[seadan83]

The atmosphere is huge and unevenly distributed.

I can't find the exact quote, but to put it in perspective: the weight of the extra C02 added in the last 100 years is more than the sum total of everything humanity has built. The actual quote might be everything from the last 2000 years, regardless, same point. If you weigh all of that CO2, it's an enormous amount.

[ectopasm83]

>Wow. huge quantity.

That's still a retarded argument and way below any scientific standard. Now that climate change has become the dominant worldview we witness the bigotisation of this cause, where so called "truth" becomes the target of activism as it as it morphs into a form of belief. Not because what it points to is wrong, but because, as in any politically motivated crusade, any mean, path to reach that truth is deemed worthwhile. This noble cause has turned into a matter of adolescent rebellion that is dealt with absolutism and a way to jump into battle that totally disregards strategic considerations. What if the phenomenon is overblown by the political movement that tries to fight its consequences ? What if the proposed solutions are more painful than the problem ? To hell with these considerations ! You're either with us or against us in our fight against apocalypse itself ! It's not surprising that as the hysteria grows and gains more and more minds, and as the climate skeptics crowd thins out, the figure of the "climate change denier" grows in importance. It's important for communities to have a malevolent figure against which hateful unanimity takes shapes. It allows them to endure the test of time, and survive even when the core beliefs are shaken, should the "deniers" turn into tomorrow's saints. May the crowd turn to them as it even forgets it is changing opinion so as to atone its own sins. Isn't it what this all about ? Recognizing climate urgency as a way to pay for the sins of modern life ? What was the point in abandoning religion if it was to repeat exactly the same structure then ?

[seadan83]

Just want to point out, I was not expressing an opinion, nor a view point, nor an ideology. If you feel otherwise, could you point out specifically where? Do you believe my unsourced quote to be inaccurate? It seems this is all math, thermodynamics an chemistry at play.

Otherwise, what makes you believe the total volume of CO2 is irrelevant?

[ectopasm83]

Concentration of gas with negative radiative forcing ?

[seadan83]

Ignoring the screed, your retort was CO2 was a low percentage. My response is it is the volume that matters, not the percentage composition

> This noble cause has turned into a matter of adolescent rebellion that is dealt with absolutism and a way to jump into battle that totally disregards strategic considerations

Pot calling the kettle black?

Can you put forth evidence why percentage composition is more important than total volume? I believe chemistry and thermodynamics come into play, volumes matter when balancing thermal dynamic equations. Thus, it is those equations that imply a 50% increase in volume, while still an overall small fraction of some other total composition, would have a significant impact on Earths climate systems

[ectopasm83]

Sulfate aerosols

>a way to jump into battle that totally disregards strategic considerations

What happens if it turns out climate change's origin is not human activity ? Or it's considerably less worse than anticipated ? Or even beneficial ?

Imagine if measures are taken globally in some kind of global government to impose restrictions and its proves to be a massive fuckup for nothing in the end. It will be probably the nail in the coffin for any attempt to regulate the earth system scientifically. What's at stake is huge. Both ways.

[ectopasm83]

To those who downvote: admit it, if climate justice was to be established in your terms, I would pay more for my rebellion than someone with a carbon footprint 10 times as big as mine. It's an ideological fight far removed from measurable facts (even if it pretends the opposite) where submission to the ideology overrides any other consideration.

Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” And you forgave the guilt of my sin.

Psalms 32:5

^ You're here. Seethe all you want, you're biggots of the kind you hate the most.

[zztop44]

You seem to be much more invested in an ideological battle than anyone else here.

Where I’m from, the climate has changed. It is changing. You don’t need scientific instruments to notice it.

As far as I can tell, the orthodox AGW theory fits the evidence and has predicted these changes better than any alternative explanation I’ve heard so far. As far as I’m concerned, ideology doesn’t really come into it.

[ectopasm83]

>Where I’m from, the climate has changed.

Not an argument for the fact it's driven by human activity. However it suggests that you paint the past climate as some harmonious system on short time ranges:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2-kiloyear_event

>the 8.2-kiloyear event was a sudden decrease in global temperatures that occurred approximately 8,200 years before the present, or c. 6,200 BC, and which lasted for the next two to four centuries.

>[...]

>Estimates of the cooling vary and depend somewhat on the interpretation of the proxy data, but decreases of around 1 to 5 °C (1.8 to 9.0 °F) have been reported.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2-kiloyear_event

>Starting around 2200 BC, it probably lasted the entire 22nd century BC. It has been hypothesised to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, and the Liangzhu culture in the lower Yangtze River area.[4][5] The drought may also have initiated the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation, with some of its population moving southeastward to follow the movement of their desired habitat,[6] as well as the migration of Indo-European-speaking people into India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period

>The African humid period (AHP; also known by other names) is a climate period in Africa during the late Pleistocene and Holocene geologic epochs, when northern Africa was wetter than today. The covering of much of the Sahara desert by grasses, trees and lakes was caused by changes in the Earth's axial tilt; changes in vegetation and dust in the Sahara which strengthened the African monsoon; and increased greenhouse gases.

>One study in 2003 showed that vegetation intrusions in the Sahara can occur within decades after strong rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide[952] but would not cover more than about 45% of the Sahara.[53] That climate study also indicated that vegetation expansion can only occur if grazing or other perturbations to vegetation growth do not hamper it.[953] On the other hand, increased irrigation and other measures to increase vegetation growth such as the Great Green Wall could enhance it.[950] A 2022 study indicated that while increased greenhouse gas concentrations by themselves are not sufficient to start an AHP if greenhouse gas-vegetation feedbacks are ignored, they lower the threshold for orbital changes to induce Sahara greening.