Atmospheric CO2 hits landmark 415 ppm

i want a specific date where we are all going to die or failing that a specific date when x event will happen.
 
Of course toxicity is the issue. That is exactly what is trying to be hyped here. Wrongly as usual. There is climate change. No doubt about it. Hyping it (usually for profit and grants) and making it sound like Armageddon is not helping. If anything it is hurting it.

What do you think will help?
 
Of course toxicity is the issue. That is exactly what is trying to be hyped here. Wrongly as usual. There is climate change. No doubt about it. Hyping it (usually for profit and grants) and making it sound like Armageddon is not helping. If anything it is hurting it.

Toxicity is not the issue and no reputable climate scientists have ever said that.

The Islanders are not making an argument about toxicity. They are making an argument about the well-known greenhouse effect that is being amplified by human emissions of CO2, and the consequent effects storm surges, sea level, and other response factors in the environment.
 
Nice work.

I am actually totally fine with Denier jokes about Al Gore needing to take sail boats instead of jets, cow farts, et al.

Because when we are down to cracking jokes about global warming it tells me the science is settled,
When people accuse the Australian government of breaching their human rights by failing to tackle climate change it tells me AGW apocalyptic catastrophic alarmists are ripe to be ridiculed.
and there is no serious and credible body of science that refutes the human impact on climate.
As there is also no serious and credible body of science that proves the human impact on climate.
Where we end up is what reputable climate scientists were saying more than a decade ago: it is unequivocal that the Earth system is warming, we know with a extremely high degree of scientific confidence that most of the recent warming is due to human activities, and we have reasonable scientific confidence that adverse impacts to humans, the environment, and ecosystems will range from moderately bad to catastrophically bad.
We must be in the nothing noticeably bad stage. In fact there are positive changes. When will the moderately bad stage take place? I need to be prepared to stock up on canned goods.
Also I need to know an approximate timeline for when The Rapture will occur so I can get my affairs in order. Alarmists always give some vague reference that it will happen at some point in the future.
 
Also I need to know an approximate timeline for when The Rapture will occur so I can get my affairs in order. Alarmists always give some vague reference that it will happen at some point in the future.

No man knows the day or the hour. But, we are to watch the seasons and what occurs prior to each season.
We need to keep our lamps lit and filled with oil at all times, being ready so we are not caught unaware in darkness. ;)
 
Toxicity is not the issue and no reputable climate scientists have ever said that.

The Islanders are not making an argument about toxicity. They are making an argument about the well-known greenhouse effect that is being amplified by human emissions of CO2, and the consequent effects storm surges, sea level, and other response factors in the environment.

You sir, are gone in the top hamper.
 
Toxicity is not the issue and no reputable climate scientists have ever said that.

The Islanders are not making an argument about toxicity. They are making an argument about the well-known greenhouse effect that is being amplified by human emissions of CO2, and the consequent effects storm surges, sea level, and other response factors in the environment.
You sir, are gone in the top hamper.


“Toxicity is not an issue in the climate change debate"

Scientific American
Aug. 2011

Carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation. So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.

Similarly, toxicity is not an issue in the climate change debate. Yes, crops need CO2. Breathing a little more of it while out on the links won't impair your golf game.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/
 
i want a specific date where we are all going to die or failing that a specific date when x event will happen.
I'd settle for a 12 month window to get my affairs in order. But I really need 6 months . 12 is a bit inconvenient.
 

OMIGOSH!!!!! .000415 atmospheric concentrations of CO2 !!!!!

Wow. Now care to show us the verified, repeatable thermal retention properties of .000415 concentrations of CO2?

Let me save you the trouble. ALMOST NONE. However every little bit makes the green plants happier, and increases oxygen levels because of it.


BS in Chemistry, U Missouri at Rolla, 1977 (Now known as the Missouri Institute of Science and Technology).
 
the planet's hosed

at this point it doesn't matter that 30% of Americans are too stupid to get it............the multi-nationals running the world economy will add more CO2 to make more money whether those assholes get it or not, and China is still bringing coal plants on line

I try to stay optimistic thinking maybe advanced carbon sequestration technology might come to be, but the MONEY to be made by big energy is the motivator for this insanity

ohhh nooooo

should we move? :rofl2:
 
2011? The first thing you could find? Before the absolute meltdown, hype and bullshit of the world ending in 12 years due to AGW? You are apparently gone in the upper top hamper also.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said the world is ending in 12 years.

I provided you a link to a highly prestigious scientific journal which stated that toxicity to humans is not the issue we are primarily concerned about with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you want to stand by your claim that the Islanders lawsuit is based on claims of toxicity, that is fine. But there is no evidence for your claim.
 
You are putting words in my mouth.
If you want to stand by your claim that the Islanders lawsuit is based on claims of toxicity, that is fine. But there is no evidence for your claim.
I certainly won't put words in your mouth.
Do you actually believe the Torres Strait Islanders have a valid claim against Australia for not keeping the climate from changing?
Yes or no will do but you can elaborate if it pleases you.
 
Last edited:
the planet's hosed

at this point it doesn't matter that 30% of Americans are too stupid to get it............the multi-nationals running the world economy will add more CO2 to make more money whether those assholes get it or not, and China is still bringing coal plants on line

I try to stay optimistic thinking maybe advanced carbon sequestration technology might come to be, but the MONEY to be made by big energy is the motivator for this insanity

The big energy money is, of course, a really important factor. But I think demographics are a big driver, too. I think if we'd reached this same point in, say, 1960, we'd have come to a good political solution pretty quickly, as we did when it came to a number of environmental problems of that time and the next few decades (which saw the sidelining of DDT, the de-leading of gasoline, the creation of the endangered species act, the phase-out of CFCs, and cap-and-trade for sulfur dioxide). Even with powerful corporate interests arrayed against that progress, the political force came together in time to head off much of the damage we might have suffered. What changed is the age of the Baby Boomers. They were young and bright and expected to live for many decades to come, so they got behind solutions. Now they're old, with flagging IQs and an expectation of being dead before the problems get too bad, so they're a big obstacle. Once enough of them die off, there's hope. But as long as they are pushing election outcomes, the corporate interests are going to find it very easy to buy themselves politicians cheaply.
 

Of course everyone knows just how "poison" Carbon is to biological life....and how "poison" C02 is to plant life. Oh the humanity.

Did you actually read the damn (wink, wink) EVIDENCE?

First: its based upon a "CONSENSUS". A consensus is not in the least a "scientific method".....its an OPINION agreed upon by a group of individuals. The scientific CONSENSUS 1000 years ago was the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun revolved around it. So engrained into our psychology that we even call it SUN RISE and SUN SET still today. But that consensus was wrong, it was not a fact of science as projected.

Second: Computer "SIMULATORS" along with the assumed CO2 levels along a supposed Paleoclimatic record was used to project a CO2 level from antiquity, as self confessed way past the calibrated record of HISTORY. When you go past recorded history there is no scientific method to calibrate any date...other than using a theory filled with assumptions There are no FACTS of SCIENCE presented.....there are as always, conjectures, speculations and pseudo targeted ranges of dating used. No one can take one core sample from any place on earth and determine the world wide weather at that projected date....it ASSUMES a great many things especially when this target date and CO2 level is garnered in the most active volcanic area on earth....so active its known as THE RING OF FIRE (during a series of volcanic eruptions both on land and underwater throwing enormous amounts of CO2 into the surrounding atmosphere)

.....and then to take ice samples from a continent that has proven to have been a tropical zone at some point in its history, meaning some horrific natural disaster like continental drift or a polar shit resulted in a Long. and Lat. movement....AND CLAIM that these CO2 levels were constant globally is more than stupid...its moronic, IF YOU expect people to purchase this bullshit wholesale.:bigthink:
 
Last edited:
The big energy money is, of course, a really important factor. But I think demographics are a big driver, too. I think if we'd reached this same point in, say, 1960, we'd have come to a good political solution pretty quickly, as we did when it came to a number of environmental problems of that time and the next few decades (which saw the sidelining of DDT, the de-leading of gasoline, the creation of the endangered species act, the phase-out of CFCs, and cap-and-trade for sulfur dioxide). Even with powerful corporate interests arrayed against that progress, the political force came together in time to head off much of the damage we might have suffered. What changed is the age of the Baby Boomers. They were young and bright and expected to live for many decades to come, so they got behind solutions. Now they're old, with flagging IQs and an expectation of being dead before the problems get too bad, so they're a big obstacle. Once enough of them die off, there's hope. But as long as they are pushing election outcomes, the corporate interests are going to find it very easy to buy themselves politicians cheaply.
Generalizations are lazy, not all Boomers are the same.
 
I think if we'd reached this same point in, say, 1960, we'd have come to a good political solution pretty quickly, .
I had to chuckle at that when I saw it. It’s bad enough to have a solution looking for a problem but a political solution looking for a nature 'problem'? lol
 
Last edited:
Of course everyone knows just how "poison" Carbon is to biological life....and how "poison" C02 is to plant life. Oh the humanity.

Did you actually read the damn (wink, wink) EVIDENCE?

First: its based upon a "CONSENSUS". A consensus is not in the least a "scientific method".....its an OPINION agreed upon by a group of individuals. The scientific CONSENSUS 1000 years ago was the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun revolved around it. So engrained into our psychology that we even call it SUN RISE and SUN SET still today. But that consensus was wrong, it was not a fact of science as projected.

Second: Computer "SIMULATORS" along with the assumed CO2 levels along a supposed Paleoclimatic record was used to project a CO2 level from antiquity, as self confessed way past the calibrated record of HISTORY. When you go past recorded history there is no scientific method to calibrate any date...other than using a theory filled with assumptions There are no FACTS of SCIENCE presented.....there are as always, conjectures, speculations and pseudo targeted ranges of dating used. No one can take one core sample from any place on earth and determine the world wide weather at that projected date....it ASSUMES a great many things especially when this target date and CO2 level is garnered in the most active volcanic area on earth....so active its known as THE RING OF FIRE (during a series of volcanic eruptions both on land and underwater throwing enormous amounts of CO2 into the surrounding atmosphere)

.....and then to take ice samples from a continent that has proven to have been a tropical zone at some point in its history, meaning some horrific natural disaster like continental drift or a polar shit resulted in a Long. and Lat. movement....AND CLAIM that these CO2 levels were constant globally is more than stupid...its moronic, IF YOU expect people to purchase this bullshit wholesale
You have no training or expertise in climate science, you have done no peer reviewed research in climate science, you have not published in prestigious science journals, and therefore your claims and assertions on an obscure message board do not cut the mustard.

They have zero credibility.

They are of no consequence.

And they do nothing to affect the overwhelming global consensus of the international climate science community.
 
Last edited:
I certainly won't put words in your mouth.
Do you actually believe the Torres Strait Islanders have a valid claim against Australia for not keeping the climate from changing?
Yes or no will do but you can elaborate if it pleases you.

I do not have enough information or evidence to have a strong opinion one way or the other.

I think the Islanders have valid concerns that need to be addressed. As for blaming the Australian government, it is obviously dubious that one smallish to medium sized nation could unilaterally have a substantial affect on climate.

It sounds to me like the Islanders are holding their government accountable for meeting the targets they agreed to at Paris. So they are making a political and legal argument, I presume - not a scientific one in the sense that their nation, and their nation alone, can have a tangible impact on mitigating the increasing storm surges and extreme weather events.
 
Back
Top