Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 Next
Comments 11601 to 11650:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:42 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
ThinkingMan,
Since you claim to be interested in 30+ year data trends please evaluate any of the surface temperature data sets (the 1880 to present day monthly NASA-GISS data is easy to get here) as folows: Look at the value of the 30 year rolling averages. Each new monthly average creates a new 30 year average with the 359 months before it (or every new yearly average creates a new one with the 29 years before it).
I know it can be done because I have done it. It is not complicated. And the 30 year averages do indeed 'not just go consistently upward' when you look at all the data this way starting from 1880.
What I found is that the 30 year averages ending in 1994 (the set from 1965 through 1994) were increasing or decreasing (yes there is a period when the 30 year averages notably decline).
The extremes of the 'rates of change per decade' in that range of the data set are from -0.03 C/decade to +0.10C/decade.
All of the 30 year averages since 1994 have been at rates of change greater than +0.10 C/decade. And the rate rapidly increased to 0.17 C/decade by the 30 years ending in 2004. And all the more recent values have rates that exceed 0.17 C/decade.
So the 30+ year evaluation does not show what you are hoping to see.
-
David Kirtley at 09:56 AM on 27 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC15 @673 So, where does the carbon in all life forms come from?
-
scaddenp at 09:17 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
Good point Eclectic. Surface temperatures have wide natural variation but ocean heat (where most of the warming ends up after all) have far less. Some wiggles are oceans exchanges heat with atmosphere but on far less scale than surface temperatures.
-
Eclectic at 08:43 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
ThinkingMan , the other "denier trick" is to completely ignore ocean warming.
Global surface temperature is easy to measure on an annual, or indeed monthly, basis. The ocean, less easy to measure at fine scale over short periods ~ but the ocean trend is upwards, because the basic physical process of Greenhouse warming is continuing unabated. That is the crux of the matter.
-
TVC15 at 07:48 AM on 27 March 2019Climate's changed before
David @672
I think you must have misread what I posted. The denier I battle is the one who keeps trying to claim the CO2 is a basic building block of life. Thus why I pointed out to him the 6 known elements that are the building blocks of life. Recall I asked him if he's ever heard of CHNOPS?
-
scaddenp at 07:18 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
Thinkingman, you are falling for a number of deniers tricks here.
1998-2000 "commonly cited" by pseudo-skeptics trying to claim the science has got it wrong and it is a cherry-pick because it only considers part of the record, and to make it work, you have to start the period with an exemptional El nino. Do the the arguments still make sense if you start with 1996?
This post here goes in a proper statistical analysis of what is going on. You also seem to bought the idea that something has gone wrong with model predictions. This is nonsense. No scientist expects the actual temperature time series to evolve along the model mean. The science (everything we know about ENSO) says that is impossible. Please read again my earlier reply. A good expectation is that the 30-year trend in temperature series will be close to the 30-year trend in the model mean. However, there is still a wide uncertainty in climate sensitivity.
Finally, I do not accept that you can take two cooling periods (1910-) and (1940-) caused by two different changes in climate forcing and propose a natural cycle for them. This is not evidence, it is misinformation.
-
ThinkingMan at 06:22 AM on 27 March 2019The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
scaddenp, TY for clarifying. Your commitment to basing explanations on identifiable natural and man made factors is respected.
Let me clarify my frame of reference. 30+ year temperature trends are my focus.
1998-2000 were not cherry picked. They may begin a break in the temperature trend that began 1970-1975. 1998-2000 is also commonly cited as a starting point for reality departing, by a wider & wider margin, from climate model temperature forecasts. Finally, the bottom half of the 1st graph in the previously mentioned Shaun Lovejoy critique draws attention to 1998-2000.
The bottom half is also consistent with a possible 60-80 yr temperature cycle. Pls note the three cooling trends in the "residues". One ends 1910-1915. The next ends 1975 or so. The third spans the charts final dozen or so years, and it starts "on schedule".
FYI, the 60-80 yr cycle is mentioned because it may explain in part or fully why actual temperatures are so far below climate model projections / estimates. Solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural forces not adequately simulated by models may also explain the departure. Finding and describing the force or forces is important to the AGW concept.
nigelj, will read the myth buster pointed out above when time allows.
TY to all others who have commented. Very informative & thought provoking.
-
nigelj at 06:01 AM on 27 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
I recall reading an article (cant find it now) that said that it had been thought the AMOC overturning process was to the west of Greenland, and this is where most of greenlands meltwater discharged, thus leading to the possibility of the AMOC slowing right down or even stopping causing a mini ice age in europe. The article said that given the AMOC overturning process is now known to be more easterly, this risk is reduced and replaced with the possibility of huge warming and heatwave potential in Europe. However the article was pretty conditional that we don't know enough about how sources of meltwater may change in Greenland over time.
-
nigelj at 05:39 AM on 27 March 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12
Both OPOC and William are right. It's obviously not just one thing operating here. There is another issue, namely political lobby groups. I have lost count of the times politicians have had sensible positions on issues on entering politics then changed their minds after talking to lobby groups. Policies get watered down to nothing.
Political lobbying is a huge industry particularly in America. The theory is enough lobby groups should cancel each other out, but industry lobby groups have vastly more expertise and funding than public interest lobby groups, environmental groups etc. I dont believe that its a level playing field. The issue is all magnified further by campaign financing coming from the same corporates.
It's all become toxic and lopsided in favour of corporate and right wing economic agendas. Too much of this lobbying is in private. It could be changed with rules favouring transparency and some form of limitation on lobbying.
-
william5331 at 05:23 AM on 27 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
There is another aspect to the wind farm argument. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that a wind turbine only returns an amount of energy equal to what is used in it's construction before it has to be replaced. (not true but bear with me). The country where you are building these turbines creates all it's energy from fossil fuel. You build wind turbines sufficient to generage 10% of the nations electricity, replacing that amount of coal. Now the next tranch of wind turbines are build with 90% fossil fuel energy and 10% renewable energy. you see where this is going. We eventually get to a point where the wind turbines are being made entirly with renewable energy. Since, in fact, wind turbines return far more energy that is needed in their manufacture, the argument is far stronger.
-
michael sweet at 03:31 AM on 27 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
SIr Charles,
In your comparison of wind and nuclear you did not consider the opportunity cost of nuclear versus wind. Jacobson 2009 (cited over 1200 times) calculates opportunity cost of various plants. Because of the very long lead times to build a nuclear plant much more fossil power is generated during the building of the plant compared to a renewable plant.
For example, let us imagine you want to build a 1 megawatt (delivered power) wind energy plant. It takes about 2 years to get approval and 2 years to build. Then you get your energy.
If I want to builld a nuclear plant it takes 5 years to get approval and about 10 years to build. Your wind plant has been generating power 11 years before my plant is comissioned. That 11 years of missed power has to be supplied by fossil fuel plants until the nuclear plant is finished.
This makes nuclear a very high emitter of CO2 compared to renewable plants which are much faster to build (and produce partial power when partly completed). Many analysis of nuclear leave out the opportunity cost CO2.
-
michael sweet at 02:43 AM on 27 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Sir Charles:
We agree. Nuclear requires at least a gigawatt of spinning reserve at all times in case of an incident as you describe. These incidents happen about once every two years in the USA. For renewables the biggest incident is losing a transmission line which can be countered with an adequate grid.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:07 AM on 27 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
This result also intuitively makes sense if you look at the average annual maximum extent of Arctic Sea Ice. The Acrtic Sea Ice advances far down into the Labrador Sea, while a large area of open water remains North of Norway.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:55 AM on 27 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
The following quote in the OP appears to double describe what is being meaured (the part I show in italics).
“It consists of a whole load of moorings, which are ways in which we string instruments between the seafloor and the sea surface in the deep ocean. So there’s an anchor at the bottom and along that wire we string instruments that can measure various things like the speed of the water, the velocity of the water, temperature and the salinity.”
Is the direction of flow being measured? Is that what one of the two 'speed/velocity' points should have been?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:51 AM on 27 March 2019Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt
Minor correction required:
"To do this, it has deployed two arms: “OSNAP West East”, which extends from the Labrador Sea off the north-east coast of Canada to south-west Greenland, and “OSNAP East West”, which reaches from south-east Greenland to the coast of Scotland."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:19 AM on 27 March 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12
william,
I agree that elected representatives 'dedicated to appealing to rich supporters/promoters' can be problem. And limiting the influence of rich people is part of the solution.
But wealth influencing an election is only a problem if those rich supporters/promoters are the type of people who have developed a willingness to pursue perceptions of status in ways that are harmful to Others.
A related problem is the pressure on elected representatives who would rather not appeal to those type of supporters/promoters. The power of misleading marketing can make elected representatives vote against their better judgment on some issues. They will do that because they believe, likely correctly, that they the need to vote that harmful way on that issue to continue to win the power to vote the helpful way they want to on other issues.
The real problem is not money influencing politics. The real problem is the ability of misleading political marketing to be done without penalty.
Setting up rules to limit who spends how much money does not address the real problem. Setting up laws that can be enforced to remove a candidate who benefited form misleading marketing is also not an easy answer. Offensive opponents can simply create misleading marketing that would then be the basis for removal of the non-offending candidate.
The real problem is the socioeconomic-political system that has developed. Systems that encourage people to 'develop a willingness to pursue perceptions of status in ways that are harmful to Others' will also develop resistance to correction. The fundamentals of the system causing the harmful developments is what needs to be corrected. Without the Errors in the System being corrected (more fundamental than money in politics), any attempted 'fixes' will struggle to be popular and profitable enough to be successful.
-
SirCharles at 23:05 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
@9.michael sweet
French nuclear has an overall capacity factor of 75%. Not much more than offshore wind. Whereby, when a nuke has in incident you're loosing a gigawatt or more in just a few seconds. Meanwhile, wind is predictable for many hours in advance and the grid can easily be adjusted accordingly.
-
SirCharles at 22:59 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
@14nigelj
I think that Project Drawdown list needs to be revamped. Offshore wind energy can play a much bigger role today. There are turbines now which produce 20-40 times the electricity than an onshore wind turbine.
Good source of info here => https://www.windpowermonthly.com
-
SirCharles at 22:43 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
120 of these offshore wind turbines are delivering as much electricity as a new nuclear reactor (capacity factor incorporated)
https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/turbines/haliade-x-offshore-turbine
-
SirCharles at 22:37 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Carbon footprint nuclear vs wind
-
David Kirtley at 22:01 PM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC15 @668: "No CO2 is not a basic building block of life."
Is Carbon a basic building block of life?
-
william5331 at 16:36 PM on 26 March 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12
You can have as many climate change solutions as you want and they will come to zilch, naada, cluum, shum devar, in short nothing as long as politicians depend on vested interests for the financing of their next election campaign.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:17 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
An Implicit but never stated "Incorrect Myth" regarding renewable energy is: "Future generations of humanity can continue to benefit from non-renewable energy, particularly the burning of fossil fuels."
The reality is that future generations cannot continue to benefit from non-renewable energy sources'. And there is no way to claim they can. The benefit is obtained by their predecessors. The future generations get no sustainable benefit from the activity being done by their predecessors. All that the future generations get are harmful impacts, many of which cannot be undone no matter how brilliant people in the future are, and reduced amounts of non-renewable resources.
-
nigelj at 12:27 PM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Some interesting ideas on electricity efficiency scattered through this list from the Project Drawdown people.
There is a lot of potential, but the average family still faces obvious constraints. I think it's unlikely people would drastically reduce electricity use so that they go cold, or go without air conditioning. I would suggest most people apart from the rich already try to keep electricity bills as low as possible.
Big gains can be made with adding double or triple glazing, extra wall insulation, heat pumps etc: but they cost money. Tax incentives might help.
I think the bottom line is it's hard to avoid the need for a big build out of renewable electricity generation as fast as possible. And it is possible technically and economcially, its a case of whether there is the will do do it.
