Global Warming -- LOL

It has gone through events caused by naturally occurring phenomenon that influenced temperature. It has not gone through a period of time when human activity, namely burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate, has been sustained for over a century.

 

So let's assume mankind stopped using fossil fuels. Do you really think nature will also stop contributing to global warming?

 

I'm not worried about it. Our CO^2 levels are far lower than the levels in Warm Earth conditions, and certainly no danger at all, though I would certainly welcome more natural fertilizer effect so that we could reduce the amounts of commercial fertilizers, I do not like the dead zones created by agricultural run off.

 

We're doing the same thing with the Ukraine/Russian war. How much environmental damage results from the exploding and consumption of a $100B in US supplied weapons and material, yet, the same folks who want to outlaw small gasoline engines in CA don't say a peep.

 

Right. All legitimate scientists are aware of the fact that climate has always changed, always will, and we cannot stop it from changing.

Right. It's proven that climate changes pretty much independently of CO2.

Right, just as it would take a kindergarten level of intellect to say, "It's warm outside so that proves climate change is driven by CO2."

 

The first part of your statement is correct but there is disagreement in the second part.

Also true

Good thing that is only a strawman argument created in your head and no one has made that assertion.

 

The nonsense claim that CO2 governs the earth's surface temperature is more common in the summer.

 

Not among actual scientists.

Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers have made very similar ones.

 

England did not have the hottest summer ever, not even close. It may have been the hottest since the earth returned to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

 

The effect of CO2 on global surface temperature is minor. The paleoclimate record shows that CO2 correlates much better with previous temperatures than succeeding temperatures, which proves temperature drives CO2, not vice versa.

 

.

No, that would definitely not happen.
So??

 

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=be1bf8d11576

80%+ of “actual scientists” are in agreement that we are changing the climate.

 

So if nature isn't going to stop then all we're talking about is prolonging the end of mankind for how long at what expense?

 

I don't think naturally occurring events will stop impacting climate. Like massive volcanic eruptions causing solar shading thus temporarily cooling temperatures. But the Earth has never gone through anything like decades of........

Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement have increased by 1.0% in 2022, new estimates suggest, hitting a new record high of 36.6bn tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2). The estimates come from the 2022 Global Carbon Budget report by the Global Carbon Project.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022... and cement have,by the Global Carbon Project.

 

Fine. Where do you think we agree?

 

I don't. And while I don't fear warmth nor CO^2 I do fear the next glacial advance. I do not believe we could carry the current load of humans through a 100,000 year glacial advance on fossil fuel consumption, glacial advance is a potential existential threat, warming is not. If our interglacial cycle ended and we returned to warm earth conditions, humans would do fabulously, but, no one is predicting that. This is still called an 'interglacial' because the current expectation is that it will end in a glacial advance, a view strongly supported by the historical record and current configuration of the continents which strongly promotes continued cold earth conditions.

 

And that would be relevant if added CO2 had a significant effect on global surface temperature. But it doesn't.

 

While an early return to glacial conditions would certainly kill billions of people, it is not an existential threat to the human species. The Inuit survived winter in the high arctic with Stone Age technology. In the longer term -- i.e., if the return to glacial cold is delayed by at least another century -- we will have the nuclear and space engineering technology to reverse it.

 

Idk. From what I read there is nothing unusual about global warming.

https://news.softpedia.com/news/Global-Warming-Occurred-Many-Times-in-the-Past-191014.shtml

It seems to me there's too much hysteria geared only to make a buck. What good will it do if the United States eliminates its carbon imprint if other countries only increase theirs. Afterall, it's called "global warming".

 

Well, I was looking specifically for during the recent English heatwave, but, you are more than welcome to show me how it's done.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

That we are having some effect on climate is not in dispute. What actual scientists do not agree on is that CO2 is the principal driver of global surface temperature.

See the difference?

 

The same could be said about the self-serving denial of legacy energy companies. It's true we can't control what other countries do. But we need to keep moving in the right direction here, controlling what we can.

 

Why?

 

No, not really. Right now we are having a cold spell (shocking in the Winter) but winters have been milder for awhile now. Since winter has officially just started we'll see how this one goes but as of now your assertion that CO2 isn't affecting that is false.

 

Because there is a finite amount of oil and with the amount of things that are dependent on it don't you think it's logical to move to different sources to do different things so what is left will last longer? Oil companies know that. They don't have a problem with alternative energy. They know the camels are on the horizon.