• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate Clown Planet

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Since you are so slow and lazy I will do your homework again! Give up on the idea we are going to run out of enough CO2. Its "not a real problem" as you admitted. Now you can get back to feeding your cows.

    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/

    20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?

    No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would require thousands of years to cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era.

    If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-industrial” levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions. Sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing [Figure 9]. Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits.
    Thank you. That wasn't so hard was it.

    But why does the Royal Society disagree with the IPCC? Who claims a residence time of 5 to 200 years? Which one is the credible scientific institution in your mind? Surely they can't all disagree, after all, the science is settled and there is a consensus?

    A range that is so broad as to be completely useless. If it is only 5 years, then there is no climate emergency, no tipping point, and my concerns about how we maintain these beneficial elevated levels of CO2 in the absence of fossil fuels are an immediate concern as we electrify everything.

    Comment


      You go ahead and get the IPCC and the Royal Society to clarify the issue of how long CO2 will last in the atmosphere a "problem" that according to you is "not a real problem"! LOL

      Only deniers like yourself would bark up this tree and embarrass themselves again and again . Ruff Ruff

      Comment


        Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
        You go ahead and get the IPCC and the Royal Society to clarify the issue of how long CO2 will last in the atmosphere a "problem" that according to you is "not a real problem"! LOL

        Only deniers like yourself would bark up this tree and embarrass themselves again and again . Ruff Ruff
        So, it doesn't concern you at all that your belief system is based on an assumption, with a range of somewhere between 5 years, and a million years? According to your credible sources?

        This would be like devoting your life to becoming a monk without ever reading the bible, or inquiring about some of the terms and conditions, such as celibacy.

        Surely some scientific body can provide an exact answer, after all, the future of humanity rides on getting this one right, doesn't it?
        Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Feb 16, 2023, 15:19.

        Comment


          Ruff Ruff

          Comment


            I said many times...all data, numbers are within the margin of error. The longer the time frame the MORE ridiculous the infinitesimal % is.

            Grow up chuck, if C02 takes forever to go away, it also takes FOREVER to increase!

            Live a short life, stop the preoccupation with a SOLUTION to a PROBLEM we don't have!

            Comment


              Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
              Ruff Ruff
              This is by far your most intellectually mature response yet. If you ever had any doubts as to why you are banished to the children's table, look no further.
              And you expect people to take you seriously?
              If you keep this up, you will need to find a new derogatory name for the website you refer to as Agrisilly. You have single-handedly lowered the bar so far so fast that silly is no longer an adequate adjective.
              Do you ever question why none of your former CWB allies come to your defense anymore?
              Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Feb 16, 2023, 12:09.

              Comment


                Can you imagine any other field of "science" taking such life altering actions and spending vast sums of money based on an underlying unproven and non disprovable theory with an uncertainty as large as this is?
                I'm sure when NASA sent the first men to the moon, they assured them that they might be home by Wednesday afternoon, but it could just as likely take 5 years or 200 years or worst case, a few hundred thousand years, so they should probably pack a lunch and a change of underwear just in case. That is literally the level of uncertainty that this field masquerading as science is predicated upon.
                Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Feb 16, 2023, 17:41.

                Comment


                  Thing is, with science, it's never settled. Always learning, proving.
                  Remember, the Nobel Prize was shared by the doctor who developed frontal lobotomies as sound. "Proven" with a very low "success" rate. Lets not forget the proof for Eugenics.
                  Maybe it's real, maybe a lot or a little. But what we're doing about it now is the folly of the century.
                  Too many prescribed psychiatric drugs as youth perhaps. That too, "proven" of course.

                  Comment


                    Somewhere in Sask

                    Comment


                      Canadians are famous for supporting stupid causes that they expect someone else to pay for

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	nada.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	82.5 KB
ID:	774588

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
                        Ruff Ruff
                        Apparently, judging by the lack of any further responses, Chuck considers this argument to be the definitive word on the subject, he has nothing more to add. The coup de grace from a master debater such as Chuck.
                        Highly professional response when presented with information which contradicts his beliefs.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by biglentil View Post
                          Lol , I would do the same thing , there is no other alternative if you own an E truck . Better be a good inverter . Maybe have Ford throw one in on the deal . Should have plenty of room as they are asking $30,000 over msrp

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by jazz View Post
                            Canadians are famous for supporting stupid causes that they expect someone else to pay for

                            [ATTACH]12017[/ATTACH]
                            Obviously, this poll was poorly worded. if it would have read how much do you support taxing evil corporations and taking other people's money to pay for climate change, the poll would then accurately reflect the number of liberal and NDP voters. This poll mistakenly suggested they should spend their own money.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by biglentil View Post
                              So we are all supposed to switch over to electric vehicles to solve a climate emergency caused by burning fossil fuels. Then we take our electric vehicles and plug them into a grid anywhere in the world, which is primarily fossil fuel powered. And when we can't access the grid, we'll plug them into a fossil fuel powered generator.
                              Anyone else getting the impression that no one takes the climate emergency seriously?

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by biglentil View Post
                                Geez it's CC's Ford!

                                Lucky for rest of buyers, they STOPPED building and shipping till they unphuck the battery issues!
                                Last edited by fjlip; Feb 17, 2023, 13:28.

                                Comment

                                • Reply to this Thread
                                • Return to Topic List
                                Working...
                                X

                                This website uses tracking tools, including cookies. We use these technologies for a variety of reasons, including to recognize new and past website users, to customize your experience, perform analytics and deliver personalized advertising on our sites, apps and newsletters and across the Internet based on your interests.
                                You agree to our and by clicking I agree.