How or Why we will reverse global warming

[SysError]

Proof that I linked an article and properly quoted it?  Just read it.

Note that you yourself have proved nothing.   

You have an opinion you took on faith that makes you feel good about yourself.   

I'll remain open-minded in the absence of proof.

Got any numbers on carbon trading? 

OK, let’s see how open minded you are.

You provided a link to a 2012 NASA report that reflected what NASA called “Opposite Behaviors” between the Arctic and Antarctic.

In 2012 the science, the data, said this is strange, it looks as if the Antarctic cap is growing.

And then something magical happened.

Scientists started looking at the area, collected additional data, set up experiments and do you have any guesses as to what happened next?


Here is a 2015 NASA report.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/warming-seas-and-melting-ice-sheets


Here is a NASA Youtube video on the issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95fAzXba5fo


and, although you claim that “Note that you yourself have proved nothing.”  I provide you AGAIN the following link that explains the difference between land ice and sea ice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PUmKHBtnlA
   

Again I ask you, provide your proof.

[NatCigg]

And to add to the point the education most get comes from a individual with a bachelor degree that might of had a science class in college, thought by a career scholar who's opinion most like revolved around sending the world to bankruptcy or the stone age, both, ahem all three have never worked a day in their life and the two educators are funded by the current pollution system, not real solutions just heart felt sympathies for million dollar environmental extremist.

WE ALL WANT THE WORLD CLEAN AND SUSTAINABLE, BETTER THAN WE GOT IT. The problem is how.  The argument is what to do.  Forcing crap might make you feel better but real solutions will happen if and when they are feaseable.  Saving a smelt in spite of solutions is stupid. 

Like Ben Carson says, we will fix these problems because we are smart.

Us lowered co2 emissions by 20 percent because of changing coal to natural gas. Look it up.
 

[DmonSlyr]

And to add to the point the education most get comes from a individual with a bachelor degree that might of had a science class in college, thought by a career scholar who's opinion most like revolved around sending the world to bankruptcy or the stone age, both, ahem all three have never worked a day in their life and the two educators are funded by the current pollution system, not real solutions just heart felt sympathies for million dollar environmental extremist.

WE ALL WANT THE WORLD CLEAN AND SUSTAINABLE, BETTER THAN WE GOT IT. The problem is how.  The argument is what to do.  Forcing crap might make you feel better but real solutions will happen if and when they are feaseable.  Saving a smelt in spite of solutions is stupid. 

Like Ben Carson says, we will fix these problems because we are smart.

Us lowered co2 emissions by 20 percent because of changing coal to natural gas. Look it up.
 

Also China and South Asia have to start creating standards for their emissions. I'm aware that China may be starting to realize this. We are changing the tide of energy to better and more cleaner methods. Unfortunately, its not easy to stop one energy source because you have hundreds of lobbiest, employees who will get laid off, and it would completely cause an economic ruckus for a year or longer. It's not something that can be stopped over night.

People can only do so much. We have identified a problem and we are doing what we can as human beings to adjust to slowely cause a difference in our energy with cleaner energy. It is happening all over the world. We most likely won't see results from this until about 15 to 20 years from now if we do see any results.... The earth gonna do what the earth does and who knows what that will do. I think it's funny because the next time the earth cools a little, the human species will blame that on themselves and politicians will get all the credit. LMAO, such a society.

[Mickey1992]

China doesn't care about CO2 emissions.  China is scheduled to bring online more coal power plants in the next 15 years than currently exist in the US. 

[Mickey1992]

Us lowered co2 emissions by 20 percent because of changing coal to natural gas. Look it up.

Not true.  While burning natural gas releases about half the CO2 as burning coal, US power plants only account for 32% of greenhouse gas emissions.  Even if every power plant in the US was converted to natural gas (it's currently 41% coal, 27% gas) , overall emissions would decrease by about 16%.

[NatCigg]

sorry about that.     i guesstimate 8% decrease from the chart above but that might be representative of one sector. the amount seems low. but what do i know. 

[ghi]

I did my part.  I bought 3 new pairs of shorts and some SPF 50 sunscreen. 

 

Good idea! I'll get some also and a pair of welding goggles I read this story, scary bs.
"HHS Boosting
Nation's Stockpile of Burn Treatments in Case of Nuclear Attack"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/hhs-boosting-nations-stockpile-burn-treatments-case-nuclear-attack



 

[FLOOB]

Whats the deal with liquid fluoride thorium reactors?

[FLS]

  Again I ask you, provide your proof.

What claim do you think I need to prove? 

[SysError]

What claim do you think I need to prove?

Never mind.

Good Day.

[FBKampfer]

building a dam is not a ridiculous idea.   

 

dont kill the yellow scorpions and rock lichen.

 

Forcing people is the ridiculous part. And of course I suppose it depends on the specifics of the region, like if those bastages at Nestlé wanted to dam up some California rivers so they can more easily collect and bottle it, I'd say it's a pretty awful idea.

[Mar]

Never mind.

Good Day.

So refreshing to see something like this instead of the other thing.

[SysError]

Not true.  While burning natural gas releases about half the CO2 as burning coal, US power plants only account for 32% of greenhouse gas emissions.  Even if every power plant in the US was converted to natural gas (it's currently 41% coal, 27% gas) , overall emissions would decrease by about 16%.

If I am reading these charts correctly, then in 2015 Coal and Natural Gas provided about the same amount of energy.

Table ES1.A. Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, 2015 and 2014

Net Generation (thousand megawatthours) July 2015:

•   Coal: 139,413
•   Natural Gas: 139,997
•   All Energy Sources: 399,620

~35%

Coal was down ~7% from last year
Natural Gas up ~22% from last year

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_es1a



It is interesting to look at the numbers from 2010.

Table ES1.A. Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, 2010 and 2009

Net Generation (thousand megawatthours) July 2010:

•   Coal: 132,955 (43%)
•   Natural Gas: 76,631(25%)
•   All Energy Sources: 307,054

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_year/january2011.pdf

Percentages have changed a lot, but the total amount of coal energy has only gone down a bit.

I think that the “20%” claim is based on what would have happened if coal and natural gas were produced in the same proportions as before.  (I could be wrong about this reasoning though).

BTW, I think that your 32% number is correct for % for power (megawatthours) generation in the US.  There are, however, non-power generation uses of coal around the globe that take that number up to about 40%.

[FBKampfer]

Apparently, you haven't researched that metric at all.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Even given the selection bias issue, they set the bar pretty low. THe two questions required to join the "consensus" would actually make me a consensus member.

As for the rest of your citations, none are actually from scientific journals. All appear to be TV productions. If you were a member of the technical community, I'd expect you to know better.

Have a look at what some real scientists are saying, then we'll talk more.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/
http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/29/german-geologist-ipcc-models-a-failure-have-no-chance-of-success-sees-possible-0-2c-of-cooling-by-2020/#sthash.6ltmEScq.dpbs
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/29/scientist-dr-daniel-botkin-tells-congress-why-he-reversed-his-belief-in-global-warming-to-become-a-skeptic-there-are-several-lines-of-evidence-suggesting-that-it-agw-is-a-weaker-case-today-not/
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-paper-predicts-another-little-ice.html


I could go on... The problem with warmists: you keep claiming to want totalk science but nonoe of you seen to have ever been within miles of it nor bothered to talk to any actual scientists.

The problem is that their beliefs seem to be predicated on the idea that solar output is the only thing that matters. We know that's straight out roadkill.

We're they to simply say that Solar output is the primary problem, or that atmospheric chemistry is of lesser importance, sure. That's their opinion, arrived at after examination of data, awaiting validation like every other theory.

The problem is that they are saying that everything but their theory is UNimportant. Good scientists don't do that. They don't find one new piece of evidence, form a theory on it, and junk everything else. Climate science is the only field where such incompetents are not only widely tolerated, but celebrated as the voices crying truth in the wilderness by such a large base of people.

[FLS]

Good science quotes sources, bad science attacks straw men.

The problem is that they are saying that everything but their theory is UNimportant. Good scientists don't do that. They don't find one new piece of evidence, form a theory on it, and junk everything else. Climate science is the only field where such incompetents are not only widely tolerated, but celebrated as the voices crying truth in the wilderness by such a large base of people.

I think we can all agree with that in general if not in detail.   

The sun is only 99.86% of the total mass of the Solar System.