Reply With Quote
Nasa...
No one wants to see pics of that guy's ass
Nasa...
Was being fecicious, do you agree with spending 15 trillion to combat climate change?
thats one way of saying you were talking out of your ass
where'd you get 15 trillion from? you just keep talking out of your ass on the subject. tells me all i need to know.do you agree with spending 15 trillion to combat climate change?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-...rticle/2622479
^15 trillion
Wanted my 100th post to be replied to.
the video in that link says it would be up to 600 billion per year for 20 years, which adds up to 12 trillion not 15 trillion, and that's the high end estimate. i think there could be better ways to address the issue than a burdensome carbon tax. i do believe that ultimately there needs to be a systemic shift away from fossil fuels as the primary source of energy.
it would be nice for all parties to come to the table and decide what the best and most feasible way to reverse AGW is... but as of now the right refuses to come to the table, so you're left with... the left making all the proposals, including the most extreme like gore.
Thats fair
Would you consider rex tillerson signing of the Fairbanks Declaration (recognizing climate change) a step towards a partisan agreement?
Im all for cheaper, more efficient energy sources.
yes. tillerson's public statements have always been surprisingly receptive to the scientific positions of climate change... he agreed with paris agreement, etc. he has also voiced his support for carbon taxes. again, carbon taxes aren't scientific determinations, they are political moves/decisions. my position in this thread, and imo the purpose of this thread as a whole is a discussion of the merits of the scientific theory behind climate change. once everybody can get on the same page there, we can move on to making the best political decisions in response to the scientific knowledge we have
it would be useful if members of the GOP would get on board. the secretary of state making a declaration is not as impactful as the head of the EPA, secretary of energy, the president, leading GOP members of congress
Do you agree with Bill Nye that families should be penalized for having multiple children and do you believe each family should not be allowed to have more than one child? Do you think climate change is indisputable? Do you ever wonder why the only ones claiming it is are government funded organizations?
So adorable watching Chris try and science it up. Like bringing a knife to a nuclear war fight
i dont care for bill nye. like at all. and i find it disturbing and unfortunate that he has been labeled as some "spokesperson for science." i dont agree with a one child rule. again, this is a policy decision, not a scientific finding. in this thread, at least, i'm much more concerned with the science behind climate change (which has been pretty clear in the scientific community for a while now), and much less concerned with policy response. that's an important topic, but a separate one from this thread
the evidence for it is overwhelming, if that's what you're asking. if a bunch of practicing scientists/researchers starting conducting studies and publishing a bunch of papers that showed its all bunk, the theory would fall apart pretty quickly.Do you think climate change is indisputable?
- we know CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas (lets through short wavelength light and traps longer wavelength heat radiation). we've known this since the 1800's
- we know that CO2 levels are increasing due to human activity
- we know that temperatures have risen at unprecedented rates (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_te...e_timeline.png)
- we know that CO2 is among the major long term drivers of climate, and that historical trends support a link between global temperature and CO2 levels
these are the bare basics, of course.
the ones who are providing evidence are scientists from all over the world. if it was a government driven thing, then you would expect countries like china, who are the worst offenders, to not produce any scientists that find evidence for man made climate change. but we dont see that. chinese researchers are getting the same results as everybody else, even if their government doesn't have a particular agenda about it.Do you ever wonder why the only ones claiming it is are government funded organizations?
do you ever wonder why the GOP is the only major political party among developed countries that actively defies the scientific community in the question of climate change?
Last edited by spurraider21; 05-15-2017 at 01:32 AM.
Its a big ing knife damnit.
Thank you for replying. I'm not familiar with the GOP's stance on that so I will have to get back to you after I've had some sleep. I've got some information for you if you haven't already watched my video. Yes Crowder is a bag just ignore him and listen to the man who has been studying it and debating it for 30 years.
I'll take a look and go through it. A few things before though.
A) we know crowder has a strong agenda regarding the issue to the point where he has posted not just opinions, but outright falsities. He had an article on his site about how scientists now believe co2 pollution causes cooling. Just pure crap. But I hear you, I'll focus in the guest
B) even when it comes to people in the field, I'm usually much less concerned with what they talk about, write about on websites/blogs, or even publish in books. Scientific evidence and findings are published in peer reviewed academic papers that find room in respected academic journals.
Anybody can go on a TV show and say something they believe and purport it to be fact. But you can make up in a peer reviewed publication because either it won't make it through the process or it will be rebutted and eventually retracted.
I don't "wonder" at all.
Follow The Money
Repugs are craven, venal totally corrupt s, "governing" as they are paid to do by BigCarbon, BigCorp, BigFinance, etc.
eg, AHCA is BLATANTLY a huge tax cut for the wealthy and BigCorp, has NOTHING to do with health care.
It's not black and white, you bipolar idiot. There are several considerations between both ends.
You Lie
NOTHING "balances" against stabilizing, cooling the planet. The planet should be entering a cooling phase, not a wildly accelerating heating phase.
Investing in new infrastructure is always costly.
The benefits here, i.e. new good paying jobs, offset that.
Asia may actually be literally in the drivers seat, since the worlds largest market for personal vehicles is going to push the development of electrics. Economies of scale, and incremental change will do the rest.
This is basic economics.
My goals are stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere short-term, and long term getting it to go back to more natural levels, pre-industrial era.
You keep saying it will "be costly". How do you know that?
LOL...
Why are you such a raving lunatic?
OK, please show me a workable plan to eliminate CO2 emission.
I would expect you to be a little more realistic than most others on such a venture. Are you going to dissapoint me again?
going through it piece by piece...
0:00-9:00 - the first 9 minutes are just introducing the guy, his time at greenpeace, and his philosophical differences he had with the organization. nothing here is related to the science of climate change so far
9:00-11:30 - this is where he presents a summary of his position... which is to say "well the climate has always changed, and we didn't cause that." this isn't a startling scientific claim. everybody and their mother knows we have had ice ages and warm periods, it's not a revelation. but to act like this proves that there is no man-made warming is just being lazy. thats like saying you cant blame people for forest fires, because there have been forest fires in the past before humans.
imo, what's important about all the previous warming/cooling the earth has experienced is to see "what caused those past climate changes?" and are we recreating those cir stances that led to the climate changing? have differing levels of CO2 affected the climate in the past before, when the CO2 was produced naturally? and is that any different than the CO2 that we are releasing?
he even says things like "nobody talks about the fact that 50 million years ago was the hottest temperature we've had on earth, nobody seems to mention this!" My question here is, what is he basing that on? is there a denial in the scientific community about the temperatures from 50 million years ago? i haven't heard of this. in fact, one of the major pieces of evidence for what's going on today is also the fact that in that SAME time period, we have the highest levels of CO2... ever. (https://skepticalscience.com/images/Phanerozoic_CO2.gif).
he also mentions the milankovitch cycle of the wobble of the earth's axis, which scientists know plays a big role in ice ages. again, this isn't a novel discovery, it's well known. but its a 140,000 year cycle... that wouldn't account for drastic temperature changes over a period of 150 years. that's like saying if your 5 year old son suddenly grew by 10 inches overnight, you'd say, oh thats normal because kids always grow as they age
11:30-14:00 - he says we cant be sure that the warming we've had recently isn't just a continuation of the warming we already had. he even says the rate of warming hasn't changed... but his statements go directly against recorded data. again, this isn't me coming up with my own calculations or data... i'm not a scientist (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_te...e_timeline.png)
this is freely available, do ented information. and then he claims nasa is manipulating their data (i'd like to see his evidence for that) and that nasa makes up to get funding. i'd like to see his evidence of that. again, anybody can come on a podcast, go on tv, or write on a blog and say anything. lets get something do ented.
14:00-15:00 - he just says he's not funded by big oil and talks about media narratives. in the context of this thread, we're interested in the science of climate change, not about narratives or politics
15:50 - 17:00 - he says that there is nothing extraordinary about the temperature compared to anything we've seen in million or even in the last 10's of thousands of years. again, that's not a quan ate statement, i haven't seen his statistical analysis of it, just a statement. and i'm again going to refer to this (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_te...e_timeline.png)
17:00 - 21:00 - he says it doest look like there's going to be significant warming. again, where is he basing this from? is he still conducting active research? he's talking without sources. and then he goes into a long rants about doomsday prophets/al gore. again, there has not been a mainstream scientific claim that "the earth will end in 10 years" or anything like that. it's just a strawman. and then he compares CO2/temperature links to ice cream consumption and shark attacks. the problem is, CO2 inherently has warming qualities. it allows light energy through and blocks heat radiation... hence why its called a greenhouse gas. when you combine the properties of CO2 with the strong correlation we have... its completely dishonest to compare it to shark attacks and ice cream
21:00-26:30 now he goes into a discussion about solar activity (which of course, is do ented, charted, and is a part of all climate models that i'm aware of). the solar cycle is about 11 years long though. we've gone through several of these complete sunspot cycles during our recent warming, so i dont know how you can pin it on that. he also talks about how we're about to head towards a solar minimum... and while true, despite this, the temperature is still expected to rise. crowder brings up an article about how the due to solar activity we might see a 0.5 degree cooling. but he misquotes the article badly (full article: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-im...uantified.html). the article differentiates between natural and man-made causes of climate change, and suggests a cooler sun will have a cooling effect. this is where crowder stops. but the article goes on to say that it will only "slow the pace" of global warming because man-made causes are more powerful. and crowder confuses this to mean "the author thinks the earth will cool but is still just being a catastrophist." when in fact, the author says the sun will lead to a cooling effect that will not be able to compensate for our man-made warming effect.
and then the scientist guy goes off topic about how humans are tropical and global cooling would be more catastrophic than global warming. whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the earth is warming do to our activity.
26:30 - 27:50: he talks about "deniers of naturally caused climate change." who is he talking about? is he suggesting that scientists deny there are natural causes to the climate? i dont think those exist. artificially emitted CO2 is one of the factors of climate, not the only one. i dont know of any scientist that says otherwise. and then he talks about how global warming will be beneficial to agriculture. ok, fine. where is the research or study that suggests that the global warming we are expecting will have net benefits to agriculture? see, the problem with everything in this video is that he never refers to a source or a study. if he said "according to x paper written by x in the year 20__, research has shown that warming will help agriculture", i'd be infinitely more interested in what he has to say
and then he rants about media coverage and nuclear power for a bit.
i do find it overall funny that they always say "you cant predict global temperatures, its all guessing" but then have no problem predicting cooling
29:00 - 30:55: first, he just blankly says the catastrophic science is all false. ok, where's his evidence?... this is a recurring theme in this video. what's the data he's referencing to support his statement? he just says its wrong... then just says its a big conspiracy because it's publicly funded. but how does that account for the international consensus? he says nasa/noaa have maniuplated their data to show warming where there isn't. where is his statistical analysis demonstrating this, or what is he basing these statements on? then he says there is no good peer reviewed study that shows a consensus... i point to these exhibits
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...DoranEOS09.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...S-D-13-00091.1
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../9/094025/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/4/048002
31:30-34:05 - well this is another common talking point... consensus. it's absolutely true that consensus doesn't dictate science, and scientists dont all gather and vote on "what is true" and "what isn't true." the real consensus, so to speak, is in the evidence and research findings. if you look up research on the issue, the evidence is virtually one sided that AGW is happening. the consensus is in the evidence. the evidence is far more important than the opinion of the scientist. comparing it to the flat earth consensus is re ed because the flat earth consensus wasn't a scientific consensus... and it was the scientific method of evidence/observation that led to the rejection of the flat earth. he then talks about how 1 person like einstein/farraday/mendel can override a consensus. that's absolutely right. but those people PROVED their findings. they didn't just choose to disagree and happen to be right. they proved it and their evidence was undeniable.
towards the end he talks about how a warmer world would be wetter/more moist. this is probably true. i'm really not well-studied in this area... but again, that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not we are causing climate change.
the last thing he talks about is a rant about how it went from global warming to climate change... which is a ridiculous notion since "the carbon dioxide theory of climate change" is a paper going back to the 1950's, the IPCC, the intergovernmental panel on CLIMATE CHANGE dates back to the 1980's. it didn't "suddenly change from warming to change." that's such a bull narrative, and its demonstrably bull .
Last edited by spurraider21; 05-15-2017 at 06:49 PM.
Replace coal plants with renewables, build large scale storage to compensate for baseline power losses, integrate infrastructure. Easy to do, as coal plants are OLD. Just don't replace them with new coal plants. This is already happening.
Move to electric vehicles, scale up even more renewables to compensate.
Utility scale, distributed power through individual installations.
PV panels have the added bonus of having useful lives that will outlast the buildings they may be installed on.
Not difficult.
Move away from burning fossil fuels for electricity and transportation.
Some fuel will still be needed for large trucks and planes. We already have bioreactors with algae and so forth that can be scaled up massively to act as a form of solar concentration. Benefit of this is that it uses CO2 to produce the fuels.
Again, not hard.
A bit of push in the right direction from governments but let free markets and private capital do most of the heavy lifting and allocation of sources.
Wow...
And at what cost?
Are you seriously that ignorant?
Just how are you going to integrate that into every nation on the planet?
Cost accounting dictates that you weigh the costs versus the alternatives.
Replace coal plant, with another coal plant = $$. Replace coal plant with PV = $$
We have to replace aging coal plants anyways. The average age of US installed coal MW is over 30+ years if memory serves.
Merely replacing those with PV or wind would not cost altogether that much more, and in many cases LESS, due the levelized cost of energy that factors in the costs of fuel over the life the plant.
Germany offers some clues. They take things a step further and wanted their nukes gone, because of fukishima, so you have a lot of added costs as you have to replace relatively new plants with new construction, and that does get expensive.
Further they are waaay more north, limiting their solar potential. Most areas of the US experience almost twice the amount of solar radiation, meaning solar in the US will end up 1/2 as much (i.e. +100% output of a similar system in Germany)
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions