CO2 is our friend

[Robert W]

Between JC456, Elektra, EMH, toobfreak and myself, there is only one poster whose views here align with mainstream science. And there name is not JC456, Elektra, EMH or toobfreak.

For the sake of giving us all a good illustration, let's look at 450 ppm on a graph.

Draw a horizontal line about 50 feet wide and also 50 feet high.

So you have a square of 50 x 50 feet to view.

We are discussing not even 450 ppm but just for joy, make it that amount.
50 x 50 =2500

So to contain 450 ppm in this square the dots have to be almost invisible to the human eye.

If you have 450 dots in the square of 2500 feet square, you have a hard time seeing any dots.

What I am saying is you are fussing about virtually nothing at all.

 

[elektra]

For the sake of giving us all a good illustration, let's look at 450 ppm on a graph.

Draw a horizontal line about 50 feet wide and also 50 feet high.

So you have a square of 50 x 50 feet to view.

We are discussing not even 450 ppm but just for joy, make it that amount.
50 x 50 =2500

So to contain 450 ppm in this square the dots have to be almost invisible to the human eye.

If you have 450 dots in the square of 2500 feet square, you have a hard time seeing any dots.

What I am saying is you are fussing about virtually nothing at all.

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

CO2 is at a historic low

 

[Crick]

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

CO2 is at a historic low

CO2 is higher than it has been in over 2 million years. What, exactly, do you mean when you say "historic"

 

[elektra]

CO2 is higher than it has been in over 2 million years. What, exactly, do you mean when you say "historic"

2 million years is .044444444% of the Earth's age.

CO2 is at it's lowest level in the history of the Earth

Crick, you are looking at one grain of sand, I am looking scientifically at the entire universe.

 

[Crick]

2 million years is .044444444% of the Earth's age.

CO2 is at it's lowest level in the history of the Earth

Crick, you are looking at one grain of sand, I am looking scientifically at the entire universe.

Scientifically?!?!?

HAHAHAHAAAHAAHAHAHAaahahahahaaa.... oh jeeesus...

 

[elektra]

Scientifically?!?!?

HAHAHAHAAAHAAHAHAHAaahahahahaaa.... oh jeeesus...

and that is all you can do, on a topic you disagree with, you deflect by flaming my post

That is why you are looked at as a loser. Like so many people here, you wont discuss a topic, it is simply your very narrow point of view.

Yes, scientifically is how I look at things. It most likely is because I use a scientific method to do my job. That on a daily basis, if I am not writing reports I am in the field, using a scientific method to analyze discontinuities in many different kinds of metals.

Like today, lil Crick

I am currently working for Wacker Polysilicon in Tennessee. That is Polysilicon as in the Polysilicon that is used to make solar panels. That puts me literally, employed, making a career, working in the Solar Industry.

I can honestly say I have worked for these power producers

Nuclear
Coal
Natural Gas
Geothermal
Wind
Solar

Does it make me an expert, certainly not. Does it make more knowledgeable than the average person, yes. But it also shows my intelligence and ability to learn and adapt on a level much more sophisticated than an average blue collar worker needs to or has the oppurtunity to.

That is right CRICK, between me and you, now, I am the one working in the Solar Power Industry, you are not. Between us, I am the expert.

 

[Crick]

and that is all you can do, on a topic you disagree with, you deflect by flaming my post

Flaming? Really? You thought that was flaming? I guess if you squinted hard enough, all those H's and A's might look like flames. But, no. I was laughing at you claiming to do anything here "scientifically".

That is why you are looked at as a loser.

You don't like me because I have repeatedly corrected your ignorant mistakes. Understandable. But the reasonable reaction would be to try to correct your mistakes, not double-down in the Trumpian fashion. I mean, where's that gotten him? $88.3M on top of $5M running in parallel to an extremely likely $370M on top of a loss of all his business licenses running in parallel to a significant prison term for stealing SCI TS national security documents to who know what for trying to overthrow the government to getting kicked off the ballot at least in multiple states if not the whole fucking country. Doubling down on mistakes is NEVER a good strategy.

Like so many people here, you wont discuss a topic, it is simply your very narrow point of view.

I'll discuss the dickens out of any topic you like, but if you try to throw out bad science as if it were fact, I'm going to call you on it.

Yes, scientifically is how I look at things.

Then you're completely failing in the effort.

It most likely is because I use a scientific method to do my job.

Well, we don't see your job. You can say whatever you like about it. We see what you say here about these topics and on these topics, you do NOT argue scientifically.

That on a daily basis, if I am not writing reports I am in the field, using a scientific method to analyze discontinuities in many different kinds of metals.

Very exciting. Are you a scientist? Are you doing research? Do you have a doctorate? No, no and no.

Like today, lil Crick

That's Lil RETIRED Crick to you.

I am currently working for Wacker Polysilicon in Tennessee. That is Polysilicon as in the Polysilicon that is used to make solar panels. That puts me literally, employed, making a career, working in the Solar Industry.

I would NOT identify your employer and location. BIG mistake.

I can honestly say I have worked for these power producers

Nuclear
Coal
Natural Gas
Geothermal
Wind
Solar

Does it make me an expert, certainly not. Does it make more knowledgeable than the average person, yes. But it also shows my intelligence and ability to learn and adapt on a level much more sophisticated than an average blue collar worker needs to or has the oppurtunity to.

That is right CRICK, between me and you, now, I am the one working in the Solar Power Industry, you are not. Between us, I am the expert.

Then explain how your views differ so dramatically from the people with PhDs who've been actively studying these issues for decades now. Do you actually believe you are right and they are all wrong?

 

[elektra]

Flaming? Really? You thought that was flaming? I guess if you squinted hard enough, all those H's and A's might look like flames. But, no. I was laughing at you claiming to do anything here "scientifically".


I would NOT identify your employer and location. BIG mistake.

NO? You would not say where you work? Of course you would not, you are too old too work and if you were, you do not have the expertise to be valued.

I did not identify my employer, I stated where I am contracted, to. You mistaken again, which shows how you do lack comprehension skills.

Flaming, always in denial.

Correcting mistakes, hardly. But I say how you can think that as I have been correcting your mistakes, like...

I big mistake you made here was to state that CO2 is at it's highest level in 0.04% of the earth's history. If you an ability to think scientifically even a tiny bit you would state that CO2 is at it's lowest level, in the earth's history.

Crick, you can not see the beach, you are concentrating on one tiny speck of sand.

Now, see how I brought my comment back to the topic you can not grasp, while your post is nothing more than a poor flame job.

Keep trolling lil cricket

 

[Crick]

NO? You would not say where you work? Of course you would not, you are too old too work and if you were, you do not have the expertise to be valued.

Do let us know whent the first whack job gives you a ring at work or finds his way to your cubicle.

I did not identify my employer, I stated where I am contracted, to. You mistaken again, which shows how you do lack comprehension skills.

You don't think you gave out (and left up) enough information for someone to find you? Then, good luck with that.

Flaming, always in denial.

'Flaming' is posting personal insults and vulgar and angry words. Flaming is an intense argument that normally takes place in chatrooms or via instant messages or email. It may also occur on social-media sites and YouTube. It is a very aggressive form of intimidation.

We specialise in supporting parents & children & strengthening families through respectful relationships /> <meta property=

What is flaming

www.interrelate.org.au

I don't think laughing actually qualifies.

Correcting mistakes, hardly. But I say how you can think that as I have been correcting your mistakes, like...

Denial

I big mistake you made here was to state that CO2 is at it's highest level in 0.04% of the earth's history. If you an ability to think scientifically even a tiny bit you would state that CO2 is at it's lowest level, in the earth's history.

Quote me saying "highest... in Earth's history". I consistently point out that it is the highest it has been in many times the entire span of homo sapiens' existence. Not the same thing, particularly if you look at the two SCIENTIFICALLY

Crick, you can not see the beach, you are concentrating on one tiny speck of sand.

Can you explain how that applies to any aspect of our conversation here? What is the beach and what is the grain of sand?

Now, see how I brought my comment back to the topic you can not grasp, while your post is nothing more than a poor flame job.

The topic of this thread is CO2. You have been stating falsehoods concerning CO2 and I - once again - have corrected you. YOU brought up your qualifications.

Keep trolling lil cricket

I will keep arguing the science while I strongly suspect you will simply keep lying.

 

[elektra]

'Flaming' is posting personal insults and vulgar and angry words. Flaming is an intense argument that normally takes place in chatrooms or via instant messages or email. It may also occur on social-media sites and YouTube. It is a very aggressive form of intimidation.

It figures that lil cricket does not know what flaming, is.

Funny how crick proves him/herself wrong all the time.

and yes, crick, you have misrepresented the level of CO2 as being a historic high.

You are full of shit. CO2 is at a historic low.

 

[Crick]

Quote.

It figures that lil cricket does not know what flaming, is.

Funny how crick proves him/herself wrong all the time.

and yes, crick, you have misrepresented the level of CO2 as being a historic high.

You are full of shit. CO2 is at a historic low.

This graph clearly shows that it has been approximately 7.5 million years since atmospheric CO2 has been at or above 420 ppm. Do you deny these data?

Temperature (top) and CO2 (bottom) for the last 66 million years, showing preindustrial & 2021 temperature & CO2. Ma = million years ago. Redrawn from Rae et al. 2021, with annotations added: 2021 CO2 per CO2.Earth, preindustrial CO2 per climate.gov, 2021 absolute temperature per NOAA Global Climate Report for June 2021 anomaly above 20th century average of 13.5ºC, preindustrial absolute temperature per Berkeley Earth 2020 anomaly of 1.27 above preindustrial.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quote.

This graph clearly shows that it has been approximately 7.5 million years since atmospheric CO2 has been at or above 420 ppm. Do you deny these data?


View attachment 896703
Temperature (top) and CO2 (bottom) for the last 66 million years, showing preindustrial & 2021 temperature & CO2. Ma = million years ago. Redrawn from Rae et al. 2021, with annotations added: 2021 CO2 per CO2.Earth, preindustrial CO2 per climate.gov, 2021 absolute temperature per NOAA Global Climate Report for June 2021 anomaly above 20th century average of 13.5ºC, preindustrial absolute temperature per Berkeley Earth 2020 anomaly of 1.27 above preindustrial.

We warmed up when the Little Ice Age ended. Thankfully.

 

[elektra]

This graph clearly shows that it has been approximately 7.5 million years since atmospheric CO2 has been at or above 420 ppm. Do you deny these data?

look everyone, lil crick has little mind so he/she must look at little time spans

lil crick wants us to narrowly focus on 0.16666% of the Earth's history!

For the last 7.5 million years, CO2 is at a historic low. For 99.84% of Earth's history, CO2 was always higher than today's historic low.

Do you deny the fact and the data, lil cricket

 

[Matted Joybeard]

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

'Dangerously low' - what does that even mean? Are we realistically any any danger?

 

[Crick]

So, you agree. Good.

Now Elektra has just stated that 7.5 million years is 0.1666% of the Earth's history. That indicates he's talking about 4.5 billion years of Earth history. Lets make a rough timeline: since that point

4.5 billion years ago: The Earth forms as a molten ball. Carbon dioxide is present in its earliest atmosphere.
3.7 billion years ago: Earliest microbes appear
2.4 billion years ago: Oxygen begins to appear in the atmosphere
800 million years ago: The first animal life appears - sponges
580 million years ago: The End Ediacarian Extinction
541 million years ago: The Cambrian Explosion
518 million years ago: The first vertebrates appear
460 million years ago: The first plants appear (how about that - vertebrates older than plants)
445 million years ago: The Late Ordovician Mass Extinction
423 million years ago: Animal life first moves onto land
372 million years ago: The Late Devonian Extinction
251.9 million years ago: The Permian-Triassic Extinction
250 - 200 million years ago: Dinosaurs first appear
225 million years ago: Mammals first appear
66 million years ago: The Cretaceous-Paleogene Extinction Event - Dinosaurs made extinct
55 million years ago: First primate appear
6-7 million years ago: First hominids appear, CO2 drops below 420 ppm
200-300,000 years ago: First homo sapiens appear
40,000 years ago: Neanderthals go extinct, homo sapiens sole remaining hominid
5-6,000 years ago: Human civilization begins
1712 ad: The steam engine invented by Thomas Newcomen. Improved in 1764 by James Watt
June, 2021 ad: CO2 first peaks at 420 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory.

So, not only have no humans or human civilization ever seen 420 ppm CO2 before, no hominid of any sort ever saw it. But Elektra doesn't care. The Dinosaurs saw higher before they went extinct. The arthropods saw higher before they vanished. The Cambrians saw higher before they disappeared. The Ediacarians saw higher before they all died. So, higher is okay. Of course none of them saw it rising as quickly as it is rising right now. But that doesn't matter. They were okay with it (while they lived) so we should be too. He's just being scientific. Right?

 

[Matted Joybeard]

The implication is that we somehow saved ourselves and plants because CO2 was nearing some critical minimum is complete bunk. The thread should have stopped there.

 

[elektra]

'Dangerously low' - what does that even mean? Are we realistically any any danger?

dangerously low means, over the earth's history, CO2 is at it's lowest level, just a bit above the level plants need to grow

We are at around 400 ppm now, 200 ppm and plant life begins to die. Greenhouses increase CO2 levels to 1200 ppm.

How long will we survive if CO2 continues it's historic decline? 10's of thousands of years? 100's?

Nobody knows for sure.

 

[Crick]

dangerously low means, over the earth's history, CO2 is at it's lowest level, just a bit above the level plants need to grow

We are at around 400 ppm now, 200 ppm and plant life begins to die. Greenhouses increase CO2 levels to 1200 ppm.

How long will we survive if CO2 continues it's historic decline? 10's of thousands of years? 100's?

Nobody knows for sure.

Prior to human emissions, CO2 was stable within a 20 ppm range for over 2.5 million years including over a dozen glacial periods. What do you think would make it decline? 250 ppm from current levels?

 

[Matted Joybeard]

dangerously low means, over the earth's history, CO2 is at it's lowest level, just a bit above the level plants need to grow

We are at around 400 ppm now, 200 ppm and plant life begins to die. Greenhouses increase CO2 levels to 1200 ppm.

How long will we survive if CO2 continues it's historic decline? 10's of thousands of years? 100's?

Nobody knows for sure.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Prior to human emissions, CO2 was stable within a 20 ppm range for over 2.5 million years including over a dozen glacial periods.

With CO2 below 300 ppm the planet saw over a dozen glacial periods? That's awful!!!
We could probably use a little GHG cushion against another glacial period which
would kill billions.