Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Orange

Is climate change real, and human caused?

Is climate change real, and substantially human caused?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Is climate change real, and substantially human caused?

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

Just now, Orange said:

Uh, meltdowns and explosions that kill millions, far quicker than climate change could.

I'm not sure why you keep hammering away at nuclear like I'm against it.  We have plants in the works in the U.S., no one is stopping it.  At all.  But solar and wind and other green options are far better solutions whose technology is changing (and becoming cheaper) at a very fast clip.  That should be the primary focus.

So is the planet in imminent danger or not?  The only answer is to invest trillions of dollars in research because any nuclear power plant we build is just a hydrogen bomb waiting to go off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Orange said:

anecdotes is plural for "bullshit."

And this post is another way of saying “I lost track of who I was responding to and attributed someone else’s post to you”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BYUcougfan said:

So is the planet in imminent danger or not?  The only answer is to invest trillions of dollars in research because any nuclear power plant we build is just a hydrogen bomb waiting to go off.

The planet we'll be fine.  It's us who is +++++ed if we don't act.

You can blame me for that news if you want, but it's kind of medieval to kill the messenger, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Orange said:

Do you think MAYBE Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukshima may have some tiny impact on this?  Nuclear power plants have historically caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and destroyed vast swaths of nature.  I don't get why you refuse to recognize this.  We don't rush into some technology when it's clearly not safe.

Nuclear power plants haven’t caused anywhere near “hundreds of thousands of deaths”.  

Chernobyl:  4,000 over the long term (31 direct)

Fukushima:  < 1,000 deaths

Three Mile Island:  0

Yet again, you’re talking out your ass about something you know little to nothing about. 

 

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SalinasSpartan said:

And this post is another way of saying “I lost track of who I was responding to and attributed someone else’s post to you”. 

No, I just don't care about your anecdotes about china in response to a statement of fact about their world-leading solar energy investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NorCalCoug said:

Nuclear power plants haven’t caused anywhere near “hundreds of thousands of deaths”.  

Chernobyl:  4,000 over the long term (31 direct)

Fukushima:  < 1,000 deaths

Three Mile Island:  0

Yet again, you’re talking out your ass about something you know little to nothing about. 

 

LOL, you buy Soviet propaganda?

https://time.com/5255663/chernobyl-disaster-book-anniversary/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orange said:

No, I just don't care about your anecdotes about china in response to a statement of fact about their world-leading solar energy investment.

People get confused, I get it. No need to get angry about it buddy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Orange said:

Ummmmm....this dosn't contradict my point.  The U.S. is doubling up China on CO2 emissions.  China is spending close to $1T in solar energy, dwarfing our expenditures.

Are you trying to make some other point?

That is per capita.  China has 1.4 Billion people.  We have 350 million.  I see the United States realistically getting to about 10 tons per capita by 2040 or so.  But China will be pushing 10 tons per capita as well. India might be at 5 by then.  Those two countries will have 6 times the population as the US too.  The rate of change on atmospheric CO2 levels is still increasing.  

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bsu_alum9 said:

That is per capita.  China has 1.4 Billion people.  We have 350 million.  I see the United States realistically getting to about 10 tons per capita by 2040 or so.  But China will be pushing 10 tons per capita as well. India might be at 5 by then.  Those two countries will have 6 times the population as the US too.  The rate of change on atmospheric CO2 levels is still increasing.  

image.png

Again, I never said we emitted more in hard numbers.  Just per capita.

Why is this hard to understand?  Per capita is the only fair way to analyze the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orange said:

"The planet's climate is always changing."

lol.  Ok, I'll bite.

Are you suggesting the current rate of climate change is typical in a natural setting, absent humans?

I say we don't know for sure.  That does not mean I think we just pollute away.  This is not the 1960s.  Much of the low hanging fruit has been addressed.  The cost of getting the next billion pounds of pollutants out of the air is far, far, far more expensive than getting the first billion pounds.  We need to be thoughtful and not follow the lead of someone who was mixing Cosmopolitans this time last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BYUcougfan said:

I say we don't know for sure.  That does not mean I think we just pollute away.  This is not the 1960s.  Much of the low hanging fruit has been addressed.  The cost of getting the next billion pounds of pollutants out of the air is far, far, far more expensive than getting the first billion pounds.  We need to be thoughtful and not follow the lead of someone who was mixing Cosmopolitans this time last year.

Yes, we absolutely do.

It is a FACT that greenhouse gases warm the planet.  That's the entire point of our atmosphere.

It's a FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It's a FACT that our CO2 level in the atmosphere has risen at a rate in 100 years that previously took HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years to achieve at any other point in human history.  There's no debate about any of these points among the people who have expertise in this area.  None.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Orange said:

Yes, we absolutely do.

It is a FACT that greenhouse gases warm the planet.  That's the entire point of our atmosphere.

It's a FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It's a FACT that our CO2 level in the atmosphere has risen at a rate in 100 years that previously took HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years to achieve at any other point in human history.  There's no debate about any of these points among the people who have expertise in this area.  None.

The first two are facts. The third is problematic because human history only goes back two hundred thousand years at best (age of our species), and at worst our history is confined to what was actually written down (~10,000 years).

It might be better to talk about ice core samples, mineral deposits, and maybe fossilized leaf pores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

I say we don't know for sure.  That does not mean I think we just pollute away.  This is not the 1960s.  Much of the low hanging fruit has been addressed.  

That's not really true.  There are tons of energy hogs still out there, whether you are talking about homes, commercial/industrial buildings, or transportation.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also to the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas: there are other greenhouse gasses to account for. For example methane, as well as water vapor, which is the best at keeping heat in our atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CV147 said:

The first two are facts. The third is problematic because human history only goes back two hundred thousand years at best (age of our species), and at worst our history is confined to what was actually written down.

It might be better to talk about ice core samples, mineral deposits, and maybe fossilized leaf pores.

It is also known how much carbon has been extracted from the ground and combusted.  Do you disagree with high school chemistry and think the combustion of hydrocarbons doesn't create CO2?  Where does all the CO2 we create go besides the ocean and atmosphere? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bsu_alum9 said:

It is also known how much carbon has been extracted from the ground and combusted.  Do you disagree with high school chemistry and think the combustion of hydrocarbons doesn't create CO2?  Where does all the CO2 we create go besides the ocean and atmosphere? 

Only around 4% of atmospheric CO2 comes from humans.  The overwhelming majority comes from the ocean.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

It is also known how much carbon has been extracted from the ground and combusted.  Do you disagree with high school chemistry and think the combustion of hydrocarbons doesn't create CO2?  Where does all the CO2 we create go besides the ocean and atmosphere? 

I was not disagreeing with that at all. I was disagreeing with "hundreds of thousands of years of human history."

Another point that could be made in favor of man-made global warming, that hasn't been made in this thread, is the ratio of carbon isotopes in our atmosphere that only come from burning fossil fuels as opposed to natural sources like volcanoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...