Rod Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 C02 levels were recently down as low as 180 PPM. Plant life stops at around 150ppm. ocean life sequestered WAY too much carbon to the point that the carbon cycle was broken until man came along. The amount of current c02 is still in a historical drought. Plants want more. They peak in growth in the 1000-1400 ppm range . The current level of atmospheric C02 is a bit of a concern only because it’s actually on the low side now it is a greenhouse gas but actual observed affect is much lower than climate models. The reason being is the way C02 bends and flexes the amount of heat it soaks up is not a constant and it’s also not unlimited. Current climate models use the doomsday scenario of the maximum amount of heat it could ever soak up, which for one is only theoretical and two is not consistent with actual observed warming. This is why actual physicists say it’s possibly a good reason that climate predictions have been so horribly wrong. also, just for numbers sake, the way C02 works is if you got . 5*c warming from doubling C02 from 200 to 400 PPM you would have to double that again from 400 to 800 PPM to observe another .5c of warming. At our current emissions of C02 it’ll take anoither 200 years to get there our current global temperatures are not high. In fact they’re on the low side for a thriving human civilization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, DUMPY said: C02 levels were recently down as low as 180 PPM. Plant life stops at around 150ppm. ocean life sequestered WAY too much carbon to the point that the carbon cycle was broken until man came along. The amount of current c02 is still in a historical drought. Plants want more. They peak in growth in the 1000-1400 ppm range . The current level of atmospheric C02 is a bit of a concern only because it’s actually on the low side now it is a greenhouse gas but actual observed affect is much lower than climate models. The reason being is the way C02 bends and flexes the amount of heat it soaks up is not a constant and it’s also not unlimited. Current climate models use the doomsday scenario of the maximum amount of heat it could ever soak up, which for one is only theoretical and two is not consistent with actual observed warming. This is why actual physicists say it’s possibly a good reason that climate predictions have been so horribly wrong. also, just for numbers sake, the way C02 works is if you got . 5*c warming from doubling C02 from 200 to 400 PPM you would have to double that again from 400 to 800 PPM to observe another .5c of warming. At our current emissions of C02 it’ll take anoither 200 years to get there our current global temperatures are not high. In fact they’re on the low side for a thriving human civilization. The idiots who think we need to get back to 280 ppm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 7, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, DUMPY said: C02 levels were recently down as low as 180 PPM. Plant life stops at around 150ppm. ocean life sequestered WAY too much carbon to the point that the carbon cycle was broken until man came along. The amount of current c02 is still in a historical drought. Plants want more. They peak in growth in the 1000-1400 ppm range . The current level of atmospheric C02 is a bit of a concern only because it’s actually on the low side now it is a greenhouse gas but actual observed affect is much lower than climate models. The reason being is the way C02 bends and flexes the amount of heat it soaks up is not a constant and it’s also not unlimited. Current climate models use the doomsday scenario of the maximum amount of heat it could ever soak up, which for one is only theoretical and two is not consistent with actual observed warming. This is why actual physicists say it’s possibly a good reason that climate predictions have been so horribly wrong. also, just for numbers sake, the way C02 works is if you got . 5*c warming from doubling C02 from 200 to 400 PPM you would have to double that again from 400 to 800 PPM to observe another .5c of warming. At our current emissions of C02 it’ll take anoither 200 years to get there our current global temperatures are not high. In fact they’re on the low side for a thriving human civilization. Fuck that. I want a mini Ice-age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 Just now, ArcticCrusher said: The idiots who think we need to get back to 280 ppm. Yeah the religious aspect of it is just bizarre. Water vapour is by far the largest greenhouse gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 1 minute ago, DUMPY said: Yeah the religious aspect of it is just bizarre. Water vapour is by far the largest greenhouse gas. How much is that worth? Grant $$$$ worth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 7, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: How much is that worth? Grant $$$$ worth? Big part of it but in the end its about wealth re-distribution......world wide wealth re-distribution. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 24 minutes ago, Highmark said: Big part of it but in the end its about wealth re-distribution......world wide wealth re-distribution. There is definitely a reason for all of this nonsense and it isn't about saving the planet, imo. What that is exactly is anyone's guess but anytime the Gov't/politics gets behind something, it usually means something other than what we are being told is the real reason behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 7, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, irv said: There is definitely a reason for all of this nonsense and it isn't about saving the planet, imo. What that is exactly is anyone's guess but anytime the Gov't/politics gets behind something, it usually means something other than what we are being told is the real reason behind it. Its another revenue stream period. Solely for the govt to have more control. I'm completely OK with much of the anti-pollution causes however I just do not see CO2 as a pollutant at current or even increased levels. Lets concentrate on reasonable efforts to make our energy supplies last longer for future generations (until technology can replace them) more so than the complete stoppage of the resources use that makes life better for almost everyone on earth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 21 minutes ago, Highmark said: Its another revenue stream period. Solely for the govt to have more control. I'm completely OK with much of the anti-pollution causes however I just do not see CO2 as a pollutant at current or even increased levels. Lets concentrate on reasonable efforts to make our energy supplies last longer for future generations (until technology can replace them) more so than the complete stoppage of the resources use that makes life better for almost everyone on earth. C02 isn’t pollution. They don’t consider it an issue on a space shuttle until over 5000 ppm. If you’re in a crowded room the c02 levels can be 800-1000 easy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 22 minutes ago, Highmark said: Its another revenue stream period. Solely for the govt to have more control. I'm completely OK with much of the anti-pollution causes however I just do not see CO2 as a pollutant at current or even increased levels. Lets concentrate on reasonable efforts to make our energy supplies last longer for future generations (until technology can replace them) more so than the complete stoppage of the resources use that makes life better for almost everyone on earth. Then we have this idiot. No Justin, it was a protest vote against you and Jag Singh. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/green-party-win-shows-canadians-preoccupied-by-climate-change-trudeau-1.4411534 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 7, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, DUMPY said: C02 isn’t pollution. They don’t consider it an issue on a space shuttle until over 5000 ppm. If you’re in a crowded room the c02 levels can be 800-1000 easy That's why I said it's not a pollutant. Its essential for life on earth. Edited May 7, 2019 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, Highmark said: That's why I said it's not a pollutant. Its essential for life on earth. Religious warmers even did their own study to “debunk” the fact that C02 increases plant growth. They limited all other nutrients but increased c02 and oddly enough it didn’t have much effect. Well no shit. You’re only as strong as your weakest link. Greenhouses will often add c02 to increase growth. Combined with the proper nutrients it makes a pretty drastic difference. and in a naturally warming climate, increased levels of C02 makes plants more drought resistant. There’s a lot science behind it but essentially the plant sweats a lot less while trying to absorb c02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 Is the tax on cow farts reducing methanol levels? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 1 minute ago, ArcticCrusher said: Is the tax on cow farts reducing methanol levels? Yes! Cows now produce zero methanol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, DUMPY said: Yes! Cows now produce zero methanol! Great, I just love it when a plan comes together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Great, I just love it when a plan comes together. Methane though. Still some methane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, DUMPY said: Methane though. Still some methane Damn autocorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Damn autocorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 People used to live 900 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 1 hour ago, spin_dry said: People used to live 900 years. Name 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Highmark said: Its another revenue stream period. Solely for the govt to have more control. I'm completely OK with much of the anti-pollution causes however I just do not see CO2 as a pollutant at current or even increased levels. Lets concentrate on reasonable efforts to make our energy supplies last longer for future generations (until technology can replace them) more so than the complete stoppage of the resources use that makes life better for almost everyone on earth. Exactly, but the alarmists and anyone else who jumps on board thinks it's about saving the planet. Developed country parties continue to make progress towards the goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation actions. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change-2/ Edited May 8, 2019 by irv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, XCR1250 said: Name 10 Read the fairytale known as the Old Testament. Lots of long lived people back then. Edited May 8, 2019 by spin_dry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 9 hours ago, spin_dry said: Read the fairytale known as the Old Testament. Lots of long lived people back then. Read it dozens of times, still do..it was Pre-Flood, only 1 was claimed to be 900+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 1 minute ago, XCR1250 said: Read it dozens of times, still do..it was Pre-Flood, only 1 was claimed to be 900+. Might want to read it a few more dozen times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, spin_dry said: Might want to read it a few more dozen times Why? Your Bible says many lived way over 900 years old? Several, 6 or 7 lived over 900 Methuselah was the oldest. I think Adam was 940+. Edited May 8, 2019 by XCR1250 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.