Is the world "better off" at 580 ppm or 300 ppm of CO2?

[ding]

Given that you believe the earth is ~6,000 years old this might not be the thread for you.


Just sayin'

What about water vapor? That was created very early. It is the greatest greenhouse gas. You change ppm on that and really upset the chemistry and atmosphere of the world. That will kill the entire planet if someone could do it. That's demonstrable with a greenhouse.

Earth’s atmosphere has a finely calibrated ratio of oxygen to nitrogen -- just enough CO2 and adequate water vapor levels to promote advanced life, allow photosynthesis (without an excessive greenhouse effect), and to allow for sufficient rainfall.

Thus, what do you think you are believing with this CO2 and ppm on it? The science of atheism.

The science of atheism found these fine tuning parameters. They found how gravity affects our greenhouse gases and atmosphere. This was from 2007 - 2011. Today, you won't be able to find the discussion of these parameters on the internet. The science of atheism has disavowed all of it due to it helping people like myself, the creationists. Stephen Hawking knew it because he either led that group or was part of the group of scientists who found them while studying the big bang.

Basically, nothing lasts 65 million years. Our common sense should tell us that rocks and fossils would not be around that long. Our planet would not be around that long. Our universe is churning into destruction.

Anyway, let's wait for the James Webb telescope to see what really is happening around us. We should learn more about our atmospheric conditions compared to other solar systems and galaxies. The science of atheism which you believe does not want to admit that we have the perfect location for life.

Not the thread for you.

 

[ding]

Yes, during the PETM which was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day, pretty much all of the mammals that we live with today evolved.

372070[/ATTACH]

Did you have a point, Mr. Mensa?

 

[Grumblenuts]

For the second time...

No one is denying the GHG effect of gases in the atmosphere. We are arguing against their models containing unrealistic feedback responses and unrealistic forecasts of GHG emissions.

O'Reilly? Better remind westwall. He's been calling obvious GHG effects "weather."

See that large, blue spike all the way to the right? Yeah, much higher than anything seen in the past 400,000 years or so. The hardcore deniers these days, just as here, never cease pointing out that the CO2 rise trails the rise in temperature. But note how no such rise in temperature leads that huge CO2 rise all the way on the right. Odd? Huh. Notice also how the largest temperature spikes tend to mark the beginning of each long cooling cycle. Except all the way to the right. Gee, perhaps experiencing this continued quick warming trend instead of the indicated cooling is what has been "alarming" climatologists.. Ya think!??

The feedback of sequestration of the ocean is well established. Please don't tell me that you are going to argue against that now too.

This is getting to be comical. CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years.

What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally.. spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.

 

[ReinyDays]

What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally.. spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.

Could you lay out that "plain logic" again ... with links ... I must have missed it the first time around because you sure haven't been making any sense ...

If A, then B ... you know, plain like you said ...

 

[ReinyDays]

"they need no maintenance"
Now that's funny ...

Look up Small Nuclear Reactors. L I'll keep I said, science advances. You folks should try and stay current.
[/QUOTE]

I haven't been able to find the National Enquirer article you're referencing ... but somebody lied to you ...

I did read the blerb about this from DoE ... and as I thought, we're twenty years from a prototype scheduled to go up in Utah ...

1] Water cooled ... we're not going to bury and forget a water cooled nuclear reactor ... just stupid to think they have no weekly maintenance work ... it's a joke, the idea is supposed to make you laugh ... why would you believe such nonsense? ... [sigh] ... what Satanic demon forced you to post that here? ... I'm thinking you have too many house cats to be honest ...

Yes ... water cooled is why I'm predicting 800 ppm Cs-135 by year 2100 ... we know it's wrong, but we're going to do it anyway ... DoE says so ...

2] Spent fuel rods ... we'll just leave these in the ground? ... smart, real smart ... our nuclear future will NOT be inexpensive ... that's the mistake we made in the 1950's ... we threw up cheap reactors cheaply ... and now the garbage is piling up ... it's going to be expensive, because we have to build breeder reactors ...

This is strictly "Pie in the sky, go to heaven when we die" theology ... nothing wrong with putting up nuclear reactors in unstable third-world brutal dictatorships, now is there? ... DoE is just now getting funding to look into the regulators aspects of all this ... like I said, should have been done twenty years ago ... right now it's twenty years just to get a prototype up for "proof of concept" ...

By the way ... where are we going to get our reactor vessels? ... Westinghouse bankrupted out from underneath their division ... you should try and stay current ... (c.f. Thorium reactors)

 

[ReinyDays]

You had me until fossil fuels get really expensive.

Tell me truly ... you haven't notice fuel prices are running three times the inflation rate? ... that's today ... are you not including the trillions spent defending Saudi oil fields ... who cleans up northern Alberta? ... how many more Deep Horizons? ... Santa Barbara ... Prince William Sound ... coastal Texas ... I know, hasn't cost us anything yet ... but we're talking 100 years from now ... 30 billion people driving cars ... 30 times the electric generation ...

Or do you think fossil fuels are continually bubbling up from the mantle? ...

 

[ding]

You had me until fossil fuels get really expensive.

Tell me truly ... you haven't notice fuel prices are running three times the inflation rate? ... that's today ... are you not including the trillions spent defending Saudi oil fields ... who cleans up northern Alberta? ... how many more Deep Horizons? ... Santa Barbara ... Prince William Sound ... coastal Texas ... I know, hasn't cost us anything yet ... but we're talking 100 years from now ... 30 billion people driving cars ... 30 times the electric generation ...

Or do you think fossil fuels are continually bubbling up from the mantle? ...

Two words... shale oil

It's everywhere.

 

[ding]

For the second time...

No one is denying the GHG effect of gases in the atmosphere. We are arguing against their models containing unrealistic feedback responses and unrealistic forecasts of GHG emissions.

O'Reilly? Better remind westwall. He's been calling obvious GHG effects "weather."

See that large, blue spike all the way to the right? Yeah, much higher than anything seen in the past 400,000 years or so. The hardcore deniers these days, just as here, never cease pointing out that the CO2 rise trails the rise in temperature. But note how no such rise in temperature leads that huge CO2 rise all the way on the right. Odd? Huh. Notice also how the largest temperature spikes tend to mark the beginning of each long cooling cycle. Except all the way to the right. Gee, perhaps experiencing this continued quick warming trend instead of the indicated cooling is what has been "alarming" climatologists.. Ya think!??

The feedback of sequestration of the ocean is well established. Please don't tell me that you are going to argue against that now too.

This is getting to be comical. CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years.

What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally.. spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.

I can't stop laughing at you accusing me of what you are doing.

 

[Likkmee]

I like about 22 cfm myself. That's with.030 S6

 

[Grumblenuts]

What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally.. spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.

Could you lay out that "plain logic" again ... with links ... I must have missed it the first time around because you sure haven't been making any sense ...

If A, then B ... you know, plain like you said ...

Sure thing. Let me just lay out the plainly obvious off the top of my head, then perhaps drill down a bit later. The AGW deniers have unsurprisingly been reacting like crazy to the ice core data graphs since published. Unsurprising because it shockingly threatened to end the easy windfalls long enjoyed by the wealthy's investments in fossil fuels. A key component of all their portfolios and retirement plans.

Revealed in the most striking detail ever was

• The interdependence of global temperature and atmospheric CO2
• That we should be entering a cooling period despite temperatures rising
• That industrialization was now driving CO2 levels through the roof

So these clear implications simply had to be attacked from any and all directions at once. Never, EVER simply acknowledged. No!!

I've got too much shit to do. I'll be back..

 

[ReinyDays]

Two words... shale oil
It's everywhere.

No it's not ... unless you have a citation ...

Are you including the cost of clean up? ... or are we going to leave all the heavy metal neuro-toxins on the surface for the rains to wash into rivers? ... we going to just leave the tailings in big poisonous piles? ...

It's ideas like this that make Cs-135 sound great ... the next generation won't care, now will they ... seriously, northern Alberta is an environmental mess, that land is ruined ... I know Canada deserves this, but you said everyplace ...

 

[ding]

Two words... shale oil
It's everywhere.

No it's not ... unless you have a citation ...

Are you including the cost of clean up? ... or are we going to leave all the heavy metal neuro-toxins on the surface for the rains to wash into rivers? ... we going to just leave the tailings in big poisonous piles? ...

It's ideas like this that make Cs-135 sound great ... the next generation won't care, now will they ... seriously, northern Alberta is an environmental mess, that land is ruined ... I know Canada deserves this, but you said everyplace ...

Shale oil or I should say the technology to make producing shale oil commercially viable has altered the financial landscape for oil and gas production. Source rocks are literally everywhere.

Just look at the historic US oil production curve for proof of shale oil's influence on the oil patch.

But if you'd rather not believe me, I'm cool with that too.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I like about 22 cfm myself. That's with.030 S6

A mig welder's joke? I just use flux wire anymore and live with the crappy results, lol.

 

[ding]

What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally.. spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.

Could you lay out that "plain logic" again ... with links ... I must have missed it the first time around because you sure haven't been making any sense ...

If A, then B ... you know, plain like you said ...

Sure thing. Let me just lay out the plainly obvious off the top of my head, then perhaps drill down a bit later. The AGW deniers have unsurprisingly been reacting like crazy to the ice core data graphs since published. Unsurprising because it shockingly threatened to end the easy windfalls long enjoyed by the wealthy's investments in fossil fuels. A key component of all their portfolios and retirement plans.

Revealed in the most striking detail ever was

• The interdependence of global temperature and atmospheric CO2
• That we should be entering a cooling period despite temperatures rising
• That industrialization was now driving CO2 levels through the roof

So these clear implications simply had to be attacked from any and all directions at once. Never, EVER simply acknowledged. No!!

I've got too much shit to do. I'll be back..

Didn't I just explain the relationship between CO2 and isolated poles from warm marine currents? Kind of hard for you to say with a straight face that I haven't acknowledged the role CO2 has played in climate.

Your problem is you can't discuss those implications like an adult. It is what it is. And you bury your head in the sand when anyone expresses anything different than what you believe.

 

[ding]

I haven't presented one single thing that is not widely accepted within the scientific community.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally.. spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.

Could you lay out that "plain logic" again ... with links ... I must have missed it the first time around because you sure haven't been making any sense ...

If A, then B ... you know, plain like you said ...

Sure thing. Let me just lay out the plainly obvious off the top of my head, then perhaps drill down a bit later. The AGW deniers have unsurprisingly been reacting like crazy to the ice core data graphs since published. Unsurprising because it shockingly threatened to end the easy windfalls long enjoyed by the wealthy's investments in fossil fuels. A key component of all their portfolios and retirement plans.

Revealed in the most striking detail ever was

• The interdependence of global temperature and atmospheric CO2
• That we should be entering a cooling period despite temperatures rising
• That industrialization was now driving CO2 levels through the roof

So these clear implications simply had to be attacked from any and all directions at once. Never, EVER simply acknowledged. No!!

I've got too much shit to do. I'll be back..

Didn't I just explain the relationship between CO2 and isolated poles from warm marine currents? Kind of hard for you to say with a straight face that I haven't acknowledged the role CO2 has played in climate.

Your problem is you can't discuss those implications like an adult. It is what it is. And you bury your head in the sand when anyone expresses anything different than what you believe.

You had your chance to respond intelligently and just babbled non sequitur accusations. Now you're just continuing to dissemble and interrupt. Got a question? No? Then kindly butt TF out of our conversation, you pouty little child.

 

[ding]

What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally.. spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.

Could you lay out that "plain logic" again ... with links ... I must have missed it the first time around because you sure haven't been making any sense ...

If A, then B ... you know, plain like you said ...

Sure thing. Let me just lay out the plainly obvious off the top of my head, then perhaps drill down a bit later. The AGW deniers have unsurprisingly been reacting like crazy to the ice core data graphs since published. Unsurprising because it shockingly threatened to end the easy windfalls long enjoyed by the wealthy's investments in fossil fuels. A key component of all their portfolios and retirement plans.

Revealed in the most striking detail ever was

• The interdependence of global temperature and atmospheric CO2
• That we should be entering a cooling period despite temperatures rising
• That industrialization was now driving CO2 levels through the roof

So these clear implications simply had to be attacked from any and all directions at once. Never, EVER simply acknowledged. No!!

I've got too much shit to do. I'll be back..

Didn't I just explain the relationship between CO2 and isolated poles from warm marine currents? Kind of hard for you to say with a straight face that I haven't acknowledged the role CO2 has played in climate.

Your problem is you can't discuss those implications like an adult. It is what it is. And you bury your head in the sand when anyone expresses anything different than what you believe.

You had your chance to respond intelligently and just babbled non sequitur accusations. Now you're just continuing to dissemble and interrupt. Got a question? No? Then kindly butt TF out of our conversation, you pouty little child.

This is my thread. I have responded intelligently in every post.

What you are accusing me of is what YOU have done. Again.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sure thing. Let me just lay out the plainly obvious off the top of my head, then perhaps drill down a bit later. The AGW deniers have unsurprisingly been reacting like crazy to the ice core data graphs since published. Unsurprising because it shockingly threatened to end the easy windfalls long enjoyed by the wealthy's investments in fossil fuels. A key component of all their portfolios and retirement plans.

Revealed in the most striking detail ever was

• The interdependence of global temperature and atmospheric CO2
• That we should be entering a cooling period despite temperatures rising
• That industrialization was now driving CO2 levels through the roof

So these clear implications simply had to be attacked from any and all directions at once. Never, EVER simply acknowledged. No!!

I've got too much shit to do. I'll be back..

You got me ... what is "plainly obvious" about the weasel words you're using ... "deniers", "unsurprisingly", "like crazy", "shockingly", "windfalls", "wealthy's" ... what is the logical basis of surprise or shock ... how are we to deduce these qualities, and how do we quantify them and perform an experiment to either confirm or refute these values? ...

Please ... what is the mathematical relationship between temperatures and CO2 concentration? ...
Please ... why is it physically impossible for temperatures to rise slightly, over a brief period of time, even during a general cooling process? ...
Please ... what is the CO2 "roof" you speak of ... the 960,000 ppm primordial levels? ...

For the love of God ... please stop using weasel words ... they make you look like a weasel ...

I'm off to practice my tap-dancing atop a 24 foot extension ladder ... if I don't post anymore means I've fallen to my death ...

 

[alang1216]

You have to ask yourself why climatologists are the only scientists who refuse to follow the scientific method.

Quite an accusation. Got any examples?

 

[ReinyDays]

This is my thread.

Couple of things I've been wanting to ask you .. so thank you for this permission ...

1] Arctic Amplification + 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ... thoughts, opinions, profanity? ...

2] Are you buying electric power to post here on the Free Market ... or are you using SOCIALISM electricity? ...