The Lemon Fool

servodude wrote:

ZacSc wrote:You deleted most of my post, cut my words out of the context of what was said. And that's important. If there wasn't huge deforestation in the past, as there is today, then we can safely assume that planet Earth has stopped handling such a huge amount of carbon dioxide with the same efficiency as before.

We'd save a lot of CO2 and energy if we stopped feeding the trolls

ZacSc wrote:

Lootman wrote:Surely if you know that you do not understand what is causing any change then you cannot know what to do about it? Because you might just be making things worse instead of better.

You deleted most of my post, cut my words out of the context of what was said. And that's important. If there wasn't huge deforestation in the past, as there is today, then we can safely assume that planet Earth has stopped handling such a huge amount of carbon dioxide with the same efficiency as before.

tjh290633 wrote:Nobody denies that there is, and always has been, climate change.

tjh290633 wrote:What is debated is the reason for the current period of warming.

Lootman wrote:

ZacSc wrote:You deleted most of my post, cut my words out of the context of what was said. And that's important. If there wasn't huge deforestation in the past, as there is today, then we can safely assume that planet Earth has stopped handling such a huge amount of carbon dioxide with the same efficiency as before.

So you admit that you do not know the cause but that it is deforestation?

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:So you admit that you do not know the cause but that it is deforestation?

I heard that someone on TLF 'knows' that it is all due to water vapour in the atmosphere, not CO2.

tjh290633 wrote:

XFool wrote:I heard that someone on TLF 'knows' that it is all due to water vapour in the atmosphere, not CO2.

The IPPC studies all ignore water in the atmosphere, and we all know that water can have a profound effect on our climate, as you will find out on any cloudy day. However the absorption of infra-red by water vapour (not droplets) is considerably stronger that that of carbon dioxide, as a glance at their respective absorption spectra will tell you.

XFool wrote:

tjh290633 wrote:The IPPC studies all ignore water in the atmosphere, and we all know that water can have a profound effect on our climate, as you will find out on any cloudy day. However the absorption of infra-red by water vapour (not droplets) is considerably stronger that that of carbon dioxide, as a glance at their respective absorption spectra will tell you.

Oh dear!

Time for a thread split?

EthicsGradient wrote:

XFool wrote:Oh dear!

Time for a thread split?

That would seem a good idea, but I'm wondering where the "discussions containing flat denials about climate science" section of The Lemon Fool is ... maybe we can just agree to all stop talking about this, and read the science instead.

hiriskpaul wrote:

EthicsGradient wrote:That would seem a good idea, but I'm wondering where the "discussions containing flat denials about climate science" section of The Lemon Fool is ... maybe we can just agree to all stop talking about this, and read the science instead.

TLF needs a pseudo-science section we can point climate deniers, flat Earthers, Moon landing deniers, etc. to.

EthicsGradient wrote:

OhNoNotimAgain wrote:
You are right, but it is a new one called Climate Change and is impervious to geological evidence.

Members of this cult believe 4X4 SUVs are the embodiment of evil, before man starting burning coal he lived in a state of perfect harmony with nature and the climate never changed. But flights to conferences about climate change don't count. And wearing clothes made of synthetic material can be ignored. And no one thinks about how we grow our food using fertiliser made from natural gas.

I don't think those denying the problem of climate change are in any position to talk about being "impervious to geological evidence". The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change, with huge, very bad, results if we don't phase out fossil fuels, is overwhelming. You seem to be saying "sounds a bit difficult to change direction to me, I'd rather just continue causing the problem". The "cult" I see here is that led by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Lawson and so on.

The US stock markets are booming. But why?

ukmtk wrote:Meanwhile getting back to the original thread.
Thoughtful article by Kenneth Rogoff:

The US stock markets are booming. But why?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/04/us-stock-markets-are-booming-but-why