SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,680
- 280
- Banned
- #1
And why are no scientists talking about our rapidly disappearing supply of oxygen in the air?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Could it have something to do with the 600:1 ratio of O2 to CO2? Could it have something to do with the CO2 simply coming out of solution from warming oceans, rivers and lakes?
Don't be an idiot. I'm saying no such thing.
Yes, that's how it goes. So why don't we have ganders of scientists raising the alarm about our rapidly decreasing oxygen supply?
Because, as I tried to point out, we could double our CO2 levels without using 0.16% of our O2.
Now taking the real world into account, a significant amount of the CO2 required to get to 500 ppm is going to come from thawing tundra and warming oceans, so even LESS of the world's oxygen will be consumed.
Why did you bring this up? Was this your attempt to get away from your continuous string of insults and try to argue some science?
Because, as I tried to point out, we could double our CO2 levels without using 0.16% of our O2.
So you're saying it's just not relevant?
Now taking the real world into account, a significant amount of the CO2 required to get to 500 ppm is going to come from thawing tundra and warming oceans, so even LESS of the world's oxygen will be consumed.
So it's not human activity that is the main driver. It's natural processes.
Why did you bring this up? Was this your attempt to get away from your continuous string of insults and try to argue some science?
I'm sure I could think up some colorful things to say if that's what you prefer.
Of course its relevant. It's raising the Earth's temperature.
Do you actually believe that's what I said or that I'm so stupid I can't retain a thought for more than a few seconds?
The primary driver is human GHG emissions. The warming that resulted from THAT has incited other sources of CO2.
I would have preferred some better science.
1) Do you believe human emissions are responsible for the majority of the increase above 280 ppm.
2) Do you believe the difference between Greenhouse warming at 280 ppm and Greenhouse warming at 400 ppm is discernible?
3) Do you believe the primary cause of global warming over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions? If not, what do you believe is the cause?
Because, as I tried to point out, we could double our CO2 levels without using 0.16% of our O2.
So you're saying it's just not relevant?
What happened to the oh-so-smart guy? Are you his evil and ignorant twin? Of course its relevant. It's raising the Earth's temperature.
Do you actually believe that's what I said or that I'm so stupid I can't retain a thought for more than a few seconds? The primary driver is human GHG emissions. The warming that resulted from THAT has incited other sources of CO2. A positive feedback is taking place.
Why did you bring this up? Was this your attempt to get away from your continuous string of insults and try to argue some science?
I'm sure I could think up some colorful things to say if that's what you prefer.
I would have preferred some better science.
So, how about describing your position on a few issues:
1) Do you believe human emissions are responsible for the majority of the increase above 280 ppm.
2) Do you believe the difference between Greenhouse warming at 280 ppm and Greenhouse warming at 400 ppm is discernible?
3) Do you believe the primary cause of global warming over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions? If not, what do you believe is the cause?
Of course its relevant. It's raising the Earth's temperature.
The oxygen depletion, Skippy. Keep up with the pace.
Do you actually believe that's what I said or that I'm so stupid I can't retain a thought for more than a few seconds?
Now you're just baiting me to insult you. It's killing you that I won't, isn't it?
The primary driver is human GHG emissions. The warming that resulted from THAT has incited other sources of CO2.
Prove it.
1) Do you believe human emissions are responsible for the majority of the increase above 280 ppm.
Insufficient data. We really can't know with meaningful precision what CO2 levels were 100 years ago, or 200 years ago.
We also can't really know the natural stability of CO2 levels over geologically microscopic time spans.
It is possible that large spikes and dips in CO2 levels, over time spans measured in years or decades, has been an entirely natural occurrence for hundreds of millions or possibly billions of years.
We also don't have meaningful measures of the magnitude of total various methods by which nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
This prevents us knowing whether any human activity has caused increases in total atmospheric CO2, or whether natural mechanisms eliminate more CO2 than human "emissions" produces. If it does, than any increase is clearly and indisputably driven by non human causes.
Even if we assume that such an increase in CO2 level has occurred, and that CO2 levels remain generally stable and are not prone to substantial spikes or dips across geologically microscopic time frames, human ecological activity is a much more likely candidate.
2) Do you believe the difference between Greenhouse warming at 280 ppm and Greenhouse warming at 400 ppm is discernible?
Invalid question, logical fallacy of the complex question. A "yes" answer implies affirmation that differences in "greenhouse" warming are directly or substantially due to differences in CO2 levels, despite such affirmation of the latter premise not being necessary for the former to be affirmed.
3) Do you believe the primary cause of global warming over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions? If not, what do you believe is the cause?
Insufficient data. Possible fallacy of complex question. Possible fallacy of equivocation.
CO2 is only one of several greenhouse gases, and only accounts for a quarter of total greenhouse effects. Either a yes or no answer assumes points described above where insufficient data exists to establish definitive conclusions.
Don't be an idiot. I'm saying no such thing.
You don't realize it, but that's exactly what you're saying. Here let me explain. First, let's clarify your position. If I understand correctly, you claim as true the following points, yes?
1. Human consumption of fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
2. This human activity causes an increase in greenhouse effect.
3. This increase in greenhouse effect causes an increase in world wide temperatures.