• 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!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

longview said:
You are in error! The ice core records all show the temperature LEADS the increase in the CO2 level.
At best the records show the lag of CO2 past the temperature change is undetectable.
None of the records show the CO2 change driving the temperature increase.
Antarctic temperature and CO2: near-synchrony yet variable phasing during the last deglaciation

This means your statement is in error, the ice core data do not show an increase in the CO2 level can cause a temperature increase,
but the opposite, that a temperature increase can cause a CO2 level increase.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, not the conclusion from the authors of the study. Quotes from the study you linked to:

“The last deglaciation, which occurred from 18 000 to 11 000 years ago, is the most recent large natural climatic variation of global extent…”

“Global temperature has been shown to lag CO2 on average during T1 (Shakun et al., 2012), supporting the importance of CO2 as an amplifier of orbitally driven global-scale warming.”

The authors were studying natural occurring climate change, not the present global warming caused by human emissions of CO2. The authors also acknowledge that C02, as a greenhouse gas, can amplify natural warning.
 
Last edited:
LetsGoBrandon said:
Outside of urban areas, they are higly impractical and will never catch on.

The increase here in the US started losing steam as soon as the buyers were introduced to the massive cost of keeping them repaired,
Click to expand...

90 percent of cars sold in cold and rural Norway are fully electric.

cleantechnica.com

EVs Take 92.1% Share In Norway — Tesla Model Y Dominates - CleanTechnica

February saw plugin EVs take 92.1% share in Norway, up from 90.1% year on year. Following the recent tax changes, BEVs were above 90% share.
cleantechnica.com cleantechnica.com

While at the same time the cost of electric cars continue to drop.

www.reuters.com

As prices fall, two thirds of global car sales could be EVs by 2030, study says

Spurred by falling battery prices, electric vehicles could hit price parity with fossil-fuel models in Europe in 2024 and the U.S. market in 2026, and account for two thirds of global car sales by 2030, according to new research.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Bergslagstroll said:
That is your opinion, not the conclusion from the authors of the study. Quotes from the study you linked to:

“The last deglaciation, which occurred from 18 000 to 11 000 years ago, is the most recent large natural climatic variation of global extent…”

“Global temperature has been shown to lag CO2 on average during T1 (Shakun et al., 2012), supporting the importance of CO2 as an amplifier of orbitally driven global-scale warming.”

The authors were studying natural occurring climate change, not the present global warming caused by human emissions of CO2. The authors also acknowledge that C02, as a greenhouse gas, can amplify natural warning.
Click to expand...
That is what Shakun found, this study refines down the comment to show that through statistics they
can demonstrate a period within T1 where CO2 led temperature.
During a period at the ACR end CO2 led temperature for a period.
During the major multi-millennial-scale changes which occur at T1 onset and T1 end, Antarctic temperature likely led CO2 by several centuries. However, during the complex centennial-scale change at the ACR onset, we cannot calculate a clear lead of either ATS or CO2; and at the end of the ACR, CO2 leads temperature.
Click to expand...


1713705650094.png
 
Bergslagstroll said:
That is your opinion, not the conclusion from the authors of the study. Quotes from the study you linked to:

“The last deglaciation, which occurred from 18 000 to 11 000 years ago, is the most recent large natural climatic variation of global extent…”

“Global temperature has been shown to lag CO2 on average during T1 (Shakun et al., 2012), supporting the importance of CO2 as an amplifier of orbitally driven global-scale warming.”
Click to expand...
That was only one instance out of several.Almost all studies show a lag of CO2 behind temperature. If you read Shakun et al, you see that the majority of his samples are sedimentary samples in the ocean. These samples are actually of an unknown age when they become become layers in the sea floor. There is no way of telling how old they were before they were deposited.

What I do like about Shakun et al, is they show the insolation changes:

1713713670017.png
Bergslagstroll said:
The authors were studying natural occurring climate change, not the present global warming caused by human emissions of CO2. The authors also acknowledge that C02, as a greenhouse gas, can amplify natural warning.
Click to expand...
This is in debate by some people. Now I agree that once we started emitting CO2, that it will contribute to warming rather than warming increasing it. However, it still may be true that temperature leads CO2. One indication that shows CO2 might not really contribute to warming is how fast it cycles back down annually when you look at the CO2 data.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That was only one instance out of several.Almost all studies show a lag of CO2 behind temperature. If you read Shakun et al, you see that the majority of his samples are sedimentary samples in the ocean. These samples are actually of an unknown age when they become become layers in the sea floor. There is no way of telling how old they were before they were deposited.

What I do like about Shakun et al, is they show the insolation changes:

View attachment 67505542

This is in debate by some people. Now I agree that once we started emitting CO2, that it will contribute to warming rather than warming increasing it. However, it still may be true that temperature leads CO2. One indication that shows CO2 might not really contribute to warming is how fast it cycles back down annually when you look at the CO2 data.
Click to expand...
Or it can show a feedback loop, where increases in CO2 lead to increased temp, and increased temp leads to increased CO2, for a variety of reasons, including outgassing from warmer seawater.

But that would be bad, so you won’t believe that, because your position is denial first.
 
Threegoofs said:
Or it can show a feedback loop, where increases in CO2 lead to increased temp, and increased temp leads to increased CO2, for a variety of reasons, including outgassing from warmer seawater.
Click to expand...
The ratios according to science does not support that. Warming causes far more of a CO2 to be released from thew oceans than CO2 can causes warming. At the coldest parts of the ice age, the natural CO2 content is about 180 ppm in the atmosphere. The inter-glacier periods show about 280 ppm. Only a 100 ppm difference, less than a doubling from more than a 6 degree change in global temperature. As we see, a 100 ppm increase from CO2 is responsible for only about 1/10th that change.

The 180 to 280 ppm is a 56% increase from over a 6 degree change.

The 280 to 410 ppm is a 46% increase claimed to be responsible for only a 0.8 degree increase.

It is clear the temperature drives CO2 in the natural system. If you want to claim CO2 was driving the transitions of out glacier cycle, then should have have seen about a 5 degree increase from the CO2 since 1750, yet we have only seen about 1/6th that.

It has to do with the ability of a liquid to absorb a gas. The colder the ocean is, the more it can hold. It is the same reason why a cold bottle of coke has that crisp carbon dioxide taste, but if you let it get warm the CO2 is released into the air, and it goes flat.
Threegoofs said:
But that would be bad, so you won’t believe that, because your position is denial first.
Click to expand...
Sure it would be bad if it were true, but it clearly is not true.

I am not a denier, but you clearly deny science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The ratios according to science does not support that. Warming causes far more of a CO2 to be released from thew oceans than CO2 can causes warming. At the coldest parts of the ice age, the natural CO2 content is about 180 ppm in the atmosphere. The inter-glacier periods show about 280 ppm. Only a 100 ppm difference, less than a doubling from more than a 6 degree change in global temperature. As we see, a 100 ppm increase from CO2 is responsible for only about 1/10th that change.

The 180 to 280 ppm is a 56% increase from over a 6 degree change.

The 280 to 410 ppm is a 46% increase claimed to be responsible for only a 0.8 degree increase.

It is clear the temperature drives CO2 in the natural system. If you want to claim CO2 was driving the transitions of out glacier cycle, then should have have seen about a 5 degree increase from the CO2 since 1750, yet we have only seen about 1/6th that.

It has to do with the ability of a liquid to absorb a gas. The colder the ocean is, the more it can hold. It is the same reason why a cold bottle of coke has that crisp carbon dioxide taste, but if you let it get warm the CO2 is released into the air, and it goes flat.

Sure it would be bad if it were true, but it clearly is not true.

I am not a denier, but you clearly deny science.
Click to expand...
You, of course, ignore the phrase ‘variety of reasons’.

But you’ll deny all those too.
 
Threegoofs said:
You, of course, ignore the phrase ‘variety of reasons’.

But you’ll deny all those too.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I have repeatedly said that there are several variables involved, but you and others are the ones only wanting to focus on CO2 and CH4.

you are the deniers of science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not at all. I have repeatedly said that there are several variables involved, but you and others are the ones only wanting to focus on CO2 and CH4.

you are the deniers of science.
Click to expand...
I go with this. www.IPCC.ch

You go with your ‘knowledge of the sciences’.

It’s like a naturopath explaining how to treat cancer.
 
Lord of Planar said:
By not seeing their lies. It shows you are ignorant to the topic like the policy makers they try to influence.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, right.

The scientists who collect, report and interpret the data are liars.

But you know better because reasons.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How would you know? You do not have the science capacity to judge me. Every time you do that, you display your ignorance.

That doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Have you done any graduate work in the field? Undergraduate?

Have you ever written or even contributed to a scientific published paper?

Have you even gotten any post high school degree in any related field?

Have you ever even spoken to a climate scientist?

That’s how I know.
 
Threegoofs said:
Have you done any graduate work in the field? Undergraduate?

Have you ever written or even contributed to a scientific published paper?

Have you even gotten any post high school degree in any related field?

Have you ever even spoken to a climate scientist?

That’s how I know.
Click to expand...
Too many stupid questions. Your indoctrination is showing.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And what about batteries or some other storage, for the times of no sunlight and dead wind patterns?

Who's crystal ball says we will have adequate storage means by then?
Click to expand...
It won't be sufficient without nuclear.
 
flogger said:
Why do you still bother with this flamer when its clearly utterly futile ?

I and doubtless many others put him on ignore years ago :(
Click to expand...
Flamer?

I’m just pointing out who experts are.

Oh wait. You can’t handle this kind of talk so you have me on ignore.
 
flogger said:
Why do you still bother with this flamer when its clearly utterly futile ?

I and doubtless many others put him on ignore years ago :(
Click to expand...
I quite frequently him and the other two. Sometimes I'm in the mood for the three ring circus.
 
Threegoofs said:
Flamer?

I’m just pointing out who experts are.

Oh wait. You can’t handle this kind of talk so you have me on ignore.
Click to expand...
yes, we know you need to be told what to believe. We are critical thinkers though and know better than to believe their steershit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom