16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[Saigon]

what do any of these three things being "good" or "extreme" have to do with man's contributions to changing climate?

Because they allow cleaner forms of electricity production (i.e. less CO2 emissions) to replace dirtier forms of electricity production (i.e. more CO2 emissions).

Wind produces less CO2 emissions than coal, for instance. It is also cheaper, incidentally.

 

[westwall]

QW -

It's because you so obviously don't believe what you post yourself.

Any eleven-year-old child could explain to you why biology is essential to our understanding of climate, and yet here you are demanding explanations and then ignoring them when they are provided.

Why not try debating the topic as if you were an adult?

Oh take a hike you sanctimonious unethical twerp. You don't know anything about anything. You are a propagandist through and through. Let me know when you've taken your remedial Finnish geography lesson too so we can test your knowledge on that!

 

[Boss]

QW -

It's because you so obviously don't believe what you post yourself.

Any eleven-year-old child could explain to you why biology is essential to our understanding of climate, and yet here you are demanding explanations and then ignoring them when they are provided.

Why not try debating the topic as if you were an adult?

Saigon, what I continue to see you doing, is trying to argue your point from the perspective of the obvious, which doesn't establish your point at all. It's like Chicken Little running around speaking of all the terrible dangers of a falling sky... it gets in your hair... it could hurt your head... it might even kill somebody! You need to be proving that man is contributing to climate change, and all you're doing is talking about the effects of climate change. We all understand that when the climate changes, it affects things. This fact doesn't establish that mankind is contributing to the change in climate.

Your chart doesn't show that man is contributing to CO2 levels at all. The chart posted by QW, data taken from an ice core, shows that CO2 levels have always followed the same cyclical pattern, over hundreds of thousands of years. Your chart is just the sampling which only shows one spike, the most current. Other spikes, as indicated by ice core data, were greater than the current spike. This couldn't have been caused by man, we weren't here.

 

[westwall]

what do any of these three things being "good" or "extreme" have to do with man's contributions to changing climate?

Because they allow cleaner forms of electricity production (i.e. less CO2 emissions) to replace dirtier forms of electricity production (i.e. more CO2 emissions).

Wind produces less CO2 emissions than coal, for instance. It is also cheaper, incidentally.

Wrong on both counts. It requires tremendous amounts of CO2 to produce large scale windmills and they are far more expensive to operate than fossil fuel powered power stations.

One windmill that cost 21,000 has generated a whopping 4 BUCKS in savings!


Now that's a greeeeat return on investment!


"Nearly two years after Reno started installing energy-producing windmills at city facilities from downtown to Stead, some have proven to be better at generating electricity than others despite claims made by manufacturers.

The city's seven windmills have so far saved Reno $2,785 in energy costs after generating 25,319 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The windmills were installed between April and October 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of the stimulus package approved by Congress in February 2009.

That's according ..."

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120314...living-up-manufacturers-claims?nclick_check=1

 

[Boss]

what do any of these three things being "good" or "extreme" have to do with man's contributions to changing climate?

Because they allow cleaner forms of electricity production (i.e. less CO2 emissions) to replace dirtier forms of electricity production (i.e. more CO2 emissions).

Wind produces less CO2 emissions than coal, for instance. It is also cheaper, incidentally.

Why do you think carbon dioxide is dirty? It's not a pollutant. It is one of the most abundant compounds in the universe, and absolutely VITAL for all plant life. The cleanest most efficient form of energy is nuclear. Wind power is certainly not cheaper than coal, and is far less efficient. Have you ever seen a wind-powered locomotive? Wind is also unpredictable, you don't know when it will blow, for how long, or to what degree. What do you suppose happens to windmills in a hurricane? Or do you assume we will no longer have hurricanes if we convert to wind power?

 

[Saigon]

Boss-

Your chart doesn't show that man is contributing to CO2 levels at all

No, it doesn't. What I posted proved to you that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were rising at an unprecedented rate - a point you had asked for information on.

This is where it is really worth trying to block out the politics and just try and focus on logic.

We know that humankind has increased our output of CO2 a thousandfold during the past century.

And as we just saw, we know that levels of CO2 in the atmoshphere have risen a thousandfols in the past century.

You can see where I am going with this, can't you?

Why do you think carbon dioxide is dirty? It's not a pollutant

Then trying breathing it and see what happens.

Water is not a pollutant either. It is necessary to sustain life,true?

What happens if you drink 25 litres of water in 2 hours?

Pleawe note that these are not disputed points. Noone is arguing about this. It is known science, and most posters here will confirm that for you.

btw. Windpower IS cheaper than coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

I totally support nuclear.

 

[Abraham3]

Don't you think that at some point in the past 50 years of climate "research" that someone would have done a lab experiment to actually demonstrate the mechanism by which the AGW hypothesis works if there were, in fact, such a mechanism?

I mean really, if adding CO2 to a volume of gas caused some degree of warming, don't you think it could be readily demonstrated? Of course it can't because the only way CO2 will cause warming is if there is enough of it to change the atmospheric pressure and the ideal gas laws tell us that if that happens, that warming will, in fact happen and that can be demonstrated in any half decent lab.

Absolutely ASTOUNDING that the world's scientists could have missed that basic point ! ! !

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

greenhouse effect: Definition from Answers.com

Greenhouse Effect - What are Greenhouse Gases and the Greenhouse Effect?

The Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse effect

The Greenhouse Effect | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA

What is the greenhouse effect?

Greenhouse Effect: Background Material

NASA's Climate Kids :: What is the greenhouse effect?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Enhanced 'greenhouse effect' causes global warming - USATODAY.com

Ancient clams yield new information about greenhouse effect on climate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

7(h) The Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse effect | Define Greenhouse effect at Dictionary.com

Greenhouse gas emissions lowest in 20 years, thanks to natural gas | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog

greenhouse effect (atmospheric science) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/greenhouse_effect.aspx

Greenhouse effect - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

greenhouse effect - definition of greenhouse effect by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The Greenhouse Effect - Thermodynamics, Heat, Climate Change - PhET

greenhouse_2011

Greenhouse Effect definition of Greenhouse Effect in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

Greenhouse-effect | Define Greenhouse-effect at Dictionary.com

Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse Effect, by Thomas C. Schelling: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Global Warming Interactive, Global Warming Simulation, Climate Change Simulation - National Geographic

Greenhouse effect

Greenhouse effect | Easy to understand definition of greenhouse effect by Your Dictionary

Greenhouse effect

greenhouse effect (atmospheric science) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[Abraham3]

Your chart doesn't show that man is contributing to CO2 levels at all.

Sources of carbon dioxide

Natural sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide include volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, wildfires and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms. Man-made sources of carbon dioxide include the burning of fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport, as well as some industrial processes such as cement making. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration. Plants, algae and cyanobacteria convert carbon dioxide to carbohydrates by a process called photosynthesis. They gain the energy needed for this reaction from absorption of sunlight by chlorophyll and other pigments. Oxygen, produced as a by-product of photosynthesis, is released into the atmosphere and subsequently used for respiration by heterotrophic organisms and other plants, forming a cycle.

Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.[18] Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year,[19] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29 gigatonnes).[20] These natural sources are nearly balanced by natural sinks, physical and biological processes which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some is directly removed from the atmosphere by land plants for photosynthesis and it is soluble in water forming carbonic acid. There is a large natural flux of CO2 into and out of the biosphere and oceans.[21] In the pre-industrial era these fluxes were largely in balance. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans.[22] The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitted CO2 is known as the airborne fraction (Keeling et al., 1995); this varies for short-term averages and is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods. Estimated carbon in global terrestrial vegetation increased from approximately 740 billion tons in 1910 to 780 billion tons in 1990.[23]

Anthropogenic CO2 increase

While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human activity.[24] Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[24] as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling them to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.
Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[25] In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 gigatonnes in 2010, compared to 1.45 gigatonnes in 1990.[25] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[26][27][28] In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes.[29]
This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[30] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels.[31][32] Various techniques have been proposed for removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in carbon dioxide sinks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

18. ^ "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2013-05-12.
19. ^ Gerlach, T.M. (4 June 1991). "Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes". Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union (American Geophysical Union) 72 (23): 249, 254–5. Bibcode:1991EOSTr..72..249.. doi:10.1029/90EO10192.
20. ^ U.S. Geological Survey, "Volcanic Gases and Their Effects", volcanoes.usgs.gov
21. ^ Cappelluti, G.; Bösch, H.; Monks, P.S. (2009). Use of remote sensing techniques for the detection and monitoring of GHG emissions from the Scottish land use sector. Scottish Government. ISBN 978-0-7559-7738-3.
22. ^ Canadell JG, Le Quéré C, Raupach MR, et al. (November 2007). "Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (47): 18866–70. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10418866C. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702737104. PMC 2141868. PMID 17962418.
23. ^ Post WM, King AW, Wullschleger SD, Hoffman FM; King; Wullschleger (June 1997). "Historical Variations in Terrestrial Biospheric Carbon Storage". DOE Research Summary (CDIAC, U.S. Department of Energy) 34: 99. Bibcode:1997GBioC..11...99P. doi:10.1029/96GB03942.
24. ^ a b e.g. Gosh, Prosenjit; Brand, Willi A. (2003). "Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research" (PDF). International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 228: 1–33. doi:10.1016/S1387-3806(03)00289-6. "Global change issues have become significant due to the sustained rise in atmospheric trace gas concentrations (CO2, N
2O, CH
4) over recent years, attributable to the increased per capita energy consumption of a growing global population."
25. ^ a b G.P. Peters et al. Global carbon budget 2010 (summary), Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
26. ^ Page, S.; Siegert, F.; Rieley, J.; Boehm, H.; Jaya, A.; Limin, S. (2002). "The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997.". Nature 420 (6911): 61–65. doi:10.1038/nature01131. PMID 12422213. edit
27. ^ Lazaroff, Cat (2002-11-08). "Indonesian Wildfires Accelerated Global Warming". Environment New Service. Retrieved 2011-11-07.
28. ^ Pearce, Fred (6 November 2004). "Massive peat burn is speeding climate change". New Scientist.
29. ^ Calculated from file global.1751_2008.csv in [1] from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.
30. ^ US Global Change Research Information Office, "Common Questions about Climate Change"
31. ^ "Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa". NOAA. Retrieved 2013-05-11.
32. ^ "Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark". BBC. 10 May 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2013.

 

[skookerasbil]

Don't you think that at some point in the past 50 years of climate "research" that someone would have done a lab experiment to actually demonstrate the mechanism by which the AGW hypothesis works if there were, in fact, such a mechanism?

I mean really, if adding CO2 to a volume of gas caused some degree of warming, don't you think it could be readily demonstrated? Of course it can't because the only way CO2 will cause warming is if there is enough of it to change the atmospheric pressure and the ideal gas laws tell us that if that happens, that warming will, in fact happen and that can be demonstrated in any half decent lab.

Absolutely ASTOUNDING that the world's scientists could have missed that basic point ! ! !

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

greenhouse effect: Definition from Answers.com

Greenhouse Effect - What are Greenhouse Gases and the Greenhouse Effect?

The Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse effect

The Greenhouse Effect | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA

What is the greenhouse effect?

Greenhouse Effect: Background Material

NASA's Climate Kids :: What is the greenhouse effect?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Enhanced 'greenhouse effect' causes global warming - USATODAY.com

Ancient clams yield new information about greenhouse effect on climate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

7(h) The Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse effect | Define Greenhouse effect at Dictionary.com

Greenhouse gas emissions lowest in 20 years, thanks to natural gas | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog

greenhouse effect (atmospheric science) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/greenhouse_effect.aspx

Greenhouse effect - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

greenhouse effect - definition of greenhouse effect by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The Greenhouse Effect - Thermodynamics, Heat, Climate Change - PhET

greenhouse_2011

Greenhouse Effect definition of Greenhouse Effect in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

Greenhouse-effect | Define Greenhouse-effect at Dictionary.com

Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse Effect, by Thomas C. Schelling: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Global Warming Interactive, Global Warming Simulation, Climate Change Simulation - National Geographic

Greenhouse effect

Greenhouse effect | Easy to understand definition of greenhouse effect by Your Dictionary

Greenhouse effect

greenhouse effect (atmospheric science) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

knock yourself out s0n.......



