261 scientists sign open letter calling for ‘deep (2025 Update)

I am not sure about the current theory on fossil fuels but there is the thought that they are not from early earth fossils but may be a normal part of our planet.

Titan, a moon of Saturn, appears somewhat earth-like but is rich in hydrocarbons with a mostly nitrogen atmosphere.

The climate has always been changing and will change whether mankind is here or not. It changes on other planets in the solar system. We probably are in a warming cycle and even the extremists will tell you there is very little we can do about it.

Don't forget that the hockey stick curve that scared everybody was the product of a computer scientist and past history would indicate that such a dramatic change is highly unlikely. Draconian measures advocated by the control freaks would ruin us as a country.

The minor detail is burning millions of gallons of oil every day, tons of coal, all making heat.

In 2018, about 687 million short tons of coal were consumed in the U.S. Here, coal was used to produce around 1,146 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2018.

There is also oil Annually, global consumption is even more impressive, reaching 36.4 billion barrels consumed in 2018, according to BP.

So, you don't think the heat generated by that makes a difference?

It's all nonsense. (The "we're running out of oil" crowd has to keep pushing back the date.) We have fossil fuels to last centuries. Nobody alive today will live to see them depleted.

The issue isn't people agreeing, it;s that an extremely high percentage of climate scientists that study it and have the facts and science agree that it's anthropogenic. I prefer to listen to them, instead of Frank, Rush, Hannity, Trump, you, etc.

About now is the time someone here usually points to some climate scientist who's long dead or some scientist in a field other than climate science, who say otherwise, as if they counter the other 97%.

It's an interesting question as to what effect the additional heat has, it must contribute too, but it's the CO2 being released, trapping heat, causing a green house effect that's driving warming.

Thank you for the correction, Bod. :) I hope M is happy now.

On 2/3/2020 4:52 PM, trader_4 wrote: ...

I always come back to the question of how many of these are being funded by sources that would dry up if the answer were any different than the one they are producing. One can convince oneself of any lack of bias pretty easily when its ones livelihood and career at stake.

Secondly, if we eliminated all fossil fuel tomorrow, the CO2 emissions of the human population is about half of that and continues to grow so the net effect is roughly 50% at best.

Third, on a geologic scale, we're just an instant (10K year or so) from the last ice age with pretty decent estimate we're still warming after that.

Fourth, there's the evidence of uncovered human habitat formerly under ice that indicates this level of warming isn't unheard of in recent times as well.

Lastly, I have great doubt the models are really nearly as good in predicting all the effects that are contributing factors as they would have us believe.

Maybe if everyone buys a solar panel and a refrigerator, plugs the fridge in to the panel and leaves the fridge door open.  Would that cool the planet off?

Are you on Trump's staff?

And how much funding has the oil, coal, nat gas industries done and are still doing? Can funding affect science to some extent, sure. But worldwide? And virtually all the scientists? Are they lying that CO2 has increased 33% in just the last 100 years, while previous naturally driven cycles took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years? The science looks increasingly sound to me. I was very skeptical twenty years ago, but even then I said we should take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of that has been a good thing,

I'd like to see a cite for that.

The dramatic increase in CO2, 33% in just a hundred years sure is unheard of.

You have experience with the models? The basic science seems pretty sound. We know CO2 traps heat, we know CO2 is increasing. Seems to me man raising the CO2 levels so much in such a short time is something that one should be very concerned about. The deniers are pretty much not science based. It's just the planet is big, man can't affect it.

Perhaps they should start talking about how little the atmosphere really is. People look up, see a big sky and think it just goes out forever. Take a globe 2 ft in diameter. Most of the atmosphere is where? Below

While that is true, some day we will. Why not sip rather than gulp?

You say "probably" but really have no idea. Show some evidence.

Start by looking at this

Once upon a time Doggerland was prime real estate...

Wait until a billion Chinese stop coughing and buy cars. The Indians are getting tired of tuk-tuks too, to say nothing of cooking over cow dung.

Sure. And it's all about us, isn't it? The future doesn't matter because we won't be there.

Cindy Hamilton

Because there is no need to. Why deprive one's self with a stingy little sip rather than take a satisfying gulp? Every prediction that we are "running out of oil" or have hit "peak oil" has fallen flat on its face for decades. (For a good laugh take a look at where environmentalists and futurists of the 1960s and 1970s thought we would be in the year 2000. The original edition of the book "The Limits to Growth" is particulary humourous.)

Fossil fuels are a *vast* resource for which we already have a fully functional production and distribution network. Modern gasoline cars are extremely clean. (Noxious emissions are nil and CO2 is not a pollutant - it is plant food.) In point of fact there is no crisis, either current or on the horizon. Alternatives will work their way into the marketplace due to the natural process of technological progress and will become cost-effective and more common over time. When a truly superior alternative is developed the marketplace will clamor for it and the use of fossil fuels will diminish. There is no reason to force the issue.

Very rational answer.

I recall my first new car getting 16 mpg on the highway. My new car is getting 30 mpg just around town and probably 40 on the highway. It is also AWD. Obviously engine efficiencies have increased considerably.

Government is out of their element when they legislate technology.

As for OP, I recall our state of Delaware climatologist being fired by the Democrat governor when he said, "When Mother Nature comes, get out of her way."

Scientists are human beings who like many people will tell the boss what he wants to hear.