Microsoft plans to be carbon negative by 2030, pours 1 billion into tech that sucks carbon...

Markoni35

TS Maniac
From all of the above graphs it seems we would already be deep in the ice age, if it wasn't for the CO2 increase. Which means, CO2 is good. Without it we'd be freezing. And burning even more energy (and producing even more pollution) to heat our houses and workplaces. CO2 is actually lifesaver and energy saver, eliminating the need to build additional power plants.

You wanted civilization powered by solar energy? Well... now you have it. Increased CO2 is helping us trap more of the solar energy, which means we've found the most ecological solution to combat the incoming ice age.

We're heating our planet using solar energy, without the need for solar panels. Now... that's pretty damn ingenious. And stupid climate alarmists want to ruin all that and makes us switch to dangerous nuclear power plants. Remember Fukushima. Even after the "sanation" Fukushima is still emitting more radiation that Chernoby ever did. But no need for new Fukushimas anymore... we're preventing freezing in a much smarter way.
 
Last edited:
From all of the above graphs it seems we would already be deep in the ice age, if it wasn't for the CO2 increase. Which means, CO2 is good. Without it we'd be freezing. And burning even more energy (and producing even more pollution) to heat our houses and workplaces. CO2 is actually lifesaver and energy saver, eliminating the need to build additional power plants.

You wanted civilization powered by solar energy? Well... now you have it. Increased CO2 is helping us trap more of the solar energy, which means we've found the most ecological solution to combat the incoming ice age.

We're heating our planet using solar energy, without the need for solar panels. Now... that's pretty damn ingenious. And stupid climate alarmists want to ruin all that and makes us switch to dangerous nuclear power plants. Remember Fukushima. Even after the "sanation" Fukushima is still emitting more radiation that Chernoby ever did. But no need for new Fukushimas anymore... we're preventing freezing in a much smarter way.
That is either fantastic sarcasm or total ignorance based on a complete lack of education. Im hoping for choice #1.

But just in case. The sun hits solar panel causing a reaction. What happens next depends on panel type but after that there we have our power.

Increased carbon dioxide chokes the air, decreasing oxygen intake. It causes poor lung function and, well the rest is well known.
 

Markoni35

TS Maniac
Increased carbon dioxide chokes the air, decreasing oxygen intake. It causes poor lung function and, well the rest is well known.
I would say you don't know what you're talking about. Do you know the amount of CO2 in the air? It's 0.04%. Which means if AIR=1 then CO2=0.0004 !!

Yeah, it's that low. Now compare that to Venus, where CO2 is 96%. That means Venus has 2400 times (or 240000 percent) more CO2 than Earth.

Here's some info from elementary school: Air consists from 21% of oxygen, 78% of nitrogen and 1% of everything else (including 0.04% of CO2). Are you afraid you're gonna asphyxiate from 0.04% of CO2?
 
I would say you don't know what you're talking about. Do you know the amount of CO2 in the air? It's 0.04%. Which means if AIR=1 then CO2=0.0004 !!

Yeah, it's that low. Now compare that to Venus, where CO2 is 96%. That means Venus has 2400 times (or 240000 percent) more CO2 than Earth.

Here's some info from elementary school: Air consists from 21% of oxygen, 78% of nitrogen and 1% of everything else (including 0.04% of CO2). Are you afraid you're gonna asphyxiate from 0.04% of CO2?
I should have said "pollutants" but you seem to be having fun so I will let it go there.
But please keep posting though, we here are having a blast with you.
 

Markoni35

TS Maniac
I should have said "pollutants" but you seem to be having fun so I will let it go there.
Pollutants is the right answer. The only thing bad about the coal and oil industry is pollution. Not CO2 but dangerous gasses. If the so called "ecologists" were talking about inhaling exhaust gasses from car engines, and their effects on health, I'd support them 100%. We all inhale them twice a day, while driving at snail speeds during rush hours.

But when you visit the doctor, they ask you if you smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. They don't ask you how much pollutants you inhale. That's not even close on their radar. The media is talking just about CO2 which is ridiculous. The same people who are starting wars in the world are talking about CO2 emissions. They aren't worried their wars will emit too much CO2.
 

OortCloud

TS Evangelist
Pollutants is the right answer. The only thing bad about the coal and oil industry is pollution. Not CO2 but dangerous gasses. If the so called "ecologists" were talking about inhaling exhaust gasses from car engines, and their effects on health, I'd support them 100%. We all inhale them twice a day, while driving at snail speeds during rush hours.
But when you visit the doctor, they ask you if you smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. They don't ask you how much pollutants you inhale. That's not even close on their radar. The media is talking just about CO2 which is ridiculous. The same people who are starting wars in the world are talking about CO2 emissions. They aren't worried their wars will emit too much CO2.
I presume you must have been studying global atmospherics all your life? You talk with such certainty I can only imagine you are an eminent expert in the field? It's strange because I can't find your name on any of the papers published on this (on either side of the debate)? I also wonder why Microsoft is willing to spend 1 billion dollars on something that a scientist so scholarly as yourself has so clearly and definitively stated isn't necessary? You better call them before they waste their money!
 

mbrowne5061

TS Evangelist
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states.

He believes that those sounding the alarm bell about climate change are using it as a way of getting what they want. Activists are seeking supporters and funding, while politicians are using it to gain power and money. The media, he says, uses it to grab headlines because “Doomsday scenarios sell.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was caught publishing fake data on global warming in a failed attempt to debunk a UN report’s assertion that global warming was slowing down.

Meanwhile, data compiled by NASA showed that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere instead of warming it up as commonly claimed. That’s not surprising when you consider the fact that 95 percent of climate software models have actually turned out to be wrong.

Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet. If we got rid of it the way many climate change alarmists are pushing for, life on our planet would collapse. Plants wouldn’t be able to breathe and would essentially suffocate. We’d have no food to eat and it would spell the end of mankind. So why are some people on a mission to get rid of it?
I live near MIT, I have friends in their environmental science graduate program. Prof. Lindzen is widely regarded as a blowhard who is only still affiliated with the university because he is an emeritus (retired) professor. They were a professor, but they retired and are no longer being paid - they just teach a few courses that no other professor wants to teach (because they're usually well away from the bleeding edge of their related field/are 'intro' courses).

Also "climate states" is a reference to more geographically-specific regions, like saying "Ohio is cold in the winter". We can predict the world will be warmer in the future, we can't predict which parts - exactly - will be warmer, by how much, and what kind of impacts that will have on the weather.
 
They can't predict tomorrow's weather with 100% accuracy, why should I believe these same people making forecasts about what the world climate and ocean temperatures will be in 30, 50, 100 years. Until all those proclaiming climate change give up their ways (private jets, etc), I'm not changing mine.
The surface of earth is 196 MILLION square MILES - of that 57.3 MILLION is soil. Being able to observe and test parts of an atmosphere for changes that represent conditions that can be used to model certain "types" of changes on a planetary scale is an order of magnitude, or several, less involved than predicting weather on the point of a needle.

An example - say it sprinkles on race day at Indianapolis, can you determine the exact temperature of each raindrop on turn 2 just before the drops hit pavement?

Why not?

I can test and tell you the air temperature "somewhere above the race track" is 63*F, or not. Asking for absolute accuracy in backyard weather predictions is asking for too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEnnn

Gus Fring

TS Enthusiast
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate
Nobody is advocating getting rid of C02 .. just reducing the excess. Not being 100% right is different to being wrong. Re climate change see "king Canute" esp if living on the coast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEnnn

Markoni35

TS Maniac
If CO2 was really that dangerous, CO2 trading would not be allowed. Each country would get its quota, and if they didn't use it - great. Better for the atmosphere. No trading should be allowed. If you didn't use your quota, that's great news. If you need more - tough luck.

Same goes for solar collectors. When Chinese made ultra-cheap solar collectors (almost as easy to apply as paint) it was immeidately banned in USA and then Europe. They don't really want cheap renewable energy. Those bastards want a new golden hen that earns them huge amounts of money on artificially expensive tech, lithium mines and illegal CO2 tax.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
If CO2 was really that dangerous, CO2 trading would not be allowed. Each country would get its quota, and if they didn't use it - great. Better for the atmosphere. No trading should be allowed. If you didn't use your quota, that's great news. If you need more - tough luck.

Same goes for solar collectors. When Chinese made ultra-cheap solar collectors (almost as easy to apply as paint) it was immeidately banned in USA and then Europe. They don't really want cheap renewable energy. Those bastards want a new golden hen that earns them huge amounts of money on artificially expensive tech, lithium mines and illegal CO2 tax.
You do realize that if each country has a quota and one that when one country sells a portion of it's quota to another, the net result is the exact same amount of carbon allowance?

Not allowing trading would be dumb, as businesses and countries would simply have to stop production if they do not have enough quota. That is not feasible in every scenario.

Making companies pay for their pollution via a carbon tax? Makes sense to me, after all the burden of cleaning that up will ultimately fall upon the people. Just like any other form of pollution, you can't simply dump your trash wherever.
 
Last edited:



Unsure how climate change affects us. That air is too (****) hot to breathe. Take a mask.

  • Climate change is not about lithium; lithium in seawater is estimated at 230 billion tons, lithium has a concentration of 0.14 to 0.25 ppm. Concentrations approaching 7 ppm are found near hydrothermal vents. Lithium in the earth's crust ranges from 20 to 70 ppm by weight, lithium is a part of igneous rocks, with the largest concentrations found in granites. Granitic pegmatites also provide the greatest abundance of lithium-containing minerals, spodumene and petalite being the most commercially viable sources.

  • There's a lot of granite here, lithium is the 25th most abundant element on earth. Lithium has got us covered.

  • Climate change is not about OUTLAWED Chinese solar technology.
  • Read this about 'PV technology' marching ever forward.

  • https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2019/09/26/solar-technology-will-just-keep-getting-better-heres-why/#559f93e87c6b
  • Personally I've seen nothing about Chinese solar tech being outlawed, who has the authority to outlaw ANYTHING China does, the US President?

  • Climate change has noting to do with carbon credit trading. At best cap and trade, trading, investing, are schemes to capitalize on elimination/reduction of greenhouse gases. If anyone doesn't like it, blame Finland, they started it in 1970, but regardless, if its a positive option it should be used.

  • Climate change is about Glacier National Park Melting Away.


  • And it's about the brown bears who live there starving - possibly going extinct because huckleberry plants whose berries they eat, disappear, or are not enough to support brown bears.


Climate change is about turning land that shouldn't be, into ocean front property and turning some land into sub-oceanic property, which benefits few.

Climate change is about life on earth, ignoring anthropogenic change is perilous, learning to mitigate it is a way forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

Markoni35

TS Maniac
Not allowing trading would be dumb, as businesses and countries would simply have to stop production if they do not have enough quota. That is not feasible in every scenario.
No, it wouldn't be dumb. Each country has been given a certain quota based on its current development. If an already developed country goes above their assigned quota, that means they are just plain greedy. CO2 trading sends the message: "Greed is a lot more important than ecology, and we support that viewpoint". Or, alternatively, it means that quotas have been calculated in the wrong way. But if CO2 is so dangerous, as climate alarmists claim, then trading CO2 quotas is the same as putting arsenic in water.

"Oh, you think there's not enough arsenic in the water? Here, you can use my portion". But there is no quota trading of arsenic. Because the less the better. And if CO2 is equally dangerous, then the same formula should be used. If a country/corporation didn't use up their portion - great news. Less poison in the air.

Unless, of course, CO2 is not dangerous. In which case the whole story is just an excuse for criminal taxes and criminal quota trading.
 
No, it wouldn't be dumb. Each country has been given a certain quota based on its current development. If an already developed country goes above their assigned quota, that means they are just plain greedy.
These are country based agreements that bind companies to reduce emissions. The nature of for-profit business is to earn a profit, removing that motivation would render them meaningless.

Is cap and trade good or bad?

Con: "A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less."

Pro: "Cap and trade reduces emissions, such as those from power plants, by setting a limit on pollution and creating a market. It's a system designed to reduce pollution in our atmosphere. The cap on greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming is a firm limit on pollution. The cap gets stricter over time."

Trading: "One carbon credit is equal to one ton of carbon dioxide, or in some markets, carbon dioxide equivalent gases. Carbon trading is an application of an emissions trading approach. Greenhouse gas emissions are capped and then markets are used to allocate the emissions among the group of regulated sources."

A market
for permits "automatically adjusts the carbon price to a level that insures that the cap is met, while under a carbon tax, the government and not the market sets the price of carbon."

Carbon credits and markets are not dumb, making a bad arsenic analogy in an attempt to discredit it..well.

Carbon credits and markets are not dumb, making a bad arsenic analogy in an attempt to discredit it..well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

Markoni35

TS Maniac
A market[/I] for permits "automatically adjusts the carbon price to a level that insures that the cap is met, while under a carbon tax, the government and not the market sets the price of carbon."
As I said before, if current CO2 concentrations are really that dangerous, if we're soon gonna be annihilated by climate changes, then trading is just wrong. Instead, we need more aggressive caps. However... if we agree that CO2 isn't very dangerous, that there are other causes of climate change, and that even ecologist show (by their actions) they don't really mean those words they repeat in media, then trading makes perfect sense. And perfect crime as well.

If CO2 was really that dangerous, systems that collect CO2 and convert it to less dangerous forms would be obligatory. Every factory chimney would have to have one. Just like sulfur filters are mandatory today on all factory chimneys, or catalysts on car exhaust. That's how you show something is really dangerous.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
As I said before, if current CO2 concentrations are really that dangerous, if we're soon gonna be annihilated by climate changes, then trading is just wrong. Instead, we need more aggressive caps. However... if we agree that CO2 isn't very dangerous, that there are other causes of climate change, and that even ecologist show (by their actions) they don't really mean those words they repeat in media, then trading makes perfect sense. And perfect crime as well.

If CO2 was really that dangerous, systems that collect CO2 and convert it to less dangerous forms would be obligatory. Every factory chimney would have to have one. Just like sulfur filters are mandatory today on all factory chimneys, or catalysts on car exhaust. That's how you show something is really dangerous.
You don't seem to realize that suddenly stopping the production of goods and the use of any carbon emitting vehicle to curtail carbon emissions is simply not a feasible solution as many people rely on the jobs, goods, or vehicles.

Carbon emissions ARE dangerous but it is NOT feasible to just start cutting these things out cold turkey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharmsD
If CO2 was really that dangerous, systems that collect CO2 and convert it to less dangerous forms would be obligatory. Every factory chimney would have to have one.
I suppose they're doing what they can - some companies are. Taxation can force compliance and trading/markets can be useful to entice others to get on board. There are no easy or quick solutions, but I am unconvinced that doing nothing to mitigate many years of pollution is in the interest of life on this planet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
100% true that ice floating in water won't contribute to rising sea levels. Unfortunately a majority of melting ice is land ice and not ice floating in water:


This is a very common misconception I see and it's based off examples that completely miss the point. One does not have to search long to find references to Land Ice being the cause of rising sea levels. I have to assume that whoever made these images are either ignorant or willingly ignorant. In this case I defer to Hanlon's razor.

In addition, that example does not demonstrate the impact of increasing the average temperature of the Ocean either. Water expands as it heats, taking up more volume.

 

Markoni35

TS Maniac
You shouldn't be worried about CO2. You should be worried about weather modification weapons. And if you're not worried about that - then it's pointless to be worried about lesser danger.
 

Danny101

TS Evangelist
100% true that ice floating in water won't contribute to rising sea levels. Unfortunately a majority of melting ice is land ice and not ice floating in water:


This is a very common misconception I see and it's based off examples that completely miss the point. One does not have to search long to find references to Land Ice being the cause of rising sea levels. I have to assume that whoever made these images are either ignorant or willingly ignorant. In this case I defer to Hanlon's razor.

In addition, that example does not demonstrate the impact of increasing the average temperature of the Ocean either. Water expands as it heats, taking up more volume.

Noted, but here's another factor. Weather dynamics will likely prevent it because it'll just dump snow an ice elsewhere, augmenting the ice pack. The earth is dynamic and is always changing. Climate Change if anything is just more of the same. I'm more concern about environmental poisoning.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Noted, but here's another factor. Weather dynamics will likely prevent it because it'll just dump snow an ice elsewhere, augmenting the ice pack. The earth is dynamic and is always changing. Climate Change if anything is just more of the same. I'm more concern about environmental poisoning.
Yes, Environmental poisoning is a big problem. I personally don't like the idea of eating platstic with my fish lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danny101

Latest posts