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.
Been posting this link to the so called educated people, but none dare answer. Maybe your superb intellect can help me out understand this article cause I'm too stupid to make anything out of it. Of course, you can call me names. That is the best way to settle any argument!
"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
Climate Change Fraud - Because the debate is not over - How not to "Follow the Science" (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3443/218/ - broken link)
I'll challenge it. In the link, a right-wing link if there ever was one, Tsonis himself says that he is not challenging that human activities have contributed to global warming, nor that we could be in a larger warming trend. He's just suggesting that the complexity of the system warrants more study, and that human actions to reverse effects may be presumptuous, since we don't fully understand all the factors at play.
And the facts are quite clear, this planet's climates have been variable over its history, and even small changes can have a profound impact on the habitats of the plants and animals living here. Therefore, even if human activity is only minimally affecting the climate, it would seem that reducing that impact would help understand how the natural planet climate system works. Moreover, continuing studies of how climate changes, any climate changes, will affect the ecosystems of this planet would have value in that there will be climate changes. There have been in the past, there will be in the future. Understanding them and possibly being able to predict when they will occur, how long they will last, how severe they will be, are all things we should consider to be important to the long-term survival of our species.
Shifting goal posts (again), rl? You wanted proof. It was provided. You can't come back and claim that you want more proof.
Oh, wait. I forgot. The rules that apply to the rest of the world don't apply to you.
And, by the way, that's one HELL of a "data error". Wouldn't you think that someone would double-check the facts and figures before proclaiming to the world that a month was the hottest on record?!
Nevermind. I know you're firmly planted in the "we are responsible" camp and absolutely nothing at all will change that.
You do know that the warming trend ended a decade ago, though, right?
You said the chart I posted was wrong. It isn't. I pointed out you didn't know what you were talking about. An inconsequential and corrected error in one month of data is not material and it had already been corrected.
Read my post and review the source again. There is a classification for "other renewables", and that is what I was referring to.
Reading comprehension. It's a good thing - check it out.
But let's assume you caught a mistake and just continue - you're still over a barrel, rl.
So you're saying that the entire country is supposed to reduce their electricity consumption by 90%, then?
Yeah, I know. I'm a part of that process. This is a photo sent to me by one of my customers:
That's a windmill tower section. It takes several of those, plus the turbine, plus the blades to put together a single windmill. Every piece has to be delivered separately, and many are overweight loads. You have any idea how quickly a diesel engine burns through fuel when it's pulling 75 tons?
Anyway... I know you're a worshiper, and no amount of logic or common sense will sway you from your religion. I do enjoy our banters, though (occasionally)...
Have a great day!
The question is renewables as a set, which include hydro. Electricity consumption will continue to increase. Nobody is proposing to cut consumption. You're very confused about the policy.
BTW the tower section really are cool. Big mothers. The are made as large as you can transport over most roads. Keeps the cost down.
The blades are equally cool. Almost 1/2 the length of a football field.
The construction sites are awesome. After they pour the foundation, it takes about a day to put up a turbine -- 80 meters high, 90+ meter blade diameter, all put up in a day. It takes 6-8 years to build a coal plant. They just can't keep up in the new world.
You implied that since you buy "green" energy for barely more than non-green energy, everybody should. I countered with the reality that very little electricity produced is "green", and implied that the vast majority of people in the country don't even have that choice, and those that do typically pay much more than you for it.
Yet you continue to nit-pick about whether it's 3% or 10%... Unbelievable. It's a moot point unless and until that number climbs enough to be the majority.
Quote:
You're very confused about the policy.
No, I'm not.
I refuse to chase you as you shift the goal posts with every single post. Once again, you remind me why you're on my ignore list... so it's back to ignoring you until I'm bored enough again.
You implied that since you buy "green" energy for barely more than non-green energy, everybody should. I countered with the reality that very little electricity produced is "green", and implied that the vast majority of people in the country don't even have that choice, and those that do typically pay much more than you for it.
Yet you continue to nit-pick about whether it's 3% or 10%... Unbelievable. It's a moot point unless and until that number climbs enough to be the majority.
No, I'm not.
I refuse to chase you as you shift the goal posts with every single post. Once again, you remind me why you're on my ignore list... so it's back to ignoring you until I'm bored enough again.
Have a great day!
No the stated policy is to push renewables to about 20% within a couple of decades. What you have tried to do is to create what is called a "STRAWMAN." Sorry isn't going to get by the truth squad.
No the stated policy is to push renewables to about 20% within a couple of decades.
They've been trying to do just that for 30 years. 20% in ten years? Obviously, the cost, reliability and accessibility is not all it's cracked up to be.
Why are you not in favor of nuclear?
Imo, that is THE only energy source that has any chance of replacing fossil fuels, which are cheap, abundant and reliable.
They've been trying to do just that for 30 years. 20% in ten years? Obviously, the cost, reliability and accessibility is not all it's cracked up to be.
Why are you not in favor of nuclear?
Imo, that is THE only energy source that has any chance of replacing fossil fuels, which are cheap, abundant and reliable.
Build all the nuclear corporations are willing to build. There have been billions in subsidies available since 2005 and nobody has built a plant. Why is that genius?
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.
