It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Hoax or Not..... it is time for us to find an alternative source of energy that will be good not just for the environment but for our health too. Whether you want to admit or not, the air we breathe in is becoming too dangerous for our health. Not only it will help our environment and our health, it will reduce or even eliminate the conflict in the middle east.

The repugnicans keep on trying to stop this, and telling everybody there is no reason to change or to be alarmed, and that global warming is a myth and fossil fuel and coal are still the best. Duh.

Please state the reason why we shouldn't work for an alternative and better source of energy. I'm so tired of Faux News.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by boniknik]




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
someone posted temps over the last 1000 years to prove his point that global temps was higher in the past 1000 yrs well heres a link to disprove that

temperature record for the last 1000years



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Awwwww, you guys threw a party and didn't invite me? I'm gonna get an inferiority complex... later...


I think I found a place to jump it:

reply to post by boniknik

Hoax or Not..... it is time for us to find an alternative source of energy that will be good not just for the environment but for our health too. Whether you want to admit or not, the air we breathe in is becoming too dangerous for our health. Not only it will help our environment and our health, it will reduce or even eliminate the conflict in the middle east.


I hear this an awful lot, but I keep asking the question: Which energy source are we going to use? After all, the combustion (or even reduction) of any chemical that contains carbon in an oxygen atmosphere will produce either carbon monoxide (CO) (which will eventually oxidize further to form CO2) or carbon dioxide (CO2). You just don't put carbon and oxygen together any other way.

Now, surely we can find something to burn that doesn't contain carbon, right? Wrong. Sulfur will burn, of course, but it produces SO2, a much much worse gas, one that is actually toxic and is one of the main components of acid rain. Natural gas? Contains carbon, methane is CH4, ethane is C2H6, and so on. Wood contains a lot of carbon, along with a respectable number of impurities as well. Alcohol? It contains basically the same amount of carbon as hydrocarbons do. The only difference is the inclusion of an oxygen atom here or there in the molecule.

The point is that if we stop using carbon compounds for energy, there simply isn't much left!

Sure, there's hydrogen. But so far we haven't seen much in the way of hydrogen production on a large scale. It's expensive to make, highly explosive, and difficult to store and transport. There's solar, but it only works when those darn clouds aren't in the way and nighttime is the wrong time for making solar energy. Not very much help in a 24-hour world, is it? Oh, but we have batteries... yes we do, expensive batteries which only store DC power. Which means we have to convert that DC to AC before it can enter the grid, a task which is easy on a small scale, but becomes exponentially more difficult when talking about hundreds or thousands of Amperes. Oh, change the grid to DC, you say? That might work, as it was Edison's plan to start with. The AC won out because it was so much cheaper and easier to transmit power. DC lines would be more akin to copper pipes to handle that much power, and transformers would be a thing of the past... they simply don't work with DC power.

Oh, wind power though is awesome! Yes it is. However, is there enough wind power to power the infrastructure? Some say yes, but when I hear about lawsuits over wind farms 'stealing' wind from others already, and we're not even making much of a dent in the national power usage with wind yet, I have my concerns. Not to mention, does anyone really believe that wind farms do not affect prevailing winds? If someone thinks that it is unscientific to deny reports of doom and gloom over minor CO2 increases, exactly how can that someone buy into zero-point wind energy?

Nuclear power is good, sure. Just what are we going to do with all that waste? Research is progressing on that front, but so far we don't have a good answer.

Water power... hydro-electric! Now we have something! And we are indeed using it. Practically every river or major waterway in the US is littered with dams. And yet, we do not receive all of our energy from water. There simply isn't enough capacity to fill the need, although it does a great job where it can. Unfortunately, it can't do a very good job in certain areas, like transportation. You can't exactly carry a dammed river in your trunk.

So exactly which alternative energy source are you talking about? What is this amazing invention that is going to revolutionize the world?

Of course we need to keep searching for better energy alternatives. But until they get here, until someone can at least identify what this supposed great energy source is, we're stuck with two and only two possibilities: use what we have or don't use what we have. And remember, if we don't use what we have, we won't be able to find anything new... we'll be huddled up in caves trying to not freeze to death. (And guess what? We'll still be producing CO2, because it's in our every exhaled breath!)

Why not, instead of complaining about needing new energy sources, work on finding them?

One final note as to the air quality you mentioned: CO2 levels, within the range we are discussing, do not contribute to air pollution problems. Nitrates, nitrides, sulfur compounds, etc. do. I am assuming from your post that you live in a city; out here in the country, the air is still fresh and clean. We just don't get pizza delivery.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by animalThis I cannot answer. However, the belief that we contribute is still there and still supported so my support of the issue stands.


Then what is there to discuss. Without this data all discussion becomes conjecture.


Sure I'll give you conjecture. Conjecture based on the majority opinion (i'll give you opinion too) in the scientific community. An onion or conjecture based on the scientific research into the climate change phenomenon that points to a human ELEMENT in the exacerbation of the present cycle.

however, back to the OP, I would be willing to change my belief in ACC if the scientific majority were to switch its stance and a new consensus were formed against the ACC view.

Furthermore, I do not believe that humans are the soul cause of this cycle only that we add to it.


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss (external reference)



In 2007, Oreskes expanded her analysis, stating that approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that: "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities". In addition, 55 percent of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts) or to mitigate against predicted changes (5 percent). The remaining 25 percent focused on either paleoclimate (10%) or developing measurement techniques (15%); Oreskes did not classify these as taking a position on contemporary global climate change.[3]
en.wikipedia.org...



Originally posted by animal
This is in the article I cited. Refer to my first quote from this article this is exactly what it says. So I fail to see your point citing it or stating it is a new analysis....



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I said that only 20% of the studies actually applies to human related warming, the rest were about warming in general. You asked what I was talking about so there it is.


#1

approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus


#2

55 percent of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts)


#3

25 percent focused on either paleoclimate (10%) or developing measurement techniques (15%)


For a total of 100% NONE of which in anyway shape or form dissented from the CONSENSUS of the scientific community that humans play a roll in ACC. Simple really.



Originally posted by animal
Please see my cited information again. Try to ignore what a Scientific Consensus is all you want, it still exists.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
A collection of opionions. Go with it. The globalist agenda UN know whats best for you.


Um, Straw Man?



Originally posted by animalWhat it shows is that the type of law you are referring to is severely limited. as your cited source states:

Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
But the premise of 'climate change science' is that there is no debate, man is CAUSING global warming everybody freak out. It's spoken in simple terms as if it is a law. It is not. Nobody can even predict el nino events, yet the debate is over with catastrophic global warming.


There IS a debate. Did you not notice the links to scientific literature contesting the consensus view? It is really rather simple mate, the consensus overwhelms the majority view so it may appear to you that there is not debate (although you like to say there is when it fits your argument) however there is debate in the issue, massive debate. It is just that the scientific community by and large has sided with the pro-acc, not the anti-acc.

the debate is in the research mate. research that either tries to disprove or verify ACC.


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If you were taking in my words you'd know that I deny the idea that anyone knows FOR SURE that humans are CAUSING it. Cause and effect. I've never denied that human contribute. I've begged you to tell me how much, and with what 'tolerance' (percentage of certainty).


So you do agree that humans contribute? You are just asking HOW MUCH? Then why are we arguing? Oh I see because you know there is no way for me to give you a figure you think that this somehow defeats the notion that humans are likely contributing factors. How simple.


Originally posted by Animalhow is it in anyway shape or form equivalent to you comparing us 'alarmists' to holocaust deniers? don't even try to wriggle out of that one mate.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You sound the alrm, it is alarmism. I'm an Artificial General Intelligence Alarmist, and proud of it. I can show you public military websites, and then some (click items in my sig), that PROVE billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on the military building Skynet. There is absolutely no debate, unlike with catastrophic AGW. Are you not proud to sound the alarm, as you are doing here?


YOU COMPARED US TO HOLOCAUST DENIERS. WAKE UP. YOU EQUATE US TO THE MOST HEINOUS GENOCIDE OF THE WESTERN WORLD IN THE LAST FEW CENTURIES HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT SPECIFICALLY.....

Quite avoiding the topics at hand mate, its rather annoying to try to debate with someone who ignores everything but that with which he feels he has an advantage.


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The elitist within the alarmist community are proven by their own leaked emails to conspire to stomp out debate. Al Gore and the rest, like those in the emails, are on video record screaming that the debate is over. AGW people sound the alarm: alarmists. AGW skeptics try to keep things rational: holocaust deniers.


Your use of holocaust denier yet again betrays your ignorance.


Originally posted by AnimalWhich scientific communities?



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Follow the discussion: the ones I listed in my thread which wikipedia summarized.


I saw no list other than the massive list of supporters of ACC....Again:

European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Academy of Sciences
InterAcademy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies' statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
National Research Council (US)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Link

That is 47 Organizations right there.

Wiki only lists FIVE others that offer NON COMMITTAL statements. Which neither support or deny ACC.

I look Forward to seeing the 'list' from wiki YOU were talking about.


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm sure the Senate brought in pet doctors to support their case.



Marc Morano runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative anti-environmentalism think tank. Until spring of 2009, Morano served as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics.
Link

Once again I am left with the impression that all you have to offer to counter ACC is hyperbole. Your tactics are games at best and your proof over and over falls apart upon inspection. Too bad so sad here is a tissue.


[edit on 23-11-2009 by Animal]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Awwwww, you guys threw a party and didn't invite me? I'm gonna get an inferiority complex... later...



Hey Red, it has been awhile, nice to see you, hope your doing well, la la la la....



Originally posted by TheRedneck
I think I found a place to jump it:

reply to post by boniknik

Hoax or Not..... it is time for us to find an alternative source of energy that will be good not just for the environment but for our health too. Whether you want to admit or not, the air we breathe in is becoming too dangerous for our health. Not only it will help our environment and our health, it will reduce or even eliminate the conflict in the middle east.


I hear this an awful lot, but I keep asking the question: Which energy source are we going to use? After all, the combustion (or even reduction) of any chemical that contains carbon in an oxygen atmosphere will produce either carbon monoxide (CO) (which will eventually oxidize further to form CO2) or carbon dioxide (CO2). You just don't put carbon and oxygen together any other way.


Well fair enough, as always. However still the same fatalist logic. First off, I for one realize that the shift away from a purely carbon based energy source does in no way mean the complete removal of it from our catalog of energy sources.

Second, Climate Change is linked to a HOST of human produced chemicals not just CO2 so we should also remember we have other changes to make as well.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Now, surely we can find something to burn that doesn't contain carbon, right? Wrong. Sulfur will burn, of course, but it produces SO2, a much much worse gas, one that is actually toxic and is one of the main components of acid rain. Natural gas? Contains carbon, methane is CH4, ethane is C2H6, and so on. Wood contains a lot of carbon, along with a respectable number of impurities as well. Alcohol? It contains basically the same amount of carbon as hydrocarbons do. The only difference is the inclusion of an oxygen atom here or there in the molecule.

The point is that if we stop using carbon compounds for energy, there simply isn't much left!


Again fair enough but not a legitimate argument for not working to bolster our supply with alternatives and thus reduce our impacts. This is not a black and white and when it is it is in error.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Sure, there's hydrogen. But so far we haven't seen much in the way of hydrogen production on a large scale. It's expensive to make, highly explosive, and difficult to store and transport.


There is also a switch to predominately public (mass) transit as well mate.. . .. .



Originally posted by TheRedneck
There's solar, but it only works when those darn clouds aren't in the way and nighttime is the wrong time for making solar energy. Not very much help in a 24-hour world, is it?


It is during the day....



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, but we have batteries... yes we do, expensive batteries which only store DC power. Which means we have to convert that DC to AC before it can enter the grid, a task which is easy on a small scale, but becomes exponentially more difficult when talking about hundreds or thousands of Amperes.


Batteries are best used ON SITE not in a grid tied situation. . .. .... ..



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, change the grid to DC, you say? That might work, as it was Edison's plan to start with. The AC won out because it was so much cheaper and easier to transmit power. DC lines would be more akin to copper pipes to handle that much power, and transformers would be a thing of the past... they simply don't work with DC power.


No need, people with batteries would not be grid tied just as they are now.. .. .. .... ..



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, wind power though is awesome! Yes it is. However, is there enough wind power to power the infrastructure? Some say yes, but when I hear about lawsuits over wind farms 'stealing' wind from others already, and we're not even making much of a dent in the national power usage with wind yet, I have my concerns.


#1 it is still a fledgling technology as you well know. #2 I would LOVE to see the law suits your talking about, share them please? #3 with time Wind Power can offer more and more power to the grid and no one expects it or solar or any ONE thing to supply all the power, again this is the fatal flaw of your argument every time I see you arguing AGAINST alternative energy.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Not to mention, does anyone really believe that wind farms do not affect prevailing winds? If someone thinks that it is unscientific to deny reports of doom and gloom over minor CO2 increases, exactly how can that someone buy into zero-point wind energy?


Everything has an impact and I suppose there is a chance that wind farms will alter wind patterns but only those opposed to alternative energy seem to be worried about it. Who knows maybe wind will be the next environmental crisis but I doubt it will compare to the presents.....



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Nuclear power is good, sure. Just what are we going to do with all that waste? Research is progressing on that front, but so far we don't have a good answer.


Nuclear power is NOT good. anything that produces a waste product so highly volatile and dangerous is NOT good... Regardless of where or how you bury that waste....



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Water power... hydro-electric! Now we have something! And we are indeed using it. Practically every river or major waterway in the US is littered with dams. And yet, we do not receive all of our energy from water. There simply isn't enough capacity to fill the need, although it does a great job where it can. Unfortunately, it can't do a very good job in certain areas, like transportation. You can't exactly carry a dammed river in your trunk.


Aw, how cute, Red's simplistic fatalism is showing again.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
So exactly which alternative energy source are you talking about? What is this amazing invention that is going to revolutionize the world?


All of the above combined mate, as you well know. Your not stupid.....



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Of course we need to keep searching for better energy alternatives. But until they get here, until someone can at least identify what this supposed great energy source is, we're stuck with two and only two possibilities: use what we have or don't use what we have.


I agree, so why all the whining about the alternatives, they do after all produce energy and can contribute to the load?

Is there some unwritten law that states only one type of power source (thing fossil fuels) can be used at any one time?

i don't think so....



Originally posted by TheRedneck
And remember, if we don't use what we have, we won't be able to find anything new... we'll be huddled up in caves trying to not freeze to death. (And guess what? We'll still be producing CO2, because it's in our every exhaled breath!)


Yawn . . .. .



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Why not, instead of complaining about needing new energy sources, work on finding them?


Why not use the ones we already have in the mean time mate?



Originally posted by TheRedneck
One final note as to the air quality you mentioned: CO2 levels, within the range we are discussing, do not contribute to air pollution problems. Nitrates, nitrides, sulfur compounds, etc. do. I am assuming from your post that you live in a city; out here in the country, the air is still fresh and clean. We just don't get pizza delivery.


TheRedneck


Yup, we do often focus to much on CO2 and not the other pollutants.

You knwo I always enjoy your threads, your a smart guys, and I hope some day I can convince you that just because wind, solar, biomass, hydro, or some other alternative can not supply us with ALL the power we need does not mean we should abandon them.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Sure I'll give you conjecture.



A conjecture is a proposition which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds.





Conjecture based on the majority opinion (i'll give you opinion too) in the scientific community. An onion or conjecture based on the scientific research into the climate change phenomenon that points to a human ELEMENT in the exacerbation of the present cycle.


So humans add GHG's. Who ever said humans dont? I'm asking you to what degree of an impact this causes on natures GHG's, so we can then move on to the weaknesses or the issue beyond that, and you dont know. Since you dont know, your passion here is very irrational, but then again passion is fueled by emotions, which are irrational.


however, back to the OP, I would be willing to change my belief in ACC if the scientific majority were to switch its stance and a new consensus were formed against the ACC view.


I know, I get it, you're entire passion is based on statements by scientific groups, and the UN IPCC and their cherry picked scientists with their own agendas (funding, socialism, etc), not on the actual realities of the details and (un)solidness of the actual potential threat.


Furthermore, I do not believe that humans are the soul cause of this cycle only that we add to it.


So how much?


#1

approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus


#2

55 percent of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts)


#3

25 percent focused on either paleoclimate (10%) or developing measurement techniques (15%)


75% discuss the warming issue. 25% actually support the position that humans are major contributers / causers. Its worth noting she based her research on summaries alone. But the point is the consensus in her case is that the papers agree there is warming. WARMING, period! NOT that humans are causing it. If you do a search on 'global climate change' during a warm period what would you expect to find?


For a total of 100% NONE of which in anyway shape or form dissented from the CONSENSUS of the scientific community that humans play a roll in ACC. Simple really.


Absolutely untrue. See above. This is getting silly.


There IS a debate. Did you not notice the links to scientific literature contesting the consensus view? It is really rather simple mate, the consensus overwhelms the majority view so it may appear to you that there is not debate (although you like to say there is when it fits your argument) however there is debate in the issue, massive debate.


The consensus is that we're in a warm period, which in the past couple years has dipped. That's it.


So you do agree that humans contribute? You are just asking HOW MUCH? Then why are we arguing? Oh I see because you know there is no way for me to give you a figure you think that this somehow defeats the notion that humans are likely contributing factors. How simple.


If an accurate figure doesnt exist, then how are we to even begin to gauge what policies to implement?


YOU COMPARED US TO HOLOCAUST DENIERS. WAKE UP. YOU EQUATE US TO THE MOST HEINOUS GENOCIDE OF THE WESTERN WORLD IN THE LAST FEW CENTURIES HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT SPECIFICALLY.....


I'm beginning to question your sanity. The global warming alarmist propaganda community labeled global warming skeptics holocaust deniers (those who deny the holocaust ever happened). Nothing about what you just said even makes sense. This is bordering on thread derailment.


Quite avoiding the topics at hand mate, its rather annoying to try to debate with someone who ignores everything but that with which he feels he has an advantage.


I'm still wainting for your policies to implement in all of this.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The elitist within the alarmist community are proven by their own leaked emails to conspire to stomp out debate. Al Gore and the rest, like those in the emails, are on video record screaming that the debate is over. AGW people sound the alarm: alarmists. AGW skeptics try to keep things rational: holocaust deniers.


Your use of holocaust denier yet again betrays your ignorance.


I hope you've gotten a grip on this little facet here, and if so reread the above paragraph.


I saw no list other than the massive list of supporters of ACC....Again:


Dude, the list of statements is included right inside my thread:
Catastrophic 'Global Warming' "Consensus" & "Causes"!

This is madness. I dont even know why you originally dismissed that entire thread as wikipedia sourced when I have the statements from all of the (then) groups considered in the consensus. Read the begining of the thread! DO you have a problem with my criteria of how to assess the reality of the so-called consensus? If not, I beg you to amend my analysis there using my criteria with the new science groups that werent on the wikipedia page in 2007.


Once again I am left with the impression that all you have to offer to counter ACC is hyperbole. Your tactics are games at best and your proof over and over falls apart upon inspection. Too bad so sad here is a tissue.


It's of little surprise that you've completely skipped over the link that shows the criteria for the 31,000+ plus scientists who have signed the petition, while also dismissing the Senates smaller list of climate scientists. I prefer individuals over organizations, as a libertarian. All of those groups have funding to gain. Many of the 9100 Phd's surely already have their jobs whether or not there is global warming alarmism.

And even if those groups do EXPLICITLY endorse AGW, its no wonder you keep all of your focus on teh consensus, because AGW falls even further to pieces the further you get away from this facet, which if you could tell us the supposed human impact then we could get into those flaws.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Animal
Sure I'll give you conjecture.



A conjecture is a proposition which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds.






Oh how you love your little games.


Originally posted by AnimalConjecture based on the majority opinion (i'll give you opinion too) in the scientific community. An onion or conjecture based on the scientific research into the climate change phenomenon that points to a human ELEMENT in the exacerbation of the present cycle.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So humans add GHG's. Who ever said humans dont? I'm asking you to what degree of an impact this causes on natures GHG's, so we can then move on to the weaknesses or the issue beyond that, and you dont know. Since you dont know, your passion here is very irrational, but then again passion is fueled by emotions, which are irrational.


More games.


Originally posted by Animalhowever, back to the OP, I would be willing to change my belief in ACC if the scientific majority were to switch its stance and a new consensus were formed against the ACC view.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I know, I get it, you're entire passion is based on statements by scientific groups, and the UN IPCC and their cherry picked scientists with their own agendas (funding, socialism, etc), not on the actual realities of the details and (un)solidness of the actual potential threat.


What do you base yours on? Glen Beck?


Originally posted by AnimalFurthermore, I do not believe that humans are the soul cause of this cycle only that we add to it.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So how much?


I can not say. That does not dismiss the threat. To do so would be ignorant.


Originally posted by Animal#1

approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus


#2

55 percent of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts)


#3

25 percent focused on either paleoclimate (10%) or developing measurement techniques (15%)


For a total of 100% NONE of which in anyway shape or form dissented from the CONSENSUS of the scientific community that humans play a roll in ACC. Simple really.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Absolutely untrue. See above. This is getting silly.


See what above that in her words she states NONE of the 910 papers in anyway tried to refute ACC?

Prove me wrong on this WITH HER WORDS NOT YOURS. What is silly is your refusal to see anything that is plainly in front of you when you disagree with it....


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The consensus is that we're in a warm period, which in the past couple years has dipped. That's it.


Wow, are you daft? Shall we look at some of the statements regarding the consensus?



An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.



The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries.... The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.



Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.



Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.




Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming.




The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[13]

Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[14]




The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years.




The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century...



The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....




There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change.




As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.




The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.




The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.

It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.




The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning.[32]



Human activities have increasing impact on Earth’s environments. Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature. Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather events.




There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change.




Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950.




We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ...


Link

There is a small sample for you. Pretty clear that the 'consensus view' is that the Earth is warming and Humans are contributing to it. How can you argue otherwise?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If an accurate figure doesnt exist, then how are we to even begin to gauge what policies to implement?


What is wrong with enacting policies that advance our current technologies and reduce their potential impacts mate?

What is wrong with implementing policies that reduce exponential consumption of the earth's finite resources?

whats wrong with implementing policies that reduce pollution?

just because I can not tell you the % humans play in climate change is no good reason to ignore our actions....


Originally posted by AnimalYOU COMPARED US TO HOLOCAUST DENIERS. WAKE UP. YOU EQUATE US TO THE MOST HEINOUS GENOCIDE OF THE WESTERN WORLD IN THE LAST FEW CENTURIES HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT SPECIFICALLY.....



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm beginning to question your sanity. The global warming alarmist propaganda community labeled global warming skeptics holocaust deniers (those who deny the holocaust ever happened). Nothing about what you just said even makes sense. This is bordering on thread derailment.


In this post you say

Then why do the alarmist scientists and proponents work in tandem to stomp out debate and discussion? i.e. holocaust deniers.


In this post you say:

The elitist within the alarmist community are proven by their own leaked emails to conspire to stomp out debate. Al Gore and the rest, like those in the emails, are on video record screaming that the debate is over. AGW people sound the alarm: alarmists. AGW skeptics try to keep things rational: holocaust deniers.


So it is clear upon rereading your statements you were not calling pro-agw people holocaust deniers. my mistake.


Originally posted by AnimalQuite avoiding the topics at hand mate, its rather annoying to try to debate with someone who ignores everything but that with which he feels he has an advantage.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm still wainting for your policies to implement in all of this.


I don't write policy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Dude, the list of statements is included right inside my thread:
Catastrophic 'Global Warming' "Consensus" & "Causes"!


All the statements support he consensus so what is your point?


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This is madness. I dont even know why you originally dismissed that entire thread as wikipedia sourced when I have the statements from all of the (then) groups considered in the consensus. Read the begining of the thread! DO you have a problem with my criteria of how to assess the reality of the so-called consensus? If not, I beg you to amend my analysis there using my criteria with the new science groups that werent on the wikipedia page in 2007.


that is a different thread.


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
It's of little surprise that you've completely skipped over the link that shows the criteria for the 31,000+ plus scientists who have signed the petition, while also dismissing the Senates smaller list of climate scientists. I prefer individuals over organizations, as a libertarian. All of those groups have funding to gain. Many of the 9100 Phd's surely already have their jobs whether or not there is global warming alarmism.


Are you saying that these 9100 phds and the collective 31,000 total skeptic scientists are engaged in a debate over the validity of ACC? I thought there was no debate?

And I still have not seen who these people are other than a list of names. what about their professions and their degrees?


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And even if those groups do EXPLICITLY endorse AGW, its no wonder you keep all of your focus on teh consensus, because AGW falls even further to pieces the further you get away from this facet, which if you could tell us the supposed human impact then we could get into those flaws.


Becasue you dont get a % of the roll humans play you assume that the certainty that humans are playing a roll is made irrelevant. i can not talk you out of embracing ignorance, that it your responsibility.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal

Hey Red, it has been awhile, nice to see you, hope your doing well

Nice to see you as well Animal! And of course, I offer the same well-wishes.



First off, I for one realize that the shift away from a purely carbon based energy source does in no way mean the complete removal of it from our catalog of energy sources.

That is all I am saying, my friend. Of course we should continue to pursue alternative resources. But too many people are spending too much time trying too hard to press the argument that we don't need fossil fuels at all. That is completely false at this time.

I am actively looking into alternative ways to produce energy. I will admit it does irk me a bit when people don't get the idea that development takes time and money, and all the money at present available for R&D is being shunted into larger companies who have a financial stake in the status quo.


Second, Climate Change is linked to a HOST of human produced chemicals not just CO2 so we should also remember we have other changes to make as well.

I believe the only real argument we have on this is about the significance of CO2. We agree on the other pollutants. I have a serious concern that the subject of CO2 is being used (either intentionally or unintentionally) to draw the public concern away from some seriously toxic pollutants. You have to admit that it is the single most prevalent topic whenever emissions are discussed.


Again fair enough but not a legitimate argument for not working to bolster our supply with alternatives and thus reduce our impacts. This is not a black and white and when it is it is in error.

But I would suggest it is a reasonable argument for not stopping fossil fuel use while we wait for these new technologies to emerge (and I am sure they will in time).


There is also a switch to predominately public (mass) transit as well mate.

Not where I live.

In heavily populated areas, yes, public transportation is a wonderful approach to increasing efficiency. However, there are vast areas where it is simply not practical. It is 2 miles to the nearest store for me, and they have little outside gasoline, milk, and bread (all of it overpriced). The nearest town is 5 miles away, and it is so small they don't even have a traffic light. The only advantage is that the general store there sells some hardware (still overpriced).

To get to a shopping area, I have to travel closer to 10 miles. If I need something out of the ordinary (machining tools are a good example), it's more like 50 miles. The only buses that have graced the road I live on within my entire lifetime are school buses.

Sure, public transportation is wonderful and should be used as much as practical. But it is not the end-all be-all, nor will it ever be. Private transportation is, for some of us, a necessity.


It [solar] is during the day

Of course it is, as long as the weather is clear and sunny. I admitted to that, implied when I stated it was not much help at night.


Batteries are best used ON SITE not in a grid tied situation.

No need, people with batteries would not be grid tied just as they are now.

I am assuming you are suggesting a sporatic (as in solar) grid system that would charge batteries, then used for actual electrical needs. The amount of solar cells needed to power a typical home would be far in excess of what most could house simply due to the physical size of the needed array.

In that case, I ask you: what happens when those batteries fail? Suppose the failure is in the middle of winter, during the wee hours when it is impossible to replace the batteries?

Off-grid existence is possible, but it is also impractical for most. I do not see that situation changing for the immediate future.

I will grant that if you are referring to supplemental on-site production, the yes, that is technology which could be helpful. I do think you overestimate its supplemental ability, however.


#1 it is still a fledgling technology as you well know.

As a major producer of electrical energy, yes it is. Although windmills themselves have been around for quite some time for other energy uses.


#2 I would LOVE to see the law suits your talking about, share them please?

I just went through over 50 pages of Google results trying to find it. So far it is swallowed up among the lawsuits over strictly environmental concerns: noise, wildlife, etc. So while I will continue searching, at this time I cannot produce such proof.

If you wish to search as well, it was one established wind farm challenging the construction of a proposed wind farm to be built upwind. In the briefs, the plaintiff alleged that the proposed farm would 'steal wind' from the existing farm.

Would help if I could remember the date... I hate old age...



#3 with time Wind Power can offer more and more power to the grid and no one expects it or solar or any ONE thing to supply all the power, again this is the fatal flaw of your argument every time I see you arguing AGAINST alternative energy.

Again, I am not arguing against alternative energy... I am arguing against moves to stop the use of fossil fuels while alternatives are being developed.

Such was not mentioned specifically, but I did see it as implied. This as a result of many similar debates on this subject.


Everything has an impact and I suppose there is a chance that wind farms will alter wind patterns but only those opposed to alternative energy seem to be worried about it.

Did you just say "the only people that are opposed are those who are opposed"?

I only recommend that the technology is studied as it is implemented, which is in fact going on right now. Nowhere will you find a statement by me that we should place a moratorium on wind farms. I have driven by many of them, and they are an awesome testament to the ingenuity of mankind.


Nuclear power is NOT good. anything that produces a waste product so highly volatile and dangerous is NOT good... Regardless of where or how you bury that waste.

Disposal does not necessarily mean burial. I agree that simply burying nuclear waste is a bad idea. However, I do keep hearing about research into neutralizing the waste.

One good thing about nuclear energy is that it would allow us to cut back on fossil fuels despite not having all the answers yet. The waste can be disposed of at a later date, meaning any storage of such would be considered temporary. In contrast, we can't simply put up solar panels and assume they will produce power at needed levels until the technology to allow them to do so is unearthed.

Yes, I know this has the drawback of "what if we can't neutralize it?" To that question I respond, "What if we can't manage to replace fossil fuels with alternative energies?"

Also, you should remember that the amount of actual nuclear waste, while highly toxic and highly radioactive, is small. We're not talking about a mountain of the stuff.


Aw, how cute, Red's simplistic fatalism is showing again.

Aw, how cute, Animal missed the point again.



I agree, so why all the whining about the alternatives, they do after all produce energy and can contribute to the load?

Is there some unwritten law that states only one type of power source (thing fossil fuels) can be used at any one time?

There most certainly is not! However, that was never my position.

All of the alternatives being investigated are worthy of continuing advancement and use (and I am excited about wave generation, which I left out above). However, all of them combined cannot at this time produce enough power to satisfy the needs of society. Therefore, fossil fuels cannot at this time be removed from our list of potential energy sources.

Do you disagree with this statement?


Yup, we do often focus to much on CO2 and not the other pollutants.

You knwo I always enjoy your threads, your a smart guys, and I hope some day I can convince you that just because wind, solar, biomass, hydro, or some other alternative can not supply us with ALL the power we need does not mean we should abandon them.

I believe you read too much into my replies. You have an ally to the facts that
  • Alternative energies deserve consideration and should be used wherever practical, and
  • the major focus on pollution should not be focused so heavily on CO2 alone.
See how easy that was?


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Animal

Hey Red, it has been awhile, nice to see you, hope your doing well

Nice to see you as well Animal! And of course, I offer the same well-wishes.





(animal) First off, I for one realize that the shift away from a purely carbon based energy source does in no way mean the complete removal of it from our catalog of energy sources.

(Reneck
That is all I am saying, my friend. Of course we should continue to pursue alternative resources. But too many people are spending too much time trying too hard to press the argument that we don't need fossil fuels at all. That is completely false at this time.


Ah agreement, so rare in threads such as these i juts need a minute to bask in the warm glow of bright minds coming together.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
I am actively looking into alternative ways to produce energy. I will admit it does irk me a bit when people don't get the idea that development takes time and money, and all the money at present available for R&D is being shunted into larger companies who have a financial stake in the status quo.


And again we agree.



(animal): Second, Climate Change is linked to a HOST of human produced chemicals not just CO2 so we should also remember we have other changes to make as well.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
I believe the only real argument we have on this is about the significance of CO2. We agree on the other pollutants. I have a serious concern that the subject of CO2 is being used (either intentionally or unintentionally) to draw the public concern away from some seriously toxic pollutants. You have to admit that it is the single most prevalent topic whenever emissions are discussed.


Absolutely. A fatal flaw n the entire debate.



(animal): Again fair enough but not a legitimate argument for not working to bolster our supply with alternatives and thus reduce our impacts. This is not a black and white and when it is it is in error.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
But I would suggest it is a reasonable argument for not stopping fossil fuel use while we wait for these new technologies to emerge (and I am sure they will in time).


Of course. However we could be doing much more to increase efficiency of our use of this resource and pollutant.


(animal): There is also a switch to predominately public (mass) transit as well mate.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Not where I live.


I would never push for using alternatives to the present model where such alternatives would not make sense. However even in your area the use of a rail/tractor trailer shipping hybrid would be an example of what i am talking about as well.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
In heavily populated areas, yes, public transportation is a wonderful approach to increasing efficiency. However, there are vast areas where it is simply not practical. It is 2 miles to the nearest store for me, and they have little outside gasoline, milk, and bread (all of it overpriced). The nearest town is 5 miles away, and it is so small they don't even have a traffic light. The only advantage is that the general store there sells some hardware (still overpriced).


And in such cases there would be no point in implementing public transit.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Sure, public transportation is wonderful and should be used as much as practical. But it is not the end-all be-all, nor will it ever be. Private transportation is, for some of us, a necessity.


Again we agree.



(animal): It [solar] is during the day



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Of course it is, as long as the weather is clear and sunny. I admitted to that, implied when I stated it was not much help at night.


My friends in Minnesota and Vermont (Im in New Mexico we don't know what clouds are) tell me there systems work well in summer and winter despite the increases in cloud cover. Not as well but well enough. I think the notion that on a cloudy day you get no power is over stated.


(animal): Batteries are best used ON SITE not in a grid tied situation.

No need, people with batteries would not be grid tied just as they are now.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
I am assuming you are suggesting a sporatic (as in solar) grid system that would charge batteries, then used for actual electrical needs. The amount of solar cells needed to power a typical home would be far in excess of what most could house simply due to the physical size of the needed array.


Not true, there are MANY MANY MANY examples of off the grid systems.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
In that case, I ask you: what happens when those batteries fail? Suppose the failure is in the middle of winter, during the wee hours when it is impossible to replace the batteries?


Candles? Also I have never herd of anyone having a catastrophic failure of there cells. I am sure it can happen but it would be rare.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Off-grid existence is possible, but it is also impractical for most. I do not see that situation changing for the immediate future.


It could be expanded and adapted to make it more viable, such as small scale collectives that work together to generate and store power.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I've no idea what IIB meant by CO2's influence on 'nature's GHGs' - perhaps feedbacks? But you both seem to actually be focusing on CO2's influence on climate.

Anywayz...don't know why I'm bothering but here goes...


Originally posted by Animal
just because I can not tell you the % humans play in climate change is no good reason to ignore our actions....


It's not too hard to work out a guide from the IPCC reports. From AR4 synthesis:


There is very high confidence that the global average net
effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming,
with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2


We could work out rough bounds of radiative forcing:

Solar is estimated at .12Wm-2 (+0.06 to +.30). So talking solar at maximum (.3) and anthro at minimum (.6):

total forcing = .9Wm-2, anthro = .6/.9 = 66%

At minimum solar (.06) and maximum anthro (2.4):

total forcing = 2.46; anthro = 2.4/2.46 = 97%

So somewhere between 66% to 97% of the radiative forcing is not a bad estimate of anthropogenic influences since 1750. Includes all anthro influences (GHGs and black carbon etc).

Of all positive forcings, CO2 provides around 50%ish since 1750. Although Pielke Sr for some reason pushes it down to 40%ish on a whim (he's big on anthro land use).

Ciao



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I will grant that if you are referring to supplemental on-site production, the yes, that is technology which could be helpful. I do think you overestimate its supplemental ability, however.


Hardly. I have seen people make stunning contributions via solar to their energy use.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
If you wish to search as well, it was one established wind farm challenging the construction of a proposed wind farm to be built upwind. In the briefs, the plaintiff alleged that the proposed farm would 'steal wind' from the existing farm.

Would help if I could remember the date... I hate old age...



Sounds like a good read thanks for the heads up. and i feel the same way about getting older....


(animal): #3 with time Wind Power can offer more and more power to the grid and no one expects it or solar or any ONE thing to supply all the power, again this is the fatal flaw of your argument every time I see you arguing AGAINST alternative energy.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Again, I am not arguing against alternative energy... I am arguing against moves to stop the use of fossil fuels while alternatives are being developed.


Listen I like you and I don't want to be overly harsh or critical but I think if you really looked at what you write and take the time to analyze your tone and its apparent intention you would agree that you often come across as against alternative energy. I have debated the topic with you enough to know better but that is very often how your posts read.

Such was not mentioned specifically, but I did see it as implied. This as a result of many similar debates on this subject.


(animal): Everything has an impact and I suppose there is a chance that wind farms will alter wind patterns but only those opposed to alternative energy seem to be worried about it.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Did you just say "the only people that are opposed are those who are opposed"?


eh, kind of. more specifically i was saying that those who raise their concerns for the potential impacts of wind farms on natural wind patterns thus on natural planetary systems tend to be those who are opposed to alternative energy. so in many ways i regard this argument as nothing more than an attempt at obstructing hte growth of the alternate energy market with unfounded concerns.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I only recommend that the technology is studied as it is implemented, which is in fact going on right now. Nowhere will you find a statement by me that we should place a moratorium on wind farms. I have driven by many of them, and they are an awesome testament to the ingenuity of mankind.


Fair enough mate.



(animal): Nuclear power is NOT good. anything that produces a waste product so highly volatile and dangerous is NOT good... Regardless of where or how you bury that waste.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Disposal does not necessarily mean burial. I agree that simply burying nuclear waste is a bad idea. However, I do keep hearing about research into neutralizing the waste.


If we could develop a extremely high percentage (upper 99's) surety that we would not produce leaks, spills, ect I would support this technology. If not the risks are too great.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
One good thing about nuclear energy is that it would allow us to cut back on fossil fuels despite not having all the answers yet.


With an even more dangerous energy source? Please mate. . . .


Originally posted by TheRedneck
The waste can be disposed of at a later date, meaning any storage of such would be considered temporary.


I really cant understand why intelligent people go down this path. . .


Originally posted by TheRedneck
In contrast, we can't simply put up solar panels and assume they will produce power at needed levels until the technology to allow them to do so is unearthed.


But we can continue to use fossil fuels especially natural gas which is, as far as i know, the cleanest form.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, I know this has the drawback of "what if we can't neutralize it?" To that question I respond, "What if we can't manage to replace fossil fuels with alternative energies?"


I would rather take my changes in a world polluted to the teeth with carbon than nuclear waste. the toxic avenger scares the hell out of me.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Also, you should remember that the amount of actual nuclear waste, while highly toxic and highly radioactive, is small. We're not talking about a mountain of the stuff.


But due to its nature only a small amount is needed to cause major problems.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
All of the alternatives being investigated are worthy of continuing advancement and use (and I am excited about wave generation, which I left out above). However, all of them combined cannot at this time produce enough power to satisfy the needs of society. Therefore, fossil fuels cannot at this time be removed from our list of potential energy sources.


And I agree with you.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Do you disagree with this statement?


Never have, never will.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I believe you read too much into my replies. You have an ally to the facts that
  • Alternative energies deserve consideration and should be used wherever practical, and
  • the major focus on pollution should not be focused so heavily on CO2 alone.
See how easy that was?


TheRedneck


Always a pleasure mate.




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks for that mate.


I appreciate someone else dropping in with the math.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
Well, 550 gigatons are "natural" from plants decomposing, breathing, etc.

35 gigatons a year are man-made from burning fossil fuels.


While 35 is an order of magnitude smaller than 500, we need to understand the sensitivity of observables to these numbers. You can have a kilo of plutonium in a configuration just below the critical mass, and then you decide to add extra 100g of that metal because it doesn't seem like much... Then of course things go boom.

As long as there are peer-reviewed mathematical models indicating a sizeable dependency of temperature levels on greenhouse gas, and also the possibilities of positive feedback (such as thawing of the tundra that can become a runaway process) it's prudent to err on the size of less emissions. Again, physics is telling us the certain gases trap IR. We need to listen.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks for that mate.


I appreciate someone else dropping in with the math.


So can you now tell us what threat humans pose?

I cant respond to your full repsonse at this moment, but I did note you said you dont write policy. So you want us all to freak out but offer no policy solutions? Should we all just argue about everything for the hey of it?

If we go by the number just above to what lengths should we go to over humans causing a 7% increase in CO2? How much human poverty, deindustrialization and detriment is it worth? How many trillions should be spent on marginal reductions over decades of time? What degrees of taxes should the citizens of earth be forced to pay? And before you answer that, are you aware that poverty breeds destruction of the environment virtually everywhere on earth poverty exists?

[edit on 23-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Ignoranceisntbliss? interesting name choice.

you derailed your own thread. you argue in circles and ignore every bit of evidence offered to you. you choose to play worthless and pointless games such as:


So you want us all to freak out but offer no policy solutions? Should we all just argue about everything for the hey of it?


what does this have to do with your thread? what does this have to do with the debate you and i have been having? in my opinion, nothing.

what i am arguing about is simple, you asked what it would take for me to change my stance on global climate change and i told you, a consensus among scientists who study the phenomenon. to which you have responded with argument after argument that as far as i can tell have little or no merit.

honestly, continuing to debate the topic with you is absolutely pointless. your more interested in your right wing (yes as far as i am concerned libertarians are right wing) talking points. fine. enjoy the box.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The thread has long been derailed, look at your other discussions going on in this very page for proof of that. But you're the one complaining. Only a few responses were even responded on topic of the OP.

No argument or reality will get you to budge one single inch on your stance, not even if the groups you cite were lied to by the IPCC and their climate charletans, as is currently being exposed with their own words, and if the groups have profits to gain from climate policy. Judging by the groups is flawed because you can bet not 100% of their members support AGW, and you completely ignored the 31,000+ scientists once you saw the climate related criteria to sign the petition. Show me more than 31,000 INDIVIDUAL scientists that supports AGW. You wouldnt even budge on the fact the 75% of the papers in your study refered to warming during a warm period and it has been twisted into the idea that 100% of them say humans CAUSED it, which the papers dont.

It became pointless debating you on that matter 3 pages ago. But you preached on behavior changes and freaking out about the cliamte so I figured I'd pick your brain on maybe get some perspective into what to do about it. Apparently you dont have any answers.

I edited my last post while you were already responding, btw.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal

Ah agreement, so rare in threads such as these i juts need a minute to bask in the warm glow of bright minds coming together.

And again we agree.

Absolutely. A fatal flaw n the entire debate.

Gee, so much agreement... why are we debating?



Of course. However we could be doing much more to increase efficiency of our use of this resource and pollutant.

Actually, I would hazard to say that if the present regulations on pollution alone were implemented across the board without regard to lobbyists and special interests, it would make a huge difference. As an example, I point you to this thread: 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world. That is a perfect example of one group forced to do their part in lessening SO2 emissions (a good thing), while another group gets what is essentially a free ride.

That's not to denigrate attempts to do better, just an observation that the attempts we have made are not even working as well as they could.


I would never push for using alternatives to the present model where such alternatives would not make sense. However even in your area the use of a rail/tractor trailer shipping hybrid would be an example of what i am talking about as well.

In a way, that is what we have. The only product is agricultural, and the harvests are trucked to warehouses which have depot terminals.

The only possible improvement would be to build train tracks to every field, which is obviously impractical.


And in such cases there would be no point in implementing public transit.

Herein, I believe, lies the difference in our arguments. While I do not dispute your position here, there are those who argue your position, but from the perspective of increasing the cost of fossil fuels to prohibitive levels. That works fine in heavily-populated areas, where public transit is an option, but to those in rural areas it is a major economic blow, and potentially a fatal one.

That is why I argue so vehemently against such ridiculous schemes as Cap & Trade. No one in power is considering the effect on those who live differently from themselves. And enough people live in cities as opposed to rural areas that it brings to bear an old definition of Democracy I once heard:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

I'm no lamb.


I think the notion that on a cloudy day you get no power is over stated.

I have to concede that I may well have implied this; you are correct that there is a drop in power production, but not a complete loss.

Of course, this brings up another problem with solar power. The voltage of any circuit must be within a predetermined range that the circuit is designed to handle. If, for example, your system works off 12 volts and converts it to household current, it will not power appliances properly if the voltage drops far below that. Most inverters will simply shut off at 10 volts. So a drop of only 17% means that while power may be produced from the cells themselves, it is unusable.

Advances have been made to allow for greater voltage differentials that that, but these introduce an inherent inefficiency into the system. And all have limits on the amount of voltage drop they can handle.


Not true, there are MANY MANY MANY examples of off the grid systems.

Yes there are, but most have a grid connection to be used as a backup... a wise move, I might add.

Also, for every self-sufficient household, how many are still tied to the grid? Populated areas simply do not allow for full production of typical electrical needs using known technology.


Candles?




Also I have never herd of anyone having a catastrophic failure of there cells. I am sure it can happen but it would be rare.

Typically batteries are replaced at periodic intervals in the systems I am aware of. If that replacement is not made, the possibility for catastrophic failure increases drastically.

Thus far, those who have installed self-generating systems are personally involved in doing such. Should this become the norm, however, more people who would be predisposed to stretching maintenance requirements would own such, and thus the failure rate would skyrocket.

I mean, really, most of the population can't remember to change the oil in their car.



It could be expanded and adapted to make it more viable, such as small scale collectives that work together to generate and store power.

True; that would work. As a matter fact, I can prove it would work: it is the same system of power distribution we use today, only on a smaller scale.



Hardly. I have seen people make stunning contributions via solar to their energy use.

And I have seen people see practically no difference. As with any industry, viability for mass consumption is better served by a mean than by specific reports. That mean, I assume, is somewhere between our respective anecdotes.


Sounds like a good read thanks for the heads up.

No prob. I caught the story on the news some time back and thought it interesting. Too bad I didn't think it interesting enough to locate and bookmark a link.



I have debated the topic with you enough to know better but that is very often how your posts read.



No offense taken.

I will admit that possibility. It's not easy to get me excited about new technology, probably because I have seen so many ways it can fail to come to fruition. Unforeseen problems, initial calculation or logic errors, problems obtaining funding, poor management, ineffective advertising... the list goes on. And notice that the majority of the causes I listed had little to nothing to do with actual viability of the technology.

So yeah, maybe I am a little jaded about new technology.

I apologize if that comes through my posts in an unintended fashion. I will try to counter that in the future. Thank you for that heads-up!



more specifically i was saying that those who raise their concerns for the potential impacts of wind farms on natural wind patterns thus on natural planetary systems tend to be those who are opposed to alternative energy.

Fair enough. The difference (which apparently comes through in my post, as you point out above) is that I consider effect on prevailing wind patterns to be something to be monitored, while some do indeed want to stop all wind-based power production. Oh, would that we had had the foresight to monitor SO2 concentrations back when we first began burning crude oil products!

But I couldn't resist pointing out the illogic in that.
Please forgive my sometimes warped sense of humor.


If we could develop a extremely high percentage (upper 99's) surety that we would not produce leaks, spills, ect I would support this technology. If not the risks are too great.

I worked for six years in a local nuclear plant, in my first full-time job. I can assure you that the troubling reports one hears over the media are exaggerated. Every single system in that plant had at least one duplicate back-up system, every indicator is dual monitored, and crews are there around the clock to repair any systems that went down. Maintenance is rigid and strictly controlled by the NRC, which has the (deserved) reputation of a rabid bulldog having a bad day. Any deviation outside of proper parameters is an immediate shutdown.

Leaks are typically not radioactive. Only one area of that plant is subjected to radioactivity: the reactor building (I still laugh when I see a picture characterizing radioactive smoke coming from a cooling tower). Inside it there is an enclosed water loop that carries heat from the fuel rods to a heat exchanger just outside the primary containment wall. From there, a secondary water loop carries the heat outside the reactor building (through the secondary containment wall) to another heat exchanger. That water loop carries heat to the steam generators and finally out to the cooling towers. In the event of a meltdown, there is a way to flood the reactor building with river water, but even that is (theoretically) contained until cleanup crews can respond.

I have heard about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (used the same reactor design as this one I worked in), and I watched the China Syndrome. But after working in that plant, I have no concerns about living 7 miles away.


With an even more dangerous energy source? Please mate. . . .

I take it from that answer you see fossil fuels as preferable to nuclear?


I really cant understand why intelligent people go down this path. . .

It's so well-worn and clear, plus they planted flowers along one side last year.


Seriously, I don't think it is a good idea either. I only wanted to illustrate that this is the same path some would take us down by removing fossil fuels from our available energy sources.

Never burn a bridge until you know for a fact there is a good one at the next crossing.


But we can continue to use fossil fuels especially natural gas which is, as far as i know, the cleanest form.

In terms of energy produced versus CO2 produced, yes, it is the cleanest energy. It isn't well suited to present transportation infrastructure, but is well-suited to heating applications.

And I agree: we need that fossil fuel bridge until we get the next one finished.



I would rather take my changes in a world polluted to the teeth with carbon than nuclear waste. the toxic avenger scares the hell out of me.

What, you don't like Troma Films?


Seriously, radioactive waste can be a terrible thing, but the number of safety nets that are in use make a true catastrophe less likely than the sun going supernova tomorrow.



But due to its nature only a small amount is needed to cause major problems.

Touche

You got the last point.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

While 35 is an order of magnitude smaller than 500, we need to understand the sensitivity of observables to these numbers. You can have a kilo of plutonium in a configuration just below the critical mass, and then you decide to add extra 100g of that metal because it doesn't seem like much... Then of course things go boom.

While I understand your metaphor, comparing CO2 levels at an order of 380ppmv to enriched plutonium just shy of critical mass is somewhat disingenuous IMO.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
your more interested in your right wing (yes as far as i am concerned libertarians are right wing) talking points.


The funny thing is when I debate republicans / neocons they usually end up calling me a liberal.


It's a symptom of what I like to call Binary Psychosis. Left/right, on/off, good/evil, republican/democrat, 0/1, etc. Were you raised Christian? There can only be good or evil, nothing in between.

The best is how each side actually thinks they're right about everything. As if one side is completely right on all major issues, with the other being completely insane.

I've done extensive work debunking both the global warmonger War on Terror and Global WARMongering. Global Warming is the Left wing of the NWO's version of 9/11, and vice versa. It's all a fearmongering scam with both roads leading to the same destination: global technological totalitarianism.




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join