Greta Thunberg Meets With Barack Obama To Talk Climate Fear

[ding]

Ten thousand years ago was much warmer than it is now. If you go further, Antarctica was ice free during the Cretaceous Period, for millions of years. Don't tell me, dinosaurs industrial revolution cause temperature to rise and run them into extinction, and we don't want to make the same mistake.

Ten thousand years ago was much warmer than it is now. If you go further, Antarctica was ice free during the Cretaceous Period, for millions of years. Don't tell me, dinosaurs industrial revolution cause temperature to rise and run them into extinction, and we don't want to make the same mistake

The Cretaceous Period occurred 66 million to 145 million years ago while anatomically modern humans rose in Africa about 300,000 years ago and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago. If you're a human being under 30 years old today, you have never experienced a year in which the average surface temperature of the earth was below average.
History of the world - Wikipedia

"Each month, the US National Climatic Data Center calculates Earth’s average surface temperature using temperature measurements that cover the Earth’s surface.

"Then, another average is calculated for each month of the year for the twentieth century, 1901-2000.

"For each month, this gives one number representative of the entire century.

"Subtract this overall 1900s monthly average – which for February is 53.9F (12.1C) – from each individual month’s temperature and you’ve got the anomaly: that is, the difference from the average.

"The last month that was at or below that 1900s average was February 1985.

"Ronald Reagan had just started his second presidential term and Foreigner had the number one single with 'I want to know what love is.'"

Let’s Call It: 30 Years Of Above Average Temperatures Means The Climate Has Changed

By that logic it started 22,000 years ago.

By that logic it started 22,000 years ago.

Changes since the Industrial Revolution - American Chemical Society

"Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750.

"Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic.

"CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.

"These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800)."

Yet why is it the worst polluters get a pass?
China and India.

They are developing countries where they are still working on providing utilities to all their citizens. Even with efforts being made to use less emitting generation could increase their overall emissions because of expansion.

Look at the per capita greenhouse gas emissions sometimes & maybe you won't be such an ass. We are we are with CO2 because of the US & Europe.

Not even close. You need to look at the data.

The US and Europe combined account for about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions of the 40 billion tons of world wide carbon emissions.

Not to mention Europe and US carbon emissions have been declining whereas the rest of the world’s carbon emissions have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year

 

[RealDave]

If nuclear energy is "reliable", why does it require government subsidies to remain economically viable?

Debunking the 14 myths about why we should go nuclear

"Subsidies that bail out uncompetitive nuclear power plants cost ratepayers and distort wholesale electricity markets. Thorough and independent analysis of subsidy streams probably would find that nuclear and fossil-fueled generators receive more subsidies than renewables. Indeed, the subsidies relevant to current power-market prices appear to be generally larger and more durable (PDF) for fossil-fueled and nuclear plants than for modern renewables. New, long-term state subsidies to distressed nuclear plants already total around $10-plus billion and threaten to go far higher. Nuclear operators’ insistence on locking in decade-plus subsidies harms market flexibility, innovation and competition. It rejects and defeats the whole purpose of having wholesale power markets."

If nuclear energy is "reliable",

Reliable; that means it's available, even if the wind slows or a cloud covers the Sun.

why does it require government subsidies to remain economically viable?

CO2 is gonna end the world in 12 years, but we should worry about subsidies?

Thorough and independent analysis of subsidy streams probably would find that nuclear and fossil-fueled generators receive more subsidies than renewables.

Probably? I love these hilarious claims.

Still lying about the world ending in twelve years.

A windmill blowing up is no big deal, a failing nuclear reactor is.

When that windmill has lived its useful life, it can be dismantled & recycled.

The Three Mile Island Plant shut down last week. It will take 50 years & a billion dollars to make it "safe".

There are 15 reactors along the New Madrid fault line of the same design as Fukushima.

Still lying about the world ending in twelve years.

Was AOC wrong? Lying?

