An Inconvenient Word?

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,008
6,548
It is fairly easy to determine how the atmospheric composition will affect life. Build a large test facility and stock it with various plants and animals. Alter the gas composition and see how it affects the test subjects. At some point it will start to kill some of them. Then compare that point with the current atmosphere and you will be able to calculate how much change the environment can tolerate and when the point of no-return will be reached. Several large projects like that could probably be done for as little as $10 Billion. The ones involving sea life could be very easy.
Won't you be shocked to find out that Co2 isn't toxic until it reaches 10,000-20,000 ppm?

It makes all the sense in the world to de-carbonize.

But it also makes scientific sense to not exaggerate and scare people.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

At what concentration does CO2 become toxic to humans? | PSI Intl

the concentration of CO2 needs to increase 150-fold for the CO2 to become toxic
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmanmcfly

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,154
68,456
So. Md.
Exactly correct and exactly the opposite of trying to get people to worry about the planet, when it is their own lives and those of their grandchildren that are at risk.

According to my estimates, we should be very slowly moving toward glaciation at this point, so where are the comparisons, where is the "consensus" on exactly how much we have changed the natural cycle?

The advocates seem to be happy with scaring people. Where is the consensus on the numbers?
How do you account for the fact that it's mostly just the American ideological right that denies human caused climate change and that it is becoming severe?

And on what do you base the idea that we should be moving toward glaciation at this point?
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,154
68,456
So. Md.

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,008
6,548
How do you account for the fact that it's mostly just the American ideological right that denies human caused climate change and that it is becoming severe?

And on what do you base the idea that we should be moving toward glaciation at this point?
The Vostok Ice Core records show us at the top of the natural cycle. Why doesn't anyone discuss that? Gotta love that steep climb 140,000 years ago. Wonder if they blamed humans?

Vostok detailed.jpg
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,008
6,548
So what? This is about the effect CO2 has on climate. It takes much, much less to totally change the climate.
According to what? Pretending sensitivity is what you say it is and proving it are different things. Please note that this paper was not written by Limbaugh or Hannity.....

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?

The climate is always undergoing change, and if the changes due to increasing CO2 are smaller than the natural variability, then these changes will be of only modest concern except as an exercise in weak signal detection. The more serious question then is do we expect increasing CO2 to produce sufficiently large changes in climate so as to be clearly discernible and of consequence for the affairs of humans and the ecosystem of which we are part. This is the question I propose to approach in this paper.
there appears to be little reason to assume the modest changes in mean temperature that are claimed for increased CO2 will automatically be associated with major global climate change. Similarly, there is no reason to suppose that a climate insensitive to changing CO2 cannot, nonetheless, undergo profound climate change.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2013
57,943
63,862
Nashville, TN
According to what? Pretending sensitivity is what you say it is and proving it are different things. Please note that this paper was not written by Limbaugh or Hannity.....

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
, an MIT professor and longtime climate contrarian, turned to the Wall Street Journal to rehash a series of oft-disproved claims that deny the growing and now unequivocal evidence of climate change, all in defense of a fellow “skeptic” whose ties to fossil fuels have called into question the impartiality of his science.


Lindzen's arguments are a greatest-hits of climate denial, repeatedly and effectively disproved for years. He uses these easily dismissed arguments to defend what's left of the academic integrity of Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon against questions raised by members of Congress, who heard testimony from Soon without disclosure that he was being paid by fossil-fuel interests.


Lindzen's writing contained multiple errors or omissions. He:


• Ignored the accuracy of climate models over the long term


• Confused the impact of the sun on observed warming, long studied and long ago disregarded


• Dismissed multiple lines of evidence by claiming clouds would offset warming


• Glossed over the egregious breach of ethics in Soon's lack of disclosure of over $1 million in funding from fossil fuel interests


• Mischaracterized as threatening an attempt to identify improper industry influence on studies and Congressional testimony
We can count on the right wing to feed us the latest talking points from the fossil fuel industry...

Denial For Hire: Richard Lindzen Cites Debunked Science to Defend Willie Soon in Wall Street Journal
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,154
68,456
So. Md.
Love how you put words in my mouth and then argue against the imaginary straw man. Here's what I actually wrote..... It is a cynic's response. Looks like I will need to yell.
The science is settled. The political opinion is not.

You want every scientist to agree on every number and then you'll agree that humans are causing it. Science doesn't work that way. Climate scientists may not agree on every number but they agree that humans are causing the warming this time and they generally agree that the window is closing as far as our being able to mitigate the worst effects. Those are simple facts.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,154
68,456
So. Md.
From NPR on the dangers of climate change to Humans and not the planet itself .....

Opinion: Earth Has Survived Extinctions Before, It's Humans Who Are Fragile
Yes, exactly. The planet will recover from whatever damage we inflict on it. The point is that the human species evolved and developed civilization in a particular global climate. That climate is changing and those changes are affecting the planet to a point that it is endangering the habitat that human civilization can survive in. What is it that you think we've been arguing?