Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Emissions Reached Record High In 2010
iONiUM writes "Last year, greenhouse gas emissions rose to a record amount of 30.6 gigatons, according to estimates from the International Energy Agency. From an article at the Guardian: 'Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path... would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.'"
jamie points out a recent report that the cost of solar cells has dropped about 21 percent this year, leading to predictions that solar power may become cheaper than nuclear and fossil power within five years.
> a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100
And a 50% chance of it not rising by more than 4C degrees by 2100.
Love sees no species.
Polycrystalline PV cells went down this year because there is a glut, a crapload of panels were produced for an order and then not purchased and now they are being dumped into the retail channel with benefits for all who are not making them. This is a momentary lull. And where the fuck is my Nanosolar? I want some to cover a 1962 Streamline travel trailer. It has a curved roof and I don't want to use trackers (I want to maintain aerodynamics) so Nanosolar glued to the roof panels would be an ideal solution.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You can NOT have a story about solar power without a prediction somewhere with the ole "in the next 5-10 years". It's amazing that 15 years of reading such articles, the solar power industry always seems to be 5-10 years away from a major boom.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
There are lots of excellent alternatives to fossil fuels coming down the pike: solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, fuel cells. I like the idea of solar cells on every rooftop, with hydrogen fuel cells in the basement to capture the surplus daytime power and recharge the electric cars overnight. I also like the idea of a windmill at every major intersection, to power a square mile or so of residences and businesses.
They're building a big solar thermal power plant in the Mojave desert, to accompany several others already up and running. Arizona's building a big one as well.
Solar photovoltaic technology is advancing, both in efficiency and in cheaper manufacturing costs. I think ultimately solar will provide 20-25% of people's electric needs.
And transportation is going to be electric, as batteries improve. Hybrid car sales are huge, and every manufacturer is getting into the act. They're somewhat expensive today, but economies of scale and improvements in the tech will only bring down costs and increase profits. Probably in 20 years every car on the road will be either a hybrid or fully electric.
What'll be interesting will be to see just how much impact this eventual shift away from combustible carbon fuels has on the climate. The scientific community largely agrees that humans have caused global warming, but what happens if we stop being the cause and it still gets warmer? All that carbon we've already produced is to blame? Or is it a few major volcanoes in the past century? Or climate shifts that have little to do with human activities? Should be an interesting 88 years coming up; wish I could be around to see it happen. But my daughter will, I hope.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
"would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.'"
Is there any chance we could see the error bar on that 4C temperature change... With that long a prediction I suspect the correct scientific representation would be
4C +- 100C (Remember, that is a 90 year extrapolation!)
Well, I would like to see it in details. First of all there were huge wild fires last year, and we got harsh winter too - so CO2 release can easily be attributed to this. Also winter made lot of not so smart people believe that global warming is a scam or not so serious as thought and released breaks.
Anyway, we need long term technological solutions. People are working on it. So let's hope it will be good enough.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I believe the climate change deniers logic goes something like this:
If Earth's climate warms by just 3 degrees...
adjust your air conditioner.
we're coming out of the great recession!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So if tornadoes are a "certain connection" to global warming, how come I'm freezing my ass off in New England? (And not just this year, but also the last 3 winters.) Summer has also been cooler than normal.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
and were not going to do anything even when it's too late.
the powers that be are going to let lots of people die because it's profitable.
too many people...
Absolute statements are never true
I personally think this is overplayed... The worst we can do is to put the CO2 levels back to what they were in the dinosaur days... Yes, I agree that the atmosphere this time is much thinner, and I also agree that it will create a different equilibrium of weather patterns. As always, we will get by, however...
Its really simple. People are stupid in analyzing risk. They tend to underplay risk that is common or that they control and exagerrate risk that is out of their control or is unusual. If eating say garlic hamburgers gave you a 10% risk of death by heart attack, they wont bat an eye. But if there was a 1% chance of death from vampires, then they would gladly eat garlic hamburgers. Death by vampiric attack is more attention getting than heart attack. Is nuclear power risky? yes but the consequences are arguably less severe than global warming + peak oil. However people still irrationally fear nuclear power more since the dangers of nuclear power are more attention getting and unusual This is thinking irraitonally.
Sooo....
reduce my Pepsi intake + get my spine "adjusted" by one of you quacks == live forever!
Somebody had to.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
How long to we have to listen to endless stories on the need for "Climate Control" measures? I've been hearing dire forecast for 20 years, none of which has ever even remotely come true. Let's face it Climate control is not about Climate, it's about control.
Just as the ozone layer is rebuilding itself? Maybe it's because we cut down on all that laughing gas?
How about:
No one important seems to give a shit, so why shoud I?
My parents caused all this, and they don't give a shit, so why should I?
I'm lied to daily, and I no longer trust anything that's said.
I need to pay my bills or I'll die. I'll worry about climate change when my other problems are sorted.
Life is just too short to worry about climate change.
-- or maybe something inbetween?
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Weather is complex. Global Warming may have a large or small effect on these tornadoes. The Global Warming debate is more about politics then science. Back in the 70's and 80's they were complaining about smog (as it was a major political issue, it can be seen, smelt and noticed) Rules and regulation made automobiles and factories to greatly reduce smog in cities. However during that fight they were the anti-car group of political active environmentalist, who really has been trying to get rid of cars. As cars stop producing mass amount of the really nasty stuff and mainly CO2 the global warming CO2 connection got their attention and allowed them to continue the fight (as any activists groups biggest fear is winning, because then they loose a voice and loose funding and will need to get a different job).
These most vocal people on both sides have little or nothing to do with science, they will scrape for reports that support their idea and put a marketing push to get their ideas out.
We need alternate energy. Because we need to keep our options open, Nuclear, Solar, Hydroelectric, other methods are important, we need to keep our sources diverse
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
jamie points out a recent report that the cost of solar cells has dropped about 21 percent this year, leading to predictions that solar power may become cheaper than nuclear and fossil power within five years.
Which in turn says:
If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which Iâ(TM)m hopeful that we will do, youâ(TM)re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,
Basically, they are hoping to be competitive with consumer rates and are decades away, at best, and if ever, from being competitive with base load rates. That's an idiotic statement of someone trying to drive stock prices which have absolute no connection with reality.
For solar, it would literally be a major break through to provide peak load competitive prices and they are no where near being close to being competitive with base load generation. Even moreso, voltaic requires HALF the price of base load to be competitive with base load as it can only generate power half the time. Only solar-thermal looks to be able to ever be price competitive with base load pricing and even that is just now coming out of the gate.
Reality says the commentary is full of shit.
Also AFAIK, there is no "certain connection" between "climate change" (formerly called "global warming") and the tornadoes but there is a "possible connection".
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
There have been several informative studies which have shows that an increase of carbon dioxide intake (through soda) leads to an increase in obesity, diabetes and overall ill-health.
I'm sure the high sugar content has nothing to do with it.
So is this a call to belch more?
Haven't we hit peak oil? The problem will take care of itself when we have no fossil fuels to burn.
Oh my frikken god. Are you out of your mind?
People have died of cancer from the earliest of times -- they just called it something else, and quite often "a curse."
Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that is even generated by the human body. We exhale it all day long! "Taking in CO2" also happens all day long unless you can somehow magically clear it from the atmosphere prior to inhaling. (At which point, you will get amazingly high from having too much O2)
GO TO SCHOOL or something. Your snake oil is simply disgusting here.
Increasing water intake is good for most of us unless you are already taking in a proper amount each day. But did you know that taking in too much can cause problems too? Some people have even died from it. So doling out advice like "drink plenty of water" is potentially dangerous as there is no specification as to what "plenty" means and is potentially subject to misinterpretation.
It's lovely that you sprinkle in some "good advice" with your quackery. But that's how religion and other lies get spread and become believable.
At the dawn of the industrial revolution, people did get sick and die of all sorts of terrible things INCLUDING cancer and now treatable conditions. They did die of "old age" when it was considered natural for people to lose their teeth in their 30's and to die before 50. Deaths of the sort that were experienced in those days were considered "natural causes" back then. So when your assertions are wrong from the start, your conclusions are unquestionably broken at the end.
You are probably the most dangerous sort of pseudo-intellectual. You actually don't know what you don't know.
Winter wasn't *colder* than normal. It was *wetter* than normal. You're freezing your ass off because your house isn't properly insulated (not your fault--very few houses are, but that's why). You've been cold because it's been wet, and we've been having a lot of weather coming down from the north, rather than up from the south. The lack of sun due to all the cloudy weather has protected your house from solar gain, and kept it cool. The cold night temperatures, which are typical in may, have cooled the outside of your house further, and the thermal delay of the walls means that that cold works its way into your house over the course of the morning. This month, it's typically been warmer during the day *outside* of the Victorian-era house I'm renting than inside, because of this effect, although the last three days that hasn't been the case because it's gotten sunny.
The reason they call it "global warming" is that the average temperature goes up. The effect on local climates varies. Having said that, I'm not convinced that this is going to be a cold summer in New England. It was bloody hot on Sunday. It's not June yet, so it's not surprising that the cold trend is breaking now, and not earlier.
