Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Do humans and much of their livestock exhale CO2?

Has the population of humans and their livestock increased since the industrial age?

Does that not necessitate an increased transitory presence of CO2 in our atmosphere?

Would it not be unsafe to attempt to artifically reduce CO2 levels before knowing what levels need to be present for our biological needs?

The amount of CO2 exhaled by hums/livestock is minute in comparison to the production of CO2 by industry, cars etc In any case this CO2 is part of the carbon cycle of plants and has no effect/relation to the increase caused by human industrial/agricultural activity

https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Humans and animals need minimal amounts of CO2. It is an essential part our biology but in fact we run more risk of falling ill with excessive CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[cynic]

The amount of CO2 exhaled by hums/livestock is minute in comparison to the production of CO2 by industry, cars etc In any case this CO2 is part of the carbon cycle of plants and has no effect/relation to the increase caused by human industrial/agricultural activity

https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Humans and animals need minimal amounts of CO2. It is an essential part our biology but in fact we run more risk of falling ill with excessive CO2 in the atmosphere.

So what was the human population prior to the industrial age ?

What is the population now?

What were the pre industrial CO2 levels?

What are those levels now?

Is there a noteworthy correlation here?

 

[basilio]

Read the references Cynic. It's all there.

Humans per se do not add to CO2 levels. Full stop. End of story.
(Human industrial/agricultural activities are another story ..)

 

[cynic]

Read the references Cynic. It's all there.

Humans per se do not add to CO2 levels. Full stop. End of story.
(Human industrial/agricultural activities are another story ..)

You forgot to say world without end, forever and ever amen!

 

[cynic]

For every climate blog, there is an equal and opposite blog:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself/

 

[basilio]

You forgot to say world without end, forever and ever amen!

And gravity sucks, the world turns, we live and die.
All have the same certainty Cynic.
Unless of course you want to create a whole new world with another set of Physics laws.

...(Just finishing the final draft he says ...)

 

[noco]

The amount of CO2 exhaled by hums/livestock is minute in comparison to the production of CO2 by industry, cars etc In any case this CO2 is part of the carbon cycle of plants and has no effect/relation to the increase caused by human industrial/agricultural activity

https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Humans and animals need minimal amounts of CO2. It is an essential part our biology but in fact we run more risk of falling ill with excessive CO2 in the atmosphere.

Correct me if I wrong but don't vehicles emit carbon monoxide?

 

[cynic]

Correct me if I wrong but don't vehicles emit carbon monoxide?

Along with CO2, H2O and possibly a few other things (depending upon the fuel).

 

[cynic]

And gravity sucks, the world turns, we live and die.
All have the same certainty Cynic.
Unless of course you want to create a whole new world with another set of Physics laws.

...(Just finishing the final draft he says ...)

And as per usual, you find yourself unable to answer the most basic question!

How many ppm, of CO2, is required in our atmosphere to support the biological needs of the human ecosystem?

John Cook hasn't even bothered to consider, let alone answer that question!

Even if that site offered an answer, I would still need to verify it against some objective scientific findings, as that "skepticalscience" site is clearly disinterested in scientific objectivity.

In fact its name is a misnomor, it could rightly and accurately be labelled "pseudoscience".

Although in doing so, I might be doing self-respecting pseudoscientists a grave injustice.

So perhaps "climate bulldust dressed up to pass as science in the eyes of the faithful zealot" might be a more suitable title.

 

[orr]

How many ppm, of CO2, is required in our atmosphere to support the biological needs of the human ecosystem?

If you don't like the facts there are political parties that let you make up your own....go with them.

The following link goes to the Vostok ice core dating back 400,000years; that period encompasses pro-to-human to modern human development and the explosion to human planetary domination. If you go as far to look at before dismissing it as a fabrication of some scientific conspiracy you'll notice that there is not a point in that record that exceeds 300ppm Co2. ... Where is that atmospheric concentration today?

I'll leave it you to do the metal gymnastics applying your to question quoted above.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/vostok_co2_ch4_from_bubbles.jpg

 

[cynic]

If you don't like the facts there are political parties that let you make up your own....go with them.

The following link goes to the Vostok ice core dating back 400,000years; that period encompasses pro-to-human to modern human development and the explosion to human planetary domination. If you go as far to look at before dismissing it as a fabrication of some scientific conspiracy you'll notice that there is not a point in that record that exceeds 300ppm Co2. ... Where is that atmospheric concentration today?

I'll leave it you to do the metal gymnastics applying your to question quoted above.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/vostok_co2_ch4_from_bubbles.jpg

You continue to miss the point! What was the human population back when there were 300ppm?

What is the human population today?

Such a simple question and yet none of your sacred religious tomes seem to even bother to address it!

 

[orr]

You continue to miss the point! What was the human population back when there were 300ppm?

I've missed no point. I answered the question you posted. And you don't like the answer to it, you prefer to make up your own reality.
Human beings are part or the bio-sphere(do some work to understand that concept). Prior to human population exponential increase with the industrial age there were a whole lot of other aspects to the bio-sphere, a whole lot of which we as humans have pushed toward extinction, can you think of any??? ever read 'Moby Dick' or are you aware to the fate of American bison. All those species resporated. The bazar 'furphy' you're pushing only illustrates your intellectual incompetence and lack of the desire to improve it.

 

[cynic]

I've missed no point. I answered the question you posted. And you don't like the answer it, you prefer to make up your own reality.
Human beings are part or the bio-sphere(do some work to understand that concept). Prior to human population exponential increase with the industrial age there were a whole lot of other aspects to the bio-sphere, a whole lot of which we as humans have pushed toward extinction, can you think of any??? ever read 'Moby Dick' or are you aware to the fate of American bison. All those species resporated. The bazar 'furphy' you're pushing only illustrates your intellectual incompetence and lack of the desire to improve it.

You still haven't answered the question!

 

[cynic]

According to this site, the human population more than doubled during the latter half of the last century.

In light of this information alone, why shouldn't one anticipate elevated levels of atmospheric CO2?

In fact 400ppm appears to be a bit shy of the elevated level that one might otherwise have reasonably anticipated!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html

 

[basilio]

According to this site, the human population more than doubled during the latter half of the last century.

In light of this information alone, why shouldn't one anticipate elevated levels of atmospheric CO2?

In fact 400ppm appears to be a bit shy of the elevated level that one might otherwise have reasonably anticipated!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html

That is really special Cynic. Unique.. even in this discussion.

I believe it is the first time I have heard anyone attempt to correlate the increase in human population with the last century increase in CO2 levels as direct cause and effect (not a consequence of other human activity) . Why don't you contact Watts Up, and Heartland and Jo Nova and David Evans and perhaps construct a paper on it ?

It would certainly be a unique contribution to the debate....

 

[cynic]

That is really special Cynic. Unique.. even in this discussion.

I believe it is the first time I have heard anyone attempt to correlate the increase in human population with the last century increase in CO2 levels as direct cause and effect (not a consequence of other human activity) . Why don't you contact Watts Up, and Heartland and Jo Nova and David Evans and perhaps construct a paper on it ?

It would certainly be a unique contribution to the debate....

Why would I need to write a paper to state the bleeding obvious!

Oh that's right! I don't need to write a paper because it is so blindingly obvious!

I'd only need to write papers to demonstrate things which are obscure to the point of being virtually undetectable.

Maybe that's the reason for the voluminous papers being paraded by the climate brigade!

 

[basilio]

Why would I need to write a paper to state the bleeding obvious!

Oh that's right! I don't need to write a paper because it is so blindingly obvious!

I'd only need to write papers to demonstrate things which are obscure to the point of being virtually undetectable.

Maybe that's the reason for the voluminous papers being paraded by the climate brigade!

Well that certainly makes mincemeat of the entire scientific community. It's all obvious!! You don't need theory, evidence, analysis perhaps even someone else to cross check your work.

Nuh just the blinding insight that 1 Plus 1 equals 11.

I refuse to state the bleeding obvious...

 

[cynic]

Well that certainly makes mincemeat of the entire scientific community. It's all obvious!! You don't need theory, evidence, analysis perhaps even someone else to cross check your work.

Nuh just the blinding insight that 1 Plus 1 equals 11.

I refuse to state the bleeding obvious...

That's okay basilio.

I do understand your definition of the scientific community (i.e. limited to only those scientists that are supportive of the climate alarmist fantasy).

You are quite correct about the level of mathematical ineptitude required to entertain the multitude of claims within the papers issuing from aforementioned community.

It is amusing seeing someone claiming such confidence, continually failing to address some very basic questions.

Do you actually understand any science outside of your climate alarmism?

A basic and logical grasp of mathematics , chemistry, biology (and perhaps some physics) is all that is required to understand where I am coming from.

Somehow the point behind my questions continues to elude you!

 

[luutzu]

So what was the human population prior to the industrial age ?

What is the population now?

What were the pre industrial CO2 levels?

What are those levels now?

Is there a noteworthy correlation here?

Your logic really are quite unique Cynic. Very special.

So it's the human exhaust that's causing all these. Is that why industrialists and politicians permit fossil fuel? To keep human population in check?

 

[luutzu]

Correct me if I wrong but don't vehicles emit carbon monoxide?

Whatever it is, it'll kill ya.

Was in Hanoi and took a rental scooter out for the evening. Cool fresh air, night lights around the old colonial city...

At the first traffic stop outside the hotel, I literally see black spots and almost fell over from the exhausts other scooters belches out. Head straight back, open a couple cans and off to bed.

With more cars and buses, it was worst in Thailand riding those open air tuk tuk. We just paid and started our tour when we decided to get to heck off and into an air-conditioned taxi.

Australia is much better... but that's because we have less people and our cars are wind up.


So for those who think all these fossil fuel aren't doing any harm... take a tuk tuk ride in Thailand and see if it's alright.