Posted on 10/25/2024 5:03:15 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The reality is that we are in a CO2 famine that puts life on earth at risk.
To believe in the climate change hoax, you must believe 5 (palpably untrue) things:
CO2 is the “control knob” for the climate. This has been proven to be ridiculous. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, while 96–99% of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen. Water vapor, a much larger determinant of temperature, varies from 1-4%. But what determines temperature more than anything else? Changes in the Earth’s solar orbit (obviously). NASA has admitted this.
CO2 is harmful. Wrong! CO2 is plant food. Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants do the reverse.
SNIP
We are at historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, not true. We are actually at historically low levels of CO2. Before the Industrial Revolution, the seminal starting point for climate hysteria (often cited by climate hysterics), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was approximately 290 ppm (parts per million). Plant life begins to succumb (it dies) around 150ppm. The amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is roughly 420ppm.
But is this historically high? Hardly. During the period of the dinosaurs, cold-blooded reptiles that required warm climates, consumed massive volumes of vegetation, and perished when the earth cooled, CO2 levels were roughly 3600ppm, creating the Jurassic conditions that enabled the dinosaurs to flourish, roaming the earth for millions of years.
Were the dinosaurs driving larger SUVs than Americans now drive? What caused CO2 levels to reach such heights then? It certainly wasn’t humans. It occurred, as it always does and has, due to solar cycles, which NASA has admitted.
Image. Oak Ridge National Lab. Public domain.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Look at how many problems this hoax has caused. All in the name of the marxist goal of controlling the means of production.
Not to forget that the dinosaurs must have numbered in the, as fauxcahauntus would say, buhzillions. I mean seriously, as much “fossil fuel” that’s been taken out of the ground since ‘ole Jeb shot at that ‘coon. Somebody is FOS.
Algore the King of the Climate Con Artists and his Sci-Fi fake movies
One 90 ton brontosaurus, on its death, decays into about 40 pounds of ‘convertible’ organic mass.
And yet the cons keep buying multimillion dollar houses on beach fronts—where the oceans will gobble them up due to global warming...
How many brontos to the gallon ?
What ate the dead brontos ? Dinosaur birds ?
CO2 gas a molecular weight of 44 g/mol while air (mostly O2 & N2) has a MW closer to 29 g/mol. CO2 is ‘heavier’ than air and will tend to have a higher concentration near the ground.
In comparison H2O has a MW of 18 g/mol. As a vapor, water is much ‘lighter’ than air. Which is why clouds are generally high in the atmosphere; and also why a dropping barometric pressure indicates that the atmosphere has increasing concentration of water vapor.
CO2 is also soluble in water. Every time it rains most, if not all, of CO2 present in the region of rainfall is scrubbed from the atmosphere.
Just as there is a water cycle, there is also a CO2 cycle. CO2 concentration can vary greatly depending on where and when it is measured.
Claims of CO2 concentration levels both present and past should be viewed with skepticism, especially when underlying assumptions have not been explicitly stated.
“We are actually at historically low levels of CO2.” The chart right below does not support that. It shows it is near the top of a cycle that has repeated many times.
So it’s not good for hard tops then? 😊👍. Who are the fossils that keep pushing dino anyway?
The dirty secret they do not talk about is the commercial industry of Co2 supply and storage for Restaurants and other applications. When hauled and/or stored it must be continuously vented and released to maintain a cool enough temperature to remain a liquid. So all across this country, and around the world are billions of tons of Co2 continuously venting into the atmosphere while being transported and stored. There is no other way to do it.
Vehicles do not hold a candle to this gross dumping into the air compared to the commercial industry. But we do not hear about that aspect at all. Where are the cries to outlaw artificially carbonated drinks? They are a much much bigger emitter of Co2 than vehicles will ever be. Why don’t we? Because they already know their story is a lie and they purposely ignore this issue. They are hoping no one ever catches on to this commercial/money reality.
I don’t know if this is totally correct, but it makes sense than the hoaxers do.
Serious Question???
WTF does “facts” have to do with an emotional argument based on religious beliefs??
It is my understanding that the lowest 10,000 feet or so of the atmosphere is well mixed by turbulence, there is little species differentiation. It’s like a snow globe, when left alone all the “snow” settles to the bottom, but when you shake it, it looks like a blizzard. Turbulence mixes it up. (I could misunderstand.)
Clouds are not water vapor, they are fog, patches of drizzle, tiny water droplets suspended by atmospheric turbulence. As the droplets fall, they evaporate and disappear. Clouds are recharged by condensation at the 0 C isotherm. As the tiny droplets fall and evaporate in the warmer, lower air, they are replaced by newly condensed ones. Clouds are the patches where condensing water is slowing falling towards earth. When the condensation is rapid enough it manifests as rain.
Going back a few thousand years, true, a few million, no. Evolutionary adaptation lags the environment by several million years, at least. Plants today are adapted to much higher carbon dioxide levels. It is well known that greenhouses add CO2 to increase yields.
“CO2 is also soluble in water. Every time it rains most, if not all, of CO2 present in the region of rainfall is scrubbed from the atmosphere.”
Rain water is far more superior than tap/well water in my vegetable gardens.
This now explains the “why?” To me.
Is there not a large blank space in the middle? Have you ever seen a story which fills in this area? Have you ever read a story that uses words like sun and ocean, which are the two enormous engines determining temperature? Cannot the stories that you have seen be inserted into one or the other circles?
I will submit there is no evidence of man-made global warming because no adherent to the popular mythology will acknowledge the existence of the sun and oceans. All I have ever seen are comments on weather events or physical phenomenon involving temperature followed by an assertion man-made global warming is the cause.
In the hard sciences of Math and Physics, the earth’s climate is known as an open system, meaning all influencers are probabilistic and not deterministic. Any assertions must be less than certain, but we are always treated to infallibility statements like those for the boiling point of water. Popular reasoning requires a complete disconnect between events and conclusions and is no more rigorous than Middle Age alchemy.
I have yet to find any article which attempts to measure the influence of the sun and ocean and then ascribe an increment to human activity. It was only since the late 70’s that it was possible to attempt to confirm changes in the sun’s radiance independent of earth. Without a rigorous solution involving those two enormous engines, models created provide outcomes no more elegant than what is left behind when a brand new puppy is turned loose in a house decorated with white carpets and white furniture.
Even before that time any true scientist would have said data collected could not be analyzed, because people had known for centuries the sun was a variable star and it was not possible to separate influences for any mathematical computations. Now that it is possible to separate the influence of the sun but not the oceans, the analysis of such a complicated interaction is still highly problematic. Therefore, political rhetoric must be substituted for application of the scientific method.
Uh might want to reconsider that one there...
99.9% of fossil fuel is derived from plant matter,
maybe you’ve noticed something similar when you are
out hunting in the woods and sometimes you never see
a single deer.
All true. There is a very regular cycle of 125k where something substantial reverses course and throws us down the path into another glacial period. And the same happens on a regular cycle that throws us back into an interglacial period sharply in a short time. Nothing in between these regular 125k cycle periods even matters, they have absolutely no influence at all in the longer timeline.
What causes this 125k cycle swing is what we need to be looking at and worried about, not the small insignificant vibrations in between. The vibrations are insignificant compared to what is going to make the vehicle crash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.