Some things I didn't know about the atmosphere and climate

[Skagit Farmer]

I have to ask, when have the gloom and doom crowd ever been right?  When I was in high school in the early 1970's an ice age was coming due to human influences, then the ozone hole was going to kill us all, then global population was going to be the end of us in the 90's.  The oil was supposed to run out 30 years ago, the cutting of trees in the Amazon was going to end life on earth, etc.  Nothing has really been done to change any of these predictions other than they have fallen out of favor and been forgotten due to the "new fear" that becomes the rage.

My biggest concern is the law of unintended consequences.  That powers that be will come up with some plan to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and really screw things up.

Follow the money on all gloom and doom schemes, who's profiting from the fear?

[lotsaIHCs]

Since co2 is the big bugaboo nowadays, perhaps we should eliminate catalytic converters and ethanol since they are both contributors to CO2. The minerals and metals of catalytic converters lend oxygen atoms to the exhaust, converting carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide. Ethanol is an oxygenator. It adds oxygen to the fuel mix, again providing oxygen atoms to reduce carbon monoxide and increase carbon dioxide. The production of ethanol creates thousands  of tons of CO2 as a byproduct. So the very things that were implemented to save our environment in the past 50 years are causing the release of more CO2, which us now reportedly the biggest threat to the environment. 

[Drysleeves]

1 hour ago, MTB98 said:

No one is saying “No CO2”

Is there an optimal amount of CO2?  Too little is obviously bad. Too much can kill animals.
How much is too much? How much of the increase is from human activity?  Can humans reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?  Do we need to reduce it? 
Those are the questions being asked. Some have already made up their minds on either end of the spectrum. 

This is a phony contrivance akin to arguing about the noise pollution from four seats in a 100,000 seat stadium during a football game. 

[MTB98]

18 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

This is a phony contrivance akin to arguing about the noise pollution from four seats in a 100,000 seat stadium during a football game. 

There’s no contrivance there. It’s just a few questions that seem to be unanswerable at this time. The answers to those questions should be used to guide energy policies. 
Do you know the answers to those questions?  There are plenty more questions we should have and probably some questions no one has yet thought. 

[Drysleeves]

57 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

There’s no contrivance there. It’s just a few questions that seem to be unanswerable at this time. The answers to those questions should be used to guide energy policies. 
Do you know the answers to those questions?  There are plenty more questions we should have and probably some questions no one has yet thought. 

I have an answer. It's a contrived issue used to coerce people to surrender their liberty in homage to a false god.

[Jesse in WI]

5 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

I have an answer. It's a contrived issue used to coerce people to surrender their liberty in homage to a false god.

This is the correct answer to Every Single Thing the gov't and gov't funded labs (looking at you NIH, FDA, WHO) tell you to be afraid of. 

Please look at the last 3-4 years if you disagree.

[MTB98]

13 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

I have an answer. It's a contrived issue used to coerce people to surrender their liberty in homage to a false god.

That’s not answering the questions. That’s just a response from the opposite end of the spectrum from where those people are wanting to use the issue for control. 
 

[zleinenbach]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hOdKBLDXH9o

interesting take

[Gearclash]

2 hours ago, MTB98 said:

There’s no contrivance there. It’s just a few questions that seem to be unanswerable at this time. The answers to those questions should be used to guide energy policies. 
Do you know the answers to those questions?  There are plenty more questions we should have and probably some questions no one has yet thought. 

To me the fundamental problem with the concept of anthropogenic climate change is that it cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method. That throws it into the “belief” category, i.e “we” have “faith” that the interpretation of the evidence is correct. Once we are dealing in “beliefs”, we may just as well call it a religion and be done with it. 

[MTB98]

22 minutes ago, Gearclash said:

To me the fundamental problem with the concept of anthropogenic climate change is that it cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method. That throws it into the “belief” category, i.e “we” have “faith” that the interpretation of the evidence is correct. Once we are dealing in “beliefs”, we may just as well call it a religion and be done with it. 

The questions say nothing about climate change. The questions are asking about increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. 
A possible effect of increasing CO2 may be climate change but that’s getting ahead of ourselves. It would appear that increasing CO2 levels are caused by burning carbon based fuels. The timelines match and that is within observable windows of time, not thousands or millions or billions of years ago. We also know that burning carbon fuels produce CO2. Now, are the increases due solely to humans or are there other things contributing to it?  Does doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere have other consequences?  Jumping to “climate change” right away is skipping quite a bit of science.  

[Drysleeves]

5 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

The questions say nothing about climate change. The questions are asking about increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. 
A possible effect of increasing CO2 may be climate change but that’s getting ahead of ourselves. It would appear that increasing CO2 levels are caused by burning carbon based fuels. The timelines match and that is within observable windows of time, not thousands or millions or billions of years ago. We also know that burning carbon fuels produce CO2. Now, are the increases due solely to humans or are there other things contributing to it?  Does doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere have other consequences?  Jumping to “climate change” right away is skipping quite a bit of science.  

Right so as usual, everyone except those who invent the pretend statistical evidence of __________ are supposed to pay homage and tribute. Been around a long time, wiseguy. I've seen the totalitarian movie and the excrement sandwich you're peddling smells exactly the same as all the others even though the Potemkin Village storefront is different.

[nomorejohndeere]

[MTB98]

43 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

Right so as usual, everyone except those who invent the pretend statistical evidence of __________ are supposed to pay homage and tribute. Been around a long time, wiseguy. I've seen the totalitarian movie and the excrement sandwich you're peddling smells exactly the same as all the others even though the Potemkin Village storefront is different.

I’m not peddling anything. Just asking the questions. We (humans) don’t know all the answers so we need to ask the questions and figure it out to the best of our abilities. 
Personally I doubt humans have enough influence to change the earth’s weather. We shouldn’t be making policy without having the answers to some basic questions. 
Are you saying you don’t believe the data from the last hundred years or so showing an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere? 
What becomes of all the CO2 released when burning millions of tons of carbon based fuels? 

[Jesse in WI]

The problem with any of these discussions is that there is not enough scientific evidence to support either side. Whether it is CO2, temps, or weather patterns we don't have enough logged data to support any conclusion. People are simply running with a hypothesis based on a super small sample size.

For the ease of calculations lets assume the Earth is 2 billion years old. And let's assume we have been logging data for 200 years. We then have solid data for 0.00001% of the timeline of Earths existence. This percentage statistically represents nothing. Could raising temps and raising CO2 levels in the past 100 years be the downfall of the Earth?...Maybe....Could this be happening every 1000 years on a cyclical basis?...Maybe....But we don't have enough data to know.

For anyone to say what's happening and what's causing it with such conviction that they are willing to spend their entire life on it is crazy to me.

[Drysleeves]

59 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

I’m not peddling anything. Just asking the questions. We (humans) don’t know all the answers so we need to ask the questions and figure it out to the best of our abilities. 
Personally I doubt humans have enough influence to change the earth’s weather. We shouldn’t be making policy without having the answers to some basic questions. 
Are you saying you don’t believe the data from the last hundred years or so showing an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere? 
What becomes of all the CO2 released when burning millions of tons of carbon based fuels? 

There is absolutely zero valid evidence of any carbon dioxide increase anywhere beyond a convenient exercise in alleged timing, which isn't evidence. Just because a radicalized band of lawyers in black robes managed to invent enough penumbras and emanations to legally deem carbon dioxide a pollutant doesn't mean it's real any more than Korematsu made Japanese Americans legal prisoners. 

[MTB98]

22 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

There is absolutely zero valid evidence of any carbon dioxide increase anywhere beyond a convenient exercise in alleged timing, which isn't evidence. Just because a radicalized band of lawyers in black robes managed to invent enough penumbras and emanations to legally deem carbon dioxide a pollutant doesn't mean it's real any more than Korematsu made Japanese Americans legal prisoners. 

The Keeling Curve is based on the results of continuous monitoring of the atmosphere since 1958 atop a mountain in Hawaii. That is observable during our lifetimes, not reading ice core samples allegedly dating back thousands of years ago.

https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
 

[cjf711]

3 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

The Keeling Curve is based on the results of continuous monitoring of the atmosphere since 1958 atop a mountain in Hawaii. That is observable during our lifetimes, not reading ice core samples allegedly dating back thousands of years ago.

https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
 

I think what people will say is the amount of time on your graph makes the data irrelevant  because 50 years out of 2 billion is a meaningless sample.  Im not sure how you convince this group without waiting around for millions of years to pass by and continually collect data? or what sample size would be enough to matter,  only thing they say is "this isnt enough".   

You know we have ice core data, and we have data from fossils  that also supports this large increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over hundreds of thousands of years also, but, that also doesnt seem to hold water for some groups either?  Its not a direct measurement,  might be wrong, govt propaganda

CO2, Methane, increases increase global temps,   Burning fossil fuels release these things into the atmosphere.   Does it mean the world ends if temps go up 5 more degrees?   Doubtful,  But, maybe its enough were we cant grow corn in texas anymore and places farther north benefit.    I dont know...

I saw this the other day which i found interesting too

https://www.wired.com/story/the-mysterious-warming-hole-in-the-middle-of-the-us/

 

 

 

[MTB98]

6 minutes ago, cjf711 said:

I think what people will say is the amount of time on your graph makes the data irrelevant  because 50 years out of 2 billion is a meaningless sample.  Im not sure how you convince this group without waiting around for millions of years to pass by and continually collect data? or what sample size would be enough to matter,  only thing they say is "this isnt enough".   

You know we have ice core data, and we have data from fossils  that also supports this large increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over hundreds of thousands of years also, but, that also doesnt seem to hold water for some groups either?  Its not a direct measurement,  might be wrong, govt propaganda

CO2, Methane, increases increase global temps,   Burning fossil fuels release these things into the atmosphere.   Does it mean the world ends if temps go up 5 more degrees?   Doubtful,  But, maybe its enough were we cant grow corn in texas anymore and places farther north benefit.    I dont know...

I saw this the other day which i found interesting too

https://www.wired.com/story/the-mysterious-warming-hole-in-the-middle-of-the-us/

 

 

 

A quick snapshot in time (65 years) reveals a steady increase in CO2. We don’t know if that’s cyclical or something new. We do know it happens at the same time humans are burning more carbon based fuels so there is some correlation there. 
There is debate on the age of the earth and how far back in time we can collect accurate data. That I think we can all agree with. Measurable differences in our lifetimes seem to be legitimate. What difference does that difference make?  That is the question. 

And as far as people willing to spend their life on research?  That’s what scientists do. There have multiple generations searching for medical cures and studying the origins of the universe. Is that time wasted? 

[F-301066460puller]

My brain just fell out of my head.... When is the first shuttle to Mars? I want to be on it. 

We have politicians on here or at least wanna be ones and we have naive individuals who will buy anything that is told to them by mainstream anything.... Get off Facebook, tiktok, x or whatever it's called this week and think for yourselves. Chicken littles...

[nomorejohndeere]

which one are you?

 

[Drysleeves]

31 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

A quick snapshot in time (65 years) reveals a steady increase in CO2. We don’t know if that’s cyclical or something new. We do know it happens at the same time humans are burning more carbon based fuels so there is some correlation there. 
There is debate on the age of the earth and how far back in time we can collect accurate data. That I think we can all agree with. Measurable differences in our lifetimes seem to be legitimate. What difference does that difference make?  That is the question. 

And as far as people willing to spend their life on research?  That’s what scientists do. There have multiple generations searching for medical cures and studying the origins of the universe. Is that time wasted? 

Baloney. Government alphabet soup agencies are now proven liars, especially in light of recent events over the past 3 years. None of their data is legitimate because they only seek to rule and therefore their opinions cloaked as evidence is pure Marxism. You are citing Marxist dogma as evidence and since Marxism the work of Satan, you'd best get in line on the Other Side before it's too late for you.

[MTB98]

4 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

Baloney. Government alphabet soup agencies are now proven liars, especially in light of recent events over the past 3 years. None of their data is legitimate because they only seek to rule and therefore their opinions cloaked as evidence is pure Marxism. You are citing Marxist dogma as evidence and since Marxism the work of Satan, you'd best get in line on the Other Side before it's too late for you.

I’m very far from a Marxist,  sir, and doing my best to stay on the side opposite of Satan. 
You have made many comments but have offered no answers or sources of information of your own. We can all look at the data. What we decide to do with it and apply it to our lives and governance is up for debate. 
Somehow the discussion of mix of co2 in the atmosphere went immediately to climate change.  

If NOAA gives you the temp, humidity, wind speed and chance of precipitation do you discount all that because they are an alphabet agency?

[F-301066460puller]

27 minutes ago, nomorejohndeere said:

which one are you?

 

Dumb steering wheel holder with no Facebook, tik token or x whatever. The sky is looking all in one piece

[zleinenbach]

can someone explain to me that if dinosaurs were reptiles, were they like snakes and turtles are now? Cold blooded? So the world would’ve had to have been warmer back then, if I’m thinking correctly. So then they all died off. Then, we had an Ice Age, where the big man on the planet was a hairy elephant called a woolly mammoth. Call me crazy, but he would’ve not had all the hair or been called woolly if the world was warm. So can we all agree that the worlds been hot before AND the world has been cold before,? 

A couple of things I’m having a tough time comprehending, I’m sure you guys can help on these.

You can’t make something out of nothing.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

There are three sides to every story: your side, their side, and the truth.

 

[brahamfireman]

22 hours ago, JamesW said:

That chart is a blatant LIE. Global CO2 levels were at 4,000 PPM in the dinosaur era and varied from 2,000ppm to as high as 6,000ppm.