Almost!
My posts were aimed at drawing attention to the need for increased levels of CO2 to support our current populace.
From what I can discern of the incessant blathering of climate alarmists (whom appear to be intent on catalysing a global panic) is that this angle hasn't been given adequate (if any) consideration!
I'd be interested to know if any of the thousands of "peer reviewed papers" of "relevant scientists" have even gone so far as to quantify the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 required to support our current global ecosystem!
Almost!
My posts were aimed at drawing attention to the need for increased levels of CO2 to support our current populace.
From what I can discern of the incessant blathering of climate alarmists (whom appear to be intent on catalysing a global panic) is that this angle hasn't been given adequate (if any) consideration!
I'd be interested to know if any of the thousands of "peer reviewed papers" of "relevant scientists" have even gone so far as to quantify the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 required to support our current global ecosystem!
So you believe because there's more humans and domesticated animals that we need more CO2 in the atmosphere to maintain some sort of balance?
But then don't we also need an increase in the amount of CO2 scrubbing from the atmosphere to maintain that balance? Humans alone would put something like 620M tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere just from respiration.
Doesn't the burning of 7 odd billion tonnes of coal and 4 billion tonnes of oil each year mean the balance is tipped to over supply of CO2. Levels have already doubled since the industrial revolution started, and we've seen a marked reduction in the land based areas devoted to photosynthesis.
I am deeply concerned that alarmists will wind back
the atmospheric CO2 at any cost!
Only to find they were wrong.
Or even worse, Mother Nature swallows their efforts whole!
And they don't even find out they were wrong.
... a productive exchange.
... little evidence to suggest that such courtesy would be sufficiently reciprocated ...
Correct!
About three decades ago, when I first came to understand the profound relevance of a certain passage within the "emerald tablet" I came to recognise what this planet truly is, and why the current burning of fossil fuels by mankind is a valid (and likely transitory) stage in the natural evolution of this planet. Before then I was at serious risk of becoming an anti-automobile activist! I laughed when I realised how terrribly wrong my previous beliefs had been!
Carbon based fuels (of some form) that react with oxygen to produce heat, CO2 and water vapour will need to be consumed by mankind into the foreseeable future. This is essential for supporting the continued health of this planet!
The reasons for this will likely remain unclear to those whom are too egotistical to recognise mankind's true function in respect to this planet!
My preference would be a non transition to some form of primordial 'green grey' algae. But that's me, but with a sage like philosophical mysticism Cynic has 'The Green Tablet" at his bosom... sorry 'Emerald'
Hey Waynel,and your fellow travellers, This guy's on your side of the fence.... Ahhh, Keep him there .
..... This line was redacted due to what may be the fragile 'health' of one this threads Contributors...
How are you going SydBoy. Jaw dropper or what????
Correct!
About three decades ago, when I first came to understand the profound relevance of a certain passage within the "emerald tablet" I came to recognise what this planet truly is, and why the current burning of fossil fuels by mankind is a valid (and likely transitory) stage in the natural evolution of this planet. Before then I was at serious risk of becoming an anti-automobile activist! I laughed when I realised how terrribly wrong my previous beliefs had been!
Carbon based fuels (of some form) that react with oxygen to produce heat, CO2 and water vapour will need to be consumed by mankind into the foreseeable future. This is essential for supporting the continued health of this planet!
The reasons for this will likely remain unclear to those whom are too egotistical to recognise mankind's true function in respect to this planet!
So far as human brain performance is concerned, it would be interesting to know the typical CO2 concentration in various types of buildings. Houses, offices etc. In particular, I wonder how high it gets in buildings with unflued fuel burning (usually but not always gas) heaters which release significant CO@ into the indoor environment?
It would also be interesting to know how 600 ppm compares with a lower level, say 400 ppm or 250 ppm? Have we already reached a point where outdoor CO2 levels are high enough to have some impact?
Adelaide just happens to be where I'm heading to tomorrow. And on Friday at least, I'll be outdoors all day in a nice, pleasant 40 degrees with the sun shining down.
It was 38.9 in Hobart today however so I've had a bit of a trial run with the heat, or you could call that a "warm up" I suppose.
My understanding is we've already hit the 400 level in the atmosphere. There was a major call for the unflued gas heaters in NSW schools to be removed or flued. Other issues were the NOx formed from the burning of gas.
I'd be surprised if a lot of older office buildings don't have relatively high levels of CO2 considering the low levels of fresh air brought in and the fact the fresh air will have higher levels of CO and CO2.
Maybe CO2 will be our lead pipes equivalent of the Roman Empire
You are correct SB. In fact alarm bells were first pressed by scientists when we went over 250p/m. It was Maggie Thatcher that then instigated the IPCC (??) to get the world behind reductions. Gotta laugh about that though cause then along came the oil and coal industry and the future of pollies pension fund.
Currently thinking about radio laser transportation of Grandchildren. But trying to increase the speed beyond light years is a stumbling block at the moment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?