Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

Then you utterly failed because trying to compare the environment in a submarine with the Earth's climate is both illogical and idiotic.

 

I told you .... pay attention. it was not to compare. But to inform

The issue for most of us is CO2. I take it that is not your issue?

 

Your information is false or at least it is deliberately misleading. If a submarine is not comparable to the Earth and you know that, then what is your point in bringing up submarines? You know that submarines have climate control systems that would negate the effects of CO2 seen in the Earth's atmosphere, so why bring them up at all?

 

I see what your problem is now. You assume the Navy does not live with ultra high levels of Carbon Dioxide gas inside submarines. I gave links proving the Navy indeed does. They do not find CO2 is the dangerous boogey man you assume it to be.

Another thing about the subs is they prove man can live well with high levels of Carbon Dioxide.

For all the goading done by your side, I see no proof by any of you that Carbon Dioxide is a danger to Earth. I guess that is what you meant when you got on my case about comparing.

I get a charge out of how a number of Democrat/supporters argue. They will often tell me what I supposedly think so they can try to blow up their own strawman.

 

I can send you a basic science experiment kit if you like, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the greenhouse effect is a thing, and doubling CO2 levels does, indeed, change our climate.

 

I think if you check it out, you will find the Navy approves a lot higher level of Carbon Dioxide than you alarmists want to be allowed. I suggest you take that up with the NAVY since they operate at levels around 8,000 ppm.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/

 

A number of things impact as "greenhouse" gasses. Frankly, if you blame Carbon Dioxide on climate change, here in CA it is wonderful. Even though the level has only gone up slightly, we are out of our drought. Why would you want CA to keep having a drought?

What impact does 8,000 ppm have inside a modern Submarine?

Lastly, since the ocean is a natural dumping ground of Carbon Dioxide, why do you suppose. since it is taking in Carbon Dioxide as a shortfall, nobody explains how to make the oceans collect more? Oh and since Carbon Dioxide is a lot heavier than air, the Ocean seems to me to be the place to put more, not less.

 

I have yet to see a climate expert posting. Still since some of you act as if you are truly mighty cudgels of expert knowledge on this one topic, and you are at the same time, Democrats/or their supporters, rather than scientists, how many of Dr. Lindzens awesome papers have you read?

Have you ever had a chance to talk to a real climate expert?

 

Submarines operate quite well at levels 25 times higher than Earth has.

 

We've dumped enough CO2 and destroyed enough sinks that we've significantly increased the concentration in the air. Yes, the oceans have absorbed a lot. There is still much more in the air, despite that. Next.

 

Submarines collect much less infrared energy.

 

Why do you purposefully choose an environment so shielded from energy inputs? Why do you criticize the greenhouse effect by citing environments that are shