That number is based on several studies made to find the levels of consensus among scientists and the evidence.
As the loss of ice in the poles is accelerating (and the contrarians claimed that was not going to happen) the prediction of what will happen in the long run is to see a few hundred years of ocean rise.
But that does not mean that we will not see related issues cropping up sooner.
Who is this “they” that you claim oppose nuclear power?
Certainly, there are a number of people who do fear and oppose nuclear power, but I have never heard this group associated with the IPCC or with anyone specifically connected to investigations into Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Trying to attack the science behind AGW by attacking a few opponents of nuclear power who are not connected to the AGW discussion is a fail.
OK, so I’m seeing a lot of moving the goal posts (it’s a few hundred years change), and denial of basic facts
If this were as big a problem as is being claimed (i.e. the biggest problem ever, and global), then indeed the solution would go full nuclear. No, that wouldn’t be stupid given the proposed problem. And no, ending suburbs would not be stupid.
You’re just changing the parameters as you see fit
Oh, and relatively crappy studies about “consensus” with highly self-selective data.
See? Right here.
You’ve lost.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to run at most maybe no more than 10% of our electric of green powers. Most of it will have to come from nuclear, period. To propose that we attempt to deforest and build solar cells on thousands of square miles of land, and do the same with wind, instead of just building more nucler plants and spending a bit more money on security and safety, well, then, you’re just exposing the lie. There is no doubt nuclear would be the solution
Global warming is a big problem. And nuclear is part of the solution. But as I said before, intelligent people should want nuclear’s use to be tempered by the fact that because of disaster or terrorism it can make a city uninhabitable for decades.
I am attempting to have a discussion with a person who is flailing around.
You are making an assertion based on nothing but that this assertion helps you preserve your ideological misinformation.
No, not really, you lost.
Unless you can explain how the ludicrous proposition that we can replace most of our power with green power without nuclear or hydro, then you’ve lost. The idea is absurd. Those techs involve such HUGE land-to-power rations and cost-to-wattage ratios, and are so inconsistent, that you damn well better back your shit up.
It’s all basic science, the basic science AGW people claim to be using.
Nope, I made that assertion on the fact that they were published by people who were clearly looking for their result in the first place, and they even chose crappy things to look at as data.
How about defining “expert” first, and THEN doing a tally?
And what does it matter anyway? All that is is appeal to authority. Last I checked science doesn’t appeal to authority.
Nope, what happens is that very little good information was offered to you by your sources.
Again, not everybody is against nuclear, and to change all alternatives have to be considered.
Not really, the explanations offered so far are to deal with the wrong information that was offered to you, it is usually coming from denier sources that do receive a lot of support from very powerful interests that do not want to see the common sense regulations come to minimize the issue and indeed have a good economy for the future generations.
Not correct either. What you claim here is possible only by ignoring that different approaces wer done to find the actual consensus among the experts.
Indeed, the bolded part points to an skeptic that found out that it had to criticize one of the most recent studies in a roundabout way, anyhow he had to acknowledge that indeed the levels of support among the experts is into the super majority levels.
Is it? Germany gets 31% from renewables. Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia
Note that Germany is not as sunny as, for instance, the American southwest. And if we were, to say, invent a reasonably economical biofuel, that would help a lot. Because the carbon the cars would burn would be sequestered by the next generation of switchgrass, or whatever.
Nuclear is a solution. But it has dangers. Like that it can render cities uninhabitable for decades.
So a solution that doesn’t require nuclear, or minimizes its use is superior.
Also, we don’t need to have no carbon emissions. We need to have less. The Earth sequesters carbon. We’re just currently overcoming that natural level of sequestration.
I don’t need to cite anything. Anybody who understands basic science understands this stuff.
A solar cell, for example, costs $15 per watt of generation. One thousand watts for one hour costs NINE CENTS! Do you see the differential!? Can you do those numbers? Furthermore, solar cells never last longer than 30 years, and take 15 years to recoup their cost. Furthermore, they have inconsistent power. To level it off, you’d have to build like endless plants of battery stations, or water power storage stations by blowing up mountaintops. And the energy density is extremely low. The greenies like to cite that it would only take a 35 mile square to power all the nation, but that’s only the wattage capacity, and at the latitude of the new mexico desert. That ignores, again, that the sun goes down at night. And also, that’s 1,225 square miles, That’s HUGE. LIKE ENORMOUS HUGE. You’d have to re-plan cities around all that shit. You would HAVE to bulldoze suburbs and force people into cities.
And oh yeah, all the space and money taken up by building and maintaining the power converters, low volt DC to AC. We might not even know how big those could be scaled up.
And that’s just talking about solar cells, wind power is equally frugal.
The most serious proponents of this repeatedly are telling you that indeed nuclear and hydro are options to use, so what you claim here is mostly a strawman.
I’m extremely skeptical of the 31% claims. I’d like to know how they came up with that number, it sounds like it may be funny business with the feed-in-tariffs.
Except for all the other greenies that shriek and howl at both. If you can’t get a consensus among yourselves on the solutions, why should I believe your other claims of consensus?Why should I believe that those people wont be in charge when you do get your policies passed?
Consensus consensus, consensus. Yeah, great freggin consensus
This is why your ignorance persists in the face of facts.
No one is credibly saying that solar alone is the solution. At least with current technology. But you’re so confused on this issue, that you think poking holes in solar’s ability to be a one-shot solution is the same thing as undercutting the consensus of climate science.
blah blah blah,
so all you guys can show me is that SOME enviros can take a reasonabe approach, by in part also downplaying the seriousness of global warming and how fast it will happen, which just raises the question why we should even care in that case (honestly, anything occuring over a 150 or more span isn’t even worth spending the money when the theory could be flat out wrong and the costs are definitely high and the effects of AGW might not be so harmful)
Anyway you slice it, it don’t work out to justify moving without a direct democratic vote by the American people to spend their money.