The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

[ljadw]

are all proven economic failures.

i disagree in fact i have been driving an electric car for the passed two weeks a leaf .
https://www.yourleaf.org/
the electric power to recharge comes from hydroelectric and the car has zero emission.
my employer now has all electric car or hybrids .
i watched a program about a plane all electric that flew around the world on solar power no other source of energy
sweden now has electric commercial boats
hawaii uses solar energy to heat hot water and make electricity
in conclusion i would say that you are wrong
electric, solar, wind ,is taking off

That you have driven an electric car is totally unimportant for the fact that electric cars are economic failures : your employer has electric cars because they are subsidized by the government wit the money of the taxpayers .Hydroelectric is not for free .
Other points : as long it is not proved that the classic cars are disadvantageous for the environment, there is no need to replace them .
: as long it is not proved that electric cars are not disadvantageous for the environment, there is no reason to use them .
If fossile fuel is no longer used , our economy and society will be ruined : the oil companies and car owners pay billions on taxes ; if they disappear, someone else will have to pay these taxes : the deplorables :if people will have to pay more taxes,they will economize on other things and the economy will collaps.
Millions of people will lose their jobs : people will buy less cars, thus countless more unemployed in Detroit . : the transport of goods will be more expensive , thus goods will be more expensive, thus people will buy less .
:if air transport will be more expensive, people will use less aircraft and the airport will have to close, Boeing and Lockheed will have to close .
Thousands of people will die ,because ambulances and hospitals will be more expensive.

Etc, etc, ...

[T. A. Gardner]

More importantly, "fossil fuels" are used for a whole raft of other purposes besides powering motor vehicles. These include lubricants, solvents, ingredients in everything from pharmaceuticals to plastics, to cosmetics and thousands of other uses. Eliminating their use as a fuel source will only drive the price of all these other items higher as scarcity of the refined oil on which they're based increases.

[marktwain]

It's not so much that environmentalism has become a religion, to some extent that has always been the case, rather social justice has infiltrated most institutions degrading the standards for evidence and reason. AOC is not an abnormality but is representative of what are universities are producing.

I agree with you there.
About 1965, a push came in my Native prairies to till fence post to fencepost, use a lot of phosphate fertilisers, and to cut and burn the parkland slough poplars, the PFRA hedgerows carefully planted in the 1930's...
We ended up with a lot of green shallow lakes , a lot of rising soil salinity - and a strange environmental belief that phosphate based products, not their misuse, was "Satan's chemistry set."

The company that I worked for ,( recently purchased by a major corporation, Sherritt Gordon), banned all phosphate products on the spot - including phosphoric acid based commercial descaler compounds ,- one of our most profitable lines. We were shut down by the parent corporation a year later- twenty million dollars down the drain, ( pun intended).

Shortly after, workmen's compensation claims and damage lawsuits in
Canada began to pile up. The various replacements for phosphoric acid were a real witches brew- dangerous fumes, burns, etching and blackening of metal surfaces, etc. etc..
be careful what you ask for- you just might get it....

[G David Bock]

David bock asked for graph showing co2 rise vs temperature rise ,

Well bill shack, who's chart is this?
With out a source provided nor the data base used, this could be anyone's fabrication.
Better context is over the past 4 billion years, not some undefined "20th century average"
Meanwhile, what we see, if this is accurate/truthful, and one of many issues has been data falsification, is coincidence, which is not correlation and far from confirmation of causation.

Also, like most of the pro-ACC/AGW true believers, I notice you still have a"carbon footprint" being here on the internet, are still respiring~exhaling carbon dioxide and hence are a hypocrite on this topic.

If everyone whom believes this climate change is mostly to all human caused were to stop exhaling carbon dioxide "their problem" would be solved.

[G David Bock]

More importantly, "fossil fuels" are used for a whole raft of other purposes besides powering motor vehicles. These include lubricants, solvents, ingredients in everything from pharmaceuticals to plastics, to cosmetics and thousands of other uses. Eliminating their use as a fuel source will only drive the price of all these other items higher as scarcity of the refined oil on which they're based increases.

A couple of added points here ...

Petroleum gained increased use and value because the whales weren't reproducing fast enough to meet the industrial demands for their blubber=whale oil; energy source and use of other parts for early plastics fabrication.

Hydrocarbon resources, which include wood and other non-fossil sources, is a more accurate term than "fossil fuel".

Natural gas is used as the source for most vinyl production.

[G David Bock]

Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc?
What you have is a currently not proven in laboratory correlation, not a false assumption....

The laboratory correlation are not proven, could be more mere coincidence, and have yet to achieve causative confirmation.

As constantly pointed out and ignored or not understood, heat held by one carbon dioxide molecule has not been shown or explained to cause heat being held by the other ratio of 2,499 molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.

At most, carbon dioxide, methane, and any other so-called greenhouse gases, other than water vapor, amount at about 0.04-0.05%. At most, decades from now, they MIGHT rise to close to 0.1%

The other 99.95% of the atmosphere is also warming and so far there has been no clear explanation of a mechanism where the heat retained by the 0.05% produces a similar heat retention of the other 99.95%.

[marktwain]

NOAA

The laboratory correlation are not proven, could be more mere coincidence, and have yet to achieve causative confirmation.

As constantly pointed out and ignored or not understood, heat held by one carbon dioxide molecule has not been shown or explained to cause heat being held by the other ratio of 2,499 molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.

At most, carbon dioxide, methane, and any other so-called greenhouse gases, other than water vapor, amount at about 0.04-0.05%. At most, decades from now, they MIGHT rise to close to 0.1%

The other 99.95% of the atmosphere is also warming and so far there has been no clear explanation of a mechanism where the heat retained by the 0.05% produces a similar heat retention of the other 99.95%.

close, but not- quite...https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...canes-along-us

The NIOAA site explains this more elegantly than I can, but here goes... there is a difference in intensity between the solar heat reaching earth form the sun and the thermal heat radiating back.
Solar heat radiation , being hotter, has a different resonance than the cooler return thermal radiation from earth.

You seem to believe that all molecules have an identical resonance- and will react to heat the same way...

as thw NOAA site explains- not so...…

[marktwain]

The NOAA site also explains why Sulfite Aerosols, emitted by Massive volcano eruptions into the higher atmosphere, cause Global Cooling. their molecular resonance blocks hot, solar radiation, but allows cooler thermal radiation form the earth to pass.

The NOAA sites are very clearly written....

[marktwain]

Well bill shack, who's chart is this?
With out a source provided nor the data base used, this could be anyone's fabrication.
Better context is over the past 4 billion years, not some undefined "20th century average"
Meanwhile, what we see, if this is accurate/truthful, and one of many issues has been data falsification, is coincidence, which is not correlation and far from confirmation of causation.

Also, like most of the pro-ACC/AGW true believers, I notice you still have a"carbon footprint" being here on the internet, are still respiring~exhaling carbon dioxide and hence are a hypocrite on this topic.

If everyone whom believes this climate change is mostly to all human caused were to stop exhaling carbon dioxide "their problem" would be solved.

https://research.noaa.gov/article/Ar...ent-since-1990

Charts are - here.....

[wolfhnd]

I spent a lot of time 10 years ago studying global warming and the only thing I'm certain of is the models overestimate warming and past and present temperature records have been manipulated to agree with the models.

The elephant in the room is short term cooling. There is and has always been a misanthropic element to the environmental movement. A lot of that can be excused as the 60s generations inability to deal with reality. Blame it on Luxus, spiteful mutants, civilizational fatigue, the death of God, cold war nihilism, post modernism, neo Marxism, corporatism, and demographics. Our food supply is not secure and nobody talks about. The millennial are too ignorant to appreciate it, the baby boomers to self absorbed, and the government too incompetent to evaluate security risks rationally.

We very well may be at our wits end.

[marktwain]

I spent a lot of time 10 years ago studying global warming and the only thing I'm certain of is the models overestimate warming and past and present temperature records have been manipulated to agree with the models.

The elephant in the room is short term cooling. There is and has always been a misanthropic element to the environmental movement. A lot of that can be excused as the 60s generations inability to deal with reality. Blame it on Luxus, spiteful mutants, civilizational fatigue, the death of God, cold war nihilism, post modernism, neo Marxism, corporatism, and demographics. Our food supply is not secure and nobody talks about. The millennial are too ignorant to appreciate it, the baby boomers to self absorbed, and the government too incompetent to evaluate security risks rationally.

We very well may be at our wits end.

Molecular resonance is "counter intuitive" It takes some grasping of the concept.
None the less, it has been tested in the laboratory, and proven, at the laboratory level.

Sulfite aerosols have the ability to cool global warming, and can be lessened if global cooling sets in/
Hope this helps.

[wolfhnd]

Molecular resonance is "counter intuitive" It takes some grasping of the concept.

200 year old science that has little to do with how the complex chaotic climate system works. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on our planet. Are we now going to call water vapor a pollutant? Humans definitely effect the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere through irrigation, dams, burning fuels, heat islands, etc.

Thirty years ago the AGW theory had more credibility because it relies almost entirely on positive feedback resulting from a small nudge from increasing co2. It's time to evaluate why the runaway feedback that was projected by the models didn't materialize.

I don't think anyone actually knows how much warming can be attributed to increased co2. That is just the beginning of why climate activism is problematic. It has distorted the normal scientific process by focusing on models that are guaranteed to be inaccurate because very little effort has been put into what would normally be the first step which is establishing the baseline temperature that co2 is acting on. After spending billions of dollars we essentially need to start over and follow normal scientific procedures. The early estimates have proven to be so wildly out of whack with actual measurements that fears of a runaway feedback loop have been largely discredited.

Even 1 degree Celsius of warming would require a great deal of adaptation. Climate change is a serious issue but research into it has been terribly mismanaged for political reasons.

[marktwain]

200 year old science that has little to do with how the complex chaotic climate system works. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on our planet. Are we now going to call water vapor a pollutant? Humans definitely effect the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere through irrigation, dams, burning fuels, heat islands, etc.

Thirty years ago the AGW theory had more credibility because it relies almost entirely on positive feedback resulting from a small nudge from increasing co2. It's time to evaluate why the runaway feedback that was projected by the models didn't materialize.

I don't think anyone actually knows how much warming can be attributed to increased co2. That is just the beginning of why climate activism is problematic. It has distorted the normal scientific process by focusing on models that are guaranteed to be inaccurate because very little effort has been put into what would normally be the first step which is establishing the baseline temperature that co2 is acting on. After spending billions of dollars we essentially need to start over and follow normal scientific procedures. The early estimates have proven to be so wildly out of whack with actual measurements that fears of a runaway feedback loop have been largely discredited.

Even 1 degree Celsius of warming would require a great deal of adaptation. Climate change is a serious issue but research into it has been terribly mismanaged for political reasons.

Molecule'' as a concept doesn't go back 200 years, much less the measure of resonance....

perhaps an analogy....
Picture the atmosphere as a thin 40 mile thick blanket. Picture the C02 molecule as a poppy seed floating in it.
now picture the thermal return as arrows fired through the blanket. double the molecules, and the chances that the arrow will hit one over the 40 miles also increases.https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-war...erature-change

[wolfhnd]

Molecule'' as a concept doesn't go back 200 years, much less the measure of resonance....

perhaps an analogy....
Picture the atmosphere as a thin 400 mile thick blanket. Picture the C02 molecule as a poppy seed floating in it.
now picture the thermal return as arrows fired through the blanket. double the molecules, and the chances that the arrow will hit one over the 400 miles also increases.https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-war...erature-change

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of a doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide to be an increase in surface temperatures of 5–6 degrees Celsius.

The chemistry necessary for those calculations had been developed over the previous 100 years. We can quibble over the details but the concept of greenhouse gases is hardly new.

[Mountain Man]

No, it isn't. The dinosaurs knew all abut it.

What is new is the arrogant attitude that we puny little humans can somehow control the warming cycles of a planet, as opposed to doing the intelligent thing and figuring out practical solutions for adaptation.