Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correct. Cheap energy is absolutely essential to the existence we take for granted. Fossil fuels are not the source of cheap energy.
Nuclear fission is another source. There are new nuclear reactor designs that can’t melt down. Electric cars and batteries are getting better, in a few decades you might not want a gasoline powered car because the electric cars will be so much better. Have you ever driven a Tesla?
Like George Carlin famously said, the planet will be fine. The people are f**ked.
Arguably it would be a good idea to avoid extinction. At the very least, we don’t want WW3 over remaining farmland & fresh water.
Every source of energy has its advantage and disadvantages. Electricity is great for fixed consumers (non-mobile), but for mobile consumers (cars, trucks, ships, aircraft and trains) a fluid (liquid, gas, or condensed gas (LPG)) is essential.
I am a huge proponent of nuclear, but the same sort of backwards thinking expressed here by the eco-terrorists who are trying to convince us that man-made global warming threatens us all, have already hampered that resource's further implementation and development.
Coal/gas - powered cars using batteries as an intermediate storage, are very hard on the environment with their battery productions, and the need, of course to burn fossil fuels to charge them. Every time you have a conversion, say from gas to electricity on the wire, to electricity in the battery, you experience losses, so the farther from the original source (combustible fuel), the less efficient, overall they are. Losses occur at every step.
Not accurate in the least. We know that the current rapid...pay close attention to the word rapid. We know for a fact that the current rapid rise in earths temperatures is directly proportional to humans burning fossil fuels. to That's the key in all of this...the rapid increase in global temps is unlike any seen in the history of recorded data. This the culprit of this rapid rise is the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities such as deforestation.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.
What is the evidence?
Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006.
***For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.
***In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million.
***Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million.
Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.
Here's the link that contains all the supporting data for you to look at. If you don't have the time to read the entire report take at the table of contents and find the Environmental Indicators section and there you have all the data you need that evidences human activity (mainly the burning of fossil fuels) is driving this rapid rise in temps.
I think research scientists know this and are not doing what you are trying to ascribe.
The deniers are the ones who have conducted zero research and have come to a predetermined conclusion based on no factual data and from what we've seen in this thread most of what they base their conclusions on is pseudo science and think tank denier misinformation. That graph still cracks me up as well as the claim that "Scientist confirms global warming is occurring Mar's!"
Only to the person who prefers to stick their fingers in their ear and stand there spouting bla bla bla bla. Instead you would think that they would be open to understanding why they are hearing that the current rapid rise in temps is due to the burning of fossil fuels. That would certainly spark any curious minds interest to go and look it up and educate themselves on why this is being stated.
I think it would be better stated that the lack of scientific objectivity of anyone denying scientific facts is freighting.
I don't recall reading anyone stating otherwise.
The point that you and a lot continue to miss is the current trend that we are observing. This trend is unprecedented when compared to past climate. We know this current trend started at the end of the 19th Century.
This should make you objectively examine what was going on in the world at the end of the 19th Century that generates man made greenhouse gasses. All of this information is easy to look up as well as the data that correlates with it.
Care to give us an example of one of these packages and simple minded solution offered by the Dems?
Keep in mind science data does not wear a political hat. It's just data.
Interesting that I don't see any Republican party member performing a root cause analysis.
However this has already been done by the scientists...you know the people who are trained and who actually work in the field and conducting research and publishing papers? I've posted tons of resources where you can take a look at the findings.
See how silly it is to drag political comments into this discussion? It's pointless.
Yes, it is silly. Those trying to terrorize Americans by doom-and-gloom faux science's entire position is political/terrorist in nature, so you should be used to it by now. And if you don't think much, if not most, of science has a political faction to it, well, that's just plain naive. Shouldn't have, true, but just like education, it does "in spades".
Yes, it is silly. Those trying to terrorize Americans by doom-and-gloom faux science's entire position is political/terrorist in nature, so you should be used to it by now.
I suggest you take that up with the person who's doing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-D
And if you don't think much, if not most, of science has a political faction to it, well, that's just plain naive.
And if you don't understand that science is a process for understanding the natural world then you are one science fool for sure. In order to get on with the business of a running a "democracy" people must at least have a basic level of understanding of science. You can't even begin to understand the issues that plague the world without that basic level of understanding.
Honest governments rely on science data to shape polices. Only fools such as climate deniers make science political. Science is used to help make informed decisions that will shape and guide polices to advance societies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-D
Shouldn't have, true, but just like education, it does "in spades".
My statement is 100%, unequivocally accurate. That is, the burning of fossil fuels isn't the ONLY factor driving climate change. Climate change predates humankind and will continue long after we're gone. There are many, many other factors - both man made and natural - that affect climate change. Your position that ONLY the burning of fossil fuels causes climate change is, well, preposterous. You own links say as much. Note - and this is extremely important, but you were too busy pontificating to grasp it - I NEVER said that the burning of fossil fuels don't contribute to climate change. I think many climate change alarmists would be pleased that you've decided that deforestation has no impact on climate change. Imagine, a C-D poster has concluded something that is widely espoused by climate scientists around the world is wrong. We are truly in the presence of greatness.
