FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
World's first solar powered bike lane

World's first solar powered bike lane

(1:17) Cycling got even greener when the world's first solar powered bicycle lane was unveiled in the Netherlands. November 2014.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1128 days ago)

Is this a viable solution? My collegue Dave Jones from Australia and an electronic enginner puts this to a test in this video: LINK

Results: No, it's not.

ReplyVote up (116)down (104)
Original comment

Is this a viable solution? My collegue Dave Jones from Australia and an electronic enginner puts this to a test in this video: LINK

Results: No, it's not.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1128 days ago)

There is no mention of it being a solution (unless I didn't read all the subtitles), but how much damage can it do to give it a try?

ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment

There is no mention of it being a solution (unless I didn't read all the subtitles), but how much damage can it do to give it a try?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1128 days ago)

You try things in hopes of it being a solution. If you knew ahead of time it wasn't a solution, you wouldn't try. Well, maybe some of you would waste your tax dollars anyway.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

You try things in hopes of it being a solution. If you knew ahead of time it wasn't a solution, you wouldn't try. Well, maybe some of you would waste your tax dollars anyway.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: derpington (1128 days ago)

quite the black and white world you live in.

i doubt they did this because they wanted a solution to whatever problem you're thinking of right now.

in the end a bicycle lane is nothing more then a slab of concrete or bricks to form a road. it doesn't do much more then just pave a way for cyclists to travel on, and perhaps hide some underground cable's or pipelines for infrastructural needs.

with this. it also produces some electricity.

is it enough to be a solution for the problem you are thinking of? well. no obviously. but with this it still does more then just being a road.

"yes but it costs money and it's a waste because it doesn't provide a solution to the problem i'm thinking of"

well duh but please point out to me where they wanted this 100M strip of solar powered bike lane to "be a solution"...

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

quite the black and white world you live in.

i doubt they did this because they wanted a solution to whatever problem you're thinking of right now.

in the end a bicycle lane is nothing more then a slab of concrete or bricks to form a road. it doesn't do much more then just pave a way for cyclists to travel on, and perhaps hide some underground cable's or pipelines for infrastructural needs.

with this. it also produces some electricity.

is it enough to be a solution for the problem you are thinking of? well. no obviously. but with this it still does more then just being a road.

"yes but it costs money and it's a waste because it doesn't provide a solution to the problem i'm thinking of"

well duh but please point out to me where they wanted this 100M strip of solar powered bike lane to "be a solution"...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1128 days ago)

Their press release right here:http://us7.campaign- archive2.com/?u=fc23dec47 019a23d70031492e&id=3 9c5c2acf8

It says, "We can therefore conclude that it was a successful first half year". Successful for what? If they didn't plan on it fixing a problem or having a solution, what was it successful in doing (in their opinion)?

They were successful in one thing. Spreading propoganda and a perception of being successful. If you watch the video I linked, you can see where it is not successful and where simple rooftop solar can provide significantly better results if the wanted to generate electricity. That technology has been around for decades and is nothing new.

ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment

Their press release right here:http://us7.campaign- archive2.com/?u=fc23dec47 019a23d70031492e&id=3 9c5c2acf8

It says, "We can therefore conclude that it was a successful first half year". Successful for what? If they didn't plan on it fixing a problem or having a solution, what was it successful in doing (in their opinion)?

They were successful in one thing. Spreading propoganda and a perception of being successful. If you watch the video I linked, you can see where it is not successful and where simple rooftop solar can provide significantly better results if the wanted to generate electricity. That technology has been around for decades and is nothing new.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: derpington (1127 days ago)

the problem they most likely had was "I wonder how much power this could generated per square meter per year."

since that is what they found an awnser to.

and not "i wonder if this is a more viable solution to power generation then putting a solar array on a rooftop."

i know just as well as you do that the best way to generate solar power isn't through a solar road.

does this mean we shouldn't test and experiment with it?

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

the problem they most likely had was "I wonder how much power this could generated per square meter per year."

since that is what they found an awnser to.

and not "i wonder if this is a more viable solution to power generation then putting a solar array on a rooftop."

i know just as well as you do that the best way to generate solar power isn't through a solar road.

does this mean we shouldn't test and experiment with it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1127 days ago)

If you already know that this is not the best way to generate solar power then you shouldn't test and experiment with it. It costs a lot of money to do that installation and it would have been a better investment if you put that money toward something that is known to work.

ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment

If you already know that this is not the best way to generate solar power then you shouldn't test and experiment with it. It costs a lot of money to do that installation and it would have been a better investment if you put that money toward something that is known to work.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: derpington (1126 days ago)

really? people shouldn't do something because it has a cost and we don't know if it will work just as good as a current available alternative?

I can understand skepticism, but this is just plain stubborn.

you do make me curious though.

say i provide you 3000000 US dollars and the following criteria; develop and create a road surface that generates electricity.

how would you go about this?

ReplyVote up (76)down (101)
Original comment

really? people shouldn't do something because it has a cost and we don't know if it will work just as good as a current available alternative?

I can understand skepticism, but this is just plain stubborn.

you do make me curious though.

say i provide you 3000000 US dollars and the following criteria; develop and create a road surface that generates electricity.

how would you go about this?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1126 days ago)

Your 3,000,000 has the wrong requirements. You should say, "develop and create a clean renewable energy source." Then, we can pick what is best for the country and it might end up being solar, wind, geothermal, or any number of unique ideas. Limiting it to road surfaces that generates electricity is telling someone to do something with one hand tied behind his back.

So let me ask you this. If I gave you 30,000 US dollars and you had to invest it into energy improvements for your own house, would you spend that money to put solar on your lawn or your driveway or sidewalk? Or, would you want to get the most improvement for that money and analyze each option and probably consider putting solar on your roof instead?

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

Your 3,000,000 has the wrong requirements. You should say, "develop and create a clean renewable energy source." Then, we can pick what is best for the country and it might end up being solar, wind, geothermal, or any number of unique ideas. Limiting it to road surfaces that generates electricity is telling someone to do something with one hand tied behind his back.

So let me ask you this. If I gave you 30,000 US dollars and you had to invest it into energy improvements for your own house, would you spend that money to put solar on your lawn or your driveway or sidewalk? Or, would you want to get the most improvement for that money and analyze each option and probably consider putting solar on your roof instead?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: derpington (1125 days ago)

hmmm, odd. i don't recall asking you to "develop and create a clean renewable energy source."

i thought i asked "say i provide you 3000000 US dollars and the following criteria; develop and create a road surface that generates electricity.

how would you go about this?"

perhaps that wasn't clear enough. so let's see if i can rephrase the question and make it more clear.

is it possible, to research and develop a road that generates electricity?

it doesn't have to be cheap.

it doesn't matter how big or how small the surface area is.

it doesn't matter how much electricity it generates.

all of that with a budget of 3000000 US dollars.

can you do that?

ReplyVote up (80)down (101)
Original comment

hmmm, odd. i don't recall asking you to "develop and create a clean renewable energy source."

i thought i asked "say i provide you 3000000 US dollars and the following criteria; develop and create a road surface that generates electricity.

how would you go about this?"

perhaps that wasn't clear enough. so let's see if i can rephrase the question and make it more clear.

is it possible, to research and develop a road that generates electricity?

it doesn't have to be cheap.

it doesn't matter how big or how small the surface area is.

it doesn't matter how much electricity it generates.

all of that with a budget of 3000000 US dollars.

can you do that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1125 days ago)

While you're at it, why not give me a budget of a trillion dollars to see if I can grow orange strawberries. It's just as silly. If you want to just throw money away, you can do that but don't use my money in stupid ways.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

While you're at it, why not give me a budget of a trillion dollars to see if I can grow orange strawberries. It's just as silly. If you want to just throw money away, you can do that but don't use my money in stupid ways.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PC (1127 days ago)

Keep in mind that the Netherlands is a small country that is densly populated. If you want to make use of solar energy, where are you going to put all those solar-panels. Wouldn't it be great if you could use cycling-paths or perhaps even highways as a place to put them? They cover many square miles. Well, that's exactly what they are trying tot do.

ReplyVote up (102)down (115)
Original comment

Keep in mind that the Netherlands is a small country that is densly populated. If you want to make use of solar energy, where are you going to put all those solar-panels. Wouldn't it be great if you could use cycling-paths or perhaps even highways as a place to put them? They cover many square miles. Well, that's exactly what they are trying tot do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1126 days ago)

On the rooftops first. Once all of them are covered, if you need more space than you can consider some less-than-ideal solutions like solar roadways.

Also, if you watch the video that I linked, you will see Dave explain a better roadway method by putting them on poles and that has been done and he shows pictures of it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

On the rooftops first. Once all of them are covered, if you need more space than you can consider some less-than-ideal solutions like solar roadways.

Also, if you watch the video that I linked, you will see Dave explain a better roadway method by putting them on poles and that has been done and he shows pictures of it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1126 days ago)

A few points. Most rooftops are privately owned, so covering them with solar panels is a different proposition. One is private money, the other is public money.

Powering a small highly developed country with clean energy will probably require use of every bit of space possble. I guess this a feasability study about using their abundent cycleways.

According to your mate Dave, this road produces about half the electricity that a same-sized rooftop system would. I can believe that, but that result bettered the expected result, albeit by a small amount. That means that the research, at least with respect to electricity output, is on course and can be considered a success.

Raising the panels above the cyclists is a great idea, which I'm sure has occurred to the Dutch - after all, they already have solar panels on the roofs of some bus stops. But you don't need to research that. Putting solar panels on the ground embedded in glass is different enough from rooftop systems to require research.

Surely the big question is the ROI - how long does it take before the extra cost of a solar cycleway compared to a traditional cycleway, is covered by the value of the electricity produced?

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

A few points. Most rooftops are privately owned, so covering them with solar panels is a different proposition. One is private money, the other is public money.

Powering a small highly developed country with clean energy will probably require use of every bit of space possble. I guess this a feasability study about using their abundent cycleways.

According to your mate Dave, this road produces about half the electricity that a same-sized rooftop system would. I can believe that, but that result bettered the expected result, albeit by a small amount. That means that the research, at least with respect to electricity output, is on course and can be considered a success.

Raising the panels above the cyclists is a great idea, which I'm sure has occurred to the Dutch - after all, they already have solar panels on the roofs of some bus stops. But you don't need to research that. Putting solar panels on the ground embedded in glass is different enough from rooftop systems to require research.

Surely the big question is the ROI - how long does it take before the extra cost of a solar cycleway compared to a traditional cycleway, is covered by the value of the electricity produced?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1126 days ago)

The solution is to put the solar cells where the energy is being used. If the residents are using electricity for their homes, then that's where the panels should go and the homeowner needs to pay for it. Then, if you have government buildings or commercial buildings that use electricity, they would have their own solar panels. Everyone will have solar that wants to get off the grid during the daytime.

There is no need to use public land to provide power to the general public if the public is demanding solar electricity. Besides, the Netherlands is over 41,000 sq km. I guess you've never seen the photos of vasts amount of green grass with windmills in that country if you think they don't have any land to put solar.

Even if they don't have land, you could still have the panels next to highways like in the video I linked. Did you even watch it? It shows alternatives but I guess you elected to ignore those.

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

The solution is to put the solar cells where the energy is being used. If the residents are using electricity for their homes, then that's where the panels should go and the homeowner needs to pay for it. Then, if you have government buildings or commercial buildings that use electricity, they would have their own solar panels. Everyone will have solar that wants to get off the grid during the daytime.

There is no need to use public land to provide power to the general public if the public is demanding solar electricity. Besides, the Netherlands is over 41,000 sq km. I guess you've never seen the photos of vasts amount of green grass with windmills in that country if you think they don't have any land to put solar.

Even if they don't have land, you could still have the panels next to highways like in the video I linked. Did you even watch it? It shows alternatives but I guess you elected to ignore those.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1126 days ago)

I just realised why you are so against this. The clue is in your first paragraph. I thought we were talking about the technology but suddenly you switch to politics. It's the same reason you can't accept AGW.

According to the video, this cycleway powers streetlights, traffic lights and nearby homes, so no problem there - the solar cells are close to where the energy is used.

Putting solar cells in the vast green lands of the Netherlands, would break your first rule: " The solution is to put the solar cells where the energy is being used. "

I did watch the video. Putting solar panels on poles and rooftops is well tried and tested and done all over the world. Considering the Netherlands is so flat, and the weather so grey, solar cycleways could be worth the extra cost because they are invisible. Or beautiful: LINK

I wonder how long it would take to cover the costs and make a profit on the electricity produced. Maybe you could ask your mate Dave to look into that?

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

I just realised why you are so against this. The clue is in your first paragraph. I thought we were talking about the technology but suddenly you switch to politics. It's the same reason you can't accept AGW.

According to the video, this cycleway powers streetlights, traffic lights and nearby homes, so no problem there - the solar cells are close to where the energy is used.

Putting solar cells in the vast green lands of the Netherlands, would break your first rule: " The solution is to put the solar cells where the energy is being used. "

I did watch the video. Putting solar panels on poles and rooftops is well tried and tested and done all over the world. Considering the Netherlands is so flat, and the weather so grey, solar cycleways could be worth the extra cost because they are invisible. Or beautiful: LINK

I wonder how long it would take to cover the costs and make a profit on the electricity produced. Maybe you could ask your mate Dave to look into that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1126 days ago)

I'm not talking about politics. However, no other major country would provide free electricity to their citizens and neither should the Netherlands. If you own a home and want to reduce your electrical bill, you can put panels on the roof of your own home.

The reason you think I broke the first rule was to debunk your hypothesis that the Netherlands doesn't have any other place they could put the solar and I wanted to show you that is false. They could have a solar farm if they wanted without using roads and bike paths. It's still best for everyone to have their own solar to provide redundancy, fault tolerance, and at least some electricity during storms that might be over the single location of a farm but not the entire country.

The video you linked was useless. All it showed was a bike path with some barely lit green glow.

Regarding how long it would take to cover the costs and make a profit, that's usually about 12 to 15 years. Use the roads instead and it could be 50 years instead. 30 years due to the flat nature of the mounting and an additional 20 years to cover the cost of the additional infrastructure for roads. Then, after 50 years, it would probably be time to replace them for cracks or heavy maintenance.

By the way, Dave has a very good forum on his blog at EEVblog dot com. I linked directly to the video but you can go to his site and ask whatever questions you want. He's an electronic engineer expert and does answer questions if they are appropriate and good ones. Also, other electronic engineers are there to provide support to users as well. I'm sure you would trust his answers better than mine for some reason even though you have no idea what my qualifiications are. I watch every single video of his and this is the third solar roadway related one and there are a couple showing his own personal solar installation and results.

I just want to make a quick comment about what you said about me not accepting AGW. First, I do agree that the average temperature has increased a little. The problem is that I'm not sure if it's due to humans or if it's a natural cause like axial precession or the fact we are still coming out of an ice age. If we could remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere today by waving a majic wand, would you want to do that? I wouldn't because I can see another ice age coming and all the plants dying.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

I'm not talking about politics. However, no other major country would provide free electricity to their citizens and neither should the Netherlands. If you own a home and want to reduce your electrical bill, you can put panels on the roof of your own home.

The reason you think I broke the first rule was to debunk your hypothesis that the Netherlands doesn't have any other place they could put the solar and I wanted to show you that is false. They could have a solar farm if they wanted without using roads and bike paths. It's still best for everyone to have their own solar to provide redundancy, fault tolerance, and at least some electricity during storms that might be over the single location of a farm but not the entire country.

The video you linked was useless. All it showed was a bike path with some barely lit green glow.

Regarding how long it would take to cover the costs and make a profit, that's usually about 12 to 15 years. Use the roads instead and it could be 50 years instead. 30 years due to the flat nature of the mounting and an additional 20 years to cover the cost of the additional infrastructure for roads. Then, after 50 years, it would probably be time to replace them for cracks or heavy maintenance.

By the way, Dave has a very good forum on his blog at EEVblog dot com. I linked directly to the video but you can go to his site and ask whatever questions you want. He's an electronic engineer expert and does answer questions if they are appropriate and good ones. Also, other electronic engineers are there to provide support to users as well. I'm sure you would trust his answers better than mine for some reason even though you have no idea what my qualifiications are. I watch every single video of his and this is the third solar roadway related one and there are a couple showing his own personal solar installation and results.

I just want to make a quick comment about what you said about me not accepting AGW. First, I do agree that the average temperature has increased a little. The problem is that I'm not sure if it's due to humans or if it's a natural cause like axial precession or the fact we are still coming out of an ice age. If we could remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere today by waving a majic wand, would you want to do that? I wouldn't because I can see another ice age coming and all the plants dying.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1126 days ago)

I'm not sure how you come to 50 years for ROI. Seems to me you're just plucking numbers out of the void.

Would I remove all the CO2 if I could? Of course not. CO2 is essential for life on Earth. But I'd remove a bit of it. Maybe the 40% we have added since the Industrial Revolution.

About the warming planet and whether it's due to human activity - well, it's certainly not axial precession or the fact that we're coming out of an ice age. Both phenomena are far too slow to raise the temperature 1C in 100 years. Is there any other natural phenomenon going on in the past 100 years that you're unsure about. With a little help from Google, I'm confident I'll be able to explain it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

I'm not sure how you come to 50 years for ROI. Seems to me you're just plucking numbers out of the void.

Would I remove all the CO2 if I could? Of course not. CO2 is essential for life on Earth. But I'd remove a bit of it. Maybe the 40% we have added since the Industrial Revolution.

About the warming planet and whether it's due to human activity - well, it's certainly not axial precession or the fact that we're coming out of an ice age. Both phenomena are far too slow to raise the temperature 1C in 100 years. Is there any other natural phenomenon going on in the past 100 years that you're unsure about. With a little help from Google, I'm confident I'll be able to explain it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1126 days ago)

What do you think is the ROI for those solar roadways? As for my figure, I used an educated guess based on what it currently costs to produce energy and how long it takes to pay back. Then I added additional years for the inefficiencies of having the panels flat and the maintenance and infrastructures required for modifying the roadways. Let me know how you calculate it because I"m interested.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

What do you think is the ROI for those solar roadways? As for my figure, I used an educated guess based on what it currently costs to produce energy and how long it takes to pay back. Then I added additional years for the inefficiencies of having the panels flat and the maintenance and infrastructures required for modifying the roadways. Let me know how you calculate it because I"m interested.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1126 days ago)

I have no idea what the ROI is. I'm just presuming that since this is a pivate/public partnership, then some clever Dutch people would have done some maths.

Going back to the more important topic of climate change, since any warming caused by axial precession or exiting the ice age can only be negligible, what other natural process over the past 100 years or so, do you think might be responsible for warming the planet by 1C?

And on the flip side, where has the heat trapped by the 40% extra CO2 that humans have added, gone?

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

I have no idea what the ROI is. I'm just presuming that since this is a pivate/public partnership, then some clever Dutch people would have done some maths.

Going back to the more important topic of climate change, since any warming caused by axial precession or exiting the ice age can only be negligible, what other natural process over the past 100 years or so, do you think might be responsible for warming the planet by 1C?

And on the flip side, where has the heat trapped by the 40% extra CO2 that humans have added, gone?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1126 days ago)

Broken record syndrome on your questions. I'm sure I addressed those in a previous thread but you chose to ignore or forget them.

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

Broken record syndrome on your questions. I'm sure I addressed those in a previous thread but you chose to ignore or forget them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1126 days ago)

Axial precession and 'exiting the ice age' are new objections you have just introduced. Please don't mention them again as you now know they cannot be responsible.

Your answer to where the heat trapped by the 40% extra CO2 has gone, was all over the place. The correct answer is - heating the planet by 1C.

I love talking about this because my answers are so easy. That's because they match reality - so all I have to do is spend 2 minutes on Google and everything makes sense.

You on the other hand, have to come up with a new objection every time, and you know you're going to run out because you know you are wrong.

You've got to let go of that libertarian streak that is affecting your critical thinking processes. It's not healthy.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

Axial precession and 'exiting the ice age' are new objections you have just introduced. Please don't mention them again as you now know they cannot be responsible.

Your answer to where the heat trapped by the 40% extra CO2 has gone, was all over the place. The correct answer is - heating the planet by 1C.

I love talking about this because my answers are so easy. That's because they match reality - so all I have to do is spend 2 minutes on Google and everything makes sense.

You on the other hand, have to come up with a new objection every time, and you know you're going to run out because you know you are wrong.

You've got to let go of that libertarian streak that is affecting your critical thinking processes. It's not healthy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1126 days ago)

You're reaching with your assumptions that I'm libertarian. I never mentioned my political views.

Anway, like I have mentioned numerous times to you before, the temperatures of the earth has been 25C for the majority of the time life existed. We then went through an ice age. It is only natural for the earth to warm back up to it's standard temparture after that global catastrophe. Not sure why you have such a hard time understanding that concept.

You somehow think that a 1C increase is extremely unusual in the earths history so it must be human caused but completely dismiss actual historical records. You look at the cherry picked hockey puck without going earlier than that to see what the whole graph looks like.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

You're reaching with your assumptions that I'm libertarian. I never mentioned my political views.

Anway, like I have mentioned numerous times to you before, the temperatures of the earth has been 25C for the majority of the time life existed. We then went through an ice age. It is only natural for the earth to warm back up to it's standard temparture after that global catastrophe. Not sure why you have such a hard time understanding that concept.

You somehow think that a 1C increase is extremely unusual in the earths history so it must be human caused but completely dismiss actual historical records. You look at the cherry picked hockey puck without going earlier than that to see what the whole graph looks like.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1126 days ago)

And I have explained numerous times that the climate in prehistoric days is irrelevant. We are talking specifically about the last 150 years since the Industrial Revolution, and how a 40% increase in CO2, coupled with other things like deforestation and farting cows, is warming the planet.

25C is the average in the lifetime of the planet, which started much hotter as a boiling rock hurtling through space. Overall, it has been cooling ever since. And we've had many ice ages, not just 1. So please, no more "but the planet was hotter 500 million years ago - it wasn't human activity then, so it can't be human activity today."

We will add 40 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2015. How could you think that would have no effect? You can't be so stupid. You just can't handle the truth.

A 1C rise in 100 years simply cannot happen without some major event. That's just how physics works. We have had 5 global extinctions, all caused by major events, the last one being the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. On a geological scale, human activity in last hundred years is equivalent to that asteroid.

Oh, and your politics is wriiten all over everything you write.

ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment

And I have explained numerous times that the climate in prehistoric days is irrelevant. We are talking specifically about the last 150 years since the Industrial Revolution, and how a 40% increase in CO2, coupled with other things like deforestation and farting cows, is warming the planet.

25C is the average in the lifetime of the planet, which started much hotter as a boiling rock hurtling through space. Overall, it has been cooling ever since. And we've had many ice ages, not just 1. So please, no more "but the planet was hotter 500 million years ago - it wasn't human activity then, so it can't be human activity today."

We will add 40 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2015. How could you think that would have no effect? You can't be so stupid. You just can't handle the truth.

A 1C rise in 100 years simply cannot happen without some major event. That's just how physics works. We have had 5 global extinctions, all caused by major events, the last one being the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. On a geological scale, human activity in last hundred years is equivalent to that asteroid.

Oh, and your politics is wriiten all over everything you write.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1126 days ago)

Climate in prehistoric days is not irrelevant and that is the crux of our disagreement. You want to discount valuable information and I want to use all information that is available to me. You choose to ignore data that doesn't fit with your reconceived personal opinions and I choose to form opinions based after receiving all available data.

25C is not the average in the lifetime of the planet. As I explained before, that is the normal temperature during the time life existed on this planet.

Look at this graph: LINK

Then notice the temperatures from the Cambrian, Ordovician, Siurian, Devonian, NOT Carboniferous, NOT Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods were at an average of 25C. That's when life existed. Then, you notice that the temperature dipped at the very end of the graph. We are just in one of the same cycles as before where the temperature is about to rise again to 25C just like it has done many times before.

Also notice on the graph that the CO2 levels are shown. Do you see any correlation between the CO2 levels and the temperatures? I don't. It seemed very high in the Cambrian period but we still had a 25C temperature and very low in the Cretaceous period and we still had a 25C temperature.

That chart shows the last 600 million years but the earth is 4.54 billion years old. So I'm not looking at the very beginning before we had an atmosphere and before life existed.

Regarding my political views, it's not written anywhere in my writings. I will keep you guessing what my affilitation and beliefs are in that area because that has nothing to do with the facts of your perception of AGW. I am keeping politics out of this discussion on purpose. If we used that information I would assume you believe in AGW because you are a socialist and want the government to control everything and they are saying it's true and you blindly follow what your government is telling you.

I am curious though, what did I say that makes you think I'm a libertarian? Did I say we should abolish the government? Remove all taxes?

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

Climate in prehistoric days is not irrelevant and that is the crux of our disagreement. You want to discount valuable information and I want to use all information that is available to me. You choose to ignore data that doesn't fit with your reconceived personal opinions and I choose to form opinions based after receiving all available data.

25C is not the average in the lifetime of the planet. As I explained before, that is the normal temperature during the time life existed on this planet.

Look at this graph: LINK

Then notice the temperatures from the Cambrian, Ordovician, Siurian, Devonian, NOT Carboniferous, NOT Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods were at an average of 25C. That's when life existed. Then, you notice that the temperature dipped at the very end of the graph. We are just in one of the same cycles as before where the temperature is about to rise again to 25C just like it has done many times before.

Also notice on the graph that the CO2 levels are shown. Do you see any correlation between the CO2 levels and the temperatures? I don't. It seemed very high in the Cambrian period but we still had a 25C temperature and very low in the Cretaceous period and we still had a 25C temperature.

That chart shows the last 600 million years but the earth is 4.54 billion years old. So I'm not looking at the very beginning before we had an atmosphere and before life existed.

