|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,782 Year: 4,039/9,624 Month: 910/974 Week: 237/286 Day: 44/109 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
marc9000 writes: The significant increases in sales and size of the recreational boating industry. Increases to small numbers is still small numbers.
One is essential, one is non essential. If that means nothing to you, okay, but it does to some people, and it's logical. If you have a massive headwound and a hangnail, which one are you going to treat first? Developing technology and policies that reduce carbon emissions from cars will have a much bigger impact than boats. When you have limited resources you look for the biggest bang for the buck.
Yes I have, and I'm wondering what we should do about it. "Regulate" is the usual very vague term I often hear. It means of course, that some small segment of the population, needs to lose their long-time freedom to use fossil fuels as they see fit. We all lost our ability to freely use leaded gasoline, and we survived. We also lost the freedom to use ozone depleting CFC's, and we survived once again. Just imagine how you will suffer if you start getting electricity from hydropower . . . EGADS!!! You poor suffering soul. I can't imagine the pain you will go through.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
AZPaul3 writes: First act. Make coal illegal. Yesterday. This may be a bit controversial in some crowds, but . . . Second Act. Start building nuclear power plants again. Invest in research into new nuclear technologies. We need baseline power, and nuclear can fill that role.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
marc9000 writes: I said that part of the problem was that in some cases they had to be SHUT DOWN to protect themselves from damage due to wind and solar failures. That's false.
quote: Those plants failed because they weren't protected against freezing temperatures.
The attempts by atheists to downplay the reliance by people the world over on fossil fuels is a SERIOUS problem. That we don't need fossil fuels to make those products parallels the misinformation many in the Texas general public had concerning the importance of upgrading the fossil fuel plants there. We are all well aware of the current dependence on fossil fuels. Supporting the replacement of fossil fuels in no way indicates that we don't understand our current dependence on fossil fuels.
The fact that RESISTANCE to fossil fuel use by Democrats, could be the major contributing factor to Texas' recent failures, not only in improving fossil fuel facilities, but in providing batteries and other support that green energy needs. Show us a single Democrat that prevented the winterization of the Texas power grid. Just one. If you can't, then admit you are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
marc9000 writes: The second link said "several" (NOT ALL) power plants failed due to the cold. The rest were shut down to avoid a complete collapse. It was fossil fuel power plants failing that created the sharp increase in demand that caused the still functioning fossil fuel power plants to shut down.
Not according to the false Message 658, and the reaction it got from most everyone here. Then you need to reread those posts. Simply saying that all fossil fuel power plants could be replaced by other types of fuel is the truth. It also doesn't cast any doubt on our dependence on fossil fuels at this very moment.
No one has yet shown me any proof that Republicans were 100% responsible for a lack of upgrades to fossil fuel plants. It was a mixture of Republicans and plant owners. Republicans threw away regulations that would have required plant operators to winterize. Those same policies also resulted in the loss of connections with surrounding states. The plant owners decided they wanted more profit, so they didn't make the changes they needed to. You are claiming that it is the Democrats fault, somehow. Care to explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Porkncheese writes: That's the end of such a hypothesis Scientists predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to an overall increase in global temperatures. Hypothesis supported by overwhelming evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
How did Obama prevent those power plants in Texas from winterizing? Please be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Temperature is still going up, despite the lies coming from the deniers.
quote: And a more recent dataset: And just to add a bit more, historic CO2 levels over the last few glaciation cycles: Natural levels of CO2 bounce between 180 and 300 ppm. The graph above is a bit old since it only shows a modern level of 380 ppm. As of today, we are at 420 ppm. The current atmosphere has a 40% excess of CO2, a greenhouse gas. In fact, we've known about how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas since the late 1800's. Guess what happens when you increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas in a planet's atmosphere? You trap more heat. Surely a user with the name of ChemEngineer knows this (or not, who knows). Edited by Taq, . Edited by Taq, . Edited by Taq, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Percy writes: The melting ice caps are responsible. Somehow they're contributing to a decrease in angular momentum of the Earth's liquid core, and due to conservation of momentum that translates into an increase in angular momentum of Earth's solid portion. I would have liked to understand this better, but the article doesn't go into detail, and at one point I think the article mistakenly says "orbit" where it meant "rotation." It was perhaps written in haste or by someone with insufficient background. I would assume that it is similar to how an ice skater increases their spin rate by pulling their arms in. In this case, it would be pushing the arms out to slow the spin. If you move the ice from the poles and to the equator then that should slow Earth's rotation. By how much, who knows, but at least by some measurable amount even if it is in the nanosecond range.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024