"Hah! You're a Tea Party intollerant racist gay-bashing homophobe that does not believe in science and thinks the earth is flat."
- My impersonation of what passes for liberal leftwing debate on this subject.
"Hah! You're a Tea Party intollerant racist gay-bashing homophobe that does not believe in science and thinks the earth is flat."
- My impersonation of what passes for liberal leftwing debate on this subject.
Of course plants and photosynthetic bacteria take in CO2. But that doesn't mean the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere goes down just because that happens. This is what you are not grasping. It is about atmospheric CO2 CONCENTRATION. CO2 is added and removed in a natural state and as such there has been a relatively stable concentration of CO2 historically (as far as the human era is concerned). CO2 concentration (after the plus and minuses of the CO2 in the normal carbon cycle) is now going UP and as a result there is more CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time and hence warming.
And before you say that isn't the point I made before- I did. Several times. You just apparently have comprehension issues.
An oxygen atom rarely exists alone like that- when it does it is highly reactive- it's often why you age. Plants don't usually emit "O".Then they pump out O and H2O, both greenhouse gasses.
And H2O is often emitted in liquid form not water, but even if some vaporized water does get out, that cycle is more in its natural state (as far as current evidence and my reading of said evidence is concerned) of pluses and minuses in the water cycle, so it doesn't add to warming. CO2 is the one that has taken the drift from normality with increased concentration.
In any case it's not CO2 we need to worry about, it's the melting methane (caused by CO2 triggered warming) that we need to worry about. CO2 levels can be brought back down, if methane levels hit a curtain point, the planet will go up like a Roman Candle (figuratively speaking). Hope you like a 5 meter sea level rise inside 2 years!
Um methane's boiling point is -164C, almost all of the methane on the surface of Earth is gas. Any methane that is solid (and as a result can actually melt) is below -182.5C. Antarctica even is a lot hotter than that.In any case it's not CO2 we need to worry about, it's the melting methane (caused by CO2 triggered warming) that we need to worry about. CO2 levels can be brought back down, if methane levels hit a curtain point, the planet will go up like a Roman Candle (figuratively speaking). Hope you like a 5 meter sea level rise inside 2 years!
I think you might have meant there are worries about potential release of methane gas trapped under ice that will be released if the ice melts?
You have logic issues. That CO2 can cause warming (just like Charley's cup of water CAN raise the level of the susquehana river) and just because the CO2 level is historically high (just like eg suppose Charley never dumped water into the susquehana river before this year) that is insufficient to prove that the increased level of CO2 is completely or substantially responsible for the claimed degree of global warming (any more than Charley's unprecendent cups of water are sufficent to prove that it's responsible for the flooding of the susquehana river).
First off, the degree is arguable, even amongst the mainstream climate scientists. Second, I never claimed any degree of warming, but merely that it is warming, which you seem to agree with (based on your past replies) but are struggling immensely to admit because of your political preference not to.
It should obvious that you at least APPEARED to be supporting the cause of the warmists, and their contention is that (1) the level of warming is substantial and alarming, melting the north pole, causing killer hurricanse, etc, and (2) that AGW from CO2 is substantially the cause. If you're just claiming that CO2 must be responsible for some possibly tivial amount of warrming, that you're debating a position that nobody is interested in.
1) I clearly stated earlier that the degrees are arguable.
Quote of me saying it from an old post (I said it before that too):
2) All climate scientists do not make those claims (the Inconvenient Truth crazy hurricanes, etc.) I wouldn't even say it is a consensus. That is more the political nonsense. Gore and company have taken it too far. Most Republicans and company have taken it too far the other way by denying warming altogether.
3) For CO2 the worries are about the future more than now. It is that we are trending towards increased [CO2] even from current levels. As it increases, the warming increases, potentially exponentially and not linearly, which can be disastrous at the right point.
There can be several scenarios that can cause it, but most notable is probably increased CO2 emissions as a result of increasing population (which grows exponentially) and the emergence of the developing nations (whose economies are growing exponentially right now and expected to continue to do so).
You posted without citing. It's on you to back up your arguments, not demand we validate your positions.
I didn't demand you do anything. If I spent my time repairing the cluelessness of the obamabot ignorati, I wouldn't have time for anything else. I come her to debate, not to tutor. If you don't know how to google, ask any 12 year old.
You don't debate, you throw out random stuff, get called out for not citing your 'proof' then cry and whine about it followed by personal insults.
