interesting predictions

I concur with Pxmcc, however we will not get the required output from wind and solar as compared to nuke power. It's all about risk and reward after chernobyl and fukishima - hope I got that right - managing the risk for humanity ...serious do loop guys. In California , Colorado wind power has been greatly utilized however the cost of maintenance may prohibit the venture also not enough output from this source. Solar is definitely a good option, but the intensity and out out varies but I have seen the usage of solar power at houses in Austin, but to limited capacity to run the attic fans...

You forgot Three Mile Island ...

http://m.disclose.tv/action/viewvide...lobal_Warming/

Is there scientific proof human activity contributes enough to global warming to make any difference ? It seems you have to prove that first, rather than disprove it is not.

Disproving a negative is always a fairly impossible chore.

If there is no proof, you have to weigh and balance the risks, as in any other human endeavor.

Is there scientific proof human activity contributes enough to global warming to make any difference ? It seems you have to prove that first, rather than disprove it is not.

Disproving a negative is always a fairly impossible chore.

If there is no proof, you have to weigh and balance the risks, as in any other human endeavor. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Yes there is proof. 1 degree f increase global T average/century since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The change is a fact. Then you look for the cause, identify possible suspects, and knock them out, one by one, until there is only one possible cause left standing: anthropogenic-induced global warming through the burning of fossil fuels. As Sherlock says, "It's elementary, my dear Watson!"

By the way, each year, we beat last year's record for highest average global temp since recorded history. (Has it been hotter before in earth's history? Yes, but not recently.)

When I knew we had a problem? When 40 steps, on the North Shore of Boston, in a peninsula called Nahant from the industrial leather town of Lynn, went from perpetually nuts-shrinking cold to feeling like a bathtub. "Umm, Houston, we have a slight problem." I could stay in this water all day. Somethin aint right.

before I retired I serviced metal analyzers and I have been in Nuke plants and coal plants, The electrical grid was explained to me like this:

The grid has to be flexible and change according to demand. While wind power is great, what happens when the wind does not blow? So the grid has to have enough reserve to make up that loss in power. Nuclear power is good except it is very slow to change according to demand. Only oil,gas and coal power can change rapidly enough to keep up with power demand.

Nuclear fuel once it is out of the reactor, takes 15 to 19 years to cool down in a water pool to the point where the fuel then can be 'dry casked" in storage'

Good point oil. There are phases in earth's history much warmer than today or even 100 years from now. While that's true, do we really want to live in such conditions, if we have a say in the matter? (We do. It's called give up fossil fuels, and even natural gas.)

This period in the history of the world will be dominated by man. We have quite an impact in an extremely short time frame, geologically speaking. Originally Posted by pxmcc

what are we going to use to replace oil with?

what are we going to use to replace oil with? Originally Posted by aznlvr11

Sunlight and water would be good.

http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/...ocar01-CP.html

(This guy is a family friend of mine actually.)

Yes there is proof. 1 degree f increase global T average/century since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The change is a fact. Then you look for the cause, identify possible suspects, and knock them out, one by one, until there is only one possible cause left standing: anthropogenic-induced global warming through the burning of fossil fuels. As Sherlock says, "It's elementary, my dear Watson!"

By the way, each year, we beat last year's record for highest average global temp since recorded history. (Has it been hotter before in earth's history? Yes, but not recently.)

When I knew we had a problem? When 40 steps, on the North Shore of Boston, in a peninsula called Nahant from the industrial leather town of Lynn, went from perpetually nuts-shrinking cold to feeling like a bathtub. "Umm, Houston, we have a slight problem." I could stay in this water all day. Somethin aint right. Originally Posted by pxmcc

Sir, You say above that ALL factors are ruled out, except 'man made'. Can't be fucking serious. Nature will do what it wants, regardless if we burn some oil or coal. To think we can alter the whole Earth's climate is.. self serving on a level that is borderline ludicrous.

There is no evidence man can effect the temperature with greenhouse gases. Your ilk now wants to regulate and tax carbon dioxide. It is a naturally occurring part of out life cycle here and we cannot exist without it. Yet the Prius and Chevy Volt makers have a fucking moron with a lab coat telling you your're killing the planet and your grandchildren if you don't park your Tahoe and get on board. How fucking gullible are you? They are making millions of your naiveté.

The planet gets warmer and the planet gets cooler. The planet did just fine with the ice ages, pole polarity reversals, comets, meteors, etc. It's called nature. While glaciers are melting in the North Pole, ice is being formed at a fervent pace in the south.

To quote George Carlin "The planet's fine... we're fucked." We have nothing to do with it. for Christ's sakes.

Temperature records showing temperature change are a fact.

The causes are far from scientifically proven. Even if human activity is a contributor, it may be statistically insignificant.

Should we regulate human behavior because we might be a contributing factor ? Just in case ? It is always mentioned there is a tipping point, once beyond that, things are too late.

There is no tipping point within the abilities of man to affect.

Scientists can't even create enough energy to simulate a lightning bolt, let alone alter the weather, for Christ's sake.

Sir, You say above that ALL factors are ruled out, except 'man made'. Can't be fucking serious. Nature will do what it wants, regardless if we burn some oil or coal. To think we can alter the whole Earth's climate is.. self serving on a level that is borderline ludicrous.

There is no evidence man can effect the temperature with greenhouse gases. Your ilk now wants to regulate and tax carbon dioxide. It is a naturally occurring part of out life cycle here and we cannot exist without it. Yet the Prius and Chevy Volt makers have a fucking moron with a lab coat telling you your're killing the planet and your grandchildren if you don't park your Tahoe and get on board. How fucking gullible are you? They are making millions of your naiveté.

The planet gets warmer and the planet gets cooler. The planet did just fine with the ice ages, pole polarity reversals, comets, meteors, etc. It's called nature. While glaciers are melting in the North Pole, ice is being formed at a fervent pace in the south.

To quote George Carlin "The planet's fine... we're fucked." We have nothing to do with it. for Christ's sakes. Originally Posted by Sig9er

Sig, things don't "just happen." If the planet is warming up, it must be due to some cause. Can you cite a single peer-reviewed article in a serious science journal that suggests that the cause of global warming could be something other than the burning of fossil fuels? I'm a nerd; if you send me a link, I'll read it and give you my honest take.

I can cite 7000+ peer reviewed articles suggesting the contrary position. I'm not a climatologist, but I'd believe one before I'd believe a press release from an Exxon Mobil "scientist" or Donald Trump and his so-called "panel of experts."

The thing is, you have to scientifically prove it.

It is not the other way around - that you have to prove it is not.

That is one of the oldest argumentative positions in the world, and is not useful.

Fact 1: The earth is heating up.
Fact 2: Multiple experts have stated that the cause is anthropogenic in origin, due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Fact 3: Sig claims that said experts in Fact 2 are wrong. Where are his unbiased expert reports to refute said experts in Fact 2? Donald Trump does not count, nor "scientists" employed by oil companies. I'm talking about academic researchers who have no dog in the fight. Where are his expert reports? Does he even have one article published in a peer-reviewed journal, such as Science or Nature, supporting his position? If so, he should put up, or shut up. As i said, I can cite 7000+ articles supporting the opposite conclusion.

There's no scientific proof. That is the 1st item. There is no need to prove it is not.

Next, the earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. Humans only around about 200,000 years. How many climate changes have occurred in 4.5 billion years ?

But, as we are, humans want to keep the planet habitable for themselves. So make it fearful. Fear can do a lot of things.