Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bloonail t1_iv4kxg8 wrote

Reply to comment by OneSpaceTwo in ‘Carbon timebomb’: climate crisis threatens to destroy Congo peatlands by sector3011

You don't have a Master's degree. You can't organize your thoughts to exclude nonsense when you're discussing functional relationships of dynamic things.

1

OneSpaceTwo t1_iv4ltjw wrote

An example would be helpful

1

bloonail t1_ivmmmwm wrote

You're tossing all sorts of bits of climate basics into the equation. Its the Chewbacca defense. Meanwhile the Saharan forcing has well understood factors. Its not wrong to mention them- how much sun reaching the ground has a delayed but strong effect. There are a lot of papers that search for humanities effect. None are compelling. Maybe the 'humanity-did-it' thing isn't well understood. Maybe guessing about how we effect it might turn out to be the opposite.

Work from the known to introduce exceptions. Don't dismiss the real simply because it fits poorly.

1

OneSpaceTwo t1_ivnpqnm wrote

You seem to be arguing against things I never said. Of course we can't dismiss solar forcing, it has a major influence on the system. But you want to reduce everything to it. Humans also aren't solely responsible for a great deal of historical climate change (many other natural factors are at play, some of which I mentioned before). However, if we rely on "the known" as you prefer, like basic chemistry and physics of energy transfer, we can predict the effects of dumping a crap load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (capturing more energy, i.e. heating the atmosphere, on average). You accuse me of oversimplifying things, yet that's what you're doing. You accuse me of being an armchair commentator that hasn't studied enough, yet why do I have the feeling that it is you who are basing your beliefs solely on internet articles and hearsay?

1

bloonail t1_ivqkrqh wrote

I'm not arguing against what you are saying. You are not constructing an argument. Stating a bunch of climate factoids then adding- but its different now because..<<< what>>> . That's not an argument.

1