Jump to content



Photo

"California Dreaming" or NIGHTMARE?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#11 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,132 posts

Posted 14 September 2022 - 05:17 PM

you are obviously dodging...

...the FACT that climate always changes.

Known history proves it.

 

This will really confuse your dogma:

The Norse settled Greenland from Iceland during a warm period around 1000 C.E.

A warm period without gasoline or CO2 at 4 parts per 10,000?


Edited by Rogerdodger, 14 September 2022 - 05:29 PM.


#12 Rich C

Rich C

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 316 posts

Posted 14 September 2022 - 05:31 PM

 

you are obviously dodging...

...the FACT that climate always changes.

Known history proves it.

 

That is not the problem.  That is an inadequate statement.  The problem is that climate change we are experiencing, due to the change in concentration level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, is sufficient enough to alter our experience of the planet dramatically for the worse.  Your description is inadequate.


Blogging at http://RichInvesting.wordpress.com

 

My swing trades typically last a couple of weeks to a couple of months. 


#13 Rich C

Rich C

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 316 posts

Posted 14 September 2022 - 06:08 PM

 

Let's take these issue one at a time, let's start with the beads.  You show a picture.  What do you think is proven by the picture?  What are the physical properties of nitrogen and oxygen that make them either greenhouse gases or not greenhouse gases?  What is the physical property of CO2 that makes is a greenhouse gas or not?

 

My question, which you have avoided answering, it "what is the significance of the picture you posted of the percentage composition of our air, to climate change"?

 

I will answer it for you, it has no significance to the problem of climate change in my opinion.  It is a fact, but one that is irrelevant to climate change, unless you include information on the physical properties of the gases relative to climate change, and more specifically to heat retention, which you failed to do.

 

So why are you posting information about climate change, like the relative composition of air, without any information on the physical properties on the gases themselves, which is the important relevance to heat retention and climate change

 

Let me give you some help.  The first thing we should do is establish that CO2 as a gas is different in terms of heat dispersion than oxygen or nitrogen.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas where oxygen and nitrogen are not.

 

Carbon dioxide is Earth’s most important greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb heat radiating from the Earth’s surface and re-release it in all directions—including back toward Earth’s surface. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect would be too weak to keep the average global surface temperature above freezing. By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, people are supercharging the natural greenhouse effect, causing global temperature to rise. According to observations by the NOAA Global Monitoring Lab, in 2021 carbon dioxide alone was responsible for about two-thirds of the total heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases.

 

Another reason carbon dioxide is important in the Earth system is that it dissolves into the ocean like the fizz in a can of soda. It reacts with water molecules, producing carbonic acid and lowering the ocean's pH (raising its acidity). Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of the ocean's surface waters has dropped from 8.21 to 8.10. This drop in pH is called ocean acidification.

 

https://www.climate....-carbon-dioxide

 

 

So the first thing we must agree or disagree on is that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, and the US GOVT. scientists say that it is.  I can post a rather complex physics description of the difference between the molecules of non-greenhouse gases vs. greenhouse gases if you would like (since I already have it queued up), or you can post a convincing article (to you) that CO2 is not even a greenhouse gas, or you can agree that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas.

 

I say CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, and it reacts very differently in the atmosphere from non-greenhouse gases like oxygen and nitrogen.  What say you?


Blogging at http://RichInvesting.wordpress.com

 

My swing trades typically last a couple of weeks to a couple of months. 


#14 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,132 posts

Posted 14 September 2022 - 07:00 PM

CO2 is a greenhouse gas

And is NOTHING compared to water vapor.

 

But how can you destroy or tax the USA with Water Vapor?

 

Plants THRIVE on CO2 and produce O2.

 

I like O2 really well.

 

I thought that O2 was a good thing for all of us.

 

And.. it's been much hotter in the past...before gasoline and the environMENTAL damage from electric batteries charged by...

COAL!


Edited by Rogerdodger, 14 September 2022 - 07:07 PM.


#15 Rich C

Rich C

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 316 posts

Posted 14 September 2022 - 08:30 PM

 

the underlying problem, which is the greenhouse gases that are causing climate change

 


Paleoclimatologists have learned California suffered a long dry spell from 1,800 to 600 years ago.

Malevich, Woodhouse & Meko 2013 in Journal of Hydrology, showed that by using climate reconstructed from tree rings, the authors indicate severe 60 year droughts are possible in northern California and southern Oregon, which puts our current "worst in recorded history" droughts into context when considering the past 10,000 years of proxy records.

 

So, here's the question.  Yes, there have been periods in the earth's history that have been warmer, and some that  have been colder.  That is a fact, but it is a very simple statement that ignores a lot of other facts. 

 

It looks from this very limited and incomplete statement of yours, that you would like people to believe that there is one and only one cause of temperature variation for our earth, i.e. only natural cause, and that nothing else can possibly be a factor in the change of the climate of the earth, such as man made cause.

 

Do you believe that there:

A- is one and only one cause of temperature variation for planet earth, and whenever the climate changes significantly it must be due to that one cause, or

B- do you believe it is possible that across the millennia there has been more than one cause of temperature variation,

 

by the way folks, this topic is open to all.


Edited by Rich C, 14 September 2022 - 08:32 PM.

Blogging at http://RichInvesting.wordpress.com

 

My swing trades typically last a couple of weeks to a couple of months. 


#16 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,132 posts

Posted 15 September 2022 - 12:35 AM

If you GW believers are correct, why is China, the worlds number one polluter,  exempt from saving the planet regulations?

 

You bail water from the tiny holes and ignore the huge one? Really? Does that make sense?

It only does if the destruction of America is your goal.

 

Meanwhile your "electric" cars will be powered by COAL! LOL!


Edited by Rogerdodger, 15 September 2022 - 12:49 AM.


#17 Rich C

Rich C

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 316 posts

Posted 15 September 2022 - 01:26 PM

If you GW believers are correct, why is China, the worlds number one polluter,  exempt from saving the planet regulations?

 

You bail water from the tiny holes and ignore the huge one? Really? Does that make sense?

It only does if the destruction of America is your goal.

 

Meanwhile your "electric" cars will be powered by COAL! LOL!

We are not yet to the point of discussing WHAT TO DO about GW, we are in the discussion of whether the current warming period is dangerous to humans (because if it not, then there is no crisis), and if the current warming period is dangerous to humans, then

 

A- What are the causes of GW

C- How bad will it get

C- What can we do about it.

 

By jumping over all these topics, are you admitting that GW is a significant problem, that man's burning fossil fuels is a major cause, and that we in fact need to do something about it (including China)?

 

So far, all we have asserted is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (while oxygen and nitrogen are not).

 

You asserted that the earth has cooled and warmed over time, and I asked if you think there is and can be only one cause (nature), or if it is possible that there are more than one cause.

 

Please answer the question instead of avoiding the answer and jumping to a condemnation of China, unless you concede that GW is largely man caused and therefore man must do something about it.


Blogging at http://RichInvesting.wordpress.com

 

My swing trades typically last a couple of weeks to a couple of months. 


#18 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,132 posts

Posted 15 September 2022 - 06:35 PM

It been both warmer and cooler long before China or gasoline.

 

Don't ignore the long gone Vikings and Aztecs, who did not have any gas powered cars.

 

Climate myopia is only cured by knowing far-sighted  history.



#19 Rich C

Rich C

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 316 posts

Posted 15 September 2022 - 06:44 PM

It been both warmer and cooler long before China or gasoline.

 

 

We know that, but the statement is so broad and devoid of data that for an honest discussion of climate change and it causes, it is meaningless.

 

The only thing we have agreed on is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

So, let me make an assertion, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then it stands to reason if the atmosphere experiences a rise in the amount of CO2, then the earth would warm.  Agreed?
 


Blogging at http://RichInvesting.wordpress.com

 

My swing trades typically last a couple of weeks to a couple of months. 


#20 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,132 posts

Posted 15 September 2022 - 08:55 PM

The only thing we have agreed on is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

 

I have not agreed to that at all, except in the context that many greenhouses actually include CO2 generators.

Plants love CO2 and humans need plants and CO2 for food.

 

 

No one has answered the original issue in this post:

Where is the dependable electricity to charge EVs going to come from if not from coal and oil?

Chernobyl? Fukushima? Three Mile Island? Ukraine?

 

Waiting for the answer...


Edited by Rogerdodger, 15 September 2022 - 09:01 PM.