Originally posted by sonhouse
What in the chicken shyte hell are you talking about, solution? About nuke plants blowing up? Tsunamis caused by richter 9 earthquakes?

If you think you know of a practical solution state what you think it is. So far I have seen no practical way to make the USA carbon negative.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If you think you know of a practical solution state what you think it is. So far I have seen no practical way to make the USA carbon negative.

So lets suppose there IS no way to stop CO2 rising. Do you think THAT is a strawman argument? You think the world will just go on as before? BTW, the glaciers have NOT been melting for hundreds of years, they only started big time melting in century 20.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So lets suppose there IS no way to stop CO2 rising. Do you think THAT is a strawman argument? You think the world will just go on as before? BTW, the glaciers have NOT been melting for hundreds of years, they only started big time melting in century 20.

"Big time"? Is that a technical term? 😏

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If you think you know of a practical solution state what you think it is. So far I have seen no practical way to make the USA carbon negative.

The important thing is not so much to go carbon negative (although that would be nice ) but carbon neutral because that is all that is needed for sustainability. How about going 100% renewable? It is only a matter of time before the whole world can go 100% renewable. Technology improves with time. For example, already solar power has become more cost-effective than it used to be. What barrier is stopping technology continue to improve until it is extremely cost effective for every country in the world, including the US, to go 100% renewable? How would THAT not be a "practical solution"? Already some parts of the world have cost effectively made their electric production renewable and, of course, electric cars are becoming ever more cost effective and there is even the promise of biofuels that don't displace food crops -it is obvious that it it is just a matter of when, not if, and how much research an development is done into it to make it happen (everywhere globally ) sooner rather than later.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Big time"? Is that a technical term? 😏

How about answering his questions?

Originally posted by humy
The important thing is not so much to go carbon negative (although that would be nice ) but carbon neutral because that is all that is needed for sustainability. How about going 100% renewable? It is only a matter of time before the whole world can go 100% renewable. Technology improves with time. For example, already solar power has become more cost-effective ...[text shortened]... n development is done into it to make it happen (everywhere globally ) sooner rather than later.

"The important thing is not so much to go carbon negative (although that would be nice ) but carbon neutral because that is all that is needed for sustainability. How about going 100% renewable?"

Carbon neutral is not practical either. Renewables cannot compete with fossil fuels at this time. Even if renewables come down in price in the future autos will be dependent on gasoline and diesel for a while. Liquid biofuels are very inefficient to produce. That is not a practical solution either.

Originally posted by humy
How about answering his questions?

"BTW, the glaciers have NOT been melting for hundreds of years, they only started big time melting in century 20."

Sonhouse is simply being dishonest. Glaciers have been melting for hundreds of years. His use of the term "big time" is an admission of that. Instead of "melting" he changed it to "big time melting". Apparently he acknowledges it has been melting for hundreds of years but now it is melting big time. How does he know that anyway? Did people study glacier melting over 100 years ago? Does he have accurate data on glacier melting between 1900 and 1940? I'm sure there was plenty of glacier melting then. Then there is the fact that glaciers in the Antarctic have increased. Maybe sonhouse would like to explain that since he is obsessed with glaciers.

Pointing to a melting glacier is not proof of anything. You two are silly ducks.

Originally posted by humy
The important thing is not so much to go carbon negative (although that would be nice ) but carbon neutral because that is all that is needed for sustainability. How about going 100% renewable? It is only a matter of time before the whole world can go 100% renewable. Technology improves with time. For example, already solar power has become more cost-effective ...[text shortened]... n development is done into it to make it happen (everywhere globally ) sooner rather than later.

"Already some parts of the world have cost effectively made their electric production renewable"

I assume you are talking about Denmark. They have a lot of wind potential there and the oil embargo in the 70s is when they started to get serious about wind power. According to Time they didn't do it because of global warming though.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1883373,00.html

Here is an excerpt from the link above:

"It's tempting to assume that Denmark is innately green, with the kind of Scandinavian good conscience that has made it such a pleasant global citizen since, oh, the whole Viking thing. But the country's policies were actually born from a different emotion, one now in common currency: fear. When the 1973 oil crisis hit, 90% of Denmark's energy came from petroleum, almost all of it imported. Buffeted by the same supply shocks that hit the rest of the developed world, Denmark launched a rapid drive for energy conservation, to the point of introducing car-free Sundays and asking businesses to switch off lights during closing hours. Eventually the Mideast oil started flowing again, and the Danes themselves began enjoying the benefits of the petroleum and natural gas in their slice of the North Sea. It was enough to make them more than self-sufficient. But unlike most other countries, Denmark never forgot the lessons of 1973, and kept driving for greater energy efficiency and a more diversified energy supply. The Danish parliament raised taxes on energy to encourage conservation and established subsidies and standards to support more efficient buildings. "It all started out without any regard for the climate or the environment," says Svend Auken, the former head of Denmark's opposition Social Democrat party and the architect of the country's environmental policies in the 1990s. "But today there's a consensus that we need to build out renewable power."

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Already some parts of the world have cost effectively made their electric production renewable"

I assume you are talking about Denmark. They have a lot of wind potential there and the oil embargo in the 70s is when they started to get serious about wind power. According to Time they didn't do it because of global warming though.

http://content.tim ...[text shortened]... olicies in the 1990s. "But today there's a consensus that we need to build out renewable power."

Here is a link if you care enough to look at it, showing the retreat of glaciers in the last couple hundred years. Starting in 1850 they started retreating but since 2000 or so has really picked up speed which is why I said "Big Time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a link if you care enough to look at it, showing the retreat of glaciers in the last couple hundred years. Starting in 1850 they started retreating but since 2000 or so has really picked up speed which is why I said "Big Time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Remember that link that suggests that there is about a 200 year CO2 lag caused by the warming? That timeline seems about right to me.

Antarctica has had glacier advancing though. Clearly it is mostly confined to the Arctic at this time. Because of that it is not as significant as you make it out to be.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Remember that link that suggests that there is about a 200 year CO2 lag caused by the warming? That timeline seems about right to me.

Antarctica has had glacier advancing though. Clearly it is mostly confined to the Arctic at this time. Because of that it is not as significant as you make it out to be.

You really love to cherry pick your data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Do you know the difference between land ice and sea ice?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You really love to cherry pick your data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Do you know the difference between land ice and sea ice?

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

Originally posted by Metal Brain



I assume you are talking about Denmark.

Why? I wasn't.

According to Time they didn't do it because of global warming though.

So what? Does that contradict any of my assertions? That's totally irrelevant.

Originally posted by humy
Why? I wasn't.

According to Time they didn't do it because of global warming though.

So what? Does that contradict any of my assertions? That's totally irrelevant.

Your assertions are weak. Denmark can rely on wind power because they have so much wind potential there. Not all countries have that.

Spain? What country are you referring to?

Originally posted by Metal Brain

Spain? What country are you referring to?

I said: “Already some parts of the world have cost effectively made their electric production renewable “.
How on earth do you conclude that I must be referring to just one particular country from “some parts”? I wasn't.