bucket over the side, drag up  apail of water and stick a thermometer in it, out in the sun.  The current method is to use a calibrated thermal sensor in the engine cooling water intake.   Obviously we are using different instruments, taking water from different depths (surface water will be warmer) so again, unless you make an adjustment for that, comparing the data is impossible.  That stopped at the end of the 1940s so had no effect on the last 78 years.  But since then it has been observed that ship collected data is noticeably warmer than buoy data

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
https://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

The Cimategate scandal belongs in with other legends like pizzagate, Qanon, the moon landing was fake, the earth is flat and the twin towers was a US deep state plot.

As for the man made part..... we have 800,000 years of ice cores showing conclusively that temps rise in accordance with CO2 levels.  The last time CO2 was this high, humans did not exist.  We can see 8 peaks in CO2 levels, one occurring about every100,000 years always topping out between 260 and 280 ppm.  Eight times CO2 went up, 8 times temps went up ... 8 times CO2 declined, and temps declinedso the link between CO2 and temperature is irrefutable.   Now we topped 400 ppm.  No mystery here.   Again no surprise the folks driving this agenda are the same folks claiming cigarettes were safe.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 6, 2018)

Easy Rhino said:


> But none of that proves humans are the cause. They just show that humans COULD BE a cause.





> Just because it's a bit different this time around that doesn't automatically make it a man made problem.



I mean seriously?  Let's examine this like a court trial.

So we establish that CO2 relates to athmospheric warming (don't think so?  See above).

We establish that CO2 has taken an unnatural high during a suspicious period of CO2 emissions known as the "Industrial Revolution"  This is almost literally a "smoking gun."  (Don't even mention the part where the numbers of the CO2 rise in ppm roughly CORRESPOND WITH FRICKIN INDUSTRIAL EMISSION FIGURES).

Dude, there's no reasonable doubt left.  If this were a murder trial, humanity would be on death row by now.  Why you continue to have faith that everything is not our fault despite all evidence to the contrary can only be described as willful ignorance.



RejZoR said:


> I'm sure all the animals went extinct by past "gently sliding in" ice ages XD



They probably died pretty horribly.  You think we are arguing any of this is nice?  We're arguing it would suck far far worse were the ice age IRREVERSIBLE which is what such an upshoot could do to us.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 6, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> ...the twin towers was a US deep state plot.


Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Not to derail the thread but there's a lot of evidence that contradicts the official story (e.g. FBI listing for Usama bin Laden never mentioning it and most of the attackers were Saudi which doesn't fit the al Qaeda MO at all).  NTSB was cut off from investigating and little of the wreckage was saved.  WTC-7, to this day, remains the only steel tower ever to collapse "due to fire."


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Not to derail the thread but there's a lot of evidence that contradicts the official story (e.g. FBI listing for Usama bin Laden never mentioning it, most of the attackers were Saudi which doesn't fit the al Qaeda MO at all, and "nano" thermite material patented in April 2001 was found in chip form all around the WTC wreckage in December 2001).



That really is a topic for another thread though.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 6, 2018)

Indeed.


On topic:
CO2 -> heat rises -> permafrost thaws -> frozen CH4 is released to atmosphere
the growing number of cattle also hugely contribute to CH4 rising

In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, cattle are the absolute worst for the environment.

But beef is so tasty. :C


----------



## Totally (Aug 6, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> There's no scandal.   No difference than when the subject was smoking and tobacco funded lobbyists where talking about their 85 year old grandfather who smokes 3 packs of lucky strikes a day.  It's no secret that the very same folks (See "Merchants of Doubt) who perpetuated the smoking is harmless agenda for the tobacco companies are now employed by the oil companies.   I'm not sure what is the true scanda a)  The perpetrators of the myth that data adjustment is a scam or b) the people who swallow it up w/o a thought.
> 
> a)  I taught Land Surveying and back in the day, we measured distances with a steel tape.  When we got back to the office, we adjusted the measurements ... oh what a scandal !   Those with a inkling of scientific knowledge reading this have recognized by now that the dimensions of any object vary by temperature.  Which is why our field logs recorded the temps at the time of each measurement.  So yes, we 'fiddled" with the data to make it accurate cause otherwise it would be meaningless.
> 
> ...



Answer to "fiddling" with something like climate data is you don't. Correct thing to would be to take more readings and things like wind patterns, physical changes in the environment would have a marginal effect or the comparisons, one 'bad' would be mitigated by one bad one. Your example is something very specific using a specific tool really doesn't apply.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 6, 2018)

Totally said:


> Correct thing to would be to take more readings



From the temp of sea water in 1940s?

Ok, you supply the time machine.



FordGT90Concept said:


> In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, cattle are the absolute worst for the environment.



Cattle are also largely a human creation, so yeah.  Same thing I'd argue.


----------



## qubit (Aug 7, 2018)

I'm putting this here for the benefit of climate change deniers to exercise their cognitive dissonance and just dismiss it out of hand.

If summer 2018 isn't a wake up call, then maybe the increasingly stiflingly hot future summers will be. Or maybe they'll finally admit that the summers _are_ actually getting hotter, but just bleat on about there "being no proof" that it's man made, when it's really obvious by now that it is, and continue sticking their heads in the sand. Yeah, that's what'll happen. 



> A domino-like cascade of melting ice, warming seas, shifting currents and dying forests could tilt the Earth into a “hothouse” state beyond which human efforts to reduce emissions will be increasingly futile, a group of leading climate scientists has warned.
> 
> This grim prospect is sketched out in a journal paper that considers the combined consequences of 10 climate change processes, including the release of methane trapped in Siberian permafrost and the impact of melting ice in Greenland on the Antarctic.



https://www.theguardian.com/environ...events-could-push-earth-into-a-hothouse-state


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 7, 2018)

You're talking about weather again which is highly variable.  Here's an example comparing March 2017 to the average of 1951-1980:





Some places get colder, some places get hotter, aggregate of the entire planet is hotter.  Doesn't mean a particular person in a particular place is going to feel it.

Apparently it's gotten so hot over northern Asia that the picture doesn't even show it.  Picture only goes +/- 5 C but max was 12.1 C.

For the record, that is much, much worse than last time I looked at it years ago.  There was hot and cold spots balancing it out.  Now, Europe/northern Asia is blatantly burning up.  There's little in the way of cold spots to offset it.


----------



## MrGenius (Aug 7, 2018)

The climate/weather(as if they're different) has not changed, in my entire life, where I live.

Plus I'm guessing you're exaggerating. One extraordinarily hot summer...and all the sudden global warming is undeniably real. Instead of putting it in proper context. Like...you just can't remember the last summer that was as hot(or hotter). Or going through the record books and discovering that there were several summers on record that were as hot(or hotter). Including some well over a hundred years ago.


----------



## qubit (Aug 7, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> The climate/weather(as if they're different) has not changed, in my entire life, where I live.
> 
> Plus I'm guessing you're exaggerating. One extraordinarily hot summer...and all the sudden global warming is undeniably real. Instead of putting it in proper context. Like...you just can't remember the last summer that was as hot(or hotter). Or going through the record books and discovering that there were several summers on record that were as hot(or hotter). Including some well over a hundred years ago.


It's not one summer. It's been steadily getting warmer. I regularly see on the weather report that this or that extreme weather record has  been broken. That's a trend, not an isolated case. Also, read the flipping article, which supports this instead of trying to blow it off as a one time event.

What did I say about that cognitive dissonance?

@FordGT90Concept Not sure if you're talking to me there?  That map you've posted is frightening.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 7, 2018)

Here's the raw data for the graph above:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

All figures are given in 0.01C.  All figures are caculated based on the 1951-1980 average.  Based on that, we're now ~1C hotter now (globally) than in the 1951-1980 base period.  We're ~1.5C hotter (globally) compared to 1900.

2018 appears to be colder compared to the 2016-2017 heat wave (relatively speaking).  Again, that may be because of AMOC wonkiness.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 7, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> climate/weather(as if they're different)



They are.




MrGenius said:


> Plus I'm guessing you're exaggerating. One extraordinarily hot summer...and all the sudden global warming is undeniably real.



We aren't exagerating.  We are using scientific measurements to establish averages that indicate a rise across decades...  and we are including all "record books."


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 7, 2018)

This is why I don't bother arguing this kind of stuff on the internet. Everyone regurgitates a bunch of stuff in a few articles they read and pretend they are experts on the matter. I have been around long enough to call BS on "movements." Especially ones that have been co-opted by political groups. I will just leave this here. Please message me directly when any of the actual predictions made in the past 30 years are proven correct.

Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm


----------



## AltCapwn (Aug 7, 2018)

I'm surprised of how many person still think that Earth is flat and climate change is a hoax.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 7, 2018)

altcapwn said:


> I'm surprised of how many person still think that Earth is flat and climate change is a hoax.


Nobody thinks climate change is a hoax.  What you have is one side saying it is caused by man. The other side says it is too small a section of history compared to the Earth’s age and thousands of climate changes to firmly say this.

I think none of us are gonna know the truth either way until it happens.  It might be prudent tho to do what we can to help the case for human survival, just in case.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 7, 2018)

I mean guys, the evidence it's happening is already here because many predicted targets (mainly co2 levels) have not only been met but exceeded.  You asked me to wake you...  Wake up.  It's here.



Easy Rhino said:


> This is why I don't bother arguing this kind of stuff on the internet. Everyone regurgitates a bunch of stuff in a few articles they read and pretend they are experts on the matter. I have been around long enough to call BS on "movements." Especially ones that have been co-opted by political groups. I will just leave this here. Please message me directly when any of the actual predictions made in the past 30 years are proven correct.
> 
> Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm



So...

Blame people for regurgitating articles.

Regurgitates article?

Really sensing a pot calling the kettle black here.  There is nothing wrong with sharing validated science.  That article is not that, and is part of the exact problem you are complaining about.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 7, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Nobody thinks climate change is a hoax.  What you have is one side saying it is caused by man. The other side says it is too small a section of history compared to the Earth’s age and thousands of climate changes to firmly say this.
> 
> I think none of us are gonna know the truth either way until it happens.  It might be prudent tho to do what we can to help the case for human survival, just in case.



I think what we 'really have' is one side using any last straw to prevent having to do anything about the issue. Thát is what people actually say when they say 'man can never cause this'. Otherwise, why would you even say it? It has no value in this discussion at all because the facts don't lie. Regardless of who causes it... why would you still not want to do everything to reduce or eliminate the problem? Out of the idea that it is pointless? Thát is exactly what all the science ALSO disproves. It does matter what we do, and it has an immediate effect on our wellbeing - quality of air, the stability of our harvest (hey, 'food on the table tomorrow'...hi!), and preserving ecodiversity. All of these things only help us and yet, somehow, people lobby against it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 7, 2018)

Easy Rhino said:


> This is why I don't bother arguing this kind of stuff on the internet. Everyone regurgitates a bunch of stuff in a few articles they read and pretend they are experts on the matter. I have been around long enough to call BS on "movements." Especially ones that have been co-opted by political groups. I will just leave this here. Please message me directly when any of the actual predictions made in the past 30 years are proven correct.
> 
> Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm


The reason why the thread was necro'd: it was predicted AMOC would slow causing warming across Europe, AMOC did slow, AMOC isn't recovering.



rtwjunkie said:


> I think none of us are gonna know the truth either way until it happens.  It might be prudent tho to do what we can to help the case for human survival, just in case.


Think of Earth's carbon in terms of ledger of several bank accounts.  The accounts are in parenthesis.  Yellow are natural transactions and red are man made transactions.  The balance of the ledger is negative (carbon is being added to the atmosphere faster than it is being removed:




Our daily CO2 measurements confirm more carbon is being released to the atmosphere than being removed.  It really is basic math.  Sure, the specifics are scientific estimates but even if the estimates are completely wrong, the basic math will always conclude CO2 is rising because that's what our instruments consistently tell us.


Oh, and the Inuit are already living it:
https://climatechangenunavut.ca/en/understanding-climate-change/climate-change-impact


----------



## John Naylor (Aug 7, 2018)

Totally said:


> Answer to "fiddling" with something like climate data is you don't. Correct thing to would be to take more readings and things like wind patterns, physical changes in the environment would have a marginal effect or the comparisons, one 'bad' would be mitigated by one bad one. Your example is something very specific using a specific tool really doesn't apply.



As a practicing engineer / scientist, if i ascribed to our outlook, I could not maintain  a professional license.   The data is not being fiddled with , it remains in its original form.  But you simply can not compare readings from 1908 and 2018 without making an adjustment.  If you want to compare the relative cost of bread in 1908 and 2018, you can not do that w/o accounting for the fact that a dollar is worth far less today than it was... which is why when such comparisons are made, the figures are adjusted for inflation.  That's all that is happening here. 

For some reason the forum does not show the link to the image I provided ... let's just try the link to the page

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/nvidia-shows-signs-2008-2017.43294/page-173

Scroll down to post 3444.  We see that the cost of the top tier card in the year 2000 was $500.   So how do we compare that to today, since the 2017 dollar is worth far less than the 2000 dollar, any such equation would be  a false equivalency.  So the relative worth of the dollar is factored in  order to provide a real comparison.  When adjusted for inflation, the GTX 1080 Ti costs the same $700 (in 2017 dollars) as the GeForce 2 Ultra did in 200 (in 2017 dollars.

Here's another one.   I have a 1 GB Drive from 1996 and a 500 GB drive from 2018.  By your logic, the 2018 holds 500 times as much files.   And your logic is wrong.  In the late 90s, the marketing types at one company redefined a GB as 1000 MB to convince consumers that their drives were bigger, soon after competitors followed.  Before that it was 1024 MB.  So no, it is NOT 500 times bigger because how a GB iss measured has changed.

http://www.ussscctv.com/harddrivesizecapacitiescalculator.aspx

A 500 GB drive contains only 465.66 GB so today's 500 GB can fit only 466 times as much files not 500.

By your logic.... if temps taken in the 40s via the bucket method were say 22C and temps taken today via the cooling water intake are 22C, by your logic today's ocean temps have not changed in 78 years.  This is a fantasy.  It is fantasy because in 2018, when you throw a bucket over the side like they did back then, the water is 24C where in the 40s it was 22C ... so when the data is tabulated, there's a columns for raw data for the measured result and then next to it, an "adjusted data" column to account for the scientifically determined 2C error introduced by the sampling methodology.  Tell me where we are losing you ...

1.  We want to compare the ocean temperature from before 1900 to today.
2.  Before 1940 they used the bucket method.
3.  After the 1940s they used the cooling water intake sensor.
4.  It is acknowledged that taking water samples closer to the surface always results in warmer temperatures for various reasons (bucket is warmer, surface water heated by sun to greater extent)
5.  From testing, taking two samples, one using each method thousands of times,  an adjustment of 2C is used to because thousands of data points have conclusively shown this number to be reliable.

So no ... under no reasonable extension of logic is there any evidence of a conspiracy other than the application of sound engineering and scientifc principles being applied.  The only "scandal" is the perpetuation of a myth suggesting there is.  The fact that these adjustments, if anything have depressed temperature measurements, pushes this proposition into "Enquirer Headline" territory.  On the same day and at the same time they can take 2,000 temperature measurements, 1000 each way and the difference in temps is reliably consistent.   So, no you can not argue that ocen temps have not gotten hotter since the 40s because they are now measuring temps "at depth" rather than at the warmer surface.  The scientoic methos demands that if you want to compare data from the pr 40s era and today, you can do one of two things.

Standardize on surface water temps and add 2C to all cooling water intake measurements "at depth"
Standardize on water temps "at depth" and subtract 2C from all surface water measurements

To do otherwise is to deny the scientific fact that water temps decrease with depth.

Another sample of you argument is .. I complain that the cost of orange juice has gone up since 2015.    You counter that it is the exact same cost.   It still cost $1.99.   I explain that in 2015, I was paying $1.99 (in 2015 dollars) for a pint container of orange juice.  Now the "pint" contains only 14.5 ounces instead of 16.  So the **real** cost of  a pint of orange juice is $2.20 cause the gypping me outta 1.5 ounces  ... you say no no no no no .... no fiddling with the numbers, a container of OJ still costs the same.  When comparsions are made, the must be "apples and "apples" otherwise it's not a comparison.

If ya wanna look at it another way ... MENSAs membership is for the top 2% of folks based upon IQ.  As a criteria for membership, one has to submit proof via performance on some sort of standardized test.  The criteria are adjusted because sometimes the top 2% falls above or below a set score..

SAT taken prior to 9/30/1974 = 1300
SAT taken from 9/30/1974 to 1/31/1994 = 1250

So yes, they had to fiddle with the qualifying scores when the test got harder in 1974.  If they didn't, their membership criteria of the top 2% is not being met

If you don't adjust data based upon conditions or influences that change during the course of the comparison, your data is meaningless.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 7, 2018)

G = giga- = 1,000,000,000
B = byte = 8 bits

GB, therefore, always meant 1,000,000,000 bytes.  Any reference to GB as representing 1,073,741,824 bytes is not following the SI standard.  IEC created the binary prefix standard in 1998 to describe the aforementioned number (giga-binary-byte or 2^30) which were adopted by SI in 2008.  GiB and GB cannot be used interchangeably without conversion.  Using the wrong symbol breaks the math just like it does everywhere else.  Microsoft is notorious for using GB to label GiB math.

Back when I had a Western Digital 250 MB drive, I checked this myself.  It had 250 MB, not MiB just like my 6 TB has 6 TB, not 6 TiB.  Hard drives have always used the SI standard.  RAM vendors have not and still do not.


----------



## MrGenius (Aug 7, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> They are.


Really? What is climate if it is not an average of weather conditions? The 2 are inextricably intertwined. To the the point that they are synonymous. When I say "the local climate is such and such", I could just as well say "the local weather is such and such", and the exact same point can be conveyed. 

Anyway...to reiterate, and expand on, my original point(from my first post in this thread). None of this matters. In the grander scheme of things it is totally irrelevant. Humans are doing what humans will do. Nothing can be done about it. We are part of a natural process. There is no disconnect between us and any other part of nature...in the entire Universe. We are incapable of acting in a way that is unnatural. There cannot be anything fundamentally "wrong" with the way we exploit the resources of this planet. We are doing as all species before us have done. And all species after us will do. When we become part of the fossil record, and long after which when all trace of our existence here is permanently erased, does any of this matter? Are you fool enough to think it will? 

But hey...if it makes you feel better devote your time and effort to something...then by all means do so. We are ultimately doomed though. 99% of all species that have existed on this planet are extinct. And there's no escaping the fact that unless we manage to leave this planet before the Sun expands and consumes it(like we have much chance of lasting anywhere near long enough for that to matter), we will become part of that statistic. In due time, even if we make our escape, that percentage will become 100. If we don't get ourselves, or some other thing does, the Universe(or more specifically entropy) has our number. NOTHING is permanent. NOTHING lasts forever. 

We are not special. We are not important. We don't mean anything except to ourselves. We have no significance. Whether I/we "accept" or "deny" "climate change" makes no difference in the end. When all's said and done, we will not be rewarded for our efforts regardless.

This thread is pointless.


----------



## robot zombie (Aug 7, 2018)

I don't think anybody is arguing that we can make the earth last forever. But some of us like this place and would like to be able to stay here a little longer. With that attitude we may as well all stay in bed, since one day it will be as though nobody ever existed and the last memory will fade.

I just can't understand that attitude. Yes, the earth could easily just sneeze us out of existence at any time, and that day will come. Doesn't make it a good idea to knowingly tickle its nose. I think it's simply human nature to act in self preservation whenever possible. There's knowing the end is coming, and then there is cherishing what you have. It's all the same in the end, but the choices we make now can influence the chances of whether that will be tomorrow or a long ways off. As mortal creatures, time is the most valuable asset we have. There will never be enough for us. When you have a limited amount of it, you strive to make it count and make sure you have as much of it as you can get.

You kinda said it, but there's another conclusion to follow up to. The universe doesn't give a shit about you or me. This is true. We don't mean anything except to ourselves. This also true. But why then, would we allow ourselves, as a collective, to do things that ultimately hurt everyone? If humanity cares about humanity, then it only makes sense to act in its own best interest. Neil Degrasse Tyson said it best "It's not the end of the world we're talking about... ...it's the end of US." If we could exist outside of the universe, we wouldn't care about it.

Most of us, I think simply want that to happen as far off as is humanly possible. For those of us in that boat it isn't a waste of time. This existence is a precarious, but very special one. Sometimes it doesn't need a reason. The fact that we exist is enough to justify our continued existence. It's not about the grand scheme of things. It's about being a conscious being, part of life. Of all of the things that can happen in the universe, it is about the least common occurrence known. That, in itself makes it worth sticking around for and exploring for as long as possible.... ...at least for us, as thinking and observing beings. The ability to learn and grow that much more has intrinsic meaning to us. It's just a fundamental part of being alive... ...seeing meaning where there truly is not. But then, it's about the journey, man. We all know were gonna rot in the ground and disintegrate! Doesn't stop people from wanting to push the limits of  what is possible for us. Really no right or wrong there. Just got ask yourself what it really means to YOU. It's not like nothing can be done. Some things can't be prevented, but many outcomes can. Might as well try. Means about as much as anything, right?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 8, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> Really? What is climate if it is not an average of weather conditions? The 2 are inextricably intertwined.


Not really. Climate is a preponderance of conditions.

Let me give you an example.  In south Louisiana I live in a subtropical CLIMATE.  This winter we had a week of temperatures that went as low as 14 on a few days in January and it snowed 3 times (highly rare here).  It was actually colder than Fairbanks that week.

That was cold WEATHER.  However because of our CLIMATE, which is our norm, our temperatures in January quickly returned to overnight lows between 35 and 45.  You see, climate is not weather.  The abnormal cold didn’t change our area from subtropical.

Weather that is consistent and predominate ordains what an areas climate is.  And climate can change with enough weather aberrations...until they are no longer aberrations.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 8, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> What is climate if it is not an average of weather conditions? The 2 are inextricably intertwined.



And different.  One is a large area long term average, the other is a locale's immediate condition (ie it is raining).


----------



## Totally (Aug 8, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> snip



The NOAA adjustments don't sway arguments one way or the other, it's the same trend so your example just don't make sense to me. By my logic? No bro, that's your logic I just said you don't "fiddle/adjust" numbers to reduce margin of error citing the example you gave on how you derived your approximations. I'm not going try and makes sense of you money analogy because your application is just fundamentally wrong, value of money is not an absolute, and data is regardless of how it's interpreted. To continue on the theme of money, let's say measurements pre 1940 are British Pounds and post are US Dollars, this applies because 1:1 they are measuring different things so what we do to solve this problem? We don't adjust make the proper CONVERSIONS by formulae, just because it was measured differently that temp data did not change over time. Two regarding the surface temp vs. at depth, surface temp is unreliable data, what are you supposed to do with unreliable data? Throw it out, not try make it work. Again before you try to dictate more of my logic because no one is not saying the earth is getting any hotter the disagreement is on why, I'm of the opinion that it is because there is too many of us. Well, specifically the more and more concrete we pour everyday to house more us. Concrete is displacing vegetation that takes in energy and converts it other forms that is mostly not heat where concrete absorbs this same energy and converts it to purely heat. I'm trying to figure out why people much smarter than me aren't seeing that areal density of green vegetation is going down, areas occupied by concrete jungles are going up and average temps are going up in a corresponding up direction. Wait they probably, do but that not what they are being paid to see, since everyone wants to argue about carbon emissions. Probably, won't be an issue until everyone is sitting around sweating in their underwear drawing lots on who lives and dies, hopefully I'll be long dead by then.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 8, 2018)

Totally said:


> Concrete is displacing vegetation that takes in energy and converts it other forms that is mostly not heat where concrete absorbs this same energy and converts it to purely heat.


I used this same argument with @magibeg a long time ago and he put a word to the field: albedo. Have some articles on that in relation to climate:
https://www.climate.gov/climate-and-energy-topics/albedo

Fun fact: ice is extremely reflective.  Land and water is not.  What happens when ice melts? Environment gets hotter (after temporary cooling).  There's so many interweaved feedback loops in relation to climate that is what lead to alarmism among some climatologists.  It is scary knowing that one domino (thawing permafrost), triggers another (CH4 releases into atmosphere), leads to another (arctic circle warming), leads to another (ice melting), to another (arctic waters warm faster because darker albedo), to another (oceanic thermal conveyors are disrupted), that leads to another (warming across land), ad infinitum.  We don't know if there is a tipping point.  We don't know where the tipping point is if there is one.  We don't know if we even crossed it if there is one.  That's a lot of unknowns for a scientist and every time this process happened before, the information we have available is like trying to describe a jungle through a pinhole in a piece of paper.  We're travelling into uncharted waters.  Sailors need beware.

TL;DR: Albedo is important but it's impact on climate pales in comparison to greenhouse gases.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 14, 2018)

For your perusal: Recent debate with none other than Dr. Michael Mann... And Dr. Judith Curry who I posted earlier.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 14, 2018)

Mann said the last time CO2 was high was 4 million years ago.  To give that context, the first fossil records of mammals dates back 4.8 million years.

7 minutes in Mann talks about the jet stream gone wild.

Curry ignores AMOC slowing. Hoping one of the others points that out. Edit: They don't because this isn't actually a debate.

Curry points out "Climate Pragmatism": what I've advocated doing here and elsewhere.  Good phrase to describe it.

Titley: Navy saying: "If you wait for 100% certainty, you're 100% dead."

Even though Trump is in denial about climate's impact on governance, the military and intelligence community is not.  Titley gave an example of flooding problems at the Norfolk navy base.

Moore makes a lot of excellent points.  I wonder what he thinks of CH4.  I completely agree with him that there's no strong link between CO2 and temperature but that sounds like an opportunity to understand what governs temperature.  Edit: In Q&A, he points out that (what should be obvious) carbon dioxide only makes up 0.04% of the air's composition. Nitrogen and water vapor constitute most of it.


It's hard to listen to the end of the video because of the mono sound only coming through the left speaker.  Disappointed there wasn't much in the way of debate.


Moore's closing statements (about 1:29:45) are golden. I transcribed it below:


			
				Dr. Patrick Moore said:
			
		

> In 1970 there were approximately 6000 polar bears. Today there are somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000.  That is a fact and they still say they're going extinct.
> 
> The word "consensus," when used in a sentence with "science," is false because consensus is a political and social word.  That is a different arena than science. Science is about observation and replication, period. It is not about how many people are willing to jump off a cliff with you. It is not about lemmings.  It is not about sheep. It is about individuals like Galileo, Darwin, Mandel, Newton, Einstein.
> 
> ...


It should be noted that Moore has a PhD in Ecology and bachelors in Forestry where the other three have a more climate/atmospheric background.  He's basically been a consultant/lobbyist since the 1990s.

------------------------------------------------------

I had a conversation with some people and they reminded me that short term warming corelates with the rise of CO2 in the short term (years to hundreds of thousands of year):






Moore was talking about long term ( millions of years):





Which got me thinking about cloud coverage again.  There was supposed to be research being done in that field but I can't find it today.  I believe it was being conducted at a NOAA facility in Boulder, CO.  They were attempting to model cloud impact on climate, especially man-made clouds: Contrails reduce daily temperature range.

Consider this: if we changed aircraft so they no longer belched CO2 but still created contrails, would the same change in temperatures be observed? I'd argue yes because the high, wispy, cirrus clouds that jets create let light in but reflect heat, causing a very strong, observed greenhouse effect. Human CO2 use strongly correlates with air travel especially post-1930s.  The correlation between temperature and CO2 may not be a causation at all (as Moore put it, "insignificant").




The Sahara isn't what it is because of global warming but because there's never any cloud cover shielding the Earth from the sun's scorching heat (blue is uncovered, red is covered):




Indeed every place on the planet that is perptually dry is due to a lack of cloud cover.  It stands to reason that a minor change in cloud cover (and cloud type) can have a major impact on temperature.

Even finding that picture on number of aircraft tells us virtually nothing in regards to climate.  All those planes could be sitting on a tarmac.  I tried to find a graph for flight hours and one doesn't seem to exist.  Additionally, altitude is very important in terms of producing contrails.  There really needs to be a comprehensive study on this field of climate.  It can easily explain why the prediction models consistently get it wrong.


----------



## StrayKAT (Aug 28, 2018)

This is the perfect example of how warped and sad climate change fears truly are:

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cardinal-cupich-pope-bigger-agenda_Chicago-491855581.html

Catholic Cardinal: Climate change "Bigger Agenda" than Sex Abuse


Mind you, I'm a Christian myself.. I'm not here to bash religion. Just pointing out the absurdity of defending the "future" when there is clear and present danger (or past). It's like an amplified version of me complaining about how one shouldn't ignore clear and present dangers to economies. But here we're talking about kids. Regardless of the science, it's this that I find the most disturbing.


----------



## Bones (Aug 29, 2018)

Indeed - Being the same (Christian) I find the above right on target. 
Everything that's been discussed here so far has been about not only ourselves but esp future generations as well. 

Can't change the past, it's future we have to look to.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 1, 2018)

/bump (sorry..don't shoot!)

This may be the best mainstream documentary I've seen. How in the world did the BBC ever make this?


----------



## qubit (Nov 1, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> /bump (sorry..don't shoot!)
> 
> This may be the best mainstream documentary I've seen. How in the world did the BBC ever make this?


That sounds dodgy from the title alone. The description confirms it.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 1, 2018)

qubit said:


> That sounds dodgy from the title alone. The description confirms it.



I was surprised from what I found within. Testimony from some of those so called "1000" scientists that backed studies (but actually didn't). Solid data from individuals from everything from NASA and Greenpeace to MIT. These aren't quacks.

As for the title, if you don't give implicit trust to politicians and bureaucracies, it easily fits. If you want to believe they're public servants, so be it. I think they have more reasons to be doing those jobs simply for themselves. Not every thief or criminal looks like an obvious gangster. And magicians aren't the only people who use sleight of hand (and if anything, magicians are the good guys.. since they always tell you afterwards).


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 1, 2018)

I don't think the fiddling of temperature data is as big of a scandal as the fiddling with metadata.

Take the "97% of climate studies/scientists agree that the global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause" claim...

This gets touted all the time. It comes from "Cook et al", a study that looked at almost 12 thousand papers on climate science. The claim is often said that 97% of them agreed with Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The REAL claim is that 97% of the papers THAT TOOK A STANCE on Anthropogenic Global Warming, agreed that the global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause.

That's a huge distinction, because of those nearly 12 thousand papers, how many actually took a stance? .....

Less than a third.

That means that a healthy 66% said that there's not enough data to make that claim.

So the REAL stat is that in that study, roughly 32% of scientific papers agreed that the global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause. And roughly 68% disagreed with one or both of those claims.

32% is quite a bit off from 97%... but 97% sounds a lot better doesn't it?

This isn't some conspiracy theory or fake news from Fox News. It's literally right there in the paper, IF you are willing to go read it, instead of letting CNN or Fox News have their way with your mind.

If you're surprised by that, I'm sure it's already been discussed here, but look into the inconsistent data modelling techniques of Bradley, Mann and Hughes. Once again... you can argue with me all you want, but it's right there in the paper, black and white.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 1, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> So the REAL stat is that in that study, roughly 32% of scientific papers agreed that the global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause. *And roughly 68% disagreed with one or both of those claims*.


I'm going to hold you to your own standard here: That's fiddling with metadata, and incorrect. 68% didn't _disagree_, they didn't believe they had enough evidence either way, and refrained from taking a stance.  Saying "I don't know enough to say one way or the other", is not the same as stating that a stance is right or wrong.


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> I'm going to hold you to your own standard here: That's fiddling with metadata, and incorrect. 68% didn't _disagree_, they didn't believe they had enough evidence either way, and refrained from taking a stance.  Saying "I don't know enough to say one way or the other", is not the same as stating that a stance is right or wrong.


68% were not on board with that, maybe?


----------



## rruff (Nov 1, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> Saying "I don't know enough to say one way or the other", is not the same as stating that a stance is right or wrong.



Actually, they simply failed to make any claims. Maybe the subject of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" wasn't mentioned, or even studied at all in those papers?


----------



## remixedcat (Nov 1, 2018)

Look plain and simple it's a scam from the elitists to make us poorer and live in coffins while they laugh their way to the bank on their 10th private jet.

Look at what these celebs do. Jet around and have lavish events that pollute a lot, accept some green award, and go on another private jet to another megamansion.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 1, 2018)

rruff said:


> Actually, they simply failed to make any claims. Maybe the subject of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" wasn't mentioned, or even studied at all in those papers?


Fair enough. I don't have the time (or inclination and patience) to prowl thru the ones referenced in that study from 5 years ago, and see if anyone mentioned it a different way, or simply never mentioned it at all. I guess a good way to place it is "68% ignored the question of Global Warming" heheh


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 1, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> I'm going to hold you to your own standard here: That's fiddling with metadata, and incorrect. 68% didn't _disagree_, they didn't believe they had enough evidence either way, and refrained from taking a stance.  Saying "I don't know enough to say one way or the other", is not the same as stating that a stance is right or wrong.



Fair point, but incorrect.

The statement to qualify as "agreeing" is to definitively state that "The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause." To say that there is not enough evidence one way or another, IS to disagree with that statement, as that statement is a definitive. 

As for the mentioned idea above that those papers didn't mention it at all, that is incorrect as well. That was part of the criteria for the paper to be part of the study.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 1, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> /bump (sorry..don't shoot!)
> 
> This may be the best mainstream documentary I've seen. How in the world did the BBC ever make this?



The BBC didn't.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 1, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> Fair point, but incorrect.
> 
> The statement to qualify as "agreeing" is to definitively state that "The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause." To say that there is not enough evidence one way or another, IS to disagree with that statement, as that statement is a definitive.
> 
> As for the mentioned idea above that those papers didn't mention it at all, that is incorrect as well. That was part of the criteria for the paper to be part of the study.


Sorry, it was my understanding that the "Cook et al" referenced was simply a look at a multitude of papers which analyzed earlier peer-reviewed articles on climate change in general, not a study that set out to answer the question "Who agrees with 'The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause.' " If I've misunderstood the purpose of the Cook research, I apologize. I did find an article on Forbes which seems to uphold my understanding, but I've been mistaken multiple times today alone 

To support my statement, I refer to the actual Cook et al paper itself, where the opening abstract states:

_Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that* 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position* on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming._

It doesn't say "they looked to see who agreed with AGW", but "Among ~12,000 papers who mentioned Global Warming, did any of those researchers take a stance on AGW, and if so, what?" The researchers in those papers weren't all answering a question of  "The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause", but merely in some shape, examining Global Warming at all.

I think the point stands. Of those 12k papers mentioning Global Warming, 67% had "No Comment" as to "The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause", and of the rest (33%-ish) which did comment about AGW, 97% of them had statements that could be read in support of that statement.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 1, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> /bump (sorry..don't shoot!)
> 
> This may be the best mainstream documentary I've seen. How in the world did the BBC ever make this?


Watched it and agreed with it.  I really don't have anything to argue against.



Ahhzz said:


> Sorry, it was my understanding that the "Cook et al" referenced was simply a look at a multitude of papers which analyzed earlier peer-reviewed articles on climate change in general, not a study that set out to answer the question "Who agrees with 'The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause.' " If I've misunderstood the purpose of the Cook research, I apologize. I did find an article on Forbes which seems to uphold my understanding, but I've been mistaken multiple times today alone
> 
> To support my statement, I refer to the actual Cook et al paper itself, where the opening abstract states:
> 
> ...


Cook is a political activist, not a climate scientist.  I've gone over the BS "study" so many times, I'd rather gouge my own eyes out than do it again.


Fact: Almost all of the heat on the Earth originates from the sun.
Fact: Solar spots have a direct correlation with climate on Earth.
Fact: 95% of greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor.
Fact: Clouds can have both a warming and cooling effect depending on type.
Fact: Cosmic radiation is related to cloud formation.
Fact: Climate modeling of clouds in these CO2-heavy models is terrible.
Fact: It is nearly impossible to get environment research money without mentioning "global warming" or "climate change" in your proposal.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 1, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> The BBC didn't.



My bad. I must have gotten it mixed up with other vids I was watching, where one of them had a BBC watermark.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 1, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Watched it and agreed with it.  I really don't have anything to argue against.
> 
> 
> Cook is a political activist, not a climate scientist.
> .....


Fair enough. However, wasn't he evaluating papers from actual research scientists? And if all he did was look at their "opening statements" (the "Abstract"), to see if that stated an agreement, disagreement, or agnostic response to AGW, how is that not relevant?


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 1, 2018)

remixedcat said:


> Look plain and simple it's a scam from the elitists to make us poorer and live in coffins while they laugh their way to the bank on their 10th private jet.
> 
> Look at what these celebs do. Jet around and have lavish events that pollute a lot, accept some green award, and go on another private jet to another megamansion.



Nice nonargument you have there.  Lots of class warefare.  Spicy.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 1, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> Fair enough. However, wasn't he evaluating papers from actual research scientists? And if all he did was look at their "opening statements" (the "Abstract"), to see if that stated an agreement, disagreement, or agnostic response to AGW, how is that not relevant?


What did I just say about gouging my eyes out?

First, he conducted his "research" by starting from a foundation of bias using search terms: "global climate change" or "global warming."  That automatically exempts all papers, for example, on "global cooling."

Second, IPCC and governments around the world would only fund papers for decades that used those very same keywords.

Bias on top of confirmation bias.


Also, opinion has naught to do with science. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." --Albert Einstein

There's too much politics and bureaucracy in climate science.  The science is getting buried under the activists.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 1, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> What did I just say about gouging my eyes out?
> 
> First, he conducted his "research" by starting from a foundation of bias using search terms: "global climate change" or "global warming."  That automatically exempts all papers, for example, on "global cooling."
> 
> ...


I've got a question for you. Putting aside the question of "Global Warming, True or HG Wells?", the goal for those supporting the cause is to cut back on deforestation, move to better fuel economy vehicles with less emissions, and increase power production from Wind and Solar sources, if I understand correctly. How are these bad ideas? Other than a disagreement with "Why", is there an issue with moving forward with these initiatives?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 1, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> I've got a question for you. Putting aside the question of "Global Warming, True or HG Wells?", the goal for those supporting the cause is to cut back on deforestation, move to better fuel economy vehicles with less emissions, and increase power production from Wind and Solar sources, if I understand correctly. How are these bad ideas? Other than a disagreement with "Why", is there an issue with moving forward with these initiatives?


Deforestation: they're encouraging it in third world countries like Haiti.  If they need heat but are deprived of means of getting it like coal power, what do they do? Chop down forests.  The best way to save the forests is to use nuclear power.  Look at Pripyat today! 


Spoiler: pic












Better Fuel Economy: This happened anyway with the rise in oil price.  Simple economics shapes demand.

Less Emissions: Good in principle but it's a burden on the poor.  The thousands of dollars of extra equipment low emission vehicle costs may make or break the decision to buy a new, cleaner vehicle versus and old, heavily polluting vehicle.  In this regard, a middle of the road vehicle (more efficient but not as clean) would have been the best outcome for all parties involved.

Wind and Solar: Neither of these technologies work without either batteries or some other alternative power source (in USA, that's natural gas turbines). Here's what additions/retirements look like over the last decade: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30112
Here's what the total power composition looks like to give the above data context: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/
"Wind" and "Solar" are buzz words.  Where does the power mostly come from?  Natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, in that order.

How are they bad?  They're 20th century (or older in the case of wind, solar, and deforestation) solutions for 21st century problems.  We should be focused on fusion and hydrogen fuel cells.  Why? Deforestation becomes nonsensical for energy. Fuel economy becomes irrelevant unless you live in a desert (hydrogen fuel cells need water). Emissions are literally water vapor. Wind and solar become laughable investments (very low return per dollar). We can pull the whole damn planet out of poverty and protect the environment at the same time. Optimal outcome for everyone.


----------



## remixedcat (Nov 1, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Nice nonargument you have there.  Lots of class warefare.  Spicy.



It is true though. Al Gore even has some of the least efficient mansions. He also has 7 of them. As well as multiple private jets. Yet him and his cronies tell us common folk that we overuse and abuse the planet?

Sounds fishy doesn't it? If they practiced what they preached they would live in the coffins they want us to live in and take public transport, fly coach, etc.


----------



## bug (Nov 1, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> I've got a question for you. Putting aside the question of "Global Warming, True or HG Wells?", the goal for those supporting the cause is to cut back on deforestation, move to better fuel economy vehicles with less emissions, and increase power production from Wind and Solar sources, if I understand correctly. How are these bad ideas? Other than a disagreement with "Why", is there an issue with moving forward with these initiatives?


These can easily transform into bad ideas when they take funding away from education, health and other domains.
In fact, the #1 argument against AGW proponents is fear-mongering used to gain funding.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 1, 2018)

remixedcat said:


> It is true though. Al Gore even has some of the least efficient mansions. He also has 7 of them. As well as multiple private jets. Yet him and his cronies tell us common folk that we overuse and abuse the planet?
> 
> Sounds fishy doesn't it? If they practiced what they preached they would live in the coffins they want us to live in and take public transport, fly coach, etc.



People think aristocrats died off after WW1, but all we got was a bunch of pretenders to replace them... without the cool pomp to go with it. And they all come from worst skillsets/classes: lawyers and entertainers. I'd almost take the "Divine Right of Kings" over this. It's no less bullshit than this is.

edit: Sadly, I've heard people literally making excuses for Gore's sense of entitlement. That he "needs" these things and he's more important or something. People are literally under the spell, just like they once were with nobility.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 1, 2018)

remixedcat said:


> Al Gore



isn't represenitive of liberals as a whole.  Heck he isn't really even green as you note...



StrayKAT said:


> Sadly, I've heard people literally making excuses for Gore's sense of entitlement. That he "needs" these things and he's more important or something. People are literally under the spell, just like they once were with nobility.



He doesn't.  He may have a right to them but he's still a major hypocrite who did more harm to the green energy movement than any conservative advocates wet dream.  He made it partisan too, which I am still angry about.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 1, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> isn't represenitive of liberals as a whole.  Heck he isn't really even green as you note...
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't.  He may have a right to them but he's still a major hypocrite who did more harm to the green energy movement than any conservative advocates wet dream.  He made it partisan too, which I am still angry about.



Thanks for admitting it.. but I still see many prop him up.

On a sidenote, I already said this in this thread, but we should all work together to stop pollution. That's a clear and present danger.. and very tangible. I find that climate change fears distract from this, because it's shooting for the stars, and just frustratingly ambiguous...and then makes people dismissive on this other vital problem. A problem that's easier to educate and convince people about... if you just stop pissing them off with all of the other fearmongering.


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 1, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> Sorry, it was my understanding that the "Cook et al" referenced was simply a look at a multitude of papers which analyzed earlier peer-reviewed articles on climate change in general, not a study that set out to answer the question "Who agrees with 'The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause.' " If I've misunderstood the purpose of the Cook research, I apologize. I did find an article on Forbes which seems to uphold my understanding, but I've been mistaken multiple times today alone
> 
> To support my statement, I refer to the actual Cook et al paper itself, where the opening abstract states:
> 
> ...



Fair. Some papers may have not looked at the "anthropomorphic" side of things at all, which would disqualify them from "agreeing" with the study's requirements. However, many of the papers (and I've read at least the abstract of many of them, though obviously not all 12 thousand) DO look at exactly that, decide there is no stance to be made, and are subsequently ignored in Cook's conclusion. "No comment" is not the only thing that was left to the 67%. Regardless, I don't think anyone with any integrity would consider 33% to be an acceptable level of confidence.

As I said above... don't take my word for it. Don't take anybody's word for it. That's the point.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 1, 2018)

Delusional, what's next the Flat Earth poll ?  The most hysterical thing about this claim is that for the most part these adjustments actually work against the case that global warming is hoax .  Adjustments are a normal and necessary part of the scientific process as otherwise data is meaningless.  Let's look at a more familiar example..... has the relative price of the top GFX card as part of your typical gone up (recent tariff impacted, old generatio inventories aside)  since 2000 ?   At 1st glance the Gefore 2 Ultra in 2000 was $500 and the 1080 Ti was $700 would have most folks claiming yes.  I won't say they are wring, they just need to educate themselves because they are misinformed.   The relative cost of any item historically must be adjusted for inflation.   When we do, we see that if you had $400 in 2000, it would be worth 4700 today.  So yes, the cost of the two cards when adjusted for inflation is the same $700.  As income changes and the cost of everything else went up in 17 years, any data without this adjustment can only be described with one word "meaningless".

https://images.hardocp.com/images/news/1489189662xrJkzvohX8_1_1.png

The properties of materials change dependent upon pressure and temperature.   A cu.ft. of air weighs less on the top of a mountain than it does at sea level.  Ever notice the finger joints in the roadway when you drive over  a bridge .   Thats to allow for the thermal expansion of the bridge due to changing temperatures.   The bridge itself is 7 feet longer ans 12 feet lower i the summer than it is in the winter ... so which number do you use as a matter of record ?

The same thing is being done here.  It is well known that the temperature of seawater changes with depth from surface as warmer rises and is additionally heated bu the suns rays and also affected by wind.   So if you record surface water temperatures of 75F on a calm sunny day at noon and 73F the following cloudy day of 73C at 12 feet below the surface is any of the data useable for the purposes of comparison ?  Of course not.  Amont the various differences in sampling procedure we can include:

a)  Where was bucket stored in hours before sampling (in shade or out in sun)
b)  Size of bucket
c)  Material of bucket
d)  How many feet below surface was sample taken
e)  Was thermometer used tested against a standard

So in order to make the measurements useful, sample variations are laboratory tested.   You have been usin g a certain thermometer for 2 weeks and then test it against a calibrated standard and it shows that the thermometer you were using was reading 2C high...  not to make this adjustment would bad science.  The same with all the other variables, you test and see whether they are significant or not and for the ones which prove significant, you apply the appropriate adjustment.

Later they changed from the bucket method to the cooling water intake sampling method.   It was immediately recognized that taking this measurement at 12 feet of depth would result in lower tempertures so they took both for a period and identified that samples averaged,  say for the prposes of discussion, 1.3 - 1.4C colder.   Since we are talking about a phenomonon whicg has detected fractions of a degree per decade, how can you not make the appropriate scientific deduction ?  It was later realized that engine room amd pipe temperature were impacting measurements so this data was again adjusted.  Not to do so renders the data useless.

For land based air temps, you have a measuring site that was in the shade of  a large building.  That building is demolished, the site is in open sunlight and average temps at the device show a marked increase.   Is the air any hotter in the shade than in the sun ?  yes and no.   The immediate answer is that the temps of the air are exactky the same.  In the the sun, it just feels hotter bacuse of the solar radiation.  But the measuring instruments and the surfaces around them are absorbing solar radiation which will raise the readings.  So what they do is compare the readongs from site no 1124 and 1137 before and after the change.   If it is determined that since the buiding was knocked down the average difference between th sampling points went from 0.3C to 0.5C, they would appropriately adjust by 0.2C.  It's called the 'scientific process' and has no relation to the "political agenda" process.  If these adjustments were not made, the date is useless.

What you are arguing is akin to Wizzard doing a  cooler review and reporting CPU temps under testing and NOT making adjustments for changes in ambient temperature between tests.

Method A - Cooler 1 hits 77C at 26C ambient / Cooler 2 hits 77C at 23C ambient, both coolers are the same and this test is reliable cause no one "fiddled" with the numbers.

Method B - Cooler 1 hits 77C at 26C ambient / Cooler 2 hits 77C at 23C ambient, Cooler 2 is the better cooler cause after we "fiddled with" (aka made the appropriate scientific adjustments to)  the numbers, 54C delta T is 3C better than 51C delta T.

met


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 1, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> I've got a question for you. Putting aside the question of "Global Warming, True or HG Wells?", the goal for those supporting the cause is to cut back on deforestation, move to better fuel economy vehicles with less emissions, and increase power production from Wind and Solar sources, if I understand correctly. How are these bad ideas? Other than a disagreement with "Why", is there an issue with moving forward with these initiatives?



I am absolutely, 100% for clean energy. I've personally spent a MUCH higher time than your average person, on shorelines picking up waste. I'm absolutely for less emissions, wind, solar, nuclear... generally being cleaner and greener.

I am NOT a subscriber to the anthropomorphic global warming theory.

I am also NOT in support of taking public money from ordinary citizens and using it to subsidize and absorb the risk of billionaires who wish to make a gamble on a potentially unprofitable business like wind, solar, and nuclear. I'll never see a dime of the profits, but am expected to shoulder the risk? Nah.

What you've created here is a false dichotomy. Being for or against one thing does not mean you are for or against another thing.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 1, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Thanks for admitting it.. but I still see many prop him up.
> 
> On a sidenote, I already said this in this thread, but we should all work together to stop pollution. That's a clear and present danger.. and very tangible. I find that climate change fears distract from this, because it's shooting for the stars, and just frustratingly ambiguous...and then makes people dismissive on this other vital problem. A problem that's easier to educate and convince people about... if you just stop pissing them off with all of the other fearmongering.



I can agree with the commom ground there.


----------



## remixedcat (Nov 1, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> I am absolutely, 100% for clean energy. I've personally spent a MUCH higher time than your average person, on shorelines picking up waste. I'm absolutely for less emissions, wind, solar, nuclear... generally being cleaner and greener.
> 
> I am NOT a subscriber to the anthropomorphic global warming theory.
> 
> ...


Very much this!!!


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 2, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> I am absolutely, 100% for clean energy. I've personally spent a MUCH higher time than your average person, on shorelines picking up waste. I'm absolutely for less emissions, wind, solar, nuclear... generally being cleaner and greener.
> 
> I am NOT a subscriber to the anthropomorphic global warming theory.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid you've made an assumption yourself   I _never_ indicated that being for those things I mentioned put you at odds with either stance, I just wanted to know how those things could be a bad thing, no matter how we come at them 



FordGT90Concept said:


> Deforestation: they're encouraging it in third world countries like Haiti.  If they need heat but are deprived of means of getting it like coal power, what do they do? Chop down forests.  The best way to save the forests is to use nuclear power.  Look at Pripyat today!
> 
> 
> Spoiler: pic
> ...



Unfortunately, when we have a movement _back_ towards empowering the coal industry, instead of striding forwards to _anything_ better, expecting the PTB to start pushing towards something as forward thinking as fuel cells is ludicrous, in my opinion. I just wondered why any movement towards cleaning up the environment, even in small steps, should be met with resistance. So it's just pennies on the dollar. That's the problem. It's not about making our world a better place, it's about "how much profit". 

I think we're not going to get a government to decide to redirect time, energy, and monies towards something like fuel cells until all their buddies have managed to milk everything they can from the existing milk cows, as well as getting set up to make the most possible money from any future venture as soon as it moves. It doesn't matter how bad off we'll be by then,it will only matter if Uncle George has managed to make as many deals as possible before someone announces it. 

The Mrs. worked on an R&D team that was developing high efficiency rechargeables. designed for use in vehicles, and her company was taken over (majority stocks purchased) by an Exxon Mobil group. I assume upper management knew the whole story, but the team was just told how much new money was going to be coming in for work. If I remember right. 2 months after the board shift, the team was told that further work on the battery project was stopped, and they were all reassigned to other areas. The patents filed by their team and the products from them were simply shelved. Big oil doesn't like competition. 

I guess from my standpoint, all I see is big companies being dragged kicking and screaming away from anything to make more money, even if it means the world becomes a better place.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> Unfortunately, when we have a movement _back_ towards empowering the coal industry, instead of striding forwards to _anything_ better, expecting the PTB to start pushing towards something as forward thinking as fuel cells is ludicrous, in my opinion.


Didn't look at that first link, did you?  USA retired GWs worth of coal capacity over the last several years (replaced mostly by natural gas). That chart only goes up to 2016. This link says 9 GW was retired in 2017 and 14 GW is projected to be retired in 2018.  Coal ($79.5/MWh) is dying because natural gas ($48.1/MWh) is so cheap.



Ahhzz said:


> I just wondered why any movement towards cleaning up the environment, even in small steps, should be met with resistance. So it's just pennies on the dollar. That's the problem. It's not about making our world a better place, it's about "how much profit".


Because it's depriving fusion energy the research money it needs (billions).







Ahhzz said:


> I think we're not going to get a government to decide to redirect time, energy, and monies towards something like fuel cells until all their buddies have managed to milk everything they can from the existing milk cows, as well as getting set up to make the most possible money from any future venture as soon as it moves. It doesn't matter how bad off we'll be by then,it will only matter if Uncle George has managed to make as many deals as possible before someone announces it.


Exactly but guess who "Uncle George" is.  Wind and solar (see EIA.gov link above for government subsidies).  It makes more sense to me to redirect those funds into fusion.  As you can see from the chart, onshore wind is cost competitive without subsidies (unless they're not telling us something).



Ahhzz said:


> The Mrs. worked on an R&D team that was developing high efficiency rechargeables. designed for use in vehicles, and her company was taken over (majority stocks purchased) by an Exxon Mobil group. I assume upper management knew the whole story, but the team was just told how much new money was going to be coming in for work. If I remember right. 2 months after the board shift, the team was told that further work on the battery project was stopped, and they were all reassigned to other areas. The patents filed by their team and the products from them were simply shelved. Big oil doesn't like competition.


Another reason why fusion research is permanently shelved.


----------



## hat (Nov 2, 2018)

All we're doing is passing the dirt around, here. I find it laughable that people love to point the finger at China, for instance, for polluting so much... but who does the world rely on to manufacture things? Largely China. Why? Because greedy corporations shoved everything over there because it's cheaper... and the lack of give a fuck about "green" things over there plays a big part in that. Anyone got any ideas how much it would cost to upgrade an old steel mill with the stuff it takes to meet environmental regulations here in the US? May as well move that over to China where you can just dump shit in the river, fill the air with garbage and pay your workers next to nothing.

It's the same reason we don't really have anything better than dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil right now. There's too much money tied up in those businesses. Why should I have a super efficient car that runs forever while polluting very little (or even cleaning) the air, when big oil can sell me a shitty one whose operation relies on their product? Why should I have access to enough cheap, clean power to do bitcoin mining with 1000 cards only to hear "more power to you" from my peers when the coal industry can sell me shitty power forever at a high price that ruins the Earth? Coal power plants are terribly inefficient! I've been all though them, literally cleaning up the crap that burning coal leaves behind. Their whole purpose is literally to boil a large amount of water to produce steam to turn a rather large generator.  Nuclear plants too... it's just a big water boiler. Surely there's got to be a better way?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2018)

hat said:


> All we're doing is passing the dirt around, here. I find it laughable that people love to point the finger at China, for instance, for polluting so much... but who does the world rely on to manufacture things? Largely China. Why? Because greedy corporations shoved everything over there because it's cheaper... and the lack of give a fuck about "green" things over there plays a big part in that. Anyone got any ideas how much it would cost to upgrade an old steel mill with the stuff it takes to meet environmental regulations here in the US? May as well move that over to China where you can just dump shit in the river, fill the air with garbage and pay your workers next to nothing.


Agreed.




hat said:


> It's the same reason we don't really have anything better than dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil right now. There's too much money tied up in those businesses. Why should I have a super efficient car that runs forever while polluting very little (or even cleaning) the air, when big oil can sell me a shitty one whose operation relies on their product? Why should I have access to enough cheap, clean power to do bitcoin mining with 1000 cards only to hear "more power to you" from my peers when the coal industry can sell me shitty power forever at a high price that ruins the Earth? Coal power plants are terribly inefficient! I've been all though them, literally cleaning up the crap that burning coal leaves behind. Their whole purpose is literally to boil a large amount of water to produce steam to turn a rather large generator.  Nuclear plants too... it's just a big water boiler. Surely there's got to be a better way?


Coal is quite efficient because of the steam turbines.  In terms of heat -> electricity, modern steam systems are over 60% efficient.  No better way to convert heat into electricity has been found.  Coal, fission, fusion are all simply heat sources.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 2, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Coal is quite efficient



From a heat to energy perspective maybe.  There's a lot more at play though than just that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2018)

Well yeah, coal has a lot more in it than just hydrocarbons.  There's also a significant energy cost in transport because coal isn't that energy dense (especially compared to uranium).


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 2, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Watched it and agreed with it. I really don't have anything to argue against.



You agree with what is essentially a hit piece containing intentionally misleading and false claims, to such an extent that the UK communications regulator ruled against it. Hmmm.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Cook is a political activist, not a climate scientist.



He's a cognitive scientist with a dual PhD and BSc and has numerous publications under his belt, which means he understands how science and peer review works, and his peers have agreed that he isn't talking total nonsense.

But according to your logic, only climate scientists are allowed to criticise or talk about the climate. Guess all of us in this thread should stop then.



FordGT90Concept said:


> "Wind" and "Solar" are buzz words.



HAHAHA you crack me up.



FordGT90Concept said:


> We should be focused on fusion and hydrogen fuel cells.



Yeah, because the scientific community hasn't spent literally billions of dollars over half a century trying to make fusion work... we've been two decades away from viable fusion power plants for all that time. No indication that will improve anytime soon.

Hydrogen falls apart at the first hurdle because guess what, you need energy to electrolyse water. Where do you get that energy? Oh. Let's also completely ignore the poor energy density of hydrogen and the issues around storing and transporting it. Your "oh noes more expensive emissions control devices make cars unaffordable" argument goes out the window if everyone ends up using hydrogen vehicles where the damn fuel cell has to be replaced every year.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> You agree with what is essentially a hit piece containing intentionally misleading and false claims, to such an extent that the UK communications regulator ruled against it. Hmmm.


Talk is cheap. Prove it.

One example stands out like a sore thumb from the video: IPCC claimed malaria would spread because of warmer climate.  An expert on mosquitos said that's bull. He is correct, of course.  IPCC didn't remove their false statements. The scientist demanded to have his name removed because they didn't even use his research (or have any clue what they were talking about).  IPCC refused.  He threatened to sue. IPCC relented and removed his name. IPCC still published the demonstrably false statements in regards to mosquito populations.

Have a picture from Alaska:





Why does this stand out? I just saw a 60 Minutes piece on National Geographic nature photographer, Joel Sartore, whom sacrificed his feet to the Alaskan mosquitos because he was desperate for a photo.  Story and photo here.



Assimilator said:


> Yeah, because the scientific community hasn't spent literally billions of dollars over half a century trying to make fusion work... we've been two decades away from viable fusion power plants for all that time. No indication that will improve anytime soon.


Lockheed is still pursuing their high-beta fusion reactor:
https://www.defensenews.com/industr...-still-supporting-portable-nuclear-generator/

They were granted a patent (the danger of private versus public research) this year:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180047462A1/en



Assimilator said:


> Hydrogen falls apart at the first hurdle because guess what, you need energy to electrolyse water.


Let me introduce you to a little discovery called spontaneous hydrolysis.  Just add water and you get hydrogen and oxygen.

ZH2 is a 75 MW hydrogen fuel cell power plant on wheels:








GM recently put the army veteran in charge of developing and testing ZH2 in charge of GM Defense.  They're co-developing a hydrogen powered APU to be used in aircraft.

Port of LA already has a fleet of hydrogen powered big rigs shuttling containers around (and they're expanding it).


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 2, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Talk is cheap. Prove it.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Ofcom_investigation_of_complaints



FordGT90Concept said:


> One example stands out like a sore thumb from the video: IPCC claimed malaria would spread because of warmer climate. An expert on mosquitos said that's bull. He is correct, of course. IPCC didn't remove their false statements. The scientist demanded to have his name removed because they didn't even use his research (or have any clue what they were talking about). IPCC refused. He threatened to sue. IPCC relented and removed his name. IPCC still published the demonstrably false statements in regards to mosquito populations.



Remember when you reminded us that Cook is not a climate scientist? Neither is Reiter.

I'm not sure how linking to a page about Alaska's mosquitoes counts as proof of anything.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Let me introduce you to a little discovery called spontaneous hydrolysis.  Just add water and you get hydrogen and oxygen.



That would be a game-changer if it works; the fact that I haven't heard anything more about it since the announcement more than a year ago makes me skeptical. (Also for some reason I can't get to army.mil, maybe it's detecting that I'm from a s**thole country and blocking me? For anyone with the same problem: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...m-offers-fuel-cells-on-demand-just-add-water/)


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 2, 2018)

remixedcat said:


> Yet him and his cronies tell us common folk that we overuse and abuse the planet?



Why would you care though ?


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 2, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> I'm afraid you've made an assumption yourself   I _never_ indicated that being for those things I mentioned put you at odds with either stance, I just wanted to know how those things could be a bad thing, no matter how we come at them



You made those statements as a contrasting argument. You were insinuating that it doesn't matter the means, because their goal was to promote a bunch of good things, thereby also insinuating that one should accept the means if the ends are acceptable. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case. You directly said "How are these ideas bad?" That insinuates that you believe that one who disagrees with the means also believes that these ideas are bad. As I've pointed out again, that's simply not the case. That's what we call a false dichotomy. You may have never outright said so, but what you said had a clear implication.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 2, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> You made those statements as a contrasting argument. You were insinuating that it doesn't matter the means, because their goal was to promote a bunch of good things, thereby also insinuating that one should accept the means if the ends are acceptable. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case. You directly said "How are these ideas bad?" That insinuates that you believe that one who disagrees with the means also believes that these ideas are bad. As I've pointed out again, that's simply not the case. That's what we call a false dichotomy. You may have never outright said so, but what you said had a clear implication.


Nope. I meant those in the exact way they were phrased. Ford took them that way, and answered most of my points. I don't agree with all of his responses (for instance the response to coal; I would counter with the newly opened mines in PA, AL, et al), but he did answer. I did mean to imply that things that we can do to reduce pollution should be closely examined for weighing the negatives vs the positives. Unfortunately, far too often I feel, the "negative" of "Not enough cash in my fat wallet!!" is over-weighted.


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 2, 2018)

Ahhzz said:


> Nope. I meant those in the exact way they were phrased. Ford took them that way, and answered most of my points. I don't agree with all of his responses (for instance the response to coal; I would counter with the newly opened mines in PA, AL, et al), but he did answer. I did mean to imply that things that we can do to reduce pollution should be closely examined for weighing the negatives vs the positives. Unfortunately, far too often I feel, the "negative" of "Not enough cash in my fat wallet!!" is over-weighted.



Your post that I quoted was in direct response to Ford talking about Cook et al. You made the assertion in that context that the contents of Cook et al were justified because their goal was to do good things. 

I'm sorry if that's not what you meant, but if so, then you apparently quoted the wrong post. The post I'm referring to has nothing to do with coal.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 2, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> Your post that I quoted was in direct response to Ford talking about Cook et al. You made the assertion in that context that the contents of Cook et al were justified because their goal was to do good things.
> 
> I'm sorry if that's not what you meant, but if so, then you apparently quoted the wrong post. The post I'm referring to has nothing to do with coal.


Sorry, too many pronouns in a post    I was saying that I disagreed with Ford's response about coal, not yours. 

I did quote Ford's post about Cook with my question, but it did start out with : "Putting aside the question of "Global Warming, True or HG Wells?" ", intending to step aside from the main argument of the moment, and ask a tangential, but pertinent question.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Ofcom_investigation_of_complaints





> In an 8400-word official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".


"The final part of the film" was about a hospital in Kenya that had the WHO install two solar panels, lights, and a small refrigerator.  The hospital could only run one or the other, not both, because there isn't enough installed capacity to do both.  It went on to talk about Kenyans burning coal in their houses to cook, poisoning the air they breathe, and without a reliable, surplus of electricity, they can never modernize.  It went on to say that proponents of climate change/environmentalists want Kenyans to suffer as they do indefinitely.  They're not allowed to build coal power plants (what they have plenty of fuel to power) because international regulators won't let them.  What's good for the planet is bad for them.

Those statements may have broken media regulation policy but that doesn't mean they're false.



> However, the regulator said that because "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007", in parts 1–4 the audience was not "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence".


Science is never "settled."



Assimilator said:


> Remember when you reminded us that Cook is not a climate scientist? Neither is Reiter.


Never claimed he was. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, John Christy, Ian Clark, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Nir Shaviv, Frederick Singer, and Bert Bolin are.



Assimilator said:


> I'm not sure how linking to a page about Alaska's mosquitoes counts as proof of anything.


Corroborating evidence that the IPCC is a political organization with an agenda contrary to the evidence.



Assimilator said:


> That would be a game-changer if it works; the fact that I haven't heard anything more about it since the announcement more than a year ago makes me skeptical. (Also for some reason I can't get to army.mil, maybe it's detecting that I'm from a s**thole country and blocking me? For anyone with the same problem: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...m-offers-fuel-cells-on-demand-just-add-water/)


I haven't either. I think it falls under national security so any movement on the subject is strictly under the purview of the US Department of Defense.  US DOD has a *lot* of interest in hydrogen fuel cells because it will revolutionize how the military operates.



Ahhzz said:


> I don't agree with all of his responses (for instance the response to coal; I would counter with the newly opened mines in PA, AL, et al), but he did answer.


Because there's still a lot of operating coal power plants that need to be fed.






For reference, natural gas:





The dwindling number of nuclear power plants:





Wind:


----------



## remixedcat (Nov 2, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Why would you care though ?


In the end we pay for nonsense policies that only increase prices of goods.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 2, 2018)

remixedcat said:


> In the end we pay for nonsense policies that only increase prices of goods.



There are deeper problems than that, such as the lie that we have been told in the last decade or so that we are basically on the brink of finishing our oil reserves , which is absolute bollocks. That's the sort of thing that causes mass panic and seriously fucks up things globally.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2018)

US and EU have actually already hit peak oil...




...but not because of a lack of supply, but because of a reduction in demand.


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 2, 2018)

If you say the "science is settled" then you do not understand science. Full stop. "Settled Science" is directly contradictory to the scientific method, and dangerous to it. Dogma has no place in science. And I automatically, INSTANTLY distrust any scientist who claims that anything is "settled science" because that simply means he or she is trying to leverage his or her position of authority to make you believe something. And if they're doing that, it probably means they have a motive to fool you.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2018)

To be fair, it wasn't a scientific organization that said that, it was Ofcom (Office of Communications), British government regulators.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" was a 2008 production.  It mentioned cosmic ray influence on cloud formation which got me curious.  I did a search and found a 2017 article on that very subject: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

Also a slightly older 2016 article:
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html

That article has an interesting quote:


> The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a *billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere*.


That'd explain the observed, rapid warming.

I was trying to find the old articles I saw a few years ago about cloud research at NASA.  I instead found this (do not know how new or old it is):
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html


> Clouds affect the climate but changes in the climate, in turn, affect the clouds. This relationship creates a complicated system of climate feedbacks, in which clouds modulate Earth's radiation and water balances.





> For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect, the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback).





> Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects, partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.





> Thus it is ironic that when it comes to forecasting the climate several decades ahead, clouds mainly obscure our vision.





> The ways that clouds respond to changes in the climate are so complex that it is hard to determine their net effect on the energy and water balances and to determine how much climate might change.





> Right now, we do not know how important the cloud-radiative or cloud-precipitation effects are and can not predict possible climate changes accurately.



In looking at that, I remembered who ran the cloud research before: NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (yeah, I know, doesn't make any sense) and found this article not two months old:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7244
No fantastic direct quotes here but the data does show that modeling cloud formation is incredibly complex, even when just looking at human-sourced pollutants.

JPL is in California.  That's not right either because the cloud study was being done at a facility in or near Boulder, Colorado...

I think it might have been NOAA's G-Rad project which is orchestrated from Boulder.  It is a huge, multifaceted project (which is ongoing) attempting to understand Earth's total solar radition budget:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/

What is the sum of all of this data above? Honestly, we don't know.  At least not yet.  This begs the question: how can the proponents of CO2-induced "climate change" be so certain of themselves when, in the grand scheme of climate, it's such a minute thing?  All language on CO2 and "climate change" should be prefaced with "to the best of our current knowledge."  Yes, it's rising.  Yes, the temperature is rising. There is a correlation but that doesn't imply causation.  Perhaps contributation, yes, but causation? That's a stretch.  We need to be able to accurately forecast weather before we can accurately forecast climate.  The two are intrinsically linked. The climate models are incomplete.


CO2 is one carbon element joined by two oxygen elements.  Carbon is the foundation of all life on Earth.  Oxygen is an essential element for most surface animals.  CO2 is not a pollutant; CO2 is essential for plant photosynthesis.  Demonizing CO2 is ridiculous.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> CO2 is one carbon element joined by two oxygen elements. Carbon is the foundation of all life on Earth. Oxygen is an essential element for most surface animals. CO2 is not a pollutant; CO2 is essential for plant photosynthesis. Demonizing CO2 is ridiculous.



We are not demonizing CO2.  The carbon cycle existed long before man yes and CO2 is part of it.  But it IS being seriously changed by adding tons of burried carbon to the atmosphere in gas form.  I mean when you think about it, how could it not be?  What this disruption does is most likely, warming because co2 is a well established greenhouse gas.  No we can't prove it, but it's a pretty damn good bet.

Also, the idea that because elements do good things in certain environments they can't be bad when compounded in any form has me thinking someone spent too much time huffing ozone (what?  Just oxygen man.. ) or something...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

Here is the chart that proponents love to reference:





Here's the full picture:





What's really the elephant in the room?  Just because water vapor is difficult to model doesn't mean it isn't responsible for the change in temperature.  A simple increase or decrease or change in type of cloud cover can easily be the cause.

Another chart often referenced:





Why was there a boom during WWII?  Could it be because of bomber exhaust seeding high altitude clouds that trap heat in the Earth?  Yes.  Why did it fall off post WWII? Maybe because commercial aviation couldn't keep up producing as many clouds as the bombers did... until the late 1960s when commercial aviation boomed thanks to the Boeing 707, it fell off in the 1970s because of the fuel crisis, then boomed in the 1980s to today because aviation grew in popularity.

Then we have an annomaly in 2001 when the attack on 9/11 caused almost all flights to be grounded.  What happened? Temperature fell 2 F (1.1 C).

Aircraft emissions are wrapping the northern hemisphere is a blanket of high altitude cirrus clouds (they appear bright white to the naked eye) that let solar radiation in but not out.

I have a theory: ground all of the flights globally for a week and watch the temperature plummet to "normal."


The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is infinitesimal.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

Surely you have some data that isn't tagged by some blogger?  "Woody.typepad.com" watermark gives me some kind of bad science vibe...

That certainly is an interesting theory, though, if the data is accurate.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

How about NOAA? The problem is that most sources don't graph water vapor because doing so belittles their argument in favor of the minor gases.


> Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.



Here's an educational source that breaks down the percents:
http://tornado.sfsu.edu/geosciences/classes/m201/Atmosphere/AtmosphericComposition.html
They don't provide graphs so I made these from the data (assuming 4% water vapor):




Water vapor can be as low as 0% in deserts and polar regions.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

Thanks.  I'm just paranoid of random bloggers...  with reason.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

Even that first picture I linked is misleading because that's *only* human contributions.  When you take the same data set as above and eliminate water vapor, it looks like this:




Human activity is only a small part of that.  How small? No academic source bothers to do the math because that means their funding would be cut so here's a non academic source:
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html





The vast majority of carbon dioxide comes from plant decay in the fall that is reabsorbed in the fall:









If humanity really, really, really wanted to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air, all we would have to do it grow a season of crop (especially field corn because it's a hungry bastard), chop it, and bury it.  Bam! All of that carbon is removed from the cycle!  Why is no one suggesting doing that?  Because they *know* CO2 isn't a problem.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

It's not the raw amount, it's that it's an addition the carbon cycle is not set up to deal with.  Like the tipping of a scale.

All the same I will admit the effects of water vapor should be better studied.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

I did some searching and noticed temperature graphs post 2013 were sparse.  I think I found out why...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/




...we're cooling down despite CO2 still increasing.





Sunspotless Days...
http://spaceweather.com/




Compare that to Spencer's temperature chart and you'll see a clear connection between cooling and long periods of no sun spots.

Why is that? Because we're getting bombarded by cosmic radiation (from outside of the solar system) in those periods.  Theses cosmic rays seem to contribute to an increase in cloud cover/precipitation (water vapor) in leu of our own sun not doing it due to being so close to a solar minimum (2019-2020):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/06/nasa-radiation-from-space-is-increasing-weak-sun-to-blame/





Strange how the 2010 and 2016 spikes both land on ~40 sunspotless days.  It's almost like that's point neither the sun nor the cosmic rays are enough to produce clouds so Earth bakes.


----------



## MrGenius (Nov 3, 2018)




----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

I think we need to take a step away from the politics of this and recognize the common ground we can all acknowledge:

1.)  investing in carbon based fuel is still ultimately flawed due to it being a finite resource.

2.) Burning carbon based fuel produces pollution inevitably.  Pollution is furthermore inevitably bad, regardless of climate.  No one wants more atmospheric polution.

As such, in first world nations like the US, it makes little sense not to push for non-carbon based energy...


----------



## bug (Nov 3, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> I think we need to take a step away from the politics of this and recognize the common ground we can all acknowledge:
> 
> 1.)  investing in carbon based fuel is still ultimately flawed due to it being a finite resource.
> 
> ...


That's the sensible thing to do, as long as you don't go overboard trying to switch in the blink of an eye.
I mean, today we could make solar/wind/whatever dirt cheap, these sources are still not steady and we still haven't figured out batteries to get us through the night/no wind/whatever.

Also, carbon based fuel isn't actually a finite resource, but we consume it faster than the nature will produce it


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

bug said:


> Also, carbon based fuel isn't actually a finite resource, but we consume it faster than the nature will produce it


Fair point...  our dead aren't quite "aged to perfection" yet lol.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> I think we need to take a step away from the politics of this and recognize the common ground we can all acknowledge:
> 
> 1.)  investing in carbon based fuel is still ultimately flawed due to it being a finite resource.
> 
> ...


Except that carbon isn't a pollutant.  Not burning coal is a good idea because the fumes have dozens of carcinogens in them--not because of CO2.


----------



## bug (Nov 3, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Except that carbon isn't a pollutant.


That is a fine line. Carbon does occur naturally, however large concentrations can be defined as pollutants. I mean, cyanide occurs naturally, yet when you dump a truckload into a river, that's pollution. Oil occurs naturally, yet when a tanker sinks... you get my drift.
Of course, what I haven't seen is a limit where we can start calling carbon a pollutant. Thus everyone calls it as it suits their point of view.
For bonus points, the gas having the most pronounced greenhouse effect is _water vapour_. And I don;t think there's any limit where one would start calling that a pollutant.

I mean, with so many terms up in the air, it's no wonder having a meaningful conversation on the subject is pretty much impossible.


FordGT90Concept said:


> Not burning coal is a good idea because the fumes have dozens of carcinogens in them--not because of CO2.


That too.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Except that carbon isn't a pollutant.  Not burning coal is a good idea because the fumes have dozens of carcinogens in them--not because of CO2.



Didn't say a thing about co2.  That was intentional.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

"Carbon based fuel."  Fuel implies burning.  What is the result of burning carbon? Carbon oxides, including carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is about 0.04% of the air.  Even if it reached 0.2% it's not really going to change much.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> "Carbon based fuel."  Fuel implies burning.  What is the result of burning carbon? Carbon oxides, including carbon dioxide.
> 
> Carbon dioxide is about 0.04% of the air.  Even if it reached 0.2% it's not really going to change much.



Name one carbon based fuel that when burned does not produce other polutants.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

Modern diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines with catalytic converters.  Yes, if the room is not ventilated, the air can become poisonous in time but such is also the case of a human breathing in an air tight space.  The diesel and gasoline products are purified hydrocarbon chains so there's not much in the way of pollutants in it.

The same is also mostly true of "clean coal" which uses environmental scrubers to pull the pollutants out of the exhaust and properly dispose of it.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 3, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Name one carbon based fuel that when burned does not produce other polutants.



Well, name any sort of fuel of any type that doesn't produce some sort of pollutant through it's production/processing.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Well, name any sort of fuel of any type that doesn't produce some sort of pollutant through it's production/processing.



Hydroelectric.  Wind.  Solar.  Nuclear if atmospheric is all we are counting.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 3, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Hydroelectric.  Wind.  Solar.  Nuclear if atmospheric is all we are counting.



What about the plants you need to build and all the technology required that goes into it ? That doesn't come with no cost in terms of pollution, people always exclude that from the equation. When you really start looking into it, nothing is truly 100% clean.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Hydroelectric.  Wind.  Solar.  Nuclear if atmospheric is all we are counting.


Hydroelectric, wind, and solar cause massive ecological damage as well: hydroelectric via dams destroying habitats in front (raises water level) and behind (lowers water level) the placement of the dam, wind kills an enormous amount of birds, and solar is literally replacing the surface of the planet with absorptive (causes local warming) plans of silicon.  Wind turbines require an enormous investment in metals for how much energy they produce, solar requires an enormous investment in silicon for the amount of energy they produce, and hydroelectric dams...most nations already dammed all that is reasonable to dam, there's no means to expand it to meet growing energy requirements.



Vya Domus said:


> What about the plants you need to build and all the technology required that goes into it ? That doesn't come with no cost in terms of pollution, people always exclude that from the equation. When you really start looking into it, nothing is truly 100% clean.


Only fusion comes damn close.  There's still materials required for construction but the amount of energy that comes out of it is staggering.  Fission is the next best choice but uranium is usually acquired through strip mining at a very low efficiency.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

You guys are moving goal posts.  I was only talking about air pollutants from the fuel itself.  And most of the " BUT IT TAKES POLLUTION TO BUILD IT!" is a bogus argument because where do you think coal plants come from?  Seeds?

As a Washintonian, I am well aware of the impacts alternative energy pose.  Our salmon runs for example may never recover.  This is likely to impact the local Orca pop as well.

I still think it's a helluva lot better than the low property values and general poverity surrounding Centralia, home of Washingtons one coal fired power station (closing this year).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> You guys are moving goal posts.  I was only talking about air pollutants from the fuel itself.  And most of the " BUT IT TAKES POLLUTION TO BUILD IT!" is a bogus argument because where do you think coal plants come from?  Seeds?


Solar is pretty damn terrible in terms of chemical pollution (panels are mostly getting cheaper because manufacturing has moved to countries that don't make clean up mandatory).  Wind and hydroelectric air pollution mostly stems from steel foundries and transportation of materials.  Once instead, they don't pollute until they have to be decommissioned and destroyed.  Then you're dealing with dust.

Clean coal exhaust is mostly carbon, oxygen, and some traces of nitrogen compounds.  These elements are literally already #1, #2, and #5 in the air naturally.  Coal is literally the result of plant and animal decay.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 3, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Solar is pretty damn terrible in terms of chemical pollution.  Wind and hydroelectric air pollution mostly stems from steel foundries and transportation of materials.  Once instead, they don't pollute until they have to be decommissioned and destroyed.  Then you're dealing with dust.



Yep.  The centralia coal plant is also largely steel.  I will give you the solar point (batteries suck), never been much of a fan myself...  but moreso than coal by far.

Atmospheric polution remains my point, and largely our biggest issue besides maybe ocean pollution (landfills work, mostly).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2018)

The coal plants that are heavily polluting were built in the 60s-80s.  They're reaching the end of their useful life and being replaced by natural gas in the USA.  China is mostly building clean coal power plants because it is the best option available to them.

Coal literally pulled China out of poverty.


> Dependence on coal is not just a Chinese problem, though. Countries around the world—even European nations that tout their environmental track records—have found themselves unable to wean themselves from coal. Germany, though often celebrated for its embrace of solar and wind energy, not only gets more than half its power from coal but opened more coal-fired power plants in 2013 than in any year in the past two decades. In neighboring Poland, 86 percent of the electricity is generated from coal.


Unless humanity is ready to immediately embrace nuclear, coal is going to remain a major electric fuel.


Even my electric provider that wants to be the first in the world to go entirely green, they got 12,290 GWh from coal compared to 11,305 GWh from wind (my neck of the woods is among the windiest average in the world).


We're kind of going in circles.  No governmental bodies really want to embrace nuclear.  Wind is unreliable for a grid that needs constant supply.  Solar is all kinds of stupid. Hydro isn't reasonably expandable nor is geothermal.  Fusion isn't ready yet.  Natural gas only works where it is available (especially North America but not elsewhere).  So what's left the fill demand?  Coal.  Everyone hates coal but they would hate losing all of our nice electric things more. It's the skeleton in the closet no one talks about but is ever present.

If I didn't want to promote the use of coal power, I would have to cut my electric consumption in half.  It's not possible because I rely on electric heating for the winter (can get down to -20 F/-29 C).  I'd rather they burn coal 50 miles away than me burn it in my house.  The only other alternatives are various forms of oil (propane or fuel oil) which are less efficient than that coal power plant and much more dangerous or chopping down trees (which there aren't many around) to burn.  I'll let them keep burning that coal, spank you very much.

I'd rather destitute countries like Haiti have access to coal power rather than them deforest (which they already did) their nation too. In the grand scheme of things, coal is win-win.  The downsides are minor compared to what having no reliable electricity means.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 4, 2018)

I suggest you read my posts and quit ignoring points like this:




R-T-B said:


> As such, in first world nations like the US, it makes little sense not to push for non-carbon based energy...



Then maybe we'll quit talking about haiti and similar which I said nothing about being it's third world.  It may also stop us talking in circles.



FordGT90Concept said:


> No governmental bodies really want to embrace nuclear.



Some do.  Not American ones though.


----------



## MrGenius (Nov 4, 2018)

2H2(g) + O2(g) → 2H2O(g) + energy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 4, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Then maybe we'll quit talking about haiti and similar which I said nothing about being it's third world.  It may also stop us talking in circles.


I did address your "it makes little sense not to push for non-carbon based energy" argument directly.  The "non-carbon based energy" sources have major scaling problems.



R-T-B said:


> Some do.  Not American ones though.


The cost is prohibitive ($25 billion for 2.5 GW), especially considering the fact Westinghouse went under.  China is really trying but China also hasn't faced a nuclear crisis like USA, Russia (technically Ukraine), and Japan did.  Their resolve maybe shaken just like it was elsewhere.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Nov 4, 2018)

Well, summing some in a scenario I would buid a gargantuan solar aray(photovoltaic) out in GSO and wirelessly sent the energy to a receptor station, all of the outer Earth parts beeing built from non Earth resources mostly 99%, all this in a contrast that a be it the same type of a photovoltaic panel yelds different results placed on Earths surface vs LEO/ GSOoE  peaking at efficacy in "Space" for the material technology from wich solar panels are made from. Dyson swarm? Dyson mini-swarm perhaps.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 4, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> wind kills an enormous amount of birds



No, it actually doesn't.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 4, 2018)

There's only one source for that and it's from a Law School. 

Even if wind literally had no environmental downsides, it is still a finite resource.  Every turbine wind has to pass through removes kinetic energy from the wind and imparts it on to the blade.  Only so many turbines can be installed in a region before the drop in efficiency makes it too costly to warrant installation.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 4, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There's only one source for that and it's from a Law School.
> 
> Even if wind literally had no environmental downsides, it is still a finite resource.  Every turbine wind has to pass through removes kinetic energy from the wind and imparts it on to the blade.  Only so many turbines can be installed in a region before the drop in efficiency makes it too costly to warrant installation.



That doesn't mean the resource is finite ford, it simply means there is a production cap.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 4, 2018)

This is what happens when you don't have a sensible energy policy:
Wanted: An Australian energy policy to kickstart A$25 billion of investment
Electric bills are soaring, blackouts everywhere, and not even Musk can install enough battery capacity to fix it.  The irony: Australia is rich in coal and it seems like they remembered that:
Australian government backs coal in defiance of IPCC climate warning
IPCC is losing the war because they aren't bringing forward practical solutions to energy problems that are also eco-friendly.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 5, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This is what happens when you don't have a sensible energy policy:
> Wanted: An Australian energy policy to kickstart A$25 billion of investment
> Electric bills are soaring, blackouts everywhere, and not even Musk can install enough battery capacity to fix it.  The irony: Australia is rich in coal and it seems like they remembered that:
> Australian government backs coal in defiance of IPCC climate warning
> IPCC is losing the war because they aren't bringing forward practical solutions to energy problems that are also eco-friendly.



Oh come on, now you're just being disingenuous. Australia's power problems have nothing to do with renewables or the IPCC and everything to do with having a bloody rotating door in their prime minister's office. And you can hardly blame renewables or the IPCC either for constant one-upmanship as both sides play hot potato with energy policy to pander to their voters and corporate backers.


----------



## sepheronx (Nov 5, 2018)

Wind mills are eating up a lot of land that could be used for farming here.  I like the idea of the wind farms built in the water.  But I imagine the maintenance costs alone is bad and same with potential ecological issues in building them in the water (not sure about that).

One that is constantly being produced, clean to burn and just ridiculous amounts of already existing is Natural Gas.  LNG/CNG is very useful and in growing demand.  Everything from heating to powering facilities to even powering cars.  Very efficient, clean and in plentiful supply with continuous replenishment through mother nature alone (dead plants, etc).  Natural gas energy plants are very expensive mind you, but they are a growing demand next to nuclear due to high efficiency and overall low costs.  One is built not far from where I live and it produces a huge portion of the energy for the city.  And electricity is rather cheap here too.


----------



## bug (Nov 5, 2018)

sepheronx said:


> Wind mills are eating up a lot of land that could be used for farming here.  I like the idea of the wind farms built in the water.  But I imagine the maintenance costs alone is bad and same with potential ecological issues in building them in the water (not sure about that).
> 
> One that is constantly being produced, clean to burn and just ridiculous amounts of already existing is Natural Gas.  LNG/CNG is very useful and in growing demand.  Everything from heating to powering facilities to even powering cars.  Very efficient, clean and in plentiful supply with continuous replenishment through mother nature alone (dead plants, etc).  Natural gas energy plants are very expensive mind you, but they are a growing demand next to nuclear due to high efficiency and overall low costs.  One is built not far from where I live and it produces a huge portion of the energy for the city.  And electricity is rather cheap here too.


Wind also needs a lot of cleaning. I mean _a lot_.
When debris starts to stick to the rotors' arms, their efficiency goes down fast. A whole industry has grown providing this service. There are helicopters used to do the job. You don't see a lot of talk about this.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 5, 2018)

bug said:


> Wind also needs a lot of cleaning. I mean _a lot_.
> When debris starts to stick to the rotors' arms, their efficiency goes down fast. A whole industry has grown providing this service. There are helicopters used to do the job. You don't see a lot of talk about this.



You say this like a new industry is a bad thing. Maybe it'll help some former coal miners to find a new and productive job.

... hah, who am I kidding, American coal miners lack any sort of initiative or ability to better themselves. That's why they all voted for Trump, and that's why one day, when I visit America, I'm going to travel down to one of those dead coal mining towns and laugh at the inhabitants. Hopefully they won't all be ghost towns by then.


----------



## bug (Nov 5, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> You say this like a new industry is a bad thing. Maybe it'll help some former coal miners to find a new and productive job.
> 
> ... hah, who am I kidding, American coal miners lack any sort of initiative or ability to better themselves. That's why they all voted for Trump, and that's why one day, when I visit America, I'm going to travel down to one of those dead coal mining towns and laugh at the inhabitants. Hopefully they won't all be ghost towns by then.


Well, keeping all that under wraps when discussing wind costs is smelly at least.

And you should really, really visit America before badmouthing people over there. It's not what you know or imagine, I promise you that


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 5, 2018)

bug said:


> It's not what you know or imagine, I promise you that



Depending on the segment you visit, it can be.


----------



## bug (Nov 5, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Depending on the segment you visit, it can be.


Just acknowledging there are segments/areas, it isn't 
I can't tell you how many times I got asked "how much does a house in US cost?", only to answer "that's about as wise as asking how much a house in Europe costs". The less funny part is when you realize how many people hate the US that don't even know what the US is about. Spoiler alert: it's far from perfect, yet still better than most alternatives.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 5, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> Oh come on, now you're just being disingenuous. Australia's power problems have nothing to do with renewables or the IPCC and everything to do with having a bloody rotating door in their prime minister's office. And you can hardly blame renewables or the IPCC either for constant one-upmanship as both sides play hot potato with energy policy to pander to their voters and corporate backers.


But why is that?  Because they can't decide between the priority of supplying reliable power and the priority of being environmentally friendly.  The sane policy is both: meet your power needs while trying to do right by the environment.  Refusal to consider coal means you're going to have expensive and/or unreliable power.  That's exactly what they got.



sepheronx said:


> Wind mills are eating up a lot of land that could be used for farming here.  I like the idea of the wind farms built in the water.  But I imagine the maintenance costs alone is bad and same with potential ecological issues in building them in the water (not sure about that).


They cost about three times more per MWh generated (something like $110 versus $42). Understandably, not much investment in that area.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 5, 2018)

bug said:


> Just acknowledging there are segments/areas, it isn't
> I can't tell you how many times I got asked "how much does a house in US cost?", only to answer "that's about as wise as asking how much a house in Europe costs". The less funny part is when you realize how many people hate the US that don't even know what the US is about. Spoiler alert: it's far from perfect, yet still better than most alternatives.



You say that like everyone isn't aware large countries are diverse.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 5, 2018)

A hurdle to nuclear power in the USA:
Supreme Court mulls Virginia ban on mining biggest U.S. uranium deposit

The state has banned uranium mining since 1982 because of health concerns.  USA imports virtually all of its uranium.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 5, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A hurdle to nuclear power in the USA:
> Supreme Court mulls Virginia ban on mining biggest U.S. uranium deposit
> 
> The state has banned uranium mining since 1982 because of health concerns.  USA imports virtually all of its uranium.



Uranium is but one of many nuclear fuel options:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

Granted almost all face their own regulatory hurdles.

I like the CANDU reactor model personally, though it does depend on Uranium (even if unenriched).


----------



## bug (Nov 5, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> You say that like everyone isn't aware large countries are diverse.


I'm saying I was surprised to discover that most people actually aren't.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 5, 2018)

bug said:


> I'm saying I was surprised to discover that most people actually aren't.



I think you are confusing intentionally selecting certain subgroups for lack of awareness, but meh, OT anyways.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 5, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Uranium is but one of many nuclear fuel options:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel
> 
> ...


We should be building government operated Fast Breeder Reactors which transmute U-238 into Pu-239 to be used by commercial pebble-bed reactors.  Neither designs can meltdown.  The former can use spent nuclear fuel to make more usable nuclear fuel.  Other than investment costs and risk of...bad people...getting their hands on the FBR material, there's really not much in terms of down sides.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 5, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We should be building government operated Fast Breeder Reactors which transmute U-238 into Pu-239 to be used by commercial pebble-bed reactors.  Neither designs can meltdown.  The former can use spent nuclear fuel to make more usable nuclear fuel.  Other than investment costs and risk of...bad people...getting their hands on the FBR material, there's really not much in terms of down sides.



I agree with the premise provided security was provably up to spec.  Those kind of sites always put a theft risk target over their head.

Of course we both know that sadly isn't practical given the present climate.  Where we diverge is what is the better alternative given our constituents boneheadedness...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

Most Americans support nuclear power but the noisy minority can stop any from being built due to safety/environment concerns.  That lawsuit I pointed out might actually be more important than it appears on the surface: it's between federal necessity and state rights.  Casual knowledge of the case suggests that state rights will win because federal had the opportunity to make necessity clear but it did not.  The fact that SCOTUS was willing to hear it means there is more to it than just that casual knowledge.  If SCOTUS rules that the energy needs of the nation trump local environmental protectionism, then that ruling can form the foundation for nuclear projects going up across the nation.

Then there's two subsequent problems: USA's nuclear power programs and industry are out of practice.  Even China and France are still predominantly building 1950s (but updated) style PWRs and BWRs (originally designed for nuclear submarines).  They are not PBR nor FBR like what made clear since the 1970s is the best way to produce commercial power.  So what's really needed right now is rapid prototyping for next generation commercial nuclear reactors designed explicitly to produce power safely, cleanly, and cheaply.  I just don't see it happening, not when the environmentalists are screaming for wind and solar.

My deep concern is that when the fusion power problem gets solved, they're going to continue to advocate for wind and solar over fusion.  Are we doomed to 16th century energy sources forever?


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

I know given my...  standings it can seem like all liberals drag their feet on this issue (advancing nuclear power).

Let me exist as proof that not all of them do.  I would apologize for my peers behavior, but that would be something that would likely get me a demerit.


----------



## hat (Nov 6, 2018)

Personally I'd rather see coal burned than nuclear fission. Fission produces tons of crap that stays deathly radioactive for eons, and then you have to store it somewhere, and then the storage gets fucked up (broken/leaking drums etc). Fusion though, I'm all for. To my knowledge it doesn't produce that crap, and in fact there are supposedly ways we can use old radioactive waste as a fuel source, both producing power and cleaning up that mess at the same time. Also, fission, like fossil fuels, is fueled by finite resources. Fusion mostly runs on hydrogen, which is literally the most abundant thing in the universe by far.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

It's pollution trapped in a bottle instead of pollution wafting in the wind.


----------



## hat (Nov 6, 2018)

True, but the bottle is leaky, and what's inside the bottle is many times worse than what's coming out of smokestacks. We do agree on fusion, though!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

Fusion produces radiation too but more of the alpha and beta varieties rather than gamma.  Gamma passes straight through organic material.  But even worse, it's ionizing radiation, that causes thyroid problems.  Consuming iodized salt is the best counter which works fantastic for human populations but...animal populations...serious delivery problems.  As long as it doesn't leak to the environment, it's all good.



hat said:


> True, but the bottle is leaky, and what's inside the bottle is many times worse than what's coming out of smokestacks. We do agree on fusion, though!


Except that there can be trace amounts of uranium and thorium in coal.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste


> In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.


From editor's note:


> As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 6, 2018)

hat said:


> True, but the bottle is leaky, and what's inside the bottle is many times worse than what's coming out of smokestacks. We do agree on fusion, though!



we also store the nuclear waste very safely... we have 99 nuclear reactors, 61 plants in USA, and we seem to be storing all of that ok and safely. They do use special containers that do not leak... please give me a link to support your claim... I know in the past we did not do so well, but it seems like a solid system we have now, I have not heard of any issues since like 2005. even then it was rare

I doubt going from 61 nuclear plants to say 70 or 80 total would be that difficult if we get the same current people working on board, and its all Federally controlled with new hires, etc.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

The waste is being stored at each individual nuclear power plant.  The federal government wanted to transport and store it all at the Yucca Mountain facility but Nevada (again, environmental/safety argument for state rights) put kibosh on that plan.

Having FBRs would give economic incentive to buy and transport the waste.


Edit: Whoa, it's happening!
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html
At least 28 more reactors are proposed or approved.

...going to go through this list...
Bell Bend - Application withdrawn in 2016.
Bellefonte, Units 3 & 4 - Units 3 & 4 application withdrawn.  Units 1 & 2 have been "under construction" since 1975.  They're trying to finish it now.  I'm not sure if it's actually happening now or not.
Callaway, Unit 2 - Application withdrawn.  Callaway is the most seismic stable reactor in the USA.
Calvert Cliffs, Unit 3 - Not happening.  It was actually going to be a reactor of European design.
Comanche Peak, Units 3 & 4 - The door is still open to building these reactors but there is no effort to do so right now. Application is suspended.
Fermi, Unit 3 - Approved but no plans to construct.
Grand Gulf, Unit 3 - Application withdrawn.
Levy County, Units 1 & 2 - Canceled as part of a legal settlement.
Nine Mile Point, Unit 3 - Could not secure funding, expansion canceled.
North Anna, Unit 3 - Planned but haven't begun construction yet.
River Bend Station, Unit 3 - Indefinitely postponed.
Shearon Harris, Units 2 & 3 - Suspended.
South Texas Project, Units 3 & 4 - Planned but haven't begun construction in earnest.
Turkey Point, Units 6 & 7 - Planned but no construction.
Victoria County Station, Units 1 & 2 - Cancelled.
Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 & 3 - Construction began on both units but then was canceled due to an inability to secure funding to complete them.
*Vogtle, Units 3 & 4* - Under active construction.
William States Lee III, Units 1 & 2 - Suspended.

Only two reactors are actually being built, both at Vogtle.  The rest either aren't building or quit trying to get approval.  I think the cheapness of natural gas is the reason.

All of these plants cost in the billions to build and make operational.

They're shutting them down faster than they're replacing them.  That said, all of the proposed reactors are substantially more powerful than the reactors they're replacing.  Most are 1100-1600 MW where the outgoing are 600-700 MW.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The waste is being stored at each individual nuclear power plant.  The federal government wanted to transport and store it all at the Yucca Mountain facility but Nevada (again, environmental/safety argument for state rights) put kibosh on that plan.
> 
> Having FBRs would give economic incentive to buy and transport the waste.
> 
> ...



I wonder why Congress just doesn't raise the debt ceiling some more and keep printing more money, they had no problem doing that for the 6 trillion dollars in unpaid middle east wars, that we still have not paid off. Year 2000 total debt was 5.6 trillion, now its what close to 23 trillion last I checked.  Wages are mostly the same for vast majority of people, so can't count for inflation too much... lol  Doesn't seem to be any consequence to just spend freely, so why not go all the way and fund those reactors that did not secure enough funding, lol?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

Congress isn't the one paying for these.  In fact, they've been quite resistant to even giving loans (as in gets paid back with interest) to build them.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Congress isn't the one paying for these.  In fact, they've been quite resistant to even giving loans (as in gets paid back with interest) to build them.



Sounds dumb from a strategic standpoint then, the several billion required for these plants is a mere drop in the water of the Federal budget, but I guess they can pay the coastal cities a ton of money when the flooding starts, will cost 1000x more but whatever works for ya i guess lol


----------



## hat (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Fusion produces radiation too but more of the alpha and beta varieties rather than gamma.  Gamma passes straight through organic material.  But even worse, it's ionizing radiation, that causes thyroid problems.  Consuming iodized salt is the best counter which works fantastic for human populations but...animal populations...serious delivery problems.  As long as it doesn't leak to the environment, it's all good.
> 
> 
> Except that there can be trace amounts of uranium and thorium in coal.
> ...



That sounds... awfully misleading. How do we go from "trace amounts of uranium and thorium" to "100x more radioactive"? I've spent a good deal of time in direct contact with fly ash, much more than the average person, and I don't have a third arm growing out of my chest. If I had come into contact with waste from nuclear reactors in the same way, I'd be a very dead man. A very dead, radioactive man, at that.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

hat said:


> Fission produces tons of crap that stays deathly radioactive for eons



Depends on the method of fission.  We've come a long ways since the early reactors.  Many can reuse a lot of waste as fuel, produce less waste or with a far shorter halflife, etc.  Some reactors literally cannot meltdown.  It's really not all Chernobyl/Three Mile Island grade tech anymore.



hat said:


> That sounds... awfully misleading. How do we go from "trace amounts of uranium and thorium" to "100x more radioactive"? I've spent a good deal of time in direct contact with fly ash, much more than the average person, and I don't have a third arm growing out of my chest. If I had come into contact with waste from nuclear reactors in the same way, I'd be a very dead man. A very dead, radioactive man, at that.



Depends on if the dry cask storage is intact and also the type of fissile material.  On average they are probably correct.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> Sounds dumb from a strategic standpoint then, the several billion required for these plants is a mere drop in the water of the Federal budget, but I guess they can pay the coastal cities a ton of money when the flooding starts, will cost 1000x more but whatever works for ya i guess lol


It's the risks.  Vogtle expansion is the only one going forward in the 21st century and when the project was announced, they estimated $4.418 billion in overnight cost.  Now (and they're still not done) the estimate is $25 billion.  When Westinghouse went under, the federal government did step in to give both companies (Westinghouse and Duke Energy whom owns Vogtle) loan guarantees of $9 billion so the project wouldn't get abandoned like Virgil C. Summer did.  So it's not like the federal government isn't doing anything, it's just reluctant to.  Like I said, USA is out of practice in terms of building reactors.  Until the wheels start turning again, it's bumpy.  Hopefully Vogtle being completed will change investment perceptions.



hat said:


> That sounds... awfully misleading. How do we go from "trace amounts of uranium and thorium" to "100x more radioactive"? I've spent a good deal of time in direct contact with fly ash, much more than the average person, and I don't have a third arm growing out of my chest. If I had come into contact with waste from nuclear reactors in the same way, I'd be a very dead man. A very dead, radioactive man, at that.


Because you're comparing radioactive elements that are completely contained for its entire life span versus radioactive elements that are accidentally incinerated and vented into the atmosphere.  These are both normally operating plants not undergoing any kind of emergency.

Later on, you're talking about an emergency event (Chernobyl NPP and Fukashima NPP) where containment failed and radiactive material leaked into the environment.  That's where the radiation gets much, much, much worse than coal.  Even so, radiation exposure isn't necessarily a death sentence.  In fact, it is quite survivable if you're able to remove yourself from the radiation and take iodine pills.  In the 60+ year history of nuclear power, I believe there were only 22 that died from accute radiation poisoning and virtually all of those were at Chernobyl NPP when it exploded.  In terms of actual deaths, nuclear is by far the safest power source humanity has ever created (even besting hydro because of construction deaths).



R-T-B said:


> Depends on the method of fission.  We've come a long ways since the early reactors.  Many can reuse a lot of waste as fuel, produce less waste or with a far shorter halflife, etc.  Some reactors literally cannot meltdown.  It's really not all Chernobyl/Three Mile Island grade tech anymore.


RBMK that Chernobyl NPP used was quite...stupid.  You could literally walk out there and stick your hand in the water that the nuclear fuel rods were in.  There was virtually nothing in the way of containment and what the events leading up to the meltdown were human stupidity compounded on human stupidity.  They basically were testing how low they could go with control rods out, the core suddenly started reacting, the cooling systems weren't ready to deal with the heat, the hot uranium swelled so the control rods couldn't reinsert, the reaction ran out of control so once they got the cooling systems going, they couldn't keep up, the uranium melted down (2000+C) which caused steam to form on contact leading to a steam explosion, and there was no containment structure so...panic?  What else could they do?

Three Mile Island had a partial meltdown in Unit 2 that resulted in a minor leak of radioactive gas.  They were doing maintenance on Unit 1 at the time and as a function of that, emergency systems for Unit 2 were also disabled.  Unit 2 should have been in cold shutdown because of that fact.  Instead, they broke NRC rules and operated it at 97% capacity only for the improbable to happen and the situation to run out of control.

Unit 1 at Three Mile Island is still operating to this date.  The owner of Three Mile Island is considering shutting Unit 1 down September 30, 2019, because natural gas is about half the price per MWh ($25 vs $44).


> Hanson explicitly stated the reason for the shutdown is because of the unprofitability of Unit 1. Unit 1 has lost the company over 300 million dollars over the last half-decade despite it being one of Exelon's best-performing power plants.



And that's why nuclear is still mostly dead in the USA: natural gas is too damn cheap.


----------



## hat (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Depends on the method of fission.  We've come a long ways since the early reactors.  Many can reuse a lot of waste as fuel, produce less waste or with a far shorter halflife, etc.  Some reactors literally cannot meltdown.  It's really not all Chernobyl/Three Mile Island grade tech anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on if the dry cask storage is intact and also the type of fissile material.  On average they are probably correct.


Sounds like we ought to be using some of that waste that's stored up, then, if we can do it already.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

You need breeders to recycle nuclear waste.  There's only four in the world operating (they're all quite old) and none are in the USA.

India is building a fifth now.  It is 8 years behind schedule and is expected to achieve criticality next year.  If this breeder is successful, they're planning to build six more of them based on its design.


----------



## wtfisgoingon (Nov 6, 2018)

More than 97% of published articles that expressed a conclusion about anthropogenic climate change endorsed human-caused global warming. 

Yes, scientific consensus can be overturned. But it’s not a vote, nor is it a debate. It is scientific evidence of equal or better quality and quantity than what established the consensus. And since science is not dogmatic and close-minded, there can be a glacial change from one consensus to another. 

The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong. The consensus is so clear that many scientists call it the “Theory of anthropogenic climate change,” which would mean it’s at the pinnacle of scientific principles, essentially an unassailable fact. 

*There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.*


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

wtfisgoingon said:


> More than 97% of published articles that expressed a conclusion about anthropogenic climate change endorsed human-caused global warming.
> 
> Yes, scientific consensus can be overturned. But it’s not a vote, nor is it a debate. It is scientific evidence of equal or better quality and quantity than what established the consensus. And since science is not dogmatic and close-minded, there can be a glacial change from one consensus to another.
> 
> ...



Some of the very scientists used to support some studies denounced them and were used.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

wtfisgoingon said:


> *There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.*


All dissenting voices are silenced or ignored because it threatens their funding.

If IPCC did an about-face and said, "sorry, we were wrong!" What would happen?  IPCC would be shutdown.  NOAA would have a lot of their climate research projects shut down (many impact NASA as well). Tesla would go belly up because of unfunded debts. Wind and solar subsidies would vanish.  All of the conservation programs targeted at "saving" species from climate change would be defunded.  The list goes on and on and on.  Billions (if not trillions) of dollars would shift practically overnight.  They can't afford to admit they're wrong now.  They're institutionally obligated to perpetuate the myth.

There's only two things that are absolutely destructive to the science: politics (destroys integrity) and religion (erosion of rationalization).


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

I can only give this one bit of praise atm. It's the most powerful taxing proposal in history. I've never seen anything this unassailable and hallowed... with this much potential benefit to ruling classes and lawmakers.

I mean, if I was to go about gutting people and confusing everyone on whether it was even right or wrong, this would be my ticket. Past governments hardly even tried to veil what they were doing and taxed in the most absurd manner. But this is brilliant.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> so...panic? What else could they do?



They actaully were unaware there was a problem until the explosion due to a badly placed thermal sensor (again bad design).

Otherwise no disagreement re them being bad reactor designs.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> I can only give this one bit of praise atm. It's the most powerful taxing proposal in history. I've never seen anything this unassailable and hallowed... with this much potential benefit to ruling classes and lawmakers.


Carbon Tax.  Too right.  It's applicable name is "poor tax" but they made it flowery so people don't see it for what it is.



R-T-B said:


> They actaully were unaware there was a problem until the explosion due to a badly placed thermal sensor (again bad design).
> 
> Otherwise no disagreement.


It's shocking they're still operating:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx
Granted, there's only 11 total across three sites.


> The combination of graphite moderator and water coolant is found in no other power reactors in the world. As the Chernobyl accident showed, several of the RBMK's design characteristics – in particular, the control rod design and a positive void coefficient – were unsafe. A number of significant design changes were made after the Chernobyl accident to address these problems.


What makes the design unique:


> When fuel channels are isolated, the fuel assemblies can be lifted into and out of the reactor, allowing fuel replenishment while the reactor is in operation.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If IPCC did an about-face and said, "sorry, we were wrong!" What would happen?



My guess is none of your theories at all would come to pass, but rather some sort of middle ground, as it's still clear the earth is changing for whatever reason and there is a desire amonst some rational people to study that.

Really, this doesn't need to be black vs white.



FordGT90Concept said:


> It's shocking they're still operating:
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx
> Granted, there's only 11 total across three sites.



I'm aware.  No disagreement.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Carbon Tax. Too right. It's applicable name is "poor tax" but they made it flowery so people don't see it for what it is.



You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax."  I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Carbon Tax.  Too right.  It's applicable name is "poor tax" but they made it flowery so people don't see it for what it is.
> 
> 
> It's shocking they're still operating:
> ...



Not to mention it keeps the powerful indefinitely powerful. Things like the Paris Accord arbitrarily set carbon limits on nations that haven't even reached their own "industrial eras" yet. Keeping them perpetually stuck in the 3rd world, dependent on fuel and resources from the developed nations - and keeping these bigger, advanced nations where they are.

If I was a Leftist, I'd especially revolt at this idea. Or at least, if I was a Leninist. Leninism's (as opposed to Marxism's) whole schtick is that Communism is more about the war against Imperialism (not merely Upper Classes) and that the third world needed to rise up and take back their own production and resources.

Yet now we see leftists wanting the exact opposite: a third world perpetually dependent and disempowered. They'll seemingly do anything to fight against the Bad Orange Man.

Ahem... But I'm not a Leninist. I just find it all ironic. Some massive cognitive dissonance going on here.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Carbon Tax. Too right. It's applicable name is "poor tax" but they made it flowery so people don't see it for what it is.



You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax."  I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.



StrayKAT said:


> with this much potential benefit to ruling classes and lawmakers.



You have looked at whose running the government lately, I assume?



StrayKAT said:


> Ahem... But I'm not a Leninist. I just find it all ironic. Some massive cognitive dissonance going on here.



Not if you truly believe that you are averting genocide.  I'd rather be poor than dead.  Travel to your foes mindset if you really want to understand, otherwise it's just words.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax."  I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's absurd at face value. All I have to do is look at the history of the earth and see how resilient humans (and other animals) have been... even under worse conditions. It's been hotter than this before, as recent as the medieval period. It's difficult to even say that was "worse" in any real sense anyways. This is the age of cathedral building. Human activity was remarkable, if anything.

Half of the time, it's not even about "genocide" per se anyways. They say they're protecting the Earth itself. Which is even more absurd. And just arrogant. Earth can survive everything from a landscape and atmosphere rife with volcanic activity to millenia long ice ages.


----------



## hat (Nov 6, 2018)

The Earth itself is pretty durable. We couldn't destroy it even if we detonated every nuclear weapon we have all at once. If we really just wanted to ruin the environment and wipe out as much life as possible, though, there's a few ways that could be done... but the Earth itself would survive and recover after a while.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

Mind you, I'm definitely against pollution. I know I've already this multiple times, but just wanted to throw that out there again. To me, it's a separate issue. And the Earth can recover from that as well, but it'd take way too long that it wouldn't be wise to be too careless about the subject.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> But why is that?  Because they can't decide between the priority of supplying reliable power and the priority of being environmentally friendly. The sane policy is both: meet your power needs while trying to do right by the environment.  Refusal to consider coal means you're going to have expensive and/or unreliable power.  That's exactly what they got.



When the original doing-right-by-the-environment plan was proposed, there was plenty of time to enact it. Then the coal lobby (Murdoch) came in and got the government changed and the plan stopped. Then the voters realised that the coal guys are useless and voted them out, and the new government reinstated the environmentally friendly plan. Wash, rinse, repeat and you end up in a scenario where nobody wins.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Most Americans support nuclear power but the noisy minority can stop any from being built due to safety/environment concerns.  That lawsuit I pointed out might actually be more important than it appears on the surface: it's between federal necessity and state rights.  Casual knowledge of the case suggests that state rights will win because federal had the opportunity to make necessity clear but it did not.  The fact that SCOTUS was willing to hear it means there is more to it than just that casual knowledge.  If SCOTUS rules that the energy needs of the nation trump local environmental protectionism, then that ruling can form the foundation for nuclear projects going up across the nation.
> 
> Then there's two subsequent problems: USA's nuclear power programs and industry are out of practice.  Even China and France are still predominantly building 1950s (but updated) style PWRs and BWRs (originally designed for nuclear submarines).  They are not PBR nor FBR like what made clear since the 1970s is the best way to produce commercial power.  So what's really needed right now is rapid prototyping for next generation commercial nuclear reactors designed explicitly to produce power safely, cleanly, and cheaply.  I just don't see it happening, not when the environmentalists are screaming for wind and solar.



The noisy minority are not the only ones who benefit from the kibosh being put on nuclear. I'm quite sure that the drama around Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the resultant slumber of US nuclear power for three decades, was hyped up by the coal and oil industries.



FordGT90Concept said:


> My deep concern is that when the fusion power problem gets solved, they're going to continue to advocate for wind and solar over fusion.  Are we doomed to 16th century energy sources forever?



If/when fusion happens, nobody's going to be able to find a valid reason to block it.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> You have looked at whose running the government lately, I assume?



Didn't catch this earlier. If you mean Trump, he hasn't built a lifestyle off of other people's taxes. He hasn't even gained that office except by his own funding. Not to mention he donates the presidential salary he gets now.

If you think I'm just calling out rich people in general, that wasn't my point.


----------



## SoNic67 (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax." I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.


The "rich" don't care about taxes. They pay max amount (%) anyway, leveraging another tax on top of that will just drop the base tax and in the end they will pay the same amount (%).

Also, politicians talk taxes in %, and that's a smokescreen. Did you buy anything in % lately? Me neither, they all want $ or Euros or whatever else. 
What counts in the end is how much disposable income you have left (monthly/yearly). When that number is close to zero... any tax increase (in real money) will affect you.
When you have 100 million $ in disposable income, paying 1 million makes you look like a "saint", but really means nothing.


----------



## bug (Nov 6, 2018)

SoNic67 said:


> The "rich" don't care about taxes. They pay max amount (%) anyway, leveraging another tax on top of that will just drop the base tax and in the end they will pay the same amount (%).
> 
> Also, politicians talk taxes in %, and that's a smokescreen. Did you buy anything in % lately? Me neither, they all want $ or Euros or whatever else.
> What counts in the end is how much disposable income you have left (monthly/yearly). When that number is close to zero... any tax increase (in real money) will affect you.
> When you have 100 million $ in disposable income, paying 1 million makes you look like a "saint", but really means nothing.


Your argument is self-defeating.

You don't like % taxation. Yet if you work in a factory, the carbon emission taxes only add a few dozen bucks to your monthly costs. Whereas if I'm rich and own the factory, I may incur costs in the millions. Why wouldn't I care about that?


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

bug said:


> Your argument is self-defeating.
> 
> You don't like % taxation. Yet if you work in a factory, the carbon emission taxes only add a few dozen bucks to your monthly costs. Whereas if I'm rich and own the factory, I may incur costs in the millions. Why wouldn't I care about that?



Sadly, it doesn't matter what is done as far as corporations go. This is just hurts small/medium business. Corporations can just say "OK, cya.. sending my cash to Panama, shutting down all of our factories here while we build up infrastructure in India or China." They have all the bargaining power, for now.


----------



## bug (Nov 6, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Sadly, it doesn't matter what is done as far as corporations go. This is just hurts small/medium business. Corporations can just say "OK, cya.. sending my cash to Panama, shutting down all of our factories here while we build up infrastructure in India or China." They have all the bargaining power, for now.


That's correct. That's also why socialism failed everywhere: you simply can't ignore big business, they have a point of view and you need to account for that, too.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 6, 2018)

bug said:


> Your argument is self-defeating.
> 
> You don't like % taxation. Yet if you work in a factory, the carbon emission taxes only add a few dozen bucks to your monthly costs. Whereas if I'm rich and own the factory, I may incur costs in the millions. Why wouldn't I care about that?



For a minimum-wage factory worker, a few dozen bucks might be the difference between making rent this month or not.

A factory owner paying millions in tax is making tens of millions in revenue, but they don't need tens of millions of dollars every month unless they really like living large (in which case they won't own a factory for long). So after all their expenses are taken care of, the extra cash they have goes into an investment account. New tax comes in, their only concern is that they have slightly less to invest every month, not that their lifestyle has to change.



bug said:


> That's correct. That's also why socialism failed everywhere: you simply can't ignore big business, they have a point of view and you need to account for that, too.



You don't need to ignore them, that's what legislation is for. The problem is that deregulation and countries' short-sightedness in fighting to get corporations to their shores, has resulted in megacorporations that can dictate their own rules. That's what will destroy capitalism in the end.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> ...as it's still clear the earth is changing for whatever reason...


Where I live used to be under 1000 feet of ice.  "Climate change" is natural.  I really can't think of anything off the top of my head that is truly abnormal in terms of climate anywhere on Earth.



R-T-B said:


> You are going to have to clarify how taxing carbon emissions is a "poor tax."  I am really not seeing how that does not hit all classes equally.


Poor people tend to drive older, more polluting vehicles.  They also tend to get power from historically cheaper sources of power, like coal, that are heavily polluting.  Carbon taxes disproportionately hit the poor.  They have to be matched with refunds.  Governments picking winners and losers instead of economic factors always creates problems down the road (e.g. the disaster that has become US healthcare).



Assimilator said:


> If/when fusion happens, nobody's going to be able to find a valid reason to block it.


All of the reasons to fear the sun apply to fusion.  Namely, all sorts of electromagnetic radition.  Hydrogen is also a highly unstable fuel unless dropped to near 0 K.


----------



## SoNic67 (Nov 6, 2018)

bug said:


> the carbon emission taxes only add a few dozen bucks to your monthly costs


And what does that to me? The factory has to pay millions in this scam and shuts down. Now I have no income.
My 2001 car will be impossible to drive due to taxes, now I have to walk? Buses don't do to my work and I can't afford $60k for new fancy "electrical" vehicle.
And even if it doesn't what's the point of the tax? It will not prevent people from eating or heating their houses. Or multiplying. It will not lower the heating effect (it is not man-made anyway).
It will just give politicians more money to play God with.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because they can't decide between the priority of supplying reliable power and the priority of being environmentally friendly. The sane policy is both: meet your power needs while trying to do right by the environment.


Australia is one of China's Biggest Supplier of Coal so yeh they dig it out of the ground and sell it to China who then burn it as Fuel for Polluting power Stations


----------



## bug (Nov 6, 2018)

SoNic67 said:


> And what does that to me? The factory has to pay millions in this scam and shuts down. Now I have no income.
> My 2001 car will be impossible to drive due to taxes, now I have to walk? Buses don't do to my work and I can't afford $60k for new fancy "electrical" vehicle.
> And even if it doesn't what's the point of the tax? It will not prevent people from eating or heating their houses. Or multiplying. It will not lower the heating effect (it is not man-made anyway).
> It will just give politicians more money to play God with.


Yes, everything is about you. Hold that thought, it's going to get you places.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 6, 2018)

SoNic67 said:


> It will not lower the heating effect (it is not man-made anyway).


Breathes out "SNORT"
so the Squirrels are responsible for urbanization and the Urban heat-sink Phenomenon


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 6, 2018)

Anyone who doubts that Global warming is real just needs to look at the amount of water vapour in our atmosphere. When an Iceberg or Glacier melts it not only releases liquid but gas in the form of water vapour (fog). This rise explains the absolutely crazy hurricanes and typhoons that we are seeing on a more consistent basis. The scariest thing though is that water vapour is a better greenhouse gas than CO2.

Example A: Hurricane Sandy hit the US East Coast from Vermont to Florida at the same time. 
Example B: There were 3 hurricanes in the Atlantic basin at the same time earlier this year 
Example C: The clouds are so heavy now that they do not get over the Himalayas and explains why India gets almost double Monsoon rains and Russian wheat field have gone dry in some seasons
Example D: There have been 3 times in the last 5 years where we have gotten over 100 MM of rain in less than 3 hours where i live.
Example E: The melting is so string in the Arctic region that it forces the jet stream under the Great Lakes and England some years making for super cold and snowy winters. Anyone remember when Miami was -17 C about 5 years ago. I think they called it a Polar Vortex. 
I believe  that the increase in CO2 has lead to the following.

Example A: The increase in cardiovascular diseases around the world 
Example B: The amount of dormant Volcanoes that have become active
Example C: The Earthquakes that are more prevalent today than ever before. 

The best example of climate change though is to go to a senior's home and ask them how the weather has changed.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

kapone32 said:


> This rise explains the absolutely crazy hurricanes and typhoons that we are seeing on a more consistent basis.


Except there's really no evidence to support that:






Volcanoes ebb and flow:


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Except there's really no evidence to support that:



You may want to ask the people of Puerto Rico, Guadaloupe, Cayman Islands, Monserratt, actually any of the leeward Islands in the Caribbean Archipelago if they agree with your assessment. A hurricane has to have a certain amount of strength to hit land and not follow the spin of the Earth up the middle of the Atlantic and regardless of charts no one can tell me that we are not seeing more killer Hurricanes than ever. I will give you 2 facts that you cannot dispute. 

1. The icebergs and Glaciers are melting all over the planet at a faster and faster pace 
2. Ocean levels are rising making places like the Maldives and Venice more and more untenable  

But I guess people won't believe it until it hits them in the face. Just like the people who had to swim out of the GO train a couple years ago when we got 110 mm of rain in Southern Ontario. There is a creek in the park behind where I live. The banks used to be no more than about 5 to 6 feet high. The city has recently deepened the creek to about 23 feet. Why would they do that?


----------



## Papahyooie (Nov 6, 2018)

wtfisgoingon said:


> More than 97% of published articles that expressed a conclusion about anthropogenic climate change endorsed human-caused global warming.



RTMFT


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

kapone32 said:


> You may want to ask the people of Puerto Rico, Guadaloupe, Cayman Islands, Monserratt, actually any of the leeward Islands in the Caribbean Archipelago if they agree with your assessment.


That would be weather, not climate.



kapone32 said:


> 1. The icebergs and Glaciers are melting all over the planet at a faster and faster pace


They melt...and then they grow.  This is what happens with the seasons.



kapone32 said:


> 2. Ocean levels are rising making places like the Maldives and Venice more and more untenable


Oceans do that too.


----------



## SoNic67 (Nov 6, 2018)

dorsetknob said:


> so the Squirrels are responsible for urbanization and the Urban heat-sink Phenomenon


I guess that dinosaurs were driving lots of cars and had lots of parking spaces too, because back then the Earth was much hotter than today?
http://www.geotimes.org/apr08/article.html?id=WebExtra041008.html

"Today, CCNs are plentiful mainly due to the outpouring of   pollution emitted into the atmosphere. But in the past, the main source of CCNs   was likely biological. "
"We got less bright clouds and fewer of them," Kump says. "It   was a surprise, but both factors amplify warming." Cloud cover was reduced   from 64 to 55 percent, leading to a 6 percent increase in the amount of sunlight   that reached Earth, the researchers reported today in _Science_. The small   change was enough to trigger a positive feedback system of warming that was   necessary to reach supergreenhouse temperatures."

In conclusion, the more pollutants are in the air, the more cloud cover, and less heating...


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Where I live used to be under 1000 feet of ice. "Climate change" is natural. I really can't think of anything off the top of my head that is truly abnormal in terms of climate anywhere on Earth.



Does that change any part of my statement?


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That would be weather, not climate.
> 
> So the climate has not changed in your opinion? Since when is the weather not tied to climate?
> 
> ...



That is why they created man made break waters for those place after 3,000+ years of no such project?


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Didn't catch this earlier. If you mean Trump, he hasn't built a lifestyle off of other people's taxes. He hasn't even gained that office except by his own funding. Not to mention he donates the presidential salary he gets now.



My point was the "ruling class" right now is not the liberals.  No comment other than that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Does that change any part of my statement?


There's "climate" and there's "climate change."  The former is natural, the latter implies something unnatural.



kapone32 said:


> So the climate has not changed in your opinion? Since when is the weather not tied to climate?


What is a good barometer for climate change?  Tree species.  I can't name anywhere that tree diversity has significantly changed over the last thirty years.



kapone32 said:


> Show me an iceberg or glacier that has grown in the last 20 years and not receded.


Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?



kapone32 said:


> That is why they created man made break waters for those place after 3,000+ years of no such project?


Earth's crust is very, very thin.  Earth's oceans are liquid masses that are on the move.  There's many reasons for local costlines to change (erosion, plate techtonics, lunar cycles, and so on).
Sea level has remained steady since 2016.
How can that be!?! Right? As with most sciences, the more we know, the less we know.  Climatologists are attempting to describe climate like a layman trying to describe New York City through a pin prick in cardboard.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> My point was the "ruling class" right now is not the liberals.  No comment other than that.



Yes, they are. Or more appropriately, they're Left wing. They stole the "liberal" label. In that sense, they're not liberating anyone at all. They prefer large State/monolithic models. Practically all of Silicon Valley is in this category. All of Hollywood. All of the major billionaire funders and powerbrokers are (Soros, Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Carlos Slim). Even the "likeable" ones like Buffett. Then huge companies like Wal-Mart have a long history with the Clintons.

Not to mention all of the money coming from China.

That's the true face of the Left. Not some peon bullshit about "fighting the man". Those are, to use Lenin's famous words, the "useful idiots". These are the fools who get stirred up by emotion and stories of oppression, and end up doing things like suppressing free speech. The recent spat with Gab is a perfect example. The media cried about all of the racists there (it has racists, but that's not all it was.. it was just a free speech platform), and people called to suppress it. In the end, all of this truly empowers is Twitter and Dorsey (the Leftist on the top, who wants to snuff out competition).

Actual liberals are people who want to be free to speak and spend their money as they see fit.. not be controlled by giant entities.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There's "climate" and there's "climate change."  The former is natural, the latter implies something unnatural.
> 
> 
> What is a good barometer for climate change?  Tree species.  I can't name anywhere that tree diversity has significantly changed over the last thirty years.
> ...



Compared to the rest of the planet yes, Erosion is a very slow process, Plate tectonics have more to do with creating land e.g Hawaii, Iceland, Lunar cycles are all about tides like the Bay of Fundy and as far as sea levels using 2 years is not a viable solution look at the past 50 years.


----------



## SoNic67 (Nov 6, 2018)

The way to save the "climate" problem - stop making babies:


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Clintons.



Not in office.

Not going to entertain the rest of that conspiracy stuff as fact.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Not in office.
> 
> Not going to entertain the rest of that conspiracy stuff as fact.



Conspiracy? It's as simple as "follow the money". It's not a damn conspiracy that I listed well known billionaires who are all top contributors of the DNC and/or control information flow.

If you mean Gab, that's obvious too. They actually did sound the alarms about it all last week, after that shooter at the Synagogue. People everywhere calling for bans of Gab because of one user.. ISPs shutting them down and/or denying them service. Luckily, Gab found a new provider.

I despise the neo-Nazi types who flock to some places myself, but it's no good reason to shut down a whole platform.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Conspiracy? It's as simple as "follow the money". It's not a damn conspiracy that I listed well known billionaires who are all top contributors of the DNC and/or control information flow.



It's a conspiracy that you imply they hold any power at the moment beyond a standard citizen with money.

Plain and simple, the republicans hold the cards now.  At least until today, waiting on election results...


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> It's a conspiracy that you imply they hold any power at the moment beyond a standard citizen with money.



The fact that you jumped to the buzzword "conspiracy" tells me you're part of the problem yourself. It's just a lazy way to write people off without engaging them. I could go into this more, but you don't deserve it.


----------



## SoNic67 (Nov 6, 2018)

Food production today needs nitrates. There is more energy consumed in production of nitrates than the one blamed on combustion cars. 50% of nitrogen in our bodies today comes from human-made ammonia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects


----------



## MrGenius (Nov 6, 2018)

The debate is over. "Global warming/climate change", even if "real"(which IS still debatable), is most certainly NOT EVEN REMOTELY caused by humans. We were lied to. It happens...all the time in fact. End of story. Time to move on and find something else to bitch about.


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 6, 2018)

Right, let this be (more) evidence of the US' massive U turn after leading the world in science for more than a century.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> The fact that you jumped to the buzzword "conspiracy" tells me you're part of the problem yourself. It's just a lazy way to write people off without engaging them.



It's not a buzzword...  I use it seldom and only when it fits the case.  Sadly it fits a lot of todays nutty world.



StrayKAT said:


> I could go into this more, but you don't deserve it.



You could, you know, provide substantiating evidence.  Start with showing me that wealth wields majority political power without votes/office to go with it.



MrGenius said:


> The debate is over. "Global warming/climate change", even if "real"(which IS still debatable), is most certainly NOT EVEN REMOTELY caused by humans. We were lied to. It happens...all the time in fact. End of story. Time to move on and find something else to bitch about.



Uh...  no.  Even the most ardent deniers usually are of the school "more study is needed" not claiming it's certainly fake.  Go away while science does it's thing, please.

And earth warming/cooling cycles is certainly a real thing.



SoNic67 said:


> Food production today needs nitrates. There is more energy consumed in production of nitrates than the one blamed on combustion cars. 50% of nitrogen in our bodies today comes from human-made ammonia:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects



Yep.  It was argued when I was in school the only sustaibable viable alternative was fish farms, basically.  Aquaculture.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Uh...  no.  Even the most ardent deniers usually are of the school "more study is needed" not claiming it's certainly fake.  Go away while science does it's thing, please.


I'm not sure clouds will be accurately modeled in our lifetimes.  It's an insanely complex problem.



R-T-B said:


> Yep.  It was argued when I was in school the only sustaibable viable alternative was fish farms, basically.  Aquaculture.


Terrible for the oceans.


----------



## bug (Nov 6, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> The debate is over. "Global warming/climate change", even if "real"(which IS still debatable), is most certainly NOT EVEN REMOTELY caused by humans. We were lied to. It happens...all the time in fact. End of story. Time to move on and find something else to bitch about.


Caused by humans or not, is it bad? Because once you look past the "ice caps are melting" and "polar bears are dying" messages, you realize there's really no prediction of what a warmer planet will look like.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 6, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Terrible for the oceans.



No disagreement, but if the choice is that or global ecological devastation, then it isn't much of a choice.



bug said:


> you realize there's really no prediction of what a warmer planet will look like.



There is.  It generally ends with that big glacier icelake wall/dam in Canada breaking from melt conditions and messing up the ocean currents...  leading to an unendable ice age.



FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm not sure clouds will be accurately modeled in our lifetimes. It's an insanely complex problem.



Meh.  Then we need to fund it more than ever IMO.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 6, 2018)

kapone32 said:


> Compared to the rest of the planet yes, Erosion is a very slow process


Depends on the material.  Have some fun facts about Mississippi River erosion. It carries 200 million tons of sediment to the delta every year.  Dams and conservation efforts reduced that from 400 million tons.  Catastrophic flooding sees massive amounts of erosion in a very short time frame.



kapone32 said:


> Plate tectonics have more to do with creating land e.g Hawaii, Iceland


Says "plate tectonics;" calls volcanic islands an example. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






kapone32 said:


> Lunar cycles are all about tides like the Bay of Fundy


That's but one example.  The moon literally causes Earth to compress slightly at the poles because of the moon's pull.  The moon's pull also displaces a lot of water which causes tectonic plates to buckle and shift. All things considered, it's amazing Earth is as stable as it is.

A bad hurricane is made worse when its time synchronizes with the tide amplifying the storm surge.  Phenomena like that can give weather events the impression of being stronger than they really are.  We call "500 year storms" 500 year for a reason.  It means it has happened before and it will happen again.



kapone32 said:


> and as far as sea levels using 2 years is not a viable solution look at the past 50 years.


Since 1880 to today, sea level has raised 225 mm or 8-3/4".  The rising started before the industrial age and it is changed mostly relative to solar cycles.



bug said:


> Caused by humans or not, is it bad? Because once you look past the "ice caps are melting" and "polar bears are dying" messages, you realize there's really no prediction of what a warmer planet will look like.


Polar Bear populations are doing well too (since people stopped hunting them):







R-T-B said:


> No disagreement, but if the choice is that or global ecological devastation, then it isn't much of a choice.


Fewer humans.  Trashing the ocean is like dumping your garbage in your neighbors lawn.  Someone still has to deal with it.



R-T-B said:


> Meh.  Then we need to fund it more than ever IMO.


I doubt it's short of funds.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 7, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Fewer humans.



I mean yeah, but you do understand why active population reduction (AKA genocide) is a little worse than aquafarming?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

That's speciesist: it's okay to kill lesser species (like fish, cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc.) by the millions or billions but not members of your own species?  If what we're seeing is, in fact, the result of overpopulation, it's only our own population that's the problem.  There's no apex predators left to keep us in check so we're obligated to do it ourselves.

Ending poverty and increasing education are the best ways to reduce births per female.  Cheap electricity is instrumental to the former and facilitates the latter.


----------



## ReconNyko (Nov 7, 2018)

Freon gas is damaged Ozone Layer this is TRUE


----------



## Rockarola (Nov 7, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Watched it and agreed with it.  I really don't have anything to argue against.
> 
> 
> Cook is a political activist, not a climate scientist.  I've gone over the BS "study" so many times, I'd rather gouge my own eyes out than do it again.
> ...


Your last "fact" is not really a fact, since I can counter it with:
Fact: The Koch Brothers will pay good money to any denier. 

Both are "facts", as they do contain a little truth...neither should be mentioned in a serious discussion.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Judith Curry (Ph. D. in geophysical sciences)


> There is much discussion and angst over industrial funding of climate research (see my post on the Grijalva inquisition), but there seems to have been little investigation of *the potential for federal research funding to bias climate research – a source of funding that is many orders of magnitude larger than industrial funding* of climate research.


Is the Government Buying Science or Support?


> Our point is simply that while commercially induced bias is already a significant research area, the investigation of potential federally induced bias is not an active research area. There appears to be a major gap in bias research.





> In some areas, especially regulatory science, Federal funding is by far the dominant source.  Clearly the potential for funding-induced bias exists in these cases.


Re: federal funding in "climate change:"


> The notion of cascading systemic bias, induced by government funding, does not appear to have been studied much. This may be a big gap in research on science. Moreover, if this sort of bias is indeed widespread then there are serious implications for new policies, both at the Federal level and within the scientific community itself.





> One special focus here is the climate change debate, especially as modulated by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Note that the USGCRP is not a program in the sense of an agency program, as described above. Founded in 1990, the USGCRP is an inter-agency coordination effort that includes most of the climate science research programs run by thirteen different federal agencies. The *USGCRP is presently funded at over two billion dollars a year and accounts for a significant fraction of climate research worldwide*.


----------



## Rockarola (Nov 7, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Judith Curry (Ph. D. in geophysical sciences)


You are quoting a scientist who complains about her work on social media not being regarded as serious by acedemia...she might be right, but she comes off as a flake!
Let's say that the chance of global climate change is about 50/50 of being caused by humans.
Are you willing to bet the future of your children on a 50% chance, simply for a slight economic gain? (said gain might be a loss, if everybody is making so much money off bad science)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

Rockarola said:


> You are quoting a scientist who complains about her work on social media not being regarded as serious by acedemia...she might be right, but she comes off as a flake!


Character assassinations do not lead to better science.  Einstein was relentlessly attacked for going against the flow and aren't we happy now that science prevailed?



Rockarola said:


> Let's say that the chance of global climate change is about 50/50 of being caused by humans.
> Are you willing to bet the future of your children on a 50% chance, simply for a slight economic gain? (said gain might be a loss, if everybody is making so much money off bad science)


As referenced above, the federal government is blowing $2 billion/year on researching climate when they could be _investing_ in permanent solutions to the alleged _problem_ with technologies like hydrogen fuel cells and fusion reactors.  But no, that $2 billion/year is funding to protect ethanol, wind, solar, and biodiesel subsidies (along with a lot I'm forgetting).

This isn't about chance; this is about being pragmatic.  Compounding bias on top of bias accomplishes nothing but waste.  What is pragmatic about replacing 1000+ MW nuclear reactors with ~80% capacity factor with 534 5 MW wind turbines with ~30% capacity factor?  What is pragmatic about increasing fuel taxes instead of developing an affordable alternative that doesn't require fuel at all?  What is pragmatic about asking politicians to punish the very molecule we exhale instead of launching a global effort to modernize third world countries so they don't feel likely their only option is destroying their environment?  The focus now is yielding archaic solutions to archaic problems instead of forward thinking solutions for today and centuries in the future.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 7, 2018)

Scientists Develop Liquid Fuel That Can Store The Sun's Energy For Up to 18 Years: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-develop-liquid-that-sucks-up-sun-s-energy



> No matter how abundant or renewable, solar power has a thorn in its side. There is still no cheap and efficient long-term storage for the energy that it generates.
> 
> The solar industry has been snagged on this branch for a while, but in the past year alone, a series of four papers has ushered in an intriguing new solution.
> 
> ...


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 7, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> Scientists Develop Liquid Fuel That Can Store The Sun's Energy For Up to 18 Years: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-develop-liquid-that-sucks-up-sun-s-energy



This is something I'd hope we all get behind, no matter our stance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> Scientists Develop Liquid Fuel That Can Store The Sun's Energy For Up to 18 Years: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-develop-liquid-that-sucks-up-sun-s-energy


It's interesting but I'm not going to hold my breath for it. Exotic materials are often toxic and it's effectiveness is concerning:


> ...they can absorb up to 10% of the solar spectrum with a measured energy storage density of up to 577 kJ/kg...


...they don't say watts per meter squared either which is curious because that's how the sun works.  The numbers they do give us do not indicate depth.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 7, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's interesting but I'm not going to hold my breath for it. Exotic materials are often toxic and it's effectiveness is concerning:
> 
> ...they don't say watts per meter squared either which is curious because that's how the sun works.  The numbers they do give us do not indicate depth.



Regardless, even if it needs a lot of space, you can put a tank under each house easily and it'll cover domestic use quite fine.

Looks promising to me. This, along with some form of being able to generate our own energy comes together nicely. Self sufficiency at this scale... pretty cool.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

Looking closer at one of the papers, the measured, charged density was 155 Wh/kg (roughly equal to lithium-ion batteries).  By comparison, gasoline is 12,222 Wh/kg.  On top of that, their catalyst was frozen to -80 C before the experiment.  Assuming this is required, that's an operational load on the system (might require more energy to operate than it produces).

Edit: Better link that's more descriptive: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...e-solar-energy-turn-it-liquid-fuel-ncna930676



> "We've run it though 125 cycles without any significant degradation," Moth-Poulsen says.


That's not many (a third of a year) considering this stuff isn't likely cheap to manufacture.  People likely are going to want it to last 5-10 years to be cost effective.

On top of it all, it's a thermal energy so they're mostly talking about using it for heat.  Which is ironic, because when heat is most needed is in the winter when solar capacity factor is weakest.  Keeping the liquid in line of sight without being obstructed by snow and ice is a major problem as well (because it remains cool until reacted); it will not be warm enough to keep itself clear.

And what of converting it to electricity?  Well, that's a problem in itself.  The most efficient forms of electric generation involve steam, turbines, and condensers.  It doesn't sound like the output of this reaction is even hot enough to produce steam.  Not to mention that these sorts of systems aren't exactly practical for homes and are counter-productive without massive amounts of insulation in the summer (because heat).

Yeah...don't get your hopes up.  There's a reason why they said "10 years."  It may be practical for utility-scale solar power plants to use instead of batteries or natural gas in deserts (need high ambient temperature to get steam)...maybe some large businesses too...but households? Not so much.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 7, 2018)

kapone32 said:


> Anyone who doubts that Global warming is real just needs to look at the amount of water vapour in our atmosphere.



Replace global warming with climate change and I am sold to the idea. The undeniable fact is that climate change occurred many, many times in the past. Both in short and long time spans.



FordGT90Concept said:


> There's no apex predators left to keep us in check so we're obligated to do it ourselves.



Were there ever predators that where capable of decimating us in the first place ? Didn't we, from the moment we evolved into our current iteration, became the apex predator ?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Were there ever predators that where capable of decimating us in the first place ? Didn't we, from the moment we evolved into our current iteration, became the apex predator ?


No animal hunts to kill other than humans.  They hunt to feed.

Other than natural causes of death like old age, cancer, heart disease, and so forth, disease is about the only thing that has killed humans en masse.  Parasites, bacteria, and viruses can turn our own flesh against us and cause deaths by the millions.  We can't expect one to manifest itself to deal with overpopulation.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 7, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> hey hunt to feed.



Animals hunt for various other reasons as well. There was a predatory bird of which name I can't remember that would hunt small lizards and such, impale them on small branches on trees and sometimes leave them there.



FordGT90Concept said:


> We can't expect one to manifest itself to deal with overpopulation.



I always wondered if overpopulation is even the right word for this. The real issue seems to be the highly unequal distribution of population and it's density rather than the overall number itself.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

We're using about 15% of arable land for human food consumption.  If we did not use anhydrous fertilizer, that would be 50%; moreover, starvation is a thing so the population we do have is not necessarily satisfied by the crops we do grow.  Realize that every percent of those numbers is removing habitat from native species.  To raise it to 100% means the death of many land-dwelling species.

There is no correct answer but everything has a cost.

For the record, CIA was doing overpopulation analysis in the 1980s:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...935-a50a-15209411f1cd/?utm_term=.88b6431c5d36


> For example, the CIA report, titled "Population, Resources & Politics in the Third World: The Long View," predicts that Mexican-U.S. relations may be the most complex problem that the United States faces at the turn of the century because of migrant traffic across the border, and water and pollution problems.
> 
> The CIA says that the population explosion also may have enough of an impact on Turkey to destabilize NATO; lead Honduras and El Salvador into war; cause Vietnam to expand into underpopulated Laos and Kampuchia, perhaps bringing the Soviets and China to the brink of war; and create a variety of problems for Middle East allies of the United States, notably Israel and Egypt. (Egypt, Mexico, El Salvador and Vietnam are four countries listed as "outgrowing" their borders.)


Sound familiar?  I added links to those quotes to illustrate many of those predictions came to fruition.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 7, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Sound familiar?



Almost as familiar as the GOP's irrational anti-abortion stance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

Ironic that USA funds numerous birth control programs around the world but the topic is always contentious within.

Native populations in many countries are declining for a variety of economic, physiological, psychological, and sociological reasons.  There may come a time that countries may have to start welcoming immigrants in order to buffer against native population decline.  In the distant future, countries may have to incentivize families to have more kids.

Anyway, this is getting off topic.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 7, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There may come a time that countries may have to start welcoming immigrants in order to buffer against native population decline.



Except we all know that is not what's going to happen, immigrants will always want to migrate to wealthier countries and most of them on that list aren't. This problem will fall yet again on the shoulders of western countries.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

It's already happening.  Five Years of Population Loss in Rural and Small-Town America May Be Ending (because of immigration).


> Historically, nonmetro population grew because high rates of natural increase always offset any net migration loss. For example, net out-migration was more severe during the 1980s than in 2010-15, but overall population change remained positive because natural increase contributed roughly 0.5 percent growth annually, compared with 0.1 percent today. The Great Recession contributed to a downturn in natural increase, as fewer births occur during times of economic uncertainty. Lowering rates of natural change from 2008 to 2013 resulted in over 250 nonmetro counties experiencing natural decrease for the first time during 2010-15.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 7, 2018)

And it proves what I am saying. Meanwhile for the rest of the countries that face the same problem but who are also poorer it's only going to get worse no matter how lax their immigration polices will get.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2018)

Rural populations tend to be operationally poor (inability to cover daily expenses) but asset rich (own land, vehicles, and other property).

Point is, native populations in the "West" are declining.  The reason why their overall population numbers are increasing is because of immigration.  This article goes into detail about the problem in the USA.  It gives 2060 projections for state populations if immigration were completely banned (overall increase of 6.1% over 45 years).


> With fertility rates falling and Baby Boomer deaths soon to be rising, immigration will surpass natural increase as the major driver of U.S. population growth within ten years.





> By the 2040s immigration will account for more than 80% of annual population growth, a far larger share than during the Great Wave prior to World War I.





> Absent a change in our policies, immigration is likely to be the major driver of U.S. population growth for the rest of the 21st Century.




A dead man likely won his election in Nevada because of water (or lack thereof):
The Ghost of Dennis Hof Haunts the G.O.P. in the Nevada Midterms
It's not so much a climate problem as much as over utilization of finite resources.  Build a city of millions in a desert and it runs out of water, whodathunkit?


----------



## SoNic67 (Nov 7, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> Yep. It was argued when I was in school the only sustaibable viable alternative was fish farms, basically. Aquaculture.





Vya Domus said:


> I always wondered if overpopulation is even the right word for this


Overbreeding, lack of natural predators, rules in place to keep stupids from hurting themselves...
As for the "sustainable" methods of feeding more people, that will just help breeding even more people, making more "human-made" pollution (they will need all energy to live, make products).
Africa is the largest issue here, but nobody wants to address. They breed over the sustainability of their lands and now they are invading other places that solved that problem (Europe has a negative population growth).
South America is close second, and their land can sustain them only if the massively de-forest and plant crops.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 7, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's speciesist



And?



FordGT90Concept said:


> but not members of your own species?



Damn, it's almost like that's the case.


----------



## Rockarola (Nov 13, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Character assassinations do not lead to better science.  Einstein was relentlessly attacked for going against the flow and aren't we happy now that science prevailed?
> 
> 
> As referenced above, the federal government is blowing $2 billion/year on researching climate when they could be _investing_ in permanent solutions to the alleged _problem_ with technologies like hydrogen fuel cells and fusion reactors.  But no, that $2 billion/year is funding to protect ethanol, wind, solar, and biodiesel subsidies (along with a lot I'm forgetting).
> ...


Heh, you are asking Democrats to stop being dogmatic and Republicans to stop supporting (outdated) industries...can I get a pretty pony as well? 
I am sorry, I thought that your issue with GCC was ideological, not practical...I was wrong, I'll try to do better next time. (I am not sarcastic, I was wrong about your motivations)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 13, 2018)

Rockarola said:


> Heh, you are asking Democrats to stop being dogmatic and Republicans to stop supporting (outdated) industries...can I get a pretty pony as well?


Republicans are the most likely demographic to support nuclear power.





Reminder: Fukashima melted down in 2011.  I'm not sure why there was such a big fall off of support in 2016.

Edit: I have a theory.  2016, there was a massive ad campaign ran by big oil in favor of natural gas.  They hit so hard, so heavy, and for so long, people were programmed to think natural gas was the best thing since sliced bread.  Seems like it worked.


Edit: Our energy technology is regressing, not progressing:

Solar's influence is everywhere from architecture to drying laundry (as a power source, 1700s).

There was documented use of wind to propel boats in 1600 BC (likely goes back further than that).

Coal was used by the Chinese to smelt copper in 1000 BC.

Natural gas was used by the Chinese in 500 BC to desalinate water for sea salt.

Hydropower was used by lumber mills in the middle ages.

The first battery were perhaps developed in antiquity but as a practical tool, late 1700s.

Fuel cells were discovered in 1838 with a working prototype in 1939.

First nuclear reactor went critical in 1942.

RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) which uses plutonium decay to produce small amounts of electricity over extended periods of time (a favorite power source for deep space satellites).  Discovered in 1954, shortly after nuclear.  Not really sutiable for mass power generation.

Am I forgetting any?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 14, 2019)

President Trump can't stop U.S. coal plants from retiring



> More U.S. coal-fired power plants were shut in President Donald Trump’s first two years than were retired in the whole of Barack Obama’s first term, despite the Republican’s efforts to prop up the industry to keep a campaign promise to coal-mining states.
> 
> In total, more than 23,400 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired generation were shut in 2017-2018 versus 14,900 MW in 2009-2012, according to data from Reuters and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).


The squeeze is hitting nuclear too:


> Cheap natural gas and the rising use of renewable power like solar and wind have kept electric prices relatively low for years, making it uneconomic for generators to keep investing in older coal and nuclear plants.
> 
> Generators said they plan to shut around 8,422 MW of coal-fired power and 1,500 MW of nuclear in 2019, while adding 10,900 MW of wind, 8,200 MW of solar and 7,500 MW of gas, according to Reuters and EIA data.


Still producing over 200,000 MW of power from coal though and that is expected to remain true through 2025.



> “There will be a limit to what increasingly cheap renewable power and continuously cheap natural gas can deliver with respect to emissions reductions,” said John Larsen, a director at Rhodium Group who leads the firm’s power sector research, noting the rising use of gas to produce power as coal plants shut. Natural gas emits about half the carbon as coal.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 13, 2019)

This is more political than science/technology but... the headline isn't what it seems...

Republican leader says Senate will vote on Green New Deal

...recommend reading it because...this American "green" politics 101.  It has 0% chance of passing.  McConnell's intent is to put on full display how far left Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is--so far left that even Democrats can't support it.  Then Republicans will attack Democrats for not supporting a "green" bill putting Democrats on the defense having to explain why they didn't which flings more fire at Ocasio-Cortez because Democrats have to distance themselves from her.  All told, if she's opposed in 2020, she likely won't win.

Edit: Here is the bill (details on what it does start on page 5): https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729033/Green-New-Deal-FINAL.pdf

Main provisions:


> to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;





> to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—
> (i) clean air and water;
> (ii) climate and community resiliency;
> (iii) healthy food;
> ...





> to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’)




US government action on CO2 beyond what it is happening is extremely unlikely in the next decade.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 13, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This is more political than science/technology but... the headline isn't what it seems...
> 
> Republican leader says Senate will vote on Green New Deal
> 
> ...




her voting district is the Bronx and Queens though, those people don't give a crap what the rest of congress has to say, and she has enough star power now she will continue to win those districts I am pretty certain, the Democratic machine thinks it has power when it really doesn't at all (for certain very far left districts)  /shrug

I honestly could care less either way, it doesn't matter who is in power left or right, the only issue I care about is healthcare and it will never be fixed in this country, having traveled to Australia, Japan, and most of Europe, and living in Finland ever summer, I can confirm, the rest of the world laughs at us regarding healthcare costs for decades now. I am currently in Ireland and have every intention of staying here.


----------



## John Naylor (Feb 13, 2019)

I have supported candidates from both side of the aisle, authored position papers submitted to both sate and federal leaders on technical issues and I see today's central issue to be "reality" versus "confirmation bias" (reading only <cough, cough> "news sources that write what fits people's preconceived notions).  Whether it be vaccinations, global warming, "the wall", sex trafficking and white slavery rings operating out of pizza basements or anything else folks will ignore what's real versus any whacko blogger who has what they think is an idea in their head.  It's not only health care... the same is true of NATO, hi speed rail, the environment, trickle down economics, tax rates, quality of life .... the US's greatest deficit these days seems to be common sense.  And while Europe is also going backwards of late on these issues, they are ahead of US in these areas.

One has to wonder about a the "resume" of elected leaders who more and more have no experience in elected office or the Departments they are heading. Why we don't question the resume of folks on the ballot should be a concern ... and former lobbyists, folks with fraud or tax should be among the a utomatic "no nos's.  I even have to wonder about the fact that we have a minimum age but no maximum.  

The median age of currently serving Senators is 65 years, 142 days.   That's only a year older than me and that's scary.   I've watched family member age past 70 and seen their changes in physical health, mental capacity, etc.   When my Dad was Mitch MCConnel's age, he was telling me about the walk he took that morning to the beach, something he hadn't done in 5 years and asked me to introduce him to my friend (his grandson).   In many states, judges have to retire (or at least can't be re-elected, by age 70.  If a judge is deemed unfit for service at that age, why not politicians ?   Personal perspective matters, and I have to wonder when we talk about issues affecting the environment, climate change, future of transportation, etc and weighing  cost over time versus sacrifices in the here and now, these folks with just a few years left on this planet, are thinking little about what happens after they're dead.  Of course if term limits were a give this would not be as much of an issue.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 14, 2019)

I was digging for any new information clouds and climate change when I discovered this:

Cover crops may increase winter temperatures in North America
...soil erosion prevention is leading to winter warming.  Albedo in general is under appreciated...just like clouds.

Here's more what I was looking for...

The climate secrets of southern clouds
...models consistently get it wrong so they travelled there to try to figure out why.

In search of 60-mile-high waves
...research into cooling, mostly invisible clouds.


Ran into one on methane...
What's happening with methane?
...the hiatus ending in 2007 is principally thought to be caused by Asian countries implementing water conservation techniques due to drought.  


> Most of the carbon dioxide emissions are coming from fossil-fuel sources that are taxed by countries. In the methane budget, you have large natural terms and large agricultural sources, which isn’t the case for CO2. It’s difficult to model how the important terms in the methane budget are changing. How has the leakage of natural gas from our distribution system changed over time? How has the efficiency of methane production in agriculture changed? What about the number and distribution of livestock, or the quality of their feed? These are more difficult to quantify on the continental scale that you need for a global budget.




Not just rain: thunderstorms also pour down ozone
...this is just plain interesting.


> Pan subsequently discovered that, during that flight, the DIAL instrument recorded a phenomenon that was only hinted before but never observed in an unambiguous fashion. Above the leading edge of the eastward moving storm, DIAL registered a curtain of ozone dipping below the stratosphere, where it was relatively abundant, into the troposphere. On a graph, this ozone-rich air resembled a ram’s horn whose wide end was pushed eastward ahead of the storm and whose narrow end curved westward into the storm.



Cities change temperatures for thousands of miles
...another plain interesting read.


> In a new study that shows the extent to which human activities are influencing the atmosphere, scientists have concluded that the heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas alters the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems. This affects temperatures across thousands of miles, significantly warming some areas and cooling others, according to the study this week in Nature Climate Change.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 14, 2019)

Both were intresting reading ..............thanks.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Mar 14, 2019)

if you cannot see the effect its having on the the planet you must be blind. in two hundred years our planet will most likely be heading the same way as Venus. if the truth is known we are probley past the point of no return allready " We Are Doomed".


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 14, 2019)

Back from 2011...
Switching from coal to natural gas would do little for global climate, study indicates
...besides the risk of methane leak...


> While coal use causes warming through emission of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, it also releases comparatively large amounts of sulfates and other particles that, although detrimental to the environment, cool the planet by blocking incoming sunlight.


...now remember what capacity is being installed to counter the variability of wind and solar...natural gas.


I knew this...but most of you probably don't...
Corn and climate: a sweaty topic
...let me tell you, 90F next to a sweating corn field is worse than 115F in a desert.


> “The Midwest is the only place in the world where these crops cover more than half of a grid box,” says Levis. Each CESM box spans 1.9° by 2.5° degrees at midlatitudes, or about half the area of Iowa.


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 17, 2019)

Here's a story that addressed this issue well ...

At a NYC race  event held in mid summer 2016 tempers are flaring in to 90 degree heat because no one painted the start and finish lines for the mile run and each political party is blaming the other.   While they are painting the lines, a 35 year old politician who was a track star in college makes a very public bet against the man he claimed was responsible for the delay ... the man who was going to be his opponent in the upcoming election.

He taunts his opponent that if he were running things, the race would have started on time and ... furthermore ... he bets he can still run a mile in under 4 minutes ....  the opponent takes the best and the stakes are ... there will be no election come November, if he does it in < 4 minutes, he wins the election.  They will start the time when he steps off a sensor placed at the staring line and the clock will stop when he steps on the sensor at the finish line.   And since he's the great organizer, the man running is in charge of race organization this time.

Come November, it's a brisk 40 degrees, the runner takes off his warm up suit stands on the sensor at the starting line painted the very day the bet was made.  He's off.... as large crowds watch, the man is making a good pace, from end to end the pace he keeps is barely what he needs to do to won the election.   As he is coming down the last 100 feet he's still unsure but as he gets with in a few paces, he knows it's his.  He takes a long high stride for that last bit and lands on the sensor stopping the clock at 3:59.99 right where he was saytnding at the finish line when hemade that best last summer.   Why did he lose ?

For those thinking this is  a trick question I have 2 things to say a)  No, the runner is not Chris Christie or he'd still be running and b) the man on the other side of the bet is not Chris Christie or the traffic jam would have made the race impossible.  Anyway Spoiler follows:



Spoiler: Brain Over Brawn



When they painted the lines in the summer race it was 90 degrees F ... on election day when he ran the race, it was 40 degrees F .  With the change in temperature of 50 degrees and using the coefficient of linear expansion for steel, the distance between the start and finish lines was shorter in the cold ... now only 5,278.3 feet.   He never finished the full mile.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 17, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I am currently in Ireland and have every intention of staying here.



Take me with you.  I can fit in luggage if I hold my breath.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 30, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Republican leader says Senate will vote on Green New Deal


The proposal was unanimously defeated (not a single "yay" vote) in the Senate:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...senate-rejecting-green-new-deal-idUSKCN1RA2PL


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 30, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The proposal was unanimously defeated (not a single "yay" vote) in the Senate:
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...senate-rejecting-green-new-deal-idUSKCN1RA2PL



The Green New Deal would work, but not in America, only in China... and China is largely already doing a lot of what the new green deal wanted.  The hybrid capitalist/communist/authoritarian government they have formed as allowed the free markets to flourish, but with the power of the state to specifically order certain parts be made at certain costs.  I believe I read somewhere that China makes nucelear power pants for 2% of what it costs the USA and in 10 years less time.

Not to mention they have heavily invested high speed rail, and it doesn't cost them a fortune to do so -unlike California thinking they could pull off high speed rail while letting contractors scam them on money-

Trump was right about one thing pre-2016 win - "Government contractors scam the hell out of the American tax payer dollar"

China is very odd beast in that it can do all this stuff cheaply and forcefully, but still let other markets be run without a guiding hand, allowing for growth, creativity, production, jobs, etc. Call it whatever you want, I call it a hybrid communist/capitalist state. Yes, I know Hong Kong is technically separate, but in reality not really, it still answers to the King. I suppose we can call him that now since he has gotten rid of election cycles. lol

Long term China is going to win, no doubt about it... nuclear power is the best if you don't have to worry about tsunami's and earthquakes happening at the same time... like Japan...

On that note --- Germany is dumb as hell, for getting rid of nuclear after Fukushima... knee jerk reaction taken out of context... Germany is dumb as hell... they don't have to worry about a tsunami and earthquake at the same time like Fukushima did... so now Germany is pumping more coal then ever before to make up for turning off the nuclear power plants. This is the kneejerk reaction of the far left at its best.

The free markets work for certain sectors, but if China can build a nuclear power plant at 2% the cost and 10 years shaved off time... you don't have contractors saying, we can do this for you at this price... Xi Jinping will just say no, screw you, you are building this now at this price - and good luck starting a rebellion in post-modern times, won't last a second. Didn't the entire world march January 20, 2017? All 7 continents, LOL nothing ever came from it, what a joke.  Xi Jinping has got it right, you forcefully guide transportation, agriculture, military, and the energy sector - but you for the most part let Hong Kong do the free market capitalist stuff untouched to help the money flow.

Capitalism in it's pure form scams the tax payer money because of contractors getting in groupthink situations and taking the tax payer for everything they are worth because of incompetent government workers who do the hiring for said contractors, because who cares if you have a blank check right.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 30, 2019)

Are we all dead yet? Nope.


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 30, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> Are we all dead yet? Nope.



No but Chinese citizens will have a far better quality of life than our offspring will in about 50 years.

Welcome to Strategic Command, Private.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 30, 2019)

29 billion tonnes Co2 per year we produce, yikes


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 30, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I believe I read somewhere that China makes nucelear power pants for 2% of what it costs the USA and in 10 years less time.


China designs the reactors, China feeds, cloths, and shelters the people that build and operate them, China has other people that provide the construction materials, and there's no second guessing any of it.

In USA, and most of the rest of the world, regulation causes the price of nuclear reactors to soar over $1 billion.  Those regulations include things like sealing the reactor from the water table, ensuring that the superstructure is overbuilt to handle 100+ year seismic activity, making sure backup systems are implemented and adequate, their plan for dealing with waste is adequate, their plan for local emergencies is adequate, the super structure is adequate against terror attack, and so on.


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 30, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> China designs the reactors, China feeds, cloths, and shelters the people that build and operate them, China has other people that provide the construction materials, and there's no second guessing any of it.
> 
> In USA, and most of the rest of the world, regulation causes the price of nuclear reactors to soar over $1 billion.  Those regulations include things like sealing the reactor from the water table, ensuring that the superstructure is overbuilt to handle 100+ year seismic activity, making sure backup systems are implemented and adequate, their plan for dealing with waste is adequate, their plan for local emergencies is adequate, the super structure is adequate against terror attack, and so on.



I'm sure China's nuclear power protections have none of that without regulations, you're right...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 30, 2019)

China's first on-line nuclear power plant did so on December 15, 1991.  They're going to start running into waste management issues starting in 2020.  China has over 100 nuclear power plants but they haven't been tested by natural disaster, attack, etc.  They haven't been operating plants long enough for nuclear waste to become a strategic problem.

Also keep in mind that Chinese have very little individual freedoms and Xi Jinping (whom you praised) has been crushing what little they have gained under Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 31, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> No but Chinese citizens will have a far better quality of life than our offspring will in about 50 years.
> 
> Welcome to Strategic Command, Private.



No they will not. China actively oppresses Christians and Muslims. They are put in education work camps. They have a social score to further oppress citizens. They have spy cameras everywhere. There is no real justice system in place to protect the citizenry. They actively steal IP of other nations and make bad knock offs. Their infrastructure has not been built to withstand any long term ecological factors. They suppress all forms of speech and control the news. So in short, they have been actively battling civil unrest and they are forced to squeeze their grip tighter with every new generation. You can expect major social problems in China in the next 20 years as their economy continues to sputter.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 31, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> No they will not. China actively oppresses Christians and Muslims. They are put in education work camps. They have a social score to further oppress citizens. They have spy cameras everywhere. There is no real justice system in place to protect the citizenry. They actively steal IP of other nations and make bad knock offs. Their infrastructure has not been built to withstand any long term ecological factors. They suppress all forms of speech and control the news. So in short, they have been actively battling civil unrest and they are forced to squeeze their grip tighter with every new generation. You can expect major social problems in China in the next 20 years as their economy continues to sputter.


So they are a few years ahead of other civilized nations in controlling citizen X, welcome to our future.


----------



## Bones (Mar 31, 2019)

Caring1 said:


> So they are a few years ahead of other civilized nations in controlling citizen X, welcome to our future.



This.
Socialism and Communism are about the same thing except for when asked the difference, is there a loaded AK-47 pointed at your head at the time the question is asked?
In a socialist/communist society you ARE property of the government, lock, stock and barrel.

Making everything of a social nature takes freedom(s) away, even the right to decide things of a basic nature, things you would decide for yourself.

China is a good example of it.
Quality of life is good for a select few, all of which belong to the upper crust of their society. All the rest have to work to support them because the ones with the "Good Life"  don't have to unless they choose to do so.

For the workers...... No off days, sick days, leaving early, arriving late, weekends, holidays or anything else..... You work 365 days a year for next to nothing  in wages or as they are always telling them to "Sacrifice" and you will work until you're allowed to go home which could be a matter of days from the time you leave home until you get back for a single work shift. You can't just quit your job either, that gets you into some very hot water and straightup walking off the job is a big no-no too.

On top of all that, _you'd best be at work_ each and every of these 365 days or the job truancy patrol WILL track you down and you had better have a damn good excuse why you're not at work or _you will be_.
Doesn't this sound a little like slavery..... Maybe even a little?
Yes it does.

If you're willing to piss away all of your rights to choose what's best for yourself, what you want for yourself and even the basic right to just decide in general things concerning your own life, you'll get it and even deserve it......
And no sense in griping about it when you discover the "Everything is free" Utopia being pushed is anything "But" with you in the end having to pay back for all the freebies you got. That price will be collected one day because nothing is truly free to anyone.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 31, 2019)

...back on topic, 95% of cattle methane is from their mouth, not their rump...
Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions

Average bovine is estimated to put out about 0.5 lbs of methane daily...
Livestock Methane Emissions in the United States


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 31, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> No they will not. China actively oppresses Christians and Muslims. They are put in education work camps. They have a social score to further oppress citizens. They have spy cameras everywhere. There is no real justice system in place to protect the citizenry. They actively steal IP of other nations and make bad knock offs. Their infrastructure has not been built to withstand any long term ecological factors. They suppress all forms of speech and control the news. So in short, they have been actively battling civil unrest and they are forced to squeeze their grip tighter with every new generation. You can expect major social problems in China in the next 20 years as their economy continues to sputter.



Time backs up 300 years and all the rest of the world were trying to catch up with China.

Civilization rise and fall. The Chinese system has continued surviving and evolving for the past 2000 years while being the lead of the civilization for the majority of the time. I see little reason why they won't lead again in the near future. Of course that is also thanks to the declining and self destruction of western civilization. And of course I'm Asian and I'm biased.


----------



## Bones (Mar 31, 2019)

And I guess they didn't bother to survey/measure the amounts coming from other creatures too out in the wild - And I mean all of them and yes, they fart too.
The impact of cattle farts to the end they claim is non-existent or we'd all be beyond "In trouble" by now.



xkm1948 said:


> Time backs up 300 years and all the rest of the world were trying to catch up with China.
> 
> Civilization rise and fall. The Chinese system has continued surviving and evolving _for the past 2000 years_ while being the lead of the civilization for the majority of the time. I see little reason why they won't lead again in the near future. Of course that is also thanks to the declining and self destruction of western civilization. And of course I'm Asian and I'm biased.



The Chinese system as is now isn't the reason for China being around for so long, the older system of non-communism had worked for nearly the entire time mentioned and was abolished only recently in terms of time stated by force of arms from those wishing to forcefully impose communism as a by-product of Japan's actions before and during WWII.


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 31, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ...back on topic, 95% of cattle methane is from their mouth, not their rump...
> Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions
> 
> Average bovine is estimated to put out about 0.5 lbs of methane daily...
> Livestock Methane Emissions in the United States




Bacteria and other micro organism are far more effiecent in putting out methane as well as other Green House Gas than higher order organisms. 

Oh and also bacteria out numbers the rest of the life forms combined in terms of sheer number of cells. Even methane from those livestock's gut is due to fermentation from the microorganisms. Think about that for a second.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 31, 2019)

Bones said:


> And I guess they didn't bother to survey/measure the amounts coming from other creatures too out in the wild - And I mean all of them and yes, they fart too.
> The impact of cattle farts to the end they claim is non-existent or we'd all be beyond "In trouble" by now.


ruminants = cattle





How much methane a ruminant produces can be guesstimated from how much feed and what type of feed it consumes.  Simply changing cattle over to a diet of corn can cut their methane emissions by ~33% versus prairie grazing.



xkm1948 said:


> Bacteria and other micro organism are far more effiecent in putting out methane as well as other Green House Gas than higher order organisms.
> 
> Oh and also bacteria out numbers the rest of the life forms combined in terms of sheer number of cells. Even methane from those livestock's gut is due to fermentation from the microorganisms. Think about that for a second.


Yes, the methane is mostly caused by microbes in their rumen.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 31, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ...back on topic, 95% of cattle methane is from their mouth, not their rump...
> Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions
> 
> Average bovine is estimated to put out about 0.5 lbs of methane daily...
> Livestock Methane Emissions in the United States



So if we can capture the methane and burn it as fuel...


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 31, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> So if we can capture the methane and burn it as fuel...



More likely is we can engineer the gut microbiome of the live stocks to reduce the output of methane. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00248-018-1234-9

Altering the gut microbiome of a cow is a lot easier and humane than genetically editing a cow. Plus those gut microbes won't make to our dinner plate so it is also easier for the general public to accept. My current lab had some old collaborations that looked into establishing a healtheir microbial composition for livestock to achieve both lower methane output as well as higher diet-->protein conversion rate. 

Microbes are truly amazing creatures. They are the main inhabitant of the deep surface biosphere. They are THE major reservoir of earth's biologically available Carbon pool. These microbes can soak up more GHG than any thing we human has ever come up with.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 1, 2019)

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...n-after-shrinking-years-nasa-study-ncna987116

glacier is growing... scientists say they were surprised by new NASA data.  LOL

global warming fake news bruh

@jboydgolfer   enjoy


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 1, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...n-after-shrinking-years-nasa-study-ncna987116
> 
> glacier is growing... scientists say they were surprised by new NASA data.  LOL
> 
> global warming fake news bruh


It's Climate Change, not warming.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 1, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...n-after-shrinking-years-nasa-study-ncna987116
> 
> glacier is growing... scientists say they were surprised by new NASA data.  LOL
> 
> ...


Didn't read it?


> University of Washington ice scientist Ian Joughin, who wasn’t part of the study and predicted such a change seven years ago, said it would be a “grave mistake” to interpret the latest data as contradicting climate change science.
> 
> What’s happening, Joughin said, is “to a large extent, a temporary blip. Downturns do occur in the stock market, but overall the long term trajectory is up. This is really the same thing.”


Weather (including solar) impacts the short term but long term trends make climate.  The oceans are holding more energy than they did previously and that influences climate in the direction of warming.  On the other hands, the scale of the oceans cause them to be mediators rather than quickly reactive like weather.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 1, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Also keep in mind that Chinese have very little individual freedoms and Xi Jinping (whom you praised) has been crushing what little they have gained under Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin.



Yes, I agree with you for once Ford.  However for the same reason I highly doubt strategic waste is going to pose much of an issue (to leadership).



FordGT90Concept said:


> Didn't read it?
> 
> Weather (including solar) impacts the short term but long term trends make climate.  The oceans are holding more energy than they did previously and that influences climate in the direction of warming.  On the other hands, the scale of the oceans cause them to be mediators rather than quickly reactive like weather.



Don't let science detract from rhetoric ford.  That'd suck the will to post out of the uneducated masses.



Caring1 said:


> It's Climate Change, not warming.



I mean, it always has been to anyone with half a care into the issue.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 1, 2019)

You're right.  If Communist Party says there will be a strategic waste facility in a specific location, there will be a strategic waste facility there.  It's not like Yucca mountain where you get enough protestors and lawsuits then the idea falls through.

My point was more that China's nuclear program hasn't been challenged yet.  They haven't had a level 7 disaster like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, nor Fukashima.  If they have a disaster, the Communist Party may not be able to keep the NIMBY factor in check.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 1, 2019)

I could care less either way to be honest, humans are a mistake of evolution from my observations.


----------



## xkm1948 (Apr 1, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I could care less either way to be honest, humans are a mistake of evolution from my observations.



I don't agree. We are what nature's best offer thanks to billions years of evolution. We as a species need to keep growing and evolving.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 1, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I could care less either way to be honest, humans are a mistake of evolution from my observations.



_Homo floresiensis_  = Failure extinct
*Homo neanderthalensis  = Failure extinct*
*Homo heidelbergensis  = Failure extinct*
_Homo ergaster_  = Failure extinct
_Homo Simpsonis_ = Failure extinct
_Homo sapiens_  = Success ( under Review ) not extinct

So Far the failure's of the past have contributed to our current status of successful (under review)


----------



## xkm1948 (Apr 1, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> _Homo floresiensis_  = Failure extinct
> *Homo neanderthalensis  = Failure extinct*
> *Homo heidelbergensis  = Failure extinct*
> _Homo ergaster_  = Failure extinct
> ...


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 1, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> _Homo floresiensis_  = Failure extinct
> *Homo neanderthalensis  = Failure extinct*
> *Homo heidelbergensis  = Failure extinct*
> _Homo ergaster_  = Failure extinct
> ...



still don't care, all depends on your understanding of time.  all species go eventually. its a wonderful cycle. i mean technically we have only had civilisation for 10k years... that's like nothing.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 2, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> _Homo floresiensis_  = Failure extinct
> *Homo neanderthalensis  = Failure extinct*
> *Homo heidelbergensis  = Failure extinct*
> _Homo ergaster_  = Failure extinct
> _Homo sapiens_  = Success ( under Review ) not extinct


Pretty sure the only reason other species of humans haven't survived is due to the proliferation of Homo Sapiens.
To cite a line or two from a movie: Mankind is - "A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."
That doesn't mean the other types you mentioned are failures, just that they were overrun by sheer numbers alone, and failed to survive .


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> I don't agree. We are what nature's best offer thanks to billions years of evolution. We as a species need to keep growing and evolving.



We aren't even the most populous species.  Nor the longest enduring...  It's easy to be number one when you pick the gauge I know, but I'd say that's highly disputable.  Personally (and in no way tied into my frog persona I assure you) I think we have a lot we can learn from other species, both in genetic tech and general intelligence.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 2, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> We aren't even the most populous species.  Nor the longest enduring...  It's easy to be number one when you pick the gauge I know, but I'd say that's highly disputable.  Personally (and in no way tied into my frog persona I assure you) I think we have a lot we can learn from other species, both in genetic tech and general intelligence.



frogs rule all!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 2, 2019)

Caring1 said:


> Pretty sure the only reason other species of humans haven't survived is due to the proliferation of Homo Sapiens.


When Sapiens and Neanderthals co-existed, both were nomadic.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis


> In fact, Neanderthals and modern humans may have had little direct interaction for tens of thousands of years until during one very cold period, modern humans spread across Europe. Their presence may have prevented Neanderthals from expanding back into areas they once favored and served as a catalyst for the Neanderthal’s impending extinction. Over just a few thousand years after modern humans moved into Europe, Neanderthal numbers dwindled to the point of extinction. All traces of Neanderthals disappeared by about 40,000 years ago. The most recently dated Neanderthal fossils come from western Europe, which was likely where the last population of this early human species existed.




Back on topic: Untangling Methane Sources


> Based on data from five days’ worth of measurements in 2015, the team found oil and natural gas operations were responsible for most of the methane produced in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, with agricultural sources providing an important but minor source.
> 
> The study also uncovered some baffling observations that will require further exploration: for example, when methane concentrations are very low, the agricultural sources are relatively more significant.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2019)

Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
					

Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Grog6 (Jun 19, 2019)

I think global warming is real, I think it's caused by humans, and it's accelerating.









						Photo of sled dogs walking through water shows reality of Greenland's melting ice sheet - CNN
					

Steffen Olsen, a scientist with the Danish Meteorological Institute, was on a routine mission in northwest Greenland to retrieve oceanographic and weather monitoring tools placed by his colleagues on sea ice when he ran into a problem.




					www.cnn.com
				




I also think sled dogs will have to learn to swim if they want to keep their jobs. 

Climate is complex, but change is real; it been happening longer than we've been alive; my climate, where I live, it very different than it was 40 yeas ago.
Ask your parents what the weather was like when they were kids.

For the simpleminded, check out this easy to understand graphic:








						Earth Temperature Timeline
					






					xkcd.com
				




Just because a politician tell you something doesn't make it true; they will be long dead before it's a problem.

Probably.


----------



## Eskimonster (Jun 19, 2019)

From what ive learned the ice-age is a natural, and due to come anyway.
And no matter wut, im not use to snow midsummer in denmark, nor our ice looks like this in greenland, enviroment is changing fast.
Here u can see the hot summer melted the upper part of the ice.









						Photograph lays bare reality of melting Greenland sea ice
					

Research teams traversing partially melted fjord to retrieve weather equipment release startling picture




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 19, 2019)

" My Sled Dogs are all Called Jesus my friend in front calls his Dogs Christ " ^^^^^^^^


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 19, 2019)

@Eskimonster While I agree climate change is natural even at massive levels at least every few hundred thousand years, it doesn't change the fact 70% of all humans live in coastal cities, and we are in for mass displacement and mass starvation in the billions by around 2050 or 2060. Probably sooner honestly. Technically speaking, Syria had a civil war because of crops and farmland becoming unusable do to climate changes, and that tiny little country has brought the West to its knees from refugees and political turmoil. NASA astronaut Mark Kelly also said when he lived his year in space the thing that scared him most was how sickly the atmosphere was looking over time...

We know not what we do. Natural or man made, it no longer matters, majority of humans, well those not smart enough to learn self sufficiency and move inland, will perish and so will their genetic lines, not to mention as heat waves become more extreme, heat is directly related to violence and past genocides in Africa. Irrational incidents will occur, eventually escalating to all out wars, and not baby wars like the middle east, a proper number 3 this time sadly.

We have a good 20 years left I think before things become shaky in the world. If you are aged 20 now, I wouldn't bother with retirement savings, money will be worthless by 2070 lol


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 19, 2019)

Major Climate Change may occur every 10 millennia or so  but 
Minor Climate Change can happen over 2 to 3 hundred years or even less time
 Europe and North America had a little ice age after the late Medieval Warm Period ( 1300 and 1870 ).
This Era ended as the Industrial Revolution was getting into full swing ( Coincidence ?).
On an even shorter time frame *El Niño and La Niña. Both have a global effect ( this is weather tho and not climate change ).*


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 19, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> Major Climate Change may occur every 10 millennia or so  but
> Minor Climate Change can happen over 2 to 3 hundred years or even less time
> Europe and North America had a little ice age after the late Medieval Warm Period ( 1300 and 1870 ).
> This Era ended as the Industrial Revolution was getting into full swing ( Coincidence ?).
> On an even shorter time frame *El Niño and La Niña. Both have a global effect ( this is weather tho and not climate change ).*



El Nino and La Nina are both products of the 90s. There was no satellite evidence of these phenomena before that. We are in the middle of the biggest climate change episode in recorded human history. I live in the Toronto area and cannot tell you the last time the temps have not changed by more than 3 degrees C in 24 hours. There are so many other manifestations of what we are doing to our planet too. One of the things that not a lot of people talk about is water vapour. When an iceberg or glacier melts it also adds to the water vapour levels in our atmosphere. There are a few things that support this.

1. In 2018 there were 3 hurricanes in the Atlantic basin at the same time. 
2. By the time Hurricane Sandy made landfall it was 1200 miles in width (The largest hurricane before in the Atlantic basin was 300). 
3. The type of rain in Toronto nowadays reminds of the rain you get off the Gulf of Mexico in Mississippi. 
4. The jet stream is more heavily influenced by Arctic flows than ever before. (As proven by the polar vortex) Ask anyone that lives in England how their winters have changed in the last 20 years. 

Right now these are seen as separate incidents but they all point back to water vapour. Australia got hit by 2 hurricanes at the same time this year. Africa has also been hit by 2 hurricanes this year. 70% of the State of Nebraska was flooded earlier this year. The evidence is there all we have to do is look.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 19, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> For the simpleminded, check out this easy to understand graphic:



Ironic that someone claiming such a simple graphic is sufficient would call others simple minded...

Regardless, that graph starts at 20k years ago. Zoom that graph out further (and get rid of biased "smoothing" techniques... look up Bradley, Mann, and Hughes sometime...) and you'll see that the earth was FAR warmer millions of years before humans even existed to add CO2 to the atmosphere. Moreover, you'll see that CO2 levels in the atmosphere lag BEHIND temperature rises, suggesting that it's more likely that rising temperatures cause higher CO2 levels, not the other way around. The truth is, it's nearly 5 degrees cooler even today than it was around 50 million years ago, and there were no humans around to cause that. Now, we're worried about a less than 1 degree uptick?  

This "simple graphic" mindset is the problem. I've posted the information back in this thread (a couple of times, if I'm not mistaken) along with links to raw data. If you'd rather follow a simple graphic than wade through it yourself, I understand why you'd come to such conclusions... you're doing exactly what you claim others are doing. I find it hilarious also that you'd say something about politicians, considering they're the ones pushing this alarmism. It's ridiculous to think that a two degree uptick is going to end the world when the world existed just fine at 5 degrees warmer, AND at 5 degrees cooler, than we have now, before humans even evolved. Hubris it is, to think that we're so special...


----------



## rruff (Jun 19, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> From what ive learned the ice-age is a natural, and due to come anyway.



Yes, it's due, and nobody knows what causes it. It's something that started about 3M years ago, and has steadily gotten worse. If we can do something to to avoid it or lessen it's severity that will be a major win. Last time all of northern Europe, all of Canada, and a good chunk of the northern US were under a massive ice sheet. And people think a little sea level rise will be devastating! On the plus side higher temperatures will make huge swaths of northern Canada and Russia livable. *Global warming isn't all bad, and may be highly preferable to the alternative. *


----------



## Eskimonster (Jun 19, 2019)

I sincerly think in future we will have to deal with food shortages for billions and eviroment ruining our way of life.
no matter what we do.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 19, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> I sincerly think in future we will have to deal with food shortages for billions and eviroment ruining our way of life.
> no matter what we do.


Actuality i think Despite the amount of water on this planet potable water will be the main problem.
In parts of the planet it allready is and its only going to get worse


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 19, 2019)

I think this Topic requires more choices.

I think it is a scandal in that different tribes are using the whole thing according to their own agendas, some just to make more money, other's too grandiose themselves or push a career as well as a great many well-thinking people too.

Just because I think its a scandal does not mean it is no concern, our noxious output definitely needs to be regulated in order to make room for growing economies to also progress, hopefully quicker than us to an ideal carbon low future, not neutral IMHO.

won't be long till the big freeze when planes all go electric IMHO.

warming is not the only consideration either, acidification plastification and radiation of the whole soddin planet should also concern someone other than me.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 19, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> Actuality i think Despite the amount of water on this planet potable water will be the main problem.
> In parts of the planet it allready is and its only going to get worse



If we had fusion, all would be well, supposedly.

We could boil the oceans for drinking water!...  oi, that sounds fun.


----------



## Grog6 (Jun 19, 2019)

The overall problem is that everything we do increases the basic enthalpy of Earth.

We are converting energy from its stored form to heat.

When that's coal, oil, or gas, we have waste products to deal with, CO2 and water vapor are the most benign.

With Hydro or wind power, we change the flora and fauna of the ecosystem, and add heat as well.

With atomic power we have waste products, whether its fission daughters, or neutron activated linings in fusion plants; both are equally bad, and will be dangerous for a very long time. 
Nuclear reprocessing can concentrate those 'tailings' to a much smaller volume, but then we have the plutonium problem; you really don't want a bunch of it laying around, people can do bad things with it.
The hard part of nukes is the material, all else is engineering.

At some point, all the waste heat we are dumping into the environment is going to boil the oceans; SF writers saw this a long time ago.
In fact, almost every problem we keep running into was discussed in SF before the 70's, lol.

I remember "*The Sea is Boiling Hot, George Bamber (1971)" *as being one of the more alarmist books of the 70's; that, and all the porn, lol.

We won't be around to see any of this, most likely. And that's why nothing will be done about it.

The money will be spent to build seawalls around cities, they will fail, fingers will be pointed, but in the end, we will fight the small battles, not the big ones.

I personally want someone like Elon to get us off this planet, and Maybe the human species can save itself.

We're one asteroid strike, Solar CME event, orbital EMP device, bioweapon, or global thermonuclear war away from the stone age.

James P. Hogan is one of my favorite authors; he wrote some really good books about how it can end; I really hope for the best, but all of the bad political memes in his books are coming back into vogue. Read Cradle of Saturn, and The Anguished Dawn, I liked both.

Vellikovsky's theories on weird shit happening are fanciful, but all good SF is based on a nugget of "what if this happens?".
Seeing the frozen wolf's head brought him back into my conciousness recently; he wrote a book that postulated that the earth shifted suddenly on its axis, rapidly freezing Siberia, thus the stuff we find frozen in the area.

I think we're basically screwed, whatever we do, as citizens of Earth; the politicians will kill us all for their 30 pieces of silver, long before climate change does.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 19, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> At some point, all the waste heat we are dumping into the environment is going to boil the oceans



It's a good scifi premise yes, but it's firmly fiction without a good insulation layer.  Why?  Because the heat isn't what matters.  Space is a damn good (and huge) heatsink.

What matters, is what's trapping said heat.


----------



## Grog6 (Jun 20, 2019)

Space isn't as good a heatsink as you think; it can only radiate heat by IR photons.
There is only radiation, convection, and conduction; the last two require somewhere to send the heat to.

Radiation of photons works really well at incandescent temperatures; not so much for human tolerable conditions, lol.

Unless we start boiling off the atmosphere, which is a whole other problem, lol. 
Hey, it worked for Mars, so I shouldn't knock it. 

I've made systems to radiate heat in a vacuum; it's not terribly easy; adding waste heat to an incandescent filament is actually possible.

Add the insulating layer of 400+ ppm pf CO2, the remnants of the freon problem, and the methane layer, and heat leakage to space will not be going down in our lifetimes.
Look at Venus; we might look like that in another 1000 years or so, depending.

If there weren't a good insulating layer, we'd freeze; if it were stronger, we will cook. 
Earth is a balancing act, on a knife edge; eventually we'll slide down it, to devastating effect.
Personally, I hope humanity will get the f out of there before then, but I doubt it, just from politics.

Currently, the big heat sink is the oceans; that will eventually boil them.
Everything in them will die first, and that's already starting, mostly due to pollution. 
The gulf's dead spot comes to mind.

Again, the big consequences will not likely occur in our lifetimes; so Screw the future people, they can just deal with it, right?


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 20, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> Space isn't as good a heatsink as you think; it can only radiate heat by IR photons.
> There is only radiation, convection, and conduction; the last two require somewhere to send the heat to.
> 
> Radiation of photons works really well at incandescent temperatures; not so much for human tolerable conditions, lol.
> ...



incorrect, it's moving faster than anyone expected.  expect mass economic changes, ways of life, displacement within 30 years.

don't forget to calculate compounding interest


----------



## Grog6 (Jun 20, 2019)

I guess you missed the implied sarcasm there.
I'll add the /s tags next time. 

I don't really expect to last another 30 years; but then, I never figured I'd last the first 30 either, lol.

Also, one of my friends pointed out that if you raise the temperature high enough, you can radiate energy by neutrino emission. 
Let's hope it doesn't get that hot.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 20, 2019)

I mean, if space wasn't a good heatsink you'd see a lot less dead planets.  I think the proof is in the pudding there, it sucks a lot of energy out of our system (the earth) unless some other force stops it from doing so (atmospheric gas).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 20, 2019)

space = vacuum
heat = dissipation of energy
Only way for heat to leave an object in space is via radiation.  Convection and conduction aren't options because there is no medium for it to occur through.  Result: radiated objects in space are quick to heat and slow to cool.
Atmosphere traps radiation, provides medium for conduction and convection to occur through.  Atmosphere and relatively constant rotation stabilizes climate from the intense heating and cooling of solar bombardment.
Earth has a global thermal budget on an annual basis.  Amplifying greenhouse gases throws that budget off in favor of heating.

Canadian permafrost melting for the first time in 1000s of years is proof there's abnormally high amounts of heat in the system.  And that melting permafrost is slowing it...for now.  Doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens when the cold places are no longer cold: everything gets hotter faster.

They may be right.  We may be too late.  Virtually all signs are pointing to a sixth extinction event unfolding.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 20, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> space = vacuum
> heat = dissipation of energy
> Only way for heat to leave an object in space is via radiation.  Convection and conduction aren't options because there is no medium for it to occur through.  Result: radiated objects in space are quick to heat and slow to cool.
> Atmosphere traps radiation, provides medium for conduction and convection to occur through.  Atmosphere and relatively constant rotation stabilizes climate from the intense heating and cooling of solar bombardment.
> ...



The rich will move underground, the poor will dig holes, but they won't be deep enough. Then after 2 generations, and the species is mostly wiped out, but Earth has re-balanced, the rich's offspring will come out of the ground and create a new world, it will be glorious!!! Rejoice!!!


----------



## Eskimonster (Jun 20, 2019)

Even the Himalayas ice melts faster then the last 40 years recorded.






						AAAS
					






					advances.sciencemag.org


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 20, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> Actuality i think Despite the amount of water on this planet potable water will be the main problem.
> In parts of the planet it allready is and its only going to get worse








Dark Reign was WAAAY ahead of its time. Note the blue pond - its a pure water source, the primary resource of the game.


----------



## Eskimonster (Jun 20, 2019)

Ice bears going to city, no ice to support it .


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 20, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> Ice bears going to city, no ice to support it .
> 
> View attachment 125350



They also are interbreeding with grizzly bears now that they have moved so far south, leading to a whole new hybrid species.

It'd be cool if it wasn't so sad.


----------



## Grog6 (Jun 20, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> The rich will move underground, the poor will dig holes, but they won't be deep enough. Then after 2 generations, and the species is mostly wiped out, but Earth has re-balanced, the rich's offspring will come out of the ground and create a new world, it will be glorious!!! Rejoice!!!



That is mentioned in the book I referenced above, as well as Heinleins classic "The Caves of Steel" and related books.

"The Naked Sun" references the fact that long after the planet recovers from the worst of it, people are afraid to go outside, due to fear of the natural elements. 

SF did it first, lol.  (Reference the South Park Simpsons did it meme)  
In the 50's.



I saw this today:








						U.S May Have to Spend Over $400 Billion on Seawalls by 2040 to Protect Itself From Rising Seas
					

Florida alone is likely to have to spend $76 billion on seawalls in the next two decades as sea levels continue to rise.



					www.thedailybeast.com


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 20, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> I saw this today:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yep our taxpayer money being spent wonderfully. instead of people moving inland, these walls will do nothing but delay the inevitable. that's ok though, 6 trillion and counting in war debts still unpaid since 2001 with compounding interest = value of american dollar will be crap someday.


----------



## Eskimonster (Jun 21, 2019)

Its so hard to be a #Climanutt

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p07dr0s1/48714864


----------



## hat (Jun 21, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> yep our taxpayer money being spent wonderfully. instead of people moving inland, these walls will do nothing but delay the inevitable. that's ok though, 6 trillion and counting in war debts still unpaid since 2001 with compounding interest = value of american dollar will be crap someday.


That's a tough call. That's a LOT of infrastructure to leave behind as you move inland. This displaces millions of people, crowding already crowded cities even more. On the other hand, all we need is one good hurricane to turn seawalled coastal cities into New Orelans after Katrina hit. And we have plenty of those to go around...


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 21, 2019)

hat said:


> That's a tough call. That's a LOT of infrastructure to leave behind as you move inland. This displaces millions of people, crowding already crowded cities even more. On the other hand, all we need is one good hurricane to turn seawalled coastal cities into New Orelans after Katrina hit. And we have plenty of those to go around...



oh don't get me wrong, I meant slowly over time, "tax incentives" to build more inland so to speak, similar to tax incentives electric cars had under Obama.  whether we like it or not, those ocean walls will never be strong enough in 50 years. so people will move inland whether we want them to or not


----------



## Grog6 (Jun 21, 2019)

Hey, on the good side, I live at elevation ~+750 feet, so when the polar icecaps melt and the oceans go up 300 feet, the beach will be about 30 miles from here or less.

Just covering the nearest nuclear power plant, lol.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 25, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> Hey, on the good side, I live at elevation ~+750 feet, so when the polar icecaps melt and the oceans go up 300 feet, the beach will be about 30 miles from here or less.
> 
> Just covering the nearest nuclear power plant, lol.



Me too.  I'll be a nice little private island in the Puget Island Chain (500+ feet now).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 27, 2019)

Economic reality check:








						Weaning U.S. power sector off fossil fuels would cost $4.7 trillion: study
					

Eliminating fossil fuels from the U.S. power sector, a key goal of the "Green New Deal" backed by many Democratic presidential candidates, would cost $4.7 trillion and pose massive economic and social challenges, according to a report released on Thursday by energy research...




					www.reuters.com
				



Biden's plan would cost $1.7 trillion.
O'Rourke's plan would cost $5 trillion.
Ocasio-Cortez plan would cost $10 trillion.

These price figures are just in relation to electric generation.



> A Reuters/Ipsos poll here on Wednesday showed most Americans back "aggressive" climate change action like that proposed by Democrats, but that *support falls off dramatically* if they sense the initiatives would *cost them*.


We'll fix climate change by being aggressive and angry then hide when it comes time to pay for it. Yay! Hypocrisy! 



> It estimated that 1,600 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity would have to be added, at a cost of around $1.5 trillion. That’s more than 11 times the nation’s current wind and solar capacity. And while the costs of wind and solar have come down, a sharp increase in demand could strain supply chains and send prices of key materials like steel and copper upward.





> The study also said 900 GW of energy storage would be required to make sure wind and solar assets can work reliably even when the weather isn’t cooperating, 900 times more than is currently installed. That sharp increase in investment in still-nascent energy storage technology would raise the cost of all-renewable generation to $4 trillion, the report said.


And remember, they have to be replaced every 5 years because they lose capacity.  Anyone else here facepalming yet?


> Finally, adding 200,000 miles of high voltage transmission to get wind and solar energy from the plains or deserts to major metropolitan areas would add another $700 billion.


Major ecological disruption, that.


> The report warned that sharp increases in customer electricity rates to pay for such a transition could also result in a *public backlash against aggressive climate policies* and ultimately slow progress.


They echo what I've said and what every other economist that looks at the problem said:


> The report said extending the timeframe for such a transition to allow for *newer technologies to be developed and including nuclear power plants* and some portion of natural gas generation could reduce the costs significantly.


Natural gas is mentioned because its far superior to using batteries...but still is a fossil fuel.


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 27, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Economic reality check:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of this ignores what will happen to wind, solar, and battery technology if it becomes the only game in town (spoiler: expect massive improvements in an extremely short timespan as the R&D departments of every energy company in the world try to get a piece of the pie in the world's wealthiest country). It also ignores the plethora of new employment opportunities that will be created in construction and maintenance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 27, 2019)

Wind and solar technologies are hundreds of years old.  There is very little room for improvement.

Battery technology is constrained by cost and supply of materials.  Batteries also have enormous environmental costs because of disposal: there's not enough material value in lithium-ion batteries to make recycling them economical.  The only material in them of value is a trace of cobalt.

So no, your optimism has no grounds in reality.  May as well be praying for a miracle.


Natrual gas has far higher energy density than lithium-ion batteries.  It can be started and stopped just about as fast.  Natrual gas is more harmful to the environment if it is leaked rather than burned.  Have some perspective:





Uranium has among the highest energy densities known to man. Uranium is 80,620,000 MJ/kg (x-axis) and 1,539,842,000 MJ/L (y-axis), aka, off the chart.

Lithium-ion is pathetic.


----------



## rruff (Jun 27, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We'll fix climate change by being aggressive and angry then hide when it comes time to pay for it. Yay! Hypocrisy!



If you poll the US people on absolutely anything and say that it will cost them money, they will be against it...  anything.



Assimilator said:


> It also ignores the plethora of new employment opportunities that will be created in construction and maintenance.



Hard economic fact: If a change "creates jobs" then it can only do so by being inefficient/ unproductive/ expensive. The real cost of everything is the aggregate man-hrs x wages that go into making it. We only get more prosperous by destroying jobs (through improved productivity), not creating them. 

Solar and wind by some measures are economically viable now... if you were starting from scratch. But since we already have an extensive infrastructure built to handle fossil fuels (built over many decades) the massive investment required to change to alternatives makes them relatively expensive. If we hadn't run up our national debt for the last 40 years in support of offshoring much of our production, investing in alternative energy infrastructure would be more viable (ie put it "on the card").

 It will happen eventually. When it makes *economic* sense.


----------



## Eskimonster (Jul 1, 2019)

It is messing up all over...


----------



## Grog6 (Jul 1, 2019)

Huge waterspouts in Canada on the same day there 3 feet of hail in Mexico.

I also read this month that Lobsters are moving north, almost 200 miles from their traditional grounds on the east coast.

Interesting times.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2019)

There's 50 US companies working on advanced reactor designs:








						U.S. to extend nuclear reactor lifespans in bid to revive industry
					

The United States plans to extend the lifespans of existing nuclear reactors and support new technologies as it seeks to revive an industry seen as crucial to its energy security, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.




					www.reuters.com
				



A lot of interest in modular and micro nuclear reactors.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jul 11, 2019)

rruff said:


> If you poll the US people on absolutely anything and say that it will cost them money, they will be against it...  anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But... but.... Keynesian economics!


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jul 11, 2019)

I have no doubt man is contributing to Global warming. What I do doubt, however, are the claims of hellfire. Earth's CO2 levels were also extremely high, far higher then today, during the dinosaur era, yet somehow life survived that massive change. 

I also dont believe, even for a second, that environmentalists of any kind actually care about the issue. For all the pushing of electric cars and renewables, if you dare bring up how the 15 biggest cargo ships on the planet put out more CO2 then all cars in the US combined, or how even if the US produces 0 emissions china and india would happily eclipse whatever the US managed to put out at its peak, and how without fixing these issues their whole "live green" push is a complete waste of time and money, then you are shunned out of the community and your opinions are memory-holed. 

Also, any environmentalist in a 1st world country that has children is causing all sorts of environmental damage, no matter how green they claim to be, and are big phat phoneys. 



rruff said:


> If you poll the US people  any country on absolutely anything and say that it will cost them money, they will be against it...  anything.



FTFY. Lest you think the US is just evil, a reminder that india and china are still building coal plants despite having the ability to invest in nuclear and renewable while building a grid around them. People will take whatever is cheapest and just works, regardless of geological location or genetic lineage.


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 11, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> I have no doubt man is contributing to Global warming. What I do doubt, however, are the claims of hellfire. Earth's CO2 levels were also extremely high, far higher then today, during the dinosaur era, yet somehow life survived that massive change.



There's a massive difference between the environment changing naturally due to environmental CO2 emissions, and it being changed by man's CO2 emissions.



TheinsanegamerN said:


> I also dont believe, even for a second, that environmentalists of any kind actually care about the issue. For all the pushing of electric cars and renewables, if you dare bring up how the 15 biggest cargo ships on the planet put out more CO2 then all cars in the US combined, or how even if the US produces 0 emissions china and india would happily eclipse whatever the US managed to put out at its peak, and how without fixing these issues their whole "live green" push is a complete waste of time and money, then you are shunned out of the community and your opinions are memory-holed.
> 
> Also, any environmentalist in a 1st world country that has children is causing all sorts of environmental damage, no matter how green they claim to be, and are big phat phoneys.



Oh boy, where do I begin.

First, you won't find any people who care about the environment saying that cargo ships aren't a problem. I don't hear you proposing a solution, though.
Secondly, just because China and India don't give a f**k about the environment, doesn't mean the USA (the country that's supposed to be the world leader, har har) should do the same. Should the USA also ape China by putting their citizens in concentration camps, or mimic India by not having enough toilets so their citizens have to s**t on the beaches?
Thirdly, your "hur dur environmentalists are hypocrites if they do anything that creates CO2" "argument" is moronic at best. The problem is not the emission of CO2, it's about emitting it *at a level that the environment can naturally handle*. If you make an effort to minimise your own carbon footprint, there is no reason you should feel guilty about living a good life with all the modern conveniences of society. Besides which, of course, there's the fact that power stations are the biggest emitters of CO2 and most individuals can't really do anything about that directly...



TheinsanegamerN said:


> FTFY. Lest you think the US is just evil, a reminder that india and china are still building coal plants despite having the ability to invest in nuclear and renewable while building a grid around them. People will take whatever is cheapest and just works, regardless of geological location or genetic lineage.



Hey remember above where I said the USA should take the lead? Also, the USA is a far wealthier country; China and India are still trying to pull their citizenry out of poverty, and cheap electricity is an ingredient for that.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 11, 2019)

> U.S May Have to Spend Over $400 Billion on Seawalls by 2040 to Protect Itself From Rising Seas
> 
> 
> Florida alone is likely to have to spend $76 billion on seawalls in the next two decades as sea levels continue to rise.
> ...



Games & sci-fi = crystal balls


----------



## rruff (Jul 11, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> 15 biggest cargo ships on the planet put out more CO2 then all cars in the US combined



You are conflating CO2 and pollution. They are not the same thing. 

15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars.
International shipping produces nearly one billion tons of CO2 emissions, which is approximately *2 to 3 per cent of total man-made emissions.*


----------



## Grog6 (Jul 11, 2019)

I agree with the "We need to address CO2 emissions"  people.

Cars are a drop in the bucket.

The real prob is the power plants.

TVA has installed Scrubbers at a lot of their plants, due to obama era regulations, and looking  toward the future.
No no one wants their kids exposed to power plant effluent.

The overall power generation need dropped in the 80-90 era in the US, because we dumped the three uranium processing facilities that made enriched U 235 out of natural uranium.
Those three plants needed as much power as the rest of the eastern seaboard at the time.
We made Tons of U 235, and Pu239. It's in storage, or being used as reactor fuel, or Nuclear weapons cores.


We need nuke power, but the current designs are not efficient for anything other than Pu 239 production.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 11, 2019)

Breeders are the best way to produce nuclear power and reduce stockpiles safely but no one trusts anyone to run them because they're capable of producing weapons grade material.  Bed reactors are probably the future because they're relatively safe.  Micro reactors will probably be bed reactors.  Modular reactors, I'm not sure what they're aiming for.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 12, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> FTFY.



No, you really didn't.  Many countries are much more open to expensive social projects than the average US civilian.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2019)

US citizens are generally for a thing until they're told how much their taxes will go up to pay for it.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 13, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> US citizens are generally for a thing until they're told how much their taxes will go up to pay for it.


We're supposed to support our nation with the wealth the nation helped create...

Aka the rich didn't do it on their own and they should pay for the opportunities for the next generation... a little less about me and a lot more about us


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 13, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> a little less about me and a lot more about us









Sorry.  Had to.  Have a disorder, I do.


----------



## Grog6 (Jul 13, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Breeders are the best way to produce nuclear power and reduce stockpiles safely but no one trusts anyone to run them because they're capable of producing weapons grade material.  Bed reactors are probably the future because they're relatively safe.  Micro reactors will probably be bed reactors.  Modular reactors, I'm not sure what they're aiming for.



That's absolutely not true, as far as weapons.

Breeder reactors make Plutonium from U-238, that part is correct.

But, to make a nuke, you need the percentage of Pu-240 to be below ~7%, or it will not hold together long enough to explode well. 
You can barely make 1 stage bombs, but no thermonuclear bombs with it; it has completely the wrong neutron energy spectrum to work well.
<20kt bombs are the max, with the best explosive shells we make; and all the rest is completely wrong to do second or third stages.

Once there's a critical mass, the whole deal is done in 81 'shakes'. 
A shake is ~10nS. 
That's how long it takes to absorb a neutron , and then  fission.
If there are 'early' neutrons from spontaneous fission, the shit melts, and liquid squirts rather than compresses.
YOu CAN make a bomd from Pu-240, but it won't be small, or work well.

It's been done, just to check. It can be looked up.

Pu for bombs needs to be removed from the core weekly, to cut the odds of Pu240 production, and a breeder isn't refueled that often, nor are commercial power plants.
You can't use Centrifuges to seperate it, it's 1 amu different, U235 and 238 are 3 amu, and that's not easy.

Look at Hanford's reloading schedules, or Windscale; they're in the net, last I looked.

The big problem is politics; after Carter blew off the CRBRP, and the Reprocessing plant that was needed, no one wanted to go out on a limb for something so easily cancelled by a whim of government.

After all, power plant operators paid for 30 years to build a repository to store waste; it got delayed, and finally cancelled on a whim. 
After it was built, lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2019)

To be fair, Clinch River had bribery and fraud charges levied against it and the project was approach $8 billion in 1983 dollars ($21 billion in today's dollars).  So maybe there is hope breeders could make a comeback.

Edit: 2013, a contract was signed to purchase the Clinch River facility from TVA to begin creating a prototype modular reactor:


			Press Releases - News Room: B&W;, TVA Sign Contract for Clinch River mPower Construction Permit
		

...and it was terminated in 2017:








						Bechtel And BWXT Quietly Terminate mPower Reactor Project
					

Generation mPower, one of the early leaders in the development of small modular reactors (SMR) has decided to fully terminate its partnership and put the design material that was developed onto a corporate shelf.




					www.forbes.com
				




The reason why no one thinks outside of the box...


> Rather than pursue a technology that was unfamiliar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and accept the challenges of teaching the regulator how to ensure safety with a different paradigm, B&W chose to keep their design mostly within the known box with conventional fuels and materials that had already been qualified and understood. The expectation was that this choice would lead to more rapid completion of a marketable product with a design certification from the NRC.





> There was simply too much work left to do, too much money left to invest and an insufficient level of interest in the product to allow continued expenditures to clear corporate decision hurdles.


So basically nuclear is dead in the USA until natural gas prices soar.


----------



## Grog6 (Jul 13, 2019)

Oak Ridge is Nuke friendly; I hope they will build something at the old CRBRP site.

The 'in joke' in OR is that the only Reactor that looks like a reactor, (and is on "Reactor Cove" on the Clinch river,) isn't actually a reactor; it was never fueled.  ECGR was it's name, it was supposedly obsolete before it was completed.
It's supposedly a high security storage spot, lol. 
14" of steel is secure, lol.

It's at about 35d56m12s x 84d16m31s on google maps; the dome is starting to rust, but what isn't these days, lol.

All the other reactors are in  steel 'spec' buildings, with No containment, lol.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2019)

They usually don't build expensive containment facilities for experimental reactors.  CRBRP did because it was supposed to be a prototype for commercial reactors.


----------



## Grog6 (Jul 13, 2019)

They never built shit for the CRBRP other than a huge hole in the ground; they spent several years digging it, then they spent several more years in the 80's filling it up.

There was never any containment dome there.

Like I said, the only containment dome at OR never had a core installed in it ever.
It was for a helium gas cooled reactor, with a graphite moderator, lol.
All the problems of Chernobyl, and none of the good parts. ( Joking, there were no good parts of an RBMK reactor, lol.)

It WAS supposed to run at high temperature, which meant adding air instead of helium would set the graphite on fire.
I'm happy it was never operated; I'm downwind.

We had enough Iodine releases as it was.
At last count, there were 153 reactors built at ORNL. IDK how many are left, but they are cleaning it up a lot; the hotcells are gone, and all the waldos.

I actually know what the criticality alarm sounds like; I heard it this year.
Where is probably classified...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> They never built shit for the CRBRP other than a huge hole in the ground; they spent several years digging it, then they spent several more years in the 80's filling it up.


No wonder the site looks like...nothing.  So fail.


----------



## VagaNZ (Jul 14, 2019)

Global Warming come Climate Change, as the so called scientists who condone that thinking would have you believe is a total farce!

Man is not the cause of it but it suits the needs of a certain few who have propagated the lie.

The REAL reason for the worlds crazy weather patterns is two fold: First the earth's magnetic poles are moving towards what looks like either a total reversal or an excursion (which just happens to last around 5 to 10K years).
Neither is good news and one is definitely bad BUT the facts are that the weakening magnetic field surrounding earth is going to let in much more cosmic rays.

Secondly the Sun has entered into a Grand Solar Minimum. This means that its solar output has reduced which means less heat for us here on earth and less intensity in our heliosphere. Again, this allows more cosmic ray particles to penetrate earth's atmosphere.

When you combine these two events it's patently obvious our weather patterns are going to change. Did you know the large Ozone hole over Antarctica has been decreasing in size and this has stumped our scientists? That's because it contradicts the BS we have been fed about human derived Global Warming / Climate Change.

The reason for the Ozone hole contracting in size is because of Cosmic Rays splitting the Ozone (O3) molecules which then become ideal for Hydrogen to attach to (H2O). The end result is much more water vapour in our atmosphere which is then carried by the polar jetstreams northwards to eventually clash with warm subtropical jetstreams and we wonder WHY there is MORE rain and storms?

Our weather jetstreams have also changed as a result of the Magnetic Pole changes. Commercial airline pilots flying trans global routes have noticed this!

Check out https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5eyItTI4iIx0kVBcpyGpRw for Magnetic Pole shift news and 
https://thegrandsolarminimum.com/ for information about the Grand Solar Minimum. 

None of this is conspiracy theory nonsense if you study the facts. Governments have their own reasons for not sharing this information but don't have a sheep mentality and follow blindly.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 14, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> Oak Ridge is Nuke friendly; I hope they will build something at the old CRBRP site.
> 
> The 'in joke' in OR is that the only Reactor that looks like a reactor, (and is on "Reactor Cove" on the Clinch river,) isn't actually a reactor; it was never fueled.  ECGR was it's name, it was supposedly obsolete before it was completed.
> It's supposedly a high security storage spot, lol.
> ...



If Trojan hadn't been shutdown it would've looked pretty reactor like.  Took a tour of it before the shutdown, many years ago.  Unfortunately it was a meltdown waiting to happen due to numerous design and management issues, so the story goes (was so bad as to Inspire Homer Simpsons Reactor plant as a theme in the Simpsons).  Makes me feel great having been there, lol.



VagaNZ said:


> Secondly the Sun has entered into a Grand Solar Minimum.



If true, that makes the latest temparture data doubly disturbing because temps are rising anyways.

Wrong arguement, dude.  None of your other points re magnet pole movements (which are real) explain a mean average rise either.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 14, 2019)

VagaNZ said:


> The REAL reason for the worlds crazy weather patterns is two fold: First the earth's magnetic poles are moving towards what looks like either a total reversal or an excursion (which just happens to last around 5 to 10K years).


There's no major climate shift pattern associate with that cycle in geological records.



VagaNZ said:


> Neither is good news and one is definitely bad BUT the facts are that the weakening magnetic field surrounding earth is going to let in much more cosmic rays.


More cosmic rays = more clouds = cooler surface temps.



VagaNZ said:


> Secondly the Sun has entered into a Grand Solar Minimum. This means that its solar output has reduced which means less heat for us here on earth and less intensity in our heliosphere. Again, this allows more cosmic ray particles to penetrate earth's atmosphere.


In other words, it should be relatively cool right now but it's not; hence, the problem of average temperatures rising.



VagaNZ said:


> When you combine these two events it's patently obvious our weather patterns are going to change. Did you know the large Ozone hole over Antarctica has been decreasing in size and this has stumped our scientists? That's because it contradicts the BS we have been fed about human derived Global Warming / Climate Change.











						Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know why
					

Satellite data shows that between 2014 and 2017 sea ice extent in the southern hemisphere suffered unprecedented annual decreases, outpacing Arctic losses




					www.newscientist.com
				




The reason for the Ozone hole contracting in size is because of Cosmic Rays splitting the Ozone (O3) molecules which then become ideal for Hydrogen to attach to (H2O). The end result is much more water vapour in our atmosphere which is then carried by the polar jetstreams northwards to eventually clash with warm subtropical jetstreams and we wonder WHY there is MORE rain and storms?[/quote]
The hole is contracting because China shutdown HCFC production lines:








						China Announces Major Reduction in Ozone Depleting Gases on International Ozone Day
					

China announced the closure of five hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) production lines, resulting in the phase-out of 58,864 tons of HCFC production, reduction of HCFC production capacity by 88,000 tons and elimination of over 93 million tons of CO2.




					www.worldbank.org
				




It's not so simple as "more rain and storms."  There's more energy in the atmosphere.  In some places, that means more rain and storms but in others, it means hotter and drier.



VagaNZ said:


> Our weather jetstreams have also changed as a result of the Magnetic Pole changes. Commercial airline pilots flying trans global routes have noticed this!











						Magnetic north just changed. Here's what that means.
					

The foundation of many navigation systems, the World Magnetic Model finally got a much-needed update with the end of the U.S. government shutdown.




					www.nationalgeographic.com
				




No connection, really.  What is known is that we've only been tracking the magnetic pole for about 200 years and it recently moved 3-4 times further than expected.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 25, 2019)

Perception of weather...








						U.S. Democrats and Republicans can’t even agree on the weather: Reuters/Ipsos
					

Only 200 miles separate Michael Tilden and Miranda Garcia in rain-soaked Iowa. But they are worlds apart when it comes to their opinion of the weather.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 18, 2019)

Well this is different...








						Russia's first sea-borne nuclear power plant arrives to its base
					

Russia's first-floating nuclear power plant has arrived to its permanent base near an isolated Russian town across the Bering Strait from Alaska, Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom said on Saturday.




					www.reuters.com
				



...a nuclear powered ship replacing a coal and aging nuclear power plant.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Sep 18, 2019)

Flat earthers (anti-spheric planet), anti-evolution, and anti-global warming.

Great group, let's all get along.


----------



## john_ (Sep 18, 2019)

Everything is great with little-big nuclear bombs on land, so why not put a few more on water?
Hope they can withstand torpedoes because someone somewhere sometime will think it will be a nice and easy terrorist target. 
On the other hand I guess if something goes terribly bad, sinking it will be a quick solution.


----------



## bug (Sep 18, 2019)

john_ said:


> Everything is great with little-big nuclear bombs on land, so why not put a few more on water?
> Hope they can withstand torpedoes because someone somewhere sometime will think it will be a nice and easy terrorist target.
> On the other hand I guess if something goes terribly bad, sinking it will be a quick solution.


You don't have to sink the whole thing, you just need to eject enough fission material to stop the chain reaction


----------



## newconroer (Sep 18, 2019)

yakk said:


> Flat earthers (anti-spheric planet), anti-evolution, and anti-global warming.
> 
> Great group, let's all get along.


What do you mean, anti-evolution? Micro or macro, cause you are far off ever proving macro evolution from a Darwinian position. Darwin was wrong, significantly wrong.  Good luck showing how one specis can inject itself into the DNA pool of another.

There is no global warming in a vacuum like you're trying to make it out to be. It's called nature, and every so many years (far longer than we can appreciate), the world goes through a cycle.
I don't know what to tell you except, relax, you'll be long dead before anything happens.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Sep 18, 2019)

newconroer said:


> What do you mean, anti-evolution? Micro or macro, cause you are far off ever proving macro evolution from a Darwinian position. Darwin was wrong, significantly wrong.  Good luck showing how one specis can inject itself into the DNA pool of another.
> 
> There is no global warming in a vacuum like you're trying to make it out to be. It's called nature, and every so many years (far longer than we can appreciate), the world goes through a cycle.
> I don't know what to tell you except, relax, you'll be long dead before anything happens.



Scientific research theorises, based on findings, that the earth possibly goes through some sort of cycle drawn out over a long period of time.  Will take a long time to prove and document that also.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 18, 2019)

newconroer said:


> Good luck showing how one specis can inject itself into the DNA pool of another.



Happens all the time, if you mean animal hybridization.  Hybrids are usually sterile, but not always, and that's all it takes.  I have a database somewhere of interspecies births and the viability of offspring somewhere, if that's what you mean.  It's not in my bookmarks here but I am sure I could find it again.


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 18, 2019)

Man, people are idiots.
And I must be bored, lol.

If you want to destroy a country, park this off shore and deliberately melt it down:








						Russia's 'floating Chernobyl' heads out to sea – DW – 04/28/2018
					

The twin reactors have left their home port of St. Petersburg for a long, slow journey to Siberia. Environmentalists have slammed the mobile maritime reactors, saying an accident could damage parts of the Arctic.




					www.dw.com
				




Shielding is a problem; usually it's 30 feet of earth and concrete; this uses a thin barrier and water.

More on shielding:








						Shielding of Ionizing Radiation
					

Shielding of ionizing radiation simply means having some material between the source of radiation and you (or some device) that will absorb the radiation.



					www.nuclear-power.net
				




Russia is going to end up using this as a weapon, just wait.



Evolution works great; even in ways we wish it didn't.





__





						Science | AAAS
					






					www.sciencemag.org
				




And Remember the "Killer Bees" were accidentally released after an experiment trying to improve honey production.








						Africanized bee - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



Cross breeding is "Forced Evolution".

That's why small dogs are so fucked up; the inbreeding has severely damaged the genetic code, causing various genetic problems, like hip displasia and other things.

Also:








						Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
					






					blogs.scientificamerican.com
				












						Evolution of new species requires few genetic changes
					

Only a few genetic changes are needed to spur the evolution of new species—even if the original populations are still in contact and exchanging genes. Once started, however, evolutionary divergence evolves rapidly, ultimately leading to fully genetically isolated species, report scientists.



					www.sciencedaily.com
				












						New species evolve in just two generations
					

Darwin’s finches provide an unexpected insight into speciation, knocking accepted theories sideways. Andrew Masterson reports.




					cosmosmagazine.com
				




Sigh.

I saw this recently on the Global warming front:









						Alaska's warming ocean is putting food and jobs at risk, scientists say | CNN
					

The ice surrounding Alaska is not just melting. It is so low that residents along the western and northern coastlines are facing a crisis of survivability.




					www.cnn.com
				












						Barrow, Alaska: Ground Zero for Climate Change
					

Scientists converge on the northernmost city in the United States to study global warming's dramatic consequences




					www.smithsonianmag.com
				












						Whoa! Alaska Is Hotter Than NYC. Here's Why.
					

For the first time in recorded history, Anchorage, Alaska, reached 90 degrees F (32 degrees Celsius).




					www.livescience.com
				




If it were only a few years, it would be "Weather", Continued Weather for more time is "Climate".

Glaciers melting in China:








						Melting glacier in China draws tourists, climate worries
					

The loud crack rang out from the fog above the Baishui No. 1 Glacier as a stone shard careened down the ice, flying past Chen Yanjun as he operated a GPS device.




					phys.org
				












						China’s melting glaciers are ‘wake-up call for the world’, Greenpeace says
					

Western China’s melting glaciers are displacing thousands of people and temperatures in the region rising faster than global average.




					www.scmp.com
				












						Melting glacier in China draws tourists, climate worries
					

The loud crack rang out from the fog above the Baishui No. 1 Glacier as a stone shard careened down the ice, flying past Chen Yanjun as he operated a GPS device.




					www.foxnews.com
				




Glaciers melting in Antarctica:








						Glacial melting in Antarctica may become irreversible
					

Thwaites glacier is likely to thaw and trigger 50cm sea level rise, US study suggests




					www.theguardian.com
				








__





						Are glaciers in Antarctica continuing to melt because of global warming? - AntarcticGlaciers.org
					

Asked by Richard In short, yes, they are melting! East Antarctica gains some snow, but for more is lost each year by the West Antarctic and Antarctic Peninsula ice sheets. The overview In more detail, the story of melting glaciers in Antarctica is a complex one. Overall, the Greenland and...




					www.antarcticglaciers.org
				












						Huge cavity in Antarctic glacier signals rapid decay – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

A NASA-led study has found that a giant, growing cavern two-thirds the area of Manhattan is contributing to the rapid melting of Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier.




					climate.nasa.gov
				












						West Antarctica is melting—and human-caused climate change is to blame
					

The fingerprints of human-caused climate change have made it to Antarctica, a new study shows




					www.nationalgeographic.com
				





On the flat earth front, The earth is still not flat.

Eratosthenes knew this way back:


			Eratosthenes' Calculation of Earth's Circumference
		


I'll just put this here:  








You guys are mistaking it for this:
Sir Terry would be proud.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 18, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> Cross breeding is "Forced Evolution".



In captivity sure.  That's not the only place it happens though.



Grog6 said:


> That's why small dogs are so fucked up; the inbreeding has severely damaged the genetic code, causing various genetic problems, like hip displasia and other things.



You are confusing inbreeding in the same species with crossbreeding.  Two different issues and things really (your sister/brother generally is similar to you, not dissimilar)


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 18, 2019)

They breed different breeds together to get new species; that's what I meant.

Labradoodle, cockerdoodle, and  Dobermans come to mind.

Inbreeding causes more serious problems; for example, ever try to talk to a Trumpite?


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 18, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> They breed different breeds together to get new species; that's what I meant.
> 
> Labradoodle, cockerdoodle, and  Dobermans come to mind.



And those are healthier then purebreds, generally (although worthy of note technically all dogs are the same origin species, but that's almost arbitrary).

In short, the issues you quoted come from inbreeding genetically similar individuals for a trait.  Breeding dramatically different individuals, if succesful, diversifies genetic code and often helps more than hurts.  This is precisely why mating exists and we don't just clone ourselves.  That and it makes it harder for diseases to "target" us.



Grog6 said:


> Inbreeding causes more serious problems; for example, ever try to talk to a Trumpite?



The Pharoes had serious trouble with it too.  I hear they didn't do so well.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 18, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> Labradoodle, cockerdoodle, and Dobermans come to mind.


Global readjustment and Nature responds with Polar/grizzly hibred ( and they are a Fertile Crossbread )


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 18, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> Global readjustment and Nature responds with Polar/grizzly hibred ( and they are a Fertile Crossbread )



Good example of a "natural" hybrid incident that is happening right before our eyes.  Birth of a new species really.


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 18, 2019)

I wonder how similar the genetic code for the bears are; it seems to me the difference in coat color is a adaptation to the snowfields, and the additional advantage it would give to polar bears.

Grizzlies are well adapted to forest and grassy plains, so I wonder if they were both from an ancestor species that diverged after the last ice age.

Lol. Should have searched Before I speculated...









						Arctic Bears ~ How Grizzlies Evolved into Polar Bears | Nature | PBS
					

The icon of the Arctic, the polar bear, is the ultimate survivor in one of the harshest areas on Earth. Reigning over a world of ice, tundra, and snow,




					www.pbs.org
				




I've got a BIL that lives in Alaska, and hunts; he mentioned the two bears have different hunting philosophies.

A Grizzly bear hunts you when he detects you're on his tail, and you generally first see him coming out of the brush a few yards away. 

A polar bear is quite happy to get ahead of you, circle back, and lie down in the snow and wait for you to walk up to him.

In either case, the important thing is to use a large caliber weapon, and not to miss.

Either scenario is why I'm not a bear hunter, lol; my BIL is just nuts.


----------



## Papahyooie (Sep 18, 2019)

Imagine thinking that a mostly arbitrary, human-made sorting and naming system has any bearing on whether an organism's genetic code is compatible with another's.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 18, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> Imagine thinking that a mostly arbitrary, human-made sorting and naming system has any bearing on whether an organism's genetic code is compatible with another's.



It doesn't.  Evolution actually accounts for that, taxonomy...  not so much.  Humans like to find order even in chaos.


----------



## dirtyferret (Sep 18, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Good example of a "natural" hybrid incident that is happening right before our eyes.  Birth of a new species really.



Another good example are Sharkoon cases.

Remember, this 




Gives you this


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 18, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Another good example are Sharkoon cases.
> 
> Remember, this View attachment 132197
> 
> ...



If that's the case then my daddy is a frog.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 20, 2019)

Methane is in the spotlight again:








						The Climate Hunters
					

Three young women race to defuse a carbon bomb in the Arctic, the fastest-warming place on the planet.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 20, 2019)

When the oceans warm up just a Bit more, methane is going to be a real problem.









						Methane clathrate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The other shoe about to drop is the melting permafrost in the arctic, and especially Russia.









						Oozing Methane Blasts Holes in Siberian Tundra
					

Two newly discovered craters in Siberia appear to have formed recently, suggesting that melting permafrost is having violent repercussions.




					www.livescience.com
				




Methane has a critical mixture with oxygen; when it hit that value, almost anything will make it explode.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 20, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> When the oceans warm up just a Bit more, methane is going to be a real problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm fascinated by the look of that crater wall. Not going to lie.


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 21, 2019)

The roundness is what fucks me up; that shows a shock wave that was symmetric enough to be much stronger than the rock face.

That's a serious explosion.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 21, 2019)

There's a lot more to it than just methane.  The ideal ratio of methane to air is 9%.  I think there has to have been a cavity which partially collapsed allowing air to enter before it sealed shut again.  The weight of the earth on top compressed the methane and air and as the pressure increased, the chance for spontaneous combustion did as well.  Eventually it combusts and the only direction for all those expanding gases to go is up.

What you see in that picture...the black...is charring that happens after the explosion cleared the debris.  The walls are low pressure so the fire lingers...giving it that blackened appearance.  Then it rained and the rain carried some of the dirt on the perimeter back into the hole leaving the brown streaks.

Mythbusters shows how the fire lingers on the perimeter:










The best theory for the loss of aircraft and ships in the Bermuda Triangle is still methane gas release from the ocean floor.  Imagine an aircraft (suffocates the engine) or ship (snaps the hull in two) being above that crater before it blew...


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 21, 2019)

I think you're completely wrong; the methane permeated the undersurface rock, and eventually hits the explosive ratio.
(Not from the top, from below)

There are papers about it.

Scientists write papers, with proofs; idiots think.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 21, 2019)

Then have one:








						Siberian Crater Mystery: Are Exploding Gas Pockets Really to Blame?
					

Thawing permafrost in Siberia may be letting off greenhouse gases, but scientists are skeptical that giant methane explosions are wrecking the landscape.




					www.livescience.com
				





> This methane from decomposition of ancient organic material shouldn't be confused with methane hydrates, which are ice lattices that have methane trapped inside.


Methane hydrates aren't likely to combust forming craters as observed.


> Vasily Bogoyavlensky, a researcher at Moscow's Oil and Gas Research Institute, told the Siberian Times that giant craters observed in Siberia over the past few years could be thermokarsts created when decomposition gases, such as methane, put pressure on the overlying earth, causing dirt-covered ice hills called pingos to explode. But even if the craters are caused by melting permafrost, that mechanism of formation is just speculation, Abbott said.


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 21, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Methane hydrates aren't likely to combust forming craters as observed.



No, methane hydrates only form under pressure, under deep water, which precludes the whole explosion thing.

The blowups in Siberia, are due to methane permeating the underlying structure, before hitting that magic o2 mix.

Blowups Happen.   ( That's also a really nice shortstory)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 21, 2019)

The idea of mammoths (or other large animals) decomposing makes a lot more sense than methane hydrates.  Decomposition that was delayed because of permafrost would create a pressure chamber.  The biological material of the animal is the fuel for the methane to form.  The growing gas bubble can cause a temporary collapse which allows oxygen to enter it, fueling the detonation.  Other than permafrost, the only other prerequisite is the soil composition being suitable to both fuel the decomposition and trap the gases.  Easily explains why there are so many.


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 21, 2019)

Lol.

That's a lot of mammoth carcasses.

If you notice the pic, that's sedimentary rock or clay, the layers show the multiple years it took for formation.

Clay or sedimentary rock is impermeable, so whatever blew it out was under that layer.

These pits test high for methane, but it could have been another gas.

The soil on top is blown there by winds, or washed there by water flows and that much topsoil is at least 20,000 years or so. Depositation rates vary by area.

The mammoth carcasses would be on top of the sediment, not under.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 23, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> The mammoth carcasses would be on top of the sediment, not under.


They wouldn't have suggested that to be the cause if they weren't likely to be found under.  They likely radiocarbon dated the sediment layers where the gas bubble likely was and it matches the time frame large animals could have been present.  The important thing is that they died and then froze (not decompose).  Sediment covered them up over millennia.  Then it warmed--the heat causing the frozen corpse to begin decomposition.  This results in a pressurized methane gas chamber beneath the sealing sediment.  There perhaps may not even be a fire--just explosive decompression.

That's just one theory anyway.  We fundamentally don't know how or when these craters formed.  The concern is that if the craters occurred because of the aforementioned theory, the thawing permafrost may be a minefield and as the permafrost continues to thaw, there may be more and more of these craters forming.


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 23, 2019)

I DO know how sedimentary rock forms, and how topsoil is created.

Apparently, whoever you're quoting does not.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 23, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> Apparently, whoever you're quoting does not.


Do tell.  Remember that these parts of Siberia had glaciers on them.


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 23, 2019)

Glaciers, no. Permafrost, yes.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 23, 2019)

Glaciers, yes.





						Ice Age Maps showing the extent of the ice sheets
					

These maps show the rate at which the ice sheet over the British Isles during the last Ice Age melted. A set of maps created by the University of Sheffield have illustrated, for the first time, how the last British ice sheet shrunk during the Ice Age. Led by Professor Chris Clark from the...



					donsmaps.com
				








Lake Black would become the Black Sea today which is north of Turkey.  For reference:




Siberia was under ice about 100,000 years ago.  Mammoths existed about 5 million years ago to as recently as about 4000 years ago.  That's plenty of time for some to freeze to death and get covered by sediment, then compacted by glaciers into rock.


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 23, 2019)

OK; it you want to go THAT far back, so was North America down to about Kentucky.

Hell, the Great Lakes, the Grand Canyion, and several other features were carved out in That timeframe, lol.

Here in the US, the Tsunami from the Dinosaur extinction event went all the way to Chicago, so WTF.
That was only ~65million years ago, lol.

We don't seem to see those explosions like that here in NA, even tho the permafrost is melting, and we find a lot of mammoths, so I'm going to say this is Whataboutism at it's finest.

It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The big question is; what killed all those mammoths so quickly and froze them so suddenly that they are fresh, and have undigested food in their stomachs?
(People have eaten the flesh, and not died in the past)








						The Time 250,000-Year-Old Mammoth Was Served For Dinner
					

"The grand ballroom of the Roosevelt Hotel won't serve food like that again this year," wrote Herbert B. Nichols in the Christian Science Monitor on January 17, 1951. In fact, it probably hasn't served food like that ever since.




					mentalfloss.com
				



(This article is wrong on the age of the meat; it was closer to 20,000 years, when carbon dated.)

No one believes Vellikovsky.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 23, 2019)

The mammoths came to North America about 200,000 years ago.  The ones causing the craters are older than that.

They likely froze to death on the Siberian plains in a sudden winter storm.


----------



## Grog6 (Sep 24, 2019)

A storm that lasted for 200k years, right. 









						Woolly mammoth - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"The woolly mammoth coexisted with early humans, who used its bones and tusks for making art, tools, and dwellings, and the species was also hunted for food. It disappeared from its mainland range at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 years ago, most likely through climate change and consequent shrinkage of its habitat, hunting by humans, or a combination of the two. Isolated populations survived on St. Paul Island until 5,600 years ago and on Wrangel Island until 4,000 years ago. After its extinction, humans continued using its ivory as a raw material, a tradition that continues today. With a genome project for the mammoth completed in 2015,[2] it has been proposed the species could be recreated through various means, but none of these is yet feasible. "

Amazingly enough, most of the research I'm familiar with is now buried on the internet by Creationist garbage.

If the world is only 6000 years old, why do these sites try to pin it so far back?

Lol.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 24, 2019)

Grog6 said:


> A storm that lasted for 200k years, right.


No, the cold did.  Think about it: the mammoths that came to North America had to have crossed on ice.  That means the ones that were buried to explode today had to have been buried long before that.

Anyway, frozen animals only explain some of the craters, not all of them.  The size of some of the craters is staggering...and still growing.





						There's a 'Doorway to The Underworld' in Siberia So Big It's Uncovered Ancient Forests
					

It's no secret that Siberia's permafrost is on thin ice.




					www.sciencealert.com
				





UN convened on climate again:








						'You have stolen my dreams,' an angry Thunberg tells U.N. climate summit
					

Teenage activist Greta Thunberg angrily denounced world leaders on Monday for failing to tackle climate change, unleashing the outrage felt by millions of her peers in the heart of the United Nations by demanding: "How dare you?"




					www.reuters.com
				





> Nevertheless, there were few new proposals from governments for the kind of rapid change climate scientists say is now needed to avert devastating impacts from warming. The summit has, by contrast, been marked by a flurry of pledges from business, pension funds, insurers and banks to do more.













						IEA rings alarm bell on phasing out nuclear energy
					

A steep decline in nuclear energy capacity will threaten climate goals and power supply security unless advanced economies find a way to extend the lifespan of their reactors, the International Energy Agency said.




					www.reuters.com
				











						Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report
					

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 14, 2019)

This might be counter-productive...








						Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action
					

Almost 400 scientists have endorsed a civil disobedience campaign aimed at forcing governments to take rapid action to tackle climate change, warning that failure could inflict "incalculable human suffering."




					www.reuters.com


----------



## robot zombie (Oct 15, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This might be counter-productive...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



“We need to be rethinking the role of the scientist and engage with how social change happens at a massive and urgent scale,” she said. “We can’t allow science as usual.”

Not sure what century they think they're in. She talks about it like we're in the literal dark ages. Also, this woman thinks she knows what science is and is not better than anyone else. In her mind, it has to be more than empiricism, rationalism, or skepticism... you know... observation, rigor, and application of knowledge. Including political activism definitely seems grounded... yep... definitely not a huge leap in rationale there.

I think by the time you're making claims like that, you're better off calling what you're doing something else... no? Or maybe you tack it on. I think in most people's eyes, you're no longer acting strictly as a scientist. You're activists with a science-centric ideology. Historically, science and activism have occasionally aligned with great strides made, usually in times of great oppression, but I don't think anyone ever claimed the activism itself WAS science. It was just FOR science. The goal wasn't necessarily to revolutionize science. Just open up a path for it, as it already existed.

And honestly, it's probably better if scientists stay dedicated to following the science. Civil disobedience, we've learned generally doesn't "bolster legitimacy" in these times. In spite of the goings on over on the internet these days, mob rule is still frowned upon, probably due to the storied history of collateral damage. That alone is probably going to lose the trust of anyone even slightly conservative. Though proposing justifications for undermining the government is a slippery slope no matter where you stand. Due process isn't perfect, but most people agree it is better than tribalism.

I'm still trying to figure out the meaning behind the vague statement "We can't allow science as usual." Not even sure what to say about that.

I dunno... maybe there are good intentions. And maybe it'll work out. But from where I stand it just comes off as sort of detached. Or maybe too fixated on the wrong things. The conforming majority is going to say these are the claims staked by crazy people. Just those two statements have a lot to bite into.

Counter-productive, to be sure...


----------



## oobymach (Oct 15, 2019)

The sun is the only thing in our solar system large enough to affect earths climate. Manmade climate change is a lie designed to sell more taxes. Scientists in the 70's used the exact same data to "prove" we were going into another ice age. Anyone who believes in manmade climate change likely also still believes in santa claus. Co2 makes plants grow, they use it to make oxygen.

google co2 generators for greenhouses


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 15, 2019)

The problem is this:




We're adding more by burning fossil fuels than the environment can take out and we've been doing this for decades which has an additive effect.  There is now ~50% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was pre-industrial era.  We have to go back over 100s of millions of years in the geological record to find a time when CO2 was this high.


----------



## Mats (Oct 15, 2019)

oobymach said:


> Co2 makes plants grow, they use it to make oxygen.
> 
> google co2 generators for greenhouses


Nice find, as if we didn't already know that. I learned that in school when I was 11 or so.



oobymach said:


> The sun is the only thing in our solar system large enough to affect earths climate.


You forgot the atmosphere, just to name one other thing.


----------



## oobymach (Oct 15, 2019)

Mats said:


> Nice find, as if we didn't already know that. I learned that in school when I was 11 or so.
> 
> You forgot the atmosphere, just to name one other thing.


It seems most people don't know plants turn co2 into oxygen.

The atmosphere can't change our climate. The only force in our solar system other than the sun that can affect our climate is the lack thereof. If a supervolcano erupts and causes nuclear winter, that will affect our climate, but short of a supervolcano blacking out the sky of the entire planet, no, we are not changing the climate.

If people are alive in china, we're fine. China is the worst polluter around, and they're still alive and thriving so again, no, we aren't changing our climate. We may be polluting the oceans beyond repair, we may be irradiating ourselves with uncontained leaks like fukushima and causing oceanic disasters like the BP oil spill (and continual pipeline ruptures leaking millions of gallons into rivers from every fucking oil pipeline they build), we may be stupid enough to bomb ourselves into the stoneage but no, we're not changing the climate.

The ONLY force that can affect our climate is the sun. See spaceweather.com for live solar updates.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 15, 2019)

Watch this:








Shows how much the level of CO2 changes every year.


----------



## oobymach (Oct 15, 2019)

If there's too much co2, why do greenhouses need more? Because your data is falsified (everything that comes from NASA (a government institution) is pre-approved for public consumption, kind of like how CNN or FOX NEWS puts their own spin on everything), and everything you are told is a lie to control you.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 15, 2019)

oobymach said:


> It seems most people don't know plants turn co2 into oxygen.



I guess if you subscribe to the idea that manmade climate change is only for idiots, sure.  Unfortunately for you it's really not that simple.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 15, 2019)

oobymach said:


> The atmosphere can't change our climate.


The atmosphere literally establishes climate.  Why are mountain tops barren, for example? Because the atmosphere is too thin to support life.  Why is Mars cold and lifeless? Because it's atmosphere is thin, dry, cold, and mostly comprised of CO2.



oobymach said:


> The only force in our solar system other than the sun that can affect our climate is the lack thereof.


The sun is an energy source.



oobymach said:


> If a supervolcano erupts and causes nuclear winter, that will affect our climate, but short of a supervolcano blacking out the sky of the entire planet, no, we are not changing the climate.


What do you think coal power plants belching out particulate matter do? Block the sun.



oobymach said:


> If there's too much co2, why do greenhouses need more?


Because the high density of plants causes the CO2 to be removed from the enclosed environment rapidly which means plants downwind get starved of it.  If you watch the video, you see huge amounts of CO2 removed from the atmosphere during the spring for a lot of it to get dumped back in during the fall as leaves fall off of trees and decompose and crops are harvested leaving debris to decompose.

Let's also not forget that too much CO2 is a bad thing for some plants too:





						Climate Change: Plants Choke on too Much Carbon
					

It looks like even for plants, there can be too much of a good thing. Trees and flowers use carbon dioxide (CO2) to make energy, absorbing the gas to help fuel the process of photosynthesis. For this reason, some experts have theorized that rising carbon levels will eventually promote plant...




					www.natureworldnews.com
				





> Sample crops, grasslands, and forests all seemed to lose some ability to absorb nutrients when exposed to rising CO2 levels in large-scale field experiments held in eight countries across four continents.
> 
> "The findings of the study are unequivocal. The nitrogen content in the crops is reduced in atmospheres with raised carbon dioxide levels in all three ecosystem types," Johan Uddling, a researcher with the University of Gothenburg, said in a statement.


This is why atmospheric CO2 continues to climb.  The plants and oceans are doing all they can and it is not enough.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 15, 2019)

oobymach said:


> If there's too much co2, why do greenhouses need more?



I think you really misunderstand there is a massive difference between a greenhouse and the earth.


----------



## oobymach (Oct 15, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> I think you really misunderstand there is a massive difference between a greenhouse and the earth.


Dur hurr, one is bigger than the other, and if it's true that we have too much co2, plant life everywhere would be thriving without needing even more co2. What I'm saying is that all the information you've been given on the subject is wrong. If there were too much co2 we would all suffocate. Since we're not all suffocating then there's no way we're producing enough co2 to harm the planet.

Since we cannot even at full capacity produce enough co2 to harm the planet or ourselves or even slightly affect our own climate I submit that your claims are false.

Hell, people believe in chemtrails and that the earth is flat, it's no wonder we have people that believe everything they're told from television (tell-lie-vision).

Also, NASA (your friendly government institution) has been lying to you for the last 50 years, why would they suddenly tell you the truth now?



> The funniest part about this post is that whoever made it is unfamiliar with 4th grade science. Many millions of years ago when there was a lot more CO2 in the air and the planet was much warmer, flowers much larger than you see today were blooming. Give a plant (hemp, for example) lots of CO2 and put it under heat lamps, and see what happens. It will thrive. Basic elementary school stuff here, people.



My point exactly, we aren't breaking temperature records every day, Florida last winter got so cold iguanas were falling frozen from the trees, we are far from being overrun by giant plants, it's human nature to panic when presented with the falsities we are now force fed on a daily basis.

Any fool can use photoshop to turn the jetstream red and red makes people panic (because the military uses red alert as the highest alert phase, it is ingrained in most normal humans). In 50 years when nothing has happened I'll be here in my robot body saying I told you so.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 15, 2019)

oobymach said:


> Dur hurr, one is bigger than the other



Yeah, and a lot of other things.  A greenhouse is literally a glass box with plants in it...  The earth is a functional system.



oobymach said:


> What I'm saying is that all the information you've been given on the subject is wrong.



Frankly, you've demonstrated no understanding of the issue to be making claims like that.



oobymach said:


> If there were too much co2 we would all suffocate.



There was a good experiment on this called diesel submarines.  The levels required to kill people are signifigantly higher than the planets present climate can sustain.


----------



## Mats (Oct 15, 2019)

oobymach said:


> If there's too much co2, why do greenhouses need more? Because your data is falsified (everything that comes from NASA (a government institution) is pre-approved for public consumption, kind of like how CNN or FOX NEWS puts their own spin on everything), and everything you are told is a lie to control you.


Greenhouses are designed to grow plants as fast as possible (in most cases), you have a fairly controlled environment in a limited volume, where profit is the main focus.
The atmosphere, on the other hand, is several km high all around the planet. Changing the composition of the atmosphere can have severe consequences for all life on earth. I don't know how much CO2 is needed for plants, but I do understand that plants can't benefit from CO2 that isn't nearby, ie way up in the atmosphere where CO2 indirectly heats up the earth.

A good example is the ozone layer, which is NOT caused by the sun, and the damages we've seen through the years are NOT caused by the sun either. Still, the thinness of the ozone layer is a real problem in parts of the world that are right beneath it, like Australia.

Dunno why you limit yourself to NASA/CNN/FOX. If you don't believe in them, look elsewhere. (NOT youtube..   )



oobymach said:


> I


You say:
*The plants needs CO2. There's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, but the plants will absorb that, no matter how high up it is.*

An analogy would be:
*The humans needs water. The sky is way too cloudy, and clouds are water. Let's drink more tap water, it will bring the sunshine back!!!?*



oobymach said:


> If there were too much co2 we would all suffocate.


You compare apples to oranges. How much CO2 humans/animals can withstand have nothing to do with how much CO2 the atmosphere can have without altering the temperatures of the earth in a bad way.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 15, 2019)

Mats said:


> The plants needs CO2. There's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, but the plants will absorb that, no matter how high up it is.


No They will not !!!!!!!!!!!!
Plants thrive on a CO2 Rich Enviorment   BUT IF THE CONCENTRATION GETS TOO HIGH   ITS TOXIC


----------



## Mats (Oct 15, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> No They will not !!!!!!!!!!!!


Easy, I wasn't trying to actually say that. Read again.


----------



## Assimilator (Oct 15, 2019)

oobymach said:


> Dur hurr, one is bigger than the other, and if it's true that we have too much co2, plant life everywhere would be thriving without needing even more co2. What I'm saying is that all the information you've been given on the subject is wrong. If there were too much co2 we would all suffocate. Since we're not all suffocating then there's no way we're producing enough co2 to harm the planet.
> 
> Since we cannot even at full capacity produce enough co2 to harm the planet or ourselves or even slightly affect our own climate I submit that your claims are false.
> 
> ...



I can't tell if you're really this stupid or just a really poor troll.


----------



## oobymach (Oct 16, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> No They will not !!!!!!!!!!!!
> Plants thrive on a CO2 Rich Enviorment   BUT IF THE CONCENTRATION GETS TOO HIGH   ITS TOXIC


There was a lake in China that nobody lived near for thousands of years. One day a family settled there and after a few generations there were about 1000 people living near this lake. The lake was carbonated from lave underneath and one night it let loose all the co2 it was storing suffocating everyone nearby in their sleep.

My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep. Since we're not, and since there's no way we can do what that carbonated lake did, we're fine, stop worrying about it and either get used to the idea that you're wrong or simply live on in misinformed ignorance, I don't care.

* cough * CIA ADMITS USING MSM TO DISTRIBUTE DISINFORMATION

* ahemahem * Inside Operation Mockingbird — The CIA’s Plan To Infiltrate The Media

* cough * The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know

Sorry, just clearing my throat. Everything you know is a lie. You have been lied to since birth to conform to an unfair system of slavery.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 16, 2019)

oobymach said:


> There was a lake in China that nobody lived near for thousands of years. One day a family settled there and after a few generations there were about 1000 people living near this lake. The lake was carbonated from lave underneath and one night it let loose all the co2 it was storing suffocating everyone nearby in their sleep.


It's carbon monoxide (CO) that kills in relation to lava gases more so than anything else.  Carbon monoxide, in small doses, displaces oxygen making it extremely toxic.  It's the same gas that kills in regards to natural gas/propane in houses and exposure to internal combustion engine exhaust.



oobymach said:


> My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep.


The air is principally nitrogen.  CO2 is measured in the parts per million.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 16, 2019)

oobymach said:


> There was a lake in China that nobody lived near for thousands of years. One day a family settled there and after a few generations there were about 1000 people living near this lake. The lake was carbonated from lave underneath and one night it let loose all the co2 it was storing suffocating everyone nearby in their sleep.


And there are lakes in Africa  where this is a Regular occurance People still live in the area as its extremely fertile.

CO2 kills animal Life at levels well below what Plants can Tolerate


----------



## oobymach (Oct 16, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's carbon monoxide (CO) that kills in relation to lava gases more so than anything else.  Carbon monoxide, in small doses, displaces oxygen making it extremely toxic.  It's the same gas that kills in regards to natural gas/propane in houses and exposure to internal combustion engine exhaust.
> 
> The air is principally nitrogen.  CO2 is measured in the parts per million.


Yes, carbon monoxide may have been the culprit in the Chinese lake story as it does displace air especially when concentrated.




dorsetknob said:


> And there are lakes in Africa  where this is a Regular occurance People still live in the area as its extremely fertile.
> 
> CO2 kills animal Life at levels well below what Plants can Tolerate


Also yes but in lakes where it is a regular occurrence concentrations are much lower where the Chinese lake sat presumably for a long time before the fatal release occurred. And of course plants can tolerate much higher levels of co2 than animal life but we're not making nearly enough of it to harm ourselves.

The atmosphere is a massive ocean of air, if it were only 6 feet deep and constrained to that depth then yes, it might be possible to produce toxic amounts of co2 in certain places like high traffic motorways but it dissipates and settles and is absorbed by all manner of plant life. Even if you seal yourself in an airtight room you won't suffocate for days (co2 will kill you before you run out of oxygen). The first submariners died sealed in a wooden sub (Roman era?), the first of its kind, presumably from co2 due to multiple people in a tight sealed space.

I'm not saying it can't kill you, I'm saying we can't produce enough of it for it to be a problem.



Mats said:


> Greenhouses are designed to grow plants as fast as possible (in most cases), you have a fairly controlled environment in a limited volume, where profit is the main focus.
> The atmosphere, on the other hand, is several km high all around the planet. Changing the composition of the atmosphere can have severe consequences for all life on earth. I don't know how much CO2 is needed for plants, but I do understand that plants can't benefit from CO2 that isn't nearby, ie way up in the atmosphere where CO2 indirectly heats up the earth.
> 
> A good example is the ozone layer, which is NOT caused by the sun, and the damages we've seen through the years are NOT caused by the sun either. Still, the thinness of the ozone layer is a real problem in parts of the world that are right beneath it, like Australia.
> ...


The hole in the ozone was above Canada for a long time and nothing bad happened because of it. Sure there were fearmongers trying to incite panic but nobody died from it, temperature didn't change because of it. The only thing it negatively impacted was our upper atmosphere radiation absorption.

Co2 is a heavy gas, it settles on the ground. I learned this when I was a child.

Your argument makes you look like you're uneducated, or severely misinformed.


----------



## Mats (Oct 16, 2019)

oobymach said:


> My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep.


Nobody said we will suffocate from CO2, that's not the issue here.



oobymach said:


> The hole in the ozone was above Canada for a long time and nothing bad happened because of it. Sure there were fearmongers trying to incite panic but nobody died from it, temperature didn't change because of it. The only thing it negatively impacted was our upper atmosphere radiation absorption.
> 
> Co2 is a heavy gas, it settles on the ground. I learned this when I was a child.


The risk of getting skin cancer rises when the ozone layer is thinner because people get exposed to more UV light. UV light is the number one cause of skin cancer, this is a well known fact.
The temperature doesn't rise because of that AFAIK, dunno where you got that from.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than air, but the wind and other factors causes it to rise. Water is also heavier than air, but still you have enormous amounts of water in clouds, way above the much lighter air.

Fortunately, you are the uneducated one here.

*You still believe that the amount of CO2 we can withstand is a measure of how much CO2 we can have in the atmosphere before the planet gets too hot - which is two different things.*


Maybe you should join a flat earth forum instead, I'm sure they will agree with you.


----------



## oobymach (Oct 16, 2019)

Mats said:


> Nobody said we will suffocate from CO2, that's not the issue here.
> 
> 
> The risk of getting skin cancer rises when the ozone layer is thinner because people get exposed to more UV light. UV light is the number one cause of skin cancer, this is a well known fact.
> ...


The risk of getting skin cancer rises when the solar output (aka solar wind) goes from 600kps @ 0-1 protons per cubic centimeter density to 300kps @ 10-1000 protons per cubic centimeter density. That is what changes earths weather, that is what gives people heat stroke, not co2.  See spaceweather.com for live solar updates.

There are no ties to earths temperature and co2, believing otherwise makes you look foolish. As I pointed out earlier Florida froze last year, where is your precious co2 argument for Florida experiencing actual winter weather last year, when presumably the co2 level was roughly the same as it is now.

Again, it's impossible for humans to affect earths climate, even if we all one day decide to start burning styrofoam, old computers, and plastic all day every day like China does, we will not affect earths climate. The ONLY thing that can is the sun, and if you can't figure that out you've not much of an education imo.

For the record the sun is a hydrogen-helium fusion star weighing in at 1.989 × 10^30 kg with a continual output of 384.6 yotta watts and it is the ONLY thing that can affect earths climate. Turn it off and we all freeze to death.

Also the medieval warm period guaranteed wasn't caused by co2, because the makeup of the gases in our atmosphere doesn't matter to the sun.


----------



## Assimilator (Oct 17, 2019)

oobymach said:


> There was a lake in China that nobody lived near for thousands of years. One day a family settled there and after a few generations there were about 1000 people living near this lake. The lake was carbonated from lave underneath and one night it let loose all the co2 it was storing suffocating everyone nearby in their sleep.
> 
> My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep. Since we're not, and since there's no way we can do what that carbonated lake did, we're fine, stop worrying about it and either get used to the idea that you're wrong or simply live on in misinformed ignorance, I don't care.
> 
> ...



I apologise for calling you stupid. It was unnecessary, since it's implied by the tinfoil hat you're wearing.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 17, 2019)

oobymach said:


> My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep



You don't need it at literally toxic levels to melt glaciers.

No comment on the rest....  you didn't even get the location of the toxic lake right.


----------



## oobymach (Oct 18, 2019)

*sigh*

Since I'm up against a hippy bandwagon it's clear I'll not be opening anyone's eyes here anytime soon.

In 1859 the Carrington event melted the telegraph wires. Guess what wasn't the culprit then? You guessed it, co2. The sun is and has always been the ONLY effector of earths climate. The only people who believe otherwise are Al Gore and the bong water brigade, and since you seem to belong to that group I'll just leave you to it. Have fun believing your lies and disinformation.

"But the co2 is changing the planet man."

No it isn't you damn hippy, put the bong down and stop believing everything you watch and read on the internet.

*drops mic*


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Oct 18, 2019)

"cough, smog, cough", now sit your arse down. Not particularly personal.
Surely I'd trade places with you if air quality is better where you is or if not me , maybe an asian living in a densely populated capital from East and far East Asia.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 18, 2019)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> "cough, smog, cough", now sit your arse down. Not particularly personal.





oobymach said:


> The sun is and has always been the ONLY effector of earths climate. The only people who believe otherwise are Al Gore and the bong water brigade,


hick-up burp followed by methane Fart.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Documented Evidence of Volcanic Atmospheric contamination and Fall out  Causing Global Cooling
and yeh Scientists are mulling the idea of Aresol particles to induce man made Global cooling.

this is Nature's version of Nuclear Winter (have you heard of that!!!)





__





						Volcanic winter - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

oobymach said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Since I'm up against a hippy bandwagon it's clear I'll not be opening anyone's eyes here anytime soon.
> 
> ...


It's really very simple science.  We have a large variety of sensors which detect:
1) Rising CO2





2) Rising CH4





3) Rising N2O





4) Rising SF6





5) Sun spots





6) Rising temperature





Explain all of these points together, cohesively.

In science, there's only one way to upset the status quo: provide an alternative hypothesis.  You like to blame the sun, well, #5 + #6 rapidly dismisses that claim: you can see the solar cycle having a +/- effect on the temperature but the upward trend isn't explained by the sun.

There's only one logical explanation: man is trashing the troposphere.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Oct 18, 2019)

One famuos example that's not in a good light wich came to mind, was the 2008 Beijing olimpics because it was highly covered. I knew about the smog prior to that but I atributed it to some whether phenomenon I have yet to learn about, allthewhyle wishfully thinking it's not man made, because it can't be, ah, so childish.


----------



## witkazy (Oct 18, 2019)

The average *human* exhales about 2.3 pounds of *carbon dioxide* on an average day. (The exact quantity depends on your activity level—a *person* engaged in vigorous exercise *produces* up to eight times as *much* CO2 as his sedentary brethren.) That's it ,i quit workin out ,for future of mankind and planet of course


----------



## oobymach (Oct 18, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Explain all of these points together, cohesively.


I have an apple and an orange, both grew bigger over time therefore the apple made the orange grow.

Implying correlation between 2 things that aren't really related at all just because someone else told you is not very scientific. If the temperature is rising the sun is to blame. Not the friggin gas in the atmosphere. Light passes through gas unchanged, SOLAR WIND on the other hand can make the sun feel 10 times hotter because solar wind density goes from 0-1 particles per cubic centimeter @ 600kps to 5-1000 ppcc @ 300kps. Generally on a bad day it hovers between 5 and 14 for the entire day, but trying to explain this to a monkey with it's head buried in the dirt getting raped by its government isn't getting me anywhere.

YOUR GOVERNMENT USES THE MEDIA TO MISINFORM YOU, ABOUT EVERYTHING, MSM INCLUDED, YOUTUBE INCLUDED, BLOGS INCLUDED, EVERYTHING YOU READ OR HEAR EVERY DAY IS LIKELY JUST WELL CRAFTED LIES TO MANIPULATE YOU INTO BELIEVING FALSITIES BECAUSE WHEN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BELIEVE NOTHING BUT LIES OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD WORKED AND THEY HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER YOU.

There, I tried again.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

oobymach said:


> Implying correlation between 2 things that aren't really related at all just because someone else told you is not very scientific.


All four gases I referenced are greenhouse gases:








						Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA
					

Information on emissions and removals of the main greenhouse gases to and from the atmosphere.




					www.epa.gov
				




We know how humans are adding them to the environment (why they're trending up):








						Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA
					

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.




					www.epa.gov
				




We know how greenhouse gases work to stabilize atmospheric temperature:





						Greenhouse Gases | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
					

Greenhouse Gases




					www.ncdc.noaa.gov
				




We also know that warming (1C over the past 50 years) means there's more energy held in the troposphere which means the air holds more of the elephant in the room (water vapor):




__





						NASA -  Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
					





					www.nasa.gov
				




Translation: it's been getting hotter and while keep getting hotter until we reverse course in regards to greenhouse gases.




oobymach said:


> If the temperature is rising the sun is to blame. Not the friggin gas in the atmosphere.


The sun is not getting hotter but the atmosphere is.  Think of it like a cold winter night, the difference between a light sheet and a heavy blanket.  The amount of heat emanating from your body is more or less the same but the heavy blanket is a more effective insulator causing heat retention.  Now picture the Earth instead of you and adding more greenhouse gases is like throwing more layers of blankets on the planet.  What's going to happen?  Less heat escapes; surface temperature gets warmer.



oobymach said:


> There, I tried again.


Not very hard.  Basically just threw whataboutisms out there.  This isn't rocket science and the body of evidence in support of anthropomorphic ("caused by humans") warming grows with every passing year.  The amount of evidence contradicting the theory is dwindling to almost nonexistent.  There's not much the theory doesn't explain from methane releases in the arctic to changes in ocean conveyors to jet stream instability.  Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experimentation = Scientific Method; the very same process that enable us to communicate the way we are right now.  Alarm is growing in the scientific community because most of the bad things that were theorized to happen are happening faster than expected (like permafrost thawing).  It's like seeing water leak through the wall of a dam: a precursor to dam failure.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 18, 2019)

oobymach said:


> YOUR GOVERNMENT USES THE MEDIA TO MISINFORM YOU,


Errrmm you Goverment Sponsered ??? Because when no one accepts your propaganda you resort to Shouting ( that's a political and morons response ).



oobymach said:


> , but trying to explain this to a monkey with it's head buried in the dirt


Cage Politics...................pass the Bananas please


----------



## Papahyooie (Oct 18, 2019)

To Oobymach, I don't subscribe to anthropomorphic global warming theories either (or at least not in the catastrophic sense), but your entire argument is garbage lol. You suppose that if there was too much CO2, we would all die of asphyxiation. Yet you're tying together two things that are entirely unrelated. The amount of CO2 it would take to cause global warming (if any) is not related to the amount of CO2 it would take to asphyxiate a human in any way. They are not necessarily the same value, and you're equating them. There is nothing scientific, anywhere, that necessitates these two values to be even close to each other. You're making a ridiculously huge fallacious assumption that CO2 cannot cause climate effects in concentrations lower than would kill a human. As I said... I don't even believe in anthropomorphic global warming, but that's a ridiculous claim.

Just an olive branch to the warmers, from the non-warmers... we don't claim him.

As for the rest of the recent thread, I've said it multiple times before, so there isn't much point in going into it again. But since someone will inevitably ask me why I don't believe the anthropomorphic global warming theories, for those unwilling to scroll back, Ford's graphs lack the context of time. There have been higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, higher temperatures, and more drastic temperature swings, before humans even existed. Zoom those graphs out to include a longer time period and the recent uptick is no longer anomalous. In fact, rises in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere tend to lag behind temperature swings. This suggests that if there IS a causal relationship, that temperature rises cause an increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, not the other way around. Also, the global warming proponents have a nasty history of using "creative" data modeling techniques to make things look worse than they are. The infamous "hockey stick" graphs are only one example. The "97% of scientists agree" is also a bit misleading.

Don't @ me, read the thread.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> ...Ford's graphs lack the context of time.


#1-4 are observations at that specific location (Mauna Loa).  CO2 has the most data because it was built by NOAA to monitor emissions of volcanic gases.  In that same data, they noticed the trend of CO2 rising even when the volcano had no change.  Realizing this wasn't just a fluke, they expanded the site to also measure CH4 in the early 80s.  The two combined lead to the first...well...scare...that we may be heading for something bad.  It lead to the creation of the IPCC and several climate studies.  These studies eventually exposed CFCs as being bad for ozone, among other things, which resulted in SF6 being added to instrumentation in the mid 1990s.  Then the bat-shit crazy phase was entered with Al Gore and the IPCC in the late 1990s which resulted in N2O monitoring being added in the early 2000s.

#5 are also observations taken by satellites and telescopes which the facility in Boulder, Colorado, collates and reports on.

#6 is the only graph that includes observations and modeled data.  If you want the best data... here you go:




UAH = University of Alabama in Huntsville which uses a variety of satellite measurements to infer surface temperature.
RSS = Remote Sensing System satellites which use microwaves to measure atmospheric temperature.

As you can see...all are in agreement of warming.  Which makes sense considering CO2, CH4, N20, and SF6 are rising too (all observations since the 1960s).



Papahyooie said:


> There have been higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, higher temperatures, and more drastic temperature swings, before humans even existed.


Millions of years ago:




That last is kind of the point: when CO2 was this high before, humans didn't exist.  We're already in untested waters.

Note the bottom of that picture versus the CO2 level above--associates CO2 with glaciation.  You can always reference this website to see what we're at now:





						Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
					

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.



					www.esrl.noaa.gov
				



408.54 ppm is the September average.

Glaciers generally don't exist above ~500 ppm. It was about 310 ppm in 1920.  In another century, we may cross 500 ppm which could translate to no more glaciers. A century. The children born today may see the day that glaciers don't exist.  If that isn't a wake up call, what is?



Papahyooie said:


> The infamous "hockey stick" graphs are only one example.


Because it's true, CH4 is 300% higher than it was for millennia before and CO2 is ~150% higher than it was.  You graph these trends and it turns into a hockey stick.  Guess what's also a hockey stick.  Human population:




Coincidence?  Probably.  Humans rely heavily on mechanization which is principally powered by compounding oxygen into carbon dioxide for energy.  Hell, we couldn't sustain that population without mechanization.


I was a skeptic too (which @magibeg can attest to) but, the evidence has become overwhelming in support of anthropomorphic warming in the last decade.  I can find no other reasonable explanation despite years of trying.  Sure, there's still question marks on some things like clouds but what needs to be done about it all comes back to one in the same: curb emissions.

I am not fatalist by any means.  I think a large number of humans will survive whatever results from it.  It's not like an asteroid or super volcano eruption.  What concerns me is how many other species will we lose on the way; they can't adapt as fast as we can.


----------



## Papahyooie (Oct 18, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> #1-4 are observations at that specific location (Mauna Loa).  CO2 has the most data because it was built by NOAA to monitor emissions of volcanic gases.  In that same data, they noticed the trend of CO2 rising even when the volcano had no change.  Realizing this wasn't just a fluke, they expanded the site to also measure CH4 in the early 80s.  The two combined lead to the first...well...scare...that we may be heading for something bad.  It lead to the creation of the IPCC and several climate studies.  These studies eventually exposed CFCs as being bad for ozone, among other things, which resulted in SF6 being added to instrumentation in the mid 1990s.  Then the bat-shit crazy phase was entered with Al Gore and the IPCC in the late 1990s which resulted in N2O monitoring being added in the early 2000s.
> 
> #5 are also observations taken by satellites and telescopes which the facility in Boulder, Colorado, collates and reports on.
> 
> ...




Once again, you're lacking time. From your own source:




We're currently at a similar level as it was 2.5 million years ago. There was no human industrial revolution 2.5 million years ago. 25 to 45 million years ago, concentrations were 2-10 times higher than they are today.

If the earth can do this without ANY human intervention whatsoever, humanity's TINY contribution that won't even register as a visible change on the larger timescales, will not cause, nor stop, global warming. The globe is absolutely warming. And it will do so regardless of what humans do or do not do. The current changes in CO2 concentrations and temperature are not anomalous. I've no doubt that humans will kill themselves off in myriad other ways... but anthropomorphic global warming is not one of them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> We're currently at a similar level as it was 2.5 million years ago. There was no human industrial revolution 2.5 million years ago. 25 to 45 million years ago, concentrations were 2-10 times higher than they are today.


What mother nature did over millennia, humans did in 100 years; that's kind of the point: there's no natural explanation for the rapid change.



Papahyooie said:


> If the earth can do this without ANY human intervention whatsoever, humanity's TINY contribution that won't even register as a visible change on the larger timescales, will not cause, nor stop, global warming.


Realize that the Rocky Mountains didn't even exist until 55-80 million years ago.  Yes, Earth has undergone catastrophic natural changes in the past but what we're observing now isn't natural.

What's "tiny" about introducing billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year?






Scientific America tries to put the amount into context (hint: it's staggering):








						The Crazy Scale of Human Carbon Emission
					

Want some perspective on how much carbon dioxide human activity produces? Here it is




					blogs.scientificamerican.com


----------



## Papahyooie (Oct 18, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> What mother nature did over millennia, humans did in 100 years; that's kind of the point: there's no natural explanation for the rapid change.
> 
> What's "tiny" about introducing billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year?



Except we didn't. The changes we see today have happened time and again, with no human intervention whatsoever. What nature did over millennia is literally ten times more drastic than what humans have done. What's "tiny" about it, is that our contribution as a species in it's entirety doesn't even register as a visible change. (I realize it's not on that graph, but even if it was on that graph, it wouldn't be perceptible.) In fact, in 1960 we were well below the average for the past 5 million years, at 320 ppm. The recent spike upward to 400ppm literally only brings us up to the median for that time period.

What did nature do over millennia? Easy. Let's take the top and the bottom of the graph. A high of approx 2250 ppm, and a low of approx 250 ppm, just eyeballing. For a difference of 2000ppm. That's a total swing of 2000 ppm over 45 million years. From 1960 to 2019 (you chose the data, not me) we've got a high of 410 ppm and a low of (I'll give you) 310. For a difference of 100ppm. A total swing of 100ppm. The earth has made swings of 2000ppm with no human intervention whatsoever. Versus our measly 100ppm. And I'll throw this out there too, if I be generous and add data back to 800k years, it only gives humans another 100ppm to work with, which is several times longer than the entire history of modern humanity.

So 200 ppm total swing (SWING, not "rise") since modern humans first walked the earth. Against 2000 ppm total swing that the Earth managed without a single human in existence.

Your claim that humans did in 100 years what nature did over millennia is patently, mathematically false.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 18, 2019)

I think this topic has run its course. It is now a partisan argument over who is right or wrong - no matter what the scientific consensus is. We are changing our planet - that is undeniable - those who do are denying the facts delivered through steady systematic approaches. Graphs given to prove otherwise are irrelevant as they are picked by those in the vast minority. Simply put- the statistics do not back the naysayers.

Regardless, CO2 is the cherry. Soil fertility is the bigger issue, followed, and linked, with water resources and finally, our massive garbage problem. No other species has created as much toxic, or unnatural waste--ever. The climate change argument is great but it detracts from everything else we're doing to make a tremendous mess of our natural resources. Go us - we suck.


----------



## Papahyooie (Oct 18, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> I think this topic has run its course. It is now a partisan argument over who is right or wrong - no matter what the scientific consensus is. We are changing our planet - that is undeniable - those who do are denying the facts delivered through steady systematic approaches. Graphs given to prove otherwise are irrelevant as they are picked by those in the vast minority. Simply put- the statistics do not back the naysayers.



Except I used Ford's graphs, from his sources (got the one I posted from the same article he got his from)

So... yea. Good try.


----------



## Bones (Oct 18, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> I think this topic has run its course. It is now a partisan argument over who is right or wrong - no matter what the scientific consensus is. We are changing our planet - that is undeniable - those who do are denying the facts delivered through steady systematic approaches. Graphs given to prove otherwise are irrelevant as they are picked by those in the vast minority. Simply put- the statistics do not back the naysayers.
> 
> Regardless, CO2 is the cherry. Soil fertility is the bigger issue, followed, and linked, with water resources and finally, our massive garbage problem. No other species has created as much toxic, or unnatural waste--ever. The climate change argument is great but it detracts from everything else we're doing to make a tremendous mess of our natural resources. Go us - we suck.


We are changing it but not to the extent being portrayed.

Blaming it all on one singular thing is inaccurate, too may factors in play that can and do affect it for any singular source to be blamed save the sun itself, that itself being a huge thing.
I'm sorry but the science says we are doing this ourselves and ourselves alone is made up BS to push a certain someone's agenda (Al Gore).... Just a few years ago (About 25+ or so) climate change supporters said NYC would be underwater by now but it isn't and it's still a very long ways off from being so.
Here's an article about it: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10...climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

I _do_ however say it's a good idea to take care of what we have because it makes sense to do so but I'm not going along with this belief as it's stated.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> Except we didn't. The changes we see today have happened time and again, with no human intervention whatsoever. What nature did over millennia is literally ten times more drastic than what humans have done. What's "tiny" about it, is that our contribution as a species in it's entirety doesn't even register as a visible change. (I realize it's not on that graph, but even if it was on that graph, it wouldn't be perceptible.) In fact, in 1960 we were well below the average for the past 5 million years, at 320 ppm. The recent spike upward to 400ppm literally only brings us up to the median for that time period.
> 
> What did nature do over millennia? Easy. Let's take the top and the bottom of the graph. A high of approx 2250 ppm, and a low of approx 250 ppm, just eyeballing. For a difference of 2000ppm. That's a total swing of 2000 ppm over 45 million years. From 1960 to 2019 (you chose the data, not me) we've got a high of 410 ppm and a low of (I'll give you) 310. For a difference of 100ppm. A total swing of 100ppm. The earth has made swings of 2000ppm with no human intervention whatsoever. Versus our measly 100ppm. And I'll throw this out there too, if I be generous and add data back to 800k years, it only gives humans another 100ppm to work with, which is several times longer than the entire history of modern humanity.
> 
> ...


Why do you think they excluded the last 400,000 years? Let's try:








						400,000 Years of Carbon Dioxide
					

Atmospheric CO2 has reached a concentration unseen for more than 400,000 years, up 33% in the last century.




					www.climatecentral.org
				








Slap the two together lining up the graphs and:



It's even worse than it looks.

If all that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide didn't come from human activity, what did it come from?  More importantly, what happened to all that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide that you allege magically vanished?

Earth is more or less a closed system.  It's relatively easy to figure out the balance of things.


59 years, 100 ppm higher which comes to 1.7 ppm per year.  If we keep up this pace, we'll reach 2250ppm around the year 3100.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 18, 2019)

I don't come here often because the arguments are rich in belief but poor in fact. I don't argue with climate change deniers, or those who believe we're doing just fine because well, you already disagree with the overwhelming evidence. I am not a climate scientist. I do have a science degree however. I know what science tries to do, as opposed to belief. Most arguments here, by definition, that deny the overwhelming scientific consensus, are nothing but belief. I can't argue with belief. Only a fool can. And science isn't belief-its a system. It's allowed to be tested and to be wrong. And that's why, when the majority of science backs human climate change, it's a very likely position. It could be wrong, but at present, with the best computers and models we have, it seems legit. Moreover, when Exxon started funding climate skepticism in the 70's, it was already an uphill battle for poorly funded science. Worse when Putin  is supported by oil rich oligarchs and Trump us an out and out hater- I can see where the lack of acceptance comes from.

So, no matter what a forum member on TPU posts, if it is the 1%, I'll ignore it. I don't care what you believe. Similarly, flat-earthers create convoluted hypothesis to attempt to gain some semblance of scientific profundity.

Point is, cherry picked science is great. But the statistical cherry tree is laden with consensus on human contribution. I will never be able to change minds. Some cannot. But I follow the empirical majority. All sides have vested interests. But one question. If the search for a cleaner, more environmentally sustainable system is the end product, why are people so hateful about it?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> But one question. If the search for a cleaner, more environmentally sustainable system is the end product, why are people so hateful about it?


Because a lot of the proposals are harmful in other ways.  Examples: wind farms impact local climate by stirring the air, solar farms cause cooling and affect regional precipitation, and I think it goes without saying that damming waterways is disruptive to wildlife.  Let's also not forget the environmental cost of manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines which, for their high material cost, short life span, and relatively low electrical output, is hardly worth it.

So...there's not much agreement in what to do about it.


----------



## Papahyooie (Oct 18, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> I don't come here often because the arguments are rich in belief but poor in fact. I don't argue with climate change deniers, or those who believe we're doing just fine because well, you already disagree with the overwhelming evidence. I am not a climate scientist. I do have a science degree however. I know what science tries to do, as opposed to belief. Most arguments here, by definition, that deny the overwhelming scientific consensus, are nothing but belief. I can't argue with belief. Only a fool can. And science isn't belief-its a system. It's allowed to be tested and to be wrong. And that's why, when the majority of science backs human climate change, it's a very likely position. It could be wrong, but at present, with the best computers and models we have, it seems legit. Moreover, when Exxon started funding climate skepticism in the 70's, it was already an uphill battle for poorly funded science. Worse when Putin  is supported by oil rich oligarchs and Trump us an out and out hater- I can see where the lack of acceptance comes from.
> 
> So, no matter what a forum member on TPU posts, if it is the 1%, I'll ignore it. I don't care what you believe. Similarly, flat-earthers create convoluted hypothesis to attempt to gain some semblance of scientific profundity.
> 
> Point is, cherry picked science is great. But the statistical cherry tree is laden with consensus on human contribution. I will never be able to change minds. Some cannot. But I follow the empirical majority. All sides have vested interests. But one question. If the search for a cleaner, more environmentally sustainable system is the end product, why are people so hateful about it?



I've said nothing hateful. And as I've said many times in this thread, I'd challenge anybody here to compare their own personal efforts at environmental care and cleaning to mine. I've regularly cleaned trash off beaches (as an effort, not simply picking up a single candy bar wrapper) and oil spills. I've built erosion management systems. I've planted trees, and built small application specific solar and wind power generation systems. I've done FAR more than the average person when it comes to environmental conservation. The idea that climate change deniers hate the environment, or don't want sustainable systems is ad hominem at best. I'm 100% for clean energy. I'm not 100% for using scare tactics to encourage people to support giving government subsidies to billionaires who want a piece of the energy industry pie without risking their own capital on the venture. Climate change scares aren't about the environment. They're about insuring investments.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Why do you think they excluded the last 400,000 years? Let's try:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dunno, it almost seems like the planet has some means to release and absorb carbon dioxide to regulate it. Considering it has absorbed ten times more carbon dioxide in the past than humans have produced in their existence, I'd say that's probably a good guess. I'm sure there's a bit of lag time for that process to kick in, if it exists. You'd think they'd do some studies on that, but if they did, I'm sure people would take the data meant to study the possibility of historic oceanic carbon storage by comparing millennial results to each other, and juxtapose it with current sensor readings and expect that the data from the two might be an apples to apples comparison, and put it in a graph. 

Side note, tell me about the data modeling/smoothing techniques used before and after 1900 in Luthi et al/your graph. What's your opinion on that?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> I dunno, it almost seems like the planet has some means to release and absorb carbon dioxide to regulate it. Considering it has absorbed ten times more carbon dioxide in the past than humans have produced in their existence, I'd say that's probably a good guess.


It was "absorbed" as coal and oil which we are now pulling out of the ground and burning.



Papahyooie said:


> I'm sure there's a bit of lag time for that process to kick in, if it exists.


Yeah, mass extinction event followed by millions of years of sediment on top compressing it back into oil and coal.








						Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab
					

Engineers at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) have created a continuous process that produces useful crude oil minutes after harvested algae is introduced. This new process does not require drying out the algae, which grows in water, saving time and energy…




					newatlas.com
				






Papahyooie said:


> Side note, tell me about the data modeling/smoothing techniques used before and after 1900 in Luthi et al/your graph. What's your opinion on that?


Could have just searched for it yourself:








						High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000â€“800,000â€‰years before present - Nature
					

The air bubbles trapped in the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores provide composite records of levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane covering the past 650,000 years. Now the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations has been extended by two more complete...




					www.nature.com
				



"Vostok (440–0 kyr bp)"








						Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica - Nature
					

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and...




					www.nature.com
				



Hemispheric roles of climate forcings during glacial‐interglacial transitions as deduced from the Vostok record and LLN‐2D model experiments








						The record for marine isotopic stage 11 - Nature
					

The marine isotopic stage 11 (MIS 11) is an extraordinarily long interglacial period in the Earth's history that occurred some 400,000 years ago and lasted for about 30,000 years. During this period there were weak, astronomically induced changes in the distribution of solar energy reaching the...




					www.nature.com


----------



## Papahyooie (Oct 18, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Could have just searched for it yourself:







Edit: That was rude, I suppose. I shouldn't ignore you. My point was for you to tell me what effect you think the difference in techniques and data sources has on your graph there.

Alright, let's keep going then... Your claim that the sudden dips in CO2 are marked by mass extinction events is simply false. There's no evidence of that. Moreover, we're talking about atmospheric CO2, which wouldn't be instantly grabbed into dead dinosaurs and turned into oil. Sure, there is absolutely carbon there... obviously... but it is not the atmospheric carbon that we're looking at. If it was sucked into dead animals, how'd it get into the ice cores? No... the carbon you're talking about is composed of organic matter. And while, yes, we absolutely are talking about humans releasing that into the atmosphere, that's an incomplete picture. Yes, we're absolutely releasing tons of carbon into the atmosphere, I don't doubt that. But seeing as how it has failed to produce even a 1C change over the last hundred years, and more drastic temperature swings have occurred in less time with no human intervention, I rightfully question how valid the correlation is. 

Moreover, if we can go back to "slapping the two graphs together"... If you didn't notice, the data sets come from two completely different sources. That might explain the instant negative 150-200 ppm jump where your graph meets mine. The data is incompatible in that manner. They are not analogous.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> My point was for you to tell me what effect you think the difference in techniques and data sources has on your graph there.


What I "think" doesn't matter.  Vostok is a location in Antartica where the ice cores were drilled and analyzed.  The ice goes back roughly 420,000 years.  Why the one graph you referenced decided to start at 0.5 million years ago rather than now is likely because of the kind of studying they were doing (older than ice cores--geological sampling).  Geological sampling doesn't use recent layers because they're being manipulated by the environment.  That's why they start at old and go back from there (clearing the younger layers before they start analyzing).

TL;DR: every method of measuring historic samples has different advantages and disadvantages.  The entire temperature record is composed of many different sample types layered and normalized.



Papahyooie said:


> Your claim that the sudden dips in CO2 are marked by mass extinction events is simply false.


I didn't say that.  I said that coal and oil deposits were exploiting today exist because of mass extinction events in the past.  You should know that coal and oil are comprised of hydrocarbon chains (hydrogen+cabon).  During the process of becoming a fossil fuel, the oxygen leaves--often working its way into the surrounding soil.  The important thing is that the carbon gets removed from the atmosphere.

These mass extinction events translate to a long-term and effectively (at least until humans enter the picture) permanent reduction in carbon in the troposphere.  It's largely why carbon dioxide trended downwards over time.



Papahyooie said:


> If it was sucked into dead animals, how'd it get into the ice cores?


Ice locks a sample of the air in itself as it is formed.



Papahyooie said:


> But seeing as how it has failed to produce even a 1C change over the last hundred years, and more drastic temperature swings have occurred in less time with no human intervention, I rightfully question how valid the correlation is.


It *did* rise more than 1C over the last 100 years.  See line graph under #6.



Papahyooie said:


> That might explain the instant negative 150-200 ppm jump where your graph meets mine.


I don't know specifically when yours starts but mine ends at 440,000.  If yours starts at 500,000, then there's 60,000 years in there where atmospheric CO2 fell by a lot.


For the record, I don't much care what happened 10,000+ years ago because the data we have for it is the result of indirect analysis.  The charts I provided, I did so specifically because they're observed.  We can only hypothesize what happened in the past, we can't confirm it.  We can confirm what is happening now and in the recent past; we can also use that data to do a decent job at modelling the future.


----------



## Papahyooie (Oct 18, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> What I "think" doesn't matter.  Vostok is a location in Antartica where the ice cores were drilled and analyzed.  The ice goes back roughly 420,000 years.  Why the one graph you referenced decided to start at 0.5 million years ago rather than now is likely because of the kind of studying they were doing (older than ice cores--geological sampling).  Geological sampling doesn't use recent layers because they're being manipulated by the environment.  That's why they start at old and go back from there (clearing the younger layers before they start analyzing).
> 
> TL;DR: every method of measuring historic samples has different advantages and disadvantages.  The entire temperature record is composed of many different sample types layered and normalized.
> 
> ...



What you think may not matter to you, if you decide to completely ignore it, or don't know either way. You're the only who knows which it is. Honestly, it wouldn't have mattered what your answer was, as long as you had one... but you don't. The last thing I will say on that subject is this: If you don't have an opinion on the difference in data modelling techniques and data sources pre and post 1900, then you are either ignorant and aren't qualified to have this conversation, or being willfully blind. I'm not saying this to be mean or anything. I'm saying you are missing out on a huge piece of very defining information here if you don't. I won't go into it because I honestly want you to form your own opinion. Trust me when I say, this is information you NEED to look into, if you haven't. This applies to everything we've posted here, Bradley Mann and Hughes, all of them. I'm sure I've said something about it in the past here, but don't care to dig it up. 

I know how fossil fuels are formed. I'm saying the mass quantities of carbon that left the atmosphere did not do it by being absorbed into fossils/fuels.

The temperature did not rise more than 1C over the last 100 years unless you make the very dishonest assumption that a specific low point in the last 100 years is "normal." Temperature has not risen 1C above mean. I see what you're saying... Yes, the temp *technically* has risen over 1C from its lowest point. But that is dubious at best, and dishonest at worst. 

The reason the graphs don't match up is because they're entirely different sources, not because there's 60k years where CO2 fell alot. The "Uncharted Territory" graph is from ice core data (juxtaposed with modern instrument readings from halfway around the world, which is dubious as well...) The graph you pasted it into, the data is from deep sea floor geologic cores. They're apples and oranges, you can't just stick them in the same graph, normalize the scales, and call it a day lol.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> If you don't have an opinion on the difference in data modelling techniques and data sources pre and post 1900, then you are either ignorant and aren't qualified to have this conversation, or being willfully blind.


[facepalm.jpg]
This link provides everything you need to know on that subject:








						RealClimate: Data Sources
					

RealClimate: This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed. Climate data (raw) Climate data (processed)...




					www.realclimate.org
				






Papahyooie said:


> I'm saying you are missing out on a huge piece of very defining information here if you don't.


There's not much on this subject I haven't seen.  You're not bringing anything new to the table.



Papahyooie said:


> I'm saying the mass quantities of carbon that left the atmosphere did not do it by being absorbed into fossils/fuels.


The only thing on Earth that can release and absorb carbon on a grand scale is the oceans.  We're already losing coral reefs due to acidification because of the oceans absorbing some of the carbon.

A more plausible explanation is something localized caused the captured CO2 to rise/fall (e.g. nearby volcanic vent).  The best way to eliminate that possibility is to take samples from another location but, Antarctica is...not a hospitable place.  Maybe some day another expedition will go to Antarctica to take samples from a second source.  I'd argue that's a waste of money because we already established what is observed now is abnormal.  Those resources are better put into solutions.



Papahyooie said:


> The temperature did not rise more than 1C over the last 100 years unless you make the very dishonest assumption that a specific low point in the last 100 years is "normal." Temperature has not risen 1C above mean. I see what you're saying... Yes, the temp *technically* has risen over 1C from its lowest point. But that is dubious at best, and dishonest at worst.


Last time I checked, 100 years ago was 1919 with a mean temperature of -0.3C.  2019, the mean temperature is +0.9C.  Difference = +0.9C--0.3C = +1.2C over the century and that's rounding down.


----------



## John Naylor (Oct 18, 2019)

How does "time and time again" get used 'time and time again" with no evidence.

On tactic is to report "guestimated" CO2 levels when earths survace was molten and covered with volcanoes.   This is not a cyclical process.   The earth was a molten ball, it cooled, life began, it's over and will not repeat itself.

There were no oceans and no life on the planet so of what relevance is this ?The point is Homo sapiens evolved from their early hominid predecessors between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.  Anything prior to that point is irrelevant.    For the last 800,000 years, CO2 levels were 200ish when we had ice age level temps.   Every 100,00-110,000 years we've had temps reach this low point and in between we have had worming periods in hich CO2 rose o 280-300 ppm.   Today at 420 ppm, we have never, ever seen CO2 levels for since man has existed on this planet.  The change in CO2 from ice ages to peak warming periods has never been more than + 100 ppm .... now it's +220 ppm.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> The reason the graphs don't match up is because they're entirely different sources, not because there's 60k years where CO2 fell alot. The "Uncharted Territory" graph is from ice core data (juxtaposed with modern instrument readings from halfway around the world, which is dubious as well...) The graph you pasted it into, the data is from deep sea floor geologic cores. They're apples and oranges, you can't just stick them in the same graph, normalize the scales, and call it a day lol.


I noticed the sitation on the picture you provided:





						Science | AAAS
					






					science.sciencemag.org
				





			https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Pagani_etal_2005.pdf
		


Paleogene = 66-23.03 million years ago. They were specifically looking at 45~25 million years ago.  It didn't go to current because their paper wasn't about current.


> The fall in pCO2 likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica and promoted conditions that forced the onset of terrestrial C4 photosynthesis.





That first spike to ~400ish was roughly 20 million years ago.


The little cut out is from a second paper by Mark Pagani, et. al.:





						Science | AAAS
					






					science.sciencemag.org
				





			Prehistoric global cooling caused by CO2, research finds
		



> However, in a paper published this week in the journal Science, a team of researchers found evidence of widespread cooling. Additional computer modeling of the cooling suggests that the cooling was caused by a reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.





> Even after the continent of Antarctica had drifted to near its present location, its climate was subtropical. Then, 35.5 million years ago, ice formed on Antarctica in about 100,000 years, which is an "overnight" shift in geological terms.





> Before the cooling occurred at the end of the Eocene epoch, the Earth was warm and wet, and even the north and south poles experienced subtropical climates. The dinosaurs were long gone from the planet, but there were mammals and many reptiles and amphibians. Then, as the scientists say, poof, this warm wet world, which had existed for millions of years, dramatically changed. Temperatures fell dramatically, many species of mammals as well as most reptiles and amphibians became extinct, and Antarctica was covered in ice and sea levels fell.


...extinction event.  Nuff' said.


Huh...well...Mark Pagani passed away in 2016:





						In Remembrance: Mark Pagani, Professor of Geology & Geophysics  | The Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences
					






					earth.yale.edu


----------



## Papahyooie (Oct 18, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> [facepalm.jpg]
> This link provides everything you need to know on that subject:
> 
> 
> ...



You're not getting what I'm saying. You have a list of data sources. Great. That does not address the fact that everything you've posted here has either had the raw data processed through various means, OR had two different data sets OR two different data processing models, compared as if equivalent, or at worst, all three. My question is, are you even aware of that, and if so, what's your opinion on it? Again, you don't necessarily have to answer... just be honest with yourself, and if you can't answer it, go look. That's all. 

As for the rest, Ok buddy. You're either willfully trolling, or I'm not explaining myself. 1919 was at nearly the bottom of the range. So while yes... *technically* temperature has risen above 1C since then, that statement is entirely meaningless unless you assume that 1919 was "normal." In the scope of that graph, 1919 was not normal. It was quite far below the mean of the data as a whole. Therefore, it's entirely dishonest to consider that statement in a vacuum. 

I told myself I wasn't going to do this again... again. So whatever, I've had my fun for the day. Carry on.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> My question is, are you even aware of that, and if so, what's your opinion on it?





FordGT90Concept said:


> TL;DR: every method of measuring historic samples has different advantages and disadvantages.  The entire temperature record is composed of many different sample types layered and normalized.


The link I gave gives the different methods used.  For example, Since 1960s, satellites have been used to measure temperatures and Mauna Loa was sampling CO2.  Since early 1900s, terrestrial weather stations were used to sample temperatures.  Since the 1600s, maritime reports were used to sample temperatures.  420,000 to present, ice cores were used to sample temperature and CO2.  Dates before that use fossil and geological records to sample data.

Prior to 420,000, (when CO2 was  ~370ppm), there were no permanent glaciers on Antarctica.  That's why the ice cores don't go back further than that.  We're already above 400 ppm.  It stands to reason that Antarctica is going to start shedding ice...oh wait that's already happening.



Papahyooie said:


> Again, you don't necessarily have to answer... just be honest with yourself, and if you can't answer it, go look.


In both Pagani papers they sought to correlate an event in fossil records with changes in the atmosphere and succeeded.  Using different fields of science to collaborate data points makes the data reliable.  I see no reason to contest their analysis.



Papahyooie said:


> So while yes... *technically* temperature has risen above 1C since then, that statement is entirely meaningless unless you assume that 1919 was "normal."


You're attempting to move the goal post by defining "normal."  I'd argue that graph doesn't go back far enough for a "normal" temperature at all (which would be pre-industrial).  What that graph shows is the average temperature for a range of dates, found the average, then indicated whether they are above or below average per year.  The entire graph shows the temperature rising about 1C between 1880 and 2019.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 16, 2020)

Good news in general because lignite is dirtier than your average coal:








						Merkel, state leaders agree terms of brown coal exit: document
					

Germany has reached an agreement with the regions most affected by a plan to phase out the use of brown coal, or lignite, for its power plants by providing about 40 billion euros ($45 billion) in aid, a document reviewed by Reuters showed.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Chomiq (Jan 16, 2020)

Looks like this year vegetable and fruit prices will rise again just like they did last year due to weather going nuts.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 16, 2020)

That's because we're at solar minimum:





						Solar Cycle Progression | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center
					






					www.swpc.noaa.gov
				








The sun is relaxing so cosmic radiation from outside of our solar system is bombarding the planet seeding clouds which causes precipitation.  As the sun gets more active again, it will get drier.


----------



## Komshija (Jan 16, 2020)

They are pushing "global warming" propaganda for years. Sure, we produce a lot of CO2 and they are complaining that CO2 reached "dangerous" levels of 408 ppm from 280 or so ppm 200 years ago. During the dinosaurs, eg. some 100 million years ago, Earth was healthier, full of life and CO2 levels were approximately 1800 ppm - more than 4 times current level while the average global temperature was about 3-4 °C higher than today. Oxygen levels were also slightly higher. So...

Much bigger problems are companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, DOW, Corteva and similar which poison the land and push GMO products than some "global warming" BS.


----------



## kapone32 (Jan 16, 2020)

[IQUOTE="Komshija, post: 4189664, member: 166605"]
They are pushing "global warming" propaganda for years. Sure, we produce a lot of CO2 and they are complaining that CO2 reached "dangerous" levels of 408 ppm from 280 or so ppm 200 years ago. During the dinosaurs, eg. some 100 million years ago, Earth was healthier, full of life and CO2 levels were approximately 1800 ppm - more than 4 times current level while the average global temperature was about 3-4 °C higher than today. Oxygen levels were also slightly higher. So...

Much bigger problems are companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, DOW, Corteva and similar which poison the land and push GMO products than some "global warming" BS.
[/QUOTE]

None of those companies actions explain 3 Hurricanes in the Atlantic basin in 2017 or Sandy in 2012 that hit 1100 miles of coast at exactly the same time. As much as we may want to deny it it is the actions of the average person that must be included in the conundrum we have created for ourselves. There is hope though. In Canada we have banned personal use of herbicides and pesticides. I have seen an increase in the rodent population in my area but more profound are the menagerie of birds that I have not seen since I was a kid like Canaries, Blue Jays, Falcons, Kites and Hawks. 

There is a sobering fact when it comes to CO2. If we are cutting down more trees than we plant (in the time of the dinosaurs some trees were as tall as modern skyscrapers) in key areas like the Amazon or Sub Arctic Pines???? The "Global Warming" debate is based on Western principles but if you subscribe to that it's too late anyway because as much as the West is "responsible", China produces way more CO2 than the West ever did and has no Environmental laws that trump commerce. I am not worried about the Earth. I worry if we will survive the correction when it fully manifests itself example A: The bush fires in Australia (has anyone looked at before and after satellite images) with reports of flames being 70 metres or 229 Feet high and who's smoke cloud has already circled Earth once.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 16, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> None of those companies actions explain 3 Hurricanes in the Atlantic basin in 2017 or Sandy in 2012 that hit 1100 miles of coast at exactly the same time. As much as we may want to deny it it is the actions of the average person that must be included in the conundrum we have created for ourselves.



You do understand that before humanity there were gigantic hurricanes all the time?


----------



## kapone32 (Jan 16, 2020)

Easy Rhino said:


> You do understand that before humanity there were gigantic hurricanes all the time?



Yes but not since we have started recording them and in specifics to Sandy. I learned in Geography that due to it's size the Atlantic should never create a hurricane with a diameter of more than 300 miles. We can wax back and forth about the details. One thing I can say with confidence is the weather is much more erratic today than anytime I can remember.  Just in the past 6 days we have had 14 C one day -15 the very next day and then 50 MM of rain last weekend and 15 cm of snow this weekend.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 16, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> Yes but not since we have started recording them and in specifics to Sandy. I learned in Geography that due to it's size the Atlantic should never create a hurricane with a diameter of more than 300 miles. We can wax back and forth about the details. One thing I can say with confidence is the weather is much more erratic today than anytime I can remember.  Just in the past 6 days we have had 14 C one day -15 the very next day and then 50 MM of rain last weekend and 15 cm of snow this weekend.



The earth has been around for what a few billion years? You are going on maybe 60 years of actual good usable data.


----------



## kapone32 (Jan 16, 2020)

Easy Rhino said:


> The earth has been around for what a few billion years? You are going on maybe 60 years of actual good usable data.



Of course that is also true but we cannot discount that there is something screwy going on with our weather.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 16, 2020)

GM crops are usualy engineered so the crop that grows is infertile.
No growing crops for next years seed you gotta buy again from GM Supplier.
Higher CO2 is Good for crop growth ( up to a certin limit).

FRESH Water Managment Should be a Priorty for Mankind ( its already a War Crises flash point some places).


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 16, 2020)

Easy Rhino said:


> The earth has been around for what a few billion years? You are going on maybe 60 years of actual good usable data.


Yep, but in that very large period of time how many occasions of "near" total destruction of land life has occurred?  It's great the planet has survived for obvious reasons but it does not help mankind in the future.  As for now, I personally am not very "Green", however I believe people when they tell me they have been travelling to the Artic for 30 years and the Ice pack has shrunk by 25 miles plus already in that time, I am just thankful I don't live near a coast.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 16, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> I learned in Geography that due to it's size the Atlantic should never create a hurricane with a diameter of more than 300 miles.



Sounds like you shouldn't listen to the person who told you that anymore.


----------



## kapone32 (Jan 16, 2020)

Totally agreed


Papahyooie said:


> Sounds like you shouldn't listen to the person who told you that anymore.



Well the only hurricane that has defeated that theory has been Sandy and it was in the 90s that I was in University so......


----------



## Steevo (Jan 16, 2020)

Nuclear base load with breeder reactors until we either figure out fusion or some other better energy source, and we might as well start now as the uranium is decaying and the ability to reach other solar systems and even other planets in our own solar system relies on the ability to enrich uranium into plutonium. 

We can't stop this train, we can do better but it has to be truly sustainable, not solar roadways or other BS ideas that averagely smart people sell to the masses of uneducated but useful idiots.


----------



## rruff (Jan 16, 2020)

Komshija said:


> During the dinosaurs, eg. some 100 million years ago, Earth was healthier, full of life and CO2 levels were approximately 1800 ppm - more than 4 times current level while the average global temperature was about 3-4 °C higher than today. Oxygen levels were also slightly higher. So...



Temperatures were up to 14C higher. That's a lot...


----------



## sneekypeet (Jan 16, 2020)

I am going to ask that we stay on topic and not get too excited about the word science, or who believes what is proper. Play nice or exit the thread please.

Just in case some of you have forgotten.....  https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/forum-guidelines.197329/


----------



## Grog6 (Jan 16, 2020)

I know the diff between weather and climate, but the Tennessee I live in now is not at all like the TN I lived in 50 years ago.

It's 60 degrees outside, been that way all month; we've seen 30 degrees twice this winter for about three days each time.

I've only had to scrape a windshield 3 times this winter.

It's supposed to get cold next week, but it's one 35 degree day, then back to the 50's.

In the 60's, we had cold winters, and 4 distinct seasons; now we have summer, and fall.
The only difference in the Spring is that it gets green, in the exact reverse order as the fall. 
The weather is the same; rain, and warm days, cool nights.

We would get 5-6 major snowfalls, with about 6" of snow to sled on.
Occasionally we'd get a good one, and we could sled for a few days.

I haven't seen one of those since the 80's, with one outlier in the 17" snow we had in 1993.
I understand that was the most since 1963, when we got snow like that regularly.

I've seen snow once this year, with ~1" lasting ~10 hours.
It didn't stick to the roads.

Say what you will, but climate change is here, and the high and rising CO2 levels and methane from melting permafrost are driving it.

At this point, we're along for the ride; there's nothing we're going to do about it now.
The time to act was 20-30 years ago.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 17, 2020)

Grog6 said:


> I know the diff between weather and climate, but the Tennessee I live in now is not at all like the TN I lived in 50 years ago.
> 
> It's 60 degrees outside, been that way all month; we've seen 30 degrees twice this winter for about three days each time.
> 
> ...



Few people will argue that the climate is not changing, and most people agree it is. The points of contention are "Is it permanent, or cyclical" and "Is it human caused or natural."


----------



## rruff (Jan 17, 2020)

Papahyooie said:


> Few people will argue that the climate is not changing, and most people agree it is. The points of contention are "Is it permanent, or cyclical" and "Is it human caused or natural."



Another point of contention is "why should we care"?

For the last 4M years or so the earth has been cooler than now, with periodic ice ages. The *ice ages have a devastating effect on life*... over most of the planet it is simply impossible for man or beast to live. *And we are due for another one! *

If it were possible for humans to easily influence global temperature, and we could get together and make a rational decision on the matter, then *"warmer than natural cycle for the last 4M years" would be the smart choice*. Our man made greenhouse gases are doing this already. We would need to expend a great deal of effort to *stop* this from happening.

The only way this would be a bad thing vs the natural cycle (which should be another ice age in the next few thousand years) is if the natural cycle had suddenly reversed for some unknown reason, and we were adding higher temperatures when they were already heading up. But this hasn't been the case for the last 50M years, and it's extremely unlikely that it's happening now. Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty in how much the temperature will be affected (short and much longer term), and what will happen to the global climate, sea level, crops, etc. But overall a warmer temperature should be more supportive of life. And compared to having another ice age, which we know would suck really hard for most of the planet, these are trivial matters.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 17, 2020)

Papahyooie said:


> "Is it human caused or natural."


That one is probably both.

Look on the bright side, we'll at least get to find out what happens in the short term and we'll all likely already be dead by the time we find out who was actually right.


----------



## Grog6 (Jan 17, 2020)

Depending on where you live, you may care a great deal.

In another 20 years, the southern US will be too hot to go outside many days of the summer; Southern Americans aren't used to equatorial 110 degree weather with 90% humidity.

Here we had 90+ degree days with high humidity where it was uncomfortable to be in the pool, lol.

If you live up north, the next couple of decades will introduce you to spring suntanning.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 17, 2020)

Grog6 said:


> If you live up north, the next couple of decades will introduce you to spring suntanning.


I'll take an extended growing season.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 17, 2020)

I guess devastating loss of flora & fauna, like the ones we see in Australia doesn't count? Even if we ignore the very real threats of global warming, the human outreach to the most secluded parts of this earth has caused many a times this irreversible damage ~ like that bird called *dodo *

The point I'm is that humans have had *IMO* a net negative impact on the earth & the rest of it's creatures, especially in the last few decades & while some of it is unavoidable, the vast majority of it is isn't. Ignorance is one such point & political bickering another, oh yeah oil companies have a lot more $ to throw shade at researchers!


----------



## rruff (Jan 19, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> The point I'm is that humans have had *IMO* a net negative impact on the earth & the rest of it's creatures



Welcome to reality. Homo sapiens have been a scourge for 50,000 years or so... to each other and anything in their way. What do you think happened to Neanderthals and other hominid species? It's nice to entertain higher ideals, but when push comes to shove, the humans that survived have aggressively eliminated any rivals or threats. They are never satisfied and always want more. We are descended from thousands of generations of this. Tendencies toward empathy and cooperation on anything more than a tribal level has been eliminated from our DNA. It can be a big tribe, but it can't be everyone. 

That's irrelevant when it comes to human caused climate change though... since the effects of warming are likely a net positive overall. A fortunate accident for life on the planet.


----------



## Schmuckley (Jan 19, 2020)

Odd how they never include grass in the list of plants that absorb CO2.

I wonder why that is? LMAO!

IMO, man thinking he has an effect on the weather is Delusions of Grandeur.


----------



## rruff (Jan 19, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Odd how they never include *grass* in the list of plants that absorb CO2.



This plant will save us...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 19, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Odd how they never include grass in the list of plants that absorb CO2.
> 
> I wonder why that is? LMAO!
> 
> IMO, man thinking he has an effect on the weather is Delusions of Grandeur.


Because it doesn't really sequester carbon.  Most of what it takes in is directly released again either through decomposition of clippings or as part of the annual cycle.

The oceans, by far, are the largest store of carbon through increasing acidity.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 8, 2020)

Antarctic base records hottest temperature ever
					

A research base in the Antarctic has recorded the hottest temperature ever for the continent amid rising concern about global warming that has caused an increase in the melting of ice sheets around the south pole.




					www.reuters.com
				



...it's winter in Antarctica...


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 8, 2020)

rruff said:


> Another point of contention is "why should we care"?
> 
> For the last 4M years or so the earth has been cooler than now, with periodic ice ages. The *ice ages have a devastating effect on life*... over most of the planet it is simply impossible for man or beast to live. *And we are due for another one! *
> 
> ...


Emphasis on point. It is only devastating for the microscopic biome in the soil that is affected from persistent >20°C temperatures. The soil just doesn't regenerate above that level which dries up waterbeds and causes erosion rather than water constitution from rainfall.
Once the dunes arrive, nothing the organics could do stops them. Though, the chinese had posted some success in holding back the sweeping sands. Let's hope they can keep rising temperatures from causing too much water loss, too.
There is tremendous potential in fertilising oceans however when you seed iron, the question is, it precipitates down on the ocean floor - how do we harvest it back?


----------



## Grog6 (Feb 8, 2020)

The iron can be in the form of soil; the soil here is a red clay with a high iron content, and doesn't grow stuff well without fertilizer and a lot of organic material.

We could spare a few cubic miles.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 8, 2020)

Grog6 said:


> The iron can be in the form of soil; the soil here is a red clay with a high iron content, and doesn't grow stuff well without fertilizer and a lot of organic material.
> 
> We could spare a few cubic miles.


I'm sure you are attune with the logistical proposition of dumping steel grade soil each time for a one-time algal bloom. The biology as such is not fortuituous unless giant mammals or crustaceans eat them and pass it on to saprophitic fungi. It is funny we will need to revive dead ecosystems to ingratiate ourselves with nature's good deeds.


----------



## Sir cheese (Feb 8, 2020)

Wouldn't it be better to say we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases, so in case it's true we avoid the worst ?


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 8, 2020)

Sir cheese said:


> Wouldn't it be better to say we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases, so in case it's true we avoid the worst ?


The worst isn't temperate climate, it is Mars & Moon. We need to find a way to rehabilitate soil mycelium, without it we are sand people.


----------



## Sir cheese (Feb 8, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> The worst isn't temperate climate, it is Mars & Moon. We need to find a way to rehabilitate soil mycelium, without it we are sand people.


How could it disapear ? Beside, i don't get the moon& mars part...


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 8, 2020)

Sir cheese said:


> How could it disapear ? Beside, i don't get the moon& mars part...


Foilage gives them shade. No shade, no fungus, no hummus, no water, no soil. The least we can do is incorporate the dead tree beards into the soil when the rainy season starts. Fungi don't like to come out of their underground cottages and as is the custom, we should go visiting holding treats of soil turned upside down - unless you have a better idea to let loose livestock to trample them into an open buffet of their favourite pulp.


----------



## Sir cheese (Feb 8, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Foilage gives them shade. No shade, no fungus, no hummus, no water, no soil. The least we can do is incorporate the dead tree beards into the soil when the rainy season starts. Fungi don't like to come out of their underground cottages and as is the custom, we should go visiting holding treats of soil turned upside down - unless you have a better idea to let loose livestock to trample them into an open buffet of their favourite pulp.


Okay, but it means, when there's a forest, there's fungus, and everything is fine. And i think the time when there's no more forest is the death of our kind.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 9, 2020)

Sir cheese said:


> Okay, but it means, when there's a forest, there's fungus, and everything is fine. And i think the time when there's no more forest is the death of our kind.


The death of *soil*, not us in particular. We are cultivators. We aim to cultivate the Mars, even. It is natural for us - we need food for our metabolic rate to continue. For that, too much of weird water solutes is the surest way to kill our appetite. Just like the fungus enjoys a strict diet of treebeards served on a buried dishplate, we like our fresh produce without any contaminants. It is interesting how much fungi play a part in detoxifying inarable land and taking the toxins with them as deep as it can be away from their favourite food source - our earthly clippings.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2020)

Finally something everyone can agree on:








						Plant a trillion trees: U.S. Republicans offer fossil fuel-friendly climate fix
					

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday proposed legislation setting a goal for the United States to plant a trillion trees by 2050 to fight global warming, a plan intended to address climate change by sucking carbon out of the air instead of by cutting emissions.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Feb 12, 2020)

Why didn't  the "Democrats" think of it , oh wait , them did , yet only now ... .


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 12, 2020)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> Why didn't  the "Democrats" think of it , oh wait , them did , yet only now ... .



It's not exactly a novel or original idea, and seeing it tied into the "sustainable forestry" bandwagon grants it a rather interesting color (pulp mills are a huge co2 factor), but yeah, ok.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 24, 2020)

You don't fix a leaking bucket by pouring in more water. You fix the hole. Planting trees is a good idea on paper and in scientific studies, however, it is a measure that qualifies others to rest on their laurels and not try to fix the ongoing issues. Also, business will seize upon carbon offsets and continue the commercialisation of finite resources.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 24, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> You don't fix a leaking bucket by pouring in more water. You fix the hole.


Well plants do prevent water erosion. So, it depends on the kind of plughole you want to fix.
We won't succeed by spreading our modern landscape. Deserts are the most carbon emission releasing ecologies, like cities. It all relates to the soil condition.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 24, 2020)

Desert Basins May Hold Missing Carbon Sinks
					

Understanding these sinks and how they function is critical for calculating the world’s carbon budget




					www.scientificamerican.com
				




In mobile, sorry for lazy link. Desert basins also act as Carbon Sinks, removing CO2. But they can release it back to the atmosphere. An area for further study, not well understood.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 24, 2020)

I kind of think pollution is the wrong mindset. It is carbon extraction. No one dies of carbon. Everyone dies of oxygen, it is very acidic. Its titration is basic. If you were to be deprived of carbondioxide suddenly, your perfusion would stop.
I still think this is no different than mining for carbon ores and then releasing it into the atmosphere, since it is the form in which trees sequester carbon.
There is also the issue we still have not wrapped our heads around it. I think of it as the mastery of carbon economy still looming out of our grasp.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 25, 2020)

> No one dies of carbon.



No one dies from global warming either.  The weather it creates might kill you though...


----------



## rruff (Feb 25, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> No one dies from global warming either.  The weather it creates might kill you though...



Overall it's likely to be beneficial for life... even human life.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 25, 2020)

rruff said:


> Overall it's likely to be beneficial for life... even human life.



Well, the ice age that always follows a warmimg trend is the part that really sucks.  Happens when the polar glaciers melt enough...  and guess whats happening?


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 25, 2020)

> No one dies from global warming either.


The canbon cycle doesn't necessarily increase warming. It is desertification and our ineptitude to harness it properly. If we would have more substrate we should have a higher reaction constant, eh? Pretty simple logic.
Just lay a mulch substrate for water-fastness, keep and preserve the soil humidity in tight regulation and let carbon be diverted to the subsoil. We have the computing power to monitor every acre of the Earth by FLIR cams to stay below 20°C year round. That is all there is to hand it over to mycelium to take over command.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 25, 2020)

Where is grass in the global warming alarmists chart of plants that convert CO2, hmm?

Nowhere, because grass absorbs 400% more CO2 than the highest plant they list.

The internet has been gimped and not on where I have a saved link, but this:

"The most efficient plant photosynthesis is the C4 pathway. Mostly this is warm season perennial grasses, but there are several other plants that developed this through convergent evolution. C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass, yet they account for about 23% of terrestrial oxygen production through photosynthesis. "










						Which plant is most efficient at converting CO2 to oxygen?
					

Answer (1 of 12): No plant can convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. In photosynthesis (simplifying just a little), water is converted (oxidized) to molecular oxygen and carbon dioxide is converted (reduced) to carbohydrate.  This may of course look like conversion of CO2 to O2.  You probably would l...




					www.quora.com


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 25, 2020)

This whole co2 release from the canopy is only possible if there isn't an understory to keep soil in cool condition. I know it isn't the simplest ordeal to cover the Earth by some layer of mulch, but unless it is met, the criticality of carbon balanced will be unsettled.
We should also look for canopy mulch that is basic, not acidic like the pine-redwood-cypress-eucalyptous coniferous soil dessication poles. We are doing this to the benefit of saprophytes to usher them into doing the work we cannot.



Schmuckley said:


> Where is grass in the global warming alarmists chart of plants that convert CO2, hmm?
> 
> Nowhere, because grass absorbs 400% more CO2 than the highest plant they list.
> 
> ...


If you are going to use C4, you are talking about high grasslands that don't work as efficiently as C3 in high latitudes.
There is also the issue, those grasses need to be razed for the saprophytes to incorporate it into the subsoil before the rain season. If rains fall and grasses begin aerobic decomposition overground, there is carbon unsettlement into the atmosphere, that is mitigated when anaerobically performed by the necessary saprophytes.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 25, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> The canbon cycle doesn't necessarily increase warming.



You must've missed this entire thread and are just jumping on with a new theory.

Believe me, carbon (along with a host of other gasses) certainly contribute to global warming.  We've analyzed this to death, as professional quasiscientists.

In other news, the real scientists beat us to the same conclusion.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 25, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> You must've missed this entire thread and are just jumping on with a new theory.
> 
> Believe me, carbon (along with a host of other gasses) certainly contribute to global warming.  We've analyzed this to death, as professional quasiscientists.
> 
> In other news, the real scientists beat us to the same conclusion.


What does man have to do with that?


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 26, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> What does man have to do with that?



...we artficially dump a lot of those gasses into the atmosphere?

And before you post charts citing the natural carbon cycle, keep in mind natural carbon cycle carbon tends to get reused by the earth.  Ours doesn't.  It's an excess and the earth doesn't know how to deal with it, as most of the time ancient deposits of well-past-mummified plant matter (aka oil) don't end up going into a gaseous form on a large, industrial scale.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> ...we artficially dump a lot of those gasses into the atmosphere?
> 
> And before you post charts citing the natural carbon cycle, keep in mind natural carbon cycle carbon tends to get reused by the earth.  Ours doesn't.  It's an excess and the earth doesn't know how to deal with it, as most of the time ancient deposits of well-past-mummified plant matter (aka oil) don't end up going into a gaseous form on a large, industrial scale.


Proof as to how that contributes to the planet raising in temp?


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 26, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> You must've missed this entire thread and are just jumping on with a new theory.
> 
> Believe me, carbon (along with a host of other gasses) certainly contribute to global warming.  We've analyzed this to death, as professional quasiscientists.
> 
> In other news, the real scientists beat us to the same conclusion.


Again, carbon is less acidic than oxygen. So, if anything, its molecule with oxygen is less acidic than oxygen by itself(I'm using empiric intuition at this step).
When dissolved, the only reason we aren't aware of o2 damage is because it isn't very dissociable in water. Otherwise we would be talking about water cutting with dissolved oxygen. In fact, o2 is super toxic to plants, it would help if we could keep them in hyperbaric co2 conditions.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 26, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Proof as to how that contributes to the planet raising in temp?



It's really documented throughout this thread.  Google "greenhouse effect" and learn to science on youe own, son.



mtcn77 said:


> Again, carbon is less acidic than oxygen.



Yes, but magma still burns despite being mostly carbon.

There is more to this than acidity.  My god.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> It's really documented throughout this thread.  Google "greenhouse effect" and learn to science on youe own, son.


"Google" and "science" are unrelated, son. I've been researching and doing research papers since before Google, boy.
I remember when Altavista was more reliable than Google, k?
And it truly was.

In those days it was "Ice age is coming" sky is falling stuff.

All you have to do is give money to your overlords and they'll take care of it, amirite?

Google is simply a search engine, and these days it's biased and not as good as in say...2006.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 26, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> There is more to this than acidity.  My god.


Well, they quote co2 as the reason oceans are getting acidic. It also releases more carbonate from  underground springs.


R-T-B said:


> Yes, but magma still burns despite being mostly carbon.


You can bet your hard earned cash that our Earth is life bearing solely due to its heated core. Without it, you can bet it would not form an atmosphere.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Well, they quote co2 as the reason oceans are getting acidic. It also releases more carbonate from  underground springs.
> 
> You can bet your hard earned cash that our Earth is life bearing solely due to its heated core. Without it, you can bet it would not form an atmosphere.


Our Earth is life-bearing solely due to God.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Our Earth is life-bearing solely due to God.


Where is your methodical approach, son.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Where is your methodical approach, son.


Show me written history more than 6k years old.

The Chinese don't have any...Nobody has any.. 'sup?

Chinese history dates back 5-6000 years.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Show me written history more than 6k years old.
> 
> The Chinese don't have any...


I'm Turkish. Sorry, if it doesn't strike a common convention. We aren't too strict on written record.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 26, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Show me written history more than 6k years old.



Dig up a soil sample.



Schmuckley said:


> Our Earth is life-bearing solely due to God.



Well at least you are both honest in that you have no science to bring to the thread.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> I'm Turkish. Sorry, if it doesn't strike a common convention. We aren't too strict on written record.


Iz y'all illigitimate?



R-T-B said:


> Dig up a soil sample.
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you are both honest in that you have no science to bring to the thread.


And you do? Bring it.
There's no written history in soil, sorry.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 26, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Well, they quote co2 as the reason oceans are getting acidic. It also releases more carbonate from underground springs.



This is actually new to me, but it's certainly but a small cog in the machine that is global warming, if even true and not just a theory.



Schmuckley said:


> And you do? Bring it.



No.  It's already here, and I'm tired.



Schmuckley said:


> There's no written history in soil, sorry.



Your ignorance is showing rather horribly here.

You two have fun debating which god made the earth.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

You know what I find in soil samples around here? .67 Cal Civil War bullets covered with lime.
Bigger bullets, too. Big round ones.


----------



## Grog6 (Feb 26, 2020)

I see the idiots have arrived.

Carry on, we need some entertainment.

Who is this God thing you're talking about?

Is it the flying spaghetti monster, or one I haven't heard of?


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Iz y'all illigitimate?


Well, to wrap it around your head, you westerners call China the Orient. We are more oriental, by that standard. Who else lives primarily with oral tradition...


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

Grog6 said:


> I see the idiots have arrived.
> 
> Carry on, we need some entertainment.
> 
> ...


I suppose you haven't heard of him because you weren't raised right. Well, not my fault and I feel sorry for you.
I'm just an average dude and don't know know what I could do for ya.



mtcn77 said:


> Well, to wrap it around your head, you westerners call China the Orient. We are more oriental, by that standard. Who else lives primarily with oral tradition...


American Indians.
China has written history going back 5000 years+. Did you know that?


----------



## Mr McC (Feb 26, 2020)

The denial of climate change is truly embarassing, it is more indicative of a failure to think than a free-thinking mind. Science is not something that can be partially accepted, either you accept science or you don't, and the scientific community, almost to a person, has shown that climate change is taking place and is being accelerated by human action. 

Moreover, climate change denial is largely a ruse purported by the far-right, because their rich backers want to evade picking up the bill for as long as possible. For example, you can read about the money behind Brexit and its links to climate change denial here:









						The address where Eurosceptics and climate change sceptics rub shoulders
					

The offices of 55 Tufton Street in Westminister are home to no fewer than eight right-of-centre organisations




					www.independent.co.uk
				




I would love this thread to be closed, it serves no useful purpose and a tech site should not provide a platform for those who deny science. Alternatively, we can all start to use toothpaste instead of thermal paste, because, who needs science, right?

Whether knowingly or not, at this stage, questioning climate change is tantamount to acting as a shill for the far-right, and whilst some will continue to deny scientific evidence, it can only be hoped that others will begin to think about the motives of those in opposition to the vaste majority of the scientific community and their own role within the spread of such disinformation.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> The denial of climate change is truly embarassing, it is more indicative of a failure to think than a free-thinking mind. Science is not something that can be partially accepted, either you accept science or you don't, and the scientific community, almost to a person, has shown that climate change is taking place and is being accelerated by human action.
> 
> Moreover, climate change denial is largely a ruse purported by the far-right, because their rich backers want to evade picking up the bill for as long as possible. For example, you can read about the money behind Brexit and its links to climate change denial here:
> 
> ...


Yeah, the climate changes, derp! It always has.

But when you're looking to attach fart-bags to cows and starve and impoverish millions, who's cray cray now?

What good does that do humanity?

Btw, why are you running away from "Global Warming", hmm?

Paying carbon credits? That's what it all led to. A buncha BS.

A ruse to impoverish and starve people is all it was. Oh yeah, and reduce the global population. 

Also to equalize the US with 3rd world countries with no industry that don't make any carbon emissions because they're 3rd world.


----------



## Mr McC (Feb 26, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Yeah, the climate changes, derp! It always has.
> 
> But when you're looking to attach fart-bags to cows and starve and impoverish millions, who's cray cray now?
> 
> ...



I recommend Colgate for your next cooler.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> I recommend Colgate for your next cooler.


I'm cheap, I like Ultra-Brite, brah. Same product, different package. 

If you don't believe me, spend $1 on Ultra-Brite and read what it says on the rim of the tube.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Mr McC said:


> The denial of climate change is truly embarassing, it is more indicative of a failure to think than a free-thinking mind.


Correction: you are supposed to think it critically, than accept it. This isn't your acceptance piece. It goes both ways. For example, what you can do _against_ it.
It would be sad, if it came to be dominated by sjw lunatics to hold everything with an iron grip than the elusive machinations of an adept user to boost the economy by making right what evolutionist darwin ideologues are making everyone accept at a fundamentally obtuse manner.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 26, 2020)

I was taught critical thinking in school. It seems that has ceased. In parts of America, at least.



Mr McC said:


> The denial of climate change is truly embarassing, it is more indicative of a failure to think than a free-thinking mind. Science is not something that can be partially accepted, either you accept science or you don't, and the scientific community, almost to a person, has shown that climate change is taking place and is being accelerated by human action.
> 
> Moreover, climate change denial is largely a ruse purported by the far-right, because their rich backers want to evade picking up the bill for as long as possible. For example, you can read about the money behind Brexit and its links to climate change denial here:
> 
> ...



Hey man, what good does starving and impoverishing millions of people do to better the world, hmm?

While some self-proclaimed elites profit? This makes no sense to me. Tell me more about how you defend that position.

Are you really so arrogant as to think that man can affect the weather?

Make it stop raining here now, then. I got $5 says you can't.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 26, 2020)

Okay, this is a science and tech forum. Keep religion out of it. Any further OT posts will be deleted. If people wish to selectively use science to purport religious opinion, then dismiss science when it does not fit their belief, you can do it elsewhere. 

I don't want people offending others beliefs, nor do I want such believe to disrupt scientific discussion.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 26, 2020)

Schmuckley said:


> Hey man, what good does starving and impoverishing millions of people do to better the world, hmm?



That's kinda what global warming will do, if you read.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 26, 2020)

650 million living in extreme poverty right now:








						Our work on Poverty has moved
					

All our data, research and writing on poverty is now collected together on our Poverty topic page.




					ourworldindata.org
				



The irony is it was fossil fuels that ended poverty for most...


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 26, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 650 million living in extreme poverty right now:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We need to revitalize soil this time, though. Inorganic fertilisers break the carbon cycle thus releasing carbon stores, also thinning the soil layer.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 26, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 650 million living in extreme poverty right now:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The figures for the damage global warming will cause are catastrophically larger than these figures, but hey.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 27, 2020)

The only reason why Earth has over 7 billion humans is because of fossil fuels.  More people can live in smaller space thanks to electricity produced from coal, more food grown in the same space thanks to oil-based fertilizers, and diesel transporting goods many miles from areas of production to areas of consumption. China lifted itself out of poverty by building coal mines and power plants at a staggering rate.

Fossil fuels will always have their uses.  The only solution is non-fossil fuel alternatives hastily deployed to people that need it most (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is focused on this).  Nuclear fission and fusion can power grids at virtually no fossil fuel costs; however, a long term solution to powering mobility is a problem.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 29, 2020)

Just another taxs... - Funny
					

37 points • 16 comments




					m.9gag.com
				



Memes are fair game?


----------



## Grog6 (Feb 29, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> We need to revitalize soil this time, though. Inorganic fertilisers break the carbon cycle thus releasing carbon stores, also thinning the soil layer.



What?

I'd love to hear an explanation of that. 

Inorganic fertilizers are in the large part fixed nitrogen, like nematodes produce.
The other parts are phosphorous, and potassium.

None of these are "Breaking the carbon cycle"; they lead to more plant growth, makes them absorb more CO2, and yield more nutrients.

None of these things are different from using less efficient organic substitutes, which contain less of these chemicals per volume.

The problem with inorganics is with runoff, but that's not what you said.

Please, I haven't had a good laugh today; please inform us how this "Breaks the Carbon cycle".


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 29, 2020)

Grog6 said:


> Please, I haven't had a good laugh today; please inform us how this "Breaks the Carbon cycle".


It kills soil mycelial networks. Fertilizer is acidic and fungi aren't at good terms with such heavy chemicals.
The fertilizer substrates normally are present however in smaller quantities. Mycelium root stock is much broader than plant roots that rather dig down for water. Mycelium on the otherhand traverse horizontally. They are symbiotic.


----------



## Assimilator (Feb 29, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The only reason why Earth has over 7 billion humans is because of fossil fuels.  More people can live in smaller space thanks to electricity produced from coal, more food grown in the same space thanks to oil-based fertilizers, and diesel transporting goods many miles from areas of production to areas of consumption. China lifted itself out of poverty by building coal mines and power plants at a staggering rate.



Or - and here's a crazy idea - we could have fewer people, living in better conditions, with less pollution. Quantity is not quality.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 29, 2020)

Imagine sciences taking a political stand leaving the poor to toil, 'whitling down their numbers' as a justification. I'm sure it is a new slogan...


----------



## Grog6 (Feb 29, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> Or - and here's a crazy idea - we could have fewer people, living in better conditions, with less pollution. Quantity is not quality.



Kill 'em all; God knows his own.

Where have I heard this before?
Better kill the right ones; Pol Pot proved killing all the educated people was a losing proposition.

SMH.




mtcn77 said:


> It kills soil mycelial networks. Fertilizer is acidic and fungi aren't at good terms with such heavy chemicals.
> The fertilizer substrates normally are present however in smaller quantities. Mycelium root stock is much broader than plant roots that rather dig down for water. Mycelium on the otherhand traverse horizontally. They are symbiotic.



Nematodes are not affected by inorganic fertilizers, so unless you're running a mushroom farm, fungus==loss.

"Fertilizer substrates"; what exactly is that? 

Soil based fungus *competes* for nutrients; that's not "symbiotic".

References?

Inorganic fertilizer has a century-old track record, and I have never heard of the drivel you spew without references.

Next I guess you'll call me biased. 

If it weren't for inorganic fertilizers, Tennessee would not export anything.



Climate change was the original topic, before the generic idiots came out of the woodwork.

Check out this:





This is the Antarctic; this is the melt in less than two weeks.

But Climate Change/Global Warming is a Hoax, right?

SMH.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 29, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> Or - and here's a crazy idea - we could have fewer people, living in better conditions, with less pollution. Quantity is not quality.


The more prosperous a household, the fewer children it has.  This is partly why Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is trying to raise Africa out of poverty: naturally reduces birth rates.  But skipping past the industrial revolution without relying on fossil fuels is expensive.  It remains to be seen if the effort is self sustaining.


----------



## mtcn77 (Feb 29, 2020)

Grog6 said:


> Soil based fungus *competes* for nutrients; that's not "symbiotic".
> 
> References?


Anything Paul Stamets has to offer. Fungi are not even commensal, they need the sugar plants offer in exchange for nutrients.



Grog6 said:


> Check out this:
> 
> This is the Antarctic; this is the melt in less than two weeks.
> 
> But Climate Change/Global Warming is a Hoax, right?


What you are saying is called concern trolling. World doesn't go around because you tell it to. Stop spreading FUD. What we need is a solution. I play the photosynthetic carbon sequestration wildcard. You could play your co2 capture and storage wildcard, but I'm going to say it as a one time disclaimer: had it not been for co2, your o2 pressure in your capillary vessels would drop. Stop messing with the environment rather than making it more efficient. We are here because of biology and that involves the mighty little 'C'.


----------



## Grog6 (Mar 1, 2020)

Actual Pictures are FUD. Right.

I still don't see any references.

At 400ppm CO2, we are already seeing problems; that number will not decrease in the next 50 years, regardless of actions we take.

We can decrease the rate it increases, but people will make sure that doesn't happen, because money.

Rats have a higher tolerance to CO2, so they'll still be alive to eat us when we pass out from lack of O2.

Enjoy!


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 1, 2020)

At low partial o2 pressure, such as high altitude, co2 scrubbers cause a decrease of capillary o2 tension. You expect a magic solution. There isn't any. No leaps of faith to envision your sort of world.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 1, 2020)

Grog6 said:


> This is the Antarctic; this is the melt in less than two weeks.
> 
> But Climate Change/Global Warming is a Hoax, right?


This Antarctic coastal melting happens every year and varies from year to year and decade to decade. Hardly alarming information when the proper context is observed.



Grog6 said:


> At 400ppm CO2, we are already seeing problems


And again, hardly an alarming number when ice-gas samples, from the Antarctic shelf itself, show that CO2 levels have been high in the past, as high as 950PPM, during the middle of the last ice-age. It was shown to be due to volcanic activity of the time. The Earth's atmosphere recovered. What we have been and are doing to the environment is minor compared to the periodic volatile volcanic activity Earth experiences, which the geologic record shows we are on the leading edge of. Additionally almost all of the nations on Earth are actively participating in reducing pollutants and human impact on the environment. While there is much work still to be done over the next century, great progress has been made.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> This Antarctic coastal melting happens every year and varies from year to year and decade to decade. Hardly alarming information when the proper context is observed.
> 
> 
> And again, hardly an alarming number when ice-gas samples, from the Antarctic shelf itself, show that CO2 levels have been high in the past, as high as 950PPM, during the middle of the last ice-age. It was shown to be due to volcanic activity of the time. The Earth's atmosphere recovered. What we have been and are doing to the environment is minor compared to the periodic volatile volcanic activity Earth experiences, which the geologic record shows we are on the leading edge of. Additionally almost all of the nations on Earth are actively participating in reducing pollutants and human impact on the environment. While there is much work still to be done over the next century, great progress has been made.



I'm sure you wouldn't post without a source and your mention of 950ppm intrigued me. But I couldn't find that info. The closest I can find to evidence on long term ice-cores relates to Antartic Ice Sheet sensitivity, which recorded levels at 500ppm (long before the last ice age). These levels, however, had a significant impact on melting and suggest sensitivty to melting at even lower levels than 500ppm.

Moreover, significant volcanic activity is known to drive global cooling, therefore it would be expected that higher CO2 emissions were present at the onset of such periods. Even if measures were that high, they reflect a transient event (volcanic activity). Transient events do affect the global system but are normally put in check by the very systems form which they come. You say the atmosphere recovered- it did, but after a *very* long time. Our lifespan would be consumed many times over by the passage of time required to naturally 'heal' such catastrophic damage.

The current measures (at 400+ppm) are part of a trend of an accelerating increase. Our recent past has seen an increase in CO2 from human influences of burning fossil fuels, after all, creating energy from burning organics does release CO2. Other significant factors, farming and methane etc are also to blame, again, all part of  the human influence.

Also, to use volatile natural 'disasters' as some sort of innoculation to minimise the current trend is disingenuous. In fact, an item quoted from Forbes, on studies in volcanic CO2 emissions stated:



> even if we include the rare, very large volcanic eruptions, like 1980's Mount St. Helens or 1991's Mount Pinatubo eruption, they only emitted 10 and 50 million tons of CO2 each, respectively. It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption _every day_ to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.



And if that happened - we'd all be dead anyway.

To add to that, the source article states volcanic CO2 emissions (all forms) contribute to a 1/4 billion tonnes of CO2 each year. Human sources of CO2 are measured at around 29 billion.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 1, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> In fact, an item quoted from Forbes


Interesting source...






						800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
					

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center




					cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov
				








						Ice Core
					

The World Data Service (WDS) for Paleoclimatology maintains archives of ice core data from polar and low-latitude mountain glaciers and ice caps throughout the world. Proxy climate indicators include oxygen isotopes, methane concentrations, dust content, and many other parameters.




					www.ncdc.noaa.gov


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Interesting source...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, the article was from Forbes but the source data came from a volcanologist.


I can't find anywhere your data of 950ppm. In the links you gave we have:



> Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. *The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6* ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 1, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The only reason why Earth has over 7 billion humans is because of fossil fuels.



We could try not fearing nuclear energy.

Our current course is wholly unsustainable.  We aren't ever going to eliminate fossil fuels entirely but our present use is crazily over the edge.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 1, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> We could try not fearing nuclear energy.
> 
> Our current course is wholly unsustainable.  We aren't ever going to eliminate fossil fuels entirely but our present use is crazily over the edge.



Fukushima bit Japan badly, psychologically speaking. They're intent on building more coal power stations. They'll also need to import the coal. All because they built a Nuclear power station in a known Tsunami area.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 1, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> Fukushima bit Japan badly, psychologically speaking. They're intent on building more coal power stations. They'll also need to import the coal. All because they built a Nuclear power station in a known Tsunami area.



Well cooling wise a large body of water makes sense.  That's one of the issues.  But that was still exceptionally bad placement.


----------



## Assimilator (Mar 1, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> We could try not fearing nuclear energy.



It's not just fear, it's economics: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/4733...price-nuclear-power-on-the-decline-in-the-u-s and https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...hy-when-it-comes-to-energy-small-is-expensive



the54thvoid said:


> Fukushima bit Japan badly, psychologically speaking. They're intent on building more coal power stations. They'll also need to import the coal. All because they built a Nuclear power station in a known Tsunami area.



Onagawa NPP is twice as close to the epicentre of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, yet it had no issues. Why? Because the utility responsible for its construction, Tōhoku Electric, listened to its engineers and constructed a seawall nearly 3 times as high as the one that Tepco built around Fukushima Daiichi. That seawall was only a meter taller than the waves from the tsunami, but it was enough to ensure the plant was able to shut down safely. In short: it's nothing to do with the location of the plant, and everything to do with how responsible - or not - the company responsible for its construction and management is.

I maintain that Japan's about-face on nuclear power is not due to fear of it, but rather mistrust of greedy utilities like Tepco that received no significant penalties in the wake of Fukushima Daiichi. If the government isn't willing to punish those responsible, those responsible are going to repeat their f**kery, and the Japanese people will suffer again.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 1, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> It's not just fear, it's economics:



Fear of losing money is still fear.

It's still going to kill us.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 1, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> It's not just fear, it's economics: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/4733...price-nuclear-power-on-the-decline-in-the-u-s and https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...hy-when-it-comes-to-energy-small-is-expensive
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I knew about Tepco - some extremely bad practice. Not too far removed from the sort of mindset at Chenorbyl, though obviously, very hard to draw direct comparisons. The problem with Nuclear incidents is the immediate mistrust of the technology, as opposed to the very real malpractice of a company.


----------



## Assimilator (Mar 1, 2020)

For the record, I would like it to be known that while I don't particularly like nuclear power (due to the waste, which includes inevitable power station decommissioning) I find it far more palatable than anything that burns fossil fuels. Nuclear fission is inherently more dangerous than anything else we currently have, yes, but it's understood well enough that we are capable of harnessing it safely. The issues around it are solely due to lack of enforcement of regulations, and that is a problem of political will, not the technology.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 1, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> Yeah, I knew about Tepco - some extremely bad practice. Not too far removed from the sort of mindset at Chenorbyl, though obviously, very hard to draw direct comparisons. The problem with Nuclear incidents is the immediate mistrust of the technology, as opposed to the very real malpractice of a company.



This about sums up my feelings.

It's a powerful technology you should be careful around, like gasoline.  There's a reason people don't use open flames at gas stations.

Treat it right and it's helpful to man.  Neglect it and well...  boom.



Assimilator said:


> For the record, I would like it to be known that while I don't particularly like nuclear power (due to the waste, which includes inevitable power station decommissioning) I find it far more palatable than anything that burns fossil fuels. Nuclear fission is inherently more dangerous than anything else we currently have, yes, but it's understood well enough that we are capable of harnessing it safely. The issues around it are solely due to lack of enforcement of regulations, and that is a problem of political will, not the technology.



My main favored tech involves use of the new "Fast rebreeder" type reactors. They are effectively reactors that can run on some of the old spent fuel:  ie the most dangerous part of the waste.


----------



## Assimilator (Mar 1, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> My main favored tech involves use of the new "Fast rebreeder" type reactors. They are effectively reactors that can run on some of the old spent fuel:  ie the most dangerous part of the waste.



What blows my mind is that the Generation IV reactor designs are available and pretty much proven, but none of them are in commercial operation. Hell, there are barely any Gen III reactors in operation worldwide - most are Gen II! If not for the myopic fixation on the holy grail of fusion (which has remained 2 decades away since the 1950s) I believe we would have many more, far better fission plants in operation to help us break our dependence on fossil fuels.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 1, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> What blows my mind is that the Generation IV reactor designs are available and pretty much proven, but none of them are in commercial operation. Hell, there are barely any Gen III reactors in operation worldwide


That's because they are bloody expensive to build/rebuild. Replacement is almost the same amount.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 1, 2020)

Because natural gas is so cheap there's no interest in investing in $1+ billion reactors.  Bond measures to try to fund such projects almost always fall way short of the goal.  Then the reactors being built now are way over time and over budget.  Natural gas is so much cheaper and simpler.

What we need is a modular reactor design that's virtually plug and play.  Mass production and precertification is the only way nuclear will make a come back.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 1, 2020)

In the UK nuclear has not really gone away (15 operational nuclear reactors across 8 plants)) and is set to grow by a third over the next 15 years, it currently generates around 20% of the UK's electricity and in terms of total UK energy production/consumption low carbon fuels make up 20%, of which by far the greatest contributor is Nuclear …….. still a long way to go though.


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 1, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> We could try not fearing nuclear energy.
> 
> Our current course is wholly unsustainable.  We aren't ever going to eliminate fossil fuels entirely but our present use is crazily over the edge.


Petrol has withstood the test of time. It is due to its chemical inertness that it has become the ideal chemical candidate among the many. Our world has the necessary conditions which make it quite the decent Hydrogen bond storage device. Had there been any higher pressure and we wouldn't be able to store the energy in hydrocarbon organic compounds.
Is there any other element with a lower acidity? Carbon is as high and up the periodic table that there can be without turning into the alkaline earth metal groups which aren't anionically the same. I think Venus is as acid buffered as it can be.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 1, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> Petrol has withstood the test of time. It is due to its chemical inertness that it has become the ideal chemical candidate among the many. Our world has the necessary conditions which make it quite the decent Hydrogen bond storage device. Had there been any higher pressure and we wouldn't be able to store the energy in hydrocarbon organic compounds.
> Is there any other element with a lower acidity? Carbon is as high and up the periodic table that there can be without turning into the alkaline earth metal groups which aren't anionically the same. I think Venus is as acid buffered as it can be.









I'm also unsure why you keep going on about acidity:  You have yet to establish it's relevance.


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 1, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> I'm also unsure why you keep going on about acidity:  You have yet to establish it's relevance.


You are right. I'm inferencing from Ayn Rand's book, don't ask why just look at the analogy. There, even with a free energy source there is still the alternator running on petrol(a similar analogy might have been in my recollection by a nuclear physicist, it is easier recalling anectodally), so I know you can have nuclear, but what about intermediaries? You cannot store nuclear...


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 1, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> so I know you can have nuclear, but what about intermediaries? You cannot store nuclear...



I'll humor you here because you bring up a very valid question.  Battery technology is indeed insufficient at present.  I'd argue to truly store the energy generated fuel cell tech might be useful.


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 1, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> I'll humor you here because you bring up a very valid question.  Battery technology is indeed insufficient at present.  I'd argue to truly store the energy generated fuel cell tech might be useful.


Okay, I'll accept it when I see it as you can see in my post above questioning the plentifulness of such a compound. We know beryllium is less acidic than carbon, but good luck concentrating enough of that. I botched my organics studies, but fair is fair: carbon chemistry started prior to today's battery tech. Even in the future, I'm not sure we will have electrodes with the same lifespan of a carbon engine. Tesla has statements on that, but give me the benefit of doubt. The guy is hovering above his charisma than what not...
PS: Oh, I misunderstood, you were saying 'insufficient'. I'm not so stuffy to go on like that.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 1, 2020)

gotta go for nuclear = electricity which can be stored via Hydrogen  Fuel Cells ( and by desalination will help solve the water crysis thats inpending)
Hydrogen fuel cells give mobility ( after needed infrastructure ie adapting current refueling stations )
Wind and hydro power as additional/supplementary Power source.
The world needs to worry more about water managment than it does


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 1, 2020)

Having just finished the Chernobyl series on tv I will say I support more development of nuclear power.... (must see btw, eye opener)

Energy has always been a mix, everywhere and climate concerns will simply change that mix, quite drastically hopefully.

We never want less, we want more. The only way to get more is to specialise further. Adapt stuff more for a specific purpose. Create the perfect engines for each purpose. Long or short distance travel for example. Its not like carbon didnt do similar either.


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 1, 2020)

dorsetknob said:


> Hydrogen fuel cells give mobility ( after needed infrastructure ie adapting current refueling stations )


I'm sort of an eclectic kind of person, but what are the infrastructural costs of turning nuclear power into hydrocarbons? I still feel missing a step in between *nuclear>*chemical>*electrical* is in need of some sort of validation.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 1, 2020)

Tatty_One said:


> In the UK nuclear has not really gone away (15 operational nuclear reactors across 8 plants)) and is set to grow by a third over the next 15 years, it currently generates around 20% of the UK's electricity and in terms of total UK energy production/consumption low carbon fuels make up 20%, of which by far the greatest contributor is Nuclear …….. still a long way to go though.


Once the fusion reactor in the south of France is up and running, it will show how robust that type of reactor can be. The physics are known and well understood, the power output is supposed to be much higher than fission type reactors.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 1, 2020)

dorsetknob said:


> gotta go for nuclear = electricity which can be stored via Hydrogen  Fuel Cells ( and by desalination will help solve the water crysis thats inpending)
> Hydrogen fuel cells give mobility ( after needed infrastructure ie adapting current refueling stations )
> Wind and hydro power as additional/supplementary Power source.
> The world needs to worry more about water managment than it does


You're not all wrong, but generating hydrogen is an extremely inefficient process, so you'll need a massively overbuilt nuclear power infrastructure for large scale hydrogen based storage to be viable. Also, hydrogen can't be stored long term; being the smallest atom in existence it will eventually leak through anything and everything. Combine that with it being highly explosive and you have a recipe for trouble.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 2, 2020)

Tatty_One said:


> In the UK nuclear has not really gone away (15 operational nuclear reactors across 8 plants)) and is set to grow by a third over the next 15 years, it currently generates around 20% of the UK's electricity and in terms of total UK energy production/consumption low carbon fuels make up 20%, of which by far the greatest contributor is Nuclear …….. still a long way to go though.


Yeah, USA has hovered around 20% too by reducing power consumption overall and by extending the service life of exisiting reactor fleets.  Virtually all reactors running today were installed before 1986 (Chernobyl).  Last I checked, the Obama administration permitted two new reactors to be built at existing nuclear power facilities.  One was projected to cost something like $4 billion and last I checked, they were already $9 billion in and it wasn't done.  I think the other that got permits, seeing all the problems in Georgia, abandoned it.   So USA is only going to have one or two reactors that aren't 30+ years old.

This is going to be a problem over the next 10-20 years as older reactors have to be decomissioned.



mtcn77 said:


> You cannot store nuclear...











						Radioisotope thermoelectric generator - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						Pumped-storage hydroelectricity - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






mtcn77 said:


> I'm sort of an eclectic kind of person, but what are the infrastructural costs of turning nuclear power into hydrocarbons? I still feel missing a step in between *nuclear>*chemical>*electrical* is in need of some sort of validation.


The idea is to get away from hydrocarbons which fission and fusion do.  They're thermal generators rather than combustive.

When you have excessive power from fission and fusion, you can use it to desalinate water and/or electrolyze water to produce hydrogen/oxygen.  There's already some hydrogen test vehicles out there with GM being the main researcher on the technology.



lexluthermiester said:


> Once the fusion reactor in the south of France is up and running, it will show how robust that type of reactor can be. The physics are known and well understood, the power output is supposed to be much higher than fission type reactors.


ITER is a test bed.  It's not a design for practical power production.  Ideally, it will cost 50 MW to run and produce 500 MW when operational.

DEMO, which will follow ITER, is the first to be a viable fusion power plant:








						DEMOnstration Power Plant - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



The goal there is 80 MW to operate and 2 GW output.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 2, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yeah, USA has hovered around 20% too by reducing power consumption overall and by extending the service life of exisiting reactor fleets.  Virtually all reactors running today were installed before 1986 (Chernobyl).  Last I checked, the Obama administration permitted two new reactors to be built at existing nuclear power facilities.  One was projected to cost something like $4 billion and last I checked, they were already $9 billion in and it wasn't done.  I think the other that got permits, seeing all the problems in Georgia, abandoned it.   So USA is only going to have one or two reactors that aren't 30+ years old.



Well, the UK is spending around $120 Billion on a high speed rail network over the next 15 to 20 years so I consider the costs relating to nuclear energy as a reasonable investment, you make a good point about the longevity of these reactors and I can only hope that the development of more efficient and innovated technology goes some way to addressing that.  Part of me feels that if the wealthiest countries cannot develop affordable (eventually) and more efficient cleaner energy what hope is there for anyone else. I mean fossil fuels are not in limitless supply so at some point in the planets future, yes maybe a significant distance away, these decisions will have to be made, for me it's the sooner the better.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 2, 2020)

__





						SAS Output
					





					www.eia.gov
				



This page is kind of confusing because the bottom row belongs on the right (will only do so with a really wide monitor).  The numbers that matter are the totals on the bottom row:

Nuclear: 23.86
Fossil Steam: 35.86
Hydro-electric: 10.65
Gas Turbine and Small Scale: 32.43

Nuclear has the highest operating and maintenance costs, but the cheapest fuel.


I think if there was a reliable, pre-certified design that cost $x billion and always comes in on time and on budget, old nuclear power plants would probably start being replaced by the new design and more would be added to fleets.  It's not the money that's the issue because they have a great return on investment; it's the uncertainty and risk associated with such a massive undertaking as Georgia is finding out.









						Vogtle Electric Generating Plant - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



Dear lord, it's over $25 billion ($12 billion of that is federal loan guarantees) as of 2018 (up from $14 billion in 2017) and they won't be coming online until 2021 and 2022 at the earliest.

It was a facility in South Carolina that backed out.








						AP1000 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Vogtle 3 is looking almost done:








						Google Maps
					

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




					www.google.com


----------



## Valantar (Mar 2, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think if there was a reliable, pre-certified design that cost $x billion and always comes in on time and on budget, old nuclear power plants would probably start being replaced by the new design and more would be added to fleets.  It's not the money that's the issue because they have a great return on investment; it's the uncertainty and risk associated with such a massive undertaking as Georgia is finding out.


Sadly that won't ever work - building something like this requires very specific adaptations of the design to the location, from seismic protections to waste handling to foundations to weather conditions to ... well, everything. Building in a flood risk area is different from building in a tornado risk area is different from building in an earthquake risk area, etc. And beyond that, no building plan survives the first day of building; things always change, you can't plan for everything, and you have to adapt to anything and everything discovered during building. Any type of one-size-fits-all design is as such destined to be extremely bloated and contain a lot of allocations for "adapt design to condition X" with the budget then being largely make-believe. Not to mention that material costs can vary quite dramatically based on location and a time of purchase.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 2, 2020)

Actually, not really.  They have to be able to withstand deliberate attack anyway which means tornadoes aren't a problem (the walls are 5 feet thick of concrete and steel).  Flooding risk is mitigated by elevating the site and moving it out of the flood plain.  Seismic risk can be compensated for by placing the facility on bushings and springs.

These new AP1000 reactors have passive coolers integrated into the control/power building roofs.  When there's a catastrophic failure, valves are opened and stream is released directly from the pressure vessel to the passive cooling unit to cold shutdown the reactor without power.  In other words, it shouldn't be possible for it to meltdown.


I'm thinking the way of the future will be similar to reactors used in submarines with unified cooling systems.  Can literally load one on a truck and deliver them to the containment structure.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 2, 2020)

I am guessing £20 Billion is realistically what it would cost so yes $25 Billion is about right, one fifth of our forthcoming high speed railway line  ...…………..









						Hinkley Point nuclear plant building costs rise by up to £2.9bn
					

EDF Energy blames ground conditions for rise but says energy bills will not go up




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 2, 2020)

Those are actually bigger units (1600 MW) than what is being installed at Vogtle (1250 MW).  Vogtle is much further along though than Hinkley so costs could keep rising more so at Hinkley than Vogtle.

It's the same deal with USA and UK though: these are the first nuclear power plants for each country in decades.  Subsequent reactors of the same design should be cheaper.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 2, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ITER is a test bed. It's not a design for practical power production. Ideally, it will cost 50 MW to run and produce 500 MW when operational.


True, but once running it will provide power for practical application. And that is only one small reactor.


FordGT90Concept said:


> DEMO, which will follow ITER, is the first to be a viable fusion power plant:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah but this is just a proposal so far. However, it has great potential. Enough to replace, en masse, all of the fission based reactors in the nation with equivalent fusion reactors. The problems are solvable. Even more interesting is the possibility of capturing the energy given off by the reactions directly instead of using a heat exchange system. The next 30 years are going to be very interesting for the power generation industry.


----------



## Assimilator (Mar 2, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ITER is a test bed.  It's not a design for practical power production.  Ideally, it will cost 50 MW to run and produce 500 MW when operational.
> 
> DEMO, which will follow ITER, is the first to be a viable fusion power plant:



ITER still needs to prove some very important tokamak concepts before DEMO and/or PROTO can even be considered. Considering ITER is only expected to become initially operational by 2025 with full operation a decade later (timeline likely to be pushed out a decade or more due to factors like Brexit stupidity and inherent deadline slips). So that's 2045 earliest that maybe fusion is actually proven.



FordGT90Concept said:


> In other words, it shouldn't be possible for it to meltdown.



That's what was said about the Gen II BWRs, and look at Chernobyl and Fukushima...



FordGT90Concept said:


> Subsequent reactors of the same design should be cheaper.



If everyone doesn't go "oh, these new reactors are so expensive so we won't build any more". Imagine if the people who were responsible for financing these projects could be made to realise that the more you build the cheaper it gets.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 4, 2020)

Fossil fuels for power at turning point as renewables surged in 2019: data
					

The use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil for generating electricity fell in 2019 in the United States, the European Union and India, at the same time overall power output rose, a turning point for the global energy mix.




					www.reuters.com
				






lexluthermiester said:


> True, but once running it will provide power for practical application. And that is only one small reactor.


ITER is not "small" at all. Further, the facility is riddled with sensors and equipment that wouldn't be in a production facility because it's for research first and foremost.




Assimilator said:


> That's what was said about the Gen II BWRs, and look at Chernobyl and Fukushima...


The reactors at Pripyat were Gen II RBMK, Fukushima was Gen II BWR, Vogtle is AP1000 which is Gen III+ PWR.  They're not comparable at all other than basic principle.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 4, 2020)

Love the Name CHANGE!!!
The old title tbh pissed me the fuck off.
It is refreshing to see attitudes change.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 4, 2020)

It was originally about "Climategate" but has long become a thread about energy/climate change in general.  I'm glad it got changed too.


----------



## Assimilator (Mar 4, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The reactors at Pripyat were Gen II RBMK, Fukushima was Gen II BWR, Vogtle is AP1000 which is Gen III+ PWR.  They're not comparable at all other than basic principle.



Chernobyl and Fukushima are very comparable, both are BWRs based on half-a-century old designs that are basically ticking times bombs should they lose coolant.

The Gen III/+ designs are a lot safer in principle, but again, the proof of the pudding is in the making. The flaws in the Gen II designs were mostly due to inexperience, ignorance and incorrect assumptions, which can be fixed... any flaws in the Gen III designs is more likely to be related to cost-cutting, and that's an entirely different problem.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 4, 2020)

RBMK has no containment and relies entirely on control rods to moderate it.  #3 exploded because the rods were removed, the uranium deformed from meltdown, and the rods could only be partially reinserted.  There was no stopping it.





BWRs have containment and can passively cool to some extent (not completely dependent on control rods).





RBMK are cheap to build and capable of producing a lot of power but they don't have much in the way of safety features.  They are very much part of the Soviet Union design mentality.  BWR are very costly to build and have relatively limited power production capabilities because the containment is so large and costly.

Daiichi is the only case of leakage and most of it was because of all the spent fuel held on site and emergency gas venting to prevent a steam explosion (which happened at Chernobyl).  All of the uranium is still contained within the facility.

Fukashima Daiichi had a primary containment vessel ("containment structure" in the picture above) with concrete *25 feet* thick.  Unit 1, which is estimated to have >70% melted down, only managed to make it's way 10% into that.  BWRs are all about safety.  It took mother nature's worst to upset that facility

Chernobyl happened because of stupidity (the Russians haven't made that mistake again).  Fukashima happened because of a 9.0 earthquake which is firmly at the back of every nuclear engineer's/architect's mind in designing new power plants.



Nuclear is still by far the safest electric power source known to man.

The reason why Vogtle is getting passive emergency coolers is because the cost of installing and maintaining them is far less than dealing with the associated costs with a meltdown.  These are a $25 billion investment, a billion now to save dozens or hundreds of billions of latter, is a good investment.

Also, the main defining feature of Gen III is that it has a 60+ year service life instead of 40+ years.


----------



## Assimilator (Mar 4, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> These are a $25 billion investment, a billion now to save dozens or hundreds of billions of latter, is a good investment.



That argument falls down when you consider that there has been zero financial penalty, and zero successful criminal prosecutions, against the companies that designed, built and operated the Fukushima reactors. Some Tepco executives got to resign, oh how terrible, and since Tepco is a state-owned company all costs will effectively be paid for by the Japanese government, which means the Japanese public.

If a similar accident happened in America, the company responsible would just declare bankruptcy, get the government to assume the financial responsibility for cleanup, then magically emerge from bankruptcy a couple years later. Then they'd either rebrand or get bought out by another company so that their old, bad name was no longer a problem, and it's back to building unsafe junk! Hell, it worked for the auto manufacturers and the banks - they didn't have to change their names!

So yeah, my trust in US companies to design stuff that is safe isn't particularly high, and it isn't helped by the Ignoramus-in-Chief of that country who's currently gutting any agency that produces facts he or his voters don't like, and filling them with his yes-men.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 4, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> That argument falls down when you consider that there has been zero financial penalty, and zero successful criminal prosecutions, against the companies that designed, built and operated the Fukushima reactors.


[facepalm.jpg]








						Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (Published 2017)
					

The company, whose corporate parent is Toshiba of Japan, led projects once seen as heralding a nuclear renaissance, but its filing casts a pall over the troubled industry.




					www.nytimes.com
				



That triggered a reevaluation of the AP1000 units being built by Westinghouse at South Carolina and Georgia.  South Carolina ended up backing out.


Tell me what Westinghouse did that was criminal at Daiiachi.
1) No one plans for a 9.0 earthquake.  That's a once-in-a-millennial event.
2) The reactors worked according to specifications up until the point the cooling pumps lost power.
3) Most of the faults were on Tepco principally because they covered it up which caused the situation to spiral out of control.  Emergency generators could have been brought in on short notice but it didn't happen because Tepco insisted it was minor.  The ruse was over when external sensors not owned by Tepco were picking up elevated amounts of radiation and traced the source back to the wounded power plant.  Then they got serious.  Only then.  If they weren't fools, they would have not taken any risks, drove the control rods in the moment they knew about the earthquake, and put contingency plans in motion should the backup generators failed.  They did none of that.

A similar incident did occur in America at Three Mile Island.  Everyone moved quick to shut it down and seal it.  It was still a PR disaster but no radiation left the containment structure.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 4, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> That argument falls down when you consider that there has been zero financial penalty, and zero successful criminal prosecutions, against the companies that designed, built and operated the Fukushima reactors.




So being subject to the unpredictable forces of mother nature is a crime? That would be like saying that everyone who has died in a building that collapsed in an earthquake should be able to sue and have imprisoned the people who built said building they died in. Such is very flawed logic and reasoning. The only course of action that can be taken is to learn from the events in question and do better in future.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 4, 2020)

I just read some background about the development of Fukishima and in the 1960's, even seismologists didn't predict the possibility of the 9m waves that rolled in (I think they assumed 3m max?). They concluded in 700 years there had been no significant seismological indicent that had affected the region, declaring it to be low risk. In contrast, another plant built in the same region in the 1980's had walls that could withstand 10m tsunami waves. It just got by when the tsunami hit.

It's like the building regs in places on the US West coast, an element of earthquake proofing is required by law (I believe). But older buildings can't be retrofitted to any great extent. So when the San Andreas (or the Cascadia) fault finally slip, there will still be massive casualties. We live on a dynamic planet and every few-hundred years it reminds us how fragile our human construction can be. Given the common occurence of US litigation, you'd imagine a construction/engineering company stateside would be slightly more risk averse than some other nationalities. Though, Boing recently managed to knock that confidence. So, lets trust good old German manufacturing, because they're honesty is... oh, no wait...


----------



## dirtyferret (Mar 4, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> German manufacturing, because they're honesty is... oh, no wait...



Are you talking about a certain German automotive manufacturing company with a North American tag line of "truth in engineering*"?  If you are, I will have you know that company has had zero CEO arrests since 2019.  If that isn't trustful company then I don''t know what is!

*We do not include diesel engines as part of our engineering truth program


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 5, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> It's like the building regs in places on the US West coast, an element of earthquake proofing is required by law (I believe). But older buildings can't be retrofitted to any great extent. So when the San Andreas (or the Cascadia) fault finally slip, there will still be massive casualties. We live on a dynamic planet and every few-hundred years it reminds us how fragile our human construction can be. Given the common occurence of US litigation, you'd imagine a construction/engineering company stateside would be slightly more risk averse than some other nationalities. Though, Boing recently managed to knock that confidence. So, lets trust good old German manufacturing, because they're honesty is... oh, no wait...


There's only one nuclear power plant left on the west coast and it's closing by 2025:








						Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



It should be able to survive a 7.5 earthquake.





						Diablo Canyon earthquake vulnerability - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 5, 2020)

Wonder if that's down to risk aversion, cost, or denial?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 5, 2020)

All three.  If Fukashima Daiichi was swamped by a historic Tsunami, why couldn't Diablo Canyon?  The plant is already well beyond its service life.  They did ask for and get approval to extend it before the tsunami but reconsidered afterwards.  With PG&E having all sorts of other problems (like power lines starting wildfires), I think they want to take Diablo Canyon of the board in terms of being a risk/liability.

California buys a lot of power from Arizona which is on stable ground and no tsunami risk.


----------



## Frick (Mar 5, 2020)

dirtyferret said:


> Are you talking about a certain German automotive manufacturing company with a North American tag line of "truth in engineering*"?  If you are, I will have you know that company has had zero CEO arrests since 2019.  If that isn't trustful company then I don''t know what is!
> 
> *We do not include diesel engines as part of our engineering truth program



That plus both VAG and BMW have had pertty massive quality issues the past 10+ years.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Mar 6, 2020)

@mtcn77  yes petrol, very much so storeable because stainless steel? It kind of is, just let alone knowing where the crude is , and or needed to be explored need arose came.

Analogous to an acumulative battery that's not charged or the "disposable chemical" type, same can be with nuclear fision reactor factoring in the "lag" reaching usable thermal output to be put to use generating electricity or the xenon poisoning of sayd reactor.


----------



## mtcn77 (Mar 6, 2020)

Can someone clear the air surrounding nuclear chemical plants? I think we could run a surplus reactor with the intention of fusing hydrocarbons. Climate correction won't come at an endothermic deficit - no free lunch. We need to facilitate a change and all reclimation efforts will start from a higher entrophy inflection point, let's shed our inherent reluctance to facilitating our effort to where it is needed. We want less atmospheric carbondioxide - I don't get why not the same for sulphurdioxide, but I'm no climatologist. Apparently too dumb for that, sulphur clouds must be the most positively deemed thing...

Why ethanol? Just make longer chain, more inert, hydrocarbons that store chemical energy for longer. We are doing it to reduce entrophy in the chemical energy storage form, not for consumption.


Spoiler: GreenCarCongress - 2006






> Based on a reference year 2025 case, the report found that 43.1% of the CO2 projected to be emitted from coal plants could serve to produce the 6.6 billion barrels of ethanol required to displace gasoline use in the US. For the production of that much ethanol, there would need to be between 700 and 900 GWth (gigawatts thermal) of nuclear power to produce the needed hydrogen and energy for the synthesis of the fuel.














						Study: Synthetic Fuels from Nuclear Hydrogen and Captured CO<sub>2</sub> Viable
					

A study published earlier this year by researchers at MIT’s Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems (CANES) concluded that producing synthetic transportation fuels from nuclear hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide would be technically viable. Based on a reference year 2025 case, the report...



					www.greencarcongress.com


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 6, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Tell me what Westinghouse did that was criminal at Daiiachi.
> 1) No one plans for a 9.0 earthquake.  That's a once-in-a-millennial event.
> 2) The reactors worked according to specifications up until the point the cooling pumps lost power.
> 3) Most of the faults were on Tepco principally because they covered it up which caused the situation to spiral out of control.  Emergency generators could have been brought in on short notice but it didn't happen because Tepco insisted it was minor.  The ruse was over when external sensors not owned by Tepco were picking up elevated amounts of radiation and traced the source back to the wounded power plant.  Then they got serious.  Only then.  If they weren't fools, they would have not taken any risks, drove the control rods in the moment they knew about the earthquake, and put contingency plans in motion should the backup generators failed.  They did none of that.
> ...


The biggest problem I have with the designers of the Fukushima power plant is the fact that* they put the backup generators dangerously close to sea level,* in the basement level of each reactor. Now these are big generators. We are talking about the size of an average house (locomotive style engines). Safety is paramount, but even then, some things get missed. Especially considering the tsunami threat in the area. It was a vulnerability they should have never overlooked even with a sea wall (which was also much shorter than it should have been BTW) Just goes to show you can never out engineer mother nature. And humans simply cannot plan for every inevitability. 

The control rods were automatically "SCRAMMED" after the earthquake, a safety measure built into the system. But even then, reactors still need to be cooled with water. I attribute this automatic shutdown to be a very important step that prevented an even larger release of radioactivity.  Because had the reactors started to cook without coolant and without the control rods inserted, we would have been looking at another Chernobyl, except on a much larger scale.

Chernobyl is still the "worst" nuclear disaster in history, however, Fukushima is the "most complex" nuclear disaster in history.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 6, 2020)

They likely had the generators where they were because the shorter the cables are, the less power they lose.  Pumps as big as a power plant uses need a lot of power.  In hindsight, yeah, not the best idea to put them there.

Yeah, three cores experienced meltdown versus one at Chernobyl.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 6, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They likely had the generators where they were because the shorter the cables are, the less power they lose.  Pumps as big as a power plant uses need a lot of power.  In hindsight, yeah, not the best idea to put them there.
> 
> Yeah, three cores experienced meltdown versus one at Chernobyl.



I think the article I read stated (asides from inadequate knowledge of historical Tsunami effects) that for transport reasons, the generators were shipped in, and being so huge, it was cost-effective to install them close to shore. That, I think, is the one glaring lack of foresight.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 6, 2020)

Fukushima disaster was preventable, new study finds
					

Critical backup generators were built in low-lying areas at risk for tsunami damage — despite warnings from scientists.




					news.usc.edu
				






> At the four damaged nuclear power plants (Onagawa, Fukushima Daiichi, Fukushimi Daini and Toka Daini), 22 of the 33 total backup diesel generators were washed away, including 12 of 13 at Fukushima Daiichi. Of the 33 total backup power lines to off-site generators, all but two were obliterated by the tsunami.
> 
> Unable to cool itself, Fukushima Daiichi’s reactors melted down one by one.
> 
> “What doomed Fukushima Daiichi was the elevation of the EDGs (emergency diesel generators),” the authors wrote. One set was located in a basement, and the others at 10 and 13 meters above sea level — inexplicably and fatally low, Synolakis said.


Explains why Japan ordered them all shutdown.


----------



## storm-chaser (Mar 6, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They likely had the generators where they were because the shorter the cables are, the less power they lose.  Pumps as big as a power plant uses need a lot of power.  In hindsight, yeah, not the best idea to put them there.
> 
> Yeah, three cores experienced meltdown versus one at Chernobyl.


I was especially worried about reactor #3 which ran on a mixed core, containing both uranium fuel and mixed uranium and plutonium oxide, or MOX fuel. Especially after seeing the hydrogen explosion, and playing it back a few times, I thought for sure the containment vessel had been breached and we would potentially be dealing with far more lethal forms of radiation. Not to mention the fact that it's *Emergency Core Cooling System* (ECCS) failed completely and at one point, the top three meters of the uranium/mixed oxide (MOX) fuel rods were not covered by coolant. Not a good thing!

All I can say is thank god for human ingenuity. At one point, members of the Fukushima 50 were out in the staff parking lot pulling batteries from cars in a last stitch effort to power some of the critical gauges and sensors in the control room in an effort to control the beast known as nuclear power. Amazing work they did, absolutely amazing. 

TEPCO should have done more but hindsight is 20/20. They didn't really have a grasp on the crisis as a whole in the first few hours, nor did they understand the gravity of the devastation inflicted. Initially TEPCO tried to save the plant. They didn't want to pump sea water into the reactors at first because that would damage the reactors to the point of no return. Still, there is no excuse for some of their actions.

There were also a number of problems of getting power restored to the plant. All the roads were out, leading to and from the reactor complex and surrounding areas. All power lines surrounding the plant were essentially gone or totally compromised to the point they couldn't be re used.  The first generators that showed up were not fitted with the correct equipment and they failed to connect to the plant's electrical system. 









						Homage to Yoshida Masao, the Man Who Saved Japan
					

Yoshida Masao, the plant manager who led the epic fight to contain the March 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, lost his battle with cancer on July 9 this year. The author of a major book detailing the struggle draws on extensive interviews with Yoshida and his staff...




					www.nippon.com


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 6, 2020)

The Japan-US “military” response to the earthquake, and the strengthening of the military alliance as a result | Fukushima On The Globe
		



> The relief efforts of the U.S. military were centered mainly in Iwate prefecture and Miyagi prefecture. It is because of the criteria set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It required that activities done by the U.S. military be 80 km away from the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Thus, except for a small part, the U.S. military did not conduct relief work in Fukushima. Operations were managed in a way not to extend the danger of radiation to American troops.





> The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, George Washington, whose homeport is Yokosuka, was kept on standby in the Sea of Japan, which is the opposite side of Japanese archipelago.145 members of special units called the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) were dispatched to Japan, but their activities were limited to outside the 80-km radius from the Fukushima nuclear power plant; they went back home after staying for three weeks without doing anything other than waiting at the far area from the nuclear power plant.


If NRC didn't do that and Tepco/Japan agreed, the military could have brought in 60 tons worth of emergency generators and supplies on each LCAC.  One LCAC could carry 3 x 928 kW diesel generators.  I think NRC didn't issue an exemption because Tepco covered up the severity of the situation.

US military was limited to disaster relief 80 km away from Fukashima.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 23, 2020)

I hope climatologists are taking note.  The virus is drastically reducing the number of flights which is yet again reducing the number of contrails in the atmosphere.  This is an opportunity to measure the effect of aircraft traffic on surface temperatures as 9/11 suggested.


> They found that contrails depress the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures, typically decreasing the maximum temperature and raising the minimum temperature. In this respect, the contrail clouds mimic the effect of ordinary clouds.


----------



## Chomiq (Mar 27, 2020)

Coronavirus: Lockdowns continue to suppress European pollution
					

New data confirms the improvement in air quality over Europe - a by-product of the coronavirus crisis.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 27, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> Coronavirus: Lockdowns continue to suppress European pollution
> 
> 
> New data confirms the improvement in air quality over Europe - a by-product of the coronavirus crisis.
> ...


That is one side benefit with all of the crazy that is happening.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 29, 2020)

Data Are Finally in: Electric Cars Really Do Produce Less CO2 Pollution
					

Electric cars absolutely do produce less CO2 than gas guzzlers, a new study has confirmed – countering claims that carbon emissions from the manufacture of electric cars and the production of electricity outweighed the savings on the road.




					www.sciencealert.com
				




It's been a topic of debate for a while but new data analysis supports electric as a CO2 reducer, even accounting for production and power origin. Interestingly, Poland relies extensively on coal, so it's one of the view places electric vehicles aren't so green.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 30, 2020)

I don't think that article is taking into consideration the environmental cost of batteries.  They're only looking at the grid.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 2, 2020)

Reuters made an interactive webpage/slideshow showing the sharp decline in air traffic:








						The toll on travel
					

Global air travel plummeted after coronavirus locked down Wuhan, China.




					graphics.reuters.com
				





> From March 24 to March 30, FlightAware tracked about 280,000 flights, down almost 500,000 from the same week a year earlier.


US International flights have fallen by 80%, Domestic by 30%.  Cargo planes are still moving.


> Because passenger jets transport about half of all air cargo carried worldwide, the grounding of those planes has increased demand for freighters. In response, some commercial airlines such as American, Delta and Virgin Atlantic are using passenger jets solely for shipping cargo.













						WMO concerned about impact of COVID-19 on observing system
					

The meteorological community relies on observations taken manually by weather observers from all around the world.




					www.aljazeera.com
				



Commercial aircraft were a major source of high altitude temperature readings.  Submissions of that data is plummeting:






It's too soon for studies on this but...they're undeniably coming.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 2, 2020)

I wonder if that has an effect on turbulence mapping as well? I think that relies on similar information gathering, to create maps of pressure variance across flight paths. As far as the pollution levels, they're way down already, early studies above China showed the difference.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't think that article is taking into consideration the environmental cost of batteries.  They're only looking at the grid.



No they're looking at the entire production and lifecycle. They talk alot about the grid because that is where the biggest hurdle is. If we can produce renewable energy, the gap with petrol is going to get even bigger than it is in the study.

_"countering claims that carbon emissions *from the manufacture of electric cars and the production of electricity* outweighed the savings on the road."_

It was painfully obvious from the get-go of course. The only real hurdle is in the production of batteries and the specific resources it requires. That's going to place a major strain on those resources, though Tesla is already making strides with alternatives that are dirt cheap and widely available. I believe it was about using less cobalt, its an older story but still a major factor.

Another painfully obvious fact is that the combustion engine industry is lobbying like mad to get FUD stories out. This whole 'battery environmental issue' is much like it. Yes, there is a real concern. But it does not relate to a new future for combustion engines. If anything, long range and heavy duty vehicles will be using hydrogen instead, which can also be easily used in your typical EV. Combustion is rapidly losing ground, and for only good reasons.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 2, 2020)

If you're hoping to curb emissions before 2050, electric vehicles aren't the answer, at least not for the majority of Americans over the next 30 years.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 2, 2020)

You can understand the anti-green backlash when the cost of a 'green' car is beyond most ordinary wage-earners. It makes it so out-of-reach that the consideration of 'screw you guys' is going to be a normal reaction. I'm not poor by any means (not rich either) but I couldn't afford a 'decent' EV. Sure, I could buy a tiny box car but they're not practical for long journeys. That, and the infrastructure in the UK is verging on non-existent. It makes it so much easier to drive an internal combustion vehicle instead: cheaper, flashier and so many to choose from. These sorts of changes have to be driven by mandate. Which your signature quote wouldn't approve of!


----------



## hat (Apr 2, 2020)

Indeed, we have nearly 100 years of gas powered vehicles to break away from. Switching to electric requires a massive change from the ground up: from the resources being gathered, to the various factories involved in finally putting a completed car together, to the supporting infrastructure once the car is owned by somebody and on the road. Gas powered vehicles are already here and supported.

Better fuel economy is a nice stop-gap measure while we get the above sorted out. I can drive forever on a full tank in my Honda Civic, and it only has like a 13 gallon tank. It goes farther on 13 gallons than my Ford Taurus did with an 18 gallon tank... and the Civic is an '04 model, so it's not like good fuel economy is anything new. I'm sure the newest models do even better... my Civic has a 5 speed manual transmission, so I'm sure a modern automatic with a ton of gear ratios (which would be unreasonable to have in a standard) could do even better, along with engine improvements as well.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 18, 2020)

More on improvement of air quality because of COVID-19 quarantine:








						A breath of fresh air
					

How air quality has improved during the coronavirus crisis




					graphics.reuters.com
				




Video of India before and after:


			https://graphics.reuters.com/CLIMATE-CHANGE/CORONAVIRUS-POLLUTION/jznvngjyplm/images/video/India_outdoors_v4.mp4


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 18, 2020)

Oh, I am looking for investors for my venture to control sea level rise.  All I need is $1000 or so per person and I'll let you into group.  It involves drinking the ocean.  1 cup per person per day.


----------



## mtcn77 (Apr 18, 2020)

I got seeds of a bush plant that has berries like the taste of redoxon(vitamin c) tablets. Tastes just the over the counter medicine. Pretty amazing stuff, if you ask me. I hope to sprout them, makes fantastic jam.
Let's all celebrate healthy living while we can. Cause life is just like a japanese quince. You just got to make it into marmelade.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 6, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> You can understand the anti-green backlash when the cost of a 'green' car is beyond most ordinary wage-earners. It makes it so out-of-reach that the consideration of 'screw you guys' is going to be a normal reaction. I'm not poor by any means (not rich either) but I couldn't afford a 'decent' EV. Sure, I could buy a tiny box car but they're not practical for long journeys. That, and the infrastructure in the UK is verging on non-existent. It makes it so much easier to drive an internal combustion vehicle instead: cheaper, flashier and so many to choose from. These sorts of changes have to be driven by mandate. Which your signature quote wouldn't approve of!



In that vein... did you pick this one up yet?

Mind=blown, here... and its pretty heavy, too. And when you've seen this... start seeing the parallels in our current crisis...

For me, this puts solid ground under that gut feeling that's been singing around for years. And I reckon many have had this.










This also has me scrolling back a page in this topic, looking at my previous post on EVs...  Pfew...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 7, 2020)

That day Michael Moore finally sees the light and agrees with me. 

Half way into it though, they get into the stereotypical environmental alarmism.

 And it talks about human overpopulation which I talked about many, many, many pages ago and people attacked me for it.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 7, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That day Michael Moore finally sees the light and agrees with me.
> 
> Half way into it though, they get into the stereotypical environmental alarmism.



Well we probably wont fully agree, but the two big ones here for me are not about fossil fuels at all... its about that second bit.. and its a question we need to investigate.

Profit motive, and pop growth.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 7, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> You can understand the anti-green backlash when the cost of a 'green' car is beyond most ordinary wage-earners. It makes it so out-of-reach that the consideration of 'screw you guys' is going to be a normal reaction. I'm not poor by any means (not rich either) but I couldn't afford a 'decent' EV. Sure, I could buy a tiny box car but they're not practical for long journeys. That, and the infrastructure in the UK is verging on non-existent. It makes it so much easier to drive an internal combustion vehicle instead: cheaper, flashier and so many to choose from. These sorts of changes have to be driven by mandate. Which your signature quote wouldn't approve of!



I think hybrid cars are the near future, and maybe the only realistic future.

Pure electric vehicles have super-expensive Li-ion batteries, while gas engines are made out of (relatively) cheap steel. Hybrids allow for a small Li-ion battery, while the combustion engine becomes grossly more power-efficient. Furthermore, hybrid cars don't need charge (Plug-in hybrids can benefit from a charge, but its not strictly necessary).

The Prius Prime, Honda Clarity, and GM Volt all are $30k USD, maybe a bit cheaper. They're a few grand more expensive than a typical ICE car, but they're not grossly more expensive. I can see myself buying them, unlike a Tesla M3 (which has poor quality issues despite costing so much), or a BMW i3 (small vehicle at high price)

--------------

The pro-green crowd has one more issue. The abnormally low prices on fuel is making "Green Energy" a less-and-less likely proposition. With fuel so cheap, why should we worry about saving fuel?

-----------

There are some very smart technologies out there that are cheap and effective. Pumped Hydro, Compressed-Air for utility-scale energy storage (to make Wind / Solar more usable). At the home-level, I'm not very bullish on expensive Li-Ion energy packs, but I like the idea of Redox Flow and... whatever the heck this thing is. Basically, its a vat of water. Your air-conditioner runs when energy is cheap (ex: California has so much Solar Power that noon-energy is nearly free, or even negative-cost). When energy gets expensive (7pm California: the solar panels stop working, but the day is still hot. Everyone's AC is still running), you run a *fan*, blowing the cold out of the vat of water into your house.

The Ice-Bear energy storage vat is just that, a pool of water and a fan hooked up to your AC unit. The simple invention can store more energy than Li-Ion batteries. With proper insulation, it is surprising how long ~400 Gallons of water (1.5 Cubic meters) at 40F (or ~5C) can cool a house.






Unfortunately, this group went out of business earlier this year. https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...ge-evangelist-ice-energy-files-for-bankruptcy

But inventions such as these are what we need most of all. *CHEAP* energy storage, built out of simple materials (like water) instead of expensive, hard to source Cobalt / rare metals.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 7, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> I think hybrid cars are the near future, and maybe the only realistic future.
> 
> Pure electric vehicles have super-expensive Li-ion batteries, while gas engines are made out of (relatively) cheap steel. Hybrids allow for a small Li-ion battery, while the combustion engine becomes grossly more power-efficient. Furthermore, hybrid cars don't need charge (Plug-in hybrids can benefit from a charge, but its not strictly necessary).
> 
> ...



I would be inclined to agree that some sort of hybrid energy supply is always favorable in a general sense.

This is also how our energy is provided at large, beyond cars. Its always a mix. What needs to happen is a global investigation on what mix is most favorable and most durable. Its not a full push for solar/wind/renewable, because that would strain other natural resources and push out other needs we have. Biomass being a good example. It created problems with food supply in some countries, and the surface area required does not weigh up to its return. Its not full nuclear either, though I think that really is a way to 'buy ourselves time' and has many efficiency advantages. Perhaps we just have to rocket the waste off to space, into nothingness?

In transport, a hybrid approach is also favorable. Not necessarily 'within the same vehicle' either. Why can't trucks run on petrol because they simply do need the high energy density and weight advantage? Why can't the short range traffic run on electric? Why are we not discussing this politically? It really does save us a shitload of resources creating an electric car versus a petrol one, up to a certain degree and as long as it can be a light vehicle... Its a whole lot less in terms of components and material cost, but also labor and maintenance. One thing is crystal clear... the market on its own is too slow to figure this out. It can only respond to itself.

Questions... and that brings me back to the mentioned profit motive in the linked documentary and the very human instinct of growth and expansion. We need to reconsider how we approach these problems in a big, big way. One way could be that we have 'an escape'. Elon Musk is a visionary in that sense. His plans for Mars are such an 'escape' to new resources we can tap into. Is it the best one? Perhaps not. But he's the only one right now thinking and acting in that direction. I'm not necessarily an environmentalist... but sustainability is a big one we cannot ignore. The alternative is misery and chaos, up to extinction.

At its core, I think we should recognize humans are like cockroaches, we eat it all, and we will have to move on to something new. Its not the highest of virtues... but we have no reason to attribute that quality to ourselves, as a species that is still fighting amongst themselves.



FordGT90Concept said:


> And it talks about human overpopulation which I talked about many, many, many pages ago and people attacked me for it.



I see you edited this one in later  Yeah, I'm curious, did I attack you for it at the time? My general stance I think is similar, there's too many of us... I will say, the documentary was a confirmation for me of so many thoughts and principles I think we've been ignoring for far too long.

I seriously fear, that this climate change problem is going to be similar to COVID-19. Exponential in its effects and growth. Catching us by surprise. We're already seeing models we made a few years back have grown old and the only adjustment is up, up up. The documentary has this graph it shows with a flatline starting somewhere in prehistoric age, then the rapid pop growth with the industrial revolution... that seriously was like a copy of our now very familiar 'Curves'... time to flatten this one.


----------



## xtreemchaos (May 7, 2020)

me i blame it all on der8auer and all his overclocking   
na joking aside i really do think i can sum it all up in two words "were Doomed" or shorter "bye"


----------



## Vayra86 (May 7, 2020)

xtreemchaos said:


> me i blame it all on der8auer and all his overclocking
> na joking aside i really do think i can sum it all up in two words "were Doomed" or shorter "bye"



Yeah the lack of perspective is highly disturbing. But that makes the issue impossible to ignore, really. There's nowhere to run to.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 7, 2020)

The thing is.... sadly, it's the human race, the planet is over populated, China brought in a one child per family law for a number of years, for different reasons than the planet and over population and pretty much the rest of the world thought it was shocking, imagine how Western democratic nations would react to similar laws in their countries, one could argue that such a law would not only slow the population growth over a Century or 2 but would save economies Billions every year (Healthcare, Welfare, housing etc etc) to help fund greener policies and maybe cost offsets for the adoption of greener tech but we are greedy and most of us don't care what happens to future generations or the planet if we are not around, they cannot see generationally past their living children or grandchildren.

I am a believer in Global warming but a hypocrite to some extent but overpopulation is being massively overlooked and sits hand in hand with the destruction of natural resources and is actually the easiest and cheapest way to get us back on track, although not the quickest but in just over 200 years the planets population has increased over 7 fold


----------



## xtreemchaos (May 7, 2020)

when i was in uni in the early 80s i was involved in a think tank or debating club and we tryed  to look for a solution to GW using logic without letting our hearts being involve and the conclusion we came to after a long amount of time passing is that everybody over the age of 45 has to be turned off in other words back then population was the seen as engine driving GW.  people x growth= dead planet.  be kind.


----------



## mtcn77 (May 7, 2020)

I tend to believe common eudipus complex is the underlying cause in all this. Unless it is resolved, humans act in an impulsivity conditioned manner. You can verify my assessments.
It is left very much unnoticed, since you guys don't follow the same circumcision. It brings a new frame of mind. It is definitely overly simplified talking this way, but it is not some mutilation practice. There is a fundamental understanding going on in the psyche.
There are fundamental differences between eudipal complex active and resolved individuals. You form a whole civilisation on top of that, maybe this is the result? Eudipus complex is the fundamental difference between male and female genders, fyi. It is practically why humans do what they do.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 7, 2020)

mtcn77 said:


> I tend to believe common eudipus complex is the underlying cause in all this. Unless it is resolved, humans act in an impulsivity conditioned manner. You can verify my assessments.
> It is left very much unnoticed, since you guys don't follow the same circumcision. It brings a new frame of mind. It is definitely overly simplified talking this way, but it is not some mutilation practice. There is a fundamental understanding going on in the psyche.
> There are fundamental differences between eudipal complex active and resolved individuals. You form a whole civilisation on top of that, maybe this is the result? Eudipus complex is the fundamental difference between male and female genders, fyi. It is practically why humans do what they do.



The Oedipus complex is the attraction to the opposite sex parent, where the child feels jealousy toward the same sex-parent who they see as a competitor. It's a Freudian term based on a greek drama. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the human instinct to procreate. It also applies to both sexes (though it's commonly termed the Electra Complex for girls).

(edited for getting the opposite-same sex roles around)


----------



## Vayra86 (May 7, 2020)

Oh dear. Here we go


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 7, 2020)

As I said over and over and over, nuclear fission is the only carbon neutral energy source available to mankind right now.  I was extremely disappointed that the documentary didn't present it as a solution.  It really didn't present any solutions at all.  Missed opportunity.

Everyone should be all-in on nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission is a 100-year solution, nuclear fusion is a 1000 year solution.  The sooner we get nuclear fusion functioning, the sooner the energy and environmental crisis ends.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 7, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As I said over and over and over, nuclear fission is the only carbon neutral energy source available to mankind right now.  I was extremely disappointed that the documentary didn't present it as a solution.  It really didn't present any solutions at all.  Missed opportunity.
> 
> Everyone should be all-in on nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission is a 100-year solution, nuclear fusion is a 1000 year solution.  The sooner we get nuclear fusion functioning, the sooner the energy and environmental crisis ends.



Good point but this can also not be the 'end game'. And it only solves the energy question.

Maybe we are approaching an age where the market is no longer the best driver for progress and wealth.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 7, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> I see you edited this one in later  Yeah, I'm curious, did I attack you for it at the time? My general stance I think is similar, there's too many of us... I will say, the documentary was a confirmation for me of so many thoughts and principles I think we've been ignoring for far too long.


"We" psssssssshhhhhhhhh!!!  Good sir, I have NEVER promoted wind/solar/biomass.  In fact, I literally said they're code words for "natural gas."  The documentary just regurgitated what I've been saying since this thread was created and before then.  I'm not full of !@#$, most of the time. 




Vayra86 said:


> Good point but this can also not be the 'end game'. And it only solves the energy question.


Indeed, there's the food side to the equation this thread has never really touched upon other than that brief tangent into overpopulation territory.  "Nitrogen fertilizer" is code word for oil but, with smart crop rotation, you really don't need oil-based fertilizers to replenish depleted farm land.  On top of that, the scary word "GMO" makes crops more resistant to drought and the like so crops don't need as much water to produce yields.  We're actually moving a lot faster on the food side of things than we are on the energy side.

Ultimately, the solution to overpopulation is going to be ending poverty.  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are charging headlong into that problem.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 7, 2020)

A lot of human pollution has slowed or stopped because of the Corona-virus...can't wait to see the data from this.
Anecdotal evidence...The weather here seems to be much cooler than normal for this time of year...but then again it seems as though seasonal changes have been offset by roughly a month the last few years.

Back in 2012 a local Steel mill closed....since it closed the weather pattern in my city has drastically changed....we used to joke about how the weather was always different here than in the next city over.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 7, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> "We" psssssssshhhhhhhhh!!!  Good sir, I have NEVER promoted wind/solar/biomass.



Come live in cloudy, windy Scotland!* But you're right - these systems rely on variables beyond human control and biomass is just plain wrong.

In Scotland, renewables accounted for 74% of power generation in 2018.


----------



## Assimilator (May 7, 2020)

I don't understand why people continue to be against wind and solar. Scale solves everything, with enough wind and/or solar farms and enough pumped storage you don't have to worry about vagaries of weather.

Yes, it's expensive - but hey, scale solves that problem too. And the way to get the maximum scale is to devote massive amounts of public resources to it.

We could call it something like, I dunno... "Green New Deal"?



Vayra86 said:


> Maybe we are approaching an age where the market is no longer the best driver for progress and wealth.



We passed that age about half a century ago.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 7, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> I don't understand why people continue to be against wind and solar. Scale solves everything, with enough wind and/or solar farms and enough pumped storage you don't have to worry about vagaries of weather.
> 
> Yes, it's expensive - but hey, scale solves that problem too. And the way to get the maximum scale is to devote massive amounts of public resources to it.
> 
> ...



Current green tech is a stop gap contributor until we get either fusion and/or viable battery storage tech that doesn't cost the earth to manufacture (financially and ecologically).


----------



## hat (May 7, 2020)

jmcslob said:


> A lot of human pollution has slowed or stopped because of the Corona-virus...can't wait to see the data from this.
> Anecdotal evidence...The weather here seems to be much cooler than normal for this time of year...but then again it seems as though seasonal changes have been offset by roughly a month the last few years.
> 
> Back in 2012 a local Steel mill closed....since it closed the weather pattern in my city has drastically changed....we used to joke about how the weather was always different here than in the next city over.


No kidding. I must admit, I had the same thought myself... but that couldn't be it... there's no way that the climate has been impacted this much because we've stopped producing as much crap for a couple months.

Re: steel mill, you're taking about Vallourec (formerly V&M Star), yeah? It was down for a good while back in... 2014 I think? Since then, it's been opened again, however I heard it just recently closed again because of the low oil prices.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 7, 2020)

hat said:


> No kidding. I must admit, I had the same thought myself... but that couldn't be it... there's no way that the climate has been impacted this much because we've stopped producing as much crap for a couple months.
> 
> Re: steel mill, you're taking about Vallourec (formerly V&M Star), yeah? It was down for a good while back in... 2014 I think? Since then, it's been opened again, however I heard it just recently closed again because of the low oil prices.


Trying to remember what it was called before it shut down...Was WCI Steel then Severstal...then it ended named RG Steel...LOL
It was just outside of downtown Warren...When it was open Warren had it's own weather pattern.
It's amazing how much cleaner the city is.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 7, 2020)

hat said:


> No kidding. I must admit, I had the same thought myself... but that couldn't be it... there's no way that the climate has been impacted this much because we've stopped producing as much crap for a couple months.
> 
> Re: steel mill, you're taking about Vallourec (formerly V&M Star), yeah? It was down for a good while back in... 2014 I think? Since then, it's been opened again, however I heard it just recently closed again because of the low oil prices.



Well around cities I'm sure a reduction in smog improves air quality and that easily translates into 'a fresh breeze'. Its the same sort of difference I notice when I'm on holiday somewhere in a France rural area. But that's weather, really, not climate, if you think of it. Climate is the helicopter view of lots of weather over time.



Assimilator said:


> I don't understand why people continue to be against wind and solar. Scale solves everything, with enough wind and/or solar farms and enough pumped storage you don't have to worry about vagaries of weather.
> 
> Yes, it's expensive - but hey, scale solves that problem too. And the way to get the maximum scale is to devote massive amounts of public resources to it.
> 
> ...



Solar and wind are not a net reduction in ecological footprint. Its not really something to be completely against, but we really need to recognize it is sub optimal in many ways. It takes a shitload of space, has considerable material and maintenance cost, so it puts pressure on many other aspects such as logistics and those in turn are pollutors. These things break, too, and they do break a tad faster than your average coal or nuclear plant. A large footprint also means it is problematic when you consider population growth. There are many areas where space is already at a premium, Europe being a fine example. Space for solar panels is also possibly a removal of forest, for example.

The only reason solar and wind look good is because we put them side by side with coal and other energy sources but our dataset is horribly incomplete. There is opposition in our country for example against placement of wind farms on land. Our country is almost entirely flat. Anything you place on the horizon is visible miles and miles away in each direction. Farmers and villages suddenly find themselves looking at a wall of white towers.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 7, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Well around cities I'm sure a reduction in smog improves air quality and that easily translates into 'a fresh breeze'. Its the same sort of difference I notice when I'm on holiday somewhere in a France rural area. But that's weather, really, not climate, if you think of it. Climate is the helicopter view of lots of weather over time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find them preferable to Industrial plants on the skyline


----------



## dorsetknob (May 7, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Indeed, there's the food side to the equation this thread has never really touched upon other than that brief tangent into overpopulation territory.


Think Your find that the next major Crysis will be the Availability of Drinking water.
Parts of the Planet are in dire position in this Respect.
without Desalination plants Saudi Arabia is uninhabitable
North and Sub Saraha Africa will also be uninhabitable.

You can live 3 months without food AND 3  to 5 DAYs WITHOUT WATER


----------



## R-T-B (May 8, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And it talks about human overpopulation which I talked about many, many, many pages ago and people attacked me for it.



Even a broken clock is right once a day?

I don't know who would honestly question the idea that humans are overpopulated.  It's just that dealing with it is morally questionable too.



dorsetknob said:


> Think Your find that the next major Crysis will be the Availability of Drinking water.
> Parts of the Planet are in dire position in this Respect.
> without Desalination plants Saudi Arabia is uninhabitable
> North and Sub Saraha Africa will also be uninhabitable.
> ...



We in Washington, land of rain and storm welcome your tribute in advance for a GREAT DISCOUNT ON ALL THAT WATERY GOODNESS.

Oh wait we were on fire last year too, maybe wait and see?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 8, 2020)

dorsetknob said:


> Think Your find that the next major Crysis will be the Availability of Drinking water.
> Parts of the Planet are in dire position in this Respect.


Yes...and then it rains.  People forget about the 11 year solar cycle.  Solar maximum tends to create dry spells.  We're coming off of solar minimum which is wet spells.



dorsetknob said:


> North and Sub Saraha Africa will also be uninhabitable.


They've always been dependent on the Nile.


Keep in mind the desalination is simply an electric problem and nuclear fission/fusion address that at low environmental cost.  The problem is that desalination is a long term project.  It doesn't pay when the lack of water is just because of temporary dry spell.



Re: Wind: huge investment in materials, low output, only produces when wind is not to fast and not too slow, 10 year service life, doesn't track with grid demand so requires natural gas power to compensate.
Re: Solar: huge investment in materials, low output, only produces significant amounts of power for a few hours per day, decimates vegetation, requires tons of land, extremely high maintenance, the sun doesn't track with grid demand so requires natural gas power to compensate, 5 year service life typical.

As I said before, wind and solar are code words for natural gas.  The more wind and solar capacity there is, the more natural gas capacity is required to compensate when they fail to deliver.


----------



## R-T-B (May 8, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As I said before, wind and solar are code words for natural gas. The more wind and solar capacity there is, the more natural gas capacity is required to compensate when they fail to deliver.



Or hydro.  We've used it in Washington to great effect.  Of course we've paid in other ways...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 8, 2020)

Natural gas is #2:





						U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
					






					www.eia.gov
				




Iowa (which has little in the way of hydroelectric), natural gas is #1:





						U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
					






					www.eia.gov
				



I know for a fact that most of that biomass energy in Iowa is from ethanol which is produced from corn.  It's not burning woodchips like was stressed in that video.


----------



## R-T-B (May 8, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Natural gas is #2:



And?  Does that grant it something as the answer to our problem?


----------



## Vayra86 (May 8, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> And?  Does that grant it something as the answer to our problem?



No no, the angle here, is that the documentary (and Ford) speaks of biomass as a catalyst for more natural gas plants. The numbers support that. So the net gain of biomass is that more natural gas is needed to keep it going. It is most certainly NOT the answer. 

EDIT: Biomass - those are my words - solar/wind were the ones.


----------



## Assimilator (May 8, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Re: Wind: huge investment in materials, low output, only produces when wind is not to fast and not too slow, 10 year service life, doesn't track with grid demand so requires natural gas power to compensate.
> Re: Solar: huge investment in materials, low output, only produces significant amounts of power for a few hours per day, decimates vegetation, requires tons of land, extremely high maintenance, the sun doesn't track with grid demand so requires natural gas power to compensate, 5 year service life typical.



Why do you consistently bring up the variability of wind and solar as a problem, when the solution (pumped storage) is known and proven?

Where are you getting these service lifetimes from?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 8, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> No no, the angle here, is that the documentary (and Ford) speaks of biomass as a catalyst for more natural gas plants. The numbers support that. So the net gain of biomass is that more natural gas is needed to keep it going. It is most certainly NOT the answer.
> 
> EDIT: Biomass - those are my words - solar/wind were the ones.


Anything that can't produce consistant power 100% of the time has to be supplemented and almost everywhere, the supplementation is in the form of natural gas turbines.  Natural gas turbines can go from off to maximum output in a few minutes.  Coal takes days; nuclear takes weeks.



Assimilator said:


> Why do you consistently bring up the variability of wind and solar as a problem, when the solution (pumped storage) is known and proven?


Pumped storage = acres flooded destroying habitats and prohibited the land from being used for agriculture.  Very few places even have landscape suitable to be converted into a reservoir.  Additionally, it takes far more power to pump water up than you'll get back from capturing the kinetic energy as it falls and the water usually has to be fresh water which is often already in short supply.  It's stupidity stacked on top of stupidity all in the name of making a crappy electric source less crappy.



Assimilator said:


> Where are you getting these service lifetimes from?


Nature destroys everything:





						Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
					






					www.telegraph.co.uk
				











						Solar panels don't last forever and degradation varies wildly, study says
					

A recent study from an international certification body revealed that some solar panels fair far better than others in laboratory tests that degraded their power conversion efficiency.




					www.computerworld.com
				











						The Life Span Of A Solar Inverter | Solar Market
					

The life span of a solar inverter is something you need to know, everyone talks about how long a solar panel lasts but the inverter needs to work too!




					www.solarmarket.com.au


----------



## R-T-B (May 8, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pumped storage = acres flooded destroying habitats and prohibited the land from being used for agriculture.



These things generally happen with wind and solar plants anyways.  The best solar regions tend to be pretty unsuitable for agriculture (extreme heat in the best choice places), and wind turbines basically prohibit it in the nearby radius.

I guess at worst it's not worse than hydro by a large margin, which honestly, is a helluva lot better than what we have:  Speaking from experience in the hydro powered northwest.



Vayra86 said:


> No no, the angle here, is that the documentary (and Ford) speaks of biomass as a catalyst for more natural gas plants. The numbers support that. So the net gain of biomass is that more natural gas is needed to keep it going. It is most certainly NOT the answer.
> 
> EDIT: Biomass - those are my words - solar/wind were the ones.



I wasn't even thinking biomass.  Honestly I don't even consider it a contender, but I haven't studied it much.  It seems it would really suffer from a lot of the same emission issues.

But even that said, why in the world would burning organic waste (biomass) be dependent on natural gas like, at all?

Really the only place I even see biomass brought up is in literal big oil ads about how they are "contributing" which tells me about all I need to know.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Nature destroys everything:



Those articles establish wide variance, which means more research is needed to improve assembly quality and lifetime.  They do not establish a reliable service-life ceiling.

Heck, for the national grid, the inverter one really isn't very applicable at all.  That's more for inhome panels.  I promise you you can get excellent inverter lifetimes if you scale up.  You are basically looking at consumer vs industrial grade parts.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 8, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> These things generally happen with wind and solar plants anyways.  The best solar regions tend to be pretty unsuitable for agriculture (extreme heat in the best choice places), and wind turbines basically prohibit it in the nearby radius.


If they're not suitable for agriculture, they're dusty which means they're unsuitable for solar too.

Everything solar and wind are a function of surface area so yeah, they're pretty wasteful at face value and it just gets exponentially worse with pumped storage on top of that.  



R-T-B said:


> Those articles establish wide variance, which means more research is needed to improve assembly quality and lifetime.  They do not establish a reliable service-life ceiling.


First (wind turbines installed 10+ years ago are largely in disrepair) and third (inverter failure is an inevitability) do.  Solar panel life span is highly variable.



R-T-B said:


> Heck, for the national grid, the inverter one really isn't very applicable at all.  That's more for inhome panels.  I promise you you can get excellent inverter lifetimes if you scale up.  You are basically looking at consumer vs industrial grade parts.


All solar panels are DC.  All grids are AC.  Inverter is required...even on industrial scales.  The video covered several grid-size solar panel installations in USA that fell into disrepair.  The cost to maintain far exceeds the profit from electric sales.  Natural gas is much cheaper per Gwh produced in effective service life.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 8, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Anything that can't produce consistant power 100% of the time has to be supplemented and almost everywhere, the supplementation is in the form of natural gas turbines. Natural gas turbines can go from off to maximum output in a few minutes. Coal takes days; nuclear takes weeks.



A few issues:

1. Wind actually produces the most power at night. While Solar produces the most power during the day. Wind + Solar are self-complementary.

2. Americans use 2x more power during the day than at night. This is due to a combination of factors, including air conditioning (needed during the day, when the sun is shining and hot), working hours (9-5 hours for a manufacturing plant uses the most energy), among other factors.

Solar contributes power when we need it most: air conditioning and working hours (9 to 5). There's a "Nessie dip" from 6pm to 9pm, where the sun sets but power is still needed, but it turns out we only need to store enough energy for those 2 hours to be most effective. Wind does start to pickup at this time. Hydro power is the most logical, due to its ease in conversion into energy storage (aka: pumped storage), as well as the ability to quickly ramp up / down, similar to a peaker plant.

Natural Gas is kinda useful for another kind of energy: compressed air energy storage. In locations where a lake / hydro isn't available (some flat areas of Texas), compressed air energy storage can be created out of old mineshafts. However, storing energy into tanks underground causes their temperature to drop, so Natural Gas should be used to heat the gas back up as you extract the energy. The compressed air remains the primary storage mechanism, but natural gas remains one of the most effective ways to heat up compressed air and make it usable again.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 8, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 1. Wind actually produces the most power at night. While Solar produces the most power during the day. Wind + Solar are self-complementary.


Not really:





						Day vs Night Wind Speed Profiles - Global Wind Power
					

Figure 12. Comparison of the diurnal (diamonds) and nocturnal (squares) global average profiles of wind speed in 2000 obtained at the sounding stations (with




					www.freeenergyplanet.biz
				










dragontamer5788 said:


> 2. Americans use 2x more power during the day than at night. This is due to a combination of factors, including air conditioning (needed during the day, when the sun is shining and hot), working hours (9-5 hours for a manufacturing plant uses the most energy), among other factors.


Here's a nice chart that shows the problem these two sources create:



January 18, ~18% of the electrical generation had to go offline to make capacity for that surge in wind power.  Conversely, on January 25, generation facilities had to produce ~95% of the power in the grid because it was cloudy and calm.  That 13% difference doesn't come from thin air.  It mostly comes from natural gas. In other words, these countries need enough installed natural gas capacity to cover roughly 20% of their total energy need or there will be brown outs and black outs.



dragontamer5788 said:


> There's a "Nessie dip" from 6pm to 9pm, where the sun sets but power is still needed, but it turns out we only need to store enough energy for those 2 hours to be most effective.


Storage is the least efficient power source which why natural gas is king: you simply don't produce what you don't need.  Combustibles are a far better potential energy store than any battery/pumped storage known to man.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 8, 2020)

What @FordGT90Concept is true.

I wish it wasn't but until we get fusion going or understand that fissile energy is king, we'll still be using natural gas, and carbon fuels. The wind is great - but what happens when it fails? We get days on end with little wind - what then? Solar? Try that in Scotland, or the Northern temperate hemisphere. We live in a shitty world, dominated by wealth and consumption. Our leaders have chosen that path (and we chose those leaders - I didn't). So, if we walk the path of renewable, and we scrap carbon, what do we do when the wind is feeble and the sky is grey? Renewables require amazing battery tech and we're not there yet. We're decades away but we will get there. Until then, we've got hard choices... no wait - we have no choices- industry makes them for us.

Ultimately, until the true saviour of green arrives (fusion), you choose your own impact on the planet. And unfortunately, in that respect, we're all hypocrits.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 8, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> Renewables require amazing battery tech and we're not there yet. We're decades away but we will get there.


No, we won't, because physics.




Look where the things we burn are; look where batteries are.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 8, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> The wind is great - but what happens when it fails?



Then we warm up the earth so that the wind blows a little bit harder 

The real issue, and this has already begun to happen in California, is when you have *too much* wind or solar. When solar / wind is overbuilt, you have them sit idle, wasting money. Until we have enough solar/wind deployed such that they begin to sit idle, it only makes sense to build them out to capture the free energy.

We also should build natural gas plants to hold us over on "peaking". There's nothing wrong with building both at the same time.

---------

Most cities / municipalities right now are NOT in California's position where there was too much solar built out. Most locations will benefit from gathering the literally free energy. Sure, its not as easy to control or ramp up and down like natural gas, but every day when the sun is shining is a "free energy day" for solar panels.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 8, 2020)

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch
					






					www.sourcewatch.org
				




I deleted some posts. What some people fail to understand is that climate science, though never exact, does in the main ascribe to fairly rigid scrutiny.

It is not a balanced view to post spurious, off-base theories to support an opinion that is decried by the vast majority of scientific evidence or study.

The link above shows the credentials of one such source of the deleted posts. Some will say we need to give these people a voice. Perhaps so. But for a balanced view, just as in science, that outlier needs to be weighted against 99 others who can supply the same counter based in science. It's not censorship to remove ill-informed and spurious claims.

I'm quite happy to see debates about the problems of green energy and the obvious efficiency of fossil fuels - these all make for serious debate. But there is a line that needs to be drawn when that debate is derailed by unsupported guff.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 8, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> I wasn't even thinking biomass.  Honestly I don't even consider it a contender, but I haven't studied it much.  It seems it would really suffer from a lot of the same emission issues.
> 
> But even that said, why in the world would burning organic waste (biomass) be dependent on natural gas like, at all?
> 
> Really the only place I even see biomass brought up is in literal big oil ads about how they are "contributing" which tells me about all I need to know.



As I understand it, for biomass the net energy generation is so low, and for solar/wind the intermittency is always present, so in both methods you need to invest in something to support your base load. Since it can't be coal anymore because not sexy, it becomes natural gas. The supply chain for biomass also uses fossil fuels all over the place.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 9, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Then we warm up the earth so that the wind blows a little bit harder
> 
> The real issue, and this has already begun to happen in California, is when you have *too much* wind or solar. When solar / wind is overbuilt, you have them sit idle, wasting money. Until we have enough solar/wind deployed such that they begin to sit idle, it only makes sense to build them out to capture the free energy.
> 
> ...


Reality check:





						U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
					






					www.eia.gov
				






"Net Interstate Flow of Electricity" is mostly imports of electricity from neighboring Arizona (which is 1/3 coal, 1/3 nuclear, 1/3 natural gas):





						U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
					






					www.eia.gov
				






Oh yeah, look how tiny California's "other renewables" is compared to natural gas...just as I said it would be: "renewable" is code word for "natural gas."


Even nuclear power plant replacement/expansion plans are getting scrapped because natural gas is so cheap.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 9, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Reality check:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm confused by the other charts from the same source. 

It shows California produced more energy from renewable than it did any other source. How do the graphs tally up? Actual question, not a counter to your post.


----------



## R0H1T (May 9, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> So, if we walk the path of renewable, and we scrap carbon, what do we do when the wind is feeble and the sky is grey?


Try this, at industrial scale ~ Powerwall | The Tesla Home Battery

Obviously not a cost effective solution right now, but with better battery tech & energy density it's a viable solution in the long(er) term. You know what works best now ~ switching to more efficient appliances or products, like 5 (or 7) energy star rated lighting, fans, refrigerators, TV, AC, washing machines(?) et al.

Pretty sure mandating higher (energy) efficiency products or even subsidizing their sale will decrease a lot of peak load from the grids, you could also go one step further & punish willful or negligent waste of energy. There are many ways to skin the cat, the real question is *how far are we willing* to go?


----------



## Vayra86 (May 9, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> Try this, at industrial scale ~ Powerwall | The Tesla Home Battery
> 
> Obviously not a cost effective solution right now, but with better battery tech & energy density it's a viable solution in the long(er) term. You know what works best now ~ switching to more efficient appliances or products, like 5 (or 7) energy star rated lighting, fans, refrigerators, TV, AC, washing machines(?) et al.
> 
> Pretty sure mandating higher (energy) efficiency products or even subsidizing their sale will decrease a lot of peak load from the grids, you could also go one step further & punish willful or negligent waste of energy. There are many ways to skin the cat, the real question is *how far are we willing* to go?



Batteries to save our overproduction and then what, rely on it for base load? Batteries also need replacing... production... it does not sound efficient and adds yet another piece into the chain... on a home use level, sure. But on the grid?!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 9, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm confused by the other charts from the same source.
> 
> It shows California produced more energy from renewable than it did any other source. How do the graphs tally up? Actual question, not a counter to your post.
> 
> ...


California *produces* 1085.5 trillion BTUs of renewable energy
California *consumes* 567.1 trillion BTUS of renewable energy
This means California sells 518.4‬ trillion BTUs of renewable energy to other states but their net energy transfer is importing 659.4 trillion BTUS.  They sell a lot of renewable power but they're buying even more than they sell from states like Oregon and Arizona.

Remember, these charts are total energy (including transportation), not just electricity.  Here's electricity:







R0H1T said:


> Pretty sure mandating higher (energy) efficiency products or even subsidizing their sale will decrease a lot of peak load from the grids, you could also go one step further & punish willful or negligent waste of energy. There are many ways to skin the cat, the real question is *how far are we willing* to go?


USA has been prohibiting the sell of inefficient products for two decades.  You can't even buy high flow faucets, shower heads, or toilets anymore.  Incandescent bulbs are few and far between.


----------



## R0H1T (May 9, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Batteries to save our overproduction and then what, rely on it for base load? *Batteries also need replacing... production*... it does not sound efficient and adds yet another piece into the chain... on a home use level, sure.* But on the grid?!*


This is why I said better battery tech is needed & obviously we aren't there yet. Would be cool if that IBM's proof of concept thing could work.

So what, South Australia did it.



FordGT90Concept said:


> USA has been prohibiting the sell of inefficient products for two decades. You can't even buy high flow faucets, shower heads, or toilets anymore. Incandescent bulbs are few and far between.


Can you tell me the number of 5 or 7 star rated, all the things I mentioned, selling in the US? I'm assuming you'd have the data, because mandating energy efficiency isn't the same as mandating only the most energy efficient products to sell also what about those gas guzzler pickup trucks or SUV sales?

Like I said, many ways to skin the cat, you do need more than just token gestures though for us to get there.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 9, 2020)

There are no "stars."  There is Energy Star rating which is either qualifying or not based on efficiency requirements for the year of manufacturer.  Vehicles are rated by the EPA and published on FuelEconomy.gov.  There's also the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) which requires the average fuel efficiency of the companies offerings to be over a certain amount per year.


----------



## R0H1T (May 9, 2020)

5 star rated is what we use here & I mentioned energy star on the last page, are you going to argue semantics or can you answer what I asked? What do I do with EPA ratings, are you telling me US is banning the sales of such gass guzzlers?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 9, 2020)

Here's an example of dehumidifier requirements to qualify for the Energy Star label:








						Dehumidifiers Key Efficiency Criteria
					

Qualified models meet all ENERGY STAR requirements as listed in the Version 5.0 ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Dehumidifiers that are effective as of October 31, 2019.




					www.energystar.gov
				



It's binary: it either qualifies or it doesn't.  There are no tiers.


Didn't click that CAFE link?


> In addition to reconsidering the application of the 2015 Act to the EPCA CAFE civil penalty provision, NHTSA has reconsidered its decisions in the July 2016 interim final rule and December 2016 final rule to increase the CAFE civil penalty rate and, as a result, is retaining the current civil penalty rate applicable to 49 U.S.C. 32912(b) of *$5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon for automobile manufacturers that do not meet applicable CAFE standards and are unable to offset such a deficit with compliance credits*, rather than increasing the rate to $14 in model year 2019.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 9, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Batteries to save our overproduction and then what, rely on it for base load? Batteries also need replacing... production... it does not sound efficient and adds yet another piece into the chain... on a home use level, sure. But on the grid?!



Ironically, my opinion is the opposite. The grid is more useful because of the economies of scale. Home use doesn't make sense for batteries. If you can't solve the problem at utility scale, there's no hope you will make it efficient for the home-consumer. If you can't make a battery cost-efficient at 10 MW-hrs, why do you think you can make the battery cost-efficient at 10 kW-hrs ?

Same thing with solar power too. It will make more sense to build a single 10MW plant rather than a 10 kW plant on top of 1000 houses. I mean, if the home consumer is willing to buy a 10 kW plant and have it contribute to the grid (aka: Net-metering), then let those people give free money to the government / neighborhood. But otherwise... the grid is more efficient for society due to the economies of scale.

------------

Why the grid? Because different homes draw different amounts of power, and it is easier to load-balance when you have more customers. Consider a home, you may individually need 3kW to turn on your stove, 2kW for your air conditioner, and then 2kW for your electric clothes dryer. However, if you average out the load across 1000 homes, it is highly unlikely for all 1000-homes to turn on their stove, air conditioner, and clothes dryer simultaneously.

As such, 3MW-hrs of storage may be sufficient for a 1000-home neighborhood. But 3kW-hrs of storage per-home is clearly useless, unable to even run the stove+air conditioner for 1 hour. Utility companies can combine battery-usage with natural gas peaker plants for further efficiencies (if natural gas is cheaper, they can choose to use natural gas, or whatever is more efficient at the time).

From a sales perspective, it is more efficient to have a 10-person marketing team sell *one* 10MW-hr battery to one utility-scale provider rather than to go door-to-door and sell 10kW-hr batteries to 1000 different people. Everything is more efficient if you go big.


----------



## Assimilator (May 9, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pumped storage = acres flooded destroying habitats and prohibited the land from being used for agriculture.



Why does it have to be agricultural land?



FordGT90Concept said:


> Very few places even have landscape suitable to be converted into a reservoir.



The only concern I can see is fluid-induced seismicity... which is far less likely than, for example, the seismic events associated with fracking.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Additionally, it takes far more power to pump water up than you'll get back from capturing the kinetic energy as it falls



Once again, a known facet of such systems that has not prevented their adoption worldwide.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Nature destroys everything:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First one is an eight-year-old study funded by a group opposed to wind turbines.
Second is four years old.
Third is a source that is only concerned with home solar installations, i.e. the opposite of commercial-grade.

Here's some more up-to-date facts:

There are turbines operating in California that have been going for 40 years. And any piece of equipment, including coal or natural gas or nuclear, will require periodic overhauls to remain serviceable.
In 2016, the record for solar panel efficiency was around 25%. Three years later, the record is 47% with commercial-grade panels offering up to 37%.
Data on commercial-scale inverters is difficult to find, but DC optimisers can last as long as panels.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 9, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Ironically, my opinion is the opposite. The grid is more useful because of the economies of scale. Home use doesn't make sense for batteries. If you can't solve the problem at utility scale, there's no hope you will make it efficient for the home-consumer. If you can't make a battery cost-efficient at 10 MW-hrs, why do you think you can make the battery cost-efficient at 10 kW-hrs ?
> 
> Same thing with solar power too. It will make more sense to build a single 10MW plant rather than a 10 kW plant on top of 1000 houses. I mean, if the home consumer is willing to buy a 10 kW plant and have it contribute to the grid (aka: Net-metering), then let those people give free money to the government / neighborhood. But otherwise... the grid is more efficient for society due to the economies of scale.
> 
> ...



I'll refer once again to the video linked a few pages back. The large scale energy production and the intermittency if you switch that to solar/wind is so immense, you'd need so many batteries it would destroy this planet completely in terms of raw materials required. Batteries also need replacement over time.

Economy of scale is the very thing that is one of the problems. Its an efficient way to handle things but we have started using it as an *escape *to make certain ideas viable that are, in core principle, really not all that logical. This battery issue is one of them. Are you really going to produce power when you don't need it, save it when you do need it, and then give it out? How is that efficient, just because you can generate it on solar or wind? What value do we really attribute to solar and wind? We already know that we need massive amounts of surface area to transfer our base load to renewable entirely. So massive in fact, that you could plant the whole world full of panels and still fall short.

So this is why I think on a private scale this is feasible, why, because you use a battery directly to increase the efficiency of solar panels on your roof. It is a form of micromanagement in the best possible way, because every house has its own family controlling this and that control has a financial stimulus. You get to make full use of the sun you caught during the day, all that is overproduced does not flow to the grid, but instead allows you to take a burden off the grid. The economy of scale here, is that a large number of batteries in homes will enable us to move to _a lower base load._ And thát is a true green energy source. Less. Not more. It reduces the intermittency problem, in fact, however small it may be at the beginning. If we make it mandatory, its a whole other story. But saving the industrial power usage per day in batteries?! You can easily predict what these industries need and when. Just build a high density, high power, efficient power source for it.

Did we _really_ think it through on the true scale of the economy, or is everyone trying to make ends meet nationally and then creates a market that is hard to stop? I think its the latter, its just a new commercial money pit and the results so far seem to support that entirely. It happens with biomass, and its quickly happening to solar and wind as space becomes more expensive and scarce. And, it has _already happened for EVs_ because Audi had production issues due to chronic lack of batteries for their designs, and this is just the early adopters phase... go figure.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 9, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> Why does it have to be agricultural land?


Virtually all land has use.



Assimilator said:


> The only concern I can see is fluid-induced seismicity... which is far less likely than, for example, the seismic events associated with fracking.


Pumped storage for grid power is in the form of lakes/dams.



Assimilator said:


> Once again, a known facet of such systems that has not prevented their adoption worldwide.


When you have natural gas that produces what you need, when you need it, there's no reason for pumped storage (and the high costs associated with it) at all.



Assimilator said:


> There are turbines operating in California that have been going for 40 years.


Small turbines subjected to low wind speeds.  They don't produce much power.

Right now, windspeeds here are SW 25 G 36 mph.  The turbine being built are in the many MW range.  They're not going to last 40 years.  The tips of those things break the sound barrier.  <1 MW are unsuitable for grid generation.  Every time I drive by these huge wind turbines, probably 25% of them aren't even spinning.  They're either broke, it's too windy, or it's not windy enough.



Assimilator said:


> And any piece of equipment, including coal or natural gas or nuclear, will require periodic overhauls to remain serviceable.


Of course but they're producing power 24/7/365 when not being serviced.  You get a whole lot more power for your maintenance costs.



Assimilator said:


> In 2016, the record for solar panel efficiency was around 25%. Three years later, the record is 47% with commercial-grade panels offering up to 37%.


And?  It's still a function of surface area.  Not to mention environmentally damaging not only because of the resource intensity to make and deliver them, but also because they lower albedo which means temperature goes up.  They are antithetical to the goal of reducing surface temperatures.



Assimilator said:


> Data on commercial-scale inverters is difficult to find, but DC optimisers can last as long as panels.


Because they're usually handled by power companies and they buy everything from their suppliers.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 9, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> This is why I said better battery tech is needed & obviously we aren't there yet. Would be cool if that IBM's proof of concept thing could work.



Better battery tech is needed... yeah. An infinite power source would also be nice. Or an endless money tree in the backyard.

Why are we betting on stuff we don't have and repeatedly discover from that improvements are going to be minimal at best, over long periods of time? I mean... there is new battery tech flying around tech sites almost monthly, but none of it made a real dent to something we can actually produce effectively. Musk made some strides in his battery tech that resulted in a reduction of material cost, and less cobalt... that's about all she wrote ever since Li-Ion was a thing.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 9, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Are you really going to produce power when you don't need it, save it when you do need it, and then give it out? How is that efficient, just because you can generate it on solar or wind?



In the case of Solar and Wind, yes. Because the energy is literally free. In the case of nuclear, yes. Because the amount of uranium fuel used up is miniscule compared to the cost of the power plant. It makes 100% sense to run a nuclear power plant at full load 100% of the time, its not the fuel costs that get you, its the fact that you built a nuclear power plant to begin with (since its so expensive and has so many safety regulations).

Even in the case of coal power, it is cheaper to keep coal plants running for hours as a baseline generator rather than ramp up and down.

Natural gas is one of the few sources of power which can be "turned on" and "turned off" at will. Its extremely flexible. But all other sources of energy operate on their own schedule. Its cheaper to store the energy and keep the plants running. The "renewable" that can be turned on / turned off at will is hydro, but that is only valid in certain locations (and the west-coast has a bunch of water concerns, meaning pumped hydro is mostly an action to save water, not generate power).

Energy storage helps all forms of energy except for natural gas, be it nuclear, coal, solar, or wind. Even saving energy from Hydro is great, if you're primarily managing water instead of energy. (If California needs a million gallons of water, Hoover Dam will release the water whether or not the area needs energy. Energy will be generated, but where will you store it?).



> What value do we really attribute to solar and wind? We already know that we need massive amounts of surface area to transfer our base load to renewable entirely. So massive in fact, that you could plant the whole world full of panels and still fall short.



I'm a "every form of energy" approach person. Use solar where the sun shines. Use wind where the wind blows. Use nuclear where the local population accepts it. Use natural gas for peakers. Use energy storage to make all other forms of energy more efficient.



> So this is why I think on a private scale this is feasible, why, because you use a battery directly to increase the efficiency of solar panels on your roof. It is a form of micromanagement in the best possible way, because every house has its own family controlling this and that control has a financial stimulus.



Home solar makes no sense, because most people aren't home when the noon sun (most energy) is available. You're at work. So why would you store the energy from noon, when you could instead move the energy on electrical wires to someone who actually can use the energy?

Industry (manufacturing plants) use the most electricity during the day, when the workers are at the plant. Commercial sectors use the most electricity (air conditioning) when the stores are open and people are visiting. Home have no use of energy when they're sitting mostly empty at the bright, high-energy 12:00 noon sun.

This is why net-metering is IMO, a good idea. You feed the grid with energy and get credits for it, because the USA actually uses more energy during 12:00 noon than other time periods. However, homes sit empty at that time, so it really makes more sense to send the energy to other sectors in your city rather than capture it in an inefficient battery for storage at a later time (ie: 5:00pm when you get home).

EDIT: Case in point: it is more efficient to move the energy from solar to the local mall's air conditioner unit at 12:00 noon. At 4:00pm (1 hour before you arrive home), your air conditioner should turn on and bring your house back to a comfortable temperature. However, if you have a home solar panel, you're more inclined to run your air conditioner throughout the day (even at 12:00 noon with an empty house). In fact, the optimal strategy is to run your AC as low as it can go (maybe to 65F or lower) during noon. By the time 5 or 6pm comes by and you're home, the temperature rises to a comfortable 70F or higher, and will stay there throughout the night. (Yes, this means you use the air in your home as a battery pack, "storing" cold air for later. Its a free form of energy storage that's locally optimal, but globally suboptimal)


----------



## Vayra86 (May 9, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> In the case of Solar and Wind, yes. Because the energy is literally free. In the case of nuclear, yes. Because the amount of uranium fuel used up is miniscule compared to the cost of the power plant. It makes 100% sense to run a nuclear power plant at full load 100% of the time, its not the fuel costs that get you, its the fact that you built a nuclear power plant to begin with (since its so expensive and has so many safety regulations).
> 
> Even in the case of coal power, it is cheaper to keep coal plants running for hours as a baseline generator rather than ramp up and down.
> 
> ...



Can't disagree on most of these things either - as in, use the energy where and when it is most efficient, and yes, batteries are _part _of the solution absolutely. But that is not the way renewable is pushed today, that is my gripe with it. The way Germany moved to solar for example... questionable. It hasn't earned them a whole lot, in the grand scheme of things. Luckily the approach in Europe is indeed more diverse, but still, I don't get the impression the right metrics are used to measure our efficiency, because here we lack a unified approach. The market for energy is like a stock market and there is constant overproduction. As with many other issues we have... the market controls this in many ways, and the market is not entirely beneficial; in the case of gas and oil, it is also politically volatile. We're getting a lot of gas from Russia, for example, and they've already used it as a lever to push an agenda multiple times.

As for the net-metering... I've got 10 panels on my roof (about 3100 Wp) and feed back to the grid, and get paid for it already  It has taken a chunk of about 1/3rd out of my energy bill - most of my power usage but not the gas which is used for heating and cooking. Its a good system, yes. Government is already slowly reducing the financial gains from it now, as of recently... this might devolve into the same shit quickly and become economically unattractive, or so mildly you wouldn't bother. Joys of the market...


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 9, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> The market for energy is like a stock market and there is constant overproduction.



Noon energy in California is known to go into negative pricing recently. I use California numbers because they're well organized and public. I live on the other side of the country, but it serves as a good case study for what high-deployments of renewables will do to your local energy grid. http://oasis.caiso.com/mrioasis/logon.do

You're right in that the energy market is basically like the stock market... or really closer to the "futures" market. You can buy and sell energy production and consumption on the public markets. When energy prices go negative, companies specializing in energy storage will "buy up negative-cost" energy. When energy prices go positive, the energy-storage will then sell the energy back out.

With "energy arbitrage", the state gives the job of managing energy storage to private companies. These private companies will store energy when they think they can make more money later. Its win/win/win for everyone involved.

----------

IMO, the future should be to give energy arbitrage opportunities to the individual homeowners, providing unique energy arbitrage opportunities. Yeah, if the homeowner thinks they can make money with energy arbitrage, they should be given the opportunity (but I doubt that anyone would actually make money given the high costs of Li-ion batteries). Energy arbitrage for the average homeowner would be more about setting timers. Charge your electric car at 3:00am, when energy prices are cheapest. Turn on your washing machine / dryer at 3:00am (if you can wait for your load to be done tomorrow). Etc. etc. Let the individual homeowner see the difference in energy prices and let them change their personal habits to optimize their prices.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 9, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Noon energy in California is known to go into negative pricing recently. I use California numbers because they're well organized and public. I live on the other side of the country, but it serves as a good case study for what high-deployments of renewables will do to your local energy grid. http://oasis.caiso.com/mrioasis/logon.do
> 
> You're right in that the energy market is basically like the stock market... or really closer to the "futures" market. You can buy and sell energy production and consumption on the public markets. When energy prices go negative, companies specializing in energy storage will "buy up negative-cost" energy. When energy prices go positive, the energy-storage will then sell the energy back out.
> 
> ...



In my country, there is a ruling that stated I am officially an energy production company now. I really am, and am also registered officially as one, the government didn't much like it 

We really need to adjust the general way we think about this, that is for sure.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 9, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Noon energy in California is known to go into negative pricing recently. I use California numbers because they're well organized and public. I live on the other side of the country, but it serves as a good case study for what high-deployments of renewables will do to your local energy grid. http://oasis.caiso.com/mrioasis/logon.do
> 
> You're right in that the energy market is basically like the stock market... or really closer to the "futures" market. You can buy and sell energy production and consumption on the public markets. When energy prices go negative, companies specializing in energy storage will "buy up negative-cost" energy. When energy prices go positive, the energy-storage will then sell the energy back out.
> 
> With "energy arbitrage", the state gives the job of managing energy storage to private companies. These private companies will store energy when they think they can make more money later. Its win/win/win for everyone involved.


...and someone dumping electricity like Saudi Arabia loves to do with oil means transformers blowing all over the grid.  No spank you!

An electric capacitor discharging into the grid is a lot like an oil tanker spilling.




dragontamer5788 said:


> IMO, the future should be to give energy arbitrage opportunities to the individual homeowners, providing unique energy arbitrage opportunities. Yeah, if the homeowner thinks they can make money with energy arbitrage, they should be given the opportunity (but I doubt that anyone would actually make money given the high costs of Li-ion batteries). Energy arbitrage for the average homeowner would be more about setting timers. Charge your electric car at 3:00am, when energy prices are cheapest. Turn on your washing machine / dryer at 3:00am (if you can wait for your load to be done tomorrow). Etc. etc. Let the individual homeowner see the difference in energy prices and let them change their personal habits to optimize their prices.


Some power companies already do this even when they don't have a lot of renewables (and no batteries) on their grid.  Reducing the peak, in general, means they have to spool up fewer generators which saves them (and customers) money.


EVs... *snigger*



...they're not going become mainstream for decades, if ever.  Even in California which has incentivized installation of charging stations, range anxiety is real for so many reasons (e.g. other EVs sitting at charge stations you absolutely need because you're dangerously low on charge).  It's already a chronic problem and it only gets worse with more EVs on the road.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 10, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ...and someone dumping electricity like Saudi Arabia loves to do with oil means transformers blowing all over the grid. No spank you!



Not really.

1. If someone dumps energy into the US grid, they'd be physically located in the USA. Unlike Saudi Arabia / Russia, this would make them subject to local US law enforcement.

2. The grid in the USA is highly regulated. If you fail to use electricity at a utility scale as you promised, you're subject to fines and penalties.

3. There exist services that monitor the grid and can "waste" electricity when too much electricity appears on the grid. Its actually a relatively simple problem: when the 60 Hz signal inches upwards (say to 60.1 Hz), then too much energy is on the grid and energy needs to be taken out of the grid. When the 60 Hz signal inches lower (say to 59.9 Hz), you shove more energy into the grid.

4. Because of #3, net metering is possible. Solar Panels with net metering are hooked up in a way such that they are *always dumping energy onto the grid*. Its just how things are done. There's so much energy demand that throwing 10kW here and there onto the grid won't change anything, there's enough stability systems in place that it works out. At the 10 MW level, you need more coordination, but that's a solved regulation / legal issue that all utility companies already face.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 10, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 1. If someone dumps energy into the US grid, they'd be physically located in the USA. Unlike Saudi Arabia / Russia, this would make them subject to local US law enforcement.


Didn't stop Enron, did it?



dragontamer5788 said:


> 2. The grid in the USA is highly regulated. If you fail to use electricity at a utility scale as you promised, you're subject to fines and penalties.


No, it isn't.  It's almost entirely privately owned and they're careful what they do because the cost of fixing things when they go wrong is astronomical.  This is why, for example, PG&E sued Apple for several hundred million dollars because Apple's solar panels forced PG&E to install more natural gas turbines that they can turn off relative to power collected.



dragontamer5788 said:


> 3. There exist services that monitor the grid and can "waste" electricity when too much electricity appears on the grid. Its actually a relatively simple problem: when the 60 Hz signal inches upwards (say to 60.1 Hz), then too much energy is on the grid and energy needs to be taken out of the grid. When the 60 Hz signal inches lower (say to 59.9 Hz), you shove more energy into the grid.


It's amps, not Hz, and releasing energy is explosive.  That's what you're talking about is moot.  The solution right now and for the foreseeable future is natural gas turbines.  Their RPMs fluctuate based on grid need.



dragontamer5788 said:


> 4. Because of #3, net metering is possible. Solar Panels with net metering are hooked up in a way such that they are *always dumping energy onto the grid*. Its just how things are done. There's so much energy demand that throwing 10kW here and there onto the grid won't change anything, there's enough stability systems in place that it works out. At the 10 MW level, you need more coordination, but that's a solved regulation / legal issue that all utility companies already face.


#2 and #3 is how the grid deals with "green" BS polluting the grid.

How many times do I have to repeat myself: renewable (sans hydro) is aka natural gas.  That's not going to change because of the intermittency of wind/solar and the cheapness of natural gas:



			https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
		

Solar photovoltaic (30% capacity factor): $32.80/MWh
Wind, onshore (40% capacity factor): $34.10/MWh
Combined Cycle Gas (87% capacity factor): $36.61/MWh
...there's a lot of data missing because these are projections for 2023-2035.  There aren't plans to add more nuclear, coal, nor biomass to the grid.

Here's from Lazard with a more finite breakdown:


			https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf
		




Home PV installations are _the worst_.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 10, 2020)

Ford has a point about natural gas. It's there to see. I know this is just one source but still. 









						The missing puzzle piece for getting to 100% clean power
					

It’s about using renewable energy to make gas.




					www.google.co.uk


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 10, 2020)

That graph on that page was the one I was trying to find before but couldn't. 



That's the reason why natural gas is replacing everything else.  Nothing else (except hydro) can surge like that on a daily basis.


Re: hydrogen instead of natural gas...only makes sense when that hydrogen can be fused.  Renewables to perform electrolysis back to hydrogen which is simply burned...the amount of loss in that system is so substantial, it's self defeating.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 11, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Didn't stop Enron, did it?



Enron didn't blow up transformers. They committed fraud and then went bankrupt. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.



FordGT90Concept said:


> It's amps, not Hz, and releasing energy is explosive. That's what you're talking about is moot. The solution right now and for the foreseeable future is natural gas turbines. Their RPMs fluctuate based on grid need.



Its alternating current. The amount of current going through your mains is 0-amps over any period longer than 1/60th of a second. Utility operators measure frequency to see how stable the grid is. If there's too much demand for electricity, the frequency dips (down to say, 59.9 Hz). If there's too little demand for electricity, the frequency increases (up to say, 60.1 Hz). Amps simply don't make sense as a measurement in regards to an AC mains system.

With regard to grid stability, yes, natural gas peaker plants are used. But there is also pumped hydro, batteries (lead acid and Li-ion), and even Flywheels.

Here's a link if you don't believe me: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf483/node/705



> #2 and #3 is how the grid deals with "green" BS polluting the grid.



Erm... no. Load dumps happen every time air conditioners decide to run at the same time (ex: the sun comes out, heats up an area by a few degrees, and causes everyone's AC to turn on simultaneously). Or... the reverse. A cloud covers up the sun, and suddenly everyone's AC turns off in an area simultaneously. Even without any green energy, frequency regulation is needed just because large-scale synchronized load dumps happen on a regular basis.

But because we already have a large degree of frequency regulation occurring on our grid, it turns out that the US grid is well-equipped to use it to also help out with green energy's warts.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 11, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Enron didn't blow up transformers. They committed fraud and then went bankrupt. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.


There was a company that went bankrupt due to oil speculation.  It apparently wasn't Enron and I can't find it despite searching.



dragontamer5788 said:


> Erm... no. Load dumps happen every time air conditioners decide to run at the same time (ex: the sun comes out, heats up an area by a few degrees, and causes everyone's AC to turn on simultaneously). Or... the reverse. A cloud covers up the sun, and suddenly everyone's AC turns off in an area simultaneously. Even without any green energy, frequency regulation is needed just because large-scale synchronized load dumps happen on a regular basis.
> 
> But because we already have a large degree of frequency regulation occurring on our grid, it turns out that the US grid is well-equipped to use it to also help out with green energy's warts.


And which generation units are throttling to react to changes in the grid?  Not nuclear and coal because they have to bleed heat/steam or pressure vessels/piping explodes.  Not wind/solar because they have limited ability to control anything.  Hydroelectric dams are a rare thing in much of the USA.  It's natural gas combined cycle turbines.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 11, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And which generation units are throttling to react to changes in the grid?



Almost all forms of energy can throttle. This is called a "load following power plant". Yes, even solar have load-following designs. Wind is the only power plant that isn't typically used as a load-following plant.






						Load-following power plant - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Older coal /nuclear plants are baseload generators, without any ability to load-follow.  But modern coal / nuclear plants can load follow just fine. Modern plants probably should be built with more load-following capabilities, to allow for renewables to do their thing.

-----------

Another note: economics. Solar has literally free "fuel" costs. Nuclear is nearly free (only needs refueling every 1 to 2 years). Because of the abnormally low fuel costs associated with these plants, it doesn't make *economic* sense to throttle them. All more expensive fuels should be throttled first, before you start throttling nuclear (and finally solar). Natural Gas is throttled first because it has the most expensive fuel.

-------

It should be noted that a large number of loads can become responsive without much cost to the grid. Most stadiums have chiller-towers, where cold water is stored for days ahead of major events, so that the crowds can have access to cold-air during the game. These chiller towers can be a "responsive load", and stabilize the grid. When the grid has too much energy, the chiller towers turn on, and when the grid doesn't have enough energy, the chiller towers turn off. IIRC, Germany is beginning to use responsive-load in Aluminum manufacturing plants. An automated aluminum plant can turn off and respond to the needs of the grid (again: using energy when the grid is "too hot", and ramping down when the grid doesn't have juice).

And electric vehicle chargers will also have responsive loads. As long as the vehicle is charged in X hours (say, before 7am tomorrow), the charger has done its job. So an electric car charger should have a responsive-load, stabilizing the grid throughout the charging duration.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 11, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Older coal /nuclear plants are baseload generators, without any ability to load-follow.  But modern coal / nuclear plants can load follow just fine. Modern plants probably should be built with more load-following capabilities, to allow for renewables to do their thing.


Nuclear can't:


> These reactors have the capability to regularly vary their output between 30–100% of rated power, to *maneuver power up or down by 2–5%/minute* during load following activities, and to participate in primary and secondary frequency control at ±2–3% (primary frequency control) and ±3–5% (secondary frequency control, ≥5% for N4 reactors in Mode X).


That's new French reactors too.  They can respond to regular day/night cycles but they can't do anything about drastic changes induced by renewables.

Coal power plants in general are being replaced by natural gas.



dragontamer5788 said:


> Natural Gas is throttled first because it has the most expensive fuel.


They're throttled first because it's literally a turbine connected to a generator.  They can run at 10000 RPM, they can run at 60,000 RPM, or anywhere in between.  How much power they produce is directly proportional to how much natural gas they consume.  It only takes a few minutes (at most) to reach any point in that range.



dragontamer5788 said:


> It should be noted that a large number of loads can become responsive without much cost to the grid. Most stadiums have chiller-towers, where cold water is stored for days ahead of major events, so that the crowds can have access to cold-air during the game. These chiller towers can be a "responsive load", and stabilize the grid. When the grid has too much energy, the chiller towers turn on, and when the grid doesn't have enough energy, the chiller towers turn off. IIRC, Germany is beginning to use responsive-load in Aluminum manufacturing plants. An automated aluminum plant can turn off and respond to the needs of the grid (again: using energy when the grid is "too hot", and ramping down when the grid doesn't have juice).
> 
> And electric vehicle chargers will also have responsive loads. As long as the vehicle is charged in X hours (say, before 7am tomorrow), the charger has done its job. So an electric car charger should have a responsive-load, stabilizing the grid throughout the charging duration.


This is how you get situations like the Northeast blackout.  Unless the grid can literally turn all of that equipment on and off individually, it can cause spikes or gluts which, in turn, cause generators to respond in a bad way triggering a cascade.  The grid is not that smart.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 11, 2020)

> This is how you get situations like the Northeast blackout.



Am I reading what you want me to read?



> The blackout's proximate cause was a software bug in the alarm system at the control room of FirstEnergy, an Akron, Ohio–based company, which rendered operators unaware of the need to redistribute load after overloaded transmission lines drooped into foliage.





FordGT90Concept said:


> That's new French reactors too.  They can respond to regular day/night cycles but they can't do anything about drastic changes induced by renewables.








						California ISO - Today's Outlook
					

Monitor real-time grid conditions. View current and historical data for demand, net-demand, supply, renewables, CO2 emissions and wholesale energy prices.



					www.caiso.com
				








This is the duck curve from California, caused by the excessive amounts of solar power deployed in the state of California. Notice the Noon-day sun that causes solar panels to activate, dropping the the energy usage of Californians by 10GWs. Then at 7pm, the sun sets, requiring the grid to grow by 10GWs in 3 hours. We now have the numbers for what large scale solar deployments cause.

The worst rampup of that grid is the 10GW ramp in 3 hours at the end of the day, going from 60% generation to 100% generation across 3 hours. The 2-5% / minute load following capability of nuclear power plants *per minute* can more than follow the steep duck curve in the highest solar deployment in America.

This is real data that occurred on May 8th, 2020. We have reality before us, we have the stats to see how things work in the real world. There's no need to guess or make hypotheticals. Just look at the data. Nuclear isn't as agile as natural gas, but guess what? Its agile enough to handle the reality of our demand curves and energy usage patterns.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 11, 2020)

Your discussion/disagreement might be better taken to PM? I'd rather not see the thread going back and forth between you as it has been. It's becoming somewhat of a stalemate....

And, please understand, I mean no disrespect.


----------



## Grog6 (May 11, 2020)

It's only a stalemate if both sides are using valid arguments.


----------



## Assimilator (May 11, 2020)

Grog6 said:


> It's only a stalemate if both sides are using valid arguments.



You mean that "natural gas is the answer to everything" isn't a valid argument?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 11, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Am I reading what you want me to read?


It spread from power plant to power plant beause they detected a sharp increase in power demand that the power plants individually could not fill.  One by one they disconnected from the grid and shutdown to prevent damage to themselves.  Some of them were nuclear which took days to get back on the grid.



dragontamer5788 said:


> California ISO - Today's Outlook
> 
> 
> Monitor real-time grid conditions. View current and historical data for demand, net-demand, supply, renewables, CO2 emissions and wholesale energy prices.
> ...


California is scheduled to decommission their last nuclear power plant (it is base load/does not fluctuate):








						PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant
					

One of California’s largest energy utilities took a bold step in the 21st century electricity revolution with an agreement to close its last operating nuclear plant and develop more solar, wind and other clean power technologies.




					www.latimes.com
				




Most of California's power comes from natural gas:




They're the ones ramping down and up again on a daily basis.  Judging by that chart above, many are running 100% all of the time. 

That's the point (and segueing back into the topic): wind/solar = natural gas; wind + solar + natural gas = death of nuclear which is near-zero emission.  We're replacing something really dirty (coal) with something not as dirty (wind/solar/natural gas) when we should be replacing coal/wind/solar/natural gas with something almost completely clean (nuclear).


Natural gas is only 50-60% less carbon than coal (huge asterisk on that because a methane leak is exponentially worse than burned natural gas):








						Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas
					

This comprehensive overview details the potential environmental impacts of natural gas use and extraction, including its effects on water supplies, global warming emissions, air pollution, and wildlife.




					www.ucsusa.org


----------



## Grog6 (May 11, 2020)

I most definitely did not say that.

Look at the posts above; there are lines of hopeful truisms, opposed by documents, links, and evidence.

It's hard to debate if the other team can't speak truth.


----------



## ShaharNamer (May 15, 2020)

Dumping CO2 into the atmosphere wont help any of us let alone the planet. We all need to do more before its too late.

Shahar Namer


----------



## R0H1T (May 15, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> *Here's an example of dehumidifier requirements to qualify for the Energy Star label*:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Got it, so it means that you can sell non Energy Star products to the general public.

You were saying?


> *Here’s the Trump admin’s pathetic new fuel efficiency rule for 2026*
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Here’s the Trump admin’s pathetic new fuel efficiency rule for 2026
					

From 46.7mpg to just 40.4mpg by 2026, and it's even less for trucks and SUVs.




					arstechnica.com
				




So what I asked was basically *what's the US doing to reduce its carbon footprint*, especially per capita energy & fuel consumption ~ the answer not much, if anything at all.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 15, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> So what I asked was basically *what's the US doing to reduce its carbon footprint*, especially per capita energy & fuel consumption ~ the answer not much, if anything at all.



That is correct, they even openly admit it, and have officially retreated from Kyoto.

One could argue the US is one of the few countries in the world actually being honest about it: we're fucked anyway and not going to be a hypocrite for trying to change that  Because all things considered, the Kyoto (climate) agreement is not exactly set in stone or definitive in its solution either...


----------



## the54thvoid (May 15, 2020)

Politics begone! LQ for speaking of it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 15, 2020)

R0H1T said:
			
		

> Got it, so it means that you can sell non Energy Star products to the general public.


Yes.  Energy Star is fundamentally an public information campaign to separate the low efficiency from the high efficiency models.  Example in computing: Energy Star rated computers required active power factor correction (>70% efficiency) when the bulk of computers had passive (<50%).  80plus came along and created a private (as opposed to public) race for higher efficiency than Energy Star required.



			
				R0H1T said:
			
		

> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because the EPA/CARB/NHTSB were getting massive push back from automakers like Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Daimler, etc. that, to reach the new targets imposed on them, would have to take drastic measures severely increasing the costs to consumers which would depress their ability to sell vehicles/remain profitable.  They basically won that argument that the new standards represented undue burden so EPA/NHTSB went into a holding pattern for years reevaluating things and now you see the new outcome: 40.4 mpg.

Even at that number, all of these manufacturers are going to have to debut more hybrid and/or electric models...which has problems of its own (like battery availability).  46.7 mpg is impossible when the vast majority of new vehicles sold are crossovers and pickups.  They're doing great to hit 35 mpg.  For example, the most fuel efficient pickup in the USA is the Ram with the EcoDiesel and that comes in at about 33 mpg.  Thing is, widespread diesel use creates problems in the supply chain which is set up to provide gasoline for personal use and diesel for commercial use.  Diesels also have problems in nothern states because of the fuel gelling.  That directly translates into customer complaints which, in turn, basically mandates these picks need fuel cell heaters to combat gelling.  Diesel, like electric, is seen as taboo by a lot of Americans for these reasons.

It really comes down to physics and how much energy one can reasonably extract from the fuel source.  We're already moving to forced induction and transmissions with a lot more ratios...the only option left for ICEs is tighter engineering tolerances which means more rejected parts that won't pass quality controls.  Every rejected part means more roll away cost.

Just because a government demands something doesn't mean it's physically or economically possible...


As to your question... a curious thought came to mind: CO2 should have seen significant flattening because of the massive reduction in transportation and production thanks to COVID-19, yeah?





						Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
					

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.



					www.esrl.noaa.gov
				



Apparently not.  How curious.  Without statistical analysis, that actually looks like a bigger jump than a year ago...

CH4 appears to have been impacted...at least...but it's really too easy to tell:




__





						Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
					

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.



					www.esrl.noaa.gov
				




Most of the reductions from USA have likely been from switching from coal electricity to natural gas:








						U.S. CO2 emissions 2021 | Statista
					

Energy consumption in the United States produced 4.87 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) in 2021 - an increase of 6.5 percent from 2020 levels.




					www.statista.com
				



Note: big dip was caused by the Great Recession.

Aside from that, how does one even reduce CO2 emissions that's economically viable?









						Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA
					

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.




					www.epa.gov
				



Transportation is #1 and it really can't be helped until there's a breakthrough.
Electricity is #2 and it is falling year over year because the fleet of coal power plants is diminishing.  It'd fall a lot faster if we were building nuclear power plants...but...that's got problems of its own in terms of start up costs and NIMBY.

The rest, I don't know how you'd reduce without creating other problems (e.g. displacement of industry, food shortages,  etc.).


----------



## the54thvoid (May 15, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yes.  Energy Star is fundamentally an public information campaign to separate the low efficiency from the high efficiency models.  Example in computing: Energy Star rated computers required active power factor correction (>70% efficiency) when the bulk of computers had passive (<50%).  80plus came along and created a private (as opposed to public) race for higher efficiency than Energy Star required.
> 
> 
> Because the EPA/CARB/NHTSB were getting massive push back from automakers like Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Daimler, etc. that, to reach the new targets imposed on them, would have to take drastic measures severely increasing the costs to consumers which would depress their ability to sell vehicles/remain profitable.  They basically won that argument that the new standards represented undue burden so EPA/NHTSB went into a holding pattern for years reevaluating things and now you see the new outcome: 40.4 mpg.
> ...



CO2 emissions are unlikely to drop. Workplaces are often automated, so fuel costs remain constant. On the other hand, more people at home, consuming power: kettles, heating, plus the associated server costs of decentralised networks would maintain steady consumption. The metric for lack of travel in lockdown is nitrogen dioxide, which has been shown to have drastically reduced.

Basically, putting millions of people at home means consumption of power at home. All the while, work places run Aircon, heating etc.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 15, 2020)

Well...I mean...it's kind of hilarious...because those links are for Hawaii and what's upwind from Hawaii?  China, not USA.

Even so, transportation was affected the most by the quarantine, especially non-freight air and ground personal traffic.  You'd think a good 50% reduction in those metrics would eventually result in a measurable difference in rate of CO2 change.  It just might be too early to detect it...especially at Hawaii...out in the middle of nowhere water...

The reduction of NOx is directly proportional to CO2 because it's mostly diesels in poorly regulated countries where the NOx is coming from.  A NOx reducing diesel more thoroughly burns the fuel converting it to CO2 which is less harmful.  So where NOx fell sharply, so did diesel fuel burning.


I doubt global electric production/consumption has changed much because of the quarantine.  If anything, it went down as factories idled and restaurants shuttered.  Yeah, routers and servers are experiencing heavier loads but their power consumption is nothing compared to, say, a factory producing cars.  Just one metal press probably uses as much power in an hour as a cloud cluster uses in a day.


----------



## Grog6 (May 15, 2020)

If we stop burning HydroCarbons for energy, CO2 emissions will drop considerably.  

I like Gas fueled cars, so I hope it doesn't stop completely. 

The only way it's actually going to drop in our time is if we decide to spend money to develop a process to sequester it as limestone or something.

A catalyst that could allow sunlight to split it into O2 and C in a recoverable fashion would be a world changer; one that would split H and O2 would be a nice set.

Our bodies contain enzymes that do both of those operations; so it IS possible, but hard to do.


----------



## R-T-B (May 15, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Inverter is required...even on industrial scales.



woosh.

My point was the reliability figure for industrial inverters is far higher than the consumer study you linked.


----------



## Assimilator (May 15, 2020)

I probably should've appended /s to my last post.



the54thvoid said:


> Politics begone! LQ for speaking of it.



LQ = ?


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 16, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> LQ = ?


Low Quality


----------



## Grog6 (May 16, 2020)

Low Quality.


----------



## Assimilator (May 17, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Low Quality





Grog6 said:


> Low Quality.



Thank'ee.

Good news: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ecover-after-coronavirus-pandemic-say-experts


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 22, 2020)

Kind of a badly written article.  They cite decrease in power demand and coal plants being idled because their capacity isn't needed.  Doesn't mean they aren't going to be turned back on as they are needed.



> This week, a new report by the US Energy Information Administration projected the US would produce more electricity this year from renewables than from coal for the first time. Industry analysts predict coal’s share of US electricity generation could fall to just 10% in five years, down from 50% a decade ago. Despite Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to “dig coal”, there are now more job losses and closures in the industry than at any time since Eisenhower’s presidency 60 years ago. Among the latest has been Great River Energy’s plan to shut down a 1.1-gigawatt thermal plant in North Dakota and replace it with wind and gas.


Well, yeah, I posted about this months ago.  USA is not commissioning any new coal power plants while closures are increasing because they're not cost competitive.  Has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with the fact natural gas is a lot cheaper: to install, to operate, to maintain, and to close.  There's literally no reason, in the USA, for anyone to consider coal.

China...on the other hand...








						China Is Still Building an Insane Number of New Coal Plants
					

While the rest of the world turns away from the fossil fuel, China is investing big in coal-powered electricity.




					www.wired.com
				











						Coal Market Faces Fresh Speculation China Shunning Australia
					

A coal market only just rebounding from the lowest price in four years might now need to grapple with the prospect of China renewing its restrictions on Australian supplies.




					www.bloomberg.com
				




The very last paragraph in the Guardian's article is really the only of note:


> While nobody is expecting coal to disappear any time soon, Ted Nace, director of Global Energy Monitor, believes the balance has shifted for good. “Coal is definitely on the downturn and this pandemic is going to accelerate that. Demand should come back to some degree next year. But there is a very strong argument that it is not going to just bounce back.”


But no one's economy is "going to just bounce back" either.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 22, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Kind of a badly written article.  They cite decrease in power demand and coal plants being idled because their capacity isn't needed.  Doesn't mean they aren't going to be turned back on as they are needed.
> 
> 
> Well, yeah, I posted about this months ago.  USA is not commissioning any new coal power plants while closures are increasing because they're not cost competitive.  Has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with the fact natural gas is a lot cheaper: to install, to operate, to maintain, and to close.  There's literally no reason, in the USA, for anyone to consider coal.
> ...



I did not see it as badly written. It clearly states as well that China is the elephant in the room, investing in its own land and Africa. It really all depends on what side of the fence you're painting. Renewables are on the increase and yes, natural gas is the preferable always on reserve. Obviously, nuclear is there but needs to remain low because you can't easily power down fission.

It might seem as though it doesn't contain enough new info but it's just a newspaper; far from the vanguard of science and pinpoint data analysis. But it's sound enough for the masses.


For balance, here's an article from the Guardian about renewables being turned off.









						Renewable energy may be switched off as demand plummets
					

National Grid may ask suppliers to stop generating electricity due to record low demand




					www.theguardian.com
				





Edit: there's a definite geo-bias in perception. It probably makes our views easier to understand. In 2018, the US accounted for a third of the global increase in natural gas use. China was up there too. But the EU isnt following that trend.



> *The United States and China pulled worldwide natural gas consumption upwards (+5%)*
> Global gas consumption accelerated in 2018, spurred by the US and China, which accounted for around two thirds of the additional consumption. US gas demand grew by 10% in 2018, the highest growth seen in the past 30 years, spurred by the power sector (+15 GW of new gas-fired power plants) and by buildings.
> Gas consumption also accelerated in China (+18%) in line with its coal-to-gas substitution policy in the power and heating sector. Growth was also seen in India and South Korea thanks to sustained economic growth. However, consumption declined in Japan, as the restart of nuclear reactors reduced the needs for gas-fired power generation.
> Gas consumption also continued to grow steadily in Russia (though at a slower pace than in 2017) and accelerated in Canada, Iran and Algeria.
> Despite the economic growth, gas consumption declined in Europe – especially in Turkey, France, Germany and Italy – owing to higher temperatures, improved nuclear and hydropower availability as well as rising renewable power generation.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 22, 2020)

Title is "Coal industry will never recover after coronavirus pandemic, say experts "
It's misleading because reduction in coal as a share of total electric production has been declining, globally, since 2013.  That's because new capacity isn't coal.  Has nothing to do with pandemic.

The only thing the pandemic did, as I said, was cause some coal plants to idle because industry and commerical demand for power has plummeted.  Again, that's not necessarily because of the pandemic but because coal power plants are among the most costly to operate.

In other words, the trend that started a decade ago will continue.  Pandemic may accelerate closures due to economic shrinkage but coal (especially in countries like the USA) was not recovering for years:




__





						Electricity in the U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
					

The major fuel/energy sources and their contribution to annual U.S. electricity generation.




					www.eia.gov
				






Nuclear can feasibly replace everything in that chart as long as the reactors are new designs that can scale with need.  Nuclear can't be complimented by solar/wind without natural gas to even it out.

Next update of that graph should be interesting because it will show what was idled because of the pandemic.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 22, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Title is "Coal industry will never recover after coronavirus pandemic, say experts "
> It's misleading because reduction in coal as a share of total electric production has been declining, globally, since 2013.  That's because new capacity isn't coal.  Has nothing to do with pandemic.
> 
> The only thing the pandemic did, as I said, was cause some coal plants to idle because industry and commerical demand for power has plummeted.  Again, that's not necessarily because of the pandemic but because coal power plants are among the most costly to operate.
> ...



Ah, okay - I got you. A better phrase perhaps would invoke 'nails in the coffin'.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 29, 2020)

China did a smart:








						China excludes clean coal projects from list eligible for green bonds
					

China has excluded "clean coal" from a list of projects eligible for green bonds, according to long-awaited new draft guidelines published by the central bank on Friday.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## A Computer Guy (May 29, 2020)

qubit said:


> That's the newspaper headline, anyway.
> 
> So, could the "global warming" crisis just be one big scandal?
> 
> ...



The earth is warming, and cooling, but the evidence of scandal is present in the behaviors of those who gain profit and power from convincing others to do things that can be measured to achieve no viable goal other than to increase their profit and power.   The ideas of using only single or limited metrics (CO2  emissions) to make huge geopolitical decisions is really stupid nuts if you think about it.   

There is no doubt humans can affect the environment.  Most of it is trivial and limited compared to chaos of the universe we live in.   There is so much naturally happening in the world, that we have no control over, inducing more devastating effects to our well being than what we can produce ourselves.  Anybody ever put a camera on how much oil, ash, and CO2 , is dumped into the ocean by mother nature herself?  

The real issue - we should be doing things to ensure the health of human society.  In turn this comes down to doing things responsibly in the environment where we live so we are not living in our own filth.   So we have earthly resources to survive including preserving the life of other species we discover helps ensuring our survival and well being.  We don't need to save the earth we need to save ourselves from an environment that is 100% guaranteed to change no matter what we do.    

That's all I've got to say.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 29, 2020)

A Computer Guy said:


> We don't need to save the earth we need to save ourselves from an environment that is 100% guaranteed to change no matter what we do.
> 
> That's all I've got to say.



The overwhelming evidence points to human action altering our environment. Sea level rise is the current issue and while it rises and falls over geological timescales, our action with regard to global warming is exacerbating it. That means coastal areas more prone to flooding, and unfortunately, a lot of the worlds population lives in coastal areas. Small changes in our environment, attributred to us, are felt when mother nature does her thing. We amplify the very things you mention. And as things get worse, our amplification will be far greater.

However, you're 100% right with the management of our world. Plastics, waste, over-consumption of resources. We're doing a shit job of responsibly 'harvesting' the planet. But that world becomes harder to manage because of the effects of global warming. We humans think in very short timescales. I'll not see devastating effects of our action on nature in my lifetime (I'm 46). But my niece might - she's 10. If she has kids - it will be a very different world. I read a recent review about wet-bulb temp limits and in some places it is nearing human physiological limits. In other words, parts of the planet are trending toward heat levels that will kill those without air-con all around.

But, I also beleive in 100 years fusion will be with us. And that will be a game-changer. Perhaps a little late to the party but I think humanity might just get by, as long it is continues to be responsible now. Of course, the greatest threat is the self-interest, as you say, of those who profit from those who manage the systems we require. And those people all manipulate government.


----------



## Assimilator (May 29, 2020)

A Computer Guy said:


> Most of it is trivial and limited compared to chaos of the universe we live in.



Educate yourself.



A Computer Guy said:


> Anybody ever put a camera on how much oil, ash, and CO2 , is dumped into the ocean by mother nature herself?



Nowhere near as much as by humans.

Educate yourself.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 29, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> Educate yourself.


No, he has a good point. Nature itself pollutes in massive ways that we are not or can not track.


Assimilator said:


> Nowhere near as much as by humans.


You don't know that because no one knows that.


Assimilator said:


> Educate yourself.


Please take your own advice.



the54thvoid said:


> But, I also believe in 10 years fusion will be with us.


Fixed that for you. France and the US are working closely on the reactor being finished in the south of France. It will be operational in a few years and the lessons learned will benefit us all within this decade.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 29, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Fixed that for you. France and the US are working closely on the reactor being finished in the south of France. It will be operational in a few years and the lessons learned will benefit us all within this decade.



I think we'll have it working on some scale but for global implications, perhaps a little longer. It would be amazing to see an operational, large scale fusion power plant in my lifetime.

Also, ITER is a joint venture between 35 nations:









						What is ITER?
					

ITER ("The Way" in Latin) is one of the most ambitious energy projects in the world today. In southern France, 35 nations* are collaborating to build the world's largest tokamak, a magnetic fusion device that has been designed to prove the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale and carbon-free...



					www.iter.org
				






> Europe is responsible for the largest portion of construction costs (45.6 percent); the remainder is shared equally by China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the US (9.1 percent each).


----------



## Assimilator (May 29, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> No, he has a good point. Nature itself pollutes in massive ways that we are not or can not track.



Good job of making an argument you can't prove.



lexluthermiester said:


> You don't know that because no one knows that.



Wrong, e.g. https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm



lexluthermiester said:


> Please take your own advice.



I have, which is why I post here. You should consider my advice too.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 29, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> I think we'll have it working on some scale but for global implications, perhaps a little longer. It would be amazing to see an operational, large scale fusion power plant in my lifetime.
> 
> Also, ITER is a joint venture between 35 nations:
> 
> ...


There's a lot out there of varying designs:








						List of fusion experiments - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor 10.7 MW reached
Culham Centre for Fusion Energy 16.1 MW reached
ITER 500 MW goal
Soonest/Smallest Private-Funded Affordable, Robust, Compact reactor 100 MW goal
IGNITOR 100 MW goal
China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor 1000 MW goal
Korean fusion demonstration tokamak reactor 2200 MW goal


----------



## the54thvoid (May 29, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There's a lot out there of varying designs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The viability is uncertain but I have always liked this - maybe just becasue of the design. I mean, those lasers... 









						National Ignition Facility sets new laser energy record
					

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL) National Ignition Facility (NIF) laser system has set a new record, firing 2.15 megajoules (MJ) of energy to its target chamber—a 15 percent improvement over NIF's design specification of 1.8 MJ, and more than 10 percent higher than the previous...




					phys.org


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 29, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> Also, ITER is a joint venture between 35 nations:


True, but France and the US are the largest contributors.


Assimilator said:


> Good job of making an argument you can't prove.


And that you can't disprove.


Assimilator said:


> Wrong, e.g. https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm


LOL! If you're going to make a scientific citation, next time use something with more credibility and merit instead of a junk publication.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 29, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> True, but France and the US are the largest contributors.
> 
> And that you can't disprove.
> 
> LOL! If you're going to make a scientific citation, next time use something with more credibility and merit instead of a junk publication.



ITER's own 'about us' states US contribution is 9.1%. Same as China, Russia, etc.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 29, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> ITER's own 'about us' states US contribution is 9.1%. Same as China, Russia, etc.


That's just the money side of it. There's more to a project that involved than just the money. We can split hairs all day. The end point is that fusion generated power is not 100 years away. It's only about 10, maybe a little less, maybe a little more.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 29, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> That's just the money side of it. There's more to a project that involved than just the money. We can split hairs all day. The end point is that fusion generated power is not 100 years away. It's only about 10, maybe a little less, maybe a little more.



You made a statement about US contributions being the highest along with France which just isn't true and I'm not sure why you felt the need to pluck it from thin air. This isn't splitting hairs - It's disingenuous to exaggerate a nations involvement and also somewhat disappointing from an analytical standpoint. But you know what's even more weird - I'm about to praise Trump. The US was actually going into arrears and looking to cut it's budget further but the Trump administration picked up the ball by not cutting it's funding for the next few years.


----------



## Assimilator (May 29, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> And that you can't disprove.



Please do some research on the term "burden of proof" before showing your ignorance here again.



lexluthermiester said:


> LOL! If you're going to make a scientific citation, next time use something with more credibility and merit instead of a junk publication.



Because of course you, an absolute nobody, are more knowledgeable than someone who is an actual professor at an actual university: https://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 29, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> You made a statement about US contributions being the highest along with France which just isn't true and I'm not sure why you felt the need to pluck it from thin air.


Because finances are not the only contribution to be made. I did not mean to minimize the contributions of other nations, only to highlight that France and the US are working hard together to make this technology work.


Assimilator said:


> Please do some research on the term "burden of proof" before showing your ignorance here again.


 Yeah, keep thinking that.


Assimilator said:


> Because of course you, an absolute nobody, are more knowledgeable than someone who is an actual professor at an actual university: https://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml


It's still an agenda based junk publication with no credibility or merit.


----------



## Assimilator (May 29, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> It's still an agenda based junk publication with no credibility or merit.



Attack the credibility when you can't attack the facts.

Any other tired old tropes of ignorance you'd like to share with us?


----------



## R0H1T (May 29, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As to your question... a curious thought came to mind: CO2 should have seen significant flattening because of the massive reduction in transportation and production thanks to COVID-19, yeah?


That's one data point from one observatory. I could think of a number of reasons why it may not have seen a blip in CO^2 numbers but then I'd rather have more data from various places across the world & unless we get that the single observation in & of itself means nothing.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 29, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> The overwhelming evidence points to human action altering our environment. Sea level rise is the current issue and while it rises and falls over geological timescales, our action with regard to global warming is exacerbating it. That means coastal areas more prone to flooding, and unfortunately, a lot of the worlds population lives in coastal areas. Small changes in our environment, attributred to us, are felt when mother nature does her thing. We amplify the very things you mention. And as things get worse, our amplification will be far greater.
> 
> However, you're 100% right with the management of our world. Plastics, waste, over-consumption of resources. We're doing a shit job of responsibly 'harvesting' the planet. But that world becomes harder to manage because of the effects of global warming. We humans think in very short timescales. I'll not see devastating effects of our action on nature in my lifetime (I'm 46). But my niece might - she's 10. If she has kids - it will be a very different world. I read a recent review about wet-bulb temp limits and in some places it is nearing human physiological limits. In other words, parts of the planet are trending toward heat levels that will kill those without air-con all around.
> 
> But, I also beleive in 100 years fusion will be with us. And that will be a game-changer. Perhaps a little late to the party but I think humanity might just get by, as long it is continues to be responsible now. Of course, the greatest threat is the self-interest, as you say, of those who profit from those who manage the systems we require. And those people all manipulate government.



I don't think most skeptics realize that we're not really killing the environment as much as we're killing ourselves with our harmful activities. That's the kicker. It's not a political issue when it pretty much amounts to collective suicide. Of course you could afford to be a skeptic if you're the CEO of Nestle, for example; your way of life would be highly insulated from the fallout of climate change.

Nature has a weird way of cleverly making use of what it has. Even if we trash the planet into an uninhabitable hellhole within the century, life goes on. New microbes and insects may not be in the lovable forms with which we are familiar, but living things nonetheless.

We don't have that resilience. People die from drought and famine all the time, and endure disease from the shocking quality of water that they have to drink. Every time some dipshit cares for the "health" of an engine more than that of his own body by deleting his Cummins or Powerstroke, more people contract respiratory diseases from the PM. When we let bees decline by the wayside or do insanely stupid things like introduce Asian giant hornets to the West coast (since 2019 in Vancouver), it's our agricultural industries that are reeling from the blow (and a small number of _our _community that are dying directly from running into the hornets). When wildfires run rampant here with every year hotter and seeking to outdo the previous, it's our homes, livelihoods and sometimes our lives at stake; "nature" just regards it as a normal reset for a healthier ecosystem down the line.

Personally I'm not even sure how I'm supposed to make it to a ripe old age. I get heatstroke extremely easily to the point of hospitalization. Without AC, I'd be out on my ear.

Climate change is no longer about having the conscience to be eco-friendly. It's now about saving our own goddamn asses, especially if we don't step up in finding ways to leave this planet.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 29, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> Attack the credibility when you can't attack the facts.


I can do both, but it's not worth the time and effort to debate this subject with someone like yourself. Example...


Assimilator said:


> Any other tired old tropes of ignorance you'd like to share with us?


...you are making personal attacks at others and myself and yet you call us ignorant?


----------



## Assimilator (May 30, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> I can do both, but it's not worth the time and effort to debate this subject with someone like yourself. Example...
> 
> ...you are making personal attacks at others and myself and yet you call us ignorant?



You came into a thread about science and made two claims, while insulting me for no good reason. I demonstrated that the first claim was unscientific and therefore irrelevant and suggested you read up on a fundamental basic of the scientific method, and refuted the second one with scientific evidence.

You responded by getting indignant about being called out on your BS and disparaging the evidence presented, then I stated a fact, namely that you ignorant, because the behaviour you displayed in your response is the textbook definition of wilful ignorance. You became more indignant, and in your latest post you've gone full victim mode.

At no point in this exchange have you demonstrated a willingness or ability to back up your claims with evidence, nor that you are willing or able to accept evidence that contrasts with what you believe. Again, the textbook definition of wilful ignorance.

Wilful ignorance has no place in a discussion about science. Until or unless you are willing to temper your ignorance, I suggest you refrain from polluting this thread with what can only be called drivel. Facts don't care about your feelings.


----------



## Peter1986C (May 31, 2020)

@Assimilator, I think you are wasting your time with him.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 31, 2020)

Please try to keep things impersonal please. It's hard enough keeping the focus on genuine science.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 31, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> You came into a thread about science and made two claims, while insulting me for no good reason. I demonstrated that the first claim was unscientific and therefore irrelevant and suggested you read up on a fundamental basic of the scientific method, and refuted the second one with scientific evidence.
> 
> You responded by getting indignant about being called out on your BS and disparaging the evidence presented, then I stated a fact, namely that you ignorant, because the behaviour you displayed in your response is the textbook definition of wilful ignorance. You became more indignant, and in your latest post you've gone full victim mode.
> 
> ...


Any who can read can see what really happened and can tell that your version of events are little more than drivel. @A Computer Guy made a few good points that have merit. You belittled him with the whole "educate yourself" type comments(advice you desperately need to follow). Then when I chimed in on the matter you turned your abusive BS on me. The pattern here is clear for anyone to see.

Getting back to the point "A Computer Guy" made, the Earth itself does, in fact, introduce a great amount of what we would consider pollutants into the environment on a daily basis. This can not be ignored nor trivialized.


----------



## ARF (Jun 3, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I don't think most skeptics realize that we're not really killing the environment as much as we're killing ourselves with our harmful activities. That's the kicker. It's not a political issue when it pretty much amounts to collective suicide. Of course you could afford to be a skeptic if you're the CEO of Nestle, for example; your way of life would be highly insulated from the fallout of climate change.
> 
> Nature has a weird way of cleverly making use of what it has. Even if we trash the planet into an uninhabitable hellhole within the century, life goes on. New microbes and insects may not be in the lovable forms with which we are familiar, but living things nonetheless.
> 
> ...




It's really hard to change businesses that have quite high profits and have low willingness to move to next generation energy sources and new way of living - green and clean.
Coal, gas and petrol industries must be heavily modified.

Global CO2 levels continue to rise and global temperatures follow the trend:












						April 2020: Earth’s 2nd Warmest April on Record
					

2020 is likely to be the warmest year on record




					blogs.scientificamerican.com
				











						April 2020 was Earth’s 2nd hottest April on record
					

April became the third month in a row to rank second-hottest on record for the globe after the year kicked off with the hottest January ever recorded in 141 years of record-keeping, according to scientists from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. It was also the second-warmest...




					www.noaa.gov
				




I think the US is manipulating the global weather patterns via climate weapons. This is so unusually cold spring in Europe.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 3, 2020)

Could be because of polar melt.  Phase change can cause a huge shift in temperatures...but only while there is still ice to melt.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 3, 2020)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Could be because of polar melt.  Phase change can cause a huge shift in temperatures...*but only while there is still ice to melt*.



That sounds so bleak. 

But so true. Less ice also reduces the albedo effect. Vicious cycle.


----------



## ARF (Jul 7, 2020)

Siberian temperatures hit June record, fires spread: EU data



> Global temperatures last month were on par with a 2019 record, and “exceptional warmth” was recorded over Arctic Siberia, the EU’s earth observation programme Copernicus said, part of a trend scientists are calling a “warning cry”.
> 
> Average temperatures in the region were more than 5 degrees Celsius (about 9°F) above normal and more than a degree higher than the two previous warmest Junes, in 2018 and 2019, the data showed.
> 
> The World Meteorological Organization is also seeking to confirm reports of a temperature reading of more than 100°F (38°C) in Siberia, which would be the highest temperature recorded north of the Arctic Circle.











						Siberian temperatures hit June record, fires spread: EU data
					

Temperatures in Arctic Siberia soared to a record average for June amid a heat wave that is stoking some of the worst wildfires the region has ever known, European Union (EU) data showed on Tuesday.




					www.reuters.com
				




The Arctic is on fire: Siberian heat wave alarms scientists



> But for scientists, “alarm bells should be ringing,” Overpeck wrote.
> 
> Such prolonged Siberian warmth hasn’t been seen for thousands of years “and it is another sign that the Arctic amplifies global warming even more than we thought,” Overpeck said.
> Russia’s Arctic regions are among the fastest warming areas in the world.
> ...






			https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-arctic-is-on-fire-siberian-heat-wave-alarms-scientists/2020/06/24/fe48fc64-b5ec-11ea-9a1d-d3db1cbe07ce_story.html


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 7, 2020)

and I wish the sheeple would stop blaming the average joe and jane for the climate crisis... they've been lied to and manipulated by billionaires like al gore, soros, bill gates, etc to think they have to cut down on usage while they jet set to thier megamansions. like holy fuck ppl. 

it's these megarich ppl thru NGOs that are using weather modification to benefit thier industries like monsanto, for example... sweltering heat makes there be more bugs and parasites so it's good for those industries... and these same megarich people establish NGOs to make policies that hurt poor people. yet so many are tricked into thier lies, just because they've been brainwashed so long by pixie dust...


----------



## rruff (Jul 7, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I don't think most skeptics realize that we're not really killing the environment as much as we're killing ourselves with our harmful activities...
> 
> ....Climate change is no longer about having the conscience to be eco-friendly. It's now about saving our own goddamn asses, especially if we don't step up in finding ways to leave this planet.



Nonsense. Do you realize that a warmer planet is actually conducive to a greater abundance of plant and animal and human life? 

Our familiar temperature range is a brief warm period compared to the norm for the prior 1M years... and *we are due for another ice age*... which really would be devastating.


----------



## ARF (Jul 7, 2020)

rruff said:


> Nonsense. Do you realize that a warmer planet is actually conducive to a greater abundance of plant and animal and human life?



Good luck with venomous reptiles and spiders in the Nordic countries, then.


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 7, 2020)

rruff said:


> Nonsense. Do you realize that a warmer planet is actually conducive to a greater abundance of plant and animal and human life?
> 
> Our familiar temperature range is a brief warm period compared to the norm for the prior 1M years... and *we are due for another ice age*... which really would be devastating.



I'm super excited to hear you explain how temperatures outside human habitable ones are "conducive to a greater abundance of human life".


----------



## ARF (Jul 7, 2020)

Well, yes, we, the humans, are mammals, not dinosaurs, so the ideal conditions for us are around these temperatures today.
If it gets too hot, I don't know what will happen to the human population.


----------



## rruff (Jul 7, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> I'm super excited to hear you explain how temperatures outside human habitable ones are "conducive to a greater abundance of human life".


There isn't any life in those places now.



ARF said:


> Well, yes, we, the humans, are mammals, not dinosaurs, so the ideal conditions for us are around these temperatures today.
> If it gets too hot, I don't know what will happen to the human population.



Mammals dominated the world 50-60M years ago, when global temperatures were the highest they've ever been... *~13C warmer than present*. 

Based on more recent history, we are living in a rare warm period which will surely end without intervention, putting us in an ice age... a thick ice sheet covering much of the world. How "ideal" do you think that would be?


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 7, 2020)

rruff said:


> There isn't any life in those places now.



There isn't life in the Middle East? Cool story bro.



rruff said:


> Mammals dominated the world 50-60M years ago, when global temperatures were the highest they've ever been... *~13C warmer than present*.



Wow look at how relevant that is to current humans!



rruff said:


> Based on more recent history, we are living in a rare warm period which will surely end without intervention, putting us in an ice age... a thick ice sheet covering much of the world. How "ideal" do you think that would be?



Please show me where I said that's ideal. I'll wait.

Doesn't matter though, your "argument" is insane. You apparently have a fundamental inability to understand the difference between "normal and expected climate shift over millions of years" versus "unexpected climate shift in a matter of centuries".


----------



## ARF (Jul 7, 2020)

rruff said:


> Mammals dominated the world 50-60M years ago, when global temperatures were the highest they've ever been... *~13C warmer than present*.
> 
> Based on more recent history, we are living in a rare warm period which will surely end without intervention, putting us in an ice age... a thick ice sheet covering much of the world. How "ideal" do you think that would be?



I don't believe that there will be any ice age coming except if super volcano eruption or an asteroid strike provoked winter.
There is just too much greenhouses in the atmosphere now, so the temperatures are only going to rise in the foreseeable future.


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 8, 2020)

Lol someone was triggered about my post?

But still.. BRING ON THE ICE AGE!! sick of this heat


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 8, 2020)

remixedcat said:


> Lol someone was triggered about my post?
> 
> But still.. BRING ON THE ICE AGE!! sick of this heat



A cool thing from the end of the last ice age:










Same thing better media - actually difference ice lake!


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 8, 2020)

It's easier to deal with cold.... just put more layers on... but you can't take your skin off lol


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 8, 2020)

remixedcat said:


> It's easier to deal with cold.... just put more layers on... but you can't take your skin off lol



And cold means less tropical disease, less mosquitos, less bugs in general. 

Yeah, cold's good. Not sure if I want a thousand metre high glacier on my front step though...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 8, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> Not sure if I want a thousand metre high glacier on my front step though...


Fair point. LOL!


----------



## ARF (Jul 8, 2020)

remixedcat said:


> It's easier to deal with cold.... just put more layers on... but you can't take your skin off lol




Yes. And the Nordic nations are more intelligent (except Finland  ).


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 8, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> And cold means less tropical disease, less mosquitos, less bugs in general.
> 
> Yeah, cold's good. Not sure if I want a thousand metre high glacier on my front step though...


And less allergies!!! Sick of itchin all the time


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 8, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> There isn't life in the Middle East? Cool story bro.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ice ages are not necessarily on million year time scales the last one ended abruptly too then came back abruptly then left , abruptly.


----------



## ARF (Jul 9, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Ice ages are not necessarily on million year time scales the last one ended abruptly too then came back abruptly then left , abruptly.



Then, it's not an ice age, but temporary lower temperatures. In such a case there isn't even enough time for ice caps to form and build up.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 9, 2020)

ARF said:


> Then, it's not an ice age, but temporary lower temperatures. In such a case there isn't even enough time for ice caps to form and build up.


Right, so the little hump wasn't an ice age, probably wasn't pleasant for a thousand years though and it still ended abruptly as did the ice age just before it, my point.
We know little of what an ice age is like or it's effects on us.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 9, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Right, so the little hump wasn't an ice age, probably wasn't pleasant for a thousand years though and it still ended abruptly as did the ice age just before it, my point.
> We know little of what an ice age is like or it's effects on us.


That being said, we have the technology to better survive an iceage.


----------



## robot zombie (Jul 9, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> That being said, we have the technology to better survive an iceage.


True... but I have a feeling food would be a significant challenge. Maybe we have the tech but coordinating a huge shift in multiple industries in a time when economies around the world are likely to be all screwed up is going to massively complicate things... and weve all seen how terrible people can be when theyre stuck working together to adapt to big changes. Just on the food thing alone so much would be different.

Pretty much anything that changes what surviving looks like, or even just how we live our lives, is bound to cause a lot of turmoil and ultimately loss. I think we'd be decimated simply by the trickle out of different things coming with an ice age. Having the tools to survive is arguably the easiest part. What we seem to struggle with is who gets to use them and how. Put an unheard of land/resource squeeze on everyone and watch how the world scrambles and works against itself.

Just based on our track record throughout post-enlightenment history, I have a hard time putting much faith in governments, let alone regular people to really hold it together. Its not having the means to survive or not, but the damage that losing a bunch of things that got taken for granted would do to any sense of order we had.

Like, Im sure we'd make it, but things would probably never be the same and it would massively suck for all of the regular people just caught in the middle. 'We' will survive. But many people won't.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 9, 2020)

This is venturing away from the topic at hand - climate change. An ice-age isn't really on our radar - we, and many generations will be long gone before it happens, unless it's unduced by some atmospheric catastrophe (super volcano level eruption, ELE: asteroid, etc). On that front, a discussion on Yellowstone should happen somewhere... I mean, if that caldera erupts, America's finished  

Anyway, FTR, an ice-age would have calamitous effect on our resource system. Humans moved out of the tropical areas at the ending of the last ice-age. If such ice-sheets were to return, the effects on sea-level would be crazy, the effects on global crops, a catastophe. We're in an inter-stadial, one of those times between ice-ages. It could last a long, long time. I'm sure some crazy is thinking if we keep global warming up, we can stop the next ice-age. Well, warming will have equally disastrous effects but they will happen in a shorter time-frame (centuries, not millenia). Besides, as some have commented on before, it's not just global wamring that's starting to hurt, it's soil degradation by industrial farming, resource stripping by intensive mining, and acidification of the oceans by warming and CO2 absorption. Regardless of cause (whether you wish to blame human action or not), these things are happening now - that is irrefutable.

And one last thing. Should global weather change in either extreme way (long-term scenarios) what happens to those populated zones, those countries that lose their crops & resources? Well, they seek better land. Land someone else is already on. Humans are shit at being co-operative on a large scale. At community level - you use town halls. At global level - you use war. That's the future if any severe resource drought threatens an established first-world country (one with an army... or nukes).

What a future someone is going to have...


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 9, 2020)

remixedcat said:


> Lol someone was triggered about my post?
> 
> But still.. BRING ON THE ICE AGE!! sick of this heat



I didn't report that post, but I'm glad it was marked as low quality, because it's pure unadalterated nonsense. This is a thread about science, and science means facts - which said post lacks entirely.

If you want to discuss bat fuck insane conspiracy theories, please start your own thread to do so.


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 9, 2020)

So you only think that regular people are too blame and these celebs are soooo perfect?


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 9, 2020)

remixedcat said:


> So you only think that regular people are too blame and these celebs are soooo perfect?



In Europe we have package holidays. That's sardines crammed into planes. Heavy, commercial liners laden with fuel. I know people with middle incomes that fly three times a year. The ultra rich are bastards. I hate wealth, it's evil. But our world's become a consumer nightmare. Consume, consume, consume. The rich sell it, we buy it. We're all too blame.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 9, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> In Europe we have package holidays. That's sardines crammed into planes. Heavy, commercial liners laden with fuel. I know people with middle incomes that fly three times a year. The ultra rich are bastards. I hate wealth, it's evil. But our world's become a consumer nightmare. Consume, consume, consume. The rich sell it, we buy it. We're all too blame.


You're not wrong... but as someone who lived in the former Soviet Union, and basically anyone who has ever lived or now lives under the alternative system... believe me this consumer nightmare is absolute heaven comparatively.

At this point austerity is really no longer a valid option... the best we can do now is invent technology to clean up after ourselves, especially given the rate of population growth.






						Carbon Sequestration
					

What is Carbon Sequestration? Carbon sequestration secures carbon dioxide to prevent it from entering the Earth’s atmosphere. The idea is to stabilize carbon in solid and dissolved forms so that it doesn’t cause the atmosphere to warm. The process shows tremendous promise for reducing the human...




					climatechange.ucdavis.edu
				




and of course... our man Boyan:









						Careers | The Ocean Cleanup
					

To succeed in our mission, we need to complete one of the most ambitious engineering projects on the face of the planet. Designing mega-structures capable of lasting in the harshest of environments is not easy. If you are a master problem solver and are willing to do whatever it takes to build a...




					theoceancleanup.com
				




The good news is the sequestration projects pump out Graphene, so we can at the least expect some sweet tech toys on that front.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 9, 2020)

phanbuey said:


> The good news is the sequestration projects pump out Graphene, so we can at the least expect some sweet tech toys on that front.


That, plus getting off of carbon fuel, is how the carbon problem is solved in an economically viable way.  Doesn't address the methane problem though:





						Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
					

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.



					esrl.noaa.gov
				




Nor N2O:





						Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
					

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.



					www.esrl.noaa.gov
				





> The primary driver for the industrial era increase of N2O was concluded to be enhanced microbial production in expanding and fertilized agricultural lands.



Nor SF6:





						Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
					

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.



					www.esrl.noaa.gov
				





> Sulphur hexaﬂ uoride (SF6) is produced for use as an electrical insulating ﬂ uid in power distribution equipment and also deliberately released as an essentially inert tracer to study atmospheric and oceanic transport processes.


SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas identified to date because of its long atmospheric lifetime (3200 years) and radioactive efficiency (0.52 wm2ppb)


			https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf


----------



## EricaR (Aug 12, 2020)

Global warming and climate change are always hidden in development and invention. People innovated so many things and still they search for new things..Most of innovations finally caused global warming directly and circularly. No one can stop this process.. But can be manged through proper guidance and good attitudes..


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 12, 2020)

EricaR said:


> No one can stop this process..


That is an assumption you *can not* prove. If we caused it, we can undo it. Narrow thinking is not helpful to anyone.


----------



## EricaR (Aug 13, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> That is an assumption you *can not* prove. If we caused it, we can undo it. Narrow thinking is not helpful to anyone.



I just wanted to say it's hard.Just think about  cutting forest.I need to stop it.But I cannot stop it completely.As a single human, I can grow plants and make society aware of its bad effects and helps to reduce the bad effect of it or I can join an organisation or a club and make collaborative effort to stop it. But I cannot ever force the large multinational companies to stop cutting trees which they need to expand their businesses or stop improper/illegal  forest cuttings. I thoroughly refuse "Narrow thinking " in this regard


----------



## authorized (Aug 13, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> If we caused it, we can undo it.


And that is something _you_ cannot prove.


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 13, 2020)

authorized said:


> And that is something _you_ cannot prove.



Let's just bring back to life all the animals that are killed!

Oh wait.


----------



## Hemmingstamp (Aug 13, 2020)

Emissions dropped during lockdown but they say it has no effect on global temps since they are mainly locked in the worlds oceans and would take at least a decade of lockdown to improve. 
Pollution needs to be tackled head on along with the ever increasing population.



authorized said:


> And that is something _you_ cannot prove.



And it can't be disproved since a lot of facts are contorted to fit a narrative.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 13, 2020)

authorized said:


> And that is something _you_ cannot prove.


And _you_ can not disprove it. However, it's common sense really. As a general rule in life, any mess we humans can create we can also clean up, even if it takes a greater effort. Only people daft as mice fail to see such a simple perspective.


----------



## Hemmingstamp (Aug 13, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> And _you_ can not disprove it. However, it's common sense really. As a general rule in life, any mess we humans can create we can also clean up, even if it takes a greater effort. Only people daft as mice fail to see such a simple perspective.



And therein lies the problem. selfishness and the inability of man to smell his own sh1t.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 13, 2020)

Hemmingstamp said:


> And therein lies the problem. selfishness and the inability of man to smell his own sh1t.


That and the inability of some to take on responsibility and own a problem. Thankfully, the world does have many who understand the big picture. This is why the environment is getting better. Slowly, certainly, but it is getting better.


----------



## Hemmingstamp (Aug 13, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> That and the inability of some to take on responsibility and own a problem. Thankfully, the world does have many who understand the big picture. This is why the environment is getting better. Slowly, certainly, but it is getting better.



I see it everyday with some of our neighbours. Some wouldn't pick up and dispose of a plastic bottle on their doorstep, they'd walk past it in a hope someone else would do it for them.
No sense of responsibility at all.


----------



## authorized (Aug 13, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> And _you_ can not disprove it. However, it's common sense really. As a general rule in life, any mess we humans can create we can also clean up, even if it takes a greater effort. Only people daft as mice fail to see such a simple perspective.


Why would I need to? It's your claim.
That said, @Assimilator pretty much did with his example. We can't bring back any species we drove to extinction.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 13, 2020)

authorized said:


> Why would I need to? It's your claim.


Really? Ok then.


authorized said:


> That said, @Assimilator pretty much did with his example.


You call that proof? I would call it something, but not proof..


----------



## qubit (Feb 27, 2021)

Looks like Bitcoin miners are singlehandedly helping to screw up the world's climate change mitigation efforts, all in the pursuit of profit. Yay!  









						Electricity needed to mine bitcoin is more than used by 'entire countries'
					

Bitcoin mining – the process in which a bitcoin is awarded to a computer that solves a complex series of algorithm – is a deeply energy intensive process




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 27, 2021)

qubit said:


> Looks like Bitcoin miners are singlehandedly helping to screw up the world's climate change mitigation efforts, all in the pursuit of profit. Yay!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the ironic part is when Elon Musk buys 1.5 billion bitcoin as part of his Tesla company... which offsets basically all the gains Tesla cars have made, batteries are bad for the environment in the mining/creation process of them, but then that negative is offset and then exceeded by the fact it replaces gas cars and the batteries last a long time - so Tesla is good for the environment, but buying bitcoin and increasing its usage just negated all of that instantly.  lol  Elon Musk may be a genius engineer, but he is not so smart when it comes to basic principles and presenting an image of integrity. he is a libertarian in his heart even though he gets rich off tax subsidies for all his companies. Starlink would be nowhere without the government giving it that 10 year contract, Tesla would be nowhere without that 7500 dollar tax credit obama did for electric cars, Boring Company relies on government contracts as its business model, and Spacex would have vanished a long time ago without contracts from NASA/government.  basically our tax money made Elon rich, also why is the world richest person someone who needs tax money for any of his companies to survive? i could see a jeff bezos being worlds richest person, he didn't require government intervention at every turn... so why is Elon so rich if he needs government contracts to stay afloat? maybe those contracts are paying him to much.


----------



## rruff (Feb 27, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> i could see a jeff bezos being worlds richest person, he didn't require government intervention at every turn... so why is Elon so rich if he needs government contracts to stay afloat? maybe those contracts are paying him to much.



Huge difference. New things like electric cars and space exploration require a huge investment in R&D and infrastructure before they can be commercially viable. In a suprisingly intelligent move, the governments saw long term value in promoting this development. Musk just happened to do the best job.


----------



## R0H1T (Feb 27, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> the ironic part is when Elon Musk buys 1.5 billion bitcoin as part of his Tesla company


It's not ironic at all, he knew this would happen or least would've known to some extent. Elon Musk, much like Bezos ~ the richest man on earth before him, knows what he's doing & he of course enjoys doing it.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 28, 2021)

Funny how the world stops and the next thing ya know everywhere is alot colder then a yr ago, temps here in Australia I havent seen this low in 20yrs, its like how it used to be and im loven it


----------



## Totally (Feb 28, 2021)

Melvis said:


> Funny how the world stops and the next thing ya know everywhere is alot colder then a yr ago, temps here in Australia I havent seen this low in 20yrs, its like how it used to be and im loven it



This is false the opposite was observed, CO2 emissions, air pollution were at all time lows due to the virus and global temps INCREASED despite this. Right now the debate regarding this observation is current thinking of global warming is wrong or effects of present levels are delayed years. Whatyou just said is in your head and if you read it somewhere it's bs.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Feb 28, 2021)

Still waiting for the 1979 Leonard Nimoy Ice Age


----------



## Melvis (Feb 28, 2021)

Totally said:


> This is false the opposite was observed, CO2 emissions, air pollution were at all time lows due to the virus and global temps INCREASED despite this. Right now the debate regarding this observation is current thinking of global warming is wrong or effects of present levels are delayed years. Whatyou just said is in your head and if you read it somewhere it's bs.


Really? then how come this is the lowest temps in over 20yrs was just observed here in Australia and that the USA is going through one of the coldest Winters in god knows how long? It cant be BS when its literally happening RIGHT NOW! Do you call it a coincidence that this has just happened to happen when the world stopped? Manufacturing lessened globally, Planes, cruise ships basically stopped! and then the temps dropped! and here in Australia where the Ozone layer is the thinnest the difference is amazing! So unless you got proof what your saying is BS as my proof is right here right now!


----------



## qubit (Feb 28, 2021)

Melvis said:


> Funny how the world stops and the next thing ya know everywhere is alot colder then a yr ago, temps here in Australia I havent seen this low in 20yrs, its like how it used to be and im loven it


I seem to remember raging wildfires in Australia all over the news not so long ago. Funnily enough, those accompanied the hottest temperatures on record. Don't be a climate change denier.


----------



## r.h.p (Feb 28, 2021)

Melvis said:


> Funny how the world stops and the next thing ya know everywhere is alot colder then a yr ago, temps here in Australia I havent seen this low in 20yrs, its like how it used to be and im loven it



were are you then melvis , ? to get this observation


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 28, 2021)

here is visible proof of climate change


			snow in saudi arabia 2020 - Google Search
		


when the Oil runs out they will set up a winter sports center


----------



## Outback Bronze (Feb 28, 2021)

qubit said:


> not so long ago



Yeah mate that's where I live. Perth. 

Sure as hell wasn't the coolest summer over here in 20 years..


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 28, 2021)

Outback Bronze said:


> Yeah mate that's where I live. Perth.
> 
> Sure as hell wasn't the coolest summer over here in 20 years..


Same over here in S.E. QLD. I've still got the aircon going to battle the humidity.
At least from my point of view all these fires, floods, snow and storms are proof of climate change as they are occurring more frequently and in areas that ordinarily wouldn't experience that type of weather.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 28, 2021)

Just to keep the perspective very, very clear. Global warming leads to local *climate change*. An increase of 1 degree can have serious global effects but that may also mean shifting weather patterns. It's not as simple as some people love to parrot. Climate change creates weather instability. High atmospheric systems change course, as the oceans warm, they also affect patterns like El Nino. Just because it gets cold one year on one location, it doesn't mean global warming has stopped. The UK gets near tropical heat in the Scilly Isles from the jetstream. At that latitude, it shouldn't be that warm but a weather system brings the heat. The jetstream is vulnerable to shifting global temps, therefore, the Scilly Isles could be far colder in a global warming scenario.

The greatest systems for measuring global warming are retreating glaciers across the planet. There are places in east Antarctica (I think, from memory) where this is not happening. That gets used by global warming skeptics but the place has a different weather pattern. And despite claims, it is being affected. Skeptics use micro-climates to denounce climate change but the term is 'Global' for a reason. And also, the change has to be measured long term. One season is not enough to predict climate science. One bad winter doesn't mean global wamring has stopped.


----------



## qubit (Feb 28, 2021)

@the54thvoid Damned fine explanation! Thankyou.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 28, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> The UK gets near tropical heat in the Scilly Isles from the jetstream. At that latitude, it shouldn't be that warm but a weather system brings the heat.


This is exactly the thinking with regards to the snow and cold temperatures in Texas. Some scientists believe that the jet stream is weakening and is going to allow more of these cases where very high and low temperatures are going to move further north or south than they would otherwise. Basically, the kind of weather that Texas saw is what NH gets all the time. The difference is that we're prepared for it and they're not.



qubit said:


> @the54thvoid Damned fine explanation! Thankyou.


100%.


----------



## vega22 (Feb 28, 2021)

Totally said:


> This is false the opposite was observed, CO2 emissions, air pollution were at all time lows due to the virus and global temps INCREASED despite this. Right now the debate regarding this observation is current thinking of global warming is wrong or effects of present levels are delayed years. Whatyou just said is in your head and if you read it somewhere it's bs.





the54thvoid said:


> Just to keep the perspective very, very clear. Global warming leads to local *climate change*. An increase of 1 degree can have serious global effects but that may also mean shifting weather patterns. It's not as simple as some people love to parrot. Climate change creates weather instability. High atmospheric systems change course, as the oceans warm, they also affect patterns like El Nino. Just because it gets cold one year on one location, it doesn't mean global warming has stopped. The UK gets near tropical heat in the Scilly Isles from the jetstream. At that latitude, it shouldn't be that warm but a weather system brings the heat. The jetstream is vulnerable to shifting global temps, therefore, the Scilly Isles could be far colder in a global warming scenario.
> 
> The greatest systems for measuring global warming are retreating glaciers across the planet. There are places in east Antarctica (I think, from memory) where this is not happening. That gets used by global warming skeptics but the place has a different weather pattern. And despite claims, it is being affected. Skeptics use micro-climates to denounce climate change but the term is 'Global' for a reason. And also, the change has to be measured long term. One season is not enough to predict climate science. One bad winter doesn't mean global wamring has stopped.



that's it. climate change is what is behind the extreme weather conditions we have been seeing. back to back records with shit like the longest drought known to man in an area followed by the most rain fail then swinging back. it is not just global "warming" and people need to unlearn that way of looking at it.

the warming is putting more liquid fresh water into the system which will have effects on it which we do not fully understand. what we do understand is that all water is part of the weather and the increased amount, and heat, is causing more extremes in weather conditions. on all fronts. more rain in some places, which deprives other areas. more snow in places, some which we have never known to get it.

i am not totally convinced we are 100% of the cause, but i do think we play a part. this lock down has shown it as did the iceland volcano (in 2012 was it?). maybe we can help change it back, maybe we need to just adapt? hell maybe the plants and trees will save us by taking all the extra carbon dioxide and turning it into oxygen? we don't know.


----------



## Totally (Feb 28, 2021)

Melvis said:


> Really? then how come this is the lowest temps in over 20yrs was just observed here in Australia and that the USA is going through one of the coldest Winters in god knows how long? It cant be BS when its literally happening RIGHT NOW! Do you call it a coincidence that this has just happened to happen when the world stopped? Manufacturing lessened globally, Planes, cruise ships basically stopped! and then the temps dropped! and here in Australia where the Ozone layer is the thinnest the difference is amazing! So unless you got proof what your saying is BS as my proof is right here right now!



We have had this this polar vortex every year only difference is that each year progressively reaches further south, it happened last year and the year before, so? Obviously, you have your conclusion and latched on two the two events as proof ignoring everything else.


----------



## claes (Feb 28, 2021)

There are some excellent explanations as to why “climate change” better explains the effects of global warming than warming does, but let’s not kid ourselves — the world is in fact getting hotter, even during a pandemic where emissions may have (?) been reduced:






						Annual 2020 Global Climate Report | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
					

An analysis of global temperatures and precipitation, placing the data into a historical perspective




					www.ncdc.noaa.gov
				











						2020 may be third hottest year on record, world could hit climate change milestone by 2024
					

This year is on track to be one of the three hottest on record, completing a run of six years that were all hotter than any year ever measured before, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Wednesday.




					news.un.org
				











						Many Scientists Now Say Global Warming Could Stop Relatively Quickly After Emissions Go to Zero - Inside Climate News
					

Parts of the world economy may have been on pause during 2020, dampening greenhouse gas emissions for a while. But that didn’t slow the overall buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which reached its highest level in millions of years.  If anything, research during the year showed global...




					insideclimatenews.org
				











						2020 falls just short of being Earth's hottest year on record as global warming continues
					

While NASA said that 2020 tied with 2016 as the warmest year on record, other groups, such as NOAA, said it was the second-warmest year.



					amp.usatoday.com


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 1, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> One bad winter doesn't mean global wamring has stopped.


Indeed global warming can be the cause of severe winters. There is geological evidence that shows that a warming period can trigger a cooling trend and even an minor ice age. There have been many instances that show a warming spike followed by a prolonged cold period. Time will tell...


----------



## Melvis (Mar 1, 2021)

qubit said:


> I seem to remember raging wildfires in Australia all over the news not so long ago. Funnily enough, those accompanied the hottest temperatures on record. Don't be a climate change denier.



Yep that was a yr ago, last summer, and what do you hear now? nothing, no raging fires, hardly any at all anywhere in the country, it went from 40c (where I live) last yr in early Feb to 24c at the exact same time a yr later, the entire summer where I am which would hit in the high 30s to low 40s for the past 20yrs and only gone up each yr has now barely even hit over 30c this year which we havent seen since the 90s and the ONLY thing that has changed since then is COVID and that the world basically stopped! Funny that hey? 



r.h.p said:


> were are you then melvis , ? to get this observation



Im in Australia which was just last year breaking records globally and 1 change and now our temps are back down to how it was in the 80/90s.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Mar 1, 2021)

Melvis said:


> nothing



There was raging fires in Perth matey... 81 homes lost. Didnt you see the news? 4th Feb this Year.

Perth Hills bushfire: 81 homes destroyed (news.com.au)


----------



## Melvis (Mar 1, 2021)

Outback Bronze said:


> There was raging fires in Perth matey... 81 homes lost. Didnt you see the news? 4th Feb this Year.
> 
> Perth Hills bushfire: 81 homes destroyed (news.com.au)



Nope first ive heard of it and thats in WA where summer is always hotter then over here on the east (NSW), but your not telling me the temps? what where they compared to the same time last yr? and thats nothing compared to last yrs summer lets face facts, last yr was a disaster Australia wide even in the cold climate areas......


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 1, 2021)

^^ I'm not sure there's any arguement going on here? Just a miscommunication?

Either way, Oz has always had bushfires, always will (as long as there's something left to burn).

Here's the best graph I could find for time and incidence of fires. Source


----------



## qubit (Mar 1, 2021)

Melvis said:


> Yep that was a yr ago, last summer, and what do you hear now? nothing, no raging fires, hardly any at all anywhere in the country, it went from 40c (where I live) last yr in early Feb to 24c at the exact same time a yr later, the entire summer where I am which would hit in the high 30s to low 40s for the past 20yrs and only gone up each yr has now barely even hit over 30c this year which we havent seen since the 90s and the ONLY thing that has changed since then is COVID and that the world basically stopped! Funny that hey?


Remember, correlation is not equal to causation.

Also, remember that climate change doesn't just mean steadily increasing temperatures everywhere like an evenly rising CPU temperature. It means wilder extremes of weather at both the hot and cold ends and the weather will always vary by a fair but moment to moment, anyway as there's a fair bit of chaos to it. @the54thvoid explained it all really well, here.

@Outback Bronze gave you a pretty good answer about continuing bushfires, too.

Don't be a climate change denier.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 1, 2021)

vega22 said:


> i am not totally convinced we are 100% of the cause


I agree, warming/cooling cycles throughout the ages have always been associated with a corresponding increase/decrease in carbon dioxide and I am sure as hell there were no coal power plants or cars 100 000 years ago, for instance.

Do humans have something to do with it ? Seems like it but is it "100%" because of us ? No way, that simply can't be proven, historical data over the last hundreds of thousands of years shows that CO2 levels rise and fall without human intervention.

By the way, it has also being shown that CO2 emissions lag immensely an increase in temperature, by thousands of years sometimes, so even that is questionable.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 2, 2021)

qubit said:


> Remember, correlation is not equal to causation.
> 
> Also, remember that climate change doesn't just mean steadily increasing temperatures everywhere like an evenly rising CPU temperature. It means wilder extremes of weather at both the hot and cold ends and the weather will always vary by a fair but moment to moment, anyway as there's a fair bit of chaos to it. @the54thvoid explained it all really well, here.
> 
> ...



Well no not exactly! no one said anything about it been "stopped" and that will never happen thats just common knowledge obviously, we all should know that after this Pandemic is over and the world goes back to how it was the temps will just rise back up again, that Im willing to bet. Yeah sure you might have a colder yr from another but of this magnitude at what everyone seems to just glide right over is that it is just a coincidence that the temps not just here but on the other side of world have dropped in lvls I havent seen in over 20yrs when the world just happened to stop. 15c is not a small drop, if anyone thinks it is your completely mad!

Outback Bronze didnt give a good answer he gave me a no shit sherlock answer which was then backed up by the54thvoid the very next post......so I dont know what your on about here honestly?

I also saw someone give links to stuff from 2020, talk about a facepalm moment there, last I can tell we are in 2021 not 2020 which if anyone remembers was the worst year in Australia we have ever seen in my entire life! Ive lived in the same area for basically 40yrs and I can tell you that since around the yr 2000 the temps have slowly gone up and up, yeah you might have a slight change one year now and again but it doesnt last long, we basically laughed when people would ask, Hey! how spring going for you? my reply what Spring? oh its over already its now summer (3 weeks into actual spring) and then those summer temps would last all the way to April, it was basically 6months of summer in Australia in which was never a thing ever! period! Now for the first time in over 2 decades the temps we have seen this summer and funny enough the end of spring have never been like this since the 80/90s. Its completely unheard of, to see temps up to 15c lower then any other time for this long at a time that just happens to be when the world came to a stop, again coincidence? pfft I dont think so, did it flip like a switch like alot of people on here tend to think it did? hell no it didnt, it took almost a yr before we started to see a difference.

But lets make time tell the full story, its only early in 2021, most other places in the world havent had summer yet but im willing to bet! that the temps are going to be lower by a good margin compared to the same time the yr before in places (like where i live) that havent seen such high scorching temps for long periods of time. But then again unless your live where the ozone layer is the thinnest you might not see as big of a difference but im willing to bet there will be some from this yr from the last and many before that.

Dont be a global warming denier


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 20, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> I agree, warming/cooling cycles throughout the ages have always been associated with a corresponding increase/decrease in carbon dioxide and I am sure as hell there were no coal power plants or cars 100 000 years ago, for instance.
> 
> Do humans have something to do with it ? Seems like it but is it "100%" because of us ? No way, that simply can't be proven, historical data over the last hundreds of thousands of years shows that CO2 levels rise and fall without human intervention.
> 
> By the way, it has also being shown that CO2 emissions lag immensely an increase in temperature, by thousands of years sometimes, so even that is questionable.


I feel like it's time to post this again:









						Earth Temperature Timeline
					






					xkcd.com


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 20, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> I feel like it's time to post this again:



A 20 000 year window doesn't mean much, sorry. Very easy to make it look like it was exclusively because of humans, which it isn't.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 20, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> A 20 000 year window doesn't mean much, sorry. Very easy to make it look like it was exclusively because of humans, which it isn't.


Yeah, but it's that spike at the end that we need to be worried about...


----------



## xrobwx71 (Mar 20, 2021)

LightningJR said:


> "defraud us of our money and freedom" is probably the most hilarious thing I have read in a while.


Fraud is the keyword and it's not hilarious at all. The issue is: when your 95% of scientists make predictions, people like self-appointed spokesman, AL Gore pick up those predictions and publicize those predictions, then...predictions do not come to pass, people get skeptical.
The 95% is a popular talking point. No set of humans, on any subject get to 95% agreement on anything, ever.

I am not a denier, I see the change, it's inevitable. But, we are not underwater in Florida.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 20, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> A 20 000 year window doesn't mean much, sorry. Very easy to make it look like it was exclusively because of humans, which it isn't.


I'm sorry, but that would just show that these things happen over a much longer time period than it is right now. @lexluthermiester is on point:


lexluthermiester said:


> Yeah, but it's that spike at the end that we need to be worries about...


The problem isn't how much it's changing (yet). It's the rate of change that's alarming and extending the timeline only shows how much more crazy the current rate of increase is on average. The point of the picture is to show that these changes historically have happened over much longer periods of time and that is the point. What's happening now is unprecedented at the rate it's been progressing and it's ignorant to ignore that fact.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 20, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> The problem isn't how much it's changing (yet). It's the rate of change that's alarming and extending the timeline only shows how much more crazy the current rate of increase is on average.



Have I ever said anything about that ? I am just pointing out that evidence shows we are not the exclusive force driving it. Historical data shows we happen to be exactly around a peak of a warming cycle, that's unlucky for us since we've just started doing things that influences the climate as well but I can't help but notice how this coincidence was used to drive a narrative which was simply untrue, or, at the very best inaccurate, namely that global warming happened because of our actions.

Whether it was just an unfortunate misunderstanding or there was malicious intent behind this I don't know but I suspect it has damaged the credibility of the communities who valiantly advocated these points beyond repair.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 20, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Have I ever said anything about that ? I am just pointing out that evidence shows we are not the exclusive force driving it. Historical data shows we happen to be exactly around a peak of a warming cycle, that's unlucky for us since we've just started doing things that influences the climate as well but I can't help but notice how this coincidence was used to drive a narrative which was simply untrue, or, at the very best inaccurate, namely that global warming happened because of our actions.
> 
> Whether it was just an unfortunate misunderstanding or there was malicious intent behind this I don't know but I suspect it has damaged the credibility of the communities who valiantly advocated these points beyond repair.


Historical data shows that the temperature of the planet has never changed this quickly and you seem to be really good at ignoring that fact. You're saying this like the rate of change is normal when it's not. The earth goes through cycles, but not this quickly.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 20, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> A 20 000 year window doesn't mean much, sorry. Very easy to make it look like it was exclusively because of humans, which it isn't.


It's not only us.  But it is chiefly us, as we are the only thing that's changed during this period of massive warming.  Occam's razor says it's probably us.

As others have pointed out, it has never happened this rapidly since the formation of the earth.  Don't let the arbitrary and fun date on the chart fool you into thinking it's not significant.  It's not at all about the timeframe, but the rate.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 20, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> You're saying this like the rate of change is normal when it's not.



Literally never said that or hinted at it, or even cared enough to do so to be honest. And the data doesn’t have a high enough sample rate to validate or disprove whether or not such rates have ever existed anyway. Because the thing is temperatures cannot rise indefinitely and even if you observe that a process has a high rate of growth it doesn’t mean that it will be stable enough in that state for long enough to affect the overall cycle.

Anyway I’ve said what I wanted to say, I know this isn’t really a discussion but rather a place where only certain popular ideas are accepted and anything that deviates form that is rejected so I’ll see myself out.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 20, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Literally never said that or hinted at it, or even cared enough to do so to be honest. And the data doesn’t have a high enough sample rate


I dunno man.  Geological samples can give you basically down to a 10 year period sample rate if you know what you are looking at.  We'd see this right now in a geological sample if we dug it up 10000 years from now.


----------



## dgianstefani (Mar 20, 2021)

https://lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
		


A solid read, backed by some of the most concrete papers and evidence we have. 

Consensus within climate scientists and people who haven't essentially been bought by energy companies to publish research that muddies the water etc. is that the changes that are happening now were set in motion decades ago. The fact we've largely increased global CO2 and methane emissions, while harvesting natural carbon dumps like forests and jungles, while also destabilising long term locked carbon deposits, like the peatlands that are off gassing due to warmed temperatures, or the ocean sediment that will be released when the deep sea currents (regulated by temperature, salty, cold dense water and warmer less salty water etc.) finally give up the ghost etc. etc. only add to this problem. 

No matter how many carbon tax credits and such we trade internationally, we're in this together, and we aren't really taking the issue at a species wide response level that we need to.

This is an existential threat, and we are mostly insulated in multiple ways in the west (food, energy, manufacturing imports). You can see direct impacts of extreme, unseasonal weather in displaced peoples in India, Africa and most of Asia if you care to.

We need a war leader, and all we have are squabbling politicians trying to grab as much as they can from a broken system.

/rant

I'm not too hopeful, and am simply trying to develop the kind of skills that I'll need to protect and care for myself and my loved ones when society starts to crumble.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 20, 2021)

I'm always amazed by people who dismiss - not science - but the *overwhelming* majority consensus. This is a link (below) to an abundance of top-level agreement on human contribution. These aren't fringe scientists. They're not sponsored by specific interest groups linked to oil and gas. And even then, many oil and gas companies accept the human contribution too.









						Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
					

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.




					climate.nasa.gov
				




But I guess NASA knows fuck all, right?

As a separate and damning agreement from big oil (quote from defence in a in a court case):



> “Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said Boutrous. “There’s no debate about climate science.” Boutrous made the case that oil companies are not directly responsible for climate change. Rather, he said, humanity’s larger economic decisions are to blame. Boutrous told Judge Alsup that the “IPCC does not say it’s the extraction of fossil fuels [that causes climate change], it’s the energy use — the economic activity — that generates emissions.” *Boutrous deflected the blame to users of fossil fuels. In other words, oil doesn’t cause climate change. People burning oil causes climate chang*e.



In other words, Chevron, some small poxy back-water oil salesman? (I know, right) - they basically state that oil extraction - which is what they do - is not to blame for climate change. The use of the product is. So, when an oil company rightly defends itself, it uses pure logic. The petro-chemical companies are not to blame. We are, for using it.

Case closed.

No wait. It's not. Here's what the other petro-chemical giants said:



> 1) *ConocoPhillips*: “ConocoPhillips Company understands that Chevron Corporation based its March 21 global warming and climate change science tutorial presentation on the IPCC science assessments, and in particular the 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). ConocoPhillips Company does not disagree with the points made in the Chevron Corporation tutorial presentation on March 21, 2018.”
> 
> 
> 2) *Royal Dutch Shell* (RDS): “Although Royal Dutch Shell [RDS] does not necessarily adopt each statement contained in the various IPCC reports, RDS agrees that those reports are an appropriate source of information for the Court to consider to further its understanding of the timeline and science surrounding climate change, and RDS does not disagree with Chevron’s presentation of that material.”
> ...



They all concurred with Chevron's brilliant defence. They themselves are not responsible for climate change. It is those who use and burn their fuels, a system driven by socio-economical factors beyond their control. Sublime.

It's the exact same principle for gun sales. People kill people. Guns are harmless until used. Oil doesn't cause increased atmospheric CO2. Burning it does.

Slam dunk.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 20, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm always amazed by people who dismiss - not science - *but the overwhelming majority consensus.*



I know I said I will shut up but I couldn't help myself when I saw this.

Thinking that whichever is the most popular theory must be the right one is a class A felony in fallacious reasoning.


----------



## robot zombie (Mar 20, 2021)

@the54thvoid Exactly, it's about trends. Exceptions are blips. We do the same thing with the economy, where the way it's set-up is basically predicated on bubbles and crashes. But when the economy has an uptick, people talk about it like it's a trend and not a temporary peak in a greater decline stretching over a very long period of time, scattered across different metrics. "Record lows today!" suggesting the overall climate situation is better is like saying "The stock market is HIGH today." to suggest that the economy is doing well in the middle of a covid-induced unemployment crisis.

I try to stay away from this thread because it reminds me that while we argue all of these different sociopolitical issues as though the fate of the world depends on them, an actual existential threat that is essentially guaranteed to drastically disrupt our whole way of conducting societies is approaching us largely unhindered and undiscussed. Blows my mind, it's the actual end of life (as we've known it, anyway) and nobody gives a shit. I try and explain it to my parents all of the time. My dad is pretty shrewd, he definitely gets it. But he's also got that "I'm old, I won't be here." attitude about it. My mom is an extremely impressionable and mentally ill creationist (not a dig on creationists, but she actually has things wrong with her to where children sometimes understand things better than she does) and to her the whole concept of climate change is basically the stuff of fairy tales. It's like no matter what I do, I can't get through to them that the shit they think matters now will never matter again if we can't figure out how to use energy resources much more efficiently than is even possible given our overall understanding of and ability to interface with the universe. It is a legitimately daunting problem. The biggest problem. It is arguably mankind's biggest and most definitive endeavor in modern history. It's the fight to continue existing. Everything that we cling to will be the reason we ultimately lose it all.


----------



## claes (Mar 20, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> I know I said I will shut up but I couldn't help myself when I saw this.
> 
> Thinking that whichever is the most popular theory must be the right one is a class A felony in fallacious reasoning.


Not when all evidence suggests it’s true — by your reasoning it’s a fallacy to believe in gravity, too.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Mar 20, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> I agree, warming/cooling cycles throughout the ages have always been associated with a corresponding increase/decrease in carbon dioxide and I am sure as hell there were no coal power plants or cars 100 000 years ago, for instance.
> 
> Do humans have something to do with it ? Seems like it but is it "100%" because of us ? No way, that simply can't be proven, historical data over the last hundreds of thousands of years shows that CO2 levels rise and fall without human intervention.
> 
> By the way, it has also being shown that CO2 emissions lag immensely an increase in temperature, by thousands of years sometimes, so even that is questionable.


Personally I think there is too much focus on CO2 and not enough consideration to changes in Solar activity, geomagnetics, and geological effects.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 20, 2021)

A Computer Guy said:


> Personally I think there is too much focus on CO2 and not enough consideration to changes in Solar activity, geomagnetics, and geological effects.


You mean like the methane being released into the atmosphere due to areas that used to be permafrost now thawing? CO2 contributes to warming, but CH4 is a far more potent greenhouse gas. Not to mention the leaks from natural gas pipelines.


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 20, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> It's not ironic at all, he knew this would happen or least would've known to some extent. Elon Musk, much like Bezos ~ the richest man on earth before him, knows what he's doing & he of course enjoys doing it.



you kind of missed my point by what I meant from ironic...  tesla investing in bitcoin nullifies all the positive environment effects/advertising that tesla did with electric cars. that is the ironic part. tesla was first major company to invest so much, giving the currency the legitimacy it needed to propel. Elon Musk single handedly reversed all gains from electric cars in climate change with that decision.  if you don't understand why that is not ironic then I can't help you. and before you reply back with but but but lithium batteries are also unhealthy for the environment, yes true, but the electric cars longevity made it so it was still a net gain by the time the end of life for said car was using them. that net gain is now revoked due to bitcoins legitimacy as it has also encouraged the mining of more alt coins, exacerbating the effects.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 20, 2021)

claes said:


> Not when all evidence suggests it’s true — by your reasoning it’s a fallacy to believe in gravity, too.



The person which I was quoting clearly put more emphasis on popular opinion rather than science, and therefore evidence, by the way he phrased that sentenced. I read and interpret things very carefully.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Mar 21, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> You mean like the methane being released into the atmosphere due to areas that used to be permafrost now thawing? CO2 contributes to warming, but CH4 is a far more potent greenhouse gas. Not to mention the leaks from natural gas pipelines.


Sure the contributions of other gases is also important.   Periods of increased solar activity or weakening in the geomagnetic field can result in increased absorption of radiation in the permafrost.  Also leaks of gases don't just occur from permafrost, pipelines, and cows but from the earth itself in other forms volcanoes, fissures, and other tectonic activity.


----------



## claes (Mar 21, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> The person which I was quoting clearly put more emphasis on popular opinion rather than science, and therefore evidence, by the way he phrased that sentenced. I read and interpret things very carefully.


Actually they posted a bunch of scientific evidence to support their claim of “overwhelming majority consensus.” Think you may missed the rest of their post...


----------



## qubit (Mar 21, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> I know I said I will shut up but I couldn't help myself when I saw this.


I started this thread waay back in 2015 and can tell you that you're very welcome here, no need to leave.   We disagree on the climate issue, but that's fine. If nothing else, it helps us to articulate the science better. @the54thvoid seems to be particularly adept at this.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 21, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> that net gain is now revoked due to bitcoins legitimacy as it has also encouraged the mining of more alt coins, exacerbating the effects.


And my point is/was that it isn't necessarily to do with BTC, it's about the person Elon Musk has become much like Bezos ~ the all powerful, mighty & rich are pretty much the same with certain exceptions like *Gates*?


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 21, 2021)

claes said:


> Actually they posted a bunch of scientific evidence to support their claim of “overwhelming majority consensus.”



You're trying really hard but no matter how you spin it you can't use a positive to justify a clearly erroneous method of reasoning, I think it's time you let go of this and admit that wasn't the smartest thing one could have said.

There are a lot of cases in history where there was overwhelming evidence _and _majority support for theories which were later proved to be wrong. In fact, a lot of people don't realize this but most theories to have ever existed were wrong/inaccurate for various reasons. Most research that is done in any field is largely irrelevant, inconsequential or plain wrong with few breakthroughs in between and wrong conclusions often propagate like wildfire. You know why ? Because people are more interested in gaining cred points from their peers rather than seeking the truth and the best way to do that is to adhere to the majority consensus.

You know, there was a time when literally all physicists believed in a thing called the ether, a medium through which light would propagate , everyone would write about and devise experiments to prove that it was a real thing. Looking back it looked like a circus and one would wonder how could individuals so intelligent work on this for so long ? The answer : "overwhelming majority consensus"

What I am trying to say is that there is too much arrogance and confidence when talking about this subject and that can only have negative consequences.


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 21, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> And my point is/was that it isn't necessarily to do with BTC, it's about the person Elon Musk has become much like Bezos ~ the all powerful, mighty & rich are pretty much the same with certain exceptions like *Gates*?



yeah Gates and Buffet are really the only two exceptions. I see what you mean now, I misread your previous statement.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 21, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> You're trying really hard but no matter how you spin it you can't use a positive to justify a clearly erroneous method of reasoning, I think it's time you let go of this and admit that wasn't the smartest thing one could have said.
> 
> There are a lot of cases in history where there was overwhelming evidence _and _majority support for theories which were later proved to be wrong. In fact, a lot of people don't realize this but most theories to have ever existed were wrong/inaccurate for various reasons. Most research that is done in any field is largely irrelevant, inconsequential or plain wrong with few breakthroughs in between and wrong conclusions often propagate like wildfire. You know why ? Because people are more interested in gaining cred points from their peers rather than seeking the truth and the best way to do that is to adhere to the majority consensus.
> 
> ...


Lol.

Edit. Sorry. Not forum etiquette. You post and believe what you want. I'll listen to the science. You listen to your inner monologue. I know you'll respond with something based on BS bit it's cool. You're allowed your opinion.

But I'll believe NASA. Not you.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 21, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Not you.



Huh ? What did I even said ?   Oh my God, see this is what I am talking about, you guys are obsessed with arguing, trying to prove you're right no matter what even when nobody directly disagrees with something you said. This is why I said this isn't a really a discussion, excuse me for not posting the same stuff you did I guess. 

I am sorry but this is kind of cringe, no need to cite NASA here, I didn't even said anything remotely controversial.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 21, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Huh ? What did I even said ?   Oh my God, see this is what I am talking about, you guys are obsessed with arguing, trying to prove you're right no matter what even when nobody directly disagrees with something you said. This is why I said this isn't a really a discussion, excuse me for not posting the same stuff you did I guess.
> 
> I am sorry but this is kind of cringe, no need to cite NASA here, I didn't even said anything remotely controversial.



I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll try not to provoke you.

You have mentioned how ether was propsed as a scientific explantion. However, that was never based on scientific principles of cause and effect. It was a scientific 'philosophy' (rampant in early 20th century discussion). Ether was never tested. We have the hindsight to use both data (via things such as core samples) and advanced computer modelling to explain possible outcomes of current trends. This is scientific exploration based on best estimates. Unlike Victorian ether ideology, contemporary science deals with vast data sets from accumulated sources, from a global network to provide a best estimate of future outcomes.

You appear to decry such principles of scientific understanding by suggesting how it was so wrong in the past. I am not as arrogant as you suggest (thanks) but the evidence we have at hand does indicate with a high plausibility that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, which are exacerbated by human socio-economic activity, and is supported by not only scientific consensus but also by those who are accused of contributing to it (i.e. the petro-chemical giants). That is to say, empirical evidence, geological evidence and computer modelling based on such, all support the hypothesis of human contribution to the spike in global warming.

I appreciate you have a different view and that is your prerogative. But your view is not supported by the scientific, empirical, or evidential models.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 21, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Huh ? What did I even said ?   Oh my God, see this is what I am talking about, you guys are obsessed with arguing, trying to prove you're right no matter what even when nobody directly disagrees with something you said. This is why I said this isn't a really a discussion, excuse me for not posting the same stuff you did I guess.
> 
> I am sorry but this is kind of cringe, no need to cite NASA here, I didn't even said anything remotely controversial.


I don't see what's so difficult about accepting the scientific consensus until there is a valid reason to reject it as false beyond the mere possibility that the science could be flawed or more likely, incomplete. There is a difference between being skeptical and being willfully ignorant. If new evidence presents itself, I'll listen, but just saying that science has been wrong in the past isn't refuting anything.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 21, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> You have mentioned how ether was propsed as a scientific explantion. However, that was never based on scientific principles of cause and effect. It was a scientific 'philosophy' (rampant in early 20th century discussion). Ether was never tested.


Please try to inform yourself better, it wasn't just a philosophy, people actually tried to model physical systems based on it. And yes it was based on scientific principles, waves needed matter to propagate themselves so it was believed the same must be the case for light. Even Maxwell himself when writing his famous equations was still doing so with the view in mind that electro-magnetic waves propagate through a medium. And for the record this was in fact tested, that's how eventually it was proven wrong.



the54thvoid said:


> But your view is not supported by the scientific, empirical, or evidential models.



What view ?



Aquinus said:


> If new evidence presents itself, I'll listen, but just saying that science has been wrong in the past isn't refuting anything.





the54thvoid said:


> You appear to decry such principles of scientific understanding by suggesting how it was so wrong in the past.



You guys like evidence, right ? Well there is evidence a lot of research in various fields can and has been wrong, that's all I am saying. Skepticism can be useful but the "I wont be open to any ideas until there is evidence for it" attitude can't, it's just an elaborate way of saying I cannot contribute to anything in any way.

This thread should be renamed "Evidence for climate change", that would be more accurate in my opinion and perhaps I wouldn't have considered posting here and annoy you guys.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 21, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> You guys like evidence, right ? Well there is evidence a lot of research in various fields can and has been wrong, that's all I am saying.


There is research in *every* field that has been wrong at one point or another, that's called the scientific method and we learn from those events. With that said though, there isn't a lot of data to suggest that climate change isn't something to be concerned about regardless of the reason for it.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 21, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> With that said though, there isn't a lot of data to suggest that climate change isn't something to be concerned about regardless of the reason for it.


Good, because I never said anything about that. Just that humans are not responsible exclusively for it, the climate changes irrespective of what we do.


----------



## Mescalamba (Mar 21, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> I know I said I will shut up but I couldn't help myself when I saw this.
> 
> Thinking that whichever is the most popular theory must be the right one is a class A felony in fallacious reasoning.



"*overwhelming majority consensus."*

Honestly I love this one. At certain point in time, people believe that witches are real and they hanged supposed witches (usually innocent women), drowned, put on stake, set a flame, tortured. And indeed "*overwhelming majority consensus" *back then was that *witches are real *!

Also Germany had *overwhelming majority consensus *that indeed Jews are not even people and its mighty fine to just kill them.

What else?

Earth rotating around sun? BLASPHEMY.

Smoking hurts health? Such a BS. Smoking is almost healthy!

Birth control pills? Super-safe!

Just cause something is "backed up by science" and has "*overwhelming majority consensus*" doesnt mean its real or right. It just means only what it says. It can also easily be completely wrong, especially if you convince enough ppl to back your story with "science" and convince rest that its real (usually done by fear, terror, chaos and pointing in vague direction while quoting "scientists").

Today science can be bought. Its nothing new. In Soviet Union, they believed only in stats they falsified themselves. History is literally full of science backed bullshit.


Does it mean global warming isnt real?

No, its most likely real.

Does it mean mankind is responsible for it?

Not entirely but its very likely we accelerated its course and made it a lot worse.

Can we do something with it?

For sure, big nope. We done.

Basically there is a lot that could/can be done, but given human nature and how much is world divided, it wont happen. Just sadly not possible.


----------



## claes (Mar 21, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> You're trying really hard but no matter how you spin it you can't use a positive to justify a clearly erroneous method of reasoning, I think it's time you let go of this and admit that wasn't the smartest thing one could have said.


I wasn't trying at all, just a casual observation that "scientific consensus" is in fact "scientific consensus"  

What @the54thvoid posted is in fact logically sound -- as you noted, your argument, if I'm reading correctly, doesn't even contest @the54thvoid's claim.



Vya Domus said:


> There are a lot of cases in history where there was overwhelming evidence _and _majority support for theories which were later proved to be wrong.


This is a guilt by association fallacy/ad hom. The "scientists" studying ether are not the scientists studying climate change.



Vya Domus said:


> In fact, a lot of people don't realize this but most theories to have ever existed were wrong/inaccurate for various reasons. Most research that is done in any field is largely irrelevant, inconsequential or plain wrong with few breakthroughs in between and wrong conclusions often propagate like wildfire. You know why ? Because people are more interested in gaining cred points from their peers rather than seeking the truth and the best way to do that is to adhere to the majority consensus.


Please read Thomas Kuhn. Yes, breakthroughs often break our conceptions of what is true, but not because of scientists scoring "cred points." Any serious scientist is a sceptic -- that's why their hypotheses, which aren't "true," are peer reviewed and tested before accepted as a legitimate hypothesis, which is to say that it is the best idea that research can verify to explain some phenomenon. Peer review is key in this, as Kuhn points out -- those scientists studying ether (and generations after) were looking for an explanation for the universe (Universal capital T Truth, like Hawking and Einstein searching for an equation to explain the whole universe), not localized phenomena that may or may not be reproducible universally (studying localized phenomena to develop explanations for the universe, small t truth).

What does this mean? When climate science says that the consensus is that human CO2 emissions have effected climate change it's not because they're trying to prove that the climate changes, but because all observations show that the humans have had an effect on a process of observed climate change.


Vya Domus said:


> What I am trying to say is that there is too much arrogance and confidence when talking about this subject and that can only have negative consequences.


This I totally agree with -- it's unfortunate that the language has become so partisan.


Vya Domus said:


> You guys like evidence, right ? Well there is evidence a lot of research in various fields can and has been wrong, that's all I am saying. Skepticism can be useful but the "I wont be open to any ideas until there is evidence for it" attitude can't, it's just an elaborate way of saying I cannot contribute to anything in any way.


When you say things like "humans aren't the _only _contributor to climate change" you are correct, and it is a nuance that is underappreciated in the discourse around climate change. That's good science -- the majority of evidence suggests that humans have an impact on climate change, but they are not the only contributor, we are in a warming cycle, a dozen other externalities, etc.

Still, the goal of a hypothesis is not to establish truth, which is why the consensus agrees with the premise that humans aren't the only contributor to climate change.


Vya Domus said:


> Good, because I never said anything about that. Just that humans are not responsible exclusively for it, the climate changes irrespective of what we do.


This is where it becomes problematic -- you are right, humans are not responsible exclusively for it, but all evidence suggests that the climate changes with respect to what we do...

Again, that doesn't mean that's the only causation, but it is in fact scientific consensus.

Here's a good read from a friend if you actually like logic:








						Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we know
					

The cornerstone argument of climate change deniers is that our current warming is just a natural cycle, and this claim is usually accompanied by the statement, “the planet has warmed naturally befo…




					thelogicofscience.com
				




Edit: Another good one:








						The overwhelming consensus on climate change
					

The climate is changing, and we are the primary cause. These are simple facts that are supported by a vast body of evidence and agreed upon by virtually allcr experts. Nevertheless, many people con…




					thelogicofscience.com
				




Edit 2: A previous version of this post gave the wrong user credit for @the54thvoid’s comment — my apologies!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 22, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> It's the exact same principle for gun sales. People kill people. Guns are harmless until used. Oil doesn't cause increased atmospheric CO2. Burning it does.


And is a perfect statement. Guns do not kill people. They are inanimate objects that do nothing until used. You can not blame those guns or the makers of same for a problem people make. Guns are only a tool. Likewise, oil companies only provide a product for people to use. The people using said product are the cause of it's byproduct(pollution/CO2 emissions). People have a choice to use, or not to use, oil based products.


----------



## claes (Mar 22, 2021)

Well, sure, but lying about what your own research shows about that use is a different question... It’s not like people are suing gun companies and Smith and Wesson’s defense is “well our research actually shows that our weapons are completely safe and play no role in harm to others.”


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 22, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> And is a perfect statement. Guns do not kill people. They are inanimate objects that do nothing until used. You can not blame those guns or the makers of same for a problem people make. Guns are only a tool.


Yes it is reasonable to hold gun manufacturers liable for the product they make.
They are weapons designed to injure or kill, nobody can deny that fact, not even the people that make or sell them.
Not restricting the general population from being in charge of fire arms is ludicrous as the odds increase of shootings the more weapons are in the public's hands.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 22, 2021)

So it would seem "wet-dream" logic is alive and well...


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 22, 2021)

Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion thread....

Just a reminder.


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 22, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> The people using said product are the cause of it's byproduct(pollution/CO2 emissions). People have a choice to use, or not to use, oil based products.




I agree with you about 80% only here, I think you are wrong on part of it though. In regards to people using oil, poor people especially have no choice but to use oil cars for example as electric cars simply have not come down in cost enough. It makes more sense for me to buy a brand new chevy spark for 11 grand, then a prius at 23 grand, or true electric car at 28 grand. Until the hybrids and electric's come down in price to match the lowest cost gas cars, I don't think that is a fair statement when people are living paycheck to paycheck raising a family, etc.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 22, 2021)

claes said:


> This is a guilt by association fallacy/ad hom. The "scientists" studying ether are not the scientists studying climate change.


Do you have any reason to believe people researching climate change are less prone to come up with erroneous theories compared to the ones who studied the ether ? I don't. I just gave that as a relatively famous example of scientists working on a wrong theory for a very long time because it was a very popular idea. You're looking too much into it, I wasn't trying to discredit scientists studying climate change. And another thing is that the ether wasn't politicized but climate change is, that makes me more warry.




claes said:


> Any serious scientist is a sceptic -- that's why their hypotheses, which aren't "true," are peer reviewed and tested before accepted as a legitimate hypothesis, which is to say that it is the best idea that research can verify to explain some phenomenon. Peer review is key in this, as Kuhn points out -- those scientists studying ether (and generations after) were looking for an explanation for the universe (Universal capital T Truth, like Hawking and Einstein searching for an equation to explain the whole universe), not localized phenomena that may or may not be reproducible universally (studying localized phenomena to develop explanations for the universe, small t truth).



Peer reviewing is a big part of what I was saying. Your paper is reviewed by an authority who is inevitably biased in way or another, in essence your ideas must pass the filter of "majority consensus" and that can be a problem in and of itself. Peer reviewing is very effective at filtering out outrageous ideas but those ideas may or may not be true.

To point to yet another example in physics, de Broglie's examiners dismissed him for his proposal that all matter can behave as waves. That idea was only accepted because Einstein thought it was worth looking into it, peer reviewing is a real impediment in allowing new ideas to come forth and many have expressed their dislike of how this done.



claes said:


> When you say things like "humans aren't the _only _contributor to climate change" you are correct, and it is a nuance that is underappreciated in the discourse around climate change. That's good science -- the majority of evidence suggests that humans have an impact on climate change, but they are not the only contributor, we are in a warming cycle, a dozen other externalities, etc.



It's a nuance that is often completely ignored by almost everyone, including researches and it matters. I can bet you in these 100 pages of comments I can find at least a couple of dozen instances of people claiming that humans are the sole cause of climate change and I can also bet that you guys didn't jump to correct them. See where I am coming from ?

The global warming community needs to understand that they don't have to lie or twist the truth to make their point, that's my problem with them.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 22, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Do you have any reason to believe people researching climate change are less prone to come up with erroneous theories compared to the ones who studied the ether ?





Vya Domus said:


> It's a nuance that is often completely ignored by almost everyone, including researches and it matters. I can bet you in these 100 pages of comments I can find at least a couple of dozen instances of people claiming that humans are the sole cause of climate change and I can also bet that you guys didn't jump to correct them. See where I am coming from ?
> 
> The global warming community needs to understand that they don't have to lie or twist the truth to make their point, that's my problem with them.


Are we talking about scientists or random armchair warriors posting about climate change? The first point is amusing because there is no field with flawless science, this is why the scientific method exists because we disprove theories and refine our hypothesis based on new data that comes to light. The second point is valid, but the community doesn't invalidate the science we have to date.

You sound more upset with the community than with the science.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 22, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> You sound more upset with the community than with the science.



I am upset with both, I've seen keyboard warriors as well as figures in the scientific community do this.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 22, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> I am upset with both, I've seen both keyboard warriors and figures in the scientific community do this.


Yes, but on the scientist side, you either have an issue with the claimed hypothesis or you have an issue with the data. You don't sound like you have an issue with the data, just the conclusions being made from it. Regardless of humanity's involvement though, does that really change anything in the grand scheme beyond changing our perception of the problem? The problem didn't disappear because of an inaccurate hypothesis. Sure, scientists said decades ago that by now we would have reached the point of no return. Alarmist, maybe, but the trend in that direction has continued and the data supports that.

I totally understand people not being more exact with their words being frustrating, but I don't really think that changes anything, at least if you're looking at it with with an ounce of flexibility. I'd prefer to not "throw the baby out with the bong water," just because some assertions were not even necessary wrong, but exaggerated. What's not an exaggeration is the rate of change. It really is unprecedented, regardless of the cause and we're going to have to deal with it regardless.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 22, 2021)

Aquinus said:


> Yes, but on the scientist side, you either have an issue with the claimed hypothesis or you have an issue with the data. You don't sound like you have an issue with the data, just the conclusions being made from it. Regardless of humanity's involvement though, does that really change anything in the grand scheme beyond changing our perception of the problem? The problem didn't disappear because of an inaccurate hypothesis. Sure, scientists said decades ago that by now we would have reached the point of no return. Alarmist, maybe, but the trend in that direction has continued and the data supports that.
> 
> I totally understand people not being more exact with their words being frustrating, but I don't really think that changes anything, at least if you're looking at it with with an ounce of flexibility. I'd prefer to not "throw the baby out with the bong water," just because some assertions were not even necessary wrong, but exaggerated. What's not an exaggeration is the rate of change. It really is unprecedented, regardless of the cause and we're going to have to deal with it regardless.



You have to be exact and paint a picture as close to the truth as possible because if you're not people will, rightfully so, assume you have some sort of malicious intent for not doing so.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 22, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> The person which I was quoting clearly put more emphasis on popular opinion rather than science, and therefore evidence, by the way he phrased that sentenced. I read and interpret things very carefully.


The thing is, to challenge the status quo of well regarded science generally requires evidence.

You have none so it's dead on arrival.  That's the crux of the issue.  No one accepts a challenge to the status quo on face value, nor should they.  Most people in fact KNOW LESS than the scientists they are challenging, so it in that case  is yes, best to listen to the popular accepted theory.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 22, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> You have to be exact and paint a picture as close to the truth as possible because if you're not people will, rightfully so, assume you have some sort of malicious intent for not doing so.


I don't think that's going to be possible. The scientific method by definition is imperfect. There are always going to be claims that don't hold up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that we should reject all science unless they can get it on the first go. Viewing that as malicious is a bit paranoid.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 22, 2021)

Melvis said:


> Really? then how come this is the lowest temps in over 20yrs was just observed here in Australia and that the USA is going through one of the coldest Winters in god knows how long? It cant be BS when its literally happening RIGHT NOW! Do you call it a coincidence that this has just happened to happen when the world stopped? Manufacturing lessened globally, Planes, cruise ships basically stopped! and then the temps dropped! and here in Australia where the Ozone layer is the thinnest the difference is amazing! So unless you got proof what your saying is BS as my proof is right here right now!



Wow.... really. You realize an average is made up of highs and lows, I do hope?

'Its cold now' = Climate change doesn't exist. Erhhh...

If anything what we've seen this winter (we had good old snow again this year... so you're not the only one observing the current weather...) is a peak to rebalance the average, but the trend is still up up up. Many long term graphs look like that. A line with many sharp bends positive and negative.... but a trend that still heads up.

Its also no secret that climate change leads to more extreme weather situations. Colder weather, with a warm average... is therefore extremely plausible, but the periods are much shorter. In the same way, there is more draught AND more flooding all at the same time. Things move to extremes. Its not a return to norm. Climate change is the loss of *temperate* climates.


----------



## Mescalamba (Mar 22, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> Wow.... really. You realize an average is made up of highs and lows, I do hope?
> 
> 'Its cold now' = Climate change doesn't exist. Erhhh...
> 
> ...



Majority of stuff goes towards entropy. So eventually it will balances out.

Only question is if mankind will be still present.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 23, 2021)

Mescalamba said:


> Majority of stuff goes towards entropy. So eventually it will balances out.


Yeah, I mean if we're going towards entropy, eventually the universes heat death will kill us all.  No question.  But that's a ways off.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 23, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> The thing is, to challenge the status quo of well regarded science generally requires evidence.
> 
> You have none so it's dead on arrival.  That's the crux of the issue.  No one accepts a challenge to the status quo on face value, nor should they.  Most people in fact KNOW LESS than the scientists they are challenging, so it in that case  is yes, best to listen to the popular accepted theory.


The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 23, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> eventually the universes heat death will kill us all.


Incorrect. That is only a theory and not a very good one. That theory is based on the same principles that fail to explain why the Universe is expanding and accelerating.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.



Changing the status quo requires new evidence and ideas but since it's best to listen to whatever is popular there is no incentive to pursue new evidence and ideas, why bother ?

Only thing I can say is thank God people on this forum aren't actual researches.


----------



## claes (Mar 23, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.











						Climate change and a flat earth (I can’t believe we’re still dealing with this argument)
					

When I started this blog, I wanted it to be entirely about science and the fundamental concepts of logic. As such, I decided that topics like religion and politics where off limits. However, anytim…




					thelogicofscience.com
				





Vya Domus said:


> Changing the status quo requires new evidence and ideas but since it's best to listen to whatever is popular there is no incentive to pursue new evidence and ideas, why bother ?
> 
> Only thing I can say is thank God people on this forum aren't actual researches.


If you’re going to keep arguing from ignorance and calling it reason you could at least engage with the argument:








						The overwhelming consensus on climate change
					

The climate is changing, and we are the primary cause. These are simple facts that are supported by a vast body of evidence and agreed upon by virtually allcr experts. Nevertheless, many people con…




					thelogicofscience.com
				






> *“But scientists are just following the ‘dogma’ of their field”*
> 
> This well-worn trope argues that lots of scientists actually have evidence against anthropogenic climate change, they just don’t publish it because in science it is supposedly forbidden to go against the “dogma” of your field. This is one of those fundamental misunderstandings of science that just will not die. Science is extremely adversarial. We love to prove each other wrong. Further, every scientist who was ever considered great was great precisely because they discredited the views of their day. No one gets anywhere in science by blindly going with the “dogma” of their fields. If anyone actually had compelling evidence that we weren’t causing climate change, they would publish in a high-ranking journal and collect their Nobel Prize. No one has done that precisely because those data don’t exist.
> 
> ...



Edit: A more in-depth piece on science, consensus, and peer-pressure








						Science and the Public Part 3: A Scientific Consensus is Based on Evidence, not Peer Pressure and Adherence to Dogma
					

In this post, I am going to debunk an argument that is very commonly used by the anti-science movement. Namely, the argument that scientists merely go along with the accepted dogma of their field a…




					thelogicofscience.com


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 23, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.



No. That was religion. The Earth was believed to be the centre of the Universe. It was heretical to say otherwise. Luckily for us, scientific thinking began to turn the dogma around.

Petroleum (like radiation) was never thought to be a bad thing, until it was. So in many ways these backwards analogies actually work counter to the intended 'argument'. That's is, those who are saying the majority science consensus is wrong are those clinging to the older, outdated belief.

Science is only scientific when subjected to analysis by peers. When the vast majority accept the theory, based on their own scientific rigour, then the theory gains more probability.

Case in point. Nuclear Theory is exactly that. Theory. But our understanding of it so far allows us to build nuclear reactors. All based on accepted scientific consensus. Gravity is theory. But we use an understanding based on consensus to put satellites in orbit.


----------



## claes (Mar 23, 2021)

But @the54thvoid, how do we know the earth _isn’t_ flat? The scientific consensus is that it _isn’t_, therefore it must be!


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

claes said:


> If you’re going to keep arguing from ignorance and calling it reason you could at least engage with the argument:


You guys don't know how to deal with the things put forward because there is no article you can copy-paste here for that, it requires original thought, so instead you just keep spamming me with the same information as if I was simply denying climate change and it's hilarious.



the54thvoid said:


> No. That was religion. The Earth was believed to be the centre of the Universe. It was heretical to say otherwise.



Geocetrism was a belief that arose in different parts of the world irrespective of their religion. As a matter of fact various scholars of those times actually tried to use real mathematics to try and model the motion of planets. It was only natural for people to believe the Earth was the center of the universe just by looking at the sky, the core idea had nothing to do with religion, it was just an astronomical observation. 

So no, it wasn't just religion. It seems everyone has this bizarre notion that it's either hard scientific fact or ancient religious garbage. It's not that black and white.


----------



## claes (Mar 23, 2021)

I appreciate your condescension (how thoughtful!), but I think you need to reread. Aside from all of the non-copy-pasted, patent pending Claes thoughts I offered, I actually pointed out that you weren’t arguing against climate change in my previous post in order to help you get out of the weeds. I was trying to steelman your strawman so others didn’t misrepresent your claim, and generally agreed with you...

My criticism is directed to your other claim, that “the climate changes irregardless of humans.” That’s the only real disagreement I have with you, and you aren’t defending that claim/haven’t responded to my counter-claims, so as far as I can tell I’m just a generous participant in this discourse!

I mean this earnestly — please consider reading those two articles! They’ll help sharpen your argument and maybe help clarify what exactly you mean when you dismiss scientists as having “no desire to pursue new ideas because consensus on climate change” while you simultaneously argue that those ideas they need to shift away from are true. Plus I taught the author logic while they were getting their masters so in a way you’ll be doing me a favor (especially if you think they’re wrong!).


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

claes said:


> My criticism is directed to your other claim, that “the climate changes irregardless of humans.” That’s the only real disagreement I have with you








See that curve ? Exactly, it's a curve, not a flat constant line. The climate changes irrespective of what we do. All this talk about science and evidence and you can't admit something this basic ?

See how we are also near a local temperature maximum anyway in the last 100 000 year window ?


----------



## claes (Mar 23, 2021)

Sorry, I don’t understand — what’s your argument?

If you’re arguing that the climate changes, I agree.

If you’re arguing that we’re at a warming peak, I agree.

This is exactly why scientists reached a consensus that “global warming” wasn’t a helpful way to talk about climate change and engaged in an effort to shift discourse away from that language. It might be accurate to say that humans are contributing to the current warming, but they also contribute to the eventual cooling, as both are processes of climate change. It’s not about whether the earth is getting hotter or colder, it’s about how CO2 emissions are effecting those shifts.

If you’re arguing that human CO2 emissions don’t effect the climate, I disagree, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the scientific consensus is inaccurate in some way. That graph doesn’t warrant that claim, it just shows that we’ve been in an unusually long and erratic warming period, and correlation being what it is, one might infer that (fill in the blank)...

What new ideas do you think you are needed?


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

claes said:


> If you’re arguing that human CO2 emissions don’t effect the climate, I disagree, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the scientific consensus is inaccurate in some way. That graph doesn’t warrant that claim, it just shows that we’ve been in an unusually long and erratic warming period, and correlation being what it is, one might infer that (fill in the blank)...



You're forcing me to think you're either an elaborate troll or just really unintelligent.

The climate changes without our intervention != Humans can't influence the climate. Humans can influence the climate, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive as shown by the data and take place simultaneously.

Temperatures changed as a function of time *before we existed,* so did CO2 by the way. The climate changes without our intervention, we can influence it, but it's gonna change regardless.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 23, 2021)

Yeah, to confirm, nobody here's saying humans are the sole cause. What post industrial processes have done is to pump out a tremendous volume of greenhouse gases. And Btw, as pointed out earlier, methane is worse than CO2. That's globalization of meat and dairy consumption. Worse, the Siberian permafrost is thawing, releasing large volumes of the stuff. In that way, the 'small' post industrial increase in global temp has exacerbated that process of thaw, releasing a nature source of greenhouse gases.

Ironically, I'm at work now taking a delivery of CO2.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Yeah, to confirm, nobody here's saying humans are the sole cause.



Except the guy I'm replying to, it seems he can't admit that the climate changes outside our intervention.


----------



## qubit (Mar 23, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> No. That was religion. The Earth was believed to be the centre of the Universe. It was heretical to say otherwise. Luckily for us, scientific thinking began to turn the dogma around.


Damn, beat me to it.


----------



## claes (Mar 23, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> You're forcing me to think you're either an elaborate troll or just really unintelligent.





Vya Domus said:


> Except the guy I'm replying to, it seems he can't admit that the climate changes outside our intervention.


Yeah, I think you’re confusing me with someone else, being dishonest because of a poor choice in language, or just an asshole lol. I never said that, and I haven’t been throwing around ad homs without knowing what they are (see that pun?), plus I’ve been pretty nice given how nasty you’ve been!  



Vya Domus said:


> The climate changes without our intervention != Humans can't influence the climate. Humans can influence the climate, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive as shown by the data and take place simultaneously.
> 
> Temperatures changed as a function of time *before we existed,* so did CO2 by the way. The climate changes without our intervention, we can influence it, but it's gonna change regardless.


Right... Did you read my last post? I emphasized as much throughout — why do you think I wrote a paragraph about “global warming” being a misnomer? 

I feel like I’ve been pretty clear that my only grievance with your arguments was your claim that the climate changes “irregardless_”_ of human behavior.

Irregardless means _without concern for prevailing circumstances,_ meaning “_the climate changes without concern for the prevailing circumstances of humans_,” implying that humans don’t have an “influence” (from the quoted post) on climate change. This claim is only partially true and incredibly misleading, and so I took argument with it.

Given that you are now saying that “(humans) can influence (climate change),” or the climate can change in regard of humans, it’s clear that we don’t have a disagreement and that you simply misspoke — kind of ironic given that your whole line seems to be something about consensus being misleading due to poor rhetoric! I’m still curious about what you’re talking about here if you’re game — I don’t actually understand. What “new ideas” do scientists need in order for “things to change” regarding climate change?

Anyway, after posting that the climate changes irregardless of humans and then making a bunch of vague posts about how scientists are full of themselves and need to be more skeptical of consensus, you might understand how one might assume that the statement was climate change denial and why you attracted so many negative responses. Glad to see you just misspoke!


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

claes said:


> Irregardless means _without concern for prevailing circumstances,_ meaning “_the climate changes without concern for the prevailing circumstances of humans_,” implying that humans don’t have an “influence” (from the quoted post) on climate change. This claim is only partially true and incredibly misleading, and so I took argument with it.
> 
> Given that you are now saying that “(humans) can influence (climate change),” or the climate can change in regard of humans, it’s clear that we don’t have a disagreement and that you simply misspoke — kind of ironic given that your whole line seems to be something about consensus being misleading due to poor rhetoric! I’m still curious about what you’re talking about here if you’re game — I don’t actually understand. What “new ideas” do scientists need in order for “things to change” regarding climate change?



So it turns out you just aren't that bright, it hurts seeing the sort of mental gymnastics you perform to come up with this stuff and twist every single word and idea that was said. That's a relief, being a troll is much worse.

Off to the ignore list you go, I read enough of your nonsense.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 23, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Only thing I can say is thank God people on this forum aren't actual *researchers*.


Speak for yourself. Some of us here are scientists..



Vya Domus said:


> You're forcing me to think you're either an elaborate troll or just really unintelligent.


LOL! Perhaps somewhere in the middle?


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Some of us here are scientists..



Somewhat of a disappointment.


----------



## claes (Mar 23, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> So it turns out you just aren't that bright, it hurts seeing the sort of mental gymnastics you perform to come up with this stuff and twist every single word and idea that was saidi. That's a relief, being a troll is much worse.
> 
> Off to the ignore list you go, I read enough of your nonsense.



Okay 



claes said:


> you might understand how one might assume that the statement was climate change denial and why you attracted so many negative responses. Glad to see you just misspoke!



Honestly, I still feel like this is the bush @Vya Domus was beating around, and why they were so worried about “annoying” people here with their superior “reasoning” and healthy “skepticism,” inviting themselves out the door because this is a “place where only certain popular ideas are accepted and anything that deviates form that is rejected,” not wanting to “anger” an alleged mob that doesn’t have the “humility” and lack of “arrogance” needed to navigate such complex science, and then not having anything interesting to say about the problems of consensus or global warming anyway, being uninterested in addressing questions or criticisms when engaging in the “discussion” allegedly not allowed here, and seemingly unable to read... but maybe not!

The burden of proof is on them, but given this thread and a similar “skepticism” over in the Covid thread, I know where my money is!

Signed,
Fellow “I read and interpret things very carefully” lol who says that out loud

(all quotes belong to @Vya Domus, typos included)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 23, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Somewhat of a disappointment.


How so?

(Hush up Cletus....err....Claes)


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 23, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Except the guy I'm replying to, it seems he can't admit that the climate changes outside our intervention.


The guy clearly explained everything in a very normal way just now, I'm not sure what haze is clouding your visions here tbf...



Vya Domus said:


> So it turns out you just aren't that bright, it hurts seeing the sort of mental gymnastics you perform to come up with this stuff and twist every single word and idea that was said. That's a relief, being a troll is much worse.
> 
> Off to the ignore list you go, I read enough of your nonsense.



Aren't you the one doing all those gymnastics here? First its not possible without any further explanation from your end, now you're saying we can influence it after all.

Didn't you both agree all along but are still keen to make it ignore-list material? The whole idea about combating climate change is *reducing our *_*influence on it*._ I believe this is a consensus. Simple. To what degree you can influence it, perhaps opinions differ. But there is an influence. We want to limit greenhouse gases, and yes, numerous other gases that are related or similar in effect, to dampen a rapidly climbing temperature. Nobody in the whole world is saying we're going to _reduce the temperature_ or that we are somehow going to escape that graph you placed. We won't. But what we're doing now, is escaping that graph in the worst way: by adding a little bit more than the natural curve would.

So what ARE you really talking about, Vya, when you present that graph everybody knows that goes back to the ice ages? You're not really making any point whatsoever. Just trying to find ways to disagree.

Or, I'm missing it too and you'll have to explain it better.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> First its not possible without any further explanation from your end



When the hell did I say that ?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 23, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> When the hell did I say that ?


You didn't. You're being baited. Don't play that game..


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

I know, but I still can't quite believe everyone on here is either trolling or just playing dumb.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 23, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> When the hell did I say that ?





Vya Domus said:


> Except the guy I'm replying to, it seems he can't admit that the climate changes outside our intervention.



Right here, and a few more times earlier on. I think what claes, and myself, and some others are saying, is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The scientific consensus about periodic temperature changes on a long term scale is just that. Nobody I think is contesting that fact - its pretty hard to deny ice ages and all that. The contest is about how_ much_ _influence _humans have on that curve. You've just admitted that there is _some_ influence to be had. This is also what claes, I believe, is saying.

Its about what your starting position is, more so than the actual argument. The idea that we can't influence that curve 'enough' for anything to matter, is a nihilistic view, and if we place that in the perspective of the actual human output and effect on the Earth and its ecosystems - all of them _not_ present in the same (long term) historical curve we all believe in - and the way this ramps up and correlates with shorter term temperature increases AND accompanying effects on ecosystems that cascade on, its very hard to deny what we're doing doesn't at least amount to something substantial.

In the end I think it all comes down to how much belief we feel we can place in human ingenuity to keep systems going and still not blow shit up.
Or, put differently: do you choose the path of least resistance and keep doing what you always did, or do you try your hardest to make a change to improve.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> Right here, and a few more times earlier on. I think what claes, and myself, and some others are saying, is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.



Explain how exactly is what I said equivalent to "it's not possible for humans to influence the climate" because this isn't cutting it.

And in the meantime spare me the blocks of texts for now, I just want a clear example of where I denied the fact that humans can change the climate before I can go any further with this.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 23, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Explain how exactly is what I said equivalent to "it's not possible for humans to influence the climate" because this isn't cutting it.
> 
> And in the meantime spare me the blocks of texts for now, I just want a clear example of where I denied the fact that humans can change the climate before I can go any further with this.





Vya Domus said:


> What view ?
> 
> 
> You guys like evidence, right ? Well there is evidence a lot of research in various fields can and has been wrong, that's all I am saying. Skepticism can be useful but the "I wont be open to any ideas until there is evidence for it" attitude can't, it's just an elaborate way of saying I cannot contribute to anything in any way.



The stance you're taking is an impossible one, you know that? I've read back a bit. You are challenging the current ideas about climate change, based on ideas that are outside of the consensus - whatever they are. Then you think you're speaking from some sort of elevated position that you're the critical thinker here because by denying the truth of the consensus, you're saying there is more to it. Fine! Then explain, the 'more', in your view, so we can talk about substance.

All you're doing now is defending an empty idea that something isn't exactly in line with the consensus. And everyone is left to guess what you're really thinking of.

And do you know what that is? That's exactly the same as the good old social media attention whore stance of  'Asking questions'... because in some way the sender's tiny mind can't grasp the answers. If you're not doing that, you need to provide substance. Otherwise its not science, its religion. Like a flat earther or an antivaxxer.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

I doubt you read anything of what I wrote or, if you did, you paid no attention to it because you're failing to accomplish my simple request. I'll keep asking, where did I say that humans can't change the climate. It's very simple, just point to it.



Vayra86 said:


> because by denying the truth of the consensus



What truth did I deny ? Man, this is so grand, here I am supposedly committing unspeakable crimes against the scientific community of climate change and you guys can't point to a single damn thing. Just that I am somehow wrong.

And just so we're on the same page, all of this began because I questioned the idea that majority consensus validates a theory. That's it, there should have been nothing outrageous about that but somehow I managed to trigger the lot of you.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 23, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> The Earth was flat as believed by a majority concensus, science said so at the time.


And if you at the time believed the earth was a pickle, my advice to you would still be the same.

You are missing the point.  The point is:  If you aren't smarter than the sages of the time and don't have ACTUAL evidence to back that up, quit trying to challenge things.  Most here don't qualify for that status.  Likewise, 1000 years ago Mr. Numnut is better off believing the earth is flat than ranting about pickles all day without evidence.



Vya Domus said:


> Somewhat of a disappointment.


The only scientist I'm aware of here is @xkm1948, anyone else could be a clown claiming to be a scientist for all I know.
Hell he could be too, but he offered to turn me into a frog so I won't talk bad about him and his gene splicing thing.


----------



## xrobwx71 (Mar 23, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Incorrect. That is only a theory and not a very good one. That theory is based on the same principles that fail to explain why the Universe is expanding and accelerating.


I get the expansion but not the acceleration.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 23, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Incorrect. That is only a theory and not a very good one.


Best one we have right now to my knowledge by scientific consensus.  SInce I am not qualified to know more, I defer to it.  Doesn't mean it's right, but I won't claim to know more and try and overthrow it either.  Cause I don't have time for that headache inducing shit, frankly.  I got PCs to fix.


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 23, 2021)

Boy I am glad I stopped reading this thread, here I can help all of you.

Do what you can on your end to help the environment, and those that will refuse to believe or care about any of it will continue to do so, so ignore them and go enjoy your life.

I just made a 100 page long thread into one sentence. ez pz.  time to game for me


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 23, 2021)

xrobwx71 said:


> I get the expansion but not the acceleration.


Allow me to explain. The Universe is currently expanding out in all directions from the estimated central point of the Big Bang. This expansion is accelerating, IE it is expanding out at an ever increasing rate of speed. General and Special Relativity strongly predict that the Universe should be decelerating and even collapsing back in on itself. This is however not what we are observing. Additionally, Relativity does not and can not explain the inner workings of a black hole. The math breaks down. But we know black holes exist, we have observed the presence & effects of them. Simply put, either relativity is correct and the Universe is misbehaving(BAD UNIVERSE, NAUGHTY UNIVERSE ) or Relativity is not correct. One has to ask ones self: Which is more likely given the history of how often the human race has been wrong about things?

Hope that helps you understand.



R-T-B said:


> Best one we have right now to my knowledge by scientific consensus. SInce I am not qualified to know more, I defer to it.


Actually, it's not the best, it's just the most widely accepted. There is a theory currently being researched that shows a lot of promise which does fit observations.


R-T-B said:


> Cause I don't have time for that headache inducing shit, frankly. I got PCs to fix.


Whereas I live this kind of thing.


----------



## claes (Mar 23, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Explain how exactly is what I said equivalent to "it's not possible for humans to influence the climate" because this isn't cutting it.
> 
> And in the meantime spare me the blocks of texts for now, I just want a clear example of where I denied the fact that humans can change the climate before I can go any further with this.


Here you are @Vya Domus:


Vya Domus said:


> Good, because I never said anything about that. Just that humans are not responsible exclusively for it, the climate changes irrespective of what we do.


I’ll spare you all of the text where I agreed with you that the discourse is imprecise and problematic precisely because climate change has been happening forever... Here’s where I disagreed with your use of the word “irrespective” in the context of language being imprecise:


claes said:


> When you say things like "humans aren't the _only _contributor to climate change" you are correct, and it is a nuance that is underappreciated in the discourse around climate change. That's good science -- the majority of evidence suggests that humans have an impact on climate change, but they are not the only contributor, we are in a warming cycle, a dozen other externalities, etc.
> ...
> This is where it becomes problematic -- you are right, humans are not responsible exclusively for it, but all evidence suggests that the climate changes with respect to what we do...
> 
> Again, that doesn't mean that's the only causation, but it is in fact scientific consensus.


I point out that the word irrespective is misleading because that’s what we’re talking about — using precise language:


Vya Domus said:


> You have to be exact and paint a picture as close to the truth as possible because if you're not people will, rightfully so, assume you have some sort of malicious intent for not doing so.


At this point you just started insulting me; I tried to responded generously:


claes said:


> I appreciate your condescension (how thoughtful!), but I think you need to reread. Aside from all of the non-copy-pasted, patent pending Claes thoughts I offered, I actually pointed out that you weren’t arguing against climate change in my previous post in order to help you get out of the weeds. I was trying to steelman your strawman so others didn’t misrepresent your claim, and generally agreed with you...
> 
> My criticism is directed to your other claim, that “the climate changes irregardless of humans.” That’s the only real disagreement I have with you, and you aren’t defending that claim/haven’t responded to my counter-claims, so as far as I can tell I’m just a generous participant in this discourse!
> 
> I mean this earnestly — please consider reading those two articles! They’ll help sharpen your argument and maybe help clarify what exactly you mean when you dismiss scientists as having “no desire to pursue new ideas because consensus on climate change” while you simultaneously argue that those ideas they need to shift away from are true. Plus I taught the author logic while they were getting their masters so in a way you’ll be doing me a favor (especially if you think they’re wrong!).


You post a chart showing that the climate changes as a response, I say:


claes said:


> Sorry, I don’t understand — what’s your argument?
> 
> If you’re arguing that the climate changes, I agree.
> 
> ...


At this point I can’t help you — you’re either unwilling to admit that your language was imprecise or you don’t believe in science :shrug:


lexluthermiester said:


> How so?
> 
> (Hush up Cletus....err....Claes)


Oh, lex — don’t you realize that Vya is making fun of you?  Better shine those boots! 

(damn you are a physicist, a legal scholar, a trained killing machine, worked in a court for a decade, a vigilante in your spare time, *and* you own a PC repair shop? Where do you find the time?)


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> General and Special Relativity strongly predict that the Universe should be decelerating and even collapsing back in on itself.


Actually GR can model a universe that is accelerating, ironically, Einstein himself hated that when he added the cosmological constant because he was looking to make the universe static.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Mar 23, 2021)

Now if there were only a way to remove CO2 from the air that could be run off of personal exercise equipment during a persons workout.


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Mar 23, 2021)

I will say that in the op you said ice age was due
its actually like overdue
from what i understand


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 23, 2021)

A Computer Guy said:


> Now if there were only a way to remove CO2 from the air that could be run off of personal exercise equipment during a persons workout.


It's called a plastic bag, tied over the persons head to capture the CO2, it can then be repurposed.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Mar 24, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> It's called a plastic bag, tied over the persons head to capture the CO2, it can then be repurposed.


I was thinking of something that might be a little less of a safety hazard.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 24, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> And just so we're on the same page, *all of this began because I questioned the idea that majority consensus validates a theory*. That's it, there should have been nothing outrageous about that but somehow I managed to trigger the lot of you.



I went into that at length just now, and explained in detail where that 'trigger' came from because saying one thing implicitly means another when you place that 'question' within a discussion like this - and if it doesn't, then you should just not say it, or provide substance to make it worthwhile. Its pretty strange 'all of us' have that same response to you, isn't it? But certainly, the world is crazy and Vya is seeing things right  Your simple question was answered. You just didn't like the answer. That is all this is. Its really not about climate, but about you now.

But luckily you've surrounded yourself with a fantastic group of peers by now, real scientists and critical thinkers and all 



lynx29 said:


> Boy I am glad I stopped reading this thread, here I can help all of you.
> 
> Do what you can on your end to help the environment, and those that will refuse to believe or care about any of it will continue to do so, so ignore them and go enjoy your life.
> 
> I just made a 100 page long thread into one sentence. ez pz.  time to game for me



This is the sort of discussion you get when all talking points have in fact been agreed upon. We try to find disagreement regardless, because otherwise we'd actually have to start _doing something. _Planning is great fun. Execution however... And this topic is just a tiny version of that inaction. And while I get what you're saying, 'do what you can on your end' is basically what we've done so far. It didn't really amount to much. Yes, we can do some recycling around the home, but when the economy isn't circular and until there is an outlook on how to turn growth into sustainability, its a pointless exercise really.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 24, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Actually GR can model a universe that is accelerating,


No it can't.


Vya Domus said:


> ironically, Einstein himself hated that when he added the cosmological constant because he was looking to make the universe static.


I think you misunderstand what Einstein was aiming for.


----------



## Shrek (Mar 24, 2021)

Vya Domus has it right

General Relativity can model an accelerating Universe using a Cosmological constant; but Einstein introduced it for other reasons, namely to try and get a static Universe that Eddington then showed was unstable and so would not remain static.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 24, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> No it can't.
> 
> I think you misunderstand what Einstein was aiming for.



"_Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion. Friedmann, a Russian mathematician, realized that this was an unstable fix, like balancing a pencil on its point, and proposed an expanding universe model_"






						WMAP- Cosmological Constant or Dark Energy
					

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.




					map.gsfc.nasa.gov


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 24, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Actually GR can model an accelerating Universe with a Cosmological constant


Well sure, IF you change a few variables that would then be incorrect, yes G&SR can model an expanding & accelerating Universe. But then the model isn't accurate which defeats the purpose and goal of the theory, to model the Universe accurately.


Vya Domus said:


> "_Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion. Friedmann, a Russian mathematician, realized that this was an unstable fix, like balancing a pencil on its point, and proposed an expanding universe model_"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank You for proving my point. Also, see Edwin Hubble.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 24, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Thank You for proving my point.



You don't need to thank me because you made no point as such, just that you said GR can't model an accelerating universe, which it can.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Mar 24, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> ... Its pretty strange 'all of us' have that same response to you, isn't it? ....


I don't agree with this consensus as I am triggered for other reasons.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 24, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> You don't need to thank me because you made no point as such, just that you said GR can't model an accelerating universe, which it can.


But only if you break physics. That's the point.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 24, 2021)

Huh ?


----------



## Shrek (Mar 24, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> "_Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion. Friedmann, a Russian mathematician, realized that this was an unstable fix, like balancing a pencil on its point, and proposed an expanding universe model_"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought it was Eddington that pointed out the instability.



lexluthermiester said:


> But only if you break physics. That's the point.


Not at all, the Cosmological constant was the only modification allowed without breaking general relativity.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 24, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I thought it was Eddington that pointed out the instability.



I actually thought it was Lemaitre, anyway, I think a lot of people must have noticed that his solution was numerical unstable.


----------



## Shrek (Mar 24, 2021)

I would hate to give credit to the wrong person.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 24, 2021)

^^ A whole lotta OT. I only went back one page. 

Please, stay on topic. And no more personal arguments.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 24, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> ^^ A whole lotta OT. I only went back one page.
> 
> Please, stay on topic. And no more personal arguments.


Sorry, we got side tracked...


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 11, 2021)

I'm quite sad tonight... lot of birds are dying in my state... at least 700 so far... probably a lot more than that though, scientists don't why... same disease that hit the west coast birds earlier in the year... I notice even when I bike ride to the pond, there are no more geese and ducks... and in years past there were always geese and ducks... :/ The world is truly ending I feel like sometimes. I have a feeling it is all because of human hubris... I wouldn't be surprised if this new bird disease is related to covid in some way.

In other news:



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/08/canada-sea-creatures-boiling-to-death/
		


_Crushing heat wave in Pacific Northwest and Canada cooked shellfish alive by the millions_​

and yet, no governments have announced an end to cryptocurrency mining... bitcoin and the 5000 other coins are easily using 10-20 countries worth of electricity, carbon output that was never there before, added suddenly overnight in the geologic timescale... sure there are a lot of other problems for climate, but that is not a defense for adding more coal to the fire so to speak.

I read today that 350 billion dollars is being invested in new green friendly cement production for industry RND...  hopefully something comes of that, but I fear its to late.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> In other news:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/08/canada-sea-creatures-boiling-to-death/
> _Crushing heat wave in Pacific Northwest and Canada cooked shellfish alive by the millions_​


Holy crap! That's intense...



lynx29 said:


> and yet, no governments have announced an end to cryptocurrency mining... bitcoin and the 5000 other coins are easily using 10-20 countries worth of electricity, carbon output that was never there before


Right?


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 11, 2021)

something funny has been happening here in south wales but its not bad, when we first moved into this house 30 years ago we had thrushes nesting in one of our air vents on the side of the house. we would get some years one brood of chicks and maybe 2 broods on a good year now for the past 4 outa 5 years we had 4 lots of chicks and this year we have had 5 so far. thay start nesting realy early now and carry on right into late summer maybe this is due to globle warming but the thrushes like it and so do the slugs and snails the thrushes feed on.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 11, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Holy crap! That's intense...
> 
> 
> Right?



in another article about the clams dying off, the heat was so severe even further inland in west canada, that some salmon died from the heat... 

I read it was 125 faren in some places... :/  scary as crap...  even further inland like in Saskatchewan Canada it was hitting 111-115 last week...  not just record breaker temps, like wave above the previous record...

Fun times await us. Hope people keep enjoying their crypto, hope industry keeps enjoying pouring their concrete, hope humans keep enjoying their endless hedonistic pleasures... mother nature will balance it all out, and remind us who is boss soon enough. No doubt about it.

We have def messed up the environment beyond a point of no return... the rapid melting of Greenland is also rather frightening... I expect we will see world collapse of economies and the only food distribution you will get will be from the military of whatever country you happen to live in, probably rationed heavily as crop failure will happen in mass, etc.  Hell, the ripple effects from the entire crustacean population basically dying overnight across the entire west coast of Canada will probably have enough ripple effects in the cycle of life... well I am tired of typing... goodnight.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 11, 2021)

yep mother nature has a lot of ways of dealing with over population, this covid is nothing to what she can throw at us and i dont blame her. on a side note being a astronomer for over 50 years when i first started in 1970 i could see colour in the orion nebula "blue and red"just with my eyes but slowly over the years it turn gray now with this virus and the flights stopping this last january the colour was back not as strong "but that could be to my old eyes""as in my youth but never the less it was back.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 11, 2021)

Recent articles confirmed that Polar caps are getting warmer on average. 



> Thermometers at the Esperanza Base on the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula reached 18.3°C (64.9°F)








						Antarctica Melts Under Its Hottest Days on Record
					

Ice caps and glaciers felt the heat as temperatures reached 18.3°C (64.9°F).




					earthobservatory.nasa.gov
				




There was an unconfirmed 100F near the Arctic ( northern pole ), cant find a decent source for that.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> In other news:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And here I thought they were trying to win a Guinness world record in the clam boil category...


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 11, 2021)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Recent articles confirmed that Polar caps are getting warmer on average.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I remember reading about that too. it's happening faster than anyone thought, the Canadian permafrost melted 70 years earlier than they initially calculated. this was in 2018 or something









						Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
					

Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared.




					www.reuters.com
				




let's just hope it's not like the movie The Day After Tomorrow...


xtreemchaos said:


> yep mother nature has a lot of ways of dealing with over population, this covid is nothing to what she can throw at us and i dont blame her. on a side note being a astronomer for over 50 years when i first started in 1970 i could see colour in the orion nebula "blue and red"just with my eyes but slowly over the years it turn gray now with this virus and the flights stopping this last january the colour was back not as strong "but that could be to my old eyes""as in my youth but never the less it was back.


 it's not just you, the Astronaut Mark Kelly when living on International Space Station said the most scary thing was how the atmosphere looked so thin and so sickly...

I'm afraid we as humans keep playing this game of oh we can change some things by 2030, or 2050... and the math simply doesn't work that. If we all stopped using are cars except essential personnel, shut off all electricity across the world, went back to local village lives... and we did it overnight, it probably still wouldn't be enough to reverse the damage done... I think it's all over personally. for humans anyway, Mother Earth will be just fine as soon as she teaches us her lesson she plans to do so very soon.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 11, 2021)

We are fubar, we just convince ourselves we are not, or that we can fix it. Mostly caused by greed, stupidity, and narrow mindedness. Shame oil is still black gold, still so much money in it, there is no incentive to switch faster to EV's, greedy oil producers won't allow it, they'll keep sucking away at it till it's gone and they have no choice. There is so much made from tax on fuel, why would most countrys just drop it, there's no massive tax income from EV. we are fucked imo. 

I saw/read something ages ago that said the western states in America are gonna end up unpopulated deserts, unfortunately looks like it will come true.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 11, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I'm afraid we as humans


i agree i think we have passed the point of no return and i also think it will be a while before most realise it. i dont like being neg but the writing has been on the wall for some time now and the folks whos in charge dont seam to be bothered, money rules in there minds,


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 11, 2021)

i am not climate expert. To me, it is no longer about reverting the trend. We are long passed that. Most of the global population will be slowly cooked or destroyed by extreme weather. It is just a matter of fast or slow


----------



## qubit (Jul 11, 2021)

xkm1948 said:


> i am not climate expert. To me, it is no longer about reverting the trend. We are long passed that. Most of the global population will be slowly cooked or destroyed by extreme weather. It is just a matter of fast or slow


The world certainly hasn’t got its act together so alas, you may be right.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 11, 2021)

eidairaman1 said:


> Just another tax scam



yeah because 125-130 faren in western Canada near Alaska is normal...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 11, 2021)

xtreemchaos said:


> i agree i think we have passed the point of no return


And what particular "point of no return" are we talking about?


----------



## rruff (Jul 11, 2021)

Gruffalo.Soldier said:


> We are fubar, we just convince ourselves we are not, or that we can fix it.
> I saw/read something ages ago that said the western states in America are gonna end up unpopulated deserts, unfortunately looks like it will come true.


Most of the water is used for irrigation. Farming in the desert will certainly take a hit if rain and snowfall decline, and maybe residential users will face higher prices and conservation. And maybe people will quit moving to Las Vegas and Phoenix if the temps get hot enough... I can't believe people tolerate it now. But that is nothing like a disaster.

The earth has been considerably warmer than now for most of its history, and it was better able to support life. A lot of land at higher latitudes will become viable for humans that isn't currently. Overall it's highly likely this will be a net gain for humans... certainly a huge bonus vs another ice age (which is due, BTW).


----------



## rruff (Jul 11, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> And what particular "point of no return" are we talking about?


If you were hoping for another ice age to happen soon, then that's probably not going to happen...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 11, 2021)

rruff said:


> If you were hoping for another ice age to happen soon, then that's probably not going to happen...


Actually, that is unavoidable, global warming aside. The orbital inclination and eccentricity of Earth will trigger one in the next 150 or so years.



rruff said:


> The earth has been considerably warmer than now for most of its history


This is incorrect. The Earth was much warmer during the age of the dinosaurs and time preceding that age than it has been during the last 50 million years.



rruff said:


> and it was better able to support life.


That's true. The past had far fewer ice ages then in recent history.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 11, 2021)

I just hope the scientists figure out what the hell is going on with the birds dying in mass.

If that gets any worse, combined with practically the entire western shore of Canada crustacean population being decimated by 125 faren heat... we may already be looking at failed food supply chains having ripple effects far greater than we can imagine. The complexity of the food chain supply is so complex I don't think any one human can fully understand it.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 11, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> And what particular "point of no return"


the point of doing something and have a outcome that would improve our chances of having a long term good outcome or reversing what we have done to the planet so that we/everything are not a danger.   .


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 11, 2021)

xtreemchaos said:


> the point of doing something and have a outcome that would improve our chances of having a long term good outcome or reversing what we have done to the planet so that we/everything are not a danger.   .


In danger of what?


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 11, 2021)

xtreemchaos said:


> the point of doing something and have a outcome that would improve our chances of having a long term good outcome or reversing what we have done to the planet so that we/everything are not a danger.   .



Also, I think we are going to need to develop high mobility agriculture, so if mass crop failure happens in one area, military planes move on to move the seeds/salvage what they can on giant planes, transport it to somewhere more fertile OVERNIGHT, get it planted again, so on and so forth. Of course... that's really just kicking the can down the road tactics... so eh.


----------



## rruff (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is incorrect. The Earth was much warmer during the age of the dinosaurs and time preceding that age than it has been during the last 50 million years.


Aren't you agreeing with my statement? "The earth has been considerably warmer than now for most of its history"        

The earth was slightly warmer at times >50M years ago; but only a few degrees higher than the temp 50M years ago of ~83F... ~*23F hotter than now*.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2021)

rruff said:


> Aren't you agreeing with my statement? "The earth has been considerably warmer than now for most of its history"
> 
> The earth was slightly warmer at times >50M years ago; but only a few degrees higher than the temp 50M years ago of ~83F... ~*23F hotter than now*.



and humans didn't exist then... so maybe we should try to keep temps ideal as possible for as long as possible? nothing lasts forever, sun will burn eventually as it grows brighter and brighter, but doesn't mean you should add coal to the fire if you don't have to...


----------



## rruff (Jul 12, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> and humans didn't exist then... so maybe we should try to keep temps ideal as possible for as long as possible? nothing lasts forever, sun will burn eventually as it grows brighter and brighter, but doesn't mean you should add coal to the fire if you don't have to...


No humans didn't exist then, but it wasn't because the climate didn't suit us. The population of mammals exploded when it was 23F warmer than now. 

Ideal as possible?! Earth's temperature for the last 3 million years has been far from ideal for humans. A mere 20k years ago much of the world was covered in a massive sheet of ice... and this is/was due to happen again in the next few thousand years. If you want a disaster, just do nothing and let that happen...


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> In danger of what?


Extinction events.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2021)

No mini-ice age coming soon:









						There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age' – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.




					climate.nasa.gov
				




Regular rhythms? Sure - we would be a due an ice age at some point. Nobody can predict when but the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmsphere will delay that.









						Critical insolationâ€“CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception - Nature
					

A critical functional relationship between boreal summer insolation and global carbon dioxide concentration is proposed and tested with simulations; it accounts for the beginning of the past eight glacial cycles and predicts that the next one is unusually far off, even without the effect of...




					www.nature.com
				




And isn't that good? We'll not all freeze? No, that's bad. Glaciers will melt further, reducing water sources for continental areas. The seas will keep rising, displacing millions. Arable farmland will diminish (already over cultivated - another debate). Let's move up the mountains (where we can't farm as much). Basically, human conflict will be the main focus of a world with a moving population and smaller resources.


----------



## 64K (Jul 12, 2021)

From the NASA Climate site:







This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)









						Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
					

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2021)

64K said:


> From the NASA Climate site:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for posting this.

Also, if 125 faren in western Canada does not scare the deniers, perhaps some context would be helpful:  Death Valley desert record temp is like 134 faren and hits 125-130 faren on RARE days... so... yeah...  wth.

I know deniers will continue to deny because that's what tribalism and the limbic system does, but eh.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 12, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Also, if 125 faren in western Canada does not scare the deniers, perhaps some context would be helpful: Death Valley desert record temp is like 134 faren and hits 125-130 faren on RARE days... so... yeah... wth.
> 
> I know deniers will continue to deny because that's what tribalism and the limbic system does, but eh.


It was 118 in Olympia, WA recently.  Most of Olympia does NOT have air conditioning because it "never gets hot."  People died.

This is not normal, it hasn't been for some time.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> In danger of what?



Extinction !, err bud are you following what we are talking about or having a laugh. im happy with both by the way   .


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2021)

Extinction is a long way off. Let's not muddy the science thread with conjecture based on fear. That doesn't help the cause to push scientific understanding.

What is visible now is growing instability in global patterns. Humans can adjust but it needs to be done rationally. Cooperatively. Temperate climates will suffer less than those places where humans have engineered a habitable zone (looking at you dust bowl America).


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 12, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Extinction is a long way off.


now that is what we have as a problem is, brushing it under the carpet isnt the way bud. you are trying to control what we are talking about which is very under handed. not fear- reailty its a fact if we dont change we die.  {redacted i need to put my brain in gear before using my keyboard}


----------



## qubit (Jul 12, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Humans can adjust but it needs to be done rationally.


And that's the million dollar problem. I hope mankind can get past all the short term self interest and corruption, not to mention criminals exploiting the situation for their own gain. I think we will, but not before significant damage is done. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 12, 2021)

qubit said:


> And that's the million dollar problem. I hope mankind can get past all the short term self interest and corruption, not to mention criminals exploiting the situation for their own gain. I think we will, but not before significant damage is done. Just my 2 cents.



Maybe we need to stop destroying each other for conflicting beliefs first, maybe then we could actually get to sorting the other problems out. Nothing will ever change while the world continues to be so secular. Until humans can truly work together to sort this crap out, nothing will change. Until it stops being me and starts being us we are screwed.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2021)

xtreemchaos said:


> now that is what we have as a problem is, brushing it under the carpet isnt the way bud. you are trying to control what we are talking about which is very under handed. not fear- reailty its a fact if we dont change we die. i wont join in this post anymore now the thought police are here



Thought police? Don't be silly. Unfortunately, when emotive issues (and this is one) are reduced to binaries of life and death, it becomes difficult to find common ground. Climate change deniers pull ranks and those trying to change our behaviour become more 'alarmist'. Look at global politics, division breeds best when two sides push isolated agendas.

I follow the science. There is nothing to suggest our extinction. We'll see a lot of displacement of population. Conflict over resources. War in places. But extinction isn't a certainty, not at least in human generational terms. On a long enough timeline, yes, we're screwed. But that is the reality of living on a ball of rock floating around a gargantuan and finite thermonuclear reaction.

I also follow the science on a global scale. And yes. It's bleak. But to engage all sides requires mitigation of fears. That we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel is clear. But so too, we need to reduce livestock farming to reduce methane output. The Siberian permafrost isn't so permanent now and it's a vast methane reservoir.

Yeah. It's bad. But we have time to avoid the worst outcomes.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2021)

Gruffalo.Soldier said:


> Maybe we need to stop destroying each other for conflicting beliefs first, maybe then we could actually get to sorting the other problems out. Nothing will ever change while the world continues to be so secular. Until humans can truly work together to sort this crap out, nothing will change. Until it stops being me and starts being us we are screwed.



the United Nations and International Space Station were good starts, but I don't see it lasting. sadly.



the54thvoid said:


> Thought police? Don't be silly. Unfortunately, when emotive issues (and this is one) are reduced to binaries of life and death, it becomes difficult to find common ground. Climate change deniers pull ranks and those trying to change our behaviour become more 'alarmist'. Look at global politics, division breeds best when two sides push isolated agendas.
> 
> I follow the science. There is nothing to suggest our extinction. We'll see a lot of displacement of population. Conflict over resources. War in places. But extinction isn't a certainty, not at least in human generational terms. On a long enough timeline, yes, we're screwed. But that is the reality of living on a ball of rock floating around a gargantuan and finite thermonuclear reaction.
> 
> ...



I agree with this, I don't think it will be extinction, but possibly near extinction, and a lot more poverty. Hopefully if that comes in my life time, I can find like minded people to band together locally and start a village life, one neighbor grows one crop, I grow a second, and we rotate our backyards and survive as a small team/village.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2021)

rruff said:


> Aren't you agreeing with my statement? "The earth has been considerably warmer than now for most of its history"


Think I may have misread/misunderstood you. And yes, I'm agreeing.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 12, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Extinction is a long way off.


Not for many other species.

We are already basically in a mass-extinction event.  Just not for humans.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> Not for many other species.
> 
> We are already basically in a mass-extinction event.  Just not for humans.


True. But given the sheer number of other mass-extinction events that have happened throughout history, we CAN NOT be certain we're the cause of it.


----------



## ThrashZone (Jul 12, 2021)

Hi,
Where is that dooms day meteor located now.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 12, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Where is that dooms day meteor located now.


Space.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2021)

Most extinction events occurring in contemporary times are related to localised impacts on species sustainability. Almost all are habitat destruction for farming or creation of human spaces. Ocean events are related to temp and acidity, as well as overfishing, creating undue stresses on food chains. Pollution is also a huge problem, though that is more easily addressed by regulation. Of course, that's word is anathema to some. But without regulation, profit comes first which means systems to improve environmental damages are sidelined. Just read today about another terrible year for Florida's Manatees. More pollution killing the seagrass. Creatures starving to death because polluters aren't getting caught. 

Humans have for centuries caused localised extinction events. It's well recorded. But the link to climate is more nuanced, though pretty much every biologist understands the issue at hand.


----------



## PaulieG (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> True. But given the sheer number of other mass-extinction events that have happened throughout history, we CAN NOT be certain we're the cause of it.


Maybe not certain that we are the absolute cause, but it's very, very likely that we have accelerated it to a great degree. Anyone who denies that is simply an idiot or a liar. It is also true that there are a great number of things we can choose to do to stop it or at least slow it down.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 12, 2021)

rruff said:


> If you were hoping for another ice age to happen soon, then that's probably not going to happen...


Unless the giant caldera under Yellowstone erupts and that's overdue.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2021)

PaulieG said:


> but it's very, very likely that we have accelerated it to a great degree.


That is an assumption that has little to no merit. It is equally likely that events that have transpired are a part of a natural cycle, or set of cycles, we have yet to understand, much like many other things we do not understand.



PaulieG said:


> Anyone who denies that is simply an idiot or a liar.


Or a scientist who requires *EVIDENCE* instead of hapless conjecture before reaching a conclusion.



PaulieG said:


> It is also true that there are a great number of things we can choose to do to stop it or at least slow it down.


Another assumption that has little to no merit.



Caring1 said:


> Unless the giant caldera under Yellowstone erupts and that's overdue.


That depends on who you talk to and the part of the geological record you reference. Not everyone agrees on the overdue aspect. It's of course possible, but how likely is open for much debate.


----------



## PaulieG (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> That is an assumption that has little to no merit. It is equally likely that events that have transpired are a part of a natural cycle, or set of cycles, we have yet to understand, much like many other things we do not understand.
> 
> 
> Or a scientist who requires *EVIDENCE* instead of hapless conjecture before reaching a conclusion.
> ...


The majority of the scientific community believes my statements to be true. Please note that I didn't say that we are the cause of climate change, but that we have at minimum accelerated the process. I'm not arrogant enough to know the cause 100% but both educated and intuitive enough to know we greatly contribute. Those who don't believe these "assumptions" fall into the categories I mentioned in my first thread.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2021)

PaulieG said:


> The majority of the scientific community believes my statements to be true.


Perhaps. Doesn't make them correct. It just means they subscribe to a similar school of thought.



PaulieG said:


> I'm not arrogant enough to know the cause 100% but both educated and intuitive enough to know we greatly contribute.


Fixed that for you. There can be no doubt that our activities as a civilization have contributed to environmental conditions. However, no one anywhere in the world has conclusively proven to what extent we have contributed to environment changes. There is only a lot of conjecture, some of it based on known information, some of it theory.



PaulieG said:


> Those who don't believe these "assumptions" fall into the categories I mentioned in my first thread.


Calling someone...


PaulieG said:


> an idiot or a liar


...because they don't subscribe to the same school of thought and require more evidence than you is just simple name-calling and insulting. There is a description for that...


PaulieG said:


> I'm not *arrogant* enough


...


----------



## rruff (Jul 12, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> And isn't that good? We'll not all freeze? No, that's bad. Glaciers will melt further, reducing water sources for continental areas. The seas will keep rising, displacing millions. Arable farmland will diminish (already over cultivated - another debate). Let's move up the mountains (where we can't farm as much). Basically, human conflict will be the main focus of a world with a moving population and smaller resources.


Why would :
... melting glaciers reduce water resources for continental areas? Seems like turning ice into water would have the opposite affect...
... arable farmland diminish? Most crops love warm wet conditions and a long growing season. And large land masses in the northern hemisphere will become viable that are not currently.





__





						A Warming Earth is Also a Wetter Earth
					

As temperatures rise across the globe, many places may experience more intense bouts of precipitation.




					www.ncei.noaa.gov


----------



## PaulieG (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Perhaps. Doesn't make them correct. It just means they subscribe to a similar school of thought.
> 
> 
> Fixed that for you. There can be no doubt that our activities as a civilization have contributed to environmental conditions. However, no one anywhere in the world has conclusively proven to what extent we have contributed to environment changes. There is only a lot of conjecture, some of it based on known information, some of it theory.
> ...


My biggest problem with replies like this is that they often come from people who are going to sit on their asses waiting for concrete proof and do nothing to potentially help slow or reverse climate change if we are indeed responsible for it (and have the ability to do something about it) until it's too late. This has been my personal experience.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 12, 2021)

ill just throw this in 70% or there about of our air we breath comes from Algae in the Ocean around the world and it allso helps to get rid co2, now these Algae likes the salt contents to be stable now with all the ice melting and deluting the salt what could happen ?. my 11 year old grandson asked me this a few weeks ago.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2021)

rruff said:


> Why would :
> ... melting glaciers reduce water resources for continental areas? Seems like turning ice into water would have the opposite affect...
> ... arable farmland diminish? Most crops love warm wet conditions and a long growing season. And large land masses in the northern hemisphere will become viable that are not currently.
> 
> ...



The glaciers on continental Asia feed the rivers. Many of these glaciers are in retreat, threatening those freshwater sources. It's not as simple as saying there'll be more water. Those glaciers are disappearing. As they do the rivers will dry up too. We're talking decades to centuries. One of those, not in my lifetime problems, which is why we find it so easy to ignore. 

As for farming. It's not solely about the water. As my post said, that's another discussion. Over intensive farming reducing soil viability.


----------



## rruff (Jul 12, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I agree with this, I don't think it will be extinction, but possibly near extinction, and a lot more poverty.


Near extinction of humans?! Because the global temperature rises to a level that is more ideal for humans (and animals and plants)? 

If temperatures rise substantial amounts there will certainly be a lot of changes to deal with; primarily some displacement in coastal areas, and adjustments for growing food. Humans may very well extinct themselves by other means, but there is every reason to expect that the earth will be "more ideal" for human habitation. Having a big chunk of the planet covered in an ice sheet every 20k years or so (the scenario without human-caused global warming) would be a much more challenging scenario to deal with.



the54thvoid said:


> The glaciers on continental Asia feed the rivers. Many of these glaciers are in retreat, threatening those freshwater sources. It's not as simple as saying there'll be more water. Those glaciers are disappearing. As they do the rivers will dry up too. We're talking decades to centuries. One of those, not in my lifetime problems, which is why we find it so easy to ignore.
> 
> As for farming. It's not solely about the water. As my post said, that's another discussion. Over intensive farming reducing soil viability.


A glacier is a mass of ice that exists year round. Liquid water is what feeds the rivers... some of that melting snow/ice and some rainfall. Snow will still fall in the mountains in winter and feed the rivers when it melts... only now there will be more of it, because the precipitation is higher and none of it locked in ice. A warming earth will alter the pattern of water flow to a degree, but it won't decrease it.

Intensive farming is a completely unrelated topic... but one that will be alleviated somewhat when higher latitudes become viable for growing crops.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 12, 2021)

rruff said:


> Near extinction of humans?! Because the global temperature rises to a level that is more ideal for humans (and animals and plants)?


It was a 118F in Olympia, WA just a few weeks ago.  Birds were falling out of the trees dying.  Humans without shelter died.  The trees got confused after the fact and thought the 80 degree followup was "Fall" and started to turn yellow.

I really don't think you grasp how wrong that is.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2021)

PaulieG said:


> My biggest problem with replies like this is that they often come from people who are going to sit on their asses waiting for concrete proof and do nothing to potentially help slow or reverse climate change if we are indeed responsible for it (and have the ability to do something about it) until it's too late. This has been my personal experience.


My problem with replies like this is that they often come from people that are so assumptive that they often lose focus on the bigger picture. They are so focused on their own flawed narrative that they can't see the fact that they have no possible way of knowing anything about which they speak. This has been my personal AND professional experience.



R-T-B said:


> Birds were falling out of the trees dying.


Birds fall out of trees and die all the time. I found a dead bird in my yard last week while mowing. Birds don't live forever. They die every day. This is hardly earth-shattering information.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> My problem with replies like this is that they often come from people that are so assumptive that they often lose focus on the bigger picture. They are so focused on their own flawed narrative that they can't see the fact that they have no possible way of knowing anything about which they speak. This has been my personal AND professional experience.


Meanwhile I legit worry about cooking to death in the near future.

I didn't think much about this until the Pacific Northwest and Canada beat the Sahara Desert for the high of the day.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> Meanwhile I legit worry about cooking to death in the near future.


Sit back and relax. You don't live in an area of the world that will experience extremes very often. You're not going to cook to death. Turn on the AC and if you don't have such utility, open a window, get a box fan, put it in your window, get a spray bottle with water, spray yourself. Enjoy, but worry not. This heat wave will pass.



R-T-B said:


> I didn't think much about this until the Pacific Northwest and Canada beat the Sahara Desert for the high of the day.


Again, an extreme that happens rarely, not frequently.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Sit back and relax. You don't live in an area of the world that will experience extremes very often. You're not going to cook to death. Turn on the AC and if you don't have such utility, open a window, get a box fan, put it in your window, get a spray bottle with water, spray yourself. Enjoy, but worry not. This heat wave will pass.
> 
> 
> Again, an extreme that happens rarely, not frequently.


It's predicted to happen again this very year, so, yeah.


----------



## Speedyblupi (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> That is an assumption that has little to no merit. It is equally likely that events that have transpired are a part of a natural cycle, or set of cycles, we have yet to understand, much like many other things we do not understand.
> 
> 
> Or a scientist who requires *EVIDENCE* instead of hapless conjecture before reaching a conclusion.
> ...


It's not equally likely. We've burned huge amounts of fossil fuels that otherwise wouldn't have been burned, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it absorbs IR radiation which is radiated from the earth, and reduces the rate at which is radiated into space, and increasing the average temperature of the atmosphere.

This isn't conjecture or a hypothesis, it's established science, based on the basic physical properties of carbon dioxide and simple causality. There is more than enough evidence for it. You not knowing about it doesn't mean it isn't true.

There's plenty of merit to the idea that we can reduce the rate of global warming, we simply have to increase the rate that carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (e.g. by causing algal blooms or allowing forests to regrow) and/or reduce the amount we add to the atmosphere (e.g. by reducing use of fossil fuels), or by increasing earth's albedo (which reduces the amount of sunlight absorbed by the earth's surface, and therefore reduces the amount of sunlight converted to IR which is easily absorbed by the atmosphere).

Will global warming wipe out humanity? Realistically, no. We're a resilient species. But if we continue as we are now, the number of humans that could live on Earth in around 500 years will be significantly smaller than it currently is (there's a legitimate question about exactly how big the difference would be, but the only reason anyone would think it couldn't happen is if they don't understand the science), and we'd lose potentially hundreds of other species.



rruff said:


> Why would melting glaciers reduce water resources for continental areas? Seems like turning ice into water would have the opposite affect...


The overall amount of water would be about the same on average, but it would make the water supply less consistent, because you wouldn't have an annual cycle of snow building up and melting throughout the year. Mountain streams would be dry except when it rains, rather than flowing throughout summer and frozen in winter.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2021)

Speedyblupi said:


> It's not equally likely. We've burned huge amounts of fossil fuels that otherwise wouldn't have been burned, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it absorbs IR radiation which is radiated from the earth, and reduces the rate at which is radiated into space, and increasing the average temperature of the atmosphere.


Volcanic eruptions anyone? Volcanic eruptions inject 10,000 times(and that is a conservative number) more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere per eruption than we produce in any given year. There have been a great many volcanic eruptions in the last few centuries and even the last few decades. Quite a few more than in the previous centuries. Just throwing it out there...



Speedyblupi said:


> This isn't conjecture or a hypothesis, it's established science, based on the basic physical properties of carbon dioxide and simple causality. There is more than enough evidence for it. You not knowing about it doesn't mean it isn't true.


It absolutely is hypothesis. It is science theory that fails to take into account all possible variables. Context IS important for a firm understanding of the big picture..


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2021)

On Volcanic activity and CO2.









						Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?
					

Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?




					www.scientificamerican.com
				






> This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.





> According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> On Volcanic activity and CO2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas generated by volcano's, it's just one in a great many. The USGS is aware of that fact. Those studies are ONLY estimates. They are NOT conclusive evidence because they are incomplete.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 12, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> On Volcanic activity and CO2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So an eruption is a fart in a cathedral in comparison.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 12, 2021)

Gruffalo.Soldier said:


> So an eruption is a fart in a cathedral in comparison.


Sure, if the fart in question came from a whale.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas generated by volcano's, it's just one in a great many. The USGS is aware of that fact. Those studies are ONLY estimates. They are NOT conclusive evidence because they are incomplete.



There are primarily two. CO2 and water vapour. But they also pump out sulfur (dioxide) which is a reflective aerosol coolant. Dust and ash too. Also coolants.

Only during periods of mass volcanic activity, such as the Siberian traps (iirc) does vulcanism create global warming. That event also contributed to a mass extinction event.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 12, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Basically, human conflict will be the main focus of a world with a moving population and smaller resources.


Sounds like the news.


----------



## cvaldes (Jul 12, 2021)

Sounds like the entirety of human history.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> Sounds like the news.



Pretty much. I want your potatoes. Let's fight.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 12, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Pretty much. I want your potatoes. Let's fight.


Come on, your aren't Irish.  Your friggin Scottish.  We fight for whisky.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 12, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> Come on, your aren't Irish.  Your friggin Scottish.  We fight for whisky.



I'm technically Irish


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2021)

But potatoes make chips (fries) and to us Glaswegians, we know chips as a 'Glasgow salad'. We're that healthy.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 12, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> But potatoes make chips (fries) and to us Glaswegians, we know chips as a 'Glasgow salad'. We're that healthy.


Fine. But the Great Scotch-American Potato War sounds like ass.


----------



## rruff (Jul 12, 2021)

Speedyblupi said:


> Will global warming wipe out humanity? Realistically, no. We're a resilient species. But if we continue as we are now, the number of humans that could live on Earth in around 500 years will be significantly smaller than it currently is (there's a legitimate question about exactly how big the difference would be, but the only reason anyone would think it couldn't happen is if they don't understand the science), and we'd lose potentially hundreds of other species.
> 
> The overall amount of water would be about the same on average, but it would make the water supply less consistent, because you wouldn't have an annual cycle of snow building up and melting throughout the year. Mountain streams would be dry except when it rains, rather than flowing throughout summer and frozen in winter.


Why would global warming reduce the number of people who can live on the earth, and what is this "science" you speak of?

The water supply will be less consistent some places and times, and more consistent in others. One reliable and common method to control water flow is to build a dam. This will not be a disaster. 

A common theme in these discussions is a large cohort identifies that *something will change *(or might change), and then extrapolates a disaster because of this change, assuming that *nothing is done to solve the problem*. But this isn't how things are done in the real world. Things are changing all the time, and we solve issues that arise and adapt. 

I take it for granted that the recent warming trend is mainly man made. It might not be, but I don't think that's important because:

a) A warmer earth is highly likely to be more supportive of life (humans, animals, plants) than not. Plus there is no plausible disaster scenario that approaches what we'd suffer in another ice age.
b) The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to matter, would likely exceed the cost of dealing with the changes caused by warming. 
c) From the "news" you can support pretty much any opinion you'd like.... it's 99% BS and theater. It's fashionable to believe that greed, selfishness, and stupidity are reasons behind our lack of response. But I'd wager plenty of very smart people behind the scenes are modeling and analyzing warming, it's affects, and how to deal with those affects... and the reason we aren't seeing a push for drastic reductions is because it isn't warranted.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 13, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Birds fall out of trees and die all the time. I found a dead bird in my yard last week while mowing. Birds don't live forever. They die every day. This is hardly earth-shattering information.


en masse?


----------



## claes (Jul 13, 2021)

PaulieG said:


> My biggest problem with replies like this is that they often come from people who are going to sit on their asses waiting for concrete proof and do nothing to potentially help slow or reverse climate change if we are indeed responsible for it (and have the ability to do something about it) until it's too late. This has been my personal experience.





lexluthermiester said:


> Sit back and relax. You don't live in an area of the world that will experience extremes very often. You're not going to cook to death. Turn on the AC and if you don't have such utility, open a window, get a box fan, put it in your window, get a spray bottle with water, spray yourself. Enjoy, but worry not. This heat wave will pass.
> 
> 
> Again, an extreme that happens rarely, not frequently.


Hey look the shoe fits


lexluthermiester said:


> It absolutely is hypothesis. It is science theory that fails to take into account all possible variables. Context IS important for a firm understanding of the big picture..


(Don’t let Lex know that all of scientific consensus is theoretical and doesn’t account for all possible variables else we’ll start hearing about how birds falling upwards is natural and that air travel is impossible)



rruff said:


> c) From the "news" you can support pretty much any opinion you'd like.... it's 99% BS and theater. It's fashionable to believe that greed, selfishness, and stupidity are reasons behind our lack of response. But I'd wager plenty of very smart people behind the scenes are modeling and analyzing warming, it's affects, and how to deal with those affects... and the reason we aren't seeing a push for drastic reductions is because it isn't warranted.


They are and they’re alarmed only no one cares because of deniers like you — just like with Covid or universal healthcare.

Don’t feed the trolls guys — if you’d forgotten the whole “global warming is natural/all correlation must be direct or it’s not science/it’s just climate change” have been denier’s talking points ever since it was uncovered that they were lying and knew about warming all along


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 13, 2021)

claes said:


> Don’t let Lex know that all of scientific consensus is theoretical and doesn’t account for all possible variables else we’ll start hearing about how birds falling upwards is natural and that air travel is impossible)


You just rocked my world.

I now have to question if my boat really will fall off the Earth if breaks loose during a storm.


----------



## rruff (Jul 13, 2021)

claes said:


> They are and they’re alarmed only no one cares because of deniers like you — just like with Covid or universal healthcare.


What am I a denier of?


----------



## claes (Jul 13, 2021)

The severity of the impact of climate change on humans... like I had clarified before, “plenty of very smart people behind the scenes are modeling and analyzing warming, it's affects, and how to deal with those affects... and the reason we aren't seeing a push for drastic reductions is because” those that can implement those reductions are “greedy, selfish, and stupid.” Well, more that it’s not profitable but same difference, just like the scientific consensus that Covid vaccines should be free and distributed equitably globally, but scientists don’t have shareholders or lobbies or donors to report to.



			https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/04/nobel-prize-laureates-and-other-experts-issue-urgent-call-for-action-after-our-planet-our-future-summit


----------



## rruff (Jul 13, 2021)

claes said:


> The severity of the impact of climate change on humans...


Show me where I denied the consensus view regarding climate change.

Isolated disaster scenarios that do not include obvious solutions and the big picture (the effect on the planet as a whole) cannot be taken seriously. Just as a small example, the earlier article posted about lack of water in the west actually mentioned at the end that most of the water is used for irrigation, and that personal use will hardly be impacted. Reality is a far cry from the alarmist fear mongering.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 13, 2021)

rruff said:


> the earlier article posted about lack of water in the west actually mentioned at the end that most of the water is used for irrigation,


Phew!  It's a good thing all that water used for irrigation was just wasted and not really important.


----------



## claes (Jul 13, 2021)

rruff said:


> Aren't you agreeing with my statement? "The earth has been considerably warmer than now for most of its history"
> 
> The earth was slightly warmer at times >50M years ago; but only a few degrees higher than the temp 50M years ago of ~83F... ~*23F hotter than now*.





			https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
		


Humans would literally get cooked if we saw a global temperature that high.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 13, 2021)

claes said:


> https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
> 
> 
> 
> Humans would literally get cooked if we saw a global temperature that high.


I'm not sure they understand how hot the hot places will be to have an average of 84.

Not to mention how much less landmass there would be to support all of us.  Ideal (nope) for humans maybe, but not many of them.


----------



## rruff (Jul 13, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> I'm not sure they understand how hot the hot places will be to have an average of 84.
> 
> Not to mention how much less landmass there would be to support all of us.  Ideal (nope) for humans maybe, but not many of them.


Some places would be too hot to live, just like now some places are too cold to live. But no one is projecting anywhere near that big of an increase (23F hotter than now); worst case is ~7F rise by 2100 and that would only happen if carbon emissions keep rising. More likely it will be ~3F.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 13, 2021)

rruff said:


> Plus there is no plausible disaster scenario that approaches what we'd suffer in another ice age.


So your argument for a more warmer(?) earth is ~ hey at least it's better than the ice age 

Remind us what would it take for us to go back to an ice age?


----------



## claes (Jul 13, 2021)

rruff said:


> Some places would be too hot to live, just like now some places are too cold to live.


No, people would actually bake and die. Read the article:


> At seven degrees of warming, that would become impossible for large portions of the planet’s equatorial band, and especially the tropics, where humidity adds to the problem; in the jungles of Costa Rica, for instance, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it’s over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal. And the effect would be fast: Within a few hours, a human body would be cooked to death from both inside and out.
> 
> Climate-change skeptics point out that the planet has warmed and cooled many times before, but the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history. At 11 or 12 degrees of warming, more than half the world’s population, as distributed today, would die of direct heat.





rruff said:


> But no one is projecting anywhere near that big of an increase (23F hotter than now); worst case is ~7F rise by 2100 and that would only happen if carbon emissions keep rising. More likely it will be ~3F.







__





						Science | AAAS
					






					www.sciencemag.org
				




I have no idea how to convert your 3F to C (do you mean in relation to 1850, 1880, or today?) but, still:


> Even if we meet the Paris goals of two degrees warming, cities like Karachi and Kolkata will become close to uninhabitable, annually encountering deadly heat waves like those that crippled them in 2015. At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer. At six, according to an assessment focused only on effects within the U.S. from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, summer labor of any kind would become impossible in the lower Mississippi Valley, and everybody in the country east of the Rockies would be under more heat stress than anyone, anywhere, in the world today. As Joseph Romm has put it in his authoritative primer _Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know__,_ heat stress in New York City would exceed that of present-day Bahrain, one of the planet’s hottest spots, and the temperature in Bahrain “would induce hyperthermia in even sleeping humans.” The high-end IPCC estimate, remember, is two degrees warmer still.


----------



## 64K (Jul 13, 2021)

I have often read that the majority of people live near the coasts of landmasses. A rising Ocean could displace hundreds of millions of people possibly.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 13, 2021)

Yeah, it's already happening. Coastal habitation has always been a blessing and a curse. Close to the ocean, close to food sources. Flip side, close to breaking storms. With even small increases in ocean level, storm surges are more damaging.


----------



## rruff (Jul 13, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> Remind us what would it take for us to go back to an ice age?


Ice ages are status quo, starting ~3M years ago. We are now in a brief "interglacial warm period". We would expect another ice age any time now...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 13, 2021)

rruff said:


> Ice ages are status quo, starting ~3M years ago. We are now in a brief "interglacial warm period". We would expect another ice age any time now...


This.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 13, 2021)

I still don't understand what the point of natural vs man-made climate change when the result is the same - a lot of people are going to be unhappy.  I get that natural climate change may not be preventable, but maybe it is...we don't know that.  Humans weren't around 500k years ago (at least you guys weren't, I thought it was pretty cool).  Perhaps we can change that natural warming so we don't cook?

It's akin to being shot by a natural frozen meat bullet or a real, man-made lead bullet.  You are still going to die.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 13, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> en masse?


Did you take pictures? Because yeah that might be a problem..



moproblems99 said:


> It's akin to being shot by a natural frozen meat bullet or a real, man-made lead bullet. You are still going to die.


Nope! A meat bullet would heat up and fall apart before it ever hit you. I believe The Mythbusters did a take on that.. And they busted it..


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 13, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Did you take pictures? Because yeah that might be a problem..
> 
> 
> Nope! A meat bullet would heat up and fall apart before it ever hit you. I believe The Mythbusters did a take on that.. And they busted it..


But if they used the frozen chicken cannon, then ya dead.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 13, 2021)

rruff said:


> Ice ages are status quo, starting ~3M years ago. We are now in a brief "interglacial warm period". We would expect another ice age any time now...



Here is the rest of the info:






						Global Warming
					

Global warming is happening now, and scientists are confident that greenhouse gases are responsible. To understand what this means for humanity, it is necessary to understand what global warming is, how scientists know it's happening, and how they predict future climate.




					earthobservatory.nasa.gov
				








--------------------


The cut off from the top graph does not show a peak in anomalous temperature. If you take into account the trend figure in blue from the same page, it shows an increasing spike in temperature. There is no mention of an impending ice age. As previouisly posted, the current climatic changes are expected to disrupt our next cooling phase, and that is not expected for tens of thousands of years:

Check out an unbiased viewpoint on the research from CSM.









						Global warming delayed next ice age by 100,000 years. Why that's bad news
					

Researchers examined the eight global ice ages Earth has experienced over the past 800,000 years and used climate models to determine the conditions that trigger a big freeze.




					www.csmonitor.com


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 13, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> But if they used the frozen chicken cannon, then ya dead.


True!


----------



## rruff (Jul 13, 2021)

claes said:


> No, people would actually bake and die.


Some people might be that stupid, but most have a few brain cells and prefer to live. Supposing the occurrence of lethal heat indexes during the middle of the day in summer, how do you think people will adapt?

A few things that come to mind are:
1) stay in AC (or cellars if in a poor area) during the hottest part of the day
2) live somewhere else in the summer
3) move permanently



the54thvoid said:


> Here is the rest of the info:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_"Were it not for high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, *Earth would be due for an ice age*, a period of extreme cooling of the climate during which ice sheets cover large swatches of the land.

While it may appear to be good news that humans have successfully delayed the next ice age, it's actually not.

Ice ages play a significant role in shaping the landscape and leaving behind fertile soil for Earth's civilizations. They carve channels in Earth, leaving behind rivers and lakes. If the period between ice ages becomes too long, the planet may become relatively dry and barren"_

I'd like some evidence for that last bit... "the planet may become relatively dry and barren". That doesn't square with anything I've seen regarding earth's much warmer history, when there were no ice ages at all.


----------



## freeagent (Jul 13, 2021)

A few municipalities in my province have declared agricultural states of disaster. In my 43 years of bumbling around on this earth I don't recall ever seeing one of those here. Its been hot as balls too. Over 100f in the back yard. Heard some talk of food shortages and all kinds of crazy stuff.


----------



## claes (Jul 13, 2021)

Man I really wish TPU had some negative reacts... Could really use an eye-roll option


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 13, 2021)

50 years ago the "Scientific consensus " was Predicting some degree of (mini) Ice age and that was the Target 
of Scientific Fund Raising and Research. It was Teached in schools at the time ( i know i was there ....)
About 20 Years ago Scientific Fund Raising and Research started to Target Global Warming ( it became Topically fashionable).

We as a Species have over the last 200,000 years Modified the Earths Environment  and this has had a causal effect on the Earths Climate .
Over the last 500 years we have wiped out or endangered many Species and with Environmental modification replaced them with vast herds of  mono Species far in excess of what the land was capable of support.

You want Examples try Sheep in Australia/New Zealand and elsewhere
Herds of Bovines (Cows ) in USA /India /South America.
not forgetting 10+Billion Humans.

That's a lot of Methane exponentialy added to the Biosphere every year.


----------



## freeagent (Jul 13, 2021)

claes said:


> Man I really wish TPU had some negative reacts... Could really use an eye-roll option


I use gifs because they are available for such things..


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 13, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Did you take pictures? Because yeah that might be a problem..


What's the matter, don't believe him?  We are expected to believe everything you say with no evidence.


lexluthermiester said:


> Nope! A meat bullet would heat up and fall apart before it ever hit you. I believe The Mythbusters did a take on that.. And they busted it..


Source?



rruff said:


> few things that come to mind are:
> 1) stay in AC (or cellars if in a poor area) during the hottest part of the day
> 2) live somewhere else in the summer
> 3) move permanently



Those are solutions?  Have you estimated how much land mass we will lose due to sea rise to afford those that need to move the option?


----------



## ThrashZone (Jul 13, 2021)

Hi,
W1z says real men use bbc code lol :meat_on_bone:
Now all you need is a list of what he allows :satellite:


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 13, 2021)

Neither of those I guess?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 13, 2021)

If you still believe that man is causing the planet to warm to degree that will cause massive issues then you disagree with Barack Obama's assessment of his latest property purchase in Hawaii.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 13, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Did you take pictures? Because yeah that might be a problem..


No but it was in the local news and I did witness it.  Wasn't really in the picture taking mood, considering I too was cooking every second I stepped outside.

An example report, there ae more if I dig local sources I am sure:









						Mass bird death event in Seattle attributed to record heat Monday
					

State wildlife officials said it appears dozens of juvenile terns fled the heat by jumping from an industrial roof, injuring and killing many.




					www.king5.com


----------



## 95Viper (Jul 13, 2021)

Stay on topic!
The topic is "*Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion"*
This not the lounge... it is the "Science & Technology " forum.

Thank You and Have a Good Day


----------



## claes (Jul 13, 2021)

Sure rich people can escape climate change and skirt responsibility with their money; that doesn’t mean science doesn’t help explain phenomena or that humans don’t have an impact on CO2 emissions or that the effects of climate change aren’t already readily observable


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 13, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> and thus, I don't care what he thinks.  I just want to continue to have the PNW remain at sane temps.



What temperature should the globe be? How did you come to that conclusion? Also, have you considered that you have been lied to by politicians who get institutions to push agendas to increase consolidated global power?


----------



## claes (Jul 13, 2021)

@Easy Rhino maybe rely on scientists rather than a documentary made by a politician


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 13, 2021)

claes said:


> @Easy Rhino maybe rely on scientists rather than a documentary made by a politician


That politician is the only reason why a thread like this one exists.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 13, 2021)

Easy Rhino said:


> If you still believe that man is causing the planet to warm to degree that will cause massive issues then you disagree with Barack Obama's assessment of his latest property purchase in Hawaii.


Nice!


Easy Rhino said:


> What temperature should the globe be? How did you come to that conclusion? Also, have you considered that you have been lied to by politicians who get institutions to push agendas to increase consolidated global power? Also, we were all supposed to be under water like 15 years ago according to Gore's numbers.


Also nice.


R-T-B said:


> No but it was in the local news and I did witness it.  Wasn't really in the picture taking mood, considering I too was cooking every second I stepped outside.
> 
> An example report, there ae more if I dig local sources I am sure:
> 
> ...


Ha! There it is. 


> Investigators with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) believe Monday’s record temperatures, when Seattle hit 108 degrees, led dozens of juvenile terns to flee rooftop nests for cooler shelter. But since the young birds can’t fly yet, they plunged to the pavement below, risking injury or death.


The heat didn't kill them, gravity did.



Easy Rhino said:


> That politician is the only reason why a thread like this one exists.


Rhino, hate to say this to you(mostly because I do it all the time), but you're debating with a brick wall. It's not worth your effort..


----------



## claes (Jul 13, 2021)

Easy Rhino said:


> That politician is the only reason why a thread like this one exists.



Go read the OP silly — they, like you, were initially convinced that global warming didn’t exist and was merely political theatre and then changed their mind due to overwhelming evidence. This was nine years after that movie was released, and the OP makes no mention of it.

The movie itself was actually released long after scientific consensus has been established and still, to this day, holds.

@mods can we just can ban non-scientific denial from this thread? It’s one thing when deniers post climate charts and argue “look it used to be hotter” but this bullshit is over the top.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jul 13, 2021)

rruff said:


> Some people might be that stupid, but most have a few brain cells and prefer to live. Supposing the occurrence of lethal heat indexes during the middle of the day in summer, how do you think people will adapt?
> 
> A few things that come to mind are:
> 1) stay in AC (or cellars if in a poor area) during the hottest part of the day
> ...



Always fails to amaze me that people think the warming trend is somehow worse than an Ice age.  Geological records say otherwise - ice ages are massive extinction events.  13,000 years ago as the last Ice Age ended, Manhattan was under a 1-2 _*mile*_ thick sheet of ice. 

The secret to this whole thing IMO has been well known for almost 70 years now.   Ewing and Donn figured it out.   Global warming is a fact and it really does not matter 'why' - the earth has been warming for 13,000 years now.  People can't stop it.

This is _*from September of 1958*_.  They knew then that the world would continue to warm for about  another 100 years - up to the 2050s. 


"If the Arctic Ocean were open water, warmed by the Atlantic, warmer than the land around it, water would evaporate and fall as snow on the land. More snow on Greenland and northern Canada would make glaciers grow. Glaciers don’t grow now because there is no open water in the Arctic to provide the moisture for snow."

“Well, we figured, the Arctic Ocean would get warmer. Because water would flow more freely between it and the Atlantic, dissipating the cold. And of course, the Atlantic Ocean would get colder. But wait a minute . . . we saw it simultaneously. If the Arctic Ocean were open water, warmed by the Atlantic, warmer than the land around it, water would evaporate and fall as snow on the land. More snow on Greenland and northern Canada would make glaciers grow. Glaciers don’t grow now because there is no open water in the Arctic to provide the moisture for snow."











						The Coming Ice Age, by Betty Friedan
					

A true scientific detective story




					harpers.org


----------



## bogmali (Jul 13, 2021)

Let's cut the political BS or I will shut this thread down! IDC if you're staff or not-Last warning.......oh and don't tell us to delete something just because you don't agree to them-it doesn't work like that champ


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 13, 2021)

claes said:


> Sure rich people can escape climate change and skirt responsibility with their money; that doesn’t mean science doesn’t help explain phenomena or that humans don’t have an impact on CO2 emissions or that the effects of climate change aren’t already readily observable


I don't know about you but it's getting to be pretty normal that hurricanes are year round now (almost).  A few more years, this will all be normal and we'll forget about what used to be normal.  What you complaining about snowflake? Please see the --sarcasm (-s for lazy people)  fuck windows version.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 13, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> The heat didn't kill them, gravity did.


They died trying to escape the heat, does it really make a difference that they did not wait long enough to become literal chicken nuggets, which many of them did indeed end up doing on the pavement below?



rruff said:


> 1) stay in AC (or cellars if in a poor area) during the hottest part of the day


In Washington, those who has AC's watched them fail because they weren't rated for heat like that.

It's not an instant answer.  Hell, it's not an answer at all, it's copium deluxe for a shitstorm of a situation.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 13, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> They died trying to escape the heat, does it really make a difference that they did not wait long enough to become literal chicken nuggets, which many of them did indeed end up doing on the pavement below?


Of course it matters. The heat itself didn't kill them. It was a combination of nest placement and an attempt to seek a better location. If someone jumps off a cliff to escape a forest fire, did the fire kill them or did the impact with the ground kill them? You might call that semantics, but many others would call it critical thinking. So claiming that the heat killed whole swathes of birds is both inaccurate and misleading.


----------



## claes (Jul 13, 2021)

The above assumes that birds are rational agents. They are not. A better example might be lemmings, but it still wouldn’t be analogous.

#KrITIKalTHInKInG


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 13, 2021)

claes said:


> @mods can we just can ban non-scientific denial from this thread? It’s one thing when deniers post climate charts and argue “look it used to be hotter” but this bullshit is over the top.



You don't have a single study that has enough data to back the idea that man is causing the globe to warm. There isn't a single study that has accurately predicted anything in the past 40 years. There simply is not enough data. I remember the calls for a coming global ice age. I was not born yesterday. Also, you cannot say how warm the earth should be because that is unknown. You can post all of the charts that you want but charts don't mean anything when the data behind them is made up based on false predictive analysis. I mean, I can post similiar stuff like this which debunks most of the basis data used to predict (badly predict) the global temperature over the past 15 years. https://electroverse.net/why-is-nobody-talking-about-greenland/


----------



## claes (Jul 14, 2021)

Easy Rhino said:


> You don't have a single study that has enough data to back the idea that man is causing the globe to warm.


I could post several thousand, but what’s the point? Your mind is made up :shrug:


Easy Rhino said:


> There isn't a single study that has accurately predicted anything in the past 40 years.


Ignoring the absurdity of this claim at face value, incidentally several of the claims in an inconvenient truth has already come to fruition


			Furtwängler Glacier: 1973, 2002 & 2012
		









						Changing climate: 10 years after An Inconvenient Truth
					

In the 10 years since "An Inconvenient Truth" was released, climate researchers have made great progress in predicting how rising temperatures will affect sea level, weather patterns and polar ice.




					www.sciencenews.org
				





Easy Rhino said:


> There simply is not enough data. I remember the calls for a coming global ice age. I was not born yesterday.


If you’re looking for 100% consensus, then sure, but 97-98% is pretty compelling to me.


Easy Rhino said:


> Also, you cannot say how warm the earth should be because that is unknown.


True! The idea that nature “should” be anything is inherently unscientific — it just “is” to the best of our knowledge


Easy Rhino said:


> You can post all of the charts that you want but charts don't mean anything when the data behind them is made up based on false predictive analysis. I mean, I can post similiar stuff like this which debunks most of the basis data used to predict (badly predict) the global temperature over the past 15 years. https://electroverse.net/why-is-nobody-talking-about-greenland/


The difference is some hypotheses are peer-reviewed and can be reproduced while others aren’t... Taking that into account you’re suddenly looking at 100% consensus


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 14, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> If someone jumps off a cliff to escape a forest fire, did the fire kill them or did the impact with the ground kill them?


Two things: 

1.  It doesn't matter in this context because the person is dead either way.

2.  The impact was factually what killed the person but the root cause was the fire because the person would not have jumped off the cliff otherwise.

#CommonSenseDoesntRequireCriticalThinking


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jul 14, 2021)

Orwell had it right.  Who are you fighting this year, Eastasia or Eurasia?


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 14, 2021)

Thankfully, there are stupid people and predictions on each side to balance things out.  However, much like today's......climate......we shouldn't use our differences in ideology to drive division but rather tackle the same problem from different sides.

From what I can tell, each side has already agreed that  A LOT of people are going to have to move.  So what are the odds that all of these have the means to just, you know, up and start over?

Should we help them?  Or just say: fuck them it's all natural.  You shouldn't have been born there and now, bad combo?


----------



## rruff (Jul 14, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> Those are solutions?  Have you estimated how much land mass we will lose due to sea rise to afford those that need to move the option?


They are solutions to the "people will bake and die" narrative.

The issue with rising seas isn't loss of land, but rather the fact that low lying coastal areas are heavily developed and populated.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 14, 2021)

rruff said:


> The issue with rising seas isn't loss of land, but rather the fact that low lying coastal areas are heavily developed and populated.


Yep.  And a lot of that unpopulated land we use to grow food.


----------



## rruff (Jul 14, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> Yep.  And a lot of that unpopulated land we use to grow food.


We'll get an increase in usable land (unfrozen), not a reduction. Nothing is certain, but a warmer earth will very likely be better for growing food as well due to longer growing seasons and higher rainfall. Issues will be local, not global.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 14, 2021)

rruff said:


> We'll get an increase in usable land (unfrozen), not a reduction. Nothing is certain, but a warmer earth will very likely be better for growing food as well due to longer growing seasons and higher rainfall. Issues will be local, not global.


Always a possibility.  Think of this:. We'll find some cool fossils and ancient aliens evidence too.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jul 14, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> Thankfully, there are stupid people and predictions on each side to balance things out.  However, much like today's......climate......we shouldn't use our differences in ideology to drive division but rather tackle the same problem from different sides.
> 
> From what I can tell, each side has already agreed that  A LOT of people are going to have to move.  So what are the odds that all of these have the means to just, you know, up and start over?
> 
> Should we help them?  Or just say: fuck them it's all natural.  You shouldn't have been born there and now, bad combo?



Maybe worry about more clear and present dangers?  For example, about every 100 years the sun pops out a massive solar flare.  The last one was in 1859.  It was called the Carrington event.  That event fried the telegraph systems at the time in the US and Europe.

If that happens anytime soon most of the people reading this post will wind up starving to death or worse.  The fact it happens about every 100 years or so makes it relatively common. 

"Were this event to occur today, the induced current would destroy, perhaps permanently, the American power grid system, _*shutting down power for years*_.  *Water, communications, food delivery, emergency systems, Internet, all supplied power by the grid would cease to function*. 
...
However, *every 100 or so years the sun produces a solar super storm*, releasing one or more giant, technology killing, CME’s, like those emitted in 1859.  Our Earth is long overdue for the next event."

This isn't imaginary, CMEs happens every single year but the earth only gets hit about once every 100 years.


----------



## freeagent (Jul 14, 2021)

Didn’t they say we have to do a better job of welcoming and integrating new comers? A billion people displaced due to climate change..? I am sure you are familiar with what I am referring to..


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 14, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Maybe worry about more clear and present dangers? For example, about every 100 years the sun pops out a massive solar flare. The last one was in 1859.  It was called the Carrington event. That event fried the telegraph systems at the time in the US and Europe.
> 
> If that happens anytime soon most of the people reading this post will wind up starving to death or worse. The fact it happens about every 100 years or so makes it relatively common.


FTR, I don't care about global warming.  War is going to get us first.

I just also realize it is a threat that needs more consideration than many are giving it.  However, it is understandable because war will get us first and needs to be prevented first.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 14, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Maybe worry about more clear and present dangers?  For example, about every 100 years the sun pops out a massive solar flare.  The last one was in 1859.  It was called the Carrington event.  That event fried the telegraph systems at the time in the US and Europe.
> 
> If that happens anytime soon most of the people reading this post will wind up starving to death or worse.  The fact it happens about every 100 years or so makes it relatively common.
> 
> ...



I have been an advocate for a long time for America to go back to traditional ways of paying bills before internet existed. For that very event that you just described, not to mention the countless billions it would say on cybersecurity. I know it will never happen, but eh.

My parents lived just fine paying their bills through snail mail.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 14, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I have been an advocate for a long time for America to go back to traditional ways of paying bills before internet existed. For that very event that you just described, not to mention the countless billions it would say on cybersecurity. I know it will never happen, but eh.
> 
> My parents lived just fine paying their bills through snail mail.


Your worried about paying bills after a solar flare disaster?


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 14, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1.  It doesn't matter in this context because the person is dead either way.
> 
> ...


This.  Other than the hash tag, because aparently we needed some critical thinking to get here.



RandallFlagg said:


> Maybe worry about more clear and present dangers? For example, about every 100 years the sun pops out a massive solar flare. The last one was in 1859.  It was called the Carrington event. That event fried the telegraph systems at the time in the US and Europe.


Again, you are only telling half the facts here, in this case to inflate the odds of anything like that happening and misdirect the discussion.

Those events do indeed happen about every 100 years due to the cyclic nature of the sun.  However, very seldom do they hit the Earth.  The last one before the Carrington event is regarded to be in Ancient times (these events are known even without electronics because the Aurora patterns they produce are quite notable). 

Actually, the last event with a similar magnitude to the Carrington event was in 2012, but missed the earth completely, as it usually does.  This means we are likely safe for another 100, yet again, as the timer resets, so to speak.

Global warming on the other hand is a real and non-imminent (present) threat many people are actively experiencing.



moproblems99 said:


> FTR, I don't care about global warming. War is going to get us first.


At this rate you may be right, but those wars will likely be driven by resource-grabs CAUSED by global warming.

So again, we're jumping out of the nest, like the birds, but what really killed us?


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 14, 2021)

Here are a couple of examples that discuss evidence behind the theory:









						Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
					

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.




					climate.nasa.gov
				












						Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society
					

Supplementary information for the project 'Climate Change: Evidence and causes'.




					royalsociety.org
				




Notably, the main driver is the known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It insulates the earth and traps heat. That's a known property of the gas. The amount of CO2 being exhausted into the atmosphere has accelerated (measured through core samples and physical monitoring for decades now) greatly beyond what is reasonably expected to be produced naturally, to 95% degree of certainty. Climate change is real, and the research by thousands of agencies across the globe directs the blame with 95% certainty to human activity.

The reason people doubt it is all down to Exxon. Their own research scientists pointed out the problem with CO2 decades ago. However, due to the profitability of the industry, their stance was to sow doubt. In effect, Exxon copied the tobacco industry in creating public disinformation, even while their own scientists were producing documents to suport man-made global warming.









						Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
					

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation




					www.scientificamerican.com
				






			https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf
		


Of note, the efforts of the API (American Petroleum Institute) were supported by the ultra-rich Koch family.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 14, 2021)

moproblems99 said:


> Your worried about paying bills after a solar flare disaster?



Yep, because guess what, those people in 1859 survived and still had to keep on living didn't they? If the economy collapses because of its reliance on something that collapses of a solar flare... well... that's not a world I want to live in.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 14, 2021)

In fairness, whether it's a problem caused by us or nature being nature, there are few places (if any) that guarantee safety.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 14, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> At this rate you may be right, but those wars will likely be driven by resource-grabs CAUSED by global warming.


Ideological wars will undu us long before environmental wars.  If we make it out of this decade with a mostly usable planet, I'll be surprised.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jul 14, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Yep, because guess what, those people in 1859 survived and still had to keep on living didn't they? If the economy collapses because of its reliance on something that collapses of a solar flare... well... that's not a world I want to live in.



I'm not sure if you realize this, but in 1859 nobody had electricity, manufacturing was mostly via steam / water (watermill) / animal & human power, no refrigeration, the majority of populations lived on farms/ranches.   Very few people would have been affected by this at all, and most probably didn't even know it happened.  Nothing of importance to survival would have been affected in 1859.   By contrast, I saw an estimate that if this were to happen today, about 90% of the population would die off.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 14, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> I'm not sure if you realize this, but in 1859 nobody had electricity, manufacturing was mostly via steam / water (watermill) / animal & human power, no refrigeration, the majority of populations lived on farms/ranches.   Very few people would have been affected by this at all, and most probably didn't even know it happened.  Nothing of importance to survival would have been affected in 1859.   By contrast, I saw an estimate that if this were to happen today, about 90% of the population would die off.


You forget they never taught real American history at any point and I am not even sure what they teach now.  Mostly about feeling guilty about things we weren't alive for.


----------



## rruff (Jul 14, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> By contrast, I saw an estimate that if this were to happen today, about 90% of the population would die off.



"The Carrington event was first estimated to have a Dst of about −1760 nT41. If we assume this threshold, the corresponding Weibull distribution would have shape and scale parameters 0.68 and 3.18 × 1010 days (8.7 × 107 years) respectively, so *the probability of having such an event within the next decade would be 0.0005%*, with a 95% confidence interval"









						Probability estimation of a Carrington-like geomagnetic storm - Scientific Reports
					

Intense geomagnetic storms can cause severe damage to electrical systems and communications. This work proposes a counting process with Weibull inter-occurrence times in order to estimate the probability of extreme geomagnetic events. It is found that the scale parameter of the inter-occurrence...




					www.nature.com


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 14, 2021)

An earlier post mentioned the Greenland Ice Sheet. This is from the article, showing the sudden spike in mass increase:






This is from a daily graph of SMB. The article used this info to suggest the ice sheet is increasing massively. The very same source data (Polarportal) continues with the graph into July.





It shows the normal, annual trend continuing. The aberrant spike is still there but the seasonal annual trendline continues.

The recent heatwaves in America, Siberia, the Arctic cannot be definitively attrtibuted to long-term climate change (the record breaking heat dome from earlier this month, however, has been described as impossible without global warming). But, that aside, single events (such as that anomaly from the SMB, or a bad heatwave season) cannot be attributed to climate change. It's bad science to use one data point and extrapolate a theory. Which is what the initial (top graph) source did. Long-term climate trends need to be considered to get a clearer picture.

This is the longterm mapping of the Greenland Ice mass (again using the exact same data source -polarportal - as was used in the initial graph).





The associated text, from: http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/use..._report/polarportal_saesonrapport_2020_EN.pdf, says:






That's a loss of 4261 gigatonnes of mass over 17 years. Seasonal increases are offset by the long term downward trend. Again, to re-iterate, I used the very same data-set and source from the article that says it disproves warming. What that article did is take a snapshot that gives zero information on trend. I'll check back and see what caused that spike but from further reading, it appears unusually heavy precipitation had been ocurring, ironically, due to changes in global weather patterns. It would be nice to think that climate change might dump enough water/snow on Greenland to offset a little bit of the water loss. More snow also means more reflective surface to remove heat. But using a climate change doubters own evidence, it's pretty clear Greenland is losing ice on a long-term trend.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jul 14, 2021)

rruff said:


> "The Carrington event was first estimated to have a Dst of about −1760 nT41. If we assume this threshold, the corresponding Weibull distribution would have shape and scale parameters 0.68 and 3.18 × 1010 days (8.7 × 107 years) respectively, so *the probability of having such an event within the next decade would be 0.0005%*, with a 95% confidence interval"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



History seems to show otherwise.

"A good example is the great storm of *mid-September 1770*, when extremely bright red auroras blanketed Japan and parts of China. Captain Cook himself saw the display from near Timor Island, south of Indonesia. Hayakawa and colleagues recently found drawings of the instigating sunspot, and it is _twice the size_ of the Carrington sunspot group. "

These two were half the power of the Carrington event :

"They found that superstorms in February 1872 and May 1921 were _also_ comparable to the Carrington Event, with similar magnetic amplitudes and widespread auroras."















						A Warning from History: The Carrington Event Was Not Unique
					

Sept. 1, 2020: On Sept. 1st, 1859, the most ferocious solar storm in recorded history engulfed our planet. It was “the Carrington Event,” named after British scientist Richard Carringto…




					spaceweatherarchive.com
				




12% in 10 years of an event like the 1921 storm.  1.5% in 10 years for an event like the Carrington event.  The odds are actually being beaten for now, but we are also at a solar minimum. 








			https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/ssbsite/documents/webpage/ssb_153147.pdf


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 14, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> I'm not sure if you realize this, but in 1859 nobody had electricity, manufacturing was mostly via steam / water (watermill) / animal & human power, no refrigeration, the majority of populations lived on farms/ranches.   Very few people would have been affected by this at all, and most probably didn't even know it happened.  Nothing of importance to survival would have been affected in 1859.   By contrast, I saw an estimate that if this were to happen today, about 90% of the population would die off.



that's exactly what I meant. in response to the other person saying going back to snail mail and less reliance on tech as a deterrent to what you just described.


----------

