The Earth Needs More CO2, Not Less

[jc456]

You’ve been informed. You’re trolling dufus.

never. You are afraid of the answer. It's why you won't answer. Makes sense, it proves your point invalid and stupid.

Two CO2 Molecules radiating at each other cool not get warmer, it's called physics.

 

[jc456]

No, it was 11 billion and counting.

no it was 5 billion and it still isn't a trillion as you wrote. You probably lie about what you wrote too, right? That's your character flaw.

 

[Dagosa]

As long as they complete asylum court they can become legal. Not until. But, the numbers of processed aren't the total of illegals, the statistics show more than half are never captured and processed. Why do you enjoy lying so much?

Illegal Border Crossings, Driven by Pandemic and Natural Disasters, Soar to Record High (Published 2021)

Migrants were encountered 1.7 million times in the last 12 months, the highest number of illegal crossings recorded since at least 1960.

www.nytimes.com

Just one report. You think they will increase our CO2?

Your BS has.

 

[Dagosa]

never. You are afraid of the answer. It's why you won't answer. Makes sense, it proves your point invalid and stupid.

Two CO2 Molecules radiating at each other cool not get warmer, it's called physics.

Read the reference. Or get yo mama to read it for you.
”Two CO2 Molecules radiating at each other cool not get warmer, it's called physics.”

What does that mean ? Is that “fizziks”?

 

[jc456]

That’s the businesses responsibility . They are the ones obligated to withhold your taxes….you did work at sometime right ?

supposed to be, so post the businesses doing it and report them.

 

[jc456]

Your BS has.

how's that my BS exactly? are you projecting?

 

[jc456]

Read the reference. Or get yo mama to read it for you.

I read the entire document and no where does it say how the atmosphere gets warmer than the surface. I'm still asking you what happens to two CO2 molecules in the atmosphere? Do they cool off or get warmer when the radiate at each other? My money is on you won't answer.

Edit: BTW, if the atmosphere absorbs radiation from the surface how does that radiation reradiate warmer than the initial radiation?

 

[jc456]

Read the reference. Or get yo mama to read it for you.
”Two CO2 Molecules radiating at each other cool not get warmer, it's called physics.”

What does that mean ? Is that “fizziks”?

so you don't know about physics? I knew you didn't know about science. See, you really are a dummass.

Physics is the natural science of matter, involving the study of matter,[a] its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force.[2] Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, with its main goal being to understand how the universe behaves.Physics - Wikipedia[3][4][5] A scientist who specializes in the field of physics is called a physicist.

 

[Crick]

The Earth Needs More CO2, not Less​

I know this statement will make people’s head explode, but it’s true, Earth needs more CO2, not less. Let’s look at the science with a bit of common sense.

My head has not exploded. Your statement is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

Carbon dioxide has gone up and down over millions of years, but the trend has always been, on the whole, down.

That is generally correct. And for more than five times the span of homo sapiens existence on this planet, it has not exceeded 300 ppm.

A quarter of a million years ago, there was 17,000 ppm.

That is utter nonsense.

Research Confirms That Carbon Dioxide Led To Higher Temperatures In The Past

Researchers have provided evidence that over the past 400,000 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have caused increases in global temperatures.

www.forbes.com

250,000 years ago, global CO2 levels were between 200 and 280 ppm.

CO2 has never gotten much beyond 2,000 ppm in the last 400 million years

Today it is around 410 ppm. Forget for a moment the clumsy “parts per million” scale and just look at the numbers by comparison.

Are you having a problem with the ppm scale?

Back then, the earth didn’t blow up in flames as people try to scare us into believing.

Back then? A quarter of a million years ago when CO2 was roughly HALF its current level? No one was expecting the Earth to blow up in flames.

But everything was big. Animals were the size of small apartment complexes and leaves were the size of a Mini Cooper.

There were large mammals at that time, but your description is a significant exaggeration.

That is because, as every farmer and pot grower knows, “you want plants to grow more? You pump in CO2".

And how do farmers "pump in CO2"?

But, from 17,000 whatevers to 410 whatevers, where did the CO2 go? In a word, the “pyramids”. Let’s go back to the beginning.

CO2 levels have NEVER gotten anywhere near 17,000 ppm. And if you look at the longer graph above, you will see that going from 2,200 ppm to 300 ppm took the better part of 100 million years. You're claim that it changed seven times that much in 1/400th the time in a geologically uneventful epoch is blatant ignorance.

