What puts more CO2 into the atmosphere cars or forest fires?

Titan is a moon of Saturn, not Jupiter as I mistakenly said earlier. They're both big and far away, so I missed it by one block. Dang!
Incidemply,

“We’ve got about 35 years-worth of oil left in the whole world. We’re going to run out of oil.” – Jimmy Carter, Presidential Debates, September 23, 1976

[“We may never run out of oil, though known reserves are expected to last for about 50 years, current estimates suggest.” - How much oil is left and will we ever run out?]

___________________________________
 
You put YOUR words into HIS mouth and then criticize him for what YOU said. This is one of many obnoxious and dishonest practices of today's Leftists. YOU said "doesn't exist." He did not.
The relatively recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased leaf area in trees and plants worldwide, hastening their growth. The increase in green growth is equivalent to tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles worldwide. Such factual information really disturbs the Cult which thrives on cynicism and bad news.

OMG !!! PANIC!!! LOOK, LOOK!!!

View attachment 969181
_________________________

CO2 damned near does not exist in our atmosphere and somehow it's greening the planet OK. Like we even have accurate data on global greening. We couldn't even see the planet until recently.
 

That's just plant life on land ... 29% of the Earth ... algae is by far the biggest carbon sink ...

The article didn't mention the additional rainfall and water availability ... a warmer Earth is a wetter Earth ... all things considered, the extra CO2 is a good thing for all life, including humans ... the alternative is new glaciation and advancing hockey rinks ...
 
That's just plant life on land ... 29% of the Earth ... algae is by far the biggest carbon sink ...

The article didn't mention the additional rainfall and water availability ... a warmer Earth is a wetter Earth ... all things considered, the extra CO2 is a good thing for all life, including humans ... the alternative is new glaciation and advancing hockey rinks ...
Reducing Earth's CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels will NOT produce "new" glaciation. It will restore the glaciation lost to anthropenic global warming.
 
Reducing Earth's CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels will NOT produce "new" glaciation. It will restore the glaciation lost to anthropenic global warming.

Ice core data is a fraud? ... c'mon little girl, don't be SSDD or EMH ... the scientific community accepts we'll be glaciated again in 100,000 years ... maybe when you finally start menstruating you'll understand better .. or not ... stupid is what stupid posts ...

The Earth was warmer during the agricultural revolution ... meaning it's colder today ... maybe only adults understand the difference ...
 
Ice core data is a fraud? ... c'mon little girl, don't be SSDD or EMH ... the scientific community accepts we'll be glaciated again in 100,000 years ... maybe when you finally start menstruating you'll understand better .. or not ... stupid is what stupid posts ...

The Earth was warmer during the agricultural revolution ... meaning it's colder today ... maybe only adults understand the difference ...

You weren't talking about 100,000 years from now. You were talking about when anthropogenic global warming has been stopped by the elimination of fossil fuel usage.

all things considered, the extra CO2 is a good thing for all life, including humans ... the alternative is new glaciation and advancing hockey rinks ...
 
If that is the case, we need not fear running out of oil. So let's keep using it.
Doing the Hoaxey Pokey

One Zero-Growth goon anticipated people seeing through the Peak Oil hoax. Grabbing a justification out of thin air, she claimed that it took ten tons of biomass to produce one ounce of oil. Since no one at her lecture raised that question, she was preemptively making sure that nobody in her captive audience ever would. Her students never would anyway, but the Influencers are paranoiac about their lies, just like Stalin was.

The Illiterate Liberal Language Lords use "fossil" to imply it's an antiquated and used-up form of energy, similar to their usage "Dead White Men."
 
You put YOUR words into HIS mouth and then criticize him for what YOU said. This is one of many obnoxious and dishonest practices of today's Leftists. YOU said "doesn't exist." He did not.
The relatively recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased leaf area in trees and plants worldwide, hastening their growth. The increase in green growth is equivalent to tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles worldwide. Such factual information really disturbs the Cult which thrives on cynicism and bad news.

OMG !!! PANIC!!! LOOK, LOOK!!!

View attachment 969181
_________________________
Lefties Are Famous for Famines
 
CO2 damned near does not exist in our atmosphere and somehow it's greening the planet OK. Like we even have accurate data on global greening. We couldn't even see the planet until recently.
It has to be said. CO2 is a heavy gas. It sinks. The ocean gathers it. As air rises it gets thinner and thinner. CO2 does mix. But at the moment the amount in the atmosphere where it gets measured is so tiny it is measured in millionths. This shows why science is divided.

Imagine we discuss ants. And in a distant colony are 1 million ants. But where we see them we see only 420 ants. Not a serious problem. CO2 at the worst is that 420 bundle of Ants.
 
My bad. I should have indicated that this article was published in 2024 making it far more credible than older climate change panic claims.
You could also have shown that your article says things like:

The short answer is the planet itself will never completely run out of oil, because some of the oil is in inaccessible places like Antarctica, and some may be made so deep inside Earth we can't even quantify it, let alone get to it.
AND
Globally, around 1.6 trillion barrels of recoverable oil remain, according to a 2023 survey by Rystad Energy. There's also recoverable oil we haven't yet discovered; that's a hazier number, although in 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey put the estimate at 565 billion barrels.
According to humans use 35 billion barrels per year and still increasing. If we add the two numbers above, we get a maximum recoverable supply of 2.165 trillion barrels. That says, it will last 62 years but with the current rate of increase, 50 is closer to the truth. And, of course, as that supply gets smaller and smaller, it will become more and more rare and more and more difficult to recover and the price will go up and up and up. 50 years takes us to roughly to the year 2075. But, burning that amount of oil would raise atmospheric CO2 levels by 900-1,000%


or 3,780 - 4,200 ppm. I my opinion, you'd be looking at likely the worst mass extinction event in the planet's history.
 
According to humans use 35 billion barrels per year and still increasing. If we add the two numbers above, we get a maximum recoverable supply of 2.165 trillion barrels. That says, it will last 62 years but with the current rate of increase, 50 is closer to the truth. And, of course, as that supply gets smaller and smaller, it will become more and more rare and more and more difficult to recover and the price will go up and up and up. 50 years takes us to roughly to the year 2075. But, burning that amount of oil would raise atmospheric CO2 levels by 900-1,000%
Gold wrote that Petroleum replenishes. Also a feasible way to power transportation on earth is using nuclear.

Look people let's assume the planet lasts thousands more years, we know a day shall arrive when nature created oil will be gone. So humans must make oil. The planet did it and so did the Nazis. We are better than Nazis.
 
Gold wrote that Petroleum replenishes. Also a feasible way to power transportation on earth is using nuclear.

Look people let's assume the planet lasts thousands more years, we know a day shall arrive when nature created oil will be gone. So humans must make oil. The planet did it and so did the Nazis. We are better than Nazis.
We don't need oil, Robert, we need energy.
 
Such as by what for cars and airplanes (crick)?

Crick is a member of the climate change cult who is so proud of flying to Paris that he features a picture of himself at the Louvre. His trip required enormous amounts of crude oil for airplanes and taxis but now he proselytizes against the world's most crucial and important source of energy for our very existence.
````Record high temperatures.webp
 
Crick is a member of the climate change cult who is so proud of flying to Paris that he features a picture of himself at the Louvre. His trip required enormous amounts of crude oil for airplanes and taxis but now he proselytizes against the world's most crucial and important source of energy for our very existence. View attachment 970454
When a person discusses climate, but all they talk about is temperature, beware that they are fools.
 
Crick is a member of the climate change cult who is so proud of flying to Paris that he features a picture of himself at the Louvre. His trip required enormous amounts of crude oil for airplanes and taxis but now he proselytizes against the world's most crucial and important source of energy for our very existence. View attachment 970454
Do you, or do you not have a degree in chemical engineering?


1719946168880.webp

1719946224237.webp

1719946287571.webp

 
Do you, or do you not have a degree in chemical engineering?


View attachment 970480
View attachment 970481
View attachment 970483
Oh, you use CNN
 
Back
Top Bottom