The huge benefits of MORE CO2!!!

[Billy_Bob]

I am amazed at the shear lunacy of the left wit morons.. One posts drivel the other posts Wiki and gives no attribution... As if he wrote it himself...

 

[skookerasbil]

Billy......gotta do like me my friend.......all you can do is make fun of these miserable souls. This place is my laugh playground because at the end of the day, I know people who wander in here can identify the fringe nutty-ass stuff and especially the chip on the shoulder presentation that prevails in all of their posts = losing.They cant help themselves........its in the DNA.

Its all good..........

 

[elektra]

CO2, I like to call it Dry Ice, because Dry Ice is pure C02, Liquid CO2 kept under pressure, then released to atmospheric pressure and it turns into Dry Ice. Dry Ice stays cold longer than regular Ice.

CO2 stays cold longer than Water?

I guess we can always use Dry Ice to keep the planet cold, I say CO2 is our Savior.

Lordy, lordy. How incredibly fucking stupid does one have to be to post shit like that!

Dry ice - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Properties[edit]
For supplementary chemical data, see Carbon dioxide (data page).
Dry ice is the solid form of carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2), comprising two oxygen atoms bonded to a single carbon atom. It is colorless, with a sour zesty odor, non-flammable, and slightly acidic.[1]


Comparison of phase diagrams of carbon dioxide (red) and water (blue) as a log-lin chart with phase transitions points at 1 atmosphere
At pressures below 5.13 atm and temperatures below −56.4 °C (−69.5 °F) (the triple point), CO2 changes from a solid to a gas with no intervening liquid form, through a process called sublimation.[note 1] The opposite process is called deposition, where CO2 changes from the gas to solidphase (dry ice). At atmospheric pressure, sublimation/deposition occurs at −78.5 °C (−109.3 °F).

The density of dry ice varies, but usually ranges between about 1.4 and 1.6 g/cm3 (87 and 100 lb/cu ft).[2] The low temperature and direct sublimation to a gas makes dry ice an effective coolant, since it is colder than water ice and leaves no residue as it changes state.[3] Its enthalpy of sublimation is 571 kJ/kg (25.2 kJ/mol).

Dry ice is non-polar, with a dipole moment of zero, so attractiveintermolecular van der Waals forces operate.[4] The composition results in low thermal and electrical conductivity.[5]

Dry Ice, is CO2. I post this simply fact, and little did I know, my tiny bit of trolling would catch Old Crock.

Old Crock literally posts exactly what I state, about Dry Ice.

So what is your brain function problem, Old Crock.

Pretty ridiculous really, my post is all fact and Old Crock calls it, "fucking stupid". Yet, which part of wikipedia that Old Crock links to, proves my fact wrong. That Dry Ice is CO2, pressurized liquid CO2, is released to atmospheric pressure to create Dry Ice?

How is Dry Ice Made by Continental Carbonic

How is Dry Ice Made
Dry Ice Production
Dry ice is made from carbon dioxide gas. The carbon dioxide gas is pressurized and cooled to form liquid CO2. The liquid carbon dioxide is injected into either a block press or pelletizer. These dry ice production machines have chambers in which, once released to atmospheric pressure, the liquid carbon dioxide converts to dry ice snow and carbon dioxide gas. The carbon dioxide gas is recovered and converted back into liquid carbon dioxide.

 

[elektra]

So sad. Most of the deniers here no longer even pretend to care about the science. They only care about raging at the people they hate. Time to ignore their bitter sulking and bring the thread back on track with some science. I deliberately delayed doing that, being it's always fun to give deniers time enough to gather the rope to hang themselves.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.full.pdf
---
In this 6-year study at the Duke University Free-Air CO2 Enrichment experiment, we show that elevated atmospheric CO2 in an intact forest ecosystem increases photosynthesis, water use efficiency, growth, and population biomass of poison ivy. The CO2 growth stimulation exceeds that of most other woody species.
---

maMOOT, how about reading from what you link to, the very "study" maMOOT links to states is unclear the effect of CO2 on growth of vines? The study then states, "may be the result"?

Gee, the study says they do not know yet maMOOT can go further than a study, maMOOT can unequivocally conjure, "fact" and "science", from, "unclear" and "may be".

Although it is unclear how elevated CO2 will affect the
growth of vines in forest environments, the contemporary increase
in woody vine abundance may be the result of rising
atmospheric CO2 concentrations (19

I wonder why Duke did not increase the CO2 levels of the whole forest, to include the trees, to see how well trees did with extra CO2.

I guess there is a think called too much Science, which has a tendency to unravel MOOT points.

 

[jc456]

So sad. Most of the deniers here no longer even pretend to care about the science. They only care about raging at the people they hate. Time to ignore their bitter sulking and bring the thread back on track with some science. I deliberately delayed doing that, being it's always fun to give deniers time enough to gather the rope to hang themselves.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.full.pdf
---
In this 6-year study at the Duke University Free-Air CO2 Enrichment experiment, we show that elevated atmospheric CO2 in an intact forest ecosystem increases photosynthesis, water use efficiency, growth, and population biomass of poison ivy. The CO2 growth stimulation exceeds that of most other woody species.
---

maMOOT, how about reading from what you link to, the very "study" maMOOT links to states is unclear the effect of CO2 on growth of vines? The study then states, "may be the result"?

Gee, the study says they do not know yet maMOOT can go further than a study, maMOOT can unequivocally conjure, "fact" and "science", from, "unclear" and "may be".

Although it is unclear how elevated CO2 will affect the
growth of vines in forest environments, the contemporary increase
in woody vine abundance may be the result of rising
atmospheric CO2 concentrations (19

I wonder why Duke did not increase the CO2 levels of the whole forest, to include the trees, to see how well trees did with extra CO2.

I guess there is a think called too much Science, which has a tendency to unravel MOOT points.

elektra,

But he/she agreed with you in this post:

"mamooth said: ↑
Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail."
And why I call him/her stoopid, because he/she can't make up their mind.

 

[jc456]

Again, what part of "You being an idiot is not my problem" do you not understand?

mothmouth:

mamooth said: ↑
Meanwhile, out in the real world, a place deniers never go, the trees and crops aren't growing faster. That would be because, outside of the greenhouse, CO2 isn't the factor limiting growth.

Now, the vines and weeds do tend to grow faster, choking the trees and crops. Well done, deniers! You've screwed over the planet in yet another exciting way! Go on now, give each other some more backslaps over your success in finding a new way to fail.


just stupid!!!!!!!

 

[mamooth]

And now the kooks are just crying at me. Boring. But predictable. They parrot nonsense, I debunk it, and instead of going after the cult leaders who fed them the bunk, they go after me, the bearer of the bad news.

It's a sort of battered spouse syndrome we're seeing here, with deniers always running back to their abusers. There's not much we can do to help them, as long as that behavior continues.

 

[jc456]

yep, debunked, couldn't have said it better myself!!! WiNnInG

 

[elektra]

Yes, benefits of CO2. First and foremost, there is a ton of junk science concerning the magical ability for CO2 to raise the temperature of earth.

maMOOT gave a link to an article about a, "study".

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.full.pdf

I am astonished to find that in a Duke a University study of elevated levels of CO2 in a controlled experiment, the TEMPERATURE is not noted? How is it that the one factor that is supposedly a fact, is notably absent from, "science"?

I guess if one can not prove CO2 raises the temperature of the earth, lets just change the propaganda to something one can not argue, CO2 causes deadly vines to grow as if from a "B" horror movie, Attack of the Ivy Vines from Mars.

maMOOT, your logic is a breath of fresh air, beings that laughing at stupidity is something I enjoy.

Where is the TEMPERATURES in the "Science"?

What did Duke University hide?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.full.pdf

Contact with poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) is one of the most widely reported ailments at poison centers in the United States, and this plant has been introduced throughout the world, where it occurs with other allergenic members of the cashew
family (Anacardiaceae). Approximately 80% of humans develop dermatitis upon exposure to the carbon-based active compound, urushiol. It is not known how poison ivy might respond to increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), but previous work done in controlled growth chambers shows that other vines exhibit large growth enhancement from elevated CO2. Rising CO2 is potentially responsible for the increased vine abundance
that is inhibiting forest regeneration and increasing tree mortality around the world. In this 6-year study at the Duke University Free-Air CO2 Enrichment experiment, we show that elevated atmospheric CO2 in an intact forest ecosystem increases photosynthesis, water use efficiency, growth, and population biomass of poison ivy. The CO2 growth stimulation exceeds that of most other woody species. Furthermore, high-CO2 plants produce a more allergenic form of urushiol. Our results indicate that Toxicodendron taxa will become more abundant and more ‘‘toxic’’ in the future, potentially affecting global forest dynamics and human health.

Silly ass, Elektra, they were studying one effect of a rise in CO2 in a forest environment. They were not studying the absorption of long wave IR by CO2. Of course, that is beyond your understanding.

 

[elektra]

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.full.pdf

Contact with poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) is one of the most widely reported ailments at poison centers in the United States, and this plant has been introduced throughout the world, where it occurs with other allergenic members of the cashew
family (Anacardiaceae). Approximately 80% of humans develop dermatitis upon exposure to the carbon-based active compound, urushiol. It is not known how poison ivy might respond to increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), but previous work done in controlled growth chambers shows that other vines exhibit large growth enhancement from elevated CO2. Rising CO2 is potentially responsible for the increased vine abundance
that is inhibiting forest regeneration and increasing tree mortality around the world. In this 6-year study at the Duke University Free-Air CO2 Enrichment experiment, we show that elevated atmospheric CO2 in an intact forest ecosystem increases photosynthesis, water use efficiency, growth, and population biomass of poison ivy. The CO2 growth stimulation exceeds that of most other woody species. Furthermore, high-CO2 plants produce a more allergenic form of urushiol. Our results indicate that Toxicodendron taxa will become more abundant and more ‘‘toxic’’ in the future, potentially affecting global forest dynamics and human health.

Silly ass, Elektra, they were studying one effect of a rise in CO2 in a forest environment. They were not studying the absorption of long wave IR by CO2. Of course, that is beyond your understanding.

yes, radiation, what kind of particles are you speaking of? how come no experiments prove your contention? how come the effects you allure to have never ever been observed?

What is your life time exposure to industrial sources of radiation, Old Crock?

Mine is about 15 R, or (rem). That is all Gamma radiation, excluding background radiation, according to 10 CFR 20, or is it 21, mine is recording as it being a factor of my job. Every where a Dozen TLD's? Are you familiar with the difference between dose to the extremities and that to the whole body.

How about Whole Body counters, every lay in one for 5 minutes to be told that you ate Bananas and the increased radiation in Bananas was easily detected.

Old Crock, you are a fool.

 

[Old Rocks]

The electromagnetic spectrum describes the various types of electromagnetic energy based on wavelength.

Infrared Basics - IR Heating Equipment and Infrared Ovens by PROTHERM

Now Elektra, I really don't know who is the most ignorant of science, you or Billy Boob. Long wave IR refers to Infrared.

 

[elektra]

The electromagnetic spectrum describes the various types of electromagnetic energy based on wavelength.

Infrared Basics - IR Heating Equipment and Infrared Ovens by PROTHERM

Now Elektra, I really don't know who is the most ignorant of science, you or Billy Boob. Long wave IR refers to Infrared.

Old Crock, if you actually looked at Science and not Coloring Book pictures you would discover that some radiation is made up of particles.

Either way, the Study eliminated the Temperature data. The Study does not include all the data, the Study ignores findings that disagree with the "researchers" or "professors" pre-conceived ideas.

Where is the Temperature data, I will not call these idiots Scientists, they are not scientist.

So Duke University elevates the level of CO2 and does not record the difference in temperature? You know why, because the Temperature went DOWN!

Higher CO2 levels lower the temperature, hence temperature data is discarded or ignored.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The electromagnetic spectrum describes the various types of electromagnetic energy based on wavelength.

Infrared Basics - IR Heating Equipment and Infrared Ovens by PROTHERM

Now Elektra, I really don't know who is the most ignorant of science, you or Billy Boob. Long wave IR refers to Infrared.

Old Crock, if you actually looked at Science and not Coloring Book pictures you would discover that some radiation is made up of particles.

Either way, the Study eliminated the Temperature data. The Study does not include all the data, the Study ignores findings that disagree with the "researchers" or "professors" pre-conceived ideas.

Where is the Temperature data, I will not call these idiots Scientists, they are not scientist.

So Duke University elevates the level of CO2 and does not record the difference in temperature? You know why, because the Temperature went DOWN!

Higher CO2 levels lower the temperature, hence temperature data is discarded or ignored.

Elektra is correct;

As they increased the level of CO2 the exiting long wave radiation increased, while the amount of energy used to keep the area temperature static, in therms remained constant, the out going LWIR increased lowering the temp by 1 deg C.

Funny how any item which disproves their mantra is discarded or hidden. The Duke study choose not to include the data because it did not find it useful in their stated pro AGW objective.

 

[Old Rocks]

The electromagnetic spectrum describes the various types of electromagnetic energy based on wavelength.

Infrared Basics - IR Heating Equipment and Infrared Ovens by PROTHERM

Now Elektra, I really don't know who is the most ignorant of science, you or Billy Boob. Long wave IR refers to Infrared.

Old Crock, if you actually looked at Science and not Coloring Book pictures you would discover that some radiation is made up of particles.

Either way, the Study eliminated the Temperature data. The Study does not include all the data, the Study ignores findings that disagree with the "researchers" or "professors" pre-conceived ideas.

Where is the Temperature data, I will not call these idiots Scientists, they are not scientist.

So Duke University elevates the level of CO2 and does not record the difference in temperature? You know why, because the Temperature went DOWN!

Higher CO2 levels lower the temperature, hence temperature data is discarded or ignored.

Fucked up nitwits like you do not get to decide who is or isn't a scientist. Your lack of understanding basic science is apparent to all.

 

[Old Rocks]

The duality of the nature of electromagnetic radiation is known to all that have taken any physics at all. However, as the wave length of the radiation increases, the more the radiation acts like a wave. As you shorten the wave length, the more like a particle. To baldy state that all radiation is particulate is to demonstrate that you do not understand anything about the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[skookerasbil]

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."

- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University








Popular Technology.net Carbon Dioxide CO2 is Not Pollution

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

 

[skookerasbil]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

Yep..........MOST scientists, Masters and Phd level, call BS on climate science based upon this fact.......scientific methods are of no concern to the climate scientist. Of course, to the AGW religion, these tens of thousands of scientists are "fake" scientists!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

The duality of the nature of electromagnetic radiation is known to all that have taken any physics at all. However, as the wave length of the radiation increases, the more the radiation acts like a wave. As you shorten the wave length, the more like a particle. To baldy state that all radiation is particulate is to demonstrate that you do not understand anything about the electromagnetic spectrum.

Your lack of understanding is evidenced by your belief. The failure to understand how the heat exchange occurs and why it diminishes or is reflected/scattered as the CO2 level increases is what I find amusing. The alarmist drivel and sky is falling crap is growing very old.