• So, Earth survived with much more CO2 than it has now. So what? That only means that there COULD be survivors?

    Best answer: For a surprising number of individuals, the bar for caring about something seems to be that the thing must be capable of destroying every last life form on the planet. Anything even a hair less than that -- well, nothing to worry about! All or nothing, black/white mindset of a simpleton.
    Best answer: For a surprising number of individuals, the bar for caring about something seems to be that the thing must be capable of destroying every last life form on the planet. Anything even a hair less than that -- well, nothing to worry about! All or nothing, black/white mindset of a simpleton.
    24 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • Is the “radiative forcing” concept used by IPCC models the wrong approach for climate research?

    Is the “radiative forcing” concept used by IPCC models the wrong approach for climate research?

    Best answer: Their "models" have been discredited by independent research.

    Example:
    Best answer: Their "models" have been discredited by independent research.

    Example:
    8 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • Would a planet with an atmosphere as thick as that of Venus be hot because of pressure? Or cold because of Rayleigh scattering?

    Best answer: Depends on its chemical composition. Venus's atmosphere is mostly CO2 and SO2, both of which are infrared refracting (greenhouse) gases. Also the proximity to the local star in important. Venus would be pretty cold if it was out as far as Jupiter.
    Best answer: Depends on its chemical composition. Venus's atmosphere is mostly CO2 and SO2, both of which are infrared refracting (greenhouse) gases. Also the proximity to the local star in important. Venus would be pretty cold if it was out as far as Jupiter.
    6 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • Does anyone have the number for the portion of the 400 ppm which is produced by the industrial revolution? Along with a source?

    Best answer: Here you go https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2017-04/fossil_fuels_1.png However more than half that is removed by nature, nature is very efficient at removing CO2 from our atmosphere, 4 billion years ago we had 95% CO2 nature reduced that to 0.028% and Man has pushed it back up to... show more
    Best answer: Here you go https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fil...
    However more than half that is removed by nature, nature is very efficient at removing CO2 from our atmosphere, 4 billion years ago we had 95% CO2 nature reduced that to 0.028% and Man has pushed it back up to 0.04%
    CO2 is not an evil gas it is actually essential for life on our planet, it is an energy source for nearly all plants.
    11 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • Is 0.2 big or small? How about 0.0004? What about 0.004?

    These are all numbers that people in here have told me are big or small, but in science I was always taught that if you wanted to neglect something, you'd need to estimate the how large a difference that would make, but nobody--not even the one that claims to be a scientist--does that.
    These are all numbers that people in here have told me are big or small, but in science I was always taught that if you wanted to neglect something, you'd need to estimate the how large a difference that would make, but nobody--not even the one that claims to be a scientist--does that.
    20 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • The more renewables the higher the cost of electricity, is this true?

    Best answer: It depends on what you count as renewables. If you think hydro is renewable then you can have cheap electricity - as long as you do not have to include the cost of building the mountains to make it possible! If you do not have a sufficiently mountainous terrain then you won t be able to use hydro. Parts of Canada... show more
    Best answer: It depends on what you count as renewables.

    If you think hydro is renewable then you can have cheap electricity - as long as you do not have to include the cost of building the mountains to make it possible! If you do not have a sufficiently mountainous terrain then you won t be able to use hydro. Parts of Canada are lucky and they do have cheap electricity.

    However, California, for instance, does not count hydro as a renewable energy source. Places using wind and solar have very high electricity prices. Denmark and, to a lesser extent, Germany both make use of lots of wind and solar. They both have high electricity prices. They both rely on neighbours to make their system work for them. When their neighbours convert they will have serious problems.

    Part of the reason is obvious if you stop to give the intermittency of supply some serious thought. Wind and solar cannot be relied upon to provide a continuous supply. People need electricity the instant they switch things on. To guarantee that you need to retain all the old power stations to fill in for when the wind drops or when the sun does not shine. So you can easily see that there are no savings being made. You have the new solar and wind facilities but you need to keep all the old ones as well.

    Countries that claim most of their energy comes from wind and solar are basing that on average figures. That is as useful as me giving you 365 days worth of fresh food on Jan 1st and expecting that to last you all year. The average works out OK so what is the issue?

    For wind and solar to be useful, the storage problem needs to be solved. That is a cost that has not been factored in yet. Neither have the costs of disposing of wind and solar plants when they are time-expired, disposing of thousands of tonnes of batteries or the costs of keeping existing power stations running in case the wind drops. The costs they claim are not the total costs.
    13 answers · 3 weeks ago
  • What is global warming and is it real?

    30 answers · 3 weeks ago
  • What are some scientific solutions to reducing climate change without cutting CO2 emissions?

    So far, I came up with planting more trees or making roads white. Releasing soot into the atmosphere seems silly for many reasons.
    So far, I came up with planting more trees or making roads white. Releasing soot into the atmosphere seems silly for many reasons.
    15 answers · 3 weeks ago
  • Did you hear about this in the media?

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/20... Temperature anomalies and percentiles are shown on the gridded maps below. ... Overall, the combined global land and ocean temperature for February 2018 was ... This value was also 0.57°C (1.03°F) cooler than the record high set in 2016
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/20... Temperature anomalies and percentiles are shown on the gridded maps below. ... Overall, the combined global land and ocean temperature for February 2018 was ... This value was also 0.57°C (1.03°F) cooler than the record high set in 2016
    12 answers · 3 weeks ago
  • The greenhouse effect, how high will surface generated IR reach before being captured and redirected?

    Best answer: The heated air should generate additional IR and also that heated air will also tend to flow upwards (with convection currents), so it will end up going higher than just the first "capture" zone. I think as it goes higher it would be less and less of an effect so the vast majority is near the ground but... show more
    Best answer: The heated air should generate additional IR and also that heated air will also tend to flow upwards (with convection currents), so it will end up going higher than just the first "capture" zone. I think as it goes higher it would be less and less of an effect so the vast majority is near the ground but it still will have an effect high up. It isn't in my expertise though so I'm just speculating. Maybe it would depend on where you draw the line, e.g. a measurable effect.
    6 answers · 3 weeks ago
  • Will life on Earth end by carbon dioxide starvation?

    Best answer: Volcanic emissions of CO2 have been outweighed by the loss of carbon to calcium carbonate sediments on a multi-million year basis. If this trend continues CO2 will inevitably fall to levels that threaten the survival of plants, which require a minimum of 150 ppm to survive. If plants die, we die. During the last... show more
    Best answer: Volcanic emissions of CO2 have been outweighed by the loss of carbon to calcium carbonate sediments on a multi-million year basis. If this trend continues CO2 will inevitably fall to levels that threaten the survival of plants, which require a minimum of 150 ppm to survive. If plants die, we die.

    During the last glaciation, CO2 bottomed out at 180 ppm, likely the lowest level CO2 has been in the history of the Earth. This is only 30 ppm above the level that plants begin to die. Paleontological research has demonstrated that even at 180 ppm there was a severe restriction of growth as plants began to starve. With the onset of the warmer interglacial period CO2 rebounded to 280 ppm.  But even today, with human emissions causing CO2 to reach 400 ppm plants are still restricted in their growth rate, which would be much higher if CO2 were at 1000-2000 ppm.

    If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, all of which had been in the atmosphere as CO2 before sequestration by plants and animals, life on Earth would have soon been starved of this essential nutrient and would begin to die.

    Our release of CO2 back into the atmosphere has reversed the steady downward slide of this essential food for life.

    Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2.
    9 answers · 4 weeks ago
  • Apart from Solar, does anyone believe in imminent cooling?

    Best answer: Nope ... the change in solar output during these 'minima' is about 0.1%. This leads to temperature drops of about 0.2 to 0.3 C. Since the rate of warming is about 0.15 C per decade, any cooling is likely to be offset by the warming. All the indications are the planet will warm, just not quite as fast... show more
    Best answer: Nope ... the change in solar output during these 'minima' is about 0.1%. This leads to temperature drops of about 0.2 to 0.3 C.

    Since the rate of warming is about 0.15 C per decade, any cooling is likely to be offset by the warming.

    All the indications are the planet will warm, just not quite as fast over the next 40 ish years.

    Now, Solar's argument seems to be that during this period of low solar activity, the sun's magnetic field reduces and doesn't protect us from galactic cosmic rays to the same extent. Therefore, the argument goes, we may see increased cloud cover spawned by aerosol production which acts as a positive feedback cooling the planet even more.

    Here's my problem ... if solar activity drops, does this increase or decrease the particle flux from the sun? If it reduces, then is the increase in galactic cosmic rays not massively compensated for by the reduction in solar particles having the same impact in terms of aerosol production?
    8 answers · 4 weeks ago