Originally posted by rinselberg: "Emitting greenhouse gases in WA? Here’s who will need to pay up to pollute"
Ah yes. Its about the money.
First of all, no one is polluting the air, nor hurting the planet. If you had more brain cells, you would realize that none, every single Global Warming fear tactic, has not come true.
Have you heard about the Climate Exchange ? it is modeled from the Stock Exchange. Home base, Chicago. If you know anything about Chicago politics ...
The Climate Exchange is an instrument where entities buy and sell "carbon credits".
Who are the people who invested in the "racket", giving it a start. ? Mostly world wide powerful Progressives.
Can you name of the other greenhouse gasses said to "pollute" your atmosphere ?
There's no reason to use any other terminology... "air pollution" or "polllutants" is not germane when these gas emissions are being discussed in the context of human-accelerated climate change or anthropogenic global warming.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: These are Greenhouse Gases.
My my my, yes, they are.
Neither being to most abundant greenhouse gas. Again, I question your critical thinking. I could say more but I want you to think about it. Don't just accept an opinion !
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: There's no reason to use any other terminology... "air pollution" or "polllutants" is not germane when these gas emissions are being discussed in the context of human-accelerated climate change or anthropogenic global warming.
What ever the hell that means, ... ?
How is it not relevant ?
Anthropogenic. My, that's a cute word. Was it invented when the Climate zealots first started to preach their religion ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-14-2023).]
Atmospheric water vapor or humidity (H2O) is the most abundant greenhouse gas, by far. It's also far and away the most significant in terms of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet. But it's a constant, because Mother Nature limits its concentration in the atmosphere for us, as part of the hydrologic cycle that removes water from the atmosphere as rain, snow and other precipitation. In the scientific deconstruction or cause-effect analysis of climate change, water is a moot point.
In contrast to water and the hydrologic cycle, the chemistry that removes CO2 and the other EPA-designated greenhouse gases from the atmosphere works gi-normously more slowly and so on a gi-normously longer timeline, and that's a gi-normously important difference.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Atmospheric water vapor or humidity (H2O) is the most abundant greenhouse gas, by far. It's also far and away the most significant in terms of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet. But it's a constant, because Mother Nature limits its concentration in the atmosphere for us, as part of the hydrologic cycle that removes water from the atmosphere as rain, snow and other precipitation. In the scientific deconstruction or cause-effect analysis of climate change, water is a moot point.
. You are a never ending source of amusement. Now you are trying to bamboozle me. Like you have been bamboozled. Not going to work !
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: In contrast to water and the hydrologic cycle, the chemistry that removes CO2 and the other EPA-designated greenhouse gases from the atmosphere works gi-normously more slowly and so on a gi-normously longer timeline, and that's a gi-normously important difference.
Hydrologic cycle. Ah, now your thinking. Good job. It applies to the CO2 through out history. Even when the CO2 concentration was higher than now. Before man could even affect it.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The hydrologic cycle, the chemistry that removes CO2 and the other EPA-designated greenhouse gases from the atmosphere works gi-normously more slowly and so on a gi-normously longer timeline, and that's a gi-normously important difference.
Ah, now you have a clue. Perhaps man made Global Warming is a fact. Could it be because man removed the chemistry of CO2 concentration by razing plant life where we razed the land to live.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-14-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Ah, now you have a clue. Perhaps man made Global Warming is a fact. Could it be because man removed the chemistry of CO2 concentration by razing plant life where we razed the land to live.
I think that the "greening" of urban areas is part of any respectable anti-global warming warrior's playbook.
I mean, creating ways for urban areas to have more thriving trees and shrubs and other vegetation that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The trees and shrubs can also provide shade for urban populations, which is a way to adapt to an overall warmer climate. "Green" is better than light-reflecting concrete pavement or light-absorbing asphalt pavement, in terms of how sunlight is reflected or absorbed and how that affects the temperatures that urban residents experience.
But if you're thinking that the world can simply "plant' or "green" away the planet-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions from human sources, you are indulging in wishful (but unrealistic) thinking.
I don't think there are many people in this country (or around the world, for that matter) who think about this like you do.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2023).]
Atmospheric water vapor or humidity (H2O) is the most abundant greenhouse gas, by far. It's also far and away the most significant in terms of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet. But it's a constant, because Mother Nature limits its concentration in the atmosphere for us, as part of the hydrologic cycle that removes water from the atmosphere as rain, snow and other precipitation. In the scientific deconstruction or cause-effect analysis of climate change, water is a moot point.
As I said, you are a never ending source of amusement.
Mother Nature ? Do you mean God ? Nature always limits the LIMITS the water vapor/humidity concentration of our atmosphere . Why does it, why has it always changed ?
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think that the "greening" of urban areas is part of any respectable anti-global warming warrior's playbook.
Of course. Always preached is electric cars. Which are a global pollutant. I have never heard of plant more trees. Or bigger trees. Or "stop razing" trees/plant life. Or plant more plants.
You have proposed mining Moon soil and dumping it in Earth's orbit. To block Natures Sun. Because, it would be a shield of natural of warmth from Mother Nature, so it can not be contained, thus prevent Global Warming.
Why does not CO2 prevent the effects of the Sun only one way ? Why does it not protect the Suns affect on the Earth's temperature ?
The Go To place for this is YouTube. Look for brief videos about the "Greenhouse Effect". Or just Google (etc.) for this kind of basic, explanatory information or tutorials. You could even just search for Images and you would find diagrams and viewgraph-style presentations.
I don't need to remember how the Greenhouse Effect works, exactly, as long as I can look it up from time to time and refresh my memory.
In this moment, I am talking about the Greenhouse Effect itself, and not its implications in terms of climate change and global warming... just the physics involving greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere and how that interacts with sunlight.
Even the scientifically educated people who don't align themselves with the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions do not quarrel with the physics of the Greenhouse Effect.
I'm talking this way in the moment, because cliffw is clearly not "read in" on the physics of the Greenhouse Effect.
It's simple enough to be presented with a single diagram or viewgraph, and there are many such diagrams and viewgraphs conveniently available online.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2023).]
The Greenhouse Effect "by the numbers" ... 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Energy from the sun (1) in the form of visible and UV light penetrates the atmosphere and reaches the surface of lands and oceans as daylight, where much of this solar energy is absorbed. This warms the land and ocean surfaces. When night follows day, the lands and oceans shed some of this heat (2) by radiating it upwards and into the atmosphere as longer wavelength (and invisible) infrared light or "IR".
Some of the IR passes all the way upwards through the atmosphere and escapes into outer space (3), but some is trapped (4) in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. This completes the greenhouse effect, and the trapped energy nudges up the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the lands and oceans.
The key to understanding this is to realize that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not absorb the visible and UV light energy that is received during daylight from the sun, but they do absorb the longer wave IR energy that is radiated from sun-warmed land and ocean surfaces during the night.
Credit Teleskola.mt, which is an initiative by the island nation of Malta's Ministry for Education and Employment. https://teleskola.mt/about/
This (hopefully) reaches "cliffw" and answers this question for him:
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Why does CO2 prevent the effects of the sun only one way? Why does it not protect the sun's effect on the earth's temperature?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-15-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: But if you're thinking that the world can simply "plant' or "green" away the planet-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions from human sources, you are indulging in wishful (but unrealistic) thinking.
I don't think there are many people in this country (or around the world, for that matter) who think about this like you do.
You think wrong. I am not surprised. For one, I never thought we could plant/green away all CO2. For two, it is settled science that plants devour CO2. Unfortunately, there are too many people who think like you do. They seem to think that zero CO2 will save all mankind, animal kind, and plant kind, and save the planet. They are after cows, want to capture farts, and other crazy stuff. It would not surprise me to see that they go after plants next. Because they emit CO2, which they do.
Those with excellent critical thinking skills would wonder what people like you think is the right concentration of the various so called "greenhouse" emissions. Just like the same people think that the rich ought to pay more taxes. Their fair share. Without defining fair share. Govt set up the tax code.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... and the other EPA-designated greenhouse gases ...
