What will we do for Carbon , for life and plant growth?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

All ice sheets are losing mass, some more than others. You can read about it here :

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

I don't know why I continue to let you distract me from the topic at hand. But did you bother to read the article you posted?

You say ALL ice sheets yet again. Do you know how many ice sheets there are on earth? A total of 2. And as per the article which appears to be ~13 years old, only one is losing ( with caveats), and they don't know about the other one( lots of scientific debate about Antarctic cooling, and net ice gain but that is a subject for another thread). All they say is :

some stations appear to be cooling slightly. Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice,

There is that believe word you are so fond of again. So policy is not only being based on CO2 residence time which you don't have any idea what the range might be, but it is also being based on someones belief, how reassuring.

Nowhere does it substantiate your bewilering claim that all of the ice sheets will melt.

This is what passes for settled science.

Do you just put up the first sciency sounding article you find on google, and hope it has some relevance?

[chuckChuck]

All ice sheets are losing mass, some more than others. You can read about it here :

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

[chuckChuck]

Let me rephrase that. Melting significant amounts of all the ice sheets. Which Is well underway at relatively modest amounts of warming. Backed up by all the major world class scientific organizations which you think are wrong. LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We need to do both or risk out of control warming that melts all the ice sheets and raises oceans many feet.

Do you really want to go through this all over again? We just spent 8 pages helping you learn about sea level rise. Please reread that thread before beating that dead horse again.

Also, can you provide a citation for the claim of melting "all" the ice sheets? What credible scientific organization is claiming that as a reasonable possibility?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Fossil fuels are not the only source of stored carbon and other greenhouse gases will also continue to be released. Agriculture and land use plus other industrial uses will have some impact on stored carbon.

But now that you have given up on the fallacy that the short residency of CO2 is a significant factor in human caused climate change, You can move on to other details that laypersons can’t answer? LOL

Why not just ask a climate scientist or look it up yourself?

I was trying hard not to get distracted by your irrelevant side stories, but you have piqued my curiosity. What are these other sources of stoed Carbon (or do you mean CO2, i'm never sure, as you seem to think the two products are interchangeable?), that we can continue to release? That could solve the original dilemma if you have that answer.

As for questions that a layperson can't answer, I was hoping you knew of an expert scientist who would be able to answer, since you as a layperson can only narrow it down to a range between 5 years and at least 1000 times longer than that. Surely the policy makers must have a more exact answer than that. After all, they are proposing to spend trillions, sacrifice the first world and our standard of living, that must be based on settled science?

[chuckChuck]

In your highlighted article it states that the C02 in the atmosphere has the potential to warm the atmosphere for 500 years. That shows me that any changes we make will have little affect for possibly hundreds of years, money would be better spent on adaptation!

We need to do both or risk out of control warming that melts the greenland and antarctiac ice sheets and raises oceans many feet.

[Hamloc]

For those of you care about the residence time of CO2 like A5 read this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

“It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.“

A5 you still sticking to your grande illusion? LOL

In your highlighted article it states that the C02 in the atmosphere has the potential to warm the atmosphere for 500 years. That shows me that any changes we make will have little affect for possibly hundreds of years, money would be better spent on adaptation!

[chuckChuck]

So now you claim we have enough recoverable fossil fuels to last for hundreds if not thousands of years. Do you have a source for that? That is very reassuring if it is true.

So you have now narrowed down the residence time to somewhere between 5 years and thousands of years(but still no source). Do you think that estimated range is accurate enough to justify the actions being proposed? I I would have thought we would have a more precise value for CO2 residence time by now, considering how long the science has been settled already.
Do you think the mitigation efforts and the urgency are on the same scale if the answer is 5 years, vs if it is 1000's of times longer than that?

Fossil fuels are not the only source of stored carbon and other greenhouse gases will also continue to be released. Agriculture and land use plus other industrial uses will have some impact on stored carbon.

But now that you have given up on the fallacy that the short residency of CO2 is a significant factor in human caused climate change, You can move on to other details that laypersons can’t answer? LOL

Why not just ask a climate scientist or look it up yourself?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Humans will be releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere for hundreds if not thousands of years. The carbon cycle will continue. And all that excess carbon released from the burning of millions of years of stored carbon in fossil fuels won’t just disappear in 5 years!

So now you claim we have enough recoverable fossil fuels to last for hundreds if not thousands of years. Do you have a source for that? That is very reassuring if it is true.

So you have now narrowed down the residence time to somewhere between 5 years and thousands of years(but still no source). Do you think that estimated range is accurate enough to justify the actions being proposed? I I would have thought we would have a more precise value for CO2 residence time by now, considering how long the science has been settled already.
Do you think the mitigation efforts and the urgency are on the same scale if the answer is 5 years, vs if it is 1000's of times longer than that?

[chuckChuck]

Humans will be releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere for hundreds if not thousands of years. The carbon cycle will continue. And all that excess carbon released from the burning of millions of years of stored carbon in fossil fuels won’t just disappear in 5 years!