We're not cutting co2 emissions any time soon

[Carlton Banks]

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.

"believe" being the operative word, the fact is you don't really know, you've simply been listening to only one side of the argument. And like everyone else, you've been bombarded with biased reports in newspapers and/or the TV about anthropogenic or catastrophic climate change

it's not true though, sorry to burst the bubble. But this is good news; the world isn't going to end, not today, in 2026, 1999, the mid-1980's, 2016, 2040 or indeed on any of the other expired deadlines that have been proposed for the end of the world.

[1714607256]

1714607256

[1714607256]

1714607256

[1714607256]

1714607256

[1714607256]

1714607256

[1714607256]

1714607256

[onefry]

Take a look at the company FCEL on NASDAQ.  They're doing a 180 degree turn around imo.  Take a look at the long term market cycle.  2 billion dollars in back logs, agreement just signed with Exxon for carbon capture, their tech turns co2 into energy!!!

[kro55]

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.

[Carlton Banks]

CO2 emission need to be dealt seriously

there's no evidence for that, you have presented none

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

exactly, it's all about you and your offspring, nothing to do with anyone or anything else. The plantlife (rainforests inclusive) on this planet will be rather happy if CO₂ continues to be produced

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

in some cases that's true. It's got no relationship to CO₂ in the atmosphere though

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

again, 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

[Majormax]

.... 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

The whole climate change debate has always been agenda driven, and filled with irrelevant or confusing data.

Most ppl can see it is far more complicated than the soundbite messages, and even than the 'science' put out by different camps.

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.

The only takeaway I can see is that improved fuel efficiency, and lower pollutants/emissions cannot be a bad thing.

[Carlton Banks]

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.

one amusing pair of facts relating to this

• climate change activists (really the politicians) are setting new deadlines for "the end of the world", the latest estimate is 2029
• climate scientists are undivided that changes in the atmosphere's composition at any time take another ~ 50 years to fully affect ecosystems

so apparently we're SOL anyway

I'm sure the backpedalling will sound like this: "no no no, the world ends in 2080, and we've got 10 years to change everything back to how it was in the 1750's, then we have exactly 50 years from 2030 till 2080 and we can then save the world!!". until the estimated date for end of world changes randomly to some other date, yet again.

I expect most people can handle the math of 20+10+50, maybe if you fill us morons in with the details, we might be more amenable to your argument (which consists of "do what I say, or everyone dies", that old logical masterpiece ) But then again, apparently climate change sophists cannot even cope with the arithmetic simplicity of 3+1=4 if it's inconveniently true, as demonstrated further up in this thread

[solosequenosenada]

Human beings are so stupid and brilliant at the same time, so there's nothing to fear.
We are so stupid that we are going to continue burning all kinds of polluting fuels, we are not going to stop polluting rivers and seas, eating our own shit and suffering its consequences with diseases like cancer, etc...
But as we are so brilliant, in the course of this pollution journey we will be creating technologies that allow us to survive (the rich of course) and at the same time finance our great capitalist system.

Enjoy 

[franky1]

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

[KonstantinosM]

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

You are incapable of grasping the nuance required to understand climate change, yet you act as if you're better then the rest of us.

There are many ways to put the problem, some of which may make it seem minute. The change in the energy balance of the planet for example would be something like 1/1000.

The increase in CO2 would be something like 30-40%

And the difference between a living human being and a dead one is about 3 grams of oxygen bound to its blood.

A difference which would be nearly undetectable in a regular scale.



All your claims are false, all your arguments suck. Your points are either irrelevant or nonsense.

Here's the kind of nonsense you type up

"show me one satalite or data from any device pre-1960 that actually measured co2 at cloud level and above.."

How is this relevant? Why does it have to be a satellite? We don't actually need every bit of data, that isn't science. We create models which make accurate predictions about the physical world. Based on those models we can know, with great certainty what the atmospheric co2 has had been for thousands of years.

Science tries to hide nothing. Unlike what you claim because science isn't a person. Scientists are not an evil cabal of people out to get you. And you are wrong about this in every way.

[franky1]

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..
predictive models ignoring good data is like asking a wombat to predict bitcoins price in 2050

the data has been talking about upper atmosphere carbon being X in 1850 and Y in 1950..
but it aint upper atmosphere data

ok heres some common sense nuance for you
when its a hot day. do you beg the sky to throw down droplets of oil. or dust clouds of char
or do you ask for rain, snow, and a cool breeze

guess what causes rain, snow and wind.
the water cycle

when you see forests get torn down. do you cry that carbon forests are being destroyed .. or rainforests
when you look at the north pole. are you crying that coal mountains are retreating.. or ICE glaciers
when you look at doughts.. are you complaining that the land needs to change the coal concentrate.. or needs water

the reason why the ground heats up is because less clouds to block the sun. less rain to cool the land. less water on land to evaporate the heat back up

also lot of land has been developed on. meaning its concrete and not dirt/earth to act as a sponge. its why water tables underground are drying up because any water that lands on roofs doesnt soak away into the earth it instead gets pushed into pipes. not even giving it chance to evaporate to create more clouds

oh and by the way.. london 'smog' of the industrial age.. guess what. that was the most rainy/coldest time in the last couple centuries.
yep smoggy london stereotype had it where people could stand on the ice of the river thames because it froze over

so co2 and warm temperatures had no corelation.

its bad stats comparing 2 different datasets

yes ofcourse there is 400ppm in the upper atmosphere. thats because there is less water vapour up that high to swing the ratio of atmosphere composition to match levels at ground level.
so again the ground levels an upper atmosphere levels would both be different and not inline

ok heres some data manipulation for you
say there is 1000 people.. 300 male 400 female and 300 trans
say i take out 250 females
now theres 40% males instead of 30% males in the mix

[KonstantinosM]

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..

Science is based on making models of the physical world with predictive capacity. Not just data gathering.

You're not addressing my argument, you're missing the mark. One piece of data is not important.

When you're applying heat to a pot of water you know that it will eventually boil, because you've observed that before.

You don't need to know the temperature of water at every single point in time. Science is not purely about random data. There is an infinite amount of that.

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.

[mamichula]

Without getting into any political sides, it's just the human condition to be wasteful, and nothing is going to change that. It's not because the person is necessarily bad, rather the human mind is not curious enough to think about the connections that you talked about. Whenever I turn on the hot water I realize how much power it takes to heat that water up and I try to not use it as much. But the vast majority of people, 99% will not make such a connection.

[franky1]

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.

your wrong
did you know that most rain clouds are not made by the sun boiling the oceans. but instead evaporating the thin layer of water from land and ponds

your naive assumption would be that it always takes 10 minutes to boil water without needing to know the temperature of the oven or the volume of water. because some model told you so

try one test...
yep take a deep saucepan of water on one oven hob.. and take a thin frying pan of water on another oven hob.. both same heating temperature

i guarantee you that the thin frying pan boils faster. i guarantee you if you keep adding water to the frying pan as it evaporates you can actually boil off more water using a frying pan than you can from waiting for the saucepan to fully boil out until its bone dry

here is a easy at home test to do.
get a kettle and put water up to the minimum line. boil it and time it
get a kettle and put water up to the maximum line. boil it and time it

guess what it takes alot longer to even see steam from the max line kettle.

this is why the whole concern of over development and de-forestation is real. because its that land water that affects the atmosphere more than ocean water

but enjoy just being spoon fed info rather than taking the time to try things and understand common sense and real experimentation

if you still want to believe stats that co2 is a problem then your about as naive as those that think taking a ground sample and a upper atmosphere sample and thinking the results should be the same. and any difference is an indication of armegeddon. just shows how little your ready to truly learn.
there is a difference between learning and accepting. you seem to just accept what your told

try learning

have a nice day

[KonstantinosM]

...

try learning

have a nice day

You're still missing the point by a lot. What I'm saying in the scenario of the water boiling is that science doesn't need every point of data to tell you that water being heated will eventually boil.


Or to go deeper that if you heat the temperature high enough, steam will form protecting individual droplets of water, giving you a graph with times to complete evaporation with increases in temperature that will start at about a few seconds, then keep dropping to under a second and then rise again to a few seconds.


You don't need to know the the exact temperatures to know that you will observe these reactions.

I don't need to know the temperature of every single molecule of air in the atmosphere to find out an average.

And I don't need to put detectors  in every single square inch of the atmosphere to estimate the co2 in it.


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.

A simple spark can start a fire or set of an explosion that can kill thousands and cause millions in damages.

Our use of lead in fuel means that there is a higher concentration of lead now in every single place of the surface of this planet, places that no human has ever visited even.


Our use of fossil fuels causes changes in the planet beyond our control that will last well beyond our lifetime. Science has reached an understanding of all these cycles and a few college courses, which you could follow along with for free, from your house could teach you about the carbon and water cycles and the climate.

The science is clear. CO2 changes the energy balance of the earth. If you have the same land mass distribution, and similar solar output and a similar albedo and a similar percentage of the earth being hit by the sun and you increase CO2 the temperature of the system will increase.


The ground, won't feel it. Only the atmosphere will change, but the atmosphere drives all of our weather. Changing weather patterns can mean anything from mass starvation, increased plant growth and burning creating deadly bush-fires, desertification due to increased evaporation, lakes drying, snow-pack decreasing thus making dry seasons have no water in certain regions, crops being heat stressed and producing less yield and stronger rains and hurricanes. Also sea level rise.

If you can't grasp climate change that's on you and no-one else.

Anyway, that's the last time I'm replying to you on this thread because we're getting off-topic. You can take that as a win, even though you're wrong and proven wrong on every turn. The only people on your side are either people who are being paid to lie, the same people that were paid off by cigarette companies to lie about cigarettes not being cancer-causing (using their degrees and reputations as doctors and scientists to dupe the gullible public) and the people who are stupid enough to believe it. The money pours in from people who are invested in fossil fuels and still have a big stake there. People who are rich enough now not to care.

Edit: missing words

[franky1]

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.

no one is refuting that humans have changed things. what is refuted is how carbon is related to temperature change.
carbon affects lung health
water affects land temperature

humans affected both.
but just because humans affected both does not mean the effects are linked.
water and carbon are separate and cause separate issues.

by the way you foolish man.
the climate agenda has been used as the reason why africa is starving and why unicef and red cross are involved. maybe you should look into the real reason.

research land grab and native displacement
africa have complained to the word bank about starvation due to foreign land owners.. not carbon
wake the hell up.

heres some docu's
p1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isiYYVmvn2U
p2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igk5NHH-qJ0

the rain forest alliance is not the carbon alliance.
destroying rainforests by burning them affects the atmosphere by destroying the planets natural water sponge for evaporation. not the smoke

by the way. when u are cold in winter. rub carbon on your body. see if it helps.. it wont
if carbon was more of an effective heat control. house radiators. heaters and such would be carbon not water based
water absorbs heat better and faster.
water cycle has changed by more than 0.01% which has a more causality causation relation to temperature differation..

i honestly cannot believe you have been soo fooled into thinking that it is carbon as the reason why unicef is doing food aid in africa..
you are naive beyond belief
atleast watch the documentaries and do a bit of african history research over the last 70 years before trying to insta-reply with anything related to ur belief in carbon=starvation

extra hint. many people have told you plants LOVE CARBON . plants love SUNLIGHT

[franky1]

by the way you do need to know the amount of water in a saucepan. because an empty saucepan will never boil as there is nothing to boil.
you do need to know the heat and water balance because as i already said a thin frying pan level of water and a large 5 litre pan of water change the speed of evaporation. this is because the cold water at the top slows down the hot water at the bottom.

i guarantee you if you had a pan of 0.2litres of water refreshed 5 times. and 1 saucepan of 1litre. i can boil the frying pan waters 1ltr total faster than the saucepans 1ltr

just thinking temperature and water volume =x is not science. knowing volume time and temperature helps

in short. the more you learn the more you know, the more variables you can find the better you get results.
seems you prefer not to know enough and happy not doing indepth research

anyway. im still laughing you think carbon = starvation.
i tip my hat to ur comedy routine but turn my back in shame at your reearch

[franky1]

Anyway, that's the last time I'm replying to you on this thread because we're getting off-topic. You can take that as a win, even though you're wrong and proven wrong on every turn. The only people on your side are either people who are being paid to lie, the same people that were paid off by cigarette companies to lie about cigarettes not being cancer-causing (using their degrees and reputations as doctors and scientists to dupe the gullible public) and the people who are stupid enough to believe it. The money pours in from people who are invested in fossil fuels and still have a big stake there. People who are rich enough now not to care.

last point

the fossil fuel companies are running out of fuel. they cant pay to re-invent new industry in renewables. so guess what. they are happy to take the blame of fossil fuels because they know their time is up. they are happy because they can charge their customers a carbon tax to fund their next industry.
and how do you scam people into being happy to pay more.. pretend that the carbon tax is a social benefit. meanwhile the industry continues to make money.

...
lets word it another way
in the next 10-50 years. even if no 'climate change' activities/projects occured. the fossil fuel companies would run out of fuel and carbon emissions would drop anyway..
the whole carbon tax is not going to stop carbon emissions.. the carbon emissions themself are going to reduce anyway. the tax is to keep the energy sector in business.