Climate myths

Dave645 · Jan 17, 2024

Bogweevil said:
Very droll, even at 400ppm of CO2 that is still a massive number of CO2 molecules, billions of tonnes, each molecule soaks up infra red radiation and then re-emits it in all directions.

I agree they make big changes sound little; the true numbers are.

5,500,000,000,000,000 tonnes, is the total atmosphere, or 5,500 trillion tonnes.

2,200,000,000,000 tonnes of C02, is 2.2 trillion tonnes. is 400ppm or 0.04% number they like
425ppm is 2,337,500,000,000 is 2.375 trillion tonnes or 0.0425% so 137.5 billion tonne increase for just 0.0025% increase, or the 25ppm above 400ppm.

if we started at 280 ppm then co2 started at 1.54 trillion tonnes that means we have added 0.797 trillion tonnes. into the air alone. not including what has been absorbed into oceans etc.

Then we have water vapour which a 1C rise in temperature can mean we see an added 7% of water vapour
Water vapor accounts for roughly 0.25% of the atmosphere by mass. so, 13,750,000,000,000 tonnes. 13.75 trillion tonnes, so adding 7% to that adds up fast.

essex man · Jan 17, 2024

Dave645 said:
I agree they make big changes sound little; the true numbers are.

5,500,000,000,000,000 tonnes, is the total atmosphere, or 5,500 trillion tonnes.

2,200,000,000,000 tonnes of C02, is 2.2 trillion tonnes. is 400ppm or 0.04% number they like
425ppm is 2,337,500,000,000 is 2.375 trillion tonnes or 0.0425% so 137.5 billion tonne increase for just 0.0025% increase, or the 25ppm above 400ppm.

if we started at 280 ppm then co2 started at 1.54 trillion tonnes that means we have added 0.797 trillion tonnes. into the air alone. not including what has been absorbed into oceans etc.

Then we have water vapour which a 1C rise in temperature can mean we see an added 7% of water vapour
Water vapor accounts for roughly 0.25% of the atmosphere by mass. so, 13,750,000,000,000 tonnes. 13.75 trillion tonnes, so adding 7% to that adds up fast.

Thank god we have, without the extra my wheat production would be struggling.
It's been so "harmful" to humans that we have managed to add an extra 7 billion of them to the planet since co2 was at such dangerously low levels.

Dave645 · Jan 17, 2024

essex man said:
Absolutely, classic religion involving apocalypse, attonement(cutting your carbon footprint), ritual(filling your green boxes) , a priesthood(climate "scientists"), doctrine (climate "science") and fear

lol classic, it's a pity it is looking real then, it would be great to put it all down to a passage in the bible.
I find the weak look to devalue others with this type of description you just used, I find it the solace of the feeble minded. they often find other weak minded to agree with. a few facts to back up your point of view would go a long way, to strengthen your position, rather than trying to weaken ours with garbage like that last post and the one it was a reply to.

I didn't start this thread I just reply to the fud posted on it, facts always seem hard to find on your side, speculation or opinion, don't do well against facts hence these types of comments start coming up.

essex man · Jan 17, 2024

Dave645 said:
lol classic, it's a pity it is looking real then, it would be great to put it all down to a passage in the bible.
I find the weak look to devalue others with this type of description you just used, I find it the solace of the feeble minded. they often find other weak minded to agree with. a few facts to back up your point of view would go a long way, to strengthen your position, rather than trying to weaken ours with garbage like that last post and the one it was a reply to.

I didn't start this thread I just reply to the fud posted on it, facts always seem hard to find on your side, speculation or opinion, don't do well against facts hence these types of comments start coming up.

Facts like plants benefit from increased co2.
Humans benefit from enhanced plant growth.
That there's no proof that co2 causing warming.
That warming is beneficial for humans.
That numbers of humans increase in tandem with increased so called harmful emissions.
That climate activism involves controlling your fellow humans.
There are no facts on the climate science control freak side just fingerpointing and scaremongering

010101 · Jan 17, 2024

Dave645 said:
lol classic, it's a pity it is looking real then, it would be great to put it all down to a passage in the bible.
I find the weak look to devalue others with this type of description you just used, I find it the solace of the feeble minded. they often find other weak minded to agree with. a few facts to back up your point of view would go a long way, to strengthen your position, rather than trying to weaken ours with garbage like that last post and the one it was a reply to.

I didn't start this thread I just reply to the fud posted on it, facts always seem hard to find on your side, speculation or opinion, don't do well against facts hence these types of comments start coming up.

Guessing from your post that you regard yourself as strong.

Dave645 · Jan 17, 2024

essex man said:
Thank god we have, without the extra my wheat production would be struggling.
It's been so "harmful" to humans that we have managed to add an extra 7 billion of them to the planet since co2 was at such dangerously low levels.

lol weak, so weak
now who is stooping to scare mongering was co2 in 1890 at 280ppm at dangerously low levels?

They were not, your BS factor is starting to top out now.

the 7 billion extra is the reason we have to manage our food production carefully against adverse weather. feeding a billion is simple, we would have food to cobble dogs with.

what disrupts food production?
what happens if we had a shortage of food?
the extra co2 is good for one part of a plant's growth, but it doesn't grow on co2 alone now does it.
without water or if temps get too hot above 35c plants are not happy no matter how much co2 is in the air. these are the factors that matter.

Dave645 · Jan 17, 2024

010101 said:
Guessing from your post that you regard yourself as strong.

lol weak so weak.

Dave645 · Jan 17, 2024

essex man said:
Facts like plants benefit from increased co2.
Humans benefit from enhanced plant growth.
That there's no proof that co2 causing warming.
That warming is beneficial for humans.
That numbers of humans increase in tandem with increased so called harmful emissions.
That climate activism involves controlling your fellow humans.
There are no facts on the climate science control freak side just fingerpointing and scaremongering

lol in your opinion with no facts to back up anything.

I may as well claim, co2 at 400ppm or greater, makes sheep grow faster, I have just as much evidence to support my theory.

Devil's advocate · Jan 17, 2024

M-J-G said:
The more extreme left regularly use the "Nazi" label to shut opponents down, if you dare to question race, gender, climate, veganism you must be a Nazi, it's all part of the cancel culture and the bid to restrict one's right to speak freely.

Some vegans are if not Nazi's very right wing.

Some would love to make these subjects left versus right. I'm not sure it is that easy.

Reform party the leader's partner is a vegan
Margaret Thatcher, God bless her, was the 1st leader of a country to talk about green issues & expressed concern about climate change.
I'm sure both left & right will have numbers of people who are not average in sexualty.

essex man · Jan 17, 2024

Dave645 said:
lol weak, so weak
now who is stooping to scare mongering was co2 in 1890 at 280ppm at dangerously low levels?

They were not, your BS factor is starting to top out now.

the 7 billion extra is the reason we have to manage our food production carefully against adverse weather. feeding a billion is simple, we would have food to cobble dogs with.

what disrupts food production?
what happens if we had a shortage of food?
the extra co2 is good for one part of a plant's growth, but it doesn't grow on co2 alone now does it.
without water or if temps get too hot above 35c plants are not happy no matter how much co2 is in the air. these are the factors that matter.

Do you believe plants can grow without co2?

C.J · Jan 17, 2024

010101 said:
The oceans have an average pH of about 8.1.

They are becoming more neutral.

Using language like "acidifying" is wrong and creates a false fear.

Life flourished in the oceans when the atmospheric co2 levels were higher.

I've posted this one before - ocean pH is more stable than it's been most of the last century.

010101 · Jan 17, 2024

Dave645 said:
lol weak so weak.

This could be humble bragging.
You post on TFF, this gives you a degree of respect from me, regardless.