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]










Might as well be standing stark naked in the middle of Siberia screaming "FIRE"!!!!!



nobody cares........

 

[Abraham3]

what do any of these three things being "good" or "extreme" have to do with man's contributions to changing climate?

Because they allow cleaner forms of electricity production (i.e. less CO2 emissions) to replace dirtier forms of electricity production (i.e. more CO2 emissions).

Wind produces less CO2 emissions than coal, for instance. It is also cheaper, incidentally.

Wrong on both counts. It requires tremendous amounts of CO2 to produce large scale windmills and they are far more expensive to operate than fossil fuel powered power stations.

One windmill that cost 21,000 has generated a whopping 4 BUCKS in savings!

Now that's a greeeeat return on investment!

"Nearly two years after Reno started installing energy-producing windmills at city facilities from downtown to Stead, some have proven to be better at generating electricity than others despite claims made by manufacturers.

The city's seven windmills have so far saved Reno $2,785 in energy costs after generating 25,319 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The windmills were installed between April and October 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of the stimulus package approved by Congress in February 2009.

That's according ..."

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120314...living-up-manufacturers-claims?nclick_check=1

But, as we all know, the manufacture and construction of fossil fuel-power plants produces NO CO2 AT ALL! It's a FOOKING MIRACLE I TELL YOU!

There is nothing about the construction of a wind generator that produces any significant amount of CO2. To insist otherwise is simple dishonesty. Or ignorance. The "dirtiest" component in that regard would be concrete. Newer designs have replaced almost all concrete with steel. "All wind turbines recover their complete full-cycle energy cost in the first few (usually three) months of operation." - Ohio State Edu link below

The Ohio Wind Working Group (OWWG), a forum on wind energy development, says the state has the potential to generate 66,000 megawatts, enough to power the state twice over. That's how much money Ohio can save with wind energy, all of it. In 2006 wind energy in the state generated $250 million worth of electricity and created 1,700 jobs. "By 2030, Ohio could benefit from $7.6 billion revenue from the wind industry," says the OWWG.

Read more: How Much Money Will the Wind Farms Save Ohio? | eHow

More good reading at:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E21.3.pdf.xpdf

 

[skookerasbil]

Because they allow cleaner forms of electricity production (i.e. less CO2 emissions) to replace dirtier forms of electricity production (i.e. more CO2 emissions).

Wind produces less CO2 emissions than coal, for instance. It is also cheaper, incidentally.

Wrong on both counts. It requires tremendous amounts of CO2 to produce large scale windmills and they are far more expensive to operate than fossil fuel powered power stations.

One windmill that cost 21,000 has generated a whopping 4 BUCKS in savings!

Now that's a greeeeat return on investment!

"Nearly two years after Reno started installing energy-producing windmills at city facilities from downtown to Stead, some have proven to be better at generating electricity than others despite claims made by manufacturers.

The city's seven windmills have so far saved Reno $2,785 in energy costs after generating 25,319 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The windmills were installed between April and October 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of the stimulus package approved by Congress in February 2009.

That's according ..."

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120314...living-up-manufacturers-claims?nclick_check=1

But, as we all know, the manufacture and construction of fossil fuel-power plants produces NO CO2 AT ALL! It's a FOOKING MIRACLE I TELL YOU!

There is nothing about the construction of a wind generator that produces any significant amount of CO2. To insist otherwise is simple dishonesty. Or ignorance. The "dirtiest" component in that regard would be concrete. Newer designs have replaced almost all concrete with steel. "All wind turbines recover their complete full-cycle energy cost in the first few (usually three) months of operation." - Ohio State Edu link below

The Ohio Wind Working Group (OWWG), a forum on wind energy development, says the state has the potential to generate 66,000 megawatts, enough to power the state twice over. That's how much money Ohio can save with wind energy, all of it. In 2006 wind energy in the state generated $250 million worth of electricity and created 1,700 jobs. "By 2030, Ohio could benefit from $7.6 billion revenue from the wind industry," says the OWWG.

Read more: How Much Money Will the Wind Farms Save Ohio? | eHow

More good reading at:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E21.3.pdf.xpdf

 

[Abraham3]

Why do you think carbon dioxide is dirty?

Saigon was quite clear what he meant by the term "dirty".

It's not a pollutant.

Semantic bullshit.

It is one of the most abundant compounds in the universe

As your denialist buddies will tell you, it is actually a "trace"gas here on Earth and it is most certainly NOT one of the most abundant compounds in the universe.

and absolutely VITAL for all plant life.

Yes. Do you believe anti-global warming efforts are a threat to the health of the world's plant life?

The cleanest most efficient form of energy is nuclear.

I also support nuclear power, but I would argue a few points with you. From a global warming perspective, nuke plants are certainly desirable. From a resource-efficiency standpoint, the future looks good. The waste issues are formidable at the moment, but breeder reactor technology has enormous promise as an efficient means to dispose of dangerous residuals. Unfortunately, of course, they are a dual-edged sword from their production of weapons grade materials. Thorium reactors are promising and, somewhere a good ways down the line, fusion reactors have the promise of allowing us to rapidly eliminate our dangerous fission waste products. As I said, I support nuclear power, but it presents a number of risks and challenges and should be used with caution.

Wind power is certainly not cheaper than coal, and is far less efficient.

It is cheaper than coal and, when environmental effects are taken into account, it is fabulously less expensive. It also has a slight advantage regarding fuel costs.

Have you ever seen a wind-powered locomotive?

Was that supposed to be a meaningful query?

Wind is also unpredictable, you don't know when it will blow, for how long, or to what degree.

Your local weatherman would disagree with you. You can predict wind but the accuracy of your predictions goes down rapidly as one looks further out. General predictions - say seasonally-based can be made as well. The future is an unknown in all regards. The accuracy of our predictions regarding coal price and availability also go down as we look further and further out. The same is true for petroleum, natural gas, uranium... the lot. The differences are only a matter of degree.

What do you suppose happens to windmills in a hurricane?

They ship the blades, lock the rotors and wait. Do you think it impossible to build a wind generator capable of sustaining hurricane force winds?

Or do you assume we will no longer have hurricanes if we convert to wind power?

I think you need to do a little more reading.

 

[Boss]

Boss-

Your chart doesn't show that man is contributing to CO2 levels at all

No, it doesn't. What I posted proved to you that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were rising at an unprecedented rate - a point you had asked for information on.

But it's NOT unprecedented, as QW's chart showed, it's been happening like this for 400k years. It has actually spiked higher, so you've shown nothing "unprecedented" at all.

This is where it is really worth trying to block out the politics and just try and focus on logic.

We know that humankind has increased our output of CO2 a thousandfold during the past century.

Yes, let's focus on the logic and not the politics. It's not unprecedented that CO2 levels are rising, they have been spiking like this for hundreds of thousands of years, long before mankind was around to contribute to them. Man creates CO2 through industrialization, so the only way to eliminate man's contribution is to get rid of industrialization. The only other way CO2 is created by man, is through breathing and living, and our population has increased a thousandfold during the past century, so something should be done about all the humans on the planet as well. I think, before we get carried away, we need to look at the effects of these spikes in CO2, and the fact that they generally result in a difference of a few degrees in temperature, at best.

And as we just saw, we know that levels of CO2 in the atmoshphere have risen a thousandfols in the past century.

You can see where I am going with this, can't you?

Not really, because so has industrialization and population. It has caused a net increase of a few degrees in median temperature. As we've observed for 400k years, the planet can handle it, nothing catastrophic is going to happen, and eventually the levels decline again. Man's contribution through industrialization and breathing, only accounts for a small amount of the CO2 present in our atmosphere.

Why do you think carbon dioxide is dirty? It's not a pollutant

Then trying breathing it and see what happens.

Water is not a pollutant either. It is necessary to sustain life,true?

