Climate Clown Planet

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So instead of making plans for adaptation and reducing global warming risk and sea level rise we should spend taxpayers money on making more land? Thats your solution on a global scale? LOL

So how does this help in the poorer regions of the world that are most at risk that will struggle to fund adaptation and cant really fund any new land?

Who in the geo science engineering and scientific world thinks this is a credible idea? We are waiting!

This unworkable solution to a massive long term problem for many coastal cities and vulnerable regions of the world is almost as dumb as your idea that we need to keep burning fossil fuels because we are going to run low on carbon dixiode.

For a poster who ends every sentence with LOL, you sure don't seem to have any sense of humour.
Did you not comprehend my tongue in cheek post?

Because nature itself is already growing land area at 5 times (net)the rate than humans are doing the same, we don't need to be adding any land. This is from the folks at nat geo, are they no longer credible scientists in your opinion? Although, they admit to being surprised, which isn't exactly a scientific term. I believe it has something to do with thinking the science is settled, and discovering it isn't.

If you are concerned about poorer regions of the world struggling to fund adaptation, perhaps denying them access to cheap reliable energy, which would make adaptation possible( if it were actually necessary, however as per the article posted above, it is not), may not be the most charitable solution.

Do you see, you are chasing a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. In fact, the evidence indicates the exact opposite is happening. Do you now deny climate science, which indicates we are gaining land from oceans?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

is almost as dumb as your idea that we need to keep burning fossil fuels because we are going to run low on carbon dixiode.

You just keep bringing this topic up. It's almost as if you haven't done even the slightest research into the topic. Do you deny that CO2 has been in decline for over 500 million years? From levels over 5000 ppm.



And that at recent lows of 280 ppm, it was already dangerously close to ~200 ppm where photosynthetic life is no longer possible.

And that the only thing that has temporarily reversed the inexorable decline in CO2, and associated extinction of life on earth is the burning of fossil fuels.

Or do you not believe in photosynthesis either?

A true climate denier.

[chuckChuck]

CO2 levels are 420 ppm and rising due to fossil fuels and you are trying to tell us we are at dangerous low levels near 200?

Keep digging yourself a hole! LOL

[shtferbrains]

If the earth is greening would that not consume more CO2 and produce more oxygen?



Wondering if a scientist could get money to study that theory?
Or if anyone cares ?

"The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

[fjlip]

"a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist"

Same scenario for most of Covid/Climate/Green Reset dictates. For the sake of change and $$$$$

Geez next TOO MUCH oxygen, maybe destroy forests and crops to prevent overdose.

When is it TOO MUCH for human life to exist?

[agstar77]

[ATTACH]11981[/ATTACH]

If the earth is greening would that not consume more CO2 and produce more oxygen?



Wondering if a scientist could get money to study that theory?
Or if anyone cares ?

"The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

You may want to check ocean absorption of CO2.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If the earth is greening would that not consume more CO2 and produce more oxygen?



Wondering if a scientist could get money to study that theory?
Or if anyone cares ?

"The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

The answer is actually really funny. The infallible climate models indicated that atmospheric CO2 levels should be far far higher than they are given the amount of CO2 man has released. So the so-called global warming scientists have dubbed this the missing co2. And have contorted themselves in attempts to explain away where it could possibly be hiding. Such as the hiding in the ocean excuse we were hearing a few years back. As you rightfully point out, Earth is busy enjoying the additional co2, the biosphere is expanding, even into places which were previously inhospitable to life, sequestering it away just like nature has always done.
But as you point out, very difficult to get funding for your study which will point out the myriad benefits of a Greener world with more CO2. Especially during the brief intermission between ice ages.

[fjlip]

Well done guys...facts kill Climate alarmism.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You may want to check ocean absorption of CO2.

Thank you. Your comedic timing is impeccable. You made that post in support of my post at the same time that I was typing about the CO2 hiding in the oceans junk science. We would make a good comedic team.
You can play the always grossly overconfident, but criminally inept doctor Bunsen Honeydew, I can play Beaker, the timid unwitting victim who inevitably ends up exposing the incompetence of the wannabe be scientist.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

CO2 levels are 420 ppm and rising due to fossil fuels and you are trying to tell us we are at dangerous low levels near 200?

Keep digging yourself a hole! LOL

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?

[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?