-
scaddenp at 11:41 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Well 2 biggies for energy efficiency are electrification of transport (60% of energy going to wheels cf 20% for petroleum-based) (ref), and solar PV for electricity generation instead of coal and gas. While replacement will take a while, that means all the more urgency for serious effort now.
-
TVC15 at 11:18 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
@669,
Forgot to mention that yes I've enjoyed Potholer54! Thanks for informing me about his videos.
-
TVC15 at 11:17 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
Hi Electric @669,
Yes a agree it's a pointless point but that denier keep trying to use it to prove CO2 is good for the planet which of course it's true, but only when the balance is not offset.
Most of this deniers tactics are what both you and David pointed out...they are sprinkled with some facts but the conclusion he draws from these facts is misleading which is what I try to point out to the bystanders reading his chest beating comments.
-
Eclectic at 10:53 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
@668 : let it slide, TVC15 .
In the end, it's rather futile to debate the origin of metabolic carbon ~ since the terrestrial carbon cycle moves C around continuously [not counting fossil carbon]. As David Kirtley says, its ultimate origin is from some distant stellar source, pre-dating our own sun.
If anything, one might say that lifeform C in evolutionary terms originated from lipids and/or carbonates/bicarbonates in the primordial ocean. And there can be other arguments too . . . all getting a bit Angels on a pinhead. But your denier friend wasn't entirely wrong in his point about carbon ~ though it certainly was a pointless point he made.
I hope you've had time to enjoy a few of the Potholer54 videos on climate science. He has five [FIVE] on the asinine antics of the eloquent Lord Monckton ~ quite amusing to see the "error-prone Viscount" [unquote] shoot himself in the foot repeatedly.
-
jphsd at 10:44 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Renewables are not going to replace fossil fuels any time soon. See below. The two changes we need to make to reach a sustainable future are to reduce the amount of energy we use and to use what we do generate much more efficiently (2/3rds of energy generation is lost as heat without doing any useful work!)
Moderator Response:'[PS] Fixed image. Please read comment policy for details of image. You must restrict image to max width of 450px using the "appearance" tab of the image inserter.
-
TVC15 at 10:23 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
David@667,
I don't follow how what I posted does not clarify?
In fact when I challenged the denier with what I posted here he stopped posting over and over the same manta that CO2 is a basic building block of life. No CO2 is not a basic building block of life.
Then he came back with the Carbon in carbon based life originated from CO2.
He stopped spreading his misinformation after I debunked both of his inaccurate statements.
-
David Kirtley at 10:02 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
Sorry, TVC15, that doesn't clarify it. Yes, ultimately all carbon on earth comes from stars. We both agree about this. But the origins of life are not relevant here. I don't know what chemical pathways led to the origin of life, or if this involved CO2 or not. But today, right now, my everyday existance depends on atmospheric CO2.
The question is: where did the carbon in my body come from? If you follow the trail it is clear that the carbon in my body came from the food I ate: plants and animals. Those animals get that carbon from the plants they eat. And all plants get that carbon from the CO2 floating in the air.
None of this is inaccurate or controversial. It's Biology 101. Yes, you can follow the trail back to the ultimate origin of the element carbon inside the nuclear furnaces of stars. But why? The question is about life on Earth now.
Your denier has stated some true facts about the carbon cycle and then tried to use this to draw an invalid conclusion about whether CO2 can be classified as a pollutant. Now you, by focusing on the ultimate origin of carbon in stars and now bringing in info about the origins of life, have totally missed the real misinformation that he is trying to push.
-
TVC15 at 09:59 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
LOL now the deniers are using this article to claim global warming is a hoax!
-
michael sweet at 08:39 AM on 26 March 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12
This is an interesting article by Bill McKibbins (founder of 350.org) that discusses how fast renewable energy will be adopted now that it is the cheapest energy. He says it might be fast enough to avoid the worst of climate change.
Encourage any effort to build out more renewable energy. Vote for politicians who support renewable energy.
-
TVC15 at 08:19 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
Hi David @ 663,
This denier loves to say that the Carbon in our bodies *orginated* from CO2. This is not accurate.
The building blocks of life come from elements and elements orginated from stars.
Origin of Life’s Building Blocks in Carbon- and Nitrogen-Rich Surface Hydrothermal Vents
As I pointed out to this denier show me where CO2 is mentioned in this paper as being how carbon based life originated.
Origin of organic compounds on the primitive earth and in meteorites.I hope this helps to clarify.
-
David Kirtley at 07:17 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC15 @663. I'm not following you. The elements originate in stars. The Earth was made of "star stuff." But I usually eat plants and animals, not rocks.
Plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere, photosyntesize, and build the stuff of plant tissue from that. Animals, including me, eat plants. Other animals, including me, eat animals which ate plants. We transform the plant/animal material into the stuff of our animal bodies. All that carbon origianlly came from the atmosphere.
-
scaddenp at 06:32 AM on 26 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Actaully I agree that changes in Arctic are interesting - we have had a sequence of warm winters and cloudy summers which are certainly of scientific interest in understanding weather. Likewise the effects of flip in NAO on weather patterns are very important for future weather prediction. However, thinking that these represent a climatic change is wishful thinking.
-
TVC15 at 05:49 AM on 26 March 2019Climate's changed before
David Kirtley @662
I told the denier this:
I find it amusing as well that you don't understand that the Carbon found in carbon based life is not from CO2. You should know that Carbon is very abundant on Earth and of the 92 naturally occurring elements (except for elements 43 and 61), only six of these elements make up some 99% of all living tissue. Ever heard of CHNOPS?
You might want to look up where elements originate.
-
nigelj at 05:13 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Jef @6, what is it you are proposing? Are you saying people should just stop using all or most electricity? How realistic do you think such a proposal would be?
-
nigelj at 05:11 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Joe Z @2
"Large scale solar "farms" are often built over fields and forests- resulting in a loss of carbon sequestration and oxygen production and widlife habitat as shown in a video I did of one built close to my home-"
In America forests cover 33% of the land, which is 300 millon hectares of land. Its been calculated that if solar power provided all of Americas electricity it would cover approximately 2.5 million hectares of land so less than 1% of the land covered by forests. In reality America will use a mix of energy sources, so it will be something less than 0.25%.
I don't see that this small number is a significant or unacceptable loss of forests (or fields). We waste enormous quantities of food and timber each year. Reduce that by just a faction and it would compensate for land used for solar panels.
-
John Hartz at 04:47 AM on 26 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Recommended supplemental reading:
Cold Water Currently Slowing Fastest Greenland Glacier by Carol Rasmussen, JPL/NASA, Mar 25, 2019
-
michael sweet at 03:12 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Nuclear and coal, and other "baseload" power sources have the opposite problem associated with renewables. They generate too much power at night so much of their capacity is wasted. Many people are not aware that most of the existing pumped hydro was built in the 60's and 70's as a method to store excess nuclear power at night for use during peak power during the day.
In France they shut down many of their nuclear plants on the weekend. Since the cost of nuclear facilities is so high, it is very expensive to shut down facilities for any reason.
When people ask about storage of renewable energy, it is interesting to ask about storage of excess baseload for use during peak power.
-
Daniel Bailey at 02:35 AM on 26 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Just because you cherry-pick different dates to suit your purpose does not invalidate the statement:
"Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009."
-
Molsen at 02:19 AM on 26 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
According to the NASA (GRACE) data, the average loss from 2009 to 2013 was 399 gigatonnes per year. From 2013 to 2017, the average loss per year was 190 gigatonnes per year.
The statement that there has been an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009 is factually wrong. At the very least, there has been an interesting pause in that "acceleration" since 2013. It's kind of like minimum summer sea ice extent in the Arctic: it has kind of been going sideways (i.e., not declining) for the last 12 years or so. Again, interesting....
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:45 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
PDF here.
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:30 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
"I have never heard any one make those extreme statements in your "myths" section"
And yet I see those and more strewn every day.