A windmill blowing up is no big deal, a failing nuclear reactor is.

How many people have died in the US due to civilian nuke plants?

The Three Mile Island Plant shut down last week. It will take 50 years & a billion dollars to make it "safe".

And?

There are 15 reactors along the New Madrid fault line of the same design as Fukushima.

Worried about a tsunami along the New Madrid?
Are their backup generators on the first floor?

AOC said we need to act within 12 years. Why are you people too fucking stupid top get that? Are you all retarted in some eway? Did Trump make you this dumb?


Three Mile Island. Infant death rate increased 28% in the year after.

Figure those costs into your "cheap" nuclear power argument.

Who is so fucking stupid to build nuclear reactors on fault lines? These are "designed" to be safe for the expected worse earthquakes. Like Fukushima was design to withstand anything including a tsunami. Like Deepwater Horizon well was design to stop any blow out.

AOC said we need to act within 12 years.

Because we haven't been acting? DURR

Three Mile Island. Infant death rate increased 28% in the year after.

Bull shit.

Like Fukushima was design to withstand anything including a tsunami.

It did. If their backup generators weren't on the first floor, they wouldn't have flooded.
Would have kept the cores cooled.

Because we need to do more. Your assfuck buddy Trump is taklng us backwards with your support.

"A 1982 study in the American Journal of Public Health, for instance, found a 43-percent increase in infant deaths in Dauphin County in a time frame corresponding to the accident. The deaths could not be linked to radiation, however, and researchers noted they could have been associated with maternal stress and the use of sedatives."
The Three Mile Island accident and the enduring questions of ties to cancer and deaths

So if not TMI, why?

The government buried this. I now live in the TMI effected and has heard local people discuss how they were affected. Farm animals had premature & deformed babies. Children conceived at that time with genetic defects.

As for those nuclear plants, a earthquake could take out those generators. Quit pretending they are indestructible. we have plants upwind from major cities.

 

[ding]

Oh....so CO2 doesn't cause warming....you claim it causes cooling now.

Not sure how you made that leap in logic.

Throughout earth’s history CO2 has reinforced climate change. It hasn’t driven climate change.

Actually CO2 minimizes climate change.
It's part of a cycle needed for life on Earth.... along with ozone and water vapor

Dumbass.

Water is part of life. Here is a cement block, hold onto this & jump in the lake.

Any advantage higher CO2 might give to plant growth would be eliminated by the effects of higher temperatures . Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Yeah, that's why all the animals starved to death when CO2 was 1000 PPM.

DURR.

Were they farmers trying to feed the world. Or did they have ample food supplies.

Midwest farmers can expect to lose yield due to higher CO2 and then couple that with less nutrition. From where will thosr losses be recovered?

Yields increase at higher CO2 concentrations.

Plant use CO2 and release O2.

 

[RealDave]

The Cretaceous Period occurred 66 million to 145 million years ago while anatomically modern humans rose in Africa about 300,000 years ago and reached behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago. If you're a human being under 30 years old today, you have never experienced a year in which the average surface temperature of the earth was below average.
History of the world - Wikipedia

"Each month, the US National Climatic Data Center calculates Earth’s average surface temperature using temperature measurements that cover the Earth’s surface.

"Then, another average is calculated for each month of the year for the twentieth century, 1901-2000.

"For each month, this gives one number representative of the entire century.

"Subtract this overall 1900s monthly average – which for February is 53.9F (12.1C) – from each individual month’s temperature and you’ve got the anomaly: that is, the difference from the average.

"The last month that was at or below that 1900s average was February 1985.

"Ronald Reagan had just started his second presidential term and Foreigner had the number one single with 'I want to know what love is.'"

Let’s Call It: 30 Years Of Above Average Temperatures Means The Climate Has Changed

By that logic it started 22,000 years ago.

By that logic it started 22,000 years ago.

Changes since the Industrial Revolution - American Chemical Society

"Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750.

"Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic.

"CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.

"These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800)."

Yet why is it the worst polluters get a pass?
China and India.

They are developing countries where they are still working on providing utilities to all their citizens. Even with efforts being made to use less emitting generation could increase their overall emissions because of expansion.

Look at the per capita greenhouse gas emissions sometimes & maybe you won't be such an ass. We are we are with CO2 because of the US & Europe.

Not even close. You need to look at the data.

The US and Europe combined account for about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions of the 40 billion tons of world wide carbon emissions.

Not to mention Europe and US carbon emissions have been declining whereas the rest of the world’s carbon emissions have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year

You are looking at the last few years. The build up of CO2 has been happening for decades.

 

[22lcidw]

By that logic it started 22,000 years ago.

By that logic it started 22,000 years ago.

Changes since the Industrial Revolution - American Chemical Society

"Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750.

"Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic.

"CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.

"These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800)."

Yet why is it the worst polluters get a pass?
China and India.

They are developing countries where they are still working on providing utilities to all their citizens. Even with efforts being made to use less emitting generation could increase their overall emissions because of expansion.

Look at the per capita greenhouse gas emissions sometimes & maybe you won't be such an ass. We are we are with CO2 because of the US & Europe.

Not even close. You need to look at the data.

The US and Europe combined account for about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions of the 40 billion tons of world wide carbon emissions.

Not to mention Europe and US carbon emissions have been declining whereas the rest of the world’s carbon emissions have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year

You are looking at the last few years. The build up of CO2 has been happening for decades.

It would be far cheaper to exterminate 5 billion people or so in a planned human proven way.

 

[RealDave]

Not sure how you made that leap in logic.

Throughout earth’s history CO2 has reinforced climate change. It hasn’t driven climate change.

Actually CO2 minimizes climate change.
It's part of a cycle needed for life on Earth.... along with ozone and water vapor

Dumbass.

Water is part of life. Here is a cement block, hold onto this & jump in the lake.

Any advantage higher CO2 might give to plant growth would be eliminated by the effects of higher temperatures . Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Yeah, that's why all the animals starved to death when CO2 was 1000 PPM.

DURR.

Were they farmers trying to feed the world. Or did they have ample food supplies.

Midwest farmers can expect to lose yield due to higher CO2 and then couple that with less nutrition. From where will thosr losses be recovered?

Yields increase at higher CO2 concentrations.

Plant use CO2 and release O2.

All things equal, plant output increases with CO2.

All things are not equal. Higher CO2 means higher temperatures & these can reduce output.

I thought you were so know-it-all but you are just another dumbass denier.

 

[ding]

By that logic it started 22,000 years ago.

By that logic it started 22,000 years ago.

Changes since the Industrial Revolution - American Chemical Society

"Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750.

"Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic.

"CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.

"These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800)."

Yet why is it the worst polluters get a pass?
China and India.

They are developing countries where they are still working on providing utilities to all their citizens. Even with efforts being made to use less emitting generation could increase their overall emissions because of expansion.

Look at the per capita greenhouse gas emissions sometimes & maybe you won't be such an ass. We are we are with CO2 because of the US & Europe.

Not even close. You need to look at the data.

The US and Europe combined account for about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions of the 40 billion tons of world wide carbon emissions.

Not to mention Europe and US carbon emissions have been declining whereas the rest of the world’s carbon emissions have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year

You are looking at the last few years. The build up of CO2 has been happening for decades.

No. CO2 emissions of the developed nations has been declining at 150 million tons per year since 2000. Whereas CO2 emissions of developing countries has increased by 1 billion tons per year since 2000.

 

[ding]

Actually CO2 minimizes climate change.
It's part of a cycle needed for life on Earth.... along with ozone and water vapor

Dumbass.

Water is part of life. Here is a cement block, hold onto this & jump in the lake.

Any advantage higher CO2 might give to plant growth would be eliminated by the effects of higher temperatures . Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Yeah, that's why all the animals starved to death when CO2 was 1000 PPM.

