Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[Dagosa]

I took an oath to push away misinformation

Burp.

 

[Dagosa]

Yep, now what? How’s it different than government money?

Burp.

 

[jc456]

Burp.

Climate removed it

 

[jc456]

Burp.

Climate still takes it away

 

[ding]

Of course the "150 ppm threshold" doesn't actually say plants can't survive

That's been my point all along. Regardless of playing silly word games like numbers can't talk.

So no inconsistency exists as far as I am concerned.

 

[jc456]

Of course the "150 ppm threshold" doesn't actually say plants can't survive, the number doesn't say anything because numbers don't talk, they just sit there waiting to be read. Meanwhile there are some people who will say that 150 ppm plants can not survive beyond the threshold and others who say not. That also is not conjecture as I can show you these people saying thus.

Let's step back, take a deep breath, and get back on the same side here.

Personally I can think up a lot of possible explanations as to why we have this inconsistency but a possible explanation is conjecture. Also, arbitrarily deciding w/o additional supporting fact that one faction is right and the other is wrong is also conjecture. We won't go there.

Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation - Oklahoma State University

By Megha Poudel and Bruce Dunn. Learn about carbon dioxide, its concentration in relation to plants, supplementation, the effect of supplemental CO2 on different growing factors, sources of carbon dioxide and control and distribution of CO2.

extension.okstate.edu

The carbon dioxide level is higher at night because of plant respiration and microbial activities. The carbon dioxide level may drop to 150 to 200 parts per million during the day in a sealed greenhouse, because CO2 is utilized by plants for photosynthesis during daytime. Exposure of plants to lower levels of CO2 even for a short period can reduce rate of photosynthesis and plant growth. Generally, doubling ambient CO2 level (i.e. 700 to 800 parts per million) can make a significant and visible difference in plant yield.

 

[expat_panama]

That's been my point all along. Regardless of playing silly word games like numbers can't talk.

So no inconsistency exists as far as I am concerned.

So what we got is that there are some smart folks that say plants don't survive at less than 150ppm, and we have some other smart people who say that we've had less than 100ppm for many tens of thousands of years. You consider these two views to be consistent a I don't.

Interesting.

 

[expat_panama]

Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation - Oklahoma State University

By Megha Poudel and Bruce Dunn. Learn about carbon dioxide, its concentration in relation to plants, supplementation, the effect of supplemental CO2 on different growing factors, sources of carbon dioxide and control and distribution of CO2.

extension.okstate.edu

The carbon dioxide level is higher at night because of plant respiration and microbial activities. The carbon dioxide level may drop to 150 to 200 parts per million during the day in a sealed greenhouse, because CO2 is utilized by plants for photosynthesis during daytime. Exposure of plants to lower levels of CO2 even for a short period can reduce rate of photosynthesis and plant growth. Generally, doubling ambient CO2 level (i.e. 700 to 800 parts per million) can make a significant and visible difference in plant yield.

This is what I was thinking, that reports of various CO2 ppm readings are localized and temporary. When some guy says we got over 400 ppm CO2 now, we don't know if it went down the next day or it was lower in surrounding areas.

 

[ding]

So what we got is that there are some smart folks that say plants don't survive at less than 150ppm, and we have some other smart people who say that we've had less than 100ppm for many tens of thousands of years. You consider these two views to be consistent a I don't.

Interesting.

Again... no mention of survivability. That's you making an assumption.

 

[jc456]

This is what I was thinking, that reports of various CO2 ppm readings are localized and temporary. When some guy says we got over 400 ppm CO2 now, we don't know if it went down the next day or it was lower in surrounding areas.

it's the same way for any ice core sample, no one knows anything about that year just because of the day it froze it was what it was. It's why proxy data is faked.

 

[Crick]

This is what I was thinking, that reports of various CO2 ppm readings are localized and temporary. When some guy says we got over 400 ppm CO2 now, we don't know if it went down the next day or it was lower in surrounding areas.

They are not localized or temporary. CO2 is a "well-mixed gas"

Satellite data do show regional variation but it is minute.

Note the total variance over the globe is 11 ppm.

 

[ding]

They are not localized or temporary. CO2 is a "well-mixed gas"

Satellite data do show regional variation but it is minute.

View attachment 862517

Note the total variance over the globe is 11 ppm.

It's ridiculous to attribute almost all of the warming to CO2 when the instantaneous radiative forcing effect of CO2 is weak.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Over 1,800 scientists have signed the Declaration of NO Climate Emergency.

Go crazy over a few parts per million of carbon dioxide and move to Cuba, the only "sustainable" country. You deserve nothing less.

theglobalwarmingfraud dot wordpress dot com

 

[Crick]

Over 1,800 scientists have signed the Declaration of NO Climate Emergency.

Go crazy over a few parts per million of carbon dioxide and move to Cuba, the only "sustainable" country. You deserve nothing less.

View attachment 862521

View attachment 862522

View attachment 862523

theglobalwarmingfraud dot wordpress dot com

Using David Legates' claim on consensus is simply lying.

 

[Dagosa]

Over 1,800 scientists have signed the Declaration of NO Climate Emergency.

Go crazy over a few parts per million of carbon dioxide and move to Cuba, the only "sustainable" country. You deserve nothing less.

View attachment 862521

View attachment 862522

View attachment 862523

theglobalwarmingfraud dot wordpress dot com

The guy who doesn’t know what the periodic table is while CLAIMING he’s an engineer and we’re suppose to believe you ?

 

[Dagosa]

Over 1,800 scientists have signed the Declaration of NO Climate Emergency.

That’s hilarious. There are minimum 30 k universities and research facilities that study climate, each with dozens of scientist in the associated field who think your FOS. Do the math bozo. You lose.

 

[Dagosa]

Using David Legates' claim on consensus is simply lying.

Exactly.
And, We still out number them, 1000-1
Not only that, but we have well educated persons in the climate field, while they have drop out Hannity and dead people.

 

[expat_panama]

Again... no mention of survivability.

You are correct, I made no mention of "survivability, I used the word "survive" as a reference to the Stanford quote---

--noting the phrase at the end "plants, which require a minimum of 150 ppm to survive". Please understand that I'm not asserting that the Stanford University is right which would make you wrong. My point is that the Stanford people are really smart, and assuming that you too are really smart means that some folks say "survive" and others refuse to. To me this phenomenon is inconsistent.

Understand that a hundred million years ago C02 was 2,000 ppm (aka 0.2%) while oxygen was 30% of the atmosphere. We had dragon flies w/ a 3-foot wingspan because the increased energy available. My thinking is that this would present a HUGE increase in human abilities, but in all reality this is just not something for our lifetime.

 

[expat_panama]

it's the same way for any ice core sample, no one knows anything about that year just because of the day it froze it was what it was. It's why proxy data is faked.

Not all proxy data.

The length of the mercury in a thermometer is not a temperature but rather a proxy of what you body temperature was when u had it in your mouth. All temperature readings are proxies and most are accurate. However, while the reading may be accurate they're not precise. They don't tell us what the world temp is nor what the average biopshere portion used in greenhouse models. The globe may be warming. Or not.

Our problem is we don't know because the data is not there.

 

[Crick]

The guy who doesn’t know what the periodic table is while CLAIMING he’s an engineer and we’re suppose to believe you ?

A CHEMICAL engineer