Climate change denial

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Phage

Ok, here's a question, why is 90% of the pressure put on the US while countries like China that comparatively make us look like saints in this matter, basically go ignored?

90% of the pressure isn't on the US.and China produces way less carbon per capita ( even ignoring historical contribution) than the US.

a reply to: Puppylove
Can you provide a source for that statistic?

But perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, of major CO2 emitters, the per capita emissions of the US are the highest. More than twice that of China.

But sure, what's the point of doing anything. Right. Screw international agreements.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Oil production does not help the environment.

Again, Norway produces more oil than most European countries combined.

I never said Norway was perfect when it comes to this, as no country is , but Norway's power system is practically 100% renewable. Yes, they have a higher per capita greenhouse emissions than other countries in Europe, but they have signed the Kyoto Protocol, hopes to reduce that number in the coming year.

Like I said, all countries are part of the problem, it Norway, as well as counties like Finland and remark, are trying to do more, then any other country in the world.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Phage

Ok, here's a question, why is 90% of the pressure put on the US while countries like China that comparatively make us look like saints in this matter, basically go ignored?

That is simply not true!

a reply to: Phage

No, I have not altered my opinion. I discussed possible mitigations and provided caveats for some proposed options.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Rather the ignorance comes from those whom want "ZERO CO2 EMISSIONS" from a world in which ~99% of all life is CARBON BASED...

Without carbon/CO2 there would be no life on this planet...

Reducing atmospheric CO2 will cause a total reduction of green biomass, and a reduction of food production throughout the world... Which will mean, for the AGW crowd, more starvation throughout the world, and not only for humans but for the fauna and the flora of Earth...

A reduction in atmospheric CO2 will also mean that the fewer green biomass that will exist on Earth will need to use more water. Leaving less potable water for humans, and for animals.

The "science deniers" are in fact the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Yes, because they can afford to run on renewable energy resources due to their massive oil exports.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Reducing atmospheric CO2 will cause a total reduction of green biomass, and a reduction of food production throughout the world...

Yes. Before the industrial revolution the planet had few plants and little agriculture because there just wasn't enough CO2. Irrigation and the use of fertilizers and pesticides has nothing to do with increased food production. Right?

But instead of reducing atmospheric CO2, how about not increasing it?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Yes, because they can afford to run on renewable energy resources due to their massive oil exports.

Biggist oil exports are in this order

Saudi Arabia
Russia. ...
Iraq. ...
Canada. ...
United Arab Emirates. ...
Iran. ...
Kuwait. ...
Nigeria.

Norway are not even in the top 10! Out of all those countries in the top ten, which of these countries are trying to make a difference?

Norway are. Look it up yourself! It's not hard to find!

1 Saudi Arabia 8,300,000 2018 est.
2 Russia 5,225,000 2018 est.
3 Iraq 3,800,000 2018 est.
4 United States 3,770,000 2018
5 Canada 3,596,690 2018
6 United Arab Emirates 2,296,473 2018
7 Kuwait 2,050,030 2018
8 Nigeria 1,979,451 2018
9 Qatar 1,477,213 2018
10 Angola 1,420,588 2018
11 Kazakhstan 1,292,000 2016 est
12 Mexico 1,285,523 2018
13 Venezuela 1,245,000 2018
14 Norway 1,254,920

a reply to: pteridine

I discussed possible mitigations and provided caveats for some proposed options.

I see. But those things would be pointless because global warming and the resultant climate change have nothing to do with CO2. Maybe the Sun's getting warmer, or something. Anything but CO2.

originally posted by: Phage
Yes. Before the industrial revolution the planet had few plants and little agriculture because there just wasn't enough CO2. Irrigation and the use of fertilizers and pesticides has nothing to do with increased food production. Right?

But instead of reducing atmospheric CO2, how about not increasing it?

Phagy, Phagy, Phagy...

April 26, 2016
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
...
However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect. To determine the extent of carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.

Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”
...

www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Jay-morris

I think you missed the part where i said Europe!

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Norway is the largest producer of oil in Europe outside of Russia. In fact it's oil production per capita is arguably the highest of any country in the world. Certainly in the top 3.

Right here!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

I discussed possible mitigations and provided caveats for some proposed options.

I see. But those things would be pointless because global warming and the resultant climate change have nothing to do with CO2. Maybe the Sun's getting warmer, or something. Anything but CO2.

I think that they are pointless but those who may push for them should know about them. We may have to live with them at some point to satisfy popular demand. Note that too little CO2 in the atmosphere is also a problem. I have seen a range of ca. 200-1500 ppm as lower and upper limits for plant growth. Given the desires of some, they should realize that completely eliminating CO2 is not a good idea.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yes. I read it. It was also pointed out earlier in this thread. There are more leaves. Mostly due to more CO2.

More leaves make all the other stuff (rising temperatures, rising sea levels, lower ocean pH, etc.) worthwhile. I guess.

a reply to: pteridine

Given the desires of some, they should realize that completely eliminating CO2 is not a good idea.

Yet another strawman, unless you can show that anyone thinks there should be no CO2.

But a level of about 250 ppm seems to be where nature likes it to be.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: fernalley

The Green Climate Fund is part of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC and serves the Paris Agreement The Fund has set itself a goal of raising $100 billion a year by 2020

Where is the part about taxation? And what year is this? www.greenclimate.fund...

So yes,it is a transfer of wealth from first world countries to third world under the guise of Climate Change.

$100 billion? That's not a lot of wealth in global terms. US annual military spending is nearly 10 times that. If the funds are being applied to specific programs, how is that a "transfer of wealth?"

Its not a tax. It becomes some sort of obligation when your country signs onto these so called non binding UN agreements.
We sent 2.65 billion to third world countries when our own country has no clue how to successful get off fossil fuels. And
the IMF and the World bank do not want them using fuels to get out of poverty so sell them a solar panel that can light up a phone or a light bulb.

a reply to: fernalley

Its not a tax.

I agree. Perhaps you should read the post I was replying to originally.

It becomes some sort of obligation when your country signs onto these so called non binding UN agreements.

A non-binding obligation?

We sent 2.65 billion to third world countries when our own country has no clue how to successful get off fossil fuels.

Are you certain we just "sent" 2.65 billion to third world countries?
Investment Framework

And
the IMF and the World bank do not want them using fuels to get out of poverty so sell them a solar panel that can light up a phone or a light bulb.

"Solar panels" are not the only programs. There are also programs to assist with adapting to climate change.

The population and infrastructure of the Marshall Islands are concentrated in small, low-lying islands and atolls, which are highly susceptible to sea level rise, changes in weather patterns, and extreme weather events.

This project will increase the resilience of water resources for drinking and hygiene in the Marshall Islands. Planned interventions include improving household and community rainwater harvesting and storage structures; and securing groundwater resources from seawater intrusion. The project will also strengthen the technical capacities of national and subnational institutions and key stakeholders to integrate climate change risks into water governance processes.

This project has an estimated lifespan of 7 years.

Nor is all the funding "public", 38% comes from private funding and 41% of all funding is in the form of loans. It is not a "redistribution of wealth", it is an investment in the future, applied through specific and qualified programs.

No one is against taking care of the environment. They are against the politicization, weaponization, and CLEAR agenda behind the climate change movement. Not to mention the sheer destruction “green” laws would promote worldwide.


Next.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yes. I read it. It was also pointed out earlier in this thread. There are more leaves. Mostly due to more CO2.

More leaves make all the other stuff (rising temperatures, rising sea levels, lower ocean pH, etc.) worthwhile. I guess.

The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age



And I would argue that life on earth thrives on higher temps and co2 levels.