Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Citation please

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Since you are immune to data, I have no idea why you would ask that. It appears above, but here it is again:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf

Now, assuming that you actually read this and take it on board, can you acknowledge that 3% of total atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, according at least to the IPCC, leaves 97% due to natural causes, again according to the IPCC?

Further, if you accept the IPCC data, could you acknowledge that unless you propose killing off 5 billion people and returning humanity to the paleolithic age, you are going to have scant impact on that 3% even with the most absurd leftist programs implemented?

Further, if this hard data from a source other than a fantasy writer sinks in, can you acknowledge that the cause you say you fervently believe in and ridicule people who don't share your faith is about as rational as believing that naugas are threatened with extinction due to overharvesting of naugahyde?

We all await your answer......

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What about the other 4 billion years?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

And the answer to your question is



Not hard to find.

[Delfin]

One of the most distasteful aspects of the AGW scam is how political it has become as proponents realize they have lost the scientific debate. We haven't really seen this kind of politicalization of science since other leftists used eugenics as a reason to exterminate people they thought "undesirable", e.g. blacks, developmentally disabled, etc.

In any case, it will be interesting to see whether this unfortunate tendency towards liberal fascism can be averted.

Conservative Groups Targeted in Climate Change Racketeering Suit

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And the answer to your question is



Not hard to find.

Your graph is completely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and natural sources I documented, which was the citation you asked for.

One of two possibilities suggest themselves from your post. Either you really are completely clueless about this subject, so the reality of how much of the CO2 you want to fight can actually be fought sails over your head, or you understand how absurd your meme is based on the facts I showed you so just wish to throw a smoke bomb.

Either way, you clearly cannot be taken seriously on a serious subject.

[TurninTurtle]

Its almost like the cultist following of the Clintons...

Every time Hillary opens her mouth, we can find a lie being told by her or a previous lie being contradicted. She can't even remember which lie she told when any more.

But for some reason there are still people brain dead enough to think she'd be a good president.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Since you are immune to data, I have no idea why you would ask that. It appears above, but here it is again:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf

Now, assuming that you actually read this and take it on board, can you acknowledge that 3% of total atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, according at least to the IPCC, leaves 97% due to natural causes, again according to the IPCC?

Further, if you accept the IPCC data, could you acknowledge that unless you propose killing off 5 billion people and returning humanity to the paleolithic age, you are going to have scant impact on that 3% even with the most absurd leftist programs implemented?

Further, if this hard data from a source other than a fantasy writer sinks in, can you acknowledge that the cause you say you fervently believe in and ridicule people who don't share your faith is about as rational as believing that naugas are threatened with extinction due to overharvesting of naugahyde?

We all await your answer......

Did you bother to read your table?

The system could absorb the natural CO2. It does not absorb the additional anthropogenic CO2.

It shows a net increase of 11,700 million metric tonnes of CO2, clearly the system is out balance.

If you eat 2200 calories and expend 2060, you body stores that energy as fat.

If you add more CO2 than is absorbed CO2 levels increase.


+++++++++++++++++++++

From AR5 page 662

Emissions of CO2 from
volcanic eruptions since 1750 have been at least 100 times smaller
than anthropogenic emissions. {8.4.2, 8.5.2, Figures 8.12, 8.13, 8.18}

Page 691

Global annually averaged
emissions of CO2 from volcanic eruptions since 1750 have been
at least 100 times smaller than anthropogenic emissions and inconsequential
for climate on millennial and shorter time scales (Gerlach,
2011).

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...er08_FINAL.pdf

The net effect of volcanoes is short-term cooling.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Your graph is completely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and natural sources I documented, which was the citation you asked for.

One of two possibilities suggest themselves from your post. Either you really are completely clueless about this subject, so the reality of how much of the CO2 you want to fight can actually be fought sails over your head, or you understand how absurd your meme is based on the facts I showed you so just wish to throw a smoke bomb.

Either way, you clearly cannot be taken seriously on a serious subject.

I was responding to Reefmagnet, not you. Pay attention.

[Kenomac]

Longing for a simpler time?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Longing for a simpler time....

Apt depiction of deniers. Thanks

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Apt depiction of deniers. Thanks

I'm afraid you got it bass-ackwards.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I'm afraid you got it bass-ackwards.

I look to the future, not the past.

[Kenomac]

Then here's some science...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I look to the future, not the past.

The MMGW cultists get their way it will be like that not all unicorn farts and rainbows.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Then here's some science...

Well that will cause small global warming but not world wide mmgw

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And the answer to your question is



Not hard to find.

Originally Posted by jackdale

I was responding to Reefmagnet, not you. Pay attention.

Well it doesn't exactly answer my question at all. In fact it raises another one.

If CO2 and global temperature are so intertwined, how come your chart isn't demonstrating this?