Climate change: Greenhouse gas concentrations again break records

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases once again reached new highs in 2018.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was
just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.
Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.
Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50504131
Someone tell Trump how serious climate change is!
--
Bod

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Are you saying too much hot air comming out of Washington ? Seems like England is putting out lots too about the Brentexit or whatever it is called. It could be all the protesters over the world burning up the cities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/25/2019 2:04 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

I had suggested that when Trump goes to the UK that he should hire hookers to piss on Bod to cool him off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 3:06:23 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:

I see, so you finally acknowledge that Trump is familiar with that and knows where to get those hookers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/25/2019 01:06 PM, Frank wrote:

That's asking a lot of some working girl.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 2:04:58 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:

No, he's saying that CO2 is now higher than it has been in 800,000 years, that it's increased by a third in just the last 100 years, that it's caused by man burning fossil fuels, that previous rises of that magnitude took hundreds of thousands of years. No amount of Trump, Republican lying and denying can change that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:24:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4

The world population is over 3 times what it was in 1920 too. You can't deny that either. Most of those people are not going stop burning the forest and plains to grow more food.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:56:27 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Irrelevant, of course. There is no question that man burning fossil fuels is the overwhelming emitter. We could have the same population and be using solar and wind energy and there would not have been the rise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:42:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4

The flaw in that theory is CO2 has tracked population growth for 8000 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 8:03:35 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

There is no flaw, the rise in CO2 is being fueled by man burning fossil fuels. Sure, the more people that are burning oil and coal, the more CO2. So, what's the point? If most of those people switched to heating with solar, driving electric cars powered from solar, wind, nuclear, they would emit far less Co2.
You're just like Trump and the trumpets. Just pick and choose, throw anything up. "The word is.....", "That's what they say....." I'll stick with the science that the overwhelming number of scientists who actually have the credentials and expertise agree on.
The US had just 5 percent of the world's population, yet we emit 15 percent of the greenhouse gases. It's not from burning forests, just open your eyes and look around.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).
And that leaves out all the other undesirable side effects of burning fossil fuels from air pollution to the environmental damage done by drilling and transporting fossil fuels.
Solar, Nuclear, Hydro, Wind and energy efficiency can all be used to reduce and eventually eliminate fossil fuels over time given investment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms. People were not living in homes that were thousands of square feet, with AC, were not driving around in cars, and were not consuming all the vast products, eg disposable ones, that require energy to produce. Someone must have the data somewhere, as to per capita CO2 over time, but it's ridiculous to suggest that because it's per capita and the number of people continues to increase, we should just throw up our hands, give up and none of it matters.
But sadly this has just become political, with many people making up their minds not on science, but on party lines and what they want to believe. And that's not hard to do on the internet today, there is always someone saying what you want to hear. It's worked wonders for Trump. He chose to believe Putin's lies, that Ukraine is responsible for meddling, not Russia. Look what it's done for him. The sad thing is he's taken most of the pathetic Republicans down the tubes with him.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at their animals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com writes:

And again, your scientific illiteracy rears its ugly head. Without adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere, there would be no excess regardless of how many people are respirating and passing gas; on any scale that matters, the carbon usage would be neutral (the carbon being exhaled was plant matter or meat a few days earlier, and will become plant matter or meat a few days or months later).
Taking carbon that _hasn't_ been in the atomosphere for hundreds of millions of years and adding it back _does_ alter the balance, and not in a good way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 10:00:23 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

It's not just that the carbon hasn't been in the air for hundreds of millions of years, it's that it took hundreds of millions of years for that carbon to accumulate as coal, oil, nat gas and now we're burning in in just hundreds of years. If we were adding it back at the rate it accumulated, the effect would be minimal too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4

When you burn the rain forest or plow up native turf land you are putting CO2 in the air that has been sequestered for millions of years. It used to cycle, now it doesn't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:10:30 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

No shit, Sherlock. And the climate scientists that have studied the overall situation have concluded that burning fossil fuels, not burning rain forest, is the overwhelming contributor to CO2. It;s quite amazing that you'd spread that BS, when if you just look around you see McMansions, families with 3 cars, people spewing CO2. But heh, tweeet it to Trump, he'll believe it and spread it on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:28:52 -0800 (PST), trader_4

At this point you are just picking your scientist there are plenty who just blame "man" for being here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 12:46:26 AM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

That is absurd. The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists who actually are involved with studying global warming is that the vast majority of the increase in CO2 is due to man burning fossil fuels. You're the one picking, just like those that wanted to deny that cigarettes cause cancer or that HIV causes AIDS found some small number of some kind of "scientists" that said no. And typically they are not even actual climate science researches, instead they are in other fields. A good example was a recent post here, where the poster cited a guy who died 11 years ago at the age of 88. He was a climate scientist, but not active for years and back in the 70s, he was one of proponents making the case for anthropogenic CO2 warming. That was when the earth was cooler, yet as his assessment came true, for some reason much later in life he flipped. We have no way of knowing what he would say today, 11 years later.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:00:18 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Removing vegetation still upsets that balance. Nature did not envision farms either. That still brings us back to the question I asked "How are we going to stop it"? The western world could stop using fossil fuels completely (in some dream world) but the other 5 billion people will still use what they can afford. It is like those people who say banning plastic straws is going to halt plastic pollution. (Ignoring the cup, the lid, the package the drink, cup and lid came to the restaurant in).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.