[paraclete]

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

[talaniman]

You don't have to change your lifestyle to upgrade technology or learn best practice techniques do you? That's a pretty wild statement.

[paraclete]

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

[Athos]

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.

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

[paraclete]

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

[jlisenbe]

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?

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[Athos]

CO2 is an atmospheric gas, there have been high concentrations in the past, we are still here.

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.

[jlisenbe]

people like you prefer to remain in your cocoons of self-satisfied misinformation.

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.

[talaniman]

Where do water vapors come from? Can't blame you for not knowing the science behind them.

[paraclete]

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

[jlisenbe]

even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today the "problem" would not go away because the "problem" is multi layered

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.

[Athos]

Athos, I have read much "scientific information" on the subject and it is all predicated on the idea "the sky is falling".

Not true. Read this site https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=281 as a starter. I think you will learn something.

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

Every problem begins with a single step.

This is the religion of science gone mad, the idea we have the power to alter our environment

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.

[paraclete]

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.

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 anathema

[jlisenbe]

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.

That could very well be the case.

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.

[paraclete]

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

[jlisenbe]

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?

[paraclete]

How have they dealt with the issue of waste?

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, world

look up thorium

[talaniman]

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia

As of 2021, there are no operational thorium reactors in the world.^[1]

Let me know when your theory becomes reality.

[paraclete]

I'm talking solutions here