Theories are all there are and ever will be. Best get used to it and begin sorting "fact" based upon what honestly makes the most sense to you.
It depends on the subject/topic right? as for the Universe and it's speculations I wouldn't really care since it has no immediate effect on my life - GW does and things need to be done urgently - just blaming industry and vehicles (without any proof towards actual contribution) doesn't help at all, and is detrimental towards economic issues. As to what proven impact CO2 deriving from industry and vehicles has onto these 0.04% - I have not seen any convincing statistic.
Of course. This topic being AGW / ACC, which honestly makes the most sense to you? Climate scientists are prone to lie in general or not? You neglected to address the question. It's an important one because thoughtful skepticism (critical thinking) is healthy and productive, whereas sloppy cynicism tends to just be disruptive, attention grabbing, and dishonest. Many who visit here appear to be paid by Big Oil interests to do just that, else they remain too heavily invested personally in fossil fuels to see through their own smog.
I'm high on life thanks to this Universe but am resigned to being stuck on this globe. So I remain highly interested in both, especially for my kids' sake.
No idea who you perceive to be just blaming industry and vehicles, and I hope you meant evidence, not "proof." I'm not one to reflexively point my finger at China if that's what you're worried about. I also see no reason to pit the environment against "economic issues."
To me it's about climate change - Global warming is just one of the popular or most popular topics/occurrences.
Well because the only thing environmentalists, scientists, institutions and governments have been propagating as being responsible for CC is the CO2 emission from the industry and vehicles, or anything in regards to making use of fossil material. The good old green story from the 70's in regards to the lights are going to go out in 1995.
In regards to the economy and environment the answer would be nuclear energy - and vastly expanded research onto hydrogen based energy concepts 40 years ago!! Instead we got into windmills, solar and batteries. (all are greens concepts) blatantly wrong - and IMO no valid future concepts at all.
While I disagree with pretty much everything you just said, I appreciate the effort and apparent sincerity. I'm certain my fellow "good old green story from the 70's" colleagues will respond shortly and more thoroughly with equal civility and aplomb.
The climate change scientists are currently concerned about is that brought about by anthropogenic global warming. It is not about popularity. It is about overwhelming evidence.
There are paid shills about, but the majority of them are being paid, directly or indirectly, by the fossil fuel industry to which this issue is an existential threat. I don't know how much "longtime reliable data" you think is required to come to a conclusion about these issues and I have no idea what your qualifications might be to so opine, but the world's scientists almost unanimously feel there is more than enough reliable longtime data to come to such conclusions.
There are thousands of studies on climate, atmosphere, global warming and the environment every year. I have seen VERY little of that, claiming to be the only truth on any matter but, of course, I have only seen a tiny fraction of them all. On the conclusion that global warming is taking place and the the primary cause is human GHG emissions from the use of fossil fuels, there has been VERY little contradiction - virtually every result supports the same conclusion. That is the reason the theory has almost universal acceptance among scientists.
Why not? Are you rejecting all science on the matter? Is that a reasonable course of action?
There are other causes of global warming: methane, chloroflurorcarbons, nitrous oxide, deforestation. And retardant factors: clouds (to some degree) contrails, aerosols. But the greenhouse effect acting on the radically increased levels of CO2, by extensive study for decades now, is by far the largest cause.
And you don't believe those scientists and governments and people who listen to them are yet justified by the evidence?
I agree with you about nuclear energy but with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, that has been an exceedingly steep uphill battle. I also agree with you about hydrogen technologies. I was not happy that the invention of the Li-Po battery (and Elon Musk, to be honest) pushed us to EVs before fuel cell technology had sufficiently matured. A transition of hydrogen combustion-powered vehicles could have been helpful by giving two drivers to the development of hydrogen infrastructure. Perhaps people still see the Hindenburg going down in flames. Look at all the right-wing press EV fires have received.
I think you need to make a clear distinction about two things: the problem and the solutions. That you aren't happy with a popular solution does not mean we don't still have a problem that needs to be dealt with quickly and with real commitment.
