Global Warming. Here's the thing.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well on second thought, I guess you could include CO2 doubling as well as temperatures. Seeing how they're both going up. And over what time frame? With both accelerating, it is hard to judge. I expect that in 20 years both CO2 and temperatures will triple. They say we have a one to two degree rise in temperatures right now. In 20 years I expect the temperatures to be at least 6 degrees higher. Possibly as much as 12 degrees. How much methane will be released has much to do with it. That is the wild card.

I guess you could include CO2 doubling as well as temperatures.

You meant temperatures are doubling? LOL!

I expect that in 20 years both CO2 and temperatures will triple.

If your IQ tripled, you'd still be a moron.

In 20 years I expect the temperatures to be at least 6 degrees higher. Possibly as much as 12 degrees.

Or 120 degrees.

 

[westwall]

Well your denials don't fall in the realm of science. That only leaves the realm of a cult.

What have I denied?

Be very specific.

 

[myself]

I guess you could include CO2 doubling as well as temperatures.

You meant temperatures are doubling? LOL!

I expect that in 20 years both CO2 and temperatures will triple.

If your IQ tripled, you'd still be a moron.

In 20 years I expect the temperatures to be at least 6 degrees higher. Possibly as much as 12 degrees.

Or 120 degrees.

Don't tell me what I meant. Next, every single year all the volcanoes on earth release around 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Every year the activities of humans are responsible for the release of around 32.3 billion tons of CO2. Not all of it can be absorbed by the oceans (not that that is a good thing either) and plants. All of that 32.3 billion tons is above what might occur naturally. I would say that the vast majority of it would just keep building up in the atmosphere. Which means ever faster human caused global warming. For your last remark, you suck. But where I live, instead of temperatures being in the mid 90's for three or four days in the summer, we could very well see temperatures reaching into the 120 degree range.

 

[myself]

What have I denied?

Be very specific.

I don't have time to waste on being specific. Especially when it would only fall on deaf ears anyway. But generally speaking, you deny that human caused global warming is a reality. That's good enough.

 

[Crick]

Who cares what you have experienced. Your entire life will pass with no more notice to the planet than a grain of sand stuck to an elephants foot. The climatologists commit fraud by only using data from the last 30 years. They rely on the ignorance of people like you, unknowing, uncaring about anything but your religion of climate change. The reality is no storm that we have experienced in the last 100 years is as powerful as storms from the past. Long before industrialization there was a massive storm called the Great Drowning of Men. It occurred in the 1600's. Tens of thousands died in Europe.

Know why it is never mentioned?

Because it proves that climatologists claims are lies. Pretty much pick any year from the 1600's up to the modern day and you will find that the storms in the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's were MUCH more powerful, destructive, and lethal. That is why climatologists never dare mention history. Because it proves they are lying.

"climatologists commit fraud by only using data from the last 30 years"
"pick any year from the 1600's up to the modern day and you will find that the storms in the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's were MUCH more powerful"

From the National Climate Data Center (climatologists)

Increased temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans provide more energy to drive weather. However, weather is a chaotic process and there are a great deal more storms in 1,000 years than in 50. Thus I am willing to accept the possibility that the single most powerful storm of the previous millennia did not take place in the last 50 years. But the amount of energy to create severe weather has been increasing and it has resulted in an increase in the number and intensity of severe weather.

 

[myself]

"climatologists commit fraud by only using data from the last 30 years"
"pick any year from the 1600's up to the modern day and you will find that the storms in the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's were MUCH more powerful"

From the National Climate Data Center (climatologists)
View attachment 536370

Increased temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans provide more energy to drive weather. However, weather is a chaotic process and there are a great deal more storms in 1,000 years than in 50. Thus I am willing to accept the possibility that the single most powerful storm of the previous millennia did not take place in the last 50 years. But the amount of energy to create severe weather has been increasing and it has resulted in an increase in the number and intensity of severe weather.

View attachment 536373
View attachment 536374
View attachment 536375
View attachment 536377

You shouldn't being up computer simulations. The deniers love picking on computer simulations.. And your first chart shows "Strong Solar Variability Simulations." One of them shows solar activity being really high right now. But you don't need a simulation for that. Measurements are being done that show what it is right now. From everything I've seen, the sun's current output has nothing to do with human caused global warming. Or at least very very very little to do with it. The first graph you show doesn't help my argument in that regard.

 

[elektra]

What if there is nothing to human caused global warming, but we did something about it anyway. What's the worst that could happen. We live more equitably within our ecological environment. But what is the worst that can happen if human caused global warming is real. As I think it is. And accelerating. As I think it is also. The worst is that humans don't have long for this planet. You decide. Which approach is best.

Renewables, clean, green, energy, does not exist.

First you must burn billions of tons of fossil fuels to build, literally forever. Hence, your solution is greater than the problem and will accelerate our demise.

Global Warming is about money, the trillions it will cost, and the trillions everyone who participates will pocket.

Political Greed, nothing more, and the naive ignorant masses that believe

 

[Crick]

Renewables, clean, green, energy, does not exist.

First you must burn billions of tons of fossil fuels to build, literally forever. Hence, your solution is greater than the problem and will accelerate our demise.

Global Warming is about money, the trillions it will cost, and the trillions everyone who participates will pocket.

Political Greed, nothing more, and the naive ignorant masses that believe

Alternative energy technologies produce dramatically less GHGs than coal, oil, gasoline or natural gas. The claim that building alternative energy technologies consumes enormous amounts of fossil fuels is a blatant lie. The need to act in response to AGW is NOT driven by greed. The effort to convince people NOT to do anything about it IS driven by greed: the greed of the fossil fuel industries for whom this movement is an existential threat.

 

[elektra]

Alternative energy technologies produce dramatically less GHGs than coal, oil, gasoline or natural gas. The claim that building alternative energy technologies consumes enormous amounts of fossil fuels is a blatant lie. The need to act in response to AGW is NOT driven by greed. The effort to convince people NOT to do anything about it IS driven by greed: the greed of the fossil fuel industries for whom this movement is an existential threat.

You don't know the first thing about alternative energy. I can prove it with one question. If you can't answer the question your statement is pure bullshit.How many tons of coal does it take to build one wind turbines.

 

[Crick]

It doesn't require ANY coal.

And when you come back with something different, I'd like to see a reference.

 

[elektra]

It doesn't require ANY coal.

And when you come back with something different, I'd like to see a reference.

It certainly does, you can not make steel or fiberglass without carbon in the form of coke, which is coal.

You don't know the 1st thing about manufacturing but you huff and you puff like you do.

Idiots support the waste that is green, clean, alternatives, renewables.

 

[Crick]

The Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) method of steelmaking requires no coke and none is required in the manufacture of fiberglass. Idiots strain themselves to think of reasons to reject what is good for them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The need to act in response to AGW is NOT driven by greed.

Is this a profitable idea?

Swiss start-up Climeworks AG, which specialises in capturing carbon dioxide directly from the air, has partnered with Icelandic carbon storage firm Carbfix to develop a plant that sucks out up to 4,000 tons of CO2 per year.

World's largest plant capturing carbon from air starts in Iceland

The world's largest plant that sucks carbon dioxide directly from the air and deposits it underground is due to start operating on Wednesday, the company behind the nascent green technology said.

www.reuters.com

How many do you want to build?

 

[Crick]

How is it that all you deniers think every single scientist involved in climate research is a money-hungry amoral monster but that the oil industry is manned enitrely with angels incarnate?

 

[elektra]

How is it that all you deniers think every single scientist involved in climate research is a money-hungry amoral monster but that the oil industry is manned enitrely with angels incarnate?

How is it you think the opposite, that every single corporation and CEO in the oil industry is amoral monsters but that the clean green renewable alternative ($100 rillion cost) is manned entirely with angels incarnate?

You can't see, reading this, that you are a bigot, that you stereotype? You can not see how you are the hypocrite, reading your own comment.

 

[elektra]

The Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) method of steelmaking requires no coke and none is required in the manufacture of fiberglass. Idiots strain themselves to think of reasons to reject what is good for them.

Yet, you are an idiot that posts bullshit with no strain at all?

https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:16ad9bcd-dbf5-449f-b42c-b220952767bf/fact_raw+materials_2018.pdf

The electric arc furnace (EAF) route uses primarily recycled steels and direct reduced iron (DRI) or hot metal, and electricity. On average, the recycled steel-EAF route uses 710 kg of recycled steel 586 kg of iron ore, 150 kg of coal and 88 kg of limestone and 2.3 GJ of electricity, to produce 1,000 kg of crude steel.3

Crick, or is it crock? You are always wrong.

 

[elektra]

The Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) method of steelmaking requires no coke and none is required in the manufacture of fiberglass. Idiots strain themselves to think of reasons to reject what is good for them.

How about a 2nd source on the EAF using coal?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260174609_Increasing_the_sustainability_of_the_steel_production_in_the_electric_arc_furnace_by_substituting_fossil_coal_with_biochar

In electric steelmaking steel scrap is charged into the furnace and melted down with electrical energy. Fossil coal is used as an additional source of chemical energy and contributes to foaming the process slag. The average specific consumption of coal in an electric arc furnace is about 12 kg per ton of produced steel. This makes up 40 to 70 percent of the total direct emissions of an electric arc furnace, which is about 60 to 100 kg CO2/tSteel.

 

[Crick]

To be honest, when I considered the construction of a wind turbine, I wasn't taking it back to the iron ore. Why should I? Will that steel go unused if not put into a turbine? Did they not even mine it till the wind turbine manufacturer had paid them for it? You forgot to include the CO2 foot print of that mining operation. Why don't you tell us the total coal consumption of a 3GW wind turbine compared to a 3GW coal fired power planet over, say, ten years. And then you can apologize for having tried to give us the impression that there was no value in alternative energy technology.

 

[elektra]

It doesn't require ANY coal.

And when you come back with something different, I'd like to see a reference.

typically, I tell people who are too stupid to understand to shove references up their ass, you pompous ass.

 

[Crick]

So, what is it you think you've shown us about AGW? Besides the fact that I occasionally make mistakes. Oh, wait, that doesn't have anything to do with AGW, does it.