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.
The issue is that pre-Industrial Revolution shows similar trends and similar and even higher CO2 levels but no discernible human carbon footprint as this was pre-Industrial Revolution.
It has been multiple hundreds of thousands of years since the world last saw similar CO2 concentrations. > 400 ppm?
800,000 years on this chart with nothing even remotely close.
The human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is directly measurable through CO2 isotopic ratios.
The heat absorption capacity of air at different CO2 concentrations is directly measurable through spectroscopic analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
This has been willfully ignored and it's for me, something I consider scientifically inept to ignore. So, I'll maintain healthy skepticism until there's better data and analysis.
What is willfully ignored?
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 06-01-2017 at 07:52 AM..
No one I stalking about blowing up the energy sector, just some practical changes to reduce CO2 and Methane emissions. How have the regulations in place negatively impacted you, I don't see any large scale problem. We heard the same complaints from car manufacturers when we required catalytic converters and gas mileage standards.
Right now there is an oil glut caused by a combination of things, prices are the lowest they have been in decades, so why do we need to reverse the progress we have made.
Right, so if allowed to put in all of these carbon credits and such, it would hugely impact our economy and our energy sector. Just in the small bit done thus far, I've already seen an average of 12% increases per annum on kwH cost from our power companies due to the necessary changes to comply with the new regulations. Doesn't sound like much but it adds up fast. Yes I can afford it but even I know it's extremely hard on the lower and middle classes. And have you been here in August? Seriously, A/C - it's a must.
That being said, I'm wholeheartedly 1000% in favor of an energy scheme which could be cheaper and remove our reliance on Saudi oil or Appalachian coal and be something which could, in essence get me off the grid. However, the technology isn't really there yet and what is there pretty much sucks and the ROI is very poor. So, let the free market do its thing and come up with something better. When it does, I'll be all about buying it. However, legislating that we must move over to a technology or an energy scheme which isn't currently feasible is foolish. And no, I will not support such a move at this time.
However, legislating that we must move over to a technology or an energy scheme which isn't currently feasible is foolish. And no, I will not support such a move at this time.
I agree and neither would I. But there is a difference between disliking a policy that attempts to address an existing problem because the policy is poorly conceived, and pretending a problem does not exist at all because you don't like some of the policies people are trying to put in place to address it.
Right, so if allowed to put in all of these carbon credits and such, it would hugely impact our economy and our energy sector. Just in the small bit done thus far, I've already seen an average of 12% increases per annum on kwH cost from our power companies due to the necessary changes to comply with the new regulations. Doesn't sound like much but it adds up fast. Yes I can afford it but even I know it's extremely hard on the lower and middle classes. And have you been here in August? Seriously, A/C - it's a must.
That being said, I'm wholeheartedly 1000% in favor of an energy scheme which could be cheaper and remove our reliance on Saudi oil or Appalachian coal and be something which could, in essence get me off the grid. However, the technology isn't really there yet and what is there pretty much sucks and the ROI is very poor. So, let the free market do its thing and come up with something better. When it does, I'll be all about buying it. However, legislating that we must move over to a technology or an energy scheme which isn't currently feasible is foolish. And no, I will not support such a move at this time.
There are many reasons for increases, I don't know if you can attribute all increases to regulations but if you are service by a problematic coal fired plant that might be the case.
Just curious what's the name of your servicing company.
I use PSE& G on LI, rate varies between $0.18 to 0.19 depending on summer or winter, also time of use discounts. Fuels source is a mixture of everything.
I wouldn't call our accelerating on a massive scale a fact and it actually cant be proven. That's something climate scientists are struggling with as they cannot actually "prove" it. They can infer it but proof is an extremely high bar.
Here's why I remain skeptical still on this massive claim. The data investigated and modeled only goes back to around the Industrial Revolution. So one would assume we also need to look at pre-Industrial Revolution times to see what the data looked like then (this can be done via ice cores). Call it a control group if you will. The issue is that pre-Industrial Revolution shows similar trends and similar and even higher CO2 levels but no discernible human carbon footprint as this was pre-Industrial Revolution. This has been willfully ignored and it's for me, something I consider scientifically inept to ignore. So, I'll maintain healthy skepticism until there's better data and analysis.
