Posted on 06/03/2017 7:35:29 AM PDT by seastay
Without any CO2 the earth would be 90% frozen and mostly lifeless.
That's if you only count production. If you count uptake, man accounts for almost zero uptake, whereas nature's uptake is all of nature's production and then some.
They are wrong as usual. In this case there is less methane leakage because of the pipelines. If it were not for pipelines the methane would be released or partially burned off.
They signed but are putting off ratifying. They say three more years. But Paris gave them a giant bonus by using Soviet output as a baseline.
Cooling we can fix, and we can use the greenhouse effect to make that happen. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)is a hugely more potent greenhouse gas than either CO2 or methane, is not present in nature (Beer's law effect in spectroscopy), is VERY stable once synthesized, and has a long half-life in the atmosphere (a consequence of being very stable). Have passenger jets carry and empty tanks of same during regular flights.
But we gotta be darned sure the cooling isn't short term, as its very long halflife also means that it will be difficult to remove if we suddenly decide "oops---shouldn't oughta have done that---not a real Ice Age onset".
All true, of course. But you can't ascribe either knowledgeable or rational thought to leftists. Another glaring contradiction is that they are all in favor of methane when it is harvested from a garbage dump or manure digester.
Right now America is inventing solar panels that turn sunlight, water and ambient CO2 into methane. The panels will work better where CO2 is higher (e.g. recapture applications). But the idea that panels will save the world from their imaginary catastrophe using capitalism is an anathema. That's why they are pushing hard for primitive technologies like wind right now.
“everyone fell in line and believe them without demanding ANY ABSOLUTE EMPIRICAL PROOF!”
Well, people have been well trained over the last century or two to accept “science” of this nature. In many areas, scientists have simply gone beyond what they could possibly conduct controlled experiments on, so there is no possibility of experimental confirmation. Instead of declaring such things properly outside the reach of current science, scientists lowered their standards and declared speculation and mathematical modeling as acceptable substitutes for empirical evidence. Thus we have a lot of dressed up philosophy masquerading as “science”.
“Every time I read the phrase “dark matter” or “dark energy” I chuckle.”
The very notion that scientists should base their theories on something unobservable is ludicrous. You might as well call this “pixie dust” and “fairies” instead of “dark matter” and “dark energy”, since they are essentially invoking the supernatural to plug the holes in their formulas.
There may effects from outside of our solar system as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.