It seems we agree, the atmosphere is heating up.
We also agree, I think, it is not Co2 causing it.
A better question: What causes the atmosphere to heat up so “fast”?
No it does not mean that, that is your side of the argument me thinks? And then, is it the planet’s atmosphere or the planet itself?
Groetnis
I’m not arguing, I’m saying that I think we are barking up the wrong tree with the Co2 arguments.
Yes, I’ve read about the planet itself heating up apparently, the core doing some interesting things.
Also about the effects the sun has on all it all.
That it could be cyclical over decades eons, or millions of years, based on what is found by geologists, seen in ice cores drilled.
There are a lot of interesting discoveries in drilled ice cores.
It also converts some of it back to oxygen, in fact more than half our oxygen is made by oceanic plankton, algae, plants, and even bacteria.
You guys agree maybe (and please update your profile with your academic credentials in that case… just kidding 
), but for me the jury is still out. We know, from simple experiments, and from our neighbour Venus, that CO2 traps heat. Therefore, before we can dismiss it, we need to do the math and prove that the scales are balanced. Until that is done, at the very least we should watch our CO2 output.
I think that is another part of “consensus”. It is a bit like having your computer code reviewed by a colleague. Someone else does the work, and says, yes… I get the same result. Consensus is worth something.
Not dismissing it at all, just that it is not the only cause, although it is the one cause that causes THE most arguments.
Co2 must be addressed, it is causing problems, but over a longer time, for various good reasons given here, it can also not be a problem at all IF we don’t destroy all the vegetation.
The “speed” at which the caps are melting, the pacific islands are “sinking”, there is more to this than just Co2 and Venus and hotboxes. 
Park Co2 debate, we can get back to it … naa, we seem to be totally stuck on Co2 and what traps the heat. Not enough oxygen reaching our brains at this point. 
Correct. But you may have missed a point I made. I mentioned the acidification of the ocean. If that continues at the current trend, then you will eventually have an oxygen shortage causing the decimation of the phytoplankton, algae, plants, and even bacteria, resulting in a rather nasty issue.
Let me throw a rock in the bush …
Methane is a huge contributor, even though it dissipates much faster than Co2. But, what is now being measured is the reported volumes at which it is being released. Most of it is because of the process, and when some shortcuts are taken, during oil and gas drilling, processing, and venting.
Can it be mitigated? Yes, capture it, don’t release it.
I think the reason it is so prominent in the debates, is that it is the one most emitted by human activity. 75% of it is us… and of that 75%… three quarters is energy generation activities. It also takes a lot longer to lower your CO2 level (vs Methane, which is mostly gone in 12 to 20 years).
So over 100 years, CO2 is a bigger risk than methane. Methane does however have 25 times more effect in the short term.
So it’s probably one of those things of calculating risk: It is the product of how long the threat is around multiplied by how bad it is for you.
And that is where Co2, which I’m trying to steer clear of till we have a broader picture between all of us here, as the arguments about human involvement and nature and plants and the o so bad one, the “carbon tax” thing, drives these discussions sideways, every single time.
I really think, “they” used Co2 to get everyone to argue and fight over that, keeping silent on the other gasses, like i.e. methane, that is actually maybe causing the real problems today, we can deal with Co2 emission at our “leisure”.
But if we don’t know about the rest, we are going to be taxed and not save/stop anything.
The footage comes from FLIR, a maker of optical gas imaging cameras and one of the largest companies in the methane mitigation industry.
Now I hope to get some people’s attention with the word FLIR.
@plonkster it would be so awesome if this thread can share more ideas on what we, as a collective here, can see ourselves and become more aware of facts dedicated scientists are seeing, who are really trying to get the messages across, scientists whose voices are being blocked/lost because of the Co2 distraction/arguments.
So this was taken by myself, a clear day 13 April 2022 08:35
Bright sunshine and all, the clear sky -52C as per the image.
Lots of heat sink available there…
Groetnis
Well, don’t look now, but there are countries in the world who wants to tax methane emissions. And that debate is no less heated… pun intended.
Again, I am not sure that avoiding the carbon argument and instead trying to solve something else first is going to be helpful
Not avoiding it, but getting past it to reach a larger common understanding of the entire problem.
Carbon can be sorted IF we get told the truth, and not be taxed. Plant more trees.
Methane can be sorted IF we get told the truth, captured it, and re-used it to generate like i.e. electricity.
But if the majority of the world is focussed just on carbon, people are being “blamed” for it, then we can tax them some more. Goodie!
The world is “losing” it. Just one silly example, there is a drive lurking to gain momentum to stop private planes from flying. Why, because of their carbon emissions.
No-one considers, flying is not the culprit, it has an impact, but not the culprit.
We need to think broader than Co2.
This is a very doable contribution that is within every individual’s capability.
Regardless, of your point of view, who can argue that a tree is not a gift from nature.
Shade, beauty, fruit, building material etc.
2 Likes
It reminds me of a movie reference that has now become almost impossible to find. Two guys in a restaurant. One says to to the other that doing the right thing is not hard. Knowing the right thing is hard. Once you know the right thing, it becomes hard not to do it.
… and we’re not already being told the truth? There are a substantial amount of people who distrust the establishment so much that it’s a complete non-starter.
I suppose everyone has their approach to this problem, but for myself, it starts with figuring out “the right thing”, or “the truth”. After you know what that is, carbon, methane… it no longer matters. It becomes hard not to do something about it.
Now normally, when something is not your core expertise, you go to someone whose expertise it is. But even that is a dead end this time…
Yes, we are, but only what we want to hear, can comprehend, “wanting” to pay more taxes to “safe the world”.
If we know what the truth is, we can do the right thing.
Hence this chat here … if we apply our own minds, we could come to the point where the “pennies drop” versus having no cooking clue really, led by our noses, and then taxed on that.
And that ironically… will require “consensus”
I had another thought this morning. I am told, with some authority, that union negotiations is an art perhaps not unlike this conversation. You cannot barge into a boardroom, and immediately start negotiating. I’m told that in the African context, you first get to know each other. You need to know that there is a basis of trust there, a certain amount of sharing a traditional beer. Only then do you get to negotiations.
Perhaps that’s the problem in the Western World. Distrust is baked into our psyche. When your government says, “we spoke to our best scientists and they think we should all take this medicine”, 1 in 3 of us reply, “don’t tell me what to do!”
Sensible, on how to negotiate. As a matter of fact, now that I think about that, yonks ago did a course on negotiations, and it follows very much the way Unions do it. Just not the beer part, you can though. Nail the deal in the pub. BWHAHAHAHAHA …
The bottom line with negotiations is if both parties don’t walk away with more or less what they wanted out of it, then the deal never ever lasts.
Reading what Sarel said on why he steered clear of these debates, you daringly … jumped the gun on me by an hour … starting this thread, I would have thought we have established some trust here on EnergyTalk. 
Then again, I’m known for being wrong at times.
Of course we did… but we’re not going to fix this, are we?
I can imagine the headlines: Plucky little South African energy group solves the global climate debate!
In an unexpected development, a South African pro-renewable group led by a man who only refers to himself in the plural managed to do the unthinkable. In a marathon debate, lasting about a week, they came up with a proposal so compelling that world leaders had no choice but to change their minds.
Reportedly, even the leader of North Korea said: I am in awe of the simplicity of this solution! Who’d think that it could be that simple?
Leaders at the UN council for climate matters expressed gratitude, and said they are looking forward towards implementing the plan.
Aw man, that just made my day!!! 
There is another issue that occurs to me here. When two people negotiate, and they decide to meet in the middle, then the man who had the more outrageous claims ends up winning.
When it comes to important stuff, you don’t meet in the middle. You meet where it is fair, which means you have to first fight out what is fair. And in this debate, that means getting the facts first… which everyone disagrees about… so there you have it
Its official: 
The impact of climate change on health if carbon emissions remain high, could be up to twice as deadly as cancer in some parts of the world, according to new data released on Friday by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Climate Impact Lab.
1 Like
The leading authority says its CO2. No debate there.
Groetnis
1 Like