• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

100% of Climate Scientists Agree that Global Warming Has Halted

Jack Hays said:
I'm from the Midwest and our daughter-in-law is from Fargo.
Click to expand...

I grew up in Northern Michigan, which is where I still live and I can't remember it being this cold this early, or just how cold it got last winter, man. Somethin' is definitely going on.
 
Jango said:
I grew up in Northern Michigan, which is where I still live and I can't remember it being this cold this early, or just how cold it got last winter, man. Somethin' is definitely going on.
Click to expand...

I hope that you understand that the global warming idea is that it will get warmer. Especially in winter. Especially in the more polar regions where all that cold air came from.

Climate/weather is variable. The winters you have been having recently in the USA are not exceptional when looked at over 100 years. 100 years is a tiny sample size for climate.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I hope that you understand that the global warming idea is that it will get warmer. Especially in winter. Especially in the more polar regions where all that cold air came from.

Climate/weather is variable. The winters you have been having recently in the USA are not exceptional when looked at over 100 years. 100 years is a tiny sample size for climate.
Click to expand...

Except that temperatures and snow fall and ice amounts are breaking records established 100+ years ago. Whether it corrects itself or not five winters from now isn't helping me out this winter. Last year in the Upper Peninsula when propane was over $6 a gallon -- over $3 where I live. Salt budgets are being exceeded before December.

Perhaps mankind's influence on the planet cannot be precisely determined, but I will not be swayed to believe that we're not having any impact whatsoever. And maybe our influence is why the northern states are breaking records every week and for many of the other disruptions we're constantly trying to survive. The problem with that realization is that the way we're living is hurting us.
 
Jango said:
Except that temperatures and snow fall and ice amounts are breaking records established 100+ years ago. Whether it corrects itself or not five winters from now isn't helping me out this winter. Last year in the Upper Peninsula when propane was over $6 a gallon -- over $3 where I live. Salt budgets are being exceeded before December.

Perhaps mankind's influence on the planet cannot be precisely determined, but I will not be swayed to believe that we're not having any impact whatsoever. And maybe our influence is why the northern states are breaking records every week and for many of the other disruptions we're constantly trying to survive. The problem with that realization is that the way we're living is hurting us.
Click to expand...
Within a short time window (15 to 18 years) our temperatures appear to have plateaued after raising slowly for about two centuries.
The experts do not know weather it will get warmer or colder from here, (both are predicted).
If you were to ask me colder is much worse then warmer.
Ether way we will have to adapt, as we have almost no control on the climate.
 
longview said:
Within a short time window (15 to 18 years) our temperatures appear to have plateaued after raising slowly for about two centuries.
The experts do not know weather it will get warmer or colder from here, (both are predicted).
If you were to ask me colder is much worse then warmer.
Ether way we will have to adapt, as we have almost no control on the climate.
Click to expand...
My prediction is cooler.
 
longview said:
Within a short time window (15 to 18 years) our temperatures appear to have plateaued after raising slowly for about two centuries.
The experts do not know weather it will get warmer or colder from here, (both are predicted).
If you were to ask me colder is much worse then warmer.
Ether way we will have to adapt, as we have almost no control on the climate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like stronger building codes and redesigning the American automobile to withstand the corrosive effects of salt. Also, a readily available and affordable source for heat.

There are so many public works projects that could be happening right now going towards that adaptation if investors got behind the idea.

That is an area of constant frustration -- a lot of the much needed infrastructure work is not being done on a very reliable timetable.
 
Jango said:
Yeah, like stronger building codes and redesigning the American automobile to withstand the corrosive effects of salt. Also, a readily available and affordable source for heat.

There are so many public works projects that could be happening right now going towards that adaptation if investors got behind the idea.

That is an area of constant frustration -- a lot of the much needed infrastructure work is not being done on a very reliable timetable.
Click to expand...
One of the best ideas I have seen so far is from Germany, they were looking to use summer excess solar electricity to create natural gas for winter use.
Storing green electricity as natural gas - Press Release May 5 2010
The process has been refined by the Naval research labs, to make almost any kind of hydrocarbon fuel.
Imagine, a house producing in summer, it's complete winter propane supply.
 
longview said:
One of the best ideas I have seen so far is from Germany, they were looking to use summer excess solar electricity to create natural gas for winter use.
Storing green electricity as natural gas - Press Release May 5 2010
The process has been refined by the Naval research labs, to make almost any kind of hydrocarbon fuel.
Imagine, a house producing in summer, it's complete winter propane supply.
Click to expand...

Interesting concept but I doubt methane is "climate neutral" as the article indicates.
 
Declan said:
Interesting concept but I doubt methane is "climate neutral" as the article indicates.
Click to expand...
If you take all the carbon used from the atmosphere, and then put the same amount of carbon back.
it is indeed carbon neutral. since there is no additional source for the carbon, it would be difficult to create additional.
 
Jango said:
Except that temperatures and snow fall and ice amounts are breaking records established 100+ years ago. Whether it corrects itself or not five winters from now isn't helping me out this winter. Last year in the Upper Peninsula when propane was over $6 a gallon -- over $3 where I live. Salt budgets are being exceeded before December.

Perhaps mankind's influence on the planet cannot be precisely determined, but I will not be swayed to believe that we're not having any impact whatsoever. And maybe our influence is why the northern states are breaking records every week and for many of the other disruptions we're constantly trying to survive. The problem with that realization is that the way we're living is hurting us.
Click to expand...

Humanity does obviously have some influence on the rest of the world.

It's not a lot outside the cities.

It is, if anything, probably a warming influence. Certainly a warming at night or when it would otherwise be colder.

You are complaining about the cold.

The present period, this decade, is very unusual. It is very stable with few extremes across the world.

Perhaps the salt and fuel problems are something to do with people taking notice of the alarmist warmers who keep on about a vast warming of the world.
 
Threegoofs said:
While not exactly neutral, it's pretty close.

But the main problem with this is the high energy cost of making hydrocarbons.
Click to expand...

If one is getting it for free, the high energy costs are partially negated aren't they?

Either way, alternative energy is where Europe is leaving us in the dust.
 
longview said:
If you take all the carbon used from the atmosphere, and then put the same amount of carbon back.
it is indeed carbon neutral. since there is no additional source for the carbon, it would be difficult to create additional.
Click to expand...

It isn't the carbon but the carbon combined with the oxygen though that makes CO2
 
Threegoofs said:
No. The methane would be produced using existing CO2 from the air. Neutral CO2 output. The only GHG would be from incomplete burning or leaks.
Click to expand...

Agreed we are on the same page here what I was getting at is that methane its self is a greenhouse gas but the byproducts of burning it are not.
 
Declan said:
If one is getting it for free, the high energy costs are partially negated aren't they?

Either way, alternative energy is where Europe is leaving us in the dust.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Obviously, production of energy has a price, be in via solar, wind or coal. Converting solar energy to electricity, and then converting to methane or a hydrocarbon via electrolysis, is inherently less efficienct than directly using the electricity produced. And (I'm too lazy to look it up) I'd imagine the conversion costs in terms of energy to convert electrical energy to hydrocarbons are substantial. It takes energy to form all those carbon bonds, you know, and breaking H-O bonds in water via electrolysis is pretty energy intensive.

If you have somehting like fusion, which should theoretically lead to energy so cheap that it would be useless to meter it, making hydrocarbons is a great thing. But at this point, the more solar you divert to HC use would be less contributed to the electrical grid, meaning more fossil fuels will be used.
 
Jango said:
I grew up in Northern Michigan, which is where I still live and I can't remember it being this cold this early, or just how cold it got last winter, man. Somethin' is definitely going on.
Click to expand...

Averages and means are just that, averages and means. There are outliers.
 
Declan said:
It isn't the carbon but the carbon combined with the oxygen though that makes CO2
Click to expand...
The carbon we extracted from CO2 in the process, and 2 oxygen s are released.
When the hydrocarbon is burned, the same amount of CO2 is released as was extracted, hence neutral.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes and no. Obviously, production of energy has a price, be in via solar, wind or coal. Converting solar energy to electricity, and then converting to methane or a hydrocarbon via electrolysis, is inherently less efficienct than directly using the electricity produced. And (I'm too lazy to look it up) I'd imagine the conversion costs in terms of energy to convert electrical energy to hydrocarbons are substantial. It takes energy to form all those carbon bonds, you know, and breaking H-O bonds in water via electrolysis is pretty energy intensive.

If you have somehting like fusion, which should theoretically lead to energy so cheap that it would be useless to meter it, making hydrocarbons is a great thing. But at this point, the more solar you divert to HC use would be less contributed to the electrical grid, meaning more fossil fuels will be used.
Click to expand...
The Navy says they can make jet fuel at between $3 and $6 a gallon, I have no idea what they ues for the cost of their electricity.
One article said the process was 60% efficient, so a gallon of gasoline would take about 55 Kwh of electricity to make.
The point that is missed here is that, no matter how electricity is produced, it must be used within seconds on the grid, else it turns to heat and is wasted.
When we start adding tens of millions of photovoltaic roofs, the electrical grids will need a sink, for all the surplus power.
Storing the surplus as fuel, for later use, would be much better than letting all that energy go to waste.
 
blaxshep said:
Agreed we are on the same page here what I was getting at is that methane its self is a greenhouse gas but the byproducts of burning it are not.
Click to expand...

Doesn't burning methane actually result in CO2? Oh god chemistry was a long time ago.
 
Deuce said:
Doesn't burning methane actually result in CO2? Oh god chemistry was a long time ago.
Click to expand...
If the methane was made from CO2 that a Human process extracted form the atmosphere, when that same methane is burned,
no net CO2 is added to the atmosphere, carbon neutral. (This assumes the energy was from Solar,Nuclear or some other carbon free source.)
It is just an energy storage device.
 
TurtleDude said:
the sky is falling, the sky is falling

what I have problems with is that the GW hysterics are almost always left-wingers and I am suspicious about any movement that demands more government control in our lives that is run by left-wingers since often it is the government control over us, not solving a real problem, that is the main motivation
Click to expand...

Now that is scientific proof. I wish all scientists were so thorough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom