Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [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)
 
Old 08-16-2022, 11:57 AM
 
880 posts, read 564,432 times
Reputation: 1690

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
I get the impression that you dont read any of the links??

They're not working... click your own links, they all get a 404 error on the servers from which they're hosted. You copy/pasted shortened URLs with ellipses as the URLs when you added them to your posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2022, 12:25 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
I had copied from my own post..
Here is that one post where I had copied from myself, links fixed.
-------------------------------------

Lets see..

You said this regarding predictions


Quote:
They've all been proven wrong.
But you are wrong. Since I dont think you read any of this or loo at any links, here are a bunch of cases where the IPCC has been fairly accurate ( the hard part is predicting emissions as you have to predict population increases and emissions per population)

Some important cases where your claim is complete BS. Im not sure you look at anything but pictures but plenty for the person who actually studies this stuff to read.

Also for GLM, wanting to see any predictions that came true.

https://theconversation.com/20-years...ome-true-11245


Quote:
In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a group of the world’s top climate scientists – released its First Assessment Report, predicting global warming of about 1.1 degrees celsius between 1990 and 2030.

In today’s edition of Nature Climate Change, climate scientists David Frame and Dáithí A. Stone argue that, halfway through that projection period, the predictions made in 1990 are proving mostly accurate
Or this from 2018 https://theconversation.com/40-years...e-right-120502


Quote:
In the 40 years since their meeting, the annual average CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, has increased by about 21%. Over the same period, global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.66℃, almost exactly what could have been expected if a doubling of CO₂ produces about 2.5℃ warming – just a bit below their best estimate. A remarkably prescient prediction.
Another from 2020 https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

Another one showing fairly good IPCC accuracy over the years https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...lobal-warming/

More links on sea level rise and predictions.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazard...ch-report.html

https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/gd/20...ea-level-rise/

Climate change predictions have NOT been proven wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 12:43 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
FYI, I dont really study the long range forecast as things could change so much. For example, a major nuclear war would change the results. Of if some sort of miracle occurred and we actually were carbon zero by 2050, the results would have changed.

If you want to read about future predictions, here is a link from the IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...er12_FINAL.pdf

I did not read any of this but dont think you will find a prediction year of when the world will end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2022, 04:52 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Here are several links discussing the "ice age of the 70's"

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...oming-ice-age/

First, if you look at the image from this link, global temperatures were sort of decreasing up until the mid 70's.





https://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...e-in-the-1970s

.
Very pretty graph, but all that it shows is the the 5 data sets of actual temperatures coincide closely...So what?...and we should be questioning why they don't coincide perfectly.

In regards the Ice Age attempted scare of the '70s-- the message we should be coming away with is that the Earth's climate is cyclical, and a stable, dynamic cycle at that-- any perturbation of the system is countered by a counter-reaction to bring it back closer to equilibrium...While it is certainly possible for the system to reach a bifurcation point and jump to a new equilibrium situation (the dreaded "tipping point") it hasn't done so in 4.5 billion years despite markedly more extremes of [co2], [h2o] and temps.

While the debate on the science is interesting, we don't "need to do something" especially when that something will cause great suffering to humanity in our quest to achieve a better standard of living for everyone, not to mention, any such maneuvers won't change a thing in the climate or environment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2022, 11:47 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
A article appearing today https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/...c-co2-summary/ describes how co2 levels started rising prior to the Industrial Revolution (fossil fuels come into regular use) and that only about 1/4th of the rise in co2 since then can be attributed to human use of fossil fuel....IPCC makes glaring errors in their assumptions & calculations about the fate of airborne co2.

The rise we've seen over the last 150 yrs or so is mostly from natural sources (mainly the oceans). Attempts to eliminate human sources of new co2 will have no appreciable effect on co2 levels and no impact on climate, yet cost a fortune to achieve.

[co2] in 1750-- 280ppm
[co2] in 2022-- 420ppm
[c02 added to atm by fossil fuels-- 33ppm

420ppm - 33ppm = 387pp-- That was the [co2] level in 2005...Was the world about to end in 2005? could anyone tell the climate had changed by 2005, or was it still the same it had been in 1805?

The only way we are ruining the planet is by destroying habitat with bulldozers.

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-17-2022 at 11:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2022, 08:07 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Very timely article.. as in put up on wuwt two days ago by ”guest” and linked here by GLM yesterday..

GLM posted a link above from wattsupwiththat.

If you are wondering why the accuracy ratings here https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

Wattsupwiththat website ratings from media fact check link above

Conspiracy level.. Strong (one down from Tin Foil Hat rating)
Pseudo Science level - Strong (one down from Quackery)
Accuracy - LOW.. (at least its not VERY low)


So lets take a quick look at the article. As usual with wuwt, its a complicated looking article

The author comes up with a ”simple” model (and of course says the best and brightest scientis on the planet are wrong). The simple model doesnt explain what is happening.. but never is it explored that the model might be too simple and incorrect.

Quote:
Simple physics shows when outflow is proportional to the first power of level, natural and human carbon cycles are independent. So, we can calculate these carbon cycles independently and then add them up to get the total. We need only to calculate the human carbon cycle over time to see how human CO2 changes atmospheric CO2.
That ”simple” model comes up with
Quote:
This would make human CO2 about 32% of 415 ppm as of 2020.
The rest of the CO2 in the atmosphere that the simple model doesnt explain must come from natural sources. I could not find where the author tried to figure out what those natural sources are. But if you find the original article by this guy (you have to pay for now.. LOL), its of course the oceans which is not true because the oceans are absorbing CO2.

And all the scientists of the IPCC are wrong, I guess from for 40 or 50 years of a large group of the best and brightest scientist on the planet studying this science, this one guy figured it all out and is correct..

So what natural sources are there. Cant be volcanoes..

Volcanoes underwater or above ground? https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/736161
Quote:
Humanity's annual carbon emissions through the burning of fossil fuels and forests, etc., are 40 to 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions
FYI, google ”do volcanoes or humans emit more co2”. Another link https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities

Figure 4 shows up.. with no explanation where the curves come from ??? You cant tell what the plot even means.. but it looks all scientific.

Finally, section 7... a bunch more complicated looking stuff. Lets see if anyone agrees with this? Just one link out of many...

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities

Quote:
The most basic reason is that fossil fuels—the equivalent of millions of years of plant growth—are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts as high and as quickly as they have risen. The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old
Quote:
During all of the cycles between ice ages and warm periods over the past million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide never climbed higher than 300 parts per million. At the end of the last ice age around 20,000 years ago, it was 280 ppm. Today it is close to 410.
Finally, that author (who conflicts the IPCC LOL) is trying to make some $$ selling a book

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-18-2022 at 08:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2022, 10:49 AM
 
880 posts, read 564,432 times
Reputation: 1690
More CO2 produced in two days than all the cars in the past decade.


https://twitter.com/ValaAfshar/statu...50011335184385
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2022, 12:14 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
More CO2 produced in two days than all the cars in the past decade.

https://twitter.com/ValaAfshar/statu...50011335184385
Had to save this as an example of what someone will believe with no evidence. I actually only saw a video.. Did you make up the comment? Read the comments on that video LOL. People noted that the clouds are not moving (like you would see in a still image) but the smoke plume is. FYI, you cant see CO2 just in case you thought all that smoke was CO2.

Try fact checking yourself. More refences for you to ignore because they are different that what you heard on AM radio

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities

Quote:
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N2XV1HA

Quote:
“On a global level, volcanoes currently emit just a few percent of the man-made CO2 production,” Bechkne said, highlighting that CO2 emissions of human activity have dramatically increased in the past decades, while volcanic emissions have not.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/vo...affect-climate

Quote:
While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere

Published scientific estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates.
The references could go on an on. Those pictures or videos of a volcano are kind of cool to watch however.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-18-2022 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2022, 04:52 PM
 
880 posts, read 564,432 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Had to save this as an example of what someone will believe with no evidence. I actually only saw a video.. Did you make up the comment? Read the comments on that video LOL. People noted that the clouds are not moving (like you would see in a still image) but the smoke plume is. FYI, you cant see CO2 just in case you thought all that smoke was CO2.

Try fact checking yourself. More refences for you to ignore because they are different that what you heard on AM radio

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities



Hahah, Walt, it's just a picture. I didn't even click the video.


And I said CARS... it produces more CO2 than cars do... which is true. You're comparing it to all man-made activities... which is not what I said. Man-made includes burning oil fields, and God knows what else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2022, 05:18 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
Walt-- your questions are all answered in that article-- the total c in carbon cycle is ~ 48,000Pg-- in the atm a mere 500Pg...changes in the atm c come mainly from the ocean as we've pointed out many times earlier.

The author outlines why the IPCC assumptions are wrong and then provides the correct computations.

BTW- your Fact Checkers need fact checking-- Try reading the comments after the WUWT articles-- many are by well known active researchers, many are by less well known but active researchers, often siting their own published works...Your comments just display your lack of sophistication & one-sided reading in these matters.
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 > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 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