Possible 90% REDUCTION in CO2 emmissions by 2035?

We rarely, if ever, agree on anything, but even you must acknowledge that the chart showing atmospheric content produced by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which clearly shows CO2 as being 0.02% of the Earth's atmosphere, is ACCURATE. And, if not, then why not...? Think: proportionality!

You think I'm being distracted? Oh, then please explain how your going-off on a tangent about Fentanyl has anything to do with Carbon Dioxide.

Carbon Dioxide, my dear Derideo, is necessary for life to exist on this planet, and, although it would be great if we had better ways to generate the enormous amounts of power that civilized countries need every day, right now, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants are necessary for the overall advancement and success of human life on this planet. By contrast, Fentanyl is simply an anesthetic and analgesic, which, if abused by irresponsibly STOOPID people, can cause addiction.... Is that incisive enough for you now?

 

The alternative to cow meat exists. Whether or not it's economically feasible NOW is irrelevant to my point because now we have... cow meat.

You try TOO hard to cherry-pick words and isolated phrases. And doing this invariably drags your credibility down. I'm not sure it can get any lower, though. So feel free to keep using the strategy.

 

Get back to me when you actually produce a logical defense of most of your claims. To date you have not oh and for what its worth the answer to your other thread, The real reason you don't like to argue with "science denialists" is that you keep losing, generally badly. In the end all you really do is prove that you don't understand the actual science or what it means.

 

Water is necessary for life to exist. But it is dumber than a sack of hammers to claim that that means there can never be too much of it. Surely you comprehend this.

 

Yeah! Like that Apollo 13 movie when the oxygen thing fails and they have to rig up something before the CO2 gets too high and they all die!

Or when somebody's walking around and the CO2 fire suppression system goes off and the dude suffocates!

You know, like that!

 

No, not like that. Though, yes, too much CO2 will make you suffocate.

 

I can't answer. I haven't followed those.
I don't view this issue as political. I don't vote based on CO2 emmissions for or against.
I do know, the issue is political. I just don't make my vote decisions on this issue.

And my participation is only because I read a post on the conspiracy theory of the FBI and DoJ being Democrat plants. Even though, the FBI head is a trump appointee.

 

What alternative? Rice and beans is an alternative to cow meat! The product the OP claimed exists does not exist. You claimed he supplied such an alternative that does not exist. The peer reviewed study I provided confirms the product does not exist.

Facts matter. Not to you obviously, but they do matter to those of us who actually produce your food. I can’t claim to have a substitute for corn I developed in my basement that is equivalent to corn and much cheaper because such a thing doesn’t exist. I would be making it up.

That’s what the OP did. He fabricated a product in his head that doesn’t exist and claimed it does exist on PF. I called him out for fabricating falsehoods and you for claiming his falsehoods are not false. You accepted his false claim and essentially repeated it by claiming he supplied something that doesn’t exist.

We have had cow meat. We have had alternatives to cow meat. I’ve been consuming them my whole life. I’m not only a beef producer, but I’m a consumer of meat substitute products. That’s how I knew his entire rant on cattle and meat substitutes is false and was quickly able to provide evidence it was false. The product he claims exists does not exist period.

Your claim is false because you claimed the OP provided an alternative that IS less expensive than cow meat. That product (precision fermentation protein at wholesale) does not exist and it isn’t cheaper than beef. The closest thing we have to beef alternative in consistency and taste (mycoprotein not made using precision fermentation) is higher priced than beef still.

The “alternative” the OP provided does not exist and if it did it would not be less expensive than beef. Peer reviewed research I supplied confirms this.

No. The OP completely fabricated a false claim. An entire paragraph that is complete disinformation. You agreed with that disinformation. My credibility is sound. The OP credibility is shot because he made up something out of thin air and posted it on PF. Not only does peer reviewed research refute his claim, his own cited video does as well.

Your credibility is zero because you claimed the OP provided some alternative that does not exist. It may never exist as explained in the peer reviewed research I provided. You further took your credibility into negative territory by falsely accusing me of posting things that are not true. You made false accusations you can not back up with evidence.

You are further eroding your credibility by failing to substantiate ANY of your claims and posting pure fallacy. It’s what you do…

 

LOL.
That's MAGA

 

Those are the only instances of "bad" levels of CO2 I can think of.

If it isn't suffocating, it isn't harmful.

 

As long as you don't think warming matters. Not all of us share that religious faith.

 

That is a sucker,,,

 

That warming matters is a religious faith,

 

I'm sorry that you think that basic physics can only be accepted by the religious. Reality says you are full of ****.

 

Cool. It’s not political to me either. Climate science deniers span the political spectrum.

Your comment about making things up caught my eye because it appeared in a thread based on a bunch of made up stuff. I misunderstood that even though your post was political it was unrelated to the thread topic. My apologies.

I couldn’t care less about Trump or the DoJ or the FBI. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I am concerned about the vast quantities of disinformation in the OP because his ideas, if implemented, would have serious negative effects on soil carbon sequestration, the global and especially the US economy, and US national security. My concerns are science based, not political.

 

Basic physics says current warming is not only within human tolerance but that CO2 is the smallest contributor to warming of all available possibilities. History tell us that fossil fuels are the chief contributor to human well being and prosperity That the left hates them should tell you every thing any one not power tripping needs to know.

 

LOL.
That's MAGA

 

Based on the deaths in the Africa Rift valley after a land slide caused a massive CO2 release from the bottom of a lake where it had been previously trapped some where between 15 and 20%, so call it 16% divided by .004% So roughly forty times current levels, we are adding .0003% every 30 years so you do the math how many centuries before we are actually threatened assuming the climate does not change again. Given the geologic record CO2 levels this low an Ice age is more likely than runaway heating.

 

What is the largest contributor to warming of all available possibilities. Where's your data?

There is data suggesting CO2 is the largest factor. What in your data shows the largest contributor to be?
And according to you, CO2 is the smallest contributor.
...
Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

As greenhouse gas emissions blanket the Earth, they trap the sun’s heat. This leads to global warming and climate change. The world is now warming faster than at any point in recorded history. Warmer temperatures over time are changing weather patterns and disrupting the usual balance of nature. This poses many risks to human beings and all other forms of life on Earth.

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change

 

Water vapor. Which is also a more powerful green house gas, and more common. All though that giant nuclear furnace 93 million miles away which is now transitioning from a minimum to a maximum state far sooner than was thought cannot be left out of the equation.

 

Water vapor is natural and provides negative feedback to the system. According to NASA.

...
Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.

It works like this: As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane increase, Earth’s temperature rises in response.
...
This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop." Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would happen due to increasing carbon dioxide alone.
...
A Different Breed of Greenhouse Gas
The greenhouse gases in the dry air in Earth’s atmosphere include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons. While making up around 0.05% of Earth’s total atmosphere, they play major roles in trapping Earth’s radiant heat from the Sun and keeping it from escaping into space. Each is driven directly by human activities.

All five of these greenhouse gases are non-condensable. Non-condensable gases can’t be changed into liquid at the very cold temperatures present at the top of Earth’s troposphere, where it meets the stratosphere.
...
But water vapor is a different animal. It’s condensable – it can be changed from a gas into a liquid.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/as...ter-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/

 

Thank you for science 101. Until you get beyond the Troposphere there is always water vapor. Why? Because three quarters of the planet and not infrequently more, because of flooding, is covered by water. Evaporation never stops even ice can go straight from ice to vapor in the absence of significant cloud cover. Therefore water vapor in common with those other things is also a green house that is a heat trapper. The fact that it is a condensable is largely irrelevant for most of the planet because there is always water vapor present.in the tropshere Cooling temps remove water from the air warming temperatures add water to the air.

 

What is actually an 'acceptable' level of CO2...? Currently, according to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Carbon Dioxide makes up 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere. So... what should it be? 0.004%? 0.0004%?

Whatever figure is arrived at, it won't be enough until the Left brings all of industrialized civilization back down to a level of human existence similar to the Stone Age for most of us (but, "rosy-posy" for high-ranking Socialist bureaucrats)!

 

It is currently a little over 400 parts per million.

The last time it was at that level was about 2 MILLION years ago.

However, it's not just the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's the rate of the build up.

At the start of the Industrial Revolution (approx 1760 to 1840) the level of CO2 has gone from about 260 PPM to the current 412 PPM, a rate that is absolutely unprecedented in the entire history of the planet.

 

Actually, that phrase "tyrannical policies" was first offered in your post #186 and our going in circles here (to me) means that our convo has outlived its usefulness.

Cheers!