[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The difference between a doctor and God is;

To change the subject; it appears to not well educated me who by the way votes differently than you do, is that there has been great evidence presented to all of us that in fact that the atmosphere of this earth is getting warmer and causing a lot of problems.

I am not a person with a lot of letters after her name, but I am a pretty smart woman and the globe is warming.

The problem is that there isn't a precise and effective way to stop it that anyone on this earth knows about.

Sir.

A famous centuries ago philosopher said that "Wars and Pestilence keep the human population under control". If we had a nuclear war the world population would drop to say around 4 billion and not counting radiation sickness and other unforeseen problems - then we could stop worrying about global warming. The point is the World now has 8 billion people and what happens if that population keeps going up?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by biker1

While you cannot run a controlled experiment on the planet, we do know to a high probability that the anthropogenic increase in the global mean surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. Many people don’t understand the concept of time scales. If you don’t know what an FFT is then it may be hard to understand. The natural climatic variations are probably driven primarily from the 3 Milankovitch cycles, which have time scales of about 20K, 40K, and 100K years. Also, volcanic eruptions have played a part due to the release of CO2 and aerosols. The concern is not, and has never been, natural variations on those time scales. The concern is the rapid increase in observed temperatures over a timescale of 100-200 years and where we will be at the end of the century. We could be at 2-3C warmer by the end of the century. That is actually a lot. Presumably, we will have bent the CO2 emissions curve down by the end of the century, although the impacts will continue for some period of time. We know that increasing CO2 levels impacts the longwave radiative transfer budget and results in stratospheric cooling and lower tropospheric warming. These have both been observed. There are also some positive feedbacks such as warming the atmosphere through increased CO2 levels will increase the moisture content and that can further warm the atmosphere through additional impacts on the longwave radiation budget. Also, as the atmosphere warms the planet’s albedo can drop which impacts the shortwave radiation budget and can lead to further warming. There can also be some negative feedbacks; it’s a complex system. There is a substantial amount of literature available that goes into as many details as you would want. Unless you were trained as a scientist, you may have trouble understanding the material. AR6 is a good place to start. You can also start reading the JoC. The major “doom and gloom” fallacy I hear is that the world is going to end. The other fallacy is that anthropogenic warming is a hoax. The world is not going to end but there will need to be remediation efforts in coastal regions (due to both increasing sea levels and subsidence of the coastal plains). Some geopolitical issues will also probably arise as the warming, and the impacts, vary regionally. So, what can we do? Well, it turns out, not much. 80% of the world’s energy comes from hydrocarbons and that ship is hard to turn. I suspect we can make some progress by mid century but that means CO2 levels will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. In the US, we have little ability to impact anything. While the anthropogenic warming has geographical variations, CO2 itself is well mixed in the atmosphere, both horizontally and vertically. CO2 released in the US doesn’t stay in the US; it mixes globally. We only contribute about 15% of the world’s CO2. It really doesn’t matter what we do. US autos only contribute 3% of the world’s CO2. China and India are the long poles in the tent. If you have ever looked into the details of the Paris Accords you will be surprised at what is in there (and not in a good way).

I agree with most of this post, with one small exception. note : the US releases more than twice the heat-trapping gases than that of all 28 EU counties. The recent graph of the US is dropping while both China and India are increasing CO2 and other gases. About CO2 - I agree that it " is well mixed in the atmosphere". The one exception is that it is important to note that OVER TIME the US has released MORE heat-trapping gas than China and India together. Therefore the US is responsible for the ACCUMULATED CO2 in the upper atmosphere and therefore bears a large responsibility for FIXING the problem. So, the US should be a global leader in dropping our CO2 and methane output by controlling the concrete industries and automobile exhaust CO2 emissions

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Fastskiguy

This ^^

Every chart in the article shows warming, they are just saying that they can't prove it is warming at an increasing rate....yet.

I'd say read the paper, it clearly doesn't say what you think it says.

Or read this

Evidence for global warming

The science is that the planet is warming. You can debate why but warming is a fact.

Joe

That is a good article to read.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by LarryL

Here is a link you should check: What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause? | NOAA Climate.gov

A great article that everyone here should read. None better !!!!!!

[biker1]

I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. You are hardly an expert in any field associated with the topic. As I already stated, the US releases about 15% of the total CO2 each year. What we do doesn’t matter. US autos account for about 3% of the CO2 released each year. What we do doesn’t matter. There is no fixing the problem. Carbon removal is a long way, if ever, from becoming practical. With time, CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans. CO2 generation may very well continue to increase until the middle of the century, if not beyond. As I have repeated explained to you, CO2 does not accumulate in the upper atmosphere. It is well mixed below 12kms. I fail to understand why you keep saying something that is not true. You should also stop claiming that CO2 reflects or refracts heat. It doesn’t. CO2 absorbs and reemmits long wave radiation. Clearly, you are not a scientist. You should avoid making statements that have been proven incorrect by those who investigate such things.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree with most of this post, with one small exception. note : the US releases more than twice the heat-trapping gases than that of all 28 EU counties. The recent graph of the US is dropping while both China and India are increasing CO2 and other gases. About CO2 - I agree that it " is well mixed in the atmosphere". The one exception is that it is important to note that OVER TIME the US has released MORE heat-trapping gas than China and India together. Therefore the US is responsible for the ACCUMULATED CO2 in the upper atmosphere and therefore bears a large responsibility for FIXING the problem. So, the US should be a global leader in dropping our CO2 and methane output by controlling the concrete industries and automobile exhaust CO2 emissions

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by biker1

I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. You are hardly an expert in any field associated the topic. As I already stated, the US releases about 15% of the total CO2 each year. What we do doesn’t matter. US autos account for about 3% of the CO2 released each year. What we do doesn’t matter. There is no fixing the problem. Carbon removal is a long way, if ever, from becoming practical. With time, CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans. CO2 generation may very well continue to increase until the middle of the century, if not beyond. As I have repeated explained to you, CO2 does not accumulate in the upper atmosphere. It is well mixed below 12kms. I fail to understand why you keep saying something that is not true. Clearly, you are not a scientist. You should avoid making statements that have been proven incorrect by those who investigate such things.

I will consider taking him seriously when he starts driving an EV.

Also when he seems to understand what he is saying and how wrong he is.

[biker1]

The thing I object to is the constant “we are all going to die” mantra. Also, he doesn’t understand the fundamental physics and keeps making incorrect statements. The fact that we are warming from CO2, he does get that. He doesn’t seem to understand just how much CO2 is released each year and that it will take a long time to turn the ship. Statements such as “you should buy an electric golf cart to save the world” reflects a total lack of understanding of the numbers involved. In the upcoming decades, it will be painful for some parts of the world and the best we can probably do is work on remediation efforts. 80% of the world’s energy comes from hydrocarbons; that won’t change overnight and we should stop assuming that it can.

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

I will consider taking him seriously when he starts driving an EV.

Also when he seems to understand what he is saying and how wrong he is.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by biker1

I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. You are hardly an expert in any field associated with the topic. As I already stated, the US releases about 15% of the total CO2 each year. What we do doesn’t matter. US autos account for about 3% of the CO2 released each year. What we do doesn’t matter. There is no fixing the problem. Carbon removal is a long way, if ever, from becoming practical. With time, CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans. CO2 generation may very well continue to increase until the middle of the century, if not beyond. As I have repeated explained to you, CO2 does not accumulate in the upper atmosphere. It is well mixed below 12kms. I fail to understand why you keep saying something that is not true. You should also stop claiming that CO2 reflects or refracts heat. It doesn’t. CO2 absorbs and reemmits long wave radiation. Clearly, you are not a scientist. You should avoid making statements that have been proven incorrect by those who investigate such things.

I don't see any distinction between reflect, refract, and re-emits long wave radiation. I thought it was IMPORTANT to state that OVER TIME the US has emitted more heat trapping gas than China and India combined.

[biker1]

The fact that you don’t understand reflection, refraction, absorption, and reemmision doesn’t change the fact that they are not the same. The US has bent the curve down while India and China are increasing their rate of emission.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I don't see any distinction between reflect, refract, and re-emits long wave radiation. I thought it was IMPORTANT to state that OVER TIME the US has emitted more heat trapping gas than China and India combined.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by biker1

The thing I object to is the constant “we are all going to die” mantra. Also, he doesn’t understand the fundamental physics and keeps making incorrect statements. The fact that we are warming from CO2, he does get that. He doesn’t seem to understand just how much CO2 is released each year and that it will take a long time to turn the ship. Statements such as “you should buy an electric golf cart to save the world” reflects a total lack of understanding of the numbers involved. In the upcoming decades, it will be painful for some parts of the world and the best we can probably do is work on remediation efforts. 80% of the world’s energy comes from hydrocarbons; that won’t change overnight and we should stop assuming that it can.

I agree that it will take a long time to turn the ship around, maybe never. I have written that before. I still believe that any person that is in the market for a new automobile should consider and then BUY an E-vehicle. I agree that it probably won't matter, but it is like "baby steps". Doing something is better than doing nothing and Europe is buying more E-vehicles than the US is. Personally, I will be dead and the Earth will have increasing HEAT problems. And I doubt that it will get fixed without a lot of science and LUCK. Maybe in 100 years fusion reactors will supply endless power for all of humanity. And all wars are history.
.......The reason that I write about this subject is because such a large percentage of TOTV people are completely unaware of the Global Warming problem. And it is not just The Villages it is most of the whole US. The scientists have NOT been able to convince the average person about how important Global Warming really is.

[biker1]

Please tell us again which model of EV you drive. So, buying an EV will make a difference even though US autos contribute 3% of the world’s CO2? Even if every US auto was an EV, the CO2 emissions don’t go to zero because 60% of our electricity comes from hydrocarbons. And there is a significant CO2 burden to build the EV, just like virtually every consumer item. Buy an EV because it meets your needs not because of some delusional fantasy that you will single-handedly “save the planet”. I fail to understand why people have such a hard time dealing with and understanding basic facts.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree that it will take a long time to turn the ship around, maybe never. I have written that before. I still believe that any person that is in the market for a new automobile should consider and then BUY an E-vehicle. I agree that it probably won't matter, but it is like "baby steps". Doing something is better than doing nothing and Europe is buying more E-vehicles than the US is. Personally, I will be dead and the Earth will have increasing HEAT problems. And I doubt that it will get fixed without a lot of science and LUCK. Maybe in 100 years fusion reactors will supply endless power for all of humanity. And all wars are history.
.......The reason that I write about this subject is because such a large percentage of TOTV people are completely unaware of the Global Warming problem. And it is not just The Villages it is most of the whole US. The scientists have NOT been able to convince the average person about how important Global Warming really is.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by biker1

The fact that you don’t understand reflection, refraction, absorption, and reemmision doesn’t change the fact that they are not the same. The US has bent the curve down while India and China are increasing their rate of emission.

Well then ,please explain why they are not the same and exactly how they are different and why those differences are important. I am sure that more people here than just myself are interested. This could be informative.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by biker1

Please tell us again which model of EV you drive. So, buying an EV will make a difference even though US autos contribute 3% of the world’s CO2? Even if every US auto was an EV, the CO2 emissions don’t go to zero because 60% of our electricity comes from hydrocarbons. And there is a significant CO2 burden to build the EV, just like virtually every consumer item. Buy an EV because it meets your needs not because of some delusional fantasy that you will single-handedly “save the planet”. I fail to understand why people have such a hard time dealing with and understanding basic facts.

There are many other reasons to buy an E-vehicle besides saving the planet. I believe that by 2050 over 50% of all US new cars will be ELECTRIC. The electric motor starts off spinning in a circle. The IC engine has reciprocating pistons and must use a crankshaft and flywheel to convert to circular motion - which loses efficiency due to friction. The battery of an E-vehicle makes the vehicle center of gravity lower , which has several advantages. An e-motor starts at high torque instantly, so better acceleration. Braking is better and some energy of braking can be used to charge the battery. The owner can charge up at their own home and NEVER need a charging station as long as they drive locally only. They can do some amount of solar charging. There are lots of advantages to owning an E-vehicle. The earth will run out of OIL before the sun burn out, that's a long term advantage to be sure.

[biker1]

It’s not my job to teach you things you failed to learn in school. Since you obviously don’t know what they mean, I would suggest you stop using them.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Well then ,please explain why they are not the same and exactly how they are different and why those differences are important. I am sure that more people here than just myself are interested. This could be informative.

[biker1]

Tell us again which EV you drive.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

There are many other reasons to buy an E-vehicle besides saving the planet. I believe that by 2050 over 50% of all US new cars will be ELECTRIC. The electric motor starts off spinning in a circle. The IC engine has reciprocating pistons and must use a crankshaft and flywheel to convert to circular motion - which loses efficiency due to friction. The battery of an E-vehicle makes the vehicle center of gravity lower , which has several advantages. An e-motor starts at high torque instantly, so better acceleration. Braking is better and some energy of braking can be used to charge the battery. The owner can charge up at their own home and NEVER need a charging station as long as they drive locally only. They can do some amount of solar charging. There are lots of advantages to owning an E-vehicle. The earth will run out of OIL before the sun burn out, that's a long term advantage to be sure.