Few nuke plants from 40 years ago would still be operational today. So, I assume you mean if we had continued to build them and increase their share of the load. If we had, there might well be less CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today. But keep in mind that the demand for electricity has risen exponentially all that while and nuclear plants were never slam-dunk easy to get approved and built in the first place.
Yep. By contrast, grid level energy should be focused upon cheap, renewable, long lasting solutions rather than just size and weight.
formenergy.com
1. You are a Raging Idiot/Conspiracist Crackpot who couldn't answer any of my posts including your STUPENDOUS LIE that dinosaurs died out "3769 years before the meteor Impact."
Let’s say humans make up 120 ppm, that’s 1/3 of .04% of the atmosphere!!! Can’t make it upClimate Myth...
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 60% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati et al. 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years). [Paragraph updated July 2022, to correct information on % of additional CO2 that is absorbed.]
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
`
www.nbcmiami.com
You see, that is exactly the reason as to why I refute (presently) this C02 hype - just assuming and guessing - not meant personally towards you at all.
www.statista.com
At best, 1/3 of .04%.You couldn't answer my last directly refuted everything you said.
(Proof/theory etc) you were/are 100% Wrong about/Ignorant of all the Basic terms/concepts.
Not a word.
Not my post already debunking your current post on the last page with my LINKED post with numbers showing the exact amount and growing Human CO2 emissions.
The Carbon Cycle with human distortion with exact amount.
Not a Word. You Whiffed.
You WHIFFED completely and just, as I said, go on posting your Fantasy that you don't buy human CO2 contribution.
Your "EviDENSE"? It's a bit clearer in China :^} than it was in 2016, but still bad "Proving ("%**%&*!!!???) It's not Human CO2 emissions because your LOCALE was less smoggy^*&%^&!!,
NOT That China was not emitting MORE CO2 from cleaner burning plants or plants in other locales.
In fact, China was MUCH clearer 100 and 50 years ago before they indeed started Huge industry and CO@/Fossil Fuel emissions.
THE Global warming period in question, Not the last 6 years.
Nevertheless their emissions still went UP since 2016 despite your Goofy debate by personal Anecdote FALLACY.
All these non-responsive CRACKPOT assertions and NO LINKS.!!! for them, just stories from your bicycle in Beijing.
Here's another from me
China: CO₂ emissions 1960-2022 | Statista
Rapid economic growth in China has seen the country’s CO₂ emissions more than triple since 2000 to more than 11 GtCO₂ per year.Territorial carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes in China from 1960 to 2021 (in million metric tons)
and another
So where have the Hugely Increased CO2 emissions coming from and Warming?
Mainly Chindia
Want to try again, or Ignore being 1000% Refuted again.
Or you can Ignore/Avoid/Duck getting 100% GUTTED for the Fourth (Fitfh?) time in a Row by responding to someone else with no brains like jc456 instead.
You can't debate me on anything, just have to watch me keep Gutting you, and then posting your Crazy convoluted UNLINKED take to someone else.
`
`
According to NASA, in the last 15 years, the earth is 15% greener.How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?
Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami
"....Scientists can calculate how much heat different suspects trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They measure what they call radiative forcing in watts per meter squared.
The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a watt per meter squared, scientists calculate.
But carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now trapping heat to the level of 2.07 watts per meter squared, more than 20 times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 watts per meter square.
The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”
[...more at link...]
How Scientists Know That We Are Responsible for Global Warming
Scientists use old fashioned detective work, like eliminating other suspects and finding the specific chemical fingerprint of fossil fuel burning in the air, to figure out that humans are responsible for climate change.
`
Guess what plants who make oxygen eat?
And what does that have to do with the topic except vaguely Confirm Greenhouse effect Warmer earth.
That increases in co2 levels are positive for fauna and flora, despite the outcry.
That's what we Both said already except you have added Fauna which is not demonstrable.
Is man causing climate change? No.
