It’s not climate change that’s causing heat waves this summer but no one wants to explain why

submitted by Musky from foxnews.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Anthropogenic emissions are equal to approximately 3 percent of the total emissions of CO2 by natural sources...

https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming/Carbon-dioxide#ref1254402

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What matters is not the emissions alone but the balance between emissions adding CO2 to the atmosphere and carbon sinks taking it out again. CO2 emissions from natural sources have been in balance with the carbon sinks taking it out again. This is why atmospheric CO2 has been steady for tens of thousands of ten thousand years, giving us relatively steady and predictable climate for the entire history of mankind.

(Edit: multiple tens of thousands is too high. Ten thousand is about right.)

Now it is rising and we're entering a period of climate chaos that will destabilise weather systems, shift climate zones, and change the balance of power between nations as some countries get better climate and others get worse. (Ironically, it seems likely that Europe and the USA will be among the losers and Russia among the winners, at least for a short while.)

The good news: at least so far, increased plant growth has taken up much of the excess CO2 we're producing, slowing the rate of increase.

The bad news: even with that additional plant growth, there is still a large imbalance and CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase at an accelerating rate. The worse news: plants ability to take up CO2 depends on temperature, and as temperatures continue to increase and land plants suffer from heat stress, their ability to absorb CO2 will drop.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Are you sure about c02 being stable for 10s of thousands of years? This does not look stable to me https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/CO2-Temperature%20420%20kyr.gif

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nice graph. Why should I trust it as a credible source? And would you like to look at the time scale on the bottom (horizontal) axis a little more closely?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

meh. i dont even know what we're arguing. you seem to think there's no climate emergency and I agree.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Here's a credible source showing that before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were pretty much rock-steady for a good ten thousand years. The ten thousand years prior to that was a long, slow increase from the ending of the last glaciation period.

So in just one or two hundred years, we're added about the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere that it previously took natural forces ten thousand years and the end of a glaciation period to do.

Prior to that, you have to go back around 800,000 years before CO2 reaches the same level it is at now.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

this is al gore's tired hockey stick shit, for which all future predictions have not come true. science doesn't seem to be interested in correlation vs. causation, or how much C02 is natural vs anthropogenic. basing economic policy on 200 years of shoddy data is patently insane.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

this is al gore's tired hockey stick shit

Al Gore? Who is he, and why is he the least bit relevant?

science doesn't seem to be interested in correlation vs. causation, or how much C02 is natural vs anthropogenic.

Are you living on Bizarro World? Because on planet Earth, where I live, that's exactly what the scientists actually do.

That might explain why you are a GW denialist: you're not reacting to what climate scientists actually do and study, but to some cartoon version from Bizarro World.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

you're the one who thinks that too much plant food in the air is going to kill us all

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

too much plant food

Your logic: since farmers irrigate their crops and water is needed for plants, then flooding must be good for crops too. Checkmate farmers!

Its not the CO2 that is a problem directly. Its the global temperature changes and shifts in climate zones resulting from the CO2.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Boo fucking hoo. We might have to farm in Greenland and Russia, someday, maybe.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

We might have to farm in Greenland and Russia

Nah. Russia will be the superpower and Americans will be lying in the blazing sun, with flies on their faces, too weak from hunger to move. And the world will say "you fuckers brought it on yourselves". And they'll be right.