Print

[sammy]

Well, that takes care of Fermi I.  What have you got to show Fermi II is causing temperature inversions in Lake Erie?  Fermi II uses closed loop cooling, using lake water for make up.

Warning; facts is not welcome here. This is all about abolishing everything that makes power for us, and going back to the good old days, when all our power came from solar and wind, doncha know.

[lordfly]

Your entire post is conjecture.

If their is a direct correlation between the consu,ption of greenhouse gases and the warming of the earth then what caused the spike in the 1400's?  Greenhouse gases?  And that spike was much warmer.

Fun fact: Volcanoes can **** with the climate. No, that doesn't mean you can drive your Humvee on two dollar gas forever.

The earth does not have "finite" resources, that is another myth.

Citation needed.

fossil fuels are a renewable source.

If you plan on living to the ripe old age of 65 million, yes. Problem: We're using fossil fuels faster than they are "renewed" by being trapped in the ground. There are quantifiably (not subjectively, not magically, not liberally) less fossil fuels in the ground today than there was 100 years ago.

Ever wonder what happens to all that material that decomposes into the ground?

Yes, 65 million years later, some of it is miraculously preserved in some form of compressed hydrocarbons. Not next year, not next week, and definitely not in your lifetime.

  Do we use too much?  Probably and I say lets use other forms of it.

Why bother? Obviously climate control's a myth and it's the evil socialists controlling the fossil fuel supply. Burn your house down every year, there's infinite supplies for new housing.

  But I will not favor crippling the economy and taxing the middle class into oblivion (because lets face it, that is where EVERY tax increase lands regardless of its intended target) so we can continue to fund the junk science called the end of the earth industry.

If I ignore the problems we face, it will go away. For instance: The air quality in 1900 next to a coal plant was 4000% cleaner than it is in my house now. Why? SCIENCE. If you tell me otherwise, it's junk science. Therefore, SCIENCE says that coal plants in 1900 were 4000% cleaner than they are now.

And enough with the endless faux news BS rebuttals with no substance.  Very tiresome.

Your mother wears hydrocarbon army boots.

[jbs49238]

If we were to take all the BILLIONS of dollars given to the Oil and Coal industries, and instead invest those same dollars into Green industries (Solar and wind) at least we would be making an attempt to stop polluting, we would be investing in new technologies, and creating new jobs.

On this we agree.  No oil subsidies.

If alternatives can prove viable I have no trouble with subsidizing them to get it up and running.  I am one of the folks who altough he disagrees with your thoughts on climate change, also realizes that the coal and oil companies use government to shackle to creation of viable alternatives.

[jbs49238]

LF,

You are a funny bird....  You tell me citation needed, then go on to ramble off a bunch of stuff without citation.

Funny you bring up volcanoes... have we not had a few pretty spectacular eruptions in recent past?  You know during your period of data that we should all accept as the PROOF?  Yup 25 years of data for a planet millions of years old WITH volcanic activity inclusive... nope that is definately PROOF it is just the humans fault.

You have no idea how much stuff began the magical process of decomposition 65 million years ago... or yesterday for that matter.  Your side has no concrete numbers... just hand picked data and speculation and a mandate.  That my friend is NOT REAL SCIENCE.  Nor is is PROOF of a damn thing.

[lordfly]

Whatever you say, man. Cherry-picked Socialist claptrap, for sure. It must be Obama's fault. Or Batman's. But not our fault, no way.

[marilyn.monroe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

[lordfly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance_Never_Dies

[LetsGoWings]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_and_paste

[Tiny]

Dust Bowl
The Dust Bowl dryness of the 1930's is known as one of the worst weather disasters to hit the United States. Although conditions were much worse in the plains states, Michigan was not spared by this dry spell. Three of the five driest years ever recorded in Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit were recorded in the 1930's, with 1930, 33, 34, 36, and 39 being especially dry. In fact, the driest year ever recorded in Michigan history occurred in 1936, with Croswell in Sanilac County recording just 15.64 inches. This dryness caused great distress among farmers, adding an extra strain to people already suffering through the Great Depression.

 

Heat Wave of 1936
The period from July 8 – July 14, 1936 is likely the most severe heat wave ever experienced in Michigan, and one of the worst ever recorded in US history. Before this outbreak of heat, the National Weather Service had recorded just 7 days that Detroit had ever reached 100 degrees. That number doubled in just one week, as all 7 days from the 8th through 14th saw 100 degree temperatures. The high temperatures recorded in Detroit were 104,102,102,101,100,102,104. The 104.4 degrees recorded was the second highest temperature ever recorded in Detroit. Perhaps the worst day of all was the 10th, which saw a high of 102 and a low of 77, giving a mean temperature of 90. The weather was even hotter in Saginaw, which saw high temperatures of 104,104,105,107,107,107,111 (the hottest ever recorded). During this outbreak, Mio recorded a temperature of 112, which still stands as the highest temperature ever recorded in Michigan. Aside from doing damage to the record books, this outbreak caused great loss of life. In Detroit alone, 364 people died of the heat, with the elderly and infants being most susceptible to the heat. 570 people died across the state, and 5000 perished nationally from this severe heat wave.

[marilyn.monroe]

Dust Bowl
The Dust Bowl dryness of the 1930's is known as one of the worst weather disasters to hit the United States. Although conditions were much worse in the plains states, Michigan was not spared by this dry spell. Three of the five driest years ever recorded in Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit were recorded in the 1930's, with 1930, 33, 34, 36, and 39 being especially dry. In fact, the driest year ever recorded in Michigan history occurred in 1936, with Croswell in Sanilac County recording just 15.64 inches. This dryness caused great distress among farmers, adding an extra strain to people already suffering through the Great Depression.

 

Heat Wave of 1936
The period from July 8 – July 14, 1936 is likely the most severe heat wave ever experienced in Michigan, and one of the worst ever recorded in US history. Before this outbreak of heat, the National Weather Service had recorded just 7 days that Detroit had ever reached 100 degrees. That number doubled in just one week, as all 7 days from the 8th through 14th saw 100 degree temperatures. The high temperatures recorded in Detroit were 104,102,102,101,100,102,104. The 104.4 degrees recorded was the second highest temperature ever recorded in Detroit. Perhaps the worst day of all was the 10th, which saw a high of 102 and a low of 77, giving a mean temperature of 90. The weather was even hotter in Saginaw, which saw high temperatures of 104,104,105,107,107,107,111 (the hottest ever recorded). During this outbreak, Mio recorded a temperature of 112, which still stands as the highest temperature ever recorded in Michigan. Aside from doing damage to the record books, this outbreak caused great loss of life. In Detroit alone, 364 people died of the heat, with the elderly and infants being most susceptible to the heat. 570 people died across the state, and 5000 perished nationally from this severe heat wave.

Good thing we have Fermi to keep us cool.

[jbs49238]

Whatever you say, man. Cherry-picked Socialist claptrap, for sure. It must be Obama's fault. Or Batman's. But not our fault, no way.

No I guess whatever YOU say man....  every time someone used even a hint of logical rebuttal against the junk science you keep as TRUTH you go all snark city.

Tells me you are just pounding an already bought and paid for drum, just like a good soldier does.  When that drum is taken from you then you just revert to snark.

Let us just argue that the earth is only 5000 years old....( you and I are both more intelligent than that but we can keep some of the righties in the conversation this way)  your data from the last 30 years does not even represent 1% percent of all the data available throughout time AND there is competeing data available that pushes back against what you already feel is FACT....  I do not know of any real scientist that would offer a conclusion and submit as fact... data from less than 1% of an available sample with ample contradictory data that is already in front of thier face.  Now if the world is a million years old.... wow!  Your "science" is not anywhere near being close to being acceptible.  Your PROOF... garbage.... no matter how old you want to call the Earth.

[Forsythia]

Here's your proof right here.  Then again it's from those space men.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Professor H]

Wow, 650,000 years of data from orbiting satellites?   Who extrapolated what from what?

The to follow with the quote  "Most of it"   "Likely contributed by"... 
solid arguements from solid facts.

Curious why the rush to blame it all on Humans when nature produces it as well, and what the comparison of our planets warming is to those around us, if it's not related to that big yellow thing that appears every day in the sky.  Concentrating on one aspect (CO2) is the problem - as there are many variables in this puzzle.

[marilyn.monroe]

Wow, 650,000 years of data from orbiting satellites?   Who extrapolated what from what?

The to follow with the quote  "Most of it"   "Likely contributed by"... 
solid arguements from solid facts.

Curious why the rush to blame it all on Humans when nature produces it as well, and what the comparison of our planets warming is to those around us, if it's not related to that big yellow thing that appears every day in the sky.  Concentrating on one aspect (CO2) is the problem - as there are many variables in this puzzle.

Even if humans aren't causing climate change, pollution is ingrained in every aspect of our lives.

[lordfly]

Let us just argue that the earth is only 5000 years old....

I refuse to believe it existed yesterday. There. That's all junk science, now.  Your entire paragraph, gone in a whiff of holier-than-thou.

See how easy it is? I can dismiss an entire scientific field with the wave of my hand and "pah, i refuse to believe it, JUNK SCIENCE!" And that's what you're doing. People are, literally, burying you in graphs of data, and you just turn around and shout "JUNK SCIENCE LALALA JUNK SCIENCE LALALA". Why would we argue with a true believer of climate denial? You're going to do whatever you want to do, and you're going to have kids that will do whatever they want to do, so **** it, right? Burn ALL the tires!

If this is really what scientific debate has boiled down to, our country is ******. Both sides don't get to have "their" side of science every time there's an issue. Hey, did you know gravity is just a theory? I refuse to believe it, though - after all, Isaac Newton was a gay alchemist, so everything he said was obviously suspect.

I, for one, subscribe to the Intelligent Falling theory - everything that comes to earth is guided by His Holy Hands. PROVE ME WRONG, JUNK SCIENCE!