The problem is that CO2 is small potatoes compared to the other factors and making all the changes proposed for the US will have a negligible effect on global warming. And that is only, if the forecasts are correct which is questionable.
The problem is that CO2 is small potatoes compared to the other factors and making all the changes proposed for the US will have a negligible effect on global warming. And that is only, if the forecasts are correct which is questionable.
'
Thank you, Ralph, for one of your pathetic postings from the dead-end Climate Denial sites of which you are so fond.
CO2 has gone from a pre-industrial level of ~280 ppm to a present-day level of over 400 ppm --- most of it since the end of the Second World War.
That is definitely the opposite of "small potatoes"!
.
Thank you, Ralph, for one of your pathetic postings from the dead-end Climate Denial sites of which you are so fond.
That single statement shows how little scientific facts mean to you.
CO2 has gone from a pre-industrial level of ~280 ppm to a present-day level of over 400 ppm --- most of it since the end of the Second World War.
That is definitely the opposite of "small potatoes"!
.
That is a very unscientific statement. The question is not whether the CO2 level has increased by a large factor like 400/280. The question is whether those levels are significant. The second part is how much of it the US can change. The answer to the first part is not very significant compared to other factors and for the second part, the net effect the US can make is also very small all at a very great expense.
Since temps have remained flat during the ever so slight PPM rise in CO2, the THEORY that temps will rise proportionally is pure fantasy!
If you cannot understand that a factor of 400/280 is significant, then little can penetrate your deliberate incomprehension. Like Hamlet, your mind is bounded by a nutshell, but unlike sensible Hamlet, you do not possess the wisdom to have bad dreams.
.
Yeah if the PPM lost a couple zeros, then "maybe" we might see some effect. They are simply trying to separate the pepper from the fly crap.
You are missing my point. Lets say, for example, that I drank one glass of wine in 2016 and two glasses of wine in 2017. I drank twice as much in 2017 as 2016. However, that would not be significant.
The question is not whether the PPM increased by over 40%. The question is whether either is significant. And compared to other factors, they are not.
We ONLY need to worry if O2 levels drop, and we start gasping for air. :smug:
Those at high elevations will have to come down.
Last edited:
As I've said previously, it's a baseline. Carbon Dioxide is no longer the driving factor in the warming (which is demonstrably happening, you shouldn't be able to hit the beach in the ****ing Arctic no matter how briefly) but its continued rise is an indicator of ever increasing warming trends. If other factors were in check, photosynthesis should be scrubbing it out of the air.
Sorry about that. I intended to delete a much longer post, but somehow that remained.
Similar threads
