Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should we trust the people who wrote this "tipping point" and do everything they are recom
Yes 47 37.01%
No 80 62.99%
Voters: 127. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-24-2018, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,308,583 times
Reputation: 7528

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
...did the UN/IPCC put policies in place that increase CO2 levels?

absolutely
LOL more misinformation being spread. Care to post any credible links to those polices that increase CO2?

How about a dose of reality?

IPCC PRESS RELEASE

How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate response

How about another dose of reality?

New study reconciles a dispute about how fast global warming will happen
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2018, 03:53 PM
 
18,849 posts, read 8,527,335 times
Reputation: 14152
China has tripled their emissions since the IPCC was formed...China is now the world's largest CO2 emitter by far....China emits twice as much CO2 as we do
China is the world's largest coal consumer...and the world's second largest coal importer
China is building coal plants 10 times faster than we can close our's

UN = IPCC + China = crickets

The UN/IPCC has mandated that the vast majority of countries do not have to decrease their CO2 emissions and can increase their CO2 emissions.

The USA has dropped their CO2 emissions back to 1992 levels...atmospheric CO2 levels were ~350ppm in 1992..
..left up to the USA...atmospheric CO2 levels would be back to ~350ppm...down from the present 400ppm

..the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels did not come from the USA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 03:57 PM
 
12,017 posts, read 14,398,115 times
Reputation: 5981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
China has tripled their emissions since the IPCC was formed...China is now the world's largest CO2 emitter by far....China emits twice as much CO2 as we do
China is the world's largest coal consumer...and the world's second largest coal importer
China is building coal plants 10 times faster than we can close our's

UN = IPCC + China = crickets

The UN/IPCC has mandated that the vast majority of countries do not have to decrease their CO2 emissions and can increase their CO2 emissions.

The USA has dropped their CO2 emissions back to 1992 levels...atmospheric CO2 levels were ~350ppm in 1992..
..left up to the USA...atmospheric CO2 levels would be back to ~350ppm...down from the present 400ppm

..the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels did not come from the USA
The U.S.was the biggest polluter of the 20th century. Not like climate change deniers like you will care or anything but it is still true
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,308,583 times
Reputation: 7528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
China has tripled their emissions since the IPCC was formed...China is now the world's largest CO2 emitter by far....China emits twice as much CO2 as we do
China is the world's largest coal consumer...and the world's second largest coal importer
China is building coal plants 10 times faster than we can close our's

UN = IPCC + China = crickets
No links and more unsubstantiated opinions and lack of knowledge on your behalf.

When did China agree to start reducing CO2? Would that be 2016 or 2017?

China's response to climate change issues after Paris Climate Change Conference

The Paris Climate Change Conference was successfully concluded with the Paris Agreement, which is a milestone for the world in collectively combating climate change. By participating in IPCC assessments and conducting national climate change assessments, China has been increasing its understanding of the issue. For the first time, China's top leader attended the Conference of the Parties, which indicates the acknowledgement of the rationality and necessity of climate change response by China at different levels.

Let's cut to the Conclusion of this published paper.

Quote:
5. Conclusion

The Paris Climate Change Conference is a historic event in the multilateral climate change process. The attendance of China's top leader reflected China's own needs to incorporate climate change response into its ecological initiative and achieve sustainable socioeconomic growth, as well as its role as a responsible power.

By participating in international scientific climate change assessments, conducting climate change research, and performing three consecutive national assessments on climate change, China has deepened its understanding of the scientific facts and the impact of and response to climate change. After the Paris Climate Change Conference, the consensus on the science-based climate change will serve as the basis for the Chinese government to take measures to address climate change and fulfill international commitments.

China has committed to implementing the Paris Agreement, thus promoting the integration of climate change into China's ecological initiative along with a socioeconomic transformation toward low-carbon economy and climate resilience.

China's efforts to the success of the Paris Climate Change Conference are deemed a successful model of its active and constructive participation in international governance. The proposal of win–win cooperation with each country contributing to the best of its ability; of the rule of law, fairness, and justice; and of inclusiveness, mutual learning, and common development will serve as China's guidelines for implementing the Paris Agreement and its participation in the design of international systems and establishing a common destiny for all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 04:23 PM
 
18,849 posts, read 8,527,335 times
Reputation: 14152
Quote:
Originally Posted by chopchop0 View Post
The U.S.was the biggest polluter of the 20th century. Not like climate change deniers like you will care or anything but it is still true
The UN/IPPC says that CO2 causes global warming....any increase in CO2 will cause more global warming...
CO2 levels have to be lowered immediately


"The U.S.was the biggest polluter of the 20th century."....is reparations

Is the UN/IPCC about climate science or reparations?

If it's about reparations, then it's not about climate science at all..........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,620 posts, read 19,261,759 times
Reputation: 21746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
But, based on the standard climate drivers over eons (relating to Earth's tilt and orbit), we ought to be in a cooling period, but instead we are in a warming period.
If Milankovitch Cycles drove ice ages, then Earth should have experience ice ages regularly, but it didn't.

In fact, for several 100 Million years, there was no ice whatsoever on Earth. The entire Earth was a lush tropical paradise. That includes Alaska, Canada, northern Europe and Siberia.

Primates that evolved in Africa post-Chicxulub about 60 Million years ago migrated into the tropical rain forests of Europe and Asia. A massive volcanic eruption on the scale of the Deccan Traps created a land-bridge between northern Europe and Alaska/Canada. Primates crossed the land-bridge and inhabited the tropical rain forests in Alaska/Canada, then migrated south into the tropical rain forests of the US, continuing their migration into Central and South America.

Then, 35 Million years ago, the climate changed. The tropical rain forests at high latitudes started dying off, and the die-off continued throughout the US, Europe, most of Asia, and most of Central and South America, as well as most of Africa.

Of the two dozen or so primate species in the Americas, only 8 species survived, and you can find them in the tropical rain forests of Belize, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras, and in South America in Brasil. I used to see the little bastards while running combat patrols in the mountain jungles in Honduras.

That they were here, there can be no doubt. We have found their fossilized remains all over Alaska/Canada and the US, in places like Kansas. Fossilized leaves clearly indicate the presence of tropical rain forests in Alaska/Canada and the US, and the same for Europe and Asia.

The triggering event was the Antarctic Continent. The minute it entered the South Polar Region through the action of tectonic plates, the climate started changing and the Antarctic Continent is the primary driver of climate now.

The minute the Antarctic Continent leaves the South Polar Region, and it eventually will over the next several Million years, your climate will return to tropical rain forests everywhere on Earth.

We have this gem from the architect of AGW and the chief fanatic:

In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "[i]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...imate-science/

The funny thing is that for the first 2.5 Billion years of Earth's existence, the atmosphere had a substantially higher CO2 level, and yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

Initially, Earth's atmosphere was N2, CO2, Methane and Ammonium Hydrides.

Was there a runaway greenhouse gas effect? Nope.

After a few 100 Million years, the Methane was absorbed and the Ammonium Hydrides had precipitated out, leaving 76% N2 and 24% CO2, but there was no runaway greenhouse gas effect over the next 2 Billion years.

There was no O2 in the atmosphere, because it hadn't been created yet, and it would take 2 Billion years before O2 was created.

Most embarrassingly, with CO2 at 240,000 ppm, you had two major glaciations, the Pangolan and the Huronian.

All scientists agree the Earth was encased in ice up to the Tropics (of Cancer and Capricorn). Some scientists are of the opinion the entire Earth was encased, some believe the equatorial band -- the Tropics -- had ice packs and ice floes, but not completely froze over, and some believe the Tropics were ice free.

If you watch NOVA's Life's Rocky Start, you can see the level of fanaticism, because those scientists make the absurd claim that volcanic eruptions increased CO2 levels -- in an atmosphere that already had CO2 levels of 240,000 ppm -- and caused "global warming" that ended both the Pangolan and Huronian Ice Ages.

After 2.5 Billion years, plankton-like organisms popped up in the ocean, and through photosynthesis, released O2 into the ocean, where it readily bonded with reactive metals dissolved in the ocean, like iron.

When the dissolved iron bonded with the free O2 in the ocean, it formed Iron Oxide (rust) and precipitated out, falling to the sea floor and over Millions of years, formed bands of Iron Oxide several centimeters to several meters thick.

You can see those Iron bands today, if you go to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, parts of Canada, Australia and South Africa. After the Iron absorbed all of the free O2, the O2 started bonding with other reactive metals, but those metals are not nearly as abundant as Iron.

Once the free O2 bonded with all the dissolved metals and minerals in the ocean, it started to saturate the ocean, until it could hold no more, then it started leaching into the atmosphere.

Free O2 in the atmosphere readily bonded with exposed reactive metals and minerals on the Earth's sole land mass, and then it started to accumulate in the atmosphere.

O2 is poison to anaerobic bacteria. It killed them, but one eventually mutated and that mutation allowed it to tolerate O2. Then, later another mutation allowed bacteria to not merely tolerate O2, but use it as part of its life-cycle.

That altered the course of Evolution on Earth.

The proliferation of photosynthetic organisms in the ocean absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere through the ocean and replaced it with O2, until eventually it reached current levels. Even so, the volume of O2 in the atmosphere has still varied over the last 1 Billion years, sometimes as low as 15% and sometimes as high as 35%, currently being at 21%.

If you look at the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic Period, CO2 levels were about 180 ppm, yet global temperatures were 36°F warmer than present.

That fact alone completely refutes CO2 as a driver of temperature.

You, of all people, should be smart enough to know that the claims by the IPCC, which are part of their models, that CO2 is dispersed in the atmosphere are false.

CO2 at 44 g/mol is heavier than air, and far heavier than N2 (14 g/mol) and O2 (32 g/mol).

CO2 is not dispersed in the atmosphere. It concentrates at lower levels. That's why workers who work in confined or enclosed spaces, like storage tanks and underground sewer, natural gas or water lines use CO2 alarms, to indicate when CO2 levels are too high, because CO2 concentrates right at the level humans stand, and without a CO2 alarm, you'll die of asphyxiation if you remain working too long. Note that each breath contains CO2 at 48,000 ppm, so it accumulates rapidly in enclosed or confined spaces.

Your claim that we ought to be in a cooling period defies historical evidence.

An Inter-Glacial Period can last 12,000 to 30,000 years. The previous Inter-Glacial Period was 26,000 years.

This Inter-Glacial Period may last another 5,000 to 12,000 years, and it would fall within the normal range of Inter-Glacial Periods.

The claim that Earth should be entering a cooling period is based on skewed data.

The entrance to this Inter-Glacial Period was anomalous.

The Earth warmed very rapidly over a very short period, then began cooling.

This very rapid warming over a very short period was caused by a cataclysmic event that nearly destroyed the entire Western Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).

Since the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet was in no way affected, we can dismiss the cause as a weather or climate-induced phenomenon.

That means the cause could only be a localized event, possibly the eruption of one of the several underwater volcanoes under WAIS, or possibly a small comet or asteroid that impacted in the ocean near or adjacent to WAIS.

Once the Earth made its adjustment to this anomalous phenomenon, we're right back to our regularly scheduled Inter-Glacial Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,620 posts, read 19,261,759 times
Reputation: 21746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Take a closer look at this graph...you can clearly see CO2 slowly rising at the same time Temp is starting to spike.
That's because warmer temperatures are liberating dissolved CO2 in the oceans.

It's part and parcel of Boyle's Law, which you clearly don't understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Additionally tell me what the chemical properties are of greenhouse gases? What are their distinctive properties?
What are the properties of water vapor?

It's a greenhouse gas, too.

The volume of water vapor in the atmosphere ranges from 10,000 ppm to 50,000 ppm, dependent on the conditions in the region.

When we apply Wien's Law to CO2, we get a massive fail.

You don't understand the science.

CO2 absorbs at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns and 15 microns.

This graph from Columbia University proves there is no absorption at 2.7 microns and minimal absorption at 4.3 microns.

https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ee...absorption.gif

Since only 4.3 microns and 15 microns are absorbed on Earth, we'll apply Wien's Law to both.

Wien's Law T (Temperature) = b / wavelength in micrometers, where "b" is a constant equal to 2,900 um-K.

T = 2,900 um-K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F

T = 2,900 um-K / 4.3 um = 673.9°K = 753°F

What we can infer from science is that 4.3 microns has far greater energy than 15 microns.

However the absorption rate at 4.3 microns is minuscule. The teeny tiny amount of radiation in the 4.3 micron band-width is insignificant, and is not the cause of temperature increases.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
You claimed that the IPCC does not publish data. They publish reports that contain data.
The reports contain limited data and no datasets. The IPCC does not publish the datasets it uses, but it does publish socio-economic data.

Give us a link to the datasets for the IPCC's models, the temperature datasets it uses, and the datasets for CO2 levels.

Good luck with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,400 posts, read 26,437,439 times
Reputation: 15709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
If Milankovitch Cycles drove ice ages, then Earth should have experience ice ages regularly, but it didn't.
The Milankovitch Cycles are widely accepted as drivers of climate, changes in the earths orbit change the amount of energy we receive from the sun. They don't account for every instance but they sure match the climate variations, or are you making the argument that these variations don't match any of our history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 08:24 PM
 
27,306 posts, read 16,292,053 times
Reputation: 12103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
What money is being thrown at a "losing propostion". Do you ever stop to think about what you post?
All the time. Throwing money at the IPCC who just regurgitates whatever keeps them funded. Cap and trade is wealth redistribution scheme. Shall I go on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,400 posts, read 26,437,439 times
Reputation: 15709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
The UN/IPPC says that CO2 causes global warming....any increase in CO2 will cause more global warming...
CO2 levels have to be lowered immediately


"The U.S.was the biggest polluter of the 20th century."....is reparations

Is the UN/IPCC about climate science or reparations?

If it's about reparations, then it's not about climate science at all..........
It’s about a logical course of action to address climate change, soare us the dramatics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:48 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top