You've inadvertently bolstered my case that Democrats over simplify everything because, well, science and empirical analysis just seems to be just a bit out reach for them. The fact that you won't admit there are many factors that impact climate change says it all.
My pokes at Dems are a bit tongue-in-cheek - it's a subtle retort to their claim that they're more educated.
My statement is 100%, unequivocally accurate. That is, the burning of fossil fuels isn't the ONLY factor driving climate change.
That's not what you stated and not what I spent my time replying to.
Let's refresh your memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
You can show that man burning fossils is A cause. Not THE cause.
My post was in response to this quote above.
However you missed the BIG point of what the concern is.
You left out the_most_important_ point_...that the current trend (past 250 years) shows a rapid rise of CO2, unlike any other time in climate history is the direct result of human activity mainly the burning of fossil fuels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
Climate change predates humankind and will continue long after we're gone.
No duh! Tell us something we don't already know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
There are many, many other factors - both man made and natural - that affect climate change. Your position that ONLY the burning of fossil fuels causes climate change is, well, preposterous.
This is already understood. The_point_you_continue_to_miss_ is we are looking at the current trend and when we look at the rate at which CO2 is rising, we see it's unprecedented. It's not a natural phenomenon that we've ever seen in past climate.
That's the point.
This current trend that we've been watching is a direct result of burning fossil fuels and I've posted all the empirical data that provides evidence for this. Have you looked at it?
There are many lines of evidence which clearly show that the atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by humans. The clearest of these is simple accounting - humans are emitting CO2 at a rate twice as fast as the atmospheric increase (natural sinks are absorbing the other half). There is no question whatsoever that the CO2 increase is human-caused. This is settled science.
Educate yourself on what the actual concern is. It's the current trend.
You can look up and verify every bit of data provided in the above link. Once you verify the information in the above link this is where we can set the standards of what is objectively scientifically true and proceed to have a discussion from there.
That's the most objective way we can hold a discussion on this topic. First establish what's been scientifically verified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
I think many climate change alarmists would be pleased that you've decided that deforestation has no impact on climate change.
I've stated no such thing. Pay attention to what I actually post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
The fact that you won't admit there are many factors that impact climate change says it all.
Go back and re-read what I posted. I never stated any such nonsense.
You keep circling back to this because you really don't understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about what causes natural climate change. If you don't get that then you have not been able to follow anything I've posted.
How many times do I have to tell you I'm talking about the current trend (past 250 years) of rapid CO2 rise which is due to human activity??? That's what I'm talking about. Do you follow?
Not an accurate statement in the least. We know that the current rapid...pay close attention to the word rapid.
It is not rapid.
In the last 100,000 years, there have been 24 rapid temperature changes of 14.4°F to 20°F in mere years or decades.
Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades.
Congratulations....you just got debunked by science and your own government.
People like you who keep claiming this minuscule temperature change is apocalyptic need to be smacked down even harder.
Read and weep:
One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
Anyone who continues to claim to the temperature changes are unprecedented or unusual or rapid or abnormal or unheralded or anything else are denying science and reality.
We can dismiss them wholesale as kooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Hehehe He's already ducked and hid from me in the science forum.
I don't duck anyone. I'm just a little slow in responding sometimes. The internet is not my life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
He won't even post his sources for graphs that he's not interpreting correctly. What exactly is there to lose here?
He's been called out on these graphs in the Science forum and he has yet to answer to being called out for misinterpreting the graphs as well as not linking the source.
The source is EPICA Dome C ice core data, which I clearly pointed out.
Is there some part of "EPICA Dome C" you don't understand?
For those who are lazy and want to download the data in Excel format, you can do that here:
And you didn't call anyone out. Your response was..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
I avoided responding to the Gish Gallop.
However thank you for the very intelligent observations about the NO SOURCE graphs he posted.
...which is typical of people suffering from butt-hurt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
The chart does no such thing.
Yes, it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
You are not interpreting the graphs correctly.
The graph shows CO2 levels in relation to Temperature in °C over a given period of time, in this instance about 20,000 years.
The only possible interpretation a reasonable person could draw is that CO2 does not affect Temperature, as Temperature increased of its own volition without influence from CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
You have not crashed anyone's "theory". You are not interpreting the graphs correctly nor did you notice that the graphs have two different scales for CO2 between the two plots.
The fact that the charts, which were graphed by me using Excel, have different scales is totally irrelevant.
There is no requirement for graphs to have the same scale. If you believe differently, then post a link to the source that says scientific graphs are invalid if they don't use the same scale.
In one chart, the temperature change is roughly 13°C, while in the other chart, the temperature change is only about 9°C, which results in Excel applying different scales.
Both graphs clearly show that CO2 does not drive Temperature, but your Religion won't let you acknowledge reality.
For the losers, I'll adjust the scale specially for them, to reduce their butt-hurt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Why won't you provide the source for these graphs? For all we know you could be copyrighting someone's work. It's very irresponsible to post any graphs without the source of where these graphs came from.
I created those graphs, as I've previously stated. There is no copyright violation since I am the author.
Sheesh, yet another Gish Gallop by Mircea.. The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tell us something we don't already know. 
