Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What is wrong? The headline?
Humans are not creating carbon, they are removing it from geological sequestration and releasing it into the atmosphere. Your subjective comment: "is much larger" is meaningless without a great deal more context. Human combustion of fossil fuels have produced a 50% increase in CO2, a major factor in the total greenhouse effect warming this planet. CO2, by itself, is responsible for 1.0 centigrade degree of the 1.1 centigrade degree warming (ie 91%) since 1850
The term "so accumulated" you've tacked on here doesn't seem to have any relevance to the rest of the comment. However, the majority of the CO2 humans have released is absorbed by the oceans but that most definitely has consequences. The ocean is being acidified by it, which is interfering with a host of biochemical processes critical to the health and reproduction of numerous marine species, particularly the fixation of calcium chloride by molluscidae and all organisms relying on exoskeletal structures. Secondly, the oceans are being warmed directly (by IR) and indirectly (by convection) by the same greenhouse process which is reducing its carbonate solubility and increasing the CO2 that the oceans are releasing back to the atmosphere.
I'm glad to see you agree it is affecting the climate. But your characterization here - if I'm not giving you too much credit - is disingenuous. 36.3 billion tons of CO2 were released to the atmosphere by the human combustion of fossil fuels last year. In 1920, roughly 100 years ago, that amount was 3.51 billion tons, 9.7% as much. GHG emissions has most assuredly not been constant over those 100 years.
We don't even have to stop increasing the amount we burn every year. But there will be consequences.
We HAVE been switching to smaller cars with smaller engines and the fuel efficiency of the average car has been dramatically increased. But there is already too much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Even if human CO2 production were COMPLETELY STOPPED right now, warming would continue for several years and would require centuries to cool down to pre-industrial levels. Sea levels would continue to rise because current temperatures are causing ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica.
No, it's not.
The EPA's rules to limit the tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases use MILEAGE requirements, not concentration levels. The latest rule will require passenger vehicles to get 55 mpg by 2026. The Clean Air Act of 1970, its several updates restricted the emission of common pollutants: nitrous oxides, particulates and hydrocarbons. It is not physically possible to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by the combustion of a given amount of gasoline and thus CO2 production is restricted through fuel efficiency requirements. Exhaust components are displayed on required "Fuel Economy Labels" which separately inform the consumer of a new vehicle's "GHG Rating" and "Smog Rating". CO2 makes up 99% of a gasoline-powered vehicle's GHG emissions, the rest being from methane (CH4). The Smog Rating is determined by levels of nitrous oxide, particulates, non-methane organic gases, non-methane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde.
There is no reason for this to be true. The same efficiency and mitigation measures, scaled for differing engine displacements, are available for different vehicles. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning here.
And why would that be? There is nothing intrinsically efficient or intrinsically less polluting about small engines.
The total emissions will certainly be higher in a larger vehicle with a larger engine. However, the larger vehicle has a higher passenger and cargo capacity. You may have seen a video that made the rounds several years back comparing the pollution consequences of transporting 40 school children in a poorly-tuned diesel-powered bus versus taking them all in a single, fuel-efficient VW Beetle (this WAS a few years back). The bus put significantly less pollutants (and GHGs) into the air than did the many separate trips the Beetle required. Now I fully agree that the common case of a single person riding to work in a Ford Expedition or Chevy Suburban versus four Gen-Xers crammed into a sub-compact hybrid or even riding their bicycles to the office is something to think about. But the American public would very likely find that restricting total emissions PER ACTUAL PASSENGER MILE, which is what would be required, far too intrusive. Better to allow social and indirect economic pressures move things towards the needed goal: the complete end of fossil fuel use.
There is no such thing as fossil fuels.
A report "produced by almost 100 experts from 51 institutions spanning every continent" was released proving beyond any doubt that the Earth is a flat plane suspended in space on the back of turtlesA report "produced by almost 100 experts from 51 institutions spanning every continent" was released as we approach the COP 27 climate summit in Egypt. The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease. Meanwhile, the world's leading industrial democracies are giving more in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries than they are supplying to third world nations struggling to cope with the affects of global warming being caused predominantly by the fossil fuel addictions of those very same industrialized nations.
Global health at mercy of fossil fuel addiction, warn scientists
Reliance on oil and gas worsening climate impacts and compounding food, energy and cost of living criseswww.theguardian.com
Which means that a 12 mpg, 2 ton SUV will have lower PPM number than a 50 mpg, half ton economy car.
Crick falls for this propaganda every time...A report "produced by almost 100 experts from 51 institutions spanning every continent" was released as we approach the COP 27 climate summit in Egypt. The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease. Meanwhile, the world's leading industrial democracies are giving more in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries than they are supplying to third world nations struggling to cope with the affects of global warming being caused predominantly by the fossil fuel addictions of those very same industrialized nations.
Global health at mercy of fossil fuel addiction, warn scientists
Reliance on oil and gas worsening climate impacts and compounding food, energy and cost of living crises
Titan's largest lake, Kraken Mare, is larger than the five Great Lakes combined. NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASI/USGS
Think of all of the fossil it took to make that lake of fossil fuels on Saturn's Moon Titan, you Denier!
From the actual Lancet ReportWe have double the population these past 50 years ... according The Liar's logic, we should see double these tragic deaths ... ha ha ... truth is we see SUBSTANTIALLY less than double ...
These are made up numbers. This whole paper is a fabrication. My gawd you are so damn gullible. Every statement in this are fabrications from a failed model. pull your head out crick.From the actual Lancet Report
"heat-related deaths increased by 68% between 2000–04 and 2017–21 (indicator 1.1.5), a death toll that was significantly exacerbated by the confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic."
"Coastal waters are becoming more suitable for the transmission of Vibrio pathogens; the number of months suitable for malaria transmission increased by 31·3% in the highland areas of the Americas and 13·8% in the highland areas of Africa from 1951–60 to 2012–21, and the likelihood of dengue transmission rose by 12% in the same period (indicator 1.3.1). The coexistence of dengue outbreaks with the COVID-19 pandemic led to aggravated pressure on health systems, misdiagnosis, and difficulties in management of both diseases in many regions of South America, Asia, and Africa."
Heat exposure led to 470 billion potential labour hours lost globally in 2021 (indicator 1.1.4), with potential income losses equivalent to 0·72% of the global economic output, increasing to 5·6% of the GDP in low Human Development Index (HDI) countries, where workers are most vulnerable to the effects of financial fluctuations (indicator 4.1.3). Meanwhile, extreme weather events caused damage worth US$253 billion in 2021, particularly burdening people in low HDI countries in which almost none of the losses were insured.
The higher temperatures threaten crop yields directly, with the growth seasons of maize on average 9 days shorter in 2020, and the growth seasons of winter wheat and spring wheat 6 days shorter than for 1981–2010 globally (indicator 1.4). The threat to crop yields adds to the rising impact of extreme weather on supply chains, socioeconomic pressures, and the risk of infectious disease transmission, undermining food availability, access, stability, and utilisation. New analysis suggests that extreme heat was associated with 98 million more people reporting moderate to severe food insecurity in 2020 than annually in 1981–2010, in 103 countries analysed (indicator 1.4). The increasingly extreme weather worsens the stability of global food systems, acting in synergy with other concurrent crises to reverse progress towards hunger eradication. Indeed, the prevalence of undernourishment increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and up to 161 million more people faced hunger during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 than in 2019. This situation is now worsened by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the energy and cost-of-living crises, with impacts on international agricultural production and supply chains threatening to result in 13 million additional people facing undernutrition in 2022.
You've spent the last several days complaining about personal attacks on scientific sources (that no one was making). And then you make a statement like that. That's really fucking incredible. And you've just confessed you couldn't find the link to the Lancet Report cleverly hidden in hyper-linked red text in the fifth paragraph like this:The authors of this garbage are far left-wing lunatics.
So, yes they did.They do not link to their report
It is the product of The Lancet. Don't tell me you were going to see if you could discredit them personally? Perhaps, had you known their names you might have actually been able to determine whether or not they qualify as "left wing lunatics".nor do they tell you who those doctors are.
Having, by your own admission, not seen the report, we are graced here with the products of your imagination.All conjecture from a far left wing box of rocks.
It seems to be someone employed by the University College of London to do health and climate research, a level I don't believe you've yet attained, even by your own description"“Our health is at the mercy of fossil fuels,” said University College of London health and climate researcher Marina Romanello, executive director of the Lancet Countdown. ""
This is an appeal to a clueless person who is not an authority on anything.
I've really hurt you, haven't I.These are made up numbers. This whole paper is a fabrication. My gawd you are so damn gullible. Every statement in this are fabrications from a failed model. pull your head out crick.
Man are those guys going to feel dumb when everything they believe is proven wrong by colder temperatures.A report "produced by almost 100 experts from 51 institutions spanning every continent" was released as we approach the COP 27 climate summit in Egypt. The world is witnessing steady increases in heat death, hunger and outbreaks of infectious disease. Meanwhile, the world's leading industrial democracies are giving more in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries than they are supplying to third world nations struggling to cope with the affects of global warming being caused predominantly by the fossil fuel addictions of those very same industrialized nations.
Global health at mercy of fossil fuel addiction, warn scientists
Reliance on oil and gas worsening climate impacts and compounding food, energy and cost of living crises
To quote another:You've spent the last several days complaining about personal attacks on scientific sources (that no one was making). And then you make a statement like that. That's really fucking incredible. And you've just confessed you couldn't find the link to the Lancet Report cleverly hidden in hyper-linked red text in the fifth paragraph like this:
View attachment 715800
It could require registration, both on the Guardian and the Lancet, but both are free and, in my experience, do not send unsolicited emails to registrants.
So, yes they did.
It is the product of The Lancet. Don't tell me you were going to see if you could discredit them personally? Perhaps, had you known their names you might have actually been able to determine whether or not they qualify as "left wing lunatics".
Having, by your own admission, not seen the report, we are graced here with the products of your imagination.
It seems to be someone employed by the University College of London to do health and climate research, a level I don't believe you've yet attained, even by your own description
So, why don't you do the free registration with The Guardian and then the free registration with Lancet and actually read the report before posting any more of these insightful gems? There's a good boy.
ITs not hard to find evidence when you look for it. This answer is from a friend on another forum.The lies roll off like water over a cliff it is so one sided and omits the evidence that there is no climate emergency by data.
Here is a post Willis Eschenbach made that utterly destroys the lies of warmist/alarmists who teats this article like holy water in several places I have posted:
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?
April 2021
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Excerpt:
Despite my asking over and over in a host of forums, including in my previous post, to date, nobody has been able to tell me just what this supposed “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!” actually is and where I might find evidence that it exists. Here are some facts for the folks that think that the climate is a real danger to humanity.
Let me begin with the fact that the IPCC itself doesn’t think that there is a “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency”. In the IPCC AR6 WG1, the single mention of a “climate emergency” is a far-too-gentle chiding of the media for using the term, viz:
Some media outlets have recently adopted and promoted terms and phrases stronger than the more neutral ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, including ‘climate crisis’, ‘global heating’, and ‘climate emergency’.
SOURCE
And it’s no surprise that the IPCC doesn’t think there’s an emergency. To start with, deaths from climate-related phenomena are at an all-time low. If you think deaths from climate-related catastrophes are an emergency, please point in the graph below to the start of the “emergency”.
LINK
Please don’t tell me you think oil comes from dead dinosaurs.Nor a meaningful response to that claim.
Jill Biden is a "Dr" ffs ...bar set awfully lowThe authors of this garbage are far left-wing lunatics. They do not link to their report, nor do they tell you who those doctors are. All conjecture from a far left wing box of rocks.
"“Our health is at the mercy of fossil fuels,” said University College of London health and climate researcher Marina Romanello, executive director of the Lancet Countdown. ""
This is an appeal to a clueless person who is not an authority on anything.
And swamps and other organic matter.Please don’t tell me you think oil comes from dead dinosaurs.
How many have died so far from the increased fuel economy of our vehicle fleet and the introduction of significant amounts of alternative energy sources to our energy infrastructure?
What US hunger was relieved by fossil fuels? And a claim that fossil fuels "will end hunger throughout the world" is sadly laughable.
Then clue me in. The Industrial Revolution certainly inaugurated a long change in agriculture and the transportation of food but there was no great famine in this country alleviated by fossil fuels at the time. And the comment that fossil fuels "WILL end hunger" in the rest of the world is simply pathetic.Wow, you really are clueless.
