CO2 Emission Reduction

[Husar]

If it were so then the temp increase should be the highest in the troposphere but its not . Its highest at ground level. Just about nothing fits.

The particles there just reflect the sunlight that was reflected from the ground while the ground reflecte the same light rays first(you could say when they still had more energy) and also absorbed some of them, so naturally the ground is hotter. I don't think reflection causes as much heat as absorption does. With more reflection up in the sky, the ground will also absorb more because rays reflected at first will be thrown back down.

[Sigurd]

Actually we don't have to discuss whether reduction of CO2 emission will in fact reduce global warming. This is not the issue.
The issue is that nations are bound to an agreement to reduce their emission with such and such percent.
Norway has agreed to reduce their CO2 emission by 30% by 2020.
Whether I agree or not makes for spit in the ocean.
They will execute their plan even if I should blow myself up at a shopping centre as a protest against following an absurd concept. I guess we have to live with it.
And frankly I am a little tired of being the good guy; the pioneer in environmental issues.
The world window to how things should be done on this planet. We are a speck in the ocean, and no matter what we do it will have no/little effect globally.

It is just the new idea that it is frowned upon that you drive a gasoline hungry car, that people point to their head if you sit in your car on a parking lot with the engine running. Don’t they get that it is hot in a car and you need the engine running to operate you AC?
Oh no, this guy is travelling by plane more than two times a year…

As I mentioned, if we as individual people stop using cars, do not heat our house, stop breathing and do not cook food – the reduced CO2 emission would amount to 12 %...
Stop bugging we with this crap… go to the industries; they can by simple means reduce their CO2 by large amounts. Did I mention that my company plan on a 25 % reduction by next year?
And if you could buy such quotas in the developing countries by putting a catalyst on two three coal plants, say what amounts to 20% of your emission, that would be OK, wouldn’t it?
See? We filled our quota without bugging our citizens with higher fuel prices or increased taxes on cars, travel, electricity or food.

Oh and to please Odin… We even planted trees… you gotta deduct their CO2 absorption from our quota mr. Kyoto.
Oh, we managed a 40% reduction.. Can we have 10% back in cash please?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

t explains top right wing extremist bloggers, pollution supporters, and ostrich-like deniers t

Proving another of mine and the great global warming swindles points. Call those who disagree dirty names.

that CO2 increase are expected after the end of an ice age.

Why? Isnt then end of an ice age caused by global warming?

That has no relation whatsoever with global warming.

Well at least you go that right

[Rodion Romanovich]

Proving another of mine and the great global warming swindles points. Call those who disagree dirty names.

Dirtyness in those names come from your own interpretation. At least that proves you feel guilty and are doubting your standpoint. That's a good first step.

Why? Isnt then end of an ice age caused by global warming?

Considering that cavemen didn't have CO2 emission factories and an ability to drill for oil and natural gas and create coal mines, whatever source convinced you of that must be quite unreliable. It's important to scrutinize the sources well, thinking of what their motives may be, and whether they can support their standpoints by valid scientific arguments. Right wing extremist blogs are not to consider reliable sources.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Dirtyness in those names come from your own interpretation. At least that proves you feel guilty and are doubting your standpoint. That's a good first step.

right wing extremist bloggers

Now thats a nice thing to call someone. I guess extremist bloggers are a good thing to you.

pollution supporters

Those as well. Of which I am not one.

and ostrich-like deniers

How could I possibly have taken any of those as insulting?

Considering that cavemen didn't have CO2 emission factories and an ability to drill for oil and natural gas and create coal mines, whatever source convinced you of that must be quite unreliable

So your saying that global warming has occured through out history even before we were involved. Thanks for backing me up. The temperature always goes up and then the C02 level.

It's important to scrutinize the sources well, thinking of what their motives may be, and whether they can support their standpoints by valid scientific arguments. Right wing extremist blogs are not to consider reliable sources.

But left wing ones are.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Now thats a nice thing to call someone. I guess extremist bloggers are a good thing to you.

It's a neutral word. Extremist right wing means they're more to the right wing than a qualified majority (like 99%) of other people. Considering that 99% consider that person a bit too far out on his wing, and that only 1% consider him too moderate, he's likely to have not so sane views in some matters, but this is something that isn't explicitly stated by the word extremist.

Those as well. Of which I am not one.

First, if you read the post, it doesn't call you one. However, I have reason to revise that, and ask: What are you, when you oppose getting rid of most of the pollution even though it won't come with any disadvantages at all?

So your saying that global warming has occured through out history even before we were involved. Thanks for backing me up. The temperature always goes up and then the C02 level.

I think you need to reread my post.

But left wing ones are.

Again, you need to reread my post. The extremist blogs are not realiable sources. It's quite odd how you think you can demonstrate extremist blogs and industry-sponsored research in response to serious research data by climate researchers with unbiased state funding (well, that may exclude your own country, for all I know).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's a neutral word.

And the others?

What are you, when you oppose getting rid of most of the pollution even though it won't come with any disadvantages at all?

I dont oppose getting rid of any pollution. My position is that C)2 is not only not a pollutant but needed for live. Generally the more co2 the more life there is.

I think you need to reread my post.

Maybe you need to rephrase it.

Again, you need to reread my post. The extremist blogs are not realiable sources. I

So you and others should stop using them then.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I dont oppose getting rid of any pollution. My position is that C)2 is not only not a pollutant but needed for live. Generally the more co2 the more life there is.

So, you don't oppose of getting rid of any pollution, but wish to have as much CO2 as possible?

Maybe you need to rephrase it.

I insist that you reread it. Your comment on it demonstrates that you didn't read it, since you claim I said something I didn't.

So you and others should stop using them then.

Huh? When did I ever quote a right wing extremist blogger? If I recall correctly, you however quoted such a source.

[Xiahou]

What are you, when you oppose getting rid of most of the pollution even though it won't come with any disadvantages at all?

Complete, unsubstantiated nonsense.

What we see today is exactly what scientists had predicted more than a decade ago.

I'd love to see those predictions- they're certainly news to me.