NASA: 2014 was the warmest year on Record.

[KevinNYC]

Remember how cold it was in midwest and east in the US last year? Caused by record heat in the Pacific.

[QUOTE]Last year was the hottest on earth since record-keeping began in 1880, scientists reported on Friday,

Extreme heat blanketed Alaska and much of the western United States last year. Records were set across large areas of every inhabited continent. And the ocean surface was unusually warm virtually everywhere except near Antarctica, the scientists said, providing the energy that fueled damaging Pacific storms.

In the annals of climatology, 2014 surpassed 2010 as the warmest year. The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997, a reflection of the relentless planetary warming that scientists say is a consequence of human activity and poses profound long-term risks to civilization and nature.

[KevinNYC]

How warm was Alaska last year? The Iditarod sled dog race had places where there was no slow to sled on (http://www.adn.com/article/20140303/day-2-buser-leads-iditarod-pack-across-snowless-farewell-burn)
Nearly 70 miles of driving over gravel, rocks and frozen tussocks came to a welcoming end early this morning for Iditarod leader Martin Buser.

The four-time winner of this 1,000-mile sled dog race said good riddance to the snowless Farewell Burn when he pulled into the tiny village of Nikolai on the northern side of the Alaska Range at 1:09 a.m. with all 16 of his dogs.


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/01/17/world/HOT/HOT-articleLarge.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAHa-6VkUQY#t=173

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAHa-6VkUQY#t=47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAHa-6VkUQY#t=89

[DeuceWallaces]

East coast had a nice mild growing season.

[Nanners]

today it feels pretty cold at my house, so obviously global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the scientific community to get themselves more funding

[ILLsmak]

dunno if I buy into the whole global warming thing as a giant crisis that we can change. I do think it's an issue. I don't think it'll change and it may just be a fluctuation.

However, all of the oil and nuke waste we are dumping into the oceans as well as pollution is going to bite us one way or another. So **** it.

-Smak

[KevinNYC]

dunno if I buy into the whole global warming thing as a giant crisis that we can change. I do think it's an issue. I don't think it'll change and it may just be a fluctuation.

However, all of the oil and nuke waste we are dumping into the oceans as well as pollution is going to bite us one way or another. So **** it.

-Smak
Are you saying it's not affected by mankind OR that mankind will be unable to change it?

They have 130 years of temperature records and "the 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000."

[QUOTE]Assessing the really long-term isn

[NumberSix]

Are you saying it's not affected by mankind OR that mankind will be unable to change it?

They have 130 years of temperature records and "the 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2015/01/18/forget-on-record-2014-may-have-been-warmest-year-in-last-5000/
Each year is getting progressively warmer. We are still gradually exiting the last ice age. Why the hell wouldn't the most recent year be the warmest? It's like being surprised that April is warmer than March, May is warmer than April and June is warmer than May.

As you move away from winter, it gets warmer and warmer. As you move away from an ice age, it gets warmer and warmer. Pretty simple stuff.

[nathanjizzle]

i like global warming, chicago has been exceptionally nice this winter.

[They Won]

That global warming.

[Velocirap31]

Our 2013-14 winter was the coldest in 18 years. 2014 summer exceeded 30 degrees twice compared to 32 times in 2013. Hopefully some of this heat comes our way in 2015.

*celsius btw

[DeuceWallaces]

Each year is getting progressively warmer. We are still gradually exiting the last ice age. Why the hell wouldn't the most recent year be the warmest? It's like being surprised that April is warmer than March, May is warmer than April and June is warmer than May.

As you move away from winter, it gets warmer and warmer. As you move away from an ice age, it gets warmer and warmer. Pretty simple stuff.

Lol that's not how it works.

[Kblaze8855]

Its the hottest year on record...because records dont even break the skin of earths history.

Its the equivalent of saying that right now is the hottest its been in the last millisecond of the day.

Actually its a lot smaller of a sample size than that. There arent 100 million milliseconds in a day....but there are billions of years of Earths history.

There have been ice ages with glaciers reaching damn near the equator and times when Greenland was a ****ing forest.

The world changes...life adapts...

[~primetime~]

The world changes...life adapts...
naw, if the temp rises just 2 degrees everything dies from massive tidal waves...don't you watch moves?

[Akrazotile]

Love how libs are still deserately trying to prove to everyone they were right about global warming.

Of course if you ask them what they suppose we do about it, you'll get crickets. Its like they have no actual concern for addressing the issue, they just want to keep going "see! see! I was right!!! see look everyone!!! i was right!!!"

Dudes desperate for attention.

[Droid101]

Of course if you ask them what they suppose we do about it, you'll get crickets.
Not sure if serious. :coleman:

[nathanjizzle]

Love how libs are still deserately trying to prove to everyone they were right about global warming.

Of course if you ask them what they suppose we do about it, you'll get crickets. Its like they have no actual concern for addressing the issue, they just want to keep going "see! see! I was right!!! see look everyone!!! i was right!!!"

Dudes desperate for attention.

thats not it at all:facepalm

in order for a change against global warming to happen, everyone must change, thats why it needs to be proven to everyone that our planet is warming so that it can be taken seriously. it has nothing to do with politics:facepalm only those insecure liberal haters make it about politics :facepalm

[SugarHill]

Love how libs are still deserately trying to prove to everyone they were right about global warming.

Of course if you ask them what they suppose we do about it, you'll get crickets. Its like they have no actual concern for addressing the issue, they just want to keep going "see! see! I was right!!! see look everyone!!! i was right!!!"

Dudes desperate for attention.
:kobe:

[Akrazotile]

Not sure if serious. :coleman:



What do you suppose we do about it?


I guess Im assuming youre not still living in 2002 and believe Americans switching from SUVs to sedans has even the slightest impact on something like climate change. But maybe youre still beating that drum?

[nathanjizzle]

What do you suppose we do about it?

electric cars, solar panels, cfls

elon musk is a liberal, he owns tesla and solar city. obama is a liberal who funded tesla with grants, also various green energy companies. "but liberals have no solution" and complaining and doing nothing is better?

[Droid101]

What do you suppose we do about it?


Irrelevant.

But stating that "if you ask them what they suppose we do about it, you'll get crickets." is just blatant stupidity. There are tons of things "liberals" are trying to do. I'm sorry that you don't agree with them, and therefore pretend they aren't happening.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/gsteps.asp

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/tp/globalwarmtips.htm

[Akrazotile]

electric cars, solar panels, cfls

elon musk is a liberal, he owns tesla and solar city. obama is a liberal who funded tesla with grants, also various green energy companies. "but liberals have no solution" and complaining and doing nothing is better?


The carbon emissions from people who can afford electric cars and solar panels are a drop in the ocean. The real culprit is global population of human and livestock. It's energy consumption in newly industrializing nations like India and Nigeria.

5 million Americans driving a different car doesnt mean shit.

To REALLY address the problem wed have to start regulating lifestyles and birthrates in other countries full of people with dark skin colors. And you KNOW liberals will literally shit their pantyhose in fear and guilt and anguish at the idea of that.


So when I say "crickets" I mean it as it regards any actual meaningful solutions. Not their silly standard "blame/alter the 1% and that makes it all better!" shit they use on economic issues too.

Prob with libs is theyre too guilty to confront or demand accountability from anybody but the elite. Financial and environmental issues are usually about the broad masses and their habits, lifestyles, views etc. Libs are scared of the idea of going after anyone vulnerable so they just delude themselves into believing they can go after 1/100 of the people, the ones who are successful and wont have their feelings hurt by criticism, and thatll magically change things.

Libs stay doormats. Stay walking vag1nas.

[Akrazotile]

Irrelevant.

But stating that "if you ask them what they suppose we do about it, you'll get crickets." is just blatant stupidity. There are tons of things "liberals" are trying to do. I'm sorry that you don't agree with them, and therefore pretend they aren't happening.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/gsteps.asp

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/tp/globalwarmtips.htm

:oldlol:


"Choose an efficient vehicle: High-mileage cars such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids use less gas and save money. Over its lifetime, a 40-mpg car will save roughly $3,000 in fuel costs compared with a 20-mpg car. "


Oh good, this should stop global warmz like practically immediately! :djparty

[Ratnik]

good. there should be only 1 season. summer.

[Droid101]

The carbon emissions from people who can afford electric cars and solar panels are a drop in the ocean. The real culprit is global population of human and livestock. It's energy consumption in newly industrializing nations like India and Nigeria.

100,000 Americans driving a different car doesnt mean shit.

To REALLY address the problem wed have to start regulating lifestyles and birthrates in other countries full of people with dark skin colors. And you KNOW liberals will literally shit their pantyhose in fear and guilt and anguish at the idea of that.


So when I say "crickets" I mean it as it regards any actual meaningful solutions. Not their silly standard "blame/alter the 1% and that makes it all better!" shit they use on economic issues too.

Prob with libs is theyre too guilty to confront or demand accountability from anybody but the elite. Financial and environmental issues are usually about the broad masses and their habits, lifestyles, views etc. Libs are scared of the idea of going after anyone vulnerable so they just delude themselves into believing they can go after 1/100 of the people, the ones who are successful and wont have their feelings hurt by criticism, and thatll magically change things.

Libs stay doormats. Stay walking vag1nas.
You forgot to take your meds today.

[Akrazotile]

You're completely right and I lost the argument and must now be one with my weak and servile effemininity


I know, pal. Its ok. We all have our part to play.

[~primetime~]

Climate scientists "we should worry about this"
Primetime "nah no biggie"
???

[~primetime~]

NASA "It's getting hotter"
Macho Man "STFU and worry about space"

[Draz]

Because hot ni9gas dropped

[DeuceWallaces]

Its the hottest year on record...because records dont even break the skin of earths history.

Its the equivalent of saying that right now is the hottest its been in the last millisecond of the day.

Actually its a lot smaller of a sample size than that. There arent 100 million milliseconds in a day....but there are billions of years of Earths history.

There have been ice ages with glaciers reaching damn near the equator and times when Greenland was a ****ing forest.

The world changes...life adapts...

That is not analogous. There's only one other time in geologic history with rates of increasing temperature like this. You should never have the 10 hottest years ever within a 15 year period.

[Kblaze8855]

And we dont.

The world has been much much hotter than it is now.

It used to be 140 degrees near the equator early in the time of the dinosaurs.

At least if the people who run such tests can be trusted...and if they cant this whole discussion goes away.

Fact is....the world has has much much worse extremes both ways than any human will see in the next thousand years...if ever. And im not talking some...just after the formation of the planet shit...im talking well after somewhat advanced life was around.

This world will be fine no matter what. And the machine that is humanity will NOT be turned around.

Its 50 years of scare tactics and well meaning misinformation that will result in no significant changes because most of the world is in no position to care about these things.

[~primetime~]

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~leeman/GeoColumn.gif

[Kblaze8855]

Really...this is the kind of thing that makes me take some of these reports less serious. Around 15 years ago when internet access became common and you could look into claims fairly easily...id hear such and such was the hottest the world has been in history. Sounds shocking....2 minutes of looking into...it shows they really have to stress the "In history" because history is so brief and all evidence points to the world being a lot hotter in the past.

Histrionics like:


You should never have the 10 hottest years ever within a 15 year period.


designed to get attention even if its a lie(the word "ever" in there makes it factually incorrect)...just rubs me the wrong way. If you mean "Since my great grandmother was born" dont act like its more than that....like its never been seen before.

You cant rep science and looking at the facts and evidence...then tell me 10 of the 15 hottest years....ever...just happened.

It just isnt true. And shit like that makes me see a lot of these things just as attention grabbing bullshit with no substance.

Im sure the world is slightly hotter than it was....not so long ago. And its trending worse. But that doesnt get attention. So reports arent worded like that.

It just feels like carnival salesman science to me.

With good intentions...but still.

[Kblaze8855]

What does hundreds of millions of years ago have to do with modern humans?


Minus the claims that such and such is the worst....ever.....not much.

Well aside from the fact that the earths history shows massive swings both ways and the current situation...while arguably increasing at unheard of rates...is still miles from being historically significant.

And what we hear in reports(granted...those for mass public consumption...not more scientific reports) is that its something epic and unprecedented.

Humans have delt with much harsher conditions....when we had no technology to compensate.

If the ice age the cavemen had to deal with returned rapidly it would do a hell of a lot more harm than global warming is gonna do in the next few hundred years.

Humans have delt with worse...will deal with worse.

But its presented to the public as some epic issue that needs all our attention to prevent dire results. And it just seems dishonest to me. Especially from a group of people who are supposed to represent cold hard science and not a PR campaign.

[Kblaze8855]

Considering that humanity evolved during an ice age that is technically still going on and the discussion of climate is always long term you would gave to expect the talk to cover vast stretches of time.

People have been taking about the climate implications for hundreds of years from now.

It's never been about today.

[~primetime~]

Everyone is saying or implying "on record"

And you and tiddy talkin about dinosaurs
Deuce said "ever"...Blaze replied to him...you popped in with "dinosaurs doe"

[senelcoolidge]

When politicians and the UN are on board with something..you know it's suspicious. People are making LOTS of money on this global warming scheme.

[DeuceWallaces]

Really...this is the kind of thing that makes me take some of these reports less serious. Around 15 years ago when internet access became common and you could look into claims fairly easily...id hear such and such was the hottest the world has been in history. Sounds shocking....2 minutes of looking into...it shows they really have to stress the "In history" because history is so brief and all evidence points to the world being a lot hotter in the past.

Histrionics like:




designed to get attention even if its a lie(the word "ever" in there makes it factually incorrect)...just rubs me the wrong way. If you mean "Since my great grandmother was born" dont act like its more than that....like its never been seen before.

You cant rep science and looking at the facts and evidence...then tell me 10 of the 15 hottest years....ever...just happened.

It just isnt true. And shit like that makes me see a lot of these things just as attention grabbing bullshit with no substance.

Im sure the world is slightly hotter than it was....not so long ago. And its trending worse. But that doesnt get attention. So reports arent worded like that.

It just feels like carnival salesman science to me.

With good intentions...but still.

I wasn't quoting facts, I'm just going off the top of my head for sake of a post and my point still holds true. Apparently it's 9 of 10, not 10 of 15. This isn't a ****ing book report or a scientific debate. If it were you might consider using some punctuation or refrain from ellipses every other word.

I'm obviously not interested in the average temp 100 million years ago. I'm concerned with that which coincides with human existence and the more recent non-paleo temp record going back ~120 years. You know, what was linked by the OP.

Even if you want to start looking at very long time scales you have to go back 55 million years to find a period (the PETM) that most closely resembles what we're experiencing this past century. Which, to my original point, is not a good sign or something to scoff at.

[shlver]

Really...this is the kind of thing that makes me take some of these reports less serious. Around 15 years ago when internet access became common and you could look into claims fairly easily...id hear such and such was the hottest the world has been in history. Sounds shocking....2 minutes of looking into...it shows they really have to stress the "In history" because history is so brief and all evidence points to the world being a lot hotter in the past.

Histrionics like:




designed to get attention even if its a lie(the word "ever" in there makes it factually incorrect)...just rubs me the wrong way. If you mean "Since my great grandmother was born" dont act like its more than that....like its never been seen before.

You cant rep science and looking at the facts and evidence...then tell me 10 of the 15 hottest years....ever...just happened.

It just isnt true. And shit like that makes me see a lot of these things just as attention grabbing bullshit with no substance.

Im sure the world is slightly hotter than it was....not so long ago. And its trending worse. But that doesnt get attention. So reports arent worded like that.

It just feels like carnival salesman science to me.

With good intentions...but still.
Carnival salesman science? Care to elaborate?
The science is supported up by a lot of evidence. The human race is releasing an inordinate amount of greenhouse gases and the activity is accompanied by a warming trend that is orders of magnitude higher than what we see for the past century. If that's not science I don't know what is.:wtf:

Whether it was hotter or colder at some point in geological history is irrelevant. Global climate is subject to natural variability and feedback loops and we do not know the long term impacts of releasing this much carbon into the atmosphere. The fact is, there is a clear trend and to err on the side of caution, we should cut back on fossil fuels and invest in more environmentally friendly nuclear and renewables.

[Kblaze8855]

I'll explain it with something from a topic similar a while back. A picture of greenland low on ice was posted with an article saying


This is the most frightening picture you will ever see. The information expressed visually here can be summed up in three words: change or die.

I found it fairly absurd and alarmist. After much arguing it was said to me by Macho man(Same guy above) that:


It's probably overstating it, but people are dumb. "change or die" is more effective than "change or there will be costly ramifications"

Which I concede is the truth. But the sensationalist nature of it all bothers me more than anything.

Nobody has ever heard me say there is no global warming....

I say....the problem has been dramatized to the point that in 200 years people will still be saying "Change or die!" like crazy Christians predicting Jesus is coming back soon and we need to repent...for 500 years.

We are talking epic scales here.

As for this:


Whether it was hotter or colder at some point in geological history is irrelevant.


Of course its relevant. When the issue is we are bringing about great unheard of change...the fact that its been heard of....fairly relevant. Which brings me to another issue...

I know the basics of how they estimate the climate from millions of years ago. The gases in ice...sediments..various things to give you a picture of the world in the time they were formed. Im aware of that.

What I want to see....how in the ****...do they know how hot it was 1,900,002 years ago as opposed to 1,900,068 years ago...

If im to believe the increase is at a rate never before...which is what I believe is implied here:



Even if you want to start looking at very long time scales you have to go back 55 million years to find a period (the PETM) that most closely resembles what we're experiencing this past century. Which, to my original point, is not a good sign or something to scoff at.


I need to see some specifics. Ive always seen talks of these things in vague stretches...hundreds of thousands of years at the MOST specific.

But we know....that from 1880 to 2014 there was an increase unlike any other 130 year period of 4-5 billion years?

Where on earth do we get global records from 62 million years ago...specific enough to tell the year to year increases?

Lacking them....how do we know exactly how fast anything happened?

You look at records from 1912 vs now.....its night and day data wise.

But we know exactly how hot it was and the nature of the atmosphere not...in a general time...but down to the exact few series of months 22 million years ago?

Id love to read how they pull that off.

And I will. I wont say "Thats bullshit..." and not read it.

I'll read it...and be happy to know.

Anyone wanna help me out?

[tomtucker]

yeah, insted of cold winters. we now got more storms and hurricanes that are causing destruction.........polar bears and other animals are dieing...........human polution and emissions from cars are no doubt to blame............global warming is fukked up

[Velocirap31]

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~leeman/GeoColumn.gif

This is cool, thanks for sharing.

