The fact is CO2 emmisions are rising, but temperatures have been on the decline for just over a decade now. The global mean temperature has fallen over in the last ten years despite carbon pollution remaining the same. There are explanations for this which are entirely theoretical. For example the while the Arctic slims on ice, the Antarctic cap according to satellite evidence has grown 43% in a decade corresponding with the cooling trend.
This effectively means a huge amount of weight has shifted onto the south pole which has incredible geological effects. These create volcanic eruptions that through sulpher dioxide emmisions, cool the planet. This is where climate science just doesn't really cut it these days. The relationship between geological disturbance and the weather is well evidenced but not empirically understood.
As is a lot of things, for instance they have no way of measuring the carbon that is up there. Yet, despite these two and the millions of unanswered questions about climate science - you all pretend we already know the answers when we do not. This is exactly what will doom us all: short sightedness. Even if the conspiracy theorists stop the lunatics in Labor and the Greens, some other incompetent will ruin everything anyway. This is the age of sheeple, and that is all most of you will ever be.
Checking Wiki; "There is no project anywhere in the world storing CO2 stripped from the products of combustion of coal burnt for electricity generation at coal fired power stations although work currently being carried out by the New South Wales government and private industry intends to have a working pilot plant in operation by 2013."
What funds will we see distributed to new startup tech. and when?
Also can you please tell me when you will stop advertising this on YT/FB/Google? Thank you.
this is a pipe dream the technology doesn't exist yet!...we need to adapt & change to survive,as i see it the earth doesn't need us at all but we most certainly need the earth & it's ecosystems functioning properly or were dead period!..well everybody else who isn't a billionaire elietist with a underground city to escape too...check the orion project..zero point energy is very real & has been surpressed for decades!
The Carboniferous had up to 20 times the CO2 as today, and the Jurassic had up to 15 times today's levels, where delicate aragonite corals first evolved.
The oceans weren't acidic as we have fossils of shellfish and corals from this time that haven't been dissolved. The oceans are PH 7.9-8.3 which is alkaline.
All that CO2 and never a tipping point or runaway greenhouse, ever. It's that simple. We're not causing Climate Change, nature is. It always has and always will.
@MrOllyK 'The only evidence of that exists in the minds of those that have such short memories' no, the evidence comes from satellite images from the past 40 years showing that less and less energy is escaping to space along the spectrum associated with C02.
"no, the evidence comes from satellite images from the past 40 years showing that less and less energy is escaping to space along the spectrum associated with C02"
Not true. Satellites 40 years ago didn't measure this, the more recent ERBE does:
ww w. marshall. org/article. php?id=92
However, CO2 was way higher in the past, and if incoming radiation never escaped life wouldn't exist. That's how flawed AGW "theory" is:
@MrOllyK 'Not true. Satellites 40 years ago didn't measure this' that is a complete and utter lie and either you are only looking for evidence that supports your own conclusions or you are a liar too.
The IRIS satellite launch in 1970 by nasa measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period
do you really think that carbon is the only thing that effects climate? of course not and they were VERY different conditions back then. the sun for instance was A LOT COOLER back then than it is today.
the amount of energy leaving the planet in the past 40 years has been going down. that is a fact - the planet is accumulating more heat and yet the sun has been cooling in this time.
Water vapour is 95% of GHG's and is the undisputed leader in keeping this planet habitable.
The Sun gets 10% hotter every Bn years. That means in the Jurassic (100MYa) the sun should have been 1% cooler - hardly "A LOT COOLER" as you say.
"the planet is accumulating more heat and yet the sun has been cooling in this time."
You forget the oceans transfer heat for decades after a strong solar cycle, called oscillations. Less cloud cover will also cause warming. Are you done?
@MrOllyK of course water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
actually solar output during the Phanerozoic period was 4% lower than today which actually had the effect that a lot of the earth froze, despite very high C02 levels.
"solar output during the Phanerozoic period was 4% lower than today which actually had the effect that a lot of the earth froze, despite very high C02 levels."
So what brought the planet out of the freeze from the Ordovician to the Silurian, and again from the late Carboniferous to the Permian, from the late Jurassic to the Cretaceous?
@MrOllyK so you want me to tell you why the climate has changed every single time in the history of the planet? how about you read the hundreds of scientific journals publishing this information? all i can be bothered to say is that natural climate change in the past proves climate is sensitive to energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
"Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect."
Erm, no - it can't as it's only a weak trace gas. And as I explained earlier, the climate isn't sensitive to CO2 due to its logarithmic function. If it were linear, we would have had a runaway greenhouse at least 500MYa.
A rise in Solar activity ended the Little Ice Age in 1800, a period they call the Maunder Minimum - look it up. It might be helpful.
@MrOllyK as i keep referring too, the effects of C02 in the atmosphere are having the effect of trapping energy that would have escaped to space. don't give me that shit that C02 does little in the atmosphere. as numerous studies have shown like the one i referenced before, less energy is escaping the planet over the past 40 years as DIRECT RESULT of increased carbon in the atmosphere.
"don't give me that shit that C02 does little in the atmosphere. as numerous studies have shown like the one i referenced before, less energy is escaping the planet over the past 40 years as DIRECT RESULT of increased carbon in the atmosphere."
I still prefer results from the ERBE satellite. Those scientists don't have a funding agenda. Regardless, you agree there are many variables to the climate system, but you still call CO2 the only bad guy!
@MrOllyK the study examines the correlation between solar activity and temperature rising on earth and it finds a high correlation of 0.7. this means that for most of the planet's history the changes in temperature are a result of changes in the sun's temperature.
"this means that for most of the planet's history the changes in temperature are a result of changes in the sun's temperature."
I can agree with that no problem. We still have to take into account oceanic oscillations, transfer of energy due to rain, Milankovich Cycles, CO2 logarithmic function in atmosphere and, including many others, continental drift which also affects climate. From all that uncertainty, govt finds CO2 the only guilty party?? Money is the keyword..
@MrOllyK of course. the correlation sates that 0.7 of the earth's temperature is explained by changes of the sun throughout the past 1000 years, which means the 0.3 is explained by other factors which would be environmental. however what the report also finds is that the sun and the earth are going in opposite directions in terms of temperature - hence it being excluded. in this time less energy is escaping into space along the C02 absorption wavelengths.
"in this time less energy is escaping into space along the C02 absorption wavelengths."
You'll find that CO2 and water vapour have similar IR absorbtion patterns. What radiation CO2 doesn't absorb water vapour will. A warmer planet means more water vapour, therefore further blocking CO2's IR transmission.
the mantra of cigarette companies for decades. my point about correlation was that if you do not even understand what the abstract of a scientific report means, and if you've been wrong about the sun and us being able to identify the spectrum of C02 for the past 40 years, why should I bother debating at all someone someone who obviously has no interest in the truth but has just gone out and accepted everything that pandered to your views?
@MrOllyK however you have completely misunderstood what it meant when it said 'the past 30 years are not considered, however. in this time the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other.' YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT YOU FOOL. this report has stated that in the past 30 years the change in the earth's temperature has NOT been as a result of the sun. LMAO epic fail.
@AussiePolitics you prefer results from whatever source backs up your preconceived views. you just completely misunderstood the abstract of a scientific journal. quite frankly mate do you even know what the equation is to calculate a correlation? you obviously have gone to all the simple websites that just back up your opinion. you have shown no objective reasoning at all.
the mantra of cigarette companies for decades. my point about correlation was that if you do not even understand what the abstract of a scientific report means, and if you've been wrong about the sun and us being able to identify the spectrum of C02 for the past 40 years, why should I bother debating at all someone someone who obviously has no interest in the truth but has just gone out and accepted everything that pandered to your views?
"YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT YOU FOOL. this report has stated that in the past 30 years the change in the earth's temperature has NOT been as a result of the sun. LMAO epic fail."
Errm.. Nope. You forgot oceanic oscillations again, that also have cycles in retaining and transferring heat round the planet over many decades. You tell me I lie then prove I didn't by quoting the exact entry in the paper that I mentioned. Thanks for the vindication.. ;)
"the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations." I just showed you exactly why they were not considered - because as I stated the earth HAD BEEN WARMING while the sun had been cooling, which would have thrown the correlation completely off, hence them stating it was excluded.
you did lie, because you stated that the sun has been cooling for the past few decades while the scientific consensus is that it is warming.
@MrOllyK *other way around, you argued that the sun has been warming while the consensus is that it is cooling.
again, I'll say it. this report was examining the correlation between the earth's changing temperature over the past 1000 years and the temperature of the sun. this is shown to have a very high correlation, for all except the last 30 or so years when they are NO LONGER LINKED.
"other way around, you argued that the sun has been warming while the consensus is that it is cooling."
Ah, yes. Sorry, I replied to your last without having received this one - NP.
"earth's changing temperature over the past 1000 years and the temperature of the sun. this is shown to have a very high correlation, for all except the last 30 or so years when they are NO LONGER LINKED."
This has happened in the past before - I'll try find a link..
"examining the correlation between the earth's changing temperature over the past 1000 years and the temperature of the sun. this is shown to have a very high correlation, for all except the last 30 or so years when they are NO LONGER LINKED."
It's called the divergence problem, and it also occurred in 1915, 1940, 1957, 1970, 1986 and 1998. Doubtless thousands of times in Earth history. Caused by PDO etc.
@MrOllyK you know its become abundantly clear from the sources that you keep referencing which are completely wrong according to the scientific literature that you don't care where you get your evidence from. i cannot be bothered debating with someone who cannot even understand as basic a concept as a correlation, claims the sun has not been cooling for the past few decades and who denied the fact that we could detect the C02 spectrum.
@MrOllyK do you dispute the effect that C02 has on the planet's temperature? past events PROVE how the carbon balance in the atmosphere has a profound effect on the earth's climate. no-one has ever said that carbon is the only thing that changes the earth's climate as past events have shown. however the fact is that as the sun has been cooling since the 70s, carbon has been going up and it has been empirically proven to be preventing heat from escaping the planet.
"do you dispute the effect that C02 has on the planet's temperature?"
Not at all. It's well known that temp change PRECEDES CO2 change by some 800 years. If CO2 was the bad guy as the govt says, and as you believe, the temp would have risen, then CO2 forcing more temp, more CO2 - runaway greenhouse every time without an ice age.
"the fact is that as the sun has been cooling since the 70s"
Nope:
ww w. marxist. com/images/stories/environment/climate_graph10. gif
@MrOllyK yet again another scientific journal shows your ignorance. "solar activity of the past 1150 years: does it correlate with climate?" is a peer-reviewed report written in 2005 that shows that the sun has been slightly cooling for the past 40 years. yet again you have been shown to be peddling a lie. i grow tired of debating with an individual who doesn't seem to care about the reliability of your sources, only that they back up your already biased opinion.
"solar activity of the past 1150 years: does it correlate with climate? is a peer-reviewed report written in 2005 that shows that the sun has been slightly cooling for the past 40 years"
Epic fail! That paper states:
"Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations."
Do you even READ let alone UNDERSTAND what's in that crap you espouse?? NO!
@MrOllyK did you bother to read the conclusion of the paper you fool?
'during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode MUST HAVE ANOTHER SOURCE'
how about you bother to read what the article concludes the evidence states, rather then selectively quoting sections that you like.
"'during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode MUST HAVE ANOTHER SOURCE"
So why did they mention?:
"the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations."
They're leaving something out. However their careful wording on conclusions is just begging for more grants so they have jobs..
@MrOllyK When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
"When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit"
Milankovich Cycles. Don't forget Solar activity as well.
"The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise."
That logic causes a tipping point, which we've NEVER had, ever - and never will.
@MrOllyK you know what mate? the sources you keep quoting have been shown to be time and time again to be lies and fabrications. why should I trust someone who claims that the sun has not been warming for the past 40 years or that we have been unable to measure the C02 absorption wavelengths of this same time. I have the scientific studies on climate that show these statements for what they are - lies - on the tabs of my browser right next to this one.
You see, CO2 has a logarithmic effect in atmosphere:
ww w. cosy. com/Science/LogCO2effect. jpg
It's no wonder we've never had a tipping point. CO2 is almost at saturation level now where adding more won't do much for the temp. Noting that more temp=more evap=more clouds=more cooling rainfall.
"no-one has ever said that carbon is the only thing that changes the earth's climate as past events have shown."
CRAP! Every politician and bent scientist wants to tax you on it!
@MrOllyK you're joking right? less energy is escaping into space. as much as you may try to twist the facts the earth is heating up and it is directly because of carbon heightening the greenhouse effect.
'CRAP! Every politician and bent scientist wants to tax you on it!' because anyone with an understanding of the science can tell you that modern global warming is the result of increase carbon.
Your IRIS satellite only points at the Sun and doesn't measure any of Earth's radiation, & your IMG satellite (1 Yr operation!) only measures GHG's!
My main point still remains unchallenged. There was WAY more CO2 in the past and if your "less and less energy escapes due to more CO2" had been true, there would be a runaway greenhouse some 500MYa, where there wouldn't be (intelligent?) life to argue about what is now proven a moot point.
@MrOllyK the IRIS satellite measured outgoing radiation. I'm looking at the scientific journal article right now. they analysed the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth.
"The IRIS satellite launch in 1970 by nasa measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1" - "the IRIS satellite measured outgoing radiation. I'm looking at the scientific journal article right now"
Are you confused with the recent GOES satellite with an IRIS LENS which does what you say? Then it's not the IRIS satellite launched in 1970. Get your facts straight. Satellites haven't been measuring Earth's outgoing LWR for 40 years.
@MrOllyK no, I am talking about the IRIS satellite. The scientific journal article analyzing this evidence is titled 'Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997' and quite frankly I'm going to trust the bloke with the PHD before I do some armchair expert on the internet. this is empirical evidence that less heat is escaping into space as DIRECT result of rising C02.
@MrOllyK which IRIS satellite launched in 1970 were you referring to then?
don't try to divert attention from the truth. you claimed again and again that there was no way to detect the C02 energy wavelengths for the past 40 years while this study shows that it clearly false.
i find it hilarious how the scientific findings that do not suit your made up mind have all these theoretical problems with them that you make up but every claim you make about the climate is made on indisputable facts.
"don't try to divert attention from the truth. you claimed again and again that there was no way to detect the C02 energy wavelengths for the past 40 years while this study shows that it clearly false."
Like I said, many satellites are called IRIS because of the lens and you need to be more exact in naming them. I didn't say LWR wasn't detectable in 1970, as an IRIS satellite was also sampling these wavelengths from the sun.
Coal has to be dropped eventually because it is a finite resource. We can either endure the pain of switching now, or endure the pain of switching later after we have created mass starvation, land loss, mass migration, and species loss through climate change.
This is a joke right??? Who would be stupid enough to believe this crap???In a few hundred years people are going to look back and think "Man those people were really frackin stupid no wonder they spent more time finding ways to keep penises hard rather than exploring space and colonizing planets"!
AhhHH I'll just wipe up the vomit that this "black wash" corporate propaganda prompted me to release. Why can't some people accept that their income stream is not a good idea. It seams some humans have abandoned ethics considering nothing other than their own short term solipsistic desire. Coal has been a bad idea for decades and now your trying to sweeten the idea by brushing it under the carpet. The Renewable energy budget is in the 100's Millions the Coal giants are tossing around billions!
Frack you and your propaganda!Do you think were fools?You think we dont see what your doing?Enough with your lies.People with brains see this for what it is.Money making green pushing fear mongering!Frack you and your lies i hope the person/s that made this rot to death in a plague pit
i give up debating which a bunch of morons who obviously who have never been near a scientific textbook in their adult lives. every single time some fuckwit brings up another halftruth that has been brought up by liars in the media it further degrades my respect for democracy - a system where a bunch of uneducated fuckwits who want handouts from the government vote to tax me higher because they're in the majority regardless of my own rights.
by the way for anyone interested, the temperature trend for the past 100 years has been like the stock market: it fluctuates year to year, and sometimes goes down, but the trend is definitely going up over all.
The only genuine solution is phasing out Coal and replacing it with Renewable Energy (i.e. Solar & Wind), low emission energy (i.e. Natural Gas), and Nuclear Power.
whatever happened to the term '' global warming''?? Now its '' climate change''', reason being they want to blame every natural disaster that happens on '' climate change'', If there is a tsunami? its '' climate change'' , Earthquake? '' climate change'', hell i even seen them blaming the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland on, guess what? thats right! '' climate change'' ---repeat a bogus invalid scientific fraud theory enough and the sheeple will start to believe it, PROPAGANDA never changes
@MrTetris88 Great, now you can feel good about yourself for knowing a little bit about an unproven and dodgy solution to carbon pollution. I'm happy for you. lol
oh fucking screw this! ther is no global warming period! its all bullshit! im sick of this propaganda,
Im not falling for this bullshit, carbon dioxide is good, carbon is LIFE!
Why is it always the solution being more taxes? please i pay enough taxes as it is, The government dont give a shit about the environment, this is just another scam, so they can get their filthy hands in to your pockets!
Research climategate, It opens your eyes to this global scam. Another toxic derivative scam!
next time I'm not going to bother debating with idiots who have no scientific understanding of climate change. they've just decided "yep climate change is a lie" and then just gone out to try and find half-truths to support their position and ignored all the evidence contradicting their belief.
flawed evidence? because the global temperatures compiled by the world's leading scientists is flawed is it?
you're an utter fool if you believe that just because the global temperature doesn't grow EVERY DAY, it automatically means that climate change is a myth.
Obviously those scientists aren't very good at what they do or else they wouldn't be presenting the earth as "1 temperature" when different parts of the earth are at different temperatures.
If i was as intellectually dishonest as you, i would use the global cooling chart, but unlike you, i like intellectually honest debate.
mate the ice ages didn't occur over a hundred years or so, they took thousands of years. compare that to the current situation where we've soon the fastest warming the planet has experienced in so short a time.
and mate do you really think that the weather stays the same all the time? just because there is a trend going upwards does not mean every single year without fail will be hotter, but when you average it out its obvious over time this is occurring.
oh you mean the hacked emails that the media deliberately took scientific jargon out of context and misrepresented so to try and make people think that they were changing the data? funny how the media shut-up like a clam about it the instant the whole story came out. of course you don't care about that, you read the first article and never bothered to check the facts for yourself. admit it - you never even read the emails.
oh and if the scientists were changing all the data then why has there been a slight decline in recorded global temperatures? if the scientists are part of an elaborate plot to take over the world and enslave us all as you seem to think, then why would they allow that kind of data through?
Ok, CCS, is not financially viable yet and will not be until 2030, which is when we can have successfully switched over to 100% renewables according to some studies. So why wait until then. Clean coal is a scam and a con of the coal industry-desperately trying to increase their lifetime, you could say they are adding a "last stand" .
...The video is hypocritical in this sense it says why wait for the perfect solution-exactly, just switch to a mix of renewables now. Also coal mining ruins the landscape and emits methane so we have to phase out coal. Coal is not critical to our energy seurity, in fact is is stopping our energy security-we have to move from it and thus is not a security.Coal does support some jobs in regional communities but there is more jobs in renewables...
Note that putting CO2 under ground isnt the wisest thing u can do. the CO2 will eventually rise up to the surface one way or another in possibly dangerous amounts. extreme intelligent science teacher told me this so not my
This is belief being pushed through a cute animation so you won't argue, DON'T BUY IT, The world has been cooling for the last 11 years, and they're trying to hide it, and there are scientists, REAL SCIENTISTS who have shown evidence indicating we are heading for another Ice Age. If you still has doubts, think about it, HOW DOES MORE TAX help the environment? that is all they have done and are planing to do
I really dont think this is important because using a billion dollars just to capture and store carbon is a bit over the top and why not just use that money to invest in a better energy such as FUSION ENERGY, look i hate this ..... and yeah over the next billion years we are going to Fry by a 5% raise in the tempertature... it will take a very long time for global warming But noo we have to throw money at climate change soloutions.....
@CrAzYMaN12121 how about feeding some starving people or cancelling their fraudulent ill gotten debt that they do not personally owe and never saw the benefit of, like Vietnam, South American countries, Cambodia, and all the other poor nations.Oh no it's much more important for us to have a new iphone than to feed people. Oh they will just grow up and have more kids. NO WRONG royal commission on population demonstrated when you keep people poor they breed. Release them of their debts!
you are either an idiot or a liar. if you actually looked at the scientific evidence instead of just trying to find lies to support your brainwashed point of view you would know that for the past 35 years THE SUN HAS SHOWN A SLIGHT COOLING TREND.
and what has the earth done in the time? the opposite - WARMED UP.
don't make shit up but sooner or later someone like me who actually is studying science will call you out on it.
@AussiePolitics Unbelievable dude. Ok lets look at that as difficult as it is in comments boxes. The sun went through a MAJOR solar cycle and only recently went very cool LOW and behold we have a cooling trend to match it. Other planets were heating up like Mars and Venus IN LINE with the Earth's SLIGHT increase in temp. Man, over the last 35 years it's shown a cooling trend. What, overall? Says who? link to your sources. My source is NASA.
actually mate the sun has shown slight cooling since 1978, not the past 10 years. you're making things up again.
so that ruins your theory since the world experienced its hottest years after after 1978 showing that there is SOMETHING ELSE CAUSING THE WARMING OTHER THAN THE SUN.
@AussiePolitics Isn't it obvious? "Scientific Evidence" can no longer be trusted! Good job on picking out the recent cooling trend but I am referring to a much longer period of time.
You are a naive sheep. The foxes who engineered this "religion" you have adopted stand to make trillions. Check again who has been brainwashed.
It's very simple, reverse the relationship of CO2 and the temperature of the planet. Make it appear as if we are to blame, then justify taxing the people out of guilt.
mate on one hand you say that scientific evidence can no longer be trusted, then on the other hand you directly refer to this evidence to back up your point.
the fact is that for the past 100 years the global climate has been warming at a speed never before seen in the history of the earth's planet.
it is also a fact that any first year chem student will tell you that carbon in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping from the planet.
@AussiePolitics I acknowledge this is a classic Chicken or Egg argument. But notice how this video isn't allowing me to come to my own conclusion? It's trying to TELL ME WHAT TO THINK.
You are in support of this sheep-like approach but it comes at the cost of your own credibility. As far as I'm concerned, you've already sold your soul, your opinions mean absolutely nothing and every word you say is like a turd falling in to my drink.
if i disagree with you and actually have a greater scientific understanding of the topic than you then i have "sold my soul" and am just blindly following.
you know what? you don't videos like this to help you make up your mind because you already decided long ago that climate change was a myth and they you deliberately went out to try and find just the lies and half truths to back up your position.
1. you are either a liar or misinformed. the world is far hotter today than it was 1000 years ago. the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years and the warming is most dramatic after 1920.
2. the global cooling MEDIA ARTICLES which were written by JOURNALISTS with no peer-review checks? the majority of scientific journal articles from the 1970s if you care to read them were still predicting global warming
3. the planet is all about balance - natural C02 emissions are neutralized by natural absorptions such as the oceans and vegetation. however when you start burning trillions of tons of carbon that is trapped underground you upset his balance.
No incorrect global cooling was peer reviewed to the point the British government introduced nuclear power. No if you look up the data recieved by the artic ice samples you'll clearly see that the world was a lot hotter look it up for yourself how can more scientist be wrong do you how is so many phd's confirmed study's misinformed?
@AussiePolitics Ok firstly we add up to not even 1 % of all man made emissions and china refuses to introduce a climate reduction scheme the same with india yet you want me to pay for the right to emit co2.
no, the hysteria about "global cooling" was the result of a number of articles written by journalists at the time while the overwhelming scientific consensus was that the world was STILL warming. why would scientists argue that the world was cooling when it would have blatantly contradicted the warming trend that their data was showing?
Lol my lifestyle is the cause of Co2 rising wtf so it's ok for the extremely rich to fly around and burn a ton of oil and coal but not for me iIl have to live like a cavemen for there wellbeing get fucked really go to hell. Go be a good servant really just line up take your shot and enjoy the increased prices on everything after the super mining tax!
no I'm saying that you keep on denying the fact that carbon is the cause for global warming because you feel if you do that then it might actually effect your own life.
oh and fuckwit when the hell did i say anything about the mining tax? grow up and stick to the topic. how about you learn to read what I've said or is that too difficult for you? i said i supported implementing NUCLEAR POWER, not taxing the fuck out of carbon.
Yet after all the tax and funded co2 reduction schemes all it takes is for a fluke volcano like Iceland and the world will get hotter anyway. So what is the point if the world has over a thousand underwater volcanoes.
"yet you want me to pay for the right to emit co2"
when did i say that? WHEN DID I SAY I WANT YOU TO PAY????
all i am interested in is the scientific evidence for an occurrence, yet of course you are only interested in the possible ramifications for your lifestyle so you deny that its happening.
as a matter of fact i oppose a carbon tax, it will just fuck us over economically. i would rather see us utilise nuclear power to cut emissions.
you think its fucking natural for mankind to pump trillions of tons of carbon that had laid dormant under the earth into the atmosphere do you?
you think its fucking natural for in the period of about 100 years for the carbon in the atmosphere to double?
never before in the earth's history have we experience such rapid warming and you think that humans have nothing to do with it? go talk to someone study a first year degree in chemistry and ask them what carbon does in the atmosphere.
we have the world's largest reserves of uranium, nuclear technology has evolved massively over the past few decades, is incredibly efficient, far safer and only produces a tiny amount of the waste products that the old ones did.
the greens are against using uranium because they're nothing more than a bunch of socialist fuckwits who have hijacked the scientific issue of global warming for their own ends they think everyone should be punished and since nuclear provides a way out they're against it
do you know how incredibly frustrating it is from a scientific perspective to debate global warming? you get the fuckwits on the left who go "yay lets trojan horse this issue to get rid of capitalism" and you get the fuckwits on the right who go "what? the left supports something? well since they're generally wrong on most issues, lets not bother to look at the evidence, we'll just go in the opposite direction and deny its anyones fault"
Lol you think the earth didnt heat as fast as it has now lol fool. Volcano's are the reason why the earth's ice melted no matter how many things you throw at me you still cant answer this how much carbon on average does mankind contribute to?
You'll be suprised when you actaually LOOK SHIT UP!
learn what the fuck you're talking about mate. the ice ages were caused and ended by changes to the earth's orbit, not carbon or volcanoes.
and mate the C02 that is naturally emitted is NATURALLY balanced out. however when we start pumping dormant carbon into the atmosphere we upset that balance.
humans emit 26 gigatons of carbon a year. the amount of carbon rising in the atmosphere is 15 gigatons a year. that shows you how part of our emissions are being balanced out.
so I'm a faggot because I advocate nuclear energy as an energy source?
you obviously are little more than a brainwashed child. you heard from your mummy and daddy that climate change was wrong and you don't care what the evidence is, you'll just go out and find some half-truths to back up your points.
every single thing you have argued has been either a lie or a halftruth. you can tell when someone comes up with the bullshit line "global cooling predicted in the 70s" they have not read anything.
Actually I prefe coal becouse the Nuclear enrich process is far worse an damaging to nature due to the seperation of u235 from u238 you just dont run a nuclear power plant of nothing you still need to mine it and enrich as well as seperate it after a while that amount of u235 will burn out also if we are planning NOT to create nuclear weapons 7% of all uranium mined will be nuclear waste as well the used up portions of the u238.
obviously all mining uses up emissions but its minimal for uranium compared to carbon. think about it - same mining process for both but for one you're digging it up to burn and emit carbon into the atmosphere while the other one does not.
and no, the amount of nuclear waste has become far smaller and its becoming far smaller every day. you're as bad as the greens who make up a load of bullshit reasons why nuclear energy is not the best way to power the nation.
Im sure economic growth as well each year is still going up but just not at the pace in which it was. Meaning we would emmit more co2 each year meaning atmospheric levels should go up if were to blame.
atmospheric levels are going up. that was just from last year. in the past 100 years the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has doubled, and its grown year by year. anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of the element carbon will tell you that in the atmosphere it traps heat. so what do you think will happen when human emissions upset the natural balance?
are you really so stupid that you think that us bringing up all the carbon from underground will have no effect?
Again if you add a percentage of the amount of Co2 emmited natural over the amount emmited by mankind you could see roughly how much of the Co2 is on average our fault.
so if i gave you an estimate of how much fluid was in your body and then introduced a little bit of arsenic do you think it will have no effect too?
the natural environment is a system where the natural carbon emissions are absorbed by natural means such as vegetations and sink holes. do you think its a coincidence that in the past 100 years the amount of carbon has doubled in the atmosphere? some human emissions are negated by nature, but the majority take us over the tipping point.
Firstly dont put Co2 under the category as a poison. It's plant food and it's a building block for life without it we wouldn't be here becouse there would be no plants meaning no oxygen. Your quote should go as this.
If I could estimate how much fluid was in your body and each day you drank 2 litres then every day for 100 days you decided to drink an extra 2 more liters on the existing 2 you already drink would that have a devastating affect on you?
carbon dioxide is a pollutant in the sense that when you get too much of it in the atmosphere it contributes to the greenhouse effect and traps too much heat in the atmosphere. oh, and by the way everything can be defined as a poison - EVEN WATER - if you take it in excess.
the amount of C02 in the atmosphere is at a level not seen in over 800,000 years.
Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.
Firstly your not studying shit secoundly you cant measure how much natural co2 is emmited and the ocean does not just absorb it also emits far far more then you can ever record due to the amount of sealife in it. yeah thats right dickhead I bet you didnt read that in your algore book.
Yeah I will believe that statement when you can measure the amount of Co2 naturally emited then I'll believe were using it in excess. Then when you add the next 90% of your algore graph to the chart you'll see that the earth was a lot warmer and when you add new recordings to it you'll see it's now declining. Oh yeah water is a poison if your dumb enough to shove a house down your fucking throat.
Fuckoff really you dont even answer my questions you just make new tangents up your like a priest trying to prove god exists but you cant you just keep going from fairytale to fairytale.
It's easy to state "hottest year on record" stuff seeing we're still coming out of the Little Ice Age that ended in 1800. Highest point is always on top. Then again, 1998 - not 2005 is hottest:
Global CO2 is just 0.03% of the atmosphere, and our contribution is just 3% of THAT. Don't wet the bed over 0.0009% now will you. Cooling from '40's to '70's:
ww w. leif. org/research/Global%20Temperature%20Anomalies. png
The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was the warming sun with a small contribution from volcanic activity. However, solar activity leveled off after 1940 and the net influence from sun and volcano since 1940 has been slight cooling. Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.
"Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970."
The only evidence of that exists in the minds of those that have such short memories, forgetting the 20x CO2 levels of the planet's past without acid oceans or runaway greenhouse ever.
CO2 being a trace gas comprises just 0.03% of the atmosphere, which can't retain heat since even 50C deserts drop below zero at night.
Don't forget oceanic decadal oscillations taking time to transfer and lose their heat..
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
You really need to stop believing the media and the politicians when they tell you that it's bad when in reality it's a completely natural element. They want you to think it's bad and it's our fault so they can tell you it's your fault and you have to pay for it.
I'm not listening to anyone you fool. im studying a fucking environmental science degree at university so I'm seeing the evidence first hand and speaking to the people who understand more about the environment than you will ever guess.
it all comes down to paying for it doesn't it? you don't give a fuck about the evidence, you'll just deny it on principle if there's a tiny chance it could effect your life.
carbon, like everything in excess can be a NEGATIVE INFLUENCE on the planet.
It's not about having to pay for it it's simply the fact Im not responsible for it and i refuse to believe the depopulation is the intended means of the outcome. Co2 is not the only thing in the atmosphere methane and water are also in it as well.
actually its you who sounds like an uneducated fool. all you've stated this whole debate are a bunch of lies and halftruths such as the alleged "1970s cooling".
"yeah thats right dickhead I bet you didnt read that in your algore book."
that's it. you're obviously an immature brat with no interest in evidence. you made up your narrow, brainwashed childish mind long ago and you just make up petty insults and lies. i see no further point in enlightening idiots like you.
oh and fuckwit if you actually knew anything about the bachelor of science you would know that regardless of what area you're specializing in, first year students have to do at least one CHEMISTRY subject for a semester. every single time you write a comment you betray your own ignorance and arrogance.
i meant a real university course at a real university, not a course in nutrition or some crap like that. if you study a single science degree in one of the real areas such as enviro, biomed, chem, genetics, biotech, then you will have to study chemistry.
You are a faggot becouse you dont look shit up and believe that 2 wrongs make a right. No nuclear power is not the prefered solution yet I still dont see the reason to have a solution when you can just as easily absorb carbon through vegetation if it is at all a problem which I myself do not believe.
actually you don't look shit up you fool. the carbon in the atmosphere is growing by 15 gigatons a year and humans emit 26 gigatons. doesn't that show you that the natural carbon emission are balancing out but when we go to excess the natural process cannot absorb the extra carbon.
Well if I might add population growth = more co2 emmisions which means that if it cant naturally be absorbed then each year it should rise right?
Meaning that in one year it should be 15 then the next 16. If the rate of increase does not match the increased amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. It simply proves my point in saying the world is naturally heating up weather we like it or not.
at the end of the day the very graph you agree with that shows slight cooling for the past decade also shows that for the past 100 years the climate has been changing at a rate never before seen on the planet's history. anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of he element carbon knows that it traps heat in the atmosphere that would normally have escaped into space.
so what do you think happens when you upset the earth's balance by pumping trillions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere?
Appreciate the thoughts.
catherinesherard 3 months ago
The fact is CO2 emmisions are rising, but temperatures have been on the decline for just over a decade now. The global mean temperature has fallen over in the last ten years despite carbon pollution remaining the same. There are explanations for this which are entirely theoretical. For example the while the Arctic slims on ice, the Antarctic cap according to satellite evidence has grown 43% in a decade corresponding with the cooling trend.
TheJohnubis 1 year ago 2
This effectively means a huge amount of weight has shifted onto the south pole which has incredible geological effects. These create volcanic eruptions that through sulpher dioxide emmisions, cool the planet. This is where climate science just doesn't really cut it these days. The relationship between geological disturbance and the weather is well evidenced but not empirically understood.
TheJohnubis 1 year ago
As is a lot of things, for instance they have no way of measuring the carbon that is up there. Yet, despite these two and the millions of unanswered questions about climate science - you all pretend we already know the answers when we do not. This is exactly what will doom us all: short sightedness. Even if the conspiracy theorists stop the lunatics in Labor and the Greens, some other incompetent will ruin everything anyway. This is the age of sheeple, and that is all most of you will ever be.
TheJohnubis 1 year ago
Checking Wiki; "There is no project anywhere in the world storing CO2 stripped from the products of combustion of coal burnt for electricity generation at coal fired power stations although work currently being carried out by the New South Wales government and private industry intends to have a working pilot plant in operation by 2013."
What funds will we see distributed to new startup tech. and when?
Also can you please tell me when you will stop advertising this on YT/FB/Google? Thank you.
BravoCharlieTV 1 year ago
Flag this for the scam that it is every single time. And who reset the votes. Scam.
TheGoodnessIsGood 1 year ago 2
is carbon capture a good idea? doesn't it take a lot of energy to pump it down there? Also to dig all the holes and what not?
FishyMoe 1 year ago
this is a pipe dream the technology doesn't exist yet!...we need to adapt & change to survive,as i see it the earth doesn't need us at all but we most certainly need the earth & it's ecosystems functioning properly or were dead period!..well everybody else who isn't a billionaire elietist with a underground city to escape too...check the orion project..zero point energy is very real & has been surpressed for decades!
omly85 1 year ago
The Carboniferous had up to 20 times the CO2 as today, and the Jurassic had up to 15 times today's levels, where delicate aragonite corals first evolved.
The oceans weren't acidic as we have fossils of shellfish and corals from this time that haven't been dissolved. The oceans are PH 7.9-8.3 which is alkaline.
All that CO2 and never a tipping point or runaway greenhouse, ever. It's that simple. We're not causing Climate Change, nature is. It always has and always will.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK 'The only evidence of that exists in the minds of those that have such short memories' no, the evidence comes from satellite images from the past 40 years showing that less and less energy is escaping to space along the spectrum associated with C02.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"no, the evidence comes from satellite images from the past 40 years showing that less and less energy is escaping to space along the spectrum associated with C02"
Not true. Satellites 40 years ago didn't measure this, the more recent ERBE does:
ww w. marshall. org/article. php?id=92
However, CO2 was way higher in the past, and if incoming radiation never escaped life wouldn't exist. That's how flawed AGW "theory" is:
i44. tinypic. com/30a849l. gif
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK 'Not true. Satellites 40 years ago didn't measure this' that is a complete and utter lie and either you are only looking for evidence that supports your own conclusions or you are a liar too.
The IRIS satellite launch in 1970 by nasa measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"The IRIS satellite launch in 1970 by nasa measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1"
But it only watches the Sun's atmosphere!
iris.lmsal. com
"In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations"
NOT I.R.!
In 1997 - Stopped the IMG(Interferometric Monitor for GREENHOUSE GASES) operation due to the termination of ADEOS (Advanced Earth Observing Satellite
ww w. ersdac.or. jp/ERSDAC/ERSDAC_E/ORG-HISTRY_E. html
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK
do you really think that carbon is the only thing that effects climate? of course not and they were VERY different conditions back then. the sun for instance was A LOT COOLER back then than it is today.
the amount of energy leaving the planet in the past 40 years has been going down. that is a fact - the planet is accumulating more heat and yet the sun has been cooling in this time.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Water vapour is 95% of GHG's and is the undisputed leader in keeping this planet habitable.
The Sun gets 10% hotter every Bn years. That means in the Jurassic (100MYa) the sun should have been 1% cooler - hardly "A LOT COOLER" as you say.
"the planet is accumulating more heat and yet the sun has been cooling in this time."
You forget the oceans transfer heat for decades after a strong solar cycle, called oscillations. Less cloud cover will also cause warming. Are you done?
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK of course water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
actually solar output during the Phanerozoic period was 4% lower than today which actually had the effect that a lot of the earth froze, despite very high C02 levels.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"solar output during the Phanerozoic period was 4% lower than today which actually had the effect that a lot of the earth froze, despite very high C02 levels."
So what brought the planet out of the freeze from the Ordovician to the Silurian, and again from the late Carboniferous to the Permian, from the late Jurassic to the Cretaceous?
What causes this?:
watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK so you want me to tell you why the climate has changed every single time in the history of the planet? how about you read the hundreds of scientific journals publishing this information? all i can be bothered to say is that natural climate change in the past proves climate is sensitive to energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect."
Erm, no - it can't as it's only a weak trace gas. And as I explained earlier, the climate isn't sensitive to CO2 due to its logarithmic function. If it were linear, we would have had a runaway greenhouse at least 500MYa.
A rise in Solar activity ended the Little Ice Age in 1800, a period they call the Maunder Minimum - look it up. It might be helpful.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK as i keep referring too, the effects of C02 in the atmosphere are having the effect of trapping energy that would have escaped to space. don't give me that shit that C02 does little in the atmosphere. as numerous studies have shown like the one i referenced before, less energy is escaping the planet over the past 40 years as DIRECT RESULT of increased carbon in the atmosphere.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"don't give me that shit that C02 does little in the atmosphere. as numerous studies have shown like the one i referenced before, less energy is escaping the planet over the past 40 years as DIRECT RESULT of increased carbon in the atmosphere."
I still prefer results from the ERBE satellite. Those scientists don't have a funding agenda. Regardless, you agree there are many variables to the climate system, but you still call CO2 the only bad guy!
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK the study examines the correlation between solar activity and temperature rising on earth and it finds a high correlation of 0.7. this means that for most of the planet's history the changes in temperature are a result of changes in the sun's temperature.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"this means that for most of the planet's history the changes in temperature are a result of changes in the sun's temperature."
I can agree with that no problem. We still have to take into account oceanic oscillations, transfer of energy due to rain, Milankovich Cycles, CO2 logarithmic function in atmosphere and, including many others, continental drift which also affects climate. From all that uncertainty, govt finds CO2 the only guilty party?? Money is the keyword..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
.. Not forgetting the evidence of undissolved coral and shellfish fossils from a very high CO2 Jurassic climate..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK of course. the correlation sates that 0.7 of the earth's temperature is explained by changes of the sun throughout the past 1000 years, which means the 0.3 is explained by other factors which would be environmental. however what the report also finds is that the sun and the earth are going in opposite directions in terms of temperature - hence it being excluded. in this time less energy is escaping into space along the C02 absorption wavelengths.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"in this time less energy is escaping into space along the C02 absorption wavelengths."
You'll find that CO2 and water vapour have similar IR absorbtion patterns. What radiation CO2 doesn't absorb water vapour will. A warmer planet means more water vapour, therefore further blocking CO2's IR transmission.
homepages. ius. edu/kforinas/ClassRefs/GlobalWarming_files/greenhouseeffect_files/image190. jpg
MrOllyK 1 year ago
'Correlation doesn't prove causation'
the mantra of cigarette companies for decades. my point about correlation was that if you do not even understand what the abstract of a scientific report means, and if you've been wrong about the sun and us being able to identify the spectrum of C02 for the past 40 years, why should I bother debating at all someone someone who obviously has no interest in the truth but has just gone out and accepted everything that pandered to your views?
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@MrOllyK however you have completely misunderstood what it meant when it said 'the past 30 years are not considered, however. in this time the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other.' YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT YOU FOOL. this report has stated that in the past 30 years the change in the earth's temperature has NOT been as a result of the sun. LMAO epic fail.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics you prefer results from whatever source backs up your preconceived views. you just completely misunderstood the abstract of a scientific journal. quite frankly mate do you even know what the equation is to calculate a correlation? you obviously have gone to all the simple websites that just back up your opinion. you have shown no objective reasoning at all.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Correlation doesn't prove causation.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK
'Correlation doesn't prove causation'
the mantra of cigarette companies for decades. my point about correlation was that if you do not even understand what the abstract of a scientific report means, and if you've been wrong about the sun and us being able to identify the spectrum of C02 for the past 40 years, why should I bother debating at all someone someone who obviously has no interest in the truth but has just gone out and accepted everything that pandered to your views?
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT YOU FOOL. this report has stated that in the past 30 years the change in the earth's temperature has NOT been as a result of the sun. LMAO epic fail."
Errm.. Nope. You forgot oceanic oscillations again, that also have cycles in retaining and transferring heat round the planet over many decades. You tell me I lie then prove I didn't by quoting the exact entry in the paper that I mentioned. Thanks for the vindication.. ;)
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK
"the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations." I just showed you exactly why they were not considered - because as I stated the earth HAD BEEN WARMING while the sun had been cooling, which would have thrown the correlation completely off, hence them stating it was excluded.
you did lie, because you stated that the sun has been cooling for the past few decades while the scientific consensus is that it is warming.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"you did lie, because you stated that the sun has been cooling for the past few decades while the scientific consensus is that it is warming."
No I didn't. Now you're getting seriously confused.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK yeah read the correction.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@MrOllyK *other way around, you argued that the sun has been warming while the consensus is that it is cooling.
again, I'll say it. this report was examining the correlation between the earth's changing temperature over the past 1000 years and the temperature of the sun. this is shown to have a very high correlation, for all except the last 30 or so years when they are NO LONGER LINKED.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"other way around, you argued that the sun has been warming while the consensus is that it is cooling."
Ah, yes. Sorry, I replied to your last without having received this one - NP.
"earth's changing temperature over the past 1000 years and the temperature of the sun. this is shown to have a very high correlation, for all except the last 30 or so years when they are NO LONGER LINKED."
This has happened in the past before - I'll try find a link..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"examining the correlation between the earth's changing temperature over the past 1000 years and the temperature of the sun. this is shown to have a very high correlation, for all except the last 30 or so years when they are NO LONGER LINKED."
It's called the divergence problem, and it also occurred in 1915, 1940, 1957, 1970, 1986 and 1998. Doubtless thousands of times in Earth history. Caused by PDO etc.
wattsupwiththat. files. wordpress. com/2008/01/daleo-tsi-ushcn2. png
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK you know its become abundantly clear from the sources that you keep referencing which are completely wrong according to the scientific literature that you don't care where you get your evidence from. i cannot be bothered debating with someone who cannot even understand as basic a concept as a correlation, claims the sun has not been cooling for the past few decades and who denied the fact that we could detect the C02 spectrum.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@MrOllyK do you dispute the effect that C02 has on the planet's temperature? past events PROVE how the carbon balance in the atmosphere has a profound effect on the earth's climate. no-one has ever said that carbon is the only thing that changes the earth's climate as past events have shown. however the fact is that as the sun has been cooling since the 70s, carbon has been going up and it has been empirically proven to be preventing heat from escaping the planet.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"do you dispute the effect that C02 has on the planet's temperature?"
Not at all. It's well known that temp change PRECEDES CO2 change by some 800 years. If CO2 was the bad guy as the govt says, and as you believe, the temp would have risen, then CO2 forcing more temp, more CO2 - runaway greenhouse every time without an ice age.
"the fact is that as the sun has been cooling since the 70s"
Nope:
ww w. marxist. com/images/stories/environment/climate_graph10. gif
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK yet again another scientific journal shows your ignorance. "solar activity of the past 1150 years: does it correlate with climate?" is a peer-reviewed report written in 2005 that shows that the sun has been slightly cooling for the past 40 years. yet again you have been shown to be peddling a lie. i grow tired of debating with an individual who doesn't seem to care about the reliability of your sources, only that they back up your already biased opinion.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"solar activity of the past 1150 years: does it correlate with climate? is a peer-reviewed report written in 2005 that shows that the sun has been slightly cooling for the past 40 years"
Epic fail! That paper states:
"Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations."
Do you even READ let alone UNDERSTAND what's in that crap you espouse?? NO!
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK did you bother to read the conclusion of the paper you fool?
'during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode MUST HAVE ANOTHER SOURCE'
how about you bother to read what the article concludes the evidence states, rather then selectively quoting sections that you like.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"'during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode MUST HAVE ANOTHER SOURCE"
So why did they mention?:
"the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations."
They're leaving something out. However their careful wording on conclusions is just begging for more grants so they have jobs..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit"
Milankovich Cycles. Don't forget Solar activity as well.
"The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise."
That logic causes a tipping point, which we've NEVER had, ever - and never will.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK you know what mate? the sources you keep quoting have been shown to be time and time again to be lies and fabrications. why should I trust someone who claims that the sun has not been warming for the past 40 years or that we have been unable to measure the C02 absorption wavelengths of this same time. I have the scientific studies on climate that show these statements for what they are - lies - on the tabs of my browser right next to this one.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
You see, CO2 has a logarithmic effect in atmosphere:
ww w. cosy. com/Science/LogCO2effect. jpg
It's no wonder we've never had a tipping point. CO2 is almost at saturation level now where adding more won't do much for the temp. Noting that more temp=more evap=more clouds=more cooling rainfall.
"no-one has ever said that carbon is the only thing that changes the earth's climate as past events have shown."
CRAP! Every politician and bent scientist wants to tax you on it!
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK you're joking right? less energy is escaping into space. as much as you may try to twist the facts the earth is heating up and it is directly because of carbon heightening the greenhouse effect.
'CRAP! Every politician and bent scientist wants to tax you on it!' because anyone with an understanding of the science can tell you that modern global warming is the result of increase carbon.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Your IRIS satellite only points at the Sun and doesn't measure any of Earth's radiation, & your IMG satellite (1 Yr operation!) only measures GHG's!
My main point still remains unchallenged. There was WAY more CO2 in the past and if your "less and less energy escapes due to more CO2" had been true, there would be a runaway greenhouse some 500MYa, where there wouldn't be (intelligent?) life to argue about what is now proven a moot point.
How is it you fail to understand this??
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK the IRIS satellite measured outgoing radiation. I'm looking at the scientific journal article right now. they analysed the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"The IRIS satellite launch in 1970 by nasa measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1" - "the IRIS satellite measured outgoing radiation. I'm looking at the scientific journal article right now"
Are you confused with the recent GOES satellite with an IRIS LENS which does what you say? Then it's not the IRIS satellite launched in 1970. Get your facts straight. Satellites haven't been measuring Earth's outgoing LWR for 40 years.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK no, I am talking about the IRIS satellite. The scientific journal article analyzing this evidence is titled 'Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997' and quite frankly I'm going to trust the bloke with the PHD before I do some armchair expert on the internet. this is empirical evidence that less heat is escaping into space as DIRECT result of rising C02.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
You need to be more exact when naming a particular satellite, as many with IRIS lenses are called IRIS.
"this is empirical evidence that less heat is escaping into space as DIRECT result of rising C02."
Not at all, as I shall explain very simply, but first they mention this:
"To claim that we may be able to verify or validate a climate projection is simply to overstate the case."
They also note many problems with cloud contamination of their data etc.. etc..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK which IRIS satellite launched in 1970 were you referring to then?
don't try to divert attention from the truth. you claimed again and again that there was no way to detect the C02 energy wavelengths for the past 40 years while this study shows that it clearly false.
i find it hilarious how the scientific findings that do not suit your made up mind have all these theoretical problems with them that you make up but every claim you make about the climate is made on indisputable facts.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"don't try to divert attention from the truth. you claimed again and again that there was no way to detect the C02 energy wavelengths for the past 40 years while this study shows that it clearly false."
Like I said, many satellites are called IRIS because of the lens and you need to be more exact in naming them. I didn't say LWR wasn't detectable in 1970, as an IRIS satellite was also sampling these wavelengths from the sun.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
Sound like a very responsible ad, thanks.
nleck 1 year ago
Climate change is complete bunk. This is simply an agenda to increase the cost of our electricity and gradually decrease our living standards.
WE AUSTRALIANS NEED A SPACE PROGRAM, COLONIZE THE MOON NOW!
comedytracker 1 year ago 2
Coal has to be dropped eventually because it is a finite resource. We can either endure the pain of switching now, or endure the pain of switching later after we have created mass starvation, land loss, mass migration, and species loss through climate change.
felchty 1 year ago
Green jobs, green jobs! Green jobs!!
maustyle 1 year ago
This is a joke right??? Who would be stupid enough to believe this crap???In a few hundred years people are going to look back and think "Man those people were really frackin stupid no wonder they spent more time finding ways to keep penises hard rather than exploring space and colonizing planets"!
CONSTRINGACY 1 year ago
AhhHH I'll just wipe up the vomit that this "black wash" corporate propaganda prompted me to release. Why can't some people accept that their income stream is not a good idea. It seams some humans have abandoned ethics considering nothing other than their own short term solipsistic desire. Coal has been a bad idea for decades and now your trying to sweeten the idea by brushing it under the carpet. The Renewable energy budget is in the 100's Millions the Coal giants are tossing around billions!
andrewrance 1 year ago
Frack you and your propaganda!Do you think were fools?You think we dont see what your doing?Enough with your lies.People with brains see this for what it is.Money making green pushing fear mongering!Frack you and your lies i hope the person/s that made this rot to death in a plague pit
CONSTRINGACY 1 year ago
i give up debating which a bunch of morons who obviously who have never been near a scientific textbook in their adult lives. every single time some fuckwit brings up another halftruth that has been brought up by liars in the media it further degrades my respect for democracy - a system where a bunch of uneducated fuckwits who want handouts from the government vote to tax me higher because they're in the majority regardless of my own rights.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
by the way for anyone interested, the temperature trend for the past 100 years has been like the stock market: it fluctuates year to year, and sometimes goes down, but the trend is definitely going up over all.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
Greenwashing farce.
Clean Coal is an oxymoron.
The only genuine solution is phasing out Coal and replacing it with Renewable Energy (i.e. Solar & Wind), low emission energy (i.e. Natural Gas), and Nuclear Power.
KentAllard 1 year ago
If only emissions were like the ones on S.T.A.L.K.E.R....
HeticScorpion 1 year ago
Go Solar power. Down with corporate propaganda..
coszz 1 year ago
whatever happened to the term '' global warming''?? Now its '' climate change''', reason being they want to blame every natural disaster that happens on '' climate change'', If there is a tsunami? its '' climate change'' , Earthquake? '' climate change'', hell i even seen them blaming the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland on, guess what? thats right! '' climate change'' ---repeat a bogus invalid scientific fraud theory enough and the sheeple will start to believe it, PROPAGANDA never changes
dellbalboa 1 year ago
It's heart-warming to see how concerned the coal industry is about the fate of our planet...
hearts0ngs 1 year ago
You are. I studied it at Swinburne University.
MrTetris88 1 year ago
@MrTetris88 Great, now you can feel good about yourself for knowing a little bit about an unproven and dodgy solution to carbon pollution. I'm happy for you. lol
hearts0ngs 1 year ago
@hearts0ngs lol. i never thought this was a good idea that will save us all, far from it, but their heart is kinda in the right place.
MrTetris88 1 year ago
@MrTetris88 btw it's pretty much as close as they come to their heart being in the right place, if that phrase is appropriate
MrTetris88 1 year ago
"Carbon capture and storage" lolol...just how stupid do you think we all are?
hearts0ngs 1 year ago
oh fucking screw this! ther is no global warming period! its all bullshit! im sick of this propaganda,
Im not falling for this bullshit, carbon dioxide is good, carbon is LIFE!
Why is it always the solution being more taxes? please i pay enough taxes as it is, The government dont give a shit about the environment, this is just another scam, so they can get their filthy hands in to your pockets!
Research climategate, It opens your eyes to this global scam. Another toxic derivative scam!
dellbalboa 1 year ago 2
this is terrible you are allowed to post this video with not the right facts or science!! this is propaganda!! you are the Hitler Youth of today!!!
bennyboytalk 1 year ago
next time I'm not going to bother debating with idiots who have no scientific understanding of climate change. they've just decided "yep climate change is a lie" and then just gone out to try and find half-truths to support their position and ignored all the evidence contradicting their belief.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics Says the person who presents an intellectually dishonest argument then presents flawed evidence into it.
It's good to see your comment, no one wants to argue with someone who uses intellectually dishonest tactics.
CakeMace 1 year ago
flawed evidence? because the global temperatures compiled by the world's leading scientists is flawed is it?
you're an utter fool if you believe that just because the global temperature doesn't grow EVERY DAY, it automatically means that climate change is a myth.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Obviously those scientists aren't very good at what they do or else they wouldn't be presenting the earth as "1 temperature" when different parts of the earth are at different temperatures.
If i was as intellectually dishonest as you, i would use the global cooling chart, but unlike you, i like intellectually honest debate.
CakeMace 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Hey could you mind reading my comment? It's the second comment on this video.
randomgaminghd 1 year ago
mate the ice ages didn't occur over a hundred years or so, they took thousands of years. compare that to the current situation where we've soon the fastest warming the planet has experienced in so short a time.
and mate do you really think that the weather stays the same all the time? just because there is a trend going upwards does not mean every single year without fail will be hotter, but when you average it out its obvious over time this is occurring.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics No we haven't that science has been debunked. Google climategate.
TheGoodnessIsGood 1 year ago
oh you mean the hacked emails that the media deliberately took scientific jargon out of context and misrepresented so to try and make people think that they were changing the data? funny how the media shut-up like a clam about it the instant the whole story came out. of course you don't care about that, you read the first article and never bothered to check the facts for yourself. admit it - you never even read the emails.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
oh and if the scientists were changing all the data then why has there been a slight decline in recorded global temperatures? if the scientists are part of an elaborate plot to take over the world and enslave us all as you seem to think, then why would they allow that kind of data through?
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Prove it.
randomgaminghd 1 year ago
Ok, CCS, is not financially viable yet and will not be until 2030, which is when we can have successfully switched over to 100% renewables according to some studies. So why wait until then. Clean coal is a scam and a con of the coal industry-desperately trying to increase their lifetime, you could say they are adding a "last stand" .
jada189 1 year ago
...The video is hypocritical in this sense it says why wait for the perfect solution-exactly, just switch to a mix of renewables now. Also coal mining ruins the landscape and emits methane so we have to phase out coal. Coal is not critical to our energy seurity, in fact is is stopping our energy security-we have to move from it and thus is not a security.Coal does support some jobs in regional communities but there is more jobs in renewables...
jada189 1 year ago
you didn't mention meat
ChannelTofu 1 year ago
Note that putting CO2 under ground isnt the wisest thing u can do. the CO2 will eventually rise up to the surface one way or another in possibly dangerous amounts. extreme intelligent science teacher told me this so not my
fualt if hes rong :P.
darthnemoz 1 year ago
wtf..even in this video they say they are going to dump their shit underground, and that will be safe forever???? BS!!
mrhotmale99 1 year ago
This is belief being pushed through a cute animation so you won't argue, DON'T BUY IT, The world has been cooling for the last 11 years, and they're trying to hide it, and there are scientists, REAL SCIENTISTS who have shown evidence indicating we are heading for another Ice Age. If you still has doubts, think about it, HOW DOES MORE TAX help the environment? that is all they have done and are planing to do
Fedwaa 1 year ago 6
That's right EVERYONE FLAG THIS SCAM!!!
TheGoodnessIsGood 1 year ago
I really dont think this is important because using a billion dollars just to capture and store carbon is a bit over the top and why not just use that money to invest in a better energy such as FUSION ENERGY, look i hate this ..... and yeah over the next billion years we are going to Fry by a 5% raise in the tempertature... it will take a very long time for global warming But noo we have to throw money at climate change soloutions.....
CrAzYMaN12121 1 year ago
@CrAzYMaN12121 how about feeding some starving people or cancelling their fraudulent ill gotten debt that they do not personally owe and never saw the benefit of, like Vietnam, South American countries, Cambodia, and all the other poor nations.Oh no it's much more important for us to have a new iphone than to feed people. Oh they will just grow up and have more kids. NO WRONG royal commission on population demonstrated when you keep people poor they breed. Release them of their debts!
TheGoodnessIsGood 1 year ago
FACT: Ignore propaganda that needs to say "FACT" in order to carry it's message.
------ YOU WANT THE TRUTH? ------
The sun is getting hotter. This makes the earth hotter. When the earth gets hotter (particularly the ocean) it produces more Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
------ YOU WANT THE TRUTH? ------
More CO2 does not make the earth hotter. The earth getting hotter produces more CO2.
------ YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH ------
daftspunk1 1 year ago 5
you are either an idiot or a liar. if you actually looked at the scientific evidence instead of just trying to find lies to support your brainwashed point of view you would know that for the past 35 years THE SUN HAS SHOWN A SLIGHT COOLING TREND.
and what has the earth done in the time? the opposite - WARMED UP.
don't make shit up but sooner or later someone like me who actually is studying science will call you out on it.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics Unbelievable dude. Ok lets look at that as difficult as it is in comments boxes. The sun went through a MAJOR solar cycle and only recently went very cool LOW and behold we have a cooling trend to match it. Other planets were heating up like Mars and Venus IN LINE with the Earth's SLIGHT increase in temp. Man, over the last 35 years it's shown a cooling trend. What, overall? Says who? link to your sources. My source is NASA.
TheGoodnessIsGood 1 year ago
actually mate the sun has shown slight cooling since 1978, not the past 10 years. you're making things up again.
so that ruins your theory since the world experienced its hottest years after after 1978 showing that there is SOMETHING ELSE CAUSING THE WARMING OTHER THAN THE SUN.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics Isn't it obvious? "Scientific Evidence" can no longer be trusted! Good job on picking out the recent cooling trend but I am referring to a much longer period of time.
You are a naive sheep. The foxes who engineered this "religion" you have adopted stand to make trillions. Check again who has been brainwashed.
It's very simple, reverse the relationship of CO2 and the temperature of the planet. Make it appear as if we are to blame, then justify taxing the people out of guilt.
daftspunk1 1 year ago 2
mate on one hand you say that scientific evidence can no longer be trusted, then on the other hand you directly refer to this evidence to back up your point.
the fact is that for the past 100 years the global climate has been warming at a speed never before seen in the history of the earth's planet.
it is also a fact that any first year chem student will tell you that carbon in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping from the planet.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
-- Which came first the CO2 or the warming? --
@AussiePolitics I acknowledge this is a classic Chicken or Egg argument. But notice how this video isn't allowing me to come to my own conclusion? It's trying to TELL ME WHAT TO THINK.
You are in support of this sheep-like approach but it comes at the cost of your own credibility. As far as I'm concerned, you've already sold your soul, your opinions mean absolutely nothing and every word you say is like a turd falling in to my drink.
Ba Ram You
daftspunk1 1 year ago
well done for acting like an utter nutjob.
if i disagree with you and actually have a greater scientific understanding of the topic than you then i have "sold my soul" and am just blindly following.
you know what? you don't videos like this to help you make up your mind because you already decided long ago that climate change was a myth and they you deliberately went out to try and find just the lies and half truths to back up your position.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
1. Wrong ice core findings show that the earth was a lot hotter 1000 years ago.
2. If the temperature was rising up over the last 100 years why was the theory global cooling erected.
3.This year alone the volcano in Iceland emited more co2 than what mankind did in 2 days within one hour.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
1. you are either a liar or misinformed. the world is far hotter today than it was 1000 years ago. the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years and the warming is most dramatic after 1920.
2. the global cooling MEDIA ARTICLES which were written by JOURNALISTS with no peer-review checks? the majority of scientific journal articles from the 1970s if you care to read them were still predicting global warming
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
3. the planet is all about balance - natural C02 emissions are neutralized by natural absorptions such as the oceans and vegetation. however when you start burning trillions of tons of carbon that is trapped underground you upset his balance.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
No incorrect global cooling was peer reviewed to the point the British government introduced nuclear power. No if you look up the data recieved by the artic ice samples you'll clearly see that the world was a lot hotter look it up for yourself how can more scientist be wrong do you how is so many phd's confirmed study's misinformed?
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics Ok firstly we add up to not even 1 % of all man made emissions and china refuses to introduce a climate reduction scheme the same with india yet you want me to pay for the right to emit co2.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
no, the hysteria about "global cooling" was the result of a number of articles written by journalists at the time while the overwhelming scientific consensus was that the world was STILL warming. why would scientists argue that the world was cooling when it would have blatantly contradicted the warming trend that their data was showing?
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
Lol my lifestyle is the cause of Co2 rising wtf so it's ok for the extremely rich to fly around and burn a ton of oil and coal but not for me iIl have to live like a cavemen for there wellbeing get fucked really go to hell. Go be a good servant really just line up take your shot and enjoy the increased prices on everything after the super mining tax!
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
no I'm saying that you keep on denying the fact that carbon is the cause for global warming because you feel if you do that then it might actually effect your own life.
oh and fuckwit when the hell did i say anything about the mining tax? grow up and stick to the topic. how about you learn to read what I've said or is that too difficult for you? i said i supported implementing NUCLEAR POWER, not taxing the fuck out of carbon.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Yet after all the tax and funded co2 reduction schemes all it takes is for a fluke volcano like Iceland and the world will get hotter anyway. So what is the point if the world has over a thousand underwater volcanoes.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
"yet you want me to pay for the right to emit co2"
when did i say that? WHEN DID I SAY I WANT YOU TO PAY????
all i am interested in is the scientific evidence for an occurrence, yet of course you are only interested in the possible ramifications for your lifestyle so you deny that its happening.
as a matter of fact i oppose a carbon tax, it will just fuck us over economically. i would rather see us utilise nuclear power to cut emissions.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
And no I dont deny global warming I DENY the fact that mankind is responsible. It's a natural thing yes it's not nice BUT IT'S FUCKIN NATURAL.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
you think its fucking natural for mankind to pump trillions of tons of carbon that had laid dormant under the earth into the atmosphere do you?
you think its fucking natural for in the period of about 100 years for the carbon in the atmosphere to double?
never before in the earth's history have we experience such rapid warming and you think that humans have nothing to do with it? go talk to someone study a first year degree in chemistry and ask them what carbon does in the atmosphere.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
we have the world's largest reserves of uranium, nuclear technology has evolved massively over the past few decades, is incredibly efficient, far safer and only produces a tiny amount of the waste products that the old ones did.
the greens are against using uranium because they're nothing more than a bunch of socialist fuckwits who have hijacked the scientific issue of global warming for their own ends they think everyone should be punished and since nuclear provides a way out they're against it
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
do you know how incredibly frustrating it is from a scientific perspective to debate global warming? you get the fuckwits on the left who go "yay lets trojan horse this issue to get rid of capitalism" and you get the fuckwits on the right who go "what? the left supports something? well since they're generally wrong on most issues, lets not bother to look at the evidence, we'll just go in the opposite direction and deny its anyones fault"
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Well dickhead how did the iceage end?
Lol you think the earth didnt heat as fast as it has now lol fool. Volcano's are the reason why the earth's ice melted no matter how many things you throw at me you still cant answer this how much carbon on average does mankind contribute to?
You'll be suprised when you actaually LOOK SHIT UP!
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
learn what the fuck you're talking about mate. the ice ages were caused and ended by changes to the earth's orbit, not carbon or volcanoes.
and mate the C02 that is naturally emitted is NATURALLY balanced out. however when we start pumping dormant carbon into the atmosphere we upset that balance.
humans emit 26 gigatons of carbon a year. the amount of carbon rising in the atmosphere is 15 gigatons a year. that shows you how part of our emissions are being balanced out.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Lol uranium enrichment yeah thats a real good way to reduce co2. You are a faggot!
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
so I'm a faggot because I advocate nuclear energy as an energy source?
you obviously are little more than a brainwashed child. you heard from your mummy and daddy that climate change was wrong and you don't care what the evidence is, you'll just go out and find some half-truths to back up your points.
every single thing you have argued has been either a lie or a halftruth. you can tell when someone comes up with the bullshit line "global cooling predicted in the 70s" they have not read anything.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Actually I prefe coal becouse the Nuclear enrich process is far worse an damaging to nature due to the seperation of u235 from u238 you just dont run a nuclear power plant of nothing you still need to mine it and enrich as well as seperate it after a while that amount of u235 will burn out also if we are planning NOT to create nuclear weapons 7% of all uranium mined will be nuclear waste as well the used up portions of the u238.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
obviously all mining uses up emissions but its minimal for uranium compared to carbon. think about it - same mining process for both but for one you're digging it up to burn and emit carbon into the atmosphere while the other one does not.
and no, the amount of nuclear waste has become far smaller and its becoming far smaller every day. you're as bad as the greens who make up a load of bullshit reasons why nuclear energy is not the best way to power the nation.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Im sure economic growth as well each year is still going up but just not at the pace in which it was. Meaning we would emmit more co2 each year meaning atmospheric levels should go up if were to blame.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
atmospheric levels are going up. that was just from last year. in the past 100 years the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has doubled, and its grown year by year. anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of the element carbon will tell you that in the atmosphere it traps heat. so what do you think will happen when human emissions upset the natural balance?
are you really so stupid that you think that us bringing up all the carbon from underground will have no effect?
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Again if you add a percentage of the amount of Co2 emmited natural over the amount emmited by mankind you could see roughly how much of the Co2 is on average our fault.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Which would then slightly give you an estimate of the percentage in the atmosphere caused by man.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
so if i gave you an estimate of how much fluid was in your body and then introduced a little bit of arsenic do you think it will have no effect too?
the natural environment is a system where the natural carbon emissions are absorbed by natural means such as vegetations and sink holes. do you think its a coincidence that in the past 100 years the amount of carbon has doubled in the atmosphere? some human emissions are negated by nature, but the majority take us over the tipping point.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Firstly dont put Co2 under the category as a poison. It's plant food and it's a building block for life without it we wouldn't be here becouse there would be no plants meaning no oxygen. Your quote should go as this.
If I could estimate how much fluid was in your body and each day you drank 2 litres then every day for 100 days you decided to drink an extra 2 more liters on the existing 2 you already drink would that have a devastating affect on you?
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
carbon dioxide is a pollutant in the sense that when you get too much of it in the atmosphere it contributes to the greenhouse effect and traps too much heat in the atmosphere. oh, and by the way everything can be defined as a poison - EVEN WATER - if you take it in excess.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
the amount of C02 in the atmosphere is at a level not seen in over 800,000 years.
Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
Firstly your not studying shit secoundly you cant measure how much natural co2 is emmited and the ocean does not just absorb it also emits far far more then you can ever record due to the amount of sealife in it. yeah thats right dickhead I bet you didnt read that in your algore book.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Yeah I will believe that statement when you can measure the amount of Co2 naturally emited then I'll believe were using it in excess. Then when you add the next 90% of your algore graph to the chart you'll see that the earth was a lot warmer and when you add new recordings to it you'll see it's now declining. Oh yeah water is a poison if your dumb enough to shove a house down your fucking throat.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
its called hyper hydration when you consume too much, and actually yes, like all substances water is considered a poison in excess.
when was the earth a lot warmer mate? if you want to know the hottest year on record for the whole world collectively it was 2005.
they can measure how much carbon is going up year by year, and a good part of what we are emitting makes up this.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
When the earth was a huge ball of molten fuckin lava thats when arsehole!
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
oh and fuckwit water in the atmosphere comes down to earth in a week. carbon stays there about 100 years.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Ok what cooled the earth down when it was a ball of molten lava?
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Fuckoff really you dont even answer my questions you just make new tangents up your like a priest trying to prove god exists but you cant you just keep going from fairytale to fairytale.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
FAGGOT!
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
@KEVINKRUD
Duse what uni do you go to?
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
It's easy to state "hottest year on record" stuff seeing we're still coming out of the Little Ice Age that ended in 1800. Highest point is always on top. Then again, 1998 - not 2005 is hottest:
mensnewsdaily. com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/temp. jpg
Global CO2 is just 0.03% of the atmosphere, and our contribution is just 3% of THAT. Don't wet the bed over 0.0009% now will you. Cooling from '40's to '70's:
ww w. leif. org/research/Global%20Temperature%20Anomalies. png
MrOllyK 1 year ago
The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was the warming sun with a small contribution from volcanic activity. However, solar activity leveled off after 1940 and the net influence from sun and volcano since 1940 has been slight cooling. Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
"Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970."
The only evidence of that exists in the minds of those that have such short memories, forgetting the 20x CO2 levels of the planet's past without acid oceans or runaway greenhouse ever.
CO2 being a trace gas comprises just 0.03% of the atmosphere, which can't retain heat since even 50C deserts drop below zero at night.
Don't forget oceanic decadal oscillations taking time to transfer and lose their heat..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Highly unlikely when there is a natural process in your body Naturally given to you by nature.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics which allows you to absorb it.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
You really need to stop believing the media and the politicians when they tell you that it's bad when in reality it's a completely natural element. They want you to think it's bad and it's our fault so they can tell you it's your fault and you have to pay for it.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
I'm not listening to anyone you fool. im studying a fucking environmental science degree at university so I'm seeing the evidence first hand and speaking to the people who understand more about the environment than you will ever guess.
it all comes down to paying for it doesn't it? you don't give a fuck about the evidence, you'll just deny it on principle if there's a tiny chance it could effect your life.
carbon, like everything in excess can be a NEGATIVE INFLUENCE on the planet.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
It's not about having to pay for it it's simply the fact Im not responsible for it and i refuse to believe the depopulation is the intended means of the outcome. Co2 is not the only thing in the atmosphere methane and water are also in it as well.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
actually its you who sounds like an uneducated fool. all you've stated this whole debate are a bunch of lies and halftruths such as the alleged "1970s cooling".
"yeah thats right dickhead I bet you didnt read that in your algore book."
that's it. you're obviously an immature brat with no interest in evidence. you made up your narrow, brainwashed childish mind long ago and you just make up petty insults and lies. i see no further point in enlightening idiots like you.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
You go from being a chemistry student to a person studying natural science or some shit. I wonder what classes you actually do?
Are they Bullshit and lying to feel big!
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
oh and fuckwit if you actually knew anything about the bachelor of science you would know that regardless of what area you're specializing in, first year students have to do at least one CHEMISTRY subject for a semester. every single time you write a comment you betray your own ignorance and arrogance.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago 2
@AussiePolitics Actually that's not right. Chemistry is not compulsory.
champion32panel 1 year ago
i meant a real university course at a real university, not a course in nutrition or some crap like that. if you study a single science degree in one of the real areas such as enviro, biomed, chem, genetics, biotech, then you will have to study chemistry.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
You are a faggot becouse you dont look shit up and believe that 2 wrongs make a right. No nuclear power is not the prefered solution yet I still dont see the reason to have a solution when you can just as easily absorb carbon through vegetation if it is at all a problem which I myself do not believe.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
actually you don't look shit up you fool. the carbon in the atmosphere is growing by 15 gigatons a year and humans emit 26 gigatons. doesn't that show you that the natural carbon emission are balancing out but when we go to excess the natural process cannot absorb the extra carbon.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics
Well if I might add population growth = more co2 emmisions which means that if it cant naturally be absorbed then each year it should rise right?
Meaning that in one year it should be 15 then the next 16. If the rate of increase does not match the increased amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. It simply proves my point in saying the world is naturally heating up weather we like it or not.
KEVINKRUD 1 year ago
at the end of the day the very graph you agree with that shows slight cooling for the past decade also shows that for the past 100 years the climate has been changing at a rate never before seen on the planet's history. anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of he element carbon knows that it traps heat in the atmosphere that would normally have escaped into space.
so what do you think happens when you upset the earth's balance by pumping trillions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere?
AussiePolitics 1 year ago