There are other benefits besides climate too...
"The Right Climate Stuff" .... A realistic view of global environmental issues from Tom Moser
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
GON
$100 Site Donor 2024
And one must ask- is there a decades long information campaign by an adversary of the west, especially the USA that is behind the climate change discussion.
If one is not sure these campaigns are ongoing only need turn on the AM radio in WDC. We have an adversary that purchased a radio station in WDC and broadcasts 24x7 in English.....
Yes, I saw no scientific data there. Lots of buzz words though. Where is the data? How much CO2 reductions are needed to "keep global warming below 1.5 degrees". Notice that it will still be warming. What is the plan? Where is the data on the effectiveness of our efforts so far? We have been at it for decades, surely there is some objective data by now, where is it?
They all just keep on talking about radical transformations, sustainable (whatever that actually means) energy, fossil fuel '"addiction", nothing but buzzwords.
That's not CO2, air quality is not affected by CO2 that's where reduction in actual pollutants like NOx and So2 make the difference.
Co2 has been made into a pollutant and a green house effect gas, what is oftentimes not mentioned is that plants greatly benefit from higher Co2 concentration.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/
I linked the NASA Consensus in another post.
It doesn't have the data I mentioned either. So far all we hear "the climate is changing". Ok we get it, what do we need to do exactly? How many millions of tons of CO2 output is needed to be reduced? Where is the projected temperature slow down as the CO2 output is being reduced?
You said you're data driven, don't you think we need data not just to identify the problem, but also the data on how to solve it and what's the most effective solution? Is there data showing that creating carbon credit system and putting solar panels everywhere is the most effective solution?
Is the climate changing? Maybe, yes, but it never was static.
Should we reduce carbon oxidation? Maybe, yes.
Should we preserve our fossil fuels? Maybe, yes.
Should we develop and use sub-molecular energy sources? Maybe, yes.
Should we use ALL other available energy sources? Maybe, yes.
Should we treat China the same as the USA when attempting to control nations? Maybe, yes.
Should we able to speak and debate on the subject anywhere, including on college campuses and not politicize the heck out of these things? Maybe, yes.
Should we use such climate issues for people control and idolize people on one side and label people on the other side as one tried in this thread? NO!
Should we reduce carbon oxidation? Maybe, yes.
Should we preserve our fossil fuels? Maybe, yes.
Should we develop and use sub-molecular energy sources? Maybe, yes.
Should we use ALL other available energy sources? Maybe, yes.
Should we treat China the same as the USA when attempting to control nations? Maybe, yes.
Should we able to speak and debate on the subject anywhere, including on college campuses and not politicize the heck out of these things? Maybe, yes.
Should we use such climate issues for people control and idolize people on one side and label people on the other side as one tried in this thread? NO!
A blind man on a galloping horse could see where this thread was headed. 
We need data for determining, testing and ongoing testing. There is no easy answer.
Data needs to be interrogated and studied to be understood.
That's stating the obvious, my question is, where is it? But we are well past testing, we are implementing all sorts of "solutions" and are planning on implementing more, so where is the data for all of that?
Or are you suggesting that we are guessing at the moment, because the cost of inaction is greater the the cost of a action? But then, where is the data for even that assumption?
Yes indeed. Before it is used to control individuals and nations.
The way I look at it is that the data for climate change is abundant and easy to google. The data backing up the decisions for solar, wind, CO2 credit system and exchange and how it works or doesn't at reducing CO2 levels is not. So we, as the public, don't even know if the current "solutions" are actually having any effect.
I'm sure all sorts of models and simulations are out there and various other data, but what good does it do if it's not available to the public? Unless, it doesn't support the narrative. Which would be a good enough reason for me to keep it away from the public.
I stopped watching as soon as he put up the graphs starting at 7.45.
These graphs and what they mean have been debunked numerous times.
Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
<p>When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.</p>
skepticalscience.com
RealClimate: Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?
RealClimate: I'm writing this post to see if our audience can help out with a challenge: Can we collectively produce some coherent, properly referenced, open-source, scalable graphics of global temperature history that will be accessible and clear enough that we can effectively out-compete the...
www.realclimate.org
Last edited:
Always hear "CO2 levels today are higher than at any time in human history"...with no mention that CO2 levels have been more than twice their present levels at a time that mankind did not walk this planet.
Some controls are necessary with almost any human activity, that's what being a responsible person or nation is about. The big issue is that no one really knows exactly what will happen with any amount of CO2 emissions. We are living the experiment in real time.
The people who spend their lives actually modelling the climate have their general consensus that the planet will get warmer with increased CO2 concentrations which also leads to more severe weather events. Very significant warming in higher latitudes has already happened and so has severe weather events... So the data is coming in.
If the global population was willing to play it safe, we'd try to reduce carbon emissions very significantly for a decade or two and see what happens to the climate. If we want to take the short term benefits of not reducing carbon emissions, then the experts say their best guess is the planet is going to warm a lot and potentially cause huge disruptions to our current way of life anyways...
All this research is published and most of it is available for free. Access to data is not the problem - the problem is most people are not equipped to understand it much less interpret it. Here is a paper about two topics every single science undergrad and probably most high school students have learned about - entropy and Van der Waals forces. Please tell me if the problem in understanding this in-depth is simply because you didn't have access to it and not because it isn't way above your head. If you can follow all the math then good for you - you're either Will Hunting or trained at the PhD level in math, physics, chemistry or a related field but most people are not, myself included.
FWIW...I can follow along and get the gist of what they are saying but that's not enough for me to claim that I'm in a position to argue why I think they're right or wrong. So, I have to depend on others who do know more about this topic. The same goes for climate change data - I and most of the world wouldn't know where to start even if we were given the data.
Experimental observations of the effects of intermolecular Van der Waals force on entropy - Scientific Reports
An experimental effort was conducted to measure the change in internal energy of non-ideal carbon dioxide as its volume rapidly expanded with the sudden opening of a valve from one to two compressed gas cylinders. This was achieved by measuring the mass heat capacity of the gas cylinders and the...
www.nature.com
...and? This is a weak argument. At one point the surface of the earth was nothing more than an inhospitable smoldering rock of lifelessness - so what? We have to deal with the fact that evolution has tuned much of life on this planet to live in a range based on CURRENT conditions.
...but the main producers of NOx and SO2 are the combustion of fossil fuels/coal/etc so you can't really deal with NOx and SO2 without dealing with CO2 and the measures used to reduce CO2 also reduce NOx and SO2.
Sir..your very correct . Scandinavia have had tropical weather before ice age. They have even found dinosaurs fossils in Sweden.Google "Earth Ice Age" and you'll get a lot of images, but this one below is as good as any other ...
EARTH IS COMING OUT OF IT'S 5th ICE AGE !!!!!
Of course it's warming. No sane person would say otherwise.
The questions are these:
- is this warming unprecedented?
- what is causing the warming?
Is this unprecedented?
NO!
Notice that the average Earth temps are lows around 50F, and highs around 75F. The Earth has been warming and cooling for more than two million years. This ain't news.
What is causing the warming?
Natural phenomenon in Earth's orbit over millenia, the Sun's effect on our atmosphere, the release of gases from natural causes (mainly volcanos), vapor changes in the atmosphere, etc ....
But here's what's clear:
Man didn't cause ANY of those 5 Ice Ages, and Man didn't cause any of the 4 preceeding warming periods. Why does anyone think that we're causing the current "warming" now??????
Man isn't that he's causing the warming period; Nature is!
Man is ignoring what Nature has been doing for 2.5 Million years BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION EVER HAPPENED.
Please explain to me how 150 years of fossil fuel use (the industrial revolution) is somehow the cause of "warming" now, when the Earth has a cyclical history of warming and cooling WAY, WAY BEFORE MAN EVER GOT HERE.
Actually no. The current emission systems do not affect CO2 emissions, only NOx, SO2 and other harmful pollutants. So for CO2 release amounts, it is directly died to fuel consumption, not emission systems.
All these gas guzzling SUVs today, release roughly the same amount of CO2 as the land yachts of 70s and 80s.
- Status