Topic: We're not cutting co2 emissions any time soon - page 2. (Read 691 times)

According to the EPA, CO₂ in the atmosphere is the predominant factor (https://climatechange.lta.org/wp-content/uploads/cct/2015/02/EPA-climate-forcing-2014.pdf). Regardless of the effect of water vapor, CO₂ has a significant impact.

Apart from bush cutting and burning trucks are more in the pollution of the environment. The solution for me is creating laws that will limit so many people who don't have business with driving certain cars, trucks that emits so much carbon from plying the road , like in the case of the quote.

I know of two girls in the same place I work that drive trucks while not doing anything that needs a truck. One of them wants to get an even bigger truck. Like a huge one. I thinks something like a ram 2500.

just to clear this matter up
33% increase but not a 33% temperature rise
they say average temperature was 15'c now 17'c =13% thus no correlation

the scientific equipment used to measure back to 1820 is not the same equipment method used for 1960+
expect anomalies between datasets using different models

also with oxygen at 780,000ppm and co2 at ~300->400ppm.. co2 is not the worry
nitrogen can change by 27000ppm purely due to if its raining or not.
the difference of rain in of itself can change by a few thousand ppm

and the funny part is. rather than taking a reading of co2 on a sunny day and a rainy day and just recorded the results as is.. after all thats the actual amount of carbon in the air, if it happend to be rainy they take that number and manipulte it into a number that represents a sunny day and just log everything as results from dry days

ok here is a test for you to try to realise how impactful something is.
ok  dry day. go to a city (high carbon) go just outside the city(low carbon) i bet there is not much temperature change
oh yea when in a city dont huddle against a skyscaper building using it as a wind break(intentional varienc). go to the top and then when in country go to a hill at the same altitude so the wind factor is the same (reduce manipulating variance)

ok now try a day where part of the day is sunny and the other part is rainy.. or be in an area of sun and drive to where its rainy. i bet the temperature is more noticable different

yep water in the atmosphere has bigger impact than carbon.

next funny fact. the warmer the temperature gets the more the water is evaporated from lakes/oceans, causing clouds which then cause temperatures to drop. (self fixing mechanism.. nature is good like that)

traffic, modern industry is said to account for just 90ppm change of atmospheric content. yes rain can make the difference of thousands of parts

so lets really concentrate on this carbon thing first
ok so they say todays 17'c average is based on 0.04% instead of previous 15'c of 0.03% 2'c increase for 0.01%
so imagine if 0.09%=12'c increase.
so imagine if 0.9%=120'c increase.
so imagine if 9%=1200'c increase.
so imagine if 90%=12000'c increase.

yet. planets like venus are 95% yet not anywhere near to 12,000'c
and also venus is closer to the sun so less heat lost in space so numbers should be even higher than 12,000'c
sorry but venus is under 500'c

here is a clue to the real climate change
RAIN forests. there are less of them meaning. less what (it begins with R)

same for the poles. snow doesnt miraculously turn up and layer the poles it comes from what.. wait.. no it doesnt magic up from less carbon. it comes from water

the water is the most impactful factor.
carbon emmissions are not that much atmosphere affecting. but water content is.

if you really think that a smoggy city on a dry day is hotter than a beach to such a degree that it makes a rainy day vs sunny day less impactful then here is another test

why isnt it hottest at 9am and 5pm when most commuters are driving to and from work/school. but is hotter/colder depending on if its a clear or rainy day

in short industry emissions is not the cause. its the lack of forests and soil rich in water. to allow for good evaporation.
these days water runs off buildings into gutters and then into drains, instead of evaporating from tree's and fields

most ocean based evaporation form clouds and then rains on the same oceans. thus hardly much lasts long enough to rain on mainlands to affect mainland results so dont try moving the observations that its oceans that cause differentials in mainland temperature studies

here is an analogy for you
co2 experts are saying co2 increased and temperature increase. thus co2 caused temperature
the analogy is that people with lung cancer have more stained teeth. thus stained teeth caused cancer

actual thing is
deforestation/ concreting and draining land of natural wet topsoil caused less water causing higher temperatures
the analogy, smoking ruins the lungs and stains the causing more risk of lung cancer

thats not to say that emissions are not harmful, as they can kill wildlife and harm human health. but thats a debate for biology not climatology

have a nice day

I thought the thorium reactor concept sounded interesting, but it also came across like a pipe-dream too (admittedly after doing only a very small amount of reading up). Although the suggestions I saw (and maybe this might be part of why I judged thorium reactors a little outlandish) included a thorium reactor powering commercial vehicles. If that really were possible (and it sounds like a big if), surely small scale reactors are reasonable?

Although perhaps not; despite deposits being well distributed across the world, I imagine that a thuggish corporate culture (similar to crude oil) could evolve around thorium too. It may be (relatively) safe to store and handle, but you can say the same thing about coal, and the coal supply is massively controlled by corporate behemoths. And despite the relatively abundant deposit distribution, India would apparently became thorium's Saudi Arabia, with the current political trends in India, I'm not too sure about that prospect.

I can't see that happening any time soon. For example, you've got to replace solar panels something like every 20-25 years and they have toxic materials in them. Currently they get dumped into land fills or shipped off to third world countries. Everyone is so focused on reducing CO2 etc, that they don't realize the mountain of toxic waste that is going to be produced.

Maybe one day there will be panels etc that don't have that sort of drawback but until that time, the newer thorium reactors are the real "answer" but not something that can be done locally either.

There is a massive business opportunity currently out there though. Recycling (and heavy R&D to bring down the costs, get more reusable out of them etc) of all those solar panels and batteries.

if this Mann guy really wanted to draw a line in the sand, he had a long period during this case to do so, and he essentially refused to take the opportunity, in a case he brought

if people begin to create all their own energy locally without relying on the crude-oil warlords, we will be an important step closer to a world like that.

real court cases do not run out of time, you're making that up, aren't you?

he lost the case, when he could've proven how true it was by just presenting the data.

He didn't lose it nor did he "refuse". It was dismissed cause they hadn't met some date.

the climate scientist who produced the original hockey stick graph lost his libel case in court a month ago.

he claimed a skeptic was libeling him. the judge asked him to present the datasets he used. He refused.

he was afraid of presenting the data, and showing how he used that to produce the well-known temperature chart.

Real (credible) scientists present a far more complicated trend for global temperatures over the C20th, where the average temperature does indeed increase from the 1950's up to today. But that's not the peak, the peak was in the 1930's.

Why don't you tell me your sources of data. Cause every time I look for stuff, I don't find anything that refutes the overall agreement that man is causing climate change via CO2. I see graphics that compare solar activity. Temperature clearly goes up and up. Graph of core samples from antartic. Shows sine wave type activity for CO2 and then from 1950 on it just goes way up higher than ever before. Graph after graph, data set after data set. And never anything that credibly refutes those things.

agree on what? do they agree on why? (they do not)



I see data that says most of the data you're seeing is cherry-picked or otherwise exaggerated

are we both willfully blind?

No matter where I look I see numbers that say something like 85%-97% of climate scientists agree. There are lots of specific areas they don't agree currently because the science is not there yet.

But all I see is that data keeps coming in to say it is happening, as opposed to data that doesn't.

real scientists are divided on the anthropogenic climate change issue.

I think I'll stick with actual real scientists. I know very well what they're like and how they think.

Here is an interesting video about solar cycles and climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDOgWeTAas0

It contains some interesting facts such as global warming preceding the rise of CO2 by about 600 years. It illustrates this with facts such as the colonisation of Greenland around 850AD because of its verdant pastures and warm climate, and how this changed 100 years later to become the freezing country we know and love. It reminds us of the ice age that caused the Thames to freeze over a few hundred years ago.

Man certainly does have a major impact on the environment, but the misuse of water, which is causing the drying up of underground aquifers , and the leeching of minerals from arable land as a result of corporate ownership of farms, and far more significant. Don't let us forget the massive deforestation that leads to desertification either.