Ah yes, . The EPA. The EPA is from the government. We can trust them,
The EPA which works for the President, who is perpetuating this fraud. The same idiots who decided to burn the toxic chemicals which spilled in the East Palestine train derailment. Creating a larger environmental threat from a small one.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I don't need to remember how the Greenhouse Effect works, exactly, as long as I can look it up from time to time and refresh my memory.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: In this moment, I am talking about the Greenhouse Effect itself, and not its implications in terms of climate change and global warming... just the physics involving greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere and how that interacts with sunlight.
Even the scientifically educated people who don't align themselves with the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions do not quarrel with the physics of the Greenhouse Effect.
I'm talking this way in the moment, because cliffw is clearly not "read in" on the physics of the Greenhouse Effect.
It's simple enough to be presented with a single diagram or viewgraph, and there are many such diagrams and viewgraphs conveniently available online.
Oh my. You give me too much credit, . Physics is not my strong suit nor do I need to read into the physics of greenhouse gasses. Logic is my strong suit. I don't even need to take the time to search for some partisan diagram/picture graph.
For you see, as a kid, my Mom had actual greenhouses. Many of them. We even had a commercial nursery.
For you see, I have heard of the horror stories of pets or children being left in cars with the windows closed on hot sunny days. Even when getting into my vehicle during cold winter days.
I think I can sum up the physics in one word. Blanket.
If you are truly interested in man made Global Warming, you should use the same amount of time researching the "other opinion".
Originally posted by cliffw: Those with excellent critical thinking skills would wonder what people like you think is the right concentration of the various so called "greenhouse" emissions.
Target: 350 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 Down from current 450 ppm.
Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Fluorinated gases, all as close to zero ppm as possible.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Atmospheric water vapor or humidity (H2O) is the most abundant greenhouse gas, by far. It's also far and away the most significant in terms of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet. But it's a constant, because Mother Nature limits its concentration in the atmosphere for us, as part of the hydrologic cycle that removes water from the atmosphere as rain, snow and other precipitation. In the scientific deconstruction or cause-effect analysis of climate change, water is a moot point.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Atmospheric water vapor or humidity (H2O) is the most abundant greenhouse gas, by far. It's also far and away the most significant in terms of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet. But it's a constant, because Mother Nature limits its concentration in the atmosphere for us, as part of the hydrologic cycle that removes water from the atmosphere as rain, snow and other precipitation. In the scientific deconstruction or cause-effect analysis of climate change, water is a moot point.
Are you ready for some critical thinking ? How does one measure water vapor or humidity ?
Originally posted by cliffw: Is the ideal atmospheric concentration of all greenhouse gasses including CO2 supposed to be as close to zero as possible?
No! No way. I said there should be 350 ppm carbon dioxide or CO2 in the atmosphere. Water (H2O) doesn't need to be specified. As I already explained, the hydrologic cycle maintains water in the atmosphere (humidity) at a level that's good for humans and their animal and plant friends. Methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases... the other greenhouse gases... I really don't know what good limits are for those.
I didn't just make up the 350 number for CO2 or pull that out of thin air. "350" is a climate advocacy group.
quote
350.org was founded in 2008 by a group of university friends in the United States along with author Bill McKibben, who wrote one of the first books on global warming for the general public. The goal was to build a global climate movement. 350 was named after 350 parts per million—the [climate] safe concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Originally posted by cliffw: Is the ideal atmospheric concentration of all greenhouse gasses including CO2 supposed to be as close to zero as possible ?
Rate the various gasses in terms of creating your greenhouse effect ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: No! No way. I said there should be 350 ppm carbon dioxide or CO2 in the atmosphere. Water (H2O) doesn't need to be specified. As I already explained, the hydrologic cycle maintains water in the atmosphere (humidity) at a level that's good for humans and their animal and plant friends.
This is a lengthy thread. When and where did you say that ?
You did say ...
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Atmospheric water vapor or humidity (H2O) is the most abundant greenhouse gas, by far. It's also far and away the most significant in terms of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet.
You also said ...
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Water (H2O) doesn't need to be specified. As I already explained, the hydrologic cycle maintains water in the atmosphere (humidity) at a level that's good for humans and their animal and plant friends.
Greta Thunberg deletes 2018 tweet saying that climate change would 'wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels by 2023' .
It's easy to focus on the distraction of Greta Thunberg, but endeavoring to "troll" the credentialed climate scientists and researchers isn't so easy. First of all, for someone to do that, they would have to know the scientists and researchers' names or where to find their reports, or reports of what the scientists and researchers are actually saying and doing. There's also the risk of someone inadvertently revealing their own epic ignorance of the topic, especially if they are just duplicating memes and cartoons that catch their eye... succumbing to their chronic condition of Shiny New Object Syndrome.
Anyone can aspire to be glib about credentialed climate scientists and researchers, but in the arcane game-play of online forums like this one, anyone who does that can be "exposed" for their scientific ignorance and misconceptions. Not that it would matter, really, because who's keeping score? But it's a risk in what I've just called this "arcane game-play" of online forums like this one.
What's wrong with this image-message, meme or cartoon? Why is it totally illogical or "malarkey"..?
As I just said in the third message before this one, it's easy to focus on the distractions of railroad accidents, or of Greta Thunberg, but endeavoring to "troll" the credentialed climate scientists and researchers isn't so easy is more of a challenge. A challenge that this misleading meme or viewgraph-style presentation conspicuously falls down on, from a science perspective:
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
Edit to add: I actually didn't refer to "railroad accidents" in the third message before this one.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-16-2023).]
Here's some interesting info on the living Garbage Pail Kid herself:
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
Both Greta and AOC are quite literally bit players in the bizarre stage show that we all have been watching for over a decade now. They were hand picked. Look around, there are others.
Our government is like a sordid mixture of America’s Got Talent and Dancing with the Stars, with cameo appearances by Jussy Smollet and Alec Baldwin.
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... endeavoring to "troll" the credentialed climate scientists and researchers isn't so easy. First of all, for someone to do that, they would have to know the scientists and researchers' names or where to find their reports, or reports of what the scientists and researchers are actually saying and doing. There's also the risk of someone inadvertently revealing their own epic ignorance of the topic ...
Gosh. The guy who coined the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" must have observerd people with your disposition.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: As I just said in the third message before this one, it's easy to focus on the distractions of railroad accidents, or of Greta Thunberg, but endeavoring to "troll" the credentialed climate scientists and researchers isn't so easy is more of a challenge.
Climate scientists, ? Pull Ezz ! I have to wonder what you know about science. Anybody who says "settled science" does not know what science is. Prove me wrong.
Speaking of science Mr. Climate Justice Warrior, Why didn't you answer my challenge ?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: That is not scientifically possible. Ask me why ?
How were the toxic batteries safely disposed of ? To think, many children had to sacrifice their health for merely pittance to harvest the needed battery components to manufacture them. ?
This doesn't contradict the science of the planet-warming Greenhouse effect.
The manufacture and life cycle implications of electric car batteries are not a given that isn't changing. It evolves.
quote
Driving Teslas and planting trees are nice, but methane reduction, industrial efficiency, carbon removal, and a moderate carbon tax are the most efficient ways to fight climate change.
Electrification of road vehicles is just part of Climate Mitigation. It gets more media coverage than almost any other aspect of Climate Mitigation. But where are "you" on the movement towards zero carbon emissions concrete for building and road construction? Where are "you" on climate-proofing agricultural methods, so that farmers do not cause large greenhouse gas emissions that are easily avoidable if crop fertilizers are used in more carefully thought out ways? Where are "you" on a myriad of other aspects of the multifaceted diamond of modern Climate Mitigation or "Cli-Mit"..?
"Climate Mitigation—it's more than electric road vehicles"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-17-2023).]
Believe what you will. First, Politifact, Factcheck, really, ? Yes, I investigated the denials. Never once was a claim made that these EV graveyards do not exist. At the end of the day, and tomorrow morning, those EV's and their batteries will still be there. With many more. If I buy you one of those planet saving cars, which would you choose ? Hopefully not the fully loaded one in the middle of that clusteruck.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: This (those abandoned planet saving cars which are harming the Earth) doesn't contradict the science of the planet-warming Greenhouse effect.
The science of the planet-warming Greenhouse effect, ? From the same moron scientists who warned us of the upcoming ice age if we didn't get rid of R-12 freon (for air conditioners). Why don't we bring back the best ever freon to "mitigate" Global Warming ?
Science, ? It is not science when you create a crisis and fabricate evidence to present as truth. Your Green Gods will go down in the annals of history with other great giants such as Chicken Little and the Boy who called Wolf.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The manufacture and life cycle implications of electric car batteries are not a given that isn't changing. It evolves.
As does my amusement of the Green Gods evolve. As has climate scientists predictions from ice age to too warm. One scientist says this porridge is too hot. Another saying this porridge is too cold. The logical saying this porridge is just right. Our evolving efforts to reduce your claimed atmospheric greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels has and is evolving. Did you have a point ? Give me just one example of the mitigation of old worn out EV batteries.
All of the efforts you wish to make us partake in not only weakens America (in many ways) they also will do absolutely no good. Not one other country is on board with the Green God's beliefs. Obama is still buying ocean front property.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: [SIZE=2]Driving Teslas and planting trees are nice, but methane reduction, industrial efficiency, carbon removal, and a moderate carbon tax are the most efficient ways to ]climate change.
There you go again. Climate Change. Making a boogie man from something.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Electrification of road vehicles is just part of Climate Mitigation. It gets more media coverage than almost any other aspect of Climate Mitigation. But where are "you" on the movement towards zero carbon emissions concrete for building and road construction? Where are "you" on climate-proofing agricultural methods, so that farmers do not cause large greenhouse gas emissions that are easily avoidable if crop fertilizers are used in more carefully thought out ways? Where are "you" on a myriad of other aspects of the multifaceted diamond of modern Climate Mitigation or "Cli-Mit"..?
"Climate Mitigation—it's more than electric road vehicles"
It seems that we have different ideas of Climate Mitigation. I am not in your camp of 'can change Mother Nature'. My ideas of climate mitigation are logical. If it rains, I put on a slicker, or use an umbrella, or go inside. If it's cold, I wear more efficient clothes, layered, or use a global warming heater, or go inside and use a global warming heater My ideas evolve. Some ideas counter-act the effects of weather.
Climate change. Moving from North Dakota to Texas. One adapts and is adept. Much like many other of life's circumstances.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-19-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: The science of the planet-warming Greenhouse effect, ? From the same moron scientists who warned us of the upcoming ice age if we didn't get rid of R-12 freon (for air conditioners). Why don't we bring back the best ever freon to "mitigate" Global Warming?
Not at all. R-12 freon refrigerant is a CFC, and the reason for phasing it out in favor of the the newer HFC refrigerants was to protect the ozone in the stratosphere that shields the earth's surface from the sun's UV radiation. In order to protect living organisms from the damaging effects of UV radiation. It wasn't to protect against an "ice age". HFC refrigerants are less damaging to the high altitude ozone layer than CFC refrigerants like R-12 freon.
The other thing that you keep saying that makes no sense is "one degree of global warming over the next 100 years".
First of all, there's an important distinction between Fahrenheit degrees and Celsius degrees. One degree Celsius is equivalent to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. And secondly, what does that mean? It's not what climate scientists are predicting. They have different scenarios, depending on how much success is achieved in reducing the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions.
I can't go looking it up right now, but they're seeing more global warming in their "crystal balls" than just one degree (even Celsius) over the next 100 years, unless the efforts to reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere achieve almost unimaginable success and achieve that success very quickly. They're not really expecting that.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-19-2023).]
. You are a never ending source of amusement. Now you are trying to bamboozle me. Like you have been bamboozled. Not going to work !
? From the same moron scientists who warned us of the upcoming ice age if we didn't get rid of R-12 freon (for air conditioners). Why don't we bring back the best ever freon to "mitigate" Global Warming ?
