re: Carbon-14 dating shows only 12% of atmospheric CO2 added since 1750 is manmade

quote:

---

We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

---

Do what now?

We’ve known for well over a decade now that there’s no consensus proof of human caused global warming. It’s impossible to completely separate it from the natural changes of the Earth. Nice to see more studies adding hard evidence

quote:

---

We’ve known for well over a decade now that there’s no consensus proof of human caused global warming. It’s impossible to completely separate it from the natural changes of the Earth. Nice to see more studies adding hard evidence

---

While I agree with most of what you wrote, this study does NOT add evidence to back up your statements; it adds data. It’s interesting that carbon forcing is the result of a 12% increase in CO2, but that does not quantify anything else.

If they could show that the models that alarmists rely upon show more than 12% then they would have evidence and a case. But they don’t show that.

So a little bit of facts. More than half of the known time the world has existed the atmosphere had such high CO2 levels humans could not survive. The entire planet was sub tropical or tropical, both poles were swamps/marsh.

The world has been warming and cooling since the beginning of time, it will continue long after humans are gone.

Human caused climate change is a complete bs money and power grab by POS who need to be publicly lynched.

quote:

---

Where do you get the constant stream of news articles that fit what you’re looking for? This study is over a year old, so did it recently cross the same news wire as all of your COVID vaccine articles, or are they separate subscriptions?

---

Aren't you the guy who wants to set a global cap on atmospheric CO2 at a level dangerously close to killing off all plant life?

Ima go out on a limb and say zero people here know what the hell that study(?) means or if they come to any conclusion. In fact, I'm not sure anyone in the world knows what it is trying to convey.

quote:

---

So a little bit of facts. More than half of the known time the world has existed the atmosphere had such high CO2 levels humans could not survive. The entire planet was sub tropical or tropical, both poles were swamps/marsh.

The world has been warming and cooling since the beginning of time, it will continue long after humans are gone.

---

It's the rate of change that makes this time different. Is there a cost/benefit advantage in attempting to mitigate the rate?

Personally I see it as a serious money-making opportunity and have some speculative bets that could pay off very big in the next 7-10 years but won't do too much damage to my portfolio if they don't.

Two comments:

1)Pretty out of context journal it was published in.

2) Seriously? The paper cites Wikipedia in its background info.


I want it to be hard science but those two aren’t good looks in professionalism. I can ignore the first as just rigid dogma not allowing things outside the groupthink being published…..but Wikipedia?

quote:

---

So a little bit of facts. More than half of the known time the world has existed the atmosphere had such high CO2 levels humans could not survive. The entire planet was sub tropical or tropical, both poles were swamps/marsh.

The world has been warming and cooling since the beginning of time, it will continue long after humans are gone.

---

So a little bit of context to your facts, you forgot to mention that the rate of change in CO2 levels and global temperatures in modern times is on the order of 1,000 times faster than throughout the planet's history.

Where’s Greta