That doesn’t even address what I said.
But since you posted it – there’s a lot of sheer crap in there:
But any decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions won’t have an effect for hundreds to thousands of years . . . .
“Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions,” the report states. “The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales.”
That’s false. We know how to drop CO_2 levels back to what they were in the 1960s within twenty years. That would drop temperatures fairly quickly – and the real risk wouldn’t be temperatures staying high, it would be drawing down CO_2 too far and triggering onset of severe glaciation.
“CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes more CO2,” said Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist
Since it has been shown in the field that CO_2 does in fact lead to warming, the first statement is false. The second one is interesting, because if you look at the plot of CO_2 versus temperature both appear to be true.
In terms of botany, warming won’t increase CO_2, it will decrease it as plants take up more from the atmosphere. So the increases following warming are most likely lag.
So, about every 1,000 years or so, we seem to have these fluctuations.
Not like what we’re experiencing at the moment – yes, there have been temperature changes this great, but no, they haven’t been this sudden.
Solar drives climate.
But it’s not the only thing that does, so this is misleading.
If we start having cooler summers and colder winters, those fluctuations would start driving CO2 further down.
I see that claim regularly, but I have never seen a proposed mechanism.
A majority of plants, such as trees, wheat, and rice, are what’s known as C3 plants, which thrive at higher CO2 levels of 800 to 1500 ppm.
What they don’t tell you is that this does not benefit animals: the plants grow faster, but end up with lower levels of important nutrients, so herbivores have to eat more to get the same nutrition.
But he suggested that the underreported larger effect is being felt in the oceans, where humans have “killed off 90 percent of the large fish population, and whales, and all the rest.”
This is an interesting one since reduction in the number of large sea animals has not been studied much, or at least hadn’t been as of twenty years ago. For some reason scientists seem to have taken the ocean for granted except as bodies of water that can absorb CO_2 and heat.
I’ll note here that the Epoch Times is known for being sloppy with facts, often slanted in presentation, and high in propaganda, with overall low credibility – so the above doesn’t surprise me.
