Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[exchemist]

I thought all this could be attributed to El Niño, which was first recorded in the 1600s.

The problem is a consensus of science, is not how real or settled science is done. Settled science is done with facts and not a consensus of opinion. The consensus of opinion, ignores natural climate change factors such, as El Niño which was first record in the 1600's by fisherman, two centuries before the official climate record keeping started in the 1880's. Now manmade is in control of natural according to the consensus of opinion?

Consensus of opinion works best when evidence is selectively ignore in a black box.

Do you really think there are not ample facts confirming the reality of climate change?

- CO2 has gone up
- mean global temperature has gone up - over a far long period that individual El Niño cycles
- the temperature in the upper atmosphere has, however been going down,
- recent fires and floods have been taking place in a period when no El Niño event was in progress.

Do you really think all these climate experts are wrong and only you are right? Why would they all be fooled? Or do you think it's a giant "liberal" conspiracy?

 

[F1fan]

Has anyone seen Ramaswami's views on climate change and the policies most in the Western world acknowledge and are adopting? His platform is that he will eliminate all climate policies in regards to economic agreements with Asian nations, especially China. His priority is to advance economics at the cost to climate. He is wealthy and certainly has no problem turning up his AC in his houses and cars and offices, as his checks won't bounce when the bills come due. As a candidate it ilustrates how out of touch rich candidates can be to the average citizen dealing with extreme heat, more flooding, drought, excessive rainy periods, etc. Let's not ignore more storm damage to homes that cost time and money.

Members like @wellwisher show the rest of us how the conservative citizen thinks as they are influenced by disinformation from the far right. At what point do they realize their beliefs are mistaken? When we all pay?

 

[Copernicus]

I thought all this could be attributed to El Niño, which was first recorded in the 1600s.

Nobody is arguing that this unprecedented storm hitting California has nothing to do with El Niño. This is about how global warming is changing the severity of the weather patterns during El Niño. The science shows that these extreme weather events are directly linked to the heating of the oceans, which is directly linked to human carbon pollution. A tropical storm making landfall in California is not part of a normal El Niño weather pattern.

The problem is a consensus of science, is not how real or settled science is done. Settled science is done with facts and not a consensus of opinion. The consensus of opinion, ignores natural climate change factors such, as El Niño which was first record in the 1600's by fisherman, two centuries before the official climate record keeping started in the 1880's. Now manmade is in control of natural according to the consensus of opinion?

It has already been pointed out to you that the informed opinion of a body of people who specialize in a subject is different from a claim that is based solely on its popularity. This opinion is based on scientifically verifiable conclusions. Nobody is making the claim that AGW is based exclusively on its popularity, which is how an argumentum ad populum fallacy works.

Consensus of opinion works best when evidence is selectively ignore in a black box.

That might be, but the evidence being ignored is not by the scientific community. It is being ignored by those who would rather not trust the scientific community to do its job properly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Natural climate change, has been documented, for the last 1 billion years, by geologists. The earth does climate change all the time, in various cycles of warming and cooling. We came out of the last ice age, when the glaciers were thousands of miles further south; to NYC, then they were 100 years ago. The glaciers melted back to modern days; Arctic Circle, all without humans. The earth can do great things all by itself. There was an ice age where the ice reach the equator and warming cycles where Canada became tropical.

Where the scam comes in, is creating a manmade bogeyman, to blame natural events onto.

This tactic is not new. It has occurred throughout history, such as a solar eclipse being blamed on witches, so they could be rounded up and killed. The people will not be able to deny, what they saw with their eyes; the eclipse, therefore it must be the witches. They were not told eclipses are natural or else they would not act.

The Democrats party has been after the Big Oil Witch, for decades. Even in the 1960's they did not like them. They only donate to the Republicans. They needed an eclipse of sorts. It was first global warming. But Global warming was not making people scared enough. They rebranded it to climate change, since they needed a scarier eclipse of common sense. Earth Climate is never static. Ir cycles but there is noise between cycles. They decided to blame the witches for climate change, since all will see the scary change, that also occurs naturally, but which will be blamed on the witches.

The Political Left did a good job selling the Russian Collusion Coup, that sacrificed freedoms. This shows these people know how to play games, stage illusions, censor and intimidate those who do not go along. Plus then do not ever get punished at the ballot box, since their base is ready for the next game.

Have you put the natural cycles of climate next to a graph of human population, industrialisation, farming and pollution to check for any correlation on recent trends?

 

[exchemist]

Natural climate change, has been documented, for the last 1 billion years, by geologists. The earth does climate change all the time, in various cycles of warming and cooling. We came out of the last ice age, when the glaciers were thousands of miles further south; to NYC, then they were 100 years ago. The glaciers melted back to modern days; Arctic Circle, all without humans. The earth can do great things all by itself. There was an ice age where the ice reach the equator and warming cycles where Canada became tropical.

Where the scam comes in, is creating a manmade bogeyman, to blame natural events onto.

This tactic is not new. It has occurred throughout history, such as a solar eclipse being blamed on witches, so they could be rounded up and killed. The people will not be able to deny, what they saw with their eyes; the eclipse, therefore it must be the witches. They were not told eclipses are natural or else they would not act.

The Democrats party has been after the Big Oil Witch, for decades. Even in the 1960's they did not like them. They only donate to the Republicans. They needed an eclipse of sorts. It was first global warming. But Global warming was not making people scared enough. They rebranded it to climate change, since they needed a scarier eclipse of common sense. Earth Climate is never static. Ir cycles but there is noise between cycles. They decided to blame the witches for climate change, since all will see the scary change, that also occurs naturally, but which will be blamed on the witches.

The Political Left did a good job selling the Russian Collusion Coup, that sacrificed freedoms. This shows these people know how to play games, stage illusions, censor and intimidate those who do not go along. Plus then do not ever get punished at the ballot box, since their base is ready for the next game.

"The Democrats", my ****. This is quite idiotic.

What a narrow, myopic and ignorant view of the world. Do you not realise this issue is the subject of urgent action by governments across the entire world? This is nothing whatsoever to do with US domestic politics. It is a global issue.

 

[wellwisher]

Do you really think there are not ample facts confirming the reality of climate change?

- CO2 has gone up
- mean global temperature has gone up - over a far long period that individual El Niño cycles
- the temperature in the upper atmosphere has, however been going down,
- recent fires and floods have been taking place in a period when no El Niño event was in progress.

Do you really think all these climate experts are wrong and only you are right? Why would they all be fooled? Or do you think it's a giant "liberal" conspiracy?

You are trying to mischaracterize my position. I can see that the earth has warmed. This is an objective fact. It is not that much since 1.5 C, did not move me into a higher grow zone number. I am still at grow zone 6. I would not mind going to 7. The term Climate change is more subjective, since weather is not static, the 2nd law is always in affect, and change is inevitable. This label was chosen since it is easy to spin and call repeats change.

There is plenty of geological evidence that shows the earth has done this before; warm up, all by itself, even before we had human record keeping. I believe there is a blend of natural and manmade affects at work and that assuming only man made is a big mistake; conceptual flaw. We should be free to discuss natural affects and not be required to sweep it under the rug. Science looks at all angles. Politics needs a certain angle to stage a show. Narrowing to one angle raises yellow flags; politics before science.

You made the point that the temperature of the upper atmosphere is lowering. This will increase the thermal gradient between the surface and upper atmosphere, for extra heat loss, all else equal. This may be explained by natural feedback affects connect to CO2 level increase, due to man; fossil fuel, and nature; forest fires, soil bacteria, ocean heating.

Say CO2 is a good thermal blanket, it may be lowering the heat transfer to the upper atmosphere, with the cooling, part of an integrated response, by the earth, to help release more heat. I tend to think the earth and mother nature have way to deal with such things. There was a time in the geological record where temperature went down with CO2 levels high. This seemed backwards but the upper atmosphere trick could explain that.

I see the earth as continuous and integrated in terms of H2O, from core, to mantle, to crust, to oceans, to atmosphere. Solar heat drives the water cycle, adding potential to the atmosphere and surface. There is also a chemical potential between the oxygen in the atmosphere; O2, created by life, and the electrons of the metallic iron core. Water and oxygen can rust iron. Water can dissolve it way downward to the core, oxidize the iron, releasing heat and electrons. The integration is why the oceans are slightly negative.

The idea of the inner earth being heated by radioactive decay, has a conceptual flaw. Since radio active decay is based on half life, the amount of decay and heat release should be dropping at an exponential rate. The iron core is about the size of the moon and it does not decay, but it can be oxidized. It has billions of years of natural energy with the water cycles able to increase and decrease the electron flow, that makes new crustal materials.

Seismic experiments were done that showed the inner earth is less dense radially, core to equator, than north to south between the poles. The equator is where we get maximum solar evaporation. This creates the most positive charge in the atmosphere, due to hydrogen bonding potential of water vapor. It appears the equator is where there is more water diffusion, toward the core, making the inner earth materials less dense; sponge. North to South has little evaporation so the sun is not driving the water diffusion, the same degree, to release the potential with iron electrons. The magnetic field is perpendicular to the main electron current; the entire equator is perpendicular to north to south; right hand rule.

Between 2.4 and 2.5 billion years ago, cyanobacteria were producing enough oxygen to be stored in Earth's atmosphere. This time period, when oxygen levels in the atmosphere began to appreciably rise, is known as the Great Oxidation Event. The oxygen displace the methane in the atmosphere; burning light flashes. The rising oxygen levels atmosphere added extra electron potential to the solar water evaporation in the atmosphere, for enhanced geological changes from the core upward.

 

[Pete in Panama]

But no one asked you whether the US government always tells the truth about everything...

--and nobody's asked you whether anyone's asked me whether the U.S. gov't tells truth..

It's been fun, cheers.

 

[exchemist]

--and nobody's asked you whether anyone's asked me whether the U.S. gov't tells truth..

It's been fun, cheers.

So, not a question you care to answer explicitly. That tells us all what we need to know, I think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are trying to mischaracterize my position. I can see that the earth has warmed. This is an objective fact. It is not that much since 1.5 C, did not move me into a higher grow zone number. I am still at grow zone 6. I would not mind going to 7. The term Climate change is more subjective, since weather is not static, the 2nd law is always in affect, and change is inevitable. This label was chosen since it is easy to spin and call repeats change.

There is plenty of geological evidence that shows the earth has done this before; warm up, all by itself, even before we had human record keeping. I believe there is a blend of natural and manmade affects at work and that assuming only man made is a big mistake; conceptual flaw. We should be free to discuss natural affects and not be required to sweep it under the rug. Science looks at all angles. Politics needs a certain angle to stage a show. Narrowing to one angle raises yellow flags; politics before science.

You made the point that the temperature of the upper atmosphere is lowering. This will increase the thermal gradient between the surface and upper atmosphere, for extra heat loss, all else equal. This may be explained by natural feedback affects connect to CO2 level increase, due to man; fossil fuel, and nature; forest fires, soil bacteria, ocean heating.

Say CO2 is a good thermal blanket, it may be lowering the heat transfer to the upper atmosphere, with the cooling, part of an integrated response, by the earth, to help release more heat. I tend to think the earth and mother nature have way to deal with such things. There was a time in the geological record where temperature went down with CO2 levels high. This seemed backwards but the upper atmosphere trick could explain that.

I see the earth as continuous and integrated in terms of H2O, from core, to mantle, to crust, to oceans, to atmosphere. Solar heat drives the water cycle, adding potential to the atmosphere and surface. There is also a chemical potential between the oxygen in the atmosphere; O2, created by life, and the electrons of the metallic iron core. Water and oxygen can rust iron. Water can dissolve it way downward to the core, oxidize the iron, releasing heat and electrons. The integration is why the oceans are slightly negative.

The idea of the inner earth being heated by radioactive decay, has a conceptual flaw. Since radio active decay is based on half life, the amount of decay and heat release should be dropping at an exponential rate. The iron core is about the size of the moon and it does not decay, but it can be oxidized. It has billions of years of natural energy with the water cycles able to increase and decrease the electron flow, that makes new crustal materials.

Seismic experiments were done that showed the inner earth is less dense radially, core to equator, than north to south between the poles. The equator is where we get maximum solar evaporation. This creates the most positive charge in the atmosphere, due to hydrogen bonding potential of water vapor. It appears the equator is where there is more water diffusion, toward the core, making the inner earth materials less dense; sponge. North to South has little evaporation so the sun is not driving the water diffusion, the same degree, to release the potential with iron electrons. The magnetic field is perpendicular to the main electron current; the entire equator is perpendicular to north to south; right hand rule.

Between 2.4 and 2.5 billion years ago, cyanobacteria were producing enough oxygen to be stored in Earth's atmosphere. This time period, when oxygen levels in the atmosphere began to appreciably rise, is known as the Great Oxidation Event. The oxygen displace the methane in the atmosphere; burning light flashes. The rising oxygen levels atmosphere added extra electron potential to the solar water evaporation in the atmosphere, for enhanced geological changes from the core upward.

Please quit telling us how little you know of the sciences. Your excuses are extremely ignorant. Instead you should be trying to ask reasonable questions. Let me suggest one for you:

How do scientists know that the rise in CO2 is from humans?

 

[wellwisher]

Please quit telling us how little you know of the sciences. Your excuses are extremely ignorant. Instead you should be trying to ask reasonable questions. Let me suggest one for you:

How do scientists know that the rise in CO2 is from humans?

Do forest fires count as human? There was huge forest fire in Siberia in 2021 with 46 million acres burnt. That is a lot of CO2 and a lot of lost CO2 future carbon fixation, to get a double hit.

If we do an estimate, there are about 1000 trees per acre, 1/2 cord per each 18in diameter tree, 2.5 tons of CO2 per cord, which comes to about 1250 tons of CO2 per acre. The Siberia Forest fire released about 57.5 billion tons of CO2.

The Canadian forest fires this summer have burned 37 million acres, so far.

The USA produces about 1,019 million metric tons of CO2 from gasoline and diesel per year, which is less than either forest fire. This is only a little more 1 billion tons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do forest fires count as human? There was huge forest fire in Siberia in 2021 with 46 million acres burnt. That is a lot of CO2 and a lot of lost CO2 future carbon fixation, to get a double hit.

If we do an estimate, there are about 1000 trees per acre, 1/2 cord per each 18in diameter tree, 2.5 tons of CO2 per cord, which comes to about 1250 tons of CO2 per acre. The Siberia Forest fire released about 57.5 billion tons of CO2.

The Canadian forest fires this summer have burned 37 million acres, so far.

The USA produces about 1,019 million metric tons of CO2 from gasoline and diesel per year, which is less than either forest fire. This is only a little more 1 billion tons. I always thought it was closer.

I think my older estimate was for the all fossil fuel; gas, coal and natural gas, in the world used per year, and not just US gas. That was still less than the Canadian fires.

Quit running away and making excuses. If you want to be taken seriously there is a lot that you need to know. I will answer one question: No forest fires do not count. And we can tell that they do not add much in the way of CO2.

You should have asked the question that I gave you.

 

[wellwisher]

Quit running away and making excuses. If you want to be taken seriously there is a lot that you need to know. I will answer one question: No forest fires do not count. And we can tell that they do not add much in the way of CO2.

You should have asked the question that I gave you.

