 
     |
| Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 33/170) |
|
cliffw
|
MAR 20, 01:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Not at all. R-12 freon refrigerant is a CFC, and the reason for phasing it out in favor of the the newer HFC refrigerants was to protect the ozone in the stratosphere that shields the earth's surface from the sun's UV radiation. In order to protect living organisms from the damaging effects of UV radiation. It wasn't to protect against an "ice age". HFC refrigerants are less damaging to the high altitude ozone layer than CFC refrigerants like R-12 freon. |
|
I'll play, lets dance.
Carbon dioxide prevents the formation of new ozone molecules in the troposphere, and higher CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere may be contributing overall to the closing of the ozone holes over the poles.
Hopefully, you do know something about ozone holes.
You said the hydrologic cycle operates in a way that's a positive contribution to life on Earth. Why does not the CO2 operate the same way ?
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The other thing that you keep saying that makes no sense is "one degree of global warming over the next 100 years".
First of all, there's an important distinction between Fahrenheit degrees and Celsius degrees. One degree Celsius is equivalent to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. And secondly, what does that mean? It's not what climate scientists are predicting. They have different scenarios, depending on how much success is achieved in reducing the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions.
I can't go looking it up right now, but they're seeing more global warming in their "crystal balls" than just one degree (even Celsius) over the next 100 years, unless the efforts to reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere achieve almost unimaginable success and achieve that success very quickly. They're not really expecting that.
|
|
It's not what climate scientists are predicting ? They have different scenarios, depending on how much success is achieved in reducing the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions ? They have no idea of how successful their reduction efforts will be ?
A show of hands peanut gallery. Has anybody heard of a more dire warning prediction than one degree in 100 years ? We always hear the predictions, blah blah blah, 15 years, 12 years, Greta said five years, five years ago (then this year deleted her post prediction). How dare she ?
Of course scientists predict different scenarios. The science is settled,  . Or is it ?
Now the fear mongers blame everything on Global Warming. Droughts, floods, hurricanes, even climate migration. I just heard that erectile dysfunction is caused by Global Warming.
With no explanation how, or science.
Your not a very good dance partner. I think you are stepping on your own toes. Many of my questions, opinions, thoughts go unanswered by you.
|
|
|
|
Wichita
|
MAR 20, 02:52 PM
|
|
More good news, more land recovered, longer growing season. This is all good. A warming earth is better for humans.
 [This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 03-20-2023).]
|
|
|
cliffw
|
MAR 20, 04:16 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
It's not what climate scientists are predicting. They have different scenarios, depending on how much success is achieved in reducing the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions.
They're not really expecting that.
|
|
Ok, you saying the temperature will be hotter due to more CO2 in the atmosphere. How many more inches is the ocean going to rise, per CO2 atmospheric concentration ?
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 21, 06:25 AM
|
|
| quote | | More good news, more land recovered, longer growing season. This is all good. A warming earth is better for humans. |
|
How much more warmer before "better for humans" turns into "worse for humans"..?
Even if the entire world went "Maximum Greta" overnight and (somehow) cut human greenhouse gas emissions to the bone starting tomorrow morning, the planet would keep getting warmer for many more years before the warming curve flattens and temperatures become level instead of rising. That's because of the greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.
There's already more global warming that's "locked in", even in the most optimistic scenarios for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
"More good news, more land recovered..." Land recovered? What's that about?[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-21-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 21, 06:29 AM
|
|
"Satellites suggest oil and gas industries only revealing one third of their total carbon emissions"
Ellen Phiddian for Cosmos; November 11, 2022.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/...ate-trace-satellite/[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-21-2023).]
|
|
|
cliffw
|
MAR 21, 08:30 AM
|
|
Let's recap.
rinselberg wants us to embrace the Green Gawds. They want us to disrupt our adaption to have a better world, to make a worse off world. By fear mongering. Under the guise of "pollution".
Yet, rinselberg suggests we should pollute the Earth to end CO2 pollution. Ending the CO2 content in the atmosphere is not an Earth saving effort. Nor is CO2 in the atmosphere an Earth ending scenario. (Well, some people will believe any thing.)
In place of Global Warming CO2, he proposes we weaken America, make China stronger, infect African slave labor children with the toxins from mining the necessary minerals to make batteries, infect the Earth with the same toxins from depleted batteries.
To what end is he proposing that nonsense. Does he own water front property, or is he trying to protect the rich who do ? rinselberg, there will always be ocean front property. Less rich people will become more wealthy. Rich people can buy new ocean front property.
Or, is he scared that farming regions will be wiped out. What if farming rich property shifts slightly to another region ? Farming happens in every country. Warmer or not.
That's just the ecological damage. Let's look at the economic damage.
The Green Gawds want to wreck people's personal financial standing by making fossil fuels so expensive that we must go Green. With increased fuel costs, shipping / trucking expenses increased, causing a cascading of increases in the price of everything. Car prices will double. The more complicated cars will increase repair costs, especially since everyday people will not have the technical knowledge or the needed tools / facilities.
The Green Gawds would have us held hostage to the forces of nature and poor planning, to ensure recharging capabilities. Of which, recharging capabilities can be withheld by government decree.
Many think the cost benefit analysis is not worth it. For an idea not ready for prime time. For technology that did not evolve from the private sector. Government forced.
An idea of which needs massive infusions of infrastructure government cash. Our cash, taken by decree.
All for what ? A savings of two degrees in 100 years,  ? All for something which is claimed science. With all sorts of fear factors, none which has been predicted, came true.[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-21-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 22, 12:40 PM
|
|
It's been called the "Doomsday Glacier" and the "Sleeping Giant of Sea Level Rise".
If you're a conservative about climate change, and not keen on the idea of large, rapid and radical changes in the earth's temperature regime and coastlines, this is why you don't want to sleep on Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier.
I've scoured YouTube for the best of the recent presentations and this is the one. It's dated October 28 2022, which is recent. It features Tim Naish, an expert on glaciers and other climate-related topics, with a resume that lists university and science credentials "out the gazoo". The entire video presentation is 7 minutes and 40 seconds.
If skeptics want to jump straight into it just beyond the 6-minute mark, there's an "arresting" animated viewgraph presentation of "Predicted Sea Level Rise, High Emissions Scenario", based on recent data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. Use this link:
https://youtu.be/InhMCJro6hA?t=364
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
MAR 22, 12:51 PM
|
|
How many cities and settlements have been found under the water from hundreds and thousands of years ago ? Or burried in deserts ?
LONG before the ICE and fossil fuels.
Seas rise and fall. Sands shift. Shift happens, and has since day 1.
Short of launching some sort of planet-cracker doomsday bomb, there aint nothing any human can do to change that fact of life. All the foot-stomping, hysteria, and carbon-taxation in the world wont do one damn thing. All that will do is make some fear-mongers rich off of gullible suckers.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 22, 01:35 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:
How many cities and settlements have been found under the water from hundreds and thousands of years ago? Or burried in deserts? LONG before the ICE and fossil fuels. Seas rise and fall. Sands shift. Shift happens, and has since day 1.
Short of launching some sort of planet-cracker doomsday bomb, there aint nothing any human can do to change that fact of life. All the foot-stomping, hysteria, and carbon-taxation in the world wont do one damn thing. All that will do is make some fear-mongers rich off of gullible suckers. |
|
That stuff happens, but why are we doing things that are bringing these changes upon us in just decades, instead of hundreds or thousands of years from now? Even a mere 100 more years of roughly the same planetary temperature regimes, polar ice caps and coastlines is a fairly long time in terms of human civilization, which progressed all the way from the Bronze Age to the Semiconductors Age in just the most recent 4000 years.
That's the meaning of the Climate Mitigation movement that wants to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions by transitioning the world away from fossil fuels and achieving other changes, like more energy efficient buildings and lower carbon materials and methods for building and roadway construction, and lower carbon methods for growing food crops and raising farm and ranch animals. The list of meaningful Climate Mitigation ideas, many of which have already progressed beyond the proverbial drawing board, is long and diverse.
Climate Mitiigation or "CliMit"... it's what's happening.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-22-2023).]
|
|
|
cliffw
|
MAR 23, 06:56 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Climate Mitiigation or "CliMit"... it's what's happening.
|
|
You mean CliZhit !
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
It's been called the "Doomsday Glacier" and the "Sleeping Giant of Sea Level Rise". |
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Your Green Gods will go down in the annals of history with other great giants such as Chicken Little and the Boy who called Wolf.
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The ski is falling ! |
|
Is the "Doomsday Glacier" the latest greatest fear mongering tactic ?
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
If you're a conservative about climate change, and not keen on the idea of large, rapid and radical changes in the earth's temperature regime and coastlines, this is why you don't want to sleep on Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier. |
|
I don't want to sleep on a frozen lake. I don't want to sleep in a walk-in freezer. Warm doesn't bother me.
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I've scoured YouTube for the best of the recent presentations and this is the one. It's dated October 28 2022, which is recent. |
|
Not worried, not interested.
|
|
|
|