27 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Exactly.... thanks for your support.... you see the stupidity of the anti blah blah bs

Convincing argument.

1 hour ago, Justfine said:

Co2 is good for plants. They thrive on it.

 

 

Indeeed... your 100% correct... 100% no argument

 

the natural function of the closed circuit environment, that is our ecosystem, within our protective ozone layer, that supports our planets fragile ecosystem, thrives on naturally produced CO2... as produced by volcanoes, for example.

 

however... when an outside force..... (such as a massive meteorite strike... or human interferences to the factor of X 10 CO2 production), is introduced to that fragile environment, the balance of nature changes.

 

is that hard to understand?... and by extension, that ecosystem changes might occur? 

 

for example... humans require 19 to 23% oxygen levels to survive... increase CO2 level, and O2 level declines... humans die ( consider that humans increase natural CO2 production by a factor of 10 to natural production)

 

is that hard hard to understand ( and... I deliberately ignored anything and everything gore said, because at that time, I couldn’t be bothered with American he said she said suck my thumb)

 

is that hard to understand

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

Indeeed... your 100% correct... 100% no argument

 

the natural function of the closed circuit environment, that is our ecosystem, within our protective ozone layer, that supports our planets fragile ecosystem, thrives on naturally produced CO2... as produced by volcanoes, for example.

 

however... when an outside force..... (such as a massive meteorite strike... or human interferences to the factor of X 10 CO2 production), is introduced to that fragile environment, the balance of nature changes.

 

is that hard to understand?... and by extension, that ecosystem changes might occur? 

 

for example... humans require 19 to 23% oxygen levels to survive... increase CO2 level, and O2 level declines... humans die ( consider that humans increase natural CO2 production by a factor of 10 to natural production)

 

is that hard hard to understand ( and... I deliberately ignored anything and everything gore said, because at that time, I couldn’t be bothered with American he said she said suck my thumb)

 

is that hard to understand

Co2 is a trace gas and there is no delicate balance. It was not only higher in the past but much much higher. Nothing to do with humans.

"These temperature changes happened quickly, sometime by as much as ten degrees centigrade in a single decade."

 

http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-discover-cause-behind-prehistoric-climate-change

 

Gore would have made a fortune back then.

 

 

"defy the rest of the worlds efforts to reduce known climate change factors"

 

Anyone with a basic understanding of maths can see these efforts are a waste of money.

 

Shutting the French economy down for 100 years would make zero difference to world temps for instance.

 

 

14 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Just junk reporting to try make the USA look bad. Was this story started by Green Peace? Or David Suzzz ukie?

Just wondering?

Geezer

 

Did you actually read the BBC news report?

8 minutes ago, Justfine said:

"defy the rest of the worlds efforts to reduce known climate change factors"

 

Anyone with a basic understanding of maths can see these efforts are a waste of money.

 

Shutting the French economy down for 100 years would make zero difference to world temps for instance.

 

 

Ok... your right.... no doubt... as I have said before

 

but.... if one can slow the affect, surely that’s good... am I wrong in that.

 

australia is trying to reverse the adverse effect of crown of thorn starfish ruination of the world largest coral reef... everybody applauds their efforts to reduce adverse introduced destruction

 

increased CO2 is another adverse environmental condition... it too, needs addressing

Just now, farcanell said:

Ok... your right.... no doubt... as I have said before

 

but.... if one can slow the affect, surely that’s good... am I wrong in that.

 

australia is trying to reverse the adverse effect of crown of thorn starfish ruination of the world largest coral reef... everybody applauds their efforts to reduce adverse introduced destruction

 

increased CO2 is another adverse environmental condition... it too, needs addressing

Co2 increase is good. 800 parts per million would make the planet more liveable not less.

 

Far more useful land. More productive plants.

 

 

"Many studies have been performed on CO2 levels and plant production, and the general consensus is that the curve of improvement tables off around 900-1200 ppm, depending partly on the crop."

 

http://blog.zipgrow.com/what-indoor-co2-enrichment-can-do-for-you/

 

So basically the current co2 levels could triple before the improvement levels off.

 

Funny how Gore and co never mention this.

13 hours ago, TKDfella said:

While he may be a global warming denier, it is expected. He is, after all, a chief executive of the Trump corporation. He is looking after all those industries that might suffer if industry CO₂ levels were capped.

The rest of the people in the world could care less about Trump corporation or any other corporation being able to maximize their profit margins. He is the president of the United States, he has a responsibility to not axe regulations that can be harmful to health or lift restrictions which protect clean drinking water.

He SUCH a retard. Ignoramus grande! Nuff said.

11 hours ago, jcsmith said:

The rest of the people in the world could care less about Trump corporation or any other corporation being able to maximize their profit margins. He is the president of the United States, he has a responsibility to not axe regulations that can be harmful to health or lift restrictions which protect clean drinking water.

Don't tell me...tell him. In the real world top company executives (the Cola's for example, one which I worked for) have only one idea in their mind...expanding their market. If they can get help from the Oval Office, all well and good.

21 hours ago, Justfine said:

"Many studies have been performed on CO2 levels and plant production, and the general consensus is that the curve of improvement tables off around 900-1200 ppm, depending partly on the crop."

 

http://blog.zipgrow.com/what-indoor-co2-enrichment-can-do-for-you/

 

So basically the current co2 levels could triple before the improvement levels off.

 

Funny how Gore and co never mention this.

And what your blog from god-knows-who doesnt' mention is that major cereal crops, the major source of food that feeds the world actually lose nutritive value when there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, And what your blog also failed to mention, is that CO2 is only one input. Unless you increase other inputs like water and fertilizers, it's going to do nothing.

And another thing that blog doesn't mention is that because some species of plants benefit more than others, that means that a mass botanical extinction will surely follow a big increase in CO2,.

And of course, lots of low lying land in river deltas and such will be destroyed as rising seas take croplands out of commission.

But apart from the above (and maybe a few other factors) it's all good.

Hey do not forget that we have all those rich people like Al Gore, Suzuki and their flowers. They are filthy rich and can also spend money like NASA did and keep monitoring just like NASA did.  Or are you one of those who will only protest but do nothing concrete your selves to keep an eye on the atmosphere and environment?  Get off the pot people.

Geezer

On 5/11/2018 at 9:54 PM, Justfine said:

Co2 is a trace gas and there is no delicate balance. It was not only higher in the past but much much higher. Nothing to do with humans.

???? so with research, you come up with something interesting. Well done.

400 million years ago the CO2 level was way way higher... yup.... as much as 7000 ppm. Yup

 

How many humans did the earth support, 400million years ago?

 

rather than worry about the formative years of our planet, it might be more pertinent to look at the CO2 effect on the human bodies function, (bearing in mind it evolved during a period where the CO2 level was closer to 200ppm)

 

something else that will not effect me, in my life, is plastics pollution.... it’s all fake anyway.... those pictures you see of mountains of plastic are fake.... it doesn’t break down into tiny particles that you consume, and if it did, you would poop it back out into pattayas swamp anyway... so fake news... use more plastic, never say no to a foam cup.... and burn it in the backyard to enjoy the non toxic warmth it creates, if it does build up around the yard. 

 

Besides..... humans really need incentivizing to perfect bio dome habitation, if we are to spread to other planets.....  so the faster negative effects are seen here on this planet, the sooner we can all play with light sabers and ray guns ( and I know some of y’all really really want a ray gun)

7 minutes ago, farcanell said:

( and I know some of y’all really really want a ray gun)

I think most of them really want a Reagan, but will settle for Trump.