At www.climategate.nl you can read a manifesto that is very critical about the climate agreement as agreed by Dutch politics. I broadly agree with this climate manifesto. I do think however that global warming due to greenhouse gases is going to be a major problem, but it is utterly ridiculous that people think that global warming can be stopped if we achieve the CO2 climate targets as agreed by the politicians.
The greenhouse effect due to CO2 is a physical effect which is easy to quantify. Reducing the current CO2 emissions will not make much difference. The problem, I think, is that the surface of the oceans has already been warmed up a few degrees in the past 100 years. This warming is probably the result of human activities in the past hundred years, but we can not reverse that now. In the past thousands of years, net CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans. In the coming years, however, due to global warming, net CO2 will be released from the oceans. That will be a multiple of all CO2 emissions from human activities. Fortunately there is a delay in these CO2 emissions because most of the CO2 is dissolved at a greater depth where the warming has hardly penetrated. Despite of that we will not be able to prevent the warming of the atmosphere.
Measures must now be aimed at combating the effects of global warming. This will cost a great deal of money and energy and the proposed measures to reduce CO2 emissions are a waste of these resources.
Would you please quantify it for us then. I am a retired engineer with a Master's Degree that specialized in Thermal Sciences and I can't make it work. I would love to see someone put the science together that actually shows CO2 has a negative impact. For instance here is one of my post: Greenhouse Effect - Energy Trapped by the Atmosphere
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I haven't done the math myself but apparently the greenhouse effect caused by the current human CO2 emissions (25 Gt/year) will cause less than one degree temperature rise in the next 100 year. My point however is that in the unrealistic scenario of no human CO2 emissions the global warming will probably continue because the current state of warming and acidification of the oceans will still cause a net increase of the CO2 in our atmosphere.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Look at a longer time frame. The increase in CO2 is a result of the increase in temperature, not the other way around. I'm just trying to help, take a look here House Resolution 109 and Climate Change.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with you that some of the proposed measures to reduce the CO2 emissions are ridiculous. I think the greenhouse effect is real but global warming cannot be explained by the current CO2 emissions. The problem is that we have no good explanation for the current sudden increase in temperature. You show that similar increases in temperature have occurred in the past 500000 years but you don't explain why. They could have been caused by meteorites, huge volcanic eruptions or increased solar activity. We don't experience that at the moment so most likely it is caused by human activities.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Wow! You can actually look at the graph showing the increase in carbon dioxide has been occurring over the last 7000 years and the graph showing the lag in carbon dioxide concentration behind temperature and make that conclusion. Simply because there is no explanation of why glacial and inter-glacial periods occur, it must be because of human activities. Unbelievable....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The current global average CO2 level is well above 400 ppm. Your graph stops at 300 ppm. Why does your graph not show the unprecedented increase from 300 ppm to 400 ppm that took place within the last century?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Again, you're completely ignoring the main points of information demonstrated in this data. The data goes back 500,000 years and your concerned that the last 100 years isn't included.
For clarification, this is not my graph and not my data. For me to take credit for it would be plagiarism.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It seems that we disagree on the influence of human activities on global warming. These human activities mainly occurred in the past 100 years and not in the previous 500.000 years. In the past 100 years the CO2 levels went up from 300 ppm to above 400 ppm.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @firemonkey! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click here to view your Board
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hello @firemonkey! This is a friendly reminder that you have 3000 Partiko Points unclaimed in your Partiko account!
Partiko is a fast and beautiful mobile app for Steem, and it’s the most popular Steem mobile app out there! Download Partiko using the link below and login using SteemConnect to claim your 3000 Partiko points! You can easily convert them into Steem token!
https://partiko.app/referral/partiko
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @firemonkey! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit