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

[ding]

Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.

The world being obviously better off at 300 ppm than 580 ppm
416 - 350 = already 66 over the ppm limit of reason. We're already fucked. 580 is clearly insane, whether we manage to prevent it or not.

Why is 350 ppm the "limit of reason?"

What's so special about 350 ppm?

Will the ocean - which houses 94% of the CO2 - suddenly stop sequestering CO2 when the temperatures fall? Will the ocean stop releasing CO2 when the temperature rises?

Where did this "limit of reason" come from? How did you arrive at it? Did the same person who sold Jack his magic beans tell you 350 ppm was the "limit of reason?"

About 350.org

What 350.org is, how we work, and what we believe in.

350.org

I don't see how that answers the question. Can you explain it?

 

[ding]

... and if you bring up thermodynamics, please use small words .. [blush] ...

It's ding who should be embarrassed.. every time he posts.. along with many, many others here.

Like I said before... I am more than happy for you to keep doing what you are doing. I'm going to continue sharing, discussing and explaining the data. You can keep doing whatever it is that you are doing.

 

[ding]

... and if you bring up thermodynamics, please use small words .. [blush] ...

It's ding who should be embarrassed.. every time he posts.. along with many, many others here.

Why, he posts facts and you post 350 dot org propaganda.

Which he can't discuss. He thinks posting a link that he doesn't understand and can't explain actually means something.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.

 

[ding]

Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.

I looked through it. Did you?

Why would you discuss what it means in a discussion forum? Gee, I don't know... it's a discussion forum

 

[ding]

Of course the real answer is he is getting his ass kicked and posting a link gives him the illusion that he isn't a loser.

 

[westwall]

Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.

Because the 350 BS is just that. Proven to be BS.

 

[ReinyDays]

Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.

I clicked on it ... hope you get paid on time ... got as far as "#4 - It's bad" ...

Maybe this mythological "climate science" has a working definition of the word "bad" ... but climatology doesn't, it's considered a philosophical word in most sciences ... I disagree, warmer and wetter conditions are good for the primary producers ... plants ... everything prospers after that ... simple ecology ...

ETA: We're on the cusp of a New Golden Age of Human Existence ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.

I clicked on it ... hope you get paid on time ... got as far as "#4 - It's bad" ...

Maybe this mythological "climate science" has a working definition of the word "bad" ... but climatology doesn't, it's considered a philosophical word in most sciences ... I disagree, warmer and wetter conditions are good for the primary producers ... plants ... everything prospers after that ... simple ecology ...

ETA: We're on the cusp of a New Golden Age of Human Existence ...

Lol. I gather you live somewhere cool, high, and dry. Lucky you. I wish I got paid for this shit. Perhaps a few deserving others here as well. The 350.org "about" link was for ding because he apparently never heard of it and that intro looked to be about his speed. It's quite famous in case you've somehow never heard of it either. Yeah, they've been fighting Koch Industries funded deniers for a long, long time. Fuck you if you're one of them. But no, while I respect the organization he started and his past efforts, I've never been particularly crazy about Bill McKibben who seems to be seriously going off the deep end lately. Here's a primer on Earth Day for ding's edification as well.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.

Yep, lots of human losers already, but why worry about them
Five inches of rain today.. What costly AGW effects?

Did you know too little atmospheric CO2 is what causes our ice ages? Ding "explains"!
Yeah, it can average two hundred degrees worldwide, no problem!
But don't you dare let them pesky ppms drop too low at the poles or.. look out!..
Game over, man! Game over!

 

[westwall]

Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.

Yep, lots of human losers already, but why worry about them
Five inches of rain today.. What costly AGW effects?

Did you know too little atmospheric CO2 is what causes our ice ages? Ding "explains"!
Yeah, it can average two hundred degrees worldwide, no problem!
But don't you dare let them pesky ppms drop too low at the poles or.. look out!..
Game over, man! Game over!

Nobody knows what causes the ice ages. What we DO know is man adds slightly less than 5% to the global CO2 budget.

We also know that water vapor is THE dominant GHG in our atmosphere. We also know that water vapor affects the same radiative spectrum as CO2 so the net result is CO2 is such a tiny tiny percentage of the atmosphere that whatever effect it might have is crushed by the water vapor effect.

We also know that 99% of all climatology studies are pure computer derived fiction that have zero relationship to reality.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.

Yep, lots of human losers already, but why worry about them
Five inches of rain today.. What costly AGW effects?

Did you know too little atmospheric CO2 is what causes our ice ages? Ding "explains"!
Yeah, it can average two hundred degrees worldwide, no problem!
But don't you dare let them pesky ppms drop too low at the poles or.. look out!..
Game over, man! Game over!

Nobody knows what causes the ice ages. What we DO know is man adds slightly less than 5% to the global CO2 budget.

We also know that water vapor is THE dominant GHG in our atmosphere. We also know that water vapor affects the same radiative spectrum as CO2 so the net result is CO2 is such a tiny tiny percentage of the atmosphere that whatever effect it might have is crushed by the water vapor effect.

We also know that 99% of all climatology studies are pure computer derived fiction that have zero relationship to reality.

So nobody knows what causes water to freeze, we do know that humans can't do it, we also know clouds get in the way, we also know that humans can't do it, we also know that those who study the climate for a living are nuts. "We" clearly being you and other climate science deniers. Okay, thanks for that as usual.. I guess

 

[ding]

Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.

Yep, lots of human losers already, but why worry about them
Five inches of rain today.. What costly AGW effects?

Did you know too little atmospheric CO2 is what causes our ice ages? Ding "explains"!
Yeah, it can average two hundred degrees worldwide, no problem!
But don't you dare let them pesky ppms drop too low at the poles or.. look out!..
Game over, man! Game over!

Nobody knows what causes the ice ages. What we DO know is man adds slightly less than 5% to the global CO2 budget.

We also know that water vapor is THE dominant GHG in our atmosphere. We also know that water vapor affects the same radiative spectrum as CO2 so the net result is CO2 is such a tiny tiny percentage of the atmosphere that whatever effect it might have is crushed by the water vapor effect.

We also know that 99% of all climatology studies are pure computer derived fiction that have zero relationship to reality.

To your point about water vapor being the dominant GHG, I will add that GHG's at the same spectrum are not additive. Both points can be visualized by comparing each GHG to the total GHG spectrum of the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.

Yep, lots of human losers already, but why worry about them
Five inches of rain today.. What costly AGW effects?

Did you know too little atmospheric CO2 is what causes our ice ages? Ding "explains"!
Yeah, it can average two hundred degrees worldwide, no problem!
But don't you dare let them pesky ppms drop too low at the poles or.. look out!..
Game over, man! Game over!

Nobody knows what causes the ice ages. What we DO know is man adds slightly less than 5% to the global CO2 budget.

We also know that water vapor is THE dominant GHG in our atmosphere. We also know that water vapor affects the same radiative spectrum as CO2 so the net result is CO2 is such a tiny tiny percentage of the atmosphere that whatever effect it might have is crushed by the water vapor effect.

We also know that 99% of all climatology studies are pure computer derived fiction that have zero relationship to reality.

So nobody knows what causes water to freeze, we do know that humans can't do it, we also know clouds get in the way, we also know that humans can't do it, we also know that those who study the climate for a living are nuts. "We" clearly being you and other climate science deniers. Okay, thanks for that as usual.. I guess

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.

You can't even explain in simple terms why you believe an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm is good and 580 ppm is bad.

I on the other hand can explain why an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm is bad and 580 ppm is good. 580 ppm avoids the risk of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere while 350 ppm invites extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

You do realize that 12,000 years ago New York was under a 1,000 ft thick sheet of ice, right? Now that's a real and tangible climate disruption.

 

[ReinyDays]

To your point about water vapor being the dominant GHG, I will add that GHG's at the same spectrum are not additive. Both points can be visualized by comparing each GHG to the total GHG spectrum of the atmosphere.

View attachment 371486

I will add that GHG's at the same spectrum are not additive.

Perhaps you can explain to me why people do this ... make a claim and then immediately post a graph that completely and indisputably refutes the claim you just made ... wth? ...

Take the first five traces of the individual GHG species ... add them together ... and indeed we get the sixth trace "total atmosphere" ... thus proving GHG effects are additive ... so strange ... my guess is you are simply using scalar addition to add the magnitudes of the vectors together ... and that never works ... you have to use vector addition to get the correct results ... (I believe we actually need to add the field tensor values, but that's over my pay grade) ...

 

[justinacolmena]

does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?

It's a natural, self-regulating cycle. Higher CO2 and global warming rapidly stimulate aggressive green growth, which quickly sequesters the excess carbon into wood, peat, coal, and petroleum. Humans burn such fuels, but probably not even so much as natural forest fires and coal fires that have burned uncontrolled for millennia.

 

[ding]

To your point about water vapor being the dominant GHG, I will add that GHG's at the same spectrum are not additive. Both points can be visualized by comparing each GHG to the total GHG spectrum of the atmosphere.

View attachment 371486

I will add that GHG's at the same spectrum are not additive.

Perhaps you can explain to me why people do this ... make a claim and then immediately post a graph that completely and indisputably refutes the claim you just made ... wth? ...

Take the first five traces of the individual GHG species ... add them together ... and indeed we get the sixth trace "total atmosphere" ... thus proving GHG effects are additive ... so strange ... my guess is you are simply using scalar addition to add the magnitudes of the vectors together ... and that never works ... you have to use vector addition to get the correct results ... (I believe we actually need to add the field tensor values, but that's over my pay grade) ...

Not sure how you are seeing they are additive at the same frequency or spectrum but you don’t need take my word for it, here’s another source saying the same thing.

“It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. ... “

Greenhouse gas

Greenhouse gases are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[ReinyDays]

Good and bad are a matter of perspective ... there's an area in Europe set aside and the natural environment quickly took over ... a place now considered an excellent example of primordial Europe before humanoids arrived ... about the only place in Europe with fertile soils not under industry cultivation ... just an amazing place ...

Japan has decided to do the same ... allowing the natural world to take over what was agricultural lands ... with every expectation to get a real world example of the islands before human invasion ...

Massive contamination of Cesium-135 is clearly GOOD for the environment ... c.f. Chernobyl and Fukushima ... removing humans is undeniable proof humans are BAD ... thus Covid-19 is GOOD ... ha ha ha ... humans are just the last diseased and putrid bud on a nearly dead branch of the tree of life whose only evolutionary advance is an unpalatable flesh ... nothing eats us except as carrion, and the older the better ...

 

[ding]

Good and bad are a matter of perspective ... there's an area in Europe set aside and the natural environment quickly took over ... a place now considered an excellent example of primordial Europe before humanoids arrived ... about the only place in Europe with fertile soils not under industry cultivation ... just an amazing place ...

Japan has decided to do the same ... allowing the natural world to take over what was agricultural lands ... with every expectation to get a real world example of the islands before human invasion ...

Massive contamination of Cesium-135 is clearly GOOD for the environment ... c.f. Chernobyl and Fukushima ... removing humans is undeniable proof humans are BAD ... thus Covid-19 is GOOD ... ha ha ha ... humans are just the last diseased and putrid bud on a nearly dead branch of the tree of life whose only evolutionary advance is an unpalatable flesh ... nothing eats us except as carrion, and the older the better ...

Would a 1,000 ft thick sheet of ice over all of Canada extending into the Midwest of America be bad?

 

[Flash]

These stupid Moon Bats that think the climate is going to change because of the CO2 put out by humans don't know any more about Climate Science than they do Economics,History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution.

When we had "Snowball Earth" the CO2 levels were ten times what we have now. In recent times, like during the Roman Warming period and the Medieval Warming Period, CO2 levels were lower than what they are now but yet the earth was warmer. In fact all the credible climate data seems to indicate that CO2 levels lags climate change.

The credible climate data absolutely destroys the silly AGW theory and that is why the Environmental Wackos have to create false data and manipulate data or else they would have nothing to fool the gullible Moon Bats.