Remember me
▼ Content

Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.



Page 1 of 212>
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.27-07-2019 10:46
Mrs Wiggles
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
First of all, new to the forum, so hi. Just for the record, I am a retired man in my sixties. In general I am very right wing, and not at all the type of person you would associate with this topic.

So where do we start? It's my belief that governments and leaders are simply addressing the symptoms of climate change, rather than the route cause, and this is why. The planet is horribly overpopulated with our specie, and experts say this won't level out until we reach in excess of 11 billion. Now, I am no great lover of human beings, and I certainly don't believe anything we do will actually destroy the planet. However, what does concern me is the suffering and extinction of our fellow animals. If we choose to kill ourselves as a result of our actions, so be it, but it's unfair innocent animals should suffer because of our ignorance and selfishness. Despite the fact we are overpopulated, we appear desperate to make people live longer, regardless of their state of health or happiness. We financially encourage people to produce children, and we pump billions of pounds in aid to third world countries in order their population can rise also. When the population was 7 billion (now 7.6 billion) we were exhaling 2.95 billion tons of Co2 every year, so logic says it will now be far in excess of 3 billion tons. We are often told about the damage farm animals do to the environment, but experts and people of power choose to ignore the negative us humans have. Because our population is ageing, we need to produce more children to balance the age profile. After all, the more old people we have, the bigger the work force we need to pay for them and support them. If we halved the planets population over night, we would halve the need for transport, halve the need for fossil fuels, and halve the need to re-sculpture the landscape to suit our needs. Forget electric cars, forget carbon neutral environments, and forget everything else Greenpeace is campaigning for. The reality is that we aren't going to live as we did fifty years ago, and spend our holidays in the UK. As much as I would like it, we aren't going to all become vegetarians, and even if we do it won't be for hundreds of years in the west, and probably not at all in Asia or Africa.

To reduce carbon emissions, and make the world a better place we need a much smaller population. Sounds easy, but it isn't. To reduce the population, we need to reduce the world economy, and every countries government wants to do exactly the opposite. To reduce the population we also need to reduce the length of time we live, and the humanitarians amongst us would have none of that. We would also have to have some sort of control over the amount of children we produce, and I really can't see the liberals excepting such a proposal. In short, whilst I do have some answers to the problem in hand, I am also aware that my answers would never be accepted or considered. I solute our attempts to reduce carbon emissions, but the entire world will have to get on board, and I can't see that happening. However, even it did, 11 billion people on the planet will cause irreparable damage to the world as we know it. So, do the experts, the governments, and the people of power realise this, of course they do, but will any of them attempt to slow down the population growth, will they heck !!
27-07-2019 13:37
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Welcome to the board! Glad to have actual debate here.

Mrs Wiggles wrote:we need a much smaller population.


Well you should be a great lover of human beings or get therapy for that.

The human population is going to level off and then likely decline. There is no compelling evidence the earth can't survive a few more billion.

Remember that something killed the dinosaurs and we're all still here. Not sure what happened but from a dinosaurs perspective i'm sure it was some shitty times.

The human hating impulse, right or left wing, is a dark streak best dealt with by a therapist.



Edited on 27-07-2019 13:37
27-07-2019 13:51
Mrs Wiggles
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
tmiddles wrote:
Welcome to the board! Glad to have actual debate here.

Mrs Wiggles wrote:we need a much smaller population.


Well you should be a great lover of human beings or get therapy for that.

The human population is going to level off and then likely decline. There is no compelling evidence the earth can't survive a few more billion.

Remember that something killed the dinosaurs and we're all still here. Not sure what happened but from a dinosaurs perspective i'm sure it was some shitty times.

The human hating impulse, right or left wing, is a dark streak best dealt with by a therapist.


I didn't say I hated human beings, I just don't like them much. Let's face it, our specie are pretty damn horrible.

I didn't say we wouldn't survive if the population grew, my concern is all the other species that will suffer as a result. This is a forum about climate change, and climate change is pretty much being effected by emissions, so the more human beings we have, the more emissions we have.

We can reduce the pollution caused by industry and transport to some degree, but we are clearing forest areas as big as 6 football pitches every day for farming purposes so we can cope with our growing population. If people are concerned about climate change they better be concerned about the amount of human beings on the planet. If they don't care about how many there are of us, they better stop bleating about climate change. Simple as !


Don't argue, I'm always right
27-07-2019 14:24
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
OK glad you don't want a new black plaque or something. Some people do! (12 monkeys isn't so far fetched)

Mrs Wiggles wrote:we are clearing forest areas as big as 6 football pitches every day for farming purposes


Wow I didn't know that rate. Rainforest ranching?

I agree that there is a problem. Or better yet "We could make things a whole lot better".

First of all I should have said earlier that the LUCKIEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN IN HUMAN HISTORE is: That the population didn't explode today like it was headed towards int he 1950s

In the 1950s there were 5.5 births per woman, now it's like 2.5 and falling.

If it had stayed at 5.5 we'd be in a much different world!

Rich people already stopped growing their population. I think prosperity inversely correlates with birth rate pretty well and it's not unreasonable to think that by making everyone richer we will reduce the birth rate more broadly.

[img]https://ourworldindata.org/exports/world-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100-293b7a9d7eb5ca79cd87339c4827e186_v5_850x600.svg[/img]

You seem to suggest making people poorer. Do you think if we left a 3rd world country to wallow in poverty they would have fewer children?

The problem is that fossil fuel use is an easy way to make a population richer. So it's a tricky one.



Edited on 27-07-2019 14:29
27-07-2019 14:49
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
We can reduce the pollution caused by industry and transport to some degree,


It's really the total energy use more than the total population though right?

I mean we could have 10 billion people using less than 5 billion pretty easily if you compare any two countries on earth now, one affluent and one poor


27-07-2019 14:58
Mrs Wiggles
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
tmiddles wrote:
OK glad you don't want a new black plaque or something. Some people do! (12 monkeys isn't so far fetched)

Mrs Wiggles wrote:we are clearing forest areas as big as 6 football pitches every day for farming purposes


Wow I didn't know that rate. Rainforest ranching?

I agree that there is a problem. Or better yet "We could make things a whole lot better".

First of all I should have said earlier that the LUCKIEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN IN HUMAN HISTORE is: That the population didn't explode today like it was headed towards int he 1950s

In the 1950s there were 5.5 births per woman, now it's like 2.5 and falling.

If it had stayed at 5.5 we'd be in a much different world!

Rich people already stopped growing their population. I think prosperity inversely correlates with birth rate pretty well and it's not unreasonable to think that by making everyone richer we will reduce the birth rate more broadly.

[img]https://ourworldindata.org/exports/world-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100-293b7a9d7eb5ca79cd87339c4827e186_v5_850x600.svg[/img]

You seem to suggest making people poorer. Do you think if we left a 3rd world country to wallow in poverty they would have fewer children?

The problem is that fossil fuel use is an easy way to make a population richer. So it's a tricky one.


As matter of interest here is a link where you can actually watch the population grow, it's frightening. At the point I type this the world population has risen 120000, that means by the end of the day it would have risen by the population of a large UK City
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

In certain societies it is true to say that the birth rates will drop if the population get wealthier, but in others it will the opposite. For example, the affluent Christian population will have less children, but Muslims are more likely to have more. Where the growth is will actually make a difference to climate change. The western world are well aware of the damage we are doing to our environment, so population growth will likely have less of an effect than that of Asia or Africa. However, regardless of where you may come from, the amount of Co2 you will produce in your lifetime is enormous, and the amount you will indirectly create due your existence will be even greater.


Don't argue, I'm always right
27-07-2019 17:31
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
Mrs Wiggles wrote: However, what does concern me is the suffering and extinction of our fellow animals. If we choose to kill ourselves as a result of our actions, so be it, but it's unfair innocent animals should suffer because of our ignorance and selfishness.


Just a couple questions...

1) Can you give us some examples of animals that are suffering due to climate change? Be sure to cite the source so we can also read the articles.

2) Why do you claim to be a man and a Mrs at the same time?
Edited on 27-07-2019 17:32
27-07-2019 22:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
First of all, new to the forum, so hi. Just for the record, I am a retired man in my sixties. In general I am very right wing, and not at all the type of person you would associate with this topic.

Welcome to the forum!
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
So where do we start? It's my belief that governments and leaders are simply addressing the symptoms of climate change,

Define 'climate change'.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
rather than the route cause, and this is why.

There is no root cause of a meaningless buzzword except the religion that uses it.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
The planet is horribly overpopulated with our specie,

You say you're right wing, yet you support the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Karl Marx???

You think overpopulation is a problem? Do something about it. You first.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
and experts say this won't level out until we reach in excess of 11 billion. Now, I am no great lover of human beings, and I certainly don't believe anything we do will actually destroy the planet. However, what does concern me is the suffering and extinction of our fellow animals. If we choose to kill ourselves as a result of our actions, so be it,

I have 2 kids. How many animals species went extinct as a result of that?
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
but it's unfair innocent animals should suffer because of our ignorance and selfishness.
Despite the fact we are overpopulated,
we appear desperate to make people live longer, regardless of their state of health or happiness.

So you would rather see people die instead of saved by medicine. You first.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
We financially encourage people to produce children,

No, the desire for sex takes care of that very well, thank you.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
and we pump billions of pounds in aid to third world countries in order their population can rise also.

The populations have already risen. It didn't require our money for that to happen. People just like to ****.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
When the population was 7 billion (now 7.6 billion) we were exhaling 2.95 billion tons of Co2 every year,

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
so logic says it will now be far in excess of 3 billion tons.

Logic isn't here. Multiplying one randU by another randU only produces another randU.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
We are often told about the damage farm animals do to the environment, but experts and people of power choose to ignore the negative us humans have.

Want to know the difference? We fix it.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
Because our population is ageing, we need to produce more children to balance the age profile. After all, the more old people we have, the bigger the work force we need to pay for them and support them. If we halved the planets population over night, we would halve the need for transport, halve the need for fossil fuels, and halve the need to re-sculpture the landscape to suit our needs.

So you want to destroy half the people on this planet overnight. You first.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
Forget electric cars, forget carbon neutral environments, and forget everything else Greenpeace is campaigning for.
The reality is that we aren't going to live as we did fifty years ago, and spend our holidays in the UK.

Why would I want to? Personal computers didn't exist 50 years ago. Neither did the Alexa service, AWS, Azure, Windows, Macs, Linux, video games, large flat screen displays that are cheap, commonplace FADEC cars, EGR systems, low cost home heat pumps, lithium oxide batteries,
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
As much as I would like it, we aren't going to all become vegetarians, and even if we do it won't be for hundreds of years in the west, and probably not at all in Asia or Africa.

I wouldn't trust your prediction using Holy Entrails.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
To reduce carbon emissions, and make the world a better place we need a much smaller population. Sounds easy, but it isn't. To reduce the population, we need to reduce the world economy, and every countries government wants to do exactly the opposite. To reduce the population we also need to reduce the length of time we live, and the humanitarians amongst us would have none of that. We would also have to have some sort of control over the amount of children we produce, and I really can't see the liberals excepting such a proposal.

People will not voluntarily accept. Like I said, people like to ****. They like to form families and raise children. You don't have to worry about CO2.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
In short, whilst I do have some answers to the problem in hand, I am also aware that my answers would never be accepted or considered.

You have no answers but war and death.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
I solute our attempts to reduce carbon emissions,

Why? CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere and is required for life on Earth.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
but the entire world will have to get on board, and I can't see that happening.

Good.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
However, even it did, 11 billion people on the planet will cause irreparable damage to the world as we know it.

Define 'damage'.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
So, do the experts, the governments, and the people of power realise this, of course they do, but will any of them attempt to slow down the population growth, will they heck !!

You are no conservative. You are a Marxist.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 22:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Welcome to the board! Glad to have actual debate here.

Mrs Wiggles wrote:we need a much smaller population.


Well you should be a great lover of human beings or get therapy for that.

The human population is going to level off and then likely decline. There is no compelling evidence the earth can't survive a few more billion.

Remember that something killed the dinosaurs and we're all still here. Not sure what happened but from a dinosaurs perspective i'm sure it was some shitty times.

The human hating impulse, right or left wing, is a dark streak best dealt with by a therapist.


I didn't say I hated human beings, I just don't like them much. Let's face it, our specie are pretty damn horrible.
I'm just going to let this paradox stand as is for all to see.
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
I didn't say we wouldn't survive if the population grew, my concern is all the other species that will suffer as a result. This is a forum about climate change, and climate change is pretty much being effected by emissions, so the more human beings we have, the more emissions we have. Define 'climate change'.
[quote]Mrs Wiggles wrote:
We can reduce the pollution caused by industry and transport to some degree, but we are clearing forest areas as big as 6 football pitches every day for farming purposes so we can cope with our growing population. If people are concerned about climate change they better be concerned about the amount of human beings on the planet. If they don't care about how many there are of us, they better stop bleating about climate change. Simple as !

Did you know we farm trees?


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 22:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
OK glad you don't want a new black plaque or something. Some people do! (12 monkeys isn't so far fetched)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Mrs Wiggles wrote:we are clearing forest areas as big as 6 football pitches every day for farming purposes


Wow I didn't know that rate. Rainforest ranching?

Nah. Farming trees. We already do that.
tmiddles wrote:
I agree that there is a problem. Or better yet "We could make things a whole lot better".

Nah. You only agree in his religion because he agrees with your religion. It's the same religion.
tmiddles wrote:
First of all I should have said earlier that the LUCKIEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN IN HUMAN HISTORE is: That the population didn't explode today like it was headed towards int he 1950s

It wasn't.
tmiddles wrote:
In the 1950s there were 5.5 births per woman, now it's like 2.5 and falling.