I live in Tunisia, north of Africa, one country with a "moderate" climate.
Lately winters became a joke. When I was a kid I used to wear a bunch of shirts and a coat to feel warm in February. For the last 5 years: It barely rained at all.
Funny thing is, we still didn't have *hot* summer days yet, despite it being the season. (Heck, right now, it's cloudy and windy like fuck. If one day someone told me it would rain in the beginning of July here, I would have wished it was true.)
I believe the global warmist argument goes like this:
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Thought you said "killer tomatoes" for a second there...
People fear Nuclear power because the dangers are terrible. People don't fear coal power because of all the successful lobbying by the coal industry. That anyone can look you in the face and say the words "clean coal" is beyond astounding. The fact that coal is terrible, however, does not make nuclear great. The simple truth is that humans have demonstrated themselves to be generally incapable of safely operating nuclear plants under capitalism, which is how the entire world is run. (Ask China's leaders how their bank accounts are doing...)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I believe the climate change deniers logic goes something like this:
5) Blame the climate scientists for not making a big enough deal about it... actually, obscuring the truth by lying about it and causing a whole lot of angsty doubt about the reliability of various measurements and how they have unequivocally supported the environment all along.
Excellent summary!
I'll be dead by then. I say we burn up every last bit of oil that exists and leave the next generations to be the hippies who become one with earth.
The trolls... don't feed them.
Yes, it's that simple: increase your water
intake.
As your body breaks down the water, the oxygen within floods
to all your cells helping to push out the bad CO2.
You may be confusing CO (binds in place of oxygen, e.g. to hemoglobin) with CO2 (does not bind in place of oxygen, so even if your stomach was the electrolysis chamber you seem to think, there's no plausible mechanism for oxygen to "push out the bad CO2."
And what happens to the hydrogen, eh?
Answer: Numbers may rise or drop by milions of percent or gazilion of gigatons, but the fact remains: greenhouse gases are still __less than 0.04%__ of earth's atmosphere. IPCC are lawyers not scientists.
So if tornadoes are a "certain connection" to global warming, how come I'm freezing my ass off in New England? (And not just this year, but also the last 3 winters.) Summer has also been cooler than normal.
Wow, you really are nothing more than a troll now, huh? That's too bad, I remember when your comments were cool. For those who really want to know the answer to this and have been confused by this troll, global warming is global, and what is going on in your backyard is only part of the picture; hope this helps.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Alternatively if it's fixed then that proves it was a hoax, just like Y2K, acid rain, and the ozone hole.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Someday most of us will figure out as people get more and more uneducated, they will fear and not understand technology, it's evil and causes evil things. We'll all be back in caves soon enough.
Have a nice day believers. (^_^)
[Complicated climate-change denier flowcharts]
My dad has a much, much simpler version of this:
Why? Why bother, I mean? What, exactly, are we hoping to accomplish by trying to develop stricter emission standards year after year? We're obviously not really solving the problem... and although granted, we may be possibly slowing down the rate at which it would otherwise happen if we didn't do anything, it doesn't take a genus to realize that if the measures you are taking to solve a problem aren't really getting you any closer to a solution, then perhaps it's time to try to switch tactics.
It won't be easy. It won't be cheap. But it will be worth it.
Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of the human race is either too cheap or too lazy, or else too consumed with making as much money as they can right here and now to be willing to actually do something about it. And the rest are just a vocal minority who unfortunately don't have the power to effect any significant change.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"I need to pay my bills or I'll die."
Wow! what country has executions for not paying your bills?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"You're freezing your ass off because your house isn't properly insulated (not your fault--very few houses are, but that's why)."
If you own your house and it's not properly insulated..... it is in fact your fault. You cant sidestep that fact.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Dinosaur propaganda!
More seriously : a) we are not dinosaurs and b) the sun is hotter now than it was then.
People misunderstand what climate changes actually are. So let's break it down in terms of what evidence of previous climate changes have been.
The fossil record shows that places which are now desert were once lush tropical areas or even oceans. Areas which are now rich, green life areas were also once desert or oceans.
Climate change is a shift in weather patterns. Weather, which is water moving about in the air driven by uneven heat and pressure from the sun, changes its patterns of behavior as changes in its variables are presented. In this case, we simply call it climate change or global warming, but it doesn't tell people who otherwise don't understand what it really means. Global warming is a change to the weather system. It means weather will become more severe or less severe depending on the changes in weather patterns. So places that were warm might become colder or warmer or wetter or drier, and on and on.
So you want to know why, if the planet is warming, that your winters were even more severe than you can recall in recent history? Simple -- the weather patterns and dynamics are changing. There is a LOT changing too. Personally, I wouldn't doubt that the recent increase in seismic activity is somehow related.
"Hard Times" are unquestionably ahead. Will it mean the extinction of the human race? I seriously doubt it. We're simply too good at adapting and adjusting to the changes. But we really do need to keep on top of things. It will mean relocating where we grow our food crops or even adapting existing crops to new climates. It will mean relocating animal species or watch thousands of species go extinct. It will mean spending a lot of money for survival and the development of new technologies. In short, it will mean a lot of human suffering because there is little to no profit in saving human lives because most humans don't have enough money to survive.
Just a bunch of political nazi's trying to control the world any way they can. This is a decent article on the subject. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lowi6.html
In case you haven't noticed, fossil fuels are being depleted, and will all be gone pretty soon anyway. Oil will be gone in ~50 years. Coal will be gone in about ~100 years. So all these carbon emissions will eventually stop whether anybody wants to make a legislative effort or not.
Every year, even though standards continue to get stricter and stricter, this continues to happen.
That's because those 'tighter emission controls' push energy intensive business out of Western nations to countries like China which are far less efficient.
The whole 'global warming' scam would be depressing if it wasn't so freaking hilarious. It's almost as though the Chinese have paid Western leaders to destroy their own economies and ship all their manufacturing to China.
So, when a blizzard falls on Copenhagen: one year's weather does not refute global warming. When large number of tornados tear down tornado alley one year: global warming!!
For those who don't know how to follow a post-reply thread, I was responding to this post (below). This is obviously bullshit. You can't reach the conclusion this Anonymous Coward claims.
"There is certainly a connection here [to killer tornadoes]. There are now hundreds of people that have been killed due to the climate change resulting from carbon emission from fossil fuel burning."
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
To entertain your strawman for a moment, so for you, global communism is worse that the destruction of the globe? You'd rather see the state of Florida under water before, god forbid, we share even a little bit of the wealth of the industrialized world? Better dead than red I guess?
Actually most of the people who question the need to do something about global warming have logic that works like this:
1.) Person A says that we must give the government greater powers in order to prevent disaster from global warming.
2.) Person A lives an extravagant lifestyle that results in more CO2 emissions in a week than the average person generates in a year.
3.) Conclusion, person A does not really believe in global warming, they just want to increase government power (and perhaps make some money off of it).
If the people who are preaching about the need to reduce CO2 emissions are not doing anything to reduce their carbon emissions, why should I?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You forgot the part where they take temperature records wihch show no trend and create a warming trend by 'adjusting' it, then average that new trend out across large areas of the planet so that a few results from New Zealand which showed no warming become a warming trend over a significant part of the Pacific.
Basilcally the data is garbage, the models are garbage and the 'science' has been totally politicised.
So you're at step 2. Thanks for playing.
No matter what we do, all available fossil fuels will be burnt. The world is so hungry of them.
They haven't slowed extraction but try to get more and more. All the oil pumped, all the coal mined, all the tar sands processed, all the gas collected will be burned. (well, a small part goes to chemical transformation, plastics...)
If you don't want to add some more CO2 in the atmosphere, you shouldn't have extracted more fossil fuels first...
(and forget this CO2 offset indulgences scam)
Damn, he forgot to add...
KABOOOM!!!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I'm still trying to figure out whether or not you are a troll. All of your comments mention subluxatioins, and they're always posted at or near the top on seemingly unrelated articles (the same way a first post, or GNAA troll would be posted, they don't need to read the article or think about the subject before posting). For example the only connection between your comment and the article is CO2, but you are talking about soda, and the article is talking about the atmosphere and environmental effects.
Also, cancer has been known as a major killer for all of recorded history (for example, it is mentioned in the Bible). It is not new at all.
I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility? Funny how that only lasts up until the point where they are asked to take personal responsibility.
The carbon offset credit industry is booming! Now we'll get those solar powered windmill hover cars we've been promised all these years!
But really - global warming or not - we're not very good at inhaling greenhouse gases. I don't see why the global warming naysayers often don't acknowledge that those emissions DO lower air quality for humans.
Much misinformation above.
1. Cancer was a known decease in ancient Egypt - a papyrus dated 1600 BC, tells of how the Egyptians were able to tell the difference between benign and malign tumors, how they removed benign tumors surgically and cauterized wounds that were left, and how they blamed their gods for the decease. The papyrus says "There is no cure." - I am going to safely assume that means that people did die from cancer in ancient Egypt. Tumors don't just sit around, they either grow or shrink. If there is no cure, it means they grow, and that means organ failure and certain death. They also blamed their gods for the decease, i wouldn't think they'd blame their gods if it was just harmless decease of which noone would die. By the way, the name we use - "cancer" - comes from ancient Greeks who called it "karkinos" or "carcinos" which means "crab" which is what Hippocrates thought dissected tumors looked like. Documented cases of death by cancer date back at least to 1600s.
2. Leafy things as you call them, especially green ones, through long and extensive research have been proven to be of great benefit to body health. What are your sources that state the contrary?
3. I don't know what you mean by "plenty of sleep" but even though it is indeed has been proven that NOT ENOUGH sleep is directly (and often irreversibly) detrimental to health in mammals, it has not been conclusively proven that "a lot" of sleep is beneficial. Again, what are your sources that conclude that "plenty of sleep" increases lifespan?
No pay bills get, credit cut off. Get credit cut, off no buy food at supermarket, no get power service, no get water service.
No power, water or food, no get to keep living.
People have died of cancer from the earliest of times -- they just called it something else, and quite often "a curse."
Not to mention that people are living long enough now to actually die of cancer instead of being eaten, dying of infection after scraping their knee or whatever. I forget who said it originally, but if we live long enough we will ALL die of cancer.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Let me fill in 5 for you ...
5. Poor countries find themselves with disposable cash, adopt American Dream lifestyle, pave roads, buy cars, big houses and electronic gadgets and start adding to CO2 emissions but lose their carbon credits.
Why do you believe that? Did the strange voice in your head tell you?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Step one would be to make some concrete, testable predictions.
Pascal's wager isn't science.
It's certainly very revealing. Not so much for the "warmist" side as for himself, who lets his own irrational fear of global communism be the deciding factor when evaluating natural sciences.
When the official motto of one of the worlds worst Co2 offenders is 'In god we trust', I'm more inclined to agree with wjousts than you to be honest. 'In god we trust' implies:
a) god will fix the problem, or
b) god will destroy the world.
Either way, it's no longer the individuals responsibility to sort out the problem. The only people I've ever met who deny that global warming is a problem, are those of religious leaning; idiots; or both.
To throw some anecdotal evidence into the fray... I ventured to the burning man festival a couple of years ago, and was fairly surprised to see someone had erected a massive sign proclaiming 'Burning Man - The only carbon neutral festival in the world!'. Now, I'm not going to say all American's are idiots, because that's obviously false, but coming from a group of people who are supposedly a bit more environmentally aware than the average US citizen, it did somewhat surprise me. As a European, i made a beeline straight to the camp that had erected it, and had to ask 'WTF?'. The response I got was "We take all the rubbish home, so it's carbon neutral!". I spent about an hour explaining what carbon neutral actually meant, and ended up getting nowhere. So I doubt religion is entirely to blame, a lack of education is a massive problem too imho. It would however seem to me that where you find religion, a lack of education isn't too far behind....
For those who don't know how to follow a post-reply thread, I was responding to this post:
"There is certainly a connection here [to killer tornadoes]. There are now hundreds of people that have been killed due to the climate change resulting from carbon emission from fossil fuel burning." This is obviously bullshit. You can't reach the conclusion this Anonymous Coward claims, and that's what I was responding to.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
A couple of months ago, if someone has told me they were going to troll slashdot as a chiropracter I'd have openly laughed at them. Shows what I know about trolling I guess, because this one is proving out quite well. Shades of adequacy.
The planet is just fine. It will be just fine. The people are fucked.
Just ask the people of Pompeii how the planet is doing.
I too am not really that worried personally, as I got a Norwegian passport... One of the five countries with arctic territories and all the latest climate models put us in a really nice position on all counts. Hell, we've been making buddies with Russia thanks to our shared interests in the North so once the hungry masses of climate-refugees start pouring north to get their dirty hands on that arctic goodies we'll have the military might to keep them out.
Not to mention we're rich, so we can buy our way out of any food or energy shortage. Hell, I can't see any reason at all to worry as long as I keep my egocentrical view of the world.
- These characters were randomly selected.
The global communist government is based in Washington DC. Roosevelt's legacy, my friend. If you haven't heard this before, you've been talking to the wrong sort of denialist. Specifically, the stupid kind.
But the actual argument is nothing to do with communism. Sometimes a global solution to a global problem actually makes it worse in some way. Like how the progressive solutions to poverty tend to keep people poor, or how the progressive solutions to crime end up increasing crime. This happens because problems are poorly understood, and they are poorly understood because of the political bias of the researchers who investigate them.
Well, thank goodness we are finally solving our global warming problem, since the deaths per year from Tornadoes continues to drop.
Although this years tornado outbreaks have drawn more news exposure, mostly because they happened to hit large cities, this years tornado season has actually been less severe than usual.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You mean like this decade will be warmer than the last one? We've seen that proven true for the last 5 decades...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I believe in personal responsibility. I exercise personal responsibility. The problem is, none of the people who are telling me that I should worry about CO2 act as if they believe that I should worry about CO2. Until Global Warming Alarmists start acting as if they believe that global warming is a serious problem that requires them to take whatever actions they can to reduce their own CO2 emissions, don't expect me to take it seriously.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Like how the progressive solutions to poverty tend to keep people poor
As opposed to the 'conservative' solutions? oh yeah, they don't have any. They just let you deal with monopolies, unregulated working conditions, worker intimidation, etc.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Just when you thought the idiots couldn't get any stupider someone comes and proves you wrong.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I agree with this.
And of course, if there are no killer tornados next year, that only proves that it's "complicated."
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
There's no such thing as irrational fear of global communism.
As far as Global Warminating is concerned, I'll take it seriously when the self-righteous greens and politicians take it seriously. That means: MASSIVE investment in LFTRs (as in, Manhattan Project with factories cranking out thousands of community 2-10MW reactors per year, NIMBY preemption, with 25% of all power generation in 5 years and 75% in 10 years) and making celebrity/pol lifestyles match their rhetoric (no more 10k sqft houses with massive power bills, no more private jets to wasteful junkets, etc).
When the hypocrisy stops and the real technological solutions begin, maybe I'll pay attention.
Also, all climate _data_ must be opensource and publicly available, for free, along with methodologies. That's what real science means.
*disease
Just like it is easy to spend other peoples money via government, it is easier to make other people sacrifice to save the world via government.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions dramatically is not something that can be done by individuals. We need to get energy from sources other than fossil fuels. That's up to the people that build power plants and oil refineries. One thing that individuals can do, however, is to exercise energy efficiency, for example, buy buying CFL bulbs or insulating their houses. I see lots of people doing those things, but even if we all did that it would perhaps decrease carbon dioxide emissions 30-40%.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Except we did this for lead, CFCs, DDT, etc. And gee, no Global Communist Government seems to exist...
Who said the globalists would necessarily be a publicly-visible government?
Also, I would bet that malaria kills more Africans than war, and irrational fears of DDT have contributed to more African deaths than the AK-47.
1. Supply cannot be adjusted to demand. My understanding is that wind is especially bad for this, as it is windiest in the evenings, after major industrial energy consumers have closed down for the day. We currently have very few options for storing generated power for later use. Batteries and capacitors are nowhere near ready for this task. There are a few hydroelectric stations that pump water up in to large resevoirs during the night for use during the daytime surge in demand. The areas where wind and solar are most effective, there is often little in the way of hills and water, making resevoir-based energy storage impractical. Also, resevoir storage requires the costly construction of a resevoir, pumps, and an entire hydroelectic generating station.
You might think that wind and solar could be used to provide baseline power, while "traditional" coal and nuclear adjust to peaks. Unfortunately, this is only partially true. Many PLWR and BLWR nuclear designs (almost all American designed plants are one of these two types) are not able to idle. This means that if the load on the plant falls beyond a certain level, the plant must perform a full shutdown or risk heat damage. This might not sound too badm but these same plants take at least a full week to restart, and require lots of electricity to do so.
Hydro is able to adjust it's output very rapidly, however there are only so many locations where hydroelectric dams can be installed. People often cite massive untapped locations far away from existing populations. Excellent! Now all we need to do is build costly and inefficient long-distance transmission lines to carry that power to where it will be useful.
Coal is also able to adjust output quickly, but, well... it's coal.
2. The second problem is that of dealing with a phenomenon called "reactive power". This is when voltage and current on an A/C line are thrown out of phase. Ideally, as voltage reaches it's peak, so does current. If you're voltage and current get thrown more than a few degrees off, you're home outlet may still be delivering 100 volts and 15 amps, but not really either at the same time. First you get 110 volts, but low amps, followed quickly my undervoltage and full 15 amps. This means that the usefull power on the line is diminnished.
Reactive power occurs as a result of inductive loads such as electric motors and transformers. As the coils in the motors rotate past the magnets, or the electric field rises and falls in a transformer, these devices become generators. This "reactive" generation is always slightly out of phase with the input power, and so the power that they feed back on to the grid causes voltage and current on the grid to skew slightly. Multiply this effect by the number of inductive loads on the grid (refridgerators, industrial equipment, televisions) and you can start to have a real problem.
Electrical generation sources that employ large turbines are able to adjust the magnets inside their generators to help counteract reactive power by producing power that is out of phase, but in the opposite direction.
Traditional wind turbines are unable to do this, though I believe some newer designes can, at least to some degree. Solid state inverters such as are used to interface solar cells to the grid are not able to to this at all, and so there is a very real limit to their usefulness on the current power grid.
Anyhow, I'm all for wind and solar. I just don't think they are able to provide a complete solution. Nuclear seems to be the way to go, but it must be done right. The Canadian Advanced Candu Reactors look like a viable option. They are designed such that they cannot melt down, produce relatively safe waste, and are capable of idling quite safely. I don't know why everyone insists on using dangerous PHWR designs.
Never eat more than you can lift -- Miss Piggy
I believe there's a Turkish solar panel maker that has hybrid PV/hot water panels (which increase PV efficiency as well as generate hot water) but I don't know if they can or do sell into the US market, or if there's a US-built competitor that does the same thing?
lol, you think "Climatology" is a science on par with physics, chemistry, or biology.
It's more of a science like the Church of Scientology's audits are "science". If you disagree then they yell and scream and call you nasty names, etc.
You can never trust anyone named 'Bob'. And 'Doctor Bob'? Oh HELL no!
I drank what? -- Socrates
Thanks and pardon!
How can this happen? Every year for one week NBC Universal turns their logo green and makes everyone feel guilty unless they drive a hybrid car. This is impossible! All those hippies are riding bicycles and eating organic foods and turning off their lights. Are you telling us that all this hasn't amounted to a hill of non-GM beans?
So if you don't know how to solve a problem, you should just take a guess at a solution and do that? Then carry on doing it, even if the problem is getting measurably worse. That's an interesting perspective from a warmist.
FWIW conservatives are not the opposite of progressives. The real opposite of a progressive would demand the reversal of "progress" that turned out to be making things worse. Not entirely dissimilar to a warmist, in fact.
It is very curious to compare the progressive response to something like historical crime figures, with the progressive response to historical temperature figures. On the one hand you get unquestioning acceptance. On the other you get outright denial. What mechanism could be triggering this sort of cognitive dissonance? It seems to be almost an unconscious response. The progressive "knows" that one set of figures is right and the other is wrong, and yet he has never actually been taught to respond in this way. It's fascinating stuff - it is as if he realises that the reason for presenting the information can only be to attack his beliefs, and yet simultaneously he is unaware of that.
You appear to have missed my point. "blaming the other guy" doesn't help matters any more than the rate that emission standards are being made tighter, and in fact is even less productive. It is also part of the problem.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The housing industry is not even a blip on the radar. Fertile land is used for agriculture. Did you know that the majority of trees in the world are cultivated?
The economist recently did a report on how we are going to be able to feed the world's growing population (or not). Here is a link to the main article: http://www.economist.com/node/18200618. And here is another one: http://www.economist.com/node/18200678. But there were many other articles on specific subjects.
The take-away lessons I got from reading all that, was that we have a very limited supply of non-used, fertile land, mostly concentrated in places like brazil where recent technological advances have made previously useless land viable. Water is the other bottleneck. And the expansion of meat-eating habits is also a problem, because it requires more land and more water per person than a vegetarian diet. So yes, your hamburger puts more pressure on the forests than the lumber industry.
Are you saying that the decline in the middle class is the Democrats fault? Perhaps it's the tax priorities of the GOP...just sayin... Given that we've pretty well destroyed the welfare programs at the behest of the GOP, the continued decline seems more in their court, no?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Emission Control standards are a scam, don't be dopes. That one is propagated by Auto Manufacturers to force people to keep buying new cars with the governments assistance. They want you to be people that buy a new car every 2-3 years. The new sale also generates taxes for the gov, plus the sale of your old car generates tax to. Its wonder people never catch onto this....I mean really, how many used items are you forced to pay tax on again?
The whole idea of this is so very dumb. Look into the facts. The manufacturing process of new cars causes more Carbon Emissions than the old vehicles average putting out in the entire lifetime of the vehicle.
If you want to protest high carbon emissions, do something useful like not buying a new car ever 2 years. Ugh....stop believing everything that these company and the officials in charge (bought and paid for by these companies) spoon feed you.
Yep. That and eliminate the High Fructose Corn Syrup toxin entirely from your body.
And transportation is going to be electric, as batteries improve.
No need for batteries with trains. Most of the US freight train system is still diesel while it's electric in Europe.
Some countries have gone to a train system where different companies can run their trains on a common rail system - imagine UPS could run their own freight trains at 120 mp/h non-stop throughout the US. They could reach almost any distribution center within a day, no flights needed. Trucks would mainly do regional distribution, you would need no new feeder system and could get started with 2 or 3 main connections. You could have large solar plants in the Southwest, fueling most of the US bulk transportation system.
irrational fears of DDT
irrational indeed...NOT
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
And you can't trust anyone with more than 5 digits in their ID...
You make it sound like altering the atmosphere that drastically isn't that big a deal. Yeah, we won't destroy life on earth, but possibly life as we know it.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I imagine it's pretty hard to survive in some parts of the country without electricity, heat, water, waste disposal...
I wonder if all the carbon from volcanic activity was counted in this figure? I bet..
arglebargle_xiv (or someone else) said... Bitchin!
Camaro!
I drank what? -- Socrates
Sounds distinctly like a certain situational land scam to me.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Well... being from Florida (America's wang), yeah, a lot of it could stand going under. Just sayin'.
I drank what? -- Socrates
They ARE flexible.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I don't trust any above 4 but that's just me.
I drank what? -- Socrates
The big problem is that many nations are trying to force USA to participate in a BS scheme. That scheme would actually WORSEN things, not improve them.
However, There is a SIMPLE way to solve this.
The USA should tax ALL GOODS as a percentage of a slowly rising value. That percentage is based on the Co2 emissions PER SQ KM OF LAND from which the finally item and the primary sub-component comes from. The tax is applied just prior to moving to retail (i.e. at point of entry to the USA or from leaving the manufacturer).
Note the ease in which the tax is done: first off it is on sq km of land. That is a fixed size (assuming not a war). It should also be measured as CO2 out of the nation - CO2 into the nation. This can be done simply by a satellite which would allow many nations to put up their own sat to check (i.e. veracity). All of this should take into account environment, ag vs manufacturing, economy and ppl better than just judging per capita. In addition, it is a simple approach.
You will note that this approach is about the only one that rewards a nation that DROPS their emissions (lower %), while punishing those that continue to add. In addition, it gives every nation a fixed amount of CO2 emission and then allows each nation to decide how to balance their own emissions. For nearly ALL of the developing world, they should have little to nothing to fix. OTH, developed nations and China as well as Brazil will have to make cuts.
This is a simple easy to do approach that can work.
The current approach favored by EU and Dems will actually cause nations to emulate China to grab our businesses since they are not part of the cap/tax. They will build loads of coal plants quickly to get 'cheap' electricity as well as throw in loads of roads (loads of emissions). OTH, this approach would have others tax nations exports AS WELL AS THAT NATION'S OWN, thereby limiting their economy unless they make changes. Finally, by raising the max SLOWLY, it gives nations time to adjust.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Rosencrantz: I don't believe in it anyway.
Guildenstern: What?
Rosencrantz: England.
Guildenstern: Just a conspiracy of cartographers, then?
I drank what? -- Socrates
Glad to see you will be the first to die...
Credit? what complete loser lives on credit? I buy groceries with cash that I make by working. Power? not needed to survive, nice as a luxury though I like using it. Water service? get off your ass and go get your own water. No not over there at the aquifina display, no not the fiji water display either!
food, it's all over the place man, same with water.
I am so glad that you are showing many of us that a large portion of the populace will die really fast when things go sideways. Thanks for helping!
I can see your corpse now, slumped over a supermarket checkout hand still clutching that platinum Visa that looks like it had been run through the slot 10,000 times in hopes that it will work once to get you food...
I have high hopes now! you made me realize that the general populace really is stupid. You have no idea how to get food without a credit card and think that water comes from a bottle.... I'm guessing you dont even know how to take a crap in the woods.
This is great!
from outer space!
"Hard Times" are unquestionably ahead. Will it mean the extinction of the human race? I seriously doubt it. We're simply too good at adapting and adjusting to the changes. But we really do need to keep on top of things. It will mean relocating where we grow our food crops or even adapting existing crops to new climates. It will mean relocating animal species or watch thousands of species go extinct. It will mean spending a lot of money for survival and the development of new technologies. In short, it will mean a lot of human suffering because there is little to no profit in saving human lives because most humans don't have enough money to survive.
Maybe we're just levelling up as a species.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
There actually hasn't been a larger number or tornados in the U.S. this year, compared to recent years. Just more of them have been hitting towns and cities this year. Better aim?
I drank what? -- Socrates
You're confusing internet message boards with scientific debate.
And here, my friends, is a good example of the human behavioral pattern that underpins any Tragedy of the Commons situation.
That said, we did manage to reverse river polution and get back (mostly) smogg-free cities in Western nations, so there is still some hope that once things get bad enough in the right places then people will do something about it.
On the other hand, as long as the floods and the ever-increasing dry seasons are something that only happens to brown people in faraway places, soccer moms will continue to drive their SUVs 1/4 of a mile around the block to take the kids to school.
I don't know what everyone's so bent out of shape... God will never allow global warming to occur -- just like he won't let us run out of that sweet, sweet black nectar that is oil.
congrats to you for daring to post here. Welcome to the lion's den, you'll feel as welcome here as any fundamentalist born-again bible thumper. Enjoy your probably brief stay.
Only I can judge you.
Which testable prediction do you prefer?
a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, more CO2 ergo higher temperatures
b) higher temperatures yield more and more violent storms
Both is happening right now, how can one need more predictions?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
What you're saying is that you can't take a problem seriously before it's solved -- and by someone else. Speaking of hypocrisy.
No, it has nothing to do with the Democrats or the GOP.
Let me explain it like this. The global communist government that you joke about, that you say does not exist, actually does exist.. as a consensus amongst all progressives about the way things should be done. Some of those progressives have the power to actually influence things through their positions in the US government, the education system, the media and so on. It has been like that for a very long time, nearly a century in fact, and no Republican has even come close to opposing it.
Nowadays the consensus has seized upon climate change as something that must be solved, and it will be solved just as crime and poverty have been "solved" by a century of enlightened liberalism. Unfortunately for us all, the "solution" may well turn out to make the problem even worse, because the consensus is very bad at changing its mind even in response to new information. Having settled on a solution, all other possibilities are excluded.
I hope that this goes some way to explaining why people might just say "communism" as a reason to object to warmism. It's a hell of a lot shorter than explaining the actual reasoning, which is that the decision-making process has been utterly corrupted by people who make mostly bad decisions.
Wow, I think you need to provide a link to a credible site for this one. I am betting myself that the housing industry requires far more trees to be cut than the cattle industry. Most grazing pastures are at altitudes that typically on pines/spruces like to grow, plus, they (ranch managers) like the trees in the pastures to provide weather coverage for the animals.
The meat industry does not feed cattle by letting them graze. What kind of world do you think you live in? The cattle are fed feed crops that are farmed on acres of land that could otherwise be used for crops for humans, or forests, or whatever. I am not an anti-meat integralist, I am not even a vegetarian, but it is a fact that beef is practically the least efficient of all food sources, in terms of the number of humans that can subsist per acre. Pork is more efficient than beef, poultry is more efficient than pork, and vegetables are more efficient than poultry.
If the people who are preaching about the need to reduce CO2 emissions are not doing anything to reduce their carbon emissions, why should I?
Because you're not an asshole?
Because 2 wrongs don't make a right?
I mean, whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess...
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Lots of people have shrunk their footprint in the last decade or 2. Perhaps it is not the drastic measures you want to see other people make, but most climate change folk aren't asking you to take drastic measures yourself either. A few small changes, when multiplied by a hundred million people makes 1 big change. So, why not just try making a small change every now and again? A lot of things you can do to reduce your carbon emissions also happen to save you money, so start with those ones first. (post anon because I modded)
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions dramatically is not something that can be done by individuals.
False, if by "dramatically" you mean "a factor of two or so". [OK, long pause as I try to find this comment again because the totally broken /. garbage broken UI brokenly jumps a few screens any time anything is selected or something broken like that...]
While social/governmental initiatives and policies can and should be used to capture externalities--and should use the generally successful mechanism of markets to do so via the kind of cap and trade scheme that worked so well for sulpher emissions--individuals can still do a huge amount to reduce their own energy bills... err... I mean "carbon footprint."
For myself, my energy bills, including transportation, are a good factor of two lower than the average. I live in a smallish town, downtown, within walking distance to work. This isn't quite as energy efficient as living in a city, but it's still pretty good. I live in a modest house with decent insulation and no air conditioning (which isn't required in my climate, but YMMV). I have put barely any effort into saving energy, really: I don't have high-efficiency appliances, I drive a ten-year-old mini-van, and I haven't been particularly aggressive on power management in my home.
And yet I'm a factor of two below the average energy usage in my area... which admittedly doesn't have quite such a huge impact on carbon emissions as 60% of our energy here comes from nuclear and hydro power, but then, I'm not about reducing carbon emissions, I'm about saving money.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
The summer is a bit cooler than the peak summers around 1996 to 1998 and again 2003 to 2007, mainly because the sun is in an all time low cycle point right now.
Nevertheless it is likely still warmer at your place than it was during 1950 to 1970 ...
Also "global" warming does not necessarily mean it is getting warmer at every spot. If a cold sea current is changing its path slightly the area it hits now will become colder ofc.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
2100 is 89 years away. Believing that current trends will continue for that long is ridiculous. Believing that technology won't advance enough to completely invalidate the assumptions essential to the extrapolation is as funny as Malthus.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I live in Tunisia, north of Africa, one country with a "moderate" climate.
Tunisia is only around 36 deg N, so the effects of anthropogenic climate change there are expected to be very small. It would be astonishing if the changes you're observing had anything to do with AGW, unless all the models are completely wrong (which is quite possible, given how unphysical and highly parameterized they are.)
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
If you are living on credit to pay for food and utility bills, you are already in dire straits financially. Seriously, if you aren't zeroing those accounts at the end of each pay cycle, you need to look more closely at your finances. (You and Lumpy both)
You don't need a water, food, or power bill to keep on living; witness all the homeless around you (assuming American or some other uncharitable country).
Only I can judge you.
Well done. I've seen a few one-off trolls as successful as yours, but none so persistent. This is the kind of trolling that has become increasingly rare. I hope the goatse poster and the gratuitous-use-of-the-word-nigger spammer will take note. Creativity is the key to good trolling.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Since the people telling us that this is going to happen are acting as if it isn't going to happen, why do you believe them?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If the people who are saying this is a problem don't believe it is a problem, what makes you think it really is a problem?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That's interesting, because that was the exact opposite of what I have read. According to the another article there have only been 3 years (not including 2009, 2010, and 2011 since the article is from 2008) since 1974 where more than 100 people have died from Tornados: 1984, 1998, and 2008. Isn't the death toll over 500 now? Apparently it was the highest death toll since 1953 when that article was written. this article says this April set the record for most Tornados in the U.S. in April, and may set a new monthly high record. Wikipedia says "2011 has been an exceptionally destructive and deadly year for tornadoes" and "It is also the deadliest year in the United States since 1936, due mostly to the 322 tornadic deaths in the April 27 outbreak and the 140+ tornadic deaths in the May 22 outbreak". According to this post on the NOAA Severe Weather Blog, this year will likely end up being the 4th deadliest on record.
Interestingly enough, May may actually end up with a below average number of Tornadoes due to 3 weeks of relatively calm and stable weather, but I think a record April is making up for a below average May, especially when you consider the death toll.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I have two sets of solar panels - one 10 year old set that's wired up conventionally to a single inverter, and another 8-month-old set that uses per-panel microinverters.
According to the very nice graphical display of power generation the microinverters provide via a built in web monitoring thingie, I average about four hours each day operating between 90% and peak generation.
Installation of the original set of panels was a major PITA because UL delisted the inverter after it was installed. Getting a massive piece of equipment down off the wall is easy, getting the replacement back up, not so much. But once that one startup issue was dealt with, the system has been 100% reliable and has required no repairs. As for the microinverters, it's early days yet, but they've been completely reliable so far.
As for washing the panels, yes, doing that more often increases output, but in my experience, not by that much. Around here the windows need to be washed twice a year so the panels get done as part of that. No big deal.
And as for all this "resetting after a power failure" - it appears your experience with grid-tie systems is seriously out of date. My 10 year old inverter handles power failures automatically. Aside from monitoring, I haven't had to touch the thing once the replacement inverter was installed. Ditto for the microinverters.
Finally, you appear to be conflating grid-tie and off-grid setups. I agree that a fully off-grid setup isn't easy. I have battery backup as part of my original system, but since the batteries are only used when there's a grid failure they haven't needed to be replaced. (And most grid-tie systems don't need them at all.) An off-grid setup that charges and discharges the batteries every day is going to require a lot more maintenance. And when solar is the only energy source the system has to be overbuilt in the fashion you describe (just not as much as you claim). And you probably care more about keeping the panels clean when they are your only power source.
But the vast majority of solar systems are grid-tied, not off-grid. So most of your issues simply don't apply.
Now, perhaps you'll say my experience is unusual. Yes, it's only anecdotal, but I know three people with similar solar setups in the area, and their systems have all worked flawlessly since they were installed.
