On the topic of climate change...

[Spendulus]

.....But when you have representatives in power (US at least) which claim that climate change can't be a problem because god told Noa that the flood wouldn't happen again ....

.....And when you have representatives in power (US at least) which claim that climate change is a problem because Gaia told James that the flood will happen again ....

...(or some such nonsense), then we've got a more fundamental problem to deal with first.

...didn't exactly FIX your statement, made it worse, actually...

[spooderman]

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere has increased by around 30% during the last 150 years or so. And the lion's share of that increase occurred within the last 50 years. Scientific study has proven that the burning of fossil fuels, both by thermal power plants and by automobiles has caused much of that increase.

The only options to save our planet are:

1. Replace thermal energy with nuclear energy

2. Replace gasoline / diesel oil with bio-fuels

3. Prevent the loss of forest, especially in the Amazon Basin, Indonesia and Central Africa

Nuclear power is useless because our methods of building and maintaining the plants currently involve burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. They look good on paper but end up consuming more in carbon than they will ever produce, but because crude oil is so cheap (considering what it is), governments like it for economic reasons. As a means of saving our planet, it sucks.

Wave power.

[bryant.coleman]

Nuclear power is useless because our methods of building and maintaining the plants currently involve burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

No. Definitely wrong. Do you have any proof for this? The energy required for constructing a nuclear power plant is almost similar to that required to build thermal plants.

[Ibian]

Ice age.

If we are in fact having a meaningful impact on the climate and we had done nothing we would eventually get another ice age. It could be here already statistically speaking. Therefore, burn more. It may or may not help, but it probably won't make things worse.

And if not then all is well and we will still get another ice age soon.

But this doesn't matter, of course. Climate change is entirely a political/religious issue.

[bryant.coleman]

But this doesn't matter, of course. Climate change is entirely a political/religious issue.

If you think so, then nothing can be done. If you think that burning trillions of tons of fossil fuels is good for the earth, then go ahead. Burn some more.

[Ibian]

The earth doesn't care what we do. It is a planet, it doesn't need us, or any life at all. That is an emotional argument trying to sound reasonable.

[Lethn]

It's also incredibly arrogant to think that we're actually a threat at all to the planet.

[player01]

But don't they say we are now on year seventeen of no increase in temperature?  That's contrary to all the predictions, right?

From where did you get the idea of 17 years of static temperature?

Those hockey stick graphs are widely discredited in the scientific community, they are only used to scare schoolchildren and make hype on tv about how we must do EVERYTHING to prevent global warming climate change.

I know many of us have been taught so HARD that it's real and it's bad and it's just gonna get worse because "Scientists" say so, but those who actually look at the numbers and dig into the research find that the numbers have been fudged so much that those graphs should look nothing like that.

Nowadays, people forget that just a few decades ago, liberals in the US told everyone that because of human society that we were about to head into the next ice age (not warming, cooling) and now it seems they are doing it again.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.


We have always been at war with Eurasia.


We have always been at war with Eurasia.

[bryant.coleman]

I know many of us have been taught so HARD that it's real and it's bad and it's just gonna get worse because "Scientists" say so, but those who actually look at the numbers and dig into the research find that the numbers have been fudged so much that those graphs should look nothing like that.

I am saying this quite a few times. If you think that the data is fudged, then give me the proof. Do you have any proof to contradict the argument that the CO2 levels rose from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 100 years?

[Ibian]

I know many of us have been taught so HARD that it's real and it's bad and it's just gonna get worse because "Scientists" say so, but those who actually look at the numbers and dig into the research find that the numbers have been fudged so much that those graphs should look nothing like that.

I am saying this quite a few times. If you think that the data is fudged, then give me the proof. Do you have any proof to contradict the argument that the CO2 levels rose from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 100 years?

Curious what you think of the ice age argument. And anyone else for that matter.

Also, everyone, please keep in mind that in science you call things what they are. Emotional arguments are not useful.

[Spendulus]

....
Curious what you think of the ice age argument.....

This is an interesting question, because prominent solar scientists tell us to be concerned about it.  There is not one group of solar scientists saying one thing, and another saying the opposite, such as their is cast to be with the general AGW discussion.

Further, the basic solar argument is very understandable. 

A) there was a decrease in solar sunspots leading up to the Little Ice Age.
B) there is now a similar decrease in sunspot activity.

Really, the consequences of a LIA today would be extremely serious because of the higher population density and it's distribution.

[Schleicher]

Further, the basic solar argument is very understandable. 
A) there was a decrease in solar sunspots leading up to the Little Ice Age.
B) there is now a similar decrease in sunspot activity.
Really, the consequences of a LIA today would be extremely serious because of the higher population density and it's distribution.

Fortunately we don't have many big volcano erutions right now:
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-465.pdf

Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.

[Spendulus]

....
Fortunately we don't have many big volcano erutions right now:
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-465.pdf

Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.

I have had the time to review this article you quoted and no, hell no.

Best to listen to what the solar scientists are trying to tell us, than to listen to people who have a vested interest in propping up the old theories.

[spooderman]

Nuclear power is useless because our methods of building and maintaining the plants currently involve burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

No. Definitely wrong. Do you have any proof for this? The energy required for constructing a nuclear power plant is almost similar to that required to build thermal plants.

Well, I admit my opinion on this has been guided by an expert I know, I will try and find some proof to back up what I said.