Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

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?

Don't ask him to explain that...

He can't

Its racist to oppose the MMGW agenda.

[transmitterdan]

Folks,

Can we stop with the name calling and presidential candidate like/hate stuff? If you want to do that please start your own thread.

You don't have to be a terrible person for supporting either side of this debate. Looking at how thin our atmosphere is compared to the size of the planet would make anyone think twice about filling it with anything "unnatural". Likewise, we have observed that for many thousands upon thousands of years the planet has become more and more suitable to life as we know it. So there must be something in nature that drives the planet to be suitable for life. No one knows with certainty whether or how people in their daily lives can affect the climate long term. Personally, I doubt we are as significant a factor as some believe. But nobody knows for sure. But one thing is sure. Name-calling is a juvenile way to express ones opinion.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So, 150 years of industrialisation trumps 4.6 billion years of volcanoes when it comes to overwhelming carbon sinks, aye?

Amazing.

Actually, natural carbon sinks are quite capable of handling the 'excess' CO2 that we humans are emitting. The problem isn't the quantity but rather the rate of release. Natural carbon sinks operate much more slowly then we currently emit.


.
.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Want to know how much the Paris Accords will reduce those 60 pounds per ton? 9.6 ounces, leaving 1,999 pounds, 5 ounces of every ton that enters the atmosphere completely untouched.

.
.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

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?

Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Global catastrophes and "human extinction events" aren't synonymous.

Originally Posted by Delfin

but so far, those who died through a human mass extinction event have escaped my notice.

Originally Posted by newhaul

I should have seen at least 6 extinction level events by now.

In the knee-jerk fashion typical of deniers you’ve all made at least three errors:

The first is that by not reading the article you didn’t notice how they defined a “human extinction-level event.”

The Global Challenges Foundation’s report is concerned with all events that would wipe out more than 10 percent of Earth’s human population.

The second error is by assuming that the risk of extinction in the last 100 years is the same as the risk of extinction in the next 100 years.

And the third error is in not understanding that no event with a probability of less than 1 is guaranteed to happen. It may happen tomorrow, or it may never happen.

When I read your posts to my neighbor’s ass, Balaam, this was his response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gROO7xSTxfY

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

Screw the Vostok records. Jack's chart shows 1) CO2 is currently at near minimums for the entire history of the Earth and 2) global temperatures are at near minimums for the entire history of the Earth and 3) For most of the time there's been multicellular life on Earth, temperatures have been considerably higher than today and 5) The temperature fluctuations of the past 150 years are a mere blip compared to past climate and 6) the correlation of CO2 and temperature seems to be a nothing more than mere coincidence for the thin slice of geological time shown in the ice cores.

In fact the late carboniferous period is particularly revealing- being the time that much of the worlds coal reserves were deposited aka sequestered and all - as CO2 atmospheric content plummeted whilst global temperatures soared. Doesn't really gel with GHG global warming theory now, does it?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

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?

This was your question

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What about the other 4 billion years?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The graph cover 4.6 billion years.

How many times do we have to say that CO2 is not and has not been the only factor in climate change?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Screw the Vostok records. Jack's chart shows 1) CO2 is currently at near minimums for the entire history of the Earth and 2) global temperatures are at near minimums for the entire history of the Earth and 3) For most of the time there's been multicellular life on Earth, temperatures have been considerably higher than today and 5) The temperature fluctuations of the past 150 years are a mere blip compared to past climate and 6) the correlation of CO2 and temperature seems to be a nothing more than mere coincidence for the thin slice of geological time shown in the ice cores.

In fact the late carboniferous period is particularly revealing- being the time that much of the worlds coal reserves were deposited aka sequestered and all - as CO2 atmospheric content plummeted whilst global temperatures soared. Doesn't really gel with GHG global warming theory now, does it?

The sequestering of CO2 has resulted in an Goldilocks world in which humans beings and their food crops evolved. Neither we nor our diet are suited to the high elevls of the CO2 that existed in the past.

You need to go back 3-5 million years, way beyond the time of humans on earth, to find the current levels of CO2.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The sequestering of CO2 has resulted in an Goldilocks world in which humans beings and their food crops evolved. Neither we nor our diet are suited to the high elevls of the CO2 that existed in the past.

You need to go back 3-5 million years, way beyond the time of humans on earth, to find the current levels of CO2.

Yes; as you've previously stated many, many times before. Perhaps humans and their associated food crops are nothing more than a relic of the last ice age?

Referring to your chart, you should note that the Earth's temperature remained high for many, many millions of years after the bulk of coal and oil were sequestered.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Tick....tick....tick....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This was your question



The graph cover 4.6 billion years.

How many times do we have to say that CO2 is not and has not been the only factor in climate change?

Good work. Now you're finally starting to think like a skeptic.


BTW, a couple of points about your chart. Firstly it uses a logarithmic period scale, so most of it falls within the last 600 million years which just happens to coincide with existence of complex life on the planet and secondly, you lifted the graph from a paper written by an author (whom even I would call a "denier", although having said that the data of the graph isn't his work) by the name of Nasif Nahle.

Carbon Dioxide Through the Geological Eras

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The sequestering of CO2 has resulted in an Goldilocks world in which humans beings and their food crops evolved. Neither we nor our diet are suited to the high elevls of the CO2 that existed in the past.

And yet food crop production is up and the world population keeps exploding.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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




Page 691



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

The net effect of volcanoes is short-term cooling.

That's right Jack. CO2 from human sources is magical and cannot be absorbed by the processes that absorb the same molecule from natural sources.

CO2 has increased and decreased for millennia. For warmists to point to an excess, or a decrease for that matter as an indication of an "imbalance" is absurd. It is the climate system Jack, doing what it has been doing since long before leftists discovered carbon as a tax revenue source, or climate scientists discovered a near endless supply of grant money to keep telling people that a vital greenhouse gas is poison.

As I said, you cannot be taken seriously on this subject.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

.
.

How profound. And based on the math, the journey is going to cost trillions of dollars and when you are finally at your destination you will find out you are right back where you started.

Brilliant.