Jump to content

Oil reserves


mspart

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

There is no problem.  CO2 makes up only .04% of the atmosphere; human contribution to that is 3-4%.  Human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is .000012-.000016 of the atmosphere.  Plants need CO2- we need plants- we need to be sure the plants get enough CO2.  Carbon is not bad, it’s a major part of what we’re made of.  It’s all a hoax born of the deindustrialization movement, and promoted by opportunists, profiteers, and gullible sheep. 

expressions-puns-sheep-funny-8143887360

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

There is no problem.  CO2 makes up only .04% of the atmosphere; human contribution to that is 3-4%.  Human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is .000012-.000016 of the atmosphere.  Plants need CO2- we need plants- we need to be sure the plants get enough CO2.  Carbon is not bad, it’s a major part of what we’re made of.  It’s all a hoax born of the deindustrialization movement, and promoted by opportunists, profiteers, and gullible sheep. 

CO2 composition of the atmosphere is 50% more than it was prior to the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

This is good information, we should be focused on hard data that we can quantify not undefined terms like "climate change."  Looking at the article:

“The science is irrefutable: humans are altering our climate in ways that our economy and our infrastructure must adapt to,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “We can see the impacts of climate change around us every day. The relentless increase of carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa is a stark reminder that we need to take urgent, serious steps to become a more Climate Ready Nation.” 

Wait, so "climate change" is causing CO2 to rise?  I thought it was rise in CO2 was causing warming.  And now we have another new term, "Climate Ready Nation," which we can't define.  Where are the statistical studies that show this causality?  If the scientists have the causal relationship backward (or can't establish) is there any hope of solving the potential problem of rising CO2?

"Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were consistently around 280 ppm for almost 6,000 years of human civilization. Since then, humans have generated an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 pollutionoffsite link, much of which will continue to warm the atmosphere for thousands of years. 

CO2  levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm."

Ok this does seem alarming but do we know what the natural cycle is of C02 level, is it a million years, 4 million years etc.?  But 

"This graph shows the monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Monitoring was Initiated by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a NOAA weather station. NOAA started its own independent and complementary CO2 measurements in May of 1974."

wait a minute you just said levels were around 280 ppm 6,000 years ago but you've only been measuring since 1958 and how do we know the levels from 4 million years ago?  And sure I know there's other ways to estimate the levels but then don't put so much stock in the Mauna Loa data if its such a short period and we don't know how it fits with longer history and cycles.  

“Carbon dioxide is at levels our species has never experienced before — this is not new,” said Pieter Tans, senior scientist with the Global Monitoring Laboratory. “We have known about this for half a century, and have failed to do anything meaningful about it. What's it going to take for us to wake up?" 

Ok sure maybe but our species is surviving.  And what are we going to do when we "wake up."  Scientists should focus on science, the facts and the data, correlations etc. We need good data and good models to estimate why CO2 is increasing instead of simply thinking its all an industrial revolution point in time impact.  

I'm sure they are doing good research but this article doesn't provide any information to suggest what we are learning from the research.  

 

And sure this may not at all be the fault of the scientist but rather the journalist.  I've been interviewed for articles where the journalist put in quotes something that I did not say.  Doesn't mean it was untrue but was done because It fit what the journalist wanted to write about.  

 

Edited by ionel
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

This is good information, we should be focused on hard data that we can quantify not undefined terms like "climate change."  Looking at the article:

“The science is irrefutable: humans are altering our climate in ways that our economy and our infrastructure must adapt to,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “We can see the impacts of climate change around us every day. The relentless increase of carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa is a stark reminder that we need to take urgent, serious steps to become a more Climate Ready Nation.” 

Wait, so "climate change" is causing CO2 to rise?  I thought it was rise in CO2 was causing warming.  And now we have another new term, "Climate Ready Nation," which we can't define.  Where are the statistical studies that show this causality?  If the scientists have the causal relationship backward (or can't establish) is there any hope of solving the potential problem of rising CO2?

"Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were consistently around 280 ppm for almost 6,000 years of human civilization. Since then, humans have generated an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 pollutionoffsite link, much of which will continue to warm the atmosphere for thousands of years. 