We owe life on earth to carbon

We are a carbon-based life form but that has Zero-Zip-Nada to do with the effect of rapidly rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere due entirely to human GHG emissions and the effect THAT has on global temperatures.

and more specifically, CO2. Every first year biology student knows the equation for photosynthesis:

View attachment 527372

That is, plants take in water and carbon dioxide and, after growing a bit, spit out oxygen. Without this process, life on earth would not exist.

I am so impressed. But what bearing does this have to do with atmospheric CO2 levels, the greenhouse effect, the rapid rise of temperatures, the melting of the polar ice caps and so forth?

Of course, humans breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide which, in effect, reverses this equation. What a coincidence, right? Anyway, you increase the concentration of the CO2 on the left side of the equation and it pushes the equation to the right giving you more plants and more oxygen.

The concentration of CO2 does not appear anywhere in your equation.

So, what is the problem here? Well, we are told that CO2 is a pollutant.

A pollutant is a harmful or dangerous contaminant. CO2 is toxic at high enough levels, but no one is suggesting that CO2 emissions be curtailed because of the compound's toxicity but it's participation in the greenhouse effect and the warming its increasing levels are causing.

More about that in a minute. But first, where did all the CO2 go? If the earth had 17,000 ppm in the atmosphere and now only has 410 ppm, where in the hell is it? Let’s look at that.

First, we all know that a portion (how big, who knows?) went into the earth in the form of oil. All of the big plants and huge dinosaurs died and got buried. They rotted deep in the earth and became oil. Over a couple hundred million years this oil is typically very deep. As every archeologist knows, the deeper you go the farther back in time you go. But this is only part of the story. Maybe less than half. The other large, and scarier portion is “The Great Barrier Reef!”.

I don't know where to start. Your claim was that CO2 was at 17,000 ppm 250,000 years ago. I am guessing you might have meant to say 1,700 ppm a quarter of a billion years ago but it would have been completely reasonable to expect you to have caught that mistake the several times you repeated those figures. Thus the only possible conclusions is that you are intentionally misstating the facts (ie, lying) or that you are incredibly ignorant.

The earliest arthropods formed around 500 million years ago but their bodies were soft and didn’t become hard like the crustaceans we know today until, ..wait for it…a quarter million years ago. Right when we had that 17,000 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It's difficult to think you're making a simple mistake here. The first shell-bearing organisms appeared 520 million years ago. Geologist Analyzes Earliest Shell-Covered Fossil Animals.

The sneaky part is that these hard little suckers take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and create their shells out of calcium carbonate thereby sequestering the CO2 in their sneaky little bodies.

These were all marines species which took calcium carbonate out of the oceans. The carbonate can come from the atmosphere, but the calcium comes from rivers and coastal runoff.

They die and become part of bottom of the ocean which now can be found on every continent and at the top of every mountain. On land, this forms a semi-hard rock called limestone which the Egyptians thought was a great rock to build pyramids. There you have it! Pyramids!

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, when dissolved in the ocean, is much more likely to become CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3, carbonic acid. That reduces the ocean's pH, increases carbonate solubility and thus interferes with marine animals ability to fix carbonates for shell building.

The problem with this is that it is a one-way process. We cannot burn limestone in our cars to put this CO2 back into circulation and nobody is going to let us dig up the Great Barrier Reef to reprocess the coral. So we sit with 410 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere. Is it enough to run this show? Well, let’s look at it.

I repeat, CO2 has not exceeded 300 ppm for the last 3 million years. Modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago.

When we had walking giants, there was plant life on every part of the Earth.

You know, if you had listened to the USMB requirement that you post supporting links to claims of fact like the several you have made in this post, you might not have made so many blatant errors. Deserts have existed on this planet for at least the last 300 million years. When was the first not-icy desert formed?.

The Sahara Dessert had trees and even Antarctica had forests. Was this bad?

The Antarctic continent was not located at the south pole and the current climate in the Sahara was created by the disappearance of the Tethys Sea. The movement of deserts around the planet has primarily been affected by plate tectonics.

Don’t know, we weren’t there. But the life that was there loved it.

And you know this how?

And now, at 410 ppm, we have seemingly lifeless deserts all around the world. Start in the Gobi Desert, go to the Middle East, then to the Sahara Desert, shoot past the Gulf of Mexico into the United States Southwest and Mexico. Deserts, deserts, deserts. You can do the same in the Southern Hemisphere. Interestingly, the deserts are not on the equator where you would expect, but about a third of the way north of the equator and a third of the way south of the equator. This is another paper to discuss why. But, if this process of sequestering CO2 into crustaceans’ greedy little bodies is an ongoing process, then we can’t stop it. And, how little CO2 can we have in the atmosphere and still maintain left on Earth?

CO2 has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution began. If you're not happy with 410 ppm, just wait. And, you mention a paper but you provide no link. You have no links anywhere in a post for which USMB's rules demand several.

Most scientists believe that life on Earth, as we know it, cannot exist with atmospheric CO2 below around 150 to 175 ppm. Fifty years ago we were around 270 ppm when CO2 started its creep up from possible oblivion. Whew!, that was close.

Wow. You've made so many factual errors in this post it's become hard not to believe it was all intentional and this whole thing was a troll. As the graph below shows, fifty years ago (1973), CO2 in the atmosphere was approaching 335 ppm. CO2 has not been down to 270 ppm at any time in the last 1,000 years.

Of course, that is when activists started blaring the alarm of catastrophe due to “Man Caused Global Warming”. Actually, they stated it was global cooling and when that didn’t happen, they reversed course to global warming. When that didn’t happen they gave up on predictions and just settled on the amorphous and non-committal “Climate Change”. But, how in the hell did CO2, that which makes life possible, become a pollutant?

The planet has been cooling for more than 5,000 years prior to the beginning of anthropogenic global warming about 1850. The growing alarm over global warming developed from increased understanding about what was happening and why. Predictions have been quite accurate.

Although global cooling was considered a major problem since the 1970s, on June 23, 1988 Dr. James Hansen told Congress that carbon dioxide was causing the Earth to warm, the increase in carbon dioxide was manmade and this was catastrophic. We were off to the races.

Dr Hansen was completely correct.

Then, in 2014, Naomi Klein wrote a book delineating the significance of this revelation to the world’s socialists called, “This Changes Everything, Capitalism vs. The Climate”. The book describes how if you control carbon dioxide, you control energy, and if you control energy, you control the economy, control the economy and control the world. Wow, this is better than universal healthcare.

That is NOT what is contained in that book. From Amazon's review:

The most important book yet from the author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, a brilliant explanation of why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core “free market” ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems.​

​

In short, either we embrace radical change ourselves or radical changes will be visited upon our physical world. The status quo is no longer an option.​

​

In This Changes Everything Naomi Klein argues that climate change isn’t just another issue to be neatly filed between taxes and health care. It’s an alarm that calls us to fix an economic system that is already failing us in many ways. Klein meticulously builds the case for how massively reducing our greenhouse emissions is our best chance to simultaneously reduce gaping inequalities, re-imagine our broken democracies, and rebuild our gutted local economies. She exposes the ideological desperation of the climate-change deniers, the messianic delusions of the would-be geoengineers, and the tragic defeatism of too many mainstream green initiatives. And she demonstrates precisely why the market has not—and cannot—fix the climate crisis but will instead make things worse, with ever more extreme and ecologically damaging extraction methods, accompanied by rampant disaster capitalism.​

​

Klein argues that the changes to our relationship with nature and one another that are required to respond to the climate crisis humanely should not be viewed as grim penance, but rather as a kind of gift—a catalyst to transform broken economic and cultural priorities and to heal long-festering historical wounds. And she documents the inspiring movements that have already begun this process: communities that are not just refusing to be sites of further fossil fuel extraction but are building the next, regeneration-based economies right now.​

​

Can we pull off these changes in time? Nothing is certain. Nothing except that climate change changes everything. And for a very brief time, the nature of that change is still up to us.​

Meanwhile, without regard to the politics, CO2 has been increasing little-by-little and in response, you guessed it, there is a concomitant greening of the world’s deserts. Not a lot, but satellite imagery shows a greening around the edges of the world’s largest deserts. A bad thing? Meanwhile, if you put into your computer that an increase in CO2 is an increase in the temperature of the Earth, presto!, you get predictions that have never come true. GIGO.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207183120

Global warming predictions prove accurate

Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

www.theguardian.com

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

Latest IPCC climate report warns that rising greenhouse-gas emissions could soon outstrip the ability of many communities to adapt.

www.nature.com

Does an increase in CO2 cause an increase in global temperatures? All things being equal, yes. But all things are never equal. You have the temperature fluctuations of the sun and you have water vapor in the atmosphere among a host of other things. But, let’s look at water vapor for a second.

From IPCC's AR6, "The Physical Science Basis", "Technical Summary"

And a similar but older diagram from Wikipedia that includes changes in solar irradiance.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is water vapor. Without getting into the messiness of science and elevation changes of CO2, mixing and atmospheric changes, etc., the concentration of CO2 is only 410 ppm.

"Without getting into the messiness of science...". Wow.

Water is around 20,000 to 30,000 ppm on the average. Or, around 10,000 times the concentration. What do scientists say about water vapor and cloud cover with regard to Climate Change? They tend to ignore it. Too complicated. Let’s move on to something fun. So, the science is not settled. It never is. We don’t know what gravity is. We just changed the decades long food pyramid upside down. Science, by definition, is inquiry. Always asking questions. Anybody who says, “The science is settled” is a liar or a fool. Maybe both.

This thing's a troll, right. You couldn't make more mistakes if you tried.

So, now, imagine the graph of CO2. It goes from 17,000 down to 270, skips off the bottom, then up to 410. Do we need to go lower or higher? You decide.

Jema Tell

Please provide us such a graph so we DON'T have to "imagine" it.

My god. You are either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. I wish I'd read this post on Day 1.

 

[jc456]

My head has not exploded. Your statement is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

So people with greenhouses don't push more CO2 for their plant life? hahahaahahahhhahahaahaha

 

[jc456]

Read the reference. Or get yo mama to read it for you.
”Two CO2 Molecules radiating at each other cool not get warmer, it's called physics.”

What does that mean ? Is that “fizziks”?

BTW, you ever read up on what Physics is yet?

 

[jc456]

This thing's a troll, right. You couldn't make more mistakes if you tried.

so water vapor isn't more abundant than CO2? wow, I find that odd even from you.

 

[jc456]

That is generally correct. And for more than five times the span of homo sapiens existence on this planet, it has not exceeded 300 ppm.

based on what history book?

 

[Crick]

My head has not exploded. Your statement is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.


That is generally correct. And for more than five times the span of homo sapiens existence on this planet, it has not exceeded 300 ppm.


That is utter nonsense.

Research Confirms That Carbon Dioxide Led To Higher Temperatures In The Past

Researchers have provided evidence that over the past 400,000 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have caused increases in global temperatures.

www.forbes.com

250,000 years ago, global CO2 levels were between 200 and 280 ppm.

CO2 has never gotten much beyond 2,000 ppm in the last 400 million years

Are you having a problem with the ppm scale?


Back then? A quarter of a million years ago when CO2 was roughly HALF its current level? No one was expecting the Earth to blow up in flames.

There were large mammals at that time, but your description is a significant exaggeration.


And how do farmers "pump in CO2"?

CO2 levels have NEVER gotten anywhere near 17,000 ppm. And if you look at the longer graph above, you will see that going from 2,200 ppm to 300 ppm took the better part of 100 million years. You're claim that it changed seven times that much in 1/400th the time in a geologically uneventful epoch is blatant ignorance.

We are a carbon-based life form but that has Zero-Zip-Nada to do with the effect of rapidly rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere due entirely to human GHG emissions and the effect THAT has on global temperatures.


I am so impressed. But what bearing does this have to do with atmospheric CO2 levels, the greenhouse effect, the rapid rise of temperatures, the melting of the polar ice caps and so forth?


The concentration of CO2 does not appear anywhere in your equation.

A pollutant is a harmful or dangerous contaminant. CO2 is toxic at high enough levels, but no one is suggesting that CO2 emissions be curtailed because of the compound's toxicity but it's participation in the greenhouse effect and the warming its increasing levels are causing.

I don't know where to start. Your claim was that CO2 was at 17,000 ppm 250,000 years ago. I am guessing you might have meant to say 1,700 ppm a quarter of a billion years ago but it would have been completely reasonable to expect you to have caught that mistake the several times you repeated those figures. Thus the only possible conclusions is that you are intentionally misstating the facts (ie, lying) or that you are incredibly ignorant.


It's difficult to think you're making a simple mistake here. The first shell-bearing organisms appeared 520 million years ago. Geologist Analyzes Earliest Shell-Covered Fossil Animals.

These were all marines species which took calcium carbonate out of the oceans. The carbonate can come from the atmosphere, but the calcium comes from rivers and coastal runoff.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, when dissolved in the ocean, is much more likely to become CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3, carbonic acid. That reduces the ocean's pH, increases carbonate solubility and thus interferes with marine animals ability to fix carbonates for shell building.


I repeat, CO2 has not exceeded 300 ppm for the last 3 million years. Modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago.


You know, if you had listened to the USMB requirement that you post supporting links to claims of fact like the several you have made in this post, you might not have made so many blatant errors. Deserts have existed on this planet for at least the last 300 million years. When was the first not-icy desert formed?.

The Antarctic continent was not located at the south pole and the current climate in the Sahara was created by the disappearance of the Tethys Sea. The movement of deserts around the planet has primarily been affected by plate tectonics.


And you know this how?

CO2 has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution began. If you're not happy with 410 ppm, just wait. And, you mention a paper but you provide no link. You have no links anywhere in a post for which USMB's rules demand several.



Wow. You've made so many factual errors in this post it's become hard not to believe it was all intentional and this whole thing was a troll. As the graph below shows, fifty years ago (1973), CO2 in the atmosphere was approaching 335 ppm. CO2 has not been down to 270 ppm at any time in the last 1,000 years.

The planet has been cooling for more than 5,000 years prior to the beginning of anthropogenic global warming about 1850. The growing alarm over global warming developed from increased understanding about what was happening and why. Predictions have been quite accurate.


Dr Hansen was completely correct.


That is NOT what is contained in that book. From Amazon's review:

The most important book yet from the author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, a brilliant explanation of why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core “free market” ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems.​

​

In short, either we embrace radical change ourselves or radical changes will be visited upon our physical world. The status quo is no longer an option.​

​

In This Changes Everything Naomi Klein argues that climate change isn’t just another issue to be neatly filed between taxes and health care. It’s an alarm that calls us to fix an economic system that is already failing us in many ways. Klein meticulously builds the case for how massively reducing our greenhouse emissions is our best chance to simultaneously reduce gaping inequalities, re-imagine our broken democracies, and rebuild our gutted local economies. She exposes the ideological desperation of the climate-change deniers, the messianic delusions of the would-be geoengineers, and the tragic defeatism of too many mainstream green initiatives. And she demonstrates precisely why the market has not—and cannot—fix the climate crisis but will instead make things worse, with ever more extreme and ecologically damaging extraction methods, accompanied by rampant disaster capitalism.​

​

Klein argues that the changes to our relationship with nature and one another that are required to respond to the climate crisis humanely should not be viewed as grim penance, but rather as a kind of gift—a catalyst to transform broken economic and cultural priorities and to heal long-festering historical wounds. And she documents the inspiring movements that have already begun this process: communities that are not just refusing to be sites of further fossil fuel extraction but are building the next, regeneration-based economies right now.​

​

Can we pull off these changes in time? Nothing is certain. Nothing except that climate change changes everything. And for a very brief time, the nature of that change is still up to us.​

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207183120

Global warming predictions prove accurate

Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

www.theguardian.com

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

Latest IPCC climate report warns that rising greenhouse-gas emissions could soon outstrip the ability of many communities to adapt.

www.nature.com

View attachment 788326
From IPCC's AR6, "The Physical Science Basis", "Technical Summary"

And a similar but older diagram from Wikipedia that includes changes in solar irradiance.

"Without getting into the messiness of science...". Wow.

This thing's a troll, right. You couldn't make more mistakes if you tried.

Please provide us such a graph so we DON'T have to "imagine" it.

My god. You are either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. I wish I'd read this post on Day 1.

I'd really like to see a response to this from the OP, poster Davey T.

 

[Dagosa]

so water vapor isn't more abundant than CO2? wow, I find that odd even from you.

Did you ever read up on physics ? Doubtful.

 

[Crick]

Did you ever read up on physics ? Doubtful.

What the world needs is a physics textbook with no math and lots of bikini pictures.

 

[Dagosa]

What the world needs is a physics textbook with no math and lots of bikini pictures.

The Humper version.

 

[ReinyDays]

What the world needs is a physics textbook with no math and lots of bikini pictures.

What would a girl like you do with bikini pictures? ...

High school physics textbooks are available ... there will be some algebra, but no college level math, but then it won't teach college level physics ... but how do you explain work performed without integrals? ...

There's no weasel in physics ... which is why you fail at every turn ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiation ... it takes lots of carbon dioxide to change temperatures a little bit ... the opposite of your AGW Theory ... not climatologists' theory, it's your theory that's wrong ...

 

[Crick]

What would a girl like you do with bikini pictures? ...

High school physics textbooks are available ... there will be some algebra, but no college level math, but then it won't teach college level physics ... but how do you explain work performed without integrals? ...

There's no weasel in physics ... which is why you fail at every turn ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiation ... it takes lots of carbon dioxide to change temperatures a little bit ... the opposite of your AGW Theory ... not climatologists' theory, it's your theory that's wrong ...

I'm a lesbian in a man's body.

I said no math. I was only thinking of you. Did you figure out what correlation means and what its significance in this context might be?

And what do you believe MY AGW theory to be?

 

[jc456]

Did you ever read up on physics ? Doubtful.

I have. See, I can answer. You, nah you ain't got any fking balls. You ain't no thing!!!!!! just a misinformation junky