I really can't hardly believe you people are still arguing this stuff. Doesn't anyone remember the "definitive report on global warming" written for the UN by the "worlds leading climate scientists"? If any of this hogwash being shown on this thread really did prove man made global warming, it would have been used in the "definitive report". But no. They <b>obviously</b> didn't think it proved anything, otherwise they wouldn't have used manufactured evidence that they tried to hide from the public. And they wouldn't feel the need to <b>conspire</b> to keep their detractors from being published. It's always the same tactics from the left. Put forth phony evidence and then try to ridicule their opponents. Whether it's global warming, keynsian economics, or evolution.
LOL! Leave it to you, littledaviedumbass, to get it wrong even when I gave you a source. Did you notice Alley did NOT say the "denier" was wrong because CO2 leads temperature? Here's another quote from his video: "we know that the orbits drive the warming that causes the CO2 rise that causes more warming..." The FACT that warming leads CO2 in ice core samples is WELL KNOWN, which probably explains why you think the opposite. For example: Fischer et al (1999) found CO2 lags by 400 to 1000 years; Monnin et al (2001) said on average, 400 years; Caillon et al (2003) said around 800 years. Of course it's obvious from the chart but I point these out anyway because you lack the brainpower to read a simple chart. You could probably stand soaking wet in a downpour and think it's a bright and sunny day.
Yes, that's called a feedback loop. Both happen, in fact. The reason that CO2 is emitted is due to melting permafrost, among other reasons. Which makes is doubly important to not start the cycle in the first place. Here, I drew lines on your chart where the CO2 increases. Notice the resulting temperature increases. Loved the video, by the way. You probably should have watched it first.
So...what specifically is it you propose we the world do about MMGW AND what proof/evidence if any do you have it will even have the desired effect?
1. Encourage the rapid deployment of nuclear power for electricity generation using Generation III+ nuclear power plant designs such as the Westinghouse AP1000 or Areva EPR. The effectiveness of this is demonstrated by France which has CO2 emissions at around 60% that of comparable Western European countries. Ban the building of new coal fired power stations. If nuclear can't be built fast enough, use gas as a stop gap. 2. R&D funding for advanced nuclear fuel cycles to ensure sustainability and deal with the waste issue. Build industrial scale demonstration sodium cooled fast reactors and molten salt thorium fueled reactors. Target: deploy on a commercial scale replacing light water reactors as the mainstay of electricity generation starting in 10 - 15 year time frame. There is plenty of uranium and thorium for thousands of years. 3. International cooperation and technology sharing for nuclear engineering. China and India will need no convincing as they are well aware of their coming energy crunch and are building nuclear power programs rapidly. The US and France still lead in nuclear technology, but that lead will be gone in ~ 15 years on current trends. 4. Serious funding to halt deforestation. Pay the nations that are the custodians of the worlds great forests to preserve them and assist with enforcement as necessary. 5. Electrification of transport. A real tough one and progress is likely to be slow. 6. R&D funding for production of carbon neutral synthetic fuels for transport using high temperature nuclear reactors to provide process heat. Bio fuels need to much land. Bio from algae may be feasible but as yet uncertain. 7. Advanced recycling technologies such a plasma recycling. 8. Assistance to the poorest countries for economic development. There is an inverse correlation between economic development and population growth. Oh .... and stop stupid, ridiculously expensive and ineffective schemes such as European feed in tarriffs for PV panels and spend the money on something useful such as nuclear power or possibly wind power. The core solution is clean electricity and industrial process heat at a reasonable price. Combined with energy efficiency and much, much better land use and management, that is probably enough to hold temperatures to a reasonable (though still undesirable level).
1,2 and 3 - Other than the waste issue I personally have no objection to nuclear with or without MMGW . Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some of the biggest opponents of nuclear some of your own left wing/liberal buddies (environmentalists)? 4 and 8 Not saying I couldn't be convinced but #4 just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It smacks of extortion. And #8, aren't we already assisting many poor countries? Is it really making any difference? I mean most of them look like money black holes to me. I certainly agree with #5, again irregardless of MMGW. I've never even heard of anything regarding #6. Is there anything on the immediate horizon? I ask because I've been hearing and reading about alternative engines/fuels since I was a teenager in the 70's. And other than a couple of wind turbines and some rather ugly hybrid cars most of it never happened. #7 - no objection that I know of here, with or without MMGW. My wife and I have been recycling for some time now. Anything along those lines works for me, seems like common sense. "Ban the building of new coal fired power stations. If nuclear can't be built fast enough, use gas as a stop gap." Can gas be used in existing plants or would the current coal plants have to be overhauled? As in $$$$. Which reminds me, is your plan to pay for all this as detailed?
Of course not. However I did some back of the envelope stuff on the cost to convert Australia's electricity to nuclear. Unfortunately, we are cursed with shed loads of coal. Even worse in the state of Victoria they have sheds load of brown coal which is even more polluting. And the stuff is dirt cheap because they can basically shovel it out the mine door and into the furnaces. Anyway, I reckon that assuming a cost of about $4 billion per GWe nuclear, Australia could entirely clean up it's electricity generation, for around 3/4% GDP per annum over 25 years, and more or less deal with expected growth in demand. This is really fairly affordable, especially if one considers that quite a few of the existing coal fired stations will have to be replaced anyway as they will have reached their end of life. New NPPs have a design life time of 60 years. As many existing old NPPs are having their service life extended, it would not be surprising if new ones exceeded 60 year life span. So for that capital expenditure, Australia would be good to nearly the end of century minus whatever capacity is need to meet demand growth after 2030. Furthermore, the electricity price would be a lot more stable than with coal fired because the cost of fuel is only a small percentage of the cost of nuclear. All fossil fuels are going to cost more and probably a lot more - even coal. You could do the sums for just about any western country and come up with figures in the same ball park. Far from being costly, nuclear is probably the cheapest way to generate electricity if we look over time frames of several decades. The situation is a bit different in China where they are building new nuclear capacity for around $1.5 - $1.7 billion per GWe. Not any old crap either - advanced Gen III+ reactors. That is cheaper than anything else and a no brainer. I'd bet that as China gears up and builds the capacity and infrastructure, we will see a huge rollout of NPPs in China.
You're trying to refute a well known FACT with lines that aren't even vertical. You mean the video where Alley concedes what you're trying to refute? littledaviedumbass = ignorant, stupid troll