Climate Clown Planet

[TOM4CWB]

This climate change oceans rising land disappearing… obviously is suspect… the evidence does not support the “settled science “… which clearly is not settled.


The CO2 pontification…. Is the smallest deception… among the growing body of evidence… that fails to stand the test of ground proofing.

Conservation of fossil fuels is good long term economics… forcing premature electrification of our civilization… is suicidal.

For instance… if the huge earth quake in Turkey/Syria … without fossil fuels for emergency services…. Would be catastrophic upon catastrophe.

This has Not been rationally thought through…

Blessings!

[Partners]

[chuckChuck]

I'm trying to understand where to even start responding to this post.
Which established scientific concept are you denying now, or are you just a science denier in general?
Are you denying that CO2 levels have fallen from above 5000 PPM down into the 280 PPM range before we started burning fossil fuels?
Are you denying that 200 PPM is the point where most life would go extinct? Are you denying that the declining 500 million year trend would have continued if not for human intervention? Are you denying the existence of photosynthesis completely? Or do you deny humans role in temporarily stopping the decline in co2? Or, do you deny the very short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Speaking of denial!. LOL

So which scientists and scientific organizations are saying that we should be more concerned about CO2 levels that are falling rather than the obvious rising CO2 levels that are caused by the massive amount of carbon being released by the burning of fossil fuels?

Name the scientists, their organization and provide a link.

Just like many times before you will quietly come up empty handed again and again.

You keep going back to this laughably stupid idea as if it actually is a real problem.

Are you having trouble telling reality from this delusion you keep bringing up?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Speaking of denial!. LOL

So which scientists and scientific organizations are saying that we should be more concerned about CO2 levels that are falling rather than the obvious rising CO2 levels that are caused by the massive amount of carbon being released by the burning of fossil fuels?

Name the scientists, their organization and provide a link.

Just like many times before you will quietly come up empty handed again and again.

You keep going back to this laughably stupid idea as if it actually is a real problem.

Are you having trouble telling reality from this delusion you keep bringing up?

No, it is not a real problem, not in our lifetimes. Fossil fuels have solved the problem of declining CO2 levels. Just one of the countless benefits we have derived from our discovery of fossil fuels.
The problem is that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is very short, and as soon as we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, or run out, the trend will revert back to where it was, declining. Just getting back to 280 ppm will be a big problem for feeding this many people.

I do advocate for rationing our fossil fuel supplies so we can maintain beneficial elevated levels of CO2 for centuries to come.

Do you understand anything about geology, or earths history, or chemistry, or biology? This is very very basic.

[shtferbrains]

Chuck what do you think of that NASA study saying the green up is equivalent to twice the area of the USA?

Does that not give you a little hope?

[jazz]

US blowing up Nordstream created the largest single point source release of methane in human history.

And chucks response is crickets as usual.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I thought that was a joke. Apparently not:

https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/westshore-rcmp-take-delivery-of-canadas-first-tesla-model-y-police-cruiser/

I was chatting with an RCMP about this very topic recently. He wasn't looking forward to this day. For obvious reasons.

[chuckChuck]

"No, it is not a real problem, not in our lifetimes." There you go A5 you finally admitted its not a problem and in fact the problem is the reverse.

Trying to keep CO2 levels below a tipping point that would send the earth into catastrophic irreversible warming is the much bigger problem and risk.

Any suggestion that declining CO2 levels will trigger another ice age are off the table for some hundred thousands of years because carbon emmisions are only going to decline slowly and as the transition to low carbon energy sources takes place.

So you and your denier friends need to accept the current science and focus on the real problems at hand.

Global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years based on ice-core data (purple line) compared to 2021 concentration (dark purple dot). The peaks and valleys in the line track ice ages (low CO2) and warmer interglacials (higher CO2). Throughout that time, CO2 was never higher than 300 ppm (light purple dot, between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago). The increase over the last 60 years is 100 times faster than previous natural increases. In fact, on the geologic time scale, the increase from the end of the last ice age to the present looks virtually instantaneous. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.

[shtferbrains]

Pakistan is increasing it's coal power production ×4 times currently.
They choose energy security over CO2 reduction.
CO2 reduction is a luxury only affordable by a small percentage of the world population.
The reduction goals have never and will never be achieved.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Trying to keep CO2 levels below a tipping point that would send the earth into catastrophic irreversible warming is the much bigger problem and risk.

Just like it did every time in earths history when CO2 levels were higher than today, right? Oh wait, the earth has had CO2 levels far higher than today for most of its history, and never reached a tipping point. At levels more than 10 times higher than today, there was no tipping point.

Any suggestion that declining CO2 levels will trigger another ice age are off the table for some hundred thousands of years because carbon emmisions are only going to decline slowly and as the transition to low carbon energy sources takes place.

So you did your research, and now you know the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, and you now think that it is 100,000's of years? Or you believe we have enough fossil fuels to keep burning them at todays pace for 100,000's of years? You are more optimistic than I thought. Please explain your rationale?