60 percent of Likely Voters Agree “Climate Change Has Become a Religion.” “Climate change has become a religion that ‘actually has nothing to do with the climate’ and is really about power and control.”

submitted by Chipit from thenewamerican.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 -  (15 children)

I propose that there is no C02 imbalance, and that your 350ppm number is arbitrary and based off of climate change pseudo science. C02 has varied widely throughout the earth's history.

half of the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion remains in the atmosphere

That may be true, but you have not answered the question "What percent of C02 increase is caused by human activity?" Most people assume it is 100% because this is the way the media presents it. Without being able to discuss the science, we are just discussing politics.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I propose that there is no C02 imbalance

Nope. That CO2 concentrations are increasing has been measured.

350ppm number is arbitrary and based off of climate change pseudo science.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2) Increasing greenhouse gas concentration increases the greenhouse effect.

Which one of those is pseudo-science? Explain what the correct science is.

C02 has varied widely throughout the earth's history.

Yes. It is precisely carbon from the Paleozoic that we're returning to the atmosphere now by burning fossil fuels. The point is that the floods droughts sea level rise and changing climate patterns is bad for us and for existing ecosystems.

That may be true, but you have not answered the question "What percent of C02 increase is caused by human activity?"

Human activity has released about 200% of the increase into the atmosphere. The earth has absorbed about half. Is that 100% or 200%?

You choose.

Most people assume it is 100% because this is the way the media presents it.

Not as wrong as the OP article. Lets call it 100%. It's certainly not less.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

  • Why is C02 varying over time and similarly to the past an indication that something is wrong or out of balance?
  • Anthropogenic climate change is pseudo science because there's no proven causal link between C02 and temperature, and no consensus on how much C02 increase is naturally ocurring. And we've spent so much time on C02 and not methane for example.
  • "It is precisely carbon from the Paleozoic that we're returning to the atmosphere now by burning fossil fuels." That's fair, but look at how many people are living nice long lives now that we have done this.
  • "The point is that the floods droughts sea level rise and changing climate patterns is bad for us and for existing ecosystems." Sure, that's arguably bad, but it's also a far cry from an existential threat
  • "Human activity has released about 200% of the increase into the atmosphere." "Lets call it 100%. It's certainly not less." So you are claiming that C02 is increasing solely due to human activity. You can't prove this extreme claim.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Why is C02 varying over time and similarly to the past an indication that something is wrong or out of balance?

The increase in CO2 is dramatic, and throwing the climate into a state that no existing species has co-existed with.

It is not similar to the past.

Anthropogenic climate change is pseudo science because there's no proven causal link between C02 and temperature

You've not heard of the greenhouse effect?

The causal link between CO2 and temperature has been understood since the late 1890s at least. CO2 absorbance is greater in the bands associated with earth's heat radiation than it is in the sun's. So it slows heat escaping into space more than it slows the sun's heat reaching earth. This leads to a warming called the greenhouse effect.

It's proven.
It's causal.
It's from physical first principles.

no consensus on how much C02 increase is naturally ocurring.

This is wrong. CO2 can be tracked. The increase in the atmosphere is not occurring naturally. All the natural systems are absorbing CO2. (Overall. For a short period of time during a bushfire, you get positive emissions from the land).

That's fair, but look at how many people are living nice long lives now that we have done this.

That's not an argument against climate science. I imagine that energy from other sources would be just as good for development.

"The point is that the floods droughts sea level rise and changing climate patterns is bad for us and for existing ecosystems." Sure, that's arguably bad, but it's also a far cry from an existential threat

People die in floods and fires.

So you are claiming that C02 is increasing solely due to human activity.

Yes.

You can't prove this extreme claim.

World emissions from fossil fuel combustion since 1750, as at 2020: 1.70 trillion tonnes

Increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750: (413ppm(v)-280ppm(v))*((44.01 g/mol)/(28.96 g/mol)) = increase of 202 ppm(w)

[CO2 concentration in 2020 - CO2 concentration in 1750, converted to mass, by multiplying by the molecular mass of CO2 over the mean molecular mass of air.]

Mass of the atmosphere = 5.5 quadrillion tons
Increase in CO2 in the atmosphere = 1.1 trillion tonnes = 5.5 quadrillion tonnes * (202/1,000,000)

So the combustion of fossil fuels has contributed about 1.7/1.1 = 154% of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration that we observe in the atmosphere.

154% >= 100%
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion >= atmospheric increase in CO2.

Q.E.D.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The increase in CO2 is dramatic, and throwing the climate into a state that no existing species has co-existed with. It is not similar to the past.

It looks like we were as high as 1000ppm less than 100 million years ago. https://u4d2z7k9.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Co2-levels-historic.jpg Your 'spike' is only 100ppm.

This graph sure as fuck makes it look like we are coming out of a cooling period, which may explain the entirely of the C02 increases: https://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/files/media/cenogrid-climate-with-projection.png

It's proven. It's causal. It's from physical first principles.

Just because C02 is a greenhouse gas, and we have observed it increasing, does not mean that C02 has increased the earth's temperature or whatever the fuck you guys are trying to prove. There are confounding factors, such as other gases having a much much larger greenhouse effect. (80 times higher, as we saw in this video?)

The increase in the atmosphere is not occurring naturally. All the natural systems are absorbing CO2.

If only you had some data to support this assertion. What if temperature increases caused C02 levels in the atmosphere to increase?

Edit: How am I supposed to conclude that there's a causal relationship from this graph? https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/35927/are-we-in-a-low-co2-period-compared-to-the-last-590-million-years

I am not following your math. Are you starting from the assumption that all C02 increases since 1750 are because of fossil fuels? If you don't allow for other causes of C02 increases, then of course you would have to demonize fossil fuels.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It looks like we were as high as 1000ppm less than 100 million years ago.

Yep, if we return to the hothouse of the mid cretaceous, we'll all be pretty completely fucked.

Our own ancestor was probably a placental mammal already. Tyrannosaurus Rex and Triceratops hadn't appeared yet. But any infrastructure built by Pleurocoelus would be well suited to the new sea level.

Unfortunately there isn't any, and the most valuable part of our infrastructure would be under water.

This graph sure as fuck makes it look like we are coming out of a cooling period

The broken axis is misleading. The SCRIPPS graph I link to above is a clearer view of the current warming on top of the glaciation cycles of the Quaternary. We're warming from the top of a warm period.

which may explain the entirely of the C02 increases

The CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion already entirely explain them.

Just because C02 is a greenhouse gas, and we have observed it increasing, does not mean that C02 has increased the earth's temperature

Yes it does. That's what an increased greenhouse effect means.

There are confounding factors, such as other gases having a much much larger greenhouse effect.

Methane has an impact too, on the few to several centuries scale. But CO2 is responsible for 74% or 91% of the long lived greenhouse gas warming, depending on whether you count or discount the overlaps with other greenhouse gasses.

If only you had some data to support this assertion.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/

What if temperature increases caused C02 levels in the atmosphere to increase?

Then the CO2 would need to come from somewhere. And it's not. The oceans are absorbing CO2.

Edit: How am I supposed to conclude that there's a causal relationship from this graph?

Don't use that graph. The CO2 levels are from an older version of geocarb, and the temperature levels are from and even more ancient estimate that has been thoroughly superseded. It was from a time when it was thought that the earth just oscillated between "warm" and "cold". It's not true, and is not calibrated to the same timescale. You would need to be trying to mislead your audience to plot those two together on the same chart, because we had much better temperature reconstructions even at early versions of geocarb.

CO2 has warmed the earth at between 1.5°C and 6.3°C per doubling throughout the last 420 million years at least.

Are you starting from the assumption that all C02 increases since 1750 are because of fossil fuels?

No I'm comparing the atmospheric increases in CO2 since 1750 to the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since 1750. The emissions from fossil fuels are 154% of the increase in the atmosphere.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Don't use that graph. The CO2 levels are from an older version of geocarb, and the temperature levels are from and even more ancient estimate that has been thoroughly superseded.

Show me a better graph then. No one on that skeptics post said that the data was wrong.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Figure one from the paper I already linked is inverted, but at least it's not mixing pre-modern geology temperature reconstructions with a medium modern geological scale carbon model.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

How do you explain Al Gore's hockey stick graph predictions not coming anywhere close to true?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The hockey stick graph didn't make predictions. It was a reconstruction of past temperatures. By Mann, Bradely and Hughes.

It has been confirmed over a dozen times.

Are you talking about Al Gore's CO2 concentration graph, similar to the graph I link twice above. It's also correct.