>>1978188>Granted, but given that trees, grass, plankton, etc take the C out of CO2 as their main function, I don't see this as a huge problemThat's what the Keeling curve (picrel) is all about.
Turns out there's this obvious (in retrospect) dynamic where deciduous foliage in the Northern Hemisphere drops their leaves in the fall and CO2 absorption stops, growing back in the spring to capture carbon all summer. That's the zigzag you can see in the graph, representing the difference between summer and winter for all leaf-dropping foliage in the northern hemisphere, minus the much smaller fraction of foliage in the southern hemisphere. You can see that the difference between 2023 and 1960 is 20 times greater than the yearly deciduous differential. There are lots of evergreen trees on the planet, but it's not 20 times more and they aren't growing at a massive rate.
>There's notYes there is. The greenhouse effect is basic fucking thermodynamics and confirmed by overwhelming evidence including the fact that major climate shifts in history have been caused by the #1 greenhouse gas which is water vapor. When climate goes into a warming phase there's a feedback loop whereby warmer temperatures causes more water to evaporate leading to a stronger greenhouse effect leading to even warmer temperatures.
>This is just the synthesis of your first two points No, it's not, I'm just not fleshing out the whole argument because if you had half a brain you'd be able to go research it yourself and wouldn't need me to spoonfeed everything.
>Especially when any data that refutes this gets repressed harder thanData doesn't refute it. I don't approve of censorship but everything I've ever seen touted as "refuting" climate change is childish balony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZxgoBgKqV0(note: this video is just a real climate scientist, teaching a practical course on climate, with no agenda. But of course, believe what you want.)
