Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

[taxme]

21 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Really? Try not watering your carrots and see what happens. 

There will always be enough water around to water the carrots and the potatoes too. 😀

[taxme]

23 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Really? Try not watering your carrots and see what happens. 

I hope that you do not believe that all those chem trails that are being sprayed around in the sky are good for you? After being sprayed, they sit in the sky for quite a long while and then start to fall down to earth. And i am not talking about the trails that the ordinary passenger plane leaves behind them and then disappears shortly there after. Unlike those chem trails that sit around in the sky for quite a long time before falling to earth. Look up in the sky once in awhile, and you will see those chem trails up there. ✈️

[Aristides]

55 minutes ago, taxme said:

I hope that you do not believe that all those chem trails that are being sprayed around in the sky are good for you? After being sprayed, they sit in the sky for quite a long while and then start to fall down to earth. And i am not talking about the trails that the ordinary passenger plane leaves behind them and then disappears shortly there after. Unlike those chem trails that sit around in the sky for quite a long time before falling to earth. Look up in the sky once in awhile, and you will see those chem trails up there. ✈️

You really are an id-ot. I worked on and flew those aircraft for over 30 years. Vapour trails are caused by moisture condensing as moist warm air leaves the engines and hits the -55 degree outside temperature. They will last as long as it takes for the upper level winds to disperse them. The same would apply to your mythical chem trails.

Edited March 24 by Aristides

[taxme]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You really are an id-ot. I worked on and flew those aircraft for over 30 years. Vapour trails are caused by moisture condensing as moist warm air leaves the engines and hits the -55 degree outside temperature. They will last as long as it takes for the upper level winds to disperse them. The same would apply to your mythical chem trails.

So, why do ordinary passenger planes leave a moisture trail behind that disappears very quickly soon after the passenger plane emits their vapor trail? Compare that to the chemtrails that are sprayed and left behind for hours after they have sprayed their chemicals into the atmosphere? Why is that? 

Either you know what those chem trails are all about, when you have said that you have flown one of those chemtrail planes or you are just plain stoopid, and will believe that it was all just normal and not harmful to the environment or people? Come on, which is it? 😇

[Aristides]

25 minutes ago, taxme said:

So, why do ordinary passenger planes leave a moisture trail behind that disappears very quickly soon after the passenger plane emits their vapor trail? Compare that to the chemtrails that are sprayed and left behind for hours after they have sprayed their chemicals into the atmosphere? Why is that? 

Either you know what those chem trails are all about, when you have said that you have flown one of those chemtrail planes or you are just plain stoopid, and will believe that it was all just normal and not harmful to the environment or people? Come on, which is it? 😇

I told you, they will last as long as it takes for upper level winds to disperse them, the less wind, the longer it takes. What is it about your mythical trails that would prevent them from being dispersed in the same way, are they solid? Are they reeled out of the aircraft like a coil of rope?
 

You are a living example of the term, garbage in, garbage out.

Edited March 24 by Aristides

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

https://apnews.com/article/business-science-environment-and-nature-arizona-climate-change-7cf4c472fa64fe57be4b8823c5423fc0

https://www.farmwater.org/farm-water-news/map-2021-farm-water-supply-cuts/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.909415/full

 

Canada had its worst wild fire season in history because of drought and high temperatures. This year looks to be even worse, the Rocky Mountain snow pack is only 66% of normal.

Much of the the refugee problem in Europe is due to drought in North Africa and failing crops.

Better not take your head out of that hole, you might have to deal with reality.

Climate always changes and always has.  Nothing to do with man.   Better for man to adapt and prepare for more forest fires, floods, and storms, and forget thinking he can control the climate.  Those things are going to happen anyway.

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Climate always changes and always has.  Nothing to do with man.   

No, it's caused by man.  Don't post things until you learn how to learn things.

Bibles and anonymous Facebook posts and videos aren't sources for thinking people, they are sources for people who want to double down on their ignorance.

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Climate always changes and always has.  Nothing to do with man.   Better for man to adapt and prepare for more forest fires, floods, and storms, and forget thinking he can control the climate.  Those things are going to happen anyway.

Adapt how and to what? You don't even know what that would take. Are you going to build 20 ft high sea walls around every coast in the world? How will you provide your food? If you do think it will be possible to adapt, doesn't it make sense to you to try and slow the process down to give you more time? Are you sure you aren't a muslim. Inshallah.

[blackbird]

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, it's caused by man.  Don't post things until you learn how to learn things.

Bibles and anonymous Facebook posts and videos aren't sources for thinking people, they are sources for people who want to double down on their ignorance.

I clicked on your link but it does not prove climate change is caused by man.  It is your own bloq with a few points you claim.  Funny the 3 comments on the bottom all disagree with you too.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I clicked on your link but it does not prove climate change is caused by man.  It is your own bloq with a few points you claim.  Funny the 3 comments on the bottom all disagree with you too.

Yes, and I responded to them.

I'm not going to prove it, but my thoughts should eliminate most doubt on how to respond to this challenge.

See if you can come up with a specific criticism, just as an exercise.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Adapt how and to what? You don't even know what that would take. Are you going to build 20 ft high sea walls around every coast in the world? How will you provide your food? If you do think it will be possible to adapt, doesn't it make sense to you to try and slow the process down to give you more time? Are you sure you aren't a muslim. Inshallah.

1.  You know what it means to adapt.  That is what authorities are advising people in B.C. where some might be affected by forest fires.  Do what you need to do to protect your home and property.  Have a proper escape plan and be prepared.

2. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent forest fires altogether.  Forestry is supposed to be reducing the threat by doing certain things where possible.  But really forestry can only do limited things in small areas.  They cannot prevent forest fires over thousands of square kilometers.

Same with flooding.  It costs billions of dollars to build high banks and reroute streams and only a small amount can be done because of the huge costs involved.  People need to stop building in hazardous flood areas.

3.  If you mean change the climate or slow climate change, nobody can do that.  It is childish to think anybody can.

Edited March 25 by blackbird

[Aristides]

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1.  You know what it means to adapt.  That is what authorities are advising people in B.C. where some might be affected by forest fires.  Do what you need to do to protect your home and property.  Have a proper escape plan and be prepared.

2. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent forest fires altogether.  Forestry is supposed to be reducing the threat by doing certain things where possible.  But really forestry can only do limited things in small areas.  They cannot prevent forest fires over thousands of square kilometers.

Same with flooding.  It costs billions of dollars to build high banks and reroute streams and only a small amount can be done because of the huge costs involved.  People need to stop building in hazardous flood areas.

3.  If you mean change the climate or slow climate change, nobody can do that.  It is childish to think anybody can.

 

No, they can't do much to prevent fires over thousands of square kilometres but that is exactly what happened last summer. Not only did we burn down much of our carbon sink, it put millions of more tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Much of the lower mainland is on flood plain. All of Richmond and much of Delta and the Fraser Valley. A couple of million people live there, what do you suggest? You can slow the change by contributing less to its causes. 

This will not go away just because you want it to.

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You can slow the change by contributing less to its causes. 

This will not go away just because you want it to.

1.  Good luck with that.  Nobody can affect climate change no matter what they do.  It is a waste of money to be trying.  Use the money to adapt and mitigate the effects.

2.  Climate change is natural.  Of course it will not go away because I want it to.  Learn to adapt to newer weather patterns.

[Aristides]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1.  Good luck with that.  Nobody can affect climate change no matter what they do.  It is a waste of money to be trying.  Use the money to adapt and mitigate the effects.

2.  Climate change is natural.  Of course it will not go away because I want it to.  Learn to adapt to newer weather patterns.

All the things we have done to destroy our environment but aren't capable of doing anything to save it. Inshallah, you must be a Muslim at heart at least.

 

Edited March 25 by Aristides

[Aristides]

[Moonlight Graham]

Blackbird you suck at science.

 

"Since 1750, humans have increased the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by nearly 50 percent."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-humans-causing-or-contributing-global-warming#:~:text=A net 5 billion metric,atmosphere by nearly 50 percent.

Edited March 25 by Moonlight Graham

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Blackbird you suck at science.

 

"Since 1750, humans have increased the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by nearly 50 percent."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-humans-causing-or-contributing-global-warming#:~:text=A net 5 billion metric,atmosphere by nearly 50 percent.

You have a problem with that claim.  One website reports the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is 720 billion tons or 720 GT.  Out of that man contributes  6 GT.  That means man's contribution is only about  0.8 % of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.  Yet you claimed humans increased the amount of CO2 by nearly 50%.   Something is wrong with your figures.  It is total BS.  You suck big time with your "facts".

But if you look at different websites you will sometimes find wildly different figures.

That is a problem because who do you believe?

One figure that seems fairly constant is 0.04%.  The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of all the gases.  That is a consistent figure.  But that is not the amount the man emits.  The figure I found for man's emission is about 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.  That means 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural.

So before you accuse me of sucking at science, you need to double check your own figures and facts.  

Edited March 25 by blackbird

[Venandi]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, it's caused by man.

That's bad news then, and the more you believe it the worse it actually is.

To me, it means there's no logical solution other than achieving  world wide consensus and a unified plan of attack (best of luck), adapting to the ill effects of a warming climate (sea level rise etc), or suffering the consequences of not being prepared.

Can I assume that true believers would be opposed to being unprepared for something they assert is going to happen?  

In addition, I'd suggest that as a nation, nothing we say or do is going to have the least bit of effect on the Chinas of the world prior to an irreversible tipping point being reached. And if you think I'm wrong about that I'd love to hear the plan.

As I see it, our paltry 1.8% of global emissions (subsequently gobbled up by our landmass) qualifies us as the very definition of inconsequential. In fact, if a unified global effort is required, I don't see how we could possibly make ourselves more irrelevant to the eventual outcome.

The crux of the matter is that in the absence of a global standard of living that rivals our own, people just don't care (and never will) about the environment because they can't afford to. Logically, that means their country doesn't care either and it will be reflected in their own efforts to exploit the environment to the benefit of their own people.

If you truly believe that this is a man made issue, the only logical solution (IMO) is to raise the standard of living of those less fortunate to a point where they can afford to share your opinion. It appears to me you're having a bit of bother convincing your own countrymen here but I'm rooting for you none the less.

Put another way, the act of lifting people in poor countries out of poverty would have a far greater effect than reducing Canada's footprint from 1.8% of global emissions to 1%.

And here's the logical absurdity of it, if we were to achieve that 1% as a nation, two things would immediately happen: the first would effectively be NOTHING in terms of the desired global outcome, and the second would be to reduce shivering Canadians to the same level of apathy as the the poverty stricken people I referred to above.

Some might argue that given the fundamental change in support for the carbon tax that we're already there. 

Edited March 25 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

1. To me, it means there's no logical solution other than achieving  world wide consensus and a unified plan of attack (best of luck), adapting to the ill effects of a warming climate (sea level rise etc), or suffering the consequences of not being prepared.

2. Can I assume that true believers would be opposed to being unprepared for something they assert is going to happen?  

3. In addition, I'd suggest that as a nation, nothing we say or do is going to have the least bit of effect on the Chinas of the world prior to an irreversible tipping point being reached. And if you think I'm wrong about that I'd love to hear the plan.

4. As I see it, our paltry 1.8% of global emissions (subsequently gobbled up by our landmass) qualifies us as the very definition of inconsequential. In fact, if a unified global effort is required, I don't see how we could possibly make ourselves more irrelevant to the eventual outcome.

5. The crux of the matter is that in the absence of a global standard of living that rivals our own, people just don't care (and never will) about the environment because they can't afford to.

6. Logically, that means their country doesn't care either and it will be reflected in their own efforts to exploit the environment to the benefit of their own people.

7. If you truly believe that this is a man made issue,

8. the only logical solution (IMO) is to raise the standard of living of those less fortunate to a point where they can afford to share your opinion.

9. It appears to me you're having a bit of bother convincing your own countrymen here but I'm rooting for you none the less.

10. Put another way, the act of lifting people in poor countries out of poverty would have a far greater effect than reducing Canada's footprint from 1.8% of global emissions to 1%.

11. And here's the logical absurdity of it, if we were to achieve that 1% as a nation, two things would immediately happen: the first would effectively be NOTHING in terms of the desired global outcome, and the second would be to reduce shivering Canadians to the same level of apathy as the the poverty stricken people I referred to above.

12. Some might argue that given the fundamental change in support for the carbon tax that we're already there. 

1. About 23 years from the first framework proposed by the UN until the Paris Accord ... international stuff takes decades, such as the time it took to get the League of Nations/UN going.
2. Yes, that is a good assumption.
3. Well, as a collective there must be some reason that people join an agreement.  Hard to believe they would join it only to ignore it.  But we'll see.
4. I think the fact that Canada's emissions have lower impact than many is irrelevant to the mechanics of global treaties.  Nobody is going to let us off the hook.
5. Paradoxically, if you can't afford to worry about pollution as an individual then you're probably not polluting much.
6. Which countries DO care ?  The richest countries and oil producers pollute most per capita, and we haven't got to the point where they're trying real solutions IMO.
7.  No significant doubt.
8. Poor countries don't pollute though.  Wealthy ones are the biggest problem. 
9. Countries are dragging their feet.  Democracy means we discuss things more and in a public sphere where people aren't held strongly to their statements, people accept a role of lying in that arena for personal gain.  There are people without qualifications who publish fake information.  And they are criticized less than scientists who make their reputation on truth IMO.
10. So, giving poor countries car, red meat, and plastics would help the problem ?  Maybe not.
11.  Are you trying to say that Canada will become poor from adopting these initiatives ?  I don't see how.
12. People don't like taxes... *shrug*

[Aristides]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

You have a problem with that claim.  One website reports the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is 720 billion tons or 720 GT.  Out of that man contributes  6 GT.  That means man's contribution is only about  0.8 % of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.  Yet you claimed humans increased the amount of CO2 by nearly 50%.   Something is wrong with your figures.  It is total BS.  You suck big time with your "facts".

But if you look at different websites you will sometimes find wildly different figures.

That is a problem because who do you believe?

One figure that seems fairly constant is 0.04%.  The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of all the gases.  That is a consistent figure.  But that is not the amount the man emits.  The figure I found for man's emission is about 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.  That means 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural.

So before you accuse me of sucking at science, you need to double check your own figures and facts.  

So it's only 4%, it's just a number, what counts is the effect it has. The concentration of CFC's we were pumping into the atmosphere was just a tiny fraction of 1% but enough to destroy the ozone layer, which has largely recovered since we stopped using them.

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

Edited March 25 by Aristides

[Legato]

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So it's only 4%, it's just a number, what counts is the effect it has. The concentration of CFC's we were pumping into the atmosphere was just a tiny fraction of 1% but enough to destroy the ozone layer, which has largely recovered since we stopped using them.

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

Those are some great facts... now if you could just get them into a Bible of some kind...

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Climate conferences are a great chance for all the elite liberals to suck back drinks, cocktails, and enjoy the finest foods imaginable and luxurious accommodations in the best hotels while hob knobbing and boasting about all their great fake accomplishments with their fellow elites.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

So it's only 4%, it's just a number, what counts is the effect it has.

Where did you get that figure?  Out of a hat.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of all gases.  Big difference between 4% and 0.04%.

Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the world’s atmosphere. Not 0.4% or 4%, but 0.04%!

scitechdaily.com

I assume there is a credible way to determine that percentage.  The problem is you assuming it has a certain effect without any proof.

Guesses or presumptions are not proof of anything. How many times do I have to tell you?

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Those are some great facts... now if you could just get them into a Bible of some

What he posted was false.  He pulled the 4% out of the air.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.04% of all gases.  Google it.  You support trash.