CO1 (automobile exhaust) is a poison. CO2 (vital for plant respiration) is not. Even if CO2 was a poison, it is only less than one-half of one percent of the atmosphere, the rest being mostly water vapor. And, contrary to what ignorant climate alarmists say, CO2 is NOT a so-called “greenhouse gas.”
Humans and animals exhale CO2, which all land and sea plants breathe and need for their survival. In return these plants produce oxygen, which humans and animals need for respiration. Plants also provide food for both humans and animals that humans eat, in addition to plant food.
Thus, more CO2 is not only desirable because it results in more oxygen from plants, but it also results in more plant and animal food for humans.
Ergo, not only is CO2 NOT a “greenhouse gas” but, if anything, the earth could use MORE of it for increased food supplies and more a more oxygen enriched atmosphere for both humans and animals to breathe.
I was working from distant memory and wanted to up the percentage considerably, enough to keep the conclusion valid. Thanks for the more precise number.
.❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h.Learn More right Here….
rr….
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportOnline/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦
Yes, however, it’s more complicated because the CO2 keeps circulating among the atmosphere, the oceans, and the various land-based carbon sinks. From memory the IPPC AR4 showed about 210GT of carbon from natural sources and about 10GT of human based carbon circulating in this carbon cycle.
What’s my point? Well if the oceans emit say 100GTs of carbon but also absorb say 99GT or 101GT, then at the margin the oceans are only emitting (or absorbing) 1 GT. Thus while the 10GT of human emissions is only 10% of the 100GT, it is 10X the net 1GT.
Less than one half of one percent is inclusive of less than one half of one-tenth of a percent, so by the rules of language the statement is still correct. I was going by the stats I read, which were apparently more conservative (erring on the high side) than your sources. Sources often differ. The point is that CO2 is present in only a tiny fraction of the total. But good catch. I like your numbers better.
Lets not lose sight of the main point, which is that CO2 is no where near dangerous and is, in fact, beneficial.
Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is a colossal worldwide scam libs have bought into, hook, line, and sinker. They should have taken hard courses like Biology, Chemistry, and Physics instead of Sociology, Counseling, and Basket Weaving, but were probably too lazy.
You sound upset with me. I’m on your side. Less that 1/10th of a percent makes your point even stronger. Don’t be disingenuous. “Less than 1%” is not a conservative version of “less that 1/10th of a percent” (any more than “less that 10%” is ‘even more conservative’).
Not upset. More like thankful. I thought the percentage was considerably smaller but didn’t trust my memory and upped it just to be safe. We’re on the same page.
If you never heard of CO1 and don’t don’t know what it is then you are lacking in a basic knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physics. The “1” behind a chemical abbreviation means “mono,” as in “one,” “2” means “di” or “two,” and so on. Carbon monoxide (CO1) can kill you. Funneling auto exhaust gasses into an idling car has long been a favored non-violent way of committing suicide.
Scientific American is usually careful about articles they publish, but even they can get caught up in the hysteria de jour. There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Most reputable scientists know this. Check out some basic pre-hysteria biology books from the library and learn about the many benefits of CO2. Where theres money to be made or power to be gained, there’s usually fraud. Climate Change is the fraud of the century.
Sunspot activity sets the pattern for Earth’s weather. For Mars, also. Earth and Mars weathers parallel each other in response to the sun’s activity, usually an eleven-year cycle.
Embarrassing emails turned up showing that NASA’s Michael Mann fudged and fabricated the data leading to his now infamous “hockey stick” graph. Why he wasn’t fired in disgrace I’ll never know. There are huge profits to be made by carbon trading. Just ask Al Gore.
thank you for your response. still not convinced though, that green house gas does not exist, i have tried to google greenhouse gas, discounting the obvious biased sites, for and against, i found a couple this is one in a series of 13 , I admit my ignorance about science so I try to be more informed: http://theconversation.com/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515
As a retired registered company auditor and forensic accountant, I can reveal that fraud is not always the way to go. For example, in corporations, the real killer for company directors is when they are charged “for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct”.
It is clear that many scientists are guilty of having engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the IPCC reports. This is something Christopher Moncton must definitely consider, in addition to fraud.
The ONE year get out clause is actually FOUR years.
=================================================
Article 28
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this
Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw
from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from
the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of
withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the
notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.
The CNBC hosts *FAILED* because they injected their own politics into the debate. Anyone watching the debate could see the interviewers were asking biased, misleading, and juvenile questions of the candidates. They were ACTIVELY trying to cause them to make mistakes or misspeak. Contrast that to the fawning attention given to the democrat candidates at their debate!
The reality is that Democrats are embarrassed by the pathetic, monotone message coming from their BORING, OLD, & PASTY WHITE candidates! They’re embarrassed by the complete lack of intelligent conversation on their side of the issues, and their refusal to hold debates and actually talk about anything that matters. Democrats are the anti-free-speech party, the party of fascist “political correctness” and of the silencing of ideas.
22 Responses
CO1 (automobile exhaust) is a poison. CO2 (vital for plant respiration) is not. Even if CO2 was a poison, it is only less than one-half of one percent of the atmosphere, the rest being mostly water vapor. And, contrary to what ignorant climate alarmists say, CO2 is NOT a so-called “greenhouse gas.”
Humans and animals exhale CO2, which all land and sea plants breathe and need for their survival. In return these plants produce oxygen, which humans and animals need for respiration. Plants also provide food for both humans and animals that humans eat, in addition to plant food.
Thus, more CO2 is not only desirable because it results in more oxygen from plants, but it also results in more plant and animal food for humans.
Ergo, not only is CO2 NOT a “greenhouse gas” but, if anything, the earth could use MORE of it for increased food supplies and more a more oxygen enriched atmosphere for both humans and animals to breathe.
Case Closed
CO2 is less than half of ONE-TENTH of a percent of the atmosphere.
0.04%
Math of small numbers is a pain. 400 ppm = 400/1000000 = .0004 = .04%. Don’t feel bad. I had to double check with a calculator.
And .04% is less than (40% of) 1/10%……just as I said.
I was working from distant memory and wanted to up the percentage considerably, enough to keep the conclusion valid. Thanks for the more precise number.
That’s 4 % of 1 %
.04% is 4 one hundredths of a per cent is it not?
Yes, We are in agreement.
And human CO2 is around 5% of that. The vast majority is natural
Yes, however, it’s more complicated because the CO2 keeps circulating among the atmosphere, the oceans, and the various land-based carbon sinks. From memory the IPPC AR4 showed about 210GT of carbon from natural sources and about 10GT of human based carbon circulating in this carbon cycle.
What’s my point? Well if the oceans emit say 100GTs of carbon but also absorb say 99GT or 101GT, then at the margin the oceans are only emitting (or absorbing) 1 GT. Thus while the 10GT of human emissions is only 10% of the 100GT, it is 10X the net 1GT.
Less than one half of one percent is inclusive of less than one half of one-tenth of a percent, so by the rules of language the statement is still correct. I was going by the stats I read, which were apparently more conservative (erring on the high side) than your sources. Sources often differ. The point is that CO2 is present in only a tiny fraction of the total. But good catch. I like your numbers better.
Lets not lose sight of the main point, which is that CO2 is no where near dangerous and is, in fact, beneficial.
Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is a colossal worldwide scam libs have bought into, hook, line, and sinker. They should have taken hard courses like Biology, Chemistry, and Physics instead of Sociology, Counseling, and Basket Weaving, but were probably too lazy.
You sound upset with me. I’m on your side. Less that 1/10th of a percent makes your point even stronger. Don’t be disingenuous. “Less than 1%” is not a conservative version of “less that 1/10th of a percent” (any more than “less that 10%” is ‘even more conservative’).
Not upset. More like thankful. I thought the percentage was considerably smaller but didn’t trust my memory and upped it just to be safe. We’re on the same page.
Cheers
i believe it is the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide that is a danger to life :I never heard of CO1.
according to scientific american CO2 is a greenhouse gas:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/
If you never heard of CO1 and don’t don’t know what it is then you are lacking in a basic knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physics. The “1” behind a chemical abbreviation means “mono,” as in “one,” “2” means “di” or “two,” and so on. Carbon monoxide (CO1) can kill you. Funneling auto exhaust gasses into an idling car has long been a favored non-violent way of committing suicide.
Scientific American is usually careful about articles they publish, but even they can get caught up in the hysteria de jour. There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Most reputable scientists know this. Check out some basic pre-hysteria biology books from the library and learn about the many benefits of CO2. Where theres money to be made or power to be gained, there’s usually fraud. Climate Change is the fraud of the century.
Sunspot activity sets the pattern for Earth’s weather. For Mars, also. Earth and Mars weathers parallel each other in response to the sun’s activity, usually an eleven-year cycle.
Embarrassing emails turned up showing that NASA’s Michael Mann fudged and fabricated the data leading to his now infamous “hockey stick” graph. Why he wasn’t fired in disgrace I’ll never know. There are huge profits to be made by carbon trading. Just ask Al Gore.
thank you for your response. still not convinced though, that green house gas does not exist, i have tried to google greenhouse gas, discounting the obvious biased sites, for and against, i found a couple this is one in a series of 13 , I admit my ignorance about science so I try to be more informed: http://theconversation.com/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515
here is another site but you would understand the science more than i
http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm
As a retired registered company auditor and forensic accountant, I can reveal that fraud is not always the way to go. For example, in corporations, the real killer for company directors is when they are charged “for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct”.
It is clear that many scientists are guilty of having engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the IPCC reports. This is something Christopher Moncton must definitely consider, in addition to fraud.
greenhouse gas explained:http://www.livescience.com/37821-greenhouse-gases.html
http://bundanga.blogspot.com/
The ONE year get out clause is actually FOUR years.
=================================================
Article 28
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this
Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw
from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from
the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of
withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the
notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.
The CNBC hosts *FAILED* because they injected their own politics into the debate. Anyone watching the debate could see the interviewers were asking biased, misleading, and juvenile questions of the candidates. They were ACTIVELY trying to cause them to make mistakes or misspeak. Contrast that to the fawning attention given to the democrat candidates at their debate!
The reality is that Democrats are embarrassed by the pathetic, monotone message coming from their BORING, OLD, & PASTY WHITE candidates! They’re embarrassed by the complete lack of intelligent conversation on their side of the issues, and their refusal to hold debates and actually talk about anything that matters. Democrats are the anti-free-speech party, the party of fascist “political correctness” and of the silencing of ideas.