If it had stayed at 5.5 we'd be in a much different world!

The number is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
Rich people already stopped growing their population. I think prosperity inversely correlates with birth rate pretty well and it's not unreasonable to think that by making everyone richer we will reduce the birth rate more broadly.

Better tell Trump's children they don't exist anymore!
tmiddles wrote:
[img]https://ourworldindata.org/exports/world-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100-293b7a9d7eb5ca79cd87339c4827e186_v5_850x600.svg[/img]

Oh...so you are using the UN's Holy Entrails.
tmiddles wrote:
You seem to suggest making people poorer. Do you think if we left a 3rd world country to wallow in poverty they would have fewer children?

Define 'third world country'. Bigotry.
tmiddles wrote:
The problem is that fossil fuel use is an easy way to make a population richer. So it's a tricky one.

Nah. Fossils used as fuel won't make anyone rich. Fossils don't burn.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-07-2019 22:10
27-07-2019 22:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
So where do we start? It's my belief that governments and leaders are simply addressing the symptoms of climate change,
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
The planet is horribly overpopulated with our specie
Mrs Wiggles wrote: However, what does concern me is the suffering and extinction of our fellow animals. If we choose to kill ourselves as a result of our actions, so be it,


----------

Into the Night wrote:You are no conservative. You are a Marxist.

Aaaahh, you picked up on that as well.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 06:19
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
[Define 'climate change'.
.


Mrs Wiggins and all.

As you can see from my signature there are two posters on this forum I will always ignore because they have one agenda and that's to end debate. I would encourage you to not feed the trolls.

You raise real issues that deserve an intelligent debate.

So I believe we can successfully adapt the habits of a larger population to be even more sustainable.

What do you think of switching our power generation from coal to nuclear?


28-07-2019 07:32
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
tmiddles wrote:Mrs Wiggins and all.

Does "all" incude IBDaMann and Into the Night?

tmiddles wrote:As you can see from my signature there are two posters on this forum I will always ignore because they have one agenda and that's to end debate.
Those guys have tried to debate with you. It is YOU that has ended debate by putting them on your ignore list. Hypocrite.

tmiddles wrote:You raise real issues that deserve an intelligent debate.
You mean like when Mr. Mrs. Wiggles said that we should all die to save the animals?

tmiddles wrote:So I believe we can successfully adapt the habits of a larger population to be even more sustainable.
Well that was pretty vague.

tmiddles wrote:What do you think of switching our power generation from coal to nuclear?
Nuclear is a great source of power, however with all the new carbon based fuel extraction techniques and discovery of vast reserves of oil and natural gas, nuclear is just not economical anymore. Extremely expensive to operate a nuclear plant.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 28-07-2019 07:32
28-07-2019 07:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles expressed (paraphrased):

Mrs Wiggins and all.

As you can see from my signature there are two posters on this forum I will always ignore because they try to bring science, math and economics into every discussion in which I mention nature, the environment and public policy. They have one agenda and that's to be specific. They insist that I define my terms and I would encourage you to not encourage them in this regard.

You raise real issues that deserve an intelligent debate ... but these guys have actual science on their side and it makes a mockery of beliefs I hold dear.

One of those precious beliefs is that we can successfully force/coerce entire national populations to adopt the rule of unelected panels who can force economy-killing measures/policies such as imposing suffocating carbon taxes and outlawing affordable energy.

What do you think of switching our power generation from affordable coal and hydrocarbons and forcing nuclear as the only option?



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 07:50
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[Define 'climate change'.
.


Mrs Wiggins and all.

As you can see from my signature there are two posters on this forum I will always ignore because they have one agenda and that's to end debate. I would encourage you to not feed the trolls.

You raise real issues that deserve an intelligent debate.

So I believe we can successfully adapt the habits of a larger population to be even more sustainable.

What do you think of switching our power generation from coal to nuclear?


The title of this forum is Climate-Debate. What did you actually expect? I'm not into arguments or debate, but I try not to interfere with those that do. The point of debate, is to win, is kind of like a sport. There are rules, strategy, tactics, most of which I don't have a clear understanding of the game. I do understand some of the basics, and try not to take it too personal. The repetition is annoying, the rebuttal of every sentence, careful dissection, makes for difficult reading to me, tend to skip over a lot of it. I remember what I read before, no sense re-reading the same thing, over and over. Unfortunately, a quote, encompasses pretty much the entire thread, takes time to find anything new. The one-line rebuttals have been seen hundreds of times, with little or no variation, and I have a pretty short attention span, likely miss a few subtle things, as I try to speed things up, and skip over large blocks of text. Probably why debate never interested me, but I do respect those that play the game though, and that's the theme of this website. Nobody is forced into playing the debate game, you can walk away anytime. Losing the game doesn't mean you are wrong or stupid, just that you got tired of playing the game, and want to move on.
28-07-2019 08:09
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
GasGuzzler wrote:
]Well that was pretty vague. .


I meant nuclear as the biggest step.

GasGuzzler wrote:

tmiddles wrote:What do you think of switching our power generation from coal to nuclear?
Nuclear is a great source of power, however ...not economical anymore.



I don't know the cost numbers do you?

Hydroelecric and geothermal are of course the best but nuclear is great.

Another example of how more people doesn't have to = more negative side effects is that packaging waste has actually remained flat over the last 20 year's of the US population growth.

We get better at everything including being more efficient.



Edited on 28-07-2019 08:12
28-07-2019 08:18
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
HarveyH55 wrote:
, careful dissection, .


Nothing careful about it.

This ghost town of a board was killed by trolls intent on doing so. If you lack the competence to win a debate it's tempting to simply sabotage it.

If I want to debate the causes of the civil war and find someone who says there's no such thing as the civil war we are done.

Discussion here is voluntary and I opt out of debating if we may debate at all.


28-07-2019 08:19
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
There is a nuclear plant near me (Duane Arnold in Palo Iowa) that is currently going through permanent shutdown phases a decade or more before it's life expectancy. The electric contract has been bought out and the new contract will use carbon fuels because they are more economical....that is until someone of your mindset decides to tax the shit out of them.
Edited on 28-07-2019 08:20
28-07-2019 08:20
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
GasGuzzler wrote:
There is a nuclear plant near me (Duane Arnold in Palo Iowa) that is currently going through shutdown phases a decade or more before it's life expectancy. The electric contract has been bought out and the new contract will use carbon fuels because the are more economical....that is until someone of your mindset decides to tax the shit out of them.


I thought nuclears demise was just due to public panic


28-07-2019 08:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
There is a nuclear plant near me (Duane Arnold in Palo Iowa) that is currently going through shutdown phases a decade or more before it's life expectancy. The electric contract has been bought out and the new contract will use carbon fuels because the are more economical....that is until someone of your mindset decides to tax the shit out of them.


I thought nuclears demise was just due to public panic


Here ya go. Have at it. 8 others going bye bye with it.

https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/powering-down-iowas-only-nuclear-plant-nears-end-20190505


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 28-07-2019 08:26
28-07-2019 08:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles meant:
This ghost town of a board gets dozens of posts in a short period of time


tmiddles meant: If you lack the competence to win a debate it's probably because you are scientifically illiterate yet trying to pretend you are a scientific genius.


tmiddles meant: If I want to debate the causes of the War of Middle Earth and find someone who insists it was just a work of fiction, we are done.


tmiddles meant: Discussion here is voluntary and I opt out of debating if science, math and economics are injected into the discussion.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 09:09
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Here ya go.


Crap : (
7 to 1, I did not know that:

gas/oil combined cycle power plant - $1000/kW [4]
onshore wind - $1600/kW[4]
offshore wind - $6500/kW[4]
solar PV (fixed) - $1800/kW[4]
solar PV (tracking)- $2000/kW[4]
battery storage - $2000/kW[4]
geothermal - $2800/kW[4]
coal (with SO2 and NOx controls)- $3500-3800/kW[5]
advanced nuclear - $6000/kW[4]
fuel cells - $7200/kW[4]


new nuclear power plants in China have fallen below $2000/kW in 2016

Still 2 to 1

I just thought nuclear was a lot cheaper than it is.



Edited on 28-07-2019 09:11
28-07-2019 19:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Here ya go.


Crap : (
7 to 1, I did not know that:

gas/oil combined cycle power plant - $1000/kW [4]
onshore wind - $1600/kW[4]
offshore wind - $6500/kW[4]
solar PV (fixed) - $1800/kW[4]
solar PV (tracking)- $2000/kW[4]
battery storage - $2000/kW[4]
geothermal - $2800/kW[4]
coal (with SO2 and NOx controls)- $3500-3800/kW[5]
advanced nuclear - $6000/kW[4]
fuel cells - $7200/kW[4]


new nuclear power plants in China have fallen below $2000/kW in 2016

Still 2 to 1

I just thought nuclear was a lot cheaper than it is.


...and you believe the numbers from China?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 19:19
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Here ya go.


Crap : (
7 to 1, I did not know that:

gas/oil combined cycle power plant - $1000/kW [4]
onshore wind - $1600/kW[4]
offshore wind - $6500/kW[4]
solar PV (fixed) - $1800/kW[4]
solar PV (tracking)- $2000/kW[4]
battery storage - $2000/kW[4]
geothermal - $2800/kW[4]
coal (with SO2 and NOx controls)- $3500-3800/kW[5]
advanced nuclear - $6000/kW[4]
fuel cells - $7200/kW[4]


new nuclear power plants in China have fallen below $2000/kW in 2016

Still 2 to 1

I just thought nuclear was a lot cheaper than it is.


...and you believe the numbers from China?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


...and you believe the numbers from Wikipedia?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Joking, of course...
29-07-2019 03:18
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
HarveyH55 wrote:
...and you believe the numbers from Wikipedia?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Joking, of course...


Harvey you have to understand the grand conspiracy only the Trolls of this board know. Al Gore, in concert with the crab people, Chupacabra, and big foot, conspire daily to falsify the records world wide, going back hundreds of years.

It's a very elaborate plot made possible by magic.

Their magic is so powerful there's no point in even looking anything up again, it would only be lies. You just have to make things up yourself. It's the only answer.


29-07-2019 04:39
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
...and you believe the numbers from Wikipedia?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Joking, of course...


Harvey you have to understand the grand conspiracy only the Trolls of this board know. Al Gore, in concert with the crab people, Chupacabra, and big foot, conspire daily to falsify the records world wide, going back hundreds of years.

It's a very elaborate plot made possible by magic.

Their magic is so powerful there's no point in even looking anything up again, it would only be lies. You just have to make things up yourself. It's the only answer.


It was a joke, even made a note, to avoid such posts. He often dismisses Wikipedia, since pretty much anyone can add anything to it, and it's stay, until someone spots the bad information, and gets it corrected or removed. All those links to the cost/kWh for the various electricity generators, came from Wikipedia. He questioned numbers from China, thought I should point out the source, something he considers questionable as well...
29-07-2019 04:48
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It was a joke,


I know I was just joining in

Wikipedia is easy to check, it's like an organized and curated internet

To dismiss it out of hand is just being lazy, lazier than only relying on it.


29-07-2019 10:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
...and you believe the numbers from Wikipedia?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Joking, of course...


Harvey you have to understand the grand conspiracy only the Trolls of this board know. Al Gore, in concert with the crab people, Chupacabra, and big foot, conspire daily to falsify the records world wide, going back hundreds of years.

It's a very elaborate plot made possible by magic.

Their magic is so powerful there's no point in even looking anything up again, it would only be lies. You just have to make things up yourself. It's the only answer.


It was a joke, even made a note, to avoid such posts. He often dismisses Wikipedia, since pretty much anyone can add anything to it, and it's stay, until someone spots the bad information, and gets it corrected or removed. All those links to the cost/kWh for the various electricity generators, came from Wikipedia. He questioned numbers from China, thought I should point out the source, something he considers questionable as well...


That I do.


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 10:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
It was a joke,


I know I was just joining in

Wikipedia is easy to check, it's like an organized and curated internet

To dismiss it out of hand is just being lazy, lazier than only relying on it.


It is easy to check. It routinely denies science, mathematics, history, and even what Trump said last week.

That's why I dismiss is. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference with me.


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 19:26
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
It was a joke,


I know I was just joining in

Wikipedia is easy to check, it's like an organized and curated internet

To dismiss it out of hand is just being lazy, lazier than only relying on it.


Mistakes are only corrected, if somebody points them out. If nobody questions, or cares enough to complain, the false information remains. You go there to find out things you don't know, so you won't generally know if there are any errors. If you find out later, how likely are you to go back, and report it? Anybody can add anything to Wikipedia, accuracy is left up to the readers to correct.

I use it, but I don't give it a high level of confidence. I understand that it might not be entirely accurate, but usually close enough. Generally, I'll check two or three other sources, when I need to know something accurately. I never just trust one, for important stuff. It's just a habit, probably got it from reading too many biased news articles, and really wanting to know both sides, and the whole story, not just the left-sided interpretation. Like all those unarmed black teens shot by cops, during the Obama years. Many of those stories portrayed those 'kids', as very young, innocent, never did no wrong, wouldn't hurt anyone. The truth was that they had a disturbing history, didn't follow instructions, from pretty much anybody, an usually past 18 years old. It's really simple, when a cop confronts you, you stop what you are doing, keep your hands insight at all times, do as you are instructed.
29-07-2019 23:34
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
HarveyH55 wrote:Like all those unarmed black teens shot by cops, during the Obama years.


I would recommend checking out 13th: 13th

New Gingrich says some pretty insightful stuff in it.

I think it helps put the police relationship with black America in context for us white guys.


11-08-2019 13:11
Mrs Wiggles
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[Define 'climate change'.
.


Mrs Wiggins and all.

As you can see from my signature there are two posters on this forum I will always ignore because they have one agenda and that's to end debate. I would encourage you to not feed the trolls.

You raise real issues that deserve an intelligent debate.

So I believe we can successfully adapt the habits of a larger population to be even more sustainable.

What do you think of switching our power generation from coal to nuclear?


I believe we should what ever is necessary to reduce green house emissions, but I also believe anything we do is pointless unless reduce the worlds population. We need to sop worrying about the planet, because it's going to be around a long time after us us, albeit in a changed form perhaps. Like I said before, if we chose to destroy our own specie, that's only what we deserve, my concern is the other species we destroy along the way. In answer to a few other people's questions, I have copied and pasted something from the internet.

These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year. If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true - i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet** - then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.


Don't argue, I'm always right
11-08-2019 15:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:I believe we should what ever is necessary to reduce green house emissions,

Could you define "green house emissions"?

Mrs Wiggles wrote: but I also believe anything we do is pointless unless reduce the worlds population.

Obviously if "green house emissions" remains undefined then it will be pointless to "reduce" them.

Mrs Wiggles wrote: Like I said before, if we chose to destroy our own specie, that's only what we deserve,

Fortunately, our specie hasn't chosen to destroy itself. You can breathe more easily.


Mrs Wiggles wrote: ... my concern is the other species we destroy along the way.

Aaah, another phony self-righteous virtue-signaling WACKY greenazombie preaching unconditional love for all plants and animals but disdain for humanity.

I'm trying to envision your target audience ... while I cook up some bacon and watch the Raiders.

Mrs Wiggles wrote:These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year.

They sound like morons to me.

Mrs Wiggles wrote: - then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.

Do these morons mention the number of new species each year? If not, why not?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-08-2019 16:08
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
Mrs Wiggles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[Define 'climate change'.
.


Mrs Wiggins and all.

As you can see from my signature there are two posters on this forum I will always ignore because they have one agenda and that's to end debate. I would encourage you to not feed the trolls.

You raise real issues that deserve an intelligent debate.

So I believe we can successfully adapt the habits of a larger population to be even more sustainable.

What do you think of switching our power generation from coal to nuclear?


I believe we should what ever is necessary to reduce green house emissions, but I also believe anything we do is pointless unless reduce the worlds population. We need to sop worrying about the planet, because it's going to be around a long time after us us, albeit in a changed form perhaps. Like I said before, if we chose to destroy our own specie, that's only what we deserve, my concern is the other species we destroy along the way. In answer to a few other people's questions, I have copied and pasted something from the internet.

These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year. If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true - i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet** - then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.


Some of the old species need to go extinct, open up a place for new ones. That new species usually has some characteristic, that enabled it to survive, where the previous did not.

All living things are based on carbon. Plants are the only ones, that pull carbon directly from the environment. In one way or another, everything else gets their essential carbon, entirely from plants. More CO2 available to plants, means more carbon available to all life on the planet. Reducing CO2, will reduce the amount of food, and carbon for the entire planet as well, and kill many more, than a degree or two warming. The IPCC never addresses whether or not there is an upper limit to the predicted warming, only imply that it just keeps getting hotter. Pretty sure there is a limit, and then we start on a cooling cycle. Check out CO2 augmentation in greenhouses and indoor growing. You'll find that plants do incredibly well in a much higher CO2 environment, than is currently, or even likely to occur naturally. Compare those levels to the IPCC projected CO2 levels. Augmentation ranges from 1200-2000 ppm, for optimal growth and yield.
12-08-2019 04:42
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
Could you define "green house emissions"?


The theory of the greenhouse effect is that gases which are reactive to infra red radiation from the Earth's surface are called "greenhouse gases" because, the theory goes, they retain heat in our atmosphere. So "green house emissions" refers to the human production of those gases. Chiefly, though not exclusively CO2.

IBdaMann wrote:
Do these morons mention the number of new species each year? If not, why not?

.


I don't think we have new species popping up. Do we?
12-08-2019 10:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote: The theory of the greenhouse effect is that gases which are reactive to infra red radiation from the Earth's surface are called "greenhouse gases"

What gases are "reactive to" earth's infrared and which ones aren't?


tmiddles wrote: ... because, the theory goes, they retain heat in our atmosphere.

... so it has a physics violation built right in?

tmiddles wrote: So "green house emissions" refers to the human production of those gases. Chiefly, though not exclusively CO2.

Is that because no one wants to blame a volcano?

tmiddles wrote: I don't think we have new species popping up. Do we?

Are you a fundamentalist Christian?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-08-2019 10:47
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
What gases are "reactive to" earth's infrared and which ones aren't?


Everything has a unique emissivity. The perfect black body that absorbs all wavelengths is theoretical. CO2 is reactive to 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers for example. Oxygen and Nitrogen absorb in the ultraviolet. Oxygen for example being reactive to and splitting to make ozone in the upper atmosphere where those ultra violet wavelengths are available. Oxygen and Nitrogen don't absorb infra red radiation. CO2 can absorb Earths radiation if it's in the 15 micrometer range.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ... because, the theory goes, they retain heat in our atmosphere.

... so it has a physics violation built right in?


Retain, delay, pick your vocabulary to suit you. If I throw a blanket on it delays thermal energy from leaving my body as quickly as it would otherwise (in that case via conduction mainly but same principle).

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So "green house emissions" refers to the human production of those gases. Chiefly, though not exclusively CO2.

Is that because no one wants to blame a volcano?


Hey it's not my theory! Yes the theory is only focused on human activity and it's impacts. Also there would not seem to be any discussion of what was causing warming prior to 1950.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I don't think we have new species popping up. Do we?

Are you a fundamentalist Christian?

.


I don't follow? So what new species do we have?

I thought one of the riddles of zoology was that the number of species just kept declining.
12-08-2019 18:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What gases are "reactive to" earth's infrared and which ones aren't?


Everything has a unique emissivity. The perfect black body that absorbs all wavelengths is theoretical. CO2 is reactive to 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers for example. Oxygen and Nitrogen absorb in the ultraviolet. Oxygen for example being reactive to and splitting to make ozone in the upper atmosphere where those ultra violet wavelengths are available. Oxygen and Nitrogen don't absorb infra red radiation. CO2 can absorb Earths radiation if it's in the 15 micrometer range.

Absorption and emission are not on the same frequencies.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ... because, the theory goes, they retain heat in our atmosphere.

... so it has a physics violation built right in?


Retain, delay, pick your vocabulary to suit you. If I throw a blanket on it delays thermal energy from leaving my body as quickly as it would otherwise (in that case via conduction mainly but same principle).

You cannot trap thermal energy. Blankets do not delay or trap thermal energy. They reduce heat.
tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So "green house emissions" refers to the human production of those gases. Chiefly, though not exclusively CO2.

Is that because no one wants to blame a volcano?


Hey it's not my theory! Yes the theory is only focused on human activity and it's impacts. Also there would not seem to be any discussion of what was causing warming prior to 1950.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I don't think we have new species popping up. Do we?

Are you a fundamentalist Christian?

.


I don't follow? So what new species do we have?

Occasionally, we find a new variety no one has ever seen before.
tmiddles wrote:
I thought one of the riddles of zoology was that the number of species just kept declining.

Nope. We find new ones. They are usually named after some description of the variety or after the guy that found it.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2019 23:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:Everything has a unique emissivity.

Nope.

tmiddles wrote: CO2 is reactive to 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers for example.

Please define "reactive." On the surface it appears that you might be mistaken here.

tmiddles wrote: Retain, delay, pick your vocabulary to suit you.

Oh, in that case you are in egregious violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Dismissed.

tmiddles wrote: If I throw a blanket on it delays thermal energy from leaving my body

Are you operating under the misconception that if you wrap yourself in a blanket that you will somehow radiate less into the blanket, or somehow radiate into the blanket at a radiance other than what is predicted by Stefan-Boltzmann?

Are you operating under the misconception that the thermal radiation you radiate knows to "slow down" if it is being radiated into a blanket?

Have you ever taken a physics class?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Are you a fundamentalist Christian?

I don't follow?

You don't understand English? You are discussing "new species" and that means I necessarily need to know whether you are a fundamentalist Christian. It's not a difficult question. It's not a trick question. If you don't want to "go there" then pick a different topic.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-08-2019 05:55
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
Absorption and emission are not on the same frequencies.


Oh oops! Right I knew that. Emission is regardless of substance and purely based on temp. Absorption varies.

Into the Night wrote:
Blankets do not delay or trap thermal energy. They reduce heat.


Since there is always heat this basically means that the movement of thermal energy, the rate, is slowed correct?

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


This is not a correct statement. To within +/- 1000 Kelvin? +/- 500 Kelvin?

There is always a margin of error and to say you cannot know the temperature of Earth with any margin of error would mean you cannot know the temperature of anything.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Real, 'Green New Deal'419-08-2019 02:52
Because global warming from emissions is real...14409-08-2019 19:49
The right approach1917-05-2019 10:24
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1226-04-2019 02:48
The Real Culprit Behind Trump's Border Emergency? Climate Change523-02-2019 04:54
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact