Cities and monuments switch off for Earth Hour

The Empire State Building and United Nations headquarters in New York joined other iconic buildings and monuments around the world plunging into darkness for sixty minutes on Saturday to mark Earth Hour and draw attention to climate change.

The Eiffel Tower, the Kremlin, the Acropolis in Athens and Sydney's Opera House also dimmed their lights as millions of people from some 170 countries and territories were expected to take part in Earth Hour, the annual bid to highlight global warming caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas to drive cars and power plants...



Meanwhile, here the UK has had a good sunny weekend with about 25% of the electricity supplies from renewables. Around noon, solar power alone provided over 25% of the National Grid (electricity) supply. Wind, biomass and hydro added to that.


There is more we can do yet!

A heck of a lot more... not the least of which is educating people on the true nature of the problem.

The Eiffel Tower, the Kremlin, the Acropolis in Athens and Sydney's Opera House also dimmed their lights as millions of people from some 170 countries and territories were expected to take part in Earth Hour, the annual bid to highlight global warming caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas to drive cars and power plants.

That is only PART of the problem.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG3/SPM/02_figure_SPM_2.png


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf
As you can see, per the IPCC Assessment Report 5, Working Group 3, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2 on page 9, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the heating/electric power generation sector is only 25% of the total, and from the transportation sector is only 14% of the total, giving a combined total of only 39% of the TOTAL anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. That leaves 61% of emissions from OTHER sources.

Sorry, but even totally stopping ALL fossil fuel use COMPLETELY today will not solve the problem. Just the Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector pumps out more CO2 than the planet can effectively deal with (about 5 Gigatons per year from ALL sources -- both natural AND anthropogenic).

Why do you all have such joygasms over solar/wind/other 'renewable' power? In the long run, it is totally meaningless. At BEST you all are just kicking the can down the road so our descendants can deal with it in the future.

The ONLY solution to the problem is immediate, drastic population reduction followed by living within the balance of nature. That is, as a hunter-gather society, with a max. population of around 1 to 10 million... worldwide (what the human population was 10,000 years ago just prior to the agricultural revolution).

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Sorry MK that's a simpletons answer to CO2 as per your graph some 40% of CO2 can be stopped with solar wind and battery storage or other forms of storage

Add transport once all transport is electric and ships go nuke or back to sails

electricity and heat 25% all can come from renewables
Buildings 6.4% can also come from renewables
industry 21% also can come from renewables most processes can be converted to electric including heating
transport 14% can also be done with renewables once all have converted to electric or rail and what can't wont matter
so that's 66% taken care off with current teck
AFOLU what's that ? I'm shore intelligent men can solve any issues as there probably Engineering problems

Also you forget one of the advantages of higher CO2 higher plant growth but that will only apply if the CO2 doesn't get to high

And man is the only one that can turn a desert into a green oasis and there is still plenty of places we can do this . we also in the west waste 50% of our food so there is no problem with feeding the world population only mans greed and that is what is causing food shortages .

You should be ashamed to even think such a thing MK . intelligence is not choosing the simplest answer but actually thinking about it and the implications and implementing it even if it's hard . refer to JFK speeches we go to the moon not because it's easy but hard

---

Darth:

Excellent comment. Thanks.


Major Kong:

You've been majorly walloped for your defeatist Trumped-up defeatism.


We can save our planet easily immediately by 'just' quashing the "Big Agri-business" corruption that is the secretly quietly THE biggest polluter with expensive fertilizers and environmentally bad farming practices...

We have options yet.


Sooner means better and more effective and cheaper. How do we pull the Trump short-term stupidity around?...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Sorry MK that's a simpletons answer to CO2 as per your graph some 40% of CO2 can be stopped with solar wind and battery storage or other forms of storage

Add transport once all transport is electric and ships go nuke or back to sails

electricity and heat 25% all can come from renewables
Buildings 6.4% can also come from renewables
industry 21% also can come from renewables most processes can be converted to electric including heating
transport 14% can also be done with renewables once all have converted to electric or rail and what can't wont matter
so that's 66% taken care off with current teck
AFOLU what's that ? I'm shore intelligent men can solve any issues as there probably Engineering problems

Also you forget one of the advantages of higher CO2 higher plant growth but that will only apply if the CO2 doesn't get to high

And man is the only one that can turn a desert into a green oasis and there is still plenty of places we can do this . we also in the west waste 50% of our food so there is no problem with feeding the world population only mans greed and that is what is causing food shortages .

You should be ashamed to even think such a thing MK . intelligence is not choosing the simplest answer but actually thinking about it and the implications and implementing it even if it's hard

. refer to JFK speeches we go to the moon not because it's easy but hard

Sorry, Glenn, but you are incorrect in your analysis.

That IPCC graph is I posted is NOT a graph of fossil fuel CO2 emissions... It is a graph of ALL anthropogenic Greenhouse gas emissions. ALL of the fossil fuel use in total is only the 39% I posted earlier, plus 9.6 % from the 'other' catagory... Thats right... LESS THAN HALF (48.6%)... And these are not MY figures, but the figures of the IPCC.

For instance, the 'Industry' sector is the Greenhouse Gasses emitted from the industrial process itself, NOT what powers it. For instance, making cement/concrete (one of the LARGEST offenders in the sector).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement_kiln

...

A typical process of manufacture consists of three stages:

grinding a mixture of limestone and clay or shale to make a fine "rawmix" (see Rawmill);
heating the rawmix to sintering temperature (up to 1450 °C) in a cement kiln;
grinding the resulting clinker to make cement (see Cement mill).

In the second stage, the rawmix is fed into the kiln and gradually heated by contact with the hot gases from combustion of the kiln fuel. Successive chemical reactions take place as the temperature of the rawmix rises:

70 to 110 °C - Free water is evaporated.
400 to 600 °C - clay-like minerals are decomposed into their constituent oxides; principally SiO2 and Al2O3. Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) decomposes to calcium carbonate, MgO and CO2.
650 to 900 °C - calcium carbonate reacts with SiO2 to form belite (Ca2SiO4).
900 to 1050 °C - the remaining calcium carbonate decomposes to calcium oxide and CO2.
1300 to 1450 °C - partial (20–30%) melting takes place, and belite reacts with calcium oxide to form alite (Ca3O·SiO4).

...

Carbon dioxide

During the clinker burning process CO2 is emitted. CO2 accounts for the main share of these gases. CO2 emissions are both raw material-related and energy-related. Raw material-related emissions are produced during limestone decarbonation (CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2) and account for about half of total CO2 emissions. Use of fuels with higher hydrogen content than coal and use of alternative fuels can reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.

...

It doesn't matter what you end up 'fuel'ing the kiln with, it is STILL going to emit LARGE quantities of CO2 due to the chemical process that produces the cement.

As far as AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use), the CO2 emission here is from the Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use ITSELF, and NOT from whatever fuel is used.

All of the effort being made by the IPCC, and others, is to SLOW DOWN the problem, NOT to STOP IT. They are just passing the buck to future generations, when the price and difficulty is going to be much much higher. Effectively, they are just trying to sweep it under the rug.

YOU should be the one ashamed for thinking the problem HAS a solution that involves something other than a 99.95% reduction (now, not next year or even next week) in the human population.

Humanity is well and truly boned. Pollitically, there is no way in h-e-double-hockey-stick that humanity will EVER voluntarily agree to the ONLY possible solution. That leaves an imposed solution.

So, while we are waiting around, we may as well eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we are going to fry (one way or another).

OR, we could all concentrate not on trying to stop the unstoppable, but on adapting to it.

Sorry MK that's a simpletons answer

Horsepoop. You are being mislead as to the TRUE nature and scope of the problem. It is much, much worse than you have been lead to believe.

You should be ashamed to even think such a thing MK . intelligence is not choosing the simplest answer but actually thinking about it and the implications and implementing it even if it's hard

I ask you to take your own advice.

The "simpleton's" answer is to parrot what you are being told by the various Governments and their pet Scientists, as you have been doing.

I have linked in these threads over the last several years MORE than enough peer-reviewed research papers and other publications from scientists on the subject and shown you and others here step by step how to arrive at the same conclusion I have. Reason it out for yourself, Glenn. Please...

Please stop denying the true scope of the problem.

I wish it was true that Martin's (and other Al Goreist's) solution would work. Blue skys and sunshine optimism. It won't be enough. We are far too late on that one. We are looking at a 10C to 16C rise in temperature over the next 10,000 years even if we totally stopped ALL anthropogenic CO2 (and other Greenhouse Gas) emissions.... TODAY. Yes, it is at LEAST that bad.

Ye Gods, man... Open your eyes!

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Darth:

Excellent comment. Thanks.


Major Kong:

You've been majorly walloped for your defeatist Trumped-up defeatism.


We can save our planet easily immediately by 'just' quashing the "Big Agri-business" corruption that is the secretly quietly THE biggest polluter with expensive fertilizers and environmentally bad farming practices...

We have options yet.


Sooner means better and more effective and cheaper. How do we pull the Trump short-term stupidity around?...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

No Martin.. 1st, I am not a Trumpist. I hate that arse, and I did NOT vote for him.

You need to pull your head out of the sand and open your eyes... The Global Climate Change problem is much, much worse than you have been led to believe. You all need to educate yourselves. See my response to Glenn.

Martin, you see a PART of the problem... You need to keep going til you see all of it. This is likely why we haven't 'found' anything here at S@H. ETIs have cooked themselves in similar ways to the way we are cooking ourselves.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

We can save our planet easily immediately by 'just' quashing the "Big Agri-business" corruption that is the secretly quietly THE biggest polluter with expensive fertilizers and environmentally bad farming practices...

You are right. We need to by the end of the day end all Agri-business. By the end of a couple months at least 50% of humans will have starved to death. That is a very good beginning on the necessary population reduction. With the total ban on fossil fuel, there won't be any plows in the field or any trucks to bring goods from farm to city. The farmers won't have beasts of burden or the necessary hay either and that is a good thing. With the rapid reduction in humans the electric grid will go away as no one will be left to operate it, and farmers won't be able to pump water! This will result in considerable more reduction in human population. Yes Martin, you have a winner of an idea!

Martin, no matter what tech solutions there are at best you kick the can down the road about 5 to 10 years. In that time though even more human mouths are on the planet and clamoring for a maximum consumption lifestyle. That's the problem. Technology. Eliminate all of it and we go back to hunter gatherer just as nature intended. The longer you refuse to see this the worse the problem gets.

@MK, warmists refuse to believe their own numbers. There are two possible conclusions. 1) They know their numbers are fake. 2) They are clueless about math.

---

Mk let's take your example of concrete .

You reduce the amount of CO2 buy using other forms of heating . As for the Co2 release from Calcium I ask you this if they can Carbon capture and store the Co2 from a coal fired plant as what is being said why can't the same capture and storage be used for concrete ?

Also you don't need to stop all the CO2

If you can drop it back to 0.25ppm per year there will be time for engineering to catch up with the processes we can't yet fix ergo: aircraft have no choice but to use oil as there base for fuel

The problem is that it's going up to fast ergo 3ppm per year drop it back to 0.25 or less then we have plenty of time for future gens to solve the problem but to be able to drop it down to a level that will give us time there needs to be a massive drop in what we are producing.

At current levels we don't even have 50 years before children will be born with smaller brains . Slow it down to 0.25ppm and we have hundreds of years before that will happen .

It was only 30 years ago we where only pushing the CO2 up at about 0.25ppm and back then the CO2 was under 350 now it's over 405 .

It's the speed at witch we are now pumping the stuff out that is the main problem and most of the extra CO2 can be reduced to get the levels down enough to allow engineering to catch up.

Even if you wish to build a dome over your community you don't have time to do it particularly large enough ones to hold a few thousand people Slow the level at witch it's going up then even that may be a solution given enough time to build such things . I fear that the rich think they can build there domes so are pushing to keep the status que so at a point not far away they can get the government to fork out the doe needed for there Domes as it will be the only solution and will only work if everyone is in the dome leave some part of the population outside and you will have major wars .
I think I understand what's going on a bit more than you MK . Planes still flew before the level started going up silly , same with steel production another industry that will not be able to cut emmissions completely for the same reasons as concrete but we don't need to stop all Co2 just most of it and prove to me that if we green the deserts that it won't help buy reducing the CO2 .

There is a large % of land unusable at the moment from salt or lack of water witch if repaired or dams built we could grow stuff on and that will absorb even more CO2 so I say again your putting excuses forward , a simpletons view , " ohh it's just all to hard so I give up were all gona die anyway so why bother let's just party till we drop"

---

@MK, warmists refuse to believe their own numbers. There are two possible conclusions. 1) They know their numbers are fake. 2) They are clueless about math.

Reason(s) for #1?

If they aren't clueless about math their own numbers show that tech can't solve AGW and only significant population reduction and deindustrialization can. As they spout tech as an answer then they must know their numbers that show tech can't work are fake.

---

Mk let's take your example of concrete .

You reduce the amount of CO2 buy using other forms of heating . As for the Co2 release from Calcium I ask you this if they can Carbon capture and store the Co2 from a coal fired plant as what is being said why can't the same capture and storage be used for concrete ?

Also you don't need to stop all the CO2

If you can drop it back to 0.25ppm per year there will be time for engineering to catch up with the processes we can't yet fix ergo: aircraft have no choice but to use oil as there base for fuel

The problem is that it's going up to fast ergo 3ppm per year drop it back to 0.25 or less then we have plenty of time for future gens to solve the problem but to be able to drop it down to a level that will give us time there needs to be a massive drop in what we are producing.

At current levels we don't even have 50 years before children will be born with smaller brains . Slow it down to 0.25ppm and we have hundreds of years before that will happen .

It was only 30 years ago we where only pushing the CO2 up at about 0.25ppm and back then the CO2 was under 350 now it's over 405 .

It's the speed at witch we are now pumping the stuff out that is the main problem and most of the extra CO2 can be reduced to get the levels down enough to allow engineering to catch up.

Even if you wish to build a dome over your community you don't have time to do it particularly large enough ones to hold a few thousand people Slow the level at witch it's going up then even that may be a solution given enough time to build such things . I fear that the rich think they can build there domes so are pushing to keep the status que so at a point not far away they can get the government to fork out the doe needed for there Domes as it will be the only solution and will only work if everyone is in the dome leave some part of the population outside and you will have major wars .
I think I understand what's going on a bit more than you MK . Planes still flew before the level started going up silly , same with steel production another industry that will not be able to cut emmissions completely for the same reasons as concrete but we don't need to stop all Co2 just most of it and prove to me that if we green the deserts that it won't help buy reducing the CO2 .

There is a large % of land unusable at the moment from salt or lack of water witch if repaired or dams built we could grow stuff on and that will absorb even more CO2 so I say again your putting excuses forward , a simpletons view , " ohh it's just all to hard so I give up were all gona die anyway so why bother let's just party till we drop"

Glenn,

As Gary says, the fault in your (and a GREAT many others') reasoning is in thinking that technology can solve the problem when it is technology that has created the problem in the first place.

The source of the CO2 does not matter. The fact that we are spewing it into the atmosphere in HUGE quantities does matter.

We started the process about 10,000 years ago with the Agricultural Revolution. The CO2 level was around 240 ppm then. Between the start of the Agricultural Revolution and the start of the Industrial Revolution (with, by the way, a much smaller population for this time period) the CO2 level went from 240ppm to 280ppm, solely due to the agriculture we were doing. This increase of 40ppm over the 10,000 year period produced a warming of between 1.0 and 1.6 degrees C.

Now then, what about the next 10,000 years? Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, we have pumped the CO2 level in the atmosphere up to 400ish. That is about another 120 ppm, or 3x the increase of the 40 ppm increase due to the Agricultural Revolution, for a total increase of 160ppm.

Assuming the most favorable relationship between CO2 and warming, (and it is almost certainly not this 'nice' to us), a linear relationship, that would be a warming of between 4.0 and 6.4 degrees C. That is, of course, assuming not only the linear relation between CO2 and Warming, but also totally stopping all further anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

If the relationship between CO2 levels and warming is not linear (as it almost certainly is not), this could quite easily get much worse.

Let us examine the 'benchmark' warming amount. 2.0 degrees C from 1800 to 2100 (you know, what all the treaties are trying to limit it to). 2 degrees C in 300 years. What would that look like over 10,000 years? If we just stabilize the CO2 level to their desired targets, and using their projected climate sensitivity, that would be a warming of 66 degrees C.... OUCH.

Yes, I am guilty of going with a gut feeling here... My prediction here was 10C to 16C over the next 10,000 years. More than the NICE minimum, but way less than the IPCC (and others') prediction.

Ok, let us look at things a slightly different way, using the treaty target of 2.0 degrees C over a 300 year time span.

You have paid attention, haven't you, to the links to research I have posted about the lifetime of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere? (Dr. Archer). Yes, Dr. Archer has had... issues... with the IPCC. But, he is not a denier. He says the IPCC and treaty organizations do not take a high enough value in the lifetime of emitted CO2.

