The vast amount of human activity causes climate change. No shit.
In Feb this year, ocean temps rose so much and so fast that a third of the total warming since 1995 occurred in 3 weeks. This event alone discredits the consensus AGW model.
In Feb this year, ocean temps rose so much and so fast that a third of the total warming since 1995 occurred in 3 weeks.
That's such a retarded way to put it. Feel free to look at the interactive chart for yourself. You get spikes with the oceans sometimes too (2001, 2018), and you sometimes warming periods are much higher overall compared to previous years (1997-1998, 2009-2010).
And for all that effort, only 12% of the carbon in the atmosphere is from after 1750.
I'd debate you on that, but that's literally not what your source actually says. It's actually claiming that 12% of the Co2 in the atmosphere is from the use of fossil fuels.
I'm not sure I can agree with most of this study, especially since it's extrapolating Carbon-14 measurements that were taken by NOAA in about a decade long span, trying to reason out how much Carbon-14 probably was in the atmosphere. Worse, I'm not sure I can buy into the idea that if Carbon-14 Co2 is in the atmosphere, it will decrease the non-Carbon-14 Co2 levels. Maybe by proportion that could be the case, but see my first issue.
I'm also not sure about the logic here of using that idea. As they note, carbon is absorbed into carbon revisors. How much Carbon-14 Co2 is being absorbed compared to non Carbon-14 Co2? Why is it just assumed to be basically equal absorption rates?
Then we have to consider that fossil fuel emissions are not the only Co2 were even talking about in the first place. The primary reason environmentalists are attacking farmers right now is not because they are using tractors, but because of the generic carbon emissions of agriculture itself. The Co2 emissions are not just only from burning a coal. It's the result of the industrial revolution around that coal. That increased the general population (by an astronomical level), it's land use, removed carbon sinks like forests, so on and so forth.
The value of hydrocarbons is that it prompted industrialization. That industrialization has a multiplicity of knock-on effects that are more than just "coal gas go up".
In Feb this year, ocean temps rose so much and so fast that a third of the total warming since 1995 occurred in 3 weeks. This event alone discredits the consensus AGW model.
Actually most people would try and use this to prove AGW, but okay. Not that that one statement matters, again, weather is not climate. Sturm tried to explain this to you.
As someone who understands Climate Change, this literally does nothing but cause damage.
Oh do you now?
Yes. It's kinda obvious. Humans alter their environment. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alters the environment.
The vast amount of human activity causes climate change. No shit.
And for all that effort, only 12% of the carbon in the atmosphere is from after 1750.
In Feb this year, ocean temps rose so much and so fast that a third of the total warming since 1995 occurred in 3 weeks. This event alone discredits the consensus AGW model.
That's such a retarded way to put it. Feel free to look at the interactive chart for yourself. You get spikes with the oceans sometimes too (2001, 2018), and you sometimes warming periods are much higher overall compared to previous years (1997-1998, 2009-2010).
I'd debate you on that, but that's literally not what your source actually says. It's actually claiming that 12% of the Co2 in the atmosphere is from the use of fossil fuels.
I'm not sure I can agree with most of this study, especially since it's extrapolating Carbon-14 measurements that were taken by NOAA in about a decade long span, trying to reason out how much Carbon-14 probably was in the atmosphere. Worse, I'm not sure I can buy into the idea that if Carbon-14 Co2 is in the atmosphere, it will decrease the non-Carbon-14 Co2 levels. Maybe by proportion that could be the case, but see my first issue.
I'm also not sure about the logic here of using that idea. As they note, carbon is absorbed into carbon revisors. How much Carbon-14 Co2 is being absorbed compared to non Carbon-14 Co2? Why is it just assumed to be basically equal absorption rates?
Then we have to consider that fossil fuel emissions are not the only Co2 were even talking about in the first place. The primary reason environmentalists are attacking farmers right now is not because they are using tractors, but because of the generic carbon emissions of agriculture itself. The Co2 emissions are not just only from burning a coal. It's the result of the industrial revolution around that coal. That increased the general population (by an astronomical level), it's land use, removed carbon sinks like forests, so on and so forth.
The value of hydrocarbons is that it prompted industrialization. That industrialization has a multiplicity of knock-on effects that are more than just "coal gas go up".
Actually most people would try and use this to prove AGW, but okay. Not that that one statement matters, again, weather is not climate. Sturm tried to explain this to you.