What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

RambleOnNW wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
Sigh, just more name calling Rambleon. Funny how you hear that no matter where you want to discuss climate.

Just what do these carbon offsets accomplish? I can think of a couple things, but maybe you can explain it in a paragraph or 2?

Humans are the primary drivers of climate? We are smarter than I thought. So much for the sun and it's minor effect.

Back to my safe space with the puppies and kittens to salve my wounded spirit. ;)

Look at some of the projects: https://terrapass.com/projects/project-list.

It is simple. Preventing other emissions of greenhouse gases is equivalent to me not emitting them in the first place.

In the case of preventing emissions of methane or nitrous oxide it is more critical since methane has 25x the heat trapping effect of CO2 and nitrous oxide 298x. A lot of projects are on dairy farms and landfills to capture and burn methane. Sure that produces CO2, but removes the 25x worse methane.

CO2 absorption is needed too. Permanent new forests are in the projects. There are also projects underway to turn CO2 into solid rock.

There have also been projects to pay for utility hook-ups for semi-trucks at truck stops so they don't have to idle all night. That seems like a win/win, truckers sleep better and no diesel fumes.

I rarely argue with deniers anymore as it is a complete waste of time.

I just ask the question, were scientists wrong about CFCs harming the ozone layer? No, the ozone hole is closing over Antarctica as predicted after CFCs were phased out. Were scientists wrong about smoking causing cancer. No. Did scientists and engineers create the technology that allows you to post from your home on your own computer with its tiny silicon brains? Yes.

Therefore, why does anyone think thousands of climate scientists worldwide will be wrong in their predictions? Unlikely. The only debate is on the magnitude of the effect.

Back with labeling people who don't drink your kool-aid "deniers" in a derogatory manner. I ask who is the denier here? Me who wants further study and further information because the theories don't fit properly or you who denies that there are many climate scientists who don't agree with your conclusions. Perhaps the science isn't as settled as it's loudly proclaimed to be, yet you also deny that.

I read some about the projects they are happily doing with your money. I ask how will they make any measurable impact whatsoever? Aside from someone else's wallet.

I'm certainly not saying scientists are always wrong, but they are wrong a lot. I would ask why would anyone make a multi-trillion dollar bet based on incomplete information with a potential payoff of what exactly? Even if they are all 100% right, we lower average temps 1 degree as the reward? (While making a select handful of people multi-billionaires) I'll pass.

BTW, that was quite the monumental leap from the existence of computers and internet to "how can they all be wrong about climate"?

Why do the climate models that predict all the gloom and doom fail to predict the last 100 years of climate? Yet those same models being right in their future predictions is a certainty?