Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

Ironic given that the extremist alt right voted for their beloved BLOTUS purely out of fear of immigrants, terrorists, women, blacks, gays, Muslims, liberals, the media, etc, etc, etc.

 

Not fear. More like distaste for.

 

Truly a false statement. We do not know if CO2 is the primary driver of the climate, we only hypothesize that it is and that is not something that is known as a fact.

 

Like the left with their twisted view of the world who can't tell the difference between an immigrant and an illegal immigrant, a Muslim and a terrorist, who make fun of conservative women if they are good looking, who continue to think blacks are less intelligent than whites because they can't figure out how to get an ID, etc, etc, etc?

 

As referenced by the OP, there are some people who know that bigfoot is real

 

In other words, you couldn't counter what Hoosier said, so you resort to insults.

 

The original post that he quoted offers several reasons why we know that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. If you read all of them and the only retort is, "Nuh uh," then you deserve only insults.

 

Ironic!

 

Even if it does, people should still be able to debate about it.

Also, insults are NEVER ok. I am sad to hear that you think insults are sometimes ok.

 

Yeah, do nothing and figure things out as things happen

Like I said. The right wing wants to DO NOTHING in response to a problem that everyone agrees is happening and that we are contributing to.

"As things happen" will be at LEAST...far more expensive and probably too late

 

The only way AGW could be more like medieval Catholicism would be if they wrote everything in Latin.

 

What problem? Anthropogenic input is less than 4% of the total global output of CO2. We also understand that natural release of CO2 is growing, and likely in 100 years will double the amount of occurring CO2 all on it's own.

So, what do you suppose you're willing to do about that?

 

Out of curiosity, what is your source? And is the increased natural output the result from the planet warming and thus, large amounts of CO2 and methane that were previously locked under permafrost will become exposed?

 

Maybe Democrats could help by not exhaling?

 

The only increased natural output so far has been a massive proliferation in plants.

 

IPCC (yeah I know, but hey, it's a source I believe you won't refute) Ar4. "our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year," I was being generous when I said it was 4% because that's the high end of the "predicted" modeled output.

 

Or otherwise speaking. It could be their effective contribution.

 

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.


Just stop

 

The two points I would have questions about.

(1) What do you believe the natural rate of CO2 concentration to be? And what time frame are you basing this on?

(2) What makes you think CO2 is the primary driver of climate change? On what science is this statement based?

We should be able to evaluate the hypothesis against the evidence; that's the way science works.

 

Yeah, so the sensitivity is so low that all of the increase in PPM is reflected by the increase from anthropogenic sources, right? This is laughable. What is more laughable is the assertion, now highly discredited that the PPM is "higher than it's been in millions of years" because, frankly the measurement was bad, the data collection was worse, and folks laugh at the assertion these days.

It still doesn't account the for natural acceleration of CO2 release. As in, as the PPM increases, roughly 2.4% of it is being associated to anthropogenic causes, the remaining 57.6% is still being released and "not absorbed" is occurring naturally.

What should stop is the ridiculous analysis you're bringing that is demonstrably untrue. So, finish answering the question. Even if we removed all 29GT of CO2 emissions, we still have a staggering amount 721GTs that is being released naturally, of which, only 40% is being reabsorbed. So riddle me this, what acceleration point for PPM do you not understand?

 

Both questions have been answered adequately many times previously and you ignored those responses and asked the same idiotic questions again...and you'll do THAT again and again

 

And you have links to these claims?

 

What happens is an 11% increase in global plant life since 1982.

 

There are no answers to your questions. Frankly, the only reason to have the conversation is the hope that it produces fear in others so they can be manipulated. That is truly the purpose here. Climate change deniers (yes those statists who profess the fear of change) only care that you worry about a climate that cannot change, for our own good. Or some other laughable reason.

 

Already posted. Do try at least to keep up.