Climate Change Realists

[elektra]

And whose hands do you suggest we put it in? Exxon's?

Who would you suggest, Al Gore's OxyChemical which Al Gore and Bill Clinton gave the Strategic Oil Reserves to? Democrats are the first to cheat and steal, so they think everyone cheats and steals just like they do.

 

[Old Rocks]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Not so far off from my beliefs. Here's how you confront the "denier" label. GWarming Theory is more nuanced and complicated than just one question. A "realist" with some knowledge of the topic would ADMIT that man's emissions can and probably contributing to the measured Global Mean Annual Surface Temperature (GMAST) "anomaly". But at the SAME TIME -- there is no reason at all to accept the other GW hypotheses dealing with the hysterical, overstated CATASTROPHIC projections based on positive feedbacks, "tipping points", built in accelerations that CREATED a public policy issue in the 1st place.

If you take the BASIC science of the GH WITHOUT all that added speculation about the Earth destroying itself and runaway warming beyond relief --- there IS NO CRISIS. Never was -- probably never will be. And THAT'S the important question.

Don't get mired in arguments about the 0.6degC change in your lifetime. NOBODY KNOWS what the natural variability of the GMAST was 200 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago or 40,000 years ago. All of the GLOBAL proxy studies result in long term MEAN GMASTs with all of the peak deviations removed.

Direct the conversation to the observation that NONE of the speculation about ACCELERATED warming, runaway planet destruction and the melting of Antarctica --- has not been OBSERVED at all over the instrumentation period of our modern age. Because that's what is PUSHING the political policy agenda.

Point out that all early models and projections have been CONSISTENTLY revised downwards year after year since the hysteria was initiated. And critical numbers such as "climate sensitivities" have been ENORMOUSLY reduced over the past couple decades.

Eventually, my hope as a scientist is that the hysteria will be moderated, solutions can be found, and life will go on. And instead of pressure to PROVE the Earth is gonna destroy itself because of man emissions, we'll start doing better and more comprehensive "climate science"...

Oh my. So what you are saying is that we have no idea of what the result of continually adding more GHGs to atmosphere will be, so we should not worry about it. Even when we see that cryosphere disappearing, and extreme weather events increasing. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

God, are you dumb bastard. Our prime emission of CO2 is from fossil fuel power plants. We can eliminate those with renewable energy, and renew it at a cheaper rate. Petrol fuels rank second. And we are already building hybrids that vastly improve mileage, and EV's that eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

We are presently building grid scale batteries in this nation that make solar and wind 24/7. We have the solar and wind potential to easily fulfill all our electrical energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Rather than posting your ignorance for all to see, why don't you do a bit of research on what the problem is, and the tools we already have to solve it.

Total bunk. The prime source of CO2 emission from humans is breathing. You're only talking about energy production. But there are all kinds of ways humans contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere. Any idea you come up with for alternative energy requires production and fabrication processes which produce CO2. With trillions of government dollars already invested in alternative energy sources, wind and solar account for a whopping 2% of our needs at present. You're nowhere near meeting our needs and you can't get there without producing CO2.

And let's be clear, ANY human emission of CO2 is too much, IF what you've claimed is happening is true. We have to completely eliminate ALL our contribution at once and then we have to pray that mother nature joins our effort and cooperates in reducing natural emissions as well. That's the only way to reduce the ppm currently in the atmosphere and reverse what is happening. So these stupid little ideas you have for reducing CO2 a little here and there, isn't going to impress chemistry and science.

Not to mention the fact that many countries are not going to convert their power grids because they can't afford to. So how are you going to force China and Russia to stop producing CO2? Or any of a hundred or so other developing nations? And again, how do you get around the fact that something as simple as producing concrete also produces massive amounts of CO2? How do you fabricate windmill blades, solar panels and battery casings without using plastics which require production that produces CO2?

You don't have an answer because you're a mindless idiot who has bought a bunch of leftist propaganda.

You dumb ass. God, just when I thought that you could not get any dumber, you exceed yourself.

Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2. We produced over 500 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which was burned, putting about 1.7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And that was just the US. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. CH4 from 800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

 

[flacaltenn]

God, are you dumb bastard. Our prime emission of CO2 is from fossil fuel power plants. We can eliminate those with renewable energy, and renew it at a cheaper rate. Petrol fuels rank second. And we are already building hybrids that vastly improve mileage, and EV's that eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

We are presently building grid scale batteries in this nation that make solar and wind 24/7. We have the solar and wind potential to easily fulfill all our electrical energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Rather than posting your ignorance for all to see, why don't you do a bit of research on what the problem is, and the tools we already have to solve it.

Total bunk. The prime source of CO2 emission from humans is breathing. You're only talking about energy production. But there are all kinds of ways humans contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere. Any idea you come up with for alternative energy requires production and fabrication processes which produce CO2. With trillions of government dollars already invested in alternative energy sources, wind and solar account for a whopping 2% of our needs at present. You're nowhere near meeting our needs and you can't get there without producing CO2.

And let's be clear, ANY human emission of CO2 is too much, IF what you've claimed is happening is true. We have to completely eliminate ALL our contribution at once and then we have to pray that mother nature joins our effort and cooperates in reducing natural emissions as well. That's the only way to reduce the ppm currently in the atmosphere and reverse what is happening. So these stupid little ideas you have for reducing CO2 a little here and there, isn't going to impress chemistry and science.

Not to mention the fact that many countries are not going to convert their power grids because they can't afford to. So how are you going to force China and Russia to stop producing CO2? Or any of a hundred or so other developing nations? And again, how do you get around the fact that something as simple as producing concrete also produces massive amounts of CO2? How do you fabricate windmill blades, solar panels and battery casings without using plastics which require production that produces CO2?

You don't have an answer because you're a mindless idiot who has bought a bunch of leftist propaganda.

Oh geez. You just gave Old Rocks the keys to driving this bandwagon home. If the IPCC ever finds out that they left out human respiration -- we're ALL gonna be deniers !!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

God, are you dumb bastard. Our prime emission of CO2 is from fossil fuel power plants. We can eliminate those with renewable energy, and renew it at a cheaper rate. Petrol fuels rank second. And we are already building hybrids that vastly improve mileage, and EV's that eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

We are presently building grid scale batteries in this nation that make solar and wind 24/7. We have the solar and wind potential to easily fulfill all our electrical energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Rather than posting your ignorance for all to see, why don't you do a bit of research on what the problem is, and the tools we already have to solve it.

Total bunk. The prime source of CO2 emission from humans is breathing. You're only talking about energy production. But there are all kinds of ways humans contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere. Any idea you come up with for alternative energy requires production and fabrication processes which produce CO2. With trillions of government dollars already invested in alternative energy sources, wind and solar account for a whopping 2% of our needs at present. You're nowhere near meeting our needs and you can't get there without producing CO2.

And let's be clear, ANY human emission of CO2 is too much, IF what you've claimed is happening is true. We have to completely eliminate ALL our contribution at once and then we have to pray that mother nature joins our effort and cooperates in reducing natural emissions as well. That's the only way to reduce the ppm currently in the atmosphere and reverse what is happening. So these stupid little ideas you have for reducing CO2 a little here and there, isn't going to impress chemistry and science.

Not to mention the fact that many countries are not going to convert their power grids because they can't afford to. So how are you going to force China and Russia to stop producing CO2? Or any of a hundred or so other developing nations? And again, how do you get around the fact that something as simple as producing concrete also produces massive amounts of CO2? How do you fabricate windmill blades, solar panels and battery casings without using plastics which require production that produces CO2?

You don't have an answer because you're a mindless idiot who has bought a bunch of leftist propaganda.

You dumb ass. God, just when I thought that you could not get any dumber, you exceed yourself.

Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2. We produced over 500 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which was burned, putting about 1.7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And that was just the US. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. CH4 from 800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

Get some perspective. The entire CO2 yearly cycle is 20 TIMES the size of man's contributions. It's called a "cycle" for a reason. 12 Tons of TERMITES probably put 44 tons of CO2 into the atmos in their lifetime. I'm not impressed. And to get 1degC of surface temperature you have to continuable DOUBLE the amount of emissions for each subsequent degC if the cycle parameters stay fixed. At that rate -- man's contributions (even with the bogus accounting) would reach 2degC sometime around 2140.. Lots of crap could happen by then. Maybe have orbital solar panels that black out North Korea during the day by then.

 

[Boss]

You dumb ass. God, just when I thought that you could not get any dumber, you exceed yourself.

Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2. We produced over 500 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which was burned, putting about 1.7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And that was just the US. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. CH4 from 800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

First of all... "Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2." is the most ignorant science-illiterate statement of all time. Matter cannot create matter.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm.

This is not true.

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm. At the dawn of the industrial revolution, we estimate it was around 280 ppm. So you are making man solely responsible for all that difference without regard for ANY natural processes whatsoever. Under-sea thermal vents, volcanoes and other natural phenomenon are responsible for producing at least some portion of that. The trillions and trillions of mammals who've lived on the plant during that time are responsible for at least some portion as well. Droughts and fires that have killed off plant life has effected this as well. None of that is being factored in to your statement.

And AGAIN.... because you're hard headed... Botanists say the optimal level for plant life on average is 600 ppm. That's the point mother nature says plants grow their best. So your claims that 400 ppm is an alarming rate is contradictory to what mother nature tells us. Maybe Mother Nature is a Climate Change Denier???

 

[Boss]

Oh my. So what you are saying is that we have no idea of what the result of continually adding more GHGs to atmosphere will be, so we should not worry about it. Even when we see that cryosphere disappearing, and extreme weather events increasing. LOL

Do you even know what the leading GHG is? It's water vapor, genius! Do you understand what happens if we no longer have a greenhouse effect? The planet becomes locked in ice... we become an ice world.

I know by what you've articulated here that you probably flunked chemistry but let me explain something to you... Ice melts. That's what ice does. If, 40k years ago, we were in an Ice Age... AND... we're not currently heading into another Ice Age... guess what ice is going to naturally be doing? MELTING! YES... Our planet is getting warmer because it's not getting colder! Good news for you, a mammal, because you tend to thrive better in warm conditions than colder ones!

 

[eflatminor]

Even if the climate alarmists are 100% right, despite all failed past predictions and disagreements about tomorrow's weather much less over the next century, I would argue the worst possible solution to this impending cataclysm would be to put the problem into the hands of the federal government. Unless of course you're hoping to tackle climate change with the same outstanding professionalism and efficiency we see at the VA...or the post office.

So I tell you what, if you're just SURE Al Gore is correct, not back then, because you know, he wasn't, but now, then move the **** inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Of course, we all know your bitching about climate isn't really about the weather, it's about power and central control, so I don't expect any proposal that doesn't involve involuntary compliance enforcement by armed government agents is going to fly for you wannbe hall monitors.

And whose hands do you suggest we put it in? Exxon's?

The people. The people will take voluntary action. The demand they create will be responded to by the markets. If the people want cleaner power, markets will drive innovation in cleaner power. If people move away from low lying coastal flood plains (probably a good idea regardless), markets will build inland. If the people reject CO2 producing products and services, alternatives will be supplied. The markets have an incentive to meet the demands of the climate concerned and they face consequences for failure. Not true of any government, who most likely is the same entity providing tax and other subsidies to the oil industry.

 

[Old Rocks]

You dumb ass. God, just when I thought that you could not get any dumber, you exceed yourself.

Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2. We produced over 500 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which was burned, putting about 1.7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And that was just the US. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. CH4 from 800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

First of all... "Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2." is the most ignorant science-illiterate statement of all time. Matter cannot create matter.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm.

This is not true.

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm. At the dawn of the industrial revolution, we estimate it was around 280 ppm. So you are making man solely responsible for all that difference without regard for ANY natural processes whatsoever. Under-sea thermal vents, volcanoes and other natural phenomenon are responsible for producing at least some portion of that. The trillions and trillions of mammals who've lived on the plant during that time are responsible for at least some portion as well. Droughts and fires that have killed off plant life has effected this as well. None of that is being factored in to your statement.

And AGAIN.... because you're hard headed... Botanists say the optimal level for plant life on average is 600 ppm. That's the point mother nature says plants grow their best. So your claims that 400 ppm is an alarming rate is contradictory to what mother nature tells us. Maybe Mother Nature is a Climate Change Denier???

Just as I thought. A less than third grade science education. Coal is nearly 100% carbon. Atomic weight of 12. Oxygen's atomic weight s 16. When coal burns, one atom of carbon combines with two atoms of oxygen, CO2, for a total weight of 44, 12+16+16. So 12 tons of coal creates 44 tons of CO2. Sheesh.

Now, the level of 280 ppm was maintained for many thousands of year with plants, animals, fires, and volcanoes. It rose to it's present level of 400+ only after we started using fossil fuels Goddamn, you are incapable of basic logic as well as being scientifically ignorant.

 

[flacaltenn]

You dumb ass. God, just when I thought that you could not get any dumber, you exceed yourself.

Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2. We produced over 500 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which was burned, putting about 1.7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And that was just the US. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. CH4 from 800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

First of all... "Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2." is the most ignorant science-illiterate statement of all time. Matter cannot create matter.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm.

This is not true.

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm. At the dawn of the industrial revolution, we estimate it was around 280 ppm. So you are making man solely responsible for all that difference without regard for ANY natural processes whatsoever. Under-sea thermal vents, volcanoes and other natural phenomenon are responsible for producing at least some portion of that. The trillions and trillions of mammals who've lived on the plant during that time are responsible for at least some portion as well. Droughts and fires that have killed off plant life has effected this as well. None of that is being factored in to your statement.

And AGAIN.... because you're hard headed... Botanists say the optimal level for plant life on average is 600 ppm. That's the point mother nature says plants grow their best. So your claims that 400 ppm is an alarming rate is contradictory to what mother nature tells us. Maybe Mother Nature is a Climate Change Denier???

Just as I thought. A less than third grade science education. Coal is nearly 100% carbon. Atomic weight of 12. Oxygen's atomic weight s 16. When coal burns, one atom of carbon combines with two atoms of oxygen, CO2, for a total weight of 44, 12+16+16. So 12 tons of coal creates 44 tons of CO2. Sheesh.

Now, the level of 280 ppm was maintained for many thousands of year with plants, animals, fires, and volcanoes. It rose to it's present level of 400+ only after we started using fossil fuels Goddamn, you are incapable of basic logic as well as being scientifically ignorant.

You talk about 280ppm like the number was written in stone. You look at the 1000yr proxies and see the MEAN and ignore the statistical variance in the shaded areas. And I've shown you LOCAL HI RES proxies on CO2 where there were 100ppm swings in the value ---- LONG before man had an influence on the system.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my. So what you are saying is that we have no idea of what the result of continually adding more GHGs to atmosphere will be, so we should not worry about it. Even when we see that cryosphere disappearing, and extreme weather events increasing. LOL

Do you even know what the leading GHG is? It's water vapor, genius! Do you understand what happens if we no longer have a greenhouse effect? The planet becomes locked in ice... we become an ice world.

I know by what you've articulated here that you probably flunked chemistry but let me explain something to you... Ice melts. That's what ice does. If, 40k years ago, we were in an Ice Age... AND... we're not currently heading into another Ice Age... guess what ice is going to naturally be doing? MELTING! YES... Our planet is getting warmer because it's not getting colder! Good news for you, a mammal, because you tend to thrive better in warm conditions than colder ones!

Oh god, another ******* idiot assuming that someone far more versed in science that they will ever be doesn't know the simple facts about GHGs. Yes, water vapor is a more potent GHG than CO2, but it has only a residence time in the atmosphere of ten days. CO2 has a residence time of decades to centuries.

On the contrary, were we in the normal cycle, the Milankovic Cycles, we would have continued the slow cooling we were in for the last thousand years, least. Actually, ever since the peak of the interglacial, 8000 years ago. Are you ever going to get tired of pulling stinky 'alternative facts' out of your ass?

 

[Old Rocks]

Even if the climate alarmists are 100% right, despite all failed past predictions and disagreements about tomorrow's weather much less over the next century, I would argue the worst possible solution to this impending cataclysm would be to put the problem into the hands of the federal government. Unless of course you're hoping to tackle climate change with the same outstanding professionalism and efficiency we see at the VA...or the post office.

So I tell you what, if you're just SURE Al Gore is correct, not back then, because you know, he wasn't, but now, then move the **** inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Of course, we all know your bitching about climate isn't really about the weather, it's about power and central control, so I don't expect any proposal that doesn't involve involuntary compliance enforcement by armed government agents is going to fly for you wannbe hall monitors.

And whose hands do you suggest we put it in? Exxon's?

The people. The people will take voluntary action. The demand they create will be responded to by the markets. If the people want cleaner power, markets will drive innovation in cleaner power. If people move away from low lying coastal flood plains (probably a good idea regardless), markets will build inland. If the people reject CO2 producing products and services, alternatives will be supplied. The markets have an incentive to meet the demands of the climate concerned and they face consequences for failure. Not true of any government, who most likely is the same entity providing tax and other subsidies to the oil industry.

Crap. So, the Bangladeshees are supposed to move where? And much of the most productive agricultural land will be inundated world wide if the see level rise is 3 meters. The reason I chose that number is that is what the sea level rose to in the last interglacial, at only 320 ppm of CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

You dumb ass. God, just when I thought that you could not get any dumber, you exceed yourself.

Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2. We produced over 500 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which was burned, putting about 1.7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And that was just the US. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. CH4 from 800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

First of all... "Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2." is the most ignorant science-illiterate statement of all time. Matter cannot create matter.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm.

This is not true.

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm. At the dawn of the industrial revolution, we estimate it was around 280 ppm. So you are making man solely responsible for all that difference without regard for ANY natural processes whatsoever. Under-sea thermal vents, volcanoes and other natural phenomenon are responsible for producing at least some portion of that. The trillions and trillions of mammals who've lived on the plant during that time are responsible for at least some portion as well. Droughts and fires that have killed off plant life has effected this as well. None of that is being factored in to your statement.

And AGAIN.... because you're hard headed... Botanists say the optimal level for plant life on average is 600 ppm. That's the point mother nature says plants grow their best. So your claims that 400 ppm is an alarming rate is contradictory to what mother nature tells us. Maybe Mother Nature is a Climate Change Denier???

Just as I thought. A less than third grade science education. Coal is nearly 100% carbon. Atomic weight of 12. Oxygen's atomic weight s 16. When coal burns, one atom of carbon combines with two atoms of oxygen, CO2, for a total weight of 44, 12+16+16. So 12 tons of coal creates 44 tons of CO2. Sheesh.

Now, the level of 280 ppm was maintained for many thousands of year with plants, animals, fires, and volcanoes. It rose to it's present level of 400+ only after we started using fossil fuels Goddamn, you are incapable of basic logic as well as being scientifically ignorant.

You talk about 280ppm like the number was written in stone. You look at the 1000yr proxies and see the MEAN and ignore the statistical variance in the shaded areas. And I've shown you LOCAL HI RES proxies on CO2 where there were 100ppm swings in the value ---- LONG before man had an influence on the system.

Provided, of course, that those proxies were not reflecting some other factor.

 

[flacaltenn]

You dumb ass. God, just when I thought that you could not get any dumber, you exceed yourself.

Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2. We produced over 500 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which was burned, putting about 1.7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And that was just the US. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. CH4 from 800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

First of all... "Twelve tons of coal produce 44 tons of CO2." is the most ignorant science-illiterate statement of all time. Matter cannot create matter.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm.

This is not true.

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm. At the dawn of the industrial revolution, we estimate it was around 280 ppm. So you are making man solely responsible for all that difference without regard for ANY natural processes whatsoever. Under-sea thermal vents, volcanoes and other natural phenomenon are responsible for producing at least some portion of that. The trillions and trillions of mammals who've lived on the plant during that time are responsible for at least some portion as well. Droughts and fires that have killed off plant life has effected this as well. None of that is being factored in to your statement.

And AGAIN.... because you're hard headed... Botanists say the optimal level for plant life on average is 600 ppm. That's the point mother nature says plants grow their best. So your claims that 400 ppm is an alarming rate is contradictory to what mother nature tells us. Maybe Mother Nature is a Climate Change Denier???

Just as I thought. A less than third grade science education. Coal is nearly 100% carbon. Atomic weight of 12. Oxygen's atomic weight s 16. When coal burns, one atom of carbon combines with two atoms of oxygen, CO2, for a total weight of 44, 12+16+16. So 12 tons of coal creates 44 tons of CO2. Sheesh.

Now, the level of 280 ppm was maintained for many thousands of year with plants, animals, fires, and volcanoes. It rose to it's present level of 400+ only after we started using fossil fuels Goddamn, you are incapable of basic logic as well as being scientifically ignorant.

You talk about 280ppm like the number was written in stone. You look at the 1000yr proxies and see the MEAN and ignore the statistical variance in the shaded areas. And I've shown you LOCAL HI RES proxies on CO2 where there were 100ppm swings in the value ---- LONG before man had an influence on the system.

Provided, of course, that those proxies were not reflecting some other factor.

Well of course. That's ALWAYS the dangers of using proxies. In fact the same tree rings are used as a thermometer, a gas spectrometer and a hygrometer for different studies. That's pretty close to ridiculous. And the RAW CONDITION of the proxies -- with all their disagreements -- indicates the folly.

That's also why looking at single site proxies is always more informative than the folly of combining way too many different kinds and too few spatial sampling points to create the "politically correct" GLOBAL proxies that you folks rely on for "past climate" records.

 

[Old Rocks]

None of the more than a dozen studies that have resulted in the 'Hockey Stick' have only one site or one type of proxy. Nor was that the case with the original one. And the idea that the world wide CO2 level could go up by 100 ppm and then drop back to 280 immediately is just silly.

 

[jc456]

I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that?

It seems you think if one can't think of a solution then a problem doesn't exist. That really is denial.

if one can't find a problem, there is no need for a solution. You got it backward.

 

[Boss]

Just as I thought. A less than third grade science education. Coal is nearly 100% carbon. Atomic weight of 12. Oxygen's atomic weight s 16. When coal burns, one atom of carbon combines with two atoms of oxygen, CO2, for a total weight of 44, 12+16+16. So 12 tons of coal creates 44 tons of CO2. Sheesh.

That's a better explanation. It's not what you originally said. But let's move on to the point you're trying to make. Burning of coal is just one of about a hundred ways CO2 is created. You've not even presented a rational way that we can stop all burning of coal. So all around the world, CO2 is still going to be created by burning coal. And this is only one way CO2 is being created. Most of the other ways are inherently impossible for you to prevent as they are simply natural phenomenon.

CO2 is a covalent substance. There is a reason it is one of the most abundant compounds in the universe. Oxygen and carbon atoms kinda have a thing for each other. They like being together. In spite of your best efforts, you're not going to be able to keep them apart. You're John Lithgow trying to keep Kevin Bacon from dancing. You're fighting a hopeless battle.

But now... let's pretend we live in a fantasy universe where you can actually stop all coal burning in America and maybe even a few other countries you strong-arm who don't really burn much coal. You might optimistically reduce the ppm from 400 to 360. I doubt this because there are trillions and trillions of tons of atmosphere, but let's dream big. The amplification effects of CO2 as a GHG still happens. Whatever warming happens at 400 will still happen at 360. Then... a volcano erupts and in about a week, it dumps more CO2 in the atmosphere than you've removed and we're back at 400+ ppm. Meanwhile, we have devastated industrialization, people are freezing to death because they can't heat their homes, other coal burning countries are eating our lunch and we've wasted trillions of dollars on a foolish boondoggle that didn't work.

Now, the level of 280 ppm was maintained for many thousands of year with plants, animals, fires, and volcanoes. It rose to it's present level of 400+ only after we started using fossil fuels Goddamn, you are incapable of basic logic as well as being scientifically ignorant.

This is incorrect. We know from ice core samples the CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. 280 ppm was simply the level at the dawn of the industrial revolution. We know from studies in archaeology that lush plant life began to thin out 100k years ago, which caused some primates to climb down out of the trees and start foraging the grasslands for food... that's homo sapiens. Clearly, declining CO2 was responsible.

As I pointed out before, mother nature seems to say that plants are happiest at around 600 ppm. So this notion that 280 ppm is some kind of benchmark for "normal" is ignorant of nature. It ignores what nature tells us. Of course, Mother Nature isn't a Socialist fucktard trying to shake down Capitalism in order to bring about a Utopian fantasy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boss, the more you post, the sillier you get. LOL

At present, the burning of coal is the primary contributor to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

One Million, Two Million, Three Million Years Ago…

Thanks largely to our burning of fossil fuels, the average carbon dioxide concentration of the earth’s atmosphere surged past 400 parts per million in March. It has been a long time since the planet experienced such CO2 levels. How long? It depends on whom you ask. Bloomberg says it has been at least a million years. Scientific American says 23 million years ago, at the end of the Oligocene.

This isn’t an example of bad reporting—even scientists argue about this. NASA climate scientist Carmen Boening says we last saw this concentration during the Pliocene (between 2.5 million and 5.3 million years ago). On the very same page, her colleague Charles Miller says 400 ppm is “maybe higher than any time in the last 25 million years.”

Scientists hate “maybes.” So what’s the problem?

The problem is ice cores. When water freezes, tiny gas bubbles are trapped in the ice, providing a snapshot of the composition of the planet’s atmosphere at the moment of freezing. Since the ice has piled up over time in places like Greenland and Antarctica, scientists can drill into it to learn about the atmospheres of the past. But there’s a limit to how far back the records go. As of now, the oldest recovered, reliable ice cores stretch back around 800,000 years, during an ice age when the atmosphere was about 185 ppm carbon dioxide. That’s why many of the reports on the current concentration of CO2 say we haven’t seen these levels in at least a million years.

As for your short course in 'alternative chemistry', LOL!!!!!!!!!

Lush plant life began to thin out about 100,000 years ago? Damn, now you are posting 'alternative fact' about archeology. LOL During the deep ice ages, when there were continental ice caps in Europe and North America, in North America there were far more large mammal species than there are in North America today. Most of those very large mammals were herbavores. In fact, that was the case right up to the Younger Dryas.

CO2 levels from the ice cores;

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Trends
Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.
.................................................

Boss, you have the greatest research instrument ever invented sitting right in front of you. Ever consider using it?

 

[Boss]

Boss, the more you post, the sillier you get. LOL

At present, the burning of coal is the primary contributor to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

One Million, Two Million, Three Million Years Ago…

Thanks largely to our burning of fossil fuels, the average carbon dioxide concentration of the earth’s atmosphere surged past 400 parts per million in March. It has been a long time since the planet experienced such CO2 levels. How long? It depends on whom you ask. Bloomberg says it has been at least a million years. Scientific American says 23 million years ago, at the end of the Oligocene.

This isn’t an example of bad reporting—even scientists argue about this. NASA climate scientist Carmen Boening says we last saw this concentration during the Pliocene (between 2.5 million and 5.3 million years ago). On the very same page, her colleague Charles Miller says 400 ppm is “maybe higher than any time in the last 25 million years.”

Scientists hate “maybes.” So what’s the problem?

The problem is ice cores. When water freezes, tiny gas bubbles are trapped in the ice, providing a snapshot of the composition of the planet’s atmosphere at the moment of freezing. Since the ice has piled up over time in places like Greenland and Antarctica, scientists can drill into it to learn about the atmospheres of the past. But there’s a limit to how far back the records go. As of now, the oldest recovered, reliable ice cores stretch back around 800,000 years, during an ice age when the atmosphere was about 185 ppm carbon dioxide. That’s why many of the reports on the current concentration of CO2 say we haven’t seen these levels in at least a million years.

As for your short course in 'alternative chemistry', LOL!!!!!!!!!

Lush plant life began to thin out about 100,000 years ago? Damn, now you are posting 'alternative fact' about archeology. LOL During the deep ice ages, when there were continental ice caps in Europe and North America, in North America there were far more large mammal species than there are in North America today. Most of those very large mammals were herbavores. In fact, that was the case right up to the Younger Dryas.

CO2 levels from the ice cores;

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Trends
Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.
.................................................

Boss, you have the greatest research instrument ever invented sitting right in front of you. Ever consider using it?

You repeating the same unfounded bullshit over and over doesn't make it true. Sorry.

Before, you were claiming that 280 ppm was the "norm" for thousands of years... now you're showing me sources saying it has varied greatly. I agree with them, it HAS varied greatly. We really don't know what levels were, we can only go by things we can measure like ice cores. All we have are estimates based on limited data.

At let's get something else straight. The laws of thermodynamics applied to the principles of CO2 amplification, tells us that we reach a certain point of CO2 saturation where no additional warming is realized by more CO2. So this is not a matter of "more CO2 = more warming". We don't know the level at which more CO2 causes no additional amplification effect. We also don't know at what ppm we begin to see a precipitous decline in amplification.

We've not even discussed the very problematic "Big Pause". Oh, I know... you are prepared with your lengthy dissertations from people who get thousands of taxpayer dollars every year to "study" this and they will hem-haw around with all kinds of convenient excuses and explanations.

 

[flacaltenn]

None of the more than a dozen studies that have resulted in the 'Hockey Stick' have only one site or one type of proxy. Nor was that the case with the original one. And the idea that the world wide CO2 level could go up by 100 ppm and then drop back to 280 immediately is just silly.

You completely missed the point I made. And I've made it a couple times. So I'm gonna assume you dont WANT to understand the diff between what you can learn from "local" proxies and metastudies of too FEW sites and too MANY diff types proxies in the GLOBAL BS ones.

I've shown you 70 to 100ppm CO2 variance in Hi Resolution before also. These are local proxies that have not been whipped, puree'd, and pasturized into a GLOBAL proxy. And they have better than the 400 or 500 year time resolution of the Global studies. I simply give up. You do not want to absorb ALL the evidence or reasoning. Only that that doesn't disturb your conclusions.