That's a whole different issue....
In my experience that seems to be a common misconception, but I won't get into that here. We should probably try to back off the religious and political aspects of this discussion (as much as they play a role) if we want to keep the thread open.I'm seeing it as a larger agenda strategy to disprove the function of democracy and freedom of choice and true scientific process by taking advantage of the inherent weakness of group agreement governance by poisoning the concept with outright stupidity willful or otherwise until it breaks down and ceases to function.
Majority rule doesn't work when the majority are wilful morons.
In my experience that seems to be a common misconception, but I won't get into that here. We should probably try to back off the religious and political aspects of this discussion (as much as they play a role) if we want to keep the thread open.
Start at the beginning.
It would be good if you cited a source showing land plants prefer CO2 in liquid form. In the meantime, here is a link that shows how leaves inhale CO2 and exhale O2 through their leaf stomata https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stomata . You are ignorant of the fact that the warming oceans are releasing CO2, not accepting it. The increase of CO2 is largly caused by the Earth's warming, not man made causes. Warmer water does not hold as much CO2 as cold water does. That includes vast amounts of vegetative impregnated land (peat) in Siberia and other northern land masses.
What solar influence? Ozone protects from UV radiation. What does ozone have to do with CO2?
I never mentioned where CO2 comes from. I said that CO2 is swamped by a more insulating gas, specifically water vapor. Other gases like methane are more potent but much more scarce.
What does the above paragraph have to do with the cause of climate change? What does the food chain have to do with climate change?
Cutting back on CO2 emissions will not help for the reasons already stated. The small amount of CO2 in the air is not causing global warming. If you can control the solar cycle, and reduce the amount of solar wind emanating from the Sun, then you could do it. But, be careful of unintended consequences. Fortunately, I don't know of any mortal being who can do that.
You have to know why before you can know how. The right thing to do is to not try to change things for the purpose of climate change. Instead, just cope with what is happening, while knowing that you cannot change global warming. Global warming is not necessarily bad. After all, we would not want most of the northern hemisphere covered in a glacier, would we?
Ratch
Ermm not sure how to answer this, its alot like asking what has water got to do with getting wet! I dont know but maybe you should start here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0269749189901668What solar influence? Ozone protects from UV radiation. What does ozone have to do with CO2?
Erm as the above papers show, CO2 and water or water vapor produce Carbonic acid, water vapor actually helps solvate the process. Mitchell 1979 as ref, seeing as you havnt referenced anything but wikipedia i am less inclined to look for decent surces for you, when you return comment use a decent peer reviewed source please.I never mentioned where CO2 comes from. I said that CO2 is swamped by a more insulating gas, specifically water vapor. Other gases like methane are more potent but much more scarce.
Direcctly nothing, indirectly everything, 40 years ago or whenever they planned the barrier, was done because of 'new at the time' research into climate change, the basic models even then showed that increases in certain gases would lead to a warming and rising of sea levels.....Not sure if you really dont get what was written or are simply trolling here.What does the above paragraph have to do with the cause of climate change? What does the food chain have to do with climate change?
Cutting back on CO2 emissions will not help for the reasons already stated. The small amount of CO2 in the air is not causing global warming. If you can control the solar cycle, and reduce the amount of solar wind emanating from the Sun, then you could do it. But, be careful of unintended consequences. Fortunately, I don't know of any mortal being who can do that.
You have to know why before you can know how. The right thing to do is to not try to change things for the purpose of climate change. Instead, just cope with what is happening, while knowing that you cannot change global warming. Global warming is not necessarily bad. After all, we would not want most of the northern hemisphere covered in a glacier, would we?
You sure you dont mean it drops 6 feet?I calculate that the surface is 2,23517E-8 feet lower at one foot away from a spot on the round 4000 mile radius Earth. At 1 mile, the surface drops 0.66 feet. At 10 miles, the surface drops 66 feet. Most large ships are not directly visible 15 miles out to sea.
Ratch
Aus had a good go recently with that Flu!! I am still suffering from the effects 5 weeks later! Yeah dont tel me out there people took two paracetamol and only had an hour off work lol, hit me like a train but no one else in the family got it! Like man flu but with teeth. Population crashes will happen and pretty soon, we had a program recently, a kind of documentary called contagion, i liked it because they did a coutry wide experiment, they advertized it on social media and so got a huge number of people to take part.IF every person on the planet managed to half their carbon footprint then we'd be OK until the population doubles near the end of the century. The problem is too many humans and nobody is addressing that problem. Even China recently dropped it's one child policy.
Mike.
TCM your never gonna be happy, your the kind of guy you find sitting at the roadside crying. When asked why your crying you hold up a wage packet and announce you found this unopened wage packet. Asked why the tears you explain although it contains $500 cash....look at all the tax that was paidThere are other aspects of the arguments as well like that the earth is not a perfect smooth sphere either but has widely varying changes in relative elevations that skew the working perceptions of field of view and distance for any give area and immediate location.
Because of that reality the theoretical concept of say ~ 8 inches of perceive elevation drop per mile does not work everywhere because there are many locations where there is a far greater local ground plane elevation change and thusly why if you stand at one point you may be able to see for 10's or even a 100+ miles to the local horizon.
It's the same local effects, micro Vs macro resolution, falcy the environmentalists use to justify much of their arguments. I have (or I really believe I have) XYZ in excess quantities by my local perceptions therefore it must be like that everywhere else and that makes it everyone's problem and everyone should be doing something to make my local conditions fit unrealistically idealistic expectations set by me so that I will be happy.
No, he means 66 feet.You sure you dont mean it drops 6 feet?
Ok i want a decent reference for that please. or go sit with the OU guys
TCM your never gonna be happy, your the kind of guy you find sitting at the roadside crying. When asked why your crying you hold up a wage packet and announce you found this unopened wage packet. Asked why the tears you explain although it contains $500 cash....look at all the tax that was paid
Dunno time to get my glasses Jim, let me check something first........No, he means 66 feet.
However, I just did a quick and dirty calculation and made it 132 feet.
Which is twice the figure which Ratch gave.
Ratch is usually spot on with his mathematicals, why are we off by a factor of 2 ?
(I used an earth radius of 4000 miles).
JimB
Hush a min, i am trying to sort out a mathematical problem, not deal with your crisis over someone else s pay packet and tax problemsOkay? How many years have you been doing research on climate change and to what range and limits of all factors and contributors to it and how well do your own formal credential stack up against those who have been doing it with as much pasin a dedication as you have now but have been at it since before you were born?
You continually dismiss others points, references and general work work while uplifting your own despite it being easily torn down by the very things you continue to wilfully dismiss. That looks pretty flat earther OU conspiracy theory like to anyone who has worked on the topic for a long time.
We all know you feel passionately about it but passion doesn't make you and expert, especially when it requires you to dismiss other well known and understood data and other obvious large scale issue that are equally in play.
Who says I am not happy? You? You don't know anything about me as a real person and what does your false claims of who I am do for the credibility of you?
Your falling into the SJW personal imaginations equal reality mentality trap real fast there kid and there's no place in real impartial objective science for that and you should know better by now. Especially if it's your way of self justifying dismissing other data points because they undermine the credibility of your basic beliefs.
If you want to make your points then stand your ground with solid unbiased confirmable scientific fact and leave the wild imagined personal speculations an false claims of others reality out of it because all they do is discredit you and not anyone else.
When you have to make it personal to detract from your science not standing up to scrutiny that doesn't make you a winner at any level. You may know everything you know but that doesn't mean you know everything by a long shot.
Hush a min, i am trying to sort out a mathematical problem, not deal with your crisis over someone else s pay packet and tax problems
You had a bang on the head? what credibility??? i cant loose what i dont have grasshopperDo you really want to go there? It really doesn't help your credibility in anything you say or claim on this forum or topic.
You had a bang on the head? what credibility??? i cant loose what i dont have grasshopper
Well kinda depends, but 4000 i a nice round number and a few feet isnt going to explain how Jim and I were out by a factor of 2 in different directions. As for peer group.... Your being a tad presumptuous to assume your in my peer group.Exactly and getting lippy about it doesnt help you peer group standing either.
BTW,
"The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an average curvature of 7.98 inches per mile or approximately 8 inches per mile (squared)."
https://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html
Matt its banter seriously, you known me long enough to know when i am playing and going for the throattcm & LG, let it go. If you don't stop arguing with one another you will be removed from this thread.
I know it's banter but it is not contributing anything to this thread. You can banter over PM if you both agree to, but leave it off the open forum please.Matt its banter seriously, you known me long enough to know when i am playing and going for the throat. Just trying to make a grumpy old lonely man smile while he counts his $ sitting on a porch with his shotgun on his lap in dungarees.
Nothing is derailed, it wasnt a serious thread to begin with. But it did spin the weekend counter
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?