-->
@Greyparrot
Then don't do that
Climate change is real
Posts
Total:
263
-->
@Vegasgiants
Yes, I posted a video instead of Bible shakeing.
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, if they wont let Africa have nuclear energy, then they cant force Africa to be green.
Solar panels dont work for Europe, and they most certainly wont work for poor Africa.
-->
@Best.Korea
Correct. Also, I posted that video as an example of why consensus is often wrong. Any scientist that thinks CO2 works on a planetary scale as it does in a greenhouse both never watched that video and also has no idea that they are wrong. And this discrepancy is absolutely important for accurate climate modelling.
-->
@Greyparrot
I am not going to pretend to be a climate scientist. Climate science is not very familiar to me, as I dont study it. I can at best rely on the consensus of scientists, because logically I have no alternative.
However, its pretty obvious that coal pollutes the air. It releases many bad things into the air. We all see what happens in countries that burn coal. Air is very bad. People get sick a lot. Cities look filthy.
I am not going to be one of those who pretend that solar panels can replace coal. Heating on electricity is expensive. Electric cars are expensive. Factories cannot be supported by solar panels well enough.
It is either nuclear energy or coal. Humanity will have to make a painful choice once coal runs out, and they will have to either give nuclear energy to everyone either sell electricity to poor countries.
-->
@Best.Korea
Or they can remove a few billion people.
-->
@Greyparrot
Everyone knows youtube is the best source for science . Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
Everyone knows youtube is the best source for science . Lol
Then don't ever watch any videos. Ever. I don't judge.
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh I don't. I read ACTUAL science
-->
@Greyparrot
Wonder why the OP used that term?
They don't want the ignorant masses to look at a snow storm and think "durgh that's not warm"
i.e. the theory wasn't sufficiently unfalsifiable.
If the Earth's ocean boil -> CO2 did that.
If the Earth becomes an ice cube -> CO2 did that.
If the gas prices go up -> CO2 did that.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Would you like me to show you them?
I don't care if you 'cheat' off NASA but write it here as your own arguments. I won't debate someone who won't take responsibility for the assertions and arguments.
-->
@Vegasgiants
I read ACTUAL science
The bible is a book too. But trust the paper. It says on paper to trust god anyway.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's because you would lose.
I'll go with nasa. Thanks
-->
@Greyparrot
Uh........ok
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
Here is my question.
If Co2 doesnt cause global warming, what does?
Co2 is under our influence. We can reduce it.
The temperatures are rising. Co2 is rising.
Co2 might or might not affect temperatures.
Co2 is our only option to reduce temperatures.
We have no other hope to reduce temperatures.
-->
@Best.Korea
Carbon dioxide is Earth's most important greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb heat radiating from the Earth's surface and re-release it in all directions—including back toward Earth's surface.
Let's be clear, CO2 itself does not cause problems. It's part of the natural global ecosystem. The problem is the quantity of CO2 that's being produced by us as humans; there hasn't been this level of CO2 in the atmosphere for 800,000 years.
-->
@Vegasgiants
That's because you would lose.
Guess I'll never know.
-->
@FLRW
Carbon dioxide is Earth's most important greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat.
All gasses (all atoms) absorb and emit thermal radiation.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Of course you won't debate. No one does here. Lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
All gasses (all atoms) absorb and emit thermal radiation
Okay, let me quote from an article.
"Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere. That’s because molecules are picky about the range of wavelengths that they interact with, Smerdon explained. For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere."
"With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’"
So not all gasses are same.
the redistribution of mass on and within Earth -- like changes to land, ice sheets, oceans and mantle flow -- affects the planet's rotation.
Scientists have linked climate change to a shift in Earth’s axis that could lead to more lost drivers.
For example, Earth's mantle is still readjusting to the loss of ice on North America after the last ice age, and the reduced mass beneath that continent pulls the spin axis toward Canada at the rate of a few inches each year. But some motions are still puzzling.
Because of Earth’s dynamic climate, winds and atmospheric pressure systems experience constant change. These fluctuations may affect how our planet rotates on its axis, according to NASA-funded research that used wind and satellite data.
Earth, it's normal function in and of itself and its place in the universe where gravity and its orbit is concerned (which includes the Moon), is the case of the shift in the axis that results in what the leftist lunatics call "climate change"!!
-->
@Best.Korea
If Co2 doesnt cause global warming, what does?
It is one cause.
Co2 is under our influence. We can reduce it.
Sure. But there are unintended consequences for doing that.
The temperatures are rising. Co2 is rising.
yes.
Co2 might or might not affect temperatures.
sure.
Co2 is our only option to reduce temperatures.
actually no,
There are several methods and strategies proposed for cooling the Earth besides reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. These approaches aim to counteract global warming and its effects by either reflecting sunlight away from the Earth's surface or removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Some of these methods include:
- Solar Radiation Management (SRM): SRM involves reflecting a portion of sunlight back into space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface. One proposed method is to inject aerosols into the stratosphere, which would scatter sunlight and create a cooling effect. However, SRM techniques are controversial due to potential side effects and ethical concerns.
- Cloud Brightening: This technique involves enhancing the reflectivity of marine clouds by spraying saltwater droplets into the air. The idea is to increase cloud droplet concentration, making clouds more reflective and thus reflecting more sunlight away from the Earth's surface.
- Afforestation and Reforestation: Planting trees and restoring forests can help absorb CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, thereby reducing the greenhouse gas concentration. Forests also have a cooling effect as they release moisture into the air through a process called transpiration, which can lead to local cooling.
- Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): BECCS involves growing plants that absorb CO2, then burning the plants for energy while capturing and storing the CO2 emissions. This process effectively removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
- Ocean Fertilization: Adding nutrients to the ocean in specific areas can stimulate phytoplankton growth, which absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. However, this method is debated due to potential ecological and environmental risks.
- Enhanced Weathering: Certain rocks naturally react with CO2 and weathering processes, which can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Enhancing these processes by grinding up rocks and spreading them over large areas could potentially help reduce CO2 levels.
- Direct Air Capture (DAC): DAC involves building large machines that capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere. The captured CO2 can then be stored underground or used for various purposes.
- White Roofing and Pavements: Urban areas can be cooled by using reflective materials for roofing and pavement surfaces. This helps reduce the urban heat island effect, where cities are significantly warmer than their surrounding rural areas.
- Reflective Land Cover: Modifying land cover, such as using reflective materials or covering desert areas with lighter-colored materials, can increase surface albedo and reflect more sunlight.
- Carbon Mineralization: Certain types of rocks react with CO2 to form stable carbonate minerals. By exposing CO2 to these rocks, carbon mineralization can permanently sequester CO2 in solid form.
We have no other hope to reduce temperatures.
We do. But just because we can do something does not mean we should. There are some extremely nasty consequences for a lot of current Earth life if we suddenly lowered temperatures. Much of the remaining life has adjusted for the higher temperatures. Playing with global temperatures by lowering it back down one degree could cause even more extinctions of the remaining Earth life. For what reason?
-->
@TWS1405_2
Nasa disagrees with your last paragraph
-->
@Vegasgiants
Of course you won't debate. No one does here. Lol
I'll debate, I just won't pretend to debate a website (lol). You want to maintain that carbon dioxide is warming this planet then you go learn from the NASA website and come to me when you think you understand it.
-->
@Best.Korea
That is correct. They even have different names.So not all gasses are same.
-->
@Greyparrot
It is one cause.
So you admit that Co2 causes global warming.
By doing that, it logically follows the next path.
Global warming is something we try to prevent.
We cannot afford to keep increasing temperature.
Reducing Co2 is our best option. The other options dont work for us. They would be done if they did.
-->
@Best.Korea
Just because we can do something does not mean we should. There are some extremely nasty consequences for a lot of current Earth life if we suddenly lowered temperatures. Much of the remaining life has adjusted for the higher temperatures. Playing with global temperatures by lowering it back down one degree could cause even more extinctions of the remaining Earth life. Lowering CO2 PPM would cause the browning of all the greening NASA observed. For what reason?
They would be done if they did.
None of the options including CO2 reduction are happening. We haven't even answered the question if we should.
-->
@Greyparrot
Sorry to butt in Greyparrot,
If Co2 doesnt cause global warming, what does?It is one cause.
It isn't by any mechanism we can predict from current (true) theory.
Solar Radiation Management (SRM): SRM involves reflecting a portion of sunlight back into space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface. One proposed method is to inject aerosols into the stratosphere, which would scatter sunlight and create a cooling effect. However, SRM techniques are controversial due to potential side effects and ethical concerns.
That will work, but it's a very inelegant method. Very thin mirror fabric stretched over deserts or even better launched into space accomplish the same thing without having to pick a particulate to cover the globe in (and that would have to be constantly replenished).
Cloud Brightening: This technique involves enhancing the reflectivity of marine clouds by spraying saltwater droplets into the air. The idea is to increase cloud droplet concentration, making clouds more reflective and thus reflecting more sunlight away from the Earth's surface.
Never heard of this, doesn't sound like it would be too much easier than the first plan. In fact clouds are probably the only thing that would work in the first plan.
Afforestation and Reforestation: Planting trees and restoring forests can help absorb CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, thereby reducing the greenhouse gas concentration. Forests also have a cooling effect as they release moisture into the air through a process called transpiration, which can lead to local cooling.Ocean Fertilization: Adding nutrients to the ocean in specific areas can stimulate phytoplankton growth, which absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. However, this method is debated due to potential ecological and environmental risks.
Trees plant themselves, algae grows itself. They don't throw carbon down a black hole they make it part of their bodies. They aren't an infinite sink if you don't have a way to collect their dead bodies and bury them. If you don't do that all you're doing is increasing the throughput of the carbon cycle. Bacteria will just throw it back into the atmosphere.
Also carbon dioxide isn't warming the planet and removing it will slightly warm the planet.
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): BECCS involves growing plants that absorb CO2, then burning the plants for energy while capturing and storing the CO2 emissions. This process effectively removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
This is the only carbon sequestration strategy that could be implemented on mass scale as it provides its own energy and has a product to sell.
But of all past human actions and all your suggestions this is the most likely to do genuine damage to the environment. Old growth forests are reserves of biodiversity.
We are already burying a significant portion of our trash.
So when you remove the obvious madness of burning town virgin forests for this plan you're left with basically collecting deadwood and brush from inhabited areas. Not too crazy if you had robots. If I had robots though I would release the carbon again to recycle it because carbon dioxide is not warming this planet.
Enhanced Weathering: Certain rocks naturally react with CO2 and weathering processes, which can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Enhancing these processes by grinding up rocks and spreading them over large areas could potentially help reduce CO2 levels.Carbon Mineralization: Certain types of rocks react with CO2 to form stable carbonate minerals. By exposing CO2 to these rocks, carbon mineralization can permanently sequester CO2 in solid form.
The chemical reactions involved could be done directly as well. However this is not nearly as scalable as using plants.
Direct Air Capture (DAC): DAC involves building large machines that capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere. The captured CO2 can then be stored underground or used for various purposes.
Tis a silly idea
White Roofing and Pavements: Urban areas can be cooled by using reflective materials for roofing and pavement surfaces. This helps reduce the urban heat island effect, where cities are significantly warmer than their surrounding rural areas.
Small effect, and many countries near the equator have already all but adopted this plan as they don't enjoy oven-houses.
Reflective Land Cover: Modifying land cover, such as using reflective materials or covering desert areas with lighter-colored materials, can increase surface albedo and reflect more sunlight.
As I said above, a much better plan than particulates.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
fine, I should have said one possible cause.
Tis a silly idea
I wouldn't be surprised to see massive industrial greenhouses with huge DAC machines keeping CO2 ppm around 1500. Just to provide enough plant life to support more humans.
But I would say the same thing to you:
Just because we can do something does not mean we should. There are some extremely nasty consequences for a lot of current Earth life if we suddenly lowered temperatures. Much of the remaining life has adjusted for the higher temperatures. Playing with global temperatures by lowering it back down one degree could cause even more extinctions of the remaining Earth life. Lowering CO2 PPM would cause the browning of all the present Earth greening NASA observed. For what reason?
If there's a way to cool the planet (for whatever reason you think it's important) surely doing it in a way that doesn't destroy green life should be considered.