Coal use growing world wide

[longview]

What a blanket does is trap heat which goes into a feedback loop which makes the planet warmer and doesnt allow the heat to escape. To compare the earth to a cold rock is flatly stupid. The sun is not the only driver of heating on Earth. The earth is not a cold rock in isolation by

You are correct the earth is not a cold rock, but the blanket analogy is also incorrect!
Besides that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is not in question!

 

[longview]

Longview why do you persist in pretending you know more than climate scientists when you clearly dont?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The time to act was decades ago. If oil companies had not been so resistant to tackling this problem nobody would be suggesting extreme measures.

The open question, even for climate scientist, is how sensitive is the climate to added CO2.
We need to move off of fossil fuels for reasons of sustainability, not because of AGW!
The timing of how we migrate away is important,
We need a viable replacement for fuels made from oil, and do not yet have it!

 

[bomberfox]

The open question, even for climate scientist, is how sensitive is the climate to added CO2.
We need to move off of fossil fuels for reasons of sustainability, not because of AGW!
The timing of how we migrate away is important,
We need a viable replacement for fuels made from oil, and do not yet have it!

No its not an open question, it is settled. We dont have to listen to coal or oil industry lobbies anymore. Were going to have to replace it whether you like it or not.

 

[bomberfox]

You are correct the earth is not a cold rock, but the blanket analogy is also incorrect!
Besides that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is not in question!

The blanket analogy fits just fine. Global warming does not violate thermodynamics.

 

[longview]

No its not an open question, it is settled. We dont have to listen to coal or oil industry lobbies anymore. Were going to have to replace it whether you like it or not.

If it’s not an open question, then what is the answer?

 

[longview]

The blanket analogy fits just fine. Global warming does not violate thermodynamics.

Quantum absorption is much more selective of wavelength than a broad spectrum blanket,
In addition, there are very real conditions where CO2 is nearly transparent the the 15um photons!

 

[bomberfox]

Quantum absorption is much more selective of wavelength than a broad spectrum blanket,
In addition, there are very real conditions where CO2 is nearly transparent the the 15um photons!

Thats a tasty word salad you just made

 

[bomberfox]

If it’s not an open question, then what is the answer?

AGW and climate change is real and we should do something about it instead of being luddites.

 

[longview]

AGW and climate change is real and we should do something about it instead of being luddites.

So you do not have an answer to how sensitive the climate is to added CO2?
P.S. the luddites were opposed to the introduction of power looms to replace homespun, this is quite different than people like yourself who are advocating limiting fossil fuel use, before a viable replacement is ready!
Calls for action, should be based on verifiable scientific data, not simple simulation output, as well as an understanding of what would actually be changed if action is taken!

 

[bomberfox]

So you do not have an answer to how sensitive the climate is to added CO2?
P.S. the luddites were opposed to the introduction of power looms to replace homespun, this is quite different than people like yourself who are advocating limiting fossil fuel use, before a viable replacement is ready!
Calls for action, should be based on verifiable scientific data, not simple simulation output, as well as an understanding of what would actually be changed if action is taken!

Science uses models and they are mot simple. Im advocating limiting or getting rid of burning coal for energy, dont particularly care if people dont like it and neither does nature.

Calls for action will have to address climate change and will be because of climate change.

 

[longview]

Science uses models and they are mot simple. Im advocating limiting or getting rid of burning coal for energy, dont particularly care if people dont like it and neither does nature.

Calls for action will have to address climate change and will be because of climate change.

The problem is what do you plan on replacing the billions of On demand Kilowatthours we now generate from coal with in the meantime.

 

[code1211]

Wrong.



I'm trying to understand how you go about your daily life. If someone tells you that smoking 10 packs of cigarettes a day is bad for you but you are feeling great right now do you simply assume that you will feel great forever? If you were told that a Cat 5 hurricane was going to make landfall and probably kill you so you should evacuate do you laugh since it is "not determined" yet that you will suffer anything?



Do you think there are REASONS for the climate's change?



Wrong again.



What do you mean by CO2 is the cause of global cooling? I have no idea where you got that idea.



Well I will agree that that is unlikely given people like you who don't understand the science and only have your opinion which you think trumps actual science.



The fact that you are unaware of the Montreal Protocols is kind of funny.


I know this. But then I also know that there are many different REASONS that climate changes. Just because climate changed in the past due to things like changes in ocean circulation due to different arrangement of the continents doesn't mean that the CURRENT warming has to be due to the same thing. It isn't. We know what is causing most of it.

You should learn more science in this area and you'll know too!

Your propagandistically inspired understanding of AGW Science is interesting as it occurs in so many and is without foundation.

All of climate change is blamed by propagandists on the Anthropogenic emission of CO2. Are you seriously not aware of this?

Whether we see flooding, fires, drought, desertification, rain, snow, heat or cooling, it is ALL blamed on "Climate Change" which is said to be caused by Anthropogenic emission of CO2.

Regarding the current "warming", we are about as "warm" globally as were were 5000 years ago. We were much warmer at the temperature peak 8000 years ago and much cooler at various points during the Holocene.

EVERY INTERGLACIAL OVER THE LAST HALF MILLION YEARS HAS BEEN WARMER.

In passing, the glaciers in Glacier National Park, the ones we have been warned will soon be melted, did not START to form until 7000 years ago.

The Montreal protocols and the Paris Accords are both political arrangements aimed at accomplishing political goals.

There are about 50 discreet influencers of climate that combine and feed back to create many more influencers.

We are currently enjoying a global climate that is about smack dab in the middle of a two degree temperature range enjoyed by humanity for the last 10,000 or so years.

 

[mar_cline]

Your propagandistically inspired understanding of AGW Science is interesting as it occurs in so many and is without foundation.

Trust me I've got more of a "foundation" for this topic than you likely have.

All of climate change is blamed by propagandists on the Anthropogenic emission of CO2. Are you seriously not aware of this?

So you haven't read the IPCC? OK. If you don't understand the details of the topic why are you holding forth on it?

Regarding the current "warming", we are about as "warm" globally as were were 5000 years ago. We were much warmer at the temperature peak 8000 years ago and much cooler at various points during the Holocene.

See? There you go. You assume that warming in the past for different reasons means that the current warming can't be for a different reasons. This is why you should take some earth science classes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Trust me I've got more of a "foundation" for this topic than you likely have.

So you haven't read the IPCC? OK. If you don't understand the details of the topic why are you holding forth on it?

I haven't seen any evidence you have the foundational knowledge for this topic. When I specifically brought out RE and GWP, and gave page references to an assessment report, you still didn't give coherent answers to the topic, and have shown no evidence of understanding why I say GWP is a bad metric. Agree with me or not isn't the point there, but the fact you couldn't give a rational answer. Then you are going to accuse code of not reading the assessment reports?

And... My God...

You call it the IPCC... "So you haven't read the IPCC?" Do you realize how absolutely wrong that is? The IPCC is an organization. You don't read an organization. You read their assessment reports and other material they publish. You get everything so wrong, and tell us we don't understand... Wow... Just wow...

See? There you go. You assume that warming in the past for different reasons means that the current warming can't be for a different reasons. This is why you should take some earth science classes.

Oh please. You are so full of it.

The point of making such a statement is to show there are alternate possibilities. Not just AGW.

 

[mar_cline]

I haven't seen any evidence you have the foundational knowledge for this topic.

What would like to know about coal or petroleum? I'd be willing to help you out.

When I specifically brought out RE and GWP,

You really like GWP don't you?

And... My God...

No, please, I'm not that good!

You call it the IPCC... "So you haven't read the IPCC?" Do you realize how absolutely wrong that is?

Oh my god. Seriously? So if I say you haven't read any Kerouac would you pedantically scream "Kerouac is a man, not a book!"

Sheesh.

The IPCC is an organization. You don't read an organization. You read their assessment reports and other material they publish. You get everything so wrong, and tell us we don't understand... Wow... Just wow...

See, this is the kind of stuff that makes your posts little more than petty and really not worthy of anyone actually caring to dig deeply into them at all.

You sound like a child.

 

[code1211]

Trust me I've got more of a "foundation" for this topic than you likely have.



So you haven't read the IPCC? OK. If you don't understand the details of the topic why are you holding forth on it?



See? There you go. You assume that warming in the past for different reasons means that the current warming can't be for a different reasons. This is why you should take some earth science classes.

Why did you edit away so much of my post?

Only pointing out that the exact same effect has risen from various causes in the past.

Also pointing out the the warming cited as unprecedented, unusual and dangerous has occurred before, has occurred often and was not dangerous then or now.

Why are you arguing against the obviously demonstrated, real world facts of the matter?

Science generally leaves pretty obvious tracks to follow. It is doing so again.

This warming is not unprecedented, not unusual and not dangerous.

 

[mar_cline]

Why did you edit away so much of my post?

Only pointing out that the exact same effect has risen from various causes in the past.

Also pointing out the the warming cited as unprecedented, unusual and dangerous has occurred before, has occurred often and was not dangerous then or now.

Why are you arguing against the obviously demonstrated, real world facts of the matter?

Science generally leaves pretty obvious tracks to follow. It is doing so again.

This warming is not unprecedented, not unusual and not dangerous.

Humanity has enjoyed a relatively stable global climate since they settled in cities. How you can hypothesize that warming that is unprecedented for humanity won't negatively impact our society is beyond me.

Most importantly global climate change in earth's history HAS been quite dangerous in the past as well! I'm assuming you are familiar with the End Permian extinction? Yeah about 90% of the earth's biodiversity destroyed. Sounds kinda dangerous.

 

[longview]

Humanity has enjoyed a relatively stable global climate since they settled in cities. How you can hypothesize that warming that is unprecedented for humanity won't negatively impact our society is beyond me.

Most importantly global climate change in earth's history HAS been quite dangerous in the past as well! I'm assuming you are familiar with the End Permian extinction? Yeah about 90% of the earth's biodiversity destroyed. Sounds kinda dangerous.

Since Humans have settled in cities, the climate has gone through some fairly large swings, with several warm periods, some likely warmer than the present temperatures!

 

[mar_cline]

Since Humans have settled in cities, the climate has gone through some fairly large swings,

Not on a global scale. So you are wrong.

with several warm periods, some likely warmer than the present temperatures!

Locally.

There's the difference needed to understand the problem itself. GLOBAL climate vs local climate.

But local climatic changes DO give us some idea of how bad all this could get, entire civilizations like the Mayan empire collapsed and de-populated due to megadroughts. But they don't really tell us much about what happens when the entire globe is impacted.

 

[longview]

Not on a global scale. So you are wrong.



Locally.

There's the difference needed to understand the problem itself. GLOBAL climate vs local climate.

But local climatic changes DO give us some idea of how bad all this could get, entire civilizations like the Mayan empire collapsed and de-populated due to megadroughts. But they don't really tell us much about what happens when the entire globe is impacted.

Actually the we do not know if the early periods like the Roman warm period were global or not.

 

[mar_cline]

Actually the we do not know if the early periods like the Roman warm period were global or not.

So far there is no evidence that they were.

This is how science is done, sadly. You cannot just make up the stuff that makes your story solid. You have to go with the data you have.

Take some science classes.

 

[longview]

So far there is no evidence that they were.

This is how science is done, sadly. You cannot just make up the stuff that makes your story solid. You have to go with the data you have.

Take some science classes.

Even Marcott shows we were quite warm 6000 years ago, but the proxies have limited resolution ~120 years, so a slightly warmer period like the last 40 years may not show up.

 

[Buzz]

Even Marcott shows we were quite warm 6000 years ago, but the proxies have limited resolution ~120 years, so a slightly warmer period like the last 40 years may not show up.

So... you think we should consider data that doesn't exist?

 

[longview]

So... you think we should consider data that doesn't exist?

What are you talking about?

 

[Buzz]

What are you talking about?

You said that we should consider something that didn't show up in the data. What is so hard to understand about that?