And that's where we are.. That may even be next since you mentioned it.
All I can say then is... Good Luck..
And that's where we are.. That may even be next since you mentioned it.
All I can say then is... Good Luck..
I am still working my way through all the links that have been posted in this thread. I have been very busy all day yesterday and will be for a while this morning working on the charge controller for my sons Chevy Bolt. It got hit by lightning the evening before last.
It appears I have been accused of not caring about the environment. That is definitely NOT true. I have 11 grandchildren. I want them to inherit a world that is at least as good as the one I have had. A simple search online for my user name will show that I belong to 3 different alternative energy forums and have for many years.
You can also search for my son's username "diesel Tim" and you will find he has been involved in the manufacturing and selling of bio-diesel processors for many years. Dan Cathey the CEO of Chick-Fil-A has one of his processors. And you may have seen in the news that Chick-Fil-A has recently signed a contract with another company to have all of their waste cooking oil turned into bio-diesel.
As I said my son drives a Chevy Bolt and I drive his Chevy Volt taking his daughters to school every morning. I typically use less than 1 gallon of gasoline in a month because the distance to school is short enough I can make it there and back on a single battery charge. I recently debunked some nonsense on USA.life posted from someone who claimed that electric cars were too expensive because you had to replace the battery every 2 years for a cost of $2,000. I commented that he didn't know what he was talking about. The Volt I drive has just under 145,000 miles on it and is still going strong. It is a 2012 model. So the batteries are 10 years old and still going.
I have found some interesting data in the links that have been posted and will comment on them later.
I understand how you feel, as I was feeling similarly - as if I was painted a proponent of "Alarmist Propaganda." The data and the numbers are clear.
Electric cars are an interesting Tangent as figuring out the Main Source of CO2 emissions in society would put P.O.V.'s pretty far down the list.
I fully support Electric Vehicles and alternative energy. I do so because the support we give it now and the developments that leads to now and in the coming years is essential. Electric cars have already come a very long way in a short time. This does not mean that they are fully ready now or even perfectly viable now. Many people cannot afford to just replace their cars and if they all did, it would increase Current CO2 as the Power plants burn more coal.
The idea seems to be present of Instant Gratification on Electric vehicles in some peoples minds.
As our energy production switches over to cleaner methods, then the electric vehicles we took the time and initiative to develop in these years will come to their own.
For many, CNG would be the way to go, for now.
But what we really need to reduce the release of carbon is to develop better Concrete processing, Industrial processing, manufacturing and Power Production.
For me, personally, as a classic car enthusiast and mech, you can imagine I am emotionally biased and quite opinionated about cars. Preservation of the quality and heritage of automotive is quite important to me. As a human being, acceptance of some of the data has been a painful process for me.
It takes time.
It's a complex subject and there is a lot to it, a lot more than even Trained Climate Scientists fully grasped. In fact, the predictions made about global warming failed to predict that rising temps in the arctics would increase the rate due to a feedback loop of released methane from melting permafrost, a much more potent greenhouse gas, that warmed the arctics more than expected.
The climate science was wrong... and we accelerated more quickly. Now, we know. And it only adds to the urgency that people must begin to see and accept.
Will it destroy the world? Will it destroy Humanity? These are tough questions.
In Earths history, drastic natural climate change has happened many times - to rather catastrophic results. Life survived... But at least in one case... Only Barely... Thanks to the tenacity of sea sponges and related life... In that instance, the Earth went the other direction and very nearly froze over completely due to runaway cooling. It didn't... and we are not sure what halted the process though we have some good hypothesis about it.
I realize I am using Eons a lot - it is just a quick and easy sound bite. There are much better and more extensive scholarly journal sources I can provide:
Sadly, for planet Venus, though it probably never had any life on it, the fragile balance of temperature vs. recycling of natural materials did collapse and to this day, we can see the effects of Runaway Greenhouse first hand. Venus has a much thicker atmosphere and no water cycle (anymore) so things probably won't get that bad here.
We aren't really sure.
We know much, but not enough. We have good models, but still need more data.
The only thing we know is that the current trend of heating far surpasses anything that the Earth has ever seen. We only know currently that we are in the middle of a Mass Extinction that is disrupting ecosystems that we as a society rely on. Even Coffee may be on its way out due to climate change.
We know that humanity and the Earth will suffer Greatly, slowly, over a couple hundred years to a thousand. And this lacks precedent on Earth history, where such previous events took hundreds of thousands to even millions of years. The natural processes allowed at least some time to adapt - and even much of that life did not have enough time.
It isn't rocket science to see that a much shorter time to adapt would have far, far more catastrophic consequences.
And Humanity may have slightly more intelligence. But it's not enough. Currently, we remain rather primitive and excessively over-populated, relying on farming balanced against natural ecosystems to maintain our biomass.
Disrupt those ecosystems and you disrupt the human food source. Heavily.
Will it destroy us? Probably not. Given enough time, we could slowly recover. Painfully and with great losses. Is this a comfort? Does it mean it is nothing to worry about? Or do we accept that it would solve our population problem and just allow the terrible culling?
When all we really need to do is amend our ways and develop cleaner and better and healthier habits?
We don't have all the answers. But this answer is clear:
Accept the data and the potential it portents. Accept responsibility and Step Up.
We have introduced massive global change to our environment and that must bring further changes. We cannot look at the Dollar, we must look at the future.
Then why killer first electricity cars in history?
Major local government bodies in the UK have put out large million pound contracts to bodies to house 'excessive' deaths to occur in 2025 - this is when the Sun will be the furthest away from the Earth, causing a major cooling - so much for Global warming!
Dr. Tol is an Economist and has zero qualifying experience or knowledge in Climate Science.
@swarfendor437 , I may take a moment to remind you that you posted not long ago a link claiming that the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center Towers were orchestrated by "Dustification" technology reverse engineered from Captured Alien Tech.
The Site you link to, WindTaskForce... also claims that Wind Turbines are a Health Risk due to residents living near them supposedly developing Strange Symptoms.
This is akin to the 5G conspiracy claims.
The site makes tons of claims, in full-fury, without providing evidence, substantiation or reports (generally), in heavily biased format. Apparently, their primary agenda is in opposition to efforts to increase Wind Power Generation, so any propaganda they can muster for their cause will do.
They claim anything is a lie, without evidence; or claim scientific studies are Fake - also without evidence. Akin to Alex Jones style posturing;
It is interesting that in trying to post links to support their claims, they post links that actually support that the wind turbine associates were telling the truth, which the website then simply adds the Fallacy of incredulity:
Just 150 eagles since 2012? How dumb do they think we are?
Not exactly counter-evidence, that...
This is a Conspiracy Believer Website:
Nothing more. It is not reputable, has zero published peer-reviewed papers, no active scientists and no qualifications other than that they oppose wind power generation.
We are closest to the sun in winter time...
It is the tilt of the Earths axis and the composition of the atmosphere that has the strongest effect on Earth Climate. The difference in distance between Earths apogee and perigee is almost negligible. This is because while the Earths orbit is technically elliptical, it is not by much:
Ignoring the influence of other Solar System bodies, Earth's orbit is an ellipse with the Earth-Sun barycenter as one focus and a current eccentricity of 0.0167. Since this value is close to zero , the center of the orbit is relatively close to the center of the Sun (relative to the size of the orbit).
It's a very slight difference.
And China is suffering the consequences of Wind Power:
I am still dealing with the car charger controller problems. The charge controller recognizes the car and the car recognizes the controller but the car says unable to charge. Got some more research to do. Be back later after we get the charge controller working properly.
I have found some interesting things in the links posted here that I want to discuss. Just don't have time right now for a long discussion.
Your introduction to the article is a bit misleading.
China is suffering from Pollution; the resultant toxic lake is produced by rare-Earth mineral mining - not by Wind Power Generation.
Rather, the article makes careful not of how the Companies supposedly supporting "green" energy production are hypocritically polluting on a massive scale looking for things like Neodymium.
This is largely due to Cellular Telephone production and demand, and while we can easily blame these companies, we can as easily blame our own hunger for these products and lack of concern for more environmentally friendly Cellular.
And other nations lack of concern for the peoples of other nations being exploited.
That is a very good article.
But it is worth noting that it directs attention to the fallacy of these companies extolling Wind Power as a clean energy, even as those same companies are environmentally unfriendly and very dirty on another different front.
This does not mean Wind Power Generation is bad, any more than saying Mercedes is bad, even though Pol Pot extolled the virtues of Mercedes.
I reading a science or doctors in Netherlands in people blood find a microplastic. So more fabric and production and burn that all stuff and many place poor economy in countries is like a cancer where politics cannot a stop that with some dogma.
Here on this picture the green line how many plastic not recycling and red line how many plastic in sea.
This is from 2019
@citfta , there is certainly no pressure. This is a friendly debate, not a formal time-dependent one. And ideas can evolve... I will give an example.
I linked earlier to a Wiki link that showed of a study on the scientific consensus on Climate Change. While that consensus is very high, estimated to be in excess of 80%, the link I posted suggests it is 97% to 100%. These figures are questionable. The way that study was performed may be too exclusive in some areas and over-zealous in others.
Granted... it is a study of published papers that is trying to give some idea of where the majority of scientists stand on the issue. It served that purpose.
But... Being too over-zealous is harmful as accurate information is required.
So, I refute my own link. I evolve.
In this regard, however, I must provide better support for my argument, even if the above link still is valid to about 80%...
Currently, this forum does not have a rule expressly forbidding controversy or certain topics. I hope that such is not needed.
In this, we demonstrate that we can debate the merits of ideas, not our personal character, with integrity, no moderation needed.
So feel free to focus on Life and other issues and comment here as you feel fit. Test my ideas and your ideas and see if they pass the muster. And if they don't; yours or mine - that means we are doing well - seeking out accuracy and reliable information.
It does not matter who is right - it matters that we know what is right.
While Elon Musk is moving away from Lithium Ion batteries to Lithium Iron Phosphate ones, it's going to be a case of which do we value most, the electric car or sustainable food production!
Everything you need to know about CO2 and the climate based on a real science, Geology.
SUMMARY: We are at the peak of a brief warm period at the end of a cooling interglacial within a cooling ice age and in the worst of only two CO2 crashes in earth's history.
We are currently experiencing what I call a "CO2 Miracle" when in 15K yrs CO2 went from a deadly low 180ppm (lowest level in earth's history) and most plants died, to the semi healthy 400+ we have today. Warming oceans provided half and humans the rest.
Our goal should be 1,000ppm (0.1%). That's a good level for plants and half the Phanerozoic norm. We might even get 1C of beneficial warming out of it and blunt the next LIA, which will be worse than the last since the Holocene is definitely cooling.
1,000ppm?! As a goal?
As you can see, there was an ice age when CO2 was 4,000ppm, 10x higher than today. Most of the warming occurs in the first 20ppm.
You are trying to reference 500 million years ago. There was very little Oxygen in the Earths atmosphere being about 1/5 or 1/4 of todays level.
At that time the output from the Sun was 25% weaker than it is today with days lasting about 17 hours instead of 24 hours.
At this time, the continents were formed into a super continent
which meant less plate tectonics; less weathering removing carbon from the atmosphere. This means that by neglecting all the other climate factors, you present an invalid comparison.
In spite of this, since I see you like graphs, you can note that the ice ages all occurred during the lowest concentrations of CO2:
Warming oceans do not provide CO2, they absorb it. Warming oceans provide Oxygen due to photosynthesis by algea.
To Combat Climate Change, Researchers Want to Pull Carbon Dioxide From the Ocean and Turn It Into Rock | Innovation| Smithsonian Magazine.
1 degree C as a Global average would increase crop yields. This is true. However, this alone does not make it beneficial as the rather destructive costs would easily outweigh gains in far inland crop yields of only select warm weather crops.
The only "miracle" I see here, is the amount of cherry picking you perform, while rejecting and neglecting any contradictory information. You might try using more sources:
Humans the rest, eh?
Carbon emissions increased alongside with fossil fuel use be sure to analyze both charts linked just above.
What this means in the Carbon Cycle:
You show a very definite trend.
You reject data that does not align with your intended goal.
Any data you accept, you reject the responsibility of.
Any data you accept and accept responsibility of; you deny that it is actually a problem, in spite of the overwhelming evidence.
The very evidence you have provided shows that CO2 and Temps have tracked eachother for hundreds of thousands of years:
Yet call it a "miracle" that current temps are not tracking the CO2. The reason is clear:
The CO2 has shot to massive levels in a Very Brief Time - not over Millions of years but over 100 short years. One hundred. Simply, there is not enough time for the Global average to climb up that high in the very short measurement period. Note the very tail end of that graph where CO2 has spike far, far above the global average temperature. What begins to happen as our temperature begins to match that spike?
You provide the very evidence showing what you try to refute; then call it miraculous in order to force-fit the data to your preferred view.
And you want to set a goal of a thousand PPM? Look closely at your Very Own Presented Graph!
When you present the independently verifiable data that does not align with your preferred outcome, then explain it away as a "Miracle', anyone can clearly see that is Cherry Picking the Data.
Lastly, you claim that you are a "Professor." Credentials, please.
I don't think that I ever stated alien technology - neither did Dr Judith Woods who has a Masters degree in Physics and Materials Technology.
In a televised interview reference was made that Dick Cheney was due to give evidence to a Senate Committee on where the multi-trillion Defense budget was being spent on but 9/11 took over all world events.
I am going off memory, but I agree, you did not say that, nor did the article quote Judy Wood as claiming such. In fact, Judy Wood does not offer any explanations, at all. She only suggests and asks obvious questions... The usual tactic. It was the article that discussed using alien tech to explain the technology used to "dustify" the WTC. This was due to her suggestion of a "Direct Energy Weapon" being used would require more energy than we can currently produce, even with if they had three nuclear power plants on site channeling power into such a (nonexistent) thing. The website you linked to shows ZERO math. Zero Calculations to explain anything. ZERO data. Just suppositions.
Which is utterly unnecessary to do.
It is utterly needless to be flabbergasted to think that when 1 BILLION pounds of concrete slams into itself at 9.8m/s squared, it will produce massive volumes of dust.
This also falls down (pun not intended) in light of the fact that this "Dr. Judy Wood" cannot be verified. At all. On her own website, she claims gathering various degrees, though never says what school she earned them from. She mentions work in the field; but never which company she worked for. So far, no one has been able to locate a single school that has any record of her attendance. In light of this, it seems highly likely that the "Dr. Judy Wood" persona and credentials are simply made up.
We are also way off topic.
My point in stating the above was that in providing evidence, one must provide Independently verifiable evidence that can be examined - not just bold unsupported claims, possibly even of an invented persona - and even one that linked over to needing Aliens in order to supply the ability.
If I could get the Climate Cultists to look at one graph, it would be this. Do not avert your eyes, do not go screaming into the night.
Bonus graph: Which way do you think temps are going next? If you can't figure it out, show it to a 5 yr old.
Please refrain from referring to the general scientific consensus as "cultists" simply because you do not accept the evidence that the vast majority of scientists do.
The purpose is to weigh on the merit of claims, not to make Personal Attacks against others.
To the merit:
CO2 is not the only driving force in global temperatures. over the last 500 million years, many factors have played their part in global temps, including Ocean Flow, plate tectonics and continental position.
For example, when Antarctica separated from Australia and South America, this allowed ocean currents in the southern hemisphere to circumnavigate the entire polar region - which remains active to this day. This resulted in large scale cooling.
One cannot look at and focus on one data point and reach a conclusion.
This is well known in the sciences. It is always essential to take all the data points into consideration and build your model based on accuracy of observation, not on a preconcieved view.
Above, I have presented a large amount of data (nowhere near enough) that shows the trend in climbing temperatures including the role and factor that CO2 plays in that. It shows how human-introduced CO2 has climbed and how that factors in. It shows when, where and how CO2 increase can raise average temperatures either Gradually or swiftly and whether it raises them a little bit or a lot dependent on land mass placement and distribution and ocean currents.
Yes, it is complex. But not so complex as to be beyond average persons understanding.
Just as the mathematics of calculus is complex and takes some years to study, but is not beyond the average person to understand, even if it would take them some effort, work and research to understand it.
Look Very Closely at your graph... It is Highly Compressed (in time) to where the present day, CO2 and Temps are nearly touching the same points.
Not a strong data point for your argument - especially as your argument utterly ignores Milankovitch Cycles.
Note a graph that you provided earlier:
Lastly, look closely at your graph to Estimate of Uncertainty. While Ice Cores can provide solid and accurate measurements back for many thousands of years, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the climate and CO2 levels from anything beyond 300 million years ago or so. At that point, accuracy is replaced by a myriad of guesses that have been made about what May Have been, back then, when the Sun was much cooler than it is now and the Earth was spinning faster and there was much less oxygen in the atmosphere.
Does a 5 year old understand Climate Science? This is a presentation of the fallacy of argumentum ad absurdum.
Your graph is irrelevant since it measures the natural trends without the current Anthropocene, human introduced CO2 levels.
That is not an accurate measure, since it neglects to current rise in temperatures taking place in the last 100 years that by the above graphs trends, should not be happening at all.
We are in a time of Global Cooling, following the natural cycles; however, human activities have offset and even reversed that natural cooling.
Due to the advent of climate teaching and focus beginning in the 1990's, a greater effort has been made to stem human introduced climate warming. While the effort is far below what it really should be to Go Green, it ain't exactly been zero, either. The result of this is that even though the climate average has been rising, it has at least been rising more slowly than projected. This should be seen as encouraging...
The Climate Change deniers instead spin this into a presentation of evidence that climate science is wrong because the initial warning projections were not met.
Of Course They were not met when the world reacted to the warnings and projections and took mitigating steps to work toward halting the climate change!!!!
Dr. Wood received her
B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.