Reply to Thread

https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/wlevels/#observations

Here's 140 years of water levels on the Great Lakes. The current water levels of Lake Michigan, which were normal when I was a kid are now considered high. I have to believe for no other reason than man made objects along the Lake Michigan shoreline were built based on the water levels of the time. My family has been vacationing in Door County Wisconsin annually since 1974. In 1974 the streams where the trout and salmon spawned were robust with both water and fish. The streams dried up in the 1990's and there were areas of shoreline, that had water in the 70's, that you could now walk out 50 yards. It destroyed the boating tourism and impacted many of the business' The county spent millions of dollars dredging out marinas up and down the shoreline so boats would be able to navigate in and out of the marinas thru the shallow rocky water. The water levels are now back to the levels they were in the 70's and the previously dried up streams now have water in them.

The graphs prove that the level of water is cyclical.

Originally Posted by Answer-Man

Huhhhhhh, your wrong

You just stated that 400 ppm of carbon dioxide is just as dangerous as 400 ppm of carbon monoxide and telling me I'm a simpleton and don't know anything.

Care the explain the law of conservation of energy, and how it causes the CO2 molecule to create extra additional energy. If so then we just found a way to eliminate fossil fuel.

Again I don't have to explain anything, you seem to be the one trying to change my opinion

I'll end here before I make you mad because you seem to be getting there
Have good evening

That wasn't what I said, try reading the post again.

It doesn't violate Conservation of Energy at all my friend. It is not a closed system that we are talking about. Read the link I put with it. I can explain it further but the website does a good job of it.

I'm not even going to bother bye

Originally Posted by Answer-Man

HMMMMM if it blocks heat from leaving wouldn't it block heat from the sun from entering too?

Did you come up with that or was it from a website you frequent that passes that off for science? Or was it inspired by a certain fake news channel that says silly stuff like that is OK because there is a question mark at the end?

Huhhhhhh, your wrong

You just stated that 400 ppm of carbon dioxide is just as dangerous as 400 ppm of carbon monoxide and telling me I'm a simpleton and don't know anything.

Care the explain the law of conservation of energy, and how it causes the CO2 molecule to create extra additional energy. If so then we just found a way to eliminate fossil fuel.

Again I don't have to explain anything, you seem to be the one trying to change my opinion

I'll end here before I make you mad because you seem to be getting there
Have good evening

Originally Posted by Answer-Man

We are not talking about Carbon Monoxide we are discussing Carbon Dioxide there is a difference. Now/todaythere is 400 ppm of CO2 in the air so it is in every home, building or open place

It shows how your trying to minimize it by examples and highlighting decimals is just plain nonsense. It doesn't mean that a relatively small amount can't be hazardous. It was a very good analogy where yours were just more nonsense.

Nothing to say about your claim of CO2 blocking heat?

CO2 is not evenly distributed.

The next time you see 400 ppm CO in a home explain to them how small percentage that is.

We are not talking about Carbon Monoxide we are discussing Carbon Dioxide there is a difference. Now/todaythere is 400 ppm of CO2 in the air so it is in every home, building or open place

Originally Posted by Answer-Man

First what is the title of this thread, "A Simple Global Warming Hypothesis". Sorry, no you or myself do not need to provide supporting information for what we think or believe. If I'm trying to change your mind or perspective, yes, supporting documentation would be needed. But I'm not trying to change what you or anyone else thinks. Yes CO2 in our atmosphere comes from many places not just humans I never said it did. Yes we humans cause many forms of pollution that goes into the earth and into the atmosphere

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

The 100 ppm comes directly from the link you posted. Today the amount of CO2 found in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm. 50 to 60 years ago when there was no MMCC concern the CO2 level was about 300 ppm thus the net change that everyone so worked up is a total from all sources of about a 100 ppm increase in the past 50 to 60 years.

The chemical composition or make up of the air in the atmosphere is 5 components:
Nitrogen 78.084%
Oxygen 20.9476%
Argon 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide 0.0314%
The 5th component is water vapor and generally found to be in the 1% to 5% but water vapor is not thought of to be a gas

There are a number of other gases that can be found but all very small and inconsequential

Again the change that has so many worked up is a rapid increase from about 300 ppm to 400 ppm that is: 0.0314003% to 0.0314004%

CO2 is often considered to be an inert gas

Inert Gas
An inert gas is a gas that does not undergo chemical reactions under a set of given conditions. Inert gases are used generally to avoid unwanted chemical reactions degrading a sample. These undesirable chemical reactions are often oxidation and hydrolysis reactions with the oxygen and moisture in air.

The concern with CO2 is that it get's into the atmosphere and blocks the heat from radiating out from the earth into space. CO2 does not bind or combine with anything in the air to make it more tenacious , like a spider web. HMMMMM if it blocks heat from leaving wouldn't it block heat from the sun from entering too?

PPM, parts per million. I keep asking to see if you understand just how small 400 ppm is. That is like seeing the indication on your thermistor vacuum gauge change by 0.0001

Think of a piece of paper, 8.5" x 11" (25.4 mm per inch, 8.5" = 215.4 mm; 11" = 279.4 mm.) Therefore one piece of paper equals 60322.46 MM squared This dot/period " . "is about 1mm square so do the math.

…………………… These 25 dot's/periods represent about 400 PPM for something the size of a piece of paper somehow I don't think the 25 dots (400 ppm, 20 dots would be 300 ppm) are going to block much? I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking if you know/understand how small 400 ppm is. A change of 100 ppm is the proverbial "spit in the ocean"

I'm saying climate change is insignificant and MMCC is not worth worrying about. If you believe the MMCC experts we are past the point of no return we can't stop what is going to happen, because we have nothing that will correct or reverse what has already been done. So if this is true I elect to put my time, energy and money into things that make a difference now, today instead of what may never become reality.

have a good evening

You highlight CO2 as a percentage as a means to minimize it. Only an uninformed person would fall for that trick.

The next time you see 400 ppm CO in a home explain to them how small percentage that is.

"HMMMMM if it blocks heat from leaving wouldn't it block heat from the sun from entering too?"
It seems you are trying to use common sense or simple logic to come to a scientific conclusion. As I stated previously to you we wouldn't have advanced past Aristotle with thinking like that. Read the link below for an explanation for what happens.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation
https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxid...ared-radiation

Originally Posted by pageyjim

After reading through this thread you are wondering if I am aware of the amount of CO2?

The 100 ppm you refer to is not all that humans are responsible for btw. Is that important to you or support your views in some way?

First what is the title of this thread, "A Simple Global Warming Hypothesis". Sorry, no you or myself do not need to provide supporting information for what we think or believe. If I'm trying to change your mind or perspective, yes, supporting documentation would be needed. But I'm not trying to change what you or anyone else thinks. Yes CO2 in our atmosphere comes from many places not just humans I never said it did. Yes we humans cause many forms of pollution that goes into the earth and into the atmosphere

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

The 100 ppm comes directly from the link you posted. Today the amount of CO2 found in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm. 50 to 60 years ago when there was no MMCC concern the CO2 level was about 300 ppm thus the net change that everyone so worked up is a total from all sources of about a 100 ppm increase in the past 50 to 60 years.

The chemical composition or make up of the air in the atmosphere is 5 components:
Nitrogen 78.084%
Oxygen 20.9476%
Argon 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide 0.0314%
The 5th component is water vapor and generally found to be in the 1% to 5% but water vapor is not thought of to be a gas

There are a number of other gases that can be found but all very small and inconsequential

Again the change that has so many worked up is a rapid increase from about 300 ppm to 400 ppm that is: 0.0314003% to 0.0314004%

CO2 is often considered to be an inert gas

Inert Gas
An inert gas is a gas that does not undergo chemical reactions under a set of given conditions. Inert gases are used generally to avoid unwanted chemical reactions degrading a sample. These undesirable chemical reactions are often oxidation and hydrolysis reactions with the oxygen and moisture in air.

The concern with CO2 is that it get's into the atmosphere and blocks the heat from radiating out from the earth into space. CO2 does not bind or combine with anything in the air to make it more tenacious , like a spider web. HMMMMM if it blocks heat from leaving wouldn't it block heat from the sun from entering too?

PPM, parts per million. I keep asking to see if you understand just how small 400 ppm is. That is like seeing the indication on your thermistor vacuum gauge change by 0.0001

Think of a piece of paper, 8.5" x 11" (25.4 mm per inch, 8.5" = 215.4 mm; 11" = 279.4 mm.) Therefore one piece of paper equals 60322.46 MM squared This dot/period " . "is about 1mm square so do the math.

…………………… These 25 dot's/periods represent about 400 PPM for something the size of a piece of paper somehow I don't think the 25 dots (400 ppm, 20 dots would be 300 ppm) are going to block much? I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking if you know/understand how small 400 ppm is. A change of 100 ppm is the proverbial "spit in the ocean"

I'm saying climate change is insignificant and MMCC is not worth worrying about. If you believe the MMCC experts we are past the point of no return we can't stop what is going to happen, because we have nothing that will correct or reverse what has already been done. So if this is true I elect to put my time, energy and money into things that make a difference now, today instead of what may never become reality.

have a good evening

Originally Posted by Answer-Man

As I said before I don't need any additional information, but thank you. I asked the question the way I did to see if you understood the amount of CO2 that is being discussed. The change is approximately 100 parts per million The change was from about 300 to 400 ppm

I mean no offense to you at all, I fully support you being able to state what you wish or what you believe. But I too have am free to state my opinions and beliefs

With respect to rules:
"Your views on groundwater are as simplistic as the rest above and does not mention the problems associated with it."
I did not know I had to provide anyone with the problems associated with ground water. But it sounds as if you had that expectation. Just making an observation my reply can be simple or elaborate it's whatever I want to provide

As I said, have good afternoon

After reading through this thread you are wondering if I am aware of the amount of CO2?

The 100 ppm you refer to is not all that humans are responsible for btw. Is that important to you or support your views in some way?

Originally Posted by oldguy1949

Today per morning news the North East is going to break 300+ record low temps
for this date. Global warming is a moody beach isn't she.
On the mars thing, Astronomers have reported an average temp increase of One degree throughout our solar system.

"NASA Climate Change also took on the doubter talking point that because global warming is happening on other planets, what’s happening on Earth isn’t anything special. “Other planets in the solar system are not warming,” it countered. “There is a small amount of evidence of seasonal changes in parts of the solar system, but there is no evidence of global warming anywhere — except on Earth.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ok-discussion/

As I said before I don't need any additional information, but thank you. I asked the question the way I did to see if you understood the amount of CO2 that is being discussed. The change is approximately 100 parts per million The change was from about 300 to 400 ppm

I mean no offense to you at all, I fully support you being able to state what you wish or what you believe. But I too have am free to state my opinions and beliefs

With respect to rules:
"Your views on groundwater are as simplistic as the rest above and does not mention the problems associated with it."
I did not know I had to provide anyone with the problems associated with ground water. But it sounds as if you had that expectation. Just making an observation my reply can be simple or elaborate it's whatever I want to provide

As I said, have good afternoon

Originally Posted by Answer-Man

How much has the document change in CO2 in the past 50 years are we talking about?

If I read that post correctly this may help you.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

Originally Posted by Answer-Man

Where in the rules for this website does it say that when replying to a post the response can't be simple or simplistic and all aspects of good/bad pros/cons, real or make believe need to be expounded on and written out in detail? Just curious because I missed it. You think my comments is going to make someone run out and do something?

From where in that post did you think I said anything about the rules of this website?

How much has the document change in CO2 in the past 50 years are we talking about?

Originally Posted by pageyjim

Your views on groundwater are as simplistic as the rest above and does not mention the problems associated with it. I will address that with more details.

Where in the rules for this website does it say that when replying to a post the response can't be simple or simplistic and all aspects of good/bad pros/cons, real or make believe need to be expounded on and written out in detail? Just curious because I missed it. You think my comments is going to make someone run out and do something?

Originally Posted by Answer-Man

Look up photosynthesis. What do plants do, what do they give off as part of their processes and need to grow, Sorry but you have over stated the effects of CO2. But then again by your comments you are a MMCC believer

You don't need to post anything for me because I am a non-believer in MMCC. It's a free country, you are entitle to your opinion just as I am.

Good day my friend

Increased carbon dioxide levels in air restrict plants' ability to absorb nutrients

https://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon...t-ability.html

It is a free country that is why I will continue to post the truth.

Originally Posted by pageyjim

Too much CO2 is not a good thing for plants or crop yields. That is a dangerous simplification about CO2.

Increasing CO2 is both a cause and effect of global warming. There have been warming periods that started because of an orbital shift but even with that CO2 was responsible for 90% of the warming in those periods. We are clearly in a period where CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the cause. Again a simplistic view. Science is more than simple logic and common sense. If that was all there was to it we wouldn't have advanced past Aristotle.

Your views on groundwater are as simplistic as the rest above and does not mention the problems associated with it. I will address that with more details.

Look up photosynthesis. What do plants do, what do they give off as part of their processes and need to grow, Sorry but you have over stated the effects of CO2. But then again by your comments you are a MMCC believer

You don't need to post anything for me because I am a non-believer in MMCC. It's a free country, you are entitle to your opinion just as I am.

Good day my friend

Originally Posted by Answer-Man

We do have some pretty decent sea level records and they show sea level is increasing by 0.2" per 100 years. Now there is speculation that sea level increases are more because of the land masses shrinking/sinking. My guess a little of both. But you are correct you would not be able to tell sea level changes in one persons life let alone in 25 years

Our drinking water (ground water) is not like coal or oil, it is not of a limited supply, ground water comes from the rivers, lakes, oceans infiltrating through the soils under them and go back into the aquafers they are pumped from. Many times the infiltration rate is slower than the rate we remove the water

Personally I think the MMCC folks have it backward they believe CO2 increase then the temperature goes up. I believe it to be just the other way around with an increase in sea water temperature we release more CO2. Sea water by far contains more CO2 than anything else. CO2 is a good thing it makes plant grow bigger and stronger which creates more O2 and food from the photosynthesis process.

The reasons why the earths temperature is slightly increasing are many I've heard some claim there are over 100 reasons why temperature changes, but it is all part of the normal cycle that we have no control over. Does man have some influence over the outcome, I would be a fool to say no, just because logic tells me this. We now have something 8 billion people on the planet and for the most part we are concentrated in various location not spread out evenly. So if you add several billion of anything to one place wouldn't you think something might change. You would have increases and decreases across the board. I now it's warmer in the city than in the country, I know there is more trash created in the city than in the country and on , and on

Too much CO2 is not a good thing for plants or crop yields. That is a dangerous simplification about CO2.

Increasing CO2 is both a cause and effect of global warming. There have been warming periods that started because of an orbital shift but even with that CO2 was responsible for 90% of the warming in those periods. We are clearly in a period where CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the cause. Again a simplistic view. Science is more than simple logic and common sense. If that was all there was to it we wouldn't have advanced past Aristotle.

Your views on groundwater are as simplistic as the rest above and does not mention the problems associated with it. I will address that with more details.

Today per morning news the North East is going to break 300+ record low temps
for this date. Global warming is a moody beach isn't she.
On the mars thing, Astronomers have reported an average temp increase of One degree throughout our solar system.