@hasmis How does one interpret this graph? This doesn't necessarily tell me much about the climate situation in itself, i would like to interpret it correctly, so can you please explain further about it?
@SypherNight The best graph is the actual temperature plot, posted just before. Every month, NOAA releases the average of the month from around the world. This is done by satellite, like those 'no touch' forehead thermometers. It's all calibrated, and must be considered accurate.
If the temps are rising, they splash it on the headlines, and if the temps go down, they bury it. From about 2000 to 2010, the world temperatures were rising rapidly. This was the heyday of the 'hockey stick' rise. The UN based all it's predictions on this rise, and we would all bake in 2050. It was blamed on carbon dioxide, because it was also rising. This broke all the laws of physics.
Now, we can see that the temperatures are not rising in a straight line. But they do not change the prediction. Using physics, we are entering a cooler phase of world temperatures, following earlier cycles. That implies that co2 has nothing to do with anything, but I'm not saying that....
The Haywood plot is just another way to show the monthly temps over each year, which is its own line.
@hasmis Ah, got it, the entire thing still does need to be revised, even if CO2 is not affecting climate it is certainly still poluting our air and climate and its alternatives should rise in popularity. Even more if we can change this finite resource for a renovating one.
@SypherNight Burning coal is air pollution. Rotten cars are air pollution, but co2 is not. The world has had huge spikes in it, and all the little critters lived. I would be happy, from physics, that if we burned fossil fuel to pure co2, then we are happy. Electric cars are not happy. windmills not happy. solar cells not happy. All have hidden nasties.
I push cars running on methanol, with super-capacitors for acceleration and braking. This is happy. :) Thank you for listening.
@hasmis Trains are better than cars, that's my opinion on that, windmills don't deliver nasties, they have inherent problems with space and obstruction, not really hidden either. Aside from that CO2 is not bad if there are trees around to absorb it and deliver Oxygen, if there is only CO2 to breathe then there is problem in the air, Burning Coal causes air polution as does rotten cars, but they are mediums to the end result which is sending polutants into the air.
@SypherNight Yes, I add co2 to my fish tank, and I like fizzy water. I am a 'Fan of CO2" :)
Windmills and solar are all built with slave labour, and they take up a lot of space where we could grow drugs. The lithium for electric cars is deadlier than coal.
@SypherNight fine, solar cells and windmills use a lot of carbon to get built, and a lot of rare earths which are horrible to extract. No morals here.
@hasmis Yeah, you're completely right. Wish there was easier and less problematic ways to gather energy, but no matter what there always will be a downside
@hasmis Battery cars 100% are bad, Windmills do take a lot of space and are noisy as hell, Solar doesn't need to be put in a place where... You can grow drugs (I would prefer food, honestly i am anti-drugs, i assume you mean for recreation) and CO2 can be positive, but none of those examples addressed that they also are released by major factories, cars with gas and so on. Also slave labour got us a lot of what we have, that is not an actual point against Windmills and Solar when computers, phones, and so on are actively made with sweatshops, slave labor, subpar wages and so on. That part is a moralist point that really makes no sense to add unless you are trying to pass on moral judgement on those two and show "look how bad this is."