Regarding my political views, it's not written anywhere in my writings. I will keep you guessing what my affilitation and beliefs are in that area because that has nothing to do with the facts of your perception of AGW. I am keeping politics out of this discussion on purpose. If we used that information I would assume you believe in AGW because you are a socialist and want the government to control everything and they are saying it's true and you blindly follow what your government is telling you.

I am curious though, what did I say that makes you think I'm a libertarian? Did I say we should abolish the government? Remove all taxes?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1126 days ago)

LOL

keep being a retarded goat

you're doing a swell job

ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment

LOL

keep being a retarded goat

you're doing a swell job

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1126 days ago)

Great, we've narrowed our disagreement down to 1 simple issue, the relevance of climate change millions of years ago to climate change in the last 100 years.

We know that humans had nothing to do with climate change millions of years ago because we didn't exist. So all those changes were caused by natural events or aliens. They had to be.

So let's wind forward to today, in a time when we do exist. What about the 40% extra CO2 that we added to the atmosphere over the last 100 years. Can that really have no effect?

CO2 is responsible for about 20% of the heating from all greenhouse gases. So it is an active component of the heat-trapping system of greenhouse gases that keeps us warm. Increasing CO2 by 40% will have an effect on the climate. How can it not?

I challenge you to give me an example of anything, where an increase of 40% of an active component in a system, has no effect on the performance of that system. If your blood pressure was raised 40%, you'd know about it. If you sleep 40% less every night, you'd know about it. If you eat 40% more sugar every day, you'd know about it. Why should increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% be any different? It doesn't even make sense.

Libertarianism is melting your brain. Think man, just think!

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Great, we've narrowed our disagreement down to 1 simple issue, the relevance of climate change millions of years ago to climate change in the last 100 years.

We know that humans had nothing to do with climate change millions of years ago because we didn't exist. So all those changes were caused by natural events or aliens. They had to be.

So let's wind forward to today, in a time when we do exist. What about the 40% extra CO2 that we added to the atmosphere over the last 100 years. Can that really have no effect?

CO2 is responsible for about 20% of the heating from all greenhouse gases. So it is an active component of the heat-trapping system of greenhouse gases that keeps us warm. Increasing CO2 by 40% will have an effect on the climate. How can it not?

I challenge you to give me an example of anything, where an increase of 40% of an active component in a system, has no effect on the performance of that system. If your blood pressure was raised 40%, you'd know about it. If you sleep 40% less every night, you'd know about it. If you eat 40% more sugar every day, you'd know about it. Why should increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% be any different? It doesn't even make sense.

Libertarianism is melting your brain. Think man, just think!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1125 days ago)

Challenge accepted. The ocean has a set amount of deuterium in it which is a heavy isotope of hydrogen. If you increase that by 40%, it will have zero impact on the planet. Regular water has about 90 ppm of deuterium and you can increase that to 100% and it will have no impact. You can still drink the water.

Regarding greenhouse gas, I have already mentioned previously that CO2 is minor compared to the methane that is produced by animal farming. The impact of animal farming on global warming is more severe than the CO2 that is created by all the transportation methods combined. That includes planes, trains, boats, cars, etc. So if you are serious about making an impact on your perceived AGW, you should try to stop animal farming because that would have a bigger impact on the environment than trying to stop us from burning fuels to drive our cars.

ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment

Challenge accepted. The ocean has a set amount of deuterium in it which is a heavy isotope of hydrogen. If you increase that by 40%, it will have zero impact on the planet. Regular water has about 90 ppm of deuterium and you can increase that to 100% and it will have no impact. You can still drink the water.

Regarding greenhouse gas, I have already mentioned previously that CO2 is minor compared to the methane that is produced by animal farming. The impact of animal farming on global warming is more severe than the CO2 that is created by all the transportation methods combined. That includes planes, trains, boats, cars, etc. So if you are serious about making an impact on your perceived AGW, you should try to stop animal farming because that would have a bigger impact on the environment than trying to stop us from burning fuels to drive our cars.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1125 days ago)

As far as I am aware, deuterium is stable and not an active component of the oceans. If it was active, then increasing it by 40% will make a difference, even if it's only a small difference. That's just basic cause-and-effect.

So back to the crux of our disagreement - I take it your silence means you've u-turned and now agree that what caused climate changes millions of years ago, is very interesting but irrelevant to the question of whether the increase of CO2 by 40% in the atmosphere over the last 100 years, is warming the planet.

You said: "The impact of animal farming on global warming is more severe than the CO2 that is created by all the transportation methods combined." I'm confused. So now you admit that animal farming impacts on the climate, and so does transportation but less so. Both of those are human activities. That's why it's called AGW, the A stands for ANTHROPOGENIC. Look it up. This is what we've been arguing about all along!!!

That was some own goal. But you're still going to come back fighting. I'm curious what your next objection will be :)

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

As far as I am aware, deuterium is stable and not an active component of the oceans. If it was active, then increasing it by 40% will make a difference, even if it's only a small difference. That's just basic cause-and-effect.

So back to the crux of our disagreement - I take it your silence means you've u-turned and now agree that what caused climate changes millions of years ago, is very interesting but irrelevant to the question of whether the increase of CO2 by 40% in the atmosphere over the last 100 years, is warming the planet.

You said: "The impact of animal farming on global warming is more severe than the CO2 that is created by all the transportation methods combined." I'm confused. So now you admit that animal farming impacts on the climate, and so does transportation but less so. Both of those are human activities. That's why it's called AGW, the A stands for ANTHROPOGENIC. Look it up. This is what we've been arguing about all along!!!

That was some own goal. But you're still going to come back fighting. I'm curious what your next objection will be :)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1125 days ago)

Thanks but I know exactly what the "A" in AGW means.

If you read my reply carefully, you will see the word "perceived" in it and I did not say that there was a real AGW (although I do agree the planet has warmed a small degree within the last 100 years or so). I knew you would try to pull some crap like that so I have to be careful how I word things. I see what you guys did to cenglishO calling him a liar and putting words in his mouth and that's why he left. Don't try doing that to me.

I'll restate it so you may understand it better. If you really think there is a problem with the temperature of our planet and if you want to make the biggest impact with some sort of policy change, it is much easier to reduce animal farming and convert people to vegetarianism than it would be to stop all forms of transportation. People can live a healthy life without eating animals but very few civilizations could survive in today's economy without transportation. You could even create protein bars with all the vitamins to sustain a healthy life and make that the only food source available for people. Maybe a couple different flavors and ingredients for people with allergies.

Regarding hydrogen: You say it's not active. Well, it certainly isn't inactive because you couldn’t have water without hydrogen and deuterium is an active isotope of hydrogen. None of this really matters anyway because your question was hypothetical and didn’t prove or disprove anything.

When you say, “That was some own goal,” are you trying to say that you “owned” me somehow. If so, LOL.

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

Thanks but I know exactly what the "A" in AGW means.

If you read my reply carefully, you will see the word "perceived" in it and I did not say that there was a real AGW (although I do agree the planet has warmed a small degree within the last 100 years or so). I knew you would try to pull some crap like that so I have to be careful how I word things. I see what you guys did to cenglishO calling him a liar and putting words in his mouth and that's why he left. Don't try doing that to me.

I'll restate it so you may understand it better. If you really think there is a problem with the temperature of our planet and if you want to make the biggest impact with some sort of policy change, it is much easier to reduce animal farming and convert people to vegetarianism than it would be to stop all forms of transportation. People can live a healthy life without eating animals but very few civilizations could survive in today's economy without transportation. You could even create protein bars with all the vitamins to sustain a healthy life and make that the only food source available for people. Maybe a couple different flavors and ingredients for people with allergies.

Regarding hydrogen: You say it's not active. Well, it certainly isn't inactive because you couldn’t have water without hydrogen and deuterium is an active isotope of hydrogen. None of this really matters anyway because your question was hypothetical and didn’t prove or disprove anything.

When you say, “That was some own goal,” are you trying to say that you “owned” me somehow. If so, LOL.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1125 days ago)

I didn't own you. Own goal means you owned yourself. I just pointed it out. Cengland0 stopped commenting on climate change because he ran out of objections, exactly what is happening to you.

Again, you have been silent on the matter of whether climate change millions of years ago is relevant to figuring out whether an increase of CO2 by 40% over 100 years is going to warm the planet. You said yourself, this was the "crux" of our disagreement.

I take it then that you agree with me that whatever caused the climate to change 500 million years ago is irrelevant to whether increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over 100 years, will warm the planet. FYI, CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds, even thousands of years.

So do you promise that you'll never bring up million year old climate change stories again when talking about AGW?

ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment

I didn't own you. Own goal means you owned yourself. I just pointed it out. Cengland0 stopped commenting on climate change because he ran out of objections, exactly what is happening to you.

Again, you have been silent on the matter of whether climate change millions of years ago is relevant to figuring out whether an increase of CO2 by 40% over 100 years is going to warm the planet. You said yourself, this was the "crux" of our disagreement.

I take it then that you agree with me that whatever caused the climate to change 500 million years ago is irrelevant to whether increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over 100 years, will warm the planet. FYI, CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds, even thousands of years.

So do you promise that you'll never bring up million year old climate change stories again when talking about AGW?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1125 days ago)

I don't remember cengland discussing climate change but I probably didn't read all messages either. I thought he was more into politics and banking.

The climate millions of years ago is relevant even if you don't think so. Again, that's the problem and why you don't understand. There are credit bureaus that collect credit history of people because the past is an indicator of what will happen in the future. If someone didn't pay their bills in the past, they will probably do it again, and again, and again.

So let us get some other details sorted out by you answering some of these basic questions:
1. Do you agree the temperature of the earth was usually 25C during most of the periods where most of the life existed? Any dips in temperature due to asteroids or other catastrophes were soon recovered back to 25C.
2. Do you agree that CO2 levels in the past did not correlate with temperatures (refer back to the graph). In other words, a reduction of CO2 did not change the average temperature below 25C and an increase did not raise it above 25C.
3. Do you agree that methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
4. Do you agree that water vapor is the major contributing factor to the greenhouse effect?
5. Do you agree that we are coming out of a cold period , a.k.a. an ice age?
6. Do you agree that life flourished just fine when the temperatures were 25C and not all life ended during those periods?
7. Do you agree that melting ice does not raise water levels if the ice is already floating on water?
8. Do you agree that areas like the Sahara Desert was a rich environment supporting large populations around 9500 BCE but due to a shift in the earth's orbit, by 3400 BCE the Sahara became as dry as it is today (pre industrial age)? In other words, there are natural causes of climate change that can kill off civilizations. LINK
9. Do you agree that heat can be released without heating up nearby objects such as how the ISS releases heat into space (a vacuum) as radiation that becomes part of the background radiation constant?

The answers to these questions will help figure out where some of our other disagreements are.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

I don't remember cengland discussing climate change but I probably didn't read all messages either. I thought he was more into politics and banking.

The climate millions of years ago is relevant even if you don't think so. Again, that's the problem and why you don't understand. There are credit bureaus that collect credit history of people because the past is an indicator of what will happen in the future. If someone didn't pay their bills in the past, they will probably do it again, and again, and again.

So let us get some other details sorted out by you answering some of these basic questions:
1. Do you agree the temperature of the earth was usually 25C during most of the periods where most of the life existed? Any dips in temperature due to asteroids or other catastrophes were soon recovered back to 25C.
2. Do you agree that CO2 levels in the past did not correlate with temperatures (refer back to the graph). In other words, a reduction of CO2 did not change the average temperature below 25C and an increase did not raise it above 25C.
3. Do you agree that methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
4. Do you agree that water vapor is the major contributing factor to the greenhouse effect?
5. Do you agree that we are coming out of a cold period , a.k.a. an ice age?
6. Do you agree that life flourished just fine when the temperatures were 25C and not all life ended during those periods?
7. Do you agree that melting ice does not raise water levels if the ice is already floating on water?
8. Do you agree that areas like the Sahara Desert was a rich environment supporting large populations around 9500 BCE but due to a shift in the earth's orbit, by 3400 BCE the Sahara became as dry as it is today (pre industrial age)? In other words, there are natural causes of climate change that can kill off civilizations. LINK
9. Do you agree that heat can be released without heating up nearby objects such as how the ISS releases heat into space (a vacuum) as radiation that becomes part of the background radiation constant?

The answers to these questions will help figure out where some of our other disagreements are.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SAT-A-NA (1125 days ago)

shut the fu*k up duck lover.

we all know you're shit and changed your nick to guest123456789

troll ********* lol, fu*k off

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

shut the fu*k up duck lover.

we all know you're shit and changed your nick to guest123456789

troll ********* lol, fu*k off

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1125 days ago)

I did take the guest123456789 ID from someone that was using it before me and failed to register it even after several warnings but I have no idea what you're talking about on the other points.

I don't like duck, it's too fatty. Was the most disgusting meat I've ever tasted.

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

I did take the guest123456789 ID from someone that was using it before me and failed to register it even after several warnings but I have no idea what you're talking about on the other points.

I don't like duck, it's too fatty. Was the most disgusting meat I've ever tasted.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1125 days ago)

trolls will be trolls

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

trolls will be trolls

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1125 days ago)

Then you don't know what a real troll is. I'm having a serious discussion here and I'm sorry for you if you cannot see that.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Then you don't know what a real troll is. I'm having a serious discussion here and I'm sorry for you if you cannot see that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1125 days ago)

Wow. Here's me trying to focus in on one point to get some clarity and closure, and you pull a mega-distractor and hit me with 9 questions. Don't panic.

Just explain to me the relevance of the Cretaceous thermal optimum, a 35 million year period a very long time ago, to whether an increase of CO2 by 40% over the past 100 years, is going to warm the planet by 1C.

Then I'll be happy to answer all your questions. They're really easy because we've been through them all before, except for no.9 - the ISS cooling system. I look forward to that.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

Wow. Here's me trying to focus in on one point to get some clarity and closure, and you pull a mega-distractor and hit me with 9 questions. Don't panic.

Just explain to me the relevance of the Cretaceous thermal optimum, a 35 million year period a very long time ago, to whether an increase of CO2 by 40% over the past 100 years, is going to warm the planet by 1C.

Then I'll be happy to answer all your questions. They're really easy because we've been through them all before, except for no.9 - the ISS cooling system. I look forward to that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1125 days ago)

The relevance of the cretaceous period and CO2 is that it is clear that the CO2 levels dropped to about 300 ppm and still had the same 25C temperature as the Cambrian period that had CO2 levels up to 7000 ppm. This proves that CO2 does not correlate to temperature as much as other factors.

The normal temperature of the planet is 25C -- fact. You can see that by looking at our history. There are some cold periods such as that at the end of the Ordovician period. That was caused by volcanic activity that drew CO2 out of the air but only from 7000 to 4400 ppm. Notice that the CO2 levels were still much higher than today. So your theory that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas should not have allowed the planet to cool to an ice age with CO2 at 4400 ppm but it did.

The temperature recovered back to 25C as normal (and CO2 levels continued to drop but temperatures rose) and then during the Carboniferous period, there was another ice age and the planet again recovered to a global temperature of 25C.

Then you have the cooloing during the Tertiary period (some people split these into two periods called Paleogene and Neogene) but the point is we are still recovering from that cooling period and will eventually reach the standard 25C that the planet has always had during the existence of life.

The paragraphs above show why it is important to look at a larger history of the planet so you can see what is normal and what we should be expecting even if humans did not exist on this planet. I surmise that if humans did not exist today, the planet will still recover back to it's normal 25C just as it has done so many times in the past.

Now that I've answered your question, I look forward to hearing your answers to mine. At least mine are not essay questions, they are simple yes/no about if you agree with those statements or not. Then we will have something to focus on about what we disagree with and can completely ignore the points that we both agree on.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

The relevance of the cretaceous period and CO2 is that it is clear that the CO2 levels dropped to about 300 ppm and still had the same 25C temperature as the Cambrian period that had CO2 levels up to 7000 ppm. This proves that CO2 does not correlate to temperature as much as other factors.

The normal temperature of the planet is 25C -- fact. You can see that by looking at our history. There are some cold periods such as that at the end of the Ordovician period. That was caused by volcanic activity that drew CO2 out of the air but only from 7000 to 4400 ppm. Notice that the CO2 levels were still much higher than today. So your theory that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas should not have allowed the planet to cool to an ice age with CO2 at 4400 ppm but it did.

The temperature recovered back to 25C as normal (and CO2 levels continued to drop but temperatures rose) and then during the Carboniferous period, there was another ice age and the planet again recovered to a global temperature of 25C.

Then you have the cooloing during the Tertiary period (some people split these into two periods called Paleogene and Neogene) but the point is we are still recovering from that cooling period and will eventually reach the standard 25C that the planet has always had during the existence of life.

The paragraphs above show why it is important to look at a larger history of the planet so you can see what is normal and what we should be expecting even if humans did not exist on this planet. I surmise that if humans did not exist today, the planet will still recover back to it's normal 25C just as it has done so many times in the past.

Now that I've answered your question, I look forward to hearing your answers to mine. At least mine are not essay questions, they are simple yes/no about if you agree with those statements or not. Then we will have something to focus on about what we disagree with and can completely ignore the points that we both agree on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1124 days ago)

I'll come to your questions when we finish with this one about relevance.

You said: "The relevance of the cretaceous period and CO2 is that it is clear that the CO2 levels dropped to about 300 ppm and still had the same 25C temperature as the Cambrian period that had CO2 levels up to 7000 ppm. This proves that CO2 does not correlate to temperature as much as other factors."

Don't be silly. Proof requires more evidence. If you want to prove CO2 does not trap heat, then try something we know more about. I suggest a lab experiment just as a proof of concept. At least if you can show CO2 does not trap heat in the lab, then maybe you'll find examples in nature. Good luck, a Nobel Prize is waiting.

So I ask again: What is the relevance of climate change millions of years ago, acting over hundreds of thousands of years, with the question of whether the human act of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in 100 years, has warmed the planet by 1C?

ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment

I'll come to your questions when we finish with this one about relevance.

You said: "The relevance of the cretaceous period and CO2 is that it is clear that the CO2 levels dropped to about 300 ppm and still had the same 25C temperature as the Cambrian period that had CO2 levels up to 7000 ppm. This proves that CO2 does not correlate to temperature as much as other factors."

Don't be silly. Proof requires more evidence. If you want to prove CO2 does not trap heat, then try something we know more about. I suggest a lab experiment just as a proof of concept. At least if you can show CO2 does not trap heat in the lab, then maybe you'll find examples in nature. Good luck, a Nobel Prize is waiting.

So I ask again: What is the relevance of climate change millions of years ago, acting over hundreds of thousands of years, with the question of whether the human act of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in 100 years, has warmed the planet by 1C?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1124 days ago)

I am not saying that it is impossible for CO2 to trap heat. What I am saying is that the historical temperature and CO2 record do not coorelate with each other so it seems they are completely unrelated. If there is any relevance, it is so minor that there must be something else that causes much greater temperature variations besides CO2.

If you want to avoid answering those questions, I understand. You don't want to have a serious discussion about this in such a way that we can understand each other's point of views. It's almost pointless to discuss this further without knowing where each of us stands on the issues.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

I am not saying that it is impossible for CO2 to trap heat. What I am saying is that the historical temperature and CO2 record do not coorelate with each other so it seems they are completely unrelated. If there is any relevance, it is so minor that there must be something else that causes much greater temperature variations besides CO2.

If you want to avoid answering those questions, I understand. You don't want to have a serious discussion about this in such a way that we can understand each other's point of views. It's almost pointless to discuss this further without knowing where each of us stands on the issues.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1124 days ago)

I'm not avoiding your questions. I just know that if I answer them now, we'll never get closure on this question.

You said "I am not saying that it is impossible for CO2 to trap heat." What does that even mean? Are you suggesting CO2 only sometimes traps heat? I look forward to seeing you on the podium collecting your Nobel prize. I wonder what your name is.

"... the historical temperature and CO2 record do not coorelate with each other so it seems they are completely unrelated." That is very interesting. But what has it to do with whether the 40% increase in CO2 in the last 100 years has warmed the planet by 1C?

Or are you trying to say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? I'm confused. Some clarity please.

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

I'm not avoiding your questions. I just know that if I answer them now, we'll never get closure on this question.

You said "I am not saying that it is impossible for CO2 to trap heat." What does that even mean? Are you suggesting CO2 only sometimes traps heat? I look forward to seeing you on the podium collecting your Nobel prize. I wonder what your name is.

"... the historical temperature and CO2 record do not coorelate with each other so it seems they are completely unrelated." That is very interesting. But what has it to do with whether the 40% increase in CO2 in the last 100 years has warmed the planet by 1C?

Or are you trying to say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? I'm confused. Some clarity please.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1124 days ago)

It seems you may have missed an important sentence in my last comment.

"If there is any relevance, it is so minor that there must be something else that causes much greater temperature variations besides CO2."

Hope that clarifys it now that you were given an addtional opportunity to read it.

So let me ask you this. Would you say that if there is an increase in CO2, there must always be an increase in temperature? It sounds like this is what you believe so I'd like you to confirm that for me.

ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment

It seems you may have missed an important sentence in my last comment.

"If there is any relevance, it is so minor that there must be something else that causes much greater temperature variations besides CO2."

Hope that clarifys it now that you were given an addtional opportunity to read it.

So let me ask you this. Would you say that if there is an increase in CO2, there must always be an increase in temperature? It sounds like this is what you believe so I'd like you to confirm that for me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1124 days ago)

The climatic conditions of the Cretaceous period is fascinating stuff, but humans had nothing to do with it. It was all natural processes over millions of years, that we have very skant information about.

The 40% extra CO2 in the atmosphere is added by humans. Are you now saying 40% is "so minor" that it is not enough to raise the temperature by 1C?

"Would you say that if there is an increase in CO2, there must always be an increase in temperature?" In a controlled lab experiment, yes. In the atmosphere, not necessarily. It depends what else is going on.

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

The climatic conditions of the Cretaceous period is fascinating stuff, but humans had nothing to do with it. It was all natural processes over millions of years, that we have very skant information about.

The 40% extra CO2 in the atmosphere is added by humans. Are you now saying 40% is "so minor" that it is not enough to raise the temperature by 1C?

"Would you say that if there is an increase in CO2, there must always be an increase in temperature?" In a controlled lab experiment, yes. In the atmosphere, not necessarily. It depends what else is going on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1124 days ago)

This is excellent. First you finally acknowledge that the cretaceous period warming was not caused by humans. Hopefully you agree that none of the past warming periods that got the earth to 25C were not caused by humans. We are currently at about 16C which is, on average, lower than the temperatures of most of the past periods where life other than humans existed.

It's also great that you acknowledge that the climate models are very complicated and that increases in CO2 does not always increase the temperatures. The proof in this is that there was no increase in temperatures between 300 ppm and 7000 ppm in CO2 for millions of years.

Now the problem is that you are trying to correlate a very small increase (compared to the big one from 300 to 7000 ppm) to some 1C rise in temperature. You must understand why I am skeptical that the cause of that 1C change has to be CO2 related.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

This is excellent. First you finally acknowledge that the cretaceous period warming was not caused by humans. Hopefully you agree that none of the past warming periods that got the earth to 25C were not caused by humans. We are currently at about 16C which is, on average, lower than the temperatures of most of the past periods where life other than humans existed.

It's also great that you acknowledge that the climate models are very complicated and that increases in CO2 does not always increase the temperatures. The proof in this is that there was no increase in temperatures between 300 ppm and 7000 ppm in CO2 for millions of years.

Now the problem is that you are trying to correlate a very small increase (compared to the big one from 300 to 7000 ppm) to some 1C rise in temperature. You must understand why I am skeptical that the cause of that 1C change has to be CO2 related.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1124 days ago)

So are you saying 40% is "so minor" that it is not enough to raise the temperature by 1C?

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

So are you saying 40% is "so minor" that it is not enough to raise the temperature by 1C?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1124 days ago)

Okay, that does it. I'm done. You are either purposely not reading or incapable of understanding. I now get why you blindly follow what the media is telling you because you cannot put concepts together to form simple thoughts.

Have a good night.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Okay, that does it. I'm done. You are either purposely not reading or incapable of understanding. I now get why you blindly follow what the media is telling you because you cannot put concepts together to form simple thoughts.

Have a good night.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1124 days ago)
Latest comment:

I'm certainly not clear on your position with CO2's heat trapping properties.

You believe CO2 traps heat: "I am not saying that it is impossible for CO2 to trap heat" . Whether that's all the time or just when it's convenient, I'm not sure.

You believe the heat trapping properties of CO2 are small: " If there is any relevance, it is so minor that there must be something else that causes much greater temperature variations besides CO2. " A bit vague to be scientific, but hey, this is BoreMe.

But then I ask you whether 40% increase in CO2 is enough to raise the temperature by only 1C, and your brain melts.

If you could only explain what has raised the temperature 1C if it's not the CO2, that Nobel prize could be yours. Best of luck.

ReplyVote up (84)down (151)
Original comment
Latest comment:

I'm certainly not clear on your position with CO2's heat trapping properties.

You believe CO2 traps heat: "I am not saying that it is impossible for CO2 to trap heat" . Whether that's all the time or just when it's convenient, I'm not sure.

You believe the heat trapping properties of CO2 are small: " If there is any relevance, it is so minor that there must be something else that causes much greater temperature variations besides CO2. " A bit vague to be scientific, but hey, this is BoreMe.

But then I ask you whether 40% increase in CO2 is enough to raise the temperature by only 1C, and your brain melts.

If you could only explain what has raised the temperature 1C if it's not the CO2, that Nobel prize could be yours. Best of luck.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Cockatoo having the time of its life
Cockatoo having the time of its life
Should cyclists be forced to wear a helmet?
Should cyclists be forced to wear a helmet?
Bicycle fireworks
Bicycle fireworks
North Korean ICBM, Inter-City Bicycle Missile
North Korean ICBM, Inter-City Bicycle Missile
Utrecht station's new bicycle parking facility
Utrecht station's new bicycle parking facility