re: Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming

quote:

---

yes but methane is mostly trapped in hydrates atm, it is not a primary contributor to our warming at the moment.

---

1. As the link in my previous posts points out, that is because the IPCC uses a formula that has no basis in science to calculate CH3 impact.

2. CO2 is not a primary contributor to our warming at the moment either. Solar energy is a much greater contributor than all of the greenhouse gasses combined. Water vapor & clouds have more of a contribution to warming than CO2.

3. Our emissions are not helping or hurting the situation at all and I'll let the scientists tell you why:

quote:

---

Scientists can study Earth’s climate as far back as 800,000 years by drilling core samples from deep underneath the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Detailed information on air temperature and CO2 levels is trapped in these specimens. Current polar records show an intimate connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature in the natural world. In essence, when one goes up, the other one follows.

There is, however, still a degree of uncertainty about which came first—a spike in temperature or CO2. Until now, the most comprehensive records to date on a major change in Earth’s climate came from the EPICA Dome C ice core on the Antarctic Plateau. The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years. “The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,” says Edward Brook of Oregon State University’s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. “They say, ‘How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?’”

Frédéric Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysical Environment in France and a team of researchers may have found an answer to the question. His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.

The wide margin of error in the EPICA core data is due to the way air gets trapped in layers of ice. Snowpack becomes progressively denser from the surface down to around 100 meters, where it forms solid ice. Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.

---

LINK

We do not know if Co2 levels follow temperature or if temperature follows CO2 levels. This article suggests that CO2 levels rise 200 years after temperature rises and most of the data shows that CO2 levels rise 1400 years after temperature. If that is the case then what could would cutting CO2 emission do?

4. If temperture follows CO2 levels then the CO2 emissions that are affecting our current warming trend were emitted between 617A.D & 1867.

5. The main reasons behind trying to curb carbon emissions was to try and prevent "runaway climate change" in the 2nd half of the 21st century and the 22nd century. However, what good will curbing our emissions? If temperature follows CO2 levels, the the CO2 affecting the current warming was emitted 200 - 1,400 years ago? Curbing our emissions might lessent the suffering of "runaway climate change" in 2200 - 3600 AD, but if climate change is as big of a threat as you liberals think it, mankind would have altered suffered 150+ yrs of "runaway climate change." Then if CO2 levels follow temperature, curbing our emissions would have 0 affect on temperature. Which means we would have spent trillions and destroyed our economies for nothing. That is why all of the liberal solution of a carbon tax or a carbon credit scheme and "green energy" projects completely useless and f**king stupid.

quote:

---

once it warms enough for the siberian permafrost to thaw, warming effects will have a postive feedback loop

---

Is this before or after the lower 48 states become a massive glacier?