Lighten up you climate doomers!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: psychotrail

Talk to China & India before crying about CO2 levels.

India and China produce less CO2 per capita than the USA. The USA is the world's biggest per capita producer. And the USA has the money, the technology and ability to do more about it than any other country

But

The USA is run by the Fossil Fuel lobby ..... And cutting CO2 emissions means less $$$$ for the "Elite". So, guess what?

It's us against them

AS I said, look at the figures. I aint quoting sources cos there's too many, go look yourselves.

CO2 Levels.
The average Earths CO2 level is 400 Parts Per Million, ppm.
Ideal levels for humans is 280/350 ppm.
If the level drops to 190 ppm humans and plants die off.
The first high levels of CO2 to affect humans is 1000/2500 ppm when humans experience headaches and nausea.
The ideal for plants to grow is 894/960 ppm.
Now work out the maths on that. The CO2 could double and the whole world would benefit from higher crop yields and humans will still live. That's from 400 ppm to 968 ppm a jump of 200. To give humans headache 400 pp, to 1000 ppm , a jump of +600 extra. But to kill humans and all plant life,400 ppm to 190 ppm a drop of 210 ppm. So yeah idiots keep crying to reduce CO2.

originally posted by: crayzeed
AS I said, look at the figures. I aint quoting sources cos there's too many, go look yourselves.

CO2 Levels.
The average Earths CO2 level is 400 Parts Per Million, ppm.
Ideal levels for humans is 280/350 ppm.
If the level drops to 190 ppm humans and plants die off.
The first high levels of CO2 to affect humans is 1000/2500 ppm when humans experience headaches and nausea.
The ideal for plants to grow is 894/960 ppm.
Now work out the maths on that. The CO2 could double and the whole world would benefit from higher crop yields and humans will still live. That's from 400 ppm to 968 ppm a jump of 200. To give humans headache 400 pp, to 1000 ppm , a jump of +600 extra. But to kill humans and all plant life,400 ppm to 190 ppm a drop of 210 ppm. So yeah idiots keep crying to reduce CO2.

But

Higher CO2 levels means higher temperatures and more water vapour in the atmosphere. And less polar ice. That means a considerable change in the world's climatic patterns. Drought and heatwaves affecting areas not previously prone to them, and more extreme rainfall events worldwide (as we're seeing this year). And eventually too, rising sea levels affecting the most densely populated parts of the planet (albeit on humans, and who cares about them?)

And that is the concern (not that CO2 is bad for the planet per se)

Also, many of the crops we use to feed ourselves are actually less nutritious under higher levels of CO2

But using more fossil fuels benefits the mega-rich oligarchs who run the world. So that's what we must do!

a reply to: AndyMayhew
One must realise that as humans we are evidence that we can live in much higher temperatures than now, with the resulting weather that brings AND more importantly we (or our ancestors) have lived through very very cold ice ages. And if one would care to look for the data, even with the supposed higher temperatures more people around the world are dying of cold not heat. Don't prevaricate by bringing in deaths from other cause like Covid, floods, eruptions etc. we're just talking about temperature.

a reply to: DBCowboy

We must get rid of all volcanoes . Volcanoes lives dont matter.

a reply to: Itherael

I haven’t been around in a while, but I’m shocked to find members buying into climate change. It’s a hoax. If you don’t know that, why are you here?

a reply to: MRuss

Pretty undeniable that the climate is changing.

The cause? That's up for debate.

a reply to: psychotrail

" So burning carbon based fuels isn’t a pollutant ? "


" Carbon Based " Fuels as you say are Not the Point . Just one Big Erupting Volcano on the Face of this Earth would Release More CO2 Into the Atmosphere than Mankind has Released into it Since the Industrial Revolution . Again , you seem Fixated on the Idea that CO2 is in your Own Words , a " Pollutant " . It is Not , it is the Result of Combustible Materials being Ignited for the Purpose of Producing Energy and Power . Do Some Research if this Topic Interests you so Much .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: psychotrail

" So burning carbon based fuels isn’t a pollutant ? "


" Carbon Based " Fuels as you say are Not the Point . Just one Big Erupting Volcano on the Face of this Earth would Release More CO2 Into the Atmosphere than Mankind has Released into it Since the Industrial Revolution . Again , you seem Fixated on the Idea that CO2 is in your Own Words , a " Pollutant " . It is Not , it is the Result of Combustible Materials being Ignited for the Purpose of Producing Energy and Power . Do Some Research if this Topic Interests you so Much .

Too much Co2 is absolutely a pollutant & by the way : pol·lu·tant
/pəˈlo͞otnt/
noun
plural noun: pollutants
a substance that pollutes something, especially water or the atmosphere.
www.sciencedirect.com...

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: AndyMayhew
One must realise that as humans we are evidence that we can live in much higher temperatures than now, with the resulting weather that brings AND more importantly we (or our ancestors) have lived through very very cold ice ages. And if one would care to look for the data, even with the supposed higher temperatures more people around the world are dying of cold not heat. Don't prevaricate by bringing in deaths from other cause like Covid, floods, eruptions etc. we're just talking about temperature.

We didn't have vast cities by the coast in the Eemian intergalcial. Nor farms spread across the Prairies during the ice age.

And the last time CO2 levels were this high we were living in trees

a reply to: AndyMayhew

And the last time CO2 levels were this high we were living in trees

Judging by this topic, I'd reckon a few of us never left the trees in the first place.

Lighten up, fellow doomer! They'll still be here to argue over spin without context when we're all done selling out.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: psychotrail

" So burning carbon based fuels isn’t a pollutant ? "


" Carbon Based " Fuels as you say are Not the Point . Just one Big Erupting Volcano on the Face of this Earth would Release More CO2 Into the Atmosphere than Mankind has Released into it Since the Industrial Revolution . Again , you seem Fixated on the Idea that CO2 is in your Own Words , a " Pollutant " . It is Not , it is the Result of Combustible Materials being Ignited for the Purpose of Producing Energy and Power . Do Some Research if this Topic Interests you so Much .

You do understand that the particulate from volcanoes reflect sunlight & that cools the earth thus offsets the Co2 the volcano emits.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: psychotrail

Talk to China & India before crying about CO2 levels.

India and China produce less CO2 per capita than the USA. The USA is the world's biggest per capita producer. And the USA has the money, the technology and ability to do more about it than any other country

But

The USA is run by the Fossil Fuel lobby ..... And cutting CO2 emissions means less $$$$ for the "Elite". So, guess what?

It's us against them

Certain Americans are delusional & that’s why people from Texas , California & Florida should be banned from voting.
Lol

And a vast majority of our planet's coral reefs are dying as a result of human caused climate-change...

"Corals are important to us for many reasons," Maurin says, "from a practical point of view, they can help protect coastlines from storm events, for instance, and help maintain fisheries that are essential to a lot of people. And complex compounds found in coral reefs hold promises in modern medicine. These are what we call ecosystem services that would be very difficult and expensive to replace."

source:

education.nationalgeographic.org...

originally posted by: AndyMayhew


But using more fossil fuels benefits the mega-rich oligarchs who run the world. So that's what we must do!

DERP level 12.

Sir or Ma'am, once you present an alternative fuel source that will do all the things needed, with reliability, the entire world will be ready to make the change. But if you don't have that new source, then barking about how bad folks are for using what we have is kind of stupid. As you type on your plastic PC (made by oil) and likely drove to work or the store in your gas powered vehicle, or perhaps your EV that is charged by the gas fired power plant.

Long ago, they called it putting the cart before the horse. today, folks aren't smart enough to understand what that means.

originally posted by: Erno86
And a vast majority of our planet's coral reefs are dying as a result of human caused climate-change...

"Corals are important to us for many reasons," Maurin says, "from a practical point of view, they can help protect coastlines from storm events, for instance, and help maintain fisheries that are essential to a lot of people. And complex compounds found in coral reefs hold promises in modern medicine. These are what we call ecosystem services that would be very difficult and expensive to replace."

source:

education.nationalgeographic.org...

Look into what "el nino`" is. I'm sure today we caused it, but in the past, it was a natural thing.

Makes sense. We've hit temps over 100 for so long now, with no rain, that the grass isn't even growing. Last time my wife and I mowed, dust was flying from the dead ground below the dead grass. This is normal though, and 2011 was much hotter for much longer with a much longer drought.

The only thing I've seen that I haven't seen before, regarding weather, is the wind yesterday and today. It usually cools you off and my personal weather station temps will decrease on a windy day. Yesterday the wind felt like it was straight out of an oven and temps would actually increase as the wind blew more.

originally posted by: crayzeed
AS I said, look at the figures. I aint quoting sources cos there's too many, go look yourselves.

CO2 Levels.
The average Earths CO2 level is 400 Parts Per Million, ppm.
Ideal levels for humans is 280/350 ppm.
If the level drops to 190 ppm humans and plants die off.
The first high levels of CO2 to affect humans is 1000/2500 ppm when humans experience headaches and nausea.
The ideal for plants to grow is 894/960 ppm.
Now work out the maths on that. The CO2 could double and the whole world would benefit from higher crop yields and humans will still live. That's from 400 ppm to 968 ppm a jump of 200. To give humans headache 400 pp, to 1000 ppm , a jump of +600 extra. But to kill humans and all plant life,400 ppm to 190 ppm a drop of 210 ppm. So yeah idiots keep crying to reduce CO2.

I doubt you would get a headache from an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 1,000ppmv (0.1%) as this is often the concentration of CO2 found within indoor environments.

According to the NASA SP-3006 Bioastronautics data book, for a 40 day exposure from CO2, there is no effect up to 0.5% (5,000ppmv) and “minor perceptive changes” at up to 3% (30,000 ppmv) or “adaptive biochemical changes which may be considered a mild physiological strain”. Below is a quote from the book and the bar graph is here. Unfortunately whoever photocopied it, did a horrendous job.

"The bar graph at the right of the figure shows that for prolonged exposures of 40 days, concentrations of CO2 in the air less than 0.5% cause no known biochemical or other effect — concentrations between 0.5% and 3% cause adaptive biochemical changes which may be considered a mild physiological strain, and concentrations above 3% cause pathological changes in basic physiological functions."

Outside of the effects on humans, the effects on plants would probably be positive. The site here references studies that tested certain plants up to CO2 concentrations of 10,000ppmv and even 50,000ppmv and the plants increased in biomass.

Hilarious is humanities proclivity for obsessing over apocolypse...