DURR.

Were they farmers trying to feed the world. Or did they have ample food supplies.

Midwest farmers can expect to lose yield due to higher CO2 and then couple that with less nutrition. From where will thosr losses be recovered?

Yields increase at higher CO2 concentrations.

Plant use CO2 and release O2.

All things equal, plant output increases with CO2.

All things are not equal. Higher CO2 means higher temperatures & these can reduce output.

I thought you were so know-it-all but you are just another dumbass denier.

I don’t claim to be a know it all. But I do know what you just wrote is bullshit.

Plant growth increases with higher CO2 and warmer temperatures than compared to lower CO2 and cooler temperatures.

Of course I reject the premise that we are causing the planet to warm. We are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperatures are still well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.

 

[irosie91]

Dumbass.

Water is part of life. Here is a cement block, hold onto this & jump in the lake.

Any advantage higher CO2 might give to plant growth would be eliminated by the effects of higher temperatures . Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Yeah, that's why all the animals starved to death when CO2 was 1000 PPM.

DURR.

Were they farmers trying to feed the world. Or did they have ample food supplies.

Midwest farmers can expect to lose yield due to higher CO2 and then couple that with less nutrition. From where will thosr losses be recovered?

Yields increase at higher CO2 concentrations.

Plant use CO2 and release O2.

All things equal, plant output increases with CO2.

All things are not equal. Higher CO2 means higher temperatures & these can reduce output.

I thought you were so know-it-all but you are just another dumbass denier.

I don’t claim to be a know it all. But I do know what you just wrote is bullshit.

Plant growth increases with higher CO2 and warmer temperatures than compared to lower CO2 and cooler temperatures.

Of course I reject the premise that we are causing the planet to warm. We are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperatures are still well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.

OMIGOD !!!! yet another PIC thing, with which I MUST
agree ............

 

[RealDave]

Dumbass.

Water is part of life. Here is a cement block, hold onto this & jump in the lake.

Any advantage higher CO2 might give to plant growth would be eliminated by the effects of higher temperatures . Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Yeah, that's why all the animals starved to death when CO2 was 1000 PPM.

DURR.

Were they farmers trying to feed the world. Or did they have ample food supplies.

Midwest farmers can expect to lose yield due to higher CO2 and then couple that with less nutrition. From where will thosr losses be recovered?

Yields increase at higher CO2 concentrations.

Plant use CO2 and release O2.

All things equal, plant output increases with CO2.

All things are not equal. Higher CO2 means higher temperatures & these can reduce output.

I thought you were so know-it-all but you are just another dumbass denier.

I don’t claim to be a know it all. But I do know what you just wrote is bullshit.

Plant growth increases with higher CO2 and warmer temperatures than compared to lower CO2 and cooler temperatures.

Of course I reject the premise that we are causing the planet to warm. We are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperatures are still well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.

With every degree day above 90/95 corn will lose a percentage of its yield.

Higher temperatures will reduce nectar production in many plants.

This is common knowledge to those in agriculture.

Of course you reject that premise. Why are CO2 levels rising? Certainly you aren't so stupid as to reject the greenhouse effect, are you?

Go back to when the CO2 levels were higher, how did man survive?

When coastal cities need to either try to hold back rising oceans or just lose some of their area. When farmers can no longer grow crops because of heat & arid. Farmers lose their farms & incomes. Food can become scarce. Billions & billions & billions in loses. People will survive. T

All because you stupid ASSFUCKS are ignorant. Wow. Its science. Quit pretending you know more than the scientists because from your posts, you don't know shit.


.

 

[RealDave]

Changes since the Industrial Revolution - American Chemical Society

"Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750.

"Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic.

"CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.

"These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800)."

Yet why is it the worst polluters get a pass?
China and India.

They are developing countries where they are still working on providing utilities to all their citizens. Even with efforts being made to use less emitting generation could increase their overall emissions because of expansion.

Look at the per capita greenhouse gas emissions sometimes & maybe you won't be such an ass. We are we are with CO2 because of the US & Europe.

Not even close. You need to look at the data.

The US and Europe combined account for about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions of the 40 billion tons of world wide carbon emissions.

Not to mention Europe and US carbon emissions have been declining whereas the rest of the world’s carbon emissions have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year

You are looking at the last few years. The build up of CO2 has been happening for decades.

No. CO2 emissions of the developed nations has been declining at 150 million tons per year since 2000. Whereas CO2 emissions of developing countries has increased by 1 billion tons per year since 2000.

US emissions startrd declining in 2005 but are now going up.

 

[RealDave]

Changes since the Industrial Revolution - American Chemical Society

"Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750.

"Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic.

"CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.

"These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800)."

Yet why is it the worst polluters get a pass?
China and India.

They are developing countries where they are still working on providing utilities to all their citizens. Even with efforts being made to use less emitting generation could increase their overall emissions because of expansion.

Look at the per capita greenhouse gas emissions sometimes & maybe you won't be such an ass. We are we are with CO2 because of the US & Europe.

Not even close. You need to look at the data.

The US and Europe combined account for about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions of the 40 billion tons of world wide carbon emissions.

Not to mention Europe and US carbon emissions have been declining whereas the rest of the world’s carbon emissions have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year

You are looking at the last few years. The build up of CO2 has been happening for decades.

No. CO2 emissions of the developed nations has been declining at 150 million tons per year since 2000. Whereas CO2 emissions of developing countries has increased by 1 billion tons per year since 2000.

Go back to the 60's & 70's &the US & Europe had over 75% of the total emissions. It was the developed nations that got up to where were are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If nuclear energy is "reliable",

Reliable; that means it's available, even if the wind slows or a cloud covers the Sun.

why does it require government subsidies to remain economically viable?

CO2 is gonna end the world in 12 years, but we should worry about subsidies?

Thorough and independent analysis of subsidy streams probably would find that nuclear and fossil-fueled generators receive more subsidies than renewables.

Probably? I love these hilarious claims.

Still lying about the world ending in twelve years.

A windmill blowing up is no big deal, a failing nuclear reactor is.

When that windmill has lived its useful life, it can be dismantled & recycled.

The Three Mile Island Plant shut down last week. It will take 50 years & a billion dollars to make it "safe".

There are 15 reactors along the New Madrid fault line of the same design as Fukushima.

Still lying about the world ending in twelve years.

Was AOC wrong? Lying?

A windmill blowing up is no big deal, a failing nuclear reactor is.

How many people have died in the US due to civilian nuke plants?

The Three Mile Island Plant shut down last week. It will take 50 years & a billion dollars to make it "safe".

And?

There are 15 reactors along the New Madrid fault line of the same design as Fukushima.

Worried about a tsunami along the New Madrid?
Are their backup generators on the first floor?

AOC said we need to act within 12 years. Why are you people too fucking stupid top get that? Are you all retarted in some eway? Did Trump make you this dumb?


Three Mile Island. Infant death rate increased 28% in the year after.

Figure those costs into your "cheap" nuclear power argument.

Who is so fucking stupid to build nuclear reactors on fault lines? These are "designed" to be safe for the expected worse earthquakes. Like Fukushima was design to withstand anything including a tsunami. Like Deepwater Horizon well was design to stop any blow out.

AOC said we need to act within 12 years.

Because we haven't been acting? DURR

Three Mile Island. Infant death rate increased 28% in the year after.

Bull shit.

Like Fukushima was design to withstand anything including a tsunami.

It did. If their backup generators weren't on the first floor, they wouldn't have flooded.
Would have kept the cores cooled.

Because we need to do more. Your assfuck buddy Trump is taklng us backwards with your support.

"A 1982 study in the American Journal of Public Health, for instance, found a 43-percent increase in infant deaths in Dauphin County in a time frame corresponding to the accident. The deaths could not be linked to radiation, however, and researchers noted they could have been associated with maternal stress and the use of sedatives."
The Three Mile Island accident and the enduring questions of ties to cancer and deaths

So if not TMI, why?

The government buried this. I now live in the TMI effected and has heard local people discuss how they were affected. Farm animals had premature & deformed babies. Children conceived at that time with genetic defects.

As for those nuclear plants, a earthquake could take out those generators. Quit pretending they are indestructible. we have plants upwind from major cities.

Because we need to do more.

I'm willing to support more nuclear energy. Are your watermelon twats supporting nuclear?

The deaths could not be linked to radiation,

Thanks. Durr.

So if not TMI, why?​

​

researchers noted they could have been associated with maternal stress and the use of sedatives.​

​

Farm animals had premature & deformed babies. Children conceived at that time with genetic defects.​

​

Bull shit.​

​

As for those nuclear plants, a earthquake could take out those generators. Quit pretending they are indestructible. ​

​

You're right, we should build newer, safer reactors. Now!!!​

 

[ding]

Plants grown in higher CO2 environmental tend to be less nutritious.

Yeah, that's why all the animals starved to death when CO2 was 1000 PPM.

DURR.

Were they farmers trying to feed the world. Or did they have ample food supplies.

Midwest farmers can expect to lose yield due to higher CO2 and then couple that with less nutrition. From where will thosr losses be recovered?

Yields increase at higher CO2 concentrations.

Plant use CO2 and release O2.

All things equal, plant output increases with CO2.

All things are not equal. Higher CO2 means higher temperatures & these can reduce output.

I thought you were so know-it-all but you are just another dumbass denier.

I don’t claim to be a know it all. But I do know what you just wrote is bullshit.

Plant growth increases with higher CO2 and warmer temperatures than compared to lower CO2 and cooler temperatures.

Of course I reject the premise that we are causing the planet to warm. We are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperatures are still well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.

With every degree day above 90/95 corn will lose a percentage of its yield.

Higher temperatures will reduce nectar production in many plants.

This is common knowledge to those in agriculture.

Of course you reject that premise. Why are CO2 levels rising? Certainly you aren't so stupid as to reject the greenhouse effect, are you?

Go back to when the CO2 levels were higher, how did man survive?

When coastal cities need to either try to hold back rising oceans or just lose some of their area. When farmers can no longer grow crops because of heat & arid. Farmers lose their farms & incomes. Food can become scarce. Billions & billions & billions in loses. People will survive. T

All because you stupid ASSFUCKS are ignorant. Wow. Its science. Quit pretending you know more than the scientists because from your posts, you don't know shit.


.

It seems one of your errors is assigning all days at high temperatures to CO2 like there were never any days above high temperatures before.

Of course there is a greenhouse gas effect. It’s the feedbacks they assign on top of that that are in error.

Can you tell me what you believe the CO2 concentration will be in 2100?

 

[ding]

Yet why is it the worst polluters get a pass?
China and India.

They are developing countries where they are still working on providing utilities to all their citizens. Even with efforts being made to use less emitting generation could increase their overall emissions because of expansion.

Look at the per capita greenhouse gas emissions sometimes & maybe you won't be such an ass. We are we are with CO2 because of the US & Europe.

Not even close. You need to look at the data.

The US and Europe combined account for about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions of the 40 billion tons of world wide carbon emissions.

Not to mention Europe and US carbon emissions have been declining whereas the rest of the world’s carbon emissions have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year

You are looking at the last few years. The build up of CO2 has been happening for decades.

No. CO2 emissions of the developed nations has been declining at 150 million tons per year since 2000. Whereas CO2 emissions of developing countries has increased by 1 billion tons per year since 2000.

Go back to the 60's & 70's &the US & Europe had over 75% of the total emissions. It was the developed nations that got up to where were are.

I’ll provide the data later tonight.

Or you can always go search for it yourself.

I’ve looked at it. Have you?

 

[ding]

Yet why is it the worst polluters get a pass?
China and India.

They are developing countries where they are still working on providing utilities to all their citizens. Even with efforts being made to use less emitting generation could increase their overall emissions because of expansion.

Look at the per capita greenhouse gas emissions sometimes & maybe you won't be such an ass. We are we are with CO2 because of the US & Europe.

Not even close. You need to look at the data.

The US and Europe combined account for about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions of the 40 billion tons of world wide carbon emissions.

Not to mention Europe and US carbon emissions have been declining whereas the rest of the world’s carbon emissions have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year

You are looking at the last few years. The build up of CO2 has been happening for decades.

No. CO2 emissions of the developed nations has been declining at 150 million tons per year since 2000. Whereas CO2 emissions of developing countries has increased by 1 billion tons per year since 2000.

US emissions startrd declining in 2005 but are now going up.

No. The data I saw from the global carbon project shows a decline from 2000 to 2013.

 

[RealDave]

Were they farmers trying to feed the world. Or did they have ample food supplies.

Midwest farmers can expect to lose yield due to higher CO2 and then couple that with less nutrition. From where will thosr losses be recovered?

Yields increase at higher CO2 concentrations.

Plant use CO2 and release O2.

All things equal, plant output increases with CO2.

All things are not equal. Higher CO2 means higher temperatures & these can reduce output.

I thought you were so know-it-all but you are just another dumbass denier.

I don’t claim to be a know it all. But I do know what you just wrote is bullshit.

Plant growth increases with higher CO2 and warmer temperatures than compared to lower CO2 and cooler temperatures.

Of course I reject the premise that we are causing the planet to warm. We are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperatures are still well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.

With every degree day above 90/95 corn will lose a percentage of its yield.

Higher temperatures will reduce nectar production in many plants.

This is common knowledge to those in agriculture.

Of course you reject that premise. Why are CO2 levels rising? Certainly you aren't so stupid as to reject the greenhouse effect, are you?

Go back to when the CO2 levels were higher, how did man survive?

When coastal cities need to either try to hold back rising oceans or just lose some of their area. When farmers can no longer grow crops because of heat & arid. Farmers lose their farms & incomes. Food can become scarce. Billions & billions & billions in loses. People will survive. T

All because you stupid ASSFUCKS are ignorant. Wow. Its science. Quit pretending you know more than the scientists because from your posts, you don't know shit.


.

It seems one of your errors is assigning all days at high temperatures to CO2 like there were never any days above high temperatures before.

Of course there is a greenhouse gas effect. It’s the feedbacks they assign on top of that are in error.

Can you tell me what you believe the CO2 concentration will be in 2100?

Not an error on my part. An error of you lying about what I said.

Obviously, as the average global temps go up, there will be mote "hot" days. Thereby, less crop yield.

The average global temperature have been going up. Greenhouse gas emissions have been going up.

What else is happening that makes temperatures go up.

I can't tell you what it will be in 2100. It depends if the smart people gain control or if the stupid people like we have now pretend there is no problem & roll back efforts to reduce emissions..

You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept that it takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. Wait until 2100 to do something will not stop AGW. That is why we need to act now.

 

[RealDave]

They are developing countries where they are still working on providing utilities to all their citizens. Even with efforts being made to use less emitting generation could increase their overall emissions because of expansion.

Look at the per capita greenhouse gas emissions sometimes & maybe you won't be such an ass. We are we are with CO2 because of the US & Europe.

Not even close. You need to look at the data.

The US and Europe combined account for about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions of the 40 billion tons of world wide carbon emissions.

Not to mention Europe and US carbon emissions have been declining whereas the rest of the world’s carbon emissions have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year

You are looking at the last few years. The build up of CO2 has been happening for decades.

No. CO2 emissions of the developed nations has been declining at 150 million tons per year since 2000. Whereas CO2 emissions of developing countries has increased by 1 billion tons per year since 2000.

Go back to the 60's & 70's &the US & Europe had over 75% of the total emissions. It was the developed nations that got up to where were are.

I’ll provide the data later tonight.

Or you can always go search for it yourself.

I’ve looked at it. Have you?

1) I did look

2) Any idiot would know that the developed nations would produce most of the CO2 emissions.

3) Any idiot also knows that CO2 concentrations have been rising long before 2005.

 

[irosie91]

I love carbon----I AM A CARBON UNIT

 

[RealDave]

Still lying about the world ending in twelve years.

A windmill blowing up is no big deal, a failing nuclear reactor is.

When that windmill has lived its useful life, it can be dismantled & recycled.

The Three Mile Island Plant shut down last week. It will take 50 years & a billion dollars to make it "safe".

There are 15 reactors along the New Madrid fault line of the same design as Fukushima.

Still lying about the world ending in twelve years.

Was AOC wrong? Lying?

A windmill blowing up is no big deal, a failing nuclear reactor is.

How many people have died in the US due to civilian nuke plants?

The Three Mile Island Plant shut down last week. It will take 50 years & a billion dollars to make it "safe".

And?

There are 15 reactors along the New Madrid fault line of the same design as Fukushima.

Worried about a tsunami along the New Madrid?
Are their backup generators on the first floor?

AOC said we need to act within 12 years. Why are you people too fucking stupid top get that? Are you all retarted in some eway? Did Trump make you this dumb?


Three Mile Island. Infant death rate increased 28% in the year after.

Figure those costs into your "cheap" nuclear power argument.

Who is so fucking stupid to build nuclear reactors on fault lines? These are "designed" to be safe for the expected worse earthquakes. Like Fukushima was design to withstand anything including a tsunami. Like Deepwater Horizon well was design to stop any blow out.

AOC said we need to act within 12 years.

Because we haven't been acting? DURR

Three Mile Island. Infant death rate increased 28% in the year after.

Bull shit.

Like Fukushima was design to withstand anything including a tsunami.

It did. If their backup generators weren't on the first floor, they wouldn't have flooded.
Would have kept the cores cooled.

Because we need to do more. Your assfuck buddy Trump is taklng us backwards with your support.

"A 1982 study in the American Journal of Public Health, for instance, found a 43-percent increase in infant deaths in Dauphin County in a time frame corresponding to the accident. The deaths could not be linked to radiation, however, and researchers noted they could have been associated with maternal stress and the use of sedatives."
The Three Mile Island accident and the enduring questions of ties to cancer and deaths

So if not TMI, why?

The government buried this. I now live in the TMI effected and has heard local people discuss how they were affected. Farm animals had premature & deformed babies. Children conceived at that time with genetic defects.

As for those nuclear plants, a earthquake could take out those generators. Quit pretending they are indestructible. we have plants upwind from major cities.

Because we need to do more.

I'm willing to support more nuclear energy. Are your watermelon twats supporting nuclear?

The deaths could not be linked to radiation,

Thanks. Durr.

So if not TMI, why?

researchers noted they could have been associated with maternal stress and the use of sedatives.

Farm animals had premature & deformed babies. Children conceived at that time with genetic defects.

Bull shit.

As for those nuclear plants, a earthquake could take out those generators. Quit pretending they are indestructible.

You're right, we should build newer, safer reactors. Now!!!​

In TMI there was no direct link but all of a sudden infant deaths climb significantly. What would be proof of a direct link? You ware not here talking to local people. So fuck you & your bullshit. These were serious effects for people. You don't know but to argue your case you assume everything negative about nuclear energy must be bullshit. Wow, what a government fed drone you are. the real TMI effects were buried. Why risk millions of people?

So, you favor shutting those reactors down? Maybe we need more leaky reactors upwind from Chicago.