Slashdot Mirror
Entrepreneurs Fight Air Pollution With CO2-Reducing 'CityTrees' (cnn.com)
CNN is reporting on "CityTree", a unique 10-foot tall mobile installation which removes pollutants from the air." An anonymous reader quotes their report:
Berlin-based Green City Solutions claims its invention has the environmental benefit of up to 275 actual trees. But the CityTree isn't, in fact, a tree at all -- it's a moss culture. "Moss cultures have a much larger leaf surface area than any other plant. That means we can capture more pollutants," said Zhengliang Wu, co-founder of Green City Solutions.
The huge surfaces of moss installed in each tree can remove dust, nitrogen dioxide and ozone gases from the air. The installation is autonomous and requires very little maintenance: solar panels provide electricity, while rainwater is collected into a reservoir and then pumped into the soil... "We also have pollution sensors inside the installation, which help monitor the local air quality and tell us how efficient the tree is." Wu said. Its creators say that each CityTree is able to absorb around 250 grams of particulate matter a day and contributes to the capture of greenhouse gases by removing 240 metric tons of CO2 a year... Wu also argued that the CityTree is just one piece of a larger puzzle. "Our ultimate goal is to incorporate technology from the CityTree into existing buildings," he said.
So far they've installed 20 CityTrees -- each of which costs about $25,000.
The huge surfaces of moss installed in each tree can remove dust, nitrogen dioxide and ozone gases from the air. The installation is autonomous and requires very little maintenance: solar panels provide electricity, while rainwater is collected into a reservoir and then pumped into the soil... "We also have pollution sensors inside the installation, which help monitor the local air quality and tell us how efficient the tree is." Wu said. Its creators say that each CityTree is able to absorb around 250 grams of particulate matter a day and contributes to the capture of greenhouse gases by removing 240 metric tons of CO2 a year... Wu also argued that the CityTree is just one piece of a larger puzzle. "Our ultimate goal is to incorporate technology from the CityTree into existing buildings," he said.
So far they've installed 20 CityTrees -- each of which costs about $25,000.
CO2 is a global problem, not a city problem. There is no reason to locate CO2 consuming moss in any particular location, so it should be where it grows best, which is likely not downtown. This is obvious public "art" to make a statement, and not a serious attempt to mitigate AGW. Anyway, it does look cool.
By the way, surface area is irrelevant if there isn't air flow past the surface, like there would be for an actual tree.
This begs the question of whether CO2 is actually a pollutant or not.
How wonderful. Now that is something corporations can get behind.
"Nobody is denying that climate change is real."
Hahahahaha.
"Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?"
-Trump tweet on 25 Jan 2014
"Global warming is an expensive hoax"
- Trump tweet on 29 Jan 2014
"I don’t believe in climate change."
- Trump on CNN's New Day, 24 Sep 2015
So, each "citytree" removes 240 metric ton of CO2 a year?
Right.
That's 529,109 pounds of molecular CO2, per year.
What does it do with it all?
Turn it into biomass?
Or unicorns?
If it captures 240 metric tons of CO2 a year, they better have it on a strong foundation. That is going to get really heavy.
Just not for $25,000
Here's the thing... We need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, the only viable way to do this is photosynthesis, then, we need some way to sequester the bulk material. If the numbers they quote are accurate, 275 trees, then this could be interesting. Also, I honestly don't see how something like this isn't less than about $500 worth of stuff.
The moss "filters" should be replaceable. Grow them, when they are done, remove them, dry and press them in to flat surface then laminate, violla! a new source of building material! Start a new colony, rinse lather repeat. The building material makes sense. It sequesters the CO2 and reduces the need to cut down trees in the first place, besides, "growing" green things need more CO2. The intricate weaving of fibrous growth in combination of the laminate will make a very strong structure.
The math is the troubling thing.Let's say the US emits 6000 million metric tons of CO2 every year, how many of these would we need? 25 million of them *just* for the US. We would need to make about 100 million of them to even start to make a difference in the world.
There used to be a lot of confusion about how the carbon cycle works but I hoped that we're over that now. In short, plants use up only as much carbon as they need to grow, the rest just goes through them. This installation will never become carbon negative.
It might help with air pollution, but for $25000 apiece planting 275 trees may still be more economical.
This structure delivers the equivalent of a large park with hundreds of trees worth of pollution control to a street corner. Think about that for a little while. A city with one or more of these in every major plaza is equivalent to building a functioning city inside of a forest with direct benefits to human health. There are few public investments more worthwhile than this for major cities.
this shouldnt be troll. everything he described is in fact an accurate assessment of climate change.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
well a few years ago the other planets in the solar system were increasing in temp around the same rate as us. no one would try and claim that we did that to the other planets would they????
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Except for the whole lying through his teeth part, which makes up the bulk of both that post and the implication from yours. Look into Svante Arrhenius, the father of physical chemistry. He wrote about the exact chemical processes causing anthropogenic climate change and they are explicitly tied to burning hydrocarbon fuels. Here is a translation of the detailed paper he wrote in 1906 which is an elaboration on his original one in 1896. These mechanisms are the same ones acting now. There is zero ambiguity on the mechanism, and the direct as well as increasingly increasing role of human activity in accelerating global warming.
Is that what we're moving towards? Tree Farms and Hybrid Forests to counter our ecological damage? Or are we going to go for a Centauri Preserve?
We wouldn't claim that we did that to the other planets because your assertion is complete bullshit.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but something isn't true just because you thought of it.
It is spelled 'Divine' and it is within our control.
God helps those who help themselves
So what you are saying is it is a shit idea and no one is stupid enough, except for gov't, to pay for it.
A simpler and cheaper way is to plant ivy. Ivy covered buildings were common 200 years ago.
I don't think our chemistry lab was sponsored by Bausch, no. Way back in the early 1970s, we did have computers gifted by HP. I forget their names but they had plotters, hooked up to a television, and supported magnetic strip cards for algorithm storage. I think they took punch cards, as well.
But, no. Bausch hadn't anything to do with it.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a rounding error compared to water vapor and should have a negligible effect unless it somehow behaves differently than water vapor. I honestly would like to know is C02 that much more potent than water vapor or does it somehow behave differently?
Yes, different gasses have different levels of greenhouse effects. This EPA site shows the relative effect of some of them but doesn't mention water vapor. They call it GHP, or Global Warming Potential. CO2 is the baseline by definition at 1. I think water vapor is excluded because its effects are transient as the amount of water vapor itself fluctuates a lot. It looks like some consider the changes in water vapor a side effect of the other GHGs and that it functions more as a mechanism of warming rather than a cause (that is, change in other GHGs drive changes in water vapor as part of the warming mechanism).
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...
That at least gives you a place to start.
Should be debate flat earthers too? Bafoonery should be called out as such and not given legitimacy.
Alright, time to drive a stake through the heart of this brain-dead water vapor meme.
There's one important fact about water which you are overlooking: it is wet. That is to say it can exist as a liquid (or a solid) at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures. This means it can't diffuse throughout the entire troposphere like CO2 can before it exits the atmosphere as rain, snow, or dew.
And this is a good thing, because water is a potent greenhouse gas and all things being equal higher temperatures means more evaporation. If evaporation could drive warming the way CO2 does, we'd be looking at a runaway positive feedback loop that would end with the oceans boiling away.
Still, water doesplay a key role in anthropogenic climate change models. That's because CO2 can increase water evaporation in a global way that water vapor itself cannot. Water vapor basically doubles the impact of anthropogenic CO2.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Said so well. What hack denialist did you crib that from?
Should be debate flat earthers too? Bafoonery should be called out as such and not given legitimacy.
Yes. I would gladly give evidence for a circular earth to a legitimate flat earthers just as I routinely give evidence to anti-vaccine people why they should vaccinate and complain to pro-vaccine people that I wish there was better data on the pros and cons of vaccines. Hiding behind the mantra of "the other side is evil and stupid so I won't engage" doesn't help anyone.
This is a perfect example of green-washing. Let's start with their own claimed numbers. "250 grams of particulate matter a day". Let's give them perfect efficiency and say that is 100% carbon. 250 grams x 365 days = 91,250 grams. Divide that by 1000 to and we see that this art installation claims 91.25 kilograms of particulate per year. This is indeed more than the average mature tree that captures 21.7 kilograms of carbon per year.
Now let's compare that to their claim of "greenhouse gases by removing 240 metric tons of CO2 a year.". 240 metric tons = 240,000 Kilograms. We seem to be off by a several orders of magnitude. Perhaps they meant that a bunch of these 'trees' could total 240 metric tons? 240 tons divided by 91.25 kilograms = 2386.02014. Ah, assuming perfect efficiency we 'only' need 2386 moss trees at $25,000 a piece.
That equals a cost of "$59,650,000" to remove 240 metric tons of carbon. That works out to $248,541 per ton to capture CO2. (this of course assumes that have already discovered a perfect disposal plan for the carbon that has been capture. Let's compare this to the cost of something that zero sex appeal that we know actually works - sequestering carbon underground.
"But injecting huge amounts of water along with the CO2 â" 25 tons of liquid for each ton of gas â" adds to the cost. CarbFix scientists have estimated that transportation and injection could cost about $17 per ton of CO2, about twice the cost of transporting and injecting the gas alone."
# https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...
This isn't an art project, this is a fake news con for gullible people that don't understand science or math.
They claim to capture 240 tons of CO2, which turns into 60 tons of organic carbon retained by moss growth. And then, where will it go? They cannot let the moss culture grow without limit in their "tree".
Where is all that carbon the moss is sequestering going? 240 metric tons of carbon doesn't just poof into nothingness. 240 metric tons a year is just under a ton a day. Based on the size of these things they should weigh somewhere between 4-8 metric tons. With the figures given they would be doubling in weight every 1-2 weeks from just the carbon. That doesn't sound very autonomous or low maintenance.
Climate change is real and Trump supporters are douche bags.
You do realize that comments like yours is why Trump won, right? People don't like being called douche bags, and they will dig in their heels just to make a point. Calling Republicans a "basket of deplorables" or whatever it was just drove people to vote Republican when they might not have voted at all. This also doesn't make Democrats feel great to vote because they don't want to be associated with name callers.
You may be absolutely correct on both counts but it's not going to help your cause by being so crude. Learn to be diplomatic or learn to hold your tongue. Votes have consequences. Trump is POTUS and with that comes his ability to roll back climate change policies made by Obama.
Trump is tossing out every executive order Obama ever signed. And I'm just loving it. I guess that makes me a douche bag.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The ozone problem and greenhouse gas problem are separate issues. Ozone is a comparably minor greenhouse gas compared to CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and (yes) water.
Ozone depletion in the stratosphere was and is still a major problem, driven largely by part per trillion levels of halocarbons from a variety of man-made emissions. The reason it's not being talked about so much anymore? Because Montreal Protocol regulations worked. CFC concentrations are down and the ozone hole is slowly repairing itself:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, and so is water. The difference is that water concentrations are limited in the atmosphere: too much and it becomes a cloud and then rain. CO2 concentrations, on the other hand, can just keep rising.
Without rises in other greenhouse gases, the water concentration is such that the short term global temperature trend would be stable. Instead, since other GHG's are causing further warming, it's allowing more water to be stable in the atmosphere. That's driving global temperatures even further up, resulting in positive feedback. There's a nice ACS article about it here:
https://www.acs.org/content/ac...
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
one of these is supposedly equal to 250 trees worth of carbon sink/air pollution scrub.
No-- equal to "up to" 275 actual trees.
What does the word "up to" mean? This is a weasel word. It means "less than or equal."
I expect "less than". I expect a lot less than.
The cost of planting a tree for example in an american city is about $100-$150, not including the cost of the space they sit on. If it is true that these installations replace approximately 275 trees, that works out to be about $90 per "tree".
And if it is true instead that each of these replace "up to" 275 actual trees (which is what was stated), that works out to "at least" $90 per "tree."
"Up to." Yeah.
The amount of CO2 the thing can grab out of the air is going to be proportional to the sun absorbing area. Which, from the pictures, is not larger than a middling to small sized tree.
The phrase "up to 275" translates to "one."
You HAD to pick ozone as part of your post? It was a huge problem a few decades ago. Because the world globally decided to ban CFCs usage, it is no longer a major problem. Thou it is still in the process of repairing itself. If we go back to using CFCs, we can mess it up again in 2-3 decades. Sooner since we have so much more industry.
It's pretty much THE perfect example of how humans can easily impact climate change on a global level AND also solve it if they approach it scientifically!
well a few years ago the other planets in the solar system were increasing in temp around the same rate as us.
No, they weren't.
Check your data sources. First, find the actual papers, and verify that in fact other planets in the solar system were not increasing in temperature at around the same rate as us (they weren't, and aren't.)
Then, figure out who told you that and don't ever believe anything they tell you.
You do realize that comments like yours is why Trump won, right? People don't like being called douche bags, and they will dig in their heels just to make a point.
A fair point, and I wish more people would pay attention to it.
The science is what it is regardless of what people think. But it's not helpful to insult people for not crediting the science.
Said so well.
Except it is total bullcrap. During the period that the denialists claim that temperatures were "stable" they were actually rising and a million square miles of arctic pack ice became open ocean.
"This is why Trump won the election, instead of trying to actually debate, you just immediately jump to insulting the poster for being stupid instead of actually trying to convince them of your side. The left might be surprised at the number of people they could persuade if they actually debated people"
The "left" has spent more than 40 years on that failed strategy - and they keep trying. FYI, the Glo-bull Warming Chinese Hoax poster child, James Hansen, is a long time REPUBLICAN and reluctant speaker who only stepped up to the plate because he felt not enough was being done, that the science wasn't being communicated, because he feared for the future of his children, and now his grandkids and thought that someone from the right who was also a scientist might be able to make a better case, to get opponents to listen to reason.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Variation on a theme. That's still 65 metric ton instead ot 80.
We could call it nature. Or bogs, or peat moorlands. We've already got them so no need for installation, autonomous or otheriwse, Still needs very little maintenance, doesn't need your solar panels, rainwater is collected into an inherent reservoir so doesn't need pumping into the soil. And a lot cheaper than $25,000 a pop.
Photosynthesis does: CO2 + Water => Sugar + O2...then the plant takes that sugar and turns it into biomass by converting it to starches and structural materials for the plant itself.
Carbon has a molecular weight of 12 and Oxygen is 16...so CO2 is 25% carbon by weight. So to absorb 240 tons of CO2 per year - it's got to be generating (at a minimum) 60 tons of extra plant material per year - and more likely (because dead/living moss isn't all carbon) it's at least twice that.
There is only just so much space in that concrete container - which means that a literal truckload of dead/living moss has to be removed from it every single week! Then, that biomass has to be disposed of in some way that doesn't simply re-release it into the atmosphere when it decays...you'd have to bury it or something.
This is a ridiculous claim - it can't possibly be true. Even 24 tons a year wouldn't be credible - and 2.4 tons a year would seem high...the entire installation would haves to double in size every year to keep up even that more modest amount.
What I'm sure happened here is that it's plausible that the moss has vastly more surface area than a tree - but moss is much more slow-growing than trees are - so the amount of CO2 it absorbs cannot possibly be as much per-unit-area as the leaves of a tree. So I'm betting that they did all of their math from surface area alone - and didn't stop to think beyond that.
This is B.S.
www.sjbaker.org
Still, water doesplay a key role in anthropogenic climate change models.
More than one role. Water vapor also condenses into clouds, which increase albedo and reduce insolation.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Calling Republicans a "basket of deplorables" or whatever it was just drove people to vote Republican when they might not have voted at all.
What was especially funny/sad about that particular case was that Clinton was trying to say that many Republicans aren't "deplorables"; she was drawing a distinction between the minority of racists and xenophobes and the decent people who make up the majority of the party, and describing her strategy to go after the votes of the latter. Of course, the way it was reported and taken led the majority of non-deplorable Republicans to believe that she was calling them deplorable, thereby driving them firmly into Trump's camp.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
" If evaporation could drive warming the way CO2 does, we'd be looking at a runaway positive feedback loop that would end with the oceans boiling away."
It can and the shift in temperature from current isn't particularly difficult to achieve.
There are very real fears amongst climate scientists that a 7C global average change could trigger a venus runaway.
"They" (who ever "they" are) renamed it "climate change" because idiots like you don't understand that this is "GLOBAL" warming - an effect that is averaged over the entire planet and over many years - and that some places will get colder - others more (or less) humid, others have more or less rainfall - others worse storms.
You can't look at the local weather for one season and claim that your pathetic observation applies globally and over decades...which is what's really going on.
Sadly, calling it "climate change" still wasn't enough to educate people like you - because you're still equating "climate" (a long term trend over a large part of the world) with "weather" (what's happening right now in your back yard).
When you look at the long term averages for the entire planet - the trend is blindingly obvious. When you look at the outcomes in specific places and over short timescales - you can't see it.
However, even in just the UK, things like the fact that we can now grow grapes in enough quantities to start to become major wine makers - when countries in the more southerly latitudes are having failing harvests - is a clear sign of long term warming of the local climate.
But one colder year in one small place proves precisely nothing. No single observation in one place proves anything. So it's a combination of long term meteorological studies going back 200 years - studies of tree rings going back 1000 years - studies of ice-core samples - peat bog thicknesses - glacier retreats - ice-thinning - major storm/hurricane records - actual measurement of average ocean depths...ALL of those thing, compared together from all around the world and over the course of two dozen DECADES of data are what tell us that this is happening for 100% certain - and that human activity is 100% of the cause.
Your personal observations over 0.01% of the Earth's surface for 0.5% of the duration of the growing effect are such a piddly little amount as to be irrelevant. So either open your eyes, go out and look at ALL of the data - or STFU and listen to the conclusions of the experts who can do that for you.
As for "LOL"...well, guess what impression that makes.
www.sjbaker.org
It sounds like a scam. It should then roughly gain weight equivalent to 275 trees, if it stores the same amount of carbon.
You do realize that comments like yours is why Trump won, right? People don't like being called douche bags, and they will dig in their heels just to make a point.
If it were only true; Trump's lewd remarks about "feeling able to grab them (women) by the pussy” because “When you’re a star they let you do it” should at the very least cost him the vote of every women that heard the widely reported tape. Yet he received %42 of the women vote and an astounding %64 of the non-college educated white women vote. People focusing on things that support their believes while rationalizing away ones that don't, works on Politics as well
Funny how you parse things to death with the Presidents you dislike and consider it nuance with the Presidents you do like.
... now it's climate change).
Climate Change Aint Real == Humans are not the prime mover of Global Warming.
(note the deception by climate change people. 10 years ago it was global warming
The problem with climate change proponents is we're taking our eye off the the real harm - pollutants. (I guess Al Gore and company couldn't profit enough from that.)
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Yes. Absolutely. And debate Young Earthers.
Obviously people who believe in the almighty state AND believe they can individual freedom at the same time are idiotic, brain-dead fools and I shouldn't waste my time talking with them. They're pathetic. They should be ignored and shouted down.
The same goes for x, y and z.
Whenever you disagree with people you should ignore them. Some one call for blasphemy laws. Ignore them. Someone says that diluting a substance 1000x makes it more potent. Ignore them.
No. Always engage. And if you're too tired that day fine - but ignoring doesn't do any good.
The earth moves around the sun? Ignore that idiot.
Tiny beings you can't see cause diseases? Ignore that idiot.
The continents move? Ignore that idiot.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Is this moss robust? Does it require much maintenance, or does it take care of itself fairly well, given the basics it needs? Could you cultivate it in large grid-like structures, which you also ventilate, for maximum air-renovating effects? Given a properly designed structure/framework and the basics it needs to live and grow, would it propagate itself across the structure/framework you provide for it? What I'm getting at is, building 'air recycling plants' (pun unintentional) in locations around the world, containing this moss. The scale required would probably make the idea a non-starter though.
Well, if the government says so ...
"One year later, the shade balls in the Los Angeles Reservoir have been deemed a success by the L.A. Department of Water and Power."
I think water vapor is excluded because its effects are transient as the amount of water vapor itself fluctuates a lot.
I think they exclude the Primary Greenhouse Gas for planet Earth, because it is entirely natural and uncontrollable by the Globalists who are trying to use the "White Man's Burden" to shame us into giving the UN Green Fund a U$ 100 Billion a year.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
This statement is quite meaningless as the phrase "UP TO" clearly includes the number "NOUGHT".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Alright, time to drive a stake through the heart of this brain-dead water vapor meme.
There's one important fact about water which you are overlooking: it is wet.
No water vapor is a gas, it is invisible (Unless your able to see infrared), it is dry and since it's molecular weight is 18.01528 g/mol and molecular weight of dry air is around 29 g/mol, it is lighter than air and carries its 40.8 kJ/mol. latent heat of e vaporization
That is to say it can exist as a liquid (or a solid) at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures. This means it can't diffuse throughout the entire troposphere like CO2 can before it exits the atmosphere as rain, snow, or dew.
And this is a good thing, because water is a potent greenhouse gas and all things being equal higher temperatures means more evaporation. If evaporation could drive warming the way CO2 does, we'd be looking at a runaway positive feedback loop that would end with the oceans boiling away.
CO2 which has a molecular weight of 44.01 g/mol, which is considerably heavier than air at 29 g/mol, tends to pool at lower altitudes allowing water vapor to carry heat above the CO2 before condensing out water into clouds and releasing the heat.
Still, water doesplay a key role in anthropogenic climate change models. That's because CO2 can increase water evaporation in a global way that water vapor itself cannot. Water vapor basically doubles the impact of anthropogenic CO2.
If CO2 increases water evaporation in a global way then humidity would have increased, which hasn't happened.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
" If evaporation could drive warming the way CO2 does, we'd be looking at a runaway positive feedback loop that would end with the oceans boiling away."
It can and the shift in temperature from current isn't particularly difficult to achieve.
There are very real fears amongst climate scientists that a 7C global average change could trigger a venus runaway.
The partial pressure of CO2 on Venus is 8.87 MPa, on Earth the partial pressure of CO2 is 40Pa or 1/500,000th of Venus! Any talk of Earth approaching Venus temperature wise due to CO2 is just crazy talk.
Your supposed Scientists may have real fears, but being a Scientist and having a psychological pathology aren't mutually exclusive; having a real fear isn't necessarily having a rational fear.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You are just spouting factoids and missing their significance. I never said water vapor is visible. I said it doesn't stay water vapor long.
