I am ready to do this, anything, to stop the flood of desperately frantic paper carbon investment holders from their CO2 insanity.
It is a tempting scenario DB. However they would only come back looking for more electronic bank transfers.
Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
It is a tempting scenario DB. However they would only come back looking for more electronic bank transfers.
and the U.S. was also in agreement... by signing it... and by influencing the makeup of the agreement and what other other countries did while presuming upon the expressed U.S. commitments. You can forever choose to ignore this fact... you can continue to take solace in the fact your country turned its back on the agreement, on the community of nations it engaged with in signing the agreement, and refused to ratify it.
as before, as always, please keep highlighting that Harper formally pulled out of the Kyoto treaty to avoid paying the non-compliance penalty. The thing is, those hypocrites that say Harper was right in doing so, also conveniently forget that Harper initially rationalized ignoring the treaty by introducing his own "made in Canada" alternative emission reduction process/commitment.... and then he proceeded to completely ignore his own/his party's personal commitment to Canadians. Harper then subsequently doubled down on that rationalization by making another commitment to Canadians... one that aligned Canada with the U.S. reduction commitment (17% below 2005 levels by 2020)... which Harper then proceeded to also ignore. Here we have 2 separate commitments Harper has made to Canadians, two separate emission reduction commitments outside/beyond Kyoto... and Harper has ignored each and has failed to position Canada to even remotely realize either. It's one thing for Harper acolytes to praise dumping Kyoto to avoid a penalty... it's a completely different thing for them to ignore these 2 separate emission reduction commitments that Harper made to Canadians.
guys, guys... I'm missing the authoritative associations behind your 'gem of a find', particularly how it translates into the working process of formal climate negotiations. :mrgreen:
The U.S agreed to nothing. We took our lumps when everyone signed it except us. Nobody came to the U.S with a BILLION DOLLAR invoice.
They did go to Canada though. lmao
Refused to ratify SUCKER!
How convenient!
Dance Wally!
like I said... take solace in it! It's what rogue nations do... you know, like the U.S. has done many times over in regards to international agreements... sign em and refuse to ratify em!
you really revel in your strawman antics! I asked you to qualify the authority of your googly find... and how it has any basis in actual attachments to any negotiations. You appear unable to answer... so, of course, you come back with your own Dance!
sumthin bout a standard measurement of acute toxicity of pesticide (in mg) for body weight (per kg of body weight). You're welcome!
Cappy says everything I've put forward has been refuted... by multiple sources. I must have missed the one that busts, for example this following post, the topic aided and abetted by none other than member 'petros'! Oh my, member 'petros' puts forward a paper reference from the same scientist presenting evidence "that emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activity are propagating upward to the highest regions of the atmosphere."
of course that "CO2 sole source" is simply a strawman as CO2 is considered the principal source, not the sole source. Here's an article reference to a later paper from the same lead-author of the study member 'petros' links to (above): Scientists detect carbon dioxide accumulation at the edge of space
of course that "CO2 sole source" is simply a strawman as CO2 is considered the principal source, not the sole source. Here's an article reference to a later paper from the same lead-author of the study member 'petros' links to (above): Scientists detect carbon dioxide accumulation at the edge of space
A team of scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory, Old Dominion University, and the University of Waterloo reports the first direct evidence that emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activity are propagating upward to the highest regions of the atmosphere. The observed CO2 increase is expected to gradually result in a cooler, more contracted upper atmosphere and a consequent reduction in the atmospheric drag experienced by satellites.
CO2 occurs naturally throughout Earth's atmosphere and is the primary radiative cooling agent in the energy balance of the mesosphere (~50-90 km altitude) and thermosphere (>90 km). The same properties of CO2 that cause it to trap heat in the troposphere (<15 km) make it an efficient cooler at higher altitudes. The difference is that at high altitudes, the density of CO2 is too thin to recapture the infrared radiation (heat) that it emits. "In the upper atmosphere," explains Emmert, "thermal energy is transferred via collisions from other atmospheric constituents to CO2, which then emits the energy as heat that escapes to outer space."
The enhanced cooling produced by the increasing CO2 should result in a more contracted thermosphere, where many satellites, including the International Space Station, operate. The contraction of the thermosphere will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites and may have adverse consequences for the already unstable orbital debris environment, because it will slow the rate at which debris burn up in the atmosphere.
It has been expected that anthropogenic CO2 increases are propagating upward throughout the entire atmosphere. Before the study of ACE data, CO2 trends had been measured only up to 35 km altitude, although indirect evidence from satellite drag studies indicates that the thermosphere is indeed slowly contracting. The scientists estimate that the concentration of carbon near 100 km altitude is increasing at a rate of 23.5 ± 6.3 parts per million (ppm) per decade, which is about 10 ppm/decade faster than predicted by upper atmospheric model simulations. In comparison, tropospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing at a rate of about 20 ppm/decade (the current concentration of CO2 near the ground is ~390 ppm). The authors speculate that the larger than expected upper atmospheric trend may be caused by changes in upper atmospheric circulation and mixing.
good on member 'petros' for bringing forward this focused attention on the impact of anthropogenic sourced CO2 on the upper atmosphere! Good boy, petros... good boy! :mrgreen:CO2 occurs naturally throughout Earth's atmosphere and is the primary radiative cooling agent in the energy balance of the mesosphere (~50-90 km altitude) and thermosphere (>90 km). The same properties of CO2 that cause it to trap heat in the troposphere (<15 km) make it an efficient cooler at higher altitudes. The difference is that at high altitudes, the density of CO2 is too thin to recapture the infrared radiation (heat) that it emits. "In the upper atmosphere," explains Emmert, "thermal energy is transferred via collisions from other atmospheric constituents to CO2, which then emits the energy as heat that escapes to outer space."
The enhanced cooling produced by the increasing CO2 should result in a more contracted thermosphere, where many satellites, including the International Space Station, operate. The contraction of the thermosphere will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites and may have adverse consequences for the already unstable orbital debris environment, because it will slow the rate at which debris burn up in the atmosphere.
It has been expected that anthropogenic CO2 increases are propagating upward throughout the entire atmosphere. Before the study of ACE data, CO2 trends had been measured only up to 35 km altitude, although indirect evidence from satellite drag studies indicates that the thermosphere is indeed slowly contracting. The scientists estimate that the concentration of carbon near 100 km altitude is increasing at a rate of 23.5 ± 6.3 parts per million (ppm) per decade, which is about 10 ppm/decade faster than predicted by upper atmospheric model simulations. In comparison, tropospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing at a rate of about 20 ppm/decade (the current concentration of CO2 near the ground is ~390 ppm). The authors speculate that the larger than expected upper atmospheric trend may be caused by changes in upper atmospheric circulation and mixing.
Why is nothing being done to capture Carbon dioxide at the convieniently located natural sources where I imagine we could in short order arrest our anual tonnage and then some, all without the bother and stupidity of screwing with our beloved hydrocarbon gods.
Ultimately, that is what makes the most sense.... Now, if there were only a way to apply a tax to those natural sources, the UN would be appeased and complete, global climate Armageddon can be averted.
Quick, someone call Neil Young and get him to write a song or 2, go on tour and slay this AGW dragon for once and for all
All kidding aside it is the most obvious solution to what is characterized as a world ending situation of dire magnitude. This is proof positive,in my mind, of the con game. We could as were be loading the stuff on trucks with excavators and bagging it. Why hasn't this commenced as we, as it would seem, wait till the very last minute while financial details are fine tunned. I'm thinking this would be real offsetting of CO2.
what "conveniently located natural sources" are you speaking to... examples, please:
in the traditional source/sink context, forest fires aren't natural... and "uncontrolled" as most are, wouldn't be considered within a planned "land-use" shifting. Not sure how you would propose capturing CO2 from burning wildfires??? In any case, you do highlight a most significant facet of warming/climate change impact; i.e., an increase in wildfires which, of course, is a double-hit... massive amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere and the loss of natural sinks.
You should be in maketing Waldo. I figure you'd do real good at it especially in the thick TVin slices of the market. Yer dire warnings would stampede the money into canyons of suggested dispare where you could club it and bag it. You no doubt understand the terrible "over populati" on this burning planet. What saving of the atmosphere could five billion fewer natural producers have? Dog forbid such a thing. A small step perhaps.
The atmosphere is a pretty natural sink. All the spheres are.
Exactly and well put
What about deforesting as many natural reserves as possible? All those pesky trees, all plant life for that matter, eventually die and the decomposition releases toxic, planet-killing CO2.
Sure, while they are alive, they absorb CO2 (makes you wonder why the UN and Neil Young don't demand more trees etc are planted) but they are ground-zero for Armageddon.
CO2 is death, in fact, it's more virulent cousin Carbon should be outlawed (perhaps a series of bylaws might do the trick). Yes, Carbon in any of it's Armageddon-esque forms can be rounded-up and shot into space far, far away from Earth.
We can't say to much about the unnatural dismal failure to control inherant in thee present global programe to regulate CO2 thus far. Maybe it's just around the corner.
Maybe if we treated CO2 like smokes and liquor, you know, need to show ID that you are of age to possess and consume it.
Might help, and at very least, keep this dangerous thing out the hands of minors.... Think of the children, please