Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted July 17, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 17, 2019 34 minutes ago, washedupmxer said: Yep and if you watch USA today they are huge in global warming propaganda. They just put out the same thing and also said many would die from heat by 2050 Dumb people naturally after being told it's too hot and you'll be miserable over and over believe it. A well prepared human can work in 105 all day long now if your a fat pouts who hasn't had anything but a big gulp of soda and nothing but garbage to eat for years it may kill you. Is that a bad thing? Haha...works out of an air conditioned car in a state that hasn't seen 105 degrees since who knows when....the CTE has eaten you right up. 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washedupmxer Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Just now, Jimmy Snacks said: Haha...works out of an air conditioned car in a state that hasn't seen 105 degrees since who knows when....the CTE has eaten you right up. 😂 Uh I travel retard, it was 104 (not heat index which was probably 110) on the turf in Indy last week You lose yet again. I roofed as a kid as well. You're being trained to be weak (and already are) mentally and physically Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 1 hour ago, washedupmxer said: Yep and if you watch USA today they are huge in global warming propaganda. They just put out the same thing and also said many would die from heat by 2050 Dumb people naturally after being told it's too hot and you'll be miserable over and over believe it. A well prepared human can work in 105 all day long now if your a fat pouts who hasn't had anything but a big gulp of soda and nothing but garbage to eat for years it may kill you. Is that a bad thing? Our enviroment minister said the exact same thing, and she was stupid enough to let it be captured on video. Like I said before, there isn't a smart one in Trudeau's cabinet and that is reflected in this dingbats behaviour. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washedupmxer Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 1 minute ago, irv said: Our enviroment minister said the exact same thing, and she was stupid enough to let it be captured on video. Like I said before, there isn't a smart one in Trudeau's cabinet and that is reflected in this dingbats behaviour. I finally got a compliment from our coach when one was whining about the heat. It's a frame of mind until you get woozy or vision problems and that generally come from being unhealthy, weak or unprepared. Tell yourself you'll be miserable and you will. Tell yourself youre badass well prepared and the heat ain't shit and you'll be fine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Jimmy Snacks said: Haha...works out of an air conditioned car in a state that hasn't seen 105 degrees since who knows when....the CTE has eaten you right up. 😂 What's the hottest it's ever been in Michigan? Hottest temperature ever recorded: 112 F, Mio, northern Michigan, 7/13/1936. Coldest temperature ever recorded: -51 F, Vanderbilt, northern Michigan, 2/9/1994. Hottest location ranked by highest average annual temperature: Ypsilanti, southeastern Michigan, 50.2 F. http://coolweather.net/statetemperature/michigan_temperature.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washedupmxer Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Just now, irv said: What's the hottest it's ever been in Michigan? Hottest temperature ever recorded: 112 F, Mio, northern Michigan, 7/13/1936. Coldest temperature ever recorded: -51 F, Vanderbilt, northern Michigan, 2/9/1994. Hottest location ranked by highest average annual temperature: Ypsilanti, southeastern Michigan, 50.2 F. http://coolweather.net/statetemperature/michigan_temperature.htm Pouts operates on retarded emotions not facts I raced the pro national at red bud when it was 100 and humid. It's tough but it can be done 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 What kind of effect does higher ambient CO2 have on my 5k times? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: What kind of effect does higher ambient CO2 have on my 5k times? A lot less than you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: What kind of effect does higher ambient CO2 have on my 5k times? You mean the higher C02 amounts they pump into greenhouses for more robust plants and vegetation? Yeah, we should all be very afraid of C02. https://dutchgreenhouses.com/technology/co2-enrichment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 53 minutes ago, irv said: You mean the higher C02 amounts they pump into greenhouses for more robust plants and vegetation? Yeah, we should all be very afraid of C02. https://dutchgreenhouses.com/technology/co2-enrichment You mean the same elevated CO2 that leads to plants with lower levels of iron, protein and minerals. Plants with higher levels of compounds that are the building blocks of cyanide? Sounds dreamy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Here's the difference between cassava grown at 350 ppm CO2 on the left vs 710 ppm CO2 on the right: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 25 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: You mean the same elevated CO2 that leads to plants with lower levels of iron, protein and minerals. Plants with higher levels of compounds that are the building blocks of cyanide? Sounds dreamy. And at what levels of C02 would cause that?? Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent of the air we breathe. It comprises only .03 % (300 parts per million, or PPM) of the atmosphere but is vitally important to all life on this planet! Plants would benefit from more CO2 in the air today, and actually are benefitting as we burn more fuels, one by-product being carbon dioxide. CO2 in the air has increased from 270 PPM to over 300 PPM, more than an 11% increase, in just the last 40 years! This has also worried many scientists because of what is called the greenhouse effect.. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the higher the planet's temperature will go. Too much warming of the planet can melt ice caps, flood coastal cities, spread deserts and famine and drastically change the climate. This effect is somewhat self-regulating however. The oceans absorb a great deal of CO2 giving algae and plankton, 90% of the plant matter on earth, more CO2 to grow on and giving the rest of the plant matter on land more also. This decreases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, thereby regulating it. Scientists are just now learning to understand the self-regulating systems that stabilize most factors in our environment. Biologists and plant physiologists have long recognized the benefits of higher CO2 content in the air for plant growth. Horticulturists and greenhouse growers have used CO generators to enhance growth rates on plants for many years with good results. Below 200 PPM, plants do not have enough CO2 to carry on the photosynthesis process and essentially stop growing. Because 300 PPM is the atmospheric CO content, this amount is chosen as the 100% growth point. You can see from the chart that increased CO can double or more the growth rate on most normal plants. Above 2,000 PPM, CO2 starts to become toxic to plants and above 4,000 PPM it becomes toxic to people. https://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2_enrichment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: Here's the difference between cassava grown at 350 ppm CO2 on the left vs 710 ppm CO2 on the right: Funny? In the aritcle I posted it said 2000 ppm before plants start showing any ill effects, plus they pump 1300 ppm into green houses so your little alarmist photo holds no water. Gut hooked again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, irv said: Funny? In the aritcle I posted it said 2000 ppm before plants start showing any ill effects, plus they pump 1300 ppm into green houses so your little alarmist photo holds no water. Gut hooked again. Figured you'd say that. It's from peer reviewed research so XC Morrison wins again!!!!! j.1438-8677.2009.00238.x.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Just now, XC.Morrison said: Figured you'd say that. It's from peer reviewed research so XC Morrison wins again!!!!! j.1438-8677.2009.00238.x.pdf Peer reviewed by whom, "funded" scientists? This is right from the Gov't of Canada website. You win nothing, like usual, again, XC. Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#suppl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, irv said: Peer reviewed by whom, "funded" scientists? This is right from the Gov't of Canada website. You win nothing, like usual, again, XC. Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#suppl Your fact sheet is 17 years old, so we're no longer at 340 ppm. https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric-co2-just-exceeded-415-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 1 minute ago, XC.Morrison said: Your fact sheet is 17 years old, so we're no longer at 340 ppm. https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric-co2-just-exceeded-415-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-history Peter Dockrill, a scientist alert "JOURNALIST" Got anything from some real scientists or other non alarmists sites? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 (edited) 38 minutes ago, irv said: Peter Dockrill, a scientist alert "JOURNALIST" Got anything from some real scientists or other non alarmists sites? Here’s the actual data straight from the source. No journalists, just numbers. Note that on May 11, 2019 the ambient CO2 hit 415 ppm. Any bets on what it will peak at in May 2020? Edited July 17, 2019 by XC.Morrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 (edited) Here’s the longer term trend in CO2. Notice how it’s relatively stable for about 9,500 years there and then just all of a sudden goes bonkers? Edited July 17, 2019 by XC.Morrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinker Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Hard to find any CO2 level data other than the Mauna Loa crater in Hawaii, (Seriously, it's over a crater LoL) " A milestone has been hit not seen in Human history"... Pretty lush there no ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinker Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 54 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: Here’s the actual data straight from the source. No journalists, just numbers. Note that on May 11, 2019 the ambient CO2 hit 415 ppm. Any bets on what it will peak at in May 2020? Wooohoooo !! We're down 2.80 ppm since May Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 1 hour ago, XC.Morrison said: Figured you'd say that. It's from peer reviewed research so XC Morrison wins again!!!!! j.1438-8677.2009.00238.x.pdf Peer reviewed = circle jerk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 19 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Peer reviewed = circle jerk. I disagree. It helps keep junk out of the more reputable journals. Typically only 6-8% of articles submitting to a journal make it though the grueling year long peer review process to be published. Plus it's helpful to people reading these journals know that they can trust what they're reading as being consistent with high quality robust scientific process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 1 hour ago, XC.Morrison said: Here’s the actual data straight from the source. No journalists, just numbers. Note that on May 11, 2019 the ambient CO2 hit 415 ppm. Any bets on what it will peak at in May 2020? I'm not sure but I bet it is way under the C02 levels seen hundreds of years ago. CO2 was higher in the past "The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation." Over the Earth's history, there are times where atmospheric CO2 is higher than current levels. Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2? No, for one simple reason. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate. To do this, one study pieced together 490 proxy records to reconstruct CO2 levels over the last 540 million years (Royer 2006). This period is known as the Phanerozoic eon. There is evidence for high CO 2 concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.[23] In more recent times, atmospheric CO 2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 million years ago. About 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO 2 was about 760 ppm,[34] and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 million years ago. Decreasing CO 2 concentration, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation.[35] Low CO 2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 million years ago.[32] Based on an analysis of fossil leaves, Wagner et al.[36] argued that atmospheric CO 2 concentrations during the last 7,000–10,000 year period were significantly higher than 300 ppm and contained substantial variations that may be correlated to climate variations. 18 minutes ago, Tinker said: Hard to find any CO2 level data other than the Mauna Loa crater in Hawaii, (Seriously, it's over a crater LoL) " A milestone has been hit not seen in Human history"... Pretty lush there no ?? They took the readings over a volcano then tried to sell that info to the public of being a representative sample of the levels throughout the whole world? That's about as stupid as taking world average temperature readings on the tarmac of airports. https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/global-warming-hysteria-record-heat-vanishing-sunspots-co2-and-lawsuits-fHTJaH0UBEeS5RSQBcP23w/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 1 hour ago, irv said: I'm not sure but I bet it is way under the C02 levels seen hundreds of years ago. CO2 was higher in the past "The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation." Over the Earth's history, there are times where atmospheric CO2 is higher than current levels. Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2? No, for one simple reason. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate. To do this, one study pieced together 490 proxy records to reconstruct CO2 levels over the last 540 million years (Royer 2006). This period is known as the Phanerozoic eon. There is evidence for high CO 2 concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.[23] In more recent times, atmospheric CO 2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 million years ago. About 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO 2 was about 760 ppm,[34] and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 million years ago. Decreasing CO 2 concentration, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation.[35] Low CO 2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 million years ago.[32] Based on an analysis of fossil leaves, Wagner et al.[36] argued that atmospheric CO 2 concentrations during the last 7,000–10,000 year period were significantly higher than 300 ppm and contained substantial variations that may be correlated to climate variations. They took the readings over a volcano then tried to sell that info to the public of being a representative sample of the levels throughout the whole world? That's about as stupid as taking world average temperature readings on the tarmac of airports. https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/global-warming-hysteria-record-heat-vanishing-sunspots-co2-and-lawsuits-fHTJaH0UBEeS5RSQBcP23w/ You can always pick up one of these and take readings yourself: https://www.amazon.com/Amprobe-CO2-100-Handheld-Carbon-Dioxide/dp/B0046HEFEU/ref=sr_1_12?hvadid=7004950825&hvbmt=bp&hvdev=c&hvqmt=p&keywords=co2+sensors&qid=1563395171&s=gateway&sr=8-12 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.