Yes, that is the main problem for me too.The reason I feel the need to jump on what I consider speculative nonsense is the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year in a totally futile effort to change the climate and feed the egos of researchers. As you probably are aware, there are countless areas where the funds could be more wisely spent. I don't need to name them. The outrageous waste of money needs to stop.
Overpopulation MUST be the root cause.
Wait a minute!Please keep in mind humans by breathing exhaust more CO2 than cars on the world.
That is about 5 liters CO2 per minute multiplied by 7 500 000 000 people, 37 500 000 000 liters per minute CO2 direct human emission.
That is 70 500 000 000 gram, 70 500 000 kg per minute.
Bjorn, yes You are basically right, sorry. But I prefer fat no sugar. The late night is not a good time for calculation. My value based on a high performance sportsman.Wait a minute!
Berthold, you are a PhD in chemistry from RWTH as far as I understand so you should not have problems in following me here: 5liters CO2 per minute is 7200 l/day. That equals approximately 321moles of CO2. This amount is produced in the cells primarily by combustion of glucose, so each individual of us should combust an amount equivalent to 321/6 moles of glucose (molar weight 180). That is close to 10kg glucose per day!(actually 9645g)
I am stunned and utterly impressed by your appetite oke:
Guess your assumption of humans breathing out pure CO2 is the problem in this calculation?
Vegans! Yes you could start another thread just on them. :rollhappy:Yes, that is the main problem for me too.
My second problem is that man-made-climate-change-missioners want to educate the rest of the world.
But I hate educating by any kind of missioners, including communists, Jehovah's Witness, vegans and climate changers.
18 January 2018
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Gavin A. Schmidt, Ken Lo, Avi Persin
Abstract. Global surface temperature in 2017 was the second highest in the period of instrumental measurements in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. Relative to average temperature for 1880-1920, which we take as an appropriate estimate of “pre-industrial” temperature, 2017 was +1.17°C (~2.1°F) warmer than in the 1880-1920 base period. The high 2017 temperature, unlike the record 2016 temperature, was obtained without any boost from tropical El Niño warming.
Prospects for continued global temperature change are more interesting and important. The record 2016 temperature was abetted by the effects of both a strong El Niño and maximum warming from the solar irradiance cycle (Fig. 4). Because of the ocean thermal inertia and decadal irradiance change, the peak warming and cooling effects of solar maximum and minimum are delayed about two years after irradiance extrema. The amplitude of the solar irradiance variation is smaller than the planetary energy imbalance, which has grown to about +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2 over the past several decades due to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.5,6 However, the solar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.
On the other hand, the 2017 global temperature remains stubbornly high, well above the trend line (Fig. 1), despite cooler than average temperature in the tropical Pacific Niño 3.4 region (Fig. 5), which usually provides an indication of the tropical Pacific effect on global temperature. Conceivably this continued temperature excursion above the trend line is not a statistical fluke, but rather is associated with climate forcings and/or feedbacks. The growth rate of greenhouse gas climate forcing has accelerated in the past decade. There is also concern that polar climate feedbacks may accelerate.
Therefore, temperature change during even the next few years is of interest, to determine whether a significant excursion above the trend line is underway.
David, please stop. These personal attacks not only illuminate who YOU are, they are becoming quite desperate and pathetic. Not to mention slipping off the edge of reality. You are embarrassing yourself.Mike - you should at least have the balls to say where you get your information from instead of passing it off as your own work.
Nonsense, industry pays for nothing. Everything has to be payed by the final consumer.Industry goes for the cheapest resources and maximum return, not for environmental goals. If industry had to pay for nuclear waste and environmental damage, nuke energy wouldn't exist.