Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Climate change

profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
So I always hear people saying that people are dumb for not believing in climate change. But it's not between believing in climate change or not... it's about whether you believe it is almost entirely man-made. Lots of people don't believe that it is man made, including 16% of climate scientists. People always state that 97% percent of scientists say climate change is real. Sure they do. But only 84% agree that it is man made.

So.... is climate change man made? If so, why? If not, why? We don't have a lot of solid historical temperatures to go by. Also, we don't completely understand a climate cycle, if there is one? The data shows the climate is changing. But one must make an inference that it's man made, and that inference could very well be wrong.
POLL
Edit Poll
Votes:

Take care when editing a poll; Options should be similar to maintain vote integrity.

More options will be added automatically as you type. You must supply a question and at least two options. No HTML is allowed.

Nov 12 2016 6:04PM
4 1
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7480 - Karma: 11,480
This will go well.
Nov 12 2016 6:30PM
2 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
Climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese.
Nov 12 2016 6:57PM
2 2
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9215 - Karma: 5,398

feel like this isn't going to post well but I'll give it a shot. Otherwise here

http://xkcd.com/1732/
Nov 12 2016 8:53PM
3 0
profile picture
Auschie
Posts: 297 - Karma: 392
This is the reason this presidential and congressional election mattered so heavily. Having congressmen that denounce science is dangerous for our future. Fossil fuels have too much money and influence in politics and it is preventing us from having a path towards renewable energy. It isn't going to be a swift process but converting to renewables is imperative. Other countries are already well on their way such as Sweden, Costa Rica, the UK, Germany, shit even China utilize a larger percentage of renewables than the US. It's not just a benefit from an emissions standpoint. Renewables mean no potential for oil spills, no need for harmful mining, no need for fracking which has the potential to harm out freshwater sources and disrupt wildlife. The temperature spike seen in the past 100 years is alarming and should be taken seriously.

To me it's pathetic that Americans boast being a great country and that we are going to make America great again by removing fossil fuel restrictions to boost our economy. Fuck fossil fuels. Fuck coal. Fuck oil. Fuck natural gas. It's just viewed as money and only leads to problems. If the US truly wants to be a strong company it needs to get its head in the game and start worrying about the effects our emmission levels have on the world.
Nov 12 2016 9:25PM
2 0
profile picture
Rennis_Deynolds
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 19,058
too late
Nov 13 2016 12:28AM
0 0
profile picture
profa_212
Posts: 8886 - Karma: 35,768
So you got flamed the last time you brought it up....and now you wanna do it again? Uhhh okay
Nov 13 2016 12:56AM
0 0
profile picture
.lencon
Posts: 6753 - Karma: 17,183
"only 84%"
Nov 13 2016 2:53AM
2 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
Profahoben_212So you got flamed the last time you brought it up....and now you wanna do it again? Uhhh okay


So you remember it and I don't? lol
Nov 13 2016 9:45AM
0 0
profile picture
JTTrembles
Posts: 1108 - Karma: 1,907
CampeadorClimate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese.


You sir need to shut the fuck up and get back to sucking Trump's dick, he's probably wondering where you're at.
Nov 13 2016 12:13PM
0 0
profile picture
JTTrembles
Posts: 1108 - Karma: 1,907
Whether or not climate change is totally man made or not, we definitely have a huge contribution to it. All of our industrial advances emit tons of harmful gases into our atmosphere like methane and carbon dioxide. And we so happened to see a huge increase in temperature in the past 60 years because of our industrial advances releasing green house gases into our atmosphere which trap too much heat which is suppose to filter out of our earth. I think its pretty arrogant to just turn our heads and say it might not be our fault. I think there's simply too many coincidences to say that we have not impacted our earth's climate. We have scientific evidence of all the horrible things that can/will happen if our climate continues to persist the way it is and has been. Why have we seen such a spark in harmful climate change as industry, coal and fossil fuel usage, and transportation really started to take off? The world is only so big and it can only take so much. Gases do damage. Despite whether shifts we have never seen such a rapid change in climate like this, ice ages and other whether phenomena's take hundreds/thousands of years to take hold. Our polar ice caps should not have melted so much and so rapidly in ONLY the past 30 years. That's fucked up and that's something that will have a huge impact on our civilization. Cape cod, at least parts of it, are predicted to be underwater within our life time. Climate change is definitely man made. and on a side note, no it's not some hoax. Why the fuck would china just make it up and change the way they're industry and economy works to keep the global warming temperature increase below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit? Idk why some people refuse to believe it, like why? Why ignore the fact we might be harming our planet.

Check this shit out:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page6.php

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20140425/NEWS/404250341
Nov 13 2016 12:38PM
1 0
profile picture
JTTrembles
Posts: 1108 - Karma: 1,907
AuschieThis is the reason this presidential and congressional election mattered so heavily. Having congressmen that denounce science is dangerous for our future. Fossil fuels have too much money and influence in politics and it is preventing us from having a path towards renewable energy. It isn't going to be a swift process but converting to renewables is imperative. Other countries are already well on their way such as Sweden, Costa Rica, the UK, Germany, shit even China utilize a larger percentage of renewables than the US. It's not just a benefit from an emissions standpoint. Renewables mean no potential for oil spills, no need for harmful mining, no need for fracking which has the potential to harm out freshwater sources and disrupt wildlife. The temperature spike seen in the past 100 years is alarming and should be taken seriously.

To me it's pathetic that Americans boast being a great country and that we are going to make America great again by removing fossil fuel restrictions to boost our economy. Fuck fossil fuels. Fuck coal. Fuck oil. Fuck natural gas. It's just viewed as money and only leads to problems. If the US truly wants to be a strong company it needs to get its head in the game and start worrying about the effects our emmission levels have on the world.


Preeeech it
Nov 13 2016 12:39PM
0 0
profile picture
El_Barto.
Posts: 11661 - Karma: 24,364
JTTremblesYou sir need to shut the fuck up and get back to sucking Trump's dick, he's probably wondering where you're at.


Meow
Nov 13 2016 12:40PM
0 0
profile picture
K-Dot.
Posts: 3739 - Karma: 7,737
CampeadorClimate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese.


You're a shitty troll and if you aren't a troll then just a shitty human.


I'm just looking forward to the rising sea levels swallowing up the shithole of a state that Florida is
Nov 13 2016 3:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Auschie
Posts: 297 - Karma: 392
K-Dot.You're a shitty troll and if you aren't a troll then just a shitty human.


I'm just looking forward to the rising sea levels swallowing up the shithole of a state that Florida is


Easy man. I just moved down to Florida for work. Although I kind of agree. Not looking to spend much time here. I'm pissed fucking Rubio maintained his seat. The guy is a jackass and is just another shitty climate change denier who needs to get bent. You'd think of all states they'd be more worried about rising sea levels.
Nov 13 2016 3:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
JTTremblesWhether or not climate change is totally man made or not, we definitely have a huge contribution to it. All of our industrial advances emit tons of harmful gases into our atmosphere like methane and carbon dioxide. And we so happened to see a huge increase in temperature in the past 60 years because of our industrial advances releasing green house gases into our atmosphere which trap too much heat which is suppose to filter out of our earth. I think its pretty arrogant to just turn our heads and say it might not be our fault. I think there's simply too many coincidences to say that we have not impacted our earth's climate. We have scientific evidence of all the horrible things that can/will happen if our climate continues to persist the way it is and has been. Why have we seen such a spark in harmful climate change as industry, coal and fossil fuel usage, and transportation really started to take off? The world is only so big and it can only take so much. Gases do damage. Despite whether shifts we have never seen such a rapid change in climate like this, ice ages and other whether phenomena's take hundreds/thousands of years to take hold. Our polar ice caps should not have melted so much and so rapidly in ONLY the past 30 years. That's fucked up and that's something that will have a huge impact on our civilization. Cape cod, at least parts of it, are predicted to be underwater within our life time. Climate change is definitely man made. and on a side note, no it's not some hoax. Why the fuck would china just make it up and change the way they're industry and economy works to keep the global warming temperature increase below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit? Idk why some people refuse to believe it, like why? Why ignore the fact we might be harming our planet.

Check this shit out:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page6.php

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20140425/NEWS/404250341


"In 2014 there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in arctic ice and record snowfalls across the globe."(there are still glaciers melting with the potential to raise sea level...been happening since ice age though, humans once lived in the English Channel)
There are more than 30,000 scientists who signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative, 9000 with PhDs after nasa scientist John Casey announced that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on earth.
Nov 13 2016 4:04PM
0 0
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7480 - Karma: 11,480
Gods_FatherThere are more than 30,000 scientists who signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative, 9000 with PhDs after nasa scientist John Casey announced that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on earth.


Just would like to expand on that piece. They're not "scientists", they're people who graduated with a BSc or higher.
And of these 30,000 "scientists", only 39 have degrees in climatology.


The majority of scientists believe in human-driven climate change (or anthropogenic climate change) as shown by


1.
2.
3.
4.
Nov 13 2016 5:01PM
1 0
profile picture
profa_212
Posts: 8886 - Karma: 35,768
milk_manSo you remember it and I don't? lol


I thought it was you...must not have been haha...carry on.

Anthropogenic climate change is real...but natural warming of the earth is there as well. But to say that humans haven't sped up the process is quite silly
Nov 13 2016 5:42PM
1 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
Auschieclimate change denier who needs to get bent. You'd think of all states they'd be more worried about rising sea levels.


How can a person deny something that doesn't exist?

I'm still waiting for even one of your predictions to come true. I thought the Maldives were already supposed to be underwater.
Nov 13 2016 6:20PM
0 1
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
Profahoben_212I thought it was you...must not have been haha...carry on.

Anthropogenic climate change is real...but natural warming of the earth is there as well. But to say that humans haven't sped up the process is quite silly


It very well could have been me haha. I just don't remember
Nov 13 2016 6:20PM
0 0
profile picture
JTTrembles
Posts: 1108 - Karma: 1,907
Gods_Father"In 2014 there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in arctic ice and record snowfalls across the globe."(there are still glaciers melting with the potential to raise sea level...been happening since ice age though, humans once lived in the English Channel)
There are more than 30,000 scientists who signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative, 9000 with PhDs after nasa scientist John Casey announced that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on earth.


"Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year."
Check it out:
- http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains
Nov 13 2016 6:24PM
1 0
profile picture
Rusticles
Posts: 2180 - Karma: 1,337
This might just be the epidemic that the world needs to "thin the herd".
Nov 13 2016 6:38PM
1 0
profile picture
ched_der
Posts: 362 - Karma: 867
Hopefully we can get our shit together in the next decade
Nov 13 2016 7:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Lonely
Posts: 6741 - Karma: 61,663
Gods_Father"In 2014 there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in arctic ice and record snowfalls across the globe."(there are still glaciers melting with the potential to raise sea level...been happening since ice age though, humans once lived in the English Channel)
There are more than 30,000 scientists who signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative, 9000 with PhDs after nasa scientist John Casey announced that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on earth.


"The boat can't possibly be sinking because look, my end is going up!"
Nov 13 2016 8:05PM
1 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
Lonely"The boat can't possibly be sinking because look, my end is going up!"


The boat will surely sink because look, there are waves.
Nov 13 2016 8:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Iliveinutah
Posts: 1250 - Karma: 5,147
ok so yes the climate is going through a change naturally ever 11 years called the solar cycle and that is simply because of the sun having high and low peaks in activity. This has nothing to do with climate change. However, to look at the data for climate change you must not look at the temperature because we have not yet reached the point where we have extremely critical temperature changes. To notice man-made destruction on the climate you must study the history of PPM of carbon in the air as well as the type of carbon. We know the amount of carbon in the atmosphere from 800,000 years ago thanks to ice core drilling in Greenland, the process works by the ice sheet having small frozen pockets of air in them that we can drill and extract and measure the chemical makeup of the atmosphere all the way up till present day. Carbon is a known greenhouse gas meaning it is known to let heat in but not out. if you look at this FACTUAL DATA gathered by these drilling you can graph it and see that carbon has natural level of 200-275PPM over the last 800,000 years. today's reading have shown that we have just surpassed the 400PPM mark. the rapid climb in carbon started at the beginning of the industrial revolution when we started burning carbon for energy ever since then it has been increasing at a rate that the earth HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE HUMANS!

secondly you must examine the type of carbon that we are seeing in the atmosphere today you will find that most all of the carbon I'm talking 90% is the isotope carbon 12 turns out that the only way that carbon 12 gets into the air is by the burning of very old carbon based life aka fossil fuels, and guess what we are the only thing on this planet that is doing just that! carbon 14 is the naturally occurring carbon in the atmosphere so if we were not the cause of climate change you would see large fluctuations in the percentage of carbon 14 but you do not. There are other greenhouse gases that also are being emitted more heavily now than ever but carbon is our number 1 problem. Oh and just a fun fact carbon 12 has a half life of 5730 years so if we are to stop polluting right now the carbon would still be here for another 5730 years.

you can fact check everything I said. If anyone has any questions just hit me up!
Nov 14 2016 10:30AM
1 0
profile picture
Rusticles
Posts: 2180 - Karma: 1,337
Iliveinutahok so yes the climate is going through a change naturally ever 11 years called the solar cycle and that is simply because of the sun having high and low peaks in activity. This has nothing to do with climate change. However, to look at the data for climate change you must not look at the temperature because we have not yet reached the point where we have extremely critical temperature changes. To notice man-made destruction on the climate you must study the history of PPM of carbon in the air as well as the type of carbon. We know the amount of carbon in the atmosphere from 800,000 years ago thanks to ice core drilling in Greenland, the process works by the ice sheet having small frozen pockets of air in them that we can drill and extract and measure the chemical makeup of the atmosphere all the way up till present day. Carbon is a known greenhouse gas meaning it is known to let heat in but not out. if you look at this FACTUAL DATA gathered by these drilling you can graph it and see that carbon has natural level of 200-275PPM over the last 800,000 years. today's reading have shown that we have just surpassed the 400PPM mark. the rapid climb in carbon started at the beginning of the industrial revolution when we started burning carbon for energy ever since then it has been increasing at a rate that the earth HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE HUMANS!

secondly you must examine the type of carbon that we are seeing in the atmosphere today you will find that most all of the carbon I'm talking 90% is the isotope carbon 12 turns out that the only way that carbon 12 gets into the air is by the burning of very old carbon based life aka fossil fuels, and guess what we are the only thing on this planet that is doing just that! carbon 14 is the naturally occurring carbon in the atmosphere so if we were not the cause of climate change you would see large fluctuations in the percentage of carbon 14 but you do not. There are other greenhouse gases that also are being emitted more heavily now than ever but carbon is our number 1 problem. Oh and just a fun fact carbon 12 has a half life of 5730 years so if we are to stop polluting right now the carbon would still be here for another 5730 years.

you can fact check everything I said. If anyone has any questions just hit me up!


Good Info,

What are the doomsday scenarios If we continue to pollute at this rate? what is the outcome if we could significantly reduce our output from this day forward?
thanks,
Nov 14 2016 11:38AM
0 0
profile picture
Iliveinutah
Posts: 1250 - Karma: 5,147
RusticlesGood Info,

What are the doomsday scenarios If we continue to pollute at this rate? what is the outcome if we could significantly reduce our output from this day forward?
thanks,


well doomsday is a way to look at it but the issue is that we won't just have this big falling out all at one time it will a gradual decrease in the quilty of life such that the deniers of science still have a foothold to the argument " well it's only 2 degrees what does that hurt" the global effect is massive, it is called climate change because our entire climate is changing. safe levels of carbon in the atmosphere is 350PPM so long as we cut pollution back heavily now it may still be possible for the ocean to absorb most of the carbon that is still hanging around. the ocean is the first thing that will suffer, it can absorb 30% of the carbon we produce. This turns the oceans acidic and it is affecting the marine life it is already seen that most of the coral reefs are dying or are dead. sea levels are rising due to the melting of land ice, the same ice that has been there for millions of years ( its not a cycle). acid rain will come from the oceans and less rain and snow fall are already being observed, snowfall making up a massive percentage of the water needed for life along the west coast of the US and around the world. we are seeing droughts like never before and rising sea levels. In short we will see crops dying from acid rain, cities implement massively expensive infrastructure to stop the ocean from flooding them, droughts across the west and both poles, and marine life death so a shortage in food across the world.

to put into perspective humans have been burning fossil fuels for .6X10^-8 percent that's .00000008% of the time the earth has been around and we have already started to change the climate of a fucking planet. The problem is that we do not have data telling us what is going to happen because it has simply never happened before. All we can do is observe what is happening now and make predictions of what is to come.
Nov 14 2016 12:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Lonely
Posts: 6741 - Karma: 61,663
Gods_FatherThe boat will surely sink because look, there are waves.


Touche
Nov 14 2016 1:11PM
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/846274/Man-Bear-Pig
Nov 14 2016 1:22PM
0 0
profile picture
miroz
Posts: 10333 - Karma: 3,945
Iliveinutahok so yes the climate is going through a change naturally ever 11 years called the solar cycle and that is simply because of the sun having high and low peaks in activity. This has nothing to do with climate change. However, to look at the data for climate change you must not look at the temperature because we have not yet reached the point where we have extremely critical temperature changes. To notice man-made destruction on the climate you must study the history of PPM of carbon in the air as well as the type of carbon. We know the amount of carbon in the atmosphere from 800,000 years ago thanks to ice core drilling in Greenland, the process works by the ice sheet having small frozen pockets of air in them that we can drill and extract and measure the chemical makeup of the atmosphere all the way up till present day. Carbon is a known greenhouse gas meaning it is known to let heat in but not out. if you look at this FACTUAL DATA gathered by these drilling you can graph it and see that carbon has natural level of 200-275PPM over the last 800,000 years. today's reading have shown that we have just surpassed the 400PPM mark. the rapid climb in carbon started at the beginning of the industrial revolution when we started burning carbon for energy ever since then it has been increasing at a rate that the earth HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE HUMANS!

secondly you must examine the type of carbon that we are seeing in the atmosphere today you will find that most all of the carbon I'm talking 90% is the isotope carbon 12 turns out that the only way that carbon 12 gets into the air is by the burning of very old carbon based life aka fossil fuels, and guess what we are the only thing on this planet that is doing just that! carbon 14 is the naturally occurring carbon in the atmosphere so if we were not the cause of climate change you would see large fluctuations in the percentage of carbon 14 but you do not. There are other greenhouse gases that also are being emitted more heavily now than ever but carbon is our number 1 problem. Oh and just a fun fact carbon 12 has a half life of 5730 years so if we are to stop polluting right now the carbon would still be here for another 5730 years.

you can fact check everything I said. If anyone has any questions just hit me up!


C-12 is radioactively stable; it's C-14 that has the 5730 year half life. C-12 is removed from the atmosphere in a few ways, but the primary mechanism is dissolution in the ocean (20-200 years) - this leads to ocean acidification. The rest goes away more slowly. Overall, carbon in the atmosphere can be around for thousands of years.

Just clarifying. Didn't know about sourcing atmospheric carbon isotopically, that's neat, I'll have to look into that.
Nov 14 2016 6:28PM
1 0
profile picture
Iliveinutah
Posts: 1250 - Karma: 5,147
mirozC-12 is radioactively stable; it's C-14 that has the 5730 year half life. C-12 is removed from the atmosphere in a few ways, but the primary mechanism is dissolution in the ocean (20-200 years) - this leads to ocean acidification. The rest goes away more slowly. Overall, carbon in the atmosphere can be around for thousands of years.

Just clarifying. Didn't know about sourcing atmospheric carbon isotopically, that's neat, I'll have to look into that.


ah yes I trusted a quick google search for half life to much, thanks for the clarification!
Nov 14 2016 8:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
What are people's opinions on geoengineering/chemtrail companies like the North American weather consultants? Should this stop even though it benefits the ski community?
Nov 14 2016 8:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
The Paris Agreement is a fraud made to weaken Western nations.

When are you people going to give up on this nonsense? It's like a religion for you.
Nov 14 2016 9:44PM
0 1
profile picture
Iliveinutah
Posts: 1250 - Karma: 5,147
CampeadorThe Paris Agreement is a fraud made to weaken Western nations.

When are you people going to give up on this nonsense? It's like a religion for you.


The people that are "treating this like a religion" are fighting for you and your children. We the supporters have nothing to gain from supporting reduction in pollution its a completely selfless movement of activism to save the natural world and species for future generations to enjoy.
please take moment to read some of the above posts (mine) with a open mind.
Nov 14 2016 10:53PM
1 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
IliveinutahThe people that are "treating this like a religion" are fighting for you and your children. We the supporters have nothing to gain from supporting reduction in pollution its a completely selfless movement of activism to save the natural world and species for future generations to enjoy.
please take moment to read some of the above posts (mine) with a open mind.


You sound just like the people who show up at my door handing out these,

Nov 14 2016 11:04PM
0 2
profile picture
Iliveinutah
Posts: 1250 - Karma: 5,147
Iliveinutahwell doomsday is a way to look at it but the issue is that we won't just have this big falling out all at one time it will a gradual decrease in the quilty of life such that the deniers of science still have a foothold to the argument " well it's only 2 degrees what does that hurt"


CampeadorYou sound just like the people who show up at my door handing out these,



to quote myself
Nov 14 2016 11:08PM
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
IliveinutahThe people that are "treating this like a religion" are fighting for you and your children. We the supporters have nothing to gain from supporting reduction in pollution its a completely selfless movement of activism to save the natural world and species for future generations to enjoy.
please take moment to read some of the above posts (mine) with a open mind.


I usually get confused because the same people who want to reduce pollution are almost always supporters of new technology, which almost always uses energy.. I saw a video of this Tesla and it showed the average kWh per mile and it was around 1 kWh per mile... yeah he was driving it hard but still.. that's so freaking bad.. that's almost one pound of coal per mile. (I think most electric cars get 3-6 miles per kWh, somewhere in there).
Nov 14 2016 11:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Iliveinutah
Posts: 1250 - Karma: 5,147
milk_manI usually get confused because the same people who want to reduce pollution are almost always supporters of new technology, which almost always uses energy.. I saw a video of this Tesla and it showed the average kWh per mile and it was around 1 kWh per mile... yeah he was driving it hard but still.. that's so freaking bad.. that's almost one pound of coal per mile. (I think most electric cars get 3-6 miles per kWh, somewhere in there).


sorry to be post happy but i find it interesting to see others views

any way id like to point out that teslas business model is to get off non-green energy. They just bought solar city and put out the whole home battery as well as the most recent announcement of solar panels that look like normal shingles on your roof (super cool!)
tesla is baller because of these tech advancements that make it a whole green solution.
of course, you can charge it from the grid and use coal but the cool part is that it's your choice.
Nov 14 2016 11:23PM
0 0
profile picture
S.J.W
Posts: 7609 - Karma: 31,185
milk_manI usually get confused because the same people who want to reduce pollution are almost always supporters of new technology, which almost always uses energy.. I saw a video of this Tesla and it showed the average kWh per mile and it was around 1 kWh per mile... yeah he was driving it hard but still.. that's so freaking bad.. that's almost one pound of coal per mile. (I think most electric cars get 3-6 miles per kWh, somewhere in there).


Difference between petrol and electricity is that we have renewable forms of electricity. So your point is kind of stupid. You're basically saying that because we use energy we can't advocate for climate measures?
Nov 15 2016 12:55AM
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
S.J.WDifference between petrol and electricity is that we have renewable forms of electricity. So your point is kind of stupid. You're basically saying that because we use energy we can't advocate for climate measures?


About 13% of electricity is generated by renewable sources. Hypothetically electricity can be clean, yes
Nov 15 2016 9:23AM
0 0
profile picture
Rusticles
Posts: 2180 - Karma: 1,337
milk_manAbout 13% of electricity is generated by renewable sources. Hypothetically electricity can be clean, yes


Nuclear and Teslas haha
Nov 15 2016 9:35AM
0 0
profile picture
Hodor
Posts: 503 - Karma: 2,578
It is absurd to me that this is still an argument. Climate change is man made. Right wing folks have been spitting out complete bullshit and are only holding us back.
Nov 15 2016 11:29AM
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
HodorIt is absurd to me that this is still an argument. Climate change is man made. Right wing folks have been spitting out complete bullshit and are only holding us back.


Exchange "right wing folks" with "14% of climate scientists."
Nov 15 2016 2:39PM
1 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,027
milk_manExchange "right wing folks" with "14% of climate scientists."


We get it, you don't think climate change is real. Believe what you want, but this is a skiing website, climate change is literally fucking our ski season over and will end skiing in the future. But yeah, lets keep drilling for oil, fracking for natural gas and pump our atmosphere with more and more carbon, I bet it'll just keep snowing...
Nov 15 2016 2:44PM
1 0
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7480 - Karma: 11,480
milk_manExchange "right wing folks" with "14% of climate scientists."


While there is no "valid" way to actually determine the %, numerous studies have indicated less than 10% of climate scientists do not believe in human-driven climate change.

There are some studies like this and this indicate that the majority of climate scientists believe it to be as true as well, despite the "flawed" methodologies (usually due to sample size).

What is true is that the more expertise the scientists have, the more likely they are to believe in it.
Nov 15 2016 2:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
eheathWe get it, you don't think climate change is real. Believe what you want, but this is a skiing website, climate change is literally fucking our ski season over and will end skiing in the future. But yeah, lets keep drilling for oil, fracking for natural gas and pump our atmosphere with more and more carbon, I bet it'll just keep snowing...



I'm sure you'll still use your gasoline-fueled car to get there. If they stop drilling, how do you fill up? Oh right, Teslas for everyone! Give me a break.

Wind and solar are not practical sources of energy to meet demand, at all. People would likely freeze to death, or rely on burning wood.

Wind and solar energy wreak havoc on electrical grids, due to fluctuations in power input, meaning that oftentimes quick-response coal power plants must be fired up to meet shortages in supply. Completely defeats the purpose.

Natural gas burns very cleanly as opposed to other hydrocarbons.

What is needed is not these ineffective renewable energy sources, which are a pipe dream at best, and a non affordable nightmare at worst. The emphasis should be on research related to capturing carbon exhaust, preventing it from entering the atmosphere.
Nov 15 2016 3:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
One thing I always wonder about the 7th Day Climate Adventists,

do you really believe that wind and solar power can power the globe?

How naive are you?
Nov 15 2016 3:10PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,027
CampeadorI'm sure you'll still use your gasoline-fueled car to get there. If they stop drilling, how do you fill up? Oh right, Teslas for everyone! Give me a break.

Wind and solar are not practical sources of energy to meet demand, at all. People would likely freeze to death, or rely on burning wood.

Wind and solar energy wreak havoc on electrical grids, due to fluctuations in power input, meaning that oftentimes quick-response coal power plants must be fired up to meet shortages in supply. Completely defeats the purpose.

Natural gas burns very cleanly as opposed to other hydrocarbons.

What is needed is not these ineffective renewable energy sources, which are a pipe dream at best, and a non affordable nightmare at worst. The emphasis should be on research related to capturing carbon exhaust, preventing it from entering the atmosphere.


Did I say to stop using oil? No. But to deny that we have zero impact is completely delusional. We need to make long term plans to decrease the use of fossil fuels, just pushing off climate changes and continuing on the same path we are on now will ruin the earth for our future generations.
Nov 15 2016 3:18PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
CampeadorOne thing I always wonder about the 7th Day Climate Adventists,

do you really believe that wind and solar power can power the globe?

How naive are you?


Why are people so utterly terrible at arguing?

This is not an argument against the position that climate change is anthropogenic, or the position that climate change is a significant problem. You're literally changing the subject. Person A says, "here's a problem", and your response is, "Well, your solution to that problem is a bunch of bullshit, therefore there's not problem". That's completely irrational.

I swear, people should be mandated to take a basic modal logic class in college.
Nov 15 2016 3:24PM
0 0
profile picture
S.J.W
Posts: 7609 - Karma: 31,185
milk_manAbout 13% of electricity is generated by renewable sources. Hypothetically electricity can be clean, yes


It's not a hypothetical when countries are literally running on 100% clean energy. Lesotho runs on 100% hydopower.Iceland runs on 99.98% clean energy. Norway, 98.47% Brazil runs on 83% clean energy. It's fucking possible and it's being fucking done.
Nov 15 2016 4:02PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)