So here's the thing: Oil, Coal and Gas are Natural elements of the earth. So it is natural energy

OMG! And, there you have the exploitation of uninformed opinions have turned them into experts in nonsense. Thanks for the clarity posts^, guys!

 

If we're going to be jackasses, then I can also be a jackass. What's in the atmosphere that's not a mist, or a gas? Now, what comes out of hot water? Steam and/or vapor. So if CO2 is in the air then logically H2O is also in the air.

What Liberals have become is experts in being rude, obnoxious and totally self centered. Who would listen or give time of day to a rude and obnoxious person?

 

You OPed this nonsense without any serious attempt to inform yourself or worse, thought you had a grasp on the very topic you OPed. That's all on you. Own it.

 

It would be also super-nice to build dedicated bicycle lanes and bicycle rack at every commercial and public facility.
No one (in the government) seems to have any desire to build infrastructure that allow people to reduce demand for fossil fuel.

 

Nonsense? That's rich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

"Because carbon dioxide is soluble in water, it occurs naturally in groundwater, rivers and lakes, ice caps, glaciers and seawater.". Again, you and the other two are just obnoxious egotistical jerks that's everything wrong with today's Democratic Party. You are the sole reason for the new recession. It's why there's elected lawmakers fighting cow farts instead of serious issues.

 

I think we are in dire need of balance in the understanding of the environmental issues. Like many other things, we hve people going berserk over what amounts to a pet peeve without considering the overall.

Yes, oil and gas are natural, but they are also limited. Nuclear can be near unlimited, but exposes us to risk. Solar is not very efficient, and producing the equipment still requires conventional energy source use. Wind is irregular, pollutes the visual world, cost a great deal to build and install, and will cost a lot to demolish eventually. Most everything other that the natural or nuclear sources are also irregular- and only work when the right conditions exist. At the same time, science is also working on vastly more desirable alternatives, such as finding ways to cheaply convert water to it's individual gasses- Hydrogen as a fuel, Oxygen as the required oxidizer. They also are developing far more practical ways to store hydrogen, better concepts for large energy storage banks, and much more. It would seem that the real answers will come from the advances in technology, bot in new fuel sources and great improvement in the methods of processing those we already have.

Personally- I do think we are doing substantial damage to the planet, and I think that is highly documented. The real question is the importance of us learning to live the quality of life we want- without us being the obstacle to achieving that. The obstacle to progress is almost always the inability of people to work together, meeting in the middle instead of both side holding to the extremes. We are, as usual= our own worst enemies.

 

Yeah nonsense since the critical concepts that require the OP to stand scrutiny and be understood as per the assertions of the OP, yours, are severely lacking in understanding. Postulating on things one does not grasp is not helpful.

 

And just what the hell have you bought to the table but your typical snark?

The funny thing is when you point your finger you got three more pointing right back at you

 

I stated and proved that CO2 can coexist within and is in fact a natural part of water. Now it's the jackasses turn to be a positive part of the discussion or not at all.

 

No sequitur flaming when you can't deal with the OP's topic and how it's been destroyed but his lack of understanding. Understandable coming from you.

 

You have proved anything as your understanding of the OP and topic lack. Basic lack of understanding about what you are postulating.

 

So you can refute the link and quotation I just provided? I even went out of my way to use wikipedia, a low hanging fruit source. I could use a more authoritative source, and I invite you to do so.

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-earth 71% of the earth is made of or is derived from the properties of water.

 

Your entire OP and what it postulates has been debunked by what you are claiming since you lack understanding of all of the concepts you are basing it on. Basically, it's a house of cards. Last bump since the topic is what your are trying but simply failed to establish.

 

To be honest, I don't even think YOU know what it's based on. And neither did the other two who started this mess, so let's clarify for the self-educated jackasses in the room: All things being equal, the contested energy deposits are largely natural, and other posters have since come out and agreed that yes, they are natural resources. There was discussion about them being 'finite' but this is only in the context of our living lifespans(ie: The next 50 years.) but over a century, they could be replenished fairly soon enough.

My proponent, and quite simple statement is that alternative energy sources are not yet plentiful enough or capable enough to supply us(or any other Western country for that matter, but let's stick to us.) and that therefore, while they can be reserve sources of energy, we should tap into all natural sources of energy as our main supply rather than cutting off said main supply for an energy reservoir that isn't of yet at that capacity.

 

I'm sure you're valuable contributions will be sorely missed in this thread..... Well... Bye-bye

 

Getting us back to the topic at hand(I apologize for not responding to you earlier). Those do seem to be quite positive steps by the scientific community to address the issue. And in fact, turning water into an energy source is a historic success(electrically-ran dams as an example.). These are steps that could work and are welcomed and both have no impact on the environment or a sacrifice in society as we know it today. The only 'downside' is that it'd take time, but I'm one of those who don't believe we're damaging the planet and therefore believe we have plenty of time to adapt the 'solutions' to the 'problem' as perceived by those who perceive it to be an issue.

I don't think there's a scientific basis to claim that a mathematical error of within 2-4 degrees(and this is extreme, it's usually .5 or less in fact) is the 'cause' for various firestorms, etc. The cause for wildfires is actually very simple: Brittle and dry ground/trees, along with high winds. There's your wildfire. I'm pretty sure there were wildfires prior to the 21st century, people just didn't care because it wasn't a hot item to care.

I have no problem with us adapting solutions that cause no disruption. I'd just prefer A: To avoid the disruption and B: I don't think it'll make a difference. You'll still have your wildfires. And if it is heating up, the theory that's given is that the oceans would of course vaporize and turn into steam which theoretically should mean there should be less of a tidal, not more. So the fact that we're talking about oceans rising proves that it hasn't bore out as scientists thought it would.

 

Once upon a time we burned wood, coal or whatever else was inflammable. Then the Arabs found oil, lots of it and we started to buy from them. Yet they’re all fossil fuels and as we want to be ‘green’ the politicians and various fringe groups have decided we’re not going to use them anymore. So, this new ‘green’ source of energy, what and where is it? Please don’t say solar panels and windmills are going to power technologically advanced cities of millions?

A coal fire and internal combustion engine enthusiast.

 

Warmers (Leftists) hate fossil fuel usage because the government doesn't control it. Renewables on the other hand is completely controlled by the government.

There isn't a single point in the Democrat platform that doesn't call for more government control of the private sector.

 

Ironic post^ given your desperation to flame my post below for reinforcing and exposing the flaws in the OPs assertions given his lack of comprehension of the topic he postulates.

Below are the sum total to date of your contributions to this flawed thread I referred to only in the first quote below, the rest is misery likes company examples:

Now to your blatant flame posts attacking posters and the sum total of posts you have made to this point in the thread:

You are accusing me and, then, trying and failing to mark a case regarding my posts but are clearly posting the exact MO you are accusing my of, you must really be ignorant of your own activity.

Now, since you yourself have exposed your own MO on this entire site and either you are unaware or you simply think you have a free pass which is even worse. Either way, you have zero to no credibility. Now, this is my last thread bump!

 

Unless we drive our cars with the power of prayer.

 

You're already promised us that once. Please keep your word at some point...

 

Great thread and it’s exactly right. Thanks for pacing that here. Too many don’t understand the high cost in economics and environment of so called passive clean energy.

 

Technically isn't anything that exists in our universe natural?

 

So is a diamond a natural resource too?

If you put enough pressure over time on a lump of coal, that lump of coal will eventually turn into a diamond, and like several hundred million years or more.

Coal, Natural Gas, and oil are all finite resources. Finite meaning that eventually they will end. Yes, there is oil in the Rocky Mountains, in the deep blue sea off the Continental Shelf some three to five miles before you reach the ocean floor and other places. The problem is the price per barrel would have to be 5 times what it is today for the oil exploration companies to find it profitable to extract the oil, even with horizontal drilling technologies.

I guess that is why Musk prefers the "green energy" sector because that energy is technically unlimited.

 

@AmericanNationalist,
The members giving you a hard time are on record all over PF making incorrect statements on matters of science. I don’t believe it has anything to do with which Presidents they have supported.

If you are interested I can provide better information on CO2 levels and temperatures in relation to human survivability. The claims made to you that we are headed to climate parameters unsurvivable by humans is absurd. Here’s why. For context for what follows we are at 419 ppm atmospheric CO2 and 14.9°C average global temp today.

First, when mammalian evolution occurred the atmospheric CO2 level fluctuated between 2500 and 1000 ppm and was on the high side of that range when mammalian speciation began. The average global temperature during that time period varied between 25°c and 17°C, again, with mammalian speciation beginning at the high end.

When primates split from other mammals in their evolution the global temperatures were still in the 25°C range and CO2 was around 1000-1500 ppm. These primates developed the ability to sweat to a small extent, but the more efficient human sweating physiological response to deal with heat developed around 2 million years ago.

So we see not only are our origins in MUCH warmer and higher CO2 than the foreseeable future, we have better ability to handle heat as well with the sweat response.

A few more facts to demonstrate humans are “made” to handle heat and CO2.

Humans can work in environments with 5000 ppm CO2 for hours. Some health departments set safety limits at 10,000 ppm for 8 hour work periods. Indoor environments routinely run over 1000 ppm.

About 36% of land on earth is tropical ecosystems where the average temperature is 25-28°C— the same or hotter than the global temp during much of our evolutionary beginnings. About 40% of humans on earth live in the tropics and by the year 2050 it’s expected 50% of humans will live in the tropics. So not only can humans survive temps seen in the past eons of evolutionary time, the populations in those temperatures is growing faster than populations in cooler parts of the planet.

Because the temperature of the planet is currently warming much faster towards the poles than at the equator, even if equatorial areas became difficult to live in, the actual land mass that is becoming more habitable due to warming would far exceed the parts being lost to becoming uninhabitable.

As the planet has warmed, the death rate attributed to suboptimal temperatures has decreased. Deaths globally from temperatures that are too cold still occur 10-17 times (depending on study design) as often as deaths from temperatures that are too hot. Cold is killing the vast majority of people who die from exposure to suboptimal temperature.

It doesn’t matter how you look at it, the facts are clear there is NO evidence we are headed for a climate not fit for humans. The very idea is preposterous.

The bottom line is many are scared of ANY change. Their fears are not founded on reality however. After 4 billion years of changes they want all change to cease NOW. After 99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct, and more advanced forms of life have taken their place, they want evolution and extinction to stop in its tracks NOW.

Anyway, that’s the long way around of telling you your critics aren’t well informed themselves.