CO2  levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm."

Ok this does seem alarming but do we know what the natural cycle is of C02 level, is it a million years, 4 million years etc.?  But 

"This graph shows the monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Monitoring was Initiated by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a NOAA weather station. NOAA started its own independent and complementary CO2 measurements in May of 1974."

wait a minute you just said levels were around 280 ppm 6,000 years ago but you've only been measuring since 1958 and how do we know the levels from 4 million years ago?  And sure I know there's other ways to estimate the levels but then put so much stock in the Mauna Loa data if its such a short period and we don't know how it fits with longer history and cycles.  

“Carbon dioxide is at levels our species has never experienced before — this is not new,” said Pieter Tans, senior scientist with the Global Monitoring Laboratory. “We have known about this for half a century, and have failed to do anything meaningful about it. What's it going to take for us to wake up?" 

Ok sure maybe but our species is surviving.  And what are we going to do when we "wake up."  Scientists should focus on science, the facts and the data, correlations etc. We need good data and good models to estimate why CO2 is increase instead of simply thinking its all an industrial revolution point in time impact.  

I'm sure they are doing good research but this article doesn't provide any information to suggest what we are learning from the research.  

 

 

Even when the daily tide floods fifth avenue in broad daylight in the sweltering heat, the climate change deniers will not lose your support .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

Even when the daily tide floods fifth avenue in broad daylight in the sweltering heat, the climate change deniers will not lose your support .

 

Please define "climate change."  If you can't define climate change then I doubt there are "climate change deniers."  Focus on C02, we can define that.

Edited by ionel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ionel said:

Please define "climate change."  If you can't define climate change then I doubt there are "climate change deniers."  Focus on C02, we can define that.

Is this some sort of trick question?  The  term "climate change" is part of the English language and has been for quite some time.  This looks like a reasonable explanation.

 https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/climate-change/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

and have been since the beginning of time.

where's the link to it being caused by manmade emissions? 

or did someone just tell you that? 

Sea levels have not been rising since the beginning of time.  They go up and down according to the temperature. They are rising now because the earth is warming.  Take from that what you will.  

Not too interested in this discussion as it is a dead horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i didn't say that. i said coastal regions have been subject to flooding at all times. 

and the crux of this argument is not 'climate change'; it's humanity's impact on climate change. big difference. 

people on the left believe what their politicians tell them. 

a ton of the top climatologists report otherwise. 

it's a grift. 

TBD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

i didn't say that. i said coastal regions have been subject to flooding at all times. 

and the crux of this argument is not 'climate change'; it's humanity's impact on climate change. big difference. 

people on the left believe what their politicians tell them. 

a ton of the top climatologists report otherwise. 

it's a grift. 

My contribution to this discussion, which I regret, was to set the record straight regarding historical levels of CO2.

So - without putting words in my mouth - WTF is your argument and who are you arguing with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ionel said:

Surely you aren't suggesting its a global climate issue!?  So if California bans all cars, trucks, trains, aircraft anything other that foot traffic it won't fix the problem?  🙄

No I am not saying its a global issue. But our wacko's here in America think it is. I would be willing to bet that less than 10 percent of Americans know the percentage of carbon  humans are responsible for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ionel said:

This is good information, we should be focused on hard data that we can quantify not undefined terms like "climate change."  Looking at the article:

“The science is irrefutable: humans are altering our climate in ways that our economy and our infrastructure must adapt to,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “We can see the impacts of climate change around us every day. The relentless increase of carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa is a stark reminder that we need to take urgent, serious steps to become a more Climate Ready Nation.” 

Wait, so "climate change" is causing CO2 to rise?  I thought it was rise in CO2 was causing warming.  And now we have another new term, "Climate Ready Nation," which we can't define.  Where are the statistical studies that show this causality?  If the scientists have the causal relationship backward (or can't establish) is there any hope of solving the potential problem of rising CO2?

"Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were consistently around 280 ppm for almost 6,000 years of human civilization. Since then, humans have generated an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 pollutionoffsite link, much of which will continue to warm the atmosphere for thousands of years. 

CO2  levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm."

Ok this does seem alarming but do we know what the natural cycle is of C02 level, is it a million years, 4 million years etc.?  But 

"This graph shows the monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Monitoring was Initiated by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a NOAA weather station. NOAA started its own independent and complementary CO2 measurements in May of 1974."

wait a minute you just said levels were around 280 ppm 6,000 years ago but you've only been measuring since 1958 and how do we know the levels from 4 million years ago?  And sure I know there's other ways to estimate the levels but then don't put so much stock in the Mauna Loa data if its such a short period and we don't know how it fits with longer history and cycles.  

“Carbon dioxide is at levels our species has never experienced before — this is not new,” said Pieter Tans, senior scientist with the Global Monitoring Laboratory. “We have known about this for half a century, and have failed to do anything meaningful about it. What's it going to take for us to wake up?" 

Ok sure maybe but our species is surviving.  And what are we going to do when we "wake up."  Scientists should focus on science, the facts and the data, correlations etc. We need good data and good models to estimate why CO2 is increasing instead of simply thinking its all an industrial revolution point in time impact.  

I'm sure they are doing good research but this article doesn't provide any information to suggest what we are learning from the research.  

 

And sure this may not at all be the fault of the scientist but rather the journalist.  I've been interviewed for articles where the journalist put in quotes something that I did not say.  Doesn't mean it was untrue but was done because It fit what the journalist wanted to write about.  

 

Exc.ellent. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Is this some sort of trick question?  The  term "climate change" is part of the English language and has been for quite some time.  This looks like a reasonable explanation.

 https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/climate-change/

Climate has been around for 4+ million years correct and cycles in climate etc can be thousands to hundreds of thousands of years so that definition doesn't fit if only focused on less than 100 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ionel said:

Climate has been around for 4+ million years correct and cycles in climate etc can be thousands to hundreds of thousands of years so that definition doesn't fit if only focused on less than 100 years.

Typo?  Billion.  All the same, this is noteworthy for me.

spacer.png

 

Edited by Plasmodium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ionel said:

Climate has been around for 4+ million years correct and cycles in climate etc can be thousands to hundreds of thousands of years so that definition doesn't fit if only focused on less than 100 years.

Climate has been around for ~6,000 years. One of the bigger hoaxes is that the earth is actually millions of years old. This is patently false. The earth has been around for ~6000 years. Scientists point to carbon dating but the biggest fault with carbon dating is that it is an inexact scientific hypothesis that relies on assumptions. The biggest assumption is that earths atmospheric conditions have been relatively stable over time and nothing has caused them to change drastically. I wonder what could have occurred approximately 4000 years ago that could have had massive impacts on the earths atmospheric conditions throwing off all carbon dating?? Perhaps a catastrophic worldwide event such as a flood? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do because of the power that alternate sources of reality have on 30% of our population,  but a big part of me may never grasp how people can parrot misleading information that actually cuts their own throats. 

Played like puppets.

Owner of over two decades of the most dangerous words on the internet!  In fact, during the short life of this forum, me's culture has been cancelled three times on this very site!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Typo?  Billion.  All the same, this is noteworthy for me.

spacer.png

 

Can we see the data going back 4.5M years to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum when it was 400ppm?  And why was it so high?  Were dinosaurs farting or burning coal to stay warm?  You guys need to check out the Smoker thread, those guys are messing up the planet burning coals just to make their meet tasty.  

Edited by ionel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Anthony Rinehart

    Crown Point, Indiana
    Class of 2025
    Committed to California Baptist
    Projected Weight: 165

    Luke Satriano

    Valley Central, New York
    Class of 2025
    Committed to West Virginia
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Evan Boblits

    St. Mary's Ryken, Maryland
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Navy
    Projected Weight: 149

    Gavin Jendreas

    Crown Point, Indiana
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Indiana
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Devon Miller

    Edmond North, Oklahoma
    Class of 2025
    Committed to North Carolina
    Projected Weight: 133
×
×
  • Create New...