Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[wc98]

booboise blueboys said:

Honestly, where do you get this stuff from? Breathing air without CO2 will not kill you. The amount of bks posted in this thread is unbelievable.

indeed, particularly the utter ste you have just posted. how much oxygen will the atmosphere contain when there is no co2 in it for any length of time ?

[booboise blueboys]

wc98 said:

fk me, not another "humans are special" advocate. are they churning you lot out of some special facility at the moment or something.

guess what, every single fking thing alive on this planet today is going to die, every single fking thing. eventually the entire planet will die when the sun goes supernova.

i don't give a flying fk what your mum, gran or greta fking thunberg told you, you aren't special and you are going to die at some point. now fk off back to climate melts are us or wherever you fking weirdo's come from.

and breathe , ahh that's better.

^^^^^^^
Further proof that it isn't the protesters with the emotional problems.

Dear oh dear. Cringeworthy.

[wc98]

booboise blueboys said:

^^^^^^^
Further proof that it isn't the protesters with the emotional problems.

Dear oh dear. Cringeworthy.

really, go and take a look at them. led by a serial user of hallucinogenics , loads of them tripping out their nut etc. i am sure they are nice people, i know quite a few just like them, but they are utterly deluded.

[robinessex]

booboise blueboys said:

robinessex said:

CO2

250-350ppm Normal background concentration in outdoor ambient air
350-1,000ppm Concentrations typical of occupied indoor spaces with good air exchange
1,000-2,000ppm Complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000-5,000 ppm Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight
nausea may also be present.
5,000 Workplace exposure limit (as 8-hour TWA) in most jurisdictions.
>40,000 ppm Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma, even death.

So we need to increase CO2 by a factor of 100 to make it dangerous. I wouldn't worry about that myself

Once again, that's not accurate. Current CO2 levels are already over 400ppm. So just over double and we are already seeing the negative affects listed.

Have a look at this :-



CO2 at almost the lowest the planets ever seen.

[Gandahar]

booboise blueboys said:

Gandahar said:

How is that relative to climate change . the political debate? I posted earlier about this going off topic and seems to be, as normal, people just wanting to win an argument.

Nobody can win a climate change argument as it is a non trivial problem still being worked on, all we can do is exchange points of view and learn something to be more educated about progress.

Apologies. Just pointing out blatant lies when they are made by some to back up their arguments.

Fair point, don't fall into the same trap.

I've argued a lot on here with Turbobloke about the Arctic, you need to stick to the point to get the message across, they will try to distract you

[booboise blueboys]

robinessex said:

Have a look at this :-



CO2 at almost the lowest the planets ever seen.

Considering humans have been around only about 200 thousand years we've never experienced those higher values.

[Gandahar]

robinessex said:

booboise blueboys said:

robinessex said:

CO2

250-350ppm Normal background concentration in outdoor ambient air
350-1,000ppm Concentrations typical of occupied indoor spaces with good air exchange
1,000-2,000ppm Complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000-5,000 ppm Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight
nausea may also be present.
5,000 Workplace exposure limit (as 8-hour TWA) in most jurisdictions.
>40,000 ppm Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma, even death.

So we need to increase CO2 by a factor of 100 to make it dangerous. I wouldn't worry about that myself

Once again, that's not accurate. Current CO2 levels are already over 400ppm. So just over double and we are already seeing the negative affects listed.

Have a look at this :-



CO2 at almost the lowest the planets ever seen.

1. I cannot read that graph

2. It's not the amounts that matter it is the rate of change that matters.


Biodiversity can cope better with slow change amounts compared to long term changes. The argument is that man is forcing a short term change that the fauna will struggle to cope with due to their backward use of evolution over technology.

[robinessex]

booboise blueboys said:

robinessex said:

Have a look at this :-



CO2 at almost the lowest the planets ever seen.

Considering humans have been around only about 200 thousand years we've never experienced those higher values.

So what, that wasn't the message being conveyed. Dinosaurs existed for 50,000,000 yrs though with much higher CO2. The planet was also very lush with plants as well.

[hidetheelephants]

robinessex said:

Anna Taylor, 18, a co-founder of UK Student Climate Network said it was "very easy" to get people to show up.......

... when it's a nice warm sunny day. Try it on a drizzly day in October when the temperature doesn't make it over 10C.

[Gandahar]

robinessex said:

booboise blueboys said:

robinessex said:

Have a look at this :-



CO2 at almost the lowest the planets ever seen.

Considering humans have been around only about 200 thousand years we've never experienced those higher values.

So what, that wasn't the message being conveyed. Dinosaurs existed for 50,000,000 yrs though with much higher CO2. The planet was also very lush with plants as well.

You provide a very non species centric viewpoint there which is to be applauded. But I bet it is due to a very species centric viewpoint in that

1, I don't like people telling me what to think.
2. It might cost me money.

[booboise blueboys]

robinessex said:

So what, that wasn't the message being conveyed. Dinosaurs existed for 50,000,000 yrs though with much higher CO2. The planet was also very lush with plants as well.

I thought we'd been over this? Humans aren't dinosaurs. As Gandahar pointed out, the flora and fauna had millions of years to evolve to the higher temperatures.

[PRTVR]

Gandahar said:

1. I cannot read that graph

2. It's not the amounts that matter it is the rate of change that matters.


Biodiversity can cope better with slow change amounts compared to long term changes. The argument is that man is forcing a short term change that the fauna will struggle to cope with due to their backward use of evolution over technology.

But greenhouse growers sometimes pumps large amounts of CO2 to promote larger growth in plants, where is the proof that a small change in a trace gas in the atmosphere cannot be accepted by the plants?
https://dutchgreenhouses.com/technology/co2-enrich...

[Gandahar]

PRTVR said:

Gandahar said:

1. I cannot read that graph

2. It's not the amounts that matter it is the rate of change that matters.


Biodiversity can cope better with slow change amounts compared to long term changes. The argument is that man is forcing a short term change that the fauna will struggle to cope with due to their backward use of evolution over technology.

But greenhouse growers sometimes pumps large amounts of CO2 to promote larger growth in plants, where is the proof that a small change in a trace gas in the atmosphere cannot be accepted by the plants?
https://dutchgreenhouses.com/technology/co2-enrich...

I was talking about fauna, re-read my post.

[Randy Winkman]

booboise blueboys said:

Gandahar said:

How is that relative to climate change . the political debate? I posted earlier about this going off topic and seems to be, as normal, people just wanting to win an argument.

Nobody can win a climate change argument as it is a non trivial problem still being worked on, all we can do is exchange points of view and learn something to be more educated about progress.

Apologies. Just pointing out blatant lies when they are made by some to back up their arguments.

And to be fair to Booboise, loads of stuff on this thread isn't relevant. Such as the waffle and distraction about celebrities and how rich people travel to conferences.

[Gandahar]

As an aside, and because I like the Arctic. current Arctic sea ice extent 2nd lowest on record for the satellite era

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent/&time=2...

Global sea ice also currently lowest. Again.

Is sea ice a bell weather? Not sure.

[turbobloke]

Anyway.

Brave climate warriors have shut down debate once again. Scared to debate, knowing they'll lose as usual. So good to see openness and transparency and tolerance from the green religionists, good if only it would happen.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/climatealarmismdebun...

[Gandahar]

turbobloke said:

Anyway.

Brave climate warriors have shut down debate once again. Scared to debate, knowing they'll lose as usual. So good to see openness and transparency and tolerance from the green religionists, good if only it would happen.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/climatealarmismdebun...

Really, we seem to be whipping your sad sorry pipe smoking arses on here at the moment so you feel the need to switch tack to something completely different.... see last page or two.

Come back to the fight you big chicken .. or was it a chicken dinosaur ancestor who could not handle the heat ?

[Gandahar]

I have to leave now.

Have to confess that Turbobloke avoiding a debate on PH to point out people avoiding debates elsewhere is an all time classic.

Bye.

[turbobloke]

Self-defeating climate politik? Don't have kids, fewer kids to weaponise.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/...

[PRTVR]

Gandahar said:

PRTVR said:

Gandahar said:

1. I cannot read that graph

2. It's not the amounts that matter it is the rate of change that matters.


Biodiversity can cope better with slow change amounts compared to long term changes. The argument is that man is forcing a short term change that the fauna will struggle to cope with due to their backward use of evolution over technology.

But greenhouse growers sometimes pumps large amounts of CO2 to promote larger growth in plants, where is the proof that a small change in a trace gas in the atmosphere cannot be accepted by the plants?
https://dutchgreenhouses.com/technology/co2-enrich...

I was talking about fauna, re-read my post.

Apologies, I read flora for Fauna, because the main use of atmospheric CO2 is photosynthesis in plants, where is the data that
Fauna cannot cope with a small change in a trace gas in the atmosphere or that they even have the ability to detect such small changes ?