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.
We're funding it and we're not getting the numbers. Seems to me the money must be going into public outreach because it sure as fuck doesn't go into a lab.
I'd zero out all this climate "research"
Really? Who'd a thunk it?
You don't have numbers because a wisp of CO2 has no measurable impact on temperatureDon't know who your responding to crusader frank but I want to know the number, 10 ppm over how long and I assume in Celsius?Actually, what appears to be happening is that you don't want to see better data, more accurate data - you only want to see data that supports your prejudices.
Lolz
Riiiiiight. You're adjusting the data.
So what's the number? How much will the oceans cool for every 10ppm reduction in CO2
What a clown you are
The AGWCult is long on insults and short on Experiments, they will never provide an answer
It is you that wants to defund all of our science insitutions that would do such science. The honest truth at least from where I sit is I don't have the numbers for 10 or 100 ppm increase in co2.
I am sure that those increases do in fact cause a increase in the greenhouse.
You should want more MONEY for the noaa, nasa and our institutions if you care about knowing those exact numbers.
Oh. Please go fuck yourself too while you're at it
Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
The hydrogen car is the real boondogoo....
Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
The hydrogen car is the real boondogoo....
nope not really
Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
honestly don't know the answer, hydrogen fuel cell sounds more like a battery/ electric run car, hydrogen combustion engine sounds more like it. Hydrogen is combustible and an engine run off of that, getting refueled by another tank of hydrogen gas sounds more like a combustible engine than a battery/ fuel cell powered engine. But it worked by refueling with hydrogen gas every 300 miles so you tell meHydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
Here is the closest thing I can give to your answer
1.3 in 1990
1.9 for today
Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cellhonestly don't know the answer, hydrogen fuel cell sounds more like a battery/ electric run car, hydrogen combustion engine sounds more like it. Hydrogen is combustible and an engine run off of that, getting refueled by another tank of hydrogen gas sounds more like a combustible engine than a battery/ fuel cell powered engine. But it worked by refueling with hydrogen gas every 300 miles so you tell meHydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
I'm sorry but yes there was a car run off of hydrogen gas, and im pretty sure it was combustion... Not positive , but it doesn't make sense to throw gas at a fuel cell to recharge it. So if have to say a combustible engine. And yes it was a real thing according to GM in 2007, but shortly after "something happend" and that car was no longer possible, despite it being driven on the road by many media personnel getting try to sell it as a environemtly friendly car .Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
The hydrogen car is the real boondogoo....
Thank you , both exist, one has energy produced for it from an outside source, the other produces energy on it's ownHydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cellhonestly don't know the answer, hydrogen fuel cell sounds more like a battery/ electric run car, hydrogen combustion engine sounds more like it. Hydrogen is combustible and an engine run off of that, getting refueled by another tank of hydrogen gas sounds more like a combustible engine than a battery/ fuel cell powered engine. But it worked by refueling with hydrogen gas every 300 miles so you tell meHydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
hydrogen fuel cell sounds more like a battery/ electric run car, hydrogen combustion engine sounds more like it.
there are both several auto makers in the US are testing running hydrogen combustion vehicles with great success
and places in Canada the city buses run on hydro electric which also are doing well
the real advance will come is when the storage or storage production of hydrogen
can be produced in the vehicle
Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists
Thursday 16 July 2015 18.23 BST
Seas will continue to warm for centuries even if manmade greenhouse gas emissions were frozen at today’s levels, say US government scientists
http://www.theguardi...y-us-scientists
Well, matter what we do this isn't going to be stopped.
I love trick questions.. CO2 and its IR output at 14-16um does not penetrate the 0.1um of the surface of the ocean. it has no thermal value. Water vapor from the suns direct rays will carry off more heat than thermal IR can slow down. At night the heat loss is not retarded by CO2.No number.
Odd
Let's try again
How much will the oceans cool for each 10PPM reduction in CO2?
Still didn't answer his question.Here is the closest thing I can give to your answer
1.3 in 1990
1.9 for today
Co2 increases about 20ppm every 10 years,,,,so 10ppm is done every 5 years so about 1 w/m^2 for every 5 years of co2 forcing.
That is what I can tell you from 10ppm of co2.
The Earth Has Entered Its 21st Year Without Global Warming The Daily Caller
Saw this article just yesterday.
But guys we really should believe in global warming... I mean climate change. We should kill our cattle for causing 40% of our carbon emissions. CO2 is really bad for the earth. And irrigating and planting trees and crops on10 percent of say the Arizona Desert is not a viable option. No we need to have the government take control of our resources more strictly, and have those who know better dole those resources out in a responsible way.
Do you really think the Daily Caller is a good source for objective science information?
Animal the government got us to space, paved the highways and created the early internet.
The government created rockets that made satellites possible
The government built dams
The government has regulated our economy that made the middle class possible.
Now go back to Africa you fucking savage.
I'm sorry but yes there was a car run off of hydrogen gas, and im pretty sure it was combustion... Not positive , but it doesn't make sense to throw gas at a fuel cell to recharge it. So if have to say a combustible engine. And yes it was a real thing according to GM in 2007, but shortly after "something happend" and that car was no longer possible, despite it being driven on the road by many media personnel getting try to sell it as a environemtly friendly car .Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.
What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?
Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.
You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.
If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.
You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.
Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.
Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.
Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.
And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions
It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.
much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.
I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.
..or any aerobic being for that matter.
Eh? Aerobic being?
And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.
The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.
Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years
The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.
And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.
China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.
Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.
And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.
Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?
i like hydrogen
do you mean hydrogen combustion engine
or hydrogen/electric fuel cell
The hydrogen car is the real boondogoo....
Ok so how many do we need to terminate to keep the human species alive? Simple question please answer?Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists
Thursday 16 July 2015 18.23 BST
Seas will continue to warm for centuries even if manmade greenhouse gas emissions were frozen at today’s levels, say US government scientists
http://www.theguardi...y-us-scientists
Well, matter what we do this isn't going to be stopped.
This is the problem with the continuing lying from the energy industry that Glogal Warming isn't man-made and isn't a problem. Many people don't want to face the grim reality so they accept any lie that states 'don't worry, everything's fine'.
It isn't. As noted even if all injection of carbon into the atmosphere ended today the effects of the elevated levels already in the atmosphere will continue for centuries, and possibly for millennia.
The science is settled and scientists agree that unless we take direct drastic action the consequences for human-kind, as well as the rest of the biosphere, will be catastrophic.
There is already a mass extinction underway. It is questionable whether the human species will survive it.
