quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

More facts from the climate front.

All according to EPA Figures:
China, singlehandedly is responsibly for 28% of global emissions.
The US, by contrast, is responsible for 14%.

China singlehandedly is responsible for more emissions than the entire western hemisphere.
If American emissions were reduced to zero, Ie, IF america completely ceased to exist - it buys us 6 years.

US emissions continue to decline (more than any other nation*). China's emissions continue to grow.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates onshore wind power will be 80% more expensive than conventional natural gas power, offshore wind power will be 142% more expensive than natural gas, solar thermal power will be 208% more expensive than natural gas, and solar photovoltaic will be 377% more expensive than natural gas.

And ther Gabriel Calzada study found that each job in renewable energy cost the country 22 jobs.

It is an IDIOTIC fantasy that carbon emissions can be solved in the United States.

And tell me, Phydeaux, why is China's emissions increasing? It couldn't be all the power required to manufacture all the shit that is now made in China, could it? Saying the US is only responsible for 14% of emissions leaves out that the US and West have outsourced manufacturing to China to where almost everything is made there....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

More facts from the climate front.

All according to EPA Figures:
China, singlehandedly is responsibly for 28% of global emissions.
The US, by contrast, is responsible for 14%.

China singlehandedly is responsible for more emissions than the entire western hemisphere.
If American emissions were reduced to zero, Ie, IF america completely ceased to exist - it buys us 6 years.

US emissions continue to decline (more than any other nation*). China's emissions continue to grow.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates onshore wind power will be 80% more expensive than conventional natural gas power, offshore wind power will be 142% more expensive than natural gas, solar thermal power will be 208% more expensive than natural gas, and solar photovoltaic will be 377% more expensive than natural gas.

And ther Gabriel Calzada study found that each job in renewable energy cost the country 22 jobs.

It is an IDIOTIC fantasy that carbon emissions can be solved in the United States.

And tell me, Phydeaux, why is China's emissions increasing? It couldn't be all the power required to manufacture all the shit that is now made in China, could it? Saying the US is only responsible for 14% of emissions leaves out that the US and West have outsourced manufacturing to China to where almost everything is made there....

As usual, you've got it bass-ackwards.

China manufactures things because the cost of manufacture and shipping is cheaper than the cost of manufacturing in the US or Europe.

There have been three seminal studies of the renewable energy movement in europe. Each of them found that the net effect of the renewable energy costs was to shift jobs overseas, with a net increase in pollution. Read up on energy poverty, although most of the discussion is happening in germany.

China is going to keep building power plants whether we buy goods or not as they view cheap power as essential to improving the lives of their people. And they're right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I have read, extensively, and I assume you're talking about an influx of atmospheric aerosols which change temperature very rapidly. I agree, they do cause very quick changes, but usually a cooling, not a warming. Do you know how long Aerosols stay in the atmosphere? Not long. They're particulates, solid particulates, and gravity combined with rain and other factors bring it back to the earth fairly quickly.

And once again, you don't know as much as you think you do.

To say that aerosols are solid is just to be *wrong*.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I have read, extensively, and I assume you're talking about an influx of atmospheric aerosols which change temperature very rapidly. I agree, they do cause very quick changes, but usually a cooling, not a warming. Do you know how long Aerosols stay in the atmosphere? Not long. They're particulates, solid particulates, and gravity combined with rain and other factors bring it back to the earth fairly quickly.

And once again, you don't know as much as you think you do.

To say that aerosols are solid is just to be *wrong*.

For the purposes of discussing the IPCC's discredited AGW, the discussion needs to focus on aersols created over the oceans. Which, are as you may guess, significantly water, although you do get some salt nucleation as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

By that argument, spring water isn't liquid, because it contains minerals in suspension.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

...because the particles are suspended in a gas instead of in a liquid.

quote:

An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:


You've chosen 2 items. Gravity being one of them (it being a relative constant throughout the greater part of Earth's history, we're going to respectfully, remove that from our equations).

"There's been a few events (I know...it's crazy) in our (entire Earth) history that don't involve Jay Leno, cheez whiz, rubber, even ball point pens, that it's actually somewhat astounding. (The numbers of these striking and cataclysmic events actually rise in excess of millions....at least 2....as in more than 1 (added for clarity...I meant...1...not 1 million), less than 3 - upwards of {honestly} 100's that have exceeded in seconds....literally seconds....an explosion of gasses that within days {read: essentially, for practical purposes, "instantaneously"}"

Stop believing what you've been taught.

Start believing what you can discern (even if it disagrees).

You are spouting what you've been taught.

What... what kind of argument is that? How unscientific can you get?

I don't believe what I've been taught, you don't believe in knowledge. Gravity is one action that brings aerosols back to the earth, because gravity acts on everything, even small pieces of rock which comprise a lot of aerosols ejected by volcanoes and meteorite impacts, but the major factor is rain. Rain forms when water condenses around a particulate (nucleus) until it's so heavy that it falls from the sky, and guess what aerosols are? Ding ding ding! You guessed it! They're particulates.

Start believing what you can discern? How so? Just start believing what you can see with your own 2 eyes? Jesus man, look at your computer. It's running on electricity, something you can't physically see unless it's in the form of a bolt. Electricity is comprised of moving electrons, you can't see them moving, how do we know it's there? For all we know, computer run on magic! Science is indirect in many ways and much of what you know to be true does not need to be seen, such as the fact that we live in an atmosphere. There is evidence such an atmosphere exists, even though you can't physically see it, there is indirect evidence which shows that it's there.

Learn the basics of science before you go toe to toe with someone who is learning all about it. You're in my ring here pal, ya I'm a student and only 19 years old, but I know plenty more on this subject than you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I have read, extensively, and I assume you're talking about an influx of atmospheric aerosols which change temperature very rapidly. I agree, they do cause very quick changes, but usually a cooling, not a warming. Do you know how long Aerosols stay in the atmosphere? Not long. They're particulates, solid particulates, and gravity combined with rain and other factors bring it back to the earth fairly quickly.

And once again, you don't know as much as you think you do.

To say that aerosols are solid is just to be *wrong*.

For the purposes of discussing the IPCC's discredited AGW, the discussion needs to focus on aersols created over the oceans. Which, are as you may guess, significantly water, although you do get some salt nucleation as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

More facts from the climate front.

All according to EPA Figures:
China, singlehandedly is responsibly for 28% of global emissions.
The US, by contrast, is responsible for 14%.

China singlehandedly is responsible for more emissions than the entire western hemisphere.
If American emissions were reduced to zero, Ie, IF america completely ceased to exist - it buys us 6 years.

US emissions continue to decline (more than any other nation*). China's emissions continue to grow.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates onshore wind power will be 80% more expensive than conventional natural gas power, offshore wind power will be 142% more expensive than natural gas, solar thermal power will be 208% more expensive than natural gas, and solar photovoltaic will be 377% more expensive than natural gas.

And ther Gabriel Calzada study found that each job in renewable energy cost the country 22 jobs.

It is an IDIOTIC fantasy that carbon emissions can be solved in the United States.

And tell me, Phydeaux, why is China's emissions increasing? It couldn't be all the power required to manufacture all the shit that is now made in China, could it? Saying the US is only responsible for 14% of emissions leaves out that the US and West have outsourced manufacturing to China to where almost everything is made there....

As usual, you've got it bass-ackwards.

China manufactures things because the cost of manufacture and shipping is cheaper than the cost of manufacturing in the US or Europe.

There have been three seminal studies of the renewable energy movement in europe. Each of them found that the net effect of the renewable energy costs was to shift jobs overseas, with a net increase in pollution. Read up on energy poverty, although most of the discussion is happening in germany.

China is going to keep building power plants whether we buy goods or not as they view cheap power as essential to improving the lives of their people. And they're right.

And as usual you won't actually be able to provide any links to these seminal studies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:


You've chosen 2 items. Gravity being one of them (it being a relative constant throughout the greater part of Earth's history, we're going to respectfully, remove that from our equations).

"There's been a few events (I know...it's crazy) in our (entire Earth) history that don't involve Jay Leno, cheez whiz, rubber, even ball point pens, that it's actually somewhat astounding. (The numbers of these striking and cataclysmic events actually rise in excess of millions....at least 2....as in more than 1 (added for clarity...I meant...1...not 1 million), less than 3 - upwards of {honestly} 100's that have exceeded in seconds....literally seconds....an explosion of gasses that within days {read: essentially, for practical purposes, "instantaneously"}"

Stop believing what you've been taught.

Start believing what you can discern (even if it disagrees).

You are spouting what you've been taught.

What... what kind of argument is that? How unscientific can you get?

I don't believe what I've been taught, you don't believe in knowledge. Gravity is one action that brings aerosols back to the earth, because gravity acts on everything, even small pieces of rock which comprise a lot of aerosols ejected by volcanoes and meteorite impacts, but the major factor is rain. Rain forms when water condenses around a particulate (nucleus) until it's so heavy that it falls from the sky, and guess what aerosols are? Ding ding ding! You guessed it! They're particulates.

Start believing what you can discern? How so? Just start believing what you can see with your own 2 eyes? Jesus man, look at your computer. It's running on electricity, something you can't physically see unless it's in the form of a bolt. Electricity is comprised of moving electrons, you can't see them moving, how do we know it's there? For all we know, computer run on magic! Science is indirect in many ways and much of what you know to be true does not need to be seen, such as the fact that we live in an atmosphere. There is evidence such an atmosphere exists, even though you can't physically see it, there is indirect evidence which shows that it's there.

Learn the basics of science before you go toe to toe with someone who is learning all about it. You're in my ring here pal, ya I'm a student and only 19 years old, but I know plenty more on this subject than you.

Well then I will defer to you in all things from this point forward.

You don't need any new ideas.

quote:

Why can't people find their own links/do their own research/improve their own knowledge base

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I have read, extensively, and I assume you're talking about an influx of atmospheric aerosols which change temperature very rapidly. I agree, they do cause very quick changes, but usually a cooling, not a warming. Do you know how long Aerosols stay in the atmosphere? Not long. They're particulates, solid particulates, and gravity combined with rain and other factors bring it back to the earth fairly quickly.

And once again, you don't know as much as you think you do.

To say that aerosols are solid is just to be *wrong*.

For the purposes of discussing the IPCC's discredited AGW, the discussion needs to focus on aersols created over the oceans. Which, are as you may guess, significantly water, although you do get some salt nucleation as well.

Unfortunately, while I'm sure he's a great kid, the fact is, at 19, the only thing he knows....is what he thinks he knows.

And that, under any circumstances, is only ever enough to be involved in a debate, not enough to discern solutions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:


You've chosen 2 items. Gravity being one of them (it being a relative constant throughout the greater part of Earth's history, we're going to respectfully, remove that from our equations).

"There's been a few events (I know...it's crazy) in our (entire Earth) history that don't involve Jay Leno, cheez whiz, rubber, even ball point pens, that it's actually somewhat astounding. (The numbers of these striking and cataclysmic events actually rise in excess of millions....at least 2....as in more than 1 (added for clarity...I meant...1...not 1 million), less than 3 - upwards of {honestly} 100's that have exceeded in seconds....literally seconds....an explosion of gasses that within days {read: essentially, for practical purposes, "instantaneously"}"

Stop believing what you've been taught.

Start believing what you can discern (even if it disagrees).

You are spouting what you've been taught.

What... what kind of argument is that? How unscientific can you get?

I don't believe what I've been taught, you don't believe in knowledge. Gravity is one action that brings aerosols back to the earth, because gravity acts on everything, even small pieces of rock which comprise a lot of aerosols ejected by volcanoes and meteorite impacts, but the major factor is rain. Rain forms when water condenses around a particulate (nucleus) until it's so heavy that it falls from the sky, and guess what aerosols are? Ding ding ding! You guessed it! They're particulates.

Start believing what you can discern? How so? Just start believing what you can see with your own 2 eyes? Jesus man, look at your computer. It's running on electricity, something you can't physically see unless it's in the form of a bolt. Electricity is comprised of moving electrons, you can't see them moving, how do we know it's there? For all we know, computer run on magic! Science is indirect in many ways and much of what you know to be true does not need to be seen, such as the fact that we live in an atmosphere. There is evidence such an atmosphere exists, even though you can't physically see it, there is indirect evidence which shows that it's there.

Learn the basics of science before you go toe to toe with someone who is learning all about it. You're in my ring here pal, ya I'm a student and only 19 years old, but I know plenty more on this subject than you.

Well then I will defer to you in all things from this point forward.

You don't need any new ideas.

Of course I need new ideas, everyone does in order to move forward in life. But what you have been proposing are old ideas, ideas which have already been looked at and rejected by those more qualified than I.