A poll for liberals, how much C02 in the air is to much?

[Wyatt earp]

I put this here because I am real concerned about the fear mongering going on in this country after I read this post yesterday from a liberal poster...
He will remain anonymous..

Hey, dumbfuck. I'm sure the planet will still be here. It just won't be a place we can live on. Are you some kind of fucking retard.

I know many liberals never go down to the environment forum to educate themselves , so that's why I put this post here.

So take my poll and discuss if you think there will be a point when there is to much C02 in the atmosphere and the earth will be uninhabitable for humans.

For an added bonus tell me how many degrees do you think the earths temperature will rise if the C02 in the atmosphere gets to be five times as high as today

8 degrees?
12 degrees?
20 degrees?
1,000 degrees?
Hot as Venus?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

 

[DarkFury]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

You have no understanding of climate and only an idiot would think man could control it.

 

[Dekster]

100% saturation is probably too much...

 

[sealybobo]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

Yep, they're going to throw away probably the greatest nation on earth for that very reason.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

You have no understanding of climate and only an idiot would think man could control it.

So you think the noaa and every degree program in climatology has no clue. lol You must be god?

 

[sealybobo]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

Yep, they're going to throw away probably the greatest nation on earth for that very reason.

How great would it be if a disease wiped out half the planets human population. Or if it somehow became much harder to have kids. Using up less natural resources, more land for the animals, less pollution, etc.

100 years ago a farmer would have ten kids but we had less people on the planet. Today we have more people and have less kids.

I heard today a city is going to use more solar for their energy. But cons will fight progress

 

[Wyld Kard]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

And liberals are so gullible it's pathetic.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So take my poll and discuss if you think there will be a point when there is to much C02 in the atmosphere and the earth will be uninhabitable for humans.

For an added bonus tell me how many degrees do you think the earths temperature will rise if the C02 in the atmosphere gets to be five times as high as today

I voted for 2 times.
5 times ? That would be roughly 2000 ppm. That would probably increase the temperature by 8 to 10 degrees ( not just because of co2 , but also because of the added methane)
And even if humans can stand 2000 ppm for a long time , it is just our civilization can't.
Above 2,500 the human physiology would have to be subject to a radical change.

I am sure some zones would actually improve with an 8 celcius increase, ( Alaska, Canada , siberia) even considering the poles tend to have temperature spikes, but the world as we know it would be completely different.

 

[Muhammed]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

So, jackass, how hot is the sun going to be 50 years from now?

You anti-science global warming doomsday cultists are ridiculous.

 

[owebo]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

MMGW or MMGC?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So take my poll and discuss if you think there will be a point when there is to much C02 in the atmosphere and the earth will be uninhabitable for humans.

For an added bonus tell me how many degrees do you think the earths temperature will rise if the C02 in the atmosphere gets to be five times as high as today

I voted for 2 times.
5 times ? That would be roughly 2000 ppm. That would probably increase the temperature by 8 to 10 degrees ( not just because of co2 , but also because of the added methane)
And even if humans can stand 2000 ppm for a long time , it is just our civilization can't.
Above 2,500 the human physiology would have to be subject to a radical change.

I am sure some zones would actually improve with an 8 celcius increase, ( Alaska, Canada , siberia) even considering the poles tend to have temperature spikes, but the world as we know it would be completely different.

Interesting so you believe human civilation could only handle around 800ppm C02 and at 5 times the amount of C02 today you believe the temperature would only be 8 to 10 degrees warmer.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

What would you rather have a planet that is warmer or colder?

Or do you believe man can keep it at a constant temperature and C02 level in the atmosphere?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

Back 100 years ago the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.03%. That is 3 1/100ths of 1 percent.
In 2000, when Al Gore went shrieking gloom and doom, the CO2 had increased a walloping 1/100th to 0.04% which is 4 1/100ths of 1 percent. Now water vapor which is about 70% of the total atmosphere is the real reason why the temperature goes up or down on a given day, just walk out in DC today where the temperature is 90 degrees(dog days of summer) but feels like over 100, because the humidity is high. So liberals TAX all the carbon products because they can, with the support of the establishment republicans, and if the liberals could, they would be taxing water vapor(Martin O'Malley put a rain tax in Maryland) and you would think after 7 2/3rd years of Obama and his energy taxes must necessarily skyrocket, the oceans would stop rising, and the planet would heal. How is that hope and change working out for you libtards?

