Remember me
▼ Content

Carbon dioxide levels will soar past the 410 ppm milestone in 2019


Carbon dioxide levels will soar past the 410 ppm milestone in 201923-02-2019 16:10
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2191881-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-soar-past-the-410-ppm-milestone-in-2019/
23-02-2019 17:20
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
Good news for the plants and trees, and for the rest of us. More food, and fresh air to breath. Keep up the good work...
23-02-2019 17:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2191881-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-soar-past-the-410-ppm-milestone-in-2019/


The CO2 hysteria is beginning to bother me. We have had immense forest fires and several very large volcanic eruptions which cause large and temporary spikes in the atmospheric CO2.

I am wondering if we are not being fed an entire load of BS about the levels of CO2. If you calculate the amount of CO2 that man produces the growth in CO2 should be perfectly in sync with it and in fact it isn't. The growth should be more than we're seeing. So what is going on is that as the world goes though a warmer spell the oceans release CO2 and the levels grow. This increase in CO2 is countered by increased levels of plant growth. In fact we are seeing this increase most notably in sea plankton in the oceans which cover 72% of the Earth's surface.

Now I explained elsewhere how the idea that ice cores could accurately report CO2 levels is pure guessery and not science.

But plant stomata research indeed can report levels of CO2. However, where do these petrified plants come from wherein we can analyze stomata levels? They come from areas in which there was deep forest. This means that there was heavy competition for CO2 and stomata increased to compete. So when the research shows both a large variation and sudden increases in CO2 this is indicative that the actual atmospheric content of CO2 was much larger than the stomata reported. So if the stomata as did - reported 350 ppm, the actual atmosphere contained a great deal more.

Consider - only .04% of the atmosphere currently is CO2. This means that for every 3 X 10^22 of molecules in every square meter of atmosphere at sea level pressure, only 12 x 10^18 are CO2. So only one molecule of 2,500 are CO2.

At one time the levels of CO2 were high enough to support heavy forest growth over the entire land surface of the world. As the CO2 levels were brought down by plant growth, dying and not being totally decayed, more and more forests began disappearing. We see this in the African savanna and the Great Plains in the US.

As levels climb more trees are growing. This is another self correction. The plankton in the sea ages and dies. The remains sink into the deep oceans where there is no oxygen to support the fauna that consume these plants and they embed into the ocean bottoms and are covered over to eventually become oil and gas deposits over hundreds of thousands of years.

So the Earth is self balancing and man produces only a tiny portion of the CO2 that is generated by the Earth itself every day. Where is the research on this? So it is growing pretty plain that what used to be a science community is now becoming a very small minority of scientists who are nothing more than another cog in the global warming scam. And these people should be brough to answer for what is nothing less than criminal activity.
23-02-2019 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2191881-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-soar-past-the-410-ppm-milestone-in-2019/


The CO2 hysteria is beginning to bother me. We have had immense forest fires and several very large volcanic eruptions which cause large and temporary spikes in the atmospheric CO2.

Glad to see you finally accept this, Wake. You argued against me earlier on exactly this point.
Wake wrote:
I am wondering if we are not being fed an entire load of BS about the levels of CO2.

Yup. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric or oceanic CO2 content. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere or the oceans, and the few dozen stations we have are not anywhere near enough.
Wake wrote:
If you calculate the amount of CO2 that man produces
Not possible, Wake. It is not a calculation and it is not possible to measure it.
Wake wrote:
the growth in CO2 should be perfectly in sync with it and in fact it isn't.
Another random number argument. It is not possible to measure either number.
Wake wrote:
The growth should be more than we're seeing.

Why? How much growth do you expect from random numbers? Growth is NOT determined by CO2 concentrations alone, Wake.
Wake wrote:
So what is going on is that as the world goes though a warmer spell the oceans release CO2 and the levels grow.

The oceans are nowhere near saturation levels of CO2 concentration. There is no requirement for them to 'release' anything.
Wake wrote:
This increase in CO2 is countered by increased levels of plant growth.
WRONG. CO2 does NOT the only determinant of plant growth.
Wake wrote:
In fact we are seeing this increase most notably in sea plankton in the oceans which cover 72% of the Earth's surface.
Another random number. It is not possible to measure the global amount of plankton. It is not uniformly distributed. It's growth is NOT determined solely by CO2.
Wake wrote:
Now I explained elsewhere how the idea that ice cores could accurately report CO2 levels is pure guessery and not science.

Glad to see you accept this now also. You argued with me on this point too.
Wake wrote:
But plant stomata research indeed can report levels of CO2.

Wait...what? WTF?? You are in paradox, Wake. You are being irrational.
Wake wrote:
However, where do these petrified plants come from wherein we can analyze stomata levels? They come from areas in which there was deep forest.

Nope. They come from all kinds of vegetation, Wake. Stomata is not a plant or indicate any plant. You are using this word like a buzzword when you mean 'plant remains'.
Wake wrote:
This means that there was heavy competition for CO2 and stomata increased to compete.

Plants don't 'compete' for CO2. CO2 is NOT the sole determinant of plant growth.
Wake wrote:
So when the research shows both a large variation and sudden increases in CO2 this is indicative that the actual atmospheric content of CO2 was much larger than the stomata reported.

Stomata don't report anything, Wake. You are talking like sweat glands make a difference in a fossil.
Wake wrote:
So if the stomata as did - reported 350 ppm,

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 content, Wake. You just said ice cores do not indicate CO2 concentration! Which is it, dude?
Wake wrote:
the actual atmosphere contained a great deal more.
How do you know? You are being irrational, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Consider - only .04% of the atmosphere currently is CO2.

Wait...what?? WTF??? You just said the data is bogus! You are being irrational.
Wake wrote:
At one time the levels of CO2 were high enough to support heavy forest growth over the entire land surface of the world.

Irrational argument. You are in paradox, Wake. CO2 is NOT the only thing that determines plant growth, and does NOT determine the type of plant that grows. Plants must have water available to utilize CO2. To utilize additional CO2, they MUST have more water.
Wake wrote:
As the CO2 levels were brought down by plant growth,
You are being irrational again. Did you know that other things naturally produce CO2?
Wake wrote:
dying and not being totally decayed,
Plants totally decay, Wake. The become soil for the next generation of plants.
Wake wrote:
more and more forests began disappearing.
How do you know, Wake? Were you there? Is your irrational argument a proof?
Wake wrote:
We see this in the African savanna and the Great Plains in the US.
There are forest lands in both, Wake. They are not all grass. Did you know that grass is the predominant plant on Earth? It is the one plant that can grow anywhere on land, if a plant can grow at all. It's amazingly tough stuff, the humble grass plant.
Wake wrote:
As levels climb more trees are growing.
No, Wake. Places like Weyerhauser are planting trees. They are farmers.
Wake wrote:
This is another self correction.

WRONG. Plants do NOT grow simply because there is more CO2. They need water as well, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The plankton in the sea ages and dies.
Like any plant.
Wake wrote:
The remains sink into the deep oceans
WRONG. They float near the surface, right where they lived. Nothing about a dying plant makes it denser than seawater.
Wake wrote:
where there is no oxygen to support the fauna that consume these plants and they embed into the ocean bottoms and are covered over to eventually become oil and gas deposits over hundreds of thousands of years.

Nope. Oil is not produced this way. It is produced by heat, pressure, the presence of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and an iron catalyst. In other words, conditions common underground. No matter where you go, if you are willing to drill deep enough, you WILL find oil.

Methane easily found with oil (it forms along with oil), and in other areas such as swamps, where bacteria feeding on decaying matter produce it, and in the air itself, where it can be produced by the action of sunlight. Did you know that other planets contain methane, sometimes in high concentrations? How did it form? Plankton?? The planet never had any oceans!
Wake wrote:
So the Earth is self balancing and man produces only a tiny portion of the CO2 that is generated by the Earth itself every day.

Argument from randU. You are using random numbers, Wake. It is not possible to measure either number.
Wake wrote:
Where is the research on this?
There isn't any.
Wake wrote:
So it is growing pretty plain that what used to be a science community is now becoming a very small minority of scientists who are nothing more than another cog in the global warming scam.

Science isn't a 'community'. It is no society, academy, government agency, university, or any other body of men. Science isn't scientists. It isn't people at all. There is no such thing as a 'community' in science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Wake wrote:
And these people should be brough to answer for what is nothing less than criminal activity.

For what crime? Believing in a religion? Did you know they are free to believe their religion in this country, Wake? Is it a crime they proselytize their religion?

No, Wake. The only 'crime' here is the illiteracy of people. It is their own unwillingless to learn. NOTHING prevents them from learning except themselves. If schools don't teach something or teach something that is wrong, that is NOT the only way to learn.

When a school teaches something like a tomato is a vegetable, does that in fact make it a vegetable? No. A tomato is a fruit. It always has been. Just because the government calls it a vegetable for tax reasons doesn't make it one.

No, if there is an issue at all here, Wake, it is illiteracy. It is voluntary illiteracy. It is the belief that schools are the only source of knowledge.

Three months of computer classes in schools are not as productive as a weekend spent at home on a computer learning and practicing Python from a book. Much of what is taught in schools is very little. They distort history, science, math, and almost completely ignore logic and philosophy. The instructors don't know it.

Electronics instructors that figure current flows from positive to negative. Math teachers that figure you can simplify the Pythagorean Theorem down to a+b=c, or have no idea what produces a sine function. Welding classes where the instructor didn't know how to safely handle an acetylene tank. History classes that teach WW2 improved the economy (It didn't. The economy didn't improve until WW2 ended and all those soldiers came home). Science classes that teach religions like the Church of Global Warming or the Church of Evolution, or the Church of Abiogenesis, or the Church of the Big Bang, while rejecting the Church of Creation. NONE of these are science. Heck, I've seen some of these guys argue that an ice cube raises the water level in a glass when it melts (it doesn't). That one was a university physics instructor. This easy demonstration corrected his teaching.

Perhaps the real 'crime' here is thinking that schools are the only source of knowledge, Wake. Of course, illiteracy is not a crime. It IS a prison nonetheless however.

It is the reason my moniker name is what it is. It stands as a warning against the night of illiteracy, which is a big problem today.

Fortunately, there are few that escaped this mindset. Occasionally, they appear on forums like this one. They are the ones that are learning. The did it themselves (the only way to actually learn anything). They are the self-made men in this world. They are no longer dependent on a government or a university to tell them what to do and say.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-02-2019 20:47




Join the debate Carbon dioxide levels will soar past the 410 ppm milestone in 2019:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Let us hang the bar high: We need to achieve a carbon neutral way of life210-12-2019 02:01
Technology will solve problem with carbon capture826-11-2019 20:48
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
Why cant we suck carbon out of the air?1226-08-2019 19:25
Uses for solid carbon2413-08-2019 18:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact