Carbon dioxide levels hit new high

So I Did some "Interweb" research. that is somewhat on topic. If we are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels, which in turn raises the ocean levels. From the two charts I found independent of each other, (different websites) How come the ocean level rate of rise didn't increase with the amount of fuel burnt?
 

Attachments

  • Dino remains.jpg
    Dino remains.jpg
    38.2 KB · Views: 231
  • 12_seaLevel_left.gif
    12_seaLevel_left.gif
    16.3 KB · Views: 214
If you are really interested in Climate science then I suggest.
NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin
Also check out Savant Arrhenius.
He calculated the rise in temperature of the planet back in the 19th century that if un-manipulated data is used still holds true. (iirc)
Personally I'm certain the planet is warming, has been on average since the last ice age.
I am almost as certain from my study, old meteorology classes, and historical evidence the man's recent contribution to the warming is negligible. About the same as a drop of water in large pond.
There are many studies of the historical record that seems to indicate the rise in CO2 followed the rise in temperature, not preceded it.
I could add more but frankly I hate trying to type this on my tablet and I don't have time at home when I have my computer.
 
Water has less volume as a liquid than as a solid. Why would melting ice cause oceans to rise?
 
I'm not going to pretend to understand any of this...but I seem to remember reading an article not long ago saying CO2 fear was a non issue. Went into the damage one volcanic event could cause and human activity doesn't even register in relation. Then it went in to some long drawn out math problem saying there were enough trees in Canada alone to manage the CO2 from a volcanic event. But I'm sure there are just as many articles out there stating we've gone well beyond equilibrium...they just don't pop up in my newsfeed.
 
grapehead said:
Water has less volume as a liquid than as a solid. Why would melting ice cause oceans to rise?
Click to expand...

Picture a glass of water. When you drop an ice cube in it, the water level rises. Antarctica is a big ice cube (26.5 million cubic kilometres of ice). All that ice melting and flowing off the land and into the oceans.

DA-diags_D_a_1.4_continent_cross_section_ab.png
 
Last edited:
rockmafia said:
Just for reference 414 PPM is only 0.0414%

Man has been pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air for years and that's as far as we've got. I feel like that's pretty good.
Click to expand...

I used to make similar arguments in my high school environmental classes. I had one teacher who always returned fire with "well if I made you a pan of brownies and told you it was .0414% dog turds, would you still eat it???' As a guy that eats hot dogs, yeah...I think I would. Anyway, you gave me a mini flashback there and thought it was semi-on topic.
 
#1 water in a frozen form takes up more space than liquid, #2 I'm going to light the grill, start a fire in the wood stove, leave my truck running in the winter, light a smoke, and enjoy life! Don't come by the farm when I'm burning brush!
 
Loganwayne said:
This all kinda goes with what climate scientists say. We are “due” for an ice age, read that as a time with rapid climate change. I don’t believe people are the sole reason for the climate change I do think we play a part in it but not at some of the extras that are being said.

If we were to go into an ice age it doesn’t happen over night, we could be in the start of it now for all we know and none of us or our kids will probably be alive to see half the world frozen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Al Gore said we we're headed for one in the 80s. Then it was global warming in the 90s. Then he decided to run for President after being VP for 8 years.
Trump voice: He's a loser
 
drkelly said:
gases-by-co2-2019.jpg
Click to expand...

This is a super handy chart. It tells us a couple of things. If we were serious about cutting CO2 emissions, we could knock out a third of it right off the bat by switching to nuclear (and some windmills if you want). After we had all that CO2-free power, some percentage of the transportation emissions could switch to electric (which would now be CO2-free). We might cut our emissions by nearly 50% in a matter of 10-20 years.

But instead, the same people that are arguing in favor of cutting our emissions are also arguing that we must eliminate nuclear energy. Some numbers are disputed (particularly a few events in the USSR), but the best estimates indicate that accidental radiation poisoning from all sources has killed less than 200 (and likely less than 100) people in the last 125 years.

It seems that the people claiming we're heading for a catastrophe aren't actually interested in policies that would directly affect the problem. Instead, they're advocating for policies that would give them the power to tell you what you could and couldn't do.
 
shawn said:
This is a super handy chart. It tells us a couple of things. If we were serious about cutting CO2 emissions, we could knock out a third of it right off the bat by switching to nuclear (and some windmills if you want). After we had all that CO2-free power, some percentage of the transportation emissions could switch to electric (which would now be CO2-free). We might cut our emissions by nearly 50% in a matter of 10-20 years.

But instead, the same people that are arguing in favor of cutting our emissions are also arguing that we must eliminate nuclear energy. Some numbers are disputed (particularly a few events in the USSR), but the best estimates indicate that accidental radiation poisoning from all sources has killed less than 200 (and likely less than 100) people in the last 125 years.

It seems that the people claiming we're heading for a catastrophe aren't actually interested in policies that would directly affect the problem. Instead, they're advocating for policies that would give them the power to tell you what you could and couldn't do.
Click to expand...

I have always been confused(more or less baffled at people unjustified fears)as to why we are not pursuing Nuclear as our main source of energy. It's been a hot minute since I was up to date but I know France had made some break throughs in reactor and fuel technology that would decrease the amount of fuel waste over time. What's not to love (from a consumer aspect)about practically zero emission and cheap power?
 
Increasing CO2 heating the atmosphere my azz. The smoke from all the weed and newport smoke these days has a cooling effect that offsets any perceived warming from co2 .The damn crack and meth smokers are the problem.
 
Chris_Keziah said:
I have always been confused(more or less baffled at people unjustified fears)as to why we are not pursuing Nuclear as our main source of energy. It's been a hot minute since I was up to date but I know France had made some break throughs in reactor and fuel technology that would decrease the amount of fuel waste over time. What's not to love (from a consumer aspect)about practically zero emission and cheap power?
Click to expand...

I think nukes have several problems right now, not least of which is that NG is cheap and clean (relative to coal). Nuclear power might be cheaper with different technologies or at different scales, but it's a future what-if vs a present-day reality, mixed in with the Fukushima/Chernobyl/etc political headwinds.

I'd love to have a little thorium reactor sitting out in my yard, though.
 
shawn said:
I think nukes have several problems right now, not least of which is that NG is cheap and clean (relative to coal). Nuclear power might be cheaper with different technologies or at different scales, but it's a future what-if vs a present-day reality, mixed in with the Fukushima/Chernobyl/etc political headwinds.

I'd love to have a little thorium reactor sitting out in my yard, though.
Click to expand...

My response to Fukushima is who the fuck thought it was great idea to put a large nuclear power plant on the coast of an island that is known to be hit by Tsunamis.

Chernobyl is a whole different ball game of not having proper procedures, not following proper procedures, ans shit designs.

Then again I don't have an issue with coal since they basically pump it through the largest catalytic converter and dpf system ever know to man.
 
I read somewhere that the fossil fuel used to build the components of the wind farms, installing them and maintaining them cancels out any value of their perceived "green" power over their lifetime and we should just burn them petrified ferns.
 
Last edited:
shawn said:
This is a super handy chart. It tells us a couple of things. If we were serious about cutting CO2 emissions, we could knock out a third of it right off the bat by switching to nuclear (and some windmills if you want). After we had all that CO2-free power, some percentage of the transportation emissions could switch to electric (which would now be CO2-free). We might cut our emissions by nearly 50% in a matter of 10-20 years.

But instead, the same people that are arguing in favor of cutting our emissions are also arguing that we must eliminate nuclear energy. Some numbers are disputed (particularly a few events in the USSR), but the best estimates indicate that accidental radiation poisoning from all sources has killed less than 200 (and likely less than 100) people in the last 125 years.

It seems that the people claiming we're heading for a catastrophe aren't actually interested in policies that would directly affect the problem. Instead, they're advocating for policies that would give them the power to tell you what you could and couldn't do.
Click to expand...

Nukes are not gonna be happening. The last few that were started in the US were canceled after spending billions to start building them. Several have been shut down before their lifespan was up, and will cost billions to defuel and clean up...not to mention billions more to cover the storage cost for the waste and the fact that the .gov has yet to provide a place to dispose of spent fuel...again after wasting billions. Right now nuclear power is the most expensive power to produce, so good old capitalism is gonna kill it followed closely by coal.
 
Chris_Keziah said:
My response to Fukushima is who the fuck thought it was great idea to put a large nuclear power plant on the coast of an island that is known to be hit by Tsunamis.
Click to expand...
And also known for earthquakes. And also without proper backup systems. SMDH
 
a_kelley said:
wtf did I just watch? I want my time back please.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't "get it". To me, that is one of the funniest things on the internet, especially considering it was created before Cumminsbro's were a big thing.
 
Back
Top