Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercur..._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

first link both so2 and nox are naturally occurring in large quantities as Well as man causes therefore not quantifiable as to where it came from.

Second link about mercury same thing but most man causes are from smelting if copper ore. That has been dealt with as much as it can be .

Third one well it has been now shown that the cfc issue is not as big of an impact on the ozone as first believed.

Try again.

That being said I agree we need to reduce the actual pollution contamination of our planet.

Co2 is not a pollutant it is in fact necessary for all limped as we know it to even exist.


Side question are you going to stand by your assertion of 71.9℉ being the optimum global average temperature?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyone who's reassured that the human contribution is minor by hearing "0.0012% contribution to the atmosphere" ... doesn't understand the issue. And has also been misled, because human activity throws a whole lot more into the atmosphere than just CO2.

Anyone who claims to understand what it means to increase one important component of our atmosphere by 40%, yet considers quoting that being deliberately "ALARMING", is putting their own bias ahead of reality.

Wow, this thread is looking more like the classic CF denier-fests of yore. Awesome.

I would need to have first been worried, disturbed, scared, frustrated or angry in order to now be "reassured," but I haven't been so I'm not. The amount of the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere compared to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is a comparatively small amount. In fact, some sources describe it as "tiny." The controversy within the science, of course, is not over the amount but its impact. But unlike more ALARMING stats, it seems rather difficult to uncover. Wonder why? Maybe because when I googled "what is the percentage of human-derived co2 vs. total co2 in the atmosphere," the top hit was from Skeptical Science. In fact, if I didn't believe you were such a fair, objective, independent thinker, I'd have to say that your post above was a simple rephrase from that very page. So maybe in an effort to save many additional thread pages of useless posts (akin to your natural forces burden shifting efforts), let's try and move beyond how Skeptical Science wants us to think and more precisely pinpoint the question on the table, namely

NOT the 40% increase in the otherwise small amount of atmospheric CO2 that humans are believed to have increased as a result of fossil fuels;

NOT the total but still small amount that mainstream AGW theory says is contributing to "significant" warming;

NOT a comparison between current or historical human vs. natural CO2 emissions;

NOT all the CO2 that has been absorbed by land, plants & oceans; and

NOT the other crap (much of it actual harmful "pollutants") humans have been undisputedly putting into the atmosphere.

Instead, we were discussing

ONLY the percentage of human-derived CO2 vs. total CO2 already in the atmosphere."

This may have been what Marc1 was referring to when he cited the 0.0012% stat in his earlier post, but as one of Gord's previous threads was titled, I COULD BE WRONG. In fact, I think this stat may be citing human contributions as compared to total atmospheric gases. I've also seen 3% cited when comparing human vs. total CO2, but can't vouch for that one either. It's also often cited in terms of tonnage which certainly makes it sound scarier, but isn't all that helpful, for the layman anyway. And as Newhaul has repeatedly pointed out, human vs. "natural" apparently cannot be distinguished once in the atmosphere, but has to be measured (or correlated) based on amounts that humans are actually producing from emissions (and land usage).

So what's the percentage, and how much actual scientific consensus supports it? Anyone?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

I would need to have first been worried, disturbed, scared, frustrated or angry in order to now be "reassured," but I haven't been so I'm not. The amount of the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere compared to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is a comparatively small amount. In fact, some sources describe it as "tiny." The controversy within the science, of course, is not over the amount but its impact. But unlike more ALARMING stats, it seems rather difficult to uncover. Wonder why? Maybe because when I googled "what is the percentage of human-derived co2 vs. total co2 in the atmosphere," the top hit was from Skeptical Science. In fact, if I didn't believe you were such a fair, objective, independent thinker, I'd have to say that your post above was a simple rephrase from that very page. So maybe in an effort to save many additional thread pages of useless posts (akin to your natural forces burden shifting efforts), let's try and move beyond how Skeptical Science wants us to think and more precisely pinpoint the question on the table, namely

NOT the 40% increase in the otherwise small amount of atmospheric CO2 that humans are believed to have increased as a result of fossil fuels;

NOT the total but still small amount that mainstream AGW theory says is contributing to "significant" warming;

NOT a comparison between current or historical human vs. natural CO2 emissions;

NOT all the CO2 that has been absorbed by land, plants & oceans; and

NOT the other crap (much of it actual harmful "pollutants") humans have been undisputedly putting into the atmosphere.

Instead, we were discussing

ONLY the percentage of human-derived CO2 vs. total CO2 already in the atmosphere."

This may have been what Marc1 was referring to when he cited the 0.0012% stat in his earlier post, but as one of Gord's previous threads was titled, I COULD BE WRONG. In fact, I think this stat may be citing human contributions as compared to total atmospheric gases. I've also seen 3% cited when comparing human vs. total CO2, but can't vouch for that one either. It's also often cited in terms of tonnage which certainly makes it sound scarier, but isn't all that helpful, for the layman anyway. And as Newhaul has repeatedly pointed out, human vs. "natural" apparently cannot be distinguished once in the atmosphere, but has to be measured (or correlated) based on amounts that humans are actually producing from emissions (and land usage).

So what's the percentage, and how much actual scientific consensus supports it? Anyone?

do you actually expect a real honest answer ?
Heck I'm still waiting for the answer to my question concerning the optimum global temperature. So far 1 answer that requires 12.9℉ more warming to reach it . Still waiting on other answers .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

[snowstorm deleted]

ONLY the percentage of human-derived CO2 vs. total CO2 already in the atmosphere."

So what's the percentage [of CO2], and how much actual scientific consensus supports it? Anyone?

One doesn't need to read any website to calculate the result of 400ppm / 260 ppm.

One does need to be somewhat ignorant of the science (or to be wilfully deceiving) to claim that a 40% increase in CO2 is "small".

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40+% over 200 years, after sitting under 300ppm for like hundreds of thousands of years. There's no dispute about this.

The only observed phenomenon so far that has caused this increase is human activity - accelerating use of fossil fuel, depletion of carbon sinks, modern agricultural activity. You can speculate all you like, but until we find those elusive natural significant contributions that happened to have picked the same 2 centuries as industrialization to occur, after taking millenia upon millennia off... human activity remains the most plausible and likely cause of CO2 increase. All the evidence so far supports this. There really isn't any dispute about this either.

Can you find anyone who claims otherwise?

Why are simple facts alarming to you?

As you say, the area of most disagreement is the extent to which additional CO2 is causing, or will cause, warming. I guess that will remain unsettled til we can find a big enough Coke bottle for Reefie's experiment. Or we wreck the climate enough to satisfy the doubters.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I think this is a very good question. We know that 5C colder resulted in an ice age with most of Northern America covered in glaciers. I don’t think there much to rely on in last million years on what 5C warmer looks like but probably is not good.

The problem is even if we decide to do a major correction in our energy policy it will take many decades to change and the CO2 numbers will keep increasing leading to higher temperatures. Given we don’t understand how strong the feedback are for water vapor, warming oceans and reducing snow and ice cover we probably have already committed to a large temperature gain.
As of today there is no known way to remove massive quantities of CO2 from atmosphere, so we are going to probably have to live with all the CO2 that exists now and that emitted for the many decades.

Congrats. You finally figured it out.


The future beckons...

[jackdale]

13 C

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725

.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok here is the ultimate question for everyone

What is the optimum global average temperature?

Explain why , list advantages and disadvantages of that temperature.
Also a verifiable source for said temperature .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

One doesn't need to read any website to calculate the result of 400ppm / 260 ppm.

One does need to be somewhat ignorant of the science (or to be wilfully deceiving) to claim that a 40% increase in CO2 is "small".

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40+% over 200 years, after sitting under 300ppm for like hundreds of thousands of years. There's no dispute about this.

The only observed phenomenon so far that has caused this increase is human activity - accelerating use of fossil fuel, depletion of carbon sinks, modern agricultural activity. You can speculate all you like, but until we find those elusive natural significant contributions that happened to have picked the same 2 centuries as industrialization to occur, after taking millenia upon millennia off... human activity remains the most plausible and likely cause of CO2 increase. All the evidence so far supports this. There really isn't any dispute about this either.

Can you find anyone who claims otherwise?

Why are simple facts alarming to you?

As you say, the area of most disagreement is the extent to which additional CO2 is causing, or will cause, warming. I guess that will remain unsettled til we can find a big enough Coke bottle for Reefie's experiment. Or we wreck the climate enough to satisfy the doubters.

Yes, because disrupting western society and spending trillions on a wild goose chase is the easy option.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

13 C.

I suppose you wish you were here, right....

[Reefmagnet]

UN Puts $2.4 Trillion Annual Price Tag On Mitigating Climate Change

Climate scientists are not known for giving good news, and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that convened in South Korea was no exception: the scientists that compiled a special report on the climate situation on the planet slapped optimists in the face: the world needs to spend US$2.4 trillion every year until 2035 to slow down the effects of climate change.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

wild goose chase

/wʌɪld ˈɡuːs tʃeɪs/

noun
noun: wild goose chase; plural noun: wild goose chases

1. a foolish and hopeless search for or pursuit of something unattainable.
   "climate scientists advocating taking trillions of dollars from the world economy to reduce CO2 in the hope that it will stop global warming may be on a wild goose chase"

[stevensuf]

I see no link to co2 and temperature in this graph

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes, because disrupting western society and spending trillions on a wild goose chase is the easy option.

It's amazing how effective the scaremongering by the initiators of this charade has been.

With the creation of a crafty and well thought out lie, the concept has spread out like wildfire, feeding on anti values set in folks mind from early childhood. A cult made to measure to a large percentage of the population.

I can imagine the church in the early days of catedral construction, justifying spending what today would be billions, in a society that was dying at age 30 from malnutrition and diseases. Yet the billions were well spent because this way God would smile upon the sinners and be pleased.

The current charade of spending trillions to reduce CO2 is no different.
Any other initiative would need to be scrutinised for efficiency, and ways to make the method cost effective. For example, work out how much we need to reduce CO2 in order to achieve temperature reductions. If no reduction is achieved, the method would be scrapped.

We need to build a series of dams in Australia to save us from the ravage of droughts. The money is there but the greens stop the projects every time with claims of little extinct rainbow frogs, or a special breed of cockroaches.

Not so Global warming. If we stop attempts to reduce "climate change" we will be excommunicated by the various small minded gods who will be very angry at our actions.

It does not matter that we have not achieved a thing in 30 years of squandering taxpayers money, because the cathedral we are building pleases the gods and makes someone a lot of money, and those someone pull a lot of strings. Comply or be doomed.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

I see no link to co2 and temperature in this graph

Don't worry, the alarmists will soon be along with deSmogBlog and similar links to shoot down the legitimacy of that graph.



But what you do see are three things.

1. The world has two basic levels of stable temperature, and tends to shift very quickly between the two, geologically speaking.
2. The world has spent MUCH more time at the higher value than the lower value.
3. We're currently sitting at the lower value

But don't you worry about that nonsense, because 13.5C is the perfect temperature.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Marc1

It's amazing how effective the scaremongering by the initiators of this charade has been.

With the creation of a crafty and well thought out lie, the concept has spread out like wildfire, feeding on anti values set in folks mind from early childhood. A cult made to measure to a large percentage of the population.

I can imagine the church in the early days of catedral construction, justifying spending what today would be billions, in a society that was dying at age 30 from malnutrition and diseases. Yet the billions were well spent because this way God would smile upon the sinners and be pleased.

The current charade of spending trillions to reduce CO2 is no different.
Any other initiative would need to be scrutinised for efficiency, and ways to make the method cost effective. For example, work out how much we need to reduce CO2 in order to achieve temperature reductions. If no reduction is achieved, the method would be scrapped.

Not so Global warming. If we stop attempts to reduce "climate change" we will be excommunicated by the various small minded gods who will be very angry at our actions. It does not matter that we have not achieved a thing in 30 years of squandering taxpayers money, because the cathedral we are building pleases the gods and makes someone a lot of money, and those someone pull a lot of strings. Comply or be doomed.

Amen.


CO2 induced global warming is just yet another nuclear winter, population bomb, oil crisis, food crisis and Y2K bug that doesn't have an expiry date. Therefore, climate change - formerly known as global warming and global cooling - is the perfect global problem for those wishing to extend their power and control the populace.



If you don't think it's a scam, just look at the current "climate crisis" or "climate emergency". Exactly what event, or even series of events, caused the globe to transit from climate change to climate crisis/emergency?


The answer is zip. But it's a great battle cry for brainwashing school aged children and unemployed hippies.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

13 C

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725

.

paywall
abstract insufficient .
I'm more like 14℃ type which is the 1951 to 1980 average .

And as of now we are at just under 14.6℃ we shall see where it goes next year .
Hint; it's cooling.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Amen.


CO2 induced global warming is just yet another nuclear winter, population bomb, oil crisis, food crisis and Y2K bug that doesn't have an expiry date. Therefore, climate change - formerly known as global warming and global cooling - is the perfect global problem for those wishing to extend their power and control the populace.



If you don't think it's a scam, just look at the current "climate crisis" or "climate emergency". Exactly what event, or even series of events, caused the globe to transit from climate change to climate crisis/emergency?


The answer is zip. But it's a great battle cry for brainwashing school aged children and unemployed hippies.

actually the answeris to the change in the name is politics.
They have 14 months to change everyone's mind. Must happen before the next us presidential election.