And yet, we were facing a coming Ice Age in the 1970’s.
Given either an Ice Age or the slight warming we have experienced (MM or not) . . . I’ll take warming, thank you. Greener planet, more food, stronger ecosystems, etc…
Pretty ironic if you think about it . . . in the 70’s the discussion by the ‘scientific community’ revolved around ways to warm the planet. LOLOLOL.
Beats people with a whiffle bat Enough derailing, back to the silly things.
The GW topic is way to controversial to have a spot here, unless you are going to blame aliens for it.
Speaking of aliens, I recalled an old episode of Ancient Aliens. Where they stated that one of the reasons for aliens to come to earth is gold and water, apparently the gold and water we have on earth must be superior to the gold and water that exists in the asteroid belt…
I’ve considered to address all your points but frankly, I am already busy with politics (my place in the world, Catalonia, is attempting to seccession from Spain, and daily news provide enough tinfoilery to keep me busy away from EVE forums).
Anyway I want to point a few things.
First, the limiting factors for vegetal growth are water, soil and CO2, in this order. Warmer climate is also drier since water evaporation on oceans increases and triggers more clouds and rainfall on the ocean, thus removing rainfall from land. Some areas benefit, others lose, but the general trend is less water on land surfaces. Also, adding more CO2 to human crops makes them richer in carbohydrates and poorer on protein and minerals, and this is supposed to happen to all other vegetals. The overall impact of less nutritive vegetation on animal populations hasn’t been studied well enough.
Second, linking energy poverty to GW policies is dishonest. If people die because they can’t pay the power bills, that’s a social and political problem. “x people die for not paying the bills” means “the society doesn’t affords to save the lives of x people by assuming n money worth of power bills”.
Third, the whole “there was fear of glacial era in the 70’s” has been debunked so much that you should feel embarrassed to ride this dead horse. There was exactly one study that received a lot of public media coverage, but that was all. Another study that received a lot of attention and later was proven wrong talked about “alpha couples” and “alpha males” in wolf packs and you bet the public consequences of that study are far from gone… but the failure of a single biologist hasn’t changed the perceived reliability of animal etology (specially since it was himself who proved that his original study on wolf packs was wrong).
Fourth and last: doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 in less than 200 years is the kind of thing that throws a boulder on top of the slope of climate change, and it’s quite funny how the landslide waited to start right until after mankind threw that boulder.
Whaaaat!? That is, quite frankly, a ludicrous statement and lays bare how hard-headed you and your ilk really are . . . as I had already pointed out . . . the cost of energy is increasing dramatically due to energy policies designed to address ‘GW’. That is beyond doubt or debate.
I will not be posting on this again . . . you are not only beyond reason, but even common sense.
People who can’t afford their power bill is a social problem and requires social solution. “Sell energy cheaper” is not a solution, you can’t tell private companies to charge less for the energy they produce with (mostly imported) fuels whose prices are set by market forces, not social policies.
Also, as for UK electricity bill, the rise in 2016 was due to China’s decission to decrease working days of coal mining from 320 to 276 days a year, in part because of the diving prices of coal as the older coal power plants are shut down worldwide and replaced with a mix of gas, nuclear and renewables. The sudden drop in coal mining in China caused a severe spike in the price of coal, which impacted UK bill even as coal dependence was going down from 30% to 10%, with gas and renewables taking the place. Also UK is a net importer of energy, but in mid 2016 an accident in the submarine link between UK and France severely diminished its carrying capacity and UK had to increase it own production with expensive fossil fuels; that also contributed to the spike in power bills during 2016. The part played by GW policies was to provide 25% of UK energy needs with zero imports of fuel, and that’s just going to become a larger share and a cheaper one too.
Renewable energies are cheaper in the long run and that’s the reason why they will prevail. Coal power plants become more and more expensive to operate as they age, and eventualy they cost so much that must be shut down. Whereas renewable energies requrie (for the time being) a larger initial investment but the operation cost is constant and lower over their lifespan.
Renewable energy is the future, no matter what you think of GW.
I said I would not be posting on this again . . . but you make it almost impossible to walk away . . .
It is a social problem caused by . . . governmental policies and regulations which have increased energy prices due to non-market factors. As if charging people more money, or allowing them to purchase ‘carbon credits’ is going to have one iota of effect on the global climate. It is ludicrous on its face.
Nobody is asking the power companies to sell energy cheaper. Just don’t force them to raise their prices due to ineffectual regulations.
. . . but it is ok to force the same private companies to raise their energy prices to address GW policies? I’m not sure how much you know about ‘market forces’, I suspect not very much, but there is no shortage of energy. The cost increases are due to regulations being imposed by government - and liberals like you.
Your ignorance is actually quite astounding. And, sad. Talk to me again in another 15 years and let me know how that GW is working out for you . . . because here in the US, we still have an East and West Coast (the ones that were supposed to be underwater five years ago). Sometimes the proof is simply in the pudding. Ok, that’s it . . . this time I am done.
By peoples greed. All of them want new cars, new houses, new everything, living in a world where they need a lot of energy. Its the education problem.
Also there are cheaper alternatives for energy in long term, and its in development, LFTR is one example.
Yiole Gionglao i have no problem adding catalonia to the swedish empire, we’ll allow you way more autonomy than spain. just ask any polish they’ll tell you we are super nice rulers.
Anywho i found a way to connect global warming to aliens, The Arrival. Where a brave Charlie Sheen fights aliens that are terraforming earth…
Eventually comes that awkward moment when you realize that, despite your hopes that your opponent is rational, he just is unable to tell fantasy from reality.
Well, LFTR are more like a dead end, they just have so many inconveniences compared to harnessing the Sun’s energy by any of the means available.
The Sun is the source of almost all energy Man has ever used. You don’t burn gasoline, you burn solar energy stored as hydrocarbons over millions of years. Solar energy causes evaporation and rain and fills reservoirs for hydroelectric energy; solar energy heats up and moves air so we catch wind in our wind farms; soler enegy, of course, fuels the capture of CO2 into carbohydrates which we can burn or eat depending on their final form.
It’s all about the Sun. Nuclear energies depend on a limited stock of radioactives left over in the Earth’s crust when the planet solidified. Shifting uranium for thorium just makes the potential stock a bit larger (but then, LFTR need a initial seed of uranium 233, which is extremely rare) but in the long run, the only nuclear fuel we may rely upon is hydrogen, since hydrogen is literally everywhere. Hydrogen will take us to he stars, but as long as we stay in our home base, the Sun is all we need.
PS: there is a threat in fusion energy, though: to generate more surface heat than the Earth can effectively radiate. Mankind is always greedy for more energy so if we find a way to multiply our energy consumption by 100 or 1,000, we will, and then we’ll be literally heating the planet faster than it could cool itself, with or without that silly CO2 insulation blanket we’ve been weaving for 150 years. This is a long term potential threat, of course, but better plan for it when we decide how much energy we should need to live on Earth. Else in 2200 someone may campaign for “1 person = 100 megawatts a day” as some inalienable human right. 
But they are already doing this on their own. 
Just get rid of the king and immigrants (controversial topics, always), and we can talk about joining forces. 
People think we need a lot, but for living its not much. What costs is those huge heating costs for mansions, fuel costs for logistics of fancy stuffs, the 1 car- 1 person thing on the roads, building things that become obsolete with few years, and other ridiculously overblown energy hungry things. Our decisions matter the most I think.
Gosh . . . you just have to poke the bear. I actually did not think we were ‘opponents’ so to speak, just having a friendly debate on, what is fast becoming, an obvious boondoggle.
Let me try to re-establish my ‘hope’ in you . . . your beloved organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognized a slowdown in global warming over the past 15 years in its 2013 report. According to the Heartland Institute’s 2013 NIPCC report, the earth "has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2. Maybe this is from all the ‘carbon credits’ and higher costs due to government regulations. Sarcasm meant.
Aug. 2014 a study in the Open Journal of Statistics analyzed surface temperature records and satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere and confirmed that this slowdown in global warming has occurred.
According to Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard Lindzen, PhD, the IPCC’s “excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the [climate] models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans”.
According to a 2012 study published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, “up to 70% of the observed post-1850 climate change and warming could be associated to multiple solar cycles.”
According to the Heartland Institute’s 2013 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, “it is likely rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have little impact on future climate.” So, what does that mean? Well, it means as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the amount of additional warming caused by the increased concentration becomes less and less pronounced.
In 2010 the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study of the earth’s climate 460-445 million years ago which found that an intense period of glaciation, not warming, occurred when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than they are today. Wait just a minute . . . I thought warming was the result of high CO2 levels? Oops. But, whatever, right?
According to ecologist and former Director of Greenpeace International Patrick Moore, PhD, “there is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia.” Ah, another voice of reason - and from Greenpeace.
Again, Yiole, I have never said the planet has not warmed . . . quite the opposite. The planet has been warming, and cooling, since its very existence. Although the planet has warmed 1-1.4°F over the 20th century, it is still well within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years. The past 3,000 years . . . yes, that is before gas-guzzling SUV’s roamed the planet.
According to a 2010 study, the recent global warming period of the 20th century is the result of a natural 21-year temperature oscillation, and will give way to a “new cool period in the 2030s”. Yep . . . here comes that next ‘mini-ice age’ that was feared back in the 70’s. Can hardly wait to hear what you climate kooks come up with then. Whatever it is, I am sure you will buy it hook-line-and-sinker.
In 2014 a group of 15 scientists dismissed the US National Climate Assessment as a “masterpiece of marketing,” that was “grossly flawed,” and called the NCA’s assertion of human-caused climate change “NOT true.”
Only 15 scientists? But, but, but there are thousands of scientists who believe GW is caused by man!
Not really, those are the talking points and bumper stickers. The “reality” you accused me of not being able to tell from fantasy is this: The Cook review of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies found 66.4% of the studies had no stated position on anthropogenic global warming, and while 32.6% of the studies implied or stated that humans are contributing to climate change, only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly stated “that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.” Yes, that’s right my pretty . . . 0.5 percent of nearly 12,000 scientists proffered a paper stating GW was primarily caused by man.
Look, belive what you want. Anyone can make a case for MMGW . . . albeit not a good one . . . but, I believe, it just isn’t true pr possible. In my opinion, there is just too much evidence of a planet that was even warmer before humans were walking on it - let alone polluting it through industry, energy use and human population factors to believe man has caused the 1.4% increase in temperature of the past 100 years. And, assuming we are part of the problem (which I do not dispute) . . . what percentage is caused by man as opposed to what would have occurred naturally if we were not here at all?
Cheers!
We are here and we are emitting so there is no if…
Humans are to blame 100% for warming. Emmisions are what matters.
You will find all answers here:
I wonder if you will even open it…
That’s you copy/pasting denialist talking points about how the world should be the same because change is frightening and challenges the business interests of certain people who can and will hire other people to defend their business interests.
(…) because here in the US, we still have an East and West Coast (the ones that were supposed to be underwater five years ago).
This is you being you. As with the fake alien picture in a Egyptian tomb and the fake giant skeletons in Egypt. Don’t worry, I am not looking for a discussion here. It would accomplish nothing and I’m already busy with real politics. Just to point how hopeless is to discuss with fanatics:
At one point I had fun with a 3,000 messages long thread about 9/11 in which a single conspirationist nutjob resisted the combined attempts of 8 people to show him how wrong he was. 3,000 messages, boy. That’s how strong some people take their hopelessly flawed and disinformed opinion for fact. Some of his points were forwarded, discussed and debunked no less than 6 separate times during the discussion (it lasted several weeks). And even after debunking them… there he was again with exactly the same nonsense.
Such are beliefs.
Well, the problem is entitlement. It is very difficult to downsize once people get used to wasting resources…
Wow!
Can we gat back to aliens now? It was at least more interesting. 
What about those figurines?
They look like planes, not rockets tho.
Could be they are some kinds of planes ancient people used, or models of kites. 
I saw that episode too. Very interesting that the people on their elephants and horses had airplanes just for “luls”.
Very interesting and very hard to dismiss are ancient old scripts in India, talking about battles in the sky at around 12.000 b.c. or some 14-15 thousand years ago. Or “manuals” for what you could suggest are aircraft but with chakras we do not understand anymore.
Fact: delta wing airplanes do not have tail stabylizers. They’re just dead weight and serve no purpose on a delta wing; a delta wing that needed tail stabylizers would not fly. Some airplanes, though, use airfoils on the front, called canards, but the essential rule is delta wing = no stabylizers. So an airplane with delta wing and stabylizers is not a very well built airplane.
As for making them larger enough and fly… well… you can fly pretty crazy scale models that wouldn’t work in real size. Air viscosity is always the same and interacts differently with the size of the airfoil, so you can have ineffective airfoils that just work in small sizes and would be too bad for larger sizes…
Last but not least, supernatural beings come in literally every shape, and so do their renditions. I just love the crazy logic of “it doesn’t looks like their other gods, so it must be built after a machine that didn’t come to exist until centuries later”. Yeah. They can’t imagine airplane-like gods, but certainly must have seen actual airplanes…