The molecular weight of CO2 is neither here nor there. The atmosphere does not stratify by molecular weight the way you seem to believe it does. It is well-mixed within the troposphere, which is the relevant layer. In fact that's pretty much the scientific definition of the troposphere: it's the layer which is governed by turbulent mixing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why Trump ... totally relevant to $25k "trees" preventing pollution :)
But consider this anyhow: maybe, just maybe, people are actually less sensitive than the sensational news reporters would have us believe. Maybe, just maybe! many people don't actually give a crap about offhand comments when they endlessly see politicians outright stealing, lying, cheating, bribing, etc. and doing it all mainly NOT for the voters but instead for corporate greed. Maybe people being bullied into voting hillary (trump supporters aren't my friends/are idiots/should die/shame on them/etc.) had the opposite effect and people really hated being told that they couldn't even consider trump openly and thus they decided that the hillary camp and propaganda was too much, too far, and actually far more oppressive than the issues from the trump camp. It's actually possible that people are less fragile then the media would have us believe and don't actually mind someone who's callous and unforgiving because they saw the opportunity for change...and for something, ANYTHING to get done differently than the endless propaganda machine and corruption.
$25,000 'trees'? Are you kidding me? Seems utterly ridiculous.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
(note the deception by climate change people. 10 years ago it was global warming ... now it's climate change).
That's hardly deception. It's still Global Warming. It's also Climate Change.
Climate Change is a great acknowledgement of the complexity of the problem.
The Global Warming may not seem like it impacts you much. The slow increase of the average temperature of the globe seems like a problem that can be ignored for a long time. The much-faster alteration of large scale climates is a lot more important to people.
Climate Change Aint Real == Humans are not the prime mover of Global Warming.
Humans are the prime mover of Global Warming, and hence, Climate Change. This really is incontrovertible. Basic physics principles demand it. We're the source of the carbon cycle alteration currently at play. Long term- sure. We're a blip. We don't matter. All we're really doing is short-circuiting carbon cycles that are hundreds of millions of years in length. But for human timescales, it's all us.
The problem with climate change proponents is we're taking our eye off the the real harm - pollutants. (I guess Al Gore and company couldn't profit enough from that.)
That's another problem. No more real than Global Warming, or Climate Change, and arguably a lot less impacting, and easier to fix.
Why is it people keep claiming that because Person X profits in the fixing of Problem Y, Problem Y is ergo in invention by Person X to profit? You understand that is logically idiotic, yes?
The largest profiteers of the CFC shift were also the largest suppliers of the problem chemicals. It doesn't somehow negate the problem.
Would you have less objection if Exxon were peddling the solution?
makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere which is a very small percentage. Water vapor ranges from 1-4%. Another way to say that is there is 25-100 times more water vapor that CO2.
No, this right here is why Trump won the election. You understand just enough to be dangerously ignorant.
The constituent ratio of CO2 does not matter to your argument, whatsoever. You're throwing out a known small looking number to make it seem meaningless.
You wouldn't be wrong to claim that CO2 isn't the largest driver of the Greenhouse Effect, but water vapor has negative feedbacks. Putting a bunch of the water in the atmosphere without longer-term greenhouse gasses to support it is a temporary alteration. The overall greenhouse effect will revert to its former level quickly. One of the positive feedbacks of CO2 is a systemic increase in water vapor, with an overall net positive effect, in essence amplifying the effect of CO2, and on a longer-term than water vapor could alone.
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a rounding error compared to water vapor and should have a negligible effect unless it somehow behaves differently than water vapor.
The amount of potassium cyanide in your blood required to end your life vs. the volume of blood would also be a rounding error. I invite you to test the logical grounds of your argument.
There are very real fears amongst climate scientists that a 7C global average change could trigger a venus runaway.
No... that's just not possible. Our atmosphere is far too thin.
Of primarily CO2 atmospheres, on one end of the scale, we have Venus. On the other end, we have Mars.
It takes a *lot* of CO2 (by mass) to give the Earth a blanket thick enough to boil off the oceans. We don't have enough bioavailable carbon available on the planet for that. Not without first doing something very table to our carbonaceous rocks.
Yeah this looks well mixed!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds