CO2 is our friend

[elektra]

Nobody knows for sure? There's no scientific understanding as to what the rate of CO2 sequestration from natural processes? I mean the first post has a chart of this over time. Accepting that as somewhat valid could there be an idea of how soon we get to some dangerous minimum?

This isn't a problem. It's just some dreamed up BS from a CO2 consultancy.

It may not be a problem, that is true, but just as true, it could be a problem. And why try to push the number lower? CO2 is at a historic low.

 

[Crick]

It may not be a problem, that is true, but just as true, it could be a problem

Is that your idea of approaching an issue scientifically?

And why try to push the number lower?

Global warming. Cause, you know, it COULD be a problem.

CO2 is at a historic low.

Not for humans it isn't.

Suppose there was a gas extremely toxic to humans in the Earth's atmosphere for billions of years that disappeared before we came onto the scene. Now suppose it starts leaking out of some massive deposit pierced by the Project Moho drill. It was in the atmosphere for billions of years. Should we worry about it? Your CO2 logic says no.

 

[elektra]

Global warming. Cause, you know, it COULD be a problem.

There is no global warming caused by CO2

Your solution to global warming, destroys the earth, by 1000's of square miles

Your solution, increases the CO2 in the atmosphere

so you know, your solution is the problem

 

[Crick]

There is no global warming caused by CO2

There is. There is no risk of hypocapnia.

Your solution to global warming, destroys the earth, by 1000's of square miles

Your lack of solution could make all 57 million square miles uninhabitable.

Your solution, increases the CO2 in the atmosphere

Now you're simply lying... again

so you know, your solution is the problem

God you are stupid. Really, really fucking stupid.

 

[Crepitus]

I just found this nice site about CO2

CO2 is our friend, it literally is what is for dinner tonight. All our food comes from CO2

We all need to give a big thank you to CO2

Interesting facts is what I like and post. Like this fact. CO2 is at a historic low, and if it goes much lower all humans and any life on earth dies

I don't want to die, I don't want to see all the plants die.

Facts Archive - CO2 Coalition

co2coalition.org

View attachment 892576

 

[Matted Joybeard]

It may not be a problem, that is true, but just as true, it could be a problem. And why try to push the number lower? CO2 is at a historic low.

Try to push that number lower??? Who is going to that? Certainly not us. We have no meaningful carbon sequestration tech. I'm guessing if someone bothered to look it up we would see the rate of natural CO2 removal is a very long process versus what humanity has already added. There is no threat from some 'sudden' CO2 levels when one thinks about it.

Independent on whatever anyone thinks about AGW being a hoax or totally real, or the benefits or drawbacks of fossil fuels, the argument that we are staving off some existential threat in the nick of time is bogus.

 

[elektra]

Try to push that number lower??? Who is going to that? Certainly not us. We have no meaningful carbon sequestration tech.

yet, here we are with liberals around the world, doing exactly that

The worldâs biggest carbon capture facility is being built in Texas. Will it work?

The plant will inject 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the ground each year – but is it just greenwashing from big oil?

www.theguardian.com

 

[Matted Joybeard]

yet, here we are with liberals around the world, doing exactly that

The worldâs biggest carbon capture facility is being built in Texas. Will it work?

The plant will inject 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the ground each year – but is it just greenwashing from big oil?

www.theguardian.com

What does that even mean? Put that in terms of ppm pulled out annually and then contrast that against what human activities emit. There needs to be context to have a reality based discussion as to whether we're in some immediate danger of breeching some floor of CO2 concentrations necessary for supporting all plant life.

For an example of context, I mean look at that plot in the OP. It's taken 140 million years to go from atmospheric concentrations of CO2 of 2500 ppm to today's ~420 ppm. Now I'm phone posting here, but a linear fit on that is like a reduction of 0.00015 ppm / year. Assuming humanity somehow stopped all anthropological contributions of CO2, just took ourselves out of the equation, it would be something like 15 million years before CO2 concentration of 200 ppm is reached if my arithmetic is right.

 

[Robert W]

Exactly, crick finds a graph that magnifies 1/2 a degree literally, a thousand times, then freaks out.

CO2 is at a historic low

I wish it was not true. I think he will hurt himself and get old very fast.

 

[Robert W]

Is that your idea of approaching an issue scientifically?

Global warming. Cause, you know, it COULD be a problem.

Not for humans it isn't.

Suppose there was a gas extremely toxic to humans in the Earth's atmosphere for billions of years that disappeared before we came onto the scene. Now suppose it starts leaking out of some massive deposit pierced by the Project Moho drill. It was in the atmosphere for billions of years. Should we worry about it? Your CO2 logic says no.

Crick, I am positive you mean well. But suppose you quit. Do you think your health would improve a lot? I hate to see you so worried all the time.

 

[Crick]

yet, here we are with liberals around the world, doing exactly that

The worldâs biggest carbon capture facility is being built in Texas. Will it work?

The plant will inject 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the ground each year – but is it just greenwashing from big oil?

www.theguardian.com

Eliminating GHG emissions completely would allow CO2 to drop to pre-industrial levels (280-300) ppm over a period of 300-1,000 years. There is no forcing to push it lower than levels that existed prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; a level that has been stable for 2.5 million years. Your argument here is patent nonsense and you know it. You are making it because every other argument you've attempted to make against AGW has failed completely. And this is all part and parcel of the shift of denier's attack target from the science of global warming to the cost and effectiveness of mitigation (and the people involved). See the linked article in the OP of If deniers are arguing facts, why would they change their focus?

 

[elektra]

Revolution; a level that has been stable for 2.5 million years. Your argument here is patent nonsense and you know it. You are making it because every other argument you've attempted to make against AGW has failed completely.

crick, so confused, I have not argued against AGW in my recent banter with you.

As we all now, if man was responsible for global warming, the solution would not be to increase the use of Heavy Industry to build expensive inefficient wind turbines and solar panels. That which consumes millions of tons of natural resources. Destroys the earth by 1000's of square miles. And at the same time leave us with little electricity.

2.5 million yeas? Crick is concentrating on less than 0.04% of the history of the earth. A history we know so very little about. It is nonsense to focus on 0.04% of the earth and then claim CO2 being at it's lowest point in the history of Earth, is somehow okay.

200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we all die.

Crick wants to push the CO2 lower, much lower than 400 ppm?

 

[Crick]

crick, so confused, I have not argued against AGW in my recent banter with you.

I'm taking a longer view per my other thread about the denier change of tactics.

As we all now, if man was responsible for global warming, the solution would not be to increase the use of Heavy Industry to build expensive inefficient wind turbines and solar panels.

I presume you meant "As we all know..." and, no we do not because it is patently incorrect.

That which consumes millions of tons of natural resources. Destroys the earth by 1000's of square miles. And at the same time leave us with little electricity.

In the US, It has left us with 901 GW of non-emitting capacity that has replaced the fossil fuels that were producing 21.3% of our total energy production. Globally, renewables are producing 3.372 TW, 12.2% of total production.

2.5 million yeas? Crick is concentrating on less than 0.04% of the history of the earth.

How much of the 4.5 billion years YOU want to consider relevant would have supported today's 8 billion humans? Why would high CO2 levels during periods we would NOT have survived indicate that it's just hunky dory now? And how does the high CO2 levels in the past justify you completely ignoring the greenhouse warming that gas is producing now?

A history we know so very little about

You seem to believe you know what global CO2 levels have been doing for the entirety of the Earth's 4.5 billion years.

It is nonsense to focus on 0.04% of the earth and then claim CO2 being at it's lowest point in the history of Earth, is somehow okay.

Current CO2 levels are not okay. They are getting too high far too rapidly for human civilization. The only conclusion I can reach from your fixation on this argument and your refusal to consider human requirements is that for the sake of your argument, you wouldn't care if global warming wiped out our species. I can't say why you would hold such a position, but that's what your arguments tell us.

200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we all die.

And how do you envision it reaching such a value? THAT is the critical question in this little sub-debate. If you can't present a reasonable, physically possible process that would put the Earth's CO2 at that level, then your entire diatribe is nothing but profound ignorance or blatant mendacity voiced.

Crick wants to push the CO2 lower, much lower than 400 ppm?

Don't start lying again about what I have and have not said. I would like it at 280-300 ppm and I have NEVER suggested anything lower.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does that even mean? Put that in terms of ppm pulled out annually and then contrast that against what human activities emit. There needs to be context to have a reality based discussion as to whether we're in some immediate danger of breeching some floor of CO2 concentrations necessary for supporting all plant life.

For an example of context, I mean look at that plot in the OP. It's taken 140 million years to go from atmospheric concentrations of CO2 of 2500 ppm to today's ~420 ppm. Now I'm phone posting here, but a linear fit on that is like a reduction of 0.00015 ppm / year. Assuming humanity somehow stopped all anthropological contributions of CO2, just took ourselves out of the equation, it would be something like 15 million years before CO2 concentration of 200 ppm is reached if my arithmetic is right.

What does that even mean?

It means lots of stupid shit gets done when trillions in taxpayer money is thrown
at a stupid issue.

 

[Robert W]

Eliminating GHG emissions completely would allow CO2 to drop to pre-industrial levels (280-300) ppm over a period of 300-1,000 years. There is no forcing to push it lower than levels that existed prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; a level that has been stable for 2.5 million years. Your argument here is patent nonsense and you know it. You are making it because every other argument you've attempted to make against AGW has failed completely. And this is all part and parcel of the shift of denier's attack target from the science of global warming to the cost and effectiveness of mitigation (and the people involved). See the linked article in the OP of If deniers are arguing facts, why would they change their focus?

When you blame man, you blame yourself, your wife if you have one, your family, your neighbors and your entire life of being a polluter. Would you not feel better shedding your guilt?

 

[elektra]

I'm taking a longer view per my other thread about the denier change of tactics.

I presume you meant "As we all know..." and, no we do not because it is patently incorrect.

In the US, It has left us with 901 GW of non-emitting capacity that has replaced the fossil fuels that were producing 21.3% of our total energy production. Globally, renewables are producing 3.372 TW, 12.2% of total production.

How much of the 4.5 billion years YOU want to consider relevant would have supported today's 8 billion humans? Why would high CO2 levels during periods we would NOT have survived indicate that it's just hunky dory now? And how does the high CO2 levels in the past justify you completely ignoring the greenhouse warming that gas is producing now?

You seem to believe you know what global CO2 levels have been doing for the entirety of the Earth's 4.5 billion years.

Current CO2 levels are not okay. They are getting too high far too rapidly for human civilization. The only conclusion I can reach from your fixation on this argument and your refusal to consider human requirements is that for the sake of your argument, you wouldn't care if global warming wiped out our species. I can't say why you would hold such a position, but that's what your arguments tell us.

And how do you envision it reaching such a value? THAT is the critical question in this little sub-debate. If you can't present a reasonable, physically possible process that would put the Earth's CO2 at that level, then your entire diatribe is nothing but profound ignorance or blatant mendacity voiced.

Don't start lying again about what I have and have not said. I would like it at 280-300 ppm and I have NEVER suggested anything lower.

crick, you stated if I had facts I would and could link to them

I challenged you to present a fact you should know with a link

Crick still wont answer, HOW MUCH DID WE SPEND ON GREEN ENERGY

 

[Matted Joybeard]

200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we all die.

Crick wants to push the CO2 lower, much lower than 400 ppm?

We're not going below CO2 200 ppm from where we sit within the next several million years. This isn't a real problem.

 

[elektra]

We're not going below CO2 200 ppm from where we sit within the next several million years. This isn't a real problem.

so?

The point made, to counter the warming bullshit, is that we are at our lowest level in the history of the world

There are some idiots, who I am responding to, that made the claim our level of CO2 is drastically high. They are looking at .04% of the earth's history to make that claim.

If we look at the earth's history, we are at a historic low.

Can we go lower in a short term, the agw warmers say so, and they want to use industry to do it.

Do we actually know all the factors that effect the earth, that effect levels of co2, I doubt it.

Either way, government should not be trying to lower co2 when it is already at a historic low.

 

[Crick]

Hello Elektra!

crick, you stated if I had facts I would and could link to them

I'm not certain what you're actually trying to say there and given your history lying about what I have and have not said, I don't really feel like guessing.

I challenged you to present a fact you should know with a link

Crick still wont answer, HOW MUCH DID WE SPEND ON GREEN ENERGY

The problems here, of course, are

1) I'm not your lackey.

2) I've never claimed to possess that knowledge

3) You're very unlikely to accept any numbers I find for you

4) There is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from looking these numbers up yourself and then impressing the shit out of us - unless of course they don't support your ignorant claims and wouldn't impress a brain-damaged poodle.

5) Given your history of lying about what I have and have not said, I don't like you or respect you and so am not inclined to do anything you might ask.

Is that clear enough or should I repeat it in all caps, 26 pt font, emboldened, italicized, underlined and fire engine red?

 

[Crick]

so?

The point made, to counter the warming bullshit, is that we are at our lowest level in the history of the world

There are some idiots, who I am responding to, that made the claim our level of CO2 is drastically high. They are looking at .04% of the earth's history to make that claim.

If we look at the earth's history, we are at a historic low.

Can we go lower in a short term, the agw warmers say so, and they want to use industry to do it.

Do we actually know all the factors that effect the earth, that effect levels of co2, I doubt it.

Either way, government should not be trying to lower co2 when it is already at a historic low.

Do you think there is anyone reading this thread that does not know the logical error you are making here? That does not know why you assiduously avoid mentioning CO2 levels across all of human history? That does not know why you never make the slightest mention of the greenhouse effect or global warming? Do you?

I guess its projection. You think they're as dumb as you are.