Climate Clown Planet

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And even when they stop rising as the world transitions to lower carbon energy sources it will take many many years for CO2 levels to fall back to levels that may be of concern. It will be a very slow decline over 100s if not 1000s of years.

So you still have no idea, might be hundreds of years, might be 1000's of years, yesterday you thought it might be millions of years. Are you sure it isn't measured in decades, years, months, or hours?
Surely one of your go to websites where you get all the sciency sounding cut and pastes has the exact answer. After all, these sites are designed for for social media warriors such as yourself for refuting the "climate deniers".

So, you have essentially dedicated your life to this cause, wasting countless hours trying to convince social media to take you and your cause seriously, but you don't even take it seriously enough to verify the basic premise upon which it is built?

[cropgrower]

must be some job digging tru the internet trying to find something to support your deranged way of thinking CC !

[chuckChuck]

A5 Keep digging yourself a deeper hole while the CO2 levels keep steadily rising.

You probably think that as soon as we stop burning fossil fuels we will be back into an ice age? LOL

[chuckChuck]

must be some job digging tru the internet trying to find something to support your deranged way of thinking CC !

Huh? Its very easy to find NOAA, NASA, and numerous other credible scientific institutions in multiple with climate researchers providing large amounts of evidence.

And they are all deranged too? LOL Lame Really Lame cropgrower

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Keep digging yourself a deeper hole while the CO2 levels keep steadily rising.

You probably think that as soon as we stop burning fossil fuels we will be back into an ice age? LOL

That is what I am trying to learn from you, that's why I keep asking you, the self proclaimed foremost expert on CO2.

How about, until proven otherwise, we will assume your above statement is true. "as soon as we stop burning fossil fuels we will be back into an ice age"

Doesn't sound like an emergency does it?

Now can you prove that statement wrong?

[chuckChuck]

Ask a climate scientists or google it. That can't be so hard! Or do you want me to do your homework again? LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Huh? Its very easy to find NOAA, NASA, and numerous other credible scientific institutions in multiple with climate researchers providing large amounts of evidence.

This is excellent news, you should have no trouble finding the answer to my question from one of these numerous credible scientific institutions. Prove me wrong once and for all.

But you claim they have evidence? How can they provide evidence of of something which hasn't occurred yet? We haven't stopped emitting CO2 yet, so how can they have large amounts of evidence about what comes next? Do you understand how evidence works?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Ask a climate scientists or google it. That can't be so hard! Or do you want me to do your homework again? LOL

Here is the issue. You have been frantically googling this for the past few days, and either you can't find any concrete answers, or the answers you found don't support your alarmist viewpoint. Otherwise, you would have already posted the answer instead of deflecting, deflecting deflecting.

[chuckChuck]

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.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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?

https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm

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.

[chuckChuck]

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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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?