Remember me
▼ Content

Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?10-11-2018 22:06
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
The whole thing moved so fast, I missed a few small details...

The planet, climate, weather, life, are all very complex things, which we only think we know a few things about, but certainly would admit there is a lot we don't understand.

So, why can it only be 'Man-Made' CO2, that's killing the planet, if we don't act now, before it's too late? To me, the Sun, would be my first guess, since it, well warms the planet, our primary source of energy. So how could it not be Sun related, why was it excluded from the list?

Maybe it's not true, it's a scientific guess, but the surface of the planet, is really just a jigsaw puzzle of these plates, that float around on a layer of molten rock. Like the stuff that spews out of volcanoes. We've got hot springs of water, geysers, so obviously there is a lot of heat trapped underground. Could some of those plates be shifting around a little, releasing some of that trapped heat, at an alarming rate? Been a lot of earthquakes, volcanic activity, something going on down there. Again, discounted, and excluded.

Does the Sun really just sit stationary, exact same spot in space, or does it move around some, like everything else in space? I really don't recall reading anything about it.

Just a few examples, but really, how can it be just 'Man-Made' CO2, and nothing else, or even a combination of many things? The consensus came pretty quick, could only be the one thing, fix that quickly, and we won't burn in hell. CO2 is just a tiny fraction of 1% of the atmosphere, spread out from sea level, all the way up, not even distributed equally, in a nice layer across the top. That's all the CO2, except maybe what gets trapped in ice cubes and beer bottles. Really can't grasp the molecular difference between the 'Carbon-Neutral', friendly, safe, natural CO2. And that evil, planet-killing, 'Man-Made' from carbon based fuels, CO2. Do they have a like a test strip, turn color in the presence of one or the other? Maybe it's an electronic gadget, that can only measures one or the other, maybe both. Could be a fun project to build sometime, maybe profitable as well. Lot of folks talk about their 'Carbon Footprint'. Why not sell them a device to monitor it for them. Everyone else is casing in on this, why not me?
10-11-2018 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The whole thing moved so fast, I missed a few small details...

The planet, climate, weather, life, are all very complex things, which we only think we know a few things about, but certainly would admit there is a lot we don't understand.

There is actually a lot we do understand about the weather, CO2, thermodynamics, and even light.
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, why can it only be 'Man-Made' CO2, that's killing the planet, if we don't act now, before it's too late?
The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist dooms-day religion. It stems from the Church of Karl Marx. It is a tool to try to implement oligarchies and dictatorships.
HarveyH55 wrote:
To me, the Sun, would be my first guess, since it, well warms the planet, our primary source of energy. So how could it not be Sun related, why was it excluded from the list?

It takes away from the 'seriousness' of the impending doom.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe it's not true, it's a scientific guess,
The Church of Global Warming denies science.
HarveyH55 wrote:
but the surface of the planet, is really just a jigsaw puzzle of these plates, that float around on a layer of molten rock. Like the stuff that spews out of volcanoes. We've got hot springs of water, geysers, so obviously there is a lot of heat trapped underground. Could some of those plates be shifting around a little, releasing some of that trapped heat, at an alarming rate? Been a lot of earthquakes, volcanic activity, something going on down there. Again, discounted, and excluded.

While the interior of the Earth is nice and hot (at least by our standards), it is quite cool and insignificant next to the power of the Sun. Further, rock is a good insulator (which is why the interior can so easily stay molten, given the source of that energy (nuclear fission)).
HarveyH55 wrote:
Does the Sun really just sit stationary, exact same spot in space, or does it move around some, like everything else in space? I really don't recall reading anything about it.

The Earth does not orbit a stationary Sun. The Earth and the Sun orbit each other. The center of that rotation is about 60 miles from the center of mass of the Sun (deep inside the Sun itself). The Sun also orbits the other planets, just as the other planets orbit the Sun. They each have a center of rotation that varies depending on the relative mass of the Sun and the planet in question.

Thus, the Sun 'wobbles' in space as it orbits each of the planets (and even any asteroids).

The Sun also orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy. It's moving at quite a pace too. We orbit the Milky Way once every 200 million years.

The Milky Way galaxy is itself moving, relative to other galaxies.

There is no 'stationary', or zero speed, except for what you yourself want to designate. That's basically what Einstein's Theory of General Relativity says. This theory has not yet been falsified. It is still science today.

We can call a house 'stationary', and it is simply because one says so. Cars driving by measure the speed relative to your 'stationary' house (and other similar 'stationary' things).

We can call the Sun 'stationary', and it is because simply because one says so. That means the house is moving 24 thousand miles per hour on a spinning Earth, and moving at 67000 miles per hour as it orbits the Sun. That's a 'fast' house!

Such is the effect of the Theory of General Relativity.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Just a few examples, but really, how can it be just 'Man-Made' CO2, and nothing else, or even a combination of many things? The consensus came pretty quick, could only be the one thing, fix that quickly, and we won't burn in hell. CO2 is just a tiny fraction of 1% of the atmosphere, spread out from sea level, all the way up, not even distributed equally, in a nice layer across the top. That's all the CO2, except maybe what gets trapped in ice cubes and beer bottles.

Ice is permeable to CO2. You can't trap CO2 in it.
Beer makes it's own CO2 while fermenting. Soda uses CO2 from the local gas liquification plant (which also produces tanks filled with oxygen, hydrogen, acetylene, nitrogen, etc.).

The raw material for such a plant is the atmosphere itself.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Really can't grasp the molecular difference between the 'Carbon-Neutral', friendly, safe, natural CO2. And that evil, planet-killing, 'Man-Made' from carbon based fuels, CO2. Do they have a like a test strip, turn color in the presence of one or the other? Maybe it's an electronic gadget, that can only measures one or the other, maybe both. Could be a fun project to build sometime, maybe profitable as well. Lot of folks talk about their 'Carbon Footprint'. Why not sell them a device to monitor it for them. Everyone else is casing in on this, why not me?

Yes. There is a test strip. It can be used to test the presence of CO2 in water, since some of that CO2 is converted into carbonic acid. The test strip is litmus paper. You can also titrate the solution to measure it more accurately.

There are also instruments made that can detect CO2. Most of these use the known absorption frequencies of CO2. They are NOT particularly portable, since they have to eliminate to possibility of water vapor (which closely match that of CO2).

The Mauna Loa instrument is just such an instrument.


The Parrot Killer
10-11-2018 23:41
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
HarveyH55 wrote:
.... why can it only be 'Man-Made' CO2, that's killing the planet,.....The consensus came pretty quick....


The consensus [b]didn't[/b] come quickly.

Took over a century.

Back in the 1820's Joseph Fourier figured out that something in the atmosphere was keeping the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.

In the 1860's. John Tyndall found that the something was mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide.

In the 1890's some of the details began to emerge of what later came to be called the "greenhouse effect." (Not a very accurate name since greenhouses mostly work differently.) Nothing yet though about affecting climate. That began in the late 1930's and the amount wasn't alarming.

Wasn't until the late 1950's that good long term measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration began. Was found that carbon dioxide was increasing. Some atmospheric physicists began to get concerned. How much might climate be affected? Different groups of people worked on different aspects of the problem.

In 1988 James Hansen testified before a US Senate committee that we were beginning to change the Earth's climate.

Consensus came quickly?


As to some of your other concerns, they are addressed in the scientific literature. Not kept secret or anything, but not addressed in the popular media though.

As an instance you ask "Does the Sun really just sit stationary, exact same spot in space...." If you mean the question literally, then no and it's kind of common knowledge that the Sun and it's Solar System are part of a rotating galaxy, so moving. Really basic astronomy stuff. Sun moving relative to the Earth? Read about Milankovich cycles. Not secret, but not mass media stuff either. Maybe you referred to possible solar output changes, something changing about the amount of sunlight received. Been looked into a lot, nothing unusual. Got the 11 year cycle, but no change in that.

There's a lot of information out there. Not in the mass media though.
11-11-2018 00:28
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Still doesn't address why it's CO2, and could be nothing else. It's such a small component, of the atmosphere, but given such frightening huge impact. There has got to be a very big, clear, and simplistic reason why. Really don't have the time or attention span (patience), to sift through thousands of pages, of mostly meaningless garbage, to get to a few lines of interest or value. I asked here, figuring someone with to much free time on their hands, might have a quick answer. Mass media is just for the recruitment literature, the good stuff is reserved for club members?

The few examples I presented, were just things I noticed as common, but completely excluded as even contributing factors. It's all about CO2, only 'Man-Made' CO2, nothing else has the power to change climate. Really odd that there could be any real global measurement of the planet's temperature, at any moment, it changes throughout the day, by location, weather condition, seasons. Yet, we are talking a fraction of a degree increase, over a period of years. Don't see how it's possible to get such precise predictions, from data that couldn't possibly be even close. The data would have to be give as a range of values, the prediction would have to be given as a range of values as well, same tolerance as the data used.

Water vapor, a much larger component of the atmosphere, varies quite a bit, since it's added to, and falls out of the sky daily. These means the concentration of CO2 varies daily as well, can't exceed 100%. Not to mention, CO2 isn't just pumped into the sky, and stays there forever, it comes out as well. If nothing else, plants use it quite a bit... Or don't plants make use of 'Man-Made' CO2, just 'organic'...
11-11-2018 05:28
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
HarveyH55 wrote:

" ....why it's CO2, and could be nothing else."....
The effects of CO2 explain most of the small increase in observed global surface temperature average. Other possible explanations such as increased solar output have been investigated. Nothing has so far been found that explains the small observed effect.


Really don't have the time.....quick answer......the good stuff is reserved for club members?

There aren't really any quick explanations. Not valid ones.
How much time it'd take to go through an explanation would depend in part on your background, your education and experience, how much you already know. At universities it seems to be a three credit hour course for an introduction to climate science for non-science majors. So, roughly three hours of classroom lecture per week plus homework reading and problems for a semester.
Can you get the same stuff online? Sure. But it'll take awhile. Reading on your own? Might start with a book called Thin Ice by Mark Bowen. Pretty good reading even apart from the climate aspect, some mountaineering and other sorts of non technical stuff. More books? A textbook: Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert, also The Warming Papers. Amazon has them. Might try your public local library for Thin Ice.

....the prediction would have to be given as a range of values as well....
They are.
Check out what is in the IPCC reports. Or go to the actual science literature that the IPCC stuff is derived from.

...."concentration of CO2 varies daily as well"....
While it does vary a lot locally many places, not everywhere. Go find the Scripps website and read about the "Keeling Curve." They found a place where there are reliable tradewinds blowing across thousands of miles of ocean allowing gasses to be well mixed and then sampled the same way for years. Mauna Kea, Hawaii. (They do not include the readings taken when the usual winds shift and bring Kiluea's gasses.)

...CO2 isn't just pumped into the sky, and stays there forever....
True. Check out the wikipedia entry on "carbon cycle." Plants and algae use way more CO2 every year than humans produce and decompositional processes release way more than humans do. And carbonate rocks near the Earth's surface store way more carbon. And a huge amount in the earth's interior too. Probably.

No quick and valid explanations.
11-11-2018 05:29
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
HarveyH55 wrote:

" ....why it's CO2, and could be nothing else."....
The effects of CO2 explain most of the small increase in observed global surface temperature average. Other possible explanations such as increased solar output have been investigated. Nothing has so far been found that explains the small observed effect.


Really don't have the time.....quick answer......the good stuff is reserved for club members?

There aren't really any quick explanations. Not valid ones.
How much time it'd take to go through an explanation would depend in part on your background, your education and experience, how much you already know. At universities it seems to be a three credit hour course for an introduction to climate science for non-science majors. So, roughly three hours of classroom lecture per week plus homework reading and problems for a semester.
Can you get the same stuff online? Sure. But it'll take awhile. Reading on your own? Might start with a book called Thin Ice by Mark Bowen. Pretty good reading even apart from the climate aspect, some mountaineering and other sorts of non technical stuff. More books? A textbook: Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert, also The Warming Papers. Amazon has them. Might try your public local library for Thin Ice.

....the prediction would have to be given as a range of values as well....
They are.
Check out what is in the IPCC reports. Or go to the actual science literature that the IPCC stuff is derived from.

...."concentration of CO2 varies daily as well"....
While it does vary a lot locally many places, not everywhere. Go find the Scripps website and read about the "Keeling Curve." They found a place where there are reliable tradewinds blowing across thousands of miles of ocean allowing gasses to be well mixed and then sampled the same way for years. Mauna Kea, Hawaii. (They do not include the readings taken when the usual winds shift and bring Kiluea's gasses.)

...CO2 isn't just pumped into the sky, and stays there forever....
True. Check out the wikipedia entry on "carbon cycle." Plants and algae use way more CO2 every year than humans produce and decompositional processes release way more than humans do. And carbonate rocks near the Earth's surface store way more carbon. And a huge amount in the earth's interior too. Probably.

No quick and valid explanations.
11-11-2018 05:29
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
HarveyH55 wrote:

" ....why it's CO2, and could be nothing else."....
The effects of CO2 explain most of the small increase in observed global surface temperature average. Other possible explanations such as increased solar output have been investigated. Nothing has so far been found that explains the small observed effect.


Really don't have the time.....quick answer......the good stuff is reserved for club members?

There aren't really any quick explanations. Not valid ones.
How much time it'd take to go through an explanation would depend in part on your background, your education and experience, how much you already know. At universities it seems to be a three credit hour course for an introduction to climate science for non-science majors. So, roughly three hours of classroom lecture per week plus homework reading and problems for a semester.
Can you get the same stuff online? Sure. But it'll take awhile. Reading on your own? Might start with a book called Thin Ice by Mark Bowen. Pretty good reading even apart from the climate aspect, some mountaineering and other sorts of non technical stuff. More books? A textbook: Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert, also The Warming Papers. Amazon has them. Might try your public local library for Thin Ice.

....the prediction would have to be given as a range of values as well....
They are.
Check out what is in the IPCC reports. Or go to the actual science literature that the IPCC stuff is derived from.

...."concentration of CO2 varies daily as well"....
While it does vary a lot locally many places, not everywhere. Go find the Scripps website and read about the "Keeling Curve." They found a place where there are reliable tradewinds blowing across thousands of miles of ocean allowing gasses to be well mixed and then sampled the same way for years. Mauna Kea, Hawaii. (They do not include the readings taken when the usual winds shift and bring Kiluea's gasses.)

...CO2 isn't just pumped into the sky, and stays there forever....
True. Check out the wikipedia entry on "carbon cycle." Plants and algae use way more CO2 every year than humans produce and decompositional processes release way more than humans do. And carbonate rocks near the Earth's surface store way more carbon. And a huge amount in the earth's interior too. Probably.

No quick and valid explanations.
11-11-2018 14:46
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
So, basically, we just have to take it on faith, that the climatologist are giving it to us accurate and true. Or, we are willing to dedicate a considerable amount of our time, learning what it all means, to follow the circumstantial course of the literature, meaning we've already decided it's all true. Sounds like brainwashing to me, I've read enough papers, to know that there would dozens of others needed, to fully decode the one I was actually interested in. Of course, a paper, isn't a few paragraphs, it needs to contain a lot of unneeded information, follow a certain form, and redundancy. I just don't have the time or dedication needed. My main interest is in electronics, but have many other hobbies and interest I follow. Mostly, I'm curious, and a little concerned about the financial impact of 'Climate Change'. The early doomsday predictions should hit, about retirement time for me, so we should feel the tax squeeze about then, pretty hard.
11-11-2018 20:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, basically, we just have to take it on faith, that the climatologist are giving it to us accurate and true. Or, we are willing to dedicate a considerable amount of our time, learning what it all means, to follow the circumstantial course of the literature, meaning we've already decided it's all true. Sounds like brainwashing to me, I've read enough papers, to know that there would dozens of others needed, to fully decode the one I was actually interested in. Of course, a paper, isn't a few paragraphs, it needs to contain a lot of unneeded information, follow a certain form, and redundancy. I just don't have the time or dedication needed. My main interest is in electronics, but have many other hobbies and interest I follow. Mostly, I'm curious, and a little concerned about the financial impact of 'Climate Change'. The early doomsday predictions should hit, about retirement time for me, so we should feel the tax squeeze about then, pretty hard.


The early doomsday predictions from the Church of Global warming have come and gone. They update the date it's supposed to happen all the time.

They've now figure out that it's best to make such predictions beyond their own lifetime. This way, they won't be held personally accountable for when it's wrong...again.


The Parrot Killer
11-11-2018 20:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, basically, we just have to take it on faith, that the climatologist are giving it to us accurate and true. Or, we are willing to dedicate a considerable amount of our time, learning what it all means, to follow the circumstantial course of the literature, meaning we've already decided it's all true. Sounds like brainwashing to me, I've read enough papers, to know that there would dozens of others needed, to fully decode the one I was actually interested in. Of course, a paper, isn't a few paragraphs, it needs to contain a lot of unneeded information, follow a certain form, and redundancy. I just don't have the time or dedication needed. My main interest is in electronics, but have many other hobbies and interest I follow. Mostly, I'm curious, and a little concerned about the financial impact of 'Climate Change'. The early doomsday predictions should hit, about retirement time for me, so we should feel the tax squeeze about then, pretty hard.


There are lots of things about the climate debate that require very little understanding of physics to be part of.

The impacts of a slight warming can be examined without understanding the physics of the interactions of light with CO2.

My personal favorite is looking at the ice mass of Greenland. The NASA/consensus is that it is loosing loads of ice mass. The total precipitation (snowfall) that lands on Greenland would require the flow rate of the Mississippi for 18 months. If you look at Google earth do you see this vast amount of water and ice coming out of the place over the 2 months of its' summer?

And that is to break even, not the extra 7 Mississippi months required for the ice loss numbers they have.

Edited on 11-11-2018 20:15
11-11-2018 20:22
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
HarveyH55 wrote:
.... just have to take it on faith....(or be) willing to dedicate a considerable amount of our time learning.....meaning we've already decided it's all true. Sounds like brainwashing to me..... I'm curious, and a little concerned about the financial impact of 'Climate Change'. The early doomsday predictions should hit, about retirement time for me, so we should feel the tax squeeze about then, pretty hard.


Accept or check up on or ignore or deny. What else?

Check up on parts that interest you particularly. For instance, given an interest in electronics, maybe delving into the instrumentation used to measure CO2 at the Mauna Kea station would be worthwhile.

Read up more on what has actually happened and on what is actually predicted, learn more about what you might be accepting or ignoring or denying.
The IPCC AR5 report summarizes things pretty well, I think. Might start with the "summary for policymakers" part of the physical sciences section.

The word "doomsday," I don't think I've seen that word used by a scientist.

Science can give us a pretty good idea about what has happened with climate and can try to give some idea about what will happen in the future but it can't decide what policies should be used, if any, to reduce the amount of human caused climate change. Can advise on policies, but not decide.

Financial impact of climate change? However much it will be, leaving CO2 reduction policies for later instead of sooner will increase the impact. I think.
11-11-2018 22:22
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Tim the plumber wrote:

There are lots of things about the climate debate that require very little understanding of physics to be part of.

The impacts of a slight warming can be examined without understanding the physics of the interactions of light with CO2.

My personal favorite is looking at the ice mass of Greenland. The NASA/consensus is that it is loosing loads of ice mass. The total precipitation (snowfall) that lands on Greenland would require the flow rate of the Mississippi for 18 months. If you look at Google earth do you see this vast amount of water and ice coming out of the place over the 2 months of its' summer?

And that is to break even, not the extra 7 Mississippi months required for the ice loss numbers they have.


Pretty sure it was Greenland, maybe Iceland, but I remember reading a few articles about vikings, and farming there, 800-900 A.D.. Have to look that up now, sort of an oddity, if it was good for farming, then covered in ice and snow. I don't deny the warming, seem normal, natural, nothing unusual about it. Still a lot of remnants of the Great Ice Age. They still find frozen mammoths. Think we have been warming thousands of years longer, than we've been burning anything. Some really rapid periods, some a little slow, maybe even a little cooling. What we see with the yearly seasons, is probably similar to the overall warming/cooling of the planet. Just no observation to base anything on, from before the Ice Age, so we really can't know what is normal.
11-11-2018 22:49
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
still learning wrote:


Accept or check up on or ignore or deny. What else?

Check up on parts that interest you particularly. For instance, given an interest in electronics, maybe delving into the instrumentation used to measure CO2 at the Mauna Kea station would be worthwhile.

Read up more on what has actually happened and on what is actually predicted, learn more about what you might be accepting or ignoring or denying.
The IPCC AR5 report summarizes things pretty well, I think. Might start with the "summary for policymakers" part of the physical sciences section.

The word "doomsday," I don't think I've seen that word used by a scientist.

Science can give us a pretty good idea about what has happened with climate and can try to give some idea about what will happen in the future but it can't decide what policies should be used, if any, to reduce the amount of human caused climate change. Can advise on policies, but not decide.

Financial impact of climate change? However much it will be, leaving CO2 reduction policies for later instead of sooner will increase the impact. I think.


I don't deny the warm, just skeptical of it caused solely by man-made CO2. Just seems like there should be a whole lot more to it. It's a really small fraction of the total, yet is given such a major role, the only role actually. If it really shut a precise balance, wouldn't messing with it, be just as bad, if they go too far? We really do need CO2 in the atmosphere, for plant growth, if nothing else. Got a hunch, it serves other uses. Food starts with plants, and seems like most plants do a whole lot better, with added CO2. We aren't anywhere close to the optimal level. Which sort of makes me wonder, if the CO2 level is actually too low, and the cause of the warming. There is just know way of knowing, without observing. It's never happened to this species before. Life has been on this planet long before we walked it, and it's probably going to continue, long after we are gone.

I use 'doomsday', just easy to spell, for one thing. Scientist use larger words, of similar impact, like 'catastrophic'. I don't get spooked easy, but I don't like to be pushed or pressured into making impulse buys. I don't like the scare tactics, of all the bad things that are going to happen, if we don't act now. I don't like that you hit a wall of papers, the bulk of which has little no useful information, unless you devote most of life studying 'Climate Change'. Mostly though, is it worries me that I'll have to buy all new stuff, to replace things that still work fine, and that saving some money on used, won't be an option. I'm sure it will come as a Mandate, like ObamaCare, whether you buy it or not, you still have to pay the IRS. I'm paying considerably more, for less coverage, although I can get a free mammogram, which wouldn't help much. But, energy is much bigger than health insurance, and there just isn't a quick, easy, and affordable replacement, that can be swapped in, and make that deadline, before it's too late. The cost of energy for some, will be too high. For others, the demand too great in their area, it's not available at any price.
12-11-2018 06:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
still learning wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
.... just have to take it on faith....(or be) willing to dedicate a considerable amount of our time learning.....meaning we've already decided it's all true. Sounds like brainwashing to me..... I'm curious, and a little concerned about the financial impact of 'Climate Change'. The early doomsday predictions should hit, about retirement time for me, so we should feel the tax squeeze about then, pretty hard.


Accept or check up on or ignore or deny. What else?

Check up on parts that interest you particularly. For instance, given an interest in electronics, maybe delving into the instrumentation used to measure CO2 at the Mauna Kea station would be worthwhile.

The instrumentation is optical, not electronic. Unfortunately, the Mauna Kea stations is not reporting raw data. It is useless.
still learning wrote:
The IPCC AR5 report summarizes things pretty well, I think. Might start with the "summary for policymakers" part of the physical sciences section.

The IPCC is not science. They deny science.
still learning wrote:
The word "doomsday," I don't think I've seen that word used by a scientist.
They use it about the same as anyone else.
still learning wrote:
Science can give us a pretty good idea about what has happened with climate and can try to give some idea about what will happen in the future but it can't decide what policies should be used, if any, to reduce the amount of human caused climate change.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather. Science has no power of prediction. It is an open functional system. 'Climate change' is a meaningless buzzword. You have to define it first.
still learning wrote:
Can advise on policies, but not decide.

The IPCC tries to implement policies all the time.
still learning wrote:
Financial impact of climate change? However much it will be, leaving CO2 reduction policies for later instead of sooner will increase the impact. I think.

No need to reduce CO2. It does not warm the Earth, and it is beneficial for plants.


The Parrot Killer
12-11-2018 10:59
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
The main problem, is the data, it's not precise, instrument read, in a consistent, standardized method. Maybe a handful of monitoring stations throughout the world, but hardly enough to give meaningful data for the whole planet. There has to be a very high variance in satellite readings, since it's a long way to the earth's surface, much would be obscured by clouds, and the 'greenhouse' gases. They aren't actual readings either, it's an interpretation, they can't check it with any ground based measurements. The CO2 levels are pretty much the same, can test a small sample, at various location, but no way it can reasonably be scaled to a represent the entire globe. CO2 emissions are the same, not sure where they get all those tons of CO2 from, doubtful it's actually measured, let alone accurately reported. Most companies have been under fire for pollution for many decades, and now CO2, just not in their best interest to allow monitoring, or give accurate measurements, that could cost them. There is a huge margin for error, yet it the results are being sold as very precise numbers, that doesn't reflect the large variance, no tolerance range defined or given. Basically, there is not enough hard data, to scientifically prove, without any doubt, there is any truth in CO2 based Global Warming, just something to talk about, maybe consider. But, to force it as fact, and push for some very costly, major changes, that will most definitely have catastrophic impacts on the global economy. It means a drastic change in who provides the energy we are allowed to use, how much we are rationed, and how much we pay for the privilege. The taxes, fines, and other penalties, would be passed on to consumers. The cost of conversions, or added equipment, also passed down. The economics is guaranteed, the USA is $21 Trillion in debt, the government isn't going to borrow enough to pick up the tab, for all the changes needed, to meet the deadline. The Climatologist are pushing for a major shift in energy use and production, something we are all very dependent. The want to have the power to control who gets to burn petroleum fuels, and how much, which will control production and profit. Basically, they can hurt or kill off businesses that don't comply, or can't afford the penalties.
12-11-2018 20:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The main problem, is the data, it's not precise, instrument read, in a consistent, standardized method. Maybe a handful of monitoring stations throughout the world, but hardly enough to give meaningful data for the whole planet.
This is correct. NASA uses the higher number of thermometers (about 7500). Spread evenly across the globe (they aren't), this would result in one thermometer ever 26,600 square miles (about the size of West Virginia or South Carolina). Temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There has to be a very high variance in satellite readings, since it's a long way to the earth's surface, much would be obscured by clouds, and the 'greenhouse' gases.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. They can only measure light. To convert to temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann must be used. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. That constant can only be measured by first knowing accurately what the temperature of the Earth is in the first place.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They aren't actual readings either, it's an interpretation, they can't check it with any ground based measurements.

Not good enough. Temperature varies at a faster rate than satellite resolution, and it changes constantly due to moving air, weather, water, etc.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The CO2 levels are pretty much the same, can test a small sample, at various location, but no way it can reasonably be scaled to a represent the entire globe.

It's even worse with CO2. We have only a few dozen stations even capable of measuring it. None of them are measuring anything above ground level. The measurement occurs in a small chamber of locally sampled air.
HarveyH55 wrote:
CO2 emissions are the same, not sure where they get all those tons of CO2 from, doubtful it's actually measured, let alone accurately reported.

That number is calculated. It is also wrong. The calculation is done by taking the weight of our atmosphere (at 14.7psi at sea level), using the 0.04% of the portion that is carbon dioxide, and calculating the weight of the carbon dioxide total. The reason it's wrong is because they are using this number to try to show how much is emitted by man each year, not the total. Further, they are trying to make it sound more impressive by stating it this way, conveniently NOT stating the weight of the atmosphere as a whole.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Most companies have been under fire for pollution for many decades, and now CO2, just not in their best interest to allow monitoring, or give accurate measurements, that could cost them. There is a huge margin for error, yet it the results are being sold as very precise numbers, that doesn't reflect the large variance, no tolerance range defined or given. Basically, there is not enough hard data, to scientifically prove, without any doubt, there is any truth in CO2 based Global Warming, just something to talk about, maybe consider. But, to force it as fact, and push for some very costly, major changes, that will most definitely have catastrophic impacts on the global economy. It means a drastic change in who provides the energy we are allowed to use, how much we are rationed, and how much we pay for the privilege. The taxes, fines, and other penalties, would be passed on to consumers. The cost of conversions, or added equipment, also passed down. The economics is guaranteed, the USA is $21 Trillion in debt, the government isn't going to borrow enough to pick up the tab, for all the changes needed, to meet the deadline. The Climatologist are pushing for a major shift in energy use and production, something we are all very dependent. The want to have the power to control who gets to burn petroleum fuels, and how much, which will control production and profit. Basically, they can hurt or kill off businesses that don't comply, or can't afford the penalties.

This is actually the goal. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx.


The Parrot Killer
13-11-2018 01:17
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Maybe I'm wrong, but CO2 is basically a harmless molecule. We don't die from high concentrations of CO2, just the lack of O2. CO2 can be used to put out fires. Lot of good things about CO2, accept this one thing, and only 'Man-Made' CO2. Still haven't found out what the physical difference between natural, and synthetic CO2. Such a tiny concentration, of a common, naturally occurring molecule, has such a damning effect on the climate, the weather, life on planet Earth. We may be pumping out mega-tons of 'Man-made' CO2, but it's harmless, actually beneficial to plant life, which we need badly, it's our basic food source. Really can't see the connection, I like my food, I like a warmer climate, don't see the problem. The only problem I do have with all this, is a group of people threatening me, wanting to steal my savings, my 401k, and drastically raise the cost of living. Was really looking forward to retirement, but not sure if that will even be possible. I'm in great health, but that won't last forever, no confidence in Obamacare to keep me in the workforce. Wonder how big the 'Carbon-Footprint' of cremations. Personally, I'd prefer a box and a plot, but that's not what you get, if you have no money.

Climate, is not weather, but severe weather is caused by 'Climate-Change'. It's been bad for the past couple of decades, the news media over-hyping the hurricanes we get every year. Sure, they can be bad, should have some supplies, an exit plan. But, the thing is, they tend push everyone into the stores, to buy up everything they can, as much as they can, every storm. If you have to evacuate, you can't bring much with you. Your home destroyed, well so is all the stuff you bought, and couldn't bring with you. Most of those portable generators so popular, don't actual power much, maybe a coffee maker, microwave oven, but not at the same time. Over-selling the storms, is good for the economy, separates people from cash they would normally sit on, or use for other things. A few areas get hit hard by the storms, but for most, life resumes as mostly normal in a day or two. Usually, soon as the storm has passed, there is ice, water, few other supplies made available by emergency management. Most stores, not damaged, resume business after power is restored, if they have anything left on their shelves. 'Climate Change' is a lot like the suggested hurricane preparations, buy a whole lot of stuff, most will probably never need, and many just follow the instructions, every storm.

But if it proven that 'Climate Change' causes the severe weather, and they understand it so well... Why is it they have never used any of these 'facts', to change or alter the weather? They use to try all kinds of stuff to make it rain, cloud seeding showed promise, for a while. Maybe the natives had a better success rate dancing. Just seems like if climate is such a powerful force, that the 'Climatologist' are positive they can control and manipulate, why can't they control some weather. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought do a lot of damage, cause huge problems, lot of expense. Why can't they use some of that vast understanding to minimize the effects? I've been reading a few things, where they blames the severity of the California wildfires, on 'Climate Change', which could be true, if the scientist could have done something like provide some much need rain, or control the winds driving the fire. Wonder if Climatology could be sued for sitting on their hands, knowing they could have done something to help out, but didn't, just because these catastrophes help promote their agenda. Don't the taxpayers that fund them, have a reasonable expectation, that they use what the research uncovers, to help, if they can?
13-11-2018 03:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but CO2 is basically a harmless molecule. We don't die from high concentrations of CO2, just the lack of O2. CO2 can be used to put out fires. Lot of good things about CO2, accept this one thing, and only 'Man-Made' CO2. Still haven't found out what the physical difference between natural, and synthetic CO2. Such a tiny concentration, of a common, naturally occurring molecule, has such a damning effect on the climate, the weather, life on planet Earth. We may be pumping out mega-tons of 'Man-made' CO2, but it's harmless, actually beneficial to plant life, which we need badly, it's our basic food source. Really can't see the connection, I like my food, I like a warmer climate, don't see the problem. The only problem I do have with all this, is a group of people threatening me, wanting to steal my savings, my 401k, and drastically raise the cost of living. Was really looking forward to retirement, but not sure if that will even be possible. I'm in great health, but that won't last forever, no confidence in Obamacare to keep me in the workforce. Wonder how big the 'Carbon-Footprint' of cremations. Personally, I'd prefer a box and a plot, but that's not what you get, if you have no money.

Climate, is not weather, but severe weather is caused by 'Climate-Change'. It's been bad for the past couple of decades, the news media over-hyping the hurricanes we get every year. Sure, they can be bad, should have some supplies, an exit plan. But, the thing is, they tend push everyone into the stores, to buy up everything they can, as much as they can, every storm. If you have to evacuate, you can't bring much with you. Your home destroyed, well so is all the stuff you bought, and couldn't bring with you. Most of those portable generators so popular, don't actual power much, maybe a coffee maker, microwave oven, but not at the same time. Over-selling the storms, is good for the economy, separates people from cash they would normally sit on, or use for other things. A few areas get hit hard by the storms, but for most, life resumes as mostly normal in a day or two. Usually, soon as the storm has passed, there is ice, water, few other supplies made available by emergency management. Most stores, not damaged, resume business after power is restored, if they have anything left on their shelves. 'Climate Change' is a lot like the suggested hurricane preparations, buy a whole lot of stuff, most will probably never need, and many just follow the instructions, every storm.

But if it proven that 'Climate Change' causes the severe weather, and they understand it so well... Why is it they have never used any of these 'facts', to change or alter the weather? They use to try all kinds of stuff to make it rain, cloud seeding showed promise, for a while. Maybe the natives had a better success rate dancing. Just seems like if climate is such a powerful force, that the 'Climatologist' are positive they can control and manipulate, why can't they control some weather. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought do a lot of damage, cause huge problems, lot of expense. Why can't they use some of that vast understanding to minimize the effects? I've been reading a few things, where they blames the severity of the California wildfires, on 'Climate Change', which could be true, if the scientist could have done something like provide some much need rain, or control the winds driving the fire. Wonder if Climatology could be sued for sitting on their hands, knowing they could have done something to help out, but didn't, just because these catastrophes help promote their agenda. Don't the taxpayers that fund them, have a reasonable expectation, that they use what the research uncovers, to help, if they can?


The severity of California wildfires has more to do with mismanagement of the forests and grasslands than anything else. The Church of Green has prevented the forests and grasslands from being managed like they used to.

They also waste a LOT of water, then whine about the 'drought'.

It is not possible to control the weather, just as it is not possible to control the output of the Sun.

There is no 'correct' temperature. There is no 'correct' storm activity.


The Parrot Killer
13-11-2018 10:25
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Into the Night wrote:


The severity of California wildfires has more to do with mismanagement of the forests and grasslands than anything else. The Church of Green has prevented the forests and grasslands from being managed like they used to.

They also waste a LOT of water, then whine about the 'drought'.

It is not possible to control the weather, just as it is not possible to control the output of the Sun.

There is no 'correct' temperature. There is no 'correct' storm activity.


Exactly my point, mankind has studied, and and has wanted to control/influence the weather a very long time, compared to 'Climate Change', and it's been fruitless. It's been a long time since I've read about any weather modification experiments. Think cloud seeding was the last of it. But of course, we don't get to read about everything, it could be sensitive subject. A failed experiment could be disastrous, a costly liability, and a quick end to some promising research. Not to mention possible military applications. The public just wouldn't understand, and would likely oppose further work. Perhaps, 'Climate Change', is a smoke screen. They are really messing with weather, and they can blame the failures on 'Man-Made' CO2, while pulling in more research dollars, and continue playing with the planet at will. Conspiracy theories aside, it's a very large, complex planet. I think mankind's ego, would like to believe they are in control, understand everything. But mostly, we understand the things we can make a profit off. It doesn't pay very well, to study other things. Mostly, people are greedy, never satisfied with enough, always needing more. That need for power and control, is what causes most of the problems. The planet has been doing good for a whole lot longer than we can comprehend, and mankind has a zero influence. We can destroy the environment, poison most of the life, but never all of it. There will always be a recovery, new life. Really not the planet that needs changing, just the greedy people. The planet will keep going, as it always has, we are just along for the ride, we can't stop off where we please, or change it's direction.
13-11-2018 12:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
At present we use 40%+ of US grain production and an even higher percentage of EU food to make biofuel. This has probably doubled the price of food.

Whilst for us rich people that is not much of a problem, even baerly noticable, if you live on $2.50 per day or less, as almost half the world does, then it is crippling.

If you have an income of $1,000 a year you probably have a life expectancy of around 40 to 50.

If you effectively double this then life expectancy is around 60.

The even bigger effect on the economy of the poor of the world that would create a sectacular increase in living standards that would result in the extra money swirling around would make more impact still.

My guess is that if we stopped doing this next year there would be 20 million less deaths. After that more benefits.

Edited on 13-11-2018 12:02
13-11-2018 21:26
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Tim the plumber wrote:
At present we use 40%+ of US grain production and an even higher percentage of EU food to make biofuel. This has probably doubled the price of food.

Whilst for us rich people that is not much of a problem, even baerly noticable, if you live on $2.50 per day or less, as almost half the world does, then it is crippling.

If you have an income of $1,000 a year you probably have a life expectancy of around 40 to 50.

If you effectively double this then life expectancy is around 60.

The even bigger effect on the economy of the poor of the world that would create a sectacular increase in living standards that would result in the extra money swirling around would make more impact still.

My guess is that if we stopped doing this next year there would be 20 million less deaths. After that more benefits.


Bio-fuel crops will be in a huge demand, whole lot of diesel burning equipment out there, that ain't cheap to replace, doubt electric or methane will be a cheap or easy conversion either. I working in a distribution warehouse, and those trucks burn a lot of diesel. A lot of trains burn diesel, school buses, farm equipment, road construction, most anything that does the heavy work. When the price of diesel fuel goes up, we work on re-routing or loads, try to mitigate some of the added cost, we have a budget. They allow for cost fluctuations, but sometimes it's beyond what is expected. A major price hike, based on saving the planet, is going to kill a lot of businesses, which means moving goods, and doing heavy work in going to cost more as well. The consumers will catch some of the grief, in cost, and availability of products an services. There will be a lot of jobs lost, easiest way for a company to save a lot of money.

Farms already get subsidies from the government, usually to produce certain types of crops. Im a way, it's not that bad, if most farmers all grew the same things, then many would have a hard time giving it away, so would make much money. Probably some manipulations going on with that, and likely it isn't the farmers making the big money off of it either.

Think there will be worldwide food shortages, a lot worse and widespread, than we already have. Big companies can and will pay top dollar for fuel crops, food crops, well those who can for to buy it, sort of sets the price. I wonder if the believer ever think of the impact rushing this CO2 through, is going to cause. I really don't think the warming is going to be so bad, and there has got to be a feedback system, to keep it in check. The more I think about, the more it looks like a global domination scheme.
13-11-2018 23:49
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The whole thing moved so fast, I missed a few small details...

The planet, climate, weather, life, are all very complex things, which we only think we know a few things about, but certainly would admit there is a lot we don't understand.

So, why can it only be 'Man-Made' CO2, that's killing the planet, if we don't act now, before it's too late?



I simply love it when people have no clue what they're reading. They quit saying CO2 years ago and instead started saying AGW warning. How have you people missed that?
Ice core researchers which itn dislikes distanced themselves from the "Co2 induced warming ended the last ice age" claim.
That was what proponents of CO2 based warning referred to.
It's almost inexcusable for someone in this day and age to not know that.
13-11-2018 23:49
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The whole thing moved so fast, I missed a few small details...

The planet, climate, weather, life, are all very complex things, which we only think we know a few things about, but certainly would admit there is a lot we don't understand.

So, why can it only be 'Man-Made' CO2, that's killing the planet, if we don't act now, before it's too late?



I simply love it when people have no clue what they're reading. They quit saying CO2 years ago and instead started saying AGW warning. How have you people missed that?
Ice core researchers which itn dislikes distanced themselves from the "Co2 induced warming ended the last ice age" claim.
That was what proponents of CO2 based warning referred to.
It's almost inexcusable for someone in this day and age to not know that.
13-11-2018 23:50
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The whole thing moved so fast, I missed a few small details...

The planet, climate, weather, life, are all very complex things, which we only think we know a few things about, but certainly would admit there is a lot we don't understand.

So, why can it only be 'Man-Made' CO2, that's killing the planet, if we don't act now, before it's too late?


This is almost too funny. About the only people anymore who say CO2 is causing global warming is people like yourself. You don't even seem to know what the argument was based on or what's being said now.
Edited on 13-11-2018 23:56
14-11-2018 01:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The whole thing moved so fast, I missed a few small details...

The planet, climate, weather, life, are all very complex things, which we only think we know a few things about, but certainly would admit there is a lot we don't understand.

So, why can it only be 'Man-Made' CO2, that's killing the planet, if we don't act now, before it's too late?



I simply love it when people have no clue what they're reading. They quit saying CO2 years ago and instead started saying AGW warning.
How have you people missed that?

Anthropogenic Global Warming Warming??
They STILL it's caused by CO2, dude.
James___ wrote:
Ice core researchers which itn dislikes distanced themselves from the "Co2 induced warming ended the last ice age" claim.

Irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
That was what proponents of CO2 based warning referred to.
It's almost inexcusable for someone in this day and age to not know that.

No, it wasn't. It never was.


The Parrot Killer
14-11-2018 01:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The whole thing moved so fast, I missed a few small details...

The planet, climate, weather, life, are all very complex things, which we only think we know a few things about, but certainly would admit there is a lot we don't understand.

So, why can it only be 'Man-Made' CO2, that's killing the planet, if we don't act now, before it's too late?


This is almost too funny. About the only people anymore who say CO2 is causing global warming is people like yourself. You don't even seem to know what the argument was based on or what's being said now.


Even YOU say that 'global warming' is caused by CO2! Are you suddenly denying the Church of Global Warming?


The Parrot Killer
14-11-2018 03:01
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The whole thing moved so fast, I missed a few small details...

The planet, climate, weather, life, are all very complex things, which we only think we know a few things about, but certainly would admit there is a lot we don't understand.

So, why can it only be 'Man-Made' CO2, that's killing the planet, if we don't act now, before it's too late?


This is almost too funny. About the only people anymore who say CO2 is causing global warming is people like yourself. You don't even seem to know what the argument was based on or what's being said now.


Even YOU say that 'global warming' is caused by CO2! Are you suddenly denying the Church of Global Warming?


I just want some of what you're on. It's gotta be some pretty good stuff Man!!!!
Since you live around Seattle maybe psychotropic mushrooms?
They must be good for the trip you be taking

Edited on 14-11-2018 03:04
14-11-2018 15:54
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
At present we use 40%+ of US grain production and an even higher percentage of EU food to make biofuel. This has probably doubled the price of food.

Whilst for us rich people that is not much of a problem, even baerly noticable, if you live on $2.50 per day or less, as almost half the world does, then it is crippling.

If you have an income of $1,000 a year you probably have a life expectancy of around 40 to 50.

If you effectively double this then life expectancy is around 60.

The even bigger effect on the economy of the poor of the world that would create a sectacular increase in living standards that would result in the extra money swirling around would make more impact still.

My guess is that if we stopped doing this next year there would be 20 million less deaths. After that more benefits.


Bio-fuel crops will be in a huge demand, whole lot of diesel burning equipment out there, that ain't cheap to replace, doubt electric or methane will be a cheap or easy conversion either. I working in a distribution warehouse, and those trucks burn a lot of diesel. A lot of trains burn diesel, school buses, farm equipment, road construction, most anything that does the heavy work. When the price of diesel fuel goes up, we work on re-routing or loads, try to mitigate some of the added cost, we have a budget. They allow for cost fluctuations, but sometimes it's beyond what is expected. A major price hike, based on saving the planet, is going to kill a lot of businesses, which means moving goods, and doing heavy work in going to cost more as well. The consumers will catch some of the grief, in cost, and availability of products an services. There will be a lot of jobs lost, easiest way for a company to save a lot of money.

Farms already get subsidies from the government, usually to produce certain types of crops. Im a way, it's not that bad, if most farmers all grew the same things, then many would have a hard time giving it away, so would make much money. Probably some manipulations going on with that, and likely it isn't the farmers making the big money off of it either.

Think there will be worldwide food shortages, a lot worse and widespread, than we already have. Big companies can and will pay top dollar for fuel crops, food crops, well those who can for to buy it, sort of sets the price. I wonder if the believer ever think of the impact rushing this CO2 through, is going to cause. I really don't think the warming is going to be so bad, and there has got to be a feedback system, to keep it in check. The more I think about, the more it looks like a global domination scheme.


There is no shortage of oil.

There never will be.
14-11-2018 21:13
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
True, but if the Climatologist get their way, it will cost people continue to use it a whole lot more. Personally, I don't believe they will make any further progress, they make good money off selling the debate, long as people continue to argue and fight, they are pretty much guaranteed further income, for more compelling 'evidence'. Only a long, undeniable cooling trend will put a stop to the nonsense, fortunately most of the folks up north are starting to feel the trend, this year anyway...
15-11-2018 03:19
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Seems like the focus is only on the warming effects of 'Greenhouse' gases, primarily the super molecule, CO2, which varies around 0.04%. Man pumps out a bunch, but a lot is removed. Water vapor seems to be the heavy lifter of the atmosphere, does a whole lot of other stuff, besides trap heat, like 'Man-Made' CO2. If 0.04% is the total CO2, wonder how much of that tiny bit, is evil, 'Man-Made'. But in areas like the tropics, where water vapor is almost 4%, a thousand times more plentiful, that 0.04% gets even smaller, has to be far less evil, and effect at doing it's dirty deed. Lot of other gases in the atmosphere, most not discussed, since they don't contribute to the crisis, least no where near as much as 'Man-Made' CO2. But would some of these gasses be responsible for blocking heat from the Sun, or moving away from the surface? Since 'Man-Made' CO2 does such a super job of trapping heat, how is it we haven't burned up already? A good deal of heat has to be getting back out. Heat is energy, and all atoms absorb and release heat. Excited atoms don't always behave the same, it's a good time to form or break molecular bonds with other atoms. That trapped heat/energy gets used, which would change the composition of the atmosphere, and how much heat gets trapped, and how much is sent back out to space, which the satellites, pseudo-measuring global temperature of the surface, would simple pick as heat (warming). A camera picks up reflected or emitted wavelengths of light, could tell if it's surface heat, or atmospheric heat, just heat in a location.
16-11-2018 01:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems like the focus is only on the warming effects of 'Greenhouse' gases, primarily the super molecule, CO2, which varies around 0.04%. Man pumps out a bunch, but a lot is removed. Water vapor seems to be the heavy lifter of the atmosphere, does a whole lot of other stuff, besides trap heat, like 'Man-Made' CO2. If 0.04% is the total CO2, wonder how much of that tiny bit, is evil, 'Man-Made'. But in areas like the tropics, where water vapor is almost 4%, a thousand times more plentiful, that 0.04% gets even smaller, has to be far less evil, and effect at doing it's dirty deed. Lot of other gases in the atmosphere, most not discussed, since they don't contribute to the crisis, least no where near as much as 'Man-Made' CO2. But would some of these gasses be responsible for blocking heat from the Sun, or moving away from the surface? Since 'Man-Made' CO2 does such a super job of trapping heat, how is it we haven't burned up already? A good deal of heat has to be getting back out. Heat is energy, and all atoms absorb and release heat. Excited atoms don't always behave the same, it's a good time to form or break molecular bonds with other atoms. That trapped heat/energy gets used, which would change the composition of the atmosphere, and how much heat gets trapped, and how much is sent back out to space, which the satellites, pseudo-measuring global temperature of the surface, would simple pick as heat (warming). A camera picks up reflected or emitted wavelengths of light, could tell if it's surface heat, or atmospheric heat, just heat in a location.


It just comes down to one simple thing. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth using surface infrared light.
No gas or vapor can.


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2018 03:39
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Wonder why these geniuses haven't found a use for these super-powers, of such a mighty molecule like CO2. Seems like such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, they believe is powerful enough to destroy a planet, why not use that power to generate electricity, or run an engine? The only uses that I can think, require a good amount of power to be put into it. CO2 lasers are a pretty cool use, by require more power in, then you get back out. Dry Ice, is plenty useful, but takes a lot of power to condense and compress. A CO2 fire extinguisher, but then again, you need to condense and compress. It's not that we are over loading the atmosphere with CO2, its that we under-utilize this powerful molecule. Instead of wasting it, why don't they just collect it at the source, and use it for other things. Of course, it would take considerable power, which would mean bigger machines, more fuel burning, but at least we could save the planet. They could just form it in to huge blocks of dry ice, which would have a cooling effect on the planet surface, plus they could get the eery ground-fog effect, like in the scary movies, since this is all about scaring people.

As James pointed out, I haven't been keeping up on the buzzwords, or the popular arguments, just not that interest in adding more useless words to my vocabulary. Priesthood in the cult, just isn't on of my ambitions. Doubt my few college credits would transfer over into carbon credits at the Semenary College of Global Warming. Would be cool to get some of that free grant money, and fly to some of those conferences in exotic locations, on the taxpayer dime. I have a short attention span, so it's not likely I'd be paying much attention to the mind-numbing babble, low risk of be brainwashed. I could always pretend to be taking notes on my laptop (like most of them do), and play video games, or look at porn. Our tax money well spent?
16-11-2018 05:37
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wonder why these geniuses haven't found a use for these super-powers, of such a mighty molecule like CO2. Seems like such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, they believe is powerful enough to destroy a planet, why not use that power to generate electricity, or run an engine? The only uses that I can think, require a good amount of power to be put into it. CO2 lasers are a pretty cool use, by require more power in, then you get back out. Dry Ice, is plenty useful, but takes a lot of power to condense and compress. A CO2 fire extinguisher, but then again, you need to condense and compress. It's not that we are over loading the atmosphere with CO2, its that we under-utilize this powerful molecule. Instead of wasting it, why don't they just collect it at the source, and use it for other things. Of course, it would take considerable power, which would mean bigger machines, more fuel burning, but at least we could save the planet. They could just form it in to huge blocks of dry ice, which would have a cooling effect on the planet surface, plus they could get the eery ground-fog effect, like in the scary movies, since this is all about scaring people.

As James pointed out, I haven't been keeping up on the buzzwords, or the popular arguments, just not that interest in adding more useless words to my vocabulary. Priesthood in the cult, just isn't on of my ambitions. Doubt my few college credits would transfer over into carbon credits at the Semenary College of Global Warming. Would be cool to get some of that free grant money, and fly to some of those conferences in exotic locations, on the taxpayer dime. I have a short attention span, so it's not likely I'd be paying much attention to the mind-numbing babble, low risk of be brainwashed. I could always pretend to be taking notes on my laptop (like most of them do), and play video games, or look at porn. Our tax money well spent?



It's not about knowing buzzwords, it's about understanding the argument. You keep showing you don't. One of the reasons I post in here is to try and get an understanding of what's going on with climate change.
Myself, I don't think we know yet. I mean you can tell that right now I'm in a I don't give a f*ck mood. For all I know the reason we're having so many problems is because we're trashing the planet. And as I told Mr. Carlson environmentalism just doesn't go in here. CO2 warming on the other hand would be okay.
Now I'm just going to be an a$$hole.
Some guy in 1827 coined the phrase "greenhouse". Svante Aarhennius thought increased CO2 levels led to an ice age. It was he that in 1896 calculated the warming potential of CO2. I don't know that it's been verified.
In 1913 some French guy discovers the ozone layer. Haven't seen solar radiation broken down as a % by wavelength.
And chances are the warming from 1910 - 1940 was geological which had a trigger mechanism. Question for you, could something else trigger another warming period? That's how science is supposed to work.
16-11-2018 11:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wonder why these geniuses haven't found a use for these super-powers, of such a mighty molecule like CO2. Seems like such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, they believe is powerful enough to destroy a planet, why not use that power to generate electricity, or run an engine? The only uses that I can think, require a good amount of power to be put into it. CO2 lasers are a pretty cool use, by require more power in, then you get back out. Dry Ice, is plenty useful, but takes a lot of power to condense and compress. A CO2 fire extinguisher, but then again, you need to condense and compress. It's not that we are over loading the atmosphere with CO2, its that we under-utilize this powerful molecule. Instead of wasting it, why don't they just collect it at the source, and use it for other things. Of course, it would take considerable power, which would mean bigger machines, more fuel burning, but at least we could save the planet. They could just form it in to huge blocks of dry ice, which would have a cooling effect on the planet surface, plus they could get the eery ground-fog effect, like in the scary movies, since this is all about scaring people.

As James pointed out, I haven't been keeping up on the buzzwords, or the popular arguments, just not that interest in adding more useless words to my vocabulary. Priesthood in the cult, just isn't on of my ambitions. Doubt my few college credits would transfer over into carbon credits at the Semenary College of Global Warming. Would be cool to get some of that free grant money, and fly to some of those conferences in exotic locations, on the taxpayer dime. I have a short attention span, so it's not likely I'd be paying much attention to the mind-numbing babble, low risk of be brainwashed. I could always pretend to be taking notes on my laptop (like most of them do), and play video games, or look at porn. Our tax money well spent?



It's not about knowing buzzwords, it's about understanding the argument. You keep showing you don't. One of the reasons I post in here is to try and get an understanding of what's going on with climate change.
Myself, I don't think we know yet. I mean you can tell that right now I'm in a I don't give a f*ck mood. For all I know the reason we're having so many problems is because we're trashing the planet. And as I told Mr. Carlson environmentalism just doesn't go in here. CO2 warming on the other hand would be okay.
Now I'm just going to be an a$$hole.
Some guy in 1827 coined the phrase "greenhouse". Svante Aarhennius thought increased CO2 levels led to an ice age. It was he that in 1896 calculated the warming potential of CO2. I don't know that it's been verified.
In 1913 some French guy discovers the ozone layer. Haven't seen solar radiation broken down as a % by wavelength.
And chances are the warming from 1910 - 1940 was geological which had a trigger mechanism. Question for you, could something else trigger another warming period? That's how science is supposed to work.


Lots of stuff can trigger warming or cooling.

Such a system as complex and made up of so many interconnected sub-systems as the world's weather/climate has to be chaotic. That is it will not be stable. It will wander around just like you don't expect today's weather to be the same as it was on this day last year. Randomness.

There is a strong argument that cosmic rays effect the formation of cloiuds. These are in trun effected by the sun's weather. More chaos.

Taking the small variations in climate and drawing spinning lines on a graph to scary places is irresponsible and unscientific.
16-11-2018 11:41
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
From the 'Ice Core' revelation on, it's really seemed like science, in reverse. They already decided on the conclusion, that 'Man-Made' CO2 was causing the planet to warm, 'at an alarming rate...'. All the work form that point was to find observations and produce(manufacture) data, to support the conclusion. The evidence is circumstantial, not strong enough to get a conviction, if it was a criminal case in court. To many allowances need to be made, since there isn't enough hard data to so a long term trend. To me, it's not CO2, in any large part, but a combination of factors. There have been many warming and cooling periods, that have lasted a decade, or more. This is just another normal, natural event. The planet has been defrosting for a long time, still has remnants of the last great ice age, which seems like strong evidence that this is normal warming, and will continue for a while longer. Climate is a perception of our environment, it's not clearly defined, it's how we feel. Past 24 hours, our climate in Florida changed about 20 degrees, humidity drop considerably. To me, low 60s is chilly, had to dig out some long pants, and a sweatshirt, and it isn't even winter yet. I'm sure a lot of folks in the north, wish it was in the 60s. But, this early chill usually means we are going to have a cold winter, possibly could get down to freeze a few times, some frost, maybe even snow (rarely accumulates). The 'Global Warming' graphs always show at rise, regardless of season, but should show some drop, every fall/winter. 10-15 years ago, we use to have some cold winters, but it's been mostly nice for a while. If anything, it just goes to prove, that it isn't just CO2 driving the climate, there are other powerful forces at work as well. The Climatologist are quick to dismiss anything non-CO2, as it doesn't support their conclusion. Maybe when the examined the evidence, they didn't see anything unusual, but nothing stays the same, usually it takes a combination of conditions.
17-11-2018 19:06
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wonder why these geniuses haven't found a use for these super-powers, of such a mighty molecule like CO2. Seems like such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, they believe is powerful enough to destroy a planet, why not use that power to generate electricity, or run an engine? The only uses that I can think, require a good amount of power to be put into it. CO2 lasers are a pretty cool use, by require more power in, then you get back out. Dry Ice, is plenty useful, but takes a lot of power to condense and compress. A CO2 fire extinguisher, but then again, you need to condense and compress. It's not that we are over loading the atmosphere with CO2, its that we under-utilize this powerful molecule. Instead of wasting it, why don't they just collect it at the source, and use it for other things. Of course, it would take considerable power, which would mean bigger machines, more fuel burning, but at least we could save the planet. They could just form it in to huge blocks of dry ice, which would have a cooling effect on the planet surface, plus they could get the eery ground-fog effect, like in the scary movies, since this is all about scaring people.

As James pointed out, I haven't been keeping up on the buzzwords, or the popular arguments, just not that interest in adding more useless words to my vocabulary. Priesthood in the cult, just isn't on of my ambitions. Doubt my few college credits would transfer over into carbon credits at the Semenary College of Global Warming. Would be cool to get some of that free grant money, and fly to some of those conferences in exotic locations, on the taxpayer dime. I have a short attention span, so it's not likely I'd be paying much attention to the mind-numbing babble, low risk of be brainwashed. I could always pretend to be taking notes on my laptop (like most of them do), and play video games, or look at porn. Our tax money well spent?



It's not about knowing buzzwords, it's about understanding the argument. You keep showing you don't. One of the reasons I post in here is to try and get an understanding of what's going on with climate change.
Myself, I don't think we know yet. I mean you can tell that right now I'm in a I don't give a f*ck mood. For all I know the reason we're having so many problems is because we're trashing the planet. And as I told Mr. Carlson environmentalism just doesn't go in here. CO2 warming on the other hand would be okay.
Now I'm just going to be an a$$hole.
Some guy in 1827 coined the phrase "greenhouse". Svante Aarhennius thought increased CO2 levels led to an ice age. It was he that in 1896 calculated the warming potential of CO2. I don't know that it's been verified.
In 1913 some French guy discovers the ozone layer. Haven't seen solar radiation broken down as a % by wavelength.
And chances are the warming from 1910 - 1940 was geological which had a trigger mechanism. Question for you, could something else trigger another warming period? That's how science is supposed to work.


Lots of stuff can trigger warming or cooling.

Such a system as complex and made up of so many interconnected sub-systems as the world's weather/climate has to be chaotic. That is it will not be stable. It will wander around just like you don't expect today's weather to be the same as it was on this day last year. Randomness.

There is a strong argument that cosmic rays effect the formation of cloiuds. These are in trun effected by the sun's weather. More chaos.

Taking the small variations in climate and drawing spinning lines on a graph to scary places is irresponsible and unscientific.


You might find this interesting, it wasn't until the 1920's that they started monitoring earthquakes around Greenland. What may or may not matter is that nuclear testing started in the early 1940's and was banned in 1963. One way to determine the strength of detonation was by the tremors it caused.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120306-titanic-supermoon-moon-science-iceberg-sky-sink/
Edited on 17-11-2018 19:17
17-11-2018 20:00
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I think mostly, what makes me so skeptical, is that is so one sided, and so firmly set, that 'man-made- CO2 is the only cause, and taxes, fines, and shutting down the use, is the only cure. The concentration of CO2 (total, not just 'man-made') is tiny, the temperature increase over decades is small (larger variation in a 24 hour period). Our climate drop almost 30 degrees, in just two days, and kind of early for the season. To isolate a small fraction of gas in the atmosphere, and give it such a huge role in our rapid demise, I really need something more, than a lot of heavily manipulated numbers on paper. There really isn't much solid evidence, beyond question. The use of proxies an computer models are fine, if it's just for discussion sake, but to call it fact, simply because a bunch of people believe it could happen, doesn't make it science. At this point, it's fiction, and there is really no proof that many of the environmental, and weather events are actually related. No one really knows for sure, could be related, so they just lump it in with the rest. Mostly, they seem to be picking anything, and everything, that might catch some interest and support. They'll get lucky occasionally, but somebody eventually wins the lottery jackpots too. Wouldn't sell many tickets, if nobody ever wins. Would be much of a game, if a computer model could predict the winning numbers.

It's a big world, lot of things going on, we don't fully understand. Our solar system has influence, as most likely the surrounding universe, and galaxy. We have a very basic understand, some is proven fact, some is our best guess, but we have a long way to go, to say we are masters of the planet. The push to change over to cleaner energy sources, is just likely to do as much, or more damage, if done right now, in a decade or two. It should be done slowly, retire some of the older fuel burners, rather than keep replacing them with the same. We've survived as species, because we can adapt to a changing environment. We really should be more focused on how we will survive any harsh changes, rather than how we can slow down, or stop the clock for a while. There is no question the planet has been on a warming trend, for a very long time. There is no question, that at the end of the warming, we will head back into a cooling trend. This all takes many thousands of years, not a couple of centuries...
17-11-2018 21:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wonder why these geniuses haven't found a use for these super-powers, of such a mighty molecule like CO2. Seems like such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, they believe is powerful enough to destroy a planet, why not use that power to generate electricity, or run an engine? The only uses that I can think, require a good amount of power to be put into it. CO2 lasers are a pretty cool use, by require more power in, then you get back out. Dry Ice, is plenty useful, but takes a lot of power to condense and compress. A CO2 fire extinguisher, but then again, you need to condense and compress. It's not that we are over loading the atmosphere with CO2, its that we under-utilize this powerful molecule. Instead of wasting it, why don't they just collect it at the source, and use it for other things. Of course, it would take considerable power, which would mean bigger machines, more fuel burning, but at least we could save the planet. They could just form it in to huge blocks of dry ice, which would have a cooling effect on the planet surface, plus they could get the eery ground-fog effect, like in the scary movies, since this is all about scaring people.

As James pointed out, I haven't been keeping up on the buzzwords, or the popular arguments, just not that interest in adding more useless words to my vocabulary. Priesthood in the cult, just isn't on of my ambitions. Doubt my few college credits would transfer over into carbon credits at the Semenary College of Global Warming. Would be cool to get some of that free grant money, and fly to some of those conferences in exotic locations, on the taxpayer dime. I have a short attention span, so it's not likely I'd be paying much attention to the mind-numbing babble, low risk of be brainwashed. I could always pretend to be taking notes on my laptop (like most of them do), and play video games, or look at porn. Our tax money well spent?



It's not about knowing buzzwords, it's about understanding the argument. You keep showing you don't. One of the reasons I post in here is to try and get an understanding of what's going on with climate change.
Buzzword fallacy. You still haven't defined 'climate change'[ or 'global warming'. You need to define these as something other than themselves before they have any meaning.
James___ wrote:
Myself, I don't think we know yet. I mean you can tell that right now I'm in a I don't give a f*ck mood. For all I know the reason we're having so many problems is because we're trashing the planet. And as I told Mr. Carlson environmentalism just doesn't go in here. CO2 warming on the other hand would be okay.

The planet is not being trashed. The 'problems' you speak of don't exist.
James___ wrote:
Now I'm just going to be an a$$hole.
Some guy in 1827 coined the phrase "greenhouse". Svante Aarhennius thought increased CO2 levels led to an ice age. It was he that in 1896 calculated the warming potential of CO2. I don't know that it's been verified.

It's been falsified, by the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James___ wrote:
In 1913 some French guy discovers the ozone layer. Haven't seen solar radiation broken down as a % by wavelength.
Go look it up. It's there.
James___ wrote:
And chances are the warming from 1910 - 1940 was geological which had a trigger mechanism. Question for you, could something else trigger another warming period? That's how science is supposed to work.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. That's how math DOES work. You are denying science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
17-11-2018 21:47
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/general-overview-of-theeffects-of-nuclear-testing/
18-11-2018 01:48
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
The bad part of those tests, is that they knew long before there was even a bomb, that radiation was a serious, and deadly health risk. Guess that was the point of making such bombs. Fortunately, none have been used since WWII, but can't understand why the obsession with still making them, and not getting rid of what we have. Certainly, to store them, there must be monitoring and maintenance, which is costly. Always thought it odd, that no portable power source has been produced. Maybe they do have the means, just no way to keep people for cracking on open, and using the little pellet of fuel for other things, mostly bad things.

I'm not a huge fan of genetic engineering, we know enough to play, but still mostly trial and error. Most everything need to fool around, can be found, for anyone to get in on the game. Ethics and morals are pretty rare these days. Kids have been mostly learning them in public school, or TV entertainment shows, no consequences to reinforce the principles. Most have an idea of right and wrong, but nothing usually comes of it, if they just do what they want anyway.

I don't think CO2 is the most pressing issue threatening the planet.
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 and Some transparency3510-12-2018 01:46
CO2 is causing ozone depletion, cause of climate change?1126-11-2018 22:53
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 09:12
What are Stacks made from317-09-2018 08:58
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 20:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact