One Of California’s Favorite Escapes May Never Be The Same Because Of Climate Change

[ChemEngineer]

Good points all around! My one and only point was that the global economic shutdown did not move the CO2 readings which validates your point 2, humans have almost no impact on CO2.

As shown in this graph from earlier:

Murray Salby told his audience, "Do I have to tell you that this chart does not reflect human industrial activity?"

Global emissions of CO2 are a function of decomposition, "temperature and soil moisture." Very little decomposition takes place in dry deserts.

 

[Rigby5]

No high-pressure weather conditions before the industrial revolution?

Without the industrial wastes in the air, then high-pressure weather conditions do not kill people.
The point is it was the industrial emissions that killed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Without the industrial wastes in the air, then high-pressure weather conditions do not kill people.
The point is it was the industrial emissions that killed.

I'm glad you realized your error.

 

[Rigby5]

And you're a fucking liar if you think that anything we do can fix "climate change" other than you blowing your own fucking brains out.

Too many humans.

I volunteer for you to die first.

You and anyone else bitching about "climate change" are the first to get offed.

We do not have to reduce population in order to prevent human caused climate change.
If we just switched to more efficient mass transit more, that would do it.
There have been many times when we used less polluting vehicles.
But now everyone seems to have a big pickup or SUV that gets half the mileage they could have gotten.
Back in the 1960s, Fiats, VWs, Austins, etc. had engines only about 1000 ccs, and engine now are all more than twice that volume.

 

[Rigby5]

Frank, this is small section taken from what I call the "Scary Graph." Originally the Keeling Curve, it is a lie posing as science. Here is why.

1. It has a non-zero base, which skews the slope upward very much. That is misleading and science should NOT mislead.

2. It implies that humans caused this scary increase and we can stop it. In fact 96% of carbon dioxide emissions are natural, from decomposition of plants and animals worldwide.

3. THE dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is ~40 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

4. Water vapor is far more efficient at absorbing heat than carbon dioxide.

Correcting the Scary Graph just for non-zero base and omitting the dominant greenhouse gas you go from this:

View attachment 643626

To this:

View attachment 643627

As to relative absorption of infrared radiation, this:

View attachment 643628

Totally incorrect.

1. A non-zero based graph can make something appear amplified, but the facts are that ANY continual increase in a system that MUST remain constant, is incredibly bad and NEEDs to be amplified greatly. It is extremely serious.

2, While it is true that about 90% of the CO2 production is natural, that is totally and completely irrelevant.
That is because the natural CO2 production does NOT at all accumulate. In fact, there are natural processes that consume even some of the unnatural, man made CO2 increase. The total is completely irrelevant. All that matters is the constant increase, and that is totally and completely man made.

3. The dominant greenhouse gas in a lab is water vapor, but with global temperature, water vapor is totally and completely IRRELEVANT.
The reason why is that almost all the atmosphere is irrelevant. The ONLY part of the atmosphere that determines if the planet cools or warms is the upper atmosphere layer, where heat normally radiates out into space.
It is there that greenhouse gases prevent photonic radiation from leaving earth, by converting that energy into vibratory heat instead of photonic radiation. And water vapor can't do that because it is too cold at those altitudes.
There is NO water vapor at all at the edge of the atmosphere, because it has all condensed out as snow that falls to lower altitudes before melting.

I can tell you are an intelligent and educated person, but you got all of this totally wrong.
Either you just did not look any of this up, or you found some propaganda that you got manipulated by.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We do not have to reduce population in order to prevent human caused climate change.
If we just switched to more efficient mass transit more, that would do it.
There have been many times when we used less polluting vehicles.
But now everyone seems to have a big pickup or SUV that gets half the mileage they could have gotten.
Back in the 1960s, Fiats, VWs, Austins, etc. had engines only about 1000 ccs, and engine now are all more than twice that volume.

That is clearly not the eco-communist goal. They want ZERO emission, and a BAN on fossil fuels. This is at least 50 years from being even remotely practical, at best.

 

[Rigby5]

Good points all around! My one and only point was that the global economic shutdown did not move the CO2 readings which validates your point 2, humans have almost no impact on CO2.

Wrong.
First of all the post you are congratulating is totally wrong.
The total amount of CO2 normally generated naturally is totally irrelevant because it also normally naturally absorbed.
It does NOT accumulate. But human generated additional CO2 is accumulating greatly. It has almost doubled the atmospheric concentration of CO2, of the last 180 years.
And NO, there was no "global economic shutdown".
No one stopped working, shopping, eating, buying cars, etc. and in fact they spent even more on computers, TVs, cellphones, etc., so more could work from home.

 

[Rigby5]

As shown in this graph from earlier:

View attachment 643673

Murray Salby told his audience, "Do I have to tell you that this chart does not reflect human industrial activity?"

Global emissions of CO2 are a function of decomposition, "temperature and soil moisture." Very little decomposition takes place in dry deserts.

Totally wrong.
The total CO2 production is not at all relevant.
There are natural users of CO2 that use ALL of the natural CO2 production, and even some of the human artificial CO2 production.
The unavoidable fact is that humans are responsible for ALL of the excess CO2 that is accumulating.
In the last 200 years, we have about doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is a small window, but shows how we are not just causing CO2 to accumulate, but are accelerating our CO2 production.

The small harmonics are the seasons.
You expect CO2 to increase in the winter from decay, and you expect CO2 to decrease in the summer from plant absorption.
But there clearly is no natural explanation at all for the constant and accelerating rise.
It is not much per year, but any accumulation from one year to another is a DISASTER.
It can not be allowed.
It will make the earth like Venus eventually, with the surface above the temperature of molten lead.

That is clearly not the eco-communist goal. They want ZERO emission, and a BAN on fossil fuels. This is at least 50 years from being even remotely practical, at best.

I am more of an eco-communist than anyone, and I do not want zero emissions.
Nor would any rational person want a ban on fossil fuels.
But if we could reduce CO2 emissions by about 30%, they would no longer accumulate.
That is sufficient.
And the goal is not to ban fossil fuels, but to conserve them so that they do not run out in a couple hundred years, leaving our descendants without any fossil fuel energy or fossil fuels for plastics and fertilizers.

 

[AZrailwhale]

We do not have to reduce population in order to prevent human caused climate change.
If we just switched to more efficient mass transit more, that would do it.
There have been many times when we used less polluting vehicles.
But now everyone seems to have a big pickup or SUV that gets half the mileage they could have gotten.
Back in the 1960s, Fiats, VWs, Austins, etc. had engines only about 1000 ccs, and engine now are all more than twice that volume.

And they all polluted at a far higher level than modern SUVs. They also used more gas. I had a 1972 Vega with a 2.3-liter engine and manual transmission. I could barely break twenty mpg on the freeway and ran about fifteen on surface streets. One of my cars now is a Buick Enclave three row SUV that gets 25 mpg on the freeway and twenty on the street. My other car is a Ford Fusion hybrid that gets between thirty eight and fifty four mpg on surface streets depending on the weather and thirty eight on the freeway. When it comes to cars, fuel usage and pollution, the "good old days" were pretty horrible.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Gabe Lackmann
Yup. They need to clear the underbrush and dead trees out. All that is, is fuel for a fire. They have fires every year in that state. One would think they would have enough sense to get rid of underbrush and dead trees and limbs.

Leftists are allergic to common sense. It irritates their feelings.

 

[Rigby5]

And they all polluted at a far higher level than modern SUVs. They also used more gas. I had a 1972 Vega with a 2.3-liter engine and manual transmission. I could barely break twenty mpg on the freeway and ran about fifteen on surface streets. One of my cars now is a Buick Enclave three row SUV that gets 25 mpg on the freeway and twenty on the street. My other car is a Ford Fusion hybrid that gets between thirty eight and fifty four mpg on surface streets depending on the weather and thirty eight on the freeway. When it comes to cars, fuel usage and pollution, the "good old days" were pretty horrible.

Not really true.
While it is true that point distributers and carburetors are not at good as electronic ignition and fuel injection, with a Fiat 850, I got over 45 mpg, a 1100 cc VW bug got over 30 mpg, and an 850 cc Austin, MG, etc., got about 40 mpg.
A 1966 Mercedes-Benz 200D gets a combined Avg MPG of 37.62 or better.
The 1970s were about the worst for US cars, and the Vega 2.3 was one of the worst.
The 2.3 liter engine was twice as big as necessary, and had very low power for the fuel it consumed, because it has way too low of a compression ratio.
The "good old days" only looks bad if you look at US cars.
With electronic ignition and fuel injection, these older cars could be getting over 60 mpg easily.
The point is we totally gave up.
SUVs make no sense for most people, who do not really need 4WD.
And I see a lot of empty big 3/4 ton pickups, rolling coal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wrong.
First of all the post you are congratulating is totally wrong.
The total amount of CO2 normally generated naturally is totally irrelevant because it also normally naturally absorbed.
It does NOT accumulate. But human generated additional CO2 is accumulating greatly. It has almost doubled the atmospheric concentration of CO2, of the last 180 years.
And NO, there was no "global economic shutdown".
No one stopped working, shopping, eating, buying cars, etc. and in fact they spent even more on computers, TVs, cellphones, etc., so more could work from home.

LOL! no one drove, or went to the office, but there was no shutdown....sureee.

So what does your "research" say about the optimal CO2 level to stop the climate from ever changing?