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.
Banger as you represent a certain viewpoint on the issue What data source/s are you using to come to your conclusions ?
As the data sources i rely on are very compelling and seem to represent the views of the entire scientific community on the subject of Global Warming..
Banger as you represent a certain viewpoint on the issue What data source/s are you using to come to your conclusions ?
As the data sources i rely on are very compelling and seem to represent the views of the entire scientific community on the subject of Global Warming..
What about the fact solar is advancing so fast that by 2030's we will no longer need fossil fuels.
That In conjunction with wind power,hydro electric etc, and a concerted effort at conservation would put us in a good position when the oil finally runs out and using 100 million barrels a day globally i dont have confidence that fossil fuels will last forever.
What about the fact solar is advancing so fast that by 2030's we will no longer need fossil fuels.
The CO2 already built up in our atmosphere is still enough to continue the warming trend and the feedback loops caused by it will further and accelerate it, so it's not simply a matter of switching to cleaner energy. The damage that has already been done will take a millennium to reverse, barring the development of some future technology that can 'clean' it... and the eventual existence of that technology is of course dependent on AGW not leading to global conflicts over resources, nuclear war, anti-intellectual tyranny or any other things that slow, stop or even reverse technological development.
Ray Kurzweil has been falsely labelled a skeptic because he simply assumes that the exponential rate at which technology is advancing means that by the time AGW poses a serious threat, either humans or AI will have worked out a solution... but as of now there is no 'ideal' solution.
Last edited by Spatula City; 02-20-2015 at 11:17 AM..
The CO2 already built up in our atmosphere is still enough to continue the warming trend and the feedback loops caused by it will further and accelerate it, so it's not simply a matter of switching to cleaner energy. The damage that has already been done will take a millennium to reverse, barring the development of some future technology that can 'clean' it... and the eventual existence of that technology is of course dependent on AGW not leading to global conflicts over resources, nuclear war, anti-intellectual tyranny or any other things that slow, stop or even reverse technological development.
Ray Kurzweil has been falsely labelled a skeptic because he simply assumes that the exponential rate at which technology is advancing means that by the time AGW poses a serious threat, either humans or AI will have worked out a solution... but as of now there is no 'ideal' solution.
There is no ideal solution, for sure. But we can't even begin to talk in earnest about an ideal solution until we start seriously reducing our emissions. That has to be the priority.
The CO2 already built up in our atmosphere is still enough to continue the warming trend and the feedback loops caused by it will further and accelerate it, so it's not simply a matter of switching to cleaner energy. The damage that has already been done will take a millennium to reverse, barring the development of some future technology that can 'clean' it... and the eventual existence of that technology is of course dependent on AGW not leading to global conflicts over resources, nuclear war, anti-intellectual tyranny or any other things that slow, stop or even reverse technological development.
Ray Kurzweil has been falsely labelled a skeptic because he simply assumes that the exponential rate at which technology is advancing means that by the time AGW poses a serious threat, either humans or AI will have worked out a solution... but as of now there is no 'ideal' solution.
Not according to a major study by the UN. Look at my post # 37.
The hazy blue band is the Earths atmosphere and is all that keeps life on Earth alive,If all the scientists are saying we are f-----g it up due to our 100 million barrel a day addiction to fossil fuel usage i'll err on the side of caution and take them at their word and try the best i can to live a more environmentally clean life.
The hazy blue band is the Earths atmosphere and is all that keeps life on Earth alive,If all the scientists are saying we are f-----g it up due to our 100 million barrel a day addiction to fossil fuel usage i'll err on the side of caution and take them at their word and try the best i can to live a more environmentally clean life.
My goal is to be on solar and off the grid by 2020.
Going solar is a good objective but theres so much more that can be done to ensure the longevity of our atmosphere and by default life on the planet.
Some ideas for a cleaner environment . 50 Ways to Help the Planet
Going solar is a good objective but theres so much more that can be done to ensure the longevity of our atmosphere and by default life on the planet.
Some ideas for a cleaner environment . 50 Ways to Help the Planet
Some of those I do some i do not.
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.
