GPS_Flex
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,726
- Reaction score
- 648
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What would you suggest I read?Seriously? Go read something.
What would you suggest I read?Seriously? Go read something.
I know what Co2 is but have seen noting that convinces me it is driving global warming.
What would you suggest I read?
So all I need to know is “Savante Arrhenius” and I will know all there is to know about AGW?That's funny, because Savante Arrhenius figured out that CO2 absorbs radiated heat in 1896. Looks like you've got a little catching up to do in the literature.
What should I look for? You can’t expect a simpleton like me to read all of it can you?
What should I look for? You can’t expect a simpleton like me to read all of it can you?
So all I need to know is “Savante Arrhenius” and I will know all there is to know about AGW?
May I suggest you tone it down with the snide insults? I have a tendency to be a bit aggressive myself but I’m in recovery.
What should I look for? You can’t expect a simpleton like me to read all of it can you?
This one's one of my favorite parts. It shows just how big the effect of CO2 is, relative to other factors.
View attachment 67114966
But this one's a classic too... it's the observed changes on the Earth's surface. Find the bigger versions from the other link.
View attachment 67114967
There is enough NATURAL GAS to last 100 years and it it can be used in every application Oil is used for.
There are also a lot of things we could do if the will was there, but things like electric cars cost way too much or I would have one, and the Environmentally ill protest such things as SOLAR generating plants because they claim they will hurt some bug or other nonsense, they protest WIND GENERATORS because they look bad or kill birds which is a load.
We could as I have said plenty of times use a portion of the wasted Foreign to retrofit COAL fire plants to make them clean burning, but because it's logical it will never happen because politics have to play to BIG OIL, and they don't want to tell the Environmentally ill to set down and shut the hell up.
100 years is not really that long. It is rather short in fact, in the big scheme of things.
And very few would protest individual solar panels and wind turbines on individual homes and businesses, which would help reduce power consumption a good deal. Small scale energy improvements add up when you can make it affordable for everyone to do them and would go a long way in reducing our dependence on pollution causing, non-renewable resources.
There is enough NATURAL GAS to last 100 years and it it can be used in every application Oil is used for.
There are also a lot of things we could do if the will was there, but things like electric cars cost way too much or I would have one, and the Environmentally ill protest such things as SOLAR generating plants because they claim they will hurt some bug or other nonsense, they protest WIND GENERATORS because they look bad or kill birds which is a load.
We could as I have said plenty of times use a portion of the wasted Foreign to retrofit COAL fire plants to make them clean burning, but because it's logical it will never happen because politics have to play to BIG OIL, and they don't want to tell the Environmentally ill to set down and shut the hell up.
Both coal and nuclear received government subsidies. It's a shame so many Americans don't want to invest in the future.
You've certainly proved that strawman you've created is false. But nothing I posted was a false at all. Coal and nuclear does indeed received government subsidies in tax credits and direct handouts for research. American Conservatives on a whole complain about renewal energy sources like wind and solar and would absolutely like to defund it.Ridiculous, you have no idea of the $billions that DoE spending on alternative energy research including hydrogen fuel cell technology. Your entire statement is false.
Your charts are way too small to read. Even then, I'm certain I would need some background data to explain them.
Can we agree that in the IPCC report you link to, conclusions were based upon models that were based upon proxy data such as ice cores and tree rings etc. and validated using satellite data?
Why does everyone focus on AGW when talking about energy consumption anyway? Isn't the more pressing point of finding alternate energy sources the fact that oil and even coal are not easily renewable resources and therefore are eventually going to run out? Plus, although I am all about nuclear energy, I don't think that it should be the end-all solution to our energy needs either (at it's current level of technology anyway) due to the amount of nuclear waste that it produces.
The quicker we use up oil and natural gas the quicker we have to find an alternative.
The quicker we use up oil and natural gas the quicker we have to find an alternative.
And here's the real kicker - you can't have nuclear without oil. A nuclear power plant is a massive project that requires many tons of steel and concrete - the production and installation of which requires the use of fossil fuels and produces lots of atmospheric CO2. To say nuclear power is clean-air technology is myopic.
I am truly of the "all of the above" position on energy. We're in for a real crunch, and we need all the nuclear, wind, solar, onshore drilling, offshore drilling, and whatever else can be done to help. Other than mountaintop removal for coal mining and building new traditional coal-fired electricity plants, the US should aggressively pursue all energy options in order to help achieve a "soft landing" as oil production peaks.
If push comes to shove, I can defend my use of the word “proxy” but it looks like we agree on the fundamental issues I wanted to clarify so I’ll move along and try to answer your “where are you going” question.Can't really agree to that. Much of it is based on direct measurement. And I'm not sure what you mean by "proxy." If you mean that some of the data, especially from older time periods is based on inferences from indirect sources, that's true. Satellites produce lots of useful data too... where are you going here?
And the more painful that transition will become.
The emissions caused by construction of the plant aren't even in the same galaxy as the lifelong emissions of a coal plant.