Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 31/170)
williegoat MAR 15, 12:28 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Fluorinated gases, all as close to zero ppm as possible.


Now, there's the real source of hysteria, the madhouse gasgasgas effect.
rinselberg MAR 15, 02:19 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Is the ideal atmospheric concentration of all greenhouse gasses including CO2 supposed to be as close to zero as possible?


No! No way. I said there should be 350 ppm carbon dioxide or CO2 in the atmosphere. Water (H2O) doesn't need to be specified. As I already explained, the hydrologic cycle maintains water in the atmosphere (humidity) at a level that's good for humans and their animal and plant friends. Methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases... the other greenhouse gases... I really don't know what good limits are for those.

I didn't just make up the 350 number for CO2 or pull that out of thin air. "350" is a climate advocacy group.


quote
350.org was founded in 2008 by a group of university friends in the United States along with author Bill McKibben, who wrote one of the first books on global warming for the general public. The goal was to build a global climate movement. 350 was named after 350 parts per million—the [climate] safe concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.


350
https://350.org/

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-15-2023).]

Wichita MAR 15, 03:01 PM
Follow the Mind Virus

Greta Thunberg deletes 2018 tweet saying that climate change would 'wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels by 2023' .

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 03-15-2023).]

Fitz301 MAR 15, 04:12 PM
LOOK..."saving the planet"...



"green technology"...looks alot like the old technology

Idiots.

[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 03-15-2023).]

cliffw MAR 15, 07:43 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Is the ideal atmospheric concentration of all greenhouse gasses including CO2 supposed to be as close to zero as possible ?

Rate the various gasses in terms of creating your greenhouse effect ?




quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
No! No way. I said there should be 350 ppm carbon dioxide or CO2 in the atmosphere. Water (H2O) doesn't need to be specified. As I already explained, the hydrologic cycle maintains water in the atmosphere (humidity) at a level that's good for humans and their animal and plant friends.



This is a lengthy thread. When and where did you say that ?

You did say ...


quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Atmospheric water vapor or humidity (H2O) is the most abundant greenhouse gas, by far. It's also far and away the most significant in terms of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet.



You also said ...


quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Water (H2O) doesn't need to be specified. As I already explained, the hydrologic cycle maintains water in the atmosphere (humidity) at a level that's good for humans and their animal and plant friends.



That is not scientifically possible. Ask me why ?
rinselberg MAR 15, 10:19 PM

quote
Originally posted by Wichita:

Follow the Mind Virus

Greta Thunberg deletes 2018 tweet saying that climate change would 'wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels by 2023' .



It's easy to focus on the distraction of Greta Thunberg, but endeavoring to "troll" the credentialed climate scientists and researchers isn't so easy. First of all, for someone to do that, they would have to know the scientists and researchers' names or where to find their reports, or reports of what the scientists and researchers are actually saying and doing. There's also the risk of someone inadvertently revealing their own epic ignorance of the topic, especially if they are just duplicating memes and cartoons that catch their eye... succumbing to their chronic condition of Shiny New Object Syndrome.

Anyone can aspire to be glib about credentialed climate scientists and researchers, but in the arcane game-play of online forums like this one, anyone who does that can be "exposed" for their scientific ignorance and misconceptions. Not that it would matter, really, because who's keeping score? But it's a risk in what I've just called this "arcane game-play" of online forums like this one.


What's wrong with this image-message, meme or cartoon? Why is it totally illogical or "malarkey"..?

Select or 'click' this text for the Big Reveal

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-15-2023).]

Fitz301 MAR 16, 02:13 PM
And yet another "coincidental" train derailment, this time in Washington.

Completely "accidental" of course...

htt ps://komonews.com/news/l...uries-investigation#

[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 03-16-2023).]

Fitz301 MAR 16, 06:08 PM
Here's some interesting info on the living Garbage Pail Kid herself:
rinselberg MAR 16, 06:31 PM
As I just said in the third message before this one, it's easy to focus on the distractions of railroad accidents, or of Greta Thunberg, but endeavoring to "troll" the credentialed climate scientists and researchers isn't so easy is more of a challenge. A challenge that this misleading meme or viewgraph-style presentation conspicuously falls down on, from a science perspective:

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE

Edit to add: I actually didn't refer to "railroad accidents" in the third message before this one.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-16-2023).]

williegoat MAR 16, 07:02 PM

quote
Originally posted by Fitz301:

Here's some interesting info on the living Garbage Pail Kid herself:

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE


Both Greta and AOC are quite literally bit players in the bizarre stage show that we all have been watching for over a decade now. They were hand picked. Look around, there are others.

Our government is like a sordid mixture of America’s Got Talent and Dancing with the Stars, with cameo appearances by Jussy Smollet and Alec Baldwin.