 |
Antarctica once had a tropical rain forest .
Fossilised Remains of 90-million-year-old Rainforest Found Under Antarctic Ice (thevintagenews.com)
This is also true of the North Pole
Study: North Pole Once Was Tropical - CBS News
I guess they got those dinosaurs to stop driving SUVs .
NOW is global warming/climate change, partly because of the human activities on this planet.
possibly; that is one unproven hypothesis . I have my own unproven hypothesis .It says that the real state of the world is warm ;that we are still retreating from the last ice age that began about 20,000 years ago . The current warming began around 11,000 years ago . There have been at least 5 major ice ages in the globe's history ;and countless lesser ones.
and the world recovered from these ice ages without human intervention
Will the worlds humans recover from fouling the land air and water too? Humans could at least clean up after themselves.
there you go again . The issues are not related . The issue related to alleged anthropogenic climate change have nothing to do with other pollutants . Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant despite what SCOTUS says . And there is certainly no evidence that other pollutants "fouling the air and water " have any relationship to climate change .
We can certainly address those issues and in many cases have done so .
For what it's worth, most western nations have been reducing CO2 output since 2000. This chart is a great illustration of why the Paris Accords were one of Obama's most ridiculous "accomplishments". https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Region.svg.png
Here's some reading for you scientists out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic from a number of lines of evidence. Atmospheric oxygen is decreasing at approximately the same rate as the atmospheric CO2 increase, which tells us that the source of the change is from a release of carbon combining with atmospheric oxygen rather than a natural release of CO2.
Thus we know that human emissions are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which as a greenhouse gas, in turn increases the greenhouse effect. This increases the amount of energy (in the form of longwave infrared radiation) reaching the Earth's surface. We've observed this increase through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum. Climate scientists have also quantified the amount of warming we expect to see from the energy imbalance caused by this increased downward radiation, and it matches well with observations. Given the amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere already, once the planet reaches a new equilibrium state, it will have warmed approximately 1.4°C from pre-industrial levels. Additionally, we have observed numerous key 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming which confirm that the warming we've experienced is due to an increased greenhouse effect.
There are some positive effects of global warming from increased CO2 emissions. For example, improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives will far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are already becoming extinct at a rate 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time, partially due to the effects of global warming and climate change.
Another impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions is ocean acidification. Among other impacts, this decreasing oceanic pH has a damaging effect on corals, which form the habitat of approximately 25% of marine species (Karleskint et al. 2009). A seminal study co-authored by 17 marine scientists (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007) found:"Many experimental studies have shown that a doubling of pre-industrial [CO2] atm to 560 ppm decreases coral calcification and growth by up to 40% through the inhibition of aragonite formation (the principal crystalline form of calcium carbonate deposited in coral skeletons) as carbonate-ion concentrations decrease"Thus not only does anthropogenic CO2 act as a dangerous pollutant due to its impacts on global warming and climate change, but it also has a major effect on marine ecosystems through ocean acidification.
When considering the legal definition of "air pollutants" and body of scientific evidence, it becomes clear that CO2 meets the definition and poses a significant threat to public health and welfare.
Here's the data for the scientifically inclined:
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=281
I don't know of anyone who questions that atmospheric CO2 has increased, though it is still measured in parts per million and has never been a significant atmospheric component. I also don't know of anyone who seriously questions that global temps have risen marginally, though not nearly as much as the now discredited computer models predicted. The big question centers around what to do about it. The liberal dem idea of a Green New Deal is lunacy right out of the gate if, for no other reason, its prohibitive cost and the fact that it only effects CO2 emissions in the U.S., so we are still waiting on someone to come up with a logical solution. We like to throw accusations around in our country, but we still await any practical ideas of what to do about it. Wind and solar can help a little, but they are not large-scale solutions due to being unreliable. Replacing coal with natural gas helps. Energy efficient cars, buildings, etc. help some as well, but that does nothing to slow down the rest of the world. So a truly global solution is, at present, nowhere to be found, and it might well turn out that simply learning to adapt is going to be the answer. A real key is to not allow liberal dems like AOC, Sanders, Harris Biden, and others to destroy our economy in their foolish and unscientific efforts to use Monopoly money to fix a problem that is still not well understood.
Naturally occurring CO2 is a part of the cycle of life in the global ecosystem, but mans emissions does change that natural equation and has profound effects on that cycle of life which appears to accelerate not just the rate of climate change, but the intensity of it. To say that a few million cars or oil refineries, or coal burning power plants have no effect on air land or water is insane, or that our mitigation strategies are as adequate as they need to be is down right crazy. I'm not surprised though that you and many others just see this as a matter of money, as mitigation is expensive and old habits die hard, and why would you care if until YOUR water supply or air you breath may not be as polluted as another locale or region.
Basically what Athos so very well posted and there is plenty of evidence to point in that direction.
That graph is a lie and self serving since it doesnt show the volumes of emissions the rest of the world increaces 1.4% from a low base? And is towering over others
The point of posting the graph was to show that the West had lowered CO2 emissions while the rest of the world has generally increased. But if it makes you feel better, here is a chart showing emissions by countries. You will note that your emissions have climbed steadily while the United States has shown a significant decrease in the past decade. In fact we are scarcely above where we were in 1990. Your per capita emissions are also above ours. Just sayin. If the rest of the world was following the example of the U.S. and Western Europe, CO2 emissions would be down substantially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions
And here's the chart done a little differently. It certainly does appear that the relative amounts shown in the first one were accurate.
https://vajiramandravi.s3.us-east-1....on_project.jpg
The graph is deceiving because it suggests that the rest of the world must make the reduction effort when it is the developed countries that have massive emissions and must continue to make large reductions
I didn't see that the graph was trying to suggest anything, but it does show very clearly that the West is leading the way in reducing carbon emissions and that China is far and away the leading "culprit", if that is the correct term to use. If China and the "rest of the world" do not reverse their explosive growth, then it won't much matter what we do.
china is only a culprit because the west transferred much of the manufacturing there just another lie of capitalists to deflect blame things will move from china to india and then india will be the culprit. Its insaneQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The decrease of carbon emissions in the U.S. has little to do with manufacturing. It is largely due to a greatly increased use of natural gas as opposed to coal and increased usage of renewable energy sources. That combined with more efficient usage accounts for most of it.Quote:
china is only a culprit because the west transferred much of the manufacturing there just another lie of capitalists to deflect blame things will move from china to india and then india will be the culprit. Its insane
China's manufacturing surge accounts for some of their problems, but their increases in personal earnings, and the increased use of energy that brings on, is a large contributor.
Thank goodness for capitalism.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...-in-the-us.php
Few nations on the Earth have our technology or creative way of financing stuff. That was a great link JL, with some great embedded links as well. It illustrates the solution to GW/CC or whatever, lies in a GLOBAL effort that others nations are just not completely ready for. Heck to be fair we are just getting the bugs out of our own systems.
I think Clete just stopped at the pretty colors of the charts you provided. Shame.
very disingenuous of you tal, you know i think AGW is bunk and if anything is a northern hemisphere problem, a myth started by Thatcher for political purposes. You drink the koolaid if you want but posts suggesting others should change their lifestyle to preserve yours are bunkQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
If anyone had posted a suggestion of that sort, then you would have a valid complaint. Since they didn't, then you don't. My point is simply that the west is leading the way in reducing carbon emissions. There is no point beyond that. Like you, I don't know that I accept the whole theory to begin with.Quote:
posts suggesting others should change their lifestyle to preserve yours are bunk
Yes reducing from a high base, dont stretch your arm too far the whole of the debate is about others changing their lifestyle to suit your point of view
You don't have to change your lifestyle to upgrade technology or learn best practice techniques do you? That's a pretty wild statement.
