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

[BreadWinner]

Sorry I don’t read cut and paste articles.

[BreadWinner]

Too bad so sad for those stupid people, guess they better get moving.

[Hamloc]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/miami-is-the-most-vulnerable-coastal-city-worldwide/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/miami-is-the-most-vulnerable-coastal-city-worldwide/

Miami-Dade County and the Tampa Bay region will feel some of the greatest effects from rising seas, for example, which are projected to gain between 8 and 12 inches in elevation by 2040. Nearly a half-million Floridians living less than 3 feet above current high-water levels could experience regular flooding, experts said, threatening $145 billion in real estate value.

At least one third of the Netherlands is below sea level and always has been, they should sell their technology to the rest of the world, LOL!

[Guest]

Too bad so sad for those stupid people, guess they better get moving.

even obama was dumb enough to buy one

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thank you Chuck for the circuitous detour through sea level rise, ice sheets, and Miami. You managed to get everyone distracted from the fact that you have failed to answer my very simple question.
If you want to discuss sea level rise please read through this thread from last summer where you successfully debunked all of your own alarmist claims:
https://www.agriville.com/threads/38588-climate-change-puts-buildings-coastlines-the-north-at-most-risk-report-extreme-wea?highlight=coastal https://www.agriville.com/threads/38588-climate-change-puts-buildings-coastlines-the-north-at-most-risk-report-extreme-wea?highlight=coastal

You can either continue the discussion where we left off there, or start a new one. But not before you read and comprehend the thread again, it seems you have forgotten everything you learned.

Now back on topic.

Can you please post the source of your claim of 1000's of years for the CO2 man has released to be sequestered? You made the same claim in the above thread as well with no source provided.

If you cannot find the source because you simply pulled it out of thin air, then can you please look up the actual number and provide it. This should be the simplest of all the tasks I have given you. The answer is a number followed by the word year(s), even a layman can understand that. The entire CAGW alarm is based on this and the Charney senstivity, so they must be known to significant accuracy already.

[furrowtickler]

[fjlip]

even obama was dumb enough to buy one

And that SOB says sea level will flood millions! Lying POS leftist, climate cultist, crook.

[chuckChuck]

A5 your record is stuck! LOL Don't sweat the details of my layperson posts. Residency of CO2 isn't an issue. Try to focus on the big issue.

CO2 levels are rising and will continue to rise untill we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are no scientists concerned about CO2 levels falling.

If there are, show us the science! Is that so hard? LOL

You have avoided showing the science for a dozens of posts! What's up? Can't you find any credible science to back up your pet opinion?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5 your record is stuck! LOL Don't sweat the details of my layperson posts. Residency of CO2 isn't an issue. Try to focus on the big issue.

CO2 levels are rising and will continue to rise untill we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are no scientists concerned about CO2 levels falling.

If there are, show us the science! Is that so hard? LOL

You have avoided showing the science for a dozens of posts! What's up? Can't you find any credible science to back up your pet opinion?

Well, you aren't helping to improve your layperson status, making up sciency sounding terms, such as residency, is CO2 going to become a doctor now?

Your second sentence is even more confusing. Why woul CO2 levels necessarily be affected by greenhouse gas emissions being reduced? So if we reduce water vapour emissions, or Methane, or Nitrous Oxide or Ozone, that will keep CO2 levels from rising? What is the sceince behind that? Why would you single out CO2 in the first half of the sentence, then generalize to all GHG's in the second, do you think CO2 is the only GHG? Do you think it drags the rest around with it? Do you want another assignment to learn the relative effectiveness of each GHG? You won't like the answer, so it will likely take a lot more than 8 pages to to force you to reveal it.
But good job for finally acknowleging those two pesky Oxygen atoms, instead of giving all the credit to the poor beleaguered Carbon all by itself. It is time they got the credit they deserve.

So if there is no circumstance by which you can foresee CO2 levels dropping, and you "believe" it is causing all manner of catastrophes, from incompetent governance in California, to subsidience in Florida, then don't you think we should quit wasting finite resources in the war on CO2, and get right into mitigation efforts? Why would you pretend to install pretend solar panels if CO2 levels can't be reduced? Even though that is why you told us you pretended to install them.

Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose of your mission?

Why are you avoiding answering this simple question? If the answer proves that you are correct, and it will take thousands of years, then you can prove me wrong, and my concerns irrelevant.
Surely the reason you don't answer isn't because no one knows, can it be?
But if no one knows, then wouldn't that cast some substantial doubt on the rest of the suppose settled science?
Can't have that, so you had better answer very precisely.

[chuckChuck]

A5, just show us the science that falling CO2 levels are going to be a problem and climate scientists are concerned about this.