On the Assertion that Changing the Atmospheric CO2 Content From 3 Molecules Per 10,000 to 4 Molecules Per 10,000 Over a 130 Year Time-Frame Will Somehow Cause Climate Catastrophe
This is exactly what happens when science and government crawl into bed together.
We know that we can smell a half a molecule/10,000 hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg odor), that 3/10,000 will cause pulmonary edema, 8/10,000 will cause death within 5 minutes and 10/10,000 will cause death with a single breath. Arsine, Sarin and other ppm toxins are similar. So molecules per 10,000 can be problematic in human physiology. The atmosphere is a different situation with a huge sink of nitrogen, but shifts as little as 1/10,000 can conceivably have an effect, given all the other complex factors (statisticians love interactions and mathematicians love feedback loops)
When you double CO2 you will get SOME warming but you won't get much. In an experimental setting you will get a about a 1 degree Celsius increase per doubling but significantly less in a natural setting in that the feedbacks in natural systems are almost always negative (my analogy to the human body I think is a decent one). And there exists ample paleoclimatological evidence that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is a very weak one over hundreds of millions of years and there have even been ice ages in which the CO2 content was in the THOUSANDS.......And let me ask you again, how many more years of temperature and CO2 not correlating will it take you to think that this has maybe been oversold a at least a little? 17 more?
And I don't read your crap, wd (probably cut and pasted from virulent anti-science smear sites like Skeptical Science and DeSmog). You're ignorant, uneducated, stupid, crazy, exceedingly unpleasant and I do not have the time or the energy to deal with somebody who's entire psychic well-being is apparently contingent upon not being convinced. Go to hell, you harassing piece of shit.
And carbon dioxide is one of the building blocks of life. It isn't a pollutant like sulfur dioxide and for the alarmists to claim that it is is a total bastardization of the concept.
4 comments:
We know that we can smell a half a molecule/10,000 hydrogen sulfide
(rotten egg odor), that 3/10,000
will cause pulmonary edema, 8/10,000 will cause death within
5 minutes and 10/10,000 will cause
death with a single breath. Arsine, Sarin and other ppm toxins are similar. So molecules per 10,000 can be problematic in
human physiology. The atmosphere
is a different situation with a huge sink of nitrogen, but shifts
as little as 1/10,000 can conceivably have an effect, given
all the other complex factors (statisticians love interactions and mathematicians love feedback loops)
When you double CO2 you will get SOME warming but you won't get much. In an experimental setting you will get a about a 1 degree Celsius increase per doubling but significantly less in a natural setting in that the feedbacks in natural systems are almost always negative (my analogy to the human body I think is a decent one). And there exists ample paleoclimatological evidence that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is a very weak one over hundreds of millions of years and there have even been ice ages in which the CO2 content was in the THOUSANDS.......And let me ask you again, how many more years of temperature and CO2 not correlating will it take you to think that this has maybe been oversold a at least a little? 17 more?
And I don't read your crap, wd (probably cut and pasted from virulent anti-science smear sites like Skeptical Science and DeSmog). You're ignorant, uneducated, stupid, crazy, exceedingly unpleasant and I do not have the time or the energy to deal with somebody who's entire psychic well-being is apparently contingent upon not being convinced. Go to hell, you harassing piece of shit.
And carbon dioxide is one of the building blocks of life. It isn't a pollutant like sulfur dioxide and for the alarmists to claim that it is is a total bastardization of the concept.
Post a Comment