CO2 levels exceeding 1500ppm are great if you're a plant in a greenhouse. Humans, in a confined room, can experience levels of 600-1000 ppm that lead to body stiffness and odors (which some may find attractive). Levels from 1000-2500 ppm induce drowsiness and above that, inflict seriously adverse health effects. Thinking, if only for a moment, that we can live, thrive and enjoy ourselves in such an environment, is rather foolish. All the best, Nonoise |
Now take yourselves out of that room and into the real world where the sun shines and the heat gets trapped by higher levels of CO2 than what would naturally occur, tipping the balance that has worked so well for so long and you have a different story. There should be a Nobel prize for common sense that can even elude a Nobel Laureate who's specialty isn't climate science. All the best, Nonoise |
The levels at which the subjects deteriorated should be a convincing indicator at which all humans would respond. Enough have been subjected to it to establish a base line. Long term exposure would be toxic and/or fatal if continued. If one were to live long enough to qualify as a life, there wouldn't be any quality to it, that's for sure. As for being able to lead a meaningful life, that would be like saying if one survived a gunshot to the head, they could lead a meaningful life, but who would want to go through that? 🤔 All the best, Nonoise |
Kooty_amojan, Yes, some animals can exist with high levels of CO2 but show me where modern man ever did. You constantly dance around that one. You really need to stop cherry picking your data. Here is data from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html No where in it do they say that levels under 100,000 ppm are safe. Also, there's this: https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5 As for you claim from NASA, you can read all of what they say as well as others here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_serious_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health If your eyes glaze over you can scroll down to a nifty chart with a breakdown of noted exposure levels and their effects. As I've said before, google is your friend, if you so choose to have one. All the best, Nonoise |
I t would be interesting to find an experienced specialist in long-term (thousands, if not millions, of years) toxic exposure. The world is not full of them.Since God can’t answer your question, you’d have to defer to the specialists in that field. To flat out reject them with a millennial school girl "whatever", doesn’t make for an argument. The only half baked babbling going on is from those who refuse to even give a cursory look at the actual data. All the best, Nonoise |
No one will order salads again, knowing what may be in them. Hey, wasn't the alien invader in the original The Thing From Another Planet (played by James Arness, who played poker with my dad in our den), a violent, homicidal, plant based life form? That would go a long ways towards explaining some things around here. All the best, Nonoise |
kooty, Submarine crew are reported to be the major source of CO2 on board submarines (Crawl 2003). Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003).
One of the key takeaways from this is the compensatory mechanisms taken to counteract the higher levels of CO2. That doesn't happen naturally in nature and needs to be done in an enclosed space with ascending levels of CO2. So with the few links I provide, you simply scanned them for what argument you could conjure and skipped the rest? Those studies show much lower levels having very harmful effects. A simple read of them shows that. As for our predecessors, they evolved in that climate which was peculiar to them, not us, as we're presently constituted. And, as for those sun spots, they seem to have more impact, magnetically, within our stratosphere, affecting and disrupting the jet stream, allowing those arctic vortexes to head south much further than they normally would. However, when it comes to a rise in temperature, it shows to only have a minimal and debatable effect. Debatable, in that if one could reduce our CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels, we could than accurately track and ascertain the effects of sun spots. And there's this: https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm All the best, Nonoise |
One way to settle all of this would be for the man made climate changing deniers to put their collective inventiveness, curiosity, and technical know how to work and build a room large enough to accommodate them, supply it with all they need, and keep them in it for a month. Then, >30,000 ppm of CO2 can be pumped in and maintained for the duration of their stay. They can personally put to rest, their claims, that we could live under those conditions with no adverse effects. They could also demonstrate that we, as a species, are not much different than our distant ancestors, who they claim, lived under similar conditions. We can even go one step further and have them install cameras for a video feed so they can live vlog their experiences. It would make for some very interesting and dare I say, entertaining viewing. 👍 All the best, Nonoise |
Or we could lock all the warmists up in one great big room. Which would be a lot better. Although equally as childish as nonoises idea.Are you that dense and thin skinned that you can’t see snark? A better approach would be to send people out all over the world gathering and analyzing objective data. That’s what Bjorn Lomborg did. As one of the leaders of GreenPeace Lomborg had total greenie cred. Mass tree hugger cred. But notice I said "had". Because with this crowd, while they talk a good science game they really are all about power not science.That’s what real climate scientist do. As for Lomborg, having you hide behind his "green, tree hugger" cred doesn’t speak much for you, and it reveals some deep seated animosity you have for anyone left of the extreme right. So its worse even than nonsense on stilts. Its all about power. Which I find reprehensible.I agree. I find it abhorrent that the power behind the fossil fuel industry can have so much adverse and harmful sway over policy. 👍 |
Really? This whole conundrum that has been going on for decades is politically derived and motivated by those who have the money, connections and resources to simply buy politicians, thereby, involving politics. Naivety at it's finest. Standards, rules and regulations are relaxed to the point where the commons are fair ground for unregulated pollution and safety violations. You must have some of the best, rose colored glasses in the business if you think otherwise. That, and a great set of blinders and you have yet to have the scales fall from your eyes. All the best, Nonoise |
If you are talking about what you hear when you ask a climate change advocate what they are doing in their own lives to reduce their impact on the environment, the answer is yes.You must not talk to people unless they agree with you. Broaden your horizons, if you can envision them. All the best, Nonoise |
That case does nothing to refute man made climate science research. To elevate some jerk to the level of a martyr or saint because he's on your side is pathetic. All he did was win the right to speak his mind, addled as it is. To see those, here, jumping up and down and celebrating their victory and exaggerating it's importance, and outright lying about it's significance, is rather amusing and will soon be forgotten. All the best, Nonoise |
Until you give up your car(s) and get your energy bills below $50 a month, you are in no position to point fingers at other people and call them names. If the climate change preachers practiced what they preach, there would be no concern about a CO2 problem. So when you give up your car(s) and put solar panels on your roof, we can talk. How typical: to authoritatively frame a specious argument that’s meant to deflect from the actual problem. As for celebrities, you’ve got that sentient tire fire-Trump, James Woods, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, Sean Hannity, Fred Thompson (gotta love those retirement swindle scams), Hank Williams, Adam Sander, Gene Simmons, Kid Rock, Jon Voight, Roger Clemons, Dennis Hopper, Mike Piazza, Larry the Cable Guy, Lynyrd Skynyrd (play Free Bird!), LeeAnn Rimes, Dennis Miller, Liz Hasselbeck, Sylvester Stallone, Angie Harmon, Brett Favre, Meat Loaf, Ton Selleck, Mel Gibson, Vince Vaughn, Tim Tebow, Vince McMahon, Joe Pesci, Pat Kajak, Don King, Tucker Carlson, Mike Ditka, Curt Schilling, Kelsey Grammer, Leeann Tweeden, Mark McGwire, Alabama, Alice Cooper, Randy Travis, Chuck Norris, John Elway, Andy Garcia, Ron Silver, Sammy Hagar, Styx,........ so you better bring an appetite fit for the banquet they’ll serve. All the best, Nonoise |
...while no doubt capitalist businesses at heart, are doing a noble job of defending free speech - providing a valuable and crucial role in preserving a free society in the West.😂😂😂😂😂...words fail me Since Carbon based lifeforms owe their existence to Carbon extracted from CO2 (present in minuscule concentrations in the air and sea), it would seem that the fossil fuel industry and those consumers burning fossil fuels are about as virtuous as it gets. After all what use is ancient dead plant or animal remains buried deep below the surface unless it can be released back into the atmosphere to complete the circle of life...and life positively flourishes with increased building blocks of life...more CO2!This sounds like religious dogma from the Church of the Burning Sock o' Coal. All the best, Nonoise |
It's funny how right wing memes can betray the intent of those who flaunt them. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/people-who-accuse-others-virtue-signalling-are-trying-stigmatise-empathy To repeatedly invoke the phrase makes one wonder just how neutral or objective one claims to be. All the best, Nonoise |
Spoken like a true NPC.Tell me you're not one of those wing nuts from 4chan or Reddit. For those who don't know, NPC is the term that the right wing loonies use for liberals. This guy drank all the kool aid and then went and made some bathtub version for himself. For those interested in what you're dealing with here, with this guy: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/us/politics/npc-twitter-ban.html All the best, Nonoise |
In case you missed it, virtue signaling and it's origins (or is it actually oranges, as Trump says) was covered a few posts ago. You're digging a deeper hole for yurself, dude. On another (musical) note, why on earth don't you and your kind use your regular, Pepe the Frog avatars? All the best, Nonoise |
@jetter Thanks for the link. It reminds me of the time I went to the Pantages Theater to see Talking Heads when they filmed for three days for the documentary (of sorts) Stop Making Sense. It was a great show. What is has to do with this thread escapes me but it's nice to reminisce. All the best, Nonoise |
Jetter, Now it makes sense. 👍 Strange about Iran. Even Hawaii has local flooding that makes Miami look high and dry. https://www.newstimes.com/business/article/Waikiki-flood-concerns-spur-push-for-Hawaii-shore-13783754.php All the best, Nonoise |
So, four people were wrong. I guess we just throw out the baby with the bathwater. If only that kind of reasoning could be applied to the decades old, outrageous claims from the right. Oh, wait. It has. 👍 And it looks like they'll keep on making them despite being proven wrong time and time again. All the best, Nonoise |
That's quite the argument, Pepe, if you're brain dead. Here's the Wiki page for zero hedge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge And this looks interesting as well: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/ But I saved the best, for last: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge You go, girl. I guess one's reading comprehension go up the more insane the content is as it perfectly compliments the reader. All the best, Nonoise |
No need to spin anything, Pepe. Easy peasy. You're saying that one 32 year old article from a source that you don't trust but believe that all "libs' swear by, (1-which we don't as we're not monolithic, like your side 2-they've been wrong numerous times: look at Iran 3-a news source that presents lots of sides to an argument so it stands to reason that some staff think differently than others 4-a news source that's had hundreds, if not thousands of writers, editor and ombudsmen in that time frame: they come and go 5-and like all publications, can make errors and admit it 6-since you've cherry picked an age old article did you bother to see what they've printed since?) is your basis for discrediting? This is your coupe de grace? All the best, Nonoise |
Shardone, You need to pick/source better data. Both news articles don't entirely back up what you state. There's a recent downturn in tornadoes not seen in over 50 years of record keeping. Is that a pattern, trend, anomaly, who can say? We have years to go to come to a consensus. And it states its due to climate change factors. Hmmm..... And then there's this: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6318/1419 Af for hurricanes, that NOAA graph's last entry is from 4 years ago and it looks like it represents an average, if anything, and not a decline. That, and one hurricane we had this year was just rerated up a category because it was more severe. You go, Ducky Dawdles. All the best, Nonoise |
Hey Pepe, I'm not on the hook for anything, dearie. I googled and linked about a dozen articles validating my point and thought, to hell with it. I'm not going to keep doing your homework for you as you keep your head in the sand. The Washington Post has some great articles on the Russians and the GOP but they have a paywall that blocks it. But heck, you're quite lazy so here's a few: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-putin-215387 https://medium.com/@leannewattphd/hidden-motives-behind-key-gop-leaders-cooperation-with-trump-russia-an-evidence-based-bdd5694b7c3b https://www.cbsnews.com/news/timeline-of-russian-plot-to-infiltrate-nra-and-gop/ This one is Russia's take on our right wing party: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-real-reason-russia-is-rooting-for-republicans-in-the-midterms https://crooked.com/articles/trump-gop-russia/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/12/nra-leader-jack-abramoff-gop-operative-russian-spy-maria-butina-lobbying/ https://www.newsweek.com/pathetic-nra-republicans-easily-manipulated-complicit-russian-espionage-1260563 All the best, Nonoise |
As for the "author" of those two books with less than 5 reviews each (seems to be some serious editing going on there) there’s this:https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2011/01/28/fox-helps-right-wing-radio-shill-re-invent-self/175685 and this depicts what a wacko he is: https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2011/01/28/who-is-foxs-latest-global-warming-expert-brian/175686 It turns out he’s just another run of the mill right wing shock jock. ’nuff said. As for polar bears, instead of spinning, read something from the country that has 13 of the 19 polar bear habitats in the world: https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears As for the comment on being red on the inside, if that's a knock on the left being communist, tell me truly, why is it that the radical right in this country is indistinguishable from the Russians? 🤔 All the best, Nonoise |
Hey Pepe, I don't know how I missed these:https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/12/17/464235/following-the-money/ https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/05/08/putins-proxies-helped-funnel-millions-gop-campaigns https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-05/ex-congressman-s-russian-bank-loses-license-for-money-laundering On another note, I have to ask: you do know how to use google, right? All the best, Nonoise |
Gotta call bunk on that claim from the Financial Post. First, their political leanings: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/financial-post/ They use facts but require additional checking as they're right of center. If one had a brain and read the article, they do post a story and with one sentence from game and wildlife, give the impression that supposedly discounts the story, which it doesn't. I'd like to see some semblance of serious journalism where stating that loss of sea ice for walruses to reside on and not threatening their existence does or doesn't account for them climbing cliffs due to loss of sea ice. For the obtuse out there, did they always climb up the cliffs when there was sea ice to reside on? All the best, Nonoise |
Only a fool would come to the conclusion that when it's said that the world will come to an end that it's meant literally. What's being said is there is going to be a point of no return when we'll witness extermination events of thousands of species and that the extreme weather events that the DOD, Pentagon, all insurance carriers and anyone with half a brain say will happen will cause massive migrations, famine, disease and war. Are any of the naysayers here in regular contact with any of the above mentioned agencies and departments, debating and deriding them or is it just, like I said, a slow night? All the best, Nonoise |
