Current Affairs Environmental Stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.
and the other toxic gasses like black carbon also contribute to climate change.

I'm still trying to figure out how you could doubt the human impact on climate change and call for clean infrastructure.
Co2 is .04% of the entire atmosphere and of that humans are responsible for about 33%.. current Co2 levels are at extreamly low levels and have been multiples of current levels in the past.. the biggest explosions of plant life on this planet have been during times of high carbon dioxide, but for some reason the opposite is true these days.. who's up for another tax?.. and I've already said clean infrastructure is a good thing.
Really what we are debating is that you believe that the 0.015% of atmospheric co2 that humans are responsible for is somehow causing mad run away climate disasters that's going to kill everyone on the planet and I don't believe that it's humans that are causing the extream weather that is being witnessed. I believe it's the water vapour that is the main cause of climate change which is around 60% of all atmospheric greenhouse gasses and is 100% natural.
 
Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant.. but the others are more of a health risk to humans. Carbon monoxide and formaldehyde .
on the face of it, it's not a pollutant but, like anything, too much of it and theres a problem.
CO2 allows our planet to trap heat. Without it the planet would freeze. Like nitrous oxide and methane, it's a greenhouse gas.
Too much of it and the planet warms at a faster rate. By burning fossil fuels, we are releasing too much of it in to the atmosphere, adding hugely to what occurs naturally.

I mean, I cant get my head around someone thinking that fossil fuels are bad because they create pollution but cant see that burning fossil fuels is heating our atmosphere...
 
Co2 is .04% of the entire atmosphere and of that humans are responsible for about 33%.. current Co2 levels are at extreamly low levels and have been multiples of current levels in the past.. the biggest explosions of plant life on this planet have been during times of high carbon dioxide, but for some reason the opposite is true these days.. who's up for another tax?.. and I've already said clean infrastructure is a good thing.
Really what we are debating is that you believe that the 0.015% of atmospheric co2 that humans are responsible for is somehow causing mad run away climate disasters that's going to kill everyone on the planet and I don't believe that it's humans that are causing the extream weather that is being witnessed. I believe it's the water vapour that is the main cause of climate change which is around 60% of all atmospheric greenhouse gasses and is 100% natural.
I also dont get the 'who's up for another tax' thing.
No one...
Just stop subsidizing the fossil fuel behemoths.
Level the playing field.

As for your un cited numbers, I'm not sure but everything I've seen says that co2 levels have increased at a crazy level since the industrial revolution and are at runaway levels now.
Here's what NOAA have to say on it.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=Without%20carbon%20dioxide%2C%20Earth's%20natural,causing%20global%20temperature%20to%20rise.

look at the CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years chart.
 
Last edited:
Looks like our friend Tipp has bought into the work of Dr. William Happer, who was part of the "CO2 Commission" and who wrote a document called "Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World." Unsurprisingly, this organization receives funding from major right-wing organizations.

Their arguments are specious.

--CO2 is good for plants, blah blah blah

Plants depend on many things, such as water and nutrients; increases in CO2 have not been "better" for crops/plants (that's due to agricultural engineering), and plants will suffer due to heat stress. Who cares.

--CO2 goes through cycles of increase/decrease.

Yes, but those cycles happened well before humans occurred. What we are seeing now is unprecedented levels of CO2:
1704838373465.png


--Humans only produce a tiny bit of CO2 relative to nature blah blah blah.

This tiny bit influences the carbon cycle, as evidenced even in the simplest of cartoons:

1704838388782.png


--Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas and the cause of global warming, not CO2.

Water is a shape-shifter and can go from a liquid to gas to solid; yes, water vapor is the most predominant greenhouse gas, but its presence varies across time and space and with temperatures. CO2 doesn't do this, it is a gas no matter the temperature; it remains constant whether its a hot day at sea level or a cold spike at the top of a mountain. And just because water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas it doesn't mean it is the common cause of global warming--it amplifies warming but didn't cause the warming trend, CO2 is the actual culprit. Even though water vapor generates "more heat" (has more radiative forcing) than CO2, water vapor affects temperatures locally, not globally, and when temperatures change it often falls to the earth as rain or freezes into snow, no longer becoming water vapor. There is a time-scale affect going on as well: water vapor can influences temperatures over a short period of time (as in diurnal or seasonal cycles) but CO2 has been steadily accumulating over the long term and is exacerbated by the last 200 years of human activities. I conclude this water vapor argument is stupid (gee look, my joints hurt, I'm infertile, and I'm going blind...as blood is the most common liquid in my body it must be the blood causing this, not the trace amounts of lead that have built up since childhood...I mean how much damage could a small amount of lead do to me relative to my 7 liters of blood...lead is 100% natural).

For a better explanation see here: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
 
Last edited:
Hydrogen feul is the feul of the future electric literally went down the wrong road.
Hydrogen is a highly inflammable substance and explosive in nature; it cannot be easily transported from one place to another and it can be generated by the hydrolysis of water but it is a very expensive process.

1280px-Hindenburg_disaster.jpg
 
Hydrogen is a highly inflammable substance and explosive in nature; it cannot be easily transported from one place to another and it can be generated by the hydrolysis of water but it is a very expensive process.

1280px-Hindenburg_disaster.jpg

The process will become cheaper eventually and once we have more renewable power sources we can really take off with Green Hydrogen production in the UK.

Transportation can be solved, converting it to Ammonia to transport is one solution. Pipe network would have to be updated to transport Hydrogen.
 
The process will become cheaper eventually and once we have more renewable power sources we can really take off with Green Hydrogen production in the UK.

Transportation can be solved, converting it to Ammonia to transport is one solution. Pipe network would have to be updated to transport Hydrogen.
I'm ill educated on this so forgive if this is a dumb question, but if a car with a tank full of hydrogen crashes is it more likely to burst into flames as opposed to a petrol car?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top