The way liberals talk, that the increase in CO2 just sits there in the atmosphere eventually going to kill US, but since they are mind numbed, low information, useful idiots, they don't realize that there is also an increase in plant growth, which thrives with the increase of CO2.

 

[skookerasbil]

Its 2016.........nobody cares about climate change. In every single poll about voter concerns it comes in dead last......out of 20-22 concerns or so.

None of the science is mattering in the real world after 25 years of bomb throwing. Its now an internet hobby.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

Back 100 years ago the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.03%. That is 3 1/100ths of 1 percent.
In 2000, when Al Gore went shrieking gloom and doom, the CO2 had increased a walloping 1/100th to 0.04% which is 4 1/100ths of 1 percent. Now water vapor which is about 70% of the total atmosphere is the real reason why the temperature goes up or down on a given day, just walk out in DC today where the temperature is 90 degrees(dog days of summer) but feels like over 100, because the humidity is high. So liberals TAX all the carbon products because they can, with the support of the establishment republicans, and if the liberals could, they would be taxing water vapor(Martin O'Malley put a rain tax in Maryland) and you would think after 7 2/3rd years of Obama and his energy taxes must necessarily skyrocket, the oceans would stop rising, and the planet would heal. How is that hope and change working out for you libtards?

The way liberals talk, that the increase in CO2 just sits there in the atmosphere eventually going to kill US, but since they are mind numbed, low information, useful idiots, they don't realize that there is also an increase in plant growth, which thrives with the increase of CO2.

View attachment 85228

Scientists have concluded that most of the observed warming is very likely due to the burning of coal, oil, and gas. This conclusion is based on a detailed understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and how human activities have been tweaking it. At the same time, other reasonable explanations, most notably changes in the Sun, have been ruled out.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect naturally keeps our planet warm enough to be livable. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere. Light-colored surfaces, such as clouds or ice caps, radiate some heat back into space. But most of the incoming heat warms the planet's surface. The Earth then radiates some heat back into the atmosphere. Some of that heat is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2).

Human activity--such as burning fossil fuels--causes more greenhouse gases to build up in the atmosphere. As the atmosphere "thickens" with more greenhouse gases, more heat is held in. Fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas are high in carbon and, when burned, produce major amounts of carbon dioxide or CO2. A single gallon of gasoline, when burned, puts 19 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in warming the Earth's surface was first demonstrated by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius more than 100 years ago. Scientific data have since established that, for hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked with atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas has emitted roughly 500 billion tons of CO2, about half of which remains in the atmosphere. This CO2 is the biggest factor responsible for recent warming trends.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

Back 100 years ago the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.03%. That is 3 1/100ths of 1 percent.
In 2000, when Al Gore went shrieking gloom and doom, the CO2 had increased a walloping 1/100th to 0.04% which is 4 1/100ths of 1 percent. Now water vapor which is about 70% of the total atmosphere is the real reason why the temperature goes up or down on a given day, just walk out in DC today where the temperature is 90 degrees(dog days of summer) but feels like over 100, because the humidity is high. So liberals TAX all the carbon products because they can, with the support of the establishment republicans, and if the liberals could, they would be taxing water vapor(Martin O'Malley put a rain tax in Maryland) and you would think after 7 2/3rd years of Obama and his energy taxes must necessarily skyrocket, the oceans would stop rising, and the planet would heal. How is that hope and change working out for you libtards?

The way liberals talk, that the increase in CO2 just sits there in the atmosphere eventually going to kill US, but since they are mind numbed, low information, useful idiots, they don't realize that there is also an increase in plant growth, which thrives with the increase of CO2.

View attachment 85228

Funny because it was 100 years ago science first figured out we were causing an increase in global warming.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

Back 100 years ago the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.03%. That is 3 1/100ths of 1 percent.
In 2000, when Al Gore went shrieking gloom and doom, the CO2 had increased a walloping 1/100th to 0.04% which is 4 1/100ths of 1 percent. Now water vapor which is about 70% of the total atmosphere is the real reason why the temperature goes up or down on a given day, just walk out in DC today where the temperature is 90 degrees(dog days of summer) but feels like over 100, because the humidity is high. So liberals TAX all the carbon products because they can, with the support of the establishment republicans, and if the liberals could, they would be taxing water vapor(Martin O'Malley put a rain tax in Maryland) and you would think after 7 2/3rd years of Obama and his energy taxes must necessarily skyrocket, the oceans would stop rising, and the planet would heal. How is that hope and change working out for you libtards?

The way liberals talk, that the increase in CO2 just sits there in the atmosphere eventually going to kill US, but since they are mind numbed, low information, useful idiots, they don't realize that there is also an increase in plant growth, which thrives with the increase of CO2.

View attachment 85228

Scientists have concluded that most of the observed warming is very likely due to the burning of coal, oil, and gas. This conclusion is based on a detailed understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and how human activities have been tweaking it. At the same time, other reasonable explanations, most notably changes in the Sun, have been ruled out.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect naturally keeps our planet warm enough to be livable. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere. Light-colored surfaces, such as clouds or ice caps, radiate some heat back into space. But most of the incoming heat warms the planet's surface. The Earth then radiates some heat back into the atmosphere. Some of that heat is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2).

Human activity--such as burning fossil fuels--causes more greenhouse gases to build up in the atmosphere. As the atmosphere "thickens" with more greenhouse gases, more heat is held in. Fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas are high in carbon and, when burned, produce major amounts of carbon dioxide or CO2. A single gallon of gasoline, when burned, puts 19 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in warming the Earth's surface was first demonstrated by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius more than 100 years ago. Scientific data have since established that, for hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked with atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas has emitted roughly 500 billion tons of CO2, about half of which remains in the atmosphere. This CO2 is the biggest factor responsible for recent warming trends.

rhetoric s0n........been hearing the exact same crap for 20+ years.

Not mattering in the real world though. The voters dont care and renewable energy is still a joke.


Who's not winning?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

Yep, they're going to throw away probably the greatest nation on earth for that very reason.

How great would it be if a disease wiped out half the planets human population. Or if it somehow became much harder to have kids. Using up less natural resources, more land for the animals, less pollution, etc.

100 years ago a farmer would have ten kids but we had less people on the planet. Today we have more people and have less kids.

I heard today a city is going to use more solar for their energy. But cons will fight progress

Well, based on physics and our understanding of climate...Id say we're likely to see climate changes that could cause a negative on civilization...

Not that you care of course.

God conservatives are so dumb it's scary

Back 100 years ago the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.03%. That is 3 1/100ths of 1 percent.
In 2000, when Al Gore went shrieking gloom and doom, the CO2 had increased a walloping 1/100th to 0.04% which is 4 1/100ths of 1 percent. Now water vapor which is about 70% of the total atmosphere is the real reason why the temperature goes up or down on a given day, just walk out in DC today where the temperature is 90 degrees(dog days of summer) but feels like over 100, because the humidity is high. So liberals TAX all the carbon products because they can, with the support of the establishment republicans, and if the liberals could, they would be taxing water vapor(Martin O'Malley put a rain tax in Maryland) and you would think after 7 2/3rd years of Obama and his energy taxes must necessarily skyrocket, the oceans would stop rising, and the planet would heal. How is that hope and change working out for you libtards?

The way liberals talk, that the increase in CO2 just sits there in the atmosphere eventually going to kill US, but since they are mind numbed, low information, useful idiots, they don't realize that there is also an increase in plant growth, which thrives with the increase of CO2.

View attachment 85228

Scientists have concluded that most of the observed warming is very likely due to the burning of coal, oil, and gas. This conclusion is based on a detailed understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and how human activities have been tweaking it. At the same time, other reasonable explanations, most notably changes in the Sun, have been ruled out.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect naturally keeps our planet warm enough to be livable. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere. Light-colored surfaces, such as clouds or ice caps, radiate some heat back into space. But most of the incoming heat warms the planet's surface. The Earth then radiates some heat back into the atmosphere. Some of that heat is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2).

Human activity--such as burning fossil fuels--causes more greenhouse gases to build up in the atmosphere. As the atmosphere "thickens" with more greenhouse gases, more heat is held in. Fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas are high in carbon and, when burned, produce major amounts of carbon dioxide or CO2. A single gallon of gasoline, when burned, puts 19 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in warming the Earth's surface was first demonstrated by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius more than 100 years ago. Scientific data have since established that, for hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked with atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas has emitted roughly 500 billion tons of CO2, about half of which remains in the atmosphere. This CO2 is the biggest factor responsible for recent warming trends.

Interesting you fail to mention why most of the C02 comes from the southern hemispheres according to our new C02 satellite...

How come your talking points didn't mention that?

Don't tell me you didn't know deffoestation for farm land and for fuel
Is a major C02 contributor?

Anyways did you take my poll?