No time to waste - US has to act now to reverse climate change trend

[c_atlas]

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

https://populationmatters.org/the-issue?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5aX18dvt6wIVPvzjBx3ocwD3EAAYASAAEgKa5fD_BwE

About 50-60% of human body is water.  We are poop and pee making machines.

Stop having kids and the whole issue of global warming will go away.  If you reverse population growth, you will reduce the economic (energy) output and reduce the environmental impact on this planet (of limited resources).

Less is more.

Then wouldn't you want to bring as many people out of poverty as fast as possible (i.e increase energy demand/economic output) since there's a negative correlation between the income rate and fertility rate? As your GDP (PPP) per capita increases, your total fertility rate decreases and your energy needs increase, so as long as your energy production isn't extremely dirty (coal) things balance out.

[1714141570]

1714141570

[1714141570]

1714141570

[1714141570]

1714141570

[1714141570]

1714141570

[Spendulus]

Then wouldn't you want to bring as many people out of poverty as fast as possible (i.e increase energy demand/economic output) since there's a negative correlation between the income rate and fertility rate? As your GDP (PPP) per capita increases, your total fertility rate decreases and your energy needs increase, so as long as your energy production isn't extremely dirty (coal) things balance out.

A very interesting phenomena relating to this is the Jevons Paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises due to increasing demand.[1] The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics.[2] However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.[3]

Lowering the number of people could easily lead to increases in pollution and emissions. A 50% reduction in the cost of a commodity can result in a 10x increase in consumer demand.

[franky1]

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

yes but land is usually a sponge that hold water and puts it into underground aquafers from hundreds of miles from its source. .. by removing the rivers that fill the land and filling up reservoirs the amount of water is the same but the locations of water change
yep thousands of square miles become barren where as a 20mile reservoir fills

again take a litre glass (footprint 2inch wide) now take another litre and spill it on the ground and see the ratio of footprint of the puddle you make
easy experiment (ill give you a hint its 40 inchs wide)

instead of seasons of standard rain all around land for 1000miles which then sponges into fields as underground aquafers or feeds plants or evaporates to make new clouds randomly over 1000 miles. the barren land ends up with clear blue skies.. whilst the large area's of water ike oceans and reservoirs become storm creators with insane amount of rain in localised places.
its natures way of trying to get the water from the oceans/reservoirs and redistributing it back to the wider land

but initially that just floods over land and it doesnt soak into the ground due to the vast flow of so much water in such short periods due to the heat.
usually it would have to take a few cycles of this to naturally balance out. but due to mans interuptions of nature of laying down concrete and sewers hardly any water 'soaks in' and it all just runs off back to the sea eventually

take jacarta.. they dammed up the river.
people started needed to use personalised water wells to take water out of the ground aquafers and now they are depleted the land is subsiding. causing more flooding not just from localised storms due to dense clouds due to the heat which causes oceans and reservoirs to evaporate as the only water available. but also from the land falling below sea level inch by inch each year due to land subsidence from empty aquafers

[Spendulus]

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

yes but land is usually a sponge that hold water...

Usually? Land can be as aerated and have as much surface area as activated carbon, or it can be high in clay and pretty impervious and insoluble. It can have a rock shelf twenty or two hundred feet underground, have surface streams and rivers or aquifers deep underground. In each variety, water may said to have a time constant for that microcosm, ranging from weeks to thousands of years. The time can be measured from first deposit to evaporation, or to depositing of those molecules in the primary depository, the ocean.

I provided the link to an elementary discussion of hydrology.

One more time - water effects net out at zero, and there is no "global climate change" from regional issues such as you mentioned. There is one exception to that, and that is if from one eon to the next, the average percentage of water vapor (gas) in the atmosphere changes. In the atmosphere, water vapor is a much stronger absorber of certain wavelengths than CO2.

For this exception, there is a second form of water in the atmosphere, and that's micro droplets (clouds). These have various effects on climate, both warming and cooling.

[af_newbie]

The hydrologic cycle has been studied for thousands of years, but scientifically for at least 200. The hydrologic cycle nets at zero; the amount of water molecules in the system is a constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

The sort of effects that occur from man's activities such as damming up rivers are referred to as "regional climate effects." They are not part of a global climate change.

https://populationmatters.org/the-issue?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5aX18dvt6wIVPvzjBx3ocwD3EAAYASAAEgKa5fD_BwE

About 50-60% of human body is water.  We are poop and pee making machines.

Stop having kids and the whole issue of global warming will go away.  If you reverse population growth, you will reduce the economic (energy) output and reduce the environmental impact on this planet (of limited resources).

Less is more.

Then wouldn't you want to bring as many people out of poverty as fast as possible (i.e increase energy demand/economic output) since there's a negative correlation between the income rate and fertility rate? As your GDP (PPP) per capita increases, your total fertility rate decreases and your energy needs increase, so as long as your energy production isn't extremely dirty (coal) things balance out.

Education leads to lower reproduction rate. Bronze age cultures and religions are big negative factors.

The GDP per capita is the symptom, not the root cause.  Education is the root cause.

Educate and empower young girls and women, that is how you get there.

[c_atlas]

Stop having kids and the whole issue of global warming will go away.  If you reverse population growth, you will reduce the economic (energy) output and reduce the environmental impact on this planet (of limited resources).

Less is more.

Then wouldn't you want to bring as many people out of poverty as fast as possible (i.e increase energy demand/economic output) since there's a negative correlation between the income rate and fertility rate? As your GDP (PPP) per capita increases, your total fertility rate decreases and your energy needs increase, so as long as your energy production isn't extremely dirty (coal) things balance out.

Education leads to lower reproduction rate. Bronze age cultures and religions are big negative factors.

The GDP per capita is the symptom, not the root cause.  Education is the root cause.

Educate and empower young girls and women, that is how you get there.

I would also add improved child nutrition and access to contraceptives as root causes of a decreasing reproductive rate. My main point was that as people climb out of poverty, they clean up their act and may even produce some geniuses who innovate and solve hard problems. It's not a matter of decreasing your usage of resources, it's a matter of improving the efficiency at which you use those resources, which is what Spendulus mentioned earlier .

[jademaxsuy]

I would also add improved child nutrition and access to contraceptives as root causes of a decreasing reproductive rate. My main point was that as people climb out of poverty, they clean up their act and may even produce some geniuses who innovate and solve hard problems. It's not a matter of decreasing your usage of resources, it's a matter of improving the efficiency at which you use those resources, which is what Spendulus mentioned earlier .

In some countries reproduction of human being were being controlled by their government because they are overpopulated. Other countries are welcoming other citizens for them to get more population. This is how ironic people living on earth this include the access to contraceptives as causes to reproductive meaning that you country is not populated yet. Your government must be asking other citizen to visit your place, stay and even offer jobs and payment. Hopefully one day I could go in your place.

[Spendulus]

....
I would also add improved child nutrition and access to contraceptives as root causes of a decreasing reproductive rate. My main point was that as people climb out of poverty, they clean up their act and may even produce some geniuses who innovate and solve hard problems. ....

The scarcest commodity in the world is high IQ problem solvers.

[PopoJeff]

Today I watched a very convincing video on how the following years are crucial for the future of humanity. Scientists agree that for humanity to survive global warming without catastrophic consequences on a global level, then global warming should be limited between 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. Current models show that any plan to reach this goal according to current trends should be very rapid. Fossil fuels on the majority of factories and cars should be replaced within the following four years or the damage will be irreversible and global. The U.S. has the technology to do it, it's the world's biggest economy. It's time to decarbonize and lead the world once again. Are you going to stand by watching idly? I say us bitcoiners should take a stance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfAXbGInwno

Yeah, they've been saying that since Al Gore was VP. They just called it global warming back then.  Proved incorrect, the liberals needed to rename it,,,climate change.  Well shit, the earths climate has been changing for millions of years 

Giving money to governments will not halt climate change.

The legal restrictions on emissions, and voluntary actions taken in the last 2 decades has done more to help than any tax/fee/green deal ever could.

And the US is the leading voluntary compliance location making the largest positive effect, while other countries don't care and still increase pollution levels

[franky1]

when you look at news of 'climate change is drying up ganges river'
but then when you google ganges river drying up without the words climate change attached
you start reading about the dams put in from 1970. then the ground water pumps. and then the cycle of reactions

its a worthy read when you start to look for other causes and stop just trying to find carbon links

[franky1]

some science

For most of the particles and energies found in the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR)  spectrum,  the  effectiveness  of  a  material  as  a  radiation  shield  generally  increases  with  decreasing  atomic  number,  with  hydrogen  being  the  best  

Both  of  the  important  physical  processes  in  heavy  ion  transport  –  ionization  energy  loss  and  nuclear  fragmentation  –  occur  at  higher  rates  in  hydrogen  than  other  materials
Therefore,  per  unit  mass  of  shielding,  hydrogen  stops  more  of  the  incident  low-energy  particles  and  also  causes  more  fragmentation  of  high-energy  heavy  ions  than  do  other materials. It is therefore expected on theoretical grounds that hydrogenous materials should make  efficient  shields  against  the  GCR

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/918614

if carbon was super effective. they would be using carbon. and only needing 100x less thickness of it.. but that aint happening.

so enjoy learning more about the hydrogen/water balance and its effects

[Spendulus]

when you look at news of 'climate change is drying up ganges river'
but then when you google ganges river drying up without the words climate change attached
you start reading about the dams put in from 1970. then the ground water pumps. and then the cycle of reactions

its a worthy read when you start to look for other causes and stop just trying to find carbon links

Here is an area of agreement we likely have, there is a terribly unscientific tendency to blame every single climatic event on "climate change." Causes unlearning of basic facts.

[franky1]

well if you truly want to stick with the fallacy of carbon being so active. may i ask you to go to all science nerds and debunk why hydrogen is such an active element.
also then go to nasa and and tell them they have wasted billions on the space station because they should have used carbon instead of hydrogen. tel hem how they could have made it thinner using carbon
(satire/sarcasm)
or.
look into what hydrogen does that carbon doesnt. and the realise the science thats not talked about by media

oh and i do hope you done the 2 glass experiment

oh and to add to the 2 glass on floor experiment. also get a lump of activated charcoal. breath it up into a dust and then blow it across the same floor separate from your water experiment. and then use a thermometer
then smoke s cigar and exhale in the area and use a thermometer.

then wait 5 minutes and use a thermometer on all the experiments.
then 40 minutes then 120 minutes

then check your results on what has affected the temperatures the most.

for most smart people they will know that the water has more effect. but try it just to be sure.
and if you still dont believe the results. then you can go to nasa and tell them they are wrong even if your opinion disagrees with your own experiments and their science
..

look i do get it you think if you put 3 squares down
one with nothing
one covered in water
one covered in carbon dust

the carbon one MIGHT have a slight increase in temperature compared to the square with nothing
but here is the thing water will cause a more dramatic temperature change

and its the water cycle that has changed the most and impacting itself to cause more change due to the triggers of human involvement

[Spendulus]

well if you truly want to stick with the fallacy of carbon being so active.....

It's the vibration of the C=O bonds in CO2 that absorbs frequencies in a couple niches of the spectrum that is the actual science behind the sputtering about carbon that these agitators go on about.

Sure, they don't know what they are talking about, but you can do better.

[coins4commies]

I don't know why you are talking about hydrogen when there is barely any of it in our atmosphere.   No one said carbon dioxide was the only gas with a greenhouse effect.  The context is that we are releasing carbon dioxide on a planetary scale and significantly increasing its long-term concentration in our atmosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=Once%20it's%20added%20to%20the,timescale%20of%20many%20human%20lives.

CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years while water vapor spends on average 9 days (but up to 3000 years in the ocean)

[Spendulus]

I don't know why you are talking about hydrogen when there is barely any of it in our atmosphere.   No one said carbon dioxide was the only gas with a greenhouse effect.  The context is that we are releasing carbon dioxide on a planetary scale and significantly increasing its long-term concentration in our atmosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=Once%20it's%20added%20to%20the,timescale%20of%20many%20human%20lives.

CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years while water vapor spends on average 9 days (but up to 3000 years in the ocean)

There is a great deal of hydrogen in our atmosphere.

[Smartvirus]

Climate change isn't anything new and it's not in the hands of the US only. It's all our duty as we own and share the ecosystem. The issue seems to be a matter of neglect as it haven't gotten to it's peek in such a way that, even the illiterate can follow through on it's trend without been told.
But then, when it gets there, it just might have been too late. So, let's do the little we can in our little ways to keep up with the mitigation of it's causal agents.

[tvbcof]

I don't know why you are talking about hydrogen when there is barely any of it in our atmosphere.   No one said carbon dioxide was the only gas with a greenhouse effect.  The context is that we are releasing carbon dioxide on a planetary scale and significantly increasing its long-term concentration in our atmosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=Once%20it's%20added%20to%20the,timescale%20of%20many%20human%20lives.

CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years while water vapor spends on average 9 days (but up to 3000 years in the ocean)

The climate scammers overestimated the residence time for CO2 by orders of magnitude in order to give there panic stampede legs, but even they didn't try to go THAT far.

Here's real science on residence time for this CO2 trace gas which is much in demand by plants who compete strongly with one another for what little is around...and which are starving for it since we are at historically low levels of atmospheric CO2.  It's less than what a lot of plant species had evolved to expect, and many of them have been out-competed and have gone extinct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8niiyDn2FI

Unfortunately, very few 2020 people will be able to follow and understand the above lecture even though it is quite clear.  30 or 40 years ago a lot more people would be able to follow it based on my experiences over this span.  'They' had to destroy the educational system and most likely the ability of peoples brains to work effectively by other means before they could run the climate change scam.  And as best I can tell, that they did.

[Spendulus]

I don't know why you are talking about hydrogen when there is barely any of it in our atmosphere.   No one said carbon dioxide was the only gas with a greenhouse effect.  The context is that we are releasing carbon dioxide on a planetary scale and significantly increasing its long-term concentration in our atmosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=Once%20it's%20added%20to%20the,timescale%20of%20many%20human%20lives.

CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years while water vapor spends on average 9 days (but up to 3000 years in the ocean)

The climate scammers overestimated the residence time for CO2 by orders of magnitude in order to give there panic stampede legs, but even they didn't try to go THAT far.

Here's real science on residence time for this CO2 trace gas which is much in demand by plants who compete strongly with one another for what little is around...and which are starving for it since we are at historically low levels of atmospheric CO2.  It's less than what a lot of plant species had evolved to expect, and many of them have been out-competed and have gone extinct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8niiyDn2FI

Unfortunately, very few 2020 people will be able to follow and understand the above lecture even though it is quite clear.  30 or 40 years ago a lot more people would be able to follow it based on my experiences over this span.  'They' had to destroy the educational system and most likely the ability of peoples brains to work effectively by other means before they could run the climate change scam.  And as best I can tell, that they did.

Yes, the alarmists don't want to let it be known that man isn't BADDDDDDD.

Here's a recent abstract to a study that agrees with your opinion.

An atmospheric CO2 residence time is determined from a carbon cycle which assumes that anthropogenic emissions only marginally disturb the preindustrial equilibrium dynamics of source/atmosphere/sink fluxes. This study explores the plausibility of this concept, which results in much shorter atmospheric residence times, 4–5 years, than the magnitude larger outcomes of the usual global carbon cycle models which are adjusted to fit the assumption that anthropogenic emissions are primarily the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The continuum concept is consistent with the record of the seasonal photosynthesis swing of atmospheric CO2 which supports a residence time of about 5 years, as also does the bomb C14 decay history. The short residence time suggests that anthropogenic emissions contribute only a fraction of the observed atmospheric rise, and that other sources need be sought.

ChaunceyStarr

https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(93)90017-8

The economic downturn due to COVID may possibly be used to measure the decrease in CO2 during that period and determine what the actual Co2 reference time is.

[Mauser]

It's not only on the USA to reverse the climate change. Every country has to participate. Yes some countries can do more like the USA, Europe, China, Russia, India and other countries have less possibilities to reduce CO2 levels. I wish USA would take a leadership role in combating climate change but this seems very unlikely at the moment, especially since corona pandemic became climate change not important anymore.
So if USA is not acting on everyone's interest, the other countries should go ahead and be a good example. With a combined international approach we could try and convince USA to join. If Europe! China and Russia would work more together it would be a start.