Climate Clown Planet

[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?

[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.

And you need to think longer term than your lifetime A5.

Is there any scientific organization who says we should be concerned about declining CO2 levels in the next 100, 1000, 5000 years? NONE!

You keep coming up empty handed A5! Give up on this distraction and denialist absurdity.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

"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.

And you need to think longer term than your lifetime A5.

Is there any scientific organization who says we should be concerned about declining CO2 levels in the next 100, 1000, 5000 years? NONE!

You keep coming up empty handed A5! Give up on this distraction and denialist absurdity.

That is quite a range. A few minutes ago you thought the CO2 would stick around for hundreds of thousands of years, now you think it might be somewhere between 100, and 5000 years. I thought this was all settled science? Considering the dire consequences of this topic, surely you can find the exact value? That looks more like a wild guess based on absolutely no evidence or scientific process. Almost makes one wonder how much of other supposed "climate science" is based on complete wild guesses doesn't it? Of course, you could just provide me with the actual figure and prove me wrong.

What is the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere? If humans stopped releasing beneficial CO2 tomorrow, how soon will the additional life giving gas remain before nature sequesters all the CO2 above 280 ppm, and returns to the slow inexorable natural decline?

[chuckChuck]

Give up A5! You still haven't provide any scientific organization that thinks declining CO2 is a threat.

Your absurd ruminations of human caused climate change denier about declining CO2 levels are a distraction from the obvious much bigger issue.

A very slow decline in CO2 after we stop burning fossil fuels?

That's only if we don't reach a tipping point that triggers a massive release of stored greenhouse gases that set us on a course for irreversible warming.

And of course these are very long term changes well beyond your lifetime.

[cropgrower]

. pure scam

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Give up A5! You still haven't provide any scientific organization that thinks declining CO2 is a threat.

Your absurd ruminations of human caused climate change denier about declining CO2 levels are a distraction from the obvious much bigger issue.

A very slow decline in CO2 after we stop burning fossil fuels?

That's only if we don't reach a tipping point that triggers a massive release of stored greenhouse gases that set us on a course for irreversible warming.

And of course these are very long term changes well beyond your lifetime.

Try to stay on topic please.

You seem very preoccupied with the issue of CO2 levels declining after we stop releasing them from fossil fuels. You bring this topic up almost every time I pick on you. So, one could assume that you must be knowledgeable about this topic, otherwise, why would you step on the same garden rake over and over again, knowing it will smack you in the face if you don't know the answer to one very simple question.

Yet when I asked you a very elementary question, about a topic for which the science is allegedly settled, you made a wild guess, providing a range of 100 years, up to hundreds of thousands of years( which could be as much as a million years).

For someone with as much confidence in this topic as you portray with your bluster and bravado, and willingness to bring it up almost daily, I assumed you must know the exact answer, and that it must favor your position on the issue. Otherwise, any wise person (see what I did there, not going to assume your gender, just in case you get offended) would quietly avoid getting embroiled in a debate which they either don't know any relevant facts, or for which the actual facts run counter to your ideological position.

We have had this exact discussion countless times, and every time you come up empty handed. Well, not quite empty handed, you provide a litany of insults and childish names.

Maybe this time you can do your own research and try to narrow down the actual answer, since it is literally the root of the climate emergency narrative. If we stop releasing CO2 tomorrow, how long before the elevated levels return to their preindustrial levels? It makes a big difference if it is a week from next Tuesday, or a million years from now.

Maybe after you answer the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, then we can get back to the really fundamental question of the temperature sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. For which you have never been able to provide an accurate answer, but is the basis for the entire theory of global warming.

[jazz]

chuck are you concerned at all with the chernobyl like cloud that travelled over Ohio, or how about the largest methane leak in human history courtesy of the US govt.

Or is it cricket time.

[fjlip]

chuck are you concerned at all with the chernobyl like cloud that travelled over Ohio, or how about the largest methane leak in human history courtesy of the US govt.

Or is it cricket time.

Try a CRAZY guy and Alzheimer case with Nuclear buttons? Real screw up a planet!

Oh ya what planet?

[chuckChuck]

A5 has given up. Lots of words but no substance! Who the hell cares what he thinks cause nobody is listening. LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5 has given up. Lots of words but no substance! Who the hell cares what he thinks cause nobody is listening. LOL

That obstinate response would lead the reader to believe that you don't have a clue what the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is.
This detail is fundamental to your religion. You should make some effort to know this so you don't look like an idiot next time someone asks you. And I will keep asking you.

[agstar77]

Try a CRAZY guy and Alzheimer case with Nuclear buttons? Real screw up a planet!

Oh ya what planet?

You mean Putin?