M-J-G · Jan 17, 2024

primmiemoo said:
The trouble is that in the present, rising CO2 affects the nutritional values of our staple crops. It's already happening. Gene editing to adapt crops to address this can't come soon enough, but let's stop putting yet more fossil CO2 into the atmosphere regardless ~

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP41

Yet the earth getting greener.

I'm afraid all of the fossil fuels are going to be used, we have used them to develop our nations and so will everyone else, to expect anything else would be hypocritical.
If you want people to stop using fossil fuels someone is going to have to invent a cheaper alternative that is equally or more convenient to use, that's the only way it will happen, saying we need to stop using them is ridiculous.

I look forward to the day that these cheaper more convenient sources of energy are available to use, but I don't see much evidence of them being available.

M-J-G · Jan 17, 2024

010101 said:
The oceans have an average pH of about 8.1.

They are becoming more neutral.

Using language like "acidifying" is wrong and creates a false fear.

Life flourished in the oceans when the atmospheric co2 levels were higher.

It was mainly the oceans took atmospheric CO2 from 6000 ppm to as low as 180 ppm and almost lead to the death of all plants on the earth (which happens at 150 ppm)

primmiemoo · Jan 17, 2024

010101 said:
Why do you think you can tell me what I should do?

In a chemical reaction it is scientifically inaccurate to call the process acidification if there is no acid produced. Organisms adapt to their environment, or they lose the evolutionary race.

H2O + CO2 = Carbonic acid

Alter the ecology of the base of the oceanic food chain and there will be problems. When oceanic acidity changes faster than creatures and plants can evolve to adapt to, there will be rapid problems.

010101 · Jan 17, 2024

primmiemoo said:
H2O + CO2 = Carbonic acid

Alter the ecology of the base of the oceanic food chain and there will be problems. When oceanic acidity changes faster than creatures and plants can evolve to adapt to, there will be rapid problems.

When the carbonic acid enters the ocean it is neutralised to be part of a larger alkali.
The result is not acidic oceans, they are less alkaline.

Acidic oceans would dissolve ships faster than rust.

merino · Jan 17, 2024

010101 said:
When the carbonic acid enters the ocean it is neutralised to be part of a larger alkali.
The result is not acidic oceans, they are less alkaline.

Acidic oceans would dissolve ships faster than rust.

Is this really the hill you want to die on?
That the increase in H ions isn't acidification?

I mean climate change denial is dumb generally, but this is quite a bit dumber than that.

010101 · Jan 17, 2024

merino said:
Is this really the hill you want to die on?
That the increase in H ions isn't acidification?

I mean climate change denial is dumb generally, but this is quite a bit dumber than that.

Looked it up in Webster's.
I accept your apology.

merino · Jan 17, 2024

010101 said:
Looked it up in Webster's.
I accept your apology.

Now that's just offensive.
Meriam Webster!
The idea.
You sir should be ashamed of yourself.
Oxford English Dictionary.
Accept no substitutes.

primmiemoo · Jan 17, 2024

M-J-G said:
Yet the earth getting greener.

I'm afraid all of the fossil fuels are going to be used, we have used them to develop our nations and so will everyone else, to expect anything else would be hypocritical.
If you want people to stop using fossil fuels someone is going to have to invent a cheaper alternative that is equally or more convenient to use, that's the only way it will happen, saying we need to stop using them is ridiculous.

I look forward to the day that these cheaper more convenient sources of energy are available to use, but I don't see much evidence of them being available.

Renewables are now more obvious in the landscape hereabouts. Hundreds of acres of the south west peninsula are under solar. It's difficult to find a view without a big wind turbine in it ~ with plans granted for an array of turbines in the Celtic Sea.

If it wasn't so expensive, there would be biofuel in the tank that's currently holding red diesel for the tractors. I'm only dithering about an EV as a runabout because, currently, small EVs aren't versatile enough. I'd run my current car on biofuel but for a handful of short term obstacles.

Climate myths

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page