Topic: We're not cutting co2 emissions any time soon (Read 702 times)

You're unwilling to accept what any person that understands anything about the climate has already accepted. Anthropogenic climate change is real. In simpler terms, the climate is changing because of human action.


It may be difficult to accept that humans can have such influence on the environment. But the truth is that our footprint is bigger than ourselves.

...

try learning

have a nice day

A predictive model boils it down to, if I put a pot of water on the stove and turn the stove on, about 10 minutes later the water will be boiling.


In this instance you're trying to say that we don't know that the water on the stove will boil in 10 minutes because we don't have data of the temperature of the upper layer of water from 54.5 seconds ago. Irrelevant.



Your later comments about statistics are also not relevant to the conversation. We all know how misleading they can be. But if you're implying that I'm using statistics to mislead You're wrong.

they make predictive models based on....  go on guess.. go on.. give it  a try, guess
[hint: data]

yet you say the data aint important.. in other words you want to ignore data, ignore common sense and just believe some computer coded model with fancy colours of predictions..

the things i laugh about co₂
is the fact of the 0.01% change.. yep 0.01... not 0.1 not 1.. but 0.01

the other funny fact is the whole 'atmospheric co₂'
show me one satalite or data from any device pre-1960 that actually measured co2 at cloud level and above..

after all this whole carbon affecting climate is meant to be about the carbon way above the clouds.. so show me data pre 1960 of them above cloud levels.
.. oh wait. there are non
.. oh wait.. strange how suddenly in this post1960 period suddenly the number rises in comparison too.. oh yea. non upper atmosphere guesswork
(glacier and tree ring studies are not!! upper atmosphere studies)

ground level carbon is different than upper atmosphere.. yet science tries to hide that

It isn't really possible to say what macro effects the long/medium term climate cycles are going to have, and whether human agency is making them stronger/weaker, better/worse. There have always been natural cycles, sometimes causing catastrophic change.

.... no relationship with CO₂ in the atmosphere, CO₂ is not smog nor the cause of smog


smog is caused by industrial output (factories with smokestacks), waste incinerators, dirty fuels like diesel, and to some extent less dirty fuels like gasoline.


I'm totally into the idea of replacing the above with cleaner/clean technologies that mean we don't all have to breathe toxic air.
But there's no need to make up stories about the end of the world to convince me

CO2 emission need to be dealt seriously

if we want our future generation to breath easily on this planet.

We are destroying natural resources at much higher pace then they are generated.

Due to pollution we are having smog and other such things that are depriving us from breathing.

I believe the answer is that fossil fuels produce the more dangerous waste.

Also, which will cost more -- storing nuclear waste safely or mitigating the effects of global warming? I believe the answer is that mitigating the effects of global warming will cost more.

This sort of statement has always (in the past, at least) ignored the issue of nuclear waste. There's always some large proportion of nuclear fuel that cannot be repurposed once it's life-cycle in the powerplant is complete. It tends to be the highly radioactive material with 100's or 1000's of years half-life, and it therefore needs incredibly long-term safe/secure storage facilities.

I can believe that the re-use of spent nuclear fuel is constantly improving, but there's always going to be some significant proportion that cannot be reused or re-processed, and it's always an unrepresented hidden cost of the entire "enterprise" (i.e. the long term costs of storing radioactive waste offset against the economics of running a nuclear power plant make it appear overall a very expensive way of producing electricity)

The fact is, nuclear power is by far the most efficient form of alternate energy away from fossil fuels and nuclear power is the only way climate change is going to get addressed with current energy needs. China and India are not going to slow down population growth any time soon and coal/fossil fuels aren't going to get the job done.

Unless you live in a few select countries (Canada/Brazil/Norway/France etc, you can assume your power is coming primarily from coal burning plants.

The highest efficiency coal plants are in the mid 30 to 40ish % efficient. Modern gasoline engines in cars are about 30% efficient with older models being lower, and some newer models being in the upper 30% range, with diesel vehicles being more efficient than gasoline. The world needs to change its power supply (not to solar...) before electric cars are any better for the environment than gasoline or diesel burning cars.

Anything climate related is such a weird topic now because its been politicized. Imagine sitting around a holiday table with family and discussing astronomy or gravity and having it as a politically polarizing topic.

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.

Plants and ecosystems can't just up and move as the climate changes.

Multi-national minerals company Rio Tinto is threatening to close its Tiwai Point aluminium smelter in Bluff and move its production offshore if the Emissions Trading Scheme is enacted because they say it will increase power prices.

The projects approved by China amount to nearly 40 percent of the world's total planned coal-fired power plants, according to the Global Coal Exit List database run by German environmental organisation Urgewald and 30 other partner organisations.

The new China projects would be more than Germany's existing installed power capacity of approximately 200GW by the end of 2018.

Dutch farmers caused hundreds of kilometres of traffic jams with their tractors as they protested restrictions aimed at reducing emissions from farms.

The average Tesla driver makes $320,000 dollars a year, according to a report cited by the Los Angeles Times in an 2015 article. The Times detailed how Tesla has secured nearly $3 billion dollars in government subsidies. In California, where consumers get a rebate for purchasing an electric vehicle, 83 percent of the rebate recipients had incomes over $100,000. Americans in the top 20 percent of income earners received about 90 percent of the federal tax credits for electric vehicles.

The highest efficiency coal plants are in the mid 30 to 40ish % efficient. Modern gasoline engines in cars are about 30% efficient with older models being lower, and some newer models being in the upper 30% range, with diesel vehicles being more efficient than gasoline. The world needs to change its power supply (not to solar...) before electric cars are any better for the environment than gasoline or diesel burning cars.

At the moment we have a carbon dioxide famine

Water vapour is the most significant factor, and you just have to look at the cloud cover in most countries to see this.

I do hope technology will develop to the point that nothing bad happens.

I'm going to watch that video you linked. I'm always looking for documentaries about climate change and I'm surprised I never came across it. At least I think I haven't.

I think it's too late already. But hey that's my pessimistic self speaking. Besides CO2 Emissions there are things like this "50 Minutes to Save the World" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wthTmQHmuZ0 which we are sleeping on.

We can't afford to delude ourselves when it comes to this problem.

That stupid girl that has gone to America in a carbon fibre boat to pretend that she has a zero carbon footprint sums it all up. She is funded by big money. Carbon fibre is an intense user of resources and creates large amounts of emissions in its production, and the crew is flying home by plane. That just about sums up the whole of the mentality of the climate change sheep.

I believe that electric cars will be outselling gasoline-powered cars within 10 years. Electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, and as more electricity is generated by non-fossil fuel technologies, I think that fossil fuel usage could drop by 50%.

...
My car has a tank that takes more than 20 gallons of gas and due to traffic I only get about 17 mpg.
...

The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere does not have a significant impact on the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is the most significant factor ...

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

Carbon dioxide is the life breath of trees and other green vegetation. At the moment we have a carbon dioxide famine, and this is leading to desertification. It is ironic that the "green" activists are attempting to deprive the world of oxygen producing plants. Water vapour is the major cause of the greenhouse effect, and this is removed from all the reports, and this distorts the results. When a plant is deprived of carbon dioxide, it "gasps for breath" and opens its pores. This leads to the evaporation of water, and a transfer from the ground into the atmosphere. It is easy to understand how this leads to desertification.