91–100 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Start by protecting existing forests. We're still losing rainforests ever more rapidly.
Planting more trees will reduce pressure to cut down existing forests.
This whole thread is based on a premise that co2 is the problem.
I have been researching climate change stuff for awhile so forgive me if I skip anything.
We are all smart people and have pretty good bullshit detectors. First visit the 97% paper https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024...
Please take 10mins and read that with a open mind. When I first read it I was shock at how badly it was written. I'm use to reading investment documents if someone showed me that and told paper to invest in their conclusion I would laugh them out of the room.
I don't have time to point by point break it down. But its pretty clear. Just read it.
Second all the studies on greenhouse gases are studies of correlation not causation. Which I was also stocked to find out.
Co2 is a wonder chemical, most of the plants we know evolved in a high co2 environment. The co2 levels are shockingly low right now.
When we talk about carbon capture we have to consider what is the optimal levels of carbon. I believe its 150pp we are around 300pp - 400pp depending on where you are. If co2 drops below 150pp for too long all life on earth will die. Are we sure we want to grow fungi or bacteria that rapidly eats carbon. Do we really want to crush special rocks and spread them around? Just like the fellows who thought it would be a good idea to engineer mozzies in south American to be hyper breeder and have a gene that causes off spring to die, or something. Turns out nature prevails and they made a killing machine.
The road to hell is pathed with good intentions
Co2, check out the light spectrum analysis of co2 compared to other greenhouse gases.
Check out the data on the magnetosphere and how changes effects protection from cosmic rays.
Check out mean reversal.
We are in snowball earth phase of the cycle right now. Humans have had a new good runs of about 15,000 years in between long cold winters of 75,000+ years. We happen to be in one of those periods now, things started to warm up 15,000 years ago warm enough that we could breed , grow things , build things.
Everything always returns to the mean. Which is cold. Cold is bad, things die when its cold. Things love the warmth.
Look into sea level rise. Our whole history has been running from the raising sea. Its been swallowing our cities or towns. The Australian aboriginals walked most of the way to Australia. The sea level was very low, that was not that long ago. 7plants, which require a minimum of 150 ppm to survive 50k - 75,000 years ago.
In my country they have almost made it illegal to have a fireplace. Fire.. The most human thing I can think of. Banning fire..
We humans want slaves , we have always wanted slaves. Its the most efficient system to place everyone in slavery and you and you friends won't be. Can you notice the slowly raising voice that children are bad for the planet, you and your terrible western life style are killing the planet. Banning children is the next thing after they win the climate stuff.
I have looked at every point of global warming caused by humans and everything is so twisted. Wikipedia for example straight up removes science that speaks against global warming. Or they will word it in a way that makes it too completed to understand for normal people. All of google search results are artificial as well. Its actually really hard to find the information you have to go to google scholar and actually read the papers its easy to tell the activist from the science. Activists lead with their opinion and try find information to confirm it. Science poses a question runs tests publishes the results without twisting it. When something is twisted it is because they don't like the result, why would you not like the result of science? Doesn't make sense. All science, real science leads us closer to the truth. Not digging deeper into falsehoods.
Climate models are all really bad simulations , you think the smartest people in the world are working on climate models? No, they are not. Climate science is mostly activists. Its like the business studies major. A little bit of everything but not enough of anything. Geology, astronomy, physics, biology, mathematics. These people we can still trust. If you don't believe me go read the difference in tone between climate science and a real science. Climate science people largely quote each other, word things in a PR friendly way, want to come to a consensus. Real scientists want to prove each other wrong. Go against the grain, question everything, believe nothing. Proof what can be tested. Disregard what can not be tested. Unfalsifiable assertion is faith the pillar of religion. What piece of evidence would disprove something, nothing can disprove human caused global warming. It's untestable it's faith.
When a say do your research if you do anything read the 97% of scientists document. When you actually read it and see what they did to mess with the numbers you will be shocked that this passed for science.
The major drivers of global temp are as follows
Jetstream Ocean tides - elnino ect Sun CME Magnetic strength Solar cycles.
Longer term stuff, tilt, orbit, ect but those are pretty well understood by the climate morals. The other stuff their morals have no idea how to input that data. Its a complex system.
When other planets have similar trends as earth you can be sure that we didn't cause that trend as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's a biased source of information. The IPCC depends on donations from Western governments for its existence, and Western governments are fatally dependent on inventing reasons for new taxation due to their exorbitant amounts of sovereign debt. Is there any unbiased source on this extraordinary claim that the tiny CO2 emissions humanity makes actually control climate?
So no reading for you then.
And I have in fact gone to the IPCC's site and skimmed over a report. It was filled with phrases like "could reach ... by 2100" and "is projected to reach...". So no hard science, just empty speculation.
Not a word about the most effective, cheapest strategy: reduce emissions? Most Americans could reduce their emissions by 75% while improving their standard of living by buying less junk, wearing a sweater in the winter, eating more healthy, and other low hanging fruit that will make them more active, healthy, connected to their communities, etc. Reduce consumption by half. There, I just saved us $300 million. How is…
Because it’s also the least effective strategy. The reality is getting nearly everyone to change their behavior just isn’t gonna happen. Even if everyone in America went vegan, showered once a day and biked everywhere wouldn’t change much with impoverished countries coming out of the third world. If you can’t get them to change then it doesn’t really matter. Big problems require big, comprehensive solutions. For that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not objectively true, as plants and even rocks grab CO2 out of the air pretty efficiently. From a thermodynamics standpoint, you can burn fossil fuels at 50-70% efficient (50% is not uncommon), and the actual theoretical lower bound of CO2 direct air capture is ~20 kJ/mol,[0] or about 1.7MJ/kg of elemental carbon, compared to 33MJ/kg for burning elemental carbon (same as high grade coal). (Burning methane is even bet…
With solar prices hitting negative rates for some periods in a day capturing carbon and converting into burnable fuel will probably start making sense in the next few years.
I'm not sure if this article hammers home the key point: extracting carbon from the air always takes more energy that was gained by burning the fossil fuel to make that carbon. This is inevitable due to the entropy cost of de-mixing CO2 from the air, and from the limited efficiencies of thermal power generation (~33-40% for a coal power plant, perhaps 20% in an internal combustion engine), and limited efficiency of t…
> Maybe it has a future role (>2050? >2100?) It absolutely must, or else it's basically already too late: https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos... > This image should terrify you. It should be on billboards. > As you can see, in either scenario, global emissions must peak and begin declining immediately. For a medium chance to avoid 1.5 degrees, the world has to zero out net carbon emissions by…
This is solution bias though. "We need it to work therefore it will"
The universe doesn't owe us anything. DAC has been added to these scenarios as a sort of balancing element to make the models add up but that has no bearing on whether DAC is possible at scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again: https://www.ipcc.ch/ Go read. Come back when you find errors in the reports.
But that's a biased source of information. The IPCC depends on donations from Western governments for its existence, and Western governments are fatally dependent on inventing reasons for new taxation due to their exorbitant amounts of sovereign debt. Is there any unbiased source on this extraordinary claim that the tiny CO2 emissions humanity makes actually control climate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again: https://www.ipcc.ch/ Go read. Come back when you find errors in the reports.
But that's a biased source of information. The IPCC depends on donations from Western governments for its existence, and Western governments are fatally dependent on inventing reasons for new taxation due to their exorbitant amounts of sovereign debt. Is there any unbiased source on this extraordinary claim that the tiny CO2 emissions humanity makes actually control climate?
Not a word about the most effective, cheapest strategy: reduce emissions? Most Americans could reduce their emissions by 75% while improving their standard of living by buying less junk, wearing a sweater in the winter, eating more healthy, and other low hanging fruit that will make them more active, healthy, connected to their communities, etc. Reduce consumption by half. There, I just saved us $300 million. How is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So no reading for you then.
So there are no unbiased sources on why carbon dioxide is evil? You do understand that CO2-hate is like a religion, don't you? And I have in fact gone to the IPCC's site and skimmed over a report. It was filled with phrases like "could reach ... by 2100" and "is projected to reach...". So no hard science, just empty speculation.