Dr. Archer gives a mean lifetime of emitted CO2 before it is semi-permenantly removed from the Carbon cycle (CaO + CO2 -> CaCO3 --- chemical combination of the CO2 with Calcium Oxide in the rocks at the bottom of the oceans to form Calcium Carbonate) of about 35,000 years. At 100,000 years, one would still have 7% of the emitted CO2 left running around. Yes, it is an exponential decay, but it has a VERY long tail.

Only half the CO2 gone in 35,000 years... That would give about 100C warming, now we know that isn't right because CO2 has been a LOT higher in the past (6000 ppm or so) for much longer.

So, over the next 100,000 years, absolute worst case (highly unlikely, though) is boiling oceans (100C or more of warming), and absolute best case is about 16C to 20C of warming (again, assuming immediate cessation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions as well as the nicest possible sensitivity (linear) of the climate to CO2).

ANY continuing anthropogenic CO2 emissions is going to raise the eventual amount of the warming.

Now then, my position is NOT 'eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we fry'. But, I am a realist. Given the politics of the situtation (most everyone is not going to agree to their own death warrants), that position IS the almost certain one to be followed.

We have three possible choices in how to proceed.

We can either:

1. Pursue the current program of 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we fry'.

2. Do what we KNOW will work (cease ALL anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leave behind technology more advanced than stone knives and bearskins, and permanently adopt a hunter-gatherer way of life for the pitifully small remnants of humanity scattered across the globe).

Or...

3. Hope for some technological deus ex machina to save us...

#2 is not bloody likely at all. #3 would be Extremely expensive, and is not likely due to people not wanting to spend all the wealth on the planet on what is essentially a crap-shoot... This leaves #1.

Glenn, please, educate yourself on the math and science necessary to understand what I am telling you, that is to read and understand the peer-reviewed papers I have been linking here, and the implications of the data that the IPCC (and organizations like it) have published, and the actual processes involved with GhG -> climate change. Don't take MY or ANYONE ELSE's word on it. Reason it out for yourself.

In the meantime, don't call me or others 'simpletons' for not agreeing with what you are parroting back.

I implore you to become 'not simple' yourself.

I USED to be a hard-core denier. Then I went skeptic on what was happening. Then I reasoned some things out (my background in math and the sciences really helped in this). I am now no longer even a skeptic on greenhouse gas induced anthropogenic climate change. What I am still a skeptic on is the real motivations of some of the people that are pushing what is only a partial solution to the problem. They are misleading a great many people and making things just that much harder to finally fix the problem. People like Al Gore and others. People are being told that it will be enough to just stop using fossil fuel. It won't be. But if they swallow that much, it will make it just that much harder to convince them of the rest of the steps they need to take... Yes, stopping the use of fossil fuels is PART of the solution, but nowhere near Enough. Focusing on only stopping fossil fuel use is just kicking the can down the road for a few years.

Only one motivation for Al Gore and others to continue this disservice to humanity... You can probably guess it, but I will go ahead and tell you... Profit and the Power it brings.

You reduce the amount of CO2 buy using other forms of heating . As for the Co2 release from Calcium I ask you this if they can Carbon capture and store the Co2 from a coal fired plant as what is being said why can't the same capture and storage be used for concrete ?

LOL...

The process of making the cement/concrete includes the inverse of the process the planet uses to deal with excess CO2.

CaO + CO2 <--> CaCO3.

The Earth uses the reaction going from left to right to deal with excess CO2.
Making cement/concrete uses the reaction going from right to left, releasing the CO2.

Doing this reaction to make cement/concrete is just as bad as, if not worse than, burning all the fossil fuels.

If there was a way to cost effectively scrub the CO2 released in the production of cement, it would work on combustion of fossil fuels as well.

Also you don't need to stop all the CO2

Yes, you DO need to stop ALL the anthropogenic CO2 release. Even the amount released by agriculture per year swamps the amount per year the planet can deal with (from ALL sources -- both 'natural' (volcanos, etc) and anthropogenic).

