Name Calling & Forum Rules
First, I'd like to ask folks to follow the forum rules and lay off the name-calling, insults, and innuendo. It is trollish behavior by definition and disruptive to the thread. If you're not adult enough to discuss something and honor that others are entitled to differing opinions then please go. Argue facts and theories, not their characters.
Secondly, repeatedly stating the same opinions with nothing new and disregard to prior responses is also considered trolling as it brings nothing new and is disruptive to the thread.
Finally, the burden of proof is on the poster, the more outrageous the claim the more proof you're going to need if you want anyone to take you seriously. If you think climate change is an outrageous claim, start from the beginning of the thread and read all the posts to find the proofs.
1) there is almost no CO2 in the atmosphere ( 0.04% ) and
I know 409 ppm doesn't sound like a lot. If this explanation doesn't help I suggest googling it, there are a lot of links that probably explain it better.
Let's look at CO
2's mirror cousin SO
2. Humans can detect SO
2 between .3 and 5 ppm (
ref), how is that possible with so few molecules in a
million? Conjunctival irritation begins at 8–12 ppm and is severe at 50 ppm (
ref). Breathing in higher concentrations will kill you.
Just as there is evidence that proves the case for SO
2, there is easily found evidence of the greenhouse effect for all greenhouse gases (see prior posts with reference links). Every molecule of CO
2 is like a tiny mirror transparent to solar wavelengths, but reflective of Earth's heat. Just as each solar panel you put on your roof adds up, so does each molecule of CO
2.
Let's take a look at a square of air as the "front face" of a cube of air.
Let the yellow circles be CO2 "reflectors" as depicted in the image to right.
From the diagram, you can see that as little as 5 out of 25 make a perfect reflective layer. That is a concentration of 20% (5x5 / 5x5x5) is the minimum needed for 100% reflectivity. | |
It's a bit crude as models go as the yellow spheres would be more randomly placed. But hopefully, the next steps will prove the point.
If you bump it up to a cube 10 molecules on a side, it's 10x10/(10x10x10) or
the minimum concentration is 10%.
If you bump it up to 1000 it's 1000 x 1000 / (1000 x 1000 x 1000)
it becomes .1%. If you go to 10,000 on a side
it's .01%.
Fortunately for us, the current 0.04% concentration
is distributed randomly, so a great many of the yellow circles are over each other rather than side-by-side. Also fortunate for us, CO
2 is the least powerful greenhouse gas (e.g., not a perfect reflector). Unfortunate for us, there's a number of other greenhouse gases too and they are far better reflectors. As was mentioned in
#150, 10,000 molecules of air is practically nothing, far smaller than the head of a pin.
Finally, there is a large body of experimental evidence that demonstrates the increase in heat based on the concentration.
2) humans contribute very little CO2 to the total in nature (4 to 5%)
As you stated in
#169 back in 1990 the IPCC said there were 770 billion tons of CO
2 in the atmosphere and humans were adding 23 billion tons
per year. It's been 30 years since then and humans are now adding 51 billion tons per year. The half-life of CO
2 is very long (centuries) as it is very stable and requires a carbon sink to be removed from the atmosphere. So, if every year we're adding 4 to 5% and removing less and less, how many years until the CO
2 concentration doubles?
3) Some of us learned that plants benefit from CO2.
Yes great for plants! Up to a point, then it kills them. See
#154.
Climate change is just change, some things will thrive, some will die.
The
IPCC has studied the changes and come up with various scenarios based on various actions humans might take. The stance of all the countries that signed the Paris Accords is that the impact of those scenarios is too severe and they are therefore taking actions now to try and lessen the impacts. It also has a side benefit that electricity prices will decrease, so a win-win (currently costs are going up as fuel prices are going up, I'm paying 60% more this year than last due to fuel prices).
While the fear-mongers tell stories of impending doom
A lot of people do cry wolf. But, sometimes it's because there is a wolf.
When they can't predict the weather further out than 7-10 days ?
They can predict the weather beyond 7-10 days.
Farmers' Almanac for example goes out two years. I'm even willing to go out on a limb and say if you're north of the equator the next few months will be colder.
The IPCC temperature predictions have
never missed the predicted temperature within the envelope accuracy range since it started (
ref). It's discussed more earlier in the thread and invite you to read it.