2024 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum second lowest on record

[ding]

View attachment 1056094

To live is to consume. If consuming is wrong, so is living.

 

[Luckyone]

Steam? Is that really a threat?

 

[ding]

View attachment 1056143

CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle for which all life on earth depends upon.

 

[Leo123]

View attachment 1056143

CO2 is natural and needed in Earth’s atmosphere.

 

[Luckyone]

CO2 is natural and needed in Earth’s atmosphere.

AI Overview

No, while both factories and plants produce carbon dioxide (CO2), the CO2 created by factories is considered "anthropogenic" (human-made) because it comes from burning fossil fuels, which are essentially stored carbon from ancient plants, while the CO2 released by plants is part of the natural carbon cycle and is generally balanced by their absorption of CO2 during photosynthesis; the key difference is the source of the carbon being released, making factory emissions a significant contributor to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

[Luckyone]

CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle for which all life on earth depends upon.

AI Overview

No, while both factories and plants produce carbon dioxide (CO2), the CO2 created by factories is considered "anthropogenic" (human-made) because it comes from burning fossil fuels, which are essentially stored carbon from ancient plants, while the CO2 released by plants is part of the natural carbon cycle and is generally balanced by their absorption of CO2 during photosynthesis; the key difference is the source of the carbon being released, making factory emissions a significant contributor to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

[ding]

AI Overview

No, while both factories and plants produce carbon dioxide (CO2), the CO2 created by factories is considered "anthropogenic" (human-made) because it comes from burning fossil fuels, which are essentially stored carbon from ancient plants, while the CO2 released by plants is part of the natural carbon cycle and is generally balanced by their absorption of CO2 during photosynthesis; the key difference is the source of the carbon being released, making factory emissions a significant contributor to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

So what? During the last 4 glacial periods the planet came dangerously close to not having enough atmospheric CO2 to sustain life. We should be burning more fossil fuels, not less.

 

[westwall]

View attachment 1056143

Ummmm....yeah....has nothing to do with reality.

 

[westwall]

AI Overview

No, while both factories and plants produce carbon dioxide (CO2), the CO2 created by factories is considered "anthropogenic" (human-made) because it comes from burning fossil fuels, which are essentially stored carbon from ancient plants, while the CO2 released by plants is part of the natural carbon cycle and is generally balanced by their absorption of CO2 during photosynthesis; the key difference is the source of the carbon being released, making factory emissions a significant contributor to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

Who cares if it's man made. It's the same molecule. It feeds plants.

Are you truly this ignorant about the basics of life on Earth?

 

[Leo123]

AI Overview

No, while both factories and plants produce carbon dioxide (CO2), the CO2 created by factories is considered "anthropogenic" (human-made) because it comes from burning fossil fuels, which are essentially stored carbon from ancient plants, while the CO2 released by plants is part of the natural carbon cycle and is generally balanced by their absorption of CO2 during photosynthesis; the key difference is the source of the carbon being released, making factory emissions a significant contributor to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

Natural sources make astronomically more CO2 than all the factories on Earth.

 

[westwall]

Natural sources make astronomically more CO2 than all the factories on Earth.

Mankind contributes less than 5% of the yearly CO2 production. The claim that that 5% can somehow cause the world to end is farcical and relies on the gross scientific illiteracy of the general public to succeed.

 

[Leo123]

Mankind contributes less than 5% of the yearly CO2 production. The claim that that 5% can somehow cause the world to end is farcical and relies on the gross scientific illiteracy of the general public to succeed.

Yes, the gross scientific illiteracy promoted by Marxists and Marxist-tools in order to break down society and supplant it with Marxism which is total government control. Marxists have taken over our media, the left and our institutions of learning. That's how they roll.

 

[EMH]

CO2 is natural and needed in Earth’s atmosphere.

No one dies when they open a can of Coca Cola either...

 

[EMH]

AI Overview

No, while both factories and plants produce carbon dioxide (CO2), the CO2 created by factories is considered "anthropogenic" (human-made) because it comes from burning fossil fuels, which are essentially stored carbon from ancient plants, while the CO2 released by plants is part of the natural carbon cycle and is generally balanced by their absorption of CO2 during photosynthesis; the key difference is the source of the carbon being released, making factory emissions a significant contributor to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

No, what is missing is any evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

There is no evidence of that, just FUDGED FRAUD.

 

[Luckyone]

No, what is missing is any evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

There is no evidence of that, just FUDGED FRAUD.

Sure, 2780 scientists and 3000 studies mean nothing because EMH says so, right!

 

[westwall]

Sure, 2780 scientists and 3000 studies mean nothing because EMH says so, right!

No, not because of that, but because the "studies" are garbage. They are all based on computer derived fiction. And ignore historical, and scientific fact.

 

[Luckyone]

Natural sources make astronomically more CO2 than all the factories on Earth.

Too much of anything is bad but man made stuff is always more harmful.

Consider sugar vs sweeteners. Sugar is naturally made and taking large quantities causes diabetes to happen. Artificial sweeteners cause cancer if taken in large quantities.

 

[westwall]

Too much of anything is bad but man made stuff is always more harmful.

Consider sugar vs sweeteners. Sugar is naturally made and taking large quantities causes diabetes to happen. Artificial sweeteners cause cancer if taken in large quantities.

No, it isn't. CO2 is CO2. Source is immaterial. The simple fact is if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 drops to 200ppm, the planet dies.

Do you understand that CO2 feeds the plants of the world, and if they are unable to grow, everything dies?

 

[ding]

Too much of anything is bad but man made stuff is always more harmful.

How is manmade CO2 different than CO2 that existed before man?

 

[EMH]

Sure, 2780 scientists and 3000 studies mean nothing because EMH says so, right!

BEAKED BIRDBRAINS care about PARROTING.

SCIENCE is not about PARROTING.

It is about DATA.

The DATA never showed any evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming, and had to be FUDGED in 2005 to do so...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.



Translation from NBC spin - the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, documented over 3+ decades of rising CO2 with high correlation, that increasing atmospheric CO2 DID NOT CAUSE ANY WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE...


Not understanding the difference between DATA and FUDGE = a necessary level of IDIOCY required to fall for CO2 FRAUD