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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5, Do you think NASA is making this all up?

Are you going to accuse NASA of being a Marxists organization? LOL

So you are saying that NASA is the source for a residence time of 1000's of years?

Can you please post a link to that, I can't find it.

[Hamloc]

I am surprised Hamloc that you would ask this question! Do humans need to be around to measure the geological history of the earth? Nope

Countless posters on Agriville have in fact used the timelines of various epochs in earths history to try to prove that human caused climate change is not real. “ the climate has changed before” etc etc.

Do you think NASA is making this all up? LOL

You do realize geology is the study rocks, the make up of the earths crust not the atmosphere? Let’s be realistic, to this day scientists still have many different theories about what happened to the dinosaurs, to the Mayan, Inca and Aztec civilizations. So yes they can study ice cores and extrapolate what they think the atmosphere was like but to say it as an absolute is balderdash! Just like the computer models about the future of our climate, the bias of the scientist creating the algorithm that creates the computer model certainly skews the result. So go ahead and insult me and call me a Neanderthal but in my opinion the best way forward is to look at our available resources, land base, land utilization and chart our path forward. Climate change has become a religion and renewables have become the only answer, such narrow thinking doesn’t end finding the best solution. Also remember the strongest proponents of climate change also say capitalism is a failed economic model and there must be greater government involvement in the economy(socialism, communism), probably the biggest reason I balk at the whole premise!!!

[chuckChuck]

Geology is an earth science and was used as an example science based on research and data. You don't seem to have a problem accepting the science underpinning geology correct?

Climate science is just another science. Why dispute the findings of climate scientists but accept the science of geology?

You are the one politicizing science! A5 trys to distract us with bogus issues. Nobody is falling for it.

[Hamloc]

Geology is an earth science and was used as an example science based on research and data. You don't seem to have a problem accepting the science underpinning geology correct?

Climate science is just another science. Why dispute the findings of climate scientists but accept the science of geology?

You are the one politicizing science! A5 trys to distract us with bogus issues. Nobody is falling for it.

You didn’t address any of my points, not at all surprised.

[chuckChuck]

Why bother answering when posters don't believe in science or the science of human caused climate change?

I have presented information from the top world class scientific institutions and you as a layperson with probably no particular expertise except in agriculture question their scientific conclusions about climate change? LOL Give us a break! Are you doing your own surgery! Or do you go to the highly trained and experience surgeon?

Suggesting that humans needed to be around to measure sea level from prehistory shows you have a very weak understanding and low trust in science. Its the anti vaxers of climate change! LOL

As I said its the anti science club on Agriville!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you have high standards for evidence and expectations that it must come from reputable sources. Hold yourself to the same standard, and please let us know what reputable organization states that the residence time for CO2 is 1000's of years?

[chuckChuck]

Why not ask a climate scientist or NASA?

I am just a layperson like you with no particular expertise, but at least I can read and present evidence to backup my opinions unlike some posters who make up pure fictional problems without a shred of scientific evidence! LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why not ask a climate scientist or NASA?

I am just a layperson like you with no particular expertise, but at least I can read and present evidence to backup my opinions unlike some posters who make up pure fictional problems without a shred of scientific evidence! LOL

Well, it appears that you made up a fictional figure about 1000's of years with no evidence to back it up, then when pressed to reveal the reliable source, you deflected.

Surely science must know the answer to this question? And surely the answer must be simple enough for a layperson to understand, after all, it will be a number followed by the word year(s). Nothing that requires a doctorate in atmospheric physics to understand.

The longer you delfect and delay answering, the more it appears that either:
1) you found the answer but it doesn't agree with your beliefs
2) You found the answer, but the range and uncertainty are so massive that it ruins your mantra about the science being settled
3) You can't find the answer because scientists don't know it either

[chuckChuck]

But you are still sticking to your assertion that our greatest problem is going to be low CO2 levels? LOL. Where’s your evidence for this very grande statement! I will leave it to the climate scientists to explain your pet obsession the residence time of CO2 and the projections for CO2 levels as we reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. And since you have no degree in climate science you would be well advised to do the same!

[chuckChuck]

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