Sujet : Re: Better cheaper super capacitors
De : bill.sloman (at) *nospam* ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
Groupes : sci.electronics.designDate : 09. Sep 2024, 15:14:56
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vbmvt1$2e4fh$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/09/2024 6:18 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
We have to cut our carbon emissions right back to stop global warming -
the aim is to get the atmospheric CO2 level back to the regular
inter-glacial 270ppm.
That would only stop man-made global warming, which is a tiny fraction
of the overall effect. Volcanos, forest fires and decomposing
vegetation have far more effect than mankind has.
Rubbish. The natural CO2 cycle does dump 790 gigatons pf CO2 into the atmosphere every year, but it also takes it out again.
About 60% human generated 29 gigatons per year stays in the atmosphere, while 40% dissolves in the oceans.
https://www.che-project.eu/news/how-do-human-co2-emissions-compare-natural-co2-emissionsThe human generated CO2 is low on C-14, and that started messing up carbon dating around 1945
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effectWhat mankind has done to apparently increase 'global warming' is to skew
the data collection and statistics, supported by (and supporting) a
growing industry of self-appointed environmentalists.
CNG cars work. But the greenies hate methane.
>
For good reason.
Then why don't they oppose tree planting and support the clearance of
forests, which are the biggest source of methane when the trees and
other plants die and decompose?
Not really.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121NASA blames natural processes for 40% of the current emissions and human activities for the other 60%, which is why atmospheric methane levels have more than doubled over the past 200 years - you can get that number from ice core data.
I definitely think we should be less profligate with our natural
resources, but we should not be treating it as a religion and proposing
feel-good knee-jerk 'solutions' which haven't been properly thought
through.
Since you didn't check your claim before you posted it, you don't seem to have done a proper job of thinking about what you posted.
And John Larkin's claims about what greenies think come from climate change denial propaganda. I've not heard any real greenie say anything anything like that stupid.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney