• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

GPS_Flex said:
I know what Co2 is but have seen noting that convinces me it is driving global warming.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nijato said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
GPS_Flex said:
So all I need to know is “Savante Arrhenius” and I will know all there is to know about AGW?
Click to expand...

No... you asked to see evidence that CO2 is "driving global warming." Svante ;) Arrhenius was the first to describe the relationship between CO2 concentration and the absorption of radiated heat. Assuming you agree that CO2 levels have been rising for the last 250 years or so, due to the use of fossil fuels, you can put these two data points together to get an idea of what the problem is.

GPS_Flex said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Issues of science get me particularly animated. I apologize.
 
GPS_Flex said:
What should I look for? You can’t expect a simpleton like me to read all of it can you?
Click to expand...

This one's one of my favorite parts. It shows just how big the effect of CO2 is, relative to other factors.

figure2-20-l.jpg

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.

figure-spm-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
nijato said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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.

Any other sources of energy we can set up, especially that provide power for individual buildings, including homes, that provide renewable power should be pursued because, in the long run, it will decrease our use of non-renewable resources, such as oil and coal. Wind turbines and solar panels are good ways to help us decrease how much energy we get from oil and coal. The extra benefit of reducing pollution from those sources is a small part of the whole of the benefits of alternate, natural, renewable energy sources.
 
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.
 
Councilman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

100 years is more than enough time replace oil with better more renewable sources.

Those who protest are very influential and do in groups such who have CEOs etc, that make over $100,000 a years and will do what ever they can to stay in business.

They are trying to shut sown plants for a Solar Power Plant East County San Diego, another one in the desert near Nellis AFB in NV.

It's not the individual protesters that are the problem.
 
The quicker we use up oil and natural gas the quicker we have to find an alternative.
 
Councilman said:
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.
Click to expand...

How many years of NG are there if we increase demand significantly, though?

Neither oil nor NG is going to be a long term solution.
 
Tettsuo said:
Both coal and nuclear received government subsidies. It's a shame so many Americans don't want to invest in the future.
Click to expand...

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.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Republicans Want To Ax Renewable Energy and Environment

So which part of my entire statement is false?
 
GPS_Flex said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
1Perry said:
The quicker we use up oil and natural gas the quicker we have to find an alternative.
Click to expand...

...which doesn't exist. NG is the most chemically reduced form of carbon possible.
 
1Perry said:
The quicker we use up oil and natural gas the quicker we have to find an alternative.
Click to expand...

And the more painful that transition will become.

nijato said:
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.
Click to expand...

The emissions caused by construction of the plant aren't even in the same galaxy as the lifelong emissions of a coal plant.
 
Last edited:
nijato said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

The 2007 IPCC report you referenced is based upon models that have a much longer timeline than the Spencer study/article being criticized herein. It needed to be clarified that the IPCC studies you rely upon for your opinions are primarily based upon data didn’t directly measure temps but used the direct temp measurements Spencer used to validate their own models.

How can you claim Spencer is way off the mark with this study without asking yourself why the IPCC models still use this same short timeline data to validate their own models?

Unfortunately it is going to be hit and miss as far as my ability to keep up with this dialogue as I will begin a new school semester on Monday and have plans to spend much of that time on the water with friends and family between now and then. I’ll do what I can to keep it going though.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting we stop burning coal Deuce?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom