Why is your average right-wing dumbass so insistent that human-caused

Bcё oчeнь пpocтo. Климaт мeнялcя и мeняeтcя вceгдa и Bcё вpeмя. Этo пpoиcхoдит из зa cмeщeния пoлюcoв плaнeты. To ecть в oднoм мecтe cтaнoвитcя хoлoднo, a в дpyгoм тeплo. Mы люди никaк нe влияeт нa этo, вcя иcтopия нaших выбpoca CO2 нe пpeвышaeт кoличecтвoм выхлoп вyлкaнa зa дeнь eгo paбoты. Зeлeныe пpocтo гpyппa людeй, кoтopыe нa вceoбщeй тyпocти хoтят cгpecти дeнeг. Плaнeтa нe тeплeeт, a пpoиcхoдит движeниe тёплых и хoлoдных тoчeк.

File: gay-russia-3-400x401.jpg (101KB, 400x401px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 400x401px

>>731568641
What's that, Ruskie shill? Speak Freedom, bitch.

>>731568859
Long story short - global warming does not exist, but climate change does. It is not a bad thing and not human made.

>>731569236
Says who, your Exxon handler? Yeah, I'll stick with what the scientists say.

>>731569794
You're making Bill Nye very proud

>>731569794
But a guy with a degree in гyмaнитapныe нayки is not a real scientist.

>>731570044
>said some SJW cuck shit worthy of him being forever hated now
>literally everything he's ever said is wrong!

Sorry, anon, it doesn't follow. I know conservatards have trouble making sound arguments but you can learn; I believe in you.

>>731568641
yoo long; didn't russian

Humans do not produce even a fraction of CO2 that influences climate. Greens are a pack pof dumbasses who just want to scrape some money off you and me.

>>731570375
Пacяб зa coкpaщённый пepeвoд.

>>731570375
Except you're wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

>>731568041
Am i to expect that a regional environment group with limited resources has enough money to pay hundreds of scientists to study climate change and come up with a real conclusion? Their conclusion being oh shit, planet is getting warmer, it must be co2!! Let's not account for the fact that a single volcano produces more co2 than all cars combined can.

Yes, we've all seen climate change, i remember it being different when i was a kid. But blaming humans without a proper study is bull. Dinosaurs saw climate change, i guess it must have been their factories.

>>731571048
Are you legitimately so autistic, anon?

>>731571048
Exactly! How can scientists with no resources produce any results. They need money for real studies

>>731571238
Yes

>>731571268
And if libertards argue that their studies were properly funded then ops logic is incorrect because then there would also be enough money to bribe them, right warren buffet?

>>731571602
>>731571048
>>731571268

Try to learn something, my retarded friends. Or if you're just shills, pls tongue my anus.

http://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/17231-climate-change-scientific-paper-library/

>>731568041
>when nearly every peer-reviewed scientific study converges on it being not only fact,
You've never read any of these. You are echoing talking points simply because they are loud. Have some self awareness you village idiot. You have no idea how reliant on fossil fuels we are and just how fast this ship goes down without them.

>>731572072
see >>731571984

>You are echoing talking points simply because they are loud.
>projecting this hard

>>731572265
Not an argument, summer friend. You can go ahead and assume I never clicked your shitty link and expected you to create a coherent thought instead of riding the dicks of others smarter than you.

File: tmp_30277-1493071952988-1798832530.png (416KB, 933x616px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 933x616px

People are not that bright.

Even if it was true id still buy gas and burn whatever the fuck i felt like and buy the same products cause im not going to be here forever and i just dont care. We'll wipe ourselves out eventually. Also, go back to your other gay websiteyou faggot fucker.

>>731572474
>"Not an argument, summer friend"
>Implying what you said before was an argument and not asinine projection
>implying you made a single argument and haven't just been slinging shit this entire time

wew lad

Read the link I gave you again, it's filled with actual science. I know that scares you since it's not filtered through some alt-right podcaster's cum-filled mouth but if you genuinely give a shit about the truth, you'll have to grin and bear it.

File: B000NB26NA_Idiocracy_UXFX1._SX940_.jpg (96KB, 940x646px)

96KB, 940x646px

>>731572854
>fuck you, I got mine
>you talk like a fag and your shit's retarded

Yup, conservatard confirmed.

Which wing the correct wing?

File: 1453352116070.png (277KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 500x329px

I am pretty sure the ocean levels are rising because of all the liberal tears

>>731572861
Ummm. That link proves my point?
I'm not denying climate change. I'm denying man driven climate change. Note most links conclude "holy chit, climate is changing! We should do something about it", but almost none "holy chit, man is causing it!"

Anyone with a brain should relise global warming is our own doing. All that shit that ends up in the air doesn't get there naturally, and the only ones on the planet smart enough to make the shit that produces it are humans. So.. I don't even see how they have any sort of a arguement against it. That said, I give it 20 years before the planet is beyond fucked that you need to go outside in a hasmat suit in any 1st world country. Its already pretty bad as it is and its only going to get exponentally worse, as were not doing anywhere near enough to stem it.

>>731573940
Yup, 20 years, you should anhero so you don't have to go through it, makes life better for you and me both

>>731570375
>the US burns through 19 million 50 Gallon barrels of oil each day
>All of humanity moving gigatons of carbon from the fossil record to the atmosphere does nothing to affect the equalibrium
Is that your carefully considered opinion?

>>731574236
Not even 1% of co2 produced by volcanos and natural fenomena. Stop trolling man

>>731568041
>The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
>Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

>>731572072
>the US could generate as much energy as is contained within the oil that they burn daily with about 16,000 solar panels

File: 1 tb snoop smile.png (75KB, 983x1013px)

75KB, 983x1013px

>>731574411
>natural fenomena
>Stop trolling

>>731574411
Do you have a source to back that up?

>>731574857
Not worth sharing knowledge with someone who can't google

>>731574411
>>731574857
Don't bother, I'll just post a link that says you're full of shit

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

>Greenhouse gasses increase the temperature of the planet
>We're releasing a ton of greenhouse gasses
>The temperature of the planet is increasing faster than it ever has
What about these three points is so hard to understand?

>>731575101
I legitimately cannot find a source that says volcanos produce more CO2 than humans. Every link says the opposite

>>731575111
Did anyone even watch the video posted earlier? It talks about exactly that.

>>731570793

>>731575167
Link?

>>731575111
Volcanos and natural fenomena idiot, not just volcanos

>>731575365
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

http://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

What do you have to contribute to the conversation?

>>731575474
Ok, what other natural phenomenon should we add to the pot?

>>731575628
Dude, let me ask you, does co2 magically dissapear? Because volcanos have been here since 4 billion years ago. Multiply all those years by the yearly average volcano emissions from your link.

Now take average human emissions and multiply it by 100 years (im being generous here), which one is greater?

Oh, but if co2 magically dissapears, then why are you worried? And if it doesnt, then thats where that 1% comes from

>>731575704
Your mom farts

>>731576043
>Dude, let me ask you, does co2 magically dissapear
No, only the carbon cycle removes carbon from the atmosphere, but it's a very slow cycle

>Now take average human emissions and multiply it by 100 years (im being generous here), which one is greater?
The human emissions

>And if it doesnt, then thats where that 1% comes from
Where are you getting 1% from?

You seem to be extraordinarily misinformed. Did you drop out of highschool or something?

>>731575628
Liberitard authored articles.
It's not the yearly production of co2 that creates a green house effect, it's the total co2 in the air. That total amount didn't just happen in the industrial revolution.

2nd, 90% of green house gases are water vapor, not co2. Maybe we should regulate water vapor, right? Heck, in fact, i forbid you to start sweating right now, you are killing us!

>>731576589
>muh fake sources!

I bet you think the Earth's flat too. God damn dumbass.

>>731576589
show proof of claims

>>731576367
So you are saying 35 metric tons times 100 is greater than 2 metric tons times 4 billion?

Check your math

>>731576738
Use google man. You want to discredit me try hard

>>731576878
k. google says you're wrong.
bam. i win. you lose.

now back up your claims or you're full of shit

>>731576589
Water vapor holds heat better than CO2 but each molecule only stays in the air for about 7 days and the water content of the air is equilibrium-driven. Literally a non-issue

A CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere for on average 10,000 years. All of the carbon in fossil fuels was pulled out of the air around the Jurassic period. So if we burn all the fossil fuels then the CO2 levels will approximately match the Jurassic.

All of that CO2 did appear during the industrial revolution, because that's when the use of fossil fuels became widespread.

>lrn2basicenvironmentalscience

>>731576793
Are you insinuating that Volcanos don't participate in the carbon cycle?

>>731577083
Show me your math. Show me that by accounting for the carbon cycle we have produced more of the co2 we currently breath than volcanos have. Ill bet you my life you cant

>>731577277
Using your own figures
>35 metric tons X 100 > (2 metric tons X 4 billion) - (2 metric tons X 4 billion)
>3500 metric tons > 0 metric tons

You should learn about the carbon cycle

>>731577453
Are you literally retarded?

>>731572072
>>We're too reliant on fossil fuels to come up with an alternative for fossil fuels

I can't stop smoking crack. You have no idea how fast I'll go down without it.

>>731577671
Are you? Let me simplify the problem for you.

Where did the carbon in fossil fuels come from? What process returns that carbon to the fossil record?

Where does the carbon in volcanoes come from? What process returns that carbon to the Earth?

>>731568041
The answer to the first question is that right-wingers tend to be poorly-educated religiotards.

To the second, no, not a coincidence. That same lack of education renders the conservatard incapable of understanding the power of the scientific method and the peer-review process.

To the third question, yes.

>>731575704
"In 2008, the global total of CO2 released from the soil reached roughly 98 billion tonnes, about 10 times more carbon than humans are now putting into the atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuel"

Fuck your sources

>>731577875
It's called the carbon cycle and has been mentioned multiple times in this thread.

ITT: autismally challenged Americlaps cucked into defending the rape of their childrens homeland and future in keeping with the interests of rich lobby groups funded by Ahmed-golds

I'm so sorry you ended up in the part of the world where schools are so shit that you can graduate without having an understanding of basic critical thinking, while at the same time having such a concentration of wealth that corporate interests can afford to jizz their desinformation all over the society that they dominate. Americans defending the destructive interests of financial institutions are like the heavyweight cucks of the world

>>731578046
I'm the one mentioning it, dipshit.

lrn2readingcomprehension

>>731578038
And the carbon cycle put all that CO2 right back in the ground so it could do it again next year.

What else do you have?

>>731577875
Ohhhhh
So now your saying everything we burned came from co2?

So all co2 we produce will also be eventally recycled back. So whats your worry? With your logic we should start cooling down in about 20 years, when we hit peak oil, right?

If you were smart enough to cancel volcano emissions to zero then you should have also cancelled human emmisions to zero

AGW is bullshit

kill yourselves libtards

>>731578210
So every year all our emissions are recycled? Why all the worry then?

Fucking republicunts and their "alternative facts."
They believe whatever their party tells them.
Science, schmience.

>>731578297
>>731578399
You're retarded. The carbon in the fossil record is the summation of that carbon that could not escape into the atmosphere as plants decayed during the Jurassic period. The conditions required don't exist over as much of the world as they did in the Jurassic, so the rate of accumulation will be slower. Besides that, what took the Jurassic period thousands of years to pull out of the atmosphere, we're pumping it back out in just centuries.

What part of this is too complicated for you?

File: britainshorelineiceageimg269.jpg (912KB, 1962x2913px)

912KB, 1962x2913px

hey retards. world is in constant cycle of freezing and heating. the scale of this cycles is huge in comparison to human lifespan. first civilization started popping up when earth STARTED getting warmer NOT when earth completely warmed up. we know as a fact that there were people living in doggerland and that during as recent as roman times northern europe was much colder then now. We are still living during this warming up period and all the ice will melt in time and after that earth will start freezing again and the cycle continues. its normal.

>>731578866
How often does that cycle move all of the carbon from the fossil record to the atmosphere?

>>731578698
That soil emissions are still 10 times greater.

Soil+volcanoes+otherco2sources considered puts our emission percentage at about 1%, yearly.

What liberitards are sayong is that a 1% increase in co2 is dooming us.

>>731578923
Not even accounting that water is still the largest green house gas by large

>>731578923
No, what everyone with half a brain is saying is that all of these carbon sources are in equalibrium, except for the carbon that has been buried miles under the Earth for millennia.

All the CO2 that volcanoes release is returned to the Earth through processes in the ocean at the same rate

All the CO2 that the soil emits as part of decay is pulled back into the soil by plants at the same rate

All of the CO2 released from the fossil record is returned to the fossil record how? At what rate?

One of these things is not like the other...

>>731579014
See
>>731577016

>>731579215
Ooooooohhhhh so now ypu quote something that says co2 stays in the air for 10 thousand of years.

I ask you again, where did most of the co2 currently present in our athmosphere come from?

You have to account for 10k years of soil and volcano emissions because they haven't gone through the cycle yet

>ExxonMobil
topkek, I did my internship there, and I work(ed) there. Global warming is real, but the motto is really who gives a shit since the more drastic effects will not be felt within our life time.

Inb4 muh children.
>anti-natalism

Inb4 God's green Earth.
>there is no God

If you support movements that spend money on a non-immediate problem your being cucked.

>>731579401
I think we got our 1% here boy

>>731579401
Most of the CO2 in our atmosphere came from the active carbon cycle. The CO2 we're concerned about came from the fossil record and is not a part of the active carbon cycle

>>731579585
>proud to be a part of the problem
At least you admit there is a problem

If greenhouse gasses stop the suns rays from exiting the atmosphere, how do they not stop it from entering in the first place?

File: tmp_4279-jesus-dinosaur11778821314.jpg (51KB, 500x683px)

51KB, 500x683px

These the same people that believe the earth is 6000 years old and that a guy built a boat to house a pair of each animal during a giant flood, without any scientific proof. They are the gullible idiots.

>>731579808
No, why would i be concerned about a 1% increase? Co2 is not even the greatest green house effect contributor so its contribution to temperature change would be less than 1%.

The remaining changes are part of normal cooling and heating cycles on Earth until you prove that 1% increase in co2 caused more harm, which you haven't

>>731579964
>diffraction angle
Look into optics and light. Interesting stuff

>>731579808
Can't even explain why..
Lol that went downhill real quick for you, didn't it.. Actually slow, but whatever

>>731580024
Where are you getting 1% from?

Here, answer these immensely simple questions:

>where did the carbon in the fossil record come from?
>when did it get there?
>what was the atmospheric CO2 level just before that time?
>what will the atmospheric CO2 level be if we return all that carbon to the atmosphere?

Answer those and I'll use your numbers to calculate the greenhouse effect of that CO2

>>731580139
>Can't even explain why..
Carbon cycle
a
r
b
o
n

c
y
c
l
e

You have Google, don't you?

>>731568041
why the fuck are you people even trying to teach a slav subhuman climate science? just ignore them and let the whole race drink themselves off the planet

>>731579921
There is no problem, problems are things that are maladaptive to our lives, but guess what, global warming is not.

Again children do not matter.

>>731580533
>hurr, if it isn't my problem, it isn't anyone's problem

>>731574857
It doesn't even matter, really. Nature is a constant (change typically happens VERY slowly, and when change is abrupt terrible things typically happen to ecosystems) source of emission, and the world is in balance as things were. Adding however much greenhouse gases to that system can destabilize it. There is a number, our upper limit, that shouldn't be breached. In doing so, we're changing the world faster than it can adjust. We can adjust too, but it will probably not be enjoyable for us. Death, famine, plague, and war...you know what I'm sayin'.

>>731581301
>I have literally no reading comprehension
The person I was responding to is claiming that human CO2 emissions are 1% of natural CO2 emissions.

Scientific consensus has been wrong before, and the data being used in climate change is pretty complicated (lots of steps in scientific inference are needed to make the necessary connections, making the final results dependent on every step). As a physicist, I don't fully support the science that's been done there (they fit complex data with THOUSANDS of free parameters--usually not useful for understanding science). Only recently has it been shown that even conservatively (if there were many incorrect assumptions by scientists) that there is still a major problem with climate change. But again, that's quite recent (past decade or so).

So I completely understand how someone can be skeptical. You have to remember that scientists, like all humans, are fallible.

>>731579964
Materials typically absorb things of specific energies only (often used to note that the light that's reflected will be an object's color).

In this case, greenhouse gases absorb heat from the earth that is transmitted as a very low frequency light wave. The sun's light, on the other hand, comes as a whole spectrum (with a lot of visible and UV light) which can freely pass through the greenhouse gases uninhibited.

>>731581442
I never said that...and it doesn't matter. Between agriculture and and industrialization, our species is having a destabilizing affect on our planet. I'm not making any judgments about that, but the observation still holds true. Deforestation, rising ocean levels, ocean acidity, and pollution are things humans do. You can't tell me they have no affect on the overall the stability of ecosystems locally and worldwide.

>>731581818
>>You can't tell me they have no affect on the overall the stability of ecosystems locally and worldwide.

They have no affect on the overall the stability of ecosystems locally and worldwide.

Guess I can. faggot

>>731581615

>Scientific consensus has been wrong before

Never something with this much evidence or agreed upon by this much of the scientific community.

>>731568041
Stop questioning the Right's logic. It's like trying to reason with a child. You can't do it. Its a group who overwhelmingly makes decisions based on their "gut," not facts. Even our fucking president has bragged about making his decisions bases on instinct, not reason. Why do you think they loathe the Left with such vitriole? They'll never be capable of similar higher-order thinking.

>>731568041
90% of the scientific community isn't involved in the conspiracy.

Only a handful of scientists are collecting the data, the rest are just interpreting the bad data.

Also, no one is questioning whether or not the climate is changing. We're questioning the degree to which c02 is responsible for the change.

Correlation does not equal causation.

>>731581818
>I continue to have absolutely no reading comprehension
The person I replied to before you, dipshit.

>>731574236
>Not even 1% of co2 produced by volcanos and natural fenomena. Stop trolling man
This poster is saying that the human output of CO2 is 1% of the natural output.
I asked if he had a source for that. He didn't.

Learn to read for Christ's sake

>>731581896
You don't believe that, otherwise you'd burn trash inside your house for warmth in the winter. I bet you don't. I wonder why?

>>731582160
I meant to link this post
>>731574411

>>731582160
Yeah after looking, I think I was trying to reply to that person too. Thanks for the name calling though. I know it makes you feel important (on the inside).

>>731582247
Thanks for shitting up the thread by replying to hours-old posts with autistic screeching

>>731581962
The #s given for "support by the scientific community" are very misleading. Most scientists support that humans have contributed measurably to greenhouse gases, but the implications are less universally agreed upon. Sure the whole field that researches climate change agrees (that's the whole point of the field), but entire fields have most definitely been wrong before.
In fact, I would say there have been larger scale fails in science before. The only reason climate change seems like such a big thing in science is because 1) it has major implications for life on earth and 2) it's political now.

>>731569794
>blindly believing scientists
>despite the fact that the 97% figure is a lie
leftism is a religion

>>731582169
I didn't even read what you originally wrote / I quoted. You just said "you can't tell me this" and so I told you.

>>731570369
I'm with OP on this one. Even if climate change isn't man made, pollution sucks and we could all benefit from less of it.

>>731582378
In fact, politics has obscured any possible meta study and opinion. You can tell this pretty easily.

Example: Bill Nye talks about climate change being real--everyone on the left agrees and loves that he's helping the cause even though he knows 0 about research level science. But a few Nobel-prize winning scientists come out against global warming and the argument is "they don't know anything about that specific field so it doesn't matter." But yet they believe Bill Nye and Al Gore? That's the scope of the current problem.

On the left, science is god, but only when it agrees with the left.

>>731582431
Literally a child's response

>>731582378
>measure CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas in the lab
>estimate CO2 levels after fossil fuels are burned
>estimate average global temperature
>check the historical record for temperatures around the Jurassic period
>numbers are pretty similar
>not all scientists agree that returning the Earth's atmosphere to the Jurassic period will affect the climate
Really?

>>731574742
Citation needed from credible sources (won't hold my reach).

>>731582570
>everything I disagree with or don't understand is a conspiracy

>>731582570
climate change makes sense though. Just like not smoking causes cancer makes sense.

Yet there were notable scientists claiming that there was no correlation between smoking and cancer for years despite almost every fucking smoker ever having lungs unsuitable for organ transplant.

Think about that, lungs from smokers... not pink and fleshy looking like a healthy person.

>>731582613
There isn't even a universally agreed upon way to probe global temperatures in modern times. There's not just some spreadsheet of temperatures during the Jurassic period--things have to be inferred. And even if you suppose that there'd be a temperature increase, it's not obvious how the earth will handle this. The response system is very complicated--it could be that short timescale fluctuations are different that long timescale fluctuations (think Newtonian fluids).

So, while we can determine the amt of greenhouse gases and their effectiveness as a greenhouse gas without effort, the rest of the checklist starts to get more and more complicated.

I, of course, do agree that climate change is a problem; but, as a scientist, I feel obligated to admit that the science behind it is much more complex and elaborate than people are pretending.

It's just like people on the internet pretending that the big bang is so obvious. But really, it's just the simplest description that fits three known bits of info well and SIMPLY. But it could easily be wrong. In the case of climate change, piece could be wrong as well.

>>731582850
That's because non-scientists don't understand science. They just recognize basic correlations and say "that must be the case!" Scientists understand how complicated and non-trivial things can become, so they are careful before they answer.

Climate change is real, the globe is currently heating up at an alarming rate. While not the only factor at play, human-made emissions of CO2 and CH4 *is* a contributing factor, and it *is* a factor we actually have control over. Fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, are a limited resource, it literally does not make any economic sense to keep using those in the long run anyway. Use of these should be taxed and the tax money should go to research on renewables and nuclear power.

Yes, fucking letfists. Nuclear power is not only extremely power efficient, it's also extremely safe. 4th generation reactors are able to completely shut down themselves in case of a meltdown, and the huge "hurr durr but where do we store things for hundreds of thousands of years" meme is a fucking propaganda lie. Modern reactors are able to reuse the waste as part of their reaction cycle, meaning that the time needed to store the unusable waste has dropped from thousands of years to a couple of decades (which is totally manageable), and the amount you need to store is ridiculously small. France has had 80% of its power come from nuclear power since the 80s, and the entire accumulated amount of waste is stored in an area that's half the size of a basket ball court.

>>731582422
Wrong on both counts.

>>731582996
Your analogy to the big bang just shows how much you ignore science just to go with your own ideas.

>>731582850
>there were notable scientists claiming that there was no correlation between smoking and cancer for years
Scientists, no. Scientists were aware that smoking was bad for you about the same time they started conducting studies on it.

Some doctors, however, were claiming that. Because they were paid ridiculous amounts of money by the powerful tobacco industry to say it on commercials etc.

>>731582800
How is your comment relevant? I support many aspects of climate change, but recognize some of the science isn't robust. There's no conspiracy, it's just the idea of compounding errors in methodology combined with the uncertainty of having a HUGE number of degrees of freedom.

It's pretty exhausting to comment online. They all pretend to know science but then cite it as if it were a bible.

>>731583155
I ONLY made that analogy to show that major concepts in science can hinge on just a few well-measured quantities. It was absolutely nothing else. That's what an analogy is--a comparison made for a specific point and nothing more. Don't be a fool.

>>731583273
Although the analogy also encapsulates the idea that some of these important quantities are inferred quantities from a time long before now.

>>731583273
>Don't use my words against me, that's my job.
Sure man.

ANYWAY (I've made a few comments already in this thread), I just wanted to point out the answer to the thread's question--

People on the right can have bad platforms because they don't trust science. They don't trust it because when it's explained to them (typically by people who don't understand it), it's explained as if it were divine truth. Then, science seems mythical and I can see why someone wouldn't trust its comments on abstract things.

>>731582778
US daily oil consumption
>The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) includes biofuels in consumption of petroleum products. In 2016, the United States consumed a total of 7.19 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.63 million barrels per day. EIA uses product supplied as a proxy for U.S. petroleum consumption.

Density of oil
>Classes of crude oil are often reported on the basis of density, sometimes with different meanings. Acceptable ranges are as follows: Light: less than 870 kg/m3 (greater than 31.1o API) Medium: 870 to 920 kg/m3 (31.1o API to 22.3o API)

Energy density of oil
>Crude 44 MJ/kg

>20 million, 50 Gallon barrels = 1,000 million gallons
>1 billion gallons = 3785412 cubic meters
>3785412 cubic meters x 870 kg/m3 = 3,293,308,440 kg
>3,293,308,440 kg x 44 MJ/kg = 144,905,571,360 MJ
>144,905,571,360 MJ = 40251548 kilowatt-hours
>40251548 x 1000 = 40251548000 watt-hours
>40251548000 watt-hours/200 watts = 201,257,740 hours
>201,257,740 hours/ 6 hours = 33,542,957 solar panels

The discrepancy here is because I forgot to convert kilowatt-hours into watt-hours last time around and I rounded up a ton this time around. For reference a solar field containing that many panels would cover about 16,600 acres, which the US could definitely spare

File: 1493300098000.jpg (135KB, 753x800px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 753x800px

>>731568041
Because
>We get out of school and we all believe in climate change in the beginning
>we say "ok let's go nuclear", because no emissions and sweet, safe power
>then a thousand fucking idiots shout you down yelling "HIROSHIMA!!!!" in your ear
>Then you look at all these powerful elites like Elon Tusk talking about merging man and machine, the whole UN project wanting to control all the world's energy
It's a conspiracy dude

Limited funds?

You mean unlimited Government money? Not to mention the Scientists studying Climate change would all be out of a job.

Also the 97% thing was all BS totally debunked.

>>731583133
Meh
1/2 ain't bad.
Neocons will always be dumb about the planet, and leftists will always be dumb about the world, and it'll always be funny watching the two pretend they're good at both

>>731582996
This post is so wrong I'm not going to waste my time trying to correct you

>>731569236
>Hello I'm a retard

>>731568041
Also...
When you smug liberal pontificate and say shit like this
>Is it a coincidence that the kinds of people most-likely to believe in religion are also most likely to believe natural gas special interests and the Republican politicians they've bought and paid for instead of the overwhelming majority of legitimate scientific studies? All while ironically calling OTHERS shills?
It literally makes me want to throw us all under the bus and die. You smug assholes are the utter scum of humanity. I'm not even religious. I just hate the way you fuckwits treat Christians. Seriously, fuck you all.

>>731573460
Kek that's scientific

>>731568041

I believe in man made climate change but I voted for Trump specifically to abolish work towards fixing it.

I think we should abandon trying to "fix" climate change because frankly the clathrate gun has been fired. At this point we need to turn out attention to space expansion and getting humanity off this rock. Maybe the earth becoming inhospitable for human life will be the proverbial straw that breaks to get us moving.

>>731583200
>you can't find credible climate change data because of the mire of politics surrounding it
>I never said there was a conspiracy
You may pick one

>>731583547
I'm only trying to convey the complexity of response systems with my analogy to Newtonian fluids. I do not think that I am incorrect in my understanding of it as a very complicated feedback system that requires tens of thousands of free parameters to model (at least, that's what I recall from the colloquia from climate scientists a year ago for our department).
If I am somehow fundamentally wrong, please do point this out (so long as it isn't over-simplified garbage that skips the details of the scientific complexity completely).

>>731583681
No, my point is that if you ask scientists in general (ones NOT in the climate science field), they are influenced more by the politics (which they are very active in) than the science of the situation. So any meta-analysis for scientists probes political opinion as much as it does scientific support. outside the field.

>>731583463
and yet most of the right believe genuinely mythical horse shit on genuinely no evidence

The right is fucking cancer.

>>731568041
no just youre side of the pond

>>731583591
Cry about it more, right-wing oil-cuck.

>>731583641
>At this point we need to turn out attention to space expansion and getting humanity off this rock.

You say that after saying you voted for the guy who de-funded NASA lol

Way to go, ass burger.

>>731583960

Are you dumb?

He defunded NASA in terms of moving climate change to the NOAA.

He's pushing forward for more NASA space exploration outside of earth space

>>731583687
It's going to be oversimplified garbage. I'm not writing a thesis at 5 in the morning to satisfy the curiosity of a physicist that never learned to use Google.

The global average temperature is the result of a handful of major contributing systems striving towards equilibrium. This has an effect on the composition of the atmosphere. You can measure the average temperature based on the composition of the atmosphere, assuming that the system is at or near equilibrium.

It was a complicated theory to build, but now it really is that simple.

>>731583687
And I note that there is an agreed upon method for finding the surface temperature from modern data. I only note the possibility that this isn't as robust as some think since I recently read a few journal articles commenting on disagreements in this average surface temperature between NASA and a different organization. One has to be careful as logical methods can be obscured by unexpected effects/calibration/etc in your measurement systems. They're the boring, gory details, but they're the things that link the theoretical science (which there is little disagreement about) with the evidence (which there is a some disagreement about) to lead to the final answer.
Of course, I'll also point out that even if many modeling systems are WRONG (definitely possible), one still finds (conservatively) a definite climate change result anyway (though it's character is a bit different than the canonical one).

>>731583591
>childishly rejects anything scientists tell them if it goes against what they're bribed party-leaders tell them
>call others "smug" for calling them stupid for being that way

wew lad

File: 1489914998159.jpg (39KB, 480x734px)

39KB, 480x734px

>>731583903
>being this smug
Your shitty holier than thou attitude is why I ironically don't believe in climate change anon. Go fuck yourself you smug loser.

>>731584099
Temperature data mostly lines up with all established methods of estimating average global temperature.

Really the only debate is about how the data relates to climate and weather systems, and larger cycles like ice ages

>>731584246
>I choose ignorance because people make fun of me for my ignorance
A winning strategy, to be sure

>>731581962
>>731581615
science is often wrong =/= we should assume all science is wrong

the whole point of science, the definition of it is that it corrects itself when its wrong

>>731584200
And you can deal with it you entitled asshole. Your shitty attitude makes me want to burn down an old forest plantation. Your face with all those trapped CO2s floating into the atmosphere will make my dick diamonds.

>>731584028
The temperature of the system isn't my main problem. It's the response of the earth to fluctuations. And this "handful of systems" sounds nice in words, but again, these models take THOUSANDS of free parameters to describe this. That makes intuition and speculation difficult.

For reference, it takes physics about 10 free parameters to completely simulate the details of galaxy formation in the universe (what everything looks like now) from what it started out as a few thousand years after the big bang. This is why scientists are generally skeptical about climate results. Sure, you can show some simple things. But free parameters obscure intuition and allow models to fit things they shouldn't.

Maybe the best example is a set of 100 points generated from a line that are mostly in line (with a little bit of randomly generated skew). I can fit it well to a line, but if I can fit it even better to a polynomial of degree 100 (~100 free parameters). That doesn't make the polynomial right...it just means it has the degrees of freedom to fit anything. My problem, then, is that you can keep taking data and fitting that data easily with so many free parameters, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee your model is predictive.

>>731584246
>someone calls me stupid for acting stupid
>what a smug asshole

You can't make this shit up.

>>731584484
Yes, but this isn't about science in general--it's about scientific consensus at any one point in time and whether billions of dollars should be spent based on its claims.

>>731584525
>contribute to climate change
>by burning down a forest
Lol I'm literally in tears right now. Do you understand that the only CO2 you'll add to the atmosphere is CO2 that those trees took out of the atmosphere? Not to mention that land-based biomass makes up less that 0.001% of the Earth's carbon storage.

What's next? You'll drink the ocean so that we can't fish anymore?

>>731584525
"Entitled"? Have you gone off-topic and just started spewing random right-wing buzzwords out of autistic frustration?

kek

>>731584428
Just like insulting people for ignorance when you want them to learn is a winning strategy? Ignorance isn't a terrible fault--by definition, they don't know better yet.

>>731568041
Don't have kids, do have stepsons but whatevs, so I don't care. I'll be dead before things really "get bad". Stupid Fucking hippies think the earth can't live without humanity

>>731584594
>struts around like a pompous dickhead
>acts genuinely surprised when someone doesn't care for his holier than attitude and wants to intentionally sabotage him
Pls continue being a fuckwit.

>>731584028
By the way (just to clarify), my main qualm is not the idea of global warming. I've done the undergrad level calculations of greenhouse gases efficiency in absorption, how it correlates to increase in surface temperature in multiple layers, etc. What I'm interested in is the response the system will have on the climate for short and long timescales and the possible methodological errors in data points taken from the distant past.

>>731584649
>trees don't actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere
Ok

>>731584612
so billions of dollars should be spent based on what if not science

>>731584736
>continues calling people assholes for calling stupid people stupid
Pls continue being stupid.

File: c56d85ad-2a3e-4d38-86a7-1fb873c5c5ff.jpg (45KB, 309x551px)

45KB, 309x551px

lets play a game
leak your ex gf
>Sиαpchαty.me
thank me later

>>731584561
Only 10? But there are so many more complicated interactions going on there! What about the all the different chemical reactions, and all the different types of energy?
>Do you see what I'm doing here?

You're conflating irrelevancies with the crux of the theory. Only a handful of systems contribute meaningfully to the average global temperature, and so the rest of the systems can be largely ignored. The challenge is relating that temperature data to cause and effect in the environment which is a much slower, much more indirect process.

>>731578866

Here's a picture to give you some sense of scale to what kind of warming you're talking about: https://xkcd.com/1732/

>>731585076
I can safely say that I don't need those free parameters to describe it--they don't contribute. That's why I can say that we understand it--we don't need a lot of numbers for tuning. So no, I don't see what you're doing.

And on your second point, they're not "irrelevancies" as I'm completely talking about the response of the environment to these effects (what we actually care about in the end). That's the complicated part and the part many scientists feel uncomfortable about.

Like I said, I get the simple global warming picture. I get that humans have had an effect through greenhouse gases. What I have said is complicated and unreliable is the correlation between that and effects on the future climate. That is what you have to "correct" me on.

>>731584931
That will not be a solid science for at quite a while, but you don't need to understand how it all fits together to use it in parts. Think "grand unified theory" as it relates to physics.

>>731585006
>dead trees don't actively pump CO2 into the atmosphere
Ok

Why are idiots like you so full of themselves that they don't realize we cannot hurt the earth. But the earth can hurt us. After the human race is long gone. The earth will thrive. If you think that you have power over the earth you are a fucking moron. I am not religious but I am a Republican. Your view of what being a Republican means is skewed. I am a conservative, because I'm tired of idiots like you. I want you all to die all of you antifa morons that don't even know what the definition of fascist is. You antifa hypocrites are by definition the racist.

So again fuck you, fuck your liberal garbage ideas, and go choke on a dirty cock that has fucked a thousand blue waffles.

>>731584246
holy fuck thats the funniest thing ive seen i na while

>>731585468
>If you think that you have power over the earth you are a fucking moron.
i can quite easily pick up a rock and move it

>>731585346
No, I don't. We are not a system at or near equilibrium. The climate is going to be impossible to predict until we get closer to equilibrium. Haven't you even taken chemistry? You're asking me to determine the chemical state of a solution while the reaction is still happening

>>731585468
>I don't understand the carbon cycle and simple math

>>731585468
I'm not saying we'll hurt the Earth, ass burger. I'm saying we'll make the Earth so that it can't sustain US.

Contrary to what many environmentalist slogans say, we're not trying to save the Earth, we're trying to save humanity. Of course the Earth will be fine. It's humans that are gonna have a big fucking problem.

>>731585389
Now we're hitting the crux of my confusion. Don't we need to understand that? If the response is not solid science, then how can we tell people to spend billions of dollars to prevent it? Sure, I can do a high-school calculation to tell you that the ocean will expand significantly if surface temperatures rise and nothing else changes, etc, etc. But if you want me to change my economy to prevent some problem, you need to show me that that problem is inevitable--not that it could happen, but that it will.

because muh anti-intellectualism and muh

predictably reactionary emotional response to

facts and figures which are for fags...

>>731585581
I have. Things don't need to be in equilibrium to have well-studied evolutions and outcomes. This is basic Boltzmann equation stuff. Throughout physics there are models of non-equilibrium AND non-linear phenomena that are modeled to get results. My question is how it's done in climate physics.

>>731585855
In fact, this is (at least a minimal reason) why so many free parameters are needed in predictive climate science (this is what people do). My question is how those particular methods have been shown to be robust.

>>731585745
Do you need to understand grand unified theory to determine the rate at which the mass of two bodies will attract?

The way that humans have contributed to climate change is through altering the carbon cycle. You can make some very reasonable suppositions as to what that'll do to the Earth as it reaches equilibrium, but we have no way of knowing how long it will take to reach that equilibrium, or what will happen to climate and weather systems along the way.

>>731586009
GUT isn't relevant at low energy scales. But what we do need is a COMPLETE low energy theory that describes two particles interacting to reliably predict the outcome. The complete theory (at low energy) must both fit data and lead to testable conclusions; then, it's good. GUT is just speculative fun.

What you need is a complete theory that leads from inputs to outputs. I don't care if it's complete in the sense of all-knowing or whatever. I care that it can take input (increasing surface temperature) and tell me the output (effect on the climate). If it can't do that, then climate change isn't science.

However, I'm fairly certain this HAS been done in some capacity. So you might want to check on the details of those modeling simulations if you're unaware.

>>731585855
>Things don't need to be in equilibrium to have well-studied evolutions and outcomes
>well-studied outcomes
This is the first time in Earth's history that Earth has undergone such a drastic change in equilibrium in such a short amount of time, and it came during the warm part of an ice age. The science for determining the state of the Earth as a system outside of equilibrium does not yet exist with any certainty or accuracy.

File: earth temperature timeline 4chan scale.png (522KB, 247x5000px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 247x5000px

>>731585084

Scaled it to something that can be posted here.

Anyway, from what I gather this thread, the problem isn't that republicans don't believe in global warming but that they just don't care about destroying the future?

>>731586180
Again, you can estimate what the system will look like at equilibrium. We can extrapolate most of the effects of man-made climate change, such as alterations in climate and weather patterns, the global average temperature, ect., but we have no scientific method for determine where or when.

>>731586180
I think this goes against some of the points of climate change. You keep saying it has to wait until equilibrium. But part of the ideas of climate science are that non-equilibrium climates have more variability (in terms of how long low/high rainfall periods will last, etc). Non-equilibrium models have been studied in the literature, and, as far as I can tell, THESE are the main focus of "climate change"--for a large part, I believe being out of equilibrium is part of the danger. Your arguments, which are strictly related to "global warming," I do not find as immediate.

>>731568041
Give me the list of all scientists in existance and that shows which support what.
You gave me the statistic so you must have a list?
Also, consensus DOES NOT MATTER.
Science is discovered by the few not the majority agreeing on what is true.
>flat earth was a consensus, bad air causing black death was a consensus, sun revolved around the earth was a consensus.

>>731583553
The Russian shill is right and you are a moron.
Fuck off shariablue shill.

>>731568041
>in the age of ANTIFA
>people think "community activists" are incapable of corruption

Wow. That's some delicious koolaid you're chugging.

>>731586848
>not understanding statistical estimation

>>731586442
>Anyway, from what I gather this thread, the problem isn't that republicans don't believe in global warming but that they just don't care about destroying the future?
You're implying we possess the technology to save the future.
I'm listening.

>>731586943
So who profits off of the climate change hoax, and how much does it cost to maintain?

>>731586993
See
>>731583475

The US could rid itself of its oil addiction in exchange for 26 square miles

>>731587047
>So who profits off of the climate change hoax, and how much does it cost to maintain?
I'll draw you a parallel.

You know that movement among liberal fucktards that claims vaccines cause autism?
That movement got its' inertia from two sources: a former playboy model with an autistic kid (the kid no longer has autism by the way, as claimed by the mother) and an English doctor.
It was discovered years after the "vaccines cause autism" movement started that the doctor had been paid to write a report that says vaccines cause autism.

So there it is. The one credible piece of evidence for vaccines causing autism is gone.

So that should be it, right? No more liberals blaming their special kid on vaccines instead of drinking during the 2nd trimester.

You tell me. Is the "vaccines cause autism" movement dead, or alive?

>>731580253
Just came back from sleeping two hours and this shit still up? Some butthurt libertard you are.

I already showed you were the 1% came from, but guess you only read what you want.

Earlier you stated co2 lasts 10,000 years in the athmosphere, thats 10,000 years worth of natural co2 we are breathing. Humans only account for the past 100 years. I showed natural phenomena produces AT LEAST 10 times more co2 per year than humans.

Crunch the numbers, heck, don't even include volcanos. Less than 1% of what's currently floating out there was made by humans. Another 2% of methane maybe came from your moms anus.

>>731576194
Keke, under rated post here.

>>731587249
You have no understanding of the carbon cycle, but it's not your fault you were born retarded, which is why I'm trying to help you. Now answer the questions in greentext, so you can be one step closer to understanding.

>>731586993

>If you don't have the solution, there is no problem

This kind of logic is actually a well studied phenomenon in republican thinking.

We can't come up with a solution if we deny there even is a problem, can we?

>>731587210
>The majority of scientists agree that man-made climate change is real
>The majority of scientists agree that vaccines cause autism and are poisonous
Which of these statements is correct?

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1492431664321.jpg (26KB, 640x530px)

26KB, 640x530px

>>731568041
YOU will doom humanity to extinction with your unending questioning and even xenophobic views. Accept the ones who are different.

File: cef42e94659275e3615b35177f534783[1].jpg (40KB, 600x315px)

40KB, 600x315px

>>731587210

File: 4d4ef1645e2d2e899428a98999b5e90d.jpg (48KB, 564x719px)

48KB, 564x719px

>>731587127
>The US could rid itself of its oil addiction in exchange for 26 square miles
Here we go.

Efficient solar panels require, among other elements, extremely pure gallium and arsenic as a catalyst for photovoltaic operations. Galium itself is rare, and we're gonna run out (at current consumption. not knee-jerk green peace liberal consumption that you're claiming we do) in 60 years. In 60 years, known sources of gallium will be depleted. In case I'm not being clear, that means no more gallium will be coming up out of mines or quarries. So, we have to recycle.

Gallium itself is not toxic to humans, however its' salts adversely affects freshwater ecosystems. These salts form freely in a non-sterile environment.

Arsenic is quite toxic to humans, as I'm sure you know, and can sterilize freshwater ecosystems, and all of its' salts are deadly.

So we make solar cells for the current energy consumption (you're friend up there that you're blowing didn't mention FUTURE energy needs, by the way) of the United States. Cool. Solar cells need to be replaced about every 5 years due to degredation of the gallium involved in the photon-electron conversion process. So are you going to set up facilities to chemically recycle the gallium and arsenic? What about the aluminum? Ammonia? Carbon? Copper? Zinc? Where's your infrastructure for that?

There's always virgin material lost in recycling as well, so when those gallium deposits I mentioned earlier dry up, what will we do then?

And, what do other countries do? This model assumed solar power for the united states, but that would involve us hoarding the majority global supply--do we tell china and europe to go fuck themselves?

And how do we account for future energy needs? Energy consumption will only grow in the future, not shrink. Thoughts?

>>731578923
a 1 degree Celsius increase over the entire planet takes such an immense amount of energy to accomplish that it could permanently damage ecosystems globally

Here's a mind game for you:
you have a funnel and you fill it from one end with sand
you only have enough sand to fill the funnel at any given time so none ever goes over the edge
then imagine some kid decides to start digging up more and more sand to fill the funnel until it can't sift through fast enough and starts to overflow

then change sand for greenhouse gasses and the kid with humans, the funnel with the atmosphere and the hole at the bottom of the funnel representing the carbon cycle

>>731587658
Strawman != parallel. Stop trying to discredit counter-points by using buzzwords you define from an imgur post.

>>731568641
lol google translate

File: 1492622519167.png (303KB, 601x455px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 601x455px

>>731587547

>>731587447
>We can't come up with a solution if we deny there even is a problem, can we?
You're evading, not addressing the issue.

And since you want to bring politics into this discussion, like a media-polarized tool of Western media: Evasion is a very common tactic for liberals and their groupthinking-ilk.

>>731587767
These are some good points. But I just took at a look at the cost differences, and it seems like solar cells will be able to more or less pay for themselves (though with a large overhead). The building materials problem on the other hand....probably make this not a complete solution.

But to answer your question about future energy needs, this is exactly where solar energy helps out. Nothing else we know can meet growing worldwide energy demands. How do we get there? Mainly by increasing the efficiency of solar cells (which is awful right now). Of course, there's other complications (need new designs for cells that will enable high efficiency), but maybe we'll get there.

>>731587838
>implying papers == people
>implying those papers stated climate change was not man-made
More like disinformationproject.org, amiright?

>>731587838
I think that number is the % of papers that significant human contribution to CO2 emissions (not necessarily global warming)?

>>731587767
>Efficient
I used basic silicone solar cells, which we can now make out of any semiconductor with similar performance. We'd need less land for concentrated solar which uses mirrors, paint, and table salt. There is literally nothing preventing us from switching over to solar power globally except the oil companies

>>731587903

No, YOU are evading. Denying problems because of unpleasant or unknown solutions does not change the fact that the problems exist. It's exactly why many smokers claim smoking isn't bad for you, or why many fat activists claim being overweight isn't harmful: because admitting otherwise would mean having to make tough decisions and hard actions.

>>731587423
I understand the stupid cycle, but a co2 molecule still spends 10k years in the athmosphere. You cannot simply cancel it out to zero, if you did we'd have no athmosphere dumbass. I'm done with this thread and your retardness. Try trolling harder next time

>>731588004
I'm not saying solar isn't PART of the solution, but to present it as the sole solution is suicide.
Wind power is garbage, despite what Europe wants the world to believe. (municipal engineer reporting in)

Nuclear power is amazingly clean but has a stigma attached to it.

Hydroelectricity is limited at best. Unless you tear up geography to move dirt, natural landsites suited to dams are limited.

One day we may have Deuterium-Tritium fusion. Maybe when everyone stops obsessing over watches that tells them everything their phone can but in shittier, smaller fonts.

tl;dr : There is no one solution. Anyone proposing one energy source as an end-all solution is out of their mind or pushing an agenda.

>>731588088
Stop being mad because people disagree with you. Most of those people being scientists not in the global-warming pockets.

>>731588131
Good point. You are potentially correct. It's Too bad everyone demonizes carbon when its' energy envelope is pretty low compared to many other elements and compounds.

File: imageHPK.jpg (45KB, 551x363px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 551x363px

>>731588393
You obviously don't. Maybe this image will help. Notice how all of the natural sources of carbon emissions have the same amount of carbon sequestration annually and how fossil fuels don't.

>>731588607
>Most of those people being scientists not in the global-warming pockets
So if it's a conspiracy then who profits from it? You don't know dick about solar, so I'd bet good money that you have no understanding of environmental science

>>731588238
>I used basic silicone solar cells, which we can now make out of any semiconductor with similar performance.
This is going to come off as harsh, but...
All solar cells use silicon you twat. Especially if the solar cell transforms the generated energy into something you can plug into a battery. That's not what's being questioned.

Perovskite solar cells are currently the most popular technology for PV due to scalability and cost. And to achieve to that great price-point ratio, they use gallium arsenide.

>There is literally nothing preventing us from switching over to solar power globally except the oil companies
Then do it. You make it sound simple.

If it was that simple, why aren't people out in the boonies rolling in solar energy? People not on municipal grids?

On the item of batteries, do any of you green-loving guys want to explain how you're going to store all that solar power? It isn't sunny 24/7, so you need to bank that energy which you didn't previously need to store...since oil and gas engines don't care if the sun is shining.

Lithium batteries? Lithium salts are no-bueno to freshwater environments.

Nickel hydride? Actual poison.

Lead acid? I'm sure you've seen a battery eat its' way through a toy. That'd be antimony-based lead acid batteries at work.

>>731588312
> It's exactly why many smokers claim smoking isn't bad for you, or why many fat activists claim being overweight isn't harmful: because admitting otherwise would mean having to make tough decisions and hard actions.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about anymore. Too many tangents.

If man is the primary cause of temps rising, the ONLY solution is to get rid of man.
Hitler and Stalin were great environmentalists.

>>731573517
They all say that retard and why do you think 7 billion people using fossil fuels for 200 plus years wouldn't cause any upset the equilibrium? Why is that so far fetched? Sure I can see why the oil companies deny it but you aren't even getting paid you're just a sap.

>>731588924
I agree with this poster in terms of the problems of switching over to solar (including the need for silicon in current panels).

However, I note new technology currently being developed that may not be as material intensive (a small, single solar cell). It stores it's energy in high energy H2 and O2 bonds (which it makes from water, and which return to water when used). It's far from being ready to implement, but there are some potential ways for solar to become a hit in the future. (Don't remember the references, but the name Dan Nocera comes to mind as a leading guy on this)

>>731589203
shill detected
guess oil companies arent the only ones paying to get their opinions across

>>731588924
Oh, gee, I don't know, how about we turn that energy into heat, use it to heat salt or a fluidized bed, and then extract the energy from it as needed? Concentrated solar has none of the drawbacks you've listed and provides 35% of the sun's energy compared to the most efficient PV cells at around 25%.

Do you know how much it would cost to set all that up? The government could afford it if they dipped into the war budget a little. Most large corporations could afford it, but there's more money in exploiting oil than there is in renewable energy.

Do the math and prove me wrong.

>>731588924
>do any of you green-loving guys want to explain how you're going to store all that solar power?
I'm no expert but couldn't you just store it in form of water power?
Power pumps with solar and pump the water into a lake behind a damn and use the water to run generators.
probably not very efficient, but clean.

>>731574742
This, Britian and Denmark have come very far with renewable energy

>>731589224
Hydrogen isn't really worthwhile as an energy asset. Look into photocatalytic conversion of CO2 to methane

>>731589370
They've actually had better results with moving weighted trains uphill to store energy and running them down the hill to access it. I believe the storage efficiency is something like 80%+

>>731589436
It's completely worthwhile as a way to temporarily store energy from photosynthesis-like processes (since water is directly converted into that anyway).

>>731589750
There are more efficient methods already available, and the efficiency isn't likely to increase to the point that hydrogen becomes a worthwhile form of energy storage

>>731589370
I need like an hour and 3 posts to detail why this is a bad idea. You're triggering the fuck out of my municipal engineering gland.

>>731589394
Those windmills on the northern coast don't actually produce all that much. They fudge the numbers for good TV promos.

>>731589356
>use it to heat salt or a fluidized bed
You want to perform molten salt heat exchange?
Then what do you need solar cells for? Use mirrors. They do this now, today, right now. India has a thorium molten salt program 'cus apparently MOX fuel is too scurry. But more power to them--molten salts and heat exchangers need to evolve into more efficient processes.

>Do you know how much it would cost to set all that up? The government could afford it if they dipped into the war budget a little.
Look, I am all for molten salt technology being developed especially if it involves harnessed fissile heat, but the truth is we're shit at thermal efficiency. That's due in large part to the salts in question generally being caustic and, at higher temps, eating through most alloys that aren't Ultimet or similar. I want it to be there, but the technology isn't yet. Thermal efficiency in such a process, in the last papers I read, were under 40%. That's pretty bad when the whole world is riding on needing that power.

>>731589702
That would be a hell of a lot of trains you'd need

>>731588924
i think i have found even bigger problem with this

usa in not singular entity in the world, hell usa is far from it
just cos usa is going to invest fuck knows how much into green energy, those huge growing economys like china and india will sure not

guess what, they now got huge monopoly on everything because everything they produce/create will not have tag extra dosh needed to support green energy

and what then ? usa saves on tree china burns two? china got fuck huge economy, usa struggles to survive?

should i start learning chinese now ?

>>731589888
You're obviously very out of date with your information. Go do some research on modern concentrated solar plants and fluidized beds. You have literally no leg to stand on in this argument.

>>731590057
You'd need just as much water by weight and you get less efficient storage for your trouble

>>731590074
>You're obviously very out of date with your information. Go do some research on modern concentrated solar plants and fluidized beds. You have literally no leg to stand on in this argument.
When you can present a report where the thermal-electric conversion is above a 40% process output, I'll concede my knowledge is out of date.

Until then, your post says "i know more than you but im not gonna tell you about it so youre wrong".

>>731568041
I dont even think we really disbelieve it at all more than we just dont care.

>>731586442

Nice.

Decades ago there was also a worst-case scenario that was blamed for fear mongering, but the real temperature rise turned out to be even higher than that estimate.

>>731590294
>>731589203
samefagging

>>731589888
>Thermal efficiency in such a process, in the last papers I read, were under 40%
I missed this little gem. Did you forget the part where 26 square miles of PV solar panels at 20% efficiency was enough to provide for the USA's energy needs? That means it only takes 15 square miles of CSP and 24 hour storage that is a part of its design.

It's almost like you say shit because you think it sounds cool.

>>731590210
Your knowledge is out of date if you don't know that modern concentrated solar plants can store energy for up to 24 hours with a decent storage efficiency.

The "less than 40%" bullshit is a facile argument as I pointed out here
>>731590444

>>731589822
That's for temporary storage--meaning the fuel cell would have to be near you. For fuel, the process has been used (so far) to store energy in iso- propanol, butanol, and pentanol. But the main trick of the technique is that it's relatively inexpensive to produce, low-maintenance (no wires--uses sunlight, bacteria, and a catalyst), and efficient enough to solve worldwide growing energy demands.

>>731590587
I'm not going to argue with you about this, there are better options. If you don't want to look into the photocatylitic conversation of CO2 to methane then that's your loss.

>>731590149
Sure, but I'm imagining a huge house full of trains on a mountain, lot's of tracks and how would you generate electricity? Are the generators inside the waggons?

>>731590723
photocatalytic* it's about time for bed

>>731590787
No house, but as far as I understand it, that's pretty much exactly how it works. Energy is transferred via power lines above the tracks. There are flywheel systems that get something like 98% storage efficiency, but they amount of energy that they can store is low comparatively

>>731590723
Who cares about "better methods." I'm not an expert and don't feel like becoming one, but if the renewable chemistry team at Harvard has found a way to solve the future energy demand problem via this process, I would say that's more interesting than your "look into this" solution. You're just talking about efficiency of storage so far, but who cares? Solving energy demands is about low production/maintenance costs and just enough efficiency to reasonably cure the energy crisis.

>>731591040
Like I said, your loss. There's actually a revolutionary possibility that goes far beyond just energy storage tied into the subject I told you to investigate, but you're too worried about the fate of that thing you read about once and though was neat to care.

>>731591034
still sceptical about this.
just seems impractical.

>>731591242
It's practical, there's definitely better options, but it works better than many of the things we use to store energy now

>>731568041
Environmental Agencies promote a false narrative in order to increase their budget (and just keep their jobs) and pull funding for any "science" that goes against their scam forcing "scientists" (many of which, like Nye, aren't really scientists to begin with) to fudge numbers or skew results in order to keep their funding/jobs.

...and a lot of this is already proven (i.e. Al Gore's falsified data in his crap documentary)
...Nye's degree (only a bachelor's) is in mechanical engineering, not science. His level of scientific knowledge is hardly that of a middle-school teacher. Many multi-degree doctorates whose studied are field related think he's a quack.
...Even Nye himself, in an old "Science guy" episode explained how sex/gender is a biological thing, and the episode has been censored. Hence, he either goes with the scam or they take his show.
...The avg global CO2 level is 350-450ppm, you can quintuple that (2500+ppm) before humanity would have adverse effects. You can survive 8+ hours at up to 10,000ppm, and even 30,000+ppm (approx 75x earth's avg) would take 15+ minutes to potentially kill. ...of course plants love CO2 as well, and many greenhouses ADD CO2 to their environment up to triple the global avg (1200~1500ppm, well within humanities tolerance) to double some plant growth and/or size.
...In the last 200 years (since the industrial revolution, and weather studies began) the Earth's avg temperature has only fluctuated 3 degrees, but it's not a steady increase, it rises and falls year to year regardless of our changes.

Stop getting your info from Facebook or entertainers like Nye, and try real research.

File: 1493836138206.png (177KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 540x960px

Libtardism is cancer. Climate change is a MEME science theory by shit bill nye level payed shills who love money

Only people being hurt by requlations and anti climate change bills are the average person. Not the top %. You. Your cities. Your homes. Your jobs. Cars. Food. All in danger if Liberals have thier way.

>Climates been changing since way before the industrial revolution

>Meme scientists said we would have over population. And people who spoke out against it were shamed

>What's your plan. Shutting down power plants? Banning cars. Putting curfews up. Taxing oil and gasoline more and more? Congrats you just ruined millions of lives and probably turned a few towns/cities into third world run down shitholez

>Wind power barely works

>Solar power is nowhere near as good as gas or coal

>>731586442

see >>731579585

>>731591653
>Solar power is nowhere near as good as gas or coal
See
>>731590444
Then feel embarrassed for living your life in ignorance

>>731591194
Actually, I've already started looking into it (not that you sold it at all--you mentioned nothing interesting about it), and it isn't really that much different. Both methods are just photocatalytic conversions of CO2 to some hydrocarbon (as should have been obvious to you when I mentioned photosynthesis). And, of course, THE METHOD YOU MENTIONED uses a temporary storage of hydrogen which helps in the reduction of CO2 to hydrocarbons.
I'm going to go ahead and say you don't know much about your field and that you just recite things that you've heard.

File: 1493854554401.jpg (359KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1080x1920px

Also libtards. Germsny tried out going green with wind and solar power...

It failed. Amazing how you need constant wind and/or sun to get power because they dont store energy enough to be used anytime.

However you libtards could get rid of that evil evil oil. Go nuclear. But hey that's scary

As scary as how liberals are afraid of a pipe line but not afraid of needing oil from the middle east and funding terrorists and non Americans to make billions

Google Dubai. Those fancy 5000 dolar hotels. And such. The nice parts. All payed by your dumb asses driving cars giving your money to sand niggers

>When we have enough oil over here to never need sandnigger oil

But hey. Liberals also support rapists and baby killing. So not a shock

>>731591482
Literally nothing you said, except the Gore part, supported your point.
>a bachelor of science is not science
>the temperature is rising but that isn't global warming because the seasons never stopped existing.
>increased co2 levels won't be toxic to humans
Are you retarded?

>>731591845
>it's the same because I say it is!
>numbers and real-world applications are irrelevant!
>Any aspect of similarity means they're identical!
Here's the thing, only one of us can be right, and I've researched both technologies. Good night!

>>731591834

Proven false

Solar is not the savior of life you think it is. And also you need to MINE the materials. You cant just use any elements and pop a battery on a sheet of metal.

My god. I hope climate change is real so your dumb coastal liberal elitist asses will die first.

Maybe mother nature wants to kill all the jobless commie weak overly skinny worthless faggots. Maybe climate change is natures way of killing the weak. I bet 60% of libshits would be gone. No longer cuckin up life or sucking islam dick

>>731591982
Rajalakshmi et al's 2012 paper describing general photocatalytic reduction of CO2 to hydrocarbons is my source. You've given no sources or explanations. If you asked about anything in my research, I could give you a perfect run down and related sources that point out whatever you didn't understand. I guess you were what, an undergrad on one paper?

>>731592086
>CSP=/=PV
We've already covered all of this earlier and found that you're side is the losing one. Why don't you read through the thread and come back when you have something to contribute?

>>731591982
I never said it's the same exact processes, just that it's the same general process. I think that if you really knew the field, you would've immediately recognized the similarities and differences between what I brought up and what you brought up and pointed out the crux. But all you can do is say buzzwords and "I'm right." I bet you really get off to thinking you're an expert when you seem unable to explain even a single concept in your field.

>>731592196

How about you suck my cock like your mom and sister did earlier.

>>731592105
That paper is a good starting point, but it doesn't tell anywhere near the full story

>>731592260
And yet you can't tell me a single detail or reference about the "full story?" Also note that this similarity is for the various fuel storage mechanisms, but the idea for the two is exactly the same in terms of where the energy comes from, and my original point was that this could be used to produce electricity directly as a solution to energy needs. The method you discussed was just for conversion into a particular type of fuel--but I wasn't even talking about fuel in the first place.

>>731592226
>I'm too lazy to think for myself

>>731568041
Maybe yall are looking in the wrong places.
http://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730
Pair that with why beef is so cheap to raise, or any livestock.
Spoiler alert, it's a government subsidy on corn. There more money going to corn than any other crop. Again, government is the problem

Liberals suck cock. They don't care about climate. They just want to virtue signal

Cunts. Mother natures dealt with worse than your cringe meme star bucks apple using ass.

Again. Bring on climate change. The weak will die. People will work harder again for survival. Learn new energy ideas. The jobless commie antifa tier Hollywood shills will die or be driven out.

Preventing climate change is a slap to natures natural plan. Imagine if dinosaurs somehow stopped what killed them? You wouldnt exist.

P.S
>Liberals suck Islam cock

>>731592421
>can't
Won't. It's a secret worth some money for the person to develop it first and most people are looking elsewhere, meaning its anyone's game at this point. You should drop to your knees and thank me for the generosity of even mentioning the existence of an alternate application.

>>731592467
I did think for myself by pointing out the differences (fuel storage vs generating electricity; methane vs isobutane etc) and similarities in the mechanisms. I included at least one source with mention of another to back up the picture I've built up.
What have you done? Said one buzz-phrase, said "I'm right," and tried to insult me. Remind me how you're an expert and why anyone would believe you? At this point, I think you're an undergrad who got onto a research paper and nothing more. And I wouldn't call that an expert, even at the most basic level.

>>731592697
Lol ok. You're way off though.

>>731571048
Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. CO2 is not being produced, we have all the CO2 and anything else we're ever going to have. Since the Earth was warmer in the geologic past it's expected as the cycle continues. Global warming is a red-herring, ozone layer depletion is the real danger.

>>731592575

...and here I feared the muslims were going to bring the new dark age and stop mankind from ever advancing from this planet.

>>731592651
Lol, ok so to recap.
I say "look at A!"
You say "that sucks. Look at B instead."
I say "A and B look to be about the same"
You say "No obvi not"
I say "prove it"
you say "Can't prove it, sensitive secret"

So if it's not obvious how the two are different (it's a secret), then why point out something else that you say is better than what I suggested in the first place? Unless you had no idea they were closely related and you're just babbling to make yourself feel better?
What I asked also is not some "trade secret." People know how to produce methane vs isobutane vs whatever (and they've been published). You just don't understand the process enough to explain it, apparently.

>>731568041
"Look, Galileo, all these scientists are telling you that the Universe revolves around the Sun! Who are you to reject the obvious correctness that comes with that scientific consensus? And don't get me started on this "world is round" shit...."

>>731592773
1. Matter absolutely can be created/destroyed (this is how energy is release in chemical bonds and nuclear fusion.

2. We lose parts of our atmosphere to outer space as our magnetic field decreases, so there's that too.

Not saying it's relevant, just pointing some things out.

>>731592957
see, this is what happens when I try to be smart... replace Sun with Earth... derp

>>731592917
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said you can't think for yourself. I guess it's pretty safe to assume that you won't be a part of the competition, though

Remember. Liberals love muslims and communism

But shhh. Listen to them when it comes to climate change

No way they want to kill off whites

>Bill "Don't have kids" Nye

>>731568041
Well, lets look at the reality.
The alternative is plunging ourselves into an ice age.
We're due for one right now after all.

>>731568041
Let it go OP. Nature, reality and karma are just in their judgement. All the idiots who let oil and dirty energy manufacturers tell their tiny little brains what to think will move to Florida in their 60s and promptly be drowned by a title wave caused by climate change.

Liberals are cucks. But do what they say. After all open borders did wonders and so did Obama's plans

But denying meme science is evil. But Sharia Law in Anerican and Canadian schools is perfectly diverse :)

>>731593049

STRAWMAN MASSACRE!

>>731593041
What is that? Your 20th comment without giving a single detail? Safe to say you won't be part of the competition either.
And I don't even give a shit about energy. I'm a particle physicist. A field where people can actually back up their knowledge (which apparently doesn't extend to inorganic chemistry/engineering).

>>731593041
Right now, tell me : 1) efficiency for your process vs the one I mentioned (since you "have researched it"), 2) the catalyst and environment necessary for methane products as opposed to isobutane, etc. These are the basics of your field (that I will be able to solve for myself given another 15 minutes) that you should be able to state immediately and are not even remotely considered secrets. If you're such an expert, tell me those two tiny details and I'll know your not just a kid in mom's basement.

>>731593263
>I need to prove myself to strangers on the internet
>>731593478
I guess you've earned it
1. Very high relative to competing technologies for the use I have in mind.
2. Titanium nanotubes co-doped with nitrogen and molybdenum, with copper and platinum catalysts applied in a core-shell structure

>>731587779
>comparing celsius measurement to percentages
>expecting to be taken seriously

>>731593780
titanium dioxide nanotubes*

>>731593478
>>731593780
I didn't read all of 2. That's the catalyst that I'm interested in, but not the only one that works

>>731593917
Just thought you wanted to know this too, the price of tea in china right now is about 1 cent per glass.

>>731594165
About that in the US too, unless you get it at the coffee shop

>>731593917
Not buying that you're anything beyond undergrad. The question was how to distinguish between products using a combo of catalyst and conditions. You just mentioned a general catalyst, but depending on preparation and environment, you can get different primary products (like formic acid etc). You made no mention of the phase of TiO2 (anatase vs rutile) which seems to be the predominant way to select toward methane products (though there's effects from environment as well). You also failed to give me any number for efficiency. Nice try, but not buying it.

>>731594518
Because it's irrelevant. Any form of titanium oxide will yeild titanium dioxide nanotubes using Sekino's low temperature process and the platinum and copper catalyst structures are the real determining factor for methane selection. The reactor can be as simple as a sealed container with some water, CO2, and a window to allow light to fall on the catalyst so I didn't bother to mention it. Why don't you make some more claims about yourself and then throw around a few more assertions?

>>731592567
>Government created by the people for the people only cares about the people that it governs and not the earth that they live on
OMG, it's almost like people are selfish and short-sighted.