Comments by "Hans Hansen" (@hanshansen3885) on "Billionaire CEO: Democrats ‘starting to recognize’ the green energy push is ‘all a fallacy’" video.

Just not in the same pace as we use it... Ohh and they emit a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere when they are burned.
1
@mikewallace8087 Forest wildfires does add CO2 but it is relative small(less than 10%) compared to what human activity does.
1
@protorhinocerator142 Let talk about the first statement because the second one is just blubber. CO2 in itself is part of nature and all breathing things. Getting too much of it can easily be deadly but those are high concentrations that we are nowhere near. If you fill a room with CO2 where a person is located then you could call the CO2 an existential threat to that person. But this is not what we are really talking about. We are talking about the consequences of the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere. If humankind does not do anything about the issue then with time it will become the biggest threat to humankind.
1
@carlatamanczyk3891 Lets take one thing at a time. Volcanoes are part of the natural carbon cycle and have emitted CO2 into the atmosphere for million of years before humans ever walked this earth. Even if we compared how much CO2 is emitted by volcanoes every year then it is 1% of what human activity does in the same year.
1
@carlatamanczyk3891 Geysers do not emit CO2 in any significant way. Decaying matter and swamp gasses are just like volcanoes. It is something that have "always" been there, so it does not add anything new. It is not something that has increased over time. It is part of the natural carbon cycle and if you do not know what that is then look it up.
1
@carlatamanczyk3891 You bring up China's coal fired power plants, which so many fossil fuel supporters does these days. What they always forget is that you cant just compare one group with another group if they are not the same size. It would be like comparing the emissions of America to Canada. (US emits roughly 9 times more than Canada)
1
@arthurbrumagem3844 So you are surprised that two developing countries are increasing their CO2 footprint? Or maybe you just think that they should be penalized because they were too slow and America and Europe should be rewarded because they were quicker to cause this global problem? You seem to think that the jet stream have anything to do with this which indicates that you dont really understand the issue. You cant compare what 4 people do with what one person does.
1
@arthurbrumagem3844 That is what you decide to focus on? We could argue back and forth if China is a developing country or not but the real point is that China as a nation is far away from America in terms of development and therefore I call the nation a developing nation. The average living standard in China is miles away from the average living standard in America. If and when China gets up on the same CO2 emissions per capita as America then I wont stop you from complaining about it. Until then they are not an excuse for America to not do something about CO2 emissions. You did not say anything about the jet stream and CO2 emissions, so I hope you have enlightened yourself.
1
@jerrysullivan7223 Since you didnt read the thread then Ill just copy-paste. Volcanoes are part of the natural carbon cycle and have emitted CO2 into the atmosphere for million of years before humans ever walked this earth. Even if we compared how much CO2 is emitted by volcanoes every year then it is 1% of what human activity does in the same year.
1
It constantly baffles me that people dont have the brain power to do a simple search on a few words before they spew out nonsense in the comments. I am also surprised how few have the stones to admit what they thought was true was actually totally false.
1
@adrianryan5654 Another one with debunked claims. If you actually did a simple search on the things you bring up in your comment then you would know that everything is BS in one or another way. It will take a lot fo writing to fully explain everything, so Ill keep each one very short.
1
@adrianryan5654 Increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases global temperature. Increasing global temperature also increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, you can have both. Antarctic ice core records of past climate change help us understand earth’s climate system and show that human-caused climate change is fundamentally different from natural glacial-interglacial climate cycles. CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.
1
@adrianryan5654 CO2 is vital for life on Earth, that is very true but the CO2 levels have not been below 190 ppm in the past 400 million years and there have been no indication in the past 10,000 years that it was decreasing. So there is no threat of Low CO2. The last time the CO2 levels were as high as they are today was over 2 million years ago. Homo sapiens aka modern human did not exist before roughly 1.7 million years later. The last time the CO2 levels were anywhere near 10,000 ppm was over 200 million years ago.
1
@adrianryan5654 It has been completely debunked that the Milankovitch cycles and/or solar activity have any significant impact on our current climate change. By the way the Milankovitch cycles are in thousands of years not a 200 year cycle. Where on Earth have you gotten it into your head that the poles are cooling? The temperature increases much faster at the poles than other places around the globe.
1
@adrianryan5654 Ahh one didnt make it through. Ill make it very short. The cycles and solar activity have no significant impact on the current climate change. The poles are not cooling but warming. Not allowed to respond anymore.
1
@adrianryan5654 Again? You havent mentioned Patrick Moore before. Also Patrick Moore is a well known climate change denier and is just saying complete nonsense most of the time. John Clauser have said himself that he is a climate denier and is on the board of he CO2 Coalition, a climate change denial organization. You are trying to emphasize the very few and ignore the multitudes of other "truly learned people" in order to support your BS claims. Climate change is global, not local, so looking at only one region is fallacy. You can always cherrypick individual locations to support what ever claim you want to make. You need to learn something about climate change. Its causes more frequent and intensive extremes in all directions. 2023 was also the year that Antarctic sea ice winter maximum is lowest on record by a wide margin. If you want some names then here you go. Keywan Riahi, Pierre Friedlingstein, Detlef Peter Van Vuuren, James Edward Hansen, Carlos Manuel Duarte, Kevin Edward Trenberth, Richard Arthur Betts, Clara Deser, Michael Evan Mann, Philippe Ciais, Katherine Calvin, Susan Solomon and Cynthia Rosenzweig are just a few of the many.
1
@adrianryan5654 I wrote you a reply yesterday and I check that it was still there after 5 minutes. Now it has been deleted, so someone does not like my rresponse. Therefore Ill make this reply extremely small. Patrick Moore and John Clauser are well known climate change deniers. Climate change is global, not local. Cherry picking one location does not say anything about climate change. 2023 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum is lowest on record, so there is that.
1
@adrianryan A bit hard to reply to you when my comments are deleted. Ill make it short. The two you mention are well known deniers. You can not use local data to refute global issues. The 2023 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum is lowest on record by a wide margin.
1
The two you mention are well known deniers. You cant use local data to refute a global issue. 2023 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum is lowest on record by a wide margin.
1
Almost seems like I have been banned from responding in this thread. The two you mention are well known deniers. Local data can not be used to refute global issues. In 2023 the antarctic sea ice was the lowest on record.
1
The two you men tion are den iers. Cant use loc al data to ref ute glo bal iss ues. The sea ice was the low est in 2023.
1
Was star ting to thi nk that I was ba nned fr om rep ly ing in this thr ead. Hav e tr ied to resp ond man y tim es.
1
@adrianryan5654 Lets try again for the last time. The two you men tion are den iers. You cant use loc al data to ref ute a glo bal iss ue. 2023 Ant arc tic had the sma llest sea ice on rec ord.
1
CO2 levels ppm(parts per million) Year 1850: 285 ppm Year 1900: 295 ppm Year 1950: 311 ppm Year 1960: 317 ppm Year 1970: 325 ppm Year 1980: 338 ppm Year 1990: 354 ppm Year 2000: 369 ppm Year 2010: 389 ppm Year 2020: 413 ppm Year 2024(June): 427 ppm
1
@johnhoran9840 Sure, just ignore the fact that increasing CO2 have severe consequences.
1
@johnhoran9840 You mean you just do not believe science and data. Sadly there are many people who are like that these days but luckily they are the minority in the world.
1
@johnhoran9840 So you cant even answer those two fairly easy questions.
1