You did not read my estimate. The forest fire in Siberia produced about 55 times the amount of CO2 as all the gasoline and diesel vehicles in the USA for one year. Biden and the Democrats are trying to get rid of gasoline but if California would stop their forest fires with better conservation methods we reduce the CO2 5-time more. The boneheads do not know what they are doing.

My estimate was only for the firewood of the trees, and did not take into account deadfall, smaller shrubs and saplings, and the leaves.

A cord of fire wood, with pieces about 18in long; can fit into a wood stove, stacks about 4ftx4ftx8ft. This produces 2.5 tons of CO2 per cord. I estimated 1/2 cord per acre with 100 trees at 18in diameter. There were 46 million acres burnt so if we do the math we get 57.5 billion tons of CO2.

If we ignore that one natural contribution, the manmade estimate gets inflated as the big dog. I was being facetious about including forest fires. If you wish to look globally I found this below.

We’ve emitted more CO2 in the past 30 years than in all of history. These three reasons are to blame

Global size of land burned by wildfires 2001-2018, by region​

Published by
Bruna Alves,
Feb 23, 2023
Approximately 7.2 billion hectares of land across the globe were burned from 2001 to 2018. More than two-thirds of the fires within this time frame occurred in Africa. More specifically, the region with the largest area burned by wildfires in 2001-2018 was Eastern and Southern Africa, with a total of 2.18 billion hectares affected. Western and Central Africa followed, with 1.91 billion hectares burned during this period.

One hectare is 2.4 acres. That means the earth burned 18 billion acres from 2001-2018. That amounts to 22.5 trillion tons of CO2.

The world produced 784bn tonnes of carbon dioxide from human activities from the dawn of the industrial revolution until 1990.

Africa is major world source of CO2.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did not read my estimate. The forest fire in Siberia produced about 55 times the amount of CO2 as all the gasoline and diesel vehicles in the USA for one year. Biden and the Democrats are trying to get rid of gasoline but if California would stop their forest fires with better conservation methods we reduce the CO2 5-time more. The boneheads do not know what they are doing.

I do not trust your figures since you always get your "science" horribly wrong.

My estimate was only for the firewood of the trees, and did not take into account deadfall, smaller shrubs and saplings, and the leaves.

A cord of fire wood, with pieces about 18in long; can fit into a wood stove, stacks about 4ftx4ftx8ft. This produces 2.5 tons of CO2 per cord. I estimated 1/2 cord per acre with 100 trees at 18in diameter. There were 46 million acres burnt so if we do the math we get 57.5 billion tons of CO2.

If we ignore that one natural contribution, the manmade estimate gets inflated as the big dog. I was being facetious about including forest fires. If you wish to look globally I found this below.




One hectare is 2.4 acres. That means the earth burned 18 billion acres from 2001-2018. That amounts to 22.5 trillion tons of CO2.


Africa is major world source of CO2.

Once again, natural sources are accounted for. Until you begin to ask proper questions no one can take you seriously since you refuse to learn the science.

 

[Pete in Panama]

You did not read my estimate. The forest fire in Siberia produced about 55 times the amount of CO2 as all the gasoline and diesel vehicles in the USA for one year. Biden and the Democrats are trying to get rid of gasoline but if California would stop their forest fires with better conservation methods we reduce the CO2 5-time more. The boneheads do not know what they are doing.

My estimate was only for the firewood of the trees, and did not take into account deadfall, smaller shrubs and saplings, and the leaves.

A cord of fire wood, with pieces about 18in long; can fit into a wood stove, stacks about 4ftx4ftx8ft. This produces 2.5 tons of CO2 per cord. I estimated 1/2 cord per acre with 100 trees at 18in diameter. There were 46 million acres burnt so if we do the math we get 57.5 billion tons of CO2.

If we ignore that one natural contribution, the manmade estimate gets inflated as the big dog. I was being facetious about including forest fires. If you wish to look globally I found this below.




One hectare is 2.4 acres. That means the earth burned 18 billion acres from 2001-2018. That amounts to 22.5 trillion tons of CO2.


Africa is major world source of CO2.

You're giving us hard numbers here, but hard numbers will not convince anyone willing to construct elaborate logic structures to "prove" AGW. My tack is to reach out and try to establish a bond of friendship w/ the AGW advocates. Only problem is I'm not getting any where on that avenue either...

 

[wellwisher]

You're giving us hard numbers here, but hard numbers will not convince anyone willing to construct elaborate logic structures to "prove" AGW. My tack is to reach out and try to establish a bond of friendship w/ the AGW advocates. Only problem is I'm not getting any where on that avenue either...

I was a development engineer and the data I supplied gave me a idea for a solution, that is not political postering, but is very practical.

Africa is the largest source of natural CO2 by forest fires; Africa is the Continent of Fire. Africa's natural contribution to total global CO2 is huge. What would happen if we invested in Africa, to develop ways to reduce African forest fires? Conceptually we could reduce trillions of tons of CO2, without having to knee cap the world economies. Instead of going after man made CO2, which affects the world economy, we go after an easy natural source.

There is plenty of forest fire CO2, that can be controlled by better land management and other technologies, thereby not needing as much immediate CO2 change in the global infrastructure by depending exclusively on manmade CO2 control. This African CO2 offset could allow time for R&D to develop alternate energy,, without cutting off the nose of the economy to spite its face. CO2 is CO2 and why not go after the CO2 that hurts humans the least, instead of the CO2 that will cause the most economic hardship?

Plus the economic investment in Africa would help that continent develop and expand the world economy. It will give international incentive to invest. The 22.5 Trillion tons of CO2 from world wide forest fires, means lots of potential offset savings, since natural and manmade is all part of the same CO2 global atmospheric pool.

This will also be a good litmus test to factor out a power grab scam. A power grab scam will not want this. Plus this approach brings hope and not just fear of climate change plus world poverty.

One other thought is, say we could control African wild fires. This could be used like a CO2 dam, that could be used in the future if we heeded into an ice age. We let off natural CO2, from the dam, to stay warmer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was a development engineer and the data I supplied gave me a idea for a solution, that is not political postering, but is very practical.

Africa is the largest source of natural CO2 by forest fires; Africa is the Continent of Fire. Africa's natural contribution to total global CO2 is huge. What would happen if we invested in Africa, to develop ways to reduce African forest fires? Conceptually we could reduce trillions of tons of CO2, without having to knee cap the world economies. Instead of going after man made CO2, which affects the world economy, we go after an easy natural source.

There is plenty of forest fire CO2, that can be controlled by better land management and other technologies, thereby not needing as much immediate CO2 change in the global infrastructure by depending exclusively on manmade CO2 control. This African CO2 offset could allow time for R&D to develop alternate energy,, without cutting off the nose of the economy to spite its face. CO2 is CO2 and why not go after the CO2 that hurts humans the least, instead of the CO2 that will cause the most economic hardship?

Plus the economic investment in Africa would help that continent develop and expand the world economy. It will give international incentive to invest. The 22.5 Trillion tons of CO2 from world wide forest fires, means lots of potential offset savings, since natural and manmade is all part of the same CO2 global atmospheric pool.

This will also be a good litmus test to factor out a power grab scam. A power grab scam will not want this. Plus this approach brings hope and not just fear of climate change plus world poverty.

One other thought is, say we could control African wild fires. This could be used like a CO2 dam, that could be used in the future if we heeded into an ice age. We let off natural CO2, from the dam, to stay warmer.

So what? Once again, why didn't you ask how we know that the increase in CO2 is man made? Someone with engineering training should know enough to realize how important it is to ask the right questions.

 

[Ebionite]

How would that work?

Mann leapt from relative obscurity to international fame with his “hockey stick”, a graph of global temperatures from 1000 AD to the present, which was the showpiece at the iv launching of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report in Shanghai in January 2001. The hockey stick became a corporate logo for the IPCC , but because it rubbed out the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the historical record, it was subjected to a US congressional inquiry. Eventually it was shown that random data fed into the algorithms used by Mann to produce his hockey stick from bristle cone pine tree ring data, also yielded hockey stick results.

https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.

Climate ‘Propagandist’ Banned by Wikipedia | National Review

Remember William Connolley? Team Green’s point man at Wikipedia has censored his last climate-science entry. Lawrence Solomon — who wrote about Connolley for NRO back in 2008 — does a victory lap i…

www.nationalreview.com

To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.

"Think of the Implications of Publishing"

A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in climate science

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

 

[wellwisher]

So what? Once again, why didn't you ask how we know that the increase in CO2 is man made? Someone with engineering training should know enough to realize how important it is to ask the right questions.

This topic is climate change as a tool of tyranny. You are trying to keep framing the discussion with the foundation premise that the observed climate change can be explained exclusively as man made. This is a Lefty trick often used; reinforce a foundation premise and keep repeating. The Russian Collusion was also a done deal.

What I did is offer a solution, that does not allow tyranny to use climate change, to spread itself. Developing Africa and reducing a large natural source of CO2; Fire Continent, would have the same net affect as reducing manmade CO2, by industrial fossil fuel. The difference between approaches is this helps people avoid fire, without tyranny able to use fear and harm the economy with half developed technology, for insider trading.

Dealing with the Fire Continent can get us to the same CO2 reductions goals, but does it does not use fear to fill in the black box of casino science. This would be acceptable by the Right, since it is not wasteful but would be an investment in Africa. This will allow new opportunities, while letting the economies of the world evolve organically toward cleaner energy; nuclear, instead of by the whim of the tyrants.

The Left will not support this, since it is really a power grab, that would become more difficult, if we had another common sense solution, that helps people, is also cost effective, and could provide African jobs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This topic is climate change as a tool of tyranny. You are trying to keep framing the discussion with the foundation premise that the observed climate change can be explained exclusively as man made. This is a Lefty trick often used; reinforce a foundation premise and keep repeating. The Russian Collusion was also a done deal.

What I did is offer a solution, that does not allow tyranny to use climate change, to spread itself. Developing Africa and reducing a large natural source of CO2; Fire Continent, would have the same net affect as reducing manmade CO2, by industrial fossil fuel. The difference between approaches is this helps people avoid fire, without tyranny able to use fear and harm the economy with half developed technology, for insider trading.

Dealing with the Fire Continent can get us to the same CO2 reductions goals, but does it does not use fear to fill in the black box of casino science. This would be acceptable by the Right, since it is not wasteful but would be an investment in Africa. This will allow new opportunities, while letting the economies of the world evolve organically toward cleaner energy; nuclear, instead of by the whim of the tyrants.

The Left will not support this, since it is really a power grab, that would become more difficult, if we had another common sense solution, that helps people, is also cost effective, and could provide African jobs.

No, you keep on trying to raise ridiculous red herrings that even a high school level of knowledge would refute. You offered nonsense. That you have to call reasonable actions "tyranny" tells us that you are not reasoning rationally.

Once again, before you can even start to offer "solutions" you need to learn the basics of AGW.

 

[sayak83]

Do forest fires count as human? There was huge forest fire in Siberia in 2021 with 46 million acres burnt. That is a lot of CO2 and a lot of lost CO2 future carbon fixation, to get a double hit.

If we do an estimate, there are about 1000 trees per acre, 1/2 cord per each 18in diameter tree, 2.5 tons of CO2 per cord, which comes to about 1250 tons of CO2 per acre. The Siberia Forest fire released about 57.5 billion tons of CO2.

The Canadian forest fires this summer have burned 37 million acres, so far.

The USA produces about 1,019 million metric tons of CO2 from gasoline and diesel per year, which is less than either forest fire. This is only a little more 1 billion tons.

Forest fires where fire does not usually occur due to increased heat caused by global warming or man made forest fires do count in human emissions. They are already accounted for in "CO2 emissions due to land use changes" in all CO2 data.
I