Climate in the 21st Century

Will Humankind see the 22nd Century?

  • Not a fucking chance

    Votes: 41 28.5%

  • Maybe. if we get our act together

    Votes: 35 24.3%

  • Yes, we will survive

    Votes: 68 47.2%
  • Total voters
    144
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Nevermind, because I asked a question to the disingenuous troll who is most likely asking his handlers for a good troll response to my simple question that destroyed his nonsense, here is the answer to the question of 'was there more vegetation 400 years ago and less pollution?'

https://apps.npr.org/lookatthis/posts/brazil/
Screen Shot 2022-08-07 at 9.59.44 PM.pngScreen Shot 2022-08-07 at 9.59.59 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-08-07 at 10.02.44 PM.png

The answer, is yes, there was less pollution (CO2 in the atmosphere) and more trees 400 years ago.


cannabineer said:
It reminds me of more innocent days when a campaigning B-movie actor said trees pollute more than cars.

Tree

A tree is a large plant with a woody stem. There is no clear definition of what constitutes a tree, and they do not form a distinctive biological group or clade.[1] They are generally considered a good thing: they produce oxygen, they can combat global warming by absorbing atmospheric carbon...
rationalwiki.org rationalwiki.org
Click to expand...
That is pretty mind-blowing.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
hanimmal said:
Nevermind, because I asked a question to the disingenuous troll who is most likely asking his handlers for a good troll response to my simple question that destroyed his nonsense, here is the answer to the question of 'was there more vegetation 400 years ago and less pollution?'

https://apps.npr.org/lookatthis/posts/brazil/
View attachment 5176825View attachment 5176826
View attachment 5176827

The answer, is yes, there was less pollution (CO2 in the atmosphere) and more trees 400 years ago.



That is pretty mind-blowing.
Click to expand...
Tropical deforestation is just starting to have serious consequences. The Amazon basin and Borneo could become savanna.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Tropical deforestation is just starting to have serious consequences. The Amazon basin and Borneo could become savanna.
Click to expand...
It really is heartbreaking to see these other nations last so long only to do the same stupid shit we did the last couple hundred years here in America. I really wish they could learn from our mistakes and try to do things better.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
You're claiming CO2 is a driver of climate and affects ocean ph. So what's the correct number for Co2.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. I asked you what the correct pH should be. I have not given a correct PPM because the goal was not stated. And even then it is a moving target. What is the correct PPM for the Arctic? Or the tropics? We have polar bears that are thin because the ice is no longer thick enough for them to go hunting for seals. They have had one month cut off their feeding time. Thin mothers have fewer pups.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
What frightens me more is the possible impending failure of the AMOC aka thermohaline conveyor. It has two stable states, “on” and “off”.
I worry that the off state will diminish the seasonal plankton blooms at higher latitudes. Those make more oxygen than the forests did even before man’s actions.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
hanimmal said:
It really is heartbreaking to see these other nations last so long only to do the same stupid shit we did the last couple hundred years here in America. I really wish they could learn from our mistakes and try to do things better.
Click to expand...
It is very difficult to sell industrial restraint when much of the developing world is saying “our turn to build our economies as cheaply and dirtily as the first world did before they became environmentally sanctimonious”.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
What frightens me more is the possible impending failure of the AMOC aka thermohaline conveyor. It has two stable states, “on” and “off”.
I worry that the off state will diminish the seasonal plankton blooms at higher latitudes. Those make more oxygen than the forests did even before man’s actions.
Click to expand...
Scares you? I live where there was a mile high glacier.
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Uh, no. I asked you what the correct pH should be. I have not given a correct PPM because the goal was not stated. And even then it is a moving target. What is the correct PPM for the Arctic? Or the tropics? We have polar bears that are thin because the ice is no longer thick enough for them to go hunting for seals. They have had one month cut off their feeding time. Thin mothers have fewer pups.
Click to expand...
This is disingenuous because we both know the target is downward.


printer said:
You know that the CO2 is causing the pH of the oceans to rise and it is making it more difficult for marine organisms to build shells and skeletons. These microorganisms are the basis of the food chain in the oceans. The coral reefs support 25% of the marine life. Lowering of the pH is known to harm the itty bitty creatures, what is the ideal pH for the oceans?
Click to expand...
What level of CO2, which you say is the root or a root of your PH issue, is ideal?
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
Nevermind, because I asked a question to the disingenuous troll who is most likely asking his handlers for a good troll response to my simple question that destroyed his nonsense, here is the answer to the question of 'was there more vegetation 400 years ago and less pollution?'

https://apps.npr.org/lookatthis/posts/brazil/
View attachment 5176825View attachment 5176826
View attachment 5176827

The answer, is yes, there was less pollution (CO2 in the atmosphere) and more trees 400 years ago.



That is pretty mind-blowing.
Click to expand...
There is no correlation in your pictures to what I'm asking. It actually sounds like you're trying to say we should be aiming for pre industrial CO2 levels before we started chopping trees en masse.

But you're not saying anything to my question.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Is some ignorant troll asshole arguing about minutia as if it's the central point?

The central objective of the Paris Agreement is its long-term temperature goal to hold global average temperature increase to “well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”. This is referred to by the CAT as the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal.

This goal is linked to a requirement in the Paris Agreement1 that all countries work together to bring greenhouse gas emissions to zero within the second half of the 21st century, with the timing of when the zero emissions are reached being determined by the best available science in relation to the achievement of the long-term temperature goal. The long-term temperature goal in the Paris Agreement goes significantly further, both legally and substantively, than the earlier goal to hold warming to below 2°C (Schleussner et al. 2016).

There is no target for ppm CO2. The goal is to stop dumping industrial waste into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect caused by human industrial activities that dump CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. causing rapid global climate change is settled science. That troll is only making their self look even more stupid and ignorant than before or he's an effing shill reading from a script.

climateactiontracker.org

Paris temperature goal

climateactiontracker.org climateactiontracker.org

Today marks a banner day for the US. The Senate just passed a bill that represents the largest step yet toward reducing US greenhouse gas emissions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top