Latest CO2 increase marks largest rise ever in world's atmosphere

MaXtor said:

Here's one example; a company that is using solar panels to pull moisture from the air and extract hydrogen. Couple that with a hydrogen powered generator and we have actual renewable energy

Click to expand...

Powering New York City with solar requires covering an area larger than the city itself with solar panels. That's just for electricity. Add in hydrogen storage and hydrogen to power the transportation sector and the space expands to more than triple the size of the city. And, as you point out, those panels degrade over time -- if you plan on keeping them 20-30 years, add another 25% of area covered.

Mankind has used wind and solar power for centuries. The entire reason we abandoned these sources starting the 19th century was because of the key concept of energy density. Fossil fuels are thousands of times more energy dense than these sources. And nuclear power -- the true 'green' solution -- is 100 million times more dense than fossil fuels.

Endymio said:

Powering New York City with solar requires covering an area larger than the city itself with solar panels. That's just for electricity. Add in hydrogen storage and hydrogen to power the transportation sector and the space expands to more than triple the size of the city. And, as you point out, those panels degrade over time -- if you plan on keeping them 20-30 years, add another 25% of area covered.

Mankind has used wind and solar power for centuries. The entire reason we abandoned these sources starting the 19th century was because of the key concept of energy density. Fossil fuels are thousands of times more energy dense than these sources. And nuclear power -- the true 'green' solution -- is 100 million times more dense than fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

I haven't verified those numbers but all good points.

Living off grid I'm well aware of the limitation of solar. Especially in a northern state like New York where the sun is so low in the sky during the winter there can be as little as 2 hours of usable sunlight per day. Add overcast and you're lucky if you're getting 5% of your solar production for those 2 hours. That would never power a city like NYC. Ideally solar grids would be built in the south and energy would be exported north.

But I'm very interested in purchasing hydrogen generating solar panels for my own use. I could generate a ridiculous amount of hydrogen during the summer to help get through the winter. Currently I have no choice but to subsidize my solar during the winter with a diesel generator. I would love to reduce that significantly.

I'm not researched on the latest advances in nuclear power, so I won't comment on that.

VoloCh said:

Seriously, no one correlates recent spike with Russian invasion? Estimate the enormous amount of CO2 emitted from Russian ballistic and cruise missiles, jets, tanks, navy, explosions, cities burnt to the ground, oil reservoirs and refineries on fire, etc. Effects of war are order of magnitude larger than switching from 30 MPG car to 40 MPG car. Do you think such a massive war CO2 footprint does not affect US? You are wrong.

Click to expand...

That is kind of the problem. There is nothing but panic and no attempt to isolate variables. We had a 3-year La Niña cycle that hasn't happened since 1998-2001 (remember the hockey stick?) and before that 1954-57. The recent La Niña phase went straight into El Niño and there was an insane amount of wildfires due to drought. The entire Gulf Coast of the US had marsh fires, of all things.

Though with the many different theaters of conflict right now that are setting records of their own, plus the solar activity has been rather interesting (the readjustment of the eclipse totality projections was getting pretty crazy, now Northern Lights in the lower 48 states).

They don't even isolate data from downwind stations from metro areas' Urban Heat Island effect, so anything from those reporting stations is already working with tainted data. You'd have to rely entirely on rural station reporting, or just stations not within 200-300 miles of the UHI-affected areas.

Now, another variable that needs to be removed, is redoing all research in the West about fossil fuel exploitation, since nearly all research for fracking and other extraction techniques and for climate modeling was heavily funded by Russia when Putin took the reins of the country. They were using the funding to disrupt production in the West, while leaving themselves to reap the rewards by not following the recommendations of all those studies and outproducing their adversaries' exports.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/03/12/russians-financed-the-u-s-anti-fracking-movement...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profi...i-fracking-movement-nrcm-sierra-club-nrdc-sea

They did a similar program to cut our nuclear energy, weapon manufacturing, and refinement capacity down through an initiative called the World Peace Council in the 1950s. It managed to reach fevered pitch during the 60s and they council was very effective. The peace sign that everyone has seen at one point in life came from their propaganda department. The entire hippie movement was joined at the hip with them, and nuclear fuel recycling was eliminated by Carter, so the worst possible outcome did happen. Now nuclear waste in the United States consists of fuel that can be reused. We're talking over 100 years of energy sitting there doing nothing.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nucl...ouse-spending-bill_n_65ea3392e4b0c77c7415c026

This was a book forgotten by history, but it had great detail of the WPC programs and the reasons for its existence.
https://archive.org/details/struggleagainstb00lawr_0/mode/2up

Now am I saying climate fears are unfounded? Not at all. Is there tainted data? Unfortunately, there is too much of it. There are very real and present dangers. When people let politicization of an issue take place, and you put studies in the hands of partisans and bad-faith actors like Russia, we get bad data. Now you have people whose egos and careers are spent defending the results of their tainted studies, instead of reviewing them objectively. I just want accurate modeling to move policy in the right direction and pace.

We don't need many studies to show plastic in everything is causing some serious issues, and it would be nice to not need crude, but the problem is we are struggling badly without decent energy density storage.
Wind isn't reliable unless placed offshore with minimal risk of endangered bird strikes and inland farms still mulch endangered species, a lot. The Sierra Club's default stance was no; pick places of least impact and windmill densities.
https://vault.sierraclub.org/sierra/201303/wind-power-turbine-technology-birds.aspx
Now after years of tainted data, this is their position now:
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/bird-whale-turbine-offshore-wind-science

Solar is best as a grid load alleviator (not a power plant replacement) and we need to commission more passively cooled reactors years ago (give me pebble bed, give me molten salt reactor, just give me something that is more than what we have).

The West must also stop causing the further crippling of industries and ask the countries causing the worst problems to meet the common commitments for actually solving issues that we are subjecting ourselves to, but not them. Nothing is going to get done when all our imports are operating dirtier than we are for domestic production. You can go to Windy.com at any time to see where the problem is in real time. We need environmental parity protective tariffs to solve this, and they needed to happen 15 years ago. Things can get better, but the panic dogma has to be addressed.We are crippling the industries that can operate under good climate control protocols, while China gives the finger to the world.

I'm insulted! The map that is the picture for the article has lost Australia! We don't exist now in this overheated world!

The following is an interesting read regarding the need for large amounts of fossil fuels and wood burning required to make solar panels. Most of the carbon footprint of photovoltaics is conveniently hidden from assessments of their CO2 impact (and deforestation, and pollution, and more).

https://www.researchgate.net/public...o_we_burn_coal_and_trees_to_make_solar_panels

Good, keep up the good work, plants need it desperately, without it all food on the planet will die
Bill Gates is trying to kill of people by killing off food.... follow the money

CO2 is a minor player in the atmosphere - H2O is the greenhouse gas - always has been. Add more energy to the water cycle and it merely intensifies. CO2 absorbs IR via dipole moment changes - doesn't kinetically "heat-up" and the thin band of IR it absorbs is already covered by H2O so will only have an effect in dry air (hence the warming mainly being at the poles) . Temperature change is not linear either - will require a doubling each time for the same effect - hence the change from the "must not get to 2 degrees" was revised downwards to "1.5" - not for any scientific reason but merely for political reasons (there is a net benefit of 2 degress above pre-industrial times). Adaptation is the only sensible approach as mitigation was and is never going to work - the climate has always changed - so adaptation works in all scenarios.

fadingfool said:

CO2 is a minor player in the atmosphere - H2O is the greenhouse gas - always has been. Add more energy to the water cycle and it merely intensifies. CO2 absorbs IR via dipole moment changes - doesn't kinetically "heat-up" and the thin band of IR it absorbs is already covered by H2O so will only have an effect in dry air (hence the warming mainly being at the poles) . Temperature change is not linear either - will require a doubling each time for the same effect - hence the change from the "must not get to 2 degrees" was revised downwards to "1.5" - not for any scientific reason but merely for political reasons (there is a net benefit of 2 degress above pre-industrial times). Adaptation is the only sensible approach as mitigation was and is never going to work - the climate has always changed - so adaptation works in all scenarios.

Click to expand...

Finally, someone who understands the rudiments of atmospheric physics. To your points, I'll add the details of how Dr. James Hansen -- the so-called "father of global warming" got around the issues of CO2's narrow band of LWIR absorption and prevalence of H20 vapor. He postulated that trivial amounts of warming would be "amplified" by increasing water vapor in the atmosphere, which itself would lead to still further warming.

Unfortunately, those claims were not only without current evidence, but belied by the geologic record. Had such positive-feedback mechanisms existed, the earth would have long since exhibited runaway warming during periods when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than it is today. Yet we clearly see dozens of times in which CO2 and temperatures first rose, followed later by a *decrease* in global temperatures.

Nelson28 said:

This is terrifying! The new record high for CO2 is awful news. It's clear our fossil fuel dependence is pushing the planet past tipping points. We need serious action now to cut emissions before it's too late. 2-3 ppm annual increases are still scary, even if it's not the record jump. We have to act on climate change!

Click to expand...

Nelson28 said:

This is terrifying! . We have to act on climate change!

Click to expand...

Lol get a grip. We aren't doomed and to think we can manipulate climate is a ridiculous notion. Let me guess, you have coloured hair and a nose ring?

This means of measurement is also simply a model and is probably flawed again.

So many brainwashed youth today but they refuse to stop using their mobile phones, cars, buying frivolous stuff off Amazon, eBay and Temu. They buy disposable clothing instead of making a quality purchase that lasts a long time and is repairable. They game, spend countless hours on social media and are now becoming a menace in the University's.

They will always cry about so called "climate change" but will do squat all to make a difference about something they pretend to believe in.

Kirby1 said:

Wikipedia:

Click to expand...

Yea the heavily biased and censored Wikipedia has lost all credibility. I'm sure there are plenty who agree with him but Wikipedia won't balance the narrative.

BbN48 said:

Cutting way the f down on animal product consumption would help a lot too. Factory farming and associated wastes account for something like 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.

People could just not eat so much meat, and the looming catastrophes would be much smaller.

Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish. Complete and utter BS.
So now it's eating meat. FFS get a brain and do some constructive thinking.

Any mention of the climate being trashed or Donald Trump being sub-human always wakes up the Moronosphere. Brandine and Cleetus immediately start spouting misinformation they read on Truth Social or Fox news peppered up with a sh1t smear of their own deep wisdom.

OortCloud said:

...always wakes up the Moronosphere. Brandine and Cleetus immediately start spouting misinformation they read.

Click to expand...

Misinformation like "Hunter's laptop was fake Russian propaganda", "Covid was scientifically proven to have come from a wet market", or "Trump was denied a jury trial because his attorneys forgot to check a box"? That the sort you mean?

antiproduct said:

There's always gotta be at least one person who eats up the fossil fuel industry garbage and then regurgitates it across the internet...

Click to expand...

Climate change is based on non-convergent (meaning they are wrong) models. Anyone who is familiar with applied mathematics would use the heat-transfer equation which is used hundreds of times every day for over 100 hundred years on everything from cars to computers. It is always right on the money. That equation says that man-made CO2 cools the Earth (it's cooler in the shade) by less than 1/1000th of a degree F and the effect lasts about 3 years. I blame all the gaslighting on the Internet for driving climate change.

MaXtor said:

I live off the grid in a cabin in the woods, I'm surrounded by trees, vegetation and wild animals. My world looks like the most beautiful green house.

We can disagree though. Ultimately we have the same goal of moving toward a greener future. Instead of polluting our air with gas powered engines and filling landfills with toxic batteries, we could focus on actual renewable and clean energy. One solution is hydrogen. Despite the fear mongering, it can be done and is being done safely.

View attachment 89639
https://www.sunhydrogen.com/

Here's one example; a company that is using solar panels to pull moisture from the air and extract hydrogen. Couple that with a hydrogen powered generator and we have actual renewable energy with zero emissions. Of course producing solar panels is not pollution free, but they can be used for decades before their production degrades and even then they can continue to be used with reduced production rather than filling landfills.

Click to expand...

A greenhouse is a controlled environment, and there you can see what happens when you put in more CO2, etc. Extraneous factors are minimized.

Given that, the world isn't a greenhouse.

About renewable energy, it's not exactly renewable. Its components are primarily dependent on industrialization, and that involves mining, manufacturing, shipping, and even mechanized agriculture. Something like 70 percent of heavy equipment in mining, up to half of manufacturing, and the bulk of shipping involve fossil fuels. Similar applies to mechanized agriculture, and then there are even petrochemicals. Factor in extensive supply chains spanning many countries.

Finally, they are mostly produced by for-profit corporations, and with competition the goal of these businesses is maximization of profit. That means increasing production to feed increasing consumption. Ultimately, the last thing they want are products that last for decades.

Meanwhile, they're affected by diminishing returns, which affects not only fossil fuels but also the minerals needed for renewable energy, etc. That is, increasing amounts of energy needed to get decreasing amounts of newly extracted materials.

People who believe c19 was deadly will also believe "climate change" is real, also they will call you crazy when you tell them that they need to look up to see who is producing that change (research operation Popeye - that's the 70's, imagine what weather technology can do in today's world, that is the real reason why we have "climate change")

Endymio said:

Misinformation like "Hunter's laptop was fake Russian propaganda", "Covid was scientifically proven to have come from a wet market", or "Trump was denied a jury trial because his attorneys forgot to check a box"? That the sort you mean?

Click to expand...

That is exactly the misinformation. Thank you for such perfect examples.

Kirby1 said:

100% false.

Click to expand...

Actually, quite true as witnessed by the recent greening of many parts of the earth. Don't believe go to NASA and look up greening NASA

Dimitrios said:

Go research the people pushing this. The people that are pushing this are well known scammers and look at what companies Kerry owns , Bill Gates, Al Gore, Obama, Trudeau etc. I have keep track with people like Kerry saying the world will end since the 1980's. I still have the Hawaii video of the governor with his first few words saying, this is due to global warming. I'm not joking, that was his first sentence when he went on camera. Look at how that comment aged. Don't you people get it? These people are sick! Go research Newsom working with China even with AI camera technology. These people only care about money. America's oil reserves are almost empty and guess who bought it, China. Now we get dirty oil from Venezuela which pollutes more shipping it lol.

Click to expand...

Who also all fly around the world again and again telling us we must eat bugs to survive, or as Bill Gates said way back"We must cut the population of the world and we can use vaccines to do it."

BbN48 said:

Cutting way the f down on animal product consumption would help a lot too. Factory farming and associated wastes account for something like 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.

People could just not eat so much meat, and the looming catastrophes would be much smaller.

Click to expand...

Was the kool-aid really tasty.

wizardB said:

Actually, quite true as witnessed by the recent greening of many parts of the earth. Don't believe go to NASA and look up greening NASA

Click to expand...

People who don't understand science always tell you "go look up this irrelevant misinformation that I use to convince myself of what I want to believe instead of what is actually true".