[Velocirap31]

I'll explain it with something from a topic similar a while back. A picture of greenland low on ice was posted with an article saying



I found it fairly absurd and alarmist. After much arguing it was said to me by Macho man(Same guy above) that:



Which I concede is the truth. But the sensationalist nature of it all bothers me more than anything.

Nobody has ever heard me say there is no global warming....

I say....the problem has been dramatized to the point that in 200 years people will still be saying "Change or die!" like crazy Christians predicting Jesus is coming back soon and we need to repent...for 500 years.

We are talking epic scales here.

As for this:




Of course its relevant. When the issue is we are bringing about great unheard of change...the fact that its been heard of....fairly relevant. Which brings me to another issue...

I know the basics of how they estimate the climate from millions of years ago. The gases in ice...sediments..various things to give you a picture of the world in the time they were formed. Im aware of that.

What I want to see....how in the ****...do they know how hot it was 1,900,002 years ago as opposed to 1,900,068 years ago...

If im to believe the increase is at a rate never before...which is what I believe is implied here:





I need to see some specifics. Ive always seen talks of these things in vague stretches...hundreds of thousands of years at the MOST specific.

But we know....that from 1880 to 2014 there was an increase unlike any other 130 year period of 4-5 billion years?

Where on earth do we get global records from 62 million years ago...specific enough to tell the year to year increases?

Lacking them....how do we know exactly how fast anything happened?

You look at records from 1912 vs now.....its night and day data wise.

But we know exactly how hot it was and the nature of the atmosphere not...in a general time...but down to the exact few series of months 22 million years ago?

Id love to read how they pull that off.

And I will. I wont say "Thats bullshit..." and not read it.

I'll read it...and be happy to know.

Anyone wanna help me out?

Trapped radioactive material allows us to date it and it's immediate area as a result. Chemical compositions can then be determined in dated earth and fossil records. Based on these compositions, we know that certain chemicals only exist as a result of a metabolic process, thus revealing the existence of life with or without fossil evidence as proof.

High compositions of oxygen and CO2 would indicate a massive greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, much greater than we're experiencing today. This would indicate much warmer temperatures.

For colder temperatures, think the opposite. As well as evidence of significant glaciation.

[Kblaze8855]

I am aware of that. What I am not aware of is how you use that process to get year to year results from millions of years ago...which you would need to say that the previous 100 years had an increase never before seen.

I suppose you could see that a period of time isnt much different from another...but if they can see it year to year ive never been told how.

Maybe they figure if 30ish million years ago is closer to 25ish million years ago than 1900 is to 2015...that there wasnt much variation in there.

But it feels like an awful lot of assumption.

[Velocirap31]

I am aware of that. What I am not aware of is how you use that process to get year to year results from millions of years ago...which you would need to say that the previous 100 years had an increase never before seen.

I suppose you could see that a period of time isnt much different from another...but if they can see it year to year ive never been told how.

Maybe they figure if 30ish million years ago is closer to 25ish million years ago than 1900 is to 2015...that there wasnt much variation in there.

But it feels like an awful lot of assumption.

They can't get year to year results from millions of years ago, can they? That seems impossible. They could only determine the varying temperatures for a very wide range of time and make educated guesses on the gaps.

[Kblaze8855]

Thats my assumption based on all ive ever been taught about how it works. But I read things like


There's only one other time in geologic history with rates of increasing temperature like this.

...all the time. And it seems to imply....we have records down at at LEAST the century for...all of earths history. Not to single dude who said it out...I hear shit like that all the time. All the time...from many sources.

And it just doesnt add up unless we have the yearly data.....from all of history.

Which...to my knowledge...we dont.

So where does a claim we never had a century like this come from?

Lacking data on 290,100bc to 290,000bc...how the hell do we know how that stretch compares to 1915 to 2015? Id imagine there is huge variation at times for any number of reasons....but we can dismiss the possibility because we have an educated guess for a stretch of hundreds of thousands of years?

[NumberSix]

That is not analogous. There's only one other time in geologic history with rates of increasing temperature like this. You should never have the 10 hottest years ever within a 15 year period.
No, you should have 10 years of wildly fluctuating temperature. Of corse. That would make more sense.

[Velocirap31]

I'm guessing that these kind of statements are coming from whistle blower environmentalists who are trying to scare. You've got to be right, there is no way they have any clue what 300,100 BC was like compared to 300,000 BC.

I think the safest guess is that temperatures fluctuate wildly for a number of reasons throughout all of history. Also, look at how much warmer it's been in history. It is inevitably going to be much much warmer looking at the chart that primetime posted. Many species will die, but others will flourish. That's the way it goes and I'm sure we can adapt better than anything else can.

[Akrazotile]

I'm guessing that these kind of statements are coming from whistle blower environmentalists who are trying to scare. You've got to be right, there is no way they have any clue what 300,100 BC was like compared to 300,000 BC.

I think the safest guess is that temperatures fluctuate wildly for a number of reasons throughout all of history. Also, look at how much warmer it's been in history. It is inevitably going to be much much warmer looking at the chart that primetime posted. Many species will die, but others will flourish. That's the way it goes and I'm sure we can adapt better than anything else can.


But we just had the 10 hottest years in Earth's history though according to deucewallace.

[Kblaze8855]

Im now assuming he meant you shouldnt have the 10 hottest years come in a 15 year period....of a century. That isnt what he said...but im guessing its what he meant. Which brings us back to...where do you get data on the 10 hottest years of a century 94 million years ago.....

Shit...how do you know the 10 hottest years of 1400-1500AD?

Again let me say...im not 100% positive you CANT know...im just not assuming we do till someone explains the method you get to such specifics.

It feels like global warming issues are an area of science that is corrupted by public relations and a need to explain things in the most basic terms...often at the expense of the truth.

If im wrong explain how...ill accept it. Im not telling someone who gave their lives to these studies that I know better.

Im saying...explain how you reached these conclusions with such clarity.

It just feels like fact colored assumption for the sake of winning a PR campaign.

I know that part of it...is to create enough concern to spark real change. But creating concern doesnt feel like science to me.

[Velocirap31]

But we just had the 10 hottest years in Earth's history though according to deucewallace.

This is true, Duece is right. I'm not saying that we're not warming things up, we probably are, but our accurate records date back a century at the most. It could be typical for temperatures to fluctuate like they are now and we have no data to support or disprove this.

[Akrazotile]

This is true, Duece is right. I'm not saying that we're not warming things up, we probably are, but our accurate records date back a century at the most. It could be typical for temperatures to fluctuate like they are now and we have no data to support or disprove this.


Its true that 10 of the hottest years on planet earth occured in the last 15 years from today?

Thats what he said. A couple posts ago you just said its been much hotter than this before.

How can you both be right?

[~primetime~]

Either Deuce used poor wording and just meant the past 130 or so years that we have been keeping record, or he is wrong.

[Velocirap31]

Global Warming = Money

1. People like Al Gore have scared the general population into fearing global warming.

2. This fear gives politicians a platform to run on and create policy for.

3. These politicians give tax payer money to the green energy industry who use it to build solar and wind farms that would otherwise be unaffordable.

4. The green energy industry makes a ton of money selling expensive energy to the power grid at rates far higher than you pay on your hydro bill. Maybe this is where the supportive politicians get a kickback?

5. Your hydro bill goes up. Your rates have probably doubled in the last 15 years. It's not like your tax money alone can support these solar/wind farms.

We're already well into step 5 throughout most of North America. Some people have gotten very rich. So either the green industry has saved the earth and us all, or we've been bamboozled. Believe what you want, it doesn't matter anymore anyway.

[Velocirap31]

Its true that 10 of the hottest years on planet earth occured in the last 15 years from today?

Thats what he said. A couple posts ago you just said its been much hotter than this before.

How can you both be right?

No no, only on record. Our human recorded records which span back to like 1920. So basically, a fraction of a fraction of a percent of a blink in earth's history.

[~primetime~]

So either the green industry has saved the earth and us all, or we've been bamboozled.
Probably a little bit of both

[DeuceWallaces]

I'll explain it with something from a topic similar a while back. A picture of greenland low on ice was posted with an article saying



I found it fairly absurd and alarmist. After much arguing it was said to me by Macho man(Same guy above) that:



Which I concede is the truth. But the sensationalist nature of it all bothers me more than anything.

Nobody has ever heard me say there is no global warming....

I say....the problem has been dramatized to the point that in 200 years people will still be saying "Change or die!" like crazy Christians predicting Jesus is coming back soon and we need to repent...for 500 years.

We are talking epic scales here.

As for this:




Of course its relevant. When the issue is we are bringing about great unheard of change...the fact that its been heard of....fairly relevant. Which brings me to another issue...

I know the basics of how they estimate the climate from millions of years ago. The gases in ice...sediments..various things to give you a picture of the world in the time they were formed. Im aware of that.

What I want to see....how in the ****...do they know how hot it was 1,900,002 years ago as opposed to 1,900,068 years ago...

If im to believe the increase is at a rate never before...which is what I believe is implied here:





I need to see some specifics. Ive always seen talks of these things in vague stretches...hundreds of thousands of years at the MOST specific.

But we know....that from 1880 to 2014 there was an increase unlike any other 130 year period of 4-5 billion years?

Where on earth do we get global records from 62 million years ago...specific enough to tell the year to year increases?

Lacking them....how do we know exactly how fast anything happened?

You look at records from 1912 vs now.....its night and day data wise.

But we know exactly how hot it was and the nature of the atmosphere not...in a general time...but down to the exact few series of months 22 million years ago?

Id love to read how they pull that off.

And I will. I wont say "Thats bullshit..." and not read it.

I'll read it...and be happy to know.

Anyone wanna help me out?

It appears the issue is you just don't understand how this works so you don't believe it or want proof. I'm not really here to write you a peer reviewed paper on paleo temperature methods and its relevancy to current climate research. I know when I don't know something I either read up on it, or I shut the **** up. These threads are habitually filled with people who choose to do neither.

Well you can easily go look up how they determine paleo temperatures. There are pretty strong relationships between certain compounds found in sedimentary or ice core records and average annual temperature. They can go back billions of years doing this.

You have to go back to the PETM (~50 million) to find something that resembles what's happened the past two centuries.

The rate of warming has never been like this.
The trend is no longer linear.
Nine or ten of the hottest years of the past 150 years should not come in a 10-15 year window.
We are 100% the cause, the only question is the magnitude of the consequences.

These are not a good signs. Which was my point, and is the point of nearly every damn article someone posts here.

[DeuceWallaces]

Global Warming = Money

1. People like Al Gore have scared the general population into fearing global warming.

2. This fear gives politicians a platform to run on and create policy for.

3. These politicians give tax payer money to the green energy industry who use it to build solar and wind farms that would otherwise be unaffordable.

4. The green energy industry makes a ton of money selling expensive energy to the power grid at rates far higher than you pay on your hydro bill. Maybe this is where the supportive politicians get a kickback?

5. Your hydro bill goes up. Your rates have probably doubled in the last 15 years. It's not like your tax money alone can support these solar/wind farms.

We're already well into step 5 throughout most of North America. Some people have gotten very rich. So either the green industry has saved the earth and us all, or we've been bamboozled. Believe what you want, it doesn't matter anymore anyway.

Lol, good thing the oil industry doesn't receive subsidies. :rolleyes:

[Velocirap31]

Lol, good thing the oil industry doesn't receive subsidies. :rolleyes:

Of course they do. The oil industry is shifting towards green energy themselves now that there is money to be made (Exxon, BP, etc.) Before there were any subsidies and grants, they wanted nothing to do with it.

[DeuceWallaces]

They received subsidies long before they were working on green energy.

[Kblaze8855]

Well you can easily go look up how they determine paleo temperatures. There are pretty strong relationships between certain compounds found in sedimentary or ice core records and average annual temperature. They can go back billions of years doing this.

So what you are telling me is....we do know how hot it was 42 million 284 years ago as opposed to 42 million 268 years ago?

That what im being told?

If so....where would I find such specifics?

You seem into such things.

Im not asking you to write a report.

Im asking where you would go to get these specifics....I will go myself..and look into it. If your answer is "Google" ill just assume you arent taking it serious and move along.

[Velocirap31]

They received subsidies long before they were working on green energy.

So? I'd love for us to shift towards sustainable energy and away from fossil fuels, but the technology isn't there yet. I mean it isn't affordable. It's stupid to support energy that costs 20-25 cents per kW from a wind turbine and want to rid ourselves of fossil fuel and nuclear plants that cost no more than 8 cents per kW. Maybe when the costs come way down, I'll be on board.

[rezznor]

http://cdn.bgr.com/2015/01/t1kpxh3abj4xfczcodvy.gif


http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

[Nanners]

So? I'd love for us to shift towards sustainable energy and away from fossil fuels, but the technology isn't there yet. I mean it isn't affordable. It's stupid to support energy that costs 20-25 cents per kW from a wind turbine and want to rid ourselves of fossil fuel and nuclear plants that cost no more than 8 cents per kW. Maybe when the costs come way down, I'll be on board.

except wind only costs 5 cents per kwh in the US and the price is still steadily dropping. wind power is cheaper than coal....

http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5547

and i dont see how you can claim that you would love to shift towards sustainable energy and at the same time complain about sustainable energy subsidies. the technology is not going to magically develop itself.

[Kblaze8855]

Ever drive through the west/midwest? america has so much wide open empty space....

I wonder how much power could be generated just paying the huge land owners to use their land for wind energy as opposed to growing corn....

[rezznor]

Ever drive through the west/midwest? america has so much wide open empty space....

I wonder how much power could be generated just paying the huge land owners to use their land for wind energy as opposed to growing corn....
think of the birds man!! think of the birds!!

[Kblaze8855]

Ive heard mention of that. Are the same people saying global warming is a myth the ones championing the environmental negatives of windmills? They would seem to be groups normally at odds.

I hear about turbines being placed at sea...that seems reasonable.

The beach is damn windy....

[tomtucker]

think of the birds man!! think of the birds!!

exactly......when humans only think about themselves, animals suffer.......but when there are no nature and animals left, then there soon also will be no humans left .

[rezznor]

Ive heard mention of that. Are the same people saying global warming is a myth the ones championing the environmental negatives of windmills? They would seem to be groups normally at odds.

I hear about turbines being placed at sea...that seems reasonable.

The beach is damn windy....
not sure about that but another unintended consequence i have read is that all those windmills greatly alter air flow with possible negative consequences. the same thing happens with turbines in the sea to an even greater effect i believe on the currents.

[Nanners]

:oldlol:

the amount of birds killed by wind turbine blades is literally a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of birds killed by the side effects of carbon pollution.

[Velocirap31]

except wind only costs 5 cents per kwh in the US and the price is still steadily dropping. wind power is cheaper than coal....

http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5547

and i dont see how you can claim that you would love to shift towards sustainable energy and at the same time complain about sustainable energy subsidies. the technology is not going to magically develop itself.

Read an article on the side of the argument to:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/12/21/why-its-the-end-of-the-line-for-wind-power/

First of all, wind isn't reliable and when it isn't windy there is no energy being made. As a result, fossil fuel plants need to burn on standby when it is windy and full when it is not. These plants run at a lower efficiency on standby compared to full power which of course isn't factored into wind's 'efficiency', but the lights need to keep on which wind cannot do by itself.

"Most calculations of the cost of wind power do not take into account the costs per kWh of keeping fossil plants on standby or running at reduced loads. But they should, because it is a real cost of adding clean, green, wind power to the grid." "Taylor has crunched the numbers and determined that these elements mean the true cost of wind power is more like double the advertised numbers."

These wind farms are usually in remote areas and require new transmission lines be built. Throw in installation costs, maintenance, 20-30 year life span, and remove the subsidies hidden in your tax dollars as well.

[~primetime~]

Some questions for you Deuce...just questions, so no need to get upset



The rate of warming has never been like this.
Do you mean in the small amount of time we have been recording? Because if not I am not sure how we could know. Like KBlaze has pointed out, we don't know year-to-year temps when going back millions of years.

Nine or ten of the hottest years of the past 150 years should not come in a 10-15 year window.
Why exactly is this noteworthy? Would it be less concerning if those ten years were randomly spread across the last century? It seems obvious that if the temp is trending up that they would be lumped together. Shouldn't we expect next year to be similar? And the year after that...and after that, etc

We are 100% the cause, the only question is the magnitude of the consequences.

What does this even mean? Like it is a 100% fact that the temp would be trending down without humans on Earth?

What ever happened to "correlation does not imply causation?"...why are you ruling out that this could be caused by nature? I understand that we know humans put a lot of CO2 in the air and we know the temp is rising. But we don't know is CO2 is causing the temp to rise, that part is still unproven last time I checked.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be cautious and take steps to cut down CO2...I'm just asking why you feel so confident as to say "we are 100% the cause" as a scientist.

[Nanners]

Read an article on the side of the argument to:



The other side of what argument?

I never said wind power was perfect, I just said it was cheap....which is a fact, not an argument.

[Velocirap31]

The other side of what argument?

I never said wind power was perfect, I just said it was cheap....which is a fact, not an argument.

It is NOT cheap. That is the other argument. Read the article.

[Akrazotile]

Read an article on the side of the argument to:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/12/21/why-its-the-end-of-the-line-for-wind-power/

First of all, wind isn't reliable and when it isn't windy there is no energy being made. As a result, fossil fuel plants need to burn on standby when it is windy and full when it is not. These plants run at a lower efficiency on standby compared to full power which of course isn't factored into wind's 'efficiency', but the lights need to keep on which wind cannot do by itself.

"Most calculations of the cost of wind power do not take into account the costs per kWh of keeping fossil plants on standby or running at reduced loads. But they should, because it is a real cost of adding clean, green, wind power to the grid." "Taylor has crunched the numbers and determined that these elements mean the true cost of wind power is more like double the advertised numbers."

These wind farms are usually in remote areas and require new transmission lines be built. Throw in installation costs, maintenance, 20-30 year life span, and remove the subsidies hidden in your tax dollars as well.


Yup, this, not to mention as rezznor eluded to, you cannot just cover the planet in wind generators.

I'd be as thrilled as anyone if we found a real clean energy solution. But it simply doesn't look like wind is going to be it.

Once again the elephant in the room is to reduce birth rates and consumerism. THOSE are the factors that effect the carbon footprint. If you don't want to address those issues there's really no sense in even discussing the subject.

[Akrazotile]

:oldlol:

the amount of birds killed by wind turbine blades is literally a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of birds killed by the side effects of carbon pollution.



Again, covering up half of America with wind generators is not a requisite for reducing global carbon emissions. There are more direct and sensible solutions nobody wants to deal with because they're afraid to.

[Nanners]

It is NOT cheap. That is the other argument. Read the article.

yes it is cheap.

all power sources have hidden costs like the ones the article mentions for wind, these things are not exclusive to wind power.

[Nanners]

Again, covering up half of America with wind generators is not a requisite for reducing global carbon emissions. There are more direct and sensible solutions nobody wants to deal with because they're afraid to.

hey dumbshit, perhaps you could show me where i said we should cover half of america with wind generators

[Akrazotile]

hey dumbshit, perhaps you could show me where i said we should cover half of america with wind generators


You didn't say that specifically, it just seemed you might not be aware that in limited doses wind isn't nearly efficient enough to provide any sort of meaningful energy relief relative to the current demand.

I'm not sure why people even bother to mention wind power. It's not the answer. I guess people just need something to throw out there as an alternative to fossil fuels when pressed. But it's simply not a reasonable answer.

[DeuceWallaces]

I think wind farms **** up bat populations; not so much brids.

[Nanners]

You didn't say that specifically, it just seemed you might not be aware that in limited doses wind isn't nearly efficient enough to provide any sort of meaningful energy relief relative to the current demand.

I'm not sure why people even bother to mention wind power. It's not the answer. I guess people just need something to throw out there as an alternative to fossil fuels when pressed. But it's simply not a reasonable answer.

nobody is saying that wind is some magic bullet that will solve all our problems, but rather it is only one small piece of the puzzle we face when moving to sustainable energy sources.

and you are dead wrong, wind does provide very meaningful energy relative to demand. in 2004 the US generated about 0.35% of our total electricity from wind power, today we generate 4.3% of our total electricity from wind power, and that number is obviously still growing.

[Droid101]

Once again the elephant in the room is to reduce birth rates and consumerism. THOSE are the factors that effect the carbon footprint. If you don't want to address those issues there's really no sense in even discussing the subject.
Talk to the Catholic church and tell them to allow their followers to use birth control.

[Akrazotile]

Talk to the Catholic church and tell them to allow their followers to use birth control.


rank, country, population growth%
1 Lebanon 9.73
2 Zimbabwe 4.36
3 South Sudan 4.12
4 Jordan 3.86
5 Qatar 3.58
6 Malawi 3.33
7 Niger 3.28
8 Burundi 3.28
9 Uganda 3.24
10 Libya 3.08
11 Burkina Faso 3.05
12 Mali 3.00
13 Gaza Strip 2.91
14 Ethiopia 2.89
15 Western Sahara 2.89
16 Zambia 2.88
17 Benin 2.81
18 Tanzania 2.80
19 Angola 2.78
20 Yemen 2.72
21 United Arab Emirates 2.71
22 Togo 2.71
23 Rwanda 2.63
24 Guinea 2.63
25 Madagascar 2.62
26 Cameroon 2.60
27 Turks and Caicos Islands 2.58
28 Equatorial Guinea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate


How much influence does the Catholic church have in these countries? I'm just curious.

[Akrazotile]

nobody is saying that wind is some magic bullet that will solve all our problems, but rather it is only one small piece of the puzzle we face when moving to sustainable energy sources.

and you are dead wrong, wind does provide very meaningful energy relative to demand. in 2004 the US generated about 0.35% of our total electricity from wind power, today we generate 4.3% of our total electricity from wind power, and that number is obviously still growing.


Well that's fine and certainly 4% is better than nothing but if you drive out from LA to Arizona you'll see tons of these grids, and not only is it an eye sore, but it seems like such an absurd use of land for minimal energy returns. Continuing to stack up wind turbines on natural plots of land just to move away from coal is kind of a silly irony if you think about it.

That's great that we're getting a little energy from wind. But ultimately it has little impact on the larger concerns.

[Kblaze8855]

An absurd use of land?

Between La and Arizona...what other use is there for the land?

They grow a lot of crops in the desert or what?

What was there before? They tear down something useful to society? Are they preventing something more useful from being there?

http://i59.tinypic.com/15hzpj9.jpg

What is your more reasonable plan for that dry patch of land hundreds of miles from anything in Arizona?

[tomtucker]

is it really that windy in arizona ?? belived desert wind was kindy still

[Nanners]

Well that's fine and certainly 4% is better than nothing but if you drive out from LA to Arizona you'll see tons of these grids, and not only is it an eye sore, but it seems like such an absurd use of land for minimal energy returns. Continuing to stack up wind turbines on natural plots of land just to move away from coal is kind of a silly irony if you think about it.

That's great that we're getting a little energy from wind. But ultimately it has little impact on the larger concerns.

:oldlol:

gtfo with this bullshit. what exactly would be a better use for the empty desert land in ca/az that is being used for wind farms?

and calling a wind farm an "eye sore" is pretty much completely fvcking retarded.

here are a few examples of eyesores.

this is how we get coal in this country - mountaintop removal. you see this shit all over west virignia and pennsylvania

http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ec00d8d19/images/002-2.jpg

heres where canadian oil comes from - tar sands

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/tar-sands-2-1000.jpg

[Akrazotile]

:oldlol:

gtfo with this bullshit. what exactly would be a better use for the empty desert land in ca/az that is being used for wind farms?

and calling a wind farm an "eye sore" is pretty much completely fvcking retarded.

here are a few examples of eyesores.

this is how we get coal in this country - mountaintop removal. you see this shit all over west virignia and pennsylvania

http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ec00d8d19/images/002-2.jpg

heres where canadian oil comes from - tar sands

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/tar-sands-2-1000.jpg


The difference is the amount of energy you can produce from a few sites with fossil fuels is worth the tradeoff to a degree. To get the same amount of energy from wind you'd need a ton of land. Its way less efficient. Maybe you and kblaze want to decorate all the natural regions of the country with big wind turbines in exchange for a little bit of windpower but I personally would rather find a solution that doesnt require putting man made machines in every plot of open land in America.

[Akrazotile]

An absurd use of land?

Between La and Arizona...what other use is there for the land?

They grow a lot of crops in the desert or what?

What was there before? They tear down something useful to society? Are they preventing something more useful from being there?

http://i59.tinypic.com/15hzpj9.jpg

What is your more reasonable plan for that dry patch of land hundreds of miles from anything in Arizona?


To leave it alone because thousands of people enjoy traveling through it each year to experience it in its natural state (minus the necessity of roads for traveling, of course.)

[Nanners]

The difference is the amount of energy you can produce from a few sites with fossil fuels is worth the tradeoff to a degree. To get the same amount of energy from wind you'd need a ton of land. Its way less efficient. Maybe you and kblaze want to decorate all the natural regions of the country with big wind turbines in exchange for a little bit of windpower but I personally would rather find a solution that doesnt require putting man made machines in every plot of open land in America.

as usual, you are obviously full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about. we are already at 4.3% wind right now, we could easily double or triple our wind generation without coming remotely close to "putting man made machines in every plot of open land in america." :oldlol:

go look at west virginia on google earth, mountaintop removal is not just a few little sites. we are talking about massive scars all over appalachia that can be seen from outer space.

[Akrazotile]

as usual, you are obviously full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about. we are already at 4.3% wind right now, we could easily double or triple our wind generation without coming remotely close to "putting man made machines in every plot of open land in america." :oldlol:

go look at west virginia on google earth, mountaintop removal is not just a few little sites. we are talking about massive scars all over appalachia that can be seen from outer space.


Can you link me to your 4.3% statistic? EIA.gov says renewable is 9% of current energy, and renewable is defined as "hydroelectric, geothermal, solar/PV, wind, and biomass."

It surprises me wind would provide nearly half of renewable while hydroelectric, solar, and geothermal would combine for the rest. If youre right thats fine but Id just be interested to see the link info that figure. Id have thought hydroelectric and solar would each outproduce wind by themselves.


Btw petroleum, natural gas, and coal combine for 82%. Coal by itself is 20%. And as velocirap mentioned, you still HAVE to run fossil fuel plants bc wind isnt reliable on its own. So you arent preventing coal mines, but you are adding double the windfarms on natural landscapes to get us up to a nice 8% (at best) of the countries energy. Sounds pretty worthwhile.

[Nanners]

Can you link me to your 4.3% statistic? EIA.gov says renewable is 9% of current energy, and renewable is defined as "hydroelectric, geothermal, solar/PV, wind, and biomass."


It surprises me wind would provide nearly half of renewable while hydroelectric, solar, and geothermal would combine for the rest. If youre right thats fine but Id just be interested to see the link info that figure. Id have thought hydroelectric and solar would each outproduce wind by themselves.

literally the first result on google
(http://lmgtfy.com/?q=percentage+of+electricity+generated+by+wind+in+ the+us)

perhaps next time, you should do a little basic research before you start flapping your gums. its clear that you have no clue what you are talking about.


Btw petroleum, natural gas, and coal combine for 82%. Coal by itself is 20%. And as velocirap mentioned, you still HAVE to run fossil fuel plants bc wind isnt reliable on its own. So you arent preventing coal mines, but you are adding double the windfarms on natural landscapes to get us up to a nice 8% (at best) of the countries energy. Sounds pretty worthwhile.

as i already said, wind is not a magic bullet, its only one small part of the solution. obviously wind will not eliminate coal, but it will allow us to significantly cut back on coal.

[Akrazotile]

literally the first result on google
(http://lmgtfy.com/?q=percentage+of+electricity+generated+by+wind+in+ the+us)

perhaps next time, you should do a little basic research before you start flapping your gums. its clear that you have no clue what you are talking about.



as i already said, wind is not a magic bullet, its only one small part of the solution. obviously wind will not eliminate coal, but it will allow us to significantly cut back on coal.

And pray tell what did I say that was factually incorrect in any way? We've got shit like this sprouting up in different places now:


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01525/WindTurbines_1525663c.jpg

http://s13.postimg.org/531kjgjon/th_id_HN_608010573176768571_pid_15_1_P_0.jpg
http://www.greenretreat.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Offshore-Wind-Farm.jpg
http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_AndrewD/turbines-birds.jpg


Producing 4% of the country's energy. Woohoo! Ok, let's quadruple that, and add quadruple the turbines, now we have 16% of the countries energy. Not even 1/5. Which means what? We can stop harnessing coal? No. So what are we doing? We still have to burn fossil fuels, we're just getting a little bit of extra energy for our iphones by putting turbines all over the place?

Sorry man. I know wind is your big thing because it's very ideological and you don't have to limit the energy consumption of people who make less than 250,000 or have dark skin if you just have lots and lots of windpower. Wee! But it's not solution to anything. If you're legitimately worried about climate change and atmospheric carbon, wind generators aren't worth your breath to even discuss. But keep chasing that pie in the sky. Just be careful not to get whacked by a blade.

[Nanners]

Producing 4% of the country's energy. Woohoo! Ok, let's quadruple that, and add quadruple the turbines, now we have 16% of the countries energy. Not even 1/5. Which means what? We can stop harnessing coal? No. So what are we doing? We still have to burn fossil fuels, we're just getting a little bit of extra energy for our iphones by putting turbines all over the place?

Sorry man. I know wind is your big thing because it's very ideological and you don't have to limit the energy consumption of people who make less than 250,000 or have dark skin if you just have lots and lots of windpower. Wee! But it's not solution to anything. If you're legitimately worried about climate change and atmospheric carbon, wind generators aren't worth your breath to even discuss. But keep chasing that pie in the sky. Just be careful not to get whacked by a blade.

you have absolutely zero clue. none. you are a complete fvcking clown.

producing 16% of the countries energy with wind would be HUGE, thats close to the same amount as we generate with all nuclear plants combined. 16% is a massive amount of energy.

[Akrazotile]

you have absolutely zero clue. none. you are a complete fvcking clown.

producing 16% of the countries energy with wind would be HUGE, thats close to the same amount as we generate with all nuclear plants combined. 16% is a massive amount of energy.


Yeah, with no trade-off of course it is. :facepalm

But you'd have to quadruple the amount of land you stick generators on, and the whole purpose of clean energy is to be more environmentally friendly. Not less.

The solution to the environmental impact of energy is to reduce energy consumption. Not to fill up the environment with wind turbines so that 8 billion people can watch Netflix on their ipads :facepalm

[Nanners]

Yeah, with no trade-off of course it is. :facepalm

But you'd have to quadruple the amount of land you stick generators on, and the whole purpose of clean energy is to be more environmentally friendly. Not less.

The solution to the environmental impact of energy is to reduce energy consumption. Not to fill up the environment with wind turbines so that 8 billion people can watch Netflix on their ipads :facepalm

if our choices are building more wind turbines versus doing more mountain top removal, its pretty obvious which option is more environmentally friendly

and lol at saying the solution to our energy issues is turning off some ipads :oldlol:

dont know why i bother