We arn't talking about that, the response to the theory of AGW requires a total change of lifestyle because more is demanded all the time. Don't use coal to generate electricity, use gas. Don't use gas use solar, use wind. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind blow you are back to old technology or do without refrigeration. Everything modern technology gives requires electricity and we arn't smart enough to figure out fusion'
But my argument remains AGW is a myth, climate change is not a myth, it has been happening for thousands of years and again we arn't smart enough to figure out why
This may help you understand why AGW is NOT a myth. It's not an easy read but since you claim to be a smart guy, it shouldn't be too difficult for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic from a number of lines of evidence. Atmospheric oxygen is decreasing at approximately the same rate as the atmospheric CO2 increase, which tells us that the source of the change is from a release of carbon combining with atmospheric oxygen rather than a natural release of CO2.
Thus we know that human emissions are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which as a greenhouse gas, in turn increases the greenhouse effect. This increases the amount of energy (in the form of longwave infrared radiation) reaching the Earth's surface. We've observed this increase through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum. Climate scientists have also quantified the amount of warming we expect to see from the energy imbalance caused by this increased downward radiation, and it matches well with observations. Given the amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere already, once the planet reaches a new equilibrium state, it will have warmed approximately 1.4°C from pre-industrial levels. Additionally, we have observed numerous key 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming which confirm that the warming we've experienced is due to an increased greenhouse effect.
There are some positive effects of global warming from increased CO2 emissions. For example, improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives will far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are already becoming extinct at a rate 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time, partially due to the effects of global warming and climate change.
Another impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions is ocean acidification. Among other impacts, this decreasing oceanic pH has a damaging effect on corals, which form the habitat of approximately 25% of marine species (Karleskint et al. 2009). A seminal study co-authored by 17 marine scientists (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007) found:
"Many experimental studies have shown that a doubling of pre-industrial [CO2] atm to 560 ppm decreases coral calcification and growth by up to 40% through the inhibition of aragonite formation (the principal crystalline form of calcium carbonate deposited in coral skeletons) as carbonate-ion concentrations decrease"
Thus not only does anthropogenic CO2 act as a dangerous pollutant due to its impacts on global warming and climate change, but it also has a major effect on marine ecosystems through ocean acidification.
When considering the legal definition of "air pollutants" and body of scientific evidence, it becomes clear that CO2 meets the definition and poses a significant threat to public health and welfare.
Here's the data for you.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=281
CO2 is an atmospheric gas, there have been high concentrations in the past, we are still here. Corals are very adaptive and have been here for millions of years. AGW is a myth started by thatcher to justify nuclear power stations and are we replacing coal with nuclear, not any more, because nuclear has been proving to be dangerous. Everything in life is dangerous, but plant life thrives, so we have to adapt and stop doing certain things, like destruction of rain forest which absorbs CO2. The problem isn't CO2, it is human population, the most prolific pollutant on the planet. The industries that have sprung up to combat CO2 are just as destructive and "polluting" as coal and oil. There have been many myths over the past decades, remember peak oil, no one speaks of it today, and then there was the impending ice age brought on by AGW, just vanished into the thin air it was made of.
AGW is a northern hemisphere myth and a northern hemisphere problem and the problem is population but don't worry the planet is fighting back, latest manifestation covid 19, a far greater threat than CO2 ever was
COVID is the planet fighting back? What?Quote:
AGW is a northern hemisphere myth and a northern hemisphere problem and the problem is population but don't worry the planet is fighting back, latest manifestation covid 19, a far greater threat than CO2 ever was
There is no question but that CO2 levels are rising, though CO2 remains a tiny, tiny fraction of atmospheric gases. Still, it certainly appears that the burning of fossil fuels is one part of the problem, and possibly the major part. The question remains, "What should we do about it?" That's the thorny issue. The Green New Deal is madness. The U.S. has been reducing CO2 emissions for two decades by a greater use of natural gas and renewables. So has the EU. If the rest of the world would follow that lead, it would be marginally helpful, but I don't see any solution that would bring about any real change in the next several decades.
The use of renewables is filled with problems. It's similar to deciding to use sailing ships for ocean voyages rather than modern ships. That's fine until...the wind stops blowing. Then you have to use modern ships to help out, so you have to have two ships instead of just one. It's just foolishness, or it is unless we want to accept an energy grid that is both more expensive and less reliable.
You can't look at it as either or, more like a MIX of everything as things develop. To not develop other means would be the shame. Just look at your phone and think what if we had not developed it from the old Bell phones. Yeah it costs, but the jobs are there too! Some places are better suited than others but the potential cannot be measured or ignored.
It's an investment that should be stopped because YOU may not have the resources that I do. You'll catch up eventually. Heck you may even develop you're own from what resources you do have.
You didn't read the scientific information I posted, did you? I didn't think you would since people like you prefer to remain in your cocoons of self-satisfied misinformation. Every false point you made is completely debunked in the post you refused to read. Like the proverbial horse, you were offered water but you refused to drink.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
A real promoter of civil discourse. At any rate, his "scientific information" failed to point out that the number one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, by far, is not CO2, but water vapor. And every link I tried went to some site named "Skeptical Science" which is simply a question/answer format. It is scarcely a site anyone would go to in an attempt to gain any real data.Quote:
people like you prefer to remain in your cocoons of self-satisfied misinformation.
Where do water vapors come from? Can't blame you for not knowing the science behind them.
Athos, I have read much "scientific information" on the subject and it is all predicated on the idea "the sky is falling". We must do this or else, and you do know that even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today the "problem" would not go away because the "problem" is multi layered and the cause of climate change isn't down to one single factor, but certainly down to factors we are not taking into account. This is the religion of science gone mad, the idea we have the power to alter our environment
I think that's a pretty fair statement. Temps are rising marginally. They have not risen nearly as much as the high powered computer modeling programs predicted. Water vapor, being a purely natural phenomenon, is the biggest player. I'm all for controlling CO2 emissions, but I've never seen any credible plan for getting to lower levels that doesn't involve the fairy tale of "going green" with renewables. The cost is prohibitive, and the result would be an energy grid with no reliability without burning fossil fuels during downtimes, and what good is that? So we still wait on answers from the shrill crowd.Quote:
even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today the "problem" would not go away because the "problem" is multi layered
Not true. Read this site https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=281 as a starter. I think you will learn something.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Every problem begins with a single step.Quote:
We must do this or else, and you do know that even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today the "problem" would not go away because the "problem" is multi layered and the cause of climate change isn't down to one single factor
Of course we have that power. Obviously not totally, but enough to fix problems as they occur. We've been doing it for thousands of years.Quote:
This is the religion of science gone mad, the idea we have the power to alter our environment
Hi Jl, I believe that climate change is due to factors beyond our control, hot nebula gasses, increase in solar temperature and destruction of our environment due to over population. One factor I have mentioned is within our purvue but unthinkable, population control, so we have settled for the lesser evil of reducing CO2 emissions without any truly viable alternatives. Electric autos still required electricity, our cities cannot run without electricity and solar and wind cannot provided what is needed, when it is needed, exchanging coal for gas is short term thinking and as the lobby wants zero emissions is anathemaQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That could very well be the case.Quote:
climate change is due to factors beyond our control, hot nebula gasses, increase in solar temperature and destruction of our environment due to over population.
The only viable, non-carbon answer is nuclear, but the lefty dems wet their pants at the very mention of it, so we're stuck with what we have.
I have long believed nuclear is the answer to pollution of various kinds and certainly is a viable answer to coal and oil. The world is awash with pollution from the oil industry, plastics are a serious problem. Modern reactors have dealt with the issue of waste, just don't build them in earthquake zones
How have they dealt with the issue of waste?Quote:
Modern reactors have dealt with the issue of waste, just don't build them in earthquake zones
Fast breeder reactors consume most of the fuel so disposal of waste isn't the problem it once was, but the "greenies" won't have nuclear at any price, they want zero CO2 but they would rather live in a polluted, over populated, worldQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
look up thorium
Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia
Let me know when your theory becomes reality.Quote:
I'm talking solutions here
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:11 PM. |