If you can drop it back to 0.25ppm per year there will be time for engineering to catch up with the processes we can't yet fix ergo: aircraft have no choice but to use oil as there base for fuel

horsefeathers. We are already WAY too high due to the sum total of ALL sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If we shut them ALL down TODAY, we are still going to have extreme warming issues. And you want to keep on emitting CO2, just at 1/12th the rate (0.25 ppm * 12 = 3 ppm)????? Dayuum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ANY process of CO2 scrubbing is going to take a LOT of power... There won't be much left for all the rest of our uses if we implement a scrubbing system that will do enough good to be worthwhile.

It's the speed at witch we are now pumping the stuff out that is the main problem and most of the extra CO2 can be reduced to get the levels down enough to allow engineering to catch up.

Man, you can't change the laws of physics. Where are you going to get enough power to run your scrubbers? Sorry, technology/science/engineering are the problem. They can NOT be the answer.

There is a large % of land unusable at the moment from salt or lack of water witch if repaired or dams built we could grow stuff on and that will absorb even more CO2

1: no it won't. vegetation rots. That will NOT permanently remove CO2.
2: where are you going to get the water?

No... there is ONE solution we KNOW will work... Near total extinction of humanity, with the survivors permanently living inside the balance of nature.

Humanity boned itself when we figured out agriculture, NOT when we started fossil-fueled industry.

Everything contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. We destroyed ourselves when we started planting seeds and growing food, thereby removing ourselves from the balance of nature.

Don't call me a simpleton. You, yourself, are hiding from the truth.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

MK I got about 20 lines into what you where saying and then I relised that the CO2 record goes back 800,000 years and during that time there has benn many ice ages and the CO2 has gone from aprox 180ppm to 300ppm so when did agriculture start again ???? 800,000 years ago ???

As for your choices we can stop most of the CO2 already and it's not that hard to see that in 50 years Fusion power should be ready for mains stream , and then there is the option to build a Moon base and mine Helium 3 witch we can use for Fusion already it's just not in plenty full amounts on Earth so not a option at the moment .

I also think your selling Human's short as to not be able to solve what we can't fix yet . "man will never fly let alone landing on the moon" umm who ever said that did not have a open mind and sold us all short .

And you still haven't answered why if they can capture and store COO2 from a coal powered electric power plant why can't they use the same teck to remove CO2 from Concrete . That's what the coal industry is saying that they can remove the Co2 so if that is true ( by the way we are spending big mola on this and apperntly they can do it ) I'm sceptical thou.

And you did forget the other 790,000 years of the Co2 record and other Co2 records going back millions of years . It is not mans use of agriculture that sent Co2 up it's part of the natural cycle of approx. 15-20,000 years
here is the link that shows the whole record and notice the ICE ages and Co2 levels before and after

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ click on FULL record

Now what is the orbitals for planet earth ?. How long is it's precession cycle ? does that effect the Co2 ?? Blaming mans agriculture is bulldust mate

---

Also MK the First Australian arrived in Australia up to 40,000 years ago and had no agriculture up to present day .

They started buring the Bush here at least 30,000 years ago and there where no fire fighters to put the fires out

The native plants here today are not the same plants that where here 40,000 years ago and why ?? Burning off the Bushlands

So how would that fit in your thoughts as they would have released massive amounts of Co2 in very short time frames , remember we have

eucalyptus trees and gum trees and they burn very hot and even explode .so they would not have been able to put them out

---

I have to ask you MK who are the ones that will have to die to do what you and other propose .?

How are you going to control birth's . Trump is trying to stop abortions so that option of birth control is out , the catholics don't use the pill so that one is out so I guess a 1 or 2 child policy will be the norm?

Umm some how even if you did what you say reduce the population it's still not going to work as it won't be to long till there are to many people so I guess you may be saying once we get above a certain limit you line people up and kill them . So what will be the criteria to choose who dies and who lives .?

What you and others propose is the worst possible way to go and I don't think like minded people like you understand what you are saying and just how evil it would be .

You will not have the freedoms you currently have with that solution and it's why I say it's a simpleton's view proposed buy very evil people to take control and bring back slavery and other draconian views . Be very careful of what you wish for matey and understand what you are saying is not a good option when you really look at where it will lead

---

And you still haven't answered why if they can capture and store COO2 from a coal powered electric power plant

And just where do they store it? Aliso Canyon? Calcium Carbonate "CO2 from Concrete" wait, that what you started with to make the concrete! Talk about circular logic!

---

MK I got about 20 lines into what you where saying and then I relised that the CO2 record goes back 800,000 years and during that time there has benn many ice ages and the CO2 has gone from aprox 180ppm to 300ppm so when did agriculture start again ???? 800,000 years ago ???

As for your choices we can stop most of the CO2 already and it's not that hard to see that in 50 years Fusion power should be ready for mains stream , and then there is the option to build a Moon base and mine Helium 3 witch we can use for Fusion already it's just not in plenty full amounts on Earth so not a option at the moment .

I also think your selling Human's short as to not be able to solve what we can't fix yet . "man will never fly let alone landing on the moon" umm who ever said that did not have a open mind and sold us all short .

And you still haven't answered why if they can capture and store COO2 from a coal powered electric power plant why can't they use the same teck to remove CO2 from Concrete . That's what the coal industry is saying that they can remove the Co2 so if that is true ( by the way we are spending big mola on this and apperntly they can do it ) I'm sceptical thou.

And you did forget the other 790,000 years of the Co2 record and other Co2 records going back millions of years . It is not mans use of agriculture that sent Co2 up it's part of the natural cycle of approx. 15-20,000 years
here is the link that shows the whole record and notice the ICE ages and Co2 levels before and after

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ click on FULL record

Now what is the orbitals for planet earth ?. How long is it's precession cycle ? does that effect the Co2 ?? Blaming mans agriculture is bulldust mate

Glenn,

You are really going full 'denial' here. Saying that CO2 has *natural* variability here. <grin>

Blaming mans agriculture is bulldust mate

You saying this does not make sense.

1. Does CO2 in the air contribute to a greenhouse effect, thereby 'warming' the planet? Yes or no? You must pick ONE answer. Either it DOES or it DOES NOT.

2. Does humanity, by causing emission of CO2 on a large scale, cause the concentration of CO2 in the air to increase? Again, yes or no. Pick one.

3. Does agriculture cause the emission of a LOT of CO2 into the air? Once again, YES or NO. Pick one.

Now then...

If you answer 'no' to #1, you would be a full denier similar to the oil-company owners/executives. So I am going to assume you will answer 'yes' to # 1.

If you answer 'no' to #2, you would be a full denier similar to the oil-company owners/executives. So I am going to assume you will answer 'yes' to #2.

So, that leaves #3...

If you answer 'no' to #3, you are calling a LOT of climate scientists (AND the IPCC) a liar.

Remember that graph from the IPCC AR5/WG3 report I have linked multiple times?

Let me link it again...

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG3/SPM/02_figure_SPM_2.png


Ok, let me list the big 4 economic sectors by Direct Greenhouse Gas emissions...

1. Electricity and Heat Production --- 25%
2. AFOLU --- 24%
3. Industry --- 21%
4. Transport -- 14%

There...

Oh, by the way, AFOLU is an acronym for 'Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use'. A bit further on that...

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG3/Chapter%2011/02a_figure_11.2a.png


2000 to 2009, discounting the bottom 2 (dark orange and dark red) blocks, since they are not strictly 'agriculture' (but are Forestry and Other Land Use changes related) that leaves about 5 Gigatons of CO2 equivalent GhG emissions, PER YEAR.

You calling the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a liar?

Ok, let me put it another way...

Humanity is riding a bus, speeding at 100 miles per hour towards the edge of a very high cliff due to our GhG emissions.

You are saying, lets slow the bus down to 50 miles per hour, and hopefully that will give the people on the bus time to invent, design, construct, and deploy a parachute so that when the bus goes over the cliff we won't hit the ground (several thousand feet below the edge of the cliff) so hard we ALL die.

I am saying lets stop the bus, instead of just slowing down, so that we DON'T go over the edge of the cliff.

Understand, Glenn?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Sub-Arctic wastelands is more vulnerable than thought, scientists say.

FROZEN, sub-Arctic wastelands loaded with planet-heating greenhouse gases are more susceptible to global warming than previously understood, scientists warned on Monday.

Even stabilising the world’s climate at 2C above pre-industrial levels — the daunting goal laid down in the 196-nation Paris Agreement — would melt more than 40 per cent of permafrost, or an area nearly twice the size of India, they reported in the journal Nature Climate Change.

That could take centuries or longer, but would eventually drive up global temperatures even further as more gases escaped into the air.

Sometimes called a climate change time bomb, the northern hemisphere’s 15 million square kilometres of increasingly misnamed permafrost contains roughly twice as much carbon — mainly in the form of methane and carbon dioxide (CO2) — as Earth’s atmosphere.

Currently, the atmosphere holds about 400 parts per million of CO2, 30 per cent more than when warming caused by human activity started in the mid-19th century.

“We estimate that four million square kilometres — give or take a million — will disappear for every additional degree of warming,” said co-author Sebastian Westermann, a senior lecturer at the University of Oslo.

“That’s about 20 per cent higher than previous estimates,” he said.

Cheers.

1. Does CO2 in the air contribute to a greenhouse effect, thereby 'warming' the planet

yes it does

Does humanity, by causing emission of CO2 on a large scale, cause the concentration of CO2 in the air to increase

yes it does

Does agriculture cause the emission of a LOT of CO2 into the air

yes and no as a lot of it is actually Methane witch turns into Co2 after about 10 yrs

now using your figures

60% of co2 is not from Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Us
and 14% in your figures is not even there

I have a question for you

How much Co2 needs to be produced by nature to keep our planet warm and not go into another snow ball period ?

How many times has Earth turned into a snowball and why did it happen ?

To stop all Co2 is bad .

However sending the Co2 up as fast as we have is the problem so to stop all Co2 is the simpleton's answer again and shows how some are not thinking clearly but then the Co2 down under is lower than what you lot have to breath so I'm not surprised you are not understanding it .

One of the effects of a higher Co2 is stupidity :)

---

I shall once again repeat my stance that..............
There is absolutely NOTHING that mankind can do to reverse, change, or alter the current cyclic climatic conditions on this earth. At least not within the limited time that mankind has left to exist.
These cycles are so immense and long that for us to think that in a number of years we can stop them in their tracks?
Bullroar.
This planet has gone through cycles like this before mankind was ever involved and shall continue to do so once we are extinct. We could have a fraction of a bit of impact on a climatic cycle that will occur years after we perish, perhaps.
But, in humanity's lifetime? Not a chance. The planet's life cycle is simply too long and slow and determined for us to alter it.

George Carlin said these things many years ago.
And he was correct.
And if you are one of 'those' who cannot handle a few expletives, just bugger off and don't watch the clip. Thank you.

Meow.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

There is only 1 reason we can't stop the Co2 cycles ...........MONEY , Greed

We are the only ones that can split the planet literally in 2
We are the only ones that can literally leave the planet
we are the only ones that are currently terraforming the Atmosphere

So that means we can also stop or reverse the current situation if the will is there to do so

If you think different then your selling Humans short so do your self in and leave those that are not selling us out to fix the problem
as your probably the one who has contributed to the mess the most as you would not be trying to do your bit to save us and reduce
you Co2 footprint

---

There is only 1 reason we can't stop the Co2 cycles ...........MONEY , Greed

Oh so close to the root cause, but you missed again.

Deficit spending. Yes, deficit spending.

It is really simple. To convince the people you can deficit spend you have to get them to assume the population is ever expanding and ever increasing in industrialization and consumption so there is an unending supply of more tax dollars. Those are the exact opposite the the requirements to contain AGW. Human population must shrink and industrialization and consumption per human must decline. If they do however the deficit burden on each that follows grows and it becomes obvious that it is not sustainable.

This is the exact same issue with the Wall Street rule that a company must show 10% quarter over quarter growth to keep its market price growing. If a company doesn't do this, capital will flow to another company that does.

Until governments can find a way to get more taxes and markets can find a way to make more money with less customers who are spending less, AGW will continue.

Perhaps nature will find its balance by forcing a nuke exchange with DPRK? Darwin's law works in strange ways.

So if you are opposed to AGW, pray that Kim and tRump do something stupid.

---

There is only 1 reason we can't stop the Co2 cycles ...........MONEY , Greed

That's very true.
But who want's to live in a dying world?

The BIG problem is that we humans are so many.
However the growth in population has already stopped in Europe, North and South America, and Australia.
By 2100 the growth in population has stopped even in Asia and Africa.
Predicted growth is about 1 billion in Asia and 4 billion in Africa until then.
These figures can of course be changed if you put some effort in it.
Like eduction and a bit more wealth distribution for instance.

My bottom line.
The theory of natural global warming doesn't hold up.
The theory that global warming is man made given the short timeline does.