And so it starts....
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know Co2 is plant food
know what else is plant food? shit. is shit a pollutant?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know that warming below 2C will be beneficial?
to some, not to all. but we're going to plow past 2C pretty quickly.
If it is plant food, then to plants no, it isnt. Obviously. And no, the currently anomaly is about 0.8 C, a long way from 2C still.
-
If it is plant food, then to plants no, it isnt. Obviously. And no, the currently anomaly is about 0.8 C, a long way from 2C still.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
then to plants no, it isnt.
are you a plant?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
0.8 C, a long way from 2C still
a long way for you. not for people born today.
-
Well that's the problem. There are facts to discuss, but people treat the whole concept like religion, on both sides. Every time this shady crap comes up it calls the whole concept into question. On the other hand, supporters will believe literally anything without proper vetting. I could claim that jerking off caused climate change, with a pretty graph, and half the population would freak out about the masturbation issue, and the other half would exhaust themselves just to prove it false (well, not "just").
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
There are facts to discuss, but people treat the whole concept like religion, on both sides.
The ones who believe, don't need any explanation The ones who not believe, don't want any explanation The theory of evolution can not be proved true, so it has to be false. God's existance can not be proved false, so it must be true. I could continue... but I think I have proved your point :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz< wrote:
So you think CO2 is a pollutant?
pollution is in the eye, nose, mouth, bloodstream of the beholder. whether or not C02 is a pollutant depends on the context. if you're a plant (are you a plant?) more C02 isn't necessarily bad - though only up to a certain point; too much CO2 harms plants. if you're a person, more CO2 can be fatal. the dosage makes the poison.
The level of CO2 in a meeting room can reach a couple of thousand ppm. Do you feel polluted in meetings? Thats the context. Its not toxic to man till much higher levels, at the levels we are looking at reaching it is not a pollutant at all. Surely you understand that 12/100 is very much higher than 400/1,000,000 ?
-
The level of CO2 in a meeting room can reach a couple of thousand ppm. Do you feel polluted in meetings? Thats the context. Its not toxic to man till much higher levels, at the levels we are looking at reaching it is not a pollutant at all. Surely you understand that 12/100 is very much higher than 400/1,000,000 ?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Its not toxic to man till much higher levels,
pollution is not only about simple toxicity.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know Co2 is plant food
know what else is plant food? shit. is shit a pollutant?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You know that warming below 2C will be beneficial?
to some, not to all. but we're going to plow past 2C pretty quickly.
Depends. If you shit in my swimming pool, then you would be polluting it, and there would be a serious affect on your health.
-
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz< wrote:
So you think CO2 is a pollutant?
pollution is in the eye, nose, mouth, bloodstream of the beholder. whether or not C02 is a pollutant depends on the context. if you're a plant (are you a plant?) more C02 isn't necessarily bad - though only up to a certain point; too much CO2 harms plants. if you're a person, more CO2 can be fatal. the dosage makes the poison.
Chris Losinger wrote:
too much CO2 harms plants
Any proof to that?
Chris Losinger wrote:
if you're a person, more CO2 can be fatal
Certainly, but not at the levels we're talking about (approximately 0.04%). The atmosphere contains only about 21% oxygen. The O2 percentage would have to decrease to about 6% (that is CO2 increasing to about 15%) in order for it to be fatal to humans. That's an increase of CO2 levels of about 37,500% which is next to impossible for human activity to do.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
too much CO2 harms plants
Any proof to that?
Chris Losinger wrote:
if you're a person, more CO2 can be fatal
Certainly, but not at the levels we're talking about (approximately 0.04%). The atmosphere contains only about 21% oxygen. The O2 percentage would have to decrease to about 6% (that is CO2 increasing to about 15%) in order for it to be fatal to humans. That's an increase of CO2 levels of about 37,500% which is next to impossible for human activity to do.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
TheGreatAndPowerfulOzAny proof to that?
Insects Take A Bigger Bite Out Of Plants In A Higher Carbon Dioxide World -- ScienceDaily[^]
TheGreatAndPowerfulOzThat's an increase of CO2 levels of about 37,500% which is next to impossible for human activity to do.
oh ye of little faith! but if simple respiratory toxicity was all there was to worry about with CO2, we could certainly get away with more of it.
-
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.[^] So now he can't be sacked by NOAA, because Trump put his own man in charge, he is now free to speak out about data corruption and scientific fraud. This is end for the CAGW bullshit thats mis-formed govt policy for decades and cost the taxpayer billions, because a lot of it has come from US scientists. Personally I think Trump shouldn't try to muzzle scientists, he should just put funding on the table for them to prove CO2 is safe. Nothing will undo CAGW quicker than a volte-face by its former adherents.
A different simpleton (or rather, group of them) said the same thing about acid rain. The formation of pristine clear lakes - totally lifeless - surrounded by dying forests was ignored. UNTIL . . . the acid rain began to erode the finish on their pickup - that's when they realized that they couldn't pretend it wasn't there any more. It wasn't there forests or their lakes - but when it was their damn paint; well, that was something different. So - you and your cult of deniers? You've been around before.
- The earth is flat.
- Evolution is a hoax.
- Climate change is just so much BS.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if were not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No, we have to stop wasting time and money pretending we are and do something about the impact of any warming if it is in any way negative. So, we build dams, flood protection, etc etc etc in those countries that might be affected. And this would cost a tiny fraction of the $60 billion already wasted on junk science like this garbage from NOAA. And the left overs we can spend on tackling REAL pollutants, like electronics recycling in China, Ship recycling in Bangladesh, and the millions of tonnes of plastics we are dumping into the ocean every day, that very soon is about to end up in OUR food chain.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
So, we build dams, flood protection, etc etc etc in those countries that might be affected. And this would cost a tiny fraction of the $60 billion already wasted on junk science like this garbage from NOAA.
And where did you get your figures? Have you any real idea what it would cost to build sea-walls along all of the US Coastline where it will be necessary? Your brilliant strategy is parallel (100%) to not fixing a leaky pipe - but just buying more and more bigger buckets to catch the drip.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
TheGreatAndPowerfulOzAny proof to that?
Insects Take A Bigger Bite Out Of Plants In A Higher Carbon Dioxide World -- ScienceDaily[^]
TheGreatAndPowerfulOzThat's an increase of CO2 levels of about 37,500% which is next to impossible for human activity to do.
oh ye of little faith! but if simple respiratory toxicity was all there was to worry about with CO2, we could certainly get away with more of it.
Quote:
Elevated carbon dioxide impairs a key component of the plant's defenses against leaf-eating insects
Which means evolution will occur until those plants with the proper genetic makeup will be the majority surviving. Talk about "little faith".
Chris Losinger wrote:
oh ye of little faith!
It's not faith. It's science and facts.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but if simple respiratory toxicity was all there was to worry about with CO2
it's probably not. Like formation of carbonic acid in the oceans (and maybe acid rain) might be something to worry about once levels get high enough (probably above 1% or more than 25 times more than there is now). But even that is highly unlikely to be detrimental since...
Quote:
Over the past 250 years, ocean acidity has increased by 30 percent as oceans absorbed around 530 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
Quote:
Elevated carbon dioxide impairs a key component of the plant's defenses against leaf-eating insects
Which means evolution will occur until those plants with the proper genetic makeup will be the majority surviving. Talk about "little faith".
Chris Losinger wrote:
oh ye of little faith!
It's not faith. It's science and facts.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but if simple respiratory toxicity was all there was to worry about with CO2
it's probably not. Like formation of carbonic acid in the oceans (and maybe acid rain) might be something to worry about once levels get high enough (probably above 1% or more than 25 times more than there is now). But even that is highly unlikely to be detrimental since...
Quote:
Over the past 250 years, ocean acidity has increased by 30 percent as oceans absorbed around 530 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
TheGreatAndPowerfulOzWhich means evolution will occur
and the energetic, sentient, plants will rise up and enslave the inefficient murdering mammals.
-
TheGreatAndPowerfulOzWhich means evolution will occur
and the energetic, sentient, plants will rise up and enslave the inefficient murdering mammals.
Yes! I saw a great B-movie like that. Swamp Thing[^]
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
The level of CO2 in a meeting room can reach a couple of thousand ppm. Do you feel polluted in meetings? Thats the context. Its not toxic to man till much higher levels, at the levels we are looking at reaching it is not a pollutant at all. Surely you understand that 12/100 is very much higher than 400/1,000,000 ?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Do you feel polluted in meetings?
Quite often I do, but not because of an increase in CO2.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
Thats the best you can do, a weak stab at a side story? What has this got to do with a climate scientist criticising NOAA for using bad data? Nothing of course. You merely display your desperation. (and then compound it by pretending that the contents of the emails are only comprehensible to 'climate scientists' :laugh: )
You asked me for one fact that was wrong in the article. I gave you one fact that was wrong in the article. What's your problem? And if you'd read the article, you'd see that he didn't criticize them for using "bad" data; merely for using "preliminary" data, which hadn't been completely verified. There's a difference, but you probably won't be able to see it. Since the data hasn't been verified yet, we don't know whether it's bad or good. Come back to the story when the data has been verified, and we know whether it's a load of BS, or yet more evidence of CAGW.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
pretending that the contents of the emails are only comprehensible to 'climate scientists'
Well, they're clearly NOT comprehensible to tabloid journalists or climate-change deniers. Unless you're saying that the contents were deliberately misrepresented to back up your own point of view? :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
You are blind.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Probably from too much of Nathan's suggestion[^], eh? :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
A different simpleton (or rather, group of them) said the same thing about acid rain. The formation of pristine clear lakes - totally lifeless - surrounded by dying forests was ignored. UNTIL . . . the acid rain began to erode the finish on their pickup - that's when they realized that they couldn't pretend it wasn't there any more. It wasn't there forests or their lakes - but when it was their damn paint; well, that was something different. So - you and your cult of deniers? You've been around before.
- The earth is flat.
- Evolution is a hoax.
- Climate change is just so much BS.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
The earth is flat.
Not where I live. Lots of hills. :sigh:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Probably from too much of Nathan's suggestion[^], eh? :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
So you admit circle jerking with Nathan. Must be good timestm for you two. :rolleyes:
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.[^] So now he can't be sacked by NOAA, because Trump put his own man in charge, he is now free to speak out about data corruption and scientific fraud. This is end for the CAGW bullshit thats mis-formed govt policy for decades and cost the taxpayer billions, because a lot of it has come from US scientists. Personally I think Trump shouldn't try to muzzle scientists, he should just put funding on the table for them to prove CO2 is safe. Nothing will undo CAGW quicker than a volte-face by its former adherents.
Mate - you're going to need a bigger wooden spoon to stir the pot up a little more. Don't you have something fresh to anti-conspire about?
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Its not toxic to man till much higher levels,
pollution is not only about simple toxicity.
Is water pollution too because you can drown in it?