Then you'll have no difficulty in citing those "real scientific derived questions". Pelase do so.
You can look at the math that others have done it them:
"building and running new renewable energy is now cheaper than just running existing coal and nuclear plants"
And
"the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear"
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/
https://thinkprogress.org/solar-wind-keep-getting-cheaper-33c38350fb95/
-
jef12506 at 01:16 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Very strawman article. I have never heard any one make those extreme statements in your "myths" section. There are however real scientific derived questions as to the math surrounding so called "renewables" or "clean energy".
Bottom line everything we do involves releasing polution and the solution is never dilution. We simply need to stop.
-
JoeZ at 00:29 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Tom, here in Massachusetts, such lifecycle for solar and wind are apparently NOT considered. They probably are among some scientists- but not among the politicians who determine policy and write laws. Currently, solar is popular in this state but the total production of solar is still very small. State law will requre far more and much of this will be on solar "farms"- which as I note, have drawbacks that are NOT looked at here. I'm not aware that anyone has actually counted the loss of carbon sequestration and oxygen production of a solar farm. The one near my 'hood was once a gravel pit but half of it had grown back to forest. So, that forest had to be destroyed. Nobody counted the loss of carbon sequestration and they also didn't count the fact that all of that wood went a biomass plant. The irony is that forestry critics in Mass. hate biomass- yet their beloved solar farm sent a great deal of wood to a biomass plant.
Now, the fact is that forestry is renewable. But here in Mass. we've had and still have a war over biomass. Many critics really do want to lock up all the forests and they really don't respond to questions as to the consequences of that.
Let's face it- all these issues are extremely complicated. Nobody has all the answers. There is no magic bullet- though long term I think it will be fusion. Since this web site is about skepticism- it might be nice if those who really do think it's all about fossil fuels to just try to be a bit skeptical- the way lawyers are taught to argue either side of the case. It might be worth the mental exercise.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
Tom Dayton at 00:02 AM on 26 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
JoeZ, lifecycle carbon footprint of solar and wind most certainly are considered, and they are drastically lower than the footprints of non-renewables.
-
David Kirtley at 22:16 PM on 25 March 2019Climate's changed before
TVC15 @652: Re. your denier's Gish Gallop list of 9 points: The tricky thing is that parts of these statements contain bits of truth. For example, point 9:
9. Did you know that ALL of the carbon atoms in your body (as you are an organic organism) was once CO2? That is the carbon cycle; CO2 is as important to life on earth as water and oxygen
This is true, but so what. He's using just enough sciencey stuff to show that he can be "trusted" and then he draws illogical conclusions. Here he concludes that since CO2 is such an important building block of all life on earth it can't possibly be a "pollutant". Water, as he points out, is also a fundamental necessity, but you can still drown in the stuff. Too much of it all at once can destroy your house. The dose makes the poison.Anyway, be careful of just labeling his statements as "False!" Instead, be mindful of where his misdirection lies and point out, for the sake of the lurkers in the conversation, his flawed logic. Acknowledge things he says which are correct (this will also show the lurkers that you are reasonable) but then show where he is trying to be misleading.
-
JoeZ at 22:11 PM on 25 March 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
"A particularly elegant solution is pumped hydro, which uses surplus wind energy to pump water uphill." Sounds good, but here in Massachusetts- there is a big battle going on over the only such pumped hydro facility. Those critics are against all fossil fuels, against pumped storage, want to stop all tree cutting, against nuclear- and though many are in favor of solar and wind- they will never respond to my critiques of large scale wind and solar "farms" (note my previous post here), they will not respond to my questions as to how will we get by without wood as a low carbon footprint raw material if they lock up all the forests- and amazingly, many who are even all of the above are even against wind and solar! In the local paper this morning I see an editorial by a guy who says we should all get off the grid, use outhouses, and pump water by hand. It doesn't seem to me that we can solve problems by being against every option. I recall that President Obama suggested we need to use all forms of energy, wisely of course.
Prev 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 Next
