Realistically speaking what reductions in global CO2 do you believe we can and/or will see & what difference do you think it will make?


How long have we been accurately taking measurements of the ice in the polar regions?

Now how long has the earth had ice ages and interglacial warming periods?

hint: First Satalite that was just had just a radio beep was late 1950’s. First so called weather satelite in 1960 (but I seriously doubt it had camera’s looking at polar ice).

Bt lets use the 1960 date shall we. 1960 to (using round numbers) 2020 is a scant 60 years.

Now lets say the earth has been warming in the latest interglacial period for (again round numbers for ease) 15,000 years ago.

Now we do simple math with rounded numbers: 60/15000 = 0.004

So we have observed the polar ice sheets for 4 tenths of 1 percent of this latest inter glacial period.

Now assume you know a person who is 60 years old. And you’ve know them for .4% of their lifetime. Makes it so you have know that person roughly 90 days.

That number of days you know the 60 year oldgets a lot less when you take into consideration that the earth has had warming and cooling cycles over millions of years. (60/1,000,000 = .00006 or .006%). going back just a million years would be like knowing a 60 year old man for 90 hours (or a about 4 days).

See where I’m going with this?


This implies there is some duration of measurements necessary to formulate a predicament outcome. So what is that? What number of years or centuries or millennia of measurements is required?


The longer you have data, the better you can know if it’s normal or abnormal. If you observe a 60 years old’s behavior or 3 days – will you know if he’s behaving “normal” for him/her? Now if you observe the same 60 year old for 10 years will you have a better understanding if they are behaving “normal” or not?

That’s what the ice pack comes down to. Is what we are seeing “normal” behavior based on actual observation? The other way of determining is through a less precise (core sample) meathod. At that point you are comparing one type of observation to another. To be able to determin if core sampes, and what is happening today is “normal”, you would have to wait hundreds of years and compare the different layers of core samples to see if they appear to have the same pattern over the years.

It’s like taking the 60 year olds temp with a thermometer and using those readings – and comparing them to someone who felt his forhead over a number of years and has an imprecise reading compared to the thermometer.


An entire, entrenched generation of anti-environment types is literally going to have to die off first.


How do we know this is not a natural cycle? What is so natural about burning the carbon stores built up over hundreds of millions of years and deforesting the rain forest in a century’s time? There could be no consequence to Earth as a result.


Question is . . . what effect will it have?

IPCC - the UN report/group/whatever that is pushing the global warming had to drastically reduce the temp increase they thought was going to happen. Why? Their “guess” on what should happen based on current more reliable data didn’t occure as they thought it would.

How far off?

Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.

Started out at .4 to 1c that was expected over a 30 year period. Then they had to drop that to .3 to .7 over the same period. Then dropped it even further over what they thought would happen over the next 100 years.

The web site also uses the graphes from well known agencies/studies showing that even with the increase in co2 and all that, temps essentially have not risen.

So again, do we know what the effect of humans will be? So far, they havn’t predicted it right. Maybe in 100 years they will get closer.


That DOES result in CO2 production over plant-based diets.

The question was whether it contributes the most. I would guess it doesn’t even make a top-5 list. Maybe even top-10.


To be fair, I think some of the modeling and measuring is based on gas trapped in glacial ice, and through some sort of dating procedure can be dated back thousands of years.

Sometimes I wonder about that. One air bubble (or 10) from a mile-deep core is a limited sample. It’s like telling me what the new dinosaur species looked like based on one knuckle-bone fragment.

Nonetheless, we do have samples and measurements that are more than 60 years old.


Let’s set aside egos and leave it to the experts, shall we?


That’s what people say when they have no analytical scientific knowledge and skills.

Here… look at what the experts said was OK. Look how many people and equipment was involved. The experts MUST be correct


China and India has to be on board, China will pass us soon by gdp, and they love opening new coal plants each week and driving cars with a population of 1.4 billion.

Then there is India around 1 billion people, firing up new coal plants every week and a growing economy.

Then there is the west who wants to think they are making a difference by making energy more expensive in the west via carbon tax.

Global warming is a global problem, it takes a global solution. Right now China is emitting more carbon than the U.S. and Europe combined by 2030 some estimates have China emitting more carbon than the whole world.


But China signed the Paris Accords, so they’re cool. We’re the bad guys.


If you suddenly need surgery to remove your appendix, do you go to an expert who specializes in surgery to remove your appendix, or do you go to a guy posting on Internet forums about how experts in surgery are wrong?


I struggle to find credibility in a “field of study” that was created on an agenda. Kind of like a gender-neutrality coach.


Ya they signed it and are doing the opposite, it’s not a guarantee just a good gesture paper. But if we just tax the poor here with a carbon tax it will offset this :roll_eyes:


Now there’s a euphemism. [quote=“Oryx, post:30, topic:77770, full:true”]

Animal husbandry.


Someone actually read the OP! Population growth is the cause of deforestation though.


“Experts” at one time needlessly obotomized tens of thousands of mental patients. You mean experts like that?

We have quite a few liberal “subject matter experts” here that are well versed on any and all topics.

Just ask the, they’ll tell you.


No, not them. I’m explicitly talking about experts in surgery—you know, people who have successfully operated on hundreds of appendixes.

Do you choose them to remove your appendix?

Or instead do opt for the keyboard commando to remove your appendix instead, due to your apparent worries about getting lobotomized?


Why the quotations around the word experts?

They’re experts.

Let’s all participate in reality, folks.

It’s here for all of us to enjoy.