I would almost guarantee that is the case!I'm just saying maybe that is a control mechanism that we don't understand yet
I've always been a ... step back and look at the big picture .... kind of guy. In the case of the science I am talking about, that is exactly what they are doing. They are looking at the earth from space and seeing things they don't understand ... why are there all those streaks of different colors in the ocean that come and go .... watch a huge sand storm in one part of the world actually blow across the ocean and fertilize the Amazon forest.I would almost guarantee that is the case!
That chart is for sunspots, hence the graph's label on that axis.The largest natural contribution to climate change is solar variation, the cycles from the 40s through 90s were so active they may have caused such significant polar melting that the resulting methane release caused sustained forcing of temps. C02 doesnt just drive temps, temps can drive C02 levels.
View attachment 78349
More from war than Climate change.I spend a lot of time in the physics community, mostly astronomy and astrophysics. I talk to professional astronomers, amateurs, physicists, etc.. Some really smart people.
There's an idea in astronomy in the hunt for signs of alien life.. its referred to as "The Great Filter"
From Drake's equation to the Fermi paradox, the people who study this stuff are beginning to think they might have an idea of what's going on.
For those who aren't familiar, in simple terms, the Drake equation attempts to ascertain the likelihood of aliens based on a range of variables like the number of stars, chances of a habitable planet, etc. The numbers that the Drake equation returns are astounding.. so much so, Fermi looked at the results and asked "If there are so many aliens out there, where the hell is everyone?"
Enter "The Great Filter".. A concept that an evolving intelligent species will run up against an obstacle which is likely to prevent their survival or further evolution.
Current thinking is that it is global warming that does it.
By the time a species recognizes the danger, its too late to change their society to fix it.
That Krakatoa comment is actually fairly accurate. Too bad we can't go back 140 years and take the knowledge we have today with us.More from war than Climate change.
We occupy 2% of the earth’s surface.
We are fleas.
We change very little.
Krakatoa change more than we did in the entire industrial Revolution.
The article is from yale university and contains data from a peer reviewed research paper from the scripps institute of oceanography.Its an opinion article, not peer reviewed research.. still interesting. I had to look up NF3 and wiki says about the same things in general, but their numbers vary wildly and are much lower in the estimations of what makes it into the atmosphere.
The numbers don't add up to anything even remotely considered significant. Translate even the article's (exaggerated?) numbers into tons of CO2 equivalent and it still works out to something ridiculously small for the returns we get and the amount we already generate.
Its a good article, maybe it will bring light to the issue and force the manufacturers to be more careful with the emissions. A peer reviewed analysis will be needed before an opinion is formed. It would be foolish to form an opinion based on an opinion article.
While methane is technically a greenhouse gas, something like 20 times more powerful than CO2, it is also broken down in the atmosphere relatively quickly. This is why we look for methane on exoplanets.. While there are natural sources, life is the main producer of it, and without life continuously replenishing the supply in the atmosphere, the methane disappears pretty quickly.
Sorry, I screwed up the rest of your quoted reply and can't figure out how to get it back. Concerning the ship breaking, while I am not familiar with your story, I am well aware that politics and the bad policies the politicians come up with, can screw up good science policy. This is nothing new and I'm sure you could probably come up with lots of these stories.
The NF3 is not a problem.. it COULD become a problem, but it is not a current problem.. and its being brought to light so that we can correct the potential issue. Now, if they do nothing about it in the future and ignore it for the next decade, then it becomes an issue.
My solar panels have a 30 year warranty, not 25... that is a significant difference and will change the math significantly. Furthermore, that 30 year figure is just the warranty.. the panels will most likely be generating power for far longer than that.
I'm not calling it fake news, I'm saying that the interpretation of the data obtained by the research needs a closer more comprehensive look.The article is from yale university and contains data from a peer reviewed research paper from the scripps institute of oceanography.
One little "fun fact" they forget to tell you :
If we went back to the stone age and promised not to burn any wood for heat or cooking, we could only
eliminate 4% of the CO2 that's emitted.
Because 4% is all we contribute to the total CO2 ! Quite pointless to worry about IMHO.
But if it makes you think your life has purpose, go for it and be happy !
Below is a document from the International Panel on Climate Change :
View attachment 79005
Our resident expert speaks !Its almost comical how you won't believe the covid science, the global warming science, and probably a dozen other things..
But you get on a computer, created by science, to connect to a network, created by science, to log onto a website, also created by science, to then proclaim you don't believe the science.
F'ing stupid doesn't even describe it.. and I find it hard to believe that you could possibly be that utterly stupid...
The only possibilities are 1) Utterly stupid 2) Russian Troll
When seeing the stupid garbage people post in forums like this, I think there are just some people in our society that should have been swallowed.
There is no doubt about human influence on climate. No "scientist" thinks the world is in a natural warming period, such a thing is not taking place. The emission of human caused CO2 with the onset of industrialisation and atmopsheric CO2 rise resulting in a sharp bend in the temperature curve are in perfect alignment. We are not in 1990s any more, back then things were somewhat unclear, and some voices were not convinced. But since the mid 2000s that has changed.a lot of nonsense
The article is from Yale Environment 360 whitch is an independent journamlism organisation. And it points to a source that has possibly not been taken into account. It is, as @MurphyGuy said, not a peer reviewed article, so it is strictly spoken not quotable with scientific rigour. It points to a source that might not have been taken into account appropriately yet and does not cast doubt on what's been published so far, if that was the intention.The article is from yale university and contains data from a peer reviewed research paper from the scripps institute of oceanography.
That would be an objective observation if alarmists werent constantly pointing at a week of hot summer days, or a particularly bad hurricane, or wildfire, and blaming climate change for it.The article is from Yale Environment 360 whitch is an independent journamlism organisation. And it points to a source that has possibly not been taken into account. It is, as @MurphyGuy said, not a peer reviewed article, so it is strictly spoken not quotable with scientific rigour. It points to a source that might not have been taken into account appropriately yet and does not cast doubt on what's been published so far, if that was the intention.
Got to reiterate that almost no serious scientist doubts human induced climate change. Maybe one can find somebody somewhere claiming they is right and all the world is wrong and we shall all soon see, these guys exist in any discipline. To avoid, stick to the sources and peer reviewed work is what I always say. If it is too complicated (which is no shame at all), go to pop science outlets or the journal's editorials and front pages.
There is of course, because this is part of the scientific method, constant discussion and shifting of modelling and interpretation as new and more data comes in. This is a global discourse. Laymen/women/other are not fit enpugh to to use these discussions, that focus on certain well defined aspects, as a means to ridicule the whole picture. The most usual one of these is confusing weather and climate, going down to such simple assertions as "it is cold here rigth now, so there can't be global warming". Which, of course, is a humorous remark at best.
But were in the right space here (solar power) to contribute a little bit to a transition for the better, using our built-in play instinct
Bizarre that you would expend effort to attack the source rather than confront the issue. Are you asserting that NF3 is not a dangerous greenhouse gas, that isnt released into the atmosphere when solar panels are made?The article is from Yale Environment 360 whitch is an independent journamlism organisation. And it points to a source that has possibly not been taken into account. It is, as @MurphyGuy said, not a peer reviewed article, so it is strictly spoken not quotable with scientific rigour. It points to a source that might not have been taken into account appropriately yet and does not cast doubt on what's been published so far, if that was the intention.
Got to reiterate that almost no serious scientist doubts human induced climate change. Maybe one can find somebody somewhere claiming they is right and all the world is wrong and we shall all soon see, these guys exist in any discipline. To avoid, stick to the sources and peer reviewed work is what I always say. If it is too complicated (which is no shame at all), go to pop science outlets or the journal's editorials and front pages.
There is of course, because this is part of the scientific method, constant discussion and shifting of modelling and interpretation as new and more data comes in. This is a global discourse. Laymen/women/other are not fit enpugh to to use these discussions, that focus on certain well defined aspects, as a means to ridicule the whole picture. The most usual one of these is confusing weather and climate, going down to such simple assertions as "it is cold here rigth now, so there can't be global warming". Which, of course, is a humorous remark at best.
But were in the right space here (solar power) to contribute a little bit to a transition for the better, using our built-in play instinct
Are you asserting solar is bad because of it? If so, that's another beating of a dead horse and addressed here....Are you asserting that NF3 is not a dangerous greenhouse gas, that isnt released into the atmosphere when solar panels are made?...
Sheer speculation and assumptions hardly make it a dead horse.Are you asserting solar is bad because of it? If so, that's another beating of a dead horse and addressed here.
I would just contribute my share as a humble citizen.Perhaps you can explain to us how we would mitigate a problem caused by human industrialization...
Peer-reviewed links in the referenced post aren't speculation and there are over 400 papers looking at the full GHG lifecycle from solar.Sheer speculation and assumptions hardly make it a dead horse.
"But lumping all solar panel manufacture in with thin-film manufacture is disingenuous. Thin film is mostly for flexible panels and as there are far more LED screens it's doubtful the majority of the GHG comes from the solar industry.Peer-reviewed links in the referenced post aren't speculation and there are over 400 papers looking at the full GHG lifecycle from solar.
Others will hopefully see it for what it is, some truth mixed with falsehoods and propagated to sow confusion.
You could have saved yourself a lot of obfuscation efforts and just admitted youd rather not answer the question.I would just contribute my share as a humble citizen.
This touches more of politics and social science than natural science. Geoscience can deliver the data and explanations of effects and observations and how they intermingle, can model and explain nature. Policymakers make something out of it, or not. For that, the IPCC was founded.
The consequences of climate change have been laid out in the IPCC's shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP). These are based on published work up to 2020, and probably go too short from a mere geoscience point of view, in how much area goes out of human habiitability and which yet unaccounted for effects (not because they are not known but because they are difficult to quantify with scientific rigour, like methane release, glacier retreat, changes in circulation patterns, ...) contribute as positive or negative feedbacks.
If you have specific questions about well defined effects or observations from natural phenomena, I can try and point you in a direction of where to look. But mind you, earth dynamics are a broad field.
gb
Amen to crazies all around.Just like the gretta left crazies there are right crazies that deny climate change but you seem to think that just because the right is not moving on any of the ideas the left is coming up with it means that the right is denying climate change.
Sounds like speculation and assumption.
So youre saying its a FACT that NF3 is NOT USED in rigid solar panel production, AND you have absolute data on what is released in flexible panel production?