Tits Senior

Been away for a while. Starting from scratch. Please help me find my tribe. I follow back.

@grok @Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn Would it need to be forest, or would all types of greening, including agriculture, assist in the absorption. With the current increased greening of the earth, how long would it take to get to the required level?

@Benjibontheta @GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn No, it's approximately equal to the current global forest area, which is around 4 billion hectares according to recent estimates.

>>>Nope, it’s a parasitic relationship ~ All tax is theft.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn Climate change is nothing to do with humans. Deforestation obviously does. Our emissions may have a temporary effect on atmospheric CO2. However, that is not the primary driver of the climate, and it fluctuates regardless of our actions.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn You are inconsistent. Is it “not a bad thing” Or is it “nothing to do with humans”

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn Because the warming increases the ocean degassing.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn It would stop rising almost immediately. Why do you think otherwise?

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn I haven't changed that argument. Humans have no control over it. We can have a short term effect but that is not control.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn You have.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn Yes, it would for a time. It may go back down again after a time, but that may not be such a good thing. The timeframes for this are all based on models, so the time frame is debated.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn No it wouldn’t.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn I haven't changed my argument. You have just obsessed over carbon dioxide, not climate change.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn No we have demonstrated that you make claims about climate change that are wrong, then change your argument.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn Why do you believe it needs to be mitigated, though? Humans are a force of nature. We are part of the eternally evolving ecosystem. All life forms contribute to this. The presumption that it is bad because it is different than before is unproven.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn Yes. That’s an an example of the ways in which humans influence atmospheric CO2. Are you suggesting that if no deforestation was to occur, that would be enough to mitigate all human CO2 contributions?

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn If we permanently stopped all human emissions tomorrow, it would continue increasing.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn (And increasing faster then natural changes)

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn So?

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn It’s higher than it has been for 3 million years. Longer then the existence of our entire genus.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn The argument I was making before is that the education system has filled kids' heads with nonsense concepts about climate change, which we have demonstrated through our discussions to be more complex and nuanced.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn That’s a very different argument to the one you were making before.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn Because we are still going through mass deforestation in some regions. We are removing the green and preventing the increase in biomass overall as a result.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn That’s a strange assumption. The greening is already occurring, biomass is currently stable.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn Possibly, temporarily. Is it bad? Probably not. Should we be destroying our civilisation to attempt to achieve an arbitrary and unachievable number? Absolutely not.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn Are humans causing an increase in the concentration of CO2? Yes.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn It isn't high. It is higher than it was before. It is never stable, so it must always either be higher or lower. Why is it assumed that it is bad to be higher? Do you wish for it to be lower than it was before, so that plants grow less?

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn So that’s an acceptance that humans have increased CO2 concentration by 50%. But your position is now that it won’t remain high?

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn Greening has increased, which is what I claimed. It is fair to assume that this will lead to a future increase in biomass.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn Fair enough, my bad. But not has it increased, so your claim remains baseless.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn The atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated hugely throughout the history of Earth. They have been much higher in the past, and if they go too low, life becomes non viable. Why has the preudustrial mini ice age become the presumed optimum? It wasn't a great time.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn You said we weren’t having any effect on the CO2 concentration. For that to be true, that co2 must all be removed.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn And the biomass is fine. Your claim of halving in a century is untrue.

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn We’re not measuring greening, we’re measuring the increased sequestration of CO2 by photosynthesis. That means measuring biomass.

@Benjibontheta @Ye_Olde_Holborn Why do we need to remove it?

@GenericFemale23 @Ye_Olde_Holborn But new plants are not even remotely removing that much CO2. And while some greening is due to increased CO2, much is due to improved irrigation and land management

Fake royal reporter Tom Sykes claims Princess Beatrice is on the verge of a nervous breakdown? What could have caused this? The embarrassment of what her parents have done or maybe the fear that they could be next to be stripped of everything?