Possible 90% REDUCTION in CO2 emmissions by 2035?

With what technology was it determined what the CO2 level was "2 MILLION years ago"...?
Dendrochronology? Carbon 14? You may be right, but I would like to know how this determination was made.

Anyway, there is no doubt in the mind of anyone with a triple-digit IQ that the magnitude of human numbers has had a LOT to do with the increase in CO2, as well as actual, very real pollution of every conceivable kind!

Here's an interesting article from the NOAA's climate.gov Link: https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Now, if you compare the indicated increase in CO2 with the increase in human population over the past 100 years (at least), you can see the effect clearly. BUT, there are numerous others, beginning with the sun! It's a combination of factors, not just one (like the Left wants everyone to think).

 

As was pointed out in a since deleted thread. The output of the sun is pretty constant. It's not the addition of heat that is causing the problem. It's the RETENTION of heat. There are other things adding to the retention of heat, but CO2 is one of the (if not THE) main ones and it's the one that we have the most control over.

 

I don't think you understood the science. Water vapor is sort of a self regulating reaction. According to the NASA data.

IE, negative feedback.
Whereas, the other greenhouse gases, per NASA, are positive reinforcement reactions. IE, it won't clear itself easily of those greenhouse gases as water vapor does.
Since you mention condensable, water vapor is, the other 5 mentioned are not. Of which, CO2 is the most prevalent.

 

I don't know.
Do you?

Maybe it's in this link I provided in a post?
As for your stone age comment. Absurd.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/as...ter-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/

 

Pointless distracting condescending content duly noted and IGNORED for reasons stated.

 

Agreed, because too much CO2 becomes CO aka Carbon MONOXIDE which is LETHAL in large doses.

 

PUERILE taunting content above duly noted.

Why did you NOT even BOTHER to google for that NUMBER rather post ASININE strawman drivel content?

Says VOLUMES about "commitment" to contributing to civil discourse.

 

WOWZER!

That is an INCREASE of over SIXTY PERCENT in an eyeblink of geological time.

Not good, not good at all!

 

Ah, thank you, that was a MISUNDERSTANDING on MY part.

My sincere apologies, it was unintentional.

Have a nice day.

 

No, CO2 and CO are entirely different compounds. One results from complete combustion and the other is an actual pollutant.

It will always be tough to try to argue about these kinds of things if you don't know the difference.

 

FACEPALM projection content duly noted.

We EXHALE CO2 as a WASTE product of our breathing.

Carbon MONOXIDE is a BYPRODUCT of INCOMPLETE combustion by inefficient ICE and other sources.

 

WHAT? Becomes?

 

Get back to me when there is no Water in the air.

Wrong...CO is lethal in relatively small does and only procuce with a fire with a limited amount of oxygen because you need a big energy source because C0 formation is an endothermic reaction, Note the carbon dioxide that killed all those people in Africa never formed CO.

 

Actually, I 'fat-fingered' the stat in my Post #201, which you've so obviously retreated from. I typed "0.02%" but, as the UCAR graph shows, the correct stat is "0.04%" as I been saying for YEARS. My apologies for my 'fat-fingers', and you have my condolences if you really do lack an understanding of what Carbon Dioxide is, and what it does -- especially if CO2 exhausts are managed in a rational, intelligent way.

My suspicion, though, is that like many in your faction, you know that CO2 makes up only a microscopic part of the Earth's atmosphere, but that because of all the concentration of hysterical, hyperliberal ballyhoo about it, CO2 makes a convenient 'whipping boy' in the argument for more and more reckless removals of so many energy-producing power plants throughout the civilized world.

 

In weight, how much CO2 makes up .01% of the atmosphere?

It makes up, approximately, 7.82 BILLION tonnes of CO2. Not such a small number anymore is it?

Also that "microscopic" amount of CO2 is the main driver of increased temperatures world wide

Nature is amazing. Through the 4.5 billion years of earth's existence the equilibrium between various systems has become extremely well balanced. It only takes a "microscopic" change in that balance/equilibrium to throw the whole thing out of whack. Normally if that change occurs over a long enough period of time then the system can adjust and find a new equilibrium. That is not what has happened here. In a geologic blink of an eye we have added more CO2 to the atmosphere then had been added in the entire 2 million years before hand.

My condolences if you really do lack an understanding of what CO2 is and what it does.

 

Yes, "nature is amazing"... and equally amazing is that you are quite willing to parrot all the commonly tossed-about "CO2" memes without any link to credible information at all. You can belittle the chart from UCAR I've provided in this thread, but at least I offered SOMETHING to support my observations. Where's yours...?

It's fascinating to see how the Left focuses so ardently on energy production in the United States as being the most lethal, planet-killing force in the world while it blithely looks past or ignores altogether the fact that in China and India (and other countries as well) new coal-fired energy plants are being built every month....

Links (always useful in buttressing one's arguments):

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160...w-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
https://www.reuters.com/world/india...er-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/

 

I have NEVER said that energy production in the United States is the most lethal, planet killing force in the world

NEVER

Humans, all across the planet, have to have a part in trying to save the planet but trying to harness 8 billion people to a single goal is next to impossible.

 

The article from NASA was too complicated?

 

No the opposite far to simplistic and agenda driven.

 

What's the agenda? It's NASA.

Perhaps it's you ignoring data that's agenda driven.

Especially, since NASA hasn't given any agenda or plans of action.

 

The same globalist climate change bullshit band wagon the whole damn government has got on.

 

Right, so, since harnessing 8 billion people to 'do the right thing' is next to impossible, we should just vilify citizens of the United States and single them out far, FAR more than all others (besides, we have 'deep pockets' and gullible, Leftist rulers in both the Senate and Executive branch).

YES, we should adopt new methods of producing energy. I have favored spending whatever it takes -- worldwide -- to master hydrogen fusion, but nobody seems to want to pursue that course on anything like the scale that it requires. Instead, they want to dabble with 'boutique' solutions that, at best, can only work part of the time, like solar and wind. But, with nothing better than that inconsideration, the hyperliberal Left wants us to just dismantle all the coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants and do what...? Burn "bio-mass" or some other such idiocy...?

 

I don't think you understand the engineering issues with trying to harness fusion power. We are working on it. We are spending massive amounts of money on it. But it's not something that's going to happen overnight. We need to start reducing carbon output NOW...not wait for fusion to become a reality.

Solar and Wind are part of that solution. So is energy storage. The secret to better use of solar and wind is to be able to effectively store the energy when we produce more than we need and then use it when we produce less than we need.

 

I was working in an ancillary role (mostly with computers) with early fusion technology as far back as the 70's at a lab in a ranked university in Texas. Remember Tokamaks? If it were easy (and wouldn't financially devastate the oil and natural gas businesses) we'd have probably accomplished by now... but it's the 'big-biz-boys' who control the what and when of technology releases to the 'masses'... right?

But, all that aside, you're right -- energy storage is a crucially important challenge! And there, the Chinese are making very great strides indeed.

Look -- if we could get rid of every coal-fired plant in the world tomorrow, I'd be all in favor of it, but the enviro-zealots are trying to do WAY too much, WAY too fast, and with snail-paced technologies that just don't produce energy on the massive scale required to replace coal and natural gas.

 

PUERILE ad hom effectively NEGATING the rest of the content duly noted.