• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A must see for climate alarmist

We could have the role CO2 plays completely wrong, but without considering secondary effects, it looks like CO2 would absorb
some of the IR emitted from everything, in the first few meters, and then pass that energy off to other atmospheric components.
The problem with the classical role, is that the CERES IR flux, shows the energy imbalance is in the visible spectrum, not in the IR.
The outgoing IR , that should decreasing, is in fact increasing slightly.
There is something going on that we are not accounting for!
We already have a reasonable estimate of humanity's contribution to atmospheric CO2, at 4.87 ppmV. What you fail to demonstrate is how 4.87 ppmV of CO2 can effect the global climate. Until you can do that, there is no effect humanity has made on the global climate. Every change to the global climate that has occurred would have occurred anyway, regardless whether humanity existed or not. It is hubris of the highest order to think humanity can have any effect on the global climate.
 
We already have a reasonable estimate of humanity's contribution to atmospheric CO2, at 4.87 ppmV. What you fail to demonstrate is how 4.87 ppmV of CO2 can effect the global climate. Until you can do that, there is no effect humanity has made on the global climate. Every change to the global climate that has occurred would have occurred anyway, regardless whether humanity existed or not. It is hubris of the highest order to think humanity can have any effect on the global climate.
I think the 4.87 ppmV is an annual number related to 9.4 GtC of annual emissions, but CO2 is not the only way Human can affect the energy imbalance.
 
There is something you should know about Louis Agassiz, this video only touched on it.

Besides being an avowed bigot, and abject hater of Charles Darwin, Agassiz was an evangelist who believed that God used reoccurring ice-ages to completely wipe out humanity and start all over again. His Thayer Expedition in 1865, and the Hassler Expedition in 1871, both of them to Brazil, was specifically to prove that theory. This is when so-called scientists imagined their own theories first, then went seeking the evidence to support it, also known as determinism. Which is as anti-science as it gets.



The Quaternary Ice-Age is the fifth ice-age in Earth's 4.5 billion year history, and it began 2.58 million years ago. What the video does not mention is that ice-ages are comprised of repeating cycles of long glacial periods followed by brief interglacial periods. There have been just over 50 of these 100,000+ year-long glacial periods, with interglacial periods lasting between 5,000 and 25,000 years.

The last period of glaciation began 115,000 years ago, peaked between 23,000 and 27,000 years ago, and ended 11,700 years ago. The Holocene Interglacial period began 11,700 years ago. The previous interglacial period was called the Eemian, and it lasted from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. It was also warmer than the Holocene has been. The Holocene Interglacial has been the coldest of the last four interglacial periods.

Source:
Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica - Nature, Volume 399, pages 429–436 (1999) [free preprint]
Doesn’t seem like you watched the video. It goes in depth into everything you mentioned.
 
I think the 4.87 ppmV is an annual number related to 9.4 GtC of annual emissions, but CO2 is not the only way Human can affect the energy imbalance.
Incorrect. The 4.87 ppmV is derived from a total atmospheric CO2 content of 415 ppmV and using the EPA's estimate of 36 billion metric tons as the total human contribution of CO2, world-wide, for 2019. That works out to 1.18% of the 3.05 trillion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. 415 ppmV x 1.18% = 4.87 ppmV.
 
Incorrect. The 4.87 ppmV is derived from a total atmospheric CO2 content of 415 ppmV and using the EPA's estimate of 36 billion metric tons as the total human contribution of CO2, world-wide, for 2019. That works out to 1.18% of the 3.05 trillion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. 415 ppmV x 1.18% = 4.87 ppmV.
Do you have a link that shows this? The way I read your statement is that Humans emitted 36GtCO2 in 2019 which sounds about right.
 
Do you have a link that shows this? The way I read your statement is that Humans emitted 36GtCO2 in 2019 which sounds about right.
I originally obtained an estimate of 35.5 billion metric tons (which I rounded up to 36 billion) in 2019 from the EPA using the website below, but it appears to have been updated since then because all the figures for the estimated world-wide release of CO2 by humanity are now missing.

 
I originally obtained an estimate of 35.5 billion metric tons (which I rounded up to 36 billion) in 2019 from the EPA using the website below, but it appears to have been updated since then because all the figures for the estimated world-wide release of CO2 by humanity are now missing.

Sorry that site does not say the total Human emissions are 35.5 billion metric tons of CO2, but
according to Annual CO2 emissions worldwide from 1940 to 2020 2019 global emissions were 36.7 Billion metric tins of CO2.
You are correct that 36 GtCO2 would be a 4.87 ppmV increase, except that the environmental uptake reduces the annual growth
to between 2 and 3 ppm.
This should be great news to the alarmist, but they do not take it that way.
Consider if they want to get to zero CO2 annual growth, and the uptake already picks up half of our emissions,
if we trim the other half, we would get to zero growth twice as fast!
 
We already have a reasonable estimate of humanity's contribution to atmospheric CO2, at 4.87 ppmV.
False. We have increased the CO2 levels by over a hundred ppm.
 
Sorry that site does not say the total Human emissions are 35.5 billion metric tons of CO2, but
according to Annual CO2 emissions worldwide from 1940 to 2020 2019 global emissions were 36.7 Billion metric tins of CO2.
You are correct that 36 GtCO2 would be a 4.87 ppmV increase, except that the environmental uptake reduces the annual growth
to between 2 and 3 ppm.
This should be great news to the alarmist, but they do not take it that way.
Consider if they want to get to zero CO2 annual growth, and the uptake already picks up half of our emissions,
if we trim the other half, we would get to zero growth twice as fast!
He doesn't understand that there's an important distinction between annual emissions and total emissions to date. There's really nothing you can do.
 
Incorrect. The 4.87 ppmV is derived from a total atmospheric CO2 content of 415 ppmV and using the EPA's estimate of 36 billion metric tons as the total human contribution of CO2, world-wide, for 2019.
No, that was the annual contribution. You need to stop repeating this lie.

 
Back
Top Bottom