OT - our role in CO2

[GunnyMack]

This is from Australia, maybe our members down under will chime in?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8

[KWK]

I watched a bit of it. There's a kernel (nyuk-nyuk) of truth in what he says, but I think he misses the bigger picture, which is considered in many places on the web, including this one. There's no question nature puts out a lot of CO2 and reabsorbs it. The question is whether nature can fully absorb the annual emissions from our burning of fossil fuels, and that is apparently a "no." Whether the effects of this are significant is another question.

[Ysabel Kid]

Science is, by its very nature, an endless series of questions. When someone says "the science is settled", go ahead and tune out at that point. They have crossed into politics and/or faith - but certainly not science.

One of the questions I seldom hear asked, and less often even attempted to be answered, is the question of cost. Even assuming the premise is correct, that man's activities are leading to a sustained increase in global temperatures (which I'd debate, at least on a relative scale compared to something like... the sun), what are the cost/benefit trade-offs association with the various courses of action advocated by different parties?

For example, IF man's industrial activity will raise the mean global temperature on earth by 1 degree Celsius over the next 100 years, what is the cost of that happening, what is the cost of measures to try to prevent it from happening versus the cost of adapting to that change?

Those advocating restricting industrial activity rarely want to discuss theses costs. Probably because (a) the discussion doesn't favor their "solutions" and (b) it reveals their true agenda.

[crs]

Gunny,
Seen it before and I agree with him 100%.

That is also one of the most understandable presentation of the "climate realists" argument.

[piller]

Blue green algae in the oceans put out more oxygen and take up more CO2 than trees do. All green plants, grass and tomato plants included, take up CO2 and put out oxygen by photosynthesis. If you look at what happened in 1816 from Mount Tambora, the reality was that CO2 actually did not raise temperatures. Global warming science cannot explain why the gigantic CO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions cause the opposite of what GlowBull warming science says. Remember the cool decade after Mount St. Helens?

[GunnyMack]

all I know is when the sun burns out in another 4 billion years is it really going to matter what we do?

[JerryB]

Reckon when God created this world he figured that He could take care of it just fine until He is done with it.

[Sixgun]

They're going to find that guy in a dumpster. In all fairness, who really gives a hoot. I hear chopping off heads increases co2 so I guess that means the Middle East will freeze overnight.---6

[FWiedner]

Blue green algae in the oceans put out more oxygen and take up more CO2 than trees do. All green plants, grass and tomato plants included, take up CO2 and put out oxygen by photosynthesis. If you look at what happened in 1816 from Mount Tambora, the reality was that CO2 actually did not raise temperatures. Global warming science cannot explain why the gigantic CO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions cause the opposite of what GlowBull warming science says. Remember the cool decade after Mount St. Helens?

I'd thought that it was fairly well established that the global environmental impact from volcanic eruption is a net cooling effect resulting from the volume of ash that remains airborne in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases can't cause warming without generous amounts of sunlight.