Global temperatures have been rising faster than anytime in history. And for some odd reason it started a bit after the industrial revolution. What else can it be than man-made?
Meteorological statistics only go back to the 1600's, that's true, but as you said, by ice core samples, fossils, tree rings and in other ways we get quite the good idea what the climate has been. We know roughly when the dinosaurs died, and we roughly know when the Milky Way will collide and merge with the Andromeda galaxy. Why would climate be suddenly such a black hole in science?
... <Poster cut and past graphic of studies to which many have been retracted or shown to be invalid in their assessment via statistical manipulation and misreporting>
lol
I bet you haven't even read a single one of those papers?
There are many reasons for increases, I don't know if you can attribute all increases to regulations but if you are service by a problematic coal fired plant that might be the case.
Just curious what's the name of your servicing company.
I use PSE& G on LI, rate varies between $0.18 to 0.19 depending on summer or winter, also time of use discounts. Fuels source is a mixture of everything.
Part of Duke Energy down here but our branch in particular is SCE&G. Seriously overpriced energy prices all of which they blame on the new regulations. How much of that is greed and how much is true? No idea but it has had an impact either way and very few of the initiatives have been implemented. Frankly, if people really want to do something, I'd be in favor of the plant more trees method because at least it's mutually beneficial and doesn't hurt anyone to have more trees.
I find it irrelevant to debate what the percentage is. Maybe 97% is false, and maybe I was wrong claiming that, but what I do know is that the scientific community is not on the fence in a 50-50 situation. Even former denialists have changed their opinion (likely after when Exxon or Shell pulled the plug on them). Global warming is a fact and we accelerate it on a massive scale, and it can be proven.
So PROVE it. You made the claim, now prove it.
You completely refused to even read an article by a scientist, based upon where it was located, yet you want to make assertions on science which you simply cannot back up, even with the work of others.
Whoa folks!!! Better be careful because I think I found one of the 97% of scientists that agree that climate change is a fact! (Psst... It's actually 100% of scientists that agree the climate changes, what they DON'T agree on is how much of an impact is made via anthropogenic means.)
It has been multiple hundreds of thousands of years since the world last saw similar CO2 concentrations. > 400 ppm?
800,000 years on this chart with nothing even remotely close.
The human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is directly measurable through CO2 isotopic ratios.
The heat absorption capacity of air at different CO2 concentrations is directly measurable through spectroscopic analysis.
What is willfully ignored?
Sorry took me a bit but I wanted to find the graph which shows the CO2 level throughout history with temperatures overlaid. I wanted to get away from that small snapshot graph always shown. It's pretty misleading.
Okay, so what does that tell us? Yes, it's been many years (millions even I think) since we've seen these CO2 levels and it's concerning to scientists because they claim this rise in CO2 levels precipitates a rise in global temperature. They look to things like the CO2 wrapped Venus where it's 800 degrees as proof. So we look back throughout history - even back millions of years - to see what this means for the earth though, right? If the hypothesis that greater CO2 = higher global temperatures were true, the graph would show this as a following curve. But it doesn't and this is my issue. Scientists just haven't explained this and I feel it's a huge hole in the theory. They've even admitted this is something they are unable to explain (there is a quote which says that somewhere but it would take me a bit to find it if you insist). So I'm not a denier but I would call myself a healthy skeptic because some things just haven't added up for me. The logic isn't following on what they claim versus what the data shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
Global temperatures have been rising faster than anytime in history. And for some odd reason it started a bit after the industrial revolution. What else can it be than man-made?
Meteorological statistics only go back to the 1600's, that's true, but as you said, by ice core samples, fossils, tree rings and in other ways we get quite the good idea what the climate has been. We know roughly when the dinosaurs died, and we roughly know when the Milky Way will collide and merge with the Andromeda galaxy. Why would climate be suddenly such a black hole in science?
Yeah your claim is demonstrably false. See graph above.
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.
