Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[Aargh]

Am I misreading this? Do you mean because people would die?

Yes, people would die. Acid rain would reduce the production of foodstuffs. Air-borne toxins released from the burning of coal would lower life expectancy.

I'm old enough to remember using coal to heat our church out in the country. Handling coal is nasty. Coal dust goes everywhere. You can't avoid inhaling it. The Army was using coal to heat some facilities as recently as 1969. I've been in an enclosure heated by coal that had what appeared to be an adequate flue system. The air in that enclosed space would make your eyes burn.

Eventually, we will use lots of coal for energy because it will be the only thing left. That will not be a pleasant world.

[jdshock]

Yes, people would die. Acid rain would reduce the production of foodstuffs. Air-borne toxins released from the burning of coal would lower life expectancy.

I'm old enough to remember using coal to heat our church out in the country. Handling coal is nasty. Coal dust goes everywhere. You can't avoid inhaling it. The Army was using coal to heat some facilities as recently as 1969. I've been in an enclosure heated by coal that had what appeared to be an adequate flue system. The air in that enclosed space would make your eyes burn.

Eventually, we will use lots of coal for energy because it will be the only thing left. That will not be a pleasant world.

I guess I may still be missing the satire. You're actually recommending that we utilize more coal in order to kill more people in order to solve the overpopulation "problem"?

Why not advocate just shooting people in the head? That seems like a far more humane way to go than allowing people to starve or die out from lung complications.

[SB Shock]

You mean the 50% of the global population that lives near a coast?

Think of it as a "shovels ready" project. New development around the new coasts.

This is not a particularly good argument. The most critical resource, water, would be lost due to warming weather.

You don't lose water in the water cycle. You might want to study some of the educational material that the USGS has on the water cycle. Where do you think the moisture for kansas comes from? In part from the Gulf of Mexico.

Also look at the Sahara desert - it has a huge supply of water available (in aquifers).

The vast majority of our fresh water is in ice caps, so warming makes it "usable" but not really, since it would just melt into salt water.

Ice caps are not this big storage unit for fresh water for the populace. So what is the point. Glaciers have been melting for how long?

The idea that global warming is good is the worst of the arguments that a "skeptic" can put forward. For every 10,000 articles about why global warming would have massive economic impacts, there is one guy who writes an article saying "hey, we might have longer growing seasons" without at all recognizing the negative impacts of global warming or taking into consideration things like air and soil quality etc. that might actually hinder even the one positive they try to put forward. If you believe those arguments, it's just because that's what you want to believe. Before you read those articles, you already knew what you wanted to hear and believe.

You argument is a lot of people are writing negative articles more than positive? We already know that the left tries to shut down civil discourse and do everything to keep any research that goes against their religion. But there are plenty of studies from well respected institutions about the benefits of warming. Step out of your bubble.

The fact is warming has done much more good than harm. Warming weather leads to lower energy costs, longer growing season and better yields, richer biodiversity and less droughts (warmer atmosphere holds more water, more water in atmosphere means more rain). Also there is less deaths due to the cold - cold weather is much tougher on the population than a heatwave. It is even better for the polar bears.

The un-winnable fight (yes - I do not believe humans can control the climate of this planet, they can hardly predict the weather for week out, why would I believe their climate models predictions decades out) against something we don't even understand the process of why there has been warming and cooling in the past. This fight is actually doing more harm.

1. Driving up food prices
2. Driving up the cost of energy
3. Causing food shortages because we are turning grain into fuel

ultimately you are dumping huge sums of money down a black hole where you are not getting any noticeable benefit while making lives of people more miserable.

[SB Shock]

Don't know how Trump didn't get this censored, but this map shows an 8 to 10 degree increase in the next 80 years. That would mean instead of 107, it would be 115-120. In Kansas.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...temp-large.jpg

That is not what those charts mean. Those charts are depicting changes in average temperatures, not peak (or high) temperatures. From what I have read - the warming is occurring with lows not being as low, and the springs/falls are milder - which pushes up the average temperature.

[John Higgins]

Climate change in 80 years is the least of our concerns. Fukushima report today on Fox News:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5315777703001/?#sp=show-clips

[Aargh]

I guess I may still be missing the satire.

You are correct.

[jdshock]

You are correct.

I apologize for the confusion.

Serious Modest Proposals are becoming much more common.

[Kung Wu]

This is interesting: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....ort-062717.pdf

The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes.

...

It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

...

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts.

...

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever -- despite current claims of record setting warming.

That is an abridged version of peer-reviewed research.

[wufan]

This is interesting: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....ort-062717.pdf



That is an abridged version of peer-reviewed research.

The findings of this article are extremely relevant and was the first signal to me that something was strange about global warming climate models. It's very difficult to do a retroactive review of previous models because when the model doesn't fit the data, the data is reinterpreted, rather than the model.

This doesn't change the fact that anthropomorphic climate change is real, but it does indicate that the proposed severity is, as always, questionable, and it draws concerns about the policies that are enacted to prevent CO2 emissions.

I'm sure that in six months there will be 12 peer-reviewed studies that contradict this.

[Kung Wu]

The findings of this article are extremely relevant and was the first signal to me that something was strange about global warming climate models. It's very difficult to do a retroactive review of previous models because when the model doesn't fit the data, the data is reinterpreted, rather than the model.

This doesn't change the fact that anthropomorphic climate change is real, but it does indicate that the proposed severity is, as always, questionable, and it draws concerns about the policies that are enacted to prevent CO2 emissions.

I'm sure that in six months there will be 12 peer-reviewed studies that contradict this.

Researchers stand to lose a LOT of money if the findings of this research are correct. So I would say 6 months is way too generous.

But one thing is for sure. The author's credentials and motives will be called into question and they will be discredited post haste.

[RoyalShock]

So, garbage in, garbage out?

My question is, how much methane did that rotting garbage produce?

[Kung Wu]

So, garbage in, garbage out?

My question is, how much methane did that rotting garbage produce?

I'm sure we are about to hear a torrent of arguments explaining why it is not garbage in.

[wufan]

So I just now had the opportunity to read the article, and it's not that convincing. Although it does a good job of presenting data that should be further analyzed, it's an obviously biased paper that makes no attempt to confirm good data.

[Dave Stalwart]

Huge block of ice the size of Delaware has reportedly left Antarctica in a startling move that voters did not see coming. Some are calling it #Antarcxit...

...and by some, I mean myself...alone. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/world/larsen-c-antarctica/index.html

[wufan]

Huge block of ice the size of Delaware has reportedly left Antarctica in a startling move that voters did not see coming. Some are calling it #Antarcxit...

...and by some, I mean myself...alone. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/world/...ica/index.html

Luckman added, "We have no evidence to link this directly to climate change, and no reason to believe that it would not have happened without the extra warming that human activity has caused."