What happens if you drink 25 litres of water in 2 hours?

Pleawe note that these are not disputed points. Noone is arguing about this. It is known science, and most posters here will confirm that for you.

Well this can be said about anything. If you breathe pure oxygen, it will eventually kill you. That doesn't mean it's a pollutant or dirty. Now, the level of CO2 to breathe and be in any kind of danger, is 800ppm, according to OSHA. We're never going to reach this level in our atmosphere.

btw. Windpower IS cheaper than coal. Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I totally support nuclear.

Wind power may be cheaper than coal in production of electricity, but it is also less reliable. Not to mention the fact that we only produce a fraction of electricity with coal. The most efficient way to produce electricity, and the most reliable, is nuclear. I'm glad you support nuclear, now maybe you can convince some of your moonbat friends to stop protesting the building of more nuclear power plants?

 

[PredFan]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...

Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion. Keep yapping to yourself. I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves. Keep on purring kitty....

I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

99% of the people don't understand some very basic facts about Climate Change and the scam surrounding it.

 

[Abraham3]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...

Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion. Keep yapping to yourself. I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves. Keep on purring kitty....

I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

99% of the people don't understand some very basic facts about Climate Change and the scam surrounding it.

The vast majority of climate scientists and a very strong majority of all other scientists believe that global warming is primarily caused by human GHG emissions. I find that point considerably more significant than the opinions of the public.

 

[Abraham3]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...

Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion. Keep yapping to yourself. I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves. Keep on purring kitty....

I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

99% of the people don't understand some very basic facts about Climate Change and the scam surrounding it.

We can't force you to be right either. But we can refute nonsense when we see it. AGW is not a scam. The world is getting warmer. The Greenhouse Effect is the dominant cause. The Greenhouse Effect is acting on increased levels of CO2, methane, water vapor and so forth. The source of those gases is either anthropogenic or a result of the warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions.

 

[Saigon]

PredFan -

99% of the people don't understand some very basic facts about Climate Change and the scam surrounding it.

But you do, of course.

And yet I am willing to bet good money that if you present your beliefs, they will be the usual patent nonsense of global socialist conspiracies run by conservative German politicians and funded by Chevron and Ford.

 

[Boss]

Why do you think carbon dioxide is dirty?

Saigon was quite clear what he meant by the term "dirty".

It's not a pollutant.

Semantic bullshit.

Well yes, it IS semantic bullshit when you say that CO2 is "dirty," because it's not. In fact it is an essential compound needed for all plants to live. Without plants, we can't survive.

As your denialist buddies will tell you, it is actually a "trace"gas here on Earth and it is most certainly NOT one of the most abundant compounds in the universe.

Well yeah, 300 parts per million, is a trace. But CO2 exists all over the universe in abundance because carbon exists all over the universe in abundance. Nature accounts for FAR more CO2 in our atmosphere than humans. Plant life lives on CO2, so if you want to reduce CO2 levels, plant a tree! It's not harmful to humans at 300ppm, or even 600ppm. OSHA regulations for miners working underground and other hazardous environments, limit human exposure to 800ppm, but this is only the point at which OSHA says it's unsafe, humans can actually breathe up to 1,200~1,500ppm, and not die from it. We'll never reach these levels in nature because it dissipates into space or is absorbed by the oceans, if it is not used by the plant life on Earth.

Yes. Do you believe anti-global warming efforts are a threat to the health of the world's plant life?

I don't know, I just find it odd that you are waging war against the very thing that plants need to survive. Seems a bit stupid to me. Botanists, (who ARE scientists, btw) claim that, up until this latest 'spike' in atmospheric CO2, that all plant life was STARVING for CO2, and it has only recently increased to a level which enables plants to thrive. So does it not bother you, that you are actively working against the very element needed to revive the rain forests? Not that eliminating man's contribution will matter much, it's only a small fraction of what causes increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but still... kinda dumb to be fighting so strongly against it.

I also support nuclear power, but I would argue a few points with you. From a global warming perspective, nuke plants are certainly desirable. From a resource-efficiency standpoint, the future looks good. The waste issues are formidable at the moment, but breeder reactor technology has enormous promise as an efficient means to dispose of dangerous residuals. Unfortunately, of course, they are a dual-edged sword from their production of weapons grade materials. Thorium reactors are promising and, somewhere a good ways down the line, fusion reactors have the promise of allowing us to rapidly eliminate our dangerous fission waste products. As I said, I support nuclear power, but it presents a number of risks and challenges and should be used with caution.

I'll bet you money right here and now, that in the United States, more people have died from accidents involving windmills, than have died as a result of nuclear energy.

It is cheaper than coal and, when environmental effects are taken into account, it is fabulously less expensive. It also has a slight advantage regarding fuel costs.

I am suspect of any studies regarding wind power, because I don't think they account for the enormous maintenance costs, or the 'downtime' involved. Again, wind is not reliable, we can't predict when it is going to blow and when it will not blow. Plus, in order to fill the current demand for electricity in a major city, you'd need thousands of miles of windmills, stacked in grids, up and down the coastline. People like the Kennedy's don't want to look out of their exclusive Summer homes and see windmills, so we have a problem there.

Was that supposed to be a meaningful query?

No, I was merely asking a question to prove a point. I have no problem with someone wanting to "get off the grid" by installing windmills, but wind power can't replace coal, there are far too many applications where coal is better suited. Plus, coal is our most abundant resource, and we have thousands and thousands of people who work in the coal industry. Again, coal OR wind, is not as efficient as nuclear, so if we're going to retrain all these people in the coal industry, might as well go nuclear.

Your local weatherman would disagree with you. You can predict wind but the accuracy of your predictions goes down rapidly as one looks further out. General predictions - say seasonally-based can be made as well. The future is an unknown in all regards. The accuracy of our predictions regarding coal price and availability also go down as we look further and further out. The same is true for petroleum, natural gas, uranium... the lot. The differences are only a matter of degree.

You're totally missing my point. We can say, the Summer months are coming and we know the demand for electricity will be higher, so let's order some more coal... you can't order more wind. You're totally dependent on mother nature, you may not have as much wind this year as last year. What happens when demand spikes and wind doesn't? We can store some power, but what if mother nature decides to freak a little and not produce as much wind for a period of time? It is far too unreliable to ever be our primary source of energy.

What do you suppose happens to windmills in a hurricane?

They ship the blades, lock the rotors and wait. Do you think it impossible to build a wind generator capable of sustaining hurricane force winds?

I don't know, I was just asking a question. I know nuclear power plants don't have a problem producing power during a hurricane.

Or do you assume we will no longer have hurricanes if we convert to wind power?

I think you need to do a little more reading.

Why is that? Don't you have all the answers? Shouldn't I just follow whatever you say, and believe you know what the hell you're talking about? I think my biggest problem here is, I have done a lot of reading, and I am marginally smarter than you. This keeps me from being a gullible fool when it comes to AGW, and the effects of man on the climate. If only I could undo all my reading and find a way to make myself dumb again, you might be able to convince me of this lunacy.

 

[mamooth]

Well there is the root of your problem. You don't know the difference between a real scientist and someone who has what amounts to a liberal science degree. Engineers live applied science. If you want to know what happens in the physical world, ask an engineer, not an academic.

Bullshit. Most engineers are myopic and fairly helpless outside of their specialty. I know that, as an engineer.

Climate science requires generalism. You need physics, chemistry, biology, and loads and loads of statistics. Engineers don't have that. Especially the statistics. An engineering BS requires one basic statistics course, which is laughably inadequate for the sciences. Even the damn psychologists, about as "soft" as you can get, are far better statisticians than the engineers.

What a lot of engineers do have is stupid unwarranted arrogance. They know a lot about their little thing, so they incorrectly assume they must know everything.

 

[PredFan]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...



I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

99% of the people don't understand some very basic facts about Climate Change and the scam surrounding it.

The vast majority of climate scientists and a very strong majority of all other scientists believe that global warming is primarily caused by human GHG emissions. I find that point considerably more significant than the opinions of the public.

And I find your hyperbole hackneyed and booring.