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

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.

How fast do you think the sea is rising? Let's do some math. I have it at 3.2 mm/yr. Same as it has been for 6000 years.

No, back around 1880, when they first recorded ocean levels, there was no significant annual ocean rise.
What you are likely being confused by, is that the end of the last ice age, around 20,000 BC, caused a peak in normal ocean levels.
They are supposed to be dropping now, as we are beginning to enter the next cooling phase.
For ocean levels to be rising now, is totally abnormal and inappropriate.

I don't know where you are getting your data from.

View attachment 410449

Now let's look at the post glacial sea level rise. I don't believe anyone but you is disputing that the sea level has been rising for the past 22,000 years. It flattened out about 6,000 years ago but it been rising at about 3 mm/yr since then. It's not much different today.

View attachment 410452

Wrong.
You own graph, Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise, showed that it ended about 4 thousand years ago.
The current rise of 3.3 mm/year has only been in the last 150 years or so, since the industrial revolution.

Since the scale is in meters, it would not be possible to see when it started to drop and then started to increase once again.
But the natural warming after the ice age is supposed to be over, and it is supposed to be cooling now, with oceans dropping.

It's been at 3 mm/yr for the last 6,000 years. If you can't see the slope, I can't help you.

I'm not sure why you think the interglacial period is over but you should thank your lucky stars it's not. For the vast majority of the last 400,000 years the earth has been a much colder place than it is now and the consequences of another glacial cycle would be much more catastrophic for life on this planet than anything you think will happen because of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Wrong.
The interglacial period is always very short.
Once the plants regrown and absorb the extra CO2 from the plants killed by the cold, then it quickly returns to the normal colder temperatures.
And no, glacial periods are not at all catastrophic because glaciers grow much more slowly than oceans rise. Glaciers also even out winter water abundance and summer drought. They are much better for human survival. Eventually glaciers would for cities to move, but that is 100,000 years away.
Rising oceans will cause cities to have to move in only 200 years.

Here's the data.

 

[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.

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.

I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?

That's exactly who will pay for it. Who do you think ends up buying stuff? If you raise the price of stuff the people buying the stuff will be the ones paying for it.

How are you going to collect this free money? Who are you going to collect it from? After you collect it who will it get distributed to?

How do you propose slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels?

You clearly are not paying attention.
I prefer conservation of fossil fuels, not increased taxation.
Mass transit is less expensive for everyone, including road maintenance.
And I already said that a gas tax at the pump would be one way.
I think things like Elon Musk's Hyperloop could work to entice users with speed and efficiency, save fossil fuel, and be more aesthetic all at the same time

I am paying attention. The developed nations are decreasing their CO2 emissions. China and the rest of the world are increasing their CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons per year per year. That means every 5 years they create another United States worth of new emissions.

So can you explain to me why the US is the problem?

The US is the problem because we are NOT reducing emissions as you claimed, and we are the ones forcing the rest of the world to support our unsustainable life style.
You certainly did not complain when China financed the additional $5 trillion that Bush added to the US national debt. In fact, we now owe something like $23 trillion.

It doesn't look like we are the problem to me.

View attachment 410459

Wrong.
The size of the country is irrelevant.
The ONLY thing that matter is the per capita emissions, and that is England and the US as the most guilty.

Where in the world do people emit the most CO2?

There are large inequalities in the carbon footprint of people across the world. How do countries across the world compare? Where in the world do people emit the most CO2?

ourworldindata.org

China is one of the least polluting, per capita.

 

[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.

I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?

That's exactly who will pay for it. Who do you think ends up buying stuff? If you raise the price of stuff the people buying the stuff will be the ones paying for it.

How are you going to collect this free money? Who are you going to collect it from? After you collect it who will it get distributed to?

How do you propose slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels?

You clearly are not paying attention.
I prefer conservation of fossil fuels, not increased taxation.
Mass transit is less expensive for everyone, including road maintenance.
And I already said that a gas tax at the pump would be one way.
I think things like Elon Musk's Hyperloop could work to entice users with speed and efficiency, save fossil fuel, and be more aesthetic all at the same time

I am paying attention. The developed nations are decreasing their CO2 emissions. China and the rest of the world are increasing their CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons per year per year. That means every 5 years they create another United States worth of new emissions.

So can you explain to me why the US is the problem?

The US is the problem because we are NOT reducing emissions as you claimed, and we are the ones forcing the rest of the world to support our unsustainable life style.
You certainly did not complain when China financed the additional $5 trillion that Bush added to the US national debt. In fact, we now owe something like $23 trillion.

It doesn't look like we are the problem to me.

View attachment 410459

Wrong.
The size of the country is irrelevant.
The ONLY thing that matter is the per capita emissions, and that is England and the US as the most guilty.

Where in the world do people emit the most CO2?

There are large inequalities in the carbon footprint of people across the world. How do countries across the world compare? Where in the world do people emit the most CO2?

ourworldindata.org

China is one of the least polluting, per capita.

Actually it is the amount of CO2 being emitted that matters to the atmosphere as that is what causes the increase in atmospheric CO2.

This is basic science. It's called a material balance.

 

[ding]

China is one of the least polluting, per capita.

Who just happens to emit 28% of all CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere while the US emits only 15% of the total CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.

 

[Rigby5]

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2017, the United States emitted 5.1 billion metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 32.5 billion metric tons.

How much carbon dioxide does the United States and the World emit each year from energy sources? | U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2019, the United States emitted 5,130 million metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 33,621.5 million metric tons.

www.usgs.gov

Yes, that is the point.
That we dump 17% of the world's emissions, when we are 4.5% of the population.

 

[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.

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.

I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?

That's exactly who will pay for it. Who do you think ends up buying stuff? If you raise the price of stuff the people buying the stuff will be the ones paying for it.

How are you going to collect this free money? Who are you going to collect it from? After you collect it who will it get distributed to?

How do you propose slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels?

You clearly are not paying attention.
I prefer conservation of fossil fuels, not increased taxation.
Mass transit is less expensive for everyone, including road maintenance.
And I already said that a gas tax at the pump would be one way.
I think things like Elon Musk's Hyperloop could work to entice users with speed and efficiency, save fossil fuel, and be more aesthetic all at the same time

I am paying attention. The developed nations are decreasing their CO2 emissions. China and the rest of the world are increasing their CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons per year per year. That means every 5 years they create another United States worth of new emissions.

So can you explain to me why the US is the problem?

The US is the problem because we are NOT reducing emissions as you claimed, and we are the ones forcing the rest of the world to support our unsustainable life style.
You certainly did not complain when China financed the additional $5 trillion that Bush added to the US national debt. In fact, we now owe something like $23 trillion.

It doesn't look like we are the problem to me.

View attachment 410459

Wrong.
The size of the country is irrelevant.
The ONLY thing that matter is the per capita emissions, and that is England and the US as the most guilty.

Where in the world do people emit the most CO2?

There are large inequalities in the carbon footprint of people across the world. How do countries across the world compare? Where in the world do people emit the most CO2?

ourworldindata.org

China is one of the least polluting, per capita.

Actually it is the amount of CO2 being emitted that matters to the atmosphere as that is what causes the increase in atmospheric CO2.

This is basic science. It's called a material balance.

Wrong, because if the US was not setting the standard for luxury, then the rest of the world would not try to be as wasteful as we are.
We are enticing them.
They have a right to the same standard of living as we have.
It would be totally unfair to limit them by country instead of per capita.

 

[ding]

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2017, the United States emitted 5.1 billion metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 32.5 billion metric tons.

How much carbon dioxide does the United States and the World emit each year from energy sources? | U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2019, the United States emitted 5,130 million metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 33,621.5 million metric tons.

www.usgs.gov

Yes, that is the point.
That we dump 17% of the world's emissions, when we are 4.5% of the population.

What does that matter? Our emissions could go to zero and they would be replaced in 5 years by China and the rest of the world.

The acceleration of CO2 emissions is occurring in the developing counties, not the US.

Do you want CO2 emissions to keep going up?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Think about it, the industrial revolution was in full swing when Woodrow Wilson(racist who segregated the government) was in office, during that time tons of CO2 was put into the air, the ratio went from 3 parts per million to 4 parts per million(that is 1/1000000) increase as the Progs say, yet we have record snowfall again, so early in the year. The progs had said that snow would disappear and that was 6 years ago, yet here we are once again, proving that "settled science" isnt really settled. Next time you see a Prog give him the 1 finger salute.

Season's first major snowfall breaks record in Minnesota, causes hundreds of crashes and spinouts

www.startribune.com

The precipitation tapered off Tuesday night after 7.9 inches of snow at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, shattering the previous record for Oct. 20 of 3 inches, set in 1916, and nearly besting the all-time snowiest October day in the Twin Cities.

Excess moisture in the air.

Okay.......but it has to be COLD for it to snow..


Curious.

A warmer climate spurs the evaporation of water from land and sea and allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture—thus setting the stage for more extreme precipitation.

Global Warming Effects on Rain and Snow

In a warming world, dry places tend to get drier and wet places get wetter. These extremes can heighten the risk of flood, and cause economic and social disruptions.

www.climatehotmap.org

How dare you to try to confuse people with facts. I'm not sure if that is allowed any more.

You mean these facts?

Record early snowpack across the Northern Hemisphere


LINK

LINK

LINK

======

Maybe you are just being ignorant?

 

[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.

I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?

That's exactly who will pay for it. Who do you think ends up buying stuff? If you raise the price of stuff the people buying the stuff will be the ones paying for it.

How are you going to collect this free money? Who are you going to collect it from? After you collect it who will it get distributed to?

How do you propose slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels?

You clearly are not paying attention.
I prefer conservation of fossil fuels, not increased taxation.
Mass transit is less expensive for everyone, including road maintenance.
And I already said that a gas tax at the pump would be one way.
I think things like Elon Musk's Hyperloop could work to entice users with speed and efficiency, save fossil fuel, and be more aesthetic all at the same time

I am paying attention. The developed nations are decreasing their CO2 emissions. China and the rest of the world are increasing their CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons per year per year. That means every 5 years they create another United States worth of new emissions.

So can you explain to me why the US is the problem?

The US is the problem because we are NOT reducing emissions as you claimed, and we are the ones forcing the rest of the world to support our unsustainable life style.
You certainly did not complain when China financed the additional $5 trillion that Bush added to the US national debt. In fact, we now owe something like $23 trillion.

It doesn't look like we are the problem to me.

View attachment 410459

Wrong.
The size of the country is irrelevant.
The ONLY thing that matter is the per capita emissions, and that is England and the US as the most guilty.

Where in the world do people emit the most CO2?

There are large inequalities in the carbon footprint of people across the world. How do countries across the world compare? Where in the world do people emit the most CO2?

ourworldindata.org

China is one of the least polluting, per capita.

Actually it is the amount of CO2 being emitted that matters to the atmosphere as that is what causes the increase in atmospheric CO2.

This is basic science. It's called a material balance.

Wrong, because if the US was not setting the standard for luxury, then the rest of the world would not try to be as wasteful as we are.
We are enticing them.
They have a right to the same standard of living as we have.
It would be totally unfair to limit them by country instead of per capita.

So you believe if we became poor the rest of the world wouldn't keep doing what they are doing? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[ding]

They have a right to the same standard of living as we have.
It would be totally unfair to limit them by country instead of per capita.

So you are OK with them increasing their CO2 emissions.

 

[ding]

Wrong, because if the US was not setting the standard for luxury, then the rest of the world would not try to be as wasteful as we are.
We are enticing them.

This doesn't make any sense at all. You are saying its the fault of the US that other nations are increasing their CO2 emissions. How are you going to stop them?

 

[BULLDOG]

Think about it, the industrial revolution was in full swing when Woodrow Wilson(racist who segregated the government) was in office, during that time tons of CO2 was put into the air, the ratio went from 3 parts per million to 4 parts per million(that is 1/1000000) increase as the Progs say, yet we have record snowfall again, so early in the year. The progs had said that snow would disappear and that was 6 years ago, yet here we are once again, proving that "settled science" isnt really settled. Next time you see a Prog give him the 1 finger salute.

Season's first major snowfall breaks record in Minnesota, causes hundreds of crashes and spinouts

www.startribune.com

The precipitation tapered off Tuesday night after 7.9 inches of snow at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, shattering the previous record for Oct. 20 of 3 inches, set in 1916, and nearly besting the all-time snowiest October day in the Twin Cities.

Excess moisture in the air.

Okay.......but it has to be COLD for it to snow..


Curious.

A warmer climate spurs the evaporation of water from land and sea and allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture—thus setting the stage for more extreme precipitation.

Global Warming Effects on Rain and Snow

In a warming world, dry places tend to get drier and wet places get wetter. These extremes can heighten the risk of flood, and cause economic and social disruptions.

www.climatehotmap.org

How dare you to try to confuse people with facts. I'm not sure if that is allowed any more.

You mean these facts?

Record early snowpack across the Northern Hemisphere


LINK

LINK

LINK

======

Maybe you are just being ignorant?

Of course I'm ignorant as compared to real climate scientists who have years, or even decades of training and experience. The difference between me and you is that i am unashamed to admit when I don't know something, and you are too stupid to even recognize how much you don't know.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Think about it, the industrial revolution was in full swing when Woodrow Wilson(racist who segregated the government) was in office, during that time tons of CO2 was put into the air, the ratio went from 3 parts per million to 4 parts per million(that is 1/1000000) increase as the Progs say, yet we have record snowfall again, so early in the year. The progs had said that snow would disappear and that was 6 years ago, yet here we are once again, proving that "settled science" isnt really settled. Next time you see a Prog give him the 1 finger salute.

Season's first major snowfall breaks record in Minnesota, causes hundreds of crashes and spinouts

www.startribune.com

The precipitation tapered off Tuesday night after 7.9 inches of snow at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, shattering the previous record for Oct. 20 of 3 inches, set in 1916, and nearly besting the all-time snowiest October day in the Twin Cities.

Excess moisture in the air.

Okay.......but it has to be COLD for it to snow..


Curious.

A warmer climate spurs the evaporation of water from land and sea and allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture—thus setting the stage for more extreme precipitation.

Global Warming Effects on Rain and Snow

In a warming world, dry places tend to get drier and wet places get wetter. These extremes can heighten the risk of flood, and cause economic and social disruptions.

www.climatehotmap.org

How dare you to try to confuse people with facts. I'm not sure if that is allowed any more.

You mean these facts?

Record early snowpack across the Northern Hemisphere


LINK

LINK

LINK

======

Maybe you are just being ignorant?

Of course I'm ignorant as compared to real climate scientists who have years, or even decades of training and experience. The difference between me and you is that i am unashamed to admit when I don't know something, and you are too stupid to even recognize how much you don't know.

What YOU really meant to say, is that you are too stupid to realize that I posted actual weather events showing numerous records.

They are real and does contradict the IPPC reports about it.

You have no idea what I know, what is more you obviously didn't read any of the links, since your statement to me makes that clear.

This is why you are so gosh darn ignorant!

 

[BULLDOG]

Think about it, the industrial revolution was in full swing when Woodrow Wilson(racist who segregated the government) was in office, during that time tons of CO2 was put into the air, the ratio went from 3 parts per million to 4 parts per million(that is 1/1000000) increase as the Progs say, yet we have record snowfall again, so early in the year. The progs had said that snow would disappear and that was 6 years ago, yet here we are once again, proving that "settled science" isnt really settled. Next time you see a Prog give him the 1 finger salute.

Season's first major snowfall breaks record in Minnesota, causes hundreds of crashes and spinouts

www.startribune.com

The precipitation tapered off Tuesday night after 7.9 inches of snow at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, shattering the previous record for Oct. 20 of 3 inches, set in 1916, and nearly besting the all-time snowiest October day in the Twin Cities.

Excess moisture in the air.

Okay.......but it has to be COLD for it to snow..


Curious.

A warmer climate spurs the evaporation of water from land and sea and allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture—thus setting the stage for more extreme precipitation.

Global Warming Effects on Rain and Snow

In a warming world, dry places tend to get drier and wet places get wetter. These extremes can heighten the risk of flood, and cause economic and social disruptions.

www.climatehotmap.org

How dare you to try to confuse people with facts. I'm not sure if that is allowed any more.

You mean these facts?

Record early snowpack across the Northern Hemisphere


LINK

LINK

LINK

======

Maybe you are just being ignorant?

Of course I'm ignorant as compared to real climate scientists who have years, or even decades of training and experience. The difference between me and you is that i am unashamed to admit when I don't know something, and you are too stupid to even recognize how much you don't know.

What YOU really meant to say, is that you are too stupid to realize that I posted actual weather events showing numerous records.

They are real and does contradict the IPPC reports about it.

You have no idea what I know, what is more you obviously didn't read any of the links, since your statement to me makes that clear.

This is why you are so gosh darn ignorant!

Sorry buddy, but I'm gonna have to go with the real climate scientists instead of some anonymous conspiracy theory nut on a discussion board. I'm sure you can understand why.

 

[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

.

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.

Or, they know the claims are lies. I KNOW the claims are lies. So do you. Your lies about china and the amount of pollution, and their CO2 emissions show that pretty clearly.

Yes, our population is low, and we produce a lot of CO2. We also are far more efficient than anyone else so we produce far more for the CO2 we emit than any other country on Earth.

You want every confined to mass transit but ignore the fact that the power plants used to power those mass transit systems produce far more CO2 than all of the vehicles on the planet.

So, either you really don't know what you are talking about....or you know it's all BS but you support it because you are a marxist and as my friends are always pointing out "green, is the new red".

 

[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

Proving my point, Mr. Insecurity.

Tell me more how about how great you are.

Sorry kid, it's not my fault that you are a dilapidated fool. But I do understand your frustration, as few actually do 100 mike cycle rides, even fewer at my age. Don't give up hope though

 

[esalla]

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.

CO2 is already regulated as it is a pollutant

 

[esalla]

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

The oceans have been rising for 22,000 years or since the ebb of the last ice age. Furthermore 2mm of sea level rise can not be noticed by any landmass even an island so try again kiddypoo

 

[ReinyDays]

It doesn't look like we are the problem to me.

View attachment 410459

The fallacy here is the chart only uses European countries with extensive wind/solar/hydro infrastructure ... use the same selection criteria for the US and China ... you'll see it's the Rowdies who are the problem ...

 

[ding]

It doesn't look like we are the problem to me.

View attachment 410459

The fallacy here is the chart only uses European countries with extensive wind/solar/hydro infrastructure ... use the same selection criteria for the US and China ... you'll see it's the Rowdies who are the problem ...

I got the data off of chron.com probably 4 or 5 years ago. The source of the data was the global carbon project. It was current for the time. What are you saying the data should be showing?