Trump Declares in EO that CO2 Is Not Pollution..

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by rooster

This reply is pure MAGA script and is incredibly naive and simplistic. Volcanic eruptions and wildfires not exacerbated by climate change are unavoidable and generally tolerated by the CO2 cycle in the human era. And while some plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, the effect is not often good. Yields of some food crops can be reduced, and damage from heat stress and the risks of increases in pests and disease are very real.

The problem here is not CO2 from naturally occurring events. It is increased CO2 levels above the normal background caused by human activity that is the problem. It has overloaded the natural carbon cycle.

But I'm sure MAGA says that this is all a lie.

.

Reading and comprehension: never said anything about "climate change" having any effect on volcanoes or wildfires. You think I'm A democrat? What I said was that volcanoes and wildfires affect what you call climate change. The exact opposite. When Pinatubo went up the experts equated the volume of the eruption to 50,000 years of human activity.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by Turner2099

Humans are also contributing to the loss of natural carbon absorption.

Forests account for about 25% of total C02 absorption. The Amazon accounts for about 25% of that.



The Congo and Indonesia have the second and third largest rainforests. The Congo remains a net carbon sink, but is at risk due to deforestation. Indonesia is now a net carbon emitter due to deforestation.

China and India are helping to increase vegetation that helps offset the loss of forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, but not enough.



https://www.google.com/search?q=how+...hrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.science.org/content/arti...ioxide-falling

And the ocean is the largest user of CO2.

[Levianon17]

[QUOTE=Turner2099;1064008975]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The chemicals you referenced aren't being sprayed into the air. Silver iodide is used for cloud seeding to help with rain and it's been used for seven decades. Plenty of time to study for safety. Chemtrails have been widely debunked and you can find much more information showing that they don't exist than they do. Cloud seeding is the closest I saw other than geoengineering, but like I said, that isn't done, yet.




Geoengineering is also referenced in the following, but that's not a thing, yet.

Please take a look at the links in my previous post and if you question any of the data, crosscheck it.

Don't forget that Marjorie Taylor-Greene said space lasers started California wildfires. Misinformation can spread just by having trusted people spread the ideas.

https://legislature.maine.gov/testim...8804207404.pdf

Iam not talking about Cloud seeding. But since you brought it up, if cloud seeding is misused flooding can occur in areas that are not experiencing drought conditions. Of course, the convenient explanation will be "Climate Change".

[Turner2099]

[QUOTE=Levianon17;1064009063]

Originally Posted by Turner2099

Iam not talking about Cloud seeding. But since you brought it up, if cloud seeding is misused flooding can occur in areas that are not experiencing drought conditions. Of course, the convenient explanation will be "Climate Change".

I brought up cloud seeding because it's the closest you're going to get to chemtrails. As far as flooding dangers are concerned, I think after seven decades, the ones doing it have a handle on it.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

Reading and comprehension: never said anything about "climate change" having any effect on volcanoes or wildfires. You think I'm A democrat? What I said was that volcanoes and wildfires affect what you call climate change. The exact opposite. When Pinatubo went up the experts equated the volume of the eruption to 50,000 years of human activity.

It's amusing...though not at all surprising... that you had to insult me both directly and by misusing my words. Words which you do not seem to have fully understood.

While I could have phrased my OP more accurately, I believe that you know very well that I was not saying that I thought you believed that climate change affected volcanic eruptions. Playing dumb is not a good technique for insult either.

Wildfires, though? They absolutely ARE affected by climate change. There are major affects, both in frequency and severity. Not to mention the increase in length of "fire season" in many places.

I also did not imply that your statement that volcanoes and wildfires affect climate change was incorrect. Or that you did not understand this. My point was that these effects are mostly tolerated by the mechanisms of the CO2 cycle.

Please notice the use of the word "mostly"in the above sentence (I used the phrase "generally tolerated" in my OP).

Because events like Pinatubo are exceptions. It caused global effects that overloaded the normal carbon cycle for years. And it was a small fart compared to eruptions that have occurred during other eras. Some say that the Yellowstone Caldera could produce an extinction level event at any time. But in general, we've been pretty lucky for the past several thousand years.

Everyone that can discuss climate science coherently knows these things.

Hence, my problem with MAGA logic - too many deniers want to say "hey, volcanoes and wildfires are a bigger problem than we are."

But statistically, over the course of our existence, this is not accurate. And we cannot live with these fatalistic, simplistic ideas. We should be living in the hopes that we continue to be lucky, that we are not destroyed by a massive eruption or other event.

Ut instead, we are adding excessive amounts of carbon to the environment in ways that cannot be processed. We are tipping the balance of a cycle that was mostly in equilibrium.

If you want to discuss this more, you need to up your game a bit. I have understood every point that you have made. You seem to have failed to understand the ones I have made that are beyond them.

.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Talk about mangling words...some years back I was part of a research group of what I thought were intelligent people. We made a public presentation about our findings on global warming research. We each had a particular area. Mine part was about the ozone hole and atmospheric conditions. You imply that its not a belief but one of those intelligent people launched into a full blown speech about how global warming was a major cause of volcanic eruptions.

There is no direct correlation between climate change, which is changing continuously, and wild fires. There is weather. Droughts happen, wild fires happen. Wildfires are more severe because of forestry practices that prevent the undergrowth from being burned out periodically. The undergrowth builds up creating more fuel for expected fires. In that way there is a man made cause but the frequency is up to nature.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

Talk about mangling words...some years back I was part of a research group of what I thought were intelligent people. We made a public presentation about our findings on global warming research. We each had a particular area. Mine part was about the ozone hole and atmospheric conditions. You imply that its not a belief but one of those intelligent people launched into a full blown speech about how global warming was a major cause of volcanic eruptions.

There is no direct correlation between climate change, which is changing continuously, and wild fires. There is weather. Droughts happen, wild fires happen. Wildfires are more severe because of forestry practices that prevent the undergrowth from being burned out periodically. The undergrowth builds up creating more fuel for expected fires. In that way there is a man made cause but the frequency is up to nature.

I'm no longer getting into back and forth arguments like this. The fact that you "know" someone who believed that about eruptions is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with me or what I am saying. There is correlation with wild fires, as I have stated above. Forestry management practices have had a much larger effect, I agree. But to deny the effects of climate change is at best a failure to understand. More likely, given history here, I suspect that it is more likely to be...agenda and ideology driven.

But I ain't here to teach you basic climate science. And I damn sure ain't fool enough to try to get you to admit the bias of your politics and ideology. It makes you look far worse than I ever could all by itself.

.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Sounds like a tactical retreat.