Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

This hardly helps you really. For it still shows warmer periods than now, with no fossil fuel burning. Climatologists are so certain that co2 is the main culprit, and yet they have no certainty on what caused the other warmer periods. This is because their real knowledge of climate change is just too limited, and they do not know, what they do not know. Co2 levels are the low hanging fruit. Vast funding has supported this research, while so little is invested into studying solar activity. Now, if it is solar that is contributing more than co2, we should see polar ice caps on mars doing what ours are doing. Which indeed we are, or so I read a couple years ago. Of course mars has lots of co2, more than earth. So that would not be a factor in their own ice caps shrinking. So how much money is invested in researching this? How does our co2 have an effect upon mars? Well, very little money, for co2 taxation is worth trillions to some people over time, and it ain't you.

I will believe we see co2 levels as a main factor when gov't spends money on adding trillions of trees, and halting by force if necessary, rain forest deforestation. Instead of making money for our elites using carbon taxes, and starving people due to depressed economic activity.

Climatology depends upon too many assumptions and even educated guesses, and it is job security. They have no clue what has caused most climate change and yet people will still trust in their knowledge? Not me, for they reign over the weakest field in science, barely above psychology. And yet you want to ascribe to them the same standards as a hard science like physics? That would be ludicrous and yet that is what is being done.

 

You don't understand the point:
1. The effect of human is that we have minimized wild fires using our technology.
2. The effect of human burning coal instead of wild fires, does not produce any pollution which is less natural than the wild fires we extinguish.
3. Replacing coal with solar you does produce additional unnatural pollution - batteries and toxic waste from production to say the least.
4. You have to live with the fact that humans will always pollute. You will not exterminate us all.
5. The task is: to produce less pollution with higher benefits for humans.

 

(my emphases this post)

Either you have a problem reading or you are intentionally twisting what I said. I reposted my comment above. I highlighted the key words.

When fundamentalist Muslims come on this forum calling people who believe in science true religious fanatics, I'll call them out on it also.

I'm pretty sure you know. But, if you don't, you should have found out before replying to my post. Do you want to Google it for you?

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.space.com/33001-mars-ice-age-ending-now.html

Whereas ice ages on Earth involve polar ice caps growing in size, prior work suggested that Martian ice ages would involve shrinking polar ice caps. Meanwhile, on the Red Planet, glaciers at midlatitudes away from the poles would grow; during the interglacial periods between ice ages, ice would rapidly accumulate at the poles, while midlatitude glaciers eroded away.

This is because Mars can tilt more than Earth, causing the Red Planet's poles to receive more direct sunlight than its midlatitudes, making for longer summer days with higher temperatures, said study lead author Isaac Smith, a planetary scientist who did this work at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, and who is now at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona.

Earth is always under the effects of the Sun, and Earth will have cycles that have nothing to do with human-caused pollution, but this does not change the fact that CO2 levels are ramping up at unprecedented levels and this coincides with human industrialization/pollution...

 

Thank you for evaluating what I understand or not?

You're not talking about 'the point', you're talking about 'your point'.

The only fire fighting we do today is to prevent human casualties and minimize destruction...on a global scale fires are raging all the time.

Pollution math; Coal = 1, Wild Fires = 1, No coal = 0 1+1= 2 but 1+0 = 1

Of course there are waste by-products from producing alternative energy but I think the goal is to greatly reduce CO2 emissions, again using math; to have the same energy with less CO2 emissions.

If you wish to assume all humans will pollute then why try to do better??

 

The sentence typed as the icy grip of uncertainty rushed up against a fog of indoctrination.....

 

The problem with this comment is that it refuses to recognize that there is no stasis. There is no expectation of some static process from which deviation is measurable. The observation is that the climate is always changing. Attempting to ascribe a changing climate with apocalyptic outcomes is more a religious exercise than a scientific one.

So, irrespective of the weather, or the climate, the Earth itself endures, and will until the planet is consumed by the red giant stage of our aging sun. The weather, and the climate will continue to change. We have evidence that it get's cold. we have evidence that it gets warmer. What we don't expect, ever, is that it will remain static. It's intellectually dishonest to infer this, and further, to express it as a viable condition that can be met.

 

No, in a battle of the minds - when the opposition is unarmed, I just walk away rather than hear an echo due to the sound hitting an empty space.
(I was going to say a vacuum, but sound doesn't travel thru a vacuum - something a science denier wouldn't know)

 

\
No factual content

You made up math to fit your beliefs. All pollution: X
from natural happening: Y
From humans: Z
The one humans can afford: A
Z-A - negative -N can pollute more
Z-A - positive N should cut by N

Put the numbers in, then come to me again

The goal is not to pollute more than needed.
CO2 has never been a pollutant.

Because pollution is not a desirable effect and should be minimized.

 

There is 50 times as much carbon dioxide in earth's oceans as there is in earth's atmosphere.
The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is inversely proportional to the water temperature.
Therefore as ocean water gets warmer, the dissolved carbon dioxide comes out of solution.
This is the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2. Climate change fear-mongers
have it backwards. Follow the curve downward to the right. More to come.

 

The Scary Graph
It is intentionally misleading to frighten the public into "doing something!"




Adjust the base to 0 and add the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and you get this graph:


Science. Like so much that truly frightens the Left.

 

Looks like all you did was to expand the ppm scale to such ridiculously high scale as to minimize the visual CO2 increase. IOW it simply hides it.

 

In modern times there was stasis...slight fluctuations in between the hottest and coldest periods. The observable difference today, which just happens to coincide with modern man and industrialization and increased human pollution, is the historically sudden and quick rise in atmospheric CO2. This 'quick' rise is unprecedented. So since the fact is no one truly knows the future, is this runaway CO2 going to suddenly subside and move back to normal levels, or...will it continue to rise to levels which will definitely and negatively effect mankind? There is no way possible for 'you' to know the 'Earth will endure'? And the huge difference today is planet Earth happens to be home to 7+ billion humans who are not as capable as Earth to survive critical climate effects. As a society, and world governments, do we stick our heads in the sand and pretend like you that the 'Earth will endure' or do we ratchet up our intellectual curiosity, pay close attention to the science, pay close attention to the potential, and try to take some proactive measures?

 

Since we were talking about coal and wildfire emissions, then the math I presented was correct. Coal = 1, Wildfires = 1, NO COAL = 0

CO2 is not a pollutant?? Try spending some time on Venus? How is it effecting our oceans? How is it effecting our atmosphere and climate?

 

Water vapor is 1.5% which is 15,000 ppm. Add 410 CO2 and misc and it comes to 15,500. Not hard to understand for honest and thinking people.

 

What I'm more curious about is the actual average effects we can measure on humans and crops and animals and oceans and climate, etc.? Can science tell us what happens in each of these areas as CO2 ppm increases? If the current CO2 levels are 400/410ppm what can we expect to happen at 420, 430, 440, 450, etc.? Never mind any remedies, or politics, or personal bias...can someone tell us what to expect on average if CO2 levels continue to rise?

I suspect in the US, and certainly around the world, people and governments are not going to take much or enough proactive action, so I'm guessing we need to better understand what we will soon be forced to deal with?

 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying one cannot measure deviance from a non-static process. That is completely wrong.



Perhaps I misunderstood.

Yes it is. Yes it has. Yes it always will. However, when scientists take measurements from many different sources (oceans, ice caps, atmospheric content, etc.) and see indications of abnormalities from the norm, and correlations of these abnormalities to human activity, then that is worthy of consideration. Every living thing has adapted to current conditions over thousands and millions of years. Many living things cannot adapt to changes occurring in decades.

The dinosaurs would disagree with you.

The earth will endure. That is not in question. What is in question, is the level of endurance of the things living on it.

 

Nothing will happen except the shrill howls from Al Gore's hypocrites will grow louder, more radical if that is possible.

 

Science. Like so much that is incomprehensible to the Religious Right.

 

You mean like those who have spent a lifetime studying atmospheric physics?

 

Controversial scientific theories go through three stages: First, the religious attack and deny them, then the religious gradually accept parts of them, and lastly they claim they've always accepted said theories. This happened with the heliocentric theory. It happened with evolution. And now it's happening with AGW; right-wingers are at Stage 2, which means they finally accept that Earth is warming, though they still deny the cause.

 

I have this thing - every time someone brings up Al Gore I bring up Christopher Monckton a denialist so whacky that most will not even stand in the same room with him

Gore is not a scientist - he has nothing to do with the science - so why mention him?

 

Whenever scientific truth is attacked, you need to consider motives. In other words, who stands to gain the most from the AGW issue: the scientists, or the oil industry that invests millions of $ in anti-AGW propaganda?

 

You are off by orders of magnitude. Government forks over trillions to leftist fear-mangers for *research* of the most dishonest kind.
NOAA is fighting to keep emails from the public as demanded under the freedom of information act.
They are clearly hiding their misdeeds.
Censorship and condescension are anti-intellectual and unscientific but systemic part of Al Gore and cronies.

 

It is also not hard to understand that warm air contains more water vapour than cold air. This being true water vapour is a feedback caused by rising temperatures. It get warmer and more water evaporates, making it warmer, causing more water to evaporate. Making it warmer... etc...etc.