Remember me
▼ Content

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


The truth about CO2 is that without it you would be dead31-01-2021 21:06
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic gas which is essential to all life on earth. (Carbon monoxide, however, is extremely toxic and, if inhaled, will cause death very quickly.) All green vegetation requires carbon diox-ide as plant food, and the process of photosynthesis, in which plants take in carbon dioxide, absorb solar radiation, store the carbon and emit oxygen, is basic to life. As concentrations of carbon dioxide increase, the rates of growth of plants also in-crease. Flowers and vegetables grown in hothouses are frequently fed with extra carbon dioxide for faster growth and higher yields. As atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased from approximately 325 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in 1970 to 375 ppmv today, wheat yields in Australia have increased inthe last 30 years, in part because of CO2 enrichment.Every time a story on global warming is featured on TV, either a background image of the cooling tower of a power station, with its plume of minute water droplets above, or a smoke stack belching forth dark plumes of soot, fly ash, and other par-ticulates, is shown. In this mendacious way, carbon dioxide is identified as a serious pollutant, and the US is always labelled as the world's greatest polluter. (Australia is frequently labelled as second to the US.)Coal-fired power stations which have modern flue-gas scrubbing equipment built into their exhaust systems, will have smoke stack emissions which are barely vis-ible. Mark Steyn commented:In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy con-sumption has grown 45 per cent. During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent.2Carbon dioxide cycles naturally through the atmosphere, the earth's land mass, and the oceans. Huge volumes of carbon dioxide are injected into the oceans and atmo-sphere during earthquakes and volcanoes. The amount of carbon contained in at-mospheric carbon dioxide is about 730,000 million tonnes (730 Gigatonnes of car-bon (GtC)). The annual transport of carbon to and from the land surface and the atmosphere, is estimated at 120 GtC; between the oceans and the atmosphere the estimate is 90 GtC. The annual emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere resulting from human activities is about 7 GtC, less than 1 per cent of the total atmospheric carbon mass, and less than 4 per cent of the natural annual emissions from the biosphere and the oceans. Changes in the natural transport of carbon, as well as human activities, have led to recent increases in atmospheric concentra-tions of carbon dioxide.
31-01-2021 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15819)
And where do you get all these random numbers?
31-01-2021 23:32
keepit
★★★★★
(2237)
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.
31-01-2021 23:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
keepit wrote:Swan, This website is about climate change. What difference does it make that we can't do without it?

keepit, you are a moron. This website is Climate-Debate. This site is all about"Climate" which means absolutely everything ... and nothing ... all at the same time.

This means this site is all about how much of a moron you are and how we couldn't do without you because we wouldn't have someone who is so readily mocked and shamed for writing really stupid crap.

Did you want to provide some unambiguous definition for Climate that will change the topic boundaries to somethiong other that absolutely everything ... and nothing?

.
Attached image:

01-02-2021 00:04
keepit
★★★★★
(2237)
Calm down IBD, it's only me.
01-02-2021 00:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
keepit wrote: Calm down IBD, it's only me.

Did somebody say something?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2021 01:33
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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.


Again CO2 is as essential to life as Oxygen
06-02-2021 20:44
joseph369
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
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.
06-02-2021 21:36
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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
07-02-2021 01:18
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3519)
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.
07-02-2021 02:11
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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
Edited on 07-02-2021 02:12
07-02-2021 02:17
James___
★★★★★
(4739)
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/
07-02-2021 03:44
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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/


LOL, so do the experiment, why wait for someone else to do it
07-02-2021 04:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.

.
Attached image:

07-02-2021 04:26
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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.

.


Does your trailer move much in the wind
07-02-2021 04:36
James___
★★★★★
(4739)
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.

.



Son, you flatter me. The next time I talk to your Mum, I'll let her know how much I love her. If only more dads had kids like you. But they can only hope, right?
As for the experiment, I am ready. I can only say "parameters" and "maybe" but nothing else. I don't have a proper education so have to know my place.
You'll have to state it succinctly at some point

Just won't happen. Without doing the necessary research I'd only be guessing. That's not science. I can say "observations" and "patterns" which establish a cause and effect son.
Edited on 07-02-2021 04:40
07-02-2021 05:40
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3519)
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.
07-02-2021 05:45
keepit
★★★★★
(2237)
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.
07-02-2021 06:04
James___
★★★★★
(4739)
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.



I happen to like IBDM. Can't hate my own son, right?
With science, we might not agree. Atmospheric chemistry really isn't discussed in this forum. How and why gasses occur are vitally important. In our atmosphere, it is what scientists want to know.
And we have our "debate" because not all questions have been answered. It's dayz like this that I like The Good Witch. Just hate politically correct answers.
07-02-2021 15:26
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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
07-02-2021 15:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.
.
Attached image:

07-02-2021 16:02
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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.
.


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

Yawn
07-02-2021 16:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.

It is true that terrestrial plantlife would benefit greatly by an atmosphere with double the present CO2 levels.

The reason atmospheric CO2 levels aren't spiking is that our terrestrial plant life is starving for CO2 and any CO2 that is added to the atmosphere by whatever means is greedily consumed by plants on the solid surface or in the ocean. Commercial greenhouses need to greatly augment CO2 levels if they wish for their plants to thrive as desired. Humanity would certainly benefit from increased CO2 levels and a healthier plant world.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-02-2021 16:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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

.
Attached image:

07-02-2021 16:24
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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

.


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?

Because if so I am going to have to fail you.

Again.
Edited on 07-02-2021 16:41
07-02-2021 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.



.
Attached image:

07-02-2021 16:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3519)
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.
07-02-2021 17:03
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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.


LOL they must want a windmill in every backyard which will make half of all bird species extinct. Obama already made windmills exempt from killing eagles because he ism was and always will be a communist.

See if any of you can prove me wrong?
07-02-2021 19:44
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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.



.


How are your images of spam not spam?

Yawn
07-02-2021 20:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-02-2021 20:43
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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

.


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
07-02-2021 20:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.

.
Attached image:

07-02-2021 21:44
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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.

.


If people could ignore you then you would have no one to spam. Again your images of canned ham are not contributing anything to the CO2 conversation. We are not sure if you can comprehend this

So it seems that you may be comprehending that the big words that you are copying and pasting are also not sensible. However we would all like proof that the ice age never happened

Will wait for that
Edited on 07-02-2021 21:47




Join the debate The truth about CO2 is that without it you would be dead:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Truth Fact About Virus Pandemic NCOV COVID After 20 Months With The Best Solutions For Everyone026-07-2021 09:14
The Ultimate Savior Is Online, Going To Reveal The Truth Of Life Society Civilization106-07-2021 08:45
CO2 sensor1219-06-2021 03:40
If CO2 Is The True Cause Of Climate Change So Why Ancient Lost Civilizations With Zero CO2 Collapsed ?!117-06-2021 18:15
All Beings Entities Who Are Behind The Pandemic COVID Has Moral Below Animals & Deserved To Be Dead V1604-06-2021 22:40
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact