It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

page: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

Reading comprehension issues. No-one has said that CO2 will eventually displace nitrogen as the main component of our atmosphere. When we look at worlds like Titan, we see that organic molecules are found in their atmosphere, further evidence that early Earth had a great deal of CO2. Photosynthesis has reduced the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but human activity has been reducing the amount of plant life sequestering CO2 while releasing more by burning "fossil fuels." Models suggest that even a small amount of increase can lead to global temperatures rising. Earth does not care, it is humanity that might suffer as sea levels rise and storms get more intense.


You are the one that made the highly incorrect comparison with Venus, not I.
Now, you are just trying to backtrack from your obviously false statement.

With respect to the rate of sea level rise, pretty much constant for the last 8000 years or so.

Finally, with respect to "models", as far as prediction goes, they have largely been a failure; from your deep knowledge of physics and thermo, and "vast experience" in modelling turbulent fluids/chaotic systems, I am sure you can tell....

www.friendsofscience.org...

Or, if you prefer a more general example of prediction model failure:


edit on 27-11-2017 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz



With respect to the rate of sea level rise, pretty much constant for the last 8000 years or so.
Hardly. Eight thousand years ago it was rising very, very fast. Past 2,000 or so, not so much.



edit on 11/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Hold on mate. You guys can't have it both ways. You cannot present "data" and then refute the actual comments made within those reports and wordsmith it to fit your belief because I point out the fallacies in that "data" and then present you with actual data such as the percentage of land occupied by man.

That previous poster was using that report claiming it as fact for contributing to as much as 40% of global warming. It's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Why?

Of the available actual Earth on the planet, i.e. land...1/3 of land mass is comprised of deserts. If man occupies less than 1% of the available land mass yet 33% of the available land mass are deserts then how in the hell can man possibly contribute to 40% of the global warming estimate when deserts which contribute to radiative forcing make up the overwhelming majority of the land mass responsible for radiative forcing? You don't see the absolute BS in that article?

Man occupies less than 1% of land on Earth. Yet Man supposedly (though land use) contributes as much as 40% to global warming through radiative forcing as a result of that land use. Yet somehow the 33% of the land on the planet being comprised of deserts somehow contributes less to radiative forcing?

Please tell me you understand this significant flaw in their argument. The lie they are continuing to tell you is written in their very words.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Greven

Read slower.

Heavier/denser gases accumulate in the lower atmosphere and lighter gases in the higher atmosphere.
That was the point.

QED

Trying to cling to some thread of rationale when it's gone totally out the window?

Remember the post you responded to with that?

originally posted by: mbkennel
What is the physics and chemistry of that difference which results in the observationally-false idea that CO2 is separated from the rest of the air?

With this?

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: liejunkie01

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.


Wrong.

Basic fluid physics.

Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.


Ah, that salty water business must be Fake Science too! As both sodium and chlorine have higher molecular weights than H2O, all of those elements must be lying on the bottom of the deepest ocean! Basic Physics! Ha!

Calling our American Oceans salty is an evil HOAX from Big Water and environazis and George Soros whose UN plot to preserving the supposed "fresh water" resources is a globalist attack on our precious bodily fluids!


Wrong again.

Dissolution of salt into ion in water is not the same as mixing different fluids.


What is the physics and chemistry of that difference which results in the observationally-false idea that CO2 is separated from the rest of the air?



Wrong yet again.

Heavier/denser gases accumulate in the lower atmosphere and lighter gases in the higher atmosphere.


But don't let facts get in the way of your virtue-signalling "religion"

Yeah, like that tiny percentage of 'atmosphere' matters to anything in this discussion. Again, in your chart, 0.1% is the atmospheric mass of every bit of what that chart shows to the right of the second tick mark. Note also that this further decreases with height, and that most of that 0.1% of atmospheric mass above 50km (0.09997%) is within the first 100 km - the Kármán Line mentioned above. Note also that the gases below the Kármán Line are not nearly as stratified.

You failed to comprehend what that chart was showing. You thought it helped your simplistic notions of how the atmosphere is structured, when it instead demonstrated how nonsensical your ideas about the atmosphere are.

We went from talking about the moronic article claiming CO2 must all sink to the ground because of its higher density to a chart showing gas composition where the ISS orbits like it's relevant to anything at all in this discussion.

Googling crap ain't gonna help when you lack the foundations of understanding the subject. Go to school or maybe ask some questions before deciding you'll show us mere mortals what's what.

Seriously, this is hilarious; if deranged propaganda like this weren't so damaging, I'd ask that you continue posting such nonsense.
edit on 23Mon, 27 Nov 2017 23:10:53 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated long ago if it did.


wow man..... VEGETATION?

Vegetation also needs oxygen, so it too would be dead. While the green bits get oxygen from photosynthesis (specifically, the splitting of water into H2 and O, as the CO2 part is used for carbohydrates), the roots need oxygen from the air. That's why you can drown plants in water. Some plants have evolved to live in wet conditions, either tolerating the lower oxygen content in water or (like with mangroves) alternative means of getting oxygen to the roots.

If CO2 clustered near the surface like that idiotic article and several people seem to believe in this thread, then there would be no life on this rock.

True but you are thinking backwards. The reason we don't have and can't have 100% CO2 on the surface of the Earth is because vegetation has existed for at least as long as fauna, performing photosynthesis during the entire time. The accusation I replied to was that on Earth if CO2 settles to the surface we would all have suffocated long ago. Flora provides at least a large part of the reason why we would not.

Bit of a chicken and the egg problem with this logic; if the CO2 was already settled near the surface to begin with, the flora wouldn't be able to breathe at that point, so wouldn't have developed.

Things are slightly more complex than that. The real problem here is that you've decided that you disagree with Climate Change theory (whatever understanding of that you have for whatever reasons), and so latch onto any potential explanation that seems like it could disprove Climate Change theory. The article in the OP is wishful nonsense, but because you agree with the gist of the idea, you're sticking up for it.

Think about it for a second:
Rock with no life; CO2 must settle to surface, therefore CO2 is at the surface.
Life needs O2; there is no O2 at the surface because of all the CO2 displacing it, therefore no life.

You are inventing absurd scenarios to cling to the ridiculous and observationally disproven idea that CO2 must all sink to the ground because it's denser than most air.

This is a psychological phenomenon, that diminishes somewhat once you understand it, called the backfire effect. Essentially, when you receive new information that challenges your beliefs, then you reject it and your beliefs become even stronger.

The mind is #ed up. To wit:

Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.


Don't let the mind trick you. Propagandists know how to exploit its flaws and do so with information that confirms your biases and beliefs.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Bit of a chicken and the egg problem with this logic; if the CO2 was already settled near the surface to begin with, the flora wouldn't be able to breathe at that point, so wouldn't have developed.


Regardless, life did develop. Plants do perform photosynthesis, and they do convert CO2 to oxygen. Your hypothetical situation here has nothing to do with the argument or my reply to the other person that you jumped in on.


originally posted by: Greven
Things are slightly more complex than that. The real problem here is that you've decided that you disagree with Climate Change theory (whatever understanding of that you have for whatever reasons), and so latch onto any potential explanation that seems like it could disprove Climate Change theory. The article in the OP is wishful nonsense, but because you agree with the gist of the idea, you're sticking up for it.


This is absolutely ridiculous and a tactic I've seen you attempt on others as well. You make accusations like this in a vain attempt to discredit people who may disagree with you. It's asinine and dishonest. Climate changes on local levels, it changes on global levels, it changes over short term and it changes over millennia. I'm fully aware of it and believe it with every fiber of my being. I made no claim whatsoever on climate, climate change, or any such thing. I made a claim that flora photosynthesizing would at least partially explain why levels of CO2 at the surface are lower than was claimed.


originally posted by: Greven
Think about it for a second:
Rock with no life; CO2 must settle to surface, therefore CO2 is at the surface.
Life needs O2; there is no O2 at the surface because of all the CO2 displacing it, therefore no life.

You are inventing absurd scenarios to cling to the ridiculous and observationally disproven idea that CO2 must all sink to the ground because it's denser than most air.


Photosynthesis from vegetation is absurd? It is the one and only claim I have made in this thread. I made no claim as to where CO2 sits in the atmosphere, nor did I claim what levels of CO2 reside at the surface level. Try to keep better track of who you are arguing which points with.



originally posted by: Greven
This is a psychological phenomenon, that diminishes somewhat once you understand it, called the backfire effect. Essentially, when you receive new information that challenges your beliefs, then you reject it and your beliefs become even stronger.

The mind is #ed up. To wit:

Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.


Don't let the mind trick you. Propagandists know how to exploit its flaws and do so with information that confirms your biases and beliefs.


You seriously just typed that? What the hell is wrong with you? It's be like me saying you don't believe plants exist because you are arguing against my post stating that they photosynthesize at least some of the CO2 at the surface level. Absolutely asinine.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   
The last several pages have made it clear that the OP is rubbish.

The most obvious point, to me, was that if Co2 settled to the bottom of the atmosphere, we'd all be dead. Couple that with the graph that shows it's more or less evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, and case closed. The premise itself is BS.

When is the anti-AGW crowd going to realize that Big Oil thinks they are stupid and will continue to spend money on propaganda as long as they continue to lap it up and regurgitate it for free all over the Web?

I mean, Jeez, the claims don't even have to make sense -- not even remotely -- for the anti-AGW crowd to swallow them whole.


edit on 28-11-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: Greven
Bit of a chicken and the egg problem with this logic; if the CO2 was already settled near the surface to begin with, the flora wouldn't be able to breathe at that point, so wouldn't have developed.


Regardless, life did develop. Plants do perform photosynthesis, and they do convert CO2 to oxygen. Your hypothetical situation here has nothing to do with the argument or my reply to the other person that you jumped in on.


originally posted by: Greven
Things are slightly more complex than that. The real problem here is that you've decided that you disagree with Climate Change theory (whatever understanding of that you have for whatever reasons), and so latch onto any potential explanation that seems like it could disprove Climate Change theory. The article in the OP is wishful nonsense, but because you agree with the gist of the idea, you're sticking up for it.


This is absolutely ridiculous and a tactic I've seen you attempt on others as well. You make accusations like this in a vain attempt to discredit people who may disagree with you. It's asinine and dishonest. Climate changes on local levels, it changes on global levels, it changes over short term and it changes over millennia. I'm fully aware of it and believe it with every fiber of my being. I made no claim whatsoever on climate, climate change, or any such thing. I made a claim that flora photosynthesizing would at least partially explain why levels of CO2 at the surface are lower than was claimed.


originally posted by: Greven
Think about it for a second:
Rock with no life; CO2 must settle to surface, therefore CO2 is at the surface.
Life needs O2; there is no O2 at the surface because of all the CO2 displacing it, therefore no life.

You are inventing absurd scenarios to cling to the ridiculous and observationally disproven idea that CO2 must all sink to the ground because it's denser than most air.


Photosynthesis from vegetation is absurd? It is the one and only claim I have made in this thread. I made no claim as to where CO2 sits in the atmosphere, nor did I claim what levels of CO2 reside at the surface level. Try to keep better track of who you are arguing which points with.



originally posted by: Greven
This is a psychological phenomenon, that diminishes somewhat once you understand it, called the backfire effect. Essentially, when you receive new information that challenges your beliefs, then you reject it and your beliefs become even stronger.

The mind is #ed up. To wit:

Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.


Don't let the mind trick you. Propagandists know how to exploit its flaws and do so with information that confirms your biases and beliefs.


You seriously just typed that? What the hell is wrong with you? It's be like me saying you don't believe plants exist because you are arguing against my post stating that they photosynthesize at least some of the CO2 at the surface level. Absolutely asinine.


Life developed because CO2 doesn't cluster at the surface like the article and several people in this thread decided must be true. It has been shown repeatedly that this is not the case. It doesn't happen. The end. It's not my 'hypothetical' as I'm not the one claiming CO2 clusters at the surface. I'm giving a number of logical reasons why that cannot be true.

You've invented the scenario that plants prevent us from suffocating from ground clustering CO2, and now decided that CO2 is converted into O2. This despite the fact that CO2 clustering at the surface would kill the plants to begin with and kill them now as well.

Remember how I said before about drowning plants in water? You could drown them in CO2, too... but that doesn't happen, even though underground is where the roots that need O2 are. What about molecular density there? What about the fact that photosynthesis doesn't turn CO2 into O2? Photosynthesis splits water, freeing the Oxygen atoms from the Hydrogen atoms - that's where O2 comes from. Yes, CO2 is part of the reaction, but that CO2 gets turned into carbohydrates when combined with the hydrogen atoms.

I admit I've grown increasingly less tolerant of people spouting nonsense, given the dire outcomes that await us due to our destruction of the Earth's biosphere - including the climate. Feel free to correct any errors I've committed. Otherwise I don't really care.

No. Photosynthesis would first require the flora to be alive. Life wouldn't exist if carbon dioxide clustered at the surface and displaced the oxygen by stratification like is ridiculously supposed by the article and certain people in this thread. You were trying to invent reasons for nonsense to make sense. Perhaps I jumped a little to conclusions, but I see no other reason for why you would stick up for such a ludicrous notion.

Oh is that what you're arguing now? It was rather unclear, given the post was:

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated long ago if it did.


wow man..... VEGETATION?

Lot to go on, there.

Oh yeah, FYI, no photosynthesis happens at night and plants take in oxygen / respire CO2. Just another problem with the idea that flora would prevent high levels of CO2 at the surface. Also the fact that, if the article was correct, the oxygen emitted by the plants during the day would immediately stratify away from the surface, which would lead to virtually 100% CO2 (and also plants dying but let's ignore that I guess since magic thinking).

e: you might note that this causes a problem with origin - how did flora exist when there wasn't oxygen? Well, it didn't. We're not totally sure what did, but suspect it was microorganisms.
edit on 1Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:28:14 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Articles that challenge your flawed religion. Facts getting in the way of your closed minded thinking!??





I admit I've grown increasingly less tolerant of people spouting nonsense, given the dire outcomes that await us due to our destruction of the Earth's biosphere - including the climate. Feel free to correct any errors I've committed. Otherwise I don't really care.



We're all going to DIE!


edit on 28-11-2017 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Greven

Articles that challenge your flawed religion. Facts getting in the way of your closed minded thinking!??

Nope, that would be your flawed understanding of reality, and the embrace of random articles of bull# that seem to support that understanding.

You cannot disprove my assertions. You will not accept being corrected. You are, however, wrong - as is your article. It claims several things that are untrue.

This is why I'm tired of being nice - people here are not nice or genuine in their arguments. I gave ample reasons for you to reject the moronic assertions in that article, but you would rather mock people trying to be helpful.

ATS is no longer about denying ignorance, but embracing it. The few who choose to really look at facts are scarce. Instead we have bull# artists and propagandists who post whatever moronic drivel that they think will sway people's opinions, even when it is oh so obviously wrong about very many things. When challenged, like this member, they double down and lash out or spew more bull# articles and claims.

Oh well; just a couple more decades and the only ones shouting about how science is fake and reality is a lie are going to be the flat earthers of today.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: Vector99


Venus has a atmosphere of 96 percent co2

so the whole idea of it not being lighter than what we call air is irrelevant in that situation

But I can help u a bit with a small experiment


go get a balloon blow it up with co2 ... you exhale the stuff so not to complex now let the balloon float up to the upper layer of the atmosphere ... see the problem


I'm surprised no one mentioned this but it's really logical like no kidding I know this i have always known this ... yet I never questioned co2 being lighter than air


I have NEVER... seen a balloon blown up by mouth rise into the air.... never. And I have 800 balloons lying in the closet.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

If CO2 doesn't trap and retain heat then explain why Venus is several magnitudes hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: flice

originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: Vector99


Venus has a atmosphere of 96 percent co2

so the whole idea of it not being lighter than what we call air is irrelevant in that situation

But I can help u a bit with a small experiment


go get a balloon blow it up with co2 ... you exhale the stuff so not to complex now let the balloon float up to the upper layer of the atmosphere ... see the problem


I'm surprised no one mentioned this but it's really logical like no kidding I know this i have always known this ... yet I never questioned co2 being lighter than air


I have NEVER... seen a balloon blown up by mouth rise into the air.... never. And I have 800 balloons lying in the closet.

Sooooo... Is no one going to point out that you don't exhale pure CO2? The Earth's atmosphere is 70% nitrogen and our bodies cannot process pure nitrogen (it has to be ingested). So all that nitrogen is you breath in, is exhaled when you breath out. Heck, there is actually MORE oxygen in your exhaled breath than CO2.
The Chemical Composition of Exhaled Air From Human Lungs

When you take in a breath of fresh air, that air's chemical composition is changed due to a gas exchange, thanks to your alveoli, which are tiny air spaces in your lungs. While the air you exhale is also made up of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide, these levels change. Exhaled air is about 78 percent nitrogen, 18 percent oxygen and 4 percent carbon dioxide.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Life developed because CO2 doesn't cluster at the surface like the article and several people in this thread decided must be true. It has been shown repeatedly that this is not the case. It doesn't happen. The end. It's not my 'hypothetical' as I'm not the one claiming CO2 clusters at the surface. I'm giving a number of logical reasons why that cannot be true.


I agree with you here, always have. I know CO2 is at every elevation, not just surface and not just upper atmosphere, there are concentrations of it everywhere. You again are arguing the wrong points with the wrong person.


originally posted by: Greven
You've invented the scenario that plants prevent us from suffocating from ground clustering CO2, and now decided that CO2 is converted into O2. This despite the fact that CO2 clustering at the surface would kill the plants to begin with and kill them now as well.


No I didn't. I simply stated that plants would be at least part of a reason as to why all life would not suffocate if CO2 culminated only at the surface level. Plants absorb more CO2 than they give off, and they produce more oxygen than they consume. The rest was made up by you, again. You do this quite often to people you are arguing with for some reason.


originally posted by: Greven
Remember how I said before about drowning plants in water? You could drown them in CO2, too... but that doesn't happen, even though underground is where the roots that need O2 are. What about molecular density there? What about the fact that photosynthesis doesn't turn CO2 into O2? Photosynthesis splits water, freeing the Oxygen atoms from the Hydrogen atoms - that's where O2 comes from. Yes, CO2 is part of the reaction, but that CO2 gets turned into carbohydrates when combined with the hydrogen atoms.

I admit I've grown increasingly less tolerant of people spouting nonsense, given the dire outcomes that await us due to our destruction of the Earth's biosphere - including the climate. Feel free to correct any errors I've committed. Otherwise I don't really care.

That's fine and dandy... but I haven't spewed any nonsense, yet you for some reason continue to argue with me, and they are points that I have not made or that you are attributing to me that are false.


originally posted by: Greven
No. Photosynthesis would first require the flora to be alive. Life wouldn't exist if carbon dioxide clustered at the surface and displaced the oxygen by stratification like is ridiculously supposed by the article and certain people in this thread. You were trying to invent reasons for nonsense to make sense. Perhaps I jumped a little to conclusions, but I see no other reason for why you would stick up for such a ludicrous notion.

This is only partially true. Life wouldn't exist if CO2 covered the surface with no oxygen BEFORE plant life began. If flora was already prevalent and covered the Earth before concentrations of CO2 started occuring and collecting, it would have been constantly removing some (around 25 percent) of that concentration from the environment. The flora would reduce the CO2 concentrations providing whatever would be causing that CO2 did not increase production to more than the planets flora could handle.


originally posted by: Greven
Oh is that what you're arguing now? It was rather unclear, given the post was:

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated long ago if it did.


wow man..... VEGETATION?

Lot to go on, there.

Oh yeah, FYI, no photosynthesis happens at night and plants take in oxygen / respire CO2. Just another problem with the idea that flora would prevent high levels of CO2 at the surface. Also the fact that, if the article was correct, the oxygen emitted by the plants during the day would immediately stratify away from the surface, which would lead to virtually 100% CO2 (and also plants dying but let's ignore that I guess since magic thinking).

You are wrong. A plant over it's lifetime produces more oxygen than it consumes and removes more CO2 than it produces, period. During their lifetime they absorb approximately twice the CO2 that they give off. That's just how they work. Plants are always putting on mass throughout their lifetimes, they will never be smaller at EOL than they were to start. Because of this, it results in a net decrease of CO2 and a net increase of Oxygen over their lifetimes, it cannot be the other way, ever. There are times when they lose mass ie cloudy days, nights, shaded etc... but at the end of the life cycle every plant has gained net mass, and has decreased surrounding CO2 while increased surrounding Oxygen.


originally posted by: Greven
e: you might note that this causes a problem with origin - how did flora exist when there wasn't oxygen? Well, it didn't. We're not totally sure what did, but suspect it was microorganisms.

This is a silly question. You first have to answer how life even started in the first place, when it was established, how it was established, and what the surface conditions were when it was established.
edit on 28-11-2017 by bronco73 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2017 by bronco73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: liejunkie01
I can believe that the earth is changing, I can also believe that we may have an impact on it's climate. But I don't know if we have as much impact as what we are being led to believe.

We definitely have an impact, but I'm in the same boat, I don't believe man-made climate change is as impacting as it is sold as. For every peer reviewed report supporting man-made climate change, there is another peer reviewed report showing the opposite.

It's all about money.


wrong......you don't have a one for one on the peer reviewed reports



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Explain what is wrong with the comparison please.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

7000 years constant rate



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

Explain what is wrong with the comparison please.


Venus, 95% CO2
Earth, 78% N, ~21 % O2, NO POSSIBILITY OF EVER BECOMING 95% CO2

I also gave you two sources that show that predictive ability of "models" is NIL

Not obvious enough....



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz



7000 years constant rate

No. Not 8,000 (your first claim). Not 7,000. Care to try again? (hint: it's 2,000)
Those units are meters, in case you didn't notice.


edit on 11/28/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Might I get a link for that graph?

TheRedneck




top topics



 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join