Q CFCs (Fridges and aerosols.) - 25%, but increasing due to ability to survive within the atmosphere for 100 years. UQ Q " Aerosols are suspensions of tiny particles in the atmosphere, and have both anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) sources such as industrial processes and car emissions, and natural sources such as forest fires, volcanoes, and wave-breaking in the ocean. Aerosol particles affect Earth's climate, both individually and by serving as the nuclei around which cloud drops form, by influencing how much solar energy is absorbed by Earth (including the oceans, atmosphere, and land) or is reflected back into space. Collecting accurate data and achieving better understanding of the roles in which aerosols participate is thus crucial to understanding their effects on Earth's climate. Graphic courtesy of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory " UQ 2 points: 1. For the combination CFC/Fridges: Q Global treaty signed to ban HFC refrigerants Lloyd Alter (@lloydalter) Business / Environmental Policy October 17, 2016 https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/global-treaty-signed-ban-hfc-refrigerants.html The Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the cause of a giant hole in the ozone layer, which has been shrinking ever since. Unfortunately, the replacement chemicals, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) had their own major problem: they are a seriously bad greenhouse gas, far worse than Carbon Dioxide. (Christine explains here) Also in the period between the Montreal Protocol and today, the use of air conditioning has exploded in the developing world as the middle class grows, and in the developed world as it gets hotter. ... But this past weekend an agreement was reached to reduce and eventually replace HFCs by over 170 countries, including 100 developing countries like China and India where air conditioning use is growing fastest. This time, President Barack Obama called it “an ambitious and far reaching solution” to a “rapidly growing threat to the health of our planet”. ... That seems to be a bit hyperbolic; this is a big deal, according to the NRDC it is “equal to stopping the entire world’s fossil-fuel CO2 emissions for more than two years,” but it is not like anybody has to give anything up, change their lifestyle or move from Phoenix to Detroit. They have until 2024 to even start phasing HFCs out, which will take decades. UQ Anyway, the 100 years effect after recent bans would still last for another many decades to come. 2. How about the combination of CFC/Aerosols?
CO2 is not pollution. Warming might not be bad for the planet. We are rebounding off historical very low co2 levels. With an expanding population more co2 might be the only way we can feed them. Whether it good or bad we don't know. Whether we are warming outside natural variation is not known Whether we are accumulating more co2 because of man is not known. CO2 levels could be tied to ocean temps. Ocean temps could be warming naturally. Particularly because of underwater vents and volcanoes. You are sounding alarms about co2 levels but you don't even know if our proxies vs our instrument temps are being measured accurately. Everything going back a few hundred years is based on proxies. Many of the proxies don't match up with current temps. The proxies say we are cooler.
show me where I have lied. you just don't like I demand you produced science to support you claim man made co2 is causing warming.
the first few sentences of both links... confirmed my point. exactly what I told you. they say warming likely caused by man. they do not say man made co2 is causing warming. (we don't even need to discuss that science is not made by consensus nor wehter the consensus claim is accurate.)
If possible, what I would like to learn from the scientists is a big picture regrading recent global temperature change has been due to: 1. What estimated % by the earth's heat? 2. What estimated % by the sun's heat? 3. What estimated % by the plastic micro-beads in the sea/air/etc? (World-wide bans?) 4. What estimated % by the CO2 from the manufacturers/farms/humans/etc, per individual sector? 5. What estimated % by the CFC in the last 100/50/25/12.5 years? 6. What estimated % by XYZ/etc? 7. What would be the interrelations among them? 8. Which are the uncontrollable ones by human efforts/technologies? 9. Which ones should be resolved soonest with long-term solutions, without creating some other sequential problems (avoiding like the CFC=>HFC, which is just like a joke created by some well-trained scientists!?)? LOL
The accuracy of global CO2 readings are extremely good. They are direct and observable and measurable. Thanks to modern tech, proxies for ancient CO2 levels are also very robust. It isn't rocket science but it is science.
1. you don't even bother to pretend to look for science. you just make a vague non responsive statement about almost nothing. robust... has nothing to do with my statement. I spoke to the divergence between instrument data and many of the tree ring proxies. among other issues... this chart is from future currents agw nutter al gore sponsored website. the data maybe robust in your world... but the divergence is significant. Now agw nutters say the tree rings stopped working. But, instead of thinking the trees are broken occam's razor might lead one to wonder if perhaps man is messing with the instruments while the proxies are still working.
Perhaps the global climate scientists should work together like a rocket team by all of them coordinated by some expert system engineers. This project would probably be harder, challenging and complex than many NASA projects, with a lot of moving parts and uncertainties! NASA or any other space centres would be the perfect place to lead this project, imo. I believe the researchers previously totally underestimated the complexity of this project by inputting / allocating fairly limited resources while each institution alone works on their own findings. That doesn't work well! Perhaps reducing NASA's budget in climate change would be a mistake, even a huge mistake! The US imo should increase multiple times of budget in investigating climate change, with the helps/facilities and resources from worldwide efforts - to be coordinated by NASA experts in system engineering management professionals for relying on their experiences/knowledge. Too many sciences disciplines are involved! Scientists and engineers have fairly different mindsets/paradigms in solving scientific problems. System engineers are trained to this kind of projects when involving so many multi-discipline engineers/scientists! With their objective measures and auditing. This project might be a historic one in human history. It would be most likely helpful in pushing further scientific advancements during the process! Just my 2 cents! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_engineering