Whatever you're smoking....do share, it has to be some powerful stuff...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
What's causing all the ice to melt, then?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Are you taking into account the energy you do not directly use? All the products you buy need to be shipped to a store, and that takes energy. When you work in an office, it takes energy to power the infrastructure. You can look at the energy use by sector to understand a bit more.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
there is no such thing as an irrational fear of DDT
Only I can judge you.
Wow! what country has executions for not paying your bills?
Not the death penalty yet. But apparently you can be incarcerated indefinitely in some states of the USA for failing to pay your bills. The police are thinking of changing their motto to "To serve and collect".
Support SETI@home
Well now I'm telling you global warming is a serious problem, one that I do something about by not owning a car (bicycles are fine, thanks), living in small dwellings, buying energy-efficient appliances, using local foodstuffs, and doing work myself rather than having an energy-intensive machine do it. I'm working on adding more stuff to this list.
Remember: celebrity advocates for a cause are different from regular advocates for a cause, because all celebrities live basically the same lifestyle while advocates for different causes often live radically different lifestyles.
Why do you believe that? Did the strange voice in your head tell you?
Nice try, but not quite. You forgot to imply an irrational fear of brown people, and a connection to a lizard people conspiracy group.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I believe in personal responsibility.
Funny, because the entire rest of your post says exactly the opposite. If you are taking personal responsibility, then what does it matter what your coal-burning global warming alarmist straw men or anybody else is or is not doing?
I'm not going to do it because so-and-so isn't doing it sounds like the complete opposite of personal responsibility. It sounds exactly like "I'm not going to work so long as the government keeps giving me money."
Oh my, the communists are coming!
Please go live on your libertarian utopia island. I hope you don't mind the rest of the world using air strikes to reduce your carbon emissions.
Support SETI@home
To entertain your strawman for a moment, so for you, global communism is worse that the destruction of the globe? You'd rather see the state of Florida under water before, god forbid, we share even a little bit of the wealth of the industrialized world? Better dead than red I guess?
Actually, it seems to look more like feudalism or Lenin-style "communism" than anything. I don't accept your premise that the choice is slavery or an uninhabitable earth, however. Environmental protection isn't even the real goal, it's just an excuse to get you to go along with reverting to subsistence living while the "experts" control all the resources.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Strange conclusion to make considering the communist governments (and former ones) are the main ones against carbon taxes. China and Russia's objections are the only reason some form of international carbon taxes don't already exist. ...probably just part of the conspiracy I assume.
Why use the term deniers?
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Global temperatures will continue to rise as they have for the last 5 decades.
Global sea levels will continue to rise.
Worldwide mass of sea ice an land ice will continue to decrease
We've been predicting these things for decades, and when they come true, you just ignore us and pick tiny exceptions to global rules and claim it's all wrong. Your main reason for disbelief is that you don't want to believe.
I've posted it before. I'll post it again. Responses to 163 bogus arguments made by global warming deniers.
Support SETI@home
Why use the term "warmist"?
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Ever since the fall of Communism
There was no "fall of Communism". Just a change in strategy. And it's working very quickly.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Like how the progressive solutions to poverty tend to keep people poor, or how the progressive solutions to crime end up increasing crime.
This is exactly the same kind of conservative denialism seen in global warming deniers. Any evidence from poverty rates or crime rates is ignored. The costs of the conservative "solutions" to those problems is ignored. The only evidence this type of person will believe is a report from a conservative think tank. Besides God likes conservatives better, so the conservative solution must be the right one.
Support SETI@home
You appear to have misssed my point as well. I have been saying that emission control standards are not fixing the problem, so the very reason that they are giving for having them is invalid.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Let's face it. Many talks and good intentions. Unless we ALL try hard to cut down and radically change our lifestyles, economic model, that is based on constant growth and expansion and thins more, more, more way of life there is no way to solve the problem. Well maybe if we put a great deal of money and research alternative fuels and all that... I am part of the problem too, I also like my cars, bikes, TVs and money, I am not the hippy, not that there is anything wrong with it.
Besides that, the major problem right now is the amount of people being produced, mainly in countries that cannot sustain them. Please stop generating more humans! There is no money, health, food or anytthing to sustain so many of us while keeping a good standard of life. Come on!
Why use the term "warmist"?
I was responding to a post that used the term "denier". Fair's fair.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
No, it sounds like, "The people who are telling me that all this land is going to be unlivable a year from now are buying up my neighbors' property and building mansions. I like living here, so I'm staying."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
OK, and what sort of credentials do you have that I should believe that you know what you are talking about?
The thing is that it is not just the "celevrity advocates" for AGW that live as if they do not believe in AGW, it is also the scientists such as Philip Jones and Michael Mann.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
1. Man is causing global warming.
Yes. Exactly.
2. We can't actually prove it, but correlation == causation.
No. Correlation != causation, but the theoretical basis of the greenhouse effect (infrared opacity of CO2 trapping heat) has been known for more than a century. Correlation+theoretical mechanism == probable causation.
3. Okay, correlation != causation, but we have a consensus
Yes, we certainly do.
4. True, Earth as the center of the universe was once a consensus too, but we're right this time!
Yes, people once thought that the earth was the center of the universe. That conclusion was not reached scientifically, It was the scientific process that resulted in a scientific consensus that the earth was not at the center of the universe. Much like the scientific process has resulted in a scientific consensus of the reality of anthropogenic global warming. No climate scientist is claiming 100% certainty. There's a 1 or 2% chance that we're wrong.
Suppose you went to your doctor and he said there's a mass on your liver, and tests show there's a 98% chance it's cancerous. To remove it you would need surgery, and with liver surgery there's a 1or 2% chance you will die on the table. Would you have the surgery? Or would you opt out because of the 0.04% chance you will die for a non-cancerous growth.
5. Rapture
There will be no Rapture to save us.
Support SETI@home
Uh, your e-mail address shows as ....lizardslounge...
I see no reason to imply a connection to lizard people.
But, seriously, why do you think that some understanding of physics implies a desire for "Global Communist Government"?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Whether he believes in it or not is beside the point, and has no bearing on whether it is real or not.
Support SETI@home
No, what I'm saying is, if the folks who SAY it's a problem don't actually BELIEVE it's a problem (judging by their actions), then I am not convinced that it IS a problem.
Do as I say and not as I do because I said so only works if you're a parent lecturing a child, and by 'works' I mean 'something you can get away with', and only until they can free themselves of you.
It's called bystander apathy, and it's the reason why women can be attacked in broad daylight in the middle of New York City and not a single person will do anything about it. The mentality of "If no one else is doing anything to help, why should I?" is well understood and documented, but that doesn't make it an any less repulsive aspect of our society and psychology.
But if it makes you sleep easier at night to justify your actions by the perceived hypocrisy of others, then by all means curl up with that blanket of moral bankruptcy and lull yourself to sleep. You won't be the first or the last to do so.
~X~
Crime is mentioned specifically because this is one case where overwhelming statistical evidence for a serious problem leads to nothing but denial from the progressives.
You may have heard progressives saying that crime rates have fallen since the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. This is usually true. But did you ever wonder why the baseline is never set before the 1960s? Why not measure crime since 1900? Or 1860?
It's not about conservatives versus progressives, by the way. It's about progressives versus reality.
Grow up. Both the troll and those who *feed* them are the biggest problem.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Yes, but Michale Mann is, and so is James Hansen.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
NO, it's called not believing the guy who tells me that my land will be uninhabitable next year while he buys up my neighbors' property to build mansions.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And I'm sure you have tons of research and data to back up your claims?
Even ignoring all the data and research currently available, there is some rather large and tangible evidence that temperatures are warming, namely Greenland and pretty much all areas north of the article circle. Perhaps you may need a refresher in physics, but it takes A LOT of energy to melt the amount of ice that's disappeared over the past few decades just in those two areas alone.
The people who have politicized the science are the same people who politicized the science when anything affecting big industry negatively shows up. They've been at it a long time. Asbestos, tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, scrubbers on power plants, and any other major scientific controversy you'd care to think of has been well opposed by these groups with a lot of funding by the industries affected. In fact, many of the manufactured FUD organizations that were around in the 50's and 60's are still around today, doing the exact same thing. If you ever ever seen the movie, "Thank You For Smoking" you get a glimpse of what they do, and they do it very very well.
Of course, if you think their is a global climate conspiracy, then there is no way to convince you otherwise. So enjoy your beliefs. I'm sticking with the science.
~X~
point taken.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Yes, Climatology is a "science" at the level of an internet message board argument. Basically, a back and forth of "Yuh-huh"s and "Nuh-uh"s. No independent review of any statements from any side. Everyone uses the same data from the same devices in the same places and puts them into the same computer programs that are NOT open source, and are in fact black boxes.
I know when I am being sold pork flavored snake oil.
Uh, your e-mail address shows as ....lizardslounge...
I see no reason to imply a connection to lizard people.
No, no. The conspiracy theorists say the lizard people are the hidden BAD guys. They don't claim to BE lizard people. :)
But, seriously, why do you think that some understanding of physics implies a desire for "Global Communist Government"?
I don't know why you would make a connection to physics ... at all. Way out in left field, dude.
The new fake environmentalism has nothing to do with science at all. Their own documents from the original Agenda 21 to the documents from the PCSD and ICLEI state that it doesn't matter whether the science can be proven or not, the agenda is the most important thing.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I agree with you at one point: discussion on message boards is pretty worthless as far a science goes. I hold your comment, which only uses hearsay as evidence, as a good example.
Notice, however, that there's a difference between my comment and yours: mine is actually empirically verifiable, whereas yours is pure fabrication.
how come I'm freezing my ass off in New England?
A lot of people don't understand the difference between weather and climate, so you're not alone in having that question.
In the northern mid-latitudes like New England, weather is the result of a converging flows of air: warm moist air from the tropics moving north-east, and cold relatively dry air from high latitudes moving south-west.. These flows are due to convective heat flow from the equator to the poles. Where these flows of air collide is where you get storms. Above the boundary, the rising divergent air columns create a jet stream. That's why there's often bad weather marked by the jet stream.
The boundary where these two air masses meet is not straight. It deviates north or south as it is pushed by the air masses. But large quantities of air can't flow past the boundary. So if you have a large amount of warm air in one spot pushing north, the cold air has to get out of the way by pushing south somewhere else. Similarly if cold air pushes south, warm air will move north in other places. When you add energy by heating up tropical air and increasing its moisture content (i.e. global warming), these deviations can get larger, and the storms along the boundary get worse because of more moisture and higher temperature differential.
So this winter, when you were freezing, it was because Alberta was having record high temperatures. (Above freezing in Edmonton in January). The push of warm air that is causing me to freeze in the west now is bringing higher temperatures to you in New England. The stream on the west coast is down in Mid California, but is over Hudson Bay in the east. The warm air pushing north has been the cause of many of those tornadoes.
Support SETI@home
Every issue you mentioned has been exhaustively dealt with and comprehensively solved. You haven't done any research (or your research has been limited to disinformation from Fred Singer and the Reaganauts).
Together, solar and wind power could completely displace petroleum world-wide for less than the cost to date of the Bush "Wars to Keep Texas Oil Expensive".
You could completely carpet Death Valley with solar panels for less than two years cost of the "War on (Certain Kinds of) Terrorism", and you could use any of dozens of technologies to store excess daytime power for nighttime use.
But really methane (aka natural gas) is the cost-effective option. You can trivially convert existing cars to use methane, and methane-powered fridges, generators, clothes dryers, water heaters, and furnaces are available everywhere there's a Sears Roebuck outlet. Methane can be made from HUMAN SHIT in a CARBON-NEUTRAL process of low-pressure fermentation that scales directly to the human population.
However, conversion to low-tech methane power would completely destroy the modern political situation, which is based on hereditary access to oil.
Containment-based strategies like terrestrial nuclear power plants are not capable of failing gracefully in a natural disaster, are not economically viable without taxpayer sponsorship, and are not necessary.
How's that tin-foil hat fitting you? There really is no reasoning with somebody as irrationally paranoid as you. You really think that the entire scientific community is going along with this to further some political aim. Do you ever stop to listen to the nonsense you are spewing?
It's still empty calories to process.
How's that tin-foil hat fitting you? There really is no reasoning with somebody as irrationally paranoid as you.
Step 1: Call your opponent crazy
You really think that the entire scientific community is going along with this to further some political aim.
Step 2: Create a straw man argument and attribute it to your opponent to support your insanity accusation. Claim that all "reasonable" people already support your own position.
Do you ever stop to listen to the nonsense you are spewing?
Final Step: Dismiss your opponent's stance as nonsense, not worthy of further research or discussion.
That all you got?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"But rising by 3.9C is almost as bad."
You think that's bad -- just think about what would happen if it rose by 7.02F!
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Let's adjust the radon concentration in that AC's house to 0.04%. It's a small number, so he won't have any ill effects.
Support SETI@home
They are not $2 per Watt at Lowes or Home Depot! Lets not forget the cost of the inverters or their much shorter lifespan. They often have large electrolytic capacitors that deteriorate from age and high temperatures. Check the specs of electrolytics... they often are only rated for 1000 hours at elevated temperature.
But did you ever wonder why the baseline is never set before the 1960s?
That's because in the conservative utopia before 1955 there we're a lot of non-crimes that are now crimes. For example, spousal abuse, raping a woman who was "asking for it", killing a black man, and a wide variety of similar crimes that were illegal, but never reported. Large swaths of the population, due to race or economic status were unable to make accusations of a crime if they were the victim.
They have multimillion dollar mansions and huge CO2 footprints?
Support SETI@home
"The facts of life are conservative." Margaret Thatcher
"Maggie Thatcher is a crack whore." Casper Weinburger
Support SETI@home
Unless you can show that we are going through a period of substantially more volcanic activity than has been normal over the past 50,000 years, please shut up.
Yes, volcanoes put out CO2. But they've been doing that forever. How do you explain a sustained increase in CO2 levels, which based on ice core samples going back many thousands of years, is increasing at a much faster rate than the previous several thousand years, over the past century?
Oh, and are you claiming that the activities of man (burning huge, huge amounts of oil, coal, natural gas, and burning off massive areas of forest every year) would somehow NOT increase carbon in the atmophere? What mechanism to do you propose is acting as a 'sink' for all that carbon?
To all that participated in the Destroy the Earth to Prove that you Can't Day, good work!
Go get the raw data for yourself and if you plot it out and compare it to the adjusted data you will find that the difference is minuscule.
Step 2: Create a straw man argument and attribute it to your opponent to support your insanity accusation. Claim that all "reasonable" people already support your own position.
All reasonable people do. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations support the theory that humans are doing irreversible damage to the climate through the uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. The debate is settled. You seem to think there is some grand global conspiracy between unrelated groups of scientists world-wide. You are the one that said that:
" Environmental protection isn't even the real goal, it's just an excuse to get you to go along with reverting to subsistence living while the "experts" control all the resources."
So how is what I said a straw man? It's exactly what you proposed. These "experts" you think are looking to control all the resources would need millions of scientists around the world to agree to push this "myth" in order for you fantasy to happen. Or do you now not stand by your own argument?
Don't try and weasel out it. Please explain how these "experts" get the entire scientific community to go along with this nefarious plan for world domination?
What evidence do you have that Phil Jones or Michael Mann live as if they don't believe in AGW? It's easy to throw names out there but if you want to be credible you have to back it up.
Who told you your land will be uninhabitable next year? Certainly not any climate scientist.
Let's see, the early IPCC reports warned us of 50 million climate refugees from flooded coastlines but 2010. I set up a couple of cots in my basement to help out but no one's come knocking at my door yet
First of all, assuming those 50 million to be spread evenly, this gives you a 0.7% chance of getting one refugee. But keep that cot in your basement, there's a 50% chance that one refugee will come to you in the next 140 years.
If you had actually read that paper you mention, instead of spreading oil industry propaganda, you would know that the author estimated that there were 25 million people who had to leave their homes because of climate problems in the mid-1990s and the trends indicated that this amount should double by 2010.
I don't know if the number of refugees actually doubled in that period. but the actions of the state government of Arizona seem to indicate that the problem is increasing. In 1995 no one would lose their business licence in Arizona for hiring a refugee. You do trust the Arizona governor, don't you? After all, you have always voted for her party, right?
If the people who are saying this is a problem don't believe it is a problem, what makes you think it really is a problem?
They do believe it's a problem? They just don't want to sacrifice their quality of life, which makes them douchebags, but it doesn't make them wrong.
And frankly, I could care less about what these cheerleaders have to say. I care about the SCIENTISTS' opinion, and they say it's a problem.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
That's an interesting argument. You should apply it to climatology.
I heard that before 1955, temperatures weren't measured in quite the same way as they are now, so historical data from before that time is invalid.
Now, saying that would make me a denialist, wouldn't it? I wonder what it makes you.
Yesterday the weather scientist on tv said it would rain today. I cancelled my trip and now I'm stuck home on a sunny day. Luckily we got other scientists who can tell us for sure what weather we'll have 10 or even 100 years from now.
Another seti guy predicted that burning oil wells in Kuwait would produce effects similar to nuclear winter, boy was he right. And those who listen to IPCC should definitely check out those himalayan glaciers because, according to IPCC, they'll be gone in 25 years.
BTW mr seti guy CO2 level was pretty much the same before we, homo sapiens, moved in here.
Of course, if you think their is a global climate conspiracy, then there is no way to convince you otherwise. So enjoy your beliefs. I'm sticking with the science.
On the other hand, record snowfalls in other areas of the planet are ignored. You don't get to cherry pick a location (the arctic) and a time period (twenty years) and call it global warming.
That's not the science you hold dear.
Well, maybe we are having a higher than average year. After more reading, they are saying that even Oklahoma, where I live has had more tornadoes than usual in the first five months. I guess it just seems lower because we have so far only had one tornado warning anywhere near the Oklahoma City area and I am used to having at least two a week in a normal year.
Death toll is a hard figure to use. On the one hand, forecasting and forewarning improves every year. On the other hand, we keep building larger and larger cities, and the houses we build in them are not designed to withstand the force of a tornado, so it becomes more and more likely that a tornado is going to cause more and more damage and probably kill people.
Part of the issue with the two tornadoes everyone is familiar with from this year is that they occurred in places that don't traditionally get really big tornado outbreaks, and don't have the weather facilities and coverage to be prepared for it. I live near Oklahoma City and believe me, nothing compares to the weather coverage here. If you get killed by a tornado here, you can't say you didn't know what was coming. Every channel has surface and air vehicles surrounding each cell. All of the local channels break into continuous coverage with sophisticated Doppler radio that shows the wind shear and from which they are able to tell right where a funnel will form if it does form.
Just last week, we had some really bad stuff come through the metro with tornadoes as large or larger than the Joplin tornadoes (one EF-4 and the other being investigated for consideration as an EF-5, plus numerous Ef-3s), and only 10 people were killed. The May 3rd 1999 tornado, the tornado with the highest wind speed ever recorded on planet Earth claimed only 36 lives despite tearing through suburbs of Oklahoma City.
Another point of interest. After the May 3rd 1999 tornado, the U.S. experienced the longest period without an F-5 or EF-5 tornado since records were kept. 8 years without an F-5 or EF-5.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Well, thank goodness we are finally solving our global warming problem, since the deaths per year from Tornadoes continues to drop. Although this years tornado outbreaks have drawn more news exposure, mostly because they happened to hit large cities, this years tornado season has actually been less severe than usual.
Okay, first of all, remember that the number of tornado deaths has been falling pretty consistently since the mid-20s thanks to early warnings.
In 2011 as of May 26th there were 512 deaths already (incl. 132 in Joplin), which already makes it 7th deadliest year since 1875. And even if you ignore the victims in Joplin, it would still already be the 12th deadliest year - after 5 months.
Fandroids hate facts.
You are correct, they said it would be uninhabitable last year. I remember climate scientists saying in the late 80s that most coastal cities would be underwater by 2010.
However, I was actually just using a metaphor.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
But they still fly all over the world to various conventions where they gather to tell us how much of a problem it is.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Luckily we got other scientists who can tell us for sure what weather we'll have 10 or even 100 years from now.
Posting anonymously and too stupid to understand the difference between weather and climate. Do I really need to respond to the rest? You already know you're wrong about all that stuff, except for the glacier prediction, which was an error in a summary and not part of the scientific portion of the report. I haven't heard about this burning well prediction, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a consensus of climate scientists like global warming is. And the CO2 level was 40% lower before we got here. So learn something, and post non-anonymously next time.
Support SETI@home
No, you did not hear any climate scientist say that most coastal cities would be underwater by 2010 in the 1980's. If you think you did please cite the quote that backs up your statement. And Al Gore did not say that either. Earlier IPCC reports were saying that there would be 1-2 feet of sea level rise by 2100. In the past few years that's changed to 3-6 feet of SLR by 2100 but it will be the next IPCC report before that is incorporated.
You're metaphor is an extreme exaggeration that has no basis in reality. You really need to pay attention to the time frames that scientists are talking about when they make their statements about what they expect to happen. Most of the effects of global warming are happening a bit faster than scientists have postulated.
I heard that before 1955, temperatures weren't measured in quite the same way as they are now, so historical data from before that time is invalid.
You may have heard it, but that doesn't make it true. Even if it were there are a large number of temperature proxies with which to calibrate the pre-1955 temperatures. In addition there is this thing called error analysis which allows us to take into account any uncertainty in the temperature record.
Support SETI@home
All reasonable people do. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations support the theory that humans are doing irreversible damage to the climate through the uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.
Well that's a considerable broader position that I can completely agree with, but it's not excessively off the mark, and not really anything I was disputing.
You seem to think there is some grand global conspiracy between unrelated groups of scientists world-wide.
Oh here's your straw man again. This whole fucking "groups of scientists" bullshit over again. There's no "scientists" (unless your definition is WAY off from any accepted definition) claiming to have all the answers to the warming and increasing CO2. Why would I even respond to this kind of crap. These guys aren't scientists, they are politicians and looters posing as diplomats. They are the elite monied interests disseminating the perils scientists warn about, and using it to promote their own controlling agenda as the only solution, with the actual benefits to the environment (and the vast majority of mankind) only used as rhetoric to support their ideas.
Don't try and weasel out it. Please explain how these "experts" get the entire scientific community to go along with this nefarious plan for world domination?
Oh like your own ideologies don't have any impact on the institutional directions you will support... right. And nobody is focused on some significantly important specialization of research without having total understading of how the authorities many layers up might eventually (mis)use their work? Huh? Is that your contention? That everybody has the big picture of everything and nobody's work can could be used for nefarious purposes without full disclosure? Do you understand how large and insidious the plans and processes are laid out and how the debate over science is just scratching the surface (as well as a useful distraction)?
I suggest you do a little research. You are obviously grossly uninformed. Here's a short primer:
Donna Holt, Virginia
ICLEI
What ICLEI does
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
And ive been eating a lot of garlic, sorry, gas will reduce near spring time
You know how this happens? When you have megacorps buying "carbon credit". They pay extra for polluting that they should be paying fines for. So, just because they pay the carbon credit money, that money doesn't equal out to fixing what they're over dumping into the atmosphere.
Sorry if my phrasing isn't to specs, but what I'm getting at is, those with the money to buy the carbon credits, in order to over dump/produce, are the ones that seem to me to be responsible for this shit...
Stone
More moonbat nonsense...
But, seriously, why do you think that some understanding of physics implies a desire for "Global Communist Government"?
I don't know why you would make a connection to physics ... at all. Way out in left field, dude.
The new fake environmentalism has nothing to do with science at all. Their own documents from the original Agenda 21 to the documents from the PCSD and ICLEI state that it doesn't matter whether the science can be proven or not, the agenda is the most important thing.
What's to prove?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
We were still recovering from a global recession. Major energy consumers are still at pre-2008 levels. Employment rates are still low, less people commuting. The adoption of alternate energy by both industry and consumer has continued to increase.
I guess this is where we blame China?
That's because in the conservative utopia before 1955 there we're a lot of non-crimes that are now crimes.
and
I heard that before 1955, temperatures weren't measured in quite the same way as they are now,
Do you see how both statements are essentially arguing the same thing - that inconvenient historical data can just be ignored? It actually doesn't matter which of them is true - what's interesting is the style of argument being applied, namely denialism. If you click "Parent" a few times you will see how this supports the wider point I was making.
What's to prove?
That there is a way to reverse the trend? That it's worth global slavery and depopulation to do that?
What's to prove?
That there is a way to reverse the trend?
How could there not be?
That it's worth global slavery and depopulation to do that?
Who's proposing that solution?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Your title is grossly misleading - they're not "carbon emissions" - they're carbon dioxide emissions. There's a huge difference. Other than in suspended micro-partiulate form (soot) carbon in elementary form is not a "greenhouse" agent. Carbon dioxide is. So for all practical purposes carbon only affects the global atmosphere when it's oxidised (e.g. by burning coal).
Mr setiguy I guess the fact that you must argue by calling people stupid speaks for the strength of your knowledge and confidence in your arguments. nick "setiguy" is also anonymous, and I will continue to post as ac especially that i dont want dicks like you to know my name. And you got a lot of learning to do especially in terms of historical data of co2 levels, because it was NOT 40% lower.
Hmmmm. You mean historical data like this? CO2 was 280 ppm 1000 years ago and is about 390 ppm now, I guess it's only 30% lower. If you go back 8000 years, it's 260 ppm, it's 35% lower. So you're right, I misspoke. I should have said "Humanity has increased CO2 levels by 40%" rather than "CO2 levels were 40% lower".
Support SETI@home
it's nice to discuss things in civil manner now is it?
So essentially we're back to square one where i wrote "Numbers may rise or drop by milions of percent or gazilion of gigatons, but the fact remains: greenhouse gases are still __less than 0.04%__ of earth's atmosphere.". If the article mentions differences but does not give an overview of how much of the stuff exactly is there, then it has a smell of propaganda to me.
I wont loose any sleep over this, we survived catastrophic global cooling, we'll survive global warming. Somehow I find Crichton more convincing then Gore.
And the kuwait mention was in reference to Sagan.
Somehow I find Crichton more convincing then Gore.
Somehow, I find climatologists more convincing than either bad science fiction writers or failed politicians. When you're getting your science advice from a SciFi writer who doesn't understand chaos theory or climatology or a holier than thou politician who at least has talked to some people who do understand it, you're getting your information in the wrong place. That less than 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere is why the snow melts in the summer in Chicago and why it rarely falls in Miami. Take it away and you've got permanent ice age. Increase it by 40% and you've got something else. It's illogical to assume otherwise.
Support SETI@home