Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Theories are all there are and ever will be. Best get used to it and begin sorting "fact" based upon what honestly makes the most sense to you.Yes global warming is indeed taking place - with no proof whatsoever that it is caused via human industrial actions. Only theories
It depends on the subject/topic right? as for the Universe and it's speculations I wouldn't really care since it has no immediate effect on my life - GW does and things need to be done urgently - just blaming industry and vehicles (without any proof towards actual contribution) doesn't help at all, and is detrimental towards economic issues. As to what proven impact CO2 deriving from industry and vehicles has onto these 0.04% - I have not seen any convincing statistic.Theories are all there are and ever will be. Best get used to it and begin sorting "fact" based upon what honestly makes the most sense to you.
For example, if scientists generally strike you as being prone to lie, then it makes sense for you to suspect climate scientists of generally doing the same. Otoh,..
Of course. This topic being AGW / ACC, which honestly makes the most sense to you? Climate scientists are prone to lie in general or not? You neglected to address the question. It's an important one because thoughtful skepticism (critical thinking) is healthy and productive, whereas sloppy cynicism tends to just be disruptive, attention grabbing, and dishonest. Many who visit here appear to be paid by Big Oil interests to do just that, else they remain too heavily invested personally in fossil fuels to see through their own smog.It depends on the subject/topic right?
I'm high on life thanks to this Universe but am resigned to being stuck on this globe. So I remain highly interested in both, especially for my kids' sake.as for the Universe and it's speculations I wouldn't really care since it has no immediate effect on my life - GW does and things need to be done urgently -
No idea who you perceive to be just blaming industry and vehicles, and I hope you meant evidence, not "proof." I'm not one to reflexively point my finger at China if that's what you're worried about. I also see no reason to pit the environment against "economic issues."just blaming industry and vehicles (without any proof towards actual contribution) doesn't help at all, and is detrimental towards economic issues.
To me it's about climate change - Global warming is just one of the popular or most popular topics/occurrences.Of course. This topic being AGW / ACC, which honestly makes the most sense to you? Climate scientists are prone to lie in general or not? You neglected to address the question. It's an important one because thoughtful skepticism (critical thinking) is healthy and productive, whereas sloppy cynicism tends to just be disruptive, attention grabbing, and dishonest. Many who visit here appear to be paid by Big Oil interests to do just that, else they remain too heavily invested personally in fossil fuels to see through their own smog.
Well because the only thing environmentalists, scientists, institutions and governments have been propagating as being responsible for CC is the CO2 emission from the industry and vehicles, or anything in regards to making use of fossil material. The good old green story from the 70's in regards to the lights are going to go out in 1995.No idea who you perceive to be just blaming industry and vehicles, and I hope you meant evidence, not "proof." I'm not one to reflexively point my finger at China if that's what you're worried about. I also see no reason to pit the environment against "economic issues."
In regards to the economy and environment the answer would be nuclear energy - and vastly expanded research onto hydrogen based energy concepts 40 years ago!! Instead we got into windmills, solar and batteries. (all are greens concepts) blatantly wrong - and IMO no valid future concepts at all.What's best for the environment (most sustainable) should be what's best for the economy in the long run. Imposed changes should allow reasonable time for adjustment, but when "things need to be done urgently" all should expect more screw ups and sacrifice in the short term.
While I disagree with pretty much everything you just said, I appreciate the effort and apparent sincerity. I'm certain my fellow "good old green story from the 70's" colleagues will respond shortly and more thoroughly with equal civility and aplomb.To me it's about climate change - Global warming is just one of the popular or most popular topics/occurrences.
Unless some paid chills are involved - to me it isn't about outright lying, there simply isn't enough longtime reliable data available to draw final conclusions.
Everyone simply jumps and propagates his findings as the only true ones, without actually being able to verify the individual theories or occurrences.
In other words I do not see a scientific council that investigates Climate change as to it's diverse causes, it's immediate, imminent or long-term effects. as such there is no priority list in regards to important actions - but simply okay lets jump onto CO2 - because independent of it's actual contribution towards CC - at least we can do so as if we would have viable solutions and do something.
Well because the only thing environmentalists, scientists, institutions and governments have been propagating as being responsible for CC is the CO2 emission from the industry and vehicles, or anything in regards to making use of fossil material. The good old green story from the 70's in regards to the lights are going to go out in 1995.
In regards to the economy and environment the answer would be nuclear energy - and vastly expanded research onto hydrogen based energy concepts 40 years ago!! Instead we got into windmills, solar and batteries. (all are greens concepts) blatantly wrong - and IMO no valid future concepts at all.
IMO the bunch that got us into a failed energy concept (greens) 40 years ago are exactly the same bunch now propagating CO2.
Final question what would be the CO2 volume now in 2023 and the accumulation of the past 40 years, if we had switched or left things at nuclear power?
The climate change scientists are currently concerned about is that brought about by anthropogenic global warming. It is not about popularity. It is about overwhelming evidence.To me it's about climate change - Global warming is just one of the popular or most popular topics/occurrences.
There are paid shills about, but the majority of them are being paid, directly or indirectly, by the fossil fuel industry to which this issue is an existential threat. I don't know how much "longtime reliable data" you think is required to come to a conclusion about these issues and I have no idea what your qualifications might be to so opine, but the world's scientists almost unanimously feel there is more than enough reliable longtime data to come to such conclusions.Unless some paid chills are involved - to me it isn't about outright lying, there simply isn't enough longtime reliable data available to draw final conclusions.
There are thousands of studies on climate, atmosphere, global warming and the environment every year. I have seen VERY little of that, claiming to be the only truth on any matter but, of course, I have only seen a tiny fraction of them all. On the conclusion that global warming is taking place and the the primary cause is human GHG emissions from the use of fossil fuels, there has been VERY little contradiction - virtually every result supports the same conclusion. That is the reason the theory has almost universal acceptance among scientists.Everyone simply jumps and propagates his findings as the only true ones, without actually being able to verify the individual theories or occurrences.
Why not? Are you rejecting all science on the matter? Is that a reasonable course of action?In other words I do not see a scientific council that investigates Climate change as to it's diverse causes, it's immediate, imminent or long-term effects.
There are other causes of global warming: methane, chloroflurorcarbons, nitrous oxide, deforestation. And retardant factors: clouds (to some degree) contrails, aerosols. But the greenhouse effect acting on the radically increased levels of CO2, by extensive study for decades now, is by far the largest cause.as such there is no priority list in regards to important actions - but simply okay lets jump onto CO2 - because independent of it's actual contribution towards CC - at least we can do so as if we would have viable solutions and do something.
And you don't believe those scientists and governments and people who listen to them are yet justified by the evidence?Well because the only thing environmentalists, scientists, institutions and governments have been propagating as being responsible for CC is the CO2 emission from the industry and vehicles, or anything in regards to making use of fossil material. The good old green story from the 70's in regards to the lights are going to go out in 1995.
I agree with you about nuclear energy but with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, that has been an exceedingly steep uphill battle. I also agree with you about hydrogen technologies. I was not happy that the invention of the Li-Po battery (and Elon Musk, to be honest) pushed us to EVs before fuel cell technology had sufficiently matured. A transition of hydrogen combustion-powered vehicles could have been helpful by giving two drivers to the development of hydrogen infrastructure. Perhaps people still see the Hindenburg going down in flames. Look at all the right-wing press EV fires have received.In regards to the economy and environment the answer would be nuclear energy - and vastly expanded research onto hydrogen based energy concepts 40 years ago!! Instead we got into windmills, solar and batteries. (all are greens concepts) blatantly wrong - and IMO no valid future concepts at all.
I think you need to make a clear distinction about two things: the problem and the solutions. That you aren't happy with a popular solution does not mean we don't still have a problem that needs to be dealt with quickly and with real commitment.IMO the bunch that got us into a failed energy concept (greens) 40 years ago are exactly the same bunch now propagating CO2.
Few nuke plants from 40 years ago would still be operational today. So, I assume you mean if we had continued to build them and increase their share of the load. If we had, there might well be less CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today. But keep in mind that the demand for electricity has risen exponentially all that while and nuclear plants were never slam-dunk easy to get approved and built in the first place.Final question what would be the CO2 volume now in 2023 and the accumulation of the past 40 years, if we had switched or left things at nuclear power?
Yep. By contrast, grid level energy should be focused upon cheap, renewable, long lasting solutions rather than just size and weight.I was not happy that the invention of the Li-Po battery (and Elon Musk, to be honest) pushed us to EVs before fuel cell technology had sufficiently matured.
formenergy.com
1. You are a Raging Idiot/Conspiracist Crackpot who couldn't answer any of my posts including your STUPENDOUS LIE that dinosaurs died out "3769 years before the meteor Impact."How do you know that this meteor made his crash landing 66 million years ago?
Just because evidence hasn't been found yet - doesn't exclude a probability aka theory. - See global warming caused by human industrial activity=pure theory.
It is a guess because no one knows the exact ratios regarding constant exchanges, nor the exact volumes involved.
That is the only sense making argument so far - simply due to previous deforestation and in parallel an increase in human population. Absolutely nothing to do with industrial or vehicles emissions.
Those 280-300ppm are entirely due to natural sources - or did cars and factories exist since a million years?
The main problem with these ice core evaluations is the average ppm that is concluded form those examinations - is ignoring peaks and valleys.
The other question would be as to how representative are these Ice-core values in regards to the rest of the planet? Just because an ice-core sample would shown an average temperature on Antarctica as e.g. 15 Celsius - doesn't exclude the fact that somewhere else the average temperature would be 35 Celsius.
There are no figures known to me that could/would state figures in regards to CO2 emission form e.g. Oceans - increasing or decreasing due to tectonic changes in elevation or subsiding of the Ocean floors - thus having a decisive impact on the oceans volume in the past 1 million years. Neither are there figures available in regards to the impact of e.g. Volcanic activities in those 1 million years. All you guys have is an average value of 280-300ppm.
Okay - but again there is no proof as to what caused this 100-120ppm increase. Only the theory of man made emissions. So what caused an increase to 450ppm e.g. 670000 years ago? industry? cars?
India +3.5%, China +7% - According to Scientific researches conducted by GW theorists - not me
According to Scientific researches conducted by GW theorists - not me.
Yes global warming is indeed taking place - with no proof whatsoever that it is caused via human industrial actions. Only theories such as above mentioned and then refuted or redirected by GW theorists upon being faced with facts in regards to e.g. China.
Let’s say humans make up 120 ppm, that’s 1/3 of .04% of the atmosphere!!! Can’t make it upClimate Myth...
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 60% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati et al. 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years). [Paragraph updated July 2022, to correct information on % of additional CO2 that is absorbed.]
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
`
www.nbcmiami.com
You see, that is exactly the reason as to why I refute (presently) this C02 hype - just assuming and guessing - not meant personally towards you at all.Let’s say humans make up 120 ppm, that’s 1/3 of .04% of the atmosphere!!! Can’t make it up
You see, that is exactly the reason as to why I refute (presently) this C02 hype - just assuming and guessing - not meant personally towards you at all.
Several scientific studies promoting CO2 and conducted in view of e.g. China in 2022 and those published results, are completely illogical or even contradictory to the CO2 hype.
Since I live and work in China I also get/got to visit Beijing, such as in 2014 - I will never forget that trip in my whole life. You couldn't see your own hand further away then 30cm from your eyes. Totally polluted air and a fine-dust ppm of around 700. How much CO2 was in there - I wouldn't know. But whatever volume was in it, is in the atmosphere now.
Since around 2016 the government finally put a stop to slash-and-burn agriculture - before that you would be traveling at least for 2 hours in your car through the countryside with your headlights on during the day, and breathing burning smoke through your air-con before coming out of this smog. And that IMO was by far the largest contributor of CO2 in China. Unimaginable as to how these people used to burn their fields throughout China.
There was no such thing as a blue sky in Shanghai before 2010 (thanks to the Expo that dramatically changed this) or any other larger coastal city right up to 400km inland. Only at best grey-blue sky during beautiful days. The average fine-dust ppm was around 250-350. Since 2015 it's around 80-100. Again how much CO2 - I wouldn't know. Since 2010 China has invested hugely into Solar, Wind-power, hydro and nuke plants - estimated energy supply from those sources since 2020 around 70% of China's entire energy demand.
Coal plants - unfortunately still in operation, had their China coal replaced with imported black coal for more then 70% since 2016 - filters have been installed and once a certain ppm is reached - those plants including every industrial plant throughout China are forcefully shut down. As stated already around 4.5 million e-V's have replaced/prevented fossil burning vehicles in China.
The Chinese production output has decreased around 20% since 2018 due to the economic issue with the USA and COVID.
And then pro CO2 stats come out claiming that China's CO2 emissions increased from 2019 - 2022 by 7% !!???? what the hell are these dudes measuring and where?
Additionally imagine the volume of CO2 that China would/could have theoretically emitted from 1985-2015. How much of that constitutes those 350ppm globally at present?
Furthermore US respective readings regarding CO2 before 1990, AFAIK aren't even available.
The only countries that could potentially and significantly contribute to CO2 are China, the USA, India, the EU and Japan/Korea - I mean honestly what Industry emitting potential does Africa, South and Middle America, Russia or any other place have to offer? That all these other places have a total contribution is understood, but it would probably be near that volume of the USA or China.
That 30-50% of the worlds green/flora environment have been destroyed since 1980, not to mention all the arid areas increasingly developing since the 1980's - nobody in this CO2 club seems to notice - neither the increase in the worlds population of almost 3 billion people since 1990 - since 1900 it's increased by 6 billion people. In contra, the CO2 club keeps propagating the supposed balance between natural occurring CO2 and nature. Total bullocks IMO.
I have not seen anyone coming up with a sense-making statistic of CO2 contribution via e.g. Volcano eruptions globally since Mount St. Helen's. (peak emissions over 22 kilotons per day) however they keep measuring SO2 concentrations.
A typical CO2 club statement:
Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in relation to climate change because they release CO2 (and other gases) into our atmosphere. However, human contributions to the carbon cycle are more than 100 times those from all the volcanoes in the world - combined.
I see - measured over what time? measured exactly how? anyone involved in this topic knows that these CO2 date's are pure estimates. How do I know? because stats state:
0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year - wow a 300% variable estimate - actually they simply don't know, just wild guessing.
In order to play it down only two major events are placed into the statistic - Mt. St. Helen's and Pinatubu in order to construe 0.06GT compared to supposedly Anthropogenic CO2 from fuel combustion in 2015, being estimated at 32 GT.
What about the total contribution of around 3000 global volcano eruptions since only 1980? (around 70 per year) of which some are still continuing? Taking the above estimates of the TWO statistically involved, the total contribution of CO2 via volcano's would be around 100-300GT. (remember a variable of 300%) or 3-10 times the supposed annual contribution of Anthropogenic CO2 from fuel combustion. Now supposedly CO2 stays for 300 -1000 years - as such also accumulates in that period to presently show 350ppm right?
Anyone wants to calculate the estimated contributions and % ratio of CO2 via volcano eruptions of the past 1000 years? to arrive at the present total counting of 350ppm?
And I haven't even started on CO2 emissions via oceans that obviously can't be handled by the remaining flora on our planet.
I am not forwarding that those 350ppm constitute entirely of natural occurrences - but to focus the blame of Global warming and thus Climate Change more or less solely onto the industry, coal energy plants and vehicles - simply doesn't hold.
It is what it is - pure green party dogma - let's blame and hunt down the fossil burning industry. After all the lights are going out in 1995.
www.statista.com
At best, 1/3 of .04%.You couldn't answer my last directly refuted everything you said.
(Proof/theory etc) you were/are 100% Wrong about/Ignorant of all the Basic terms/concepts.
Not a word.
Not my post already debunking your current post on the last page with my LINKED post with numbers showing the exact amount and growing Human CO2 emissions.
The Carbon Cycle with human distortion with exact amount.
Not a Word. You Whiffed.
You WHIFFED completely and just, as I said, go on posting your Fantasy that you don't buy human CO2 contribution.
Your "EviDENSE"? It's a bit clearer in China :^} than it was in 2016, but still bad "Proving ("%**%&*!!!???) It's not Human CO2 emissions because your LOCALE was less smoggy^*&%^&!!,
NOT That China was not emitting MORE CO2 from cleaner burning plants or plants in other locales.
In fact, China was MUCH clearer 100 and 50 years ago before they indeed started Huge industry and CO@/Fossil Fuel emissions.
THE Global warming period in question, Not the last 6 years.
Nevertheless their emissions still went UP since 2016 despite your Goofy debate by personal Anecdote FALLACY.
All these non-responsive CRACKPOT assertions and NO LINKS.!!! for them, just stories from your bicycle in Beijing.
Here's another from me
China: CO₂ emissions 1960-2022 | Statista
Rapid economic growth in China has seen the country’s CO₂ emissions more than triple since 2000 to more than 11 GtCO₂ per year.Territorial carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes in China from 1960 to 2021 (in million metric tons)
and another
So where have the Hugely Increased CO2 emissions coming from and Warming?
Mainly Chindia
Want to try again, or Ignore being 1000% Refuted again.
Or you can Ignore/Avoid/Duck getting 100% GUTTED for the Fourth (Fitfh?) time in a Row by responding to someone else with no brains like jc456 instead.
You can't debate me on anything, just have to watch me keep Gutting you, and then posting your Crazy convoluted UNLINKED take to someone else.
`
`
According to NASA, in the last 15 years, the earth is 15% greener.How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?
Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami
"....Scientists can calculate how much heat different suspects trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They measure what they call radiative forcing in watts per meter squared.
The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a watt per meter squared, scientists calculate.
But carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now trapping heat to the level of 2.07 watts per meter squared, more than 20 times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 watts per meter square.
The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”
[...more at link...]
How Scientists Know That We Are Responsible for Global Warming
Scientists use old fashioned detective work, like eliminating other suspects and finding the specific chemical fingerprint of fossil fuel burning in the air, to figure out that humans are responsible for climate change.
`
Guess what plants who make oxygen eat?According to NASA, in the last 15 years, the earth is 15% greener.
And what does that have to do with the topic except vaguely Confirm Greenhouse effect Warmer earth.According to NASA, in the last 15 years, the earth is 15% greener.
That increases in co2 levels are positive for fauna and flora, despite the outcry.And what does that have to do with the topic except vaguely Confirm Greenhouse effect Warmer earth.
More CO2/heat is generally good for plants, bad for much else including Sea Level. (and more extreme weather/climate change)
The TOPIC is "How do we know Humans are causing Climate change".. OR NOT.. if you have any rebuttal.
`
PS: I do Not respond to the gratuitous OCD 5-word TROLL 'jc456' of course.
(nor ToddsterParrot for His no content one-line baits)
`
That's what we Both said already except you have added Fauna which is not demonstrable.That increases in co2 levels are positive for fauna and flora, despite the outcry.
Is man causing climate change? No.That's what we Both said already except you have added Fauna which is not demonstrable.
Our densely populated civilization is based on man who evolved with a certain climate and now densely populated Coastlines.
And again you are OFF TOPIC.
The TOPIC is whether we are CAUSING Climate Change or NOT and you insist on posting OFF TOPIC.
You are welcome to start a thread that "a Warmer earth is better for everyone," but that is NOT THIS thread.
