Global warming is nothing more than a scam

[Sky-Knight]

Yes, but "anthropogenic climate change", which would be what exactly? (yay for cell phones, and that's really rather funny!)

I'm not talking about CO2 emissions, I'm talking about 90% of all the animals alive on this rock are alive because we bred them to feed ourselves. I'm talking out the fact that we're rapidly running out of actual wilderness for nonhuman things to live. Then there's all the plastic in the Oceans...

There is enough doubt out there as to whether or not our actual CO2 emissions are a real problem. But that conversation gets derailed because we don't bother with the rather obvious pollution we're dumping into the environment daily just to eat.

Everything on this planet is modified by humans at this point. And we aren't willing to go out and kill people to solve the problem, yet we're staring at conditions that will likely lead to disease or famine to do it for us.

Meanwhile we've got a bucket of deniers that seem to think what's invisible out of an exhaust pipe somewhere, or dumped down a drain magically vanishes. You'd think politically we'd at least be able to agree on the idea of trying to leave the place cleaner than we found it. But even that's a really hard problem because if we turn back the industrial clock, you're talking about mass starvation. So... when cap and trade kicks up... who gets to eat? Because I can promise you in my little corner of the desert Southwestern US... My family is near the top of the list of those to go hungry.

 

[fincoder]

Try anthropogenic instead

Oops. Fixed.

I've actually never used that word on this forum. I should have just said man-made. I copied the spelling from @Sky-Knight and didn't realise it was a different word

 

[fincoder]

I'm not talking about CO2 emissions, I'm talking about 90% of all the animals alive on this rock are alive because we bred them to feed ourselves. I'm talking out the fact that we're rapidly running out of actual wilderness for nonhuman things to live. Then there's all the plastic in the Oceans...

I agree with this whole post. I was focusing on CO2 emissions for one thing because this thread is about global warming, and secondly because (as important as those other pollution concerns are) climate change unfortunately is the mother of all pollution problems. It's more pressing, and adopting more low-carbon energy sources generally also helps reduce other pollution.

 

[Sky-Knight]

I'm all for that, but where is it?

Have you seen the copious amount of CO2 put into the air building Solar, Wind, and Tidal generation systems? There's a reason most of this stuff is built in dirty air don't care China. (Changing I know)

The lowest carbon output energy source we have, which oddly enough we have sufficient fuel to run for a thousand years, we're too scared to use...

Nuclear Energy...

The science has a closed fuel loop now, we can fuel different reactor types from another's waste. Heck, we've even figured out how to pull Carbon-14 from spent rods, turn it into a radio active artificial diamond, layer normal carbon over the top and end up with a subneucleonic diamond battery that will generate power for thousands of years AND if that wasn't enough, now the spent rod isn't as radio active and safer to store.

Meanwhile the world freaks out over Fukushima, and Indian Point has put more radioactive material into the Hudson over the years than that Japanese disaster ever will...

Nuclear Baseline with renewables on top is an amazing solution, but the left won't consider it because "nukes bad".

 

[fincoder]

Nuclear Baseline with renewables on top is an amazing solution, but the left won't consider it because "nukes bad".

There are plenty of climate change activists wanting nuclear to be thrown into the mix. The new technologies you mention should alleviate some of the concern, but the only problem is they're not in operation yet so not proven in a commercial scale. Again it comes back to timing, these new technology nuclear plants will take decades to build and carry much investment risk. And I assume the nuclear fuel source will become depleted in the longer term. I'm not sure it's just the 'left' that's holding these back.

If lots of pumped hydro systems were built (existing proven technology in use around the world) there would be enough storage for national power grids to be powered by renewables. There is a study from the Australian National University (ANU) detailing how this can be done:
http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/hydro-storage-can-secure-100-renewable-electricity

 

[NJW]

To put renewable energy sources in perspective, I can recommend David MacKay's book 'Sustainable Energy — without the hot air'. Free download from the retro website. It was published in 2008, but the maths is still relevant.

For those who don't read, his TED talk is very accessible.

 

[Galdorf]

Co2 emissions here have gone down a HUGE amount we no longer smelt here the iconic superstack was demolished may be the reason why its is so cold this summer that we are going back to the way it was 200 years ago.
Everyone here is complaining how cold this summer is maybe a combination of that and solar min.

 

[fincoder]

Co2 emissions here have gone down a HUGE amount we no longer smelt here the iconic superstack was demolished may be the reason why its is so cold this summer that we are going back to the way it was 200 years ago

If only it were that easy!

extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

 

[Sky-Knight]

Hydro storage only works when you have spare water, that's something the most populous state in America (California) really doesn't have.

That is, unless you're suggesting we make giant saltwater lakes somewhere... that's going to cause all kinds of ugly.

Also, we have the ability to harvest the CO2 from the ocean now. Annoyingly enough it gets turned into methane, which is arguably worse. But if we can figure out how to turn the carbon into actual carbon, we could just mine the ocean for coal basically, then we'd be pulling carbon from the primary carbon sink directly instead of adding to the problem.

Heck, if we can figure out how to make gas out of ocean water it would help too. No new carbon at least.

 

[Blues]

@Computer Bloke you should have used this

 

[fincoder]

Hydro storage only works when you have spare water, that's something the most populous state in America (California) really doesn't have.

The ANU paper I linked to above says (taken from the summary):

Off-river PHES (pumped hydro energy storage) can provide effectively unlimited storage at modest cost, even in dry states such as
South Australia. There are hundreds of potential sites outside national parks in all states. Pairs of reservoirs, typically 10 hectares each, are separated by an altitude difference of between 300 and 700 metres, in hilly terrain or ex-mines outside national parks and away from rivers, and joined by a pipe with a pump/turbine. Water circulates between the upper and lower reservoirs in a closed loop to store and generate power. Very little water is required relative to conventional fossil fuel power stations.

Also, we have the ability to harvest the CO2 from the ocean now.

Yes, sounds hopeful, even better if the carbon extracted can be used for building materials or something else that doesn't add CO2 back to the atmosphere quickly. Unfortunately this isn't a proven technology at scale, might take a long time to get to that stage.

 

[TechLady]

I don't believe in HP DV models having a widespread overheating problem because I had one that never did.

Nailed it. Pure willful ignorance.

People need to be offered reasonable choices and educated about those choices. The Free Market is really good at things like that.

The "free market" is interested in making money--that's it. It has no morals, ethics or incentive to change beyond that. Nor is it interested in "educating" people to make choices that threaten its interests.

 

[Metanis]

TechLady, you speak of the "free market" like it's Google or the Democratic Party or something.

 

[TechPJC]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Global+Warming+SCAM

 

[TechLady]

Temperature anomalies arranged by country 1900 - 2016. Visualization based on GISTEMP data.
https://flic.kr/p/W3wPeE

 

[fincoder]

Nice visualisation. Makes the threat of global warming very clear.

 

[frase]

Apparently someone here over in our part of the globe got caught tampering with Weather Monitoring systems. They supplied data that was incorrect - temp was actually lower than they stated.

Global warming is just another bolshie initiative via the UN like themselves another bs organization.

 

[AML]

Apparently someone here over in our part of the globe got caught tampering with Weather Monitoring systems. They supplied data that was incorrect - temp was actually lower than they stated.

Global warming is just another bolshie initiative via the UN like themselves another bs organization.

Ya we depend only on that one person

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Brilliant climate scientist rips global warming group think a new one:

 

[phaZed]

I would implore you do your own research on Dr. Curry. Why would you latch on to her "work", citing group think, when she is literally involved in producing group think based on no evidence?

Why doesn't she do research and correct science, that is literally her job, so why not do it? No papers or research released.

Stated "Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature" yet she stubbornly/blindly/stupidly sticks by her story when she clearly misread/misinterpreted the "decline". The 'decline' (climategate) refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports for anybody to read. She's clearly wrong here. Here's the decline in red that she incorrectly confuses with the inverse phenomenon of tree rings. Of course, the other data all corroborates.

She repeatedly states "there is no consensus", but there is a consensus of 97% of scientists.

Why did this scientist join the Koch Brothers, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute and the National Review? The Heritage Foundation? Most of whom are involved directly with Big Oil? You don't see a conflict of interest there? The CEI still holds that second hand smoke is 100% not a problem for gosh sake.

Funny how at exactly the same point in time that she leaves academia she goes directly to "Climate Denier Central" and gets paid.

Stand up gal.

Look, she can say whatever she wants or have doubts, but if you're going to stand by that then you get to produce 'why' you stand by that, for which she has not done in a concise or factual manner.