Enjoy Earth While It Lasts: Atmospheric Carbon Levels Pass the Point of No Return

a reply to: WeAre0ne



There is already enough low-quality carbohydrates produced by current agriculture. Warming will suck for some countries agriculture, like India, but be good for Canada and Russia. There will be enough to eat, but many people won't be able to afford it.

The effects on rain and violent weather are much worse for people, as will be the heat waves.

More to the point relevant to humans, the good-eating fish live in cold waters, not warm waters, and unlike grains, humans are seriously taking at or beyond ecological limits for fish & seafood.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Cutepants

All unicorns and fairies here.

The scientists have agreed that its too late. Do you not get that?

Now is the time for those scientists to step back and allow humans to accept responsibility for their behavior (or not as the case may be).

Burning fossil fuels is a self limiting problem. We will either die of catastrophic (or not) or we will run out of oil (which the "scientists have already predicted to have happen in the 1990s"

You see...sometimes scientists are wrong. But taking our money will not solve the problem. If catastrophic warming doesn't occur, we will still be living in huts and freezing in the dark as our electricity grids fail.

Heh, you seem to be contradicting yourself? Anyway, I don't think the scientists have agreed that it is too late, can you post some evidence on that? I'm sorry about the people in Ontario, you should write to your congressman or something I guess. In order to reduce GW it would be better to reduce the total use of electricity rather than sending it to Quebec.

I can be smug sometimes, guilty as charged, but why are you assuming I support Hillary? I'm not American anyway, but I kind of like them both, so not sure who I'd vote for. Trump is very tempting though, such some fresh blood (well... relatively fresh). I guess he wants to pull back some troops though, which would mean that European countries have to start paying more for their own defense. Fair enough I guess, but inconvenient for us.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Cutepants

No! Enough talk. The "scientists" declared that it is too late. Can we now please use our money to actually deal with pollution.'

Why do you want to deal with pollution if it's too late anyway? I feel you are being intentionally obtuse, sorry.

a reply to: Cutepants

I am being intentionally obtuse. I am being sarcastic. Its obvious that the scientists published a "scare" story and I wanted to point out that "if its too late" then the reaction should be, not to double down on our efforts but rather to just give up.

I was using sarcasm to highlight how stupid the story is.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: network dude

We exhale carbon dioxide.

Should we stop breathing?

If you care about the Earth you would....

I think we should pay a tax to the govt for breathing. Maybe have a monitor to check how much we're breathing and have some incentives for controlling our breathing and taking less breaths.

If we all get up and go to work, then immediately go home and go to sleep till the next morning (maybe hooked up to a machine to lessen the carbon output as we sleep) we can all do our part. It's the only way to pay for the sins of our ancestors who destroyed nature by living.

Of course a few people will need to carry on as normal, so they can look after and manage the world. I vote for rich elite people to manage it all for us as we work and sleep.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Thank you. But again, the sensationalist media has managed to dazzle you. It was journalist Mac McCann (what a name) who wrote that we are screwed, and it was journalist Brian Kahn who wrote that the 400+ values are permanent.

That scientist, Keeling, actually only writes that for the foreseeable future the levels will stay over that value. It's pretty clear that it can drop again at some point. He also writes nothing about the end of the world or anything like that. As for Stephen Hawking, he seems to be talking about a catastrophic meteor strike; again, that website is taking things out of context to create a more clickable story.

By the way, judging from their trending articles complex.com seems to mostly focus on skateboarding and penguin adultery, so yeah.

a reply to: [post=21472059]Cutepants[/post


yeah - you can see how "dazzled" I was. The story was stupid. Only stupid people would have been stupid enough to actually take it seriously. I was being sarcastic to demonstrate how stupid it all was.

What is the difference between "scientists" or "journalists" pronouncing the end of the world and Edgar Cayce announcing the end of the world based on bible predictions.

You obviously don't get sarcasm but then again, this medium does not show body language.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: UKTruth

If we all get up and go to work, then immediately go home and go to sleep till the next morning (maybe hooked up to a machine to lessen the carbon output as we sleep) we can all do our part.

A demonstration of ignorance of the science.

Respiration is carbon neutral. Unless, of course, you eat coal.

a reply to: Phage

But when you are sleeping, you are not up driving your car to see the bright lights of the city, you are not having lights on in your home to read by, you are not watching tv, your heat is dialed down for the night, you are not up washing clothes and using the dryer etc etc. etc.

In short, your use of energy derived from coal is at its lowest.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Phage

Respiration is not "carbon neutral." The air coming out has more carbon dioxide and less oxygen than the air going in.

And eating coal wouldn't make any difference, unless you digest it with your lungs.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
We went through this before. Respiration has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The "extra" carbon we exhale originated from the atmosphere in the first place.

The CO2 produced by metabolism is not a product of fossil carbon, except to the extent that fossil carbon has become part of atmospheric CO2.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

If we all get up and go to work, then immediately go home and go to sleep till the next morning (maybe hooked up to a machine to lessen the carbon output as we sleep) we can all do our part.

A demonstration of ignorance of the science.

Respiration is carbon neutral. Unless, of course, you eat coal.

Good god, it was a joke.
I'll make sure I get the science right in my next joke.

a reply to: UKTruth
A joke, perhaps. There are many jokes that aren't funny.

I don't generally find ignorance funny.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, and it ended with you admitting that respiration itself produces carbon dioxide. I'm surprised you're still hanging on to that line.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
I'm "surprised" that you think that respiration has a net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

a reply to: Phage

Unless its cow farts?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Phage

That was not what you said Phage. You said

A demonstration of ignorance of the science.

Respiration is carbon neutral. Unless, of course, you eat coal.

That is simply untue, and a perfect example of scientific ignorance in itself.

TheRedneck

Enjoying it just fine, thanks!

a reply to: TheRedneck

That was not what you said Phage. You said

Yes. That is what I said. Now put it in the context of the thread. Atmospheric carbon levels.

Maybe these atmospheric changes are from an external source .

a reply to: Phage

Put it in any context you like. Respiration produces carbon dioxide. Period.

TheRedneck