Remember me
▼ Content

stabilize greenhouse gasses



Page 1 of 212>
stabilize greenhouse gasses20-11-2015 19:47
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
There are numerous ways that we can stabilize greenhouse gasses, thereby "stopping" climate change. Governments of 1st world and even developing nations must implement some of the following policies (and most might, at least implement some of the following, especially after the upcoming COP meeting of the UNFCCC in Paris). Clearly, the path to stabilize GHG emissions includes making it a priority for governments to financially invest in at least some of these solutions:



1. A carbon tax, or carbon cap-and-trade system, or both

2. Further investment in, and development of all forms of renewable energy including: wind, solar, geothermal and biomass/biofuel etc...

3. Carbon capture and storage

4. Widespread adoption of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, as well as sustainable mass transportation using biofuel or electricity (bus systems, light rail etc...)

5. More use of, and development of smart grid infrastructure - smart meters, home energy management systems etc...

6. Energy, especially renewable energy, storage



This is certainly an incomplete list, so please feel free to add points.


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
Edited on 20-11-2015 19:56
20-11-2015 20:29
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@gctimes - These are all very good. Yet, CO2, though the most common GHG, is not the most problematic GHG. CH4, N2O and H2O are going to be of much greater concern as M2C2 progresses (i.e. - the nithane effect).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 22:46
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
trafn wrote:
@gctimes - These are all very good. Yet, CO2, though the most common GHG, is not the most problematic GHG. CH4, N2O and H2O are going to be of much greater concern as M2C2 progresses (i.e. - the nithane effect).


You've got it wrong.
Water vapor is now the biggest contributor to the "greenhouse effect."
See http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

It's not normally mentioned in climate change discussions though because, unlike carbon dioxide, it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere indefinitely. There's that stuff called rain. Precipitation. Water vapor saturates in the atmosphere pretty readily. CO2 doesn't.
Water vapor does amplify the effect of rising CO2 some in that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor than a cooler atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect, but the water vapor can still saturate.

I haven't read anywhere else besides in your writings about the "nithane" effect. Crackpot stuff, in my opinion.
Edited on 20-11-2015 23:38
21-11-2015 02:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
still learning wrote:
You've got it wrong. Water vapor is now the biggest contributor to the "greenhouse effect."

If you don't mind me asking, are you saying that water vapor increases earth's temperature?

If so, how does it do this? (I'd appreciate not having to chase any links)


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 02:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
trafn wrote:
@gctimes - These are all very good. Yet, CO2, though the most common GHG, is not the most problematic GHG. CH4, N2O and H2O are going to be of much greater concern as M2C2 progresses (i.e. - the nithane effect).


Roughly how much time does humanity have left?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 02:52
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)

Roughly how much time does humanity have left?



There is reason for optimism - based on the new, sustainability technologies coming to market. Like we've seen in the information/ communication/ entertainment technology revolution, an exponential rise in suitable sustainability technologies has, and will continue to, help fight man-made climate change.


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
Edited on 21-11-2015 02:59
21-11-2015 04:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
gctimes wrote:There is reason for optimism

I have more than average reason for optimism. I don't believe in any of this Global Warming religion. I am not affected by fear of doom and gloom. I am not living in panic mode.

However, I had directed the question towards trafn because he believes we are doomed in a few decades. I was hoping he could narrow it down for me.

...but I appreciate your message of optimism. You seem like a "glass half full" kind of guy. I would encourage you to ditch the Global Warming religion and be a "glass completely full" kind of guy.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 05:19
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
IBdaMann wrote:
gctimes wrote:There is reason for optimism

I have more than average reason for optimism. I don't believe in any of this Global Warming religion. I am not affected by fear of doom and gloom. I am not living in panic mode.

However, I had directed the question towards trafn because he believes we are doomed in a few decades. I was hoping he could narrow it down for me.

...but I appreciate your message of optimism. You seem like a "glass half full" kind of guy. I would encourage you to ditch the Global Warming religion and be a "glass completely full" kind of guy.


.


The fact is, we have to completely divest from fossil fuels and embrace sustainable technology/ renewable energy.


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
21-11-2015 05:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
gctimes wrote:The fact is, we have to completely divest from fossil fuels and embrace sustainable technology/ renewable energy.

gctimes, let's suppose we don't divest from fossil fuels. What are you afraid will happen?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 05:59
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
IBdaMann wrote:
gctimes wrote:The fact is, we have to completely divest from fossil fuels and embrace sustainable technology/ renewable energy.

gctimes, let's suppose we don't divest from fossil fuels. What are you afraid will happen?


