New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I think you mean "Regardless" here. Meaning without paying attention to the present situations.

Irregardless would be a double negative. Like Irregular means to be non-regular.

Pet peeve. Carry on.

https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/v...ifference.html

The main difference between irregardless and regardless is that irregardless is used only in informal settings, while regardless is used in informal and formal contexts.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Right. Do you see the end of this? Very stable, right? Do you think it is a coincidence that humans were able to flourish during the period of climate stabilization, no longer needing to migrate to find food and having the ability to create civilizations with predictable stock yields from farming? Much of earth's history is utterly inhospitable to the type of lifestyle that we know it today. The subsequent highs of CO2 and associated rising temperatures would require dramatic changes.

Wait... are we looking at global averages? Or as measured at the Antarctica dome? Or Greenland?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Wait... are we looking at global averages? Or as measured at the Antarctica dome? Or Greenland?

It is in the chart in the upper right corner. Relatively speaking, modern civilization has sprouted from a period of stable climate relative to periods preceding it. This is the last 100k years with a very stable last 10k years.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

We are all in agreement that emissions have gone up, especially CO2 and CH4. The fact that the temperatures didn't follow them should make anyone question if something is missing in the equation. Right now we're debating over a 1 deg C rise in EPICA measurements over the average, but there were times when the temperatures were higher at much lower CO2 levels. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, these correlations makes no sense. I'm gonna venture out on a limb here and make a conjecture - there is some element that has a larger effect. Probably water vapor? I don't know! But looking at CO2 as the only demon has very little data to support.
If people want to reduce pollutants like CO, NOx, etc., then yes, by all means! But even if we reduce CO2 to zero tonight, there's no guarantee that this would result in any change in temperatures.

So, because the global temperature has not so far increased proportionally to the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere per the models and records, you are questioning the accuracy of the same models that say the temperature should increase in short order?

[clio]

My take on climate change is as follows:

NASA employs amongst the best scientists in the world and devote much of their website to confirming the climate change issues at hand. End.

When I was a kid (1980's) the ozone layer was depleting due to the use of CFC's.
This problem and remedy is fact. I cannot imagine the amount of keyboard warriors that would be challenging the issue if it were to have occurred today.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/v...ifference.html

I question the implications from your source that the word "irregardless" has been debated for centuries, but this is too OT to care that much.

[Irace86.2.0]

https://www.nytimes.com/article/clim...rming-faq.html

This news article answers a lot of questions in a single place, which is palatable for some. This image is really why there is cause for concern. The projections for 2050 and 2100 population shows the countries with the most population as India, China, Nigeria, USA, Pakistan, DROC, etc. There should be a huge rise in emerging markets and increases in standards of living, and we should expect a huge rise in greenhouse gasses as these countries grow and start to consume more resources just as we all have done. They will go through a faster industrial revolution and modernize, but we can expect huge increases. For reference, China had 650k people in 1960, 330k more than the US today, and it is more than double what it was today at 1,400k, but its emissions are night and day different. What happens when other emerging markets start increasing their emissions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...ulation_growth

[Irace86.2.0]

China’s Record Drought Is Drying Rivers and Feeding Its Coal Habit

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/b...y-climate.html

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=467

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

We are all in agreement that emissions have gone up, especially CO2 and CH4. The fact that the temperatures didn't follow them should make anyone question if something is missing in the equation.

???
But temperatures have risen, *are* rising...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/wo...l-temperatures

Right now we're debating over a 1 deg C rise in EPICA measurements over the average, but there were times when the temperatures were higher at much lower CO2 levels. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, these correlations makes no sense.

*To YOU*. Not to people who understand how these mechanisms work.

I'm gonna venture out on a limb here and make a conjecture - there is some element that has a larger effect. Probably water vapor? I don't know!

It is well established that water vapor does have a larger effect, and that temperature rise driven by increased CO2 is reinforced with further temp rise due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere.

But looking at CO2 as the only demon has very little data to support.

NO one is saying that CO2 is "the only demon". But it is a primary instigator...

If people want to reduce pollutants like CO, NOx, etc., then yes, by all means! But even if we reduce CO2 to zero tonight, there's no guarantee that this would result in any change in temperatures.

??? If we reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions to *zero* right now, we will *still* be dealing with the effects of the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere over the past 150 years or so. So on that point you're kinda *right*! But the conclusion should not be "let's keep on adding as much CO2 as we possibly can!" We need to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions NOW, and there are non-disruptive ways to do that...

[Irace86.2.0]

Unless we plant trees and create carbon capture systems.

[soundman98]

or we can just move to mars.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by soundman98

or we can just move to mars.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

So, because the global temperature has not so far increased proportionally to the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere per the models and records, you are questioning the accuracy of the same models that say the temperature should increase in short order?

Short answer: yes

Not-so-short answer: throughout the centuries, there was a cause-effect relation between temperature and CO2. The century or so, CO2 spiked up and the trend broke. So depending on whether you build a model based on the centuries past, or only the last 150 years has a huge implications on the near future.

Regarding your other comment from yesterday, life is estimated to have begun ~3.5 billion years ago. Homo Sapiens seems to have appeared around 315000 years ago. Whether humanity thrives or not depends largely on multiple factors - migration, survival in the new area, understanding of pathology, plagues, wars, etc.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

???
But temperatures have risen, *are* rising...

OK... there is too much in here to refute, but let me start with this:

Since you've asked (Irace liked your comment, so he probably agrees with you), from now on, before you both post any link or image, please explain:

1. Where the temperatures were taken - local, global, water, landmass, etc.
2. Method of measurement - fossil records, thermometers, radio isotopes, etc. (If it's averaged, explain if the averaging takes into account the geographical weightage. For example, if Asian temperatures were averaged, did they have 1 measurement point in a small landmass like Japan and 1 in all of China? Or if the ocean temperatures are averaged, did they have 1 point in the Pacific and 1 in Arctic?)
3. How that certain location, method, and calculation are relevant to this whole phenomenon.