P
pixelsmith
Guest
A greenhouse is not the earths environment. WOW!
You are not serious are you? You are just fooling around Right?
You are not serious are you? You are just fooling around Right?
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How Silly is Climate Change Denial?
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
And again they do so in a controlled manner, the purity of the CO2 is very important
Carbon dioxide can be obtained by burning carbon-based fuels such as natural gas, propane, and kerosene, or directly from tanks of pure CO2. Each source has potential advantages and disadvantages. When natural gas, propane or kerosene is burned, not only CO2 is produced, but also heat is generated that can supplement the normal heating system. However, incomplete combustion or contaminated fuels may cause plant damage. Most sources of natural gas and propane have sufficiently low levels of impurities, but notify your supplier of your intention to use the fuel for CO2 supplementation. Sulphur levels in the fuel should not exceed 0.02% by weight.
You simply cannot write off industrial pollution like coal fired power plants as being OK because its like growers using CO2 in greenhouses......
Its not, not at all. The Other particulate matter cancels out any net benefit
Carbon dioxide can be obtained by burning carbon-based fuels such as natural gas, propane, and kerosene, or directly from tanks of pure CO2. Each source has potential advantages and disadvantages. When natural gas, propane or kerosene is burned, not only CO2 is produced, but also heat is generated that can supplement the normal heating system. However, incomplete combustion or contaminated fuels may cause plant damage. Most sources of natural gas and propane have sufficiently low levels of impurities, but notify your supplier of your intention to use the fuel for CO2 supplementation. Sulphur levels in the fuel should not exceed 0.02% by weight.
You simply cannot write off industrial pollution like coal fired power plants as being OK because its like growers using CO2 in greenhouses......
Its not, not at all. The Other particulate matter cancels out any net benefit
Last edited by a moderator:
A greenhouse is not the earths environment. WOW!
You are not serious are you? You are just fooling around Right?
They are both closed systems, one is large the other is small. But if thats your argument fine.
You're the one who used greenhouses as a comparrison to justify adding CO2 to the earths atmosphere. Funny how when the flaws of that argument are illustrated you say oh we cant compare the two.
Seems like you are happy to compare the two when it backs your claims, but not when it refutes them
Last edited by a moderator:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Burnt... Glaciers have always and always will grow and shrink.. They have to or we would all die. DUH.
All plants and life on earth cease to exist when CO2 gets down to 150 ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Age we were at about 277 ppm and now we are at 400ppm. Plants prefer 1500 - 2000 ppm and that is why many growers introduce CO2 into their greenhouses. Thankfully humans have helped to reverse the 150 million year trend of reduced CO2 in the atmosphere.
A greenhouse is not the earths environment. WOW!
You are not serious are you? You are just fooling around Right?
See what i did there ?
I used your own quote to refute your own claim.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I said nothing about adding CO2 to the atmosphere. I said growers add it to greenhouses to enhance plant growth which btw is what is happening globally right now if you bothered to check.The are both closed systems, one is large the other is small. But if thats your argument fine.
You're the one who used greenhouses as a comparrison to justify adding CO2 to the earths atmosphere. Funny how when the flaws of that argument ate illustrated you say oh we cant compare the two.
Seems like you are happy to compare the two when it backs your claims, but not when it refutes them
I said nothing about adding CO2 to the atmosphere. I said growers add it to greenhouses to enhance plant growth which btw is what is happening globally right now if you bothered to check.
Yes but you used that example to justify your claim we dont need to worry about man made CO2 via industrial pollution, this whole debate is about adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Youve claimed thats OK since growers do it in greenhouses
I said nothing about adding CO2 to the atmosphere. I said growers add it to greenhouses to enhance plant growth which btw is what is happening globally right now if you bothered to check.
Not in china........ and they are reversing the trend (of reduced CO2) as you put it on a large scale
She has demonstrated that air pollutants adhere to greenhouse surfaces, cutting the amount of light inside by about 50% and severely impeding photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert light into life-sustaining chemical energy.
She tested the hypothesis by growing one group of chilli and tomato seeds under artificial lab light, and another under a suburban Beijing greenhouse. In the lab, the seeds sprouted in 20 days; in the greenhouse, they took more than two months. "They will be lucky to live at all," He told the South China Morning Post newspaper.
She warned that if smoggy conditions persist, the country's agricultural production could be seriously affected. "Now almost every farm is caught in a smog panic," she said.
China's toxic air pollution resembles nuclear winter, say scientists | Environment | The Guardian
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I said nothing about man made CO2 via industrial pollution. CO2 rises and falls naturally with or with out humans. DUH.Yes but you used that example to justify your claim we dont need to worry about man made CO2 via industrial pollution, this whole debate is about adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Youve claimed thats OK since growers do it in greenhouses
P
pixelsmith
Guest
You hypocritical "chicken little's" really need to relax.
I said nothing about man made CO2 via industrial pollution. CO2 rises and falls naturally with or with out humans. DUH.
This whole thread is about man made CO2 via industrial pollution.
No one is denying CO2 is a natural element and that it rises and falls. The issue is mans growing unnatural contribution to those elements and the method by which we are doing it.
Your argument has been over and over again CO2 is good, reversing the CO2 deficit is good. well look at china........
You hypocritical "chicken little's" really need to relax.
I wanted to use that word, but ......
All plants and life on earth cease to exist when CO2 gets down to 150 ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Age we were at about 277 ppm and now we are at 400ppm. Plants prefer 1500 - 2000 ppm and that is why many growers introduce CO2 into their greenhouses. Thankfully humans have helped to reverse the 150 million year trend of reduced CO2 in the atmosphere.
A greenhouse is not the earths environment. WOW!
You are not serious are you? You are just fooling around Right?
This was more elegant
P
pixelsmith
Guest
comparing the earths atmosphere to a greenhouse is not the best way to make your point.
saying our .00013 contribution of CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet is absurd.
You all are doing exactly what i had hoped you would do, you are digging deeper... which is what i did when i was EXACTLY like you and fully in your mind set. keep going and you will find the truth.
saying our .00013 contribution of CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet is absurd.
You all are doing exactly what i had hoped you would do, you are digging deeper... which is what i did when i was EXACTLY like you and fully in your mind set. keep going and you will find the truth.
comparing the earths atmosphere to a greenhouse is not the best way to make your point.
All plants and life on earth cease to exist when CO2 gets down to 150 ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Age we were at about 277 ppm and now we are at 400ppm. Plants prefer 1500 - 2000 ppm and that is why many growers introduce CO2 into their greenhouses. Thankfully humans have helped to reverse the 150 million year trend of reduced CO2 in the atmosphere.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
get over it mike.. a greenhouse is not the earths atmosphere.
saying our .00013 contribution of CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet is absurd.
Ive never made my case on that data point, im saying the means by which we are contributing .00013 of CO2 is the problem. My China example backs that up
get over it mike.. a greenhouse is not the earths atmosphere.
All plants and life on earth cease to exist when CO2 gets down to 150 ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Age we were at about 277 ppm and now we are at 400ppm. Plants prefer 1500 - 2000 ppm and that is why many growers introduce CO2 into their greenhouses. Thankfully humans have helped to reverse the 150 million year trend of reduced CO2 in the atmosphere.
And yet you are the one that drew that parallel in trying to make your case ?, funny how when i show the flaws in that argument you backpedal
P
pixelsmith
Guest
And earths 97% contribution, how are you going to curb that?
I said nothing about man made CO2 via industrial pollution. CO2 rises and falls naturally with or with out humans. DUH.
All plants and life on earth cease to exist when CO2 gets down to 150 ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Age we were at about 277 ppm and now we are at 400ppm. Plants prefer 1500 - 2000 ppm and that is why many growers introduce CO2 into their greenhouses. Thankfully humans have helped to reverse the 150 million year trend of reduced CO2 in the atmosphere.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
maybe i underestimate your intelligence.. which is the larger number.. 97 or 3?