.


The vast majority of scientists believe that man-made climate change has recently, and will continue to, cause catastrophic natural disasters.


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
21-11-2015 12:48
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
gctimes wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that man-made climate change has recently, and will continue to, cause catastrophic natural disasters.


Can you substantiate that?
That the vast majority of scientists....has recently and will continue to cause natural disasters.
21-11-2015 15:27
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
still learning wrote:
gctimes wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that man-made climate change has recently, and will continue to, cause catastrophic natural disasters.


Can you substantiate that?
That the vast majority of scientists....has recently and will continue to cause natural disasters.


it's 97% who prove man-made climate change vs. 3% deniers - the effects of climate change are also common knowledge


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
21-11-2015 16:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
gctimes wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that man-made climate change has recently, and will continue to, cause catastrophic natural disasters.

So your belefs are not based on any science that you have reviewed and understand, correct?

Your beliefs are based on faith, faith that what you are being told by people you trust is the truth, yes?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 16:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
gctimes wrote:
it's 97% who prove man-made climate change vs. 3% deniers - the effects of climate change are also common knowledge

Could you tell me, in your own words, what effects we should expect over the next decade as we continue to use fossil fuels?

Note: I honestly have no idea what the "common knowledge' of "climate change" is.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 17:08
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
21-11-2015 17:11
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Third National Climate Assessment Report 2, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region's economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.



http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
21-11-2015 17:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
gctimes wrote:
Third National Climate Assessment Report 2, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region's economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.


All of these are things we naturally expect anyway. They have nothing to do with the use of fossil fuels. All of these things have been happening since before the Industrial Revolution and we naturally expect them to continue.

What obvious change will occur solely as a result of the continued use of fossil fuels?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 17:39
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
IBdaMann wrote:

All of these are things we naturally expect anyway. They have nothing to do with the use of fossil fuels. All of these things have been happening since before the Industrial Revolution and we naturally expect them to continue.

What obvious change will occur solely as a result of the continued use of fossil fuels?


.


The man-made (or anthropogenic) component of the greenhouse effect is caused by man's activities that emit greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The most important of these is the burning of fossil fuels...


http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/CCS/man-madeEffect.html


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
21-11-2015 18:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
gctimes wrote: The man-made (or anthropogenic) component of the greenhouse effect is caused by man's activities that emit greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.


But eveything you listed we naturally expect anyway. Nothing is a result of the use of fossil fuels or of any "effect.". All of these things have been happening since before the Industrial Revolution and we naturally expect them to continue. There is no other cause or explanation required.

gctimes wrote:The most important of these is the burning of fossil fuels.


So what obvious change will occur solely as a result of the continued use of fossil fuels?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 21:49
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
So what obvious change will occur solely as a result of the continued use of fossil fuels?


The first thing that comes to mind, as far as devastation by fossil fuels, are oil spills, mine/ fracking explosions that claim human lives, even wars that are really about oil. The contribution that dirty energy sources make toward climate change are part of a cumulative effect; as there are no specific climate-type effects that have just one source.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/g1765/biggest-oil-spills-in-history/


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
22-11-2015 06:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
gctimes wrote:The first thing that comes to mind, as far as devastation by fossil fuels, are oil spills, mine/ fracking explosions that claim human lives, even wars that are really about oil. The contribution that dirty energy sources make toward climate change are part of a cumulative effect; as there are no specific climate-type effects that have just one source.


That is a relatively minor list. Eliminating it is not worth losing all the lives that are helped or saved every day via petrochemicals?

Modern healthcare would be impossible without plastics medical products we tend to take for granted: disposable syringes, intravenous blood bags and heart valves, etc. Plastics packaging is particularly suitable for medical applications, thanks to their exceptional barrier properties, light weight, low cost, durability, transparency and compatibility with other materials.

People are living better, longer and have increasingly fulfilling lives. Thanks to the endless versatility of modern plastics, medical breakthroughs considered unthinkable 50 years ago are now regarded as commonplace.

Some applications

Unblocking blood vessels: In the latest heart surgery, thin tubes (catheters) are used to unblock blood vessels, while deposits obstructing them can be broken down with a tiny spiral-shaped implant - a vessel support. Positioned in the treated artery, it is made of a plastic developed specifically for the medical field and charged with active substances.
Prosthesis: Plastics are now being used as orthopaedic devices, where they align, support or correct deformities. they can even improve the function of movable parts of the body or replace a body part, taking over its main function. Synthetic material also plays a vital role for diseased arteries that cannot be helped via vessel support. An affected section of the aorta is removed and the gap is bridged by a flexible plastic prosthesis. Thanks to this, the body's lifeline becomes fully functional again.

Artificial corneas: Eye injuries or CHRONIC INFLAMMATIONS, for example corneal erosion, can impair sight, and if a transplant has little chance of success, a prosthesis is the only hope. Artificial corneas made from special silicone are now available for treatment. Only 0.3 to 0.5 millimetres thick, highly transparent, flexible and made of bio-mechanics similar to a natural cornea, it can restore clear vision again.


HEARING AIDS People with severely impaired hearing can now have a plastics implant that brings sound back in thier hears. This implant consists of numerous components - a microphone, a transmission device connected to a micro-computer worn on the body, a stimulator and an electrode carrier with 16 electrodes for 16 different frequency ranges. As it transforms acoustic impulses into electrical ones, it bypasses the damaged cells and stimulates the auditory nerve directly.

Plastics pill capsules release exactly the right dosage of its active ingredients at the right time. The tartaric acid-based polymer gradually breaks down, slowly releasing the active ingredients over a longer period of time. These tailor-made pharmaceuticals help to avoid having to frequently take large quantities of pills.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2015 06:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
gctimes wrote:The first thing that comes to mind, as far as devastation by fossil fuels, are oil spills, mine/ fracking explosions that claim human lives, even wars that are really about oil. The contribution that dirty energy sources make toward climate change are part of a cumulative effect; as there are no specific climate-type effects that have just one source.


As I said, that is a relatively minor list. Eliminating it is not worth the immense damage to the economy and the quality of life for billions across the globe per the loss of petrochemical products?

A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:

Solvents, Diesel fuel, Motor Oil, Bearing Grease, Ink, Floor Wax, Ballpoint Pens, Football Cleats, Upholstery, Sweaters, Boats, Insecticides, Bicycle Tires, Sports Car Bodies, Nail Polish, Fishing lures, Dresses, Tires, Golf Bags, Perfumes, Dishwasher parts, Tool Boxes, Shoe Polish, Motorcycle Helmets, Caulking, Petroleum Jelly, Transparent Tape, CD Player, Faucet Washers, Antiseptics, Clothesline, Curtains, Food Preservatives, Basketballs, Soap, Vitamin Capsules, Antihistamines, Purses, Shoes, Dashboards, Cortisone, Deodorant, Footballs, Putty, Dyes, Panty Hose, Refrigerant, Percolators, Life Jackets, Rubbing Alcohol, Linings, Skis, TV Cabinets, Shag Rugs, Electrician's Tape, Tool Racks, Car Battery Cases, Epoxy, Paint, Mops, Slacks, Insect Repellent, Oil Filters, Umbrellas, Yarn, Fertilizers, Hair Coloring, Roofing, Toilet Seats, Fishing Rods, Lipstick, Denture Adhesive, Linoleum, Ice Cube Trays, Synthetic Rubber, Speakers, Plastic Wood, Electric Blankets, Glycerin, Tennis Rackets, Rubber Cement, Fishing Boots, Dice, Nylon Rope, Candles. Trash Bags. House Paint, Water Pipes, Hand Lotion, Roller Skates, Surf Boards, Shampoo, Wheels, Paint Rollers, Shower Curtains, Guitar Strings, Luggage, Aspirin, Safety Glasses, Antifreeze, Football Helmets, Awnings, Eyeglasses, Clothes, Toothbrushes, Ice Chests, Footballs, Combs, CD's & DVD's, Paint Brushes, Detergents, Vaporizers, Balloons, Sun Glasses, Tents, Heart Valves, Crayons, Parachutes, Telephones, Enamel, Pillows, Dishes. Cameras, Anesthetics, Artificial Turf, Artificial limbs, Bandages, Dentures, Model Cars, Folding Doors. Hair Curlers, Cold cream, Movie film, Soft Contact lenses, Drinking Cups, Fan Belts, Car Enamel, Shaving Cream, Ammonia, Refrigerators, Golf Balls, Toothpaste, Gasoline
22-11-2015 09:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
gctimes wrote:
Third National Climate Assessment Report 2, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Our rivers were in flood stage due to recent rain for several days. I have notice no reduction of stream flow. I live here.

Our sea is the same level it's always been. Our tides are still within the range they've always been. We have three floating bridges here. We would notice that.

Our oceans are not acidic. Our shellfish farms are producing the normal amount of shellfish, including our local delicacy, oysters.

We had a big wildfire season this last summer, but the summer before that was considerably quiet. These come and go. Our trees are healthy. Our local farmer, Weyerhauser, has kept the forests in beautiful condition. They depend on it. There is no widespread tree die-off.

gctimes wrote:
Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

Wildfires have always been a fact of life in California. People are building more homes in fire prone areas and not providing necessary fire breaks in their landscaping. Southern California is seeing quite a bit of rain this year due to El Nino effects. Northern California reservoirs are filling too, including Lk Shasta.
Erosion of coastal areas is also a normal fact of life for most of the California coastline. These sea cliffs are made of sandstone, easily washed away by surf action. Many places along the coast have warning signs (weatherbeaten and old) telling you to be cautious of the unstable cliffs.

Insects, by the way, need water too. They cannot survive well in drought.


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2015 05:02
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
Humans ruined the atmosphere by dumping CO2 into the air, and now you advocate ruining the ground by dumping CO2 under the ground? I think this is beyond insane. The ground can never hold so much CO2. It would surely backfire.
22-12-2015 07:42
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Humans ruined the atmosphere by dumping CO2 into the air, .....


I don't understand.
In another thread you contend that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is minimal. How then have we "ruined the atmosphere" by dumping CO2 into the air if you're right about the CO2 greenhouse effect? Actual human health effects aren't felt until maybe 5000 ppm of CO2.
Edited on 22-12-2015 07:45
22-12-2015 07:44
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Humans ruined the atmosphere by dumping CO2 into the air, .....


I don't understand.
In another thread you contend that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is minimal. How then have we "ruined the atmosphere" by dumping CO2 into the air if you're right about the CO2 greenhouse effect? Actual human health effects aren't felt until maybe 5000 ppm of CO2.
22-12-2015 12:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Humans ruined the atmosphere by dumping CO2 into the air, and now you advocate ruining the ground by dumping CO2 under the ground? I think this is beyond insane. The ground can never hold so much CO2. It would surely backfire.


Why do you think that the small amount of CO2 in the air has ruined anything?????

The planet is now greener than it would have been without this plantfood that is doing no harm floating about. What is bad about that??

Since we got the carbon from the ground why would putting it back down be bad? Appart from it not being around to make the plants grow better.
22-12-2015 13:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Humans ruined the atmosphere by dumping CO2 into the air, and now you advocate ruining the ground by dumping CO2 under the ground? I think this is beyond insane. The ground can never hold so much CO2. It would surely backfire.

You would benefit from a visit to the library.

CO2 is neither pollution nor poison. CO2 has no magic superpowers to create heat.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-12-2015 13:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
still learning wrote: Actual human health effects aren't felt until maybe 5000 ppm of CO2.

What health effects would those be? We'd still have 20%+ oxygen. Are you under the impression that CO2 is somehow poisonous to human lung tissue?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-12-2015 18:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
still learning wrote: Actual human health effects aren't felt until maybe 5000 ppm of CO2.

What health effects would those be? We'd still have 20%+ oxygen. Are you under the impression that CO2 is somehow poisonous to human lung tissue?


The number to watch for is 45 mm Hg of CO2 in the air, or 6% or 60,000 PPM – that is the concentration of CO2 that needs to be reached for the humankind to become extinct. If my math is serving me right, if we divide 60,000 PPM with 400 PPM we get the 'kill factor' for CO2: 150.

In other words, the concentration of CO2 needs to increase 150-fold for the CO2 to become toxic.


http://principia-scientific.org/at-what-concentration-does-co2-becomes-toxic-to-humans/

It's towards the bottom.

Basically the air in whatever room you are in is very much richer in CO2 than the outside air just because you are in it breathing. The level to which it needs to get to to be deadly is very very high. Such levels are not something that has happend on the earth for many hundreds of millions of years. But it did happen back then and the earth did not boil.
22-12-2015 18:10
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
Earth's carbon cycle is balanced. Unless humans inject CO2 into the air or remove CO2 from the air, the CO2 level in the air stays constant unless Earth's temperature changes. CO2 follows temperature. If mankind stops injecting CO2 into the air, then the level of CO2 in the air cannot change since plants take in CO2 and emit O2 while animals take in O2 and emit CO2.

Humans are also increasing the amount of water in Earth's water cycle. Burning one CH4 molecule destroys two O2 molecules and creates one CO2 molecule and two H2O molecules.
Edited on 22-12-2015 18:17
22-12-2015 18:58
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
IBdaMann wrote:
still learning wrote: Actual human health effects aren't felt until maybe 5000 ppm of CO2.

What health effects would those be?....


Supposed to begin with complaints of drowsiness, a feeling that the air is "stuffy." No doubt begins with folks with breathing/heart problems.
See https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm
See also http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf

It's not necessarily lack of oxygen that affects the need to to breathe, but may the need for the body to expel excess CO2. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_ventilation
22-12-2015 19:21
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Earth's carbon cycle.......and two H2O molecules.


Is any of that post supposed to explain your earlier statement "Humans ruined the atmosphere by dumping CO2 into the air..."? If so, how? You've been saying in other threads that CO2's greenhouse effect isn't much, hasn't and won't affect temperature much.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 hasn't been anywhere near enough to affect the health of humans.

The water vapor produced by fossil fuel combustion isn't a factor in climate change discussions, in part because water vapor doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere as does CO2. There's this stuff called rain.

What do you mean by "ruined?"
22-12-2015 21:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
still learning wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Earth's carbon cycle.......and two H2O molecules.
The water vapor produced by fossil fuel combustion isn't a factor in climate change discussions, in part because water vapor doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere as does CO2. There's this stuff called rain.

What do you mean by "ruined?"


So? The amount of water on Earth increases because humans keep dumping water vapor into the air. Tens of billions of tons are dumped into the air per year. The result is, the amount of water vapor in the air increases by tens of billions of tons per year. Guess what? Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

If you have one pool of water. It evaporates and there is one pool of water in the air. Now if you have two pools of water. They evaporate and boom now there are two pools of water vapor in the air. Dumping water vapor into the air increases the level of water vapor in the air. And that is a fact.
Edited on 22-12-2015 21:44
22-12-2015 21:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Earth's carbon cycle is balanced. Unless humans inject CO2 into the air or remove CO2 from the air, the CO2 level in the air stays constant unless Earth's temperature changes. CO2 follows temperature. If mankind stops injecting CO2 into the air, then the level of CO2 in the air cannot change since plants take in CO2 and emit O2 while animals take in O2 and emit CO2.

Humans are also increasing the amount of water in Earth's water cycle. Burning one CH4 molecule destroys two O2 molecules and creates one CO2 molecule and two H2O molecules.


1, The amount of CO2 in the air is never balanced. It is being depleted by the action of plankton making thier sheels our of carbon and these sinking to the sea floor. It is increased by volcanoes spewing out the stuff. That we have dug up some fossil fuels is a slight increase in CO2 input. Something like a period of slightly increased vulcanism.

2, There is an estimated 40,000 tonnes of material falling on the earth annually and loses 90,000 tonnes a year to space. So? Where do you think the methane (CH4) came from? It's just another store of carbon. There is a lot of water on the earth. There is no problem here.
22-12-2015 21:54
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Earth's carbon cycle is balanced. Unless humans inject CO2 into the air or remove CO2 from the air, the CO2 level in the air stays constant unless Earth's temperature changes. CO2 follows temperature. If mankind stops injecting CO2 into the air, then the level of CO2 in the air cannot change since plants take in CO2 and emit O2 while animals take in O2 and emit CO2.

Humans are also increasing the amount of water in Earth's water cycle. Burning one CH4 molecule destroys two O2 molecules and creates one CO2 molecule and two H2O molecules.


1, The amount of CO2 in the air is never balanced. It is being depleted by the action of plankton making thier sheels our of carbon and these sinking to the sea floor. It is increased by volcanoes spewing out the stuff. That we have dug up some fossil fuels is a slight increase in CO2 input. Something like a period of slightly increased vulcanism.

2, There is an estimated 40,000 tonnes of material falling on the earth annually and loses 90,000 tonnes a year to space. So? Where do you think the methane (CH4) came from? It's just another store of carbon. There is a lot of water on the earth. There is no problem here.


Earth's carbon cycle is balanced. Plants and fossilization reduces CO2. Animals and volcano eruptions increases CO2. The two sides are balanced. CO2 is low on Earth, that's why Earth can support life whereas other planets cannot. If humans do not increase or decrease CO2 in the air, then CO2 level will not change unless Earth's temperature changes.

There's a lot of water on Earth so it's not a problem? Do you have any idea how much water humans add to Earth every year? More than 50 billion tons. All the white smoke coming out of chimney stacks and pipes are water vapor. 50 billion tons of water is enough to make a foot of snow blanketing the entire Earth's surface. The effect of that on climate cannot be underestimated.
Edited on 22-12-2015 21:58
22-12-2015 22:06
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
...Earth's carbon cycle is balanced. Plants and fossilization reduces CO2. Animals and volcano eruptions increases CO2. The two sides are balanced....If humans do not increase or decrease CO2 in the air, then CO2 level will not change unless Earth's temperature changes...


As you can see from this graph, earth's carbon cycle has never been "balanced" in the sense you describe. There have been huge swings in CO2 levels over time:

http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg
Edited on 22-12-2015 22:07
22-12-2015 22:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Earth's carbon cycle is balanced. Unless humans inject CO2 into the air or remove CO2 from the air, the CO2 level in the air stays constant unless Earth's temperature changes. CO2 follows temperature. If mankind stops injecting CO2 into the air, then the level of CO2 in the air cannot change since plants take in CO2 and emit O2 while animals take in O2 and emit CO2.

Humans are also increasing the amount of water in Earth's water cycle. Burning one CH4 molecule destroys two O2 molecules and creates one CO2 molecule and two H2O molecules.


1, The amount of CO2 in the air is never balanced. It is being depleted by the action of plankton making thier sheels our of carbon and these sinking to the sea floor. It is increased by volcanoes spewing out the stuff. That we have dug up some fossil fuels is a slight increase in CO2 input. Something like a period of slightly increased vulcanism.

2, There is an estimated 40,000 tonnes of material falling on the earth annually and loses 90,000 tonnes a year to space. So? Where do you think the methane (CH4) came from? It's just another store of carbon. There is a lot of water on the earth. There is no problem here.


Earth's carbon cycle is balanced. Plants and fossilization reduces CO2. Animals and volcano eruptions increases CO2. The two sides are balanced. CO2 is low on Earth, that's why Earth can support life whereas other planets cannot. If humans do not increase or decrease CO2 in the air, then CO2 level will not change unless Earth's temperature changes.


It is not in balance. It is constantly changing with the change in ath amount of CO2 released by volcanoes. That this figure has been fairly constant over the last few hundred thousand years does not matter in the long run.

It's also not the plants which seqestrate the carbon away. It's the animals making thier shells in the oceans. Plants only capture the stuff breifly. When the tree rots it releases the carbon back into the air. Very little tree mass is converted into coal.

Nature is not some sort of sacred constant which does not change. It is a constantly changing world. We are making changes at the moment. So???


There's a lot of water on Earth so it's not a problem? Do you have any idea how much water humans add to Earth every year? More than 50 billion tons. All the white smoke coming out of chimney stacks and pipes are water vapor. 50 billion tons of water is enough to make a foot of snow blanketing the entire Earth's surface. The effect of that on climate cannot be underestimated.


Where are you getting this number from? 5 cubic Km of water is lot.

However what effect do you think that would have? Hpw long would it take for that to raise sea levels by 1mm? I think it's about 70 years.
22-12-2015 22:41
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
jdm wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
...Earth's carbon cycle is balanced. Plants and fossilization reduces CO2. Animals and volcano eruptions increases CO2. The two sides are balanced....If humans do not increase or decrease CO2 in the air, then CO2 level will not change unless Earth's temperature changes...


As you can see from this graph, earth's carbon cycle has never been "balanced" in the sense you describe. There have been huge swings in CO2 levels over time:

http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg


I don't believe that study. There are no proxies for that far back. Even ice core proxies are not reliable past a million years back. Rothman's study gives a far more stable estimate of past CO2 levels.


Edited on 22-12-2015 22:43
22-12-2015 22:58
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
A more recent study using more advanced techniques indicates CO2 levels were much higher in the past. However this is nothing new -- it is consistent with the long-held view.

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
Edited on 22-12-2015 22:59
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate stabilize greenhouse gasses:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy1921-09-2019 17:04
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law64813-09-2019 05:55
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact