Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 57
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,606
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    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

  2. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,238
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Answer-Man View Post
    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.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,606
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    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?

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,606
    Post Likes
    How much has the document change in CO2 in the past 50 years are we talking about?

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,238
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Answer-Man View Post
    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?
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,238
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Answer-Man View Post
    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
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,606
    Post Likes
    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

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,238
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by oldguy1949 View Post
    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/
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,238
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Answer-Man View Post
    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?
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,606
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    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

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,238
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Answer-Man View Post
    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
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,606
    Post Likes
    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

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,238
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Answer-Man View Post
    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.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •