Another Day, another article about the climate collapsing!

[Buzz]

Actually I think the CO2 uptake is based on the CO2 level and temperature, the uptake will decrease when the CO2 level and the temperature fall. Until then the uptake will be near current levels. Reducing the net emissions to near zero growth, will not reduce the uptake at all, as the level will still be increasing, albeit slowly!

Prove it. Or at least present some supporting evidence. So far... you have nothing other than your opinion.

 

[flogger]

Actually I think the CO2 uptake is based on the CO2 level and temperature, the uptake will decrease when the CO2 level and the temperature fall. Until then the uptake will be near current levels. Reducing the net emissions to near zero growth, will not reduce the uptake at all, as the level will still be increasing, albeit slowly!

Actually based on the Kobashi 2012, 15.17,20 peer reviews when it comes to ice core melt we are somewhere in the middle of the last 4000 years . There is absolutely nothing remarkable about the climate today in either its level nor rate of change.

Follow the money 2.3 $ trillion annually this year and counting vastly more than the global defence budget

 

[longview]

Prove it. Or at least present some supporting evidence. So far... you have nothing other than your opinion.

It is not my opinion that up to about 800 ppm, most plants add greater biomass at higher CO2 levels.
Plants and co2

 

[Buzz]

It is not my opinion that up to about 800 ppm, most plants add greater biomass at higher CO2 levels.
Plants and co2

Do you really think that plants are the only factor? I know you don't. So... this bearly even qualifies as evidence.

You are going to need to do better than that if you want this theory of yours to be taken seriously.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I can always tell when you are getting frustrated and are losing an argument because you resort to personal attacks like this.

Then why can't you back up what you believe with anything other than your say-so? Don't you think that if what you are saying was true that other people would be saying the same thing?

Your and longview's calculations depend on the Earth's absorption remaining the same as we humans lower our emissions.

Whatever... bitch and moan and throw around insults all you want. It isn't going to back up your and longview's unsupported theory. At least I have the IPCC and its supporting science to back up what I say. In contrast, you guys can't defend your opinion with anything other than your say-so.

There you go, proving once again you don't understand.

Stuck on the same misunderstanding, and even pointed out, you say we are wrong instead of asking for an explanation you wouldn't understand anyway.

I'm done with your silliness.

 

[longview]

Do you really think that plants are the only factor? I know you don't. So... this bearly even qualifies as evidence.

You are going to need to do better than that if you want this theory of yours to be taken seriously.

I think plant life is responsible for the majority of the carbon uptake.
Georgia state University
The numbers sure look like they agree with me, We emit 9 GtC, uptake is a net 5, 3 from terrestrial, and 2 for the ocean.
If we trim our emissions to 5 GtC, we will be very close to equaling the uptake at the current levels.
Will it change in the future, likely, but when the CO2 level changes, not the emission level!

 

[mrjurrs]

That is fact, no matter how much you deny it.

Can you explain this basic tenet of your post. Assuming the globe increases in temperature 1.5 degrees during summer, how does the globe not heat up 3 degrees a year. Telling me it's a fact would make me rely on your already proven false claims. Source your fact. For what the fifth time?

 

[PoS]

Can you explain this basic tenet of your post. Assuming the globe increases in temperature 1.5 degrees during summer, how does the globe not heat up 3 degrees a year. Telling me it's a fact would make me rely on your already proven false claims. Source your fact. For what the fifth time?

LOL how was your vacation? See any new sights?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Can you explain this basic tenet of your post. Assuming the globe increases in temperature 1.5 degrees during summer, how does the globe not heat up 3 degrees a year. Telling me it's a fact would make me rely on your already proven false claims. Source your fact. For what the fifth time?

Why is this a difficult concept?

Because of the land to water area differences between the two hemispheres. When speaking of global temperature, the solid surface has greater temperature changes than the ocean surface over the annual cycle. The heat gained in the summer is again lost in the winter.

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL how was your vacation? See any new sights?

Guess we'll take that as a "no, I cant defend my deeply ignorant statement, so I'll just bleat a few sentences instead".

 

[Threegoofs]

Why is this a difficult concept?

Because of the land to water area differences between the two hemispheres. When speaking of global temperature, the solid surface has greater temperature changes than the ocean surface over the annual cycle. The heat gained in the summer is again lost in the winter.

Its not a difficult concept, but you dont seem to get it at all.

 

[Buzz]

Why is this a difficult concept?

Because of the land to water area differences between the two hemispheres. When speaking of global temperature, the solid surface has greater temperature changes than the ocean surface over the annual cycle. The heat gained in the summer is again lost in the winter.

Where were you when longview was trying to convince me that the only difference between the Northern and Southern hemispheres was the level of aerosols?

Oh, that's right... climate change denialists get a free pass with you whenever they are denying reality.

Just like you are giving PoS a free pass to pretend that the whole planet has a summer and winter when in reality only hemispheres have a summer and winter.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Where were you when longview was trying to convince me that the only difference between the Northern and Southern hemispheres was the level of aerosols?

Why do you need every conceivable variable explained every time rather than just the one driving the noted effect? Soot affects mostly the ice, but it has atmospheric warming too.

Besides, the NH has more land, more soot generation, and more area for soot to fall on ice. There are extremely small regions close to Antarctica for soot on its ice.

This does not counter any arguments of mine. Why are you like this? Why do you think you have squat on me? You never do. Why are you looking for an argument against me when you always lose, because you don't understand it?

Oh, that's right... climate change denialists get a free pass with you whenever they are denying reality.

Showing you hatred again, huh? You are the one denying science.

Just like you are giving PoS a free pass to pretend that the whole planet has a summer and winter when in reality only hemispheres have a summer and winter.

He clarified at one point to when the northern hemisphere is at summer, and I provided global data to support his assessment.

There you go again, with the wrong argument.

 

[PoS]

Guess we'll take that as a "no, I cant defend my deeply ignorant statement, so I'll just bleat a few sentences instead".

It was already answered on post #434, so thanks for confirming that you hate science too.

 

[flogger]

So, go on, tell us how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, because that is a prerequisite
to saying what the future warming will be based on CO2 emissions?

Not only do they not know that but the effect of the miniscule amounts of added CO2 from humans that has never even been detected much less measured against the noise of normal climate variation. Human produced CO2 equates to 0.0016% (IPCC AR6) of our atmospheric envelope so that is hardly surprising. Another issue is that we have no accurate figure for the climate sensitivity of CO2 (sorry climate model fans) but its already known to be far weaker per unit than water vapor the element contributing 95% of greenhouse gases (funny how they always forget that one ). This has always been about power money and control and once you actually scrutinise the figures and the money this is generating for those promoting it the truth of it quickly becomes self evident