The Progs will DENY SCIENCE when it comes to record snowfalls, that havent happened like this over 100 years.

[esalla]

What about forest fires and volcanoes?

The CO2 from forest fires would carry the Carbon-13 signature, it has been circulating in the atmosphere high enough to get ZAPPED and gain a neutron ... say within the past million years or so ... still part of the natural 280 ppm ... and there have been volcanoes all along, so those would also be included in the natural 280 ppm and I don't think it's all that much ...

Not a trace of Carbon-13 in the remaining 125 ppm ... like the stuff has been buried for millions of years never reaching the upper atmosphere ... and that's why we're boiling the oceans off typing all this crap in ...

Pollution ...

I'm actually holding my breath so I don't pollute the atmosphere. I'm channeling James Nestor as we speak.

LOL do not worry, you will never set foot on a spacecraft or submarine, but you might find yourself in a cave collecting bat guano for your weed farm.

Yawn

LOL was I not supposed to mention the weed farm?

The quiet is deafening

Given your dire prediction concerning atmospheric CO2 pollution, I'd be surprised if I survived the night, Frannie.

When did I mention atmospheric CO2 pollution?

Oh yea I forgot, you have that delusional disorder thing

My bad

When you said CO2 was pollution, Francis.

Are you claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant that can cause a range of human effects culminating in death?

CO2 affects human health at lower levels than previously thought

Exposure to carbon dioxide (CO2) poses direct risks to human health at lower levels than previously thought, research has found. Reviewing current studies on the subject, American academics concluded that exposure to ambient CO2 in indoor environments can have harmful…

airqualitynews.com

The researchers cited mounting evidence that CO2 levels as low as 1,000ppm can cause health problems, even if people are only exposed to them for an hour or two.

They found that CO2 levels exceeding 1,000ppm have already been observed in crowded and poorly ventilated rooms such as classrooms, offices and bedrooms as well as air-conditioned public transport and planes – all places where humans can spend several hours at a time.

Collating the findings of numerous studies, the academics summarised that acute exposure to high CO2 levels can have ‘adverse health outcomes’, citing studies which observed inflammation and reduced cognitive performance above 1,000ppm.

Chronic exposure to levels between 2,000ppm and 3,000ppm can have even worse impacts as this was linked to effects including kidney calcification and bone demineralisation.

The team behind the study warned that human CO2 exposure may be a growing problem in the coming years as projections suggest that by 2100 outdoor CO2 levels in some cities could exceed 1,000ppm for parts of the year.

‘Continuous exposure to increased atmospheric CO2 could be an overlooked stressor of the modern and/or future environment,’ the study suggested.

The researchers concluded by saying further research is needed to find ways to mitigate exposure to indoor CO2, especially for children and vulnerable people, and to fully understand its potential health effects.

I am claiming you are an idiot to be discussing it with CO2 at 400 ppm.

Why when the only person here to even mention 400 ppm CO2 is you. But at least this means that you now accept that you are an idiot.

You really spent time learning how to humiliate yourself?

Or you just like me as much as the Bureau did?

I think it is awesome that you made the leap that CO2 is a pollutant by arguing toxicity when atmospheric CO2 is at 400 ppm.

CO2 is a health damaging and or fatal pollution and toxin. Always was, not sure why you have a 400 ppm fetish

If you lower the atmospheric CO2 level to 200ppm you die.

Too much water you die, not enough water you die.

Is this big news to you?

Your life sucks.

LOL and you are saving the World on a messageboard.

Yup,

You will die penniless.

Well yea as I do not intend to be buried with a bunch of pennies

Your insecurities are on display in almost every post you make.

Actually I do not formally own securities as I chose various bond funds

 

[westwall]

Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.

CO2 is usable without processing.

I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...

Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...

Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...

Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...

( ... and you don't know shit ... )

Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.

To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.

 

[esalla]

The effects of 400 ppm in the atmosphere.

View attachment 410362

Is obsessive compulsive delusionary disorder fun?

Is that what you have?

I have Apple Google Netflix and around 800 others

You?

I'm retired.

You?

I am too young to be retired, when I do I will be a full time trader when not in triathlon training

Enjoy rotting

I guess your investments aren't as great as you think they are then.

Neither is your cooks pension from Taco Bell, but if it keeps you in beans.............................

Eventually everyone gets out out to pasture.

So is waiting to die fun?

You need to see it that way because you are feeling beaten.

You couldn't even figure out how to put air in a tire with a presta valve.

Nah, the presta valve adapter that I used has no return pin to power a gauge, so air could go in but not be adjusted. I bought a French unit and rode nearly 100 miles in 90 degree heat while you rested your rotting retired flesh.

Yawn

Not even sure how the fuck that is true, but it is

I suspect your life is pretty shitty. I never met anyone who lived a good life who had your shitty disposition.

LOL coming from a weed farmer who thinks stoned qualifies as the good life

You are confusing me with Treeshepherd who is 100 times a better person than you.

Everyone is laughing at you.

Nope as there is only one ring ding

You will die alone.

Death is of no consequence, as it is how one lived that carries the message forward.

LOL and you call me bitter

he he he

You will suffer to the last breath.

Nah as the doctors can not even begin to reconcile my VO max numbers, but I am considering fucking with a cardiologist telling him that my heartrate ranges from 47 bpm at night to 173 bpm on the largest hill in my county

Thanks for proving my point.

What is your resting heartbeat on an off day? I know I could get myself rushed into an ICU as no doctor sees anyone my age with my numbers. 47 bpm in a hospital would set off the bells, but then some eager beaver would run in with shock paddles and fry me.

You can have it all, I'm gonna ride 150 miles

 

[westwall]

The effects of 400 ppm in the atmosphere.

View attachment 410362

Is obsessive compulsive delusionary disorder fun?

Is that what you have?

I have Apple Google Netflix and around 800 others

You?

I'm retired.

You?

I am too young to be retired, when I do I will be a full time trader when not in triathlon training

Enjoy rotting

I guess your investments aren't as great as you think they are then.

Neither is your cooks pension from Taco Bell, but if it keeps you in beans.............................

Eventually everyone gets out out to pasture.

So is waiting to die fun?

You need to see it that way because you are feeling beaten.

You couldn't even figure out how to put air in a tire with a presta valve.

Nah, the presta valve adapter that I used has no return pin to power a gauge, so air could go in but not be adjusted. I bought a French unit and rode nearly 100 miles in 90 degree heat while you rested your rotting retired flesh.

Yawn

Not even sure how the fuck that is true, but it is

I suspect your life is pretty shitty. I never met anyone who lived a good life who had your shitty disposition.

LOL coming from a weed farmer who thinks stoned qualifies as the good life

You are confusing me with Treeshepherd who is 100 times a better person than you.

Everyone is laughing at you.

Nope as there is only one ring ding

You will die alone.

Death is of no consequence, as it is how one lived that carries the message forward.

LOL and you call me bitter

he he he

You will suffer to the last breath.

Nah as the doctors can not even begin to reconcile my VO max numbers, but I am considering fucking with a cardiologist telling him that my heartrate ranges from 47 bpm at night to 173 bpm on the largest hill in my county

Thanks for proving my point.

What is your resting heartbeat on an off day? I know I could get myself rushed into an ICU as no doctor sees anyone my age with my numbers. 47 bpm in a hospital would set off the bells, but then some eager beaver would run in with shock paddles and fry me.

You can have it all, I'm gonna ride 150 miles

An off day? 56 or so. Why? So what, try riding the Davis Devil sometime, or the Badwater to Whitney Portals ride. You would be begging for the sag wagon. Any punk can ride 150 miles. You have to be a real rider to do those two rides, and I have done them many times.

 

[ding]

What about forest fires and volcanoes?

The CO2 from forest fires would carry the Carbon-13 signature, it has been circulating in the atmosphere high enough to get ZAPPED and gain a neutron ... say within the past million years or so ... still part of the natural 280 ppm ... and there have been volcanoes all along, so those would also be included in the natural 280 ppm and I don't think it's all that much ...

Not a trace of Carbon-13 in the remaining 125 ppm ... like the stuff has been buried for millions of years never reaching the upper atmosphere ... and that's why we're boiling the oceans off typing all this crap in ...

Pollution ...

I'm actually holding my breath so I don't pollute the atmosphere. I'm channeling James Nestor as we speak.

LOL do not worry, you will never set foot on a spacecraft or submarine, but you might find yourself in a cave collecting bat guano for your weed farm.

Yawn

LOL was I not supposed to mention the weed farm?

The quiet is deafening

Given your dire prediction concerning atmospheric CO2 pollution, I'd be surprised if I survived the night, Frannie.

When did I mention atmospheric CO2 pollution?

Oh yea I forgot, you have that delusional disorder thing

My bad

When you said CO2 was pollution, Francis.

Are you claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant that can cause a range of human effects culminating in death?

CO2 affects human health at lower levels than previously thought

Exposure to carbon dioxide (CO2) poses direct risks to human health at lower levels than previously thought, research has found. Reviewing current studies on the subject, American academics concluded that exposure to ambient CO2 in indoor environments can have harmful…

airqualitynews.com

The researchers cited mounting evidence that CO2 levels as low as 1,000ppm can cause health problems, even if people are only exposed to them for an hour or two.

They found that CO2 levels exceeding 1,000ppm have already been observed in crowded and poorly ventilated rooms such as classrooms, offices and bedrooms as well as air-conditioned public transport and planes – all places where humans can spend several hours at a time.

Collating the findings of numerous studies, the academics summarised that acute exposure to high CO2 levels can have ‘adverse health outcomes’, citing studies which observed inflammation and reduced cognitive performance above 1,000ppm.

Chronic exposure to levels between 2,000ppm and 3,000ppm can have even worse impacts as this was linked to effects including kidney calcification and bone demineralisation.

The team behind the study warned that human CO2 exposure may be a growing problem in the coming years as projections suggest that by 2100 outdoor CO2 levels in some cities could exceed 1,000ppm for parts of the year.

‘Continuous exposure to increased atmospheric CO2 could be an overlooked stressor of the modern and/or future environment,’ the study suggested.

The researchers concluded by saying further research is needed to find ways to mitigate exposure to indoor CO2, especially for children and vulnerable people, and to fully understand its potential health effects.

I am claiming you are an idiot to be discussing it with CO2 at 400 ppm.

Why when the only person here to even mention 400 ppm CO2 is you. But at least this means that you now accept that you are an idiot.

You really spent time learning how to humiliate yourself?

Or you just like me as much as the Bureau did?

I think it is awesome that you made the leap that CO2 is a pollutant by arguing toxicity when atmospheric CO2 is at 400 ppm.

CO2 is a health damaging and or fatal pollution and toxin. Always was, not sure why you have a 400 ppm fetish

If you lower the atmospheric CO2 level to 200ppm you die.

Too much water you die, not enough water you die.

Is this big news to you?

Your life sucks.

LOL and you are saving the World on a messageboard.

Yup,

You will die penniless.

Well yea as I do not intend to be buried with a bunch of pennies

Your insecurities are on display in almost every post you make.

Actually I do not formally own securities as I chose various bond funds

Proving my point even more.

 

[ding]

The effects of 400 ppm in the atmosphere.

View attachment 410362

Is obsessive compulsive delusionary disorder fun?

Is that what you have?

I have Apple Google Netflix and around 800 others

You?

I'm retired.

You?

I am too young to be retired, when I do I will be a full time trader when not in triathlon training

Enjoy rotting

I guess your investments aren't as great as you think they are then.

Neither is your cooks pension from Taco Bell, but if it keeps you in beans.............................

Eventually everyone gets out out to pasture.

So is waiting to die fun?

You need to see it that way because you are feeling beaten.

You couldn't even figure out how to put air in a tire with a presta valve.

Nah, the presta valve adapter that I used has no return pin to power a gauge, so air could go in but not be adjusted. I bought a French unit and rode nearly 100 miles in 90 degree heat while you rested your rotting retired flesh.

Yawn

Not even sure how the fuck that is true, but it is

I suspect your life is pretty shitty. I never met anyone who lived a good life who had your shitty disposition.

LOL coming from a weed farmer who thinks stoned qualifies as the good life

You are confusing me with Treeshepherd who is 100 times a better person than you.

Everyone is laughing at you.

Nope as there is only one ring ding

You will die alone.

Death is of no consequence, as it is how one lived that carries the message forward.

LOL and you call me bitter

he he he

You will suffer to the last breath.

Nah as the doctors can not even begin to reconcile my VO max numbers, but I am considering fucking with a cardiologist telling him that my heartrate ranges from 47 bpm at night to 173 bpm on the largest hill in my county

Thanks for proving my point.

What is your resting heartbeat on an off day? I know I could get myself rushed into an ICU as no doctor sees anyone my age with my numbers. 47 bpm in a hospital would set off the bells, but then some eager beaver would run in with shock paddles and fry me.

You can have it all, I'm gonna ride 150 miles

Proving my point, Mr. Insecurity.

Tell me more how about how great you are.

 

[ding]

Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.

CO2 is usable without processing.

I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...

Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...

Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...

Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...

( ... and you don't know shit ... )

Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.

To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.

Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.

 

[Rigby5]

Carbon emissions are pollution

Bullshit.

The extra CO2 in our atmosphere bear the tattle-tale signs of recently burnt fossil fuels ... as a waste product of man's activities simply dumped into the environment ... it is pollution ... is it dangerous like Cesium-135, or harmless like Helium? ... either way, it's pollution ...

Look up the term "circular reasoning".

Look up the term "false analogy".

Aside from any arguments about the intrinsics, the fact remains that as you increase CO2, you retain more solar heat, which melts mountain and polar ice pack, which raises ocean levels.
If it gets warm enough, that is a potential of oceans raising 250'.
That would wipe out enough of the US coasts so that about half the population would have to relocate. A number of entire states would be under water.

 

[Rigby5]

Anything outside of a natural system is pollution. Too much water in a desert ecosystem would also be pollution. I assume you are aware that wearing a mask increases CO2 uptake by restricting emission, it then becomes a pollutant even though the body produced it

Are you trying to suggest that humans are not natural, that we are all supernatural beings?

If so, perhaps this discussion belongs in the USMB Paranormal forum, or Religion forum, rather than the Science and Technology forum.

Yes of course humans can do things that are not natural.
That is what defines the word natural.
What humans do by definition are artificial.
Coal and oil that is hundreds of millions of years old does not naturally get burned in vehicles or electrical power plants.

 

[Rigby5]

Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.

CO2 is usable without processing.

I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...

Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...

Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...

Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...

( ... and you don't know shit ... )

Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.

To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.

Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.

Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}

Maldives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 410086

Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...

Well there were more rain forest sequestering CO2

The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.

Much was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminated

Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.

Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the better

Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?

The rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?

You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot

Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.

Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.

So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevant

We can stop there

You loot a Walmart yet today champ

Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.

Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.

 

[ding]

Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.

CO2 is usable without processing.

I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...

Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...

Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...

Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...

( ... and you don't know shit ... )

Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.

To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.

Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.

Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}

Maldives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How much do you think the sea level will rise by 2100?

An ice age would be worse. Ice sheets up to 4km thick blanketed much of northern Europe, Canada, northern America and northern Russia. Today, these ice caps would displace around 250 million people and bury cities such as Detroit, Manchester, Vancouver, Hamburg, and Helsinki.

 

[westwall]

View attachment 410086

Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...

Well there were more rain forest sequestering CO2

The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.

Much was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminated

Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.

Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the better

Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?

The rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?

You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot

Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.

Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.

So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevant

We can stop there

You loot a Walmart yet today champ

Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.

Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.

There is zero empirical support for your claim. In well over 30 years of "research", climatologists have NEVER been able to support their claims with real world data.

 

[ding]

View attachment 410086

Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...

Well there were more rain forest sequestering CO2

The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.

Much was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminated

Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.

Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the better

Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?

The rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?

You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot

Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.

Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.

So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevant

We can stop there

You loot a Walmart yet today champ

Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.

Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.

It most certainly is relevant. How else are you going to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions if you don't know where CO2 emissions are accelerating and why they are accelerating?

Apparently you don't know any of these answers. Why are you ignorant about this?

 

[westwall]

Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.

CO2 is usable without processing.

I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...

Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...

Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...

Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...

( ... and you don't know shit ... )

Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.

To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.

Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.

Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}

Maldives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hmmm, you might want to check with them. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice spanking new international airports to the country. Now, if what you claim was true I don't think you could get a single moron to spend that kind of money. Now, do you? They are building all kinds of airports, four this year alone. Now, think for a minute. If the claims of them going under were true...who in their right mind would build all of these airports?


Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
M@LDIVES JANUARY 5, 2020

• SHARE:
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• LinkedIn

Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday.
Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu in Gaaf Dhaal atoll is nearing completion.
Funadhoo airport will come into operation this month, followed by Maavarulu in March, Madivaru in April and Hoarafushi in August, she said.
The airports being developed in Funadhoo, Madivaru and Maavarulu were amongst five new airports scheduled to open last year. However, the projects ran into several difficulties, with only two of the planned five airports opening in 2019.
Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC) was awarded a MVR 50 million (USD 3.23 million) contract in 2018 to reclaim 21 hectares of land off the northwestern end of Funadhoo and build a 1,200-metre runway. The company had completed the runway along with an apron and taxiway in March.
Another MVR 57 million (USD 3.69 million) contract was awarded to the public company in 2018 to develop a 1,200-metre runway, a taxiway, an apron and a jetty at Maavarulu.
MTCC was also contracted in 2018 to reclaim 16 hectares of land from the lagoon of Hoarafushi and the neighbouring uninhabited island of Maafinolhu for the airport development project.
Meanwhile, Madivaru airport is nearing completion.
Kuredu Holdings, which owns and operates several resorts in Lhaviyani atoll, is investing USD 13 million to develop the airport. The project involves reclaiming some three hectares of land from the lagoon of Madivaru, building a 1.2-kilometre runway, and a training academy for aviation officials from flagship carrier Maldivian and seaplane operator Trans Maldivian Airways (TMA).
The company can develop a city hotel to incentivise the airport operation.
Lhaviyani atoll has one of the highest concentrations of tourism activity in the Maldives, with several resorts already operating in the atoll, including Kuredu Resort Maldives, Komandoo Island Resort and Spa, Hurawalhi Maldives, Palm Beach Island Maldives Resort and Spa, Atmosphere Kanifushi, Kanuhura Maldives, Fushifaru Maldives, Cocoon Maldives, Kudadoo Maldives Private Island by Hurawalhi, and Innahura Maldives Resort.
Over 1.5 million tourists from across the globe visit the Indian Ocean island nation every year to holiday in one of the 150 plus resorts and some 500 guesthouses located in all corners of the country. The multi-billion dollar tourism industry, which is the country’s main economic activity, relies heavily on the domestic transport infrastructure, especially air travel.
Maldives, the most dispersed country on the planet with 1,192 islands spread over roughly 90,000 square kilometres, already has 14 airports, including four international airports. The government has contracted both local and international companies to develop additional domestic airports across the archipelago in a bid to boost tourism.
Facebook Comments

Maldives to open four new airports in 2020

Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday. Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu i

maldives.net.mv

.

 

[ding]

View attachment 410086

Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...

Well there were more rain forest sequestering CO2

The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.

Much was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminated

Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.

Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the better

Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?

The rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?

You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot

Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.

Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.

So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevant

We can stop there

You loot a Walmart yet today champ

Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.

Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.

Ok, I'm going to help you out.

This is why CO2 emissions are increasing.

This is where CO2 emissions are increasing.

 

[Rigby5]

Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.

CO2 is usable without processing.

I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...

Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...

Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...

Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...

( ... and you don't know shit ... )

Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.

To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.

Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.

Not regulating CO2 is costing everyone a lot of money, so then why not regulate it?
If nothing else, wasteful consumption of fossil fuel leaves nothing for future generations.
We should try to make it last as long as possible.

 

[ding]

View attachment 410086

Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...

Well there were more rain forest sequestering CO2

The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.

Much was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminated

Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.

Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the better

Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?

The rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?

You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot

Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.

Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.

So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevant

We can stop there

You loot a Walmart yet today champ

Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.

Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.

So now that you have been shown why CO2 emissions are accelerating and where CO2 emissions are accelerating. How do you propose to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions and who is going to pay for it?

 

[Rigby5]

Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.

CO2 is usable without processing.

I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...

Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...

Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...

Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...

( ... and you don't know shit ... )

Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.

To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.

Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.

Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}

Maldives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hmmm, you might want to check with them. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice spanking new international airports to the country. Now, if what you claim was true I don't think you could get a single moron to spend that kind of money. Now, do you? They are building all kinds of airports, four this year alone. Now, think for a minute. If the claims of them going under were true...who in their right mind would build all of these airports?


Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
M@LDIVES JANUARY 5, 2020

• SHARE:
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• LinkedIn

Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday.
Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu in Gaaf Dhaal atoll is nearing completion.
Funadhoo airport will come into operation this month, followed by Maavarulu in March, Madivaru in April and Hoarafushi in August, she said.
The airports being developed in Funadhoo, Madivaru and Maavarulu were amongst five new airports scheduled to open last year. However, the projects ran into several difficulties, with only two of the planned five airports opening in 2019.
Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC) was awarded a MVR 50 million (USD 3.23 million) contract in 2018 to reclaim 21 hectares of land off the northwestern end of Funadhoo and build a 1,200-metre runway. The company had completed the runway along with an apron and taxiway in March.
Another MVR 57 million (USD 3.69 million) contract was awarded to the public company in 2018 to develop a 1,200-metre runway, a taxiway, an apron and a jetty at Maavarulu.
MTCC was also contracted in 2018 to reclaim 16 hectares of land from the lagoon of Hoarafushi and the neighbouring uninhabited island of Maafinolhu for the airport development project.
Meanwhile, Madivaru airport is nearing completion.
Kuredu Holdings, which owns and operates several resorts in Lhaviyani atoll, is investing USD 13 million to develop the airport. The project involves reclaiming some three hectares of land from the lagoon of Madivaru, building a 1.2-kilometre runway, and a training academy for aviation officials from flagship carrier Maldivian and seaplane operator Trans Maldivian Airways (TMA).
The company can develop a city hotel to incentivise the airport operation.
Lhaviyani atoll has one of the highest concentrations of tourism activity in the Maldives, with several resorts already operating in the atoll, including Kuredu Resort Maldives, Komandoo Island Resort and Spa, Hurawalhi Maldives, Palm Beach Island Maldives Resort and Spa, Atmosphere Kanifushi, Kanuhura Maldives, Fushifaru Maldives, Cocoon Maldives, Kudadoo Maldives Private Island by Hurawalhi, and Innahura Maldives Resort.
Over 1.5 million tourists from across the globe visit the Indian Ocean island nation every year to holiday in one of the 150 plus resorts and some 500 guesthouses located in all corners of the country. The multi-billion dollar tourism industry, which is the country’s main economic activity, relies heavily on the domestic transport infrastructure, especially air travel.
Maldives, the most dispersed country on the planet with 1,192 islands spread over roughly 90,000 square kilometres, already has 14 airports, including four international airports. The government has contracted both local and international companies to develop additional domestic airports across the archipelago in a bid to boost tourism.
Facebook Comments

Maldives to open four new airports in 2020

Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday. Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu i

maldives.net.mv

.

They may simply be ignorant of the fact the oceans are rising faster and faster.
Or they may only care about what happens in their lifetime, not what happens in 80 years.

 

[ding]

Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.

CO2 is usable without processing.

I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...

Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...

Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...

Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...

( ... and you don't know shit ... )

Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.

To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.

Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.

Not regulating CO2 is costing everyone a lot of money, so then why not regulate it?
If nothing else, wasteful consumption of fossil fuel leaves nothing for future generations.
We should try to make it last as long as possible.

How is it costing anyone money not regulating CO2?

I believe what you really want to do is take money from US taxpayers to pay for green infrastructure in developing nations.

Which wouldn't be so bad if you would just be honest about your intentions.