The truth about CO2 is that without it you would be dead

keepit wrote:Swan, This website is about climate change. What difference does it make that we can't do without it?

keepit wrote: Calm down IBD, it's only me.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
This website is about climate change. What difference does it make that we can't do without it?
What you're presenting is a pretty lame hook.

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

Look it up...

You exist, because of a huge variety of carbon-based molecules. You can only get carbon for those molecules, from the foods you eat. You can't get carbon from eating coal, drinking petroleum, or your wife's cooking. Plants are the only living thing, that can get carbon, directly from the environment, CO2. Everything else gets carbon from either eating plants, or something else that eats plants. Plants can't grow, no food, everything dies. CO2 isn't evenly distributed, like that planet-burning blanket, in a Bill Nye climate propaganda video. Also a lot of seasonal variation. The yearly averages don't paint an accurate picture. The ideal CO2 level for best plant growth, is around 800 ppm. I've never seen a maximum level given. There was no noticeable benefit to providing higher levels.

All this stuff is easy enough to find and verify on the internet. Lot of studies done.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

Look it up...

You exist, because of a huge variety of carbon-based molecules. You can only get carbon for those molecules, from the foods you eat. You can't get carbon from eating coal, drinking petroleum, or your wife's cooking. Plants are the only living thing, that can get carbon, directly from the environment, CO2. Everything else gets carbon from either eating plants, or something else that eats plants. Plants can't grow, no food, everything dies. CO2 isn't evenly distributed, like that planet-burning blanket, in a Bill Nye climate propaganda video. Also a lot of seasonal variation. The yearly averages don't paint an accurate picture. The ideal CO2 level for best plant growth, is around 800 ppm. I've never seen a maximum level given. There was no noticeable benefit to providing higher levels.

All this stuff is easy enough to find and verify on the internet. Lot of studies done.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

Look it up...

You exist, because of a huge variety of carbon-based molecules. You can only get carbon for those molecules, from the foods you eat. You can't get carbon from eating coal, drinking petroleum, or your wife's cooking. Plants are the only living thing, that can get carbon, directly from the environment, CO2. Everything else gets carbon from either eating plants, or something else that eats plants. Plants can't grow, no food, everything dies. CO2 isn't evenly distributed, like that planet-burning blanket, in a Bill Nye climate propaganda video. Also a lot of seasonal variation. The yearly averages don't paint an accurate picture. The ideal CO2 level for best plant growth, is around 800 ppm. I've never seen a maximum level given. There was no noticeable benefit to providing higher levels.

All this stuff is easy enough to find and verify on the internet. Lot of studies done.

Actually what you're referring to is carbon. Anything that is considered as organic is carbon based. And I doubt that you know that glucose (sugar) is C6H12O6.
It's a simple carbohydrate which is a part of the photosynthesis process.

@ITN, this is one way I originally considered the experiment that I've been pursuing. It's not about stating something as fact but showing that under certain conditions that CH2O occurring can be observed. At the same time, O2 type oxygen is produced. And I posted that over 4 1/2 years ago. I have a much better understanding of how such an experiment would need to be performed. Specifically, it's parameters and why those parameters would matter. Then that would allow for peer review. ie., scientists could repeat the experiment and decide if they support my hypothesis or not. The specific reason why gasses would alter their composition is not something I would be saying. I would only be outlining the conditions under which such transformations occur. I don't know everything. Just happen to like science.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-co2-h2o-ch2o-o2-possible.876215/

James___ wrote: I have a much better understanding of how such an experiment would need to be performed. Specifically, it's parameters and why those parameters would matter.

James___ wrote: Then that would allow for peer review. ie., scientists could repeat the experiment and decide if they support my hypothesis or not.

James___ wrote: The specific reason why gasses would alter their composition is not something I would be saying. I would only be outlining the conditions under which such transformations occur. I don't know everything. Just happen to like science.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: I have a much better understanding of how such an experiment would need to be performed. Specifically, it's parameters and why those parameters would matter.

It sounds like you are ready to perform that experiment.

James___ wrote: Then that would allow for peer review. ie., scientists could repeat the experiment and decide if they support my hypothesis or not.

That is not peer review. There is no such thing as "peer review" in the scientific process. Nobody owns science. No peer review is ever required and no one's opinion ever matters.

What you are describing is part of the scientific method. Yes, repeatability of your experiment is necessary as a test of your null hypothesis, but that is only one part of the scientific method. Your hypothesis would eventually have to
undergo a rigorous battery of tests including internal consistency, external consistency and hypothesis verification.

Failing any part will obligate you to fix that particular error, thus making your hypothesis even stronger.

James___ wrote: The specific reason why gasses would alter their composition is not something I would be saying. I would only be outlining the conditions under which such transformations occur. I don't know everything. Just happen to like science.

So what is your hypothesis exactly? You'll have to state it succinctly at some point so you might as well do it now, right here in this thread.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: I have a much better understanding of how such an experiment would need to be performed. Specifically, it's parameters and why those parameters would matter.

It sounds like you are ready to perform that experiment.

James___ wrote: Then that would allow for peer review. ie., scientists could repeat the experiment and decide if they support my hypothesis or not.

That is not peer review. There is no such thing as "peer review" in the scientific process. Nobody owns science. No peer review is ever required and no one's opinion ever matters.

What you are describing is part of the scientific method. Yes, repeatability of your experiment is necessary as a test of your null hypothesis, but that is only one part of the scientific method. Your hypothesis would eventually have to
undergo a rigorous battery of tests including internal consistency, external consistency and hypothesis verification.

Failing any part will obligate you to fix that particular error, thus making your hypothesis even stronger.

James___ wrote: The specific reason why gasses would alter their composition is not something I would be saying. I would only be outlining the conditions under which such transformations occur. I don't know everything. Just happen to like science.

So what is your hypothesis exactly? You'll have to state it succinctly at some point so you might as well do it now, right here in this thread.

.

You'll have to state it succinctly at some point

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

Look it up...

You exist, because of a huge variety of carbon-based molecules. You can only get carbon for those molecules, from the foods you eat. You can't get carbon from eating coal, drinking petroleum, or your wife's cooking. Plants are the only living thing, that can get carbon, directly from the environment, CO2. Everything else gets carbon from either eating plants, or something else that eats plants. Plants can't grow, no food, everything dies. CO2 isn't evenly distributed, like that planet-burning blanket, in a Bill Nye climate propaganda video. Also a lot of seasonal variation. The yearly averages don't paint an accurate picture. The ideal CO2 level for best plant growth, is around 800 ppm. I've never seen a maximum level given. There was no noticeable benefit to providing higher levels.

All this stuff is easy enough to find and verify on the internet. Lot of studies done.

CO2 levels are rising, not falling. The optimum CO2 level for plant growth is 1500ppm that said 2000 to 5000ppm cause drowsiness and headaches to humans.

In short you are not a plant, CO2 is not causing a runaway greenhouse effect on the Earth, yet I still prefer lower levels in the suburbs or country to higher city levels. Also saying that we are at the lowest levels ever and are about to die because there is a lack of CO2 indicates a delusion

keepit wrote:
James,
You can definitely have an hypothesis without having done experiments. If an experimentalist thinks your hypothesis is good then they can do the experiments. It's still your hypothesis.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

Look it up...

You exist, because of a huge variety of carbon-based molecules. You can only get carbon for those molecules, from the foods you eat. You can't get carbon from eating coal, drinking petroleum, or your wife's cooking. Plants are the only living thing, that can get carbon, directly from the environment, CO2. Everything else gets carbon from either eating plants, or something else that eats plants. Plants can't grow, no food, everything dies. CO2 isn't evenly distributed, like that planet-burning blanket, in a Bill Nye climate propaganda video. Also a lot of seasonal variation. The yearly averages don't paint an accurate picture. The ideal CO2 level for best plant growth, is around 800 ppm. I've never seen a maximum level given. There was no noticeable benefit to providing higher levels.

All this stuff is easy enough to find and verify on the internet. Lot of studies done.

CO2 levels are rising, not falling. The optimum CO2 level for plant growth is 1500ppm that said 2000 to 5000ppm cause drowsiness and headaches to humans.

In short you are not a plant, CO2 is not causing a runaway greenhouse effect on the Earth, yet I still prefer lower levels in the suburbs or country to higher city levels. Also saying that we are at the lowest levels ever and are about to die because there is a lack of CO2 indicates a delusion

1200 ppm is consider safe for greenhouse workers, it's not what plants need for optimal growth. Extra, just means the consistently have all they need.

The climate guys keep pushing the CO2 reduction, where we would benefit from having more. They also keep promoting carbon capture and sequester, which would waste precious solar panel energy, space to store, and would be no way to stop the many devices needed, to make any difference. The could shut some, or most down, but would likely miss a bunch. Basically, most plan on a set and forget approach, and letting them run, until the storage is full, or something breaks down. The target is 280 ppm... Not a huge margin of error, or accounting for seasonal variations.

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

More spam from Swan.
.

joseph369 wrote: We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Swan wrote:Actually the garbage pail image that you are wetting your pants over is the real spam. Yawn

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually the garbage pail image that you are wetting your pants over is the real spam. Yawn

LOL More spam from Swan LOL YAWN

YAWN LOL

.

Swan wrote:Actually the garbage pail image that you are wetting your pants over is the real spam. Is this really the best you can muster Edgar?

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

Look it up...

You exist, because of a huge variety of carbon-based molecules. You can only get carbon for those molecules, from the foods you eat. You can't get carbon from eating coal, drinking petroleum, or your wife's cooking. Plants are the only living thing, that can get carbon, directly from the environment, CO2. Everything else gets carbon from either eating plants, or something else that eats plants. Plants can't grow, no food, everything dies. CO2 isn't evenly distributed, like that planet-burning blanket, in a Bill Nye climate propaganda video. Also a lot of seasonal variation. The yearly averages don't paint an accurate picture. The ideal CO2 level for best plant growth, is around 800 ppm. I've never seen a maximum level given. There was no noticeable benefit to providing higher levels.

All this stuff is easy enough to find and verify on the internet. Lot of studies done.

CO2 levels are rising, not falling. The optimum CO2 level for plant growth is 1500ppm that said 2000 to 5000ppm cause drowsiness and headaches to humans.

In short you are not a plant, CO2 is not causing a runaway greenhouse effect on the Earth, yet I still prefer lower levels in the suburbs or country to higher city levels. Also saying that we are at the lowest levels ever and are about to die because there is a lack of CO2 indicates a delusion

1200 ppm is consider safe for greenhouse workers, it's not what plants need for optimal growth. Extra, just means the consistently have all they need.

The climate guys keep pushing the CO2 reduction, where we would benefit from having more. They also keep promoting carbon capture and sequester, which would waste precious solar panel energy, space to store, and would be no way to stop the many devices needed, to make any difference. The could shut some, or most down, but would likely miss a bunch. Basically, most plan on a set and forget approach, and letting them run, until the storage is full, or something breaks down. The target is 280 ppm... Not a huge margin of error, or accounting for seasonal variations.

You are wrong because the climate guys as you call them are no longer puching CO2 reduction because it's levels are spiraling and have already been proved to not be causing rising temps as the pause proved. This is literally why Al Gode has vanished as he was told to shut the **** up

LOL they want me to shut the **** up as well

Go for it

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

joseph369 wrote:
We are actually dangerously close to the lower limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 150 ppm is the point at which photosynthesis stops and life on earth ends. This almost happened during the last ice age 17,000 years ago when CO2 dropped to 170 ppm. Now we are at 400 ppm, still too close for comfort. I would prefer 1500 ppm. This is the level that commercial greenhouse operators use to optimize plant growth.

Take your pills

Look it up...

You exist, because of a huge variety of carbon-based molecules. You can only get carbon for those molecules, from the foods you eat. You can't get carbon from eating coal, drinking petroleum, or your wife's cooking. Plants are the only living thing, that can get carbon, directly from the environment, CO2. Everything else gets carbon from either eating plants, or something else that eats plants. Plants can't grow, no food, everything dies. CO2 isn't evenly distributed, like that planet-burning blanket, in a Bill Nye climate propaganda video. Also a lot of seasonal variation. The yearly averages don't paint an accurate picture. The ideal CO2 level for best plant growth, is around 800 ppm. I've never seen a maximum level given. There was no noticeable benefit to providing higher levels.

All this stuff is easy enough to find and verify on the internet. Lot of studies done.

CO2 levels are rising, not falling. The optimum CO2 level for plant growth is 1500ppm that said 2000 to 5000ppm cause drowsiness and headaches to humans.

In short you are not a plant, CO2 is not causing a runaway greenhouse effect on the Earth, yet I still prefer lower levels in the suburbs or country to higher city levels. Also saying that we are at the lowest levels ever and are about to die because there is a lack of CO2 indicates a delusion

1200 ppm is consider safe for greenhouse workers, it's not what plants need for optimal growth. Extra, just means the consistently have all they need.

The climate guys keep pushing the CO2 reduction, where we would benefit from having more. They also keep promoting carbon capture and sequester, which would waste precious solar panel energy, space to store, and would be no way to stop the many devices needed, to make any difference. The could shut some, or most down, but would likely miss a bunch. Basically, most plan on a set and forget approach, and letting them run, until the storage is full, or something breaks down. The target is 280 ppm... Not a huge margin of error, or accounting for seasonal variations.

You are wrong because the climate guys as you call them are no longer puching CO2 reduction because it's levels are spiraling and have already been proved to not be causing rising temps as the pause proved. This is literally why Al Gode has vanished as he was told to shut the **** up

LOL they want me to shut the **** up as well

Go for it

Global warming was a scam from the start. There was never any warming. CO2, was the means to take over energy production, and crash the economy. It's always been about building a single world government and economy. It's the typical socialist, Utopian dream. We all play along nice with the new government, we get the things we need. We refuse, we get cut off from pretty much everything society has to offer. We either quietly make it on our own, or get slaughtered as enemies of the state. Mostly, just killed on sight, since non-conformist, are dangerous, and enemies. But, of course, Utopia is just a dream, and the reality, is that a group of elite, get to live the high-life, while everyone works hard, and barely gets enough to survive. Most will accept it, since they believe the new government, and that it's going to take some time to build the 'new dream world'. They'll work hard, believing that they can be elevated to elitist status.

Why promote solar panels and windmills, to replace fossil fuels? The energy dense material is plentiful, and just sitting in the ground. Fairly easy to extract and use. Even with profit margins, and government fees/taxes, it's still much cheaper and reliable, than solar and wind. Solar only works, sort of, during the day. Don't image those folks up north, are producing much, with a foot of snow covering them. You've seen the roof-top installations. How cheap and easy do you think it's going to be, to replace a broken, or failing panel? Windmills have a similar problem, they only produce, when the wind blows sufficiently. They aren't cheap, or easy to repair, when they get damaged, or fail. Both are vulnerable to adverse environment conditions. Don't believe we have wind farms in Florida, but we do have solar farms. We also get some very extreme storms, often, every year. Many states, have their own versions of extreme weather, like the snow and ice, they are experiencing right now.

The current electric grid/production, often fails to keep up with peak demand, and some areas have blackouts frequently. Usually not more than an hour or two, sometimes longer, if equipment was damaged, rather than just switching loads. But where is the sense in switching over to all electric, while reducing production capacity? Replacing a reliable source, with a semi-useful source? Obviously, some people are going to get priority, for the electricity available, while some are going to get totally screwed. Solar and wind were chosen, because they were intended to fail, and a convenient excuse, for controlling who gets electricity, and who doesn't.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually the garbage pail image that you are wetting your pants over is the real spam. Is this really the best you can muster Edgar?

Repeated spam from Swan. It looks like this is all we should expect.



.

Swan wrote:How are your images of spam not spam? Yawn

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:How are your images of spam not spam? Yawn

LOL Yawn

LOL My attempts to get you to stop spamming the board are not spam LOL they are attempts to get you to stop spamming the board YAWN LOL

LOL

.

Swan wrote:You are contributing nothing to this board, other than telling people that there was no ice age and your little photos of your lunch.
You lost again as usual edgar

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:You are contributing nothing to this board, other than telling people that there was no ice age and your little photos of your lunch.
You lost again as usual edgar

Swan is limiting his posts to value-less spam. If his posts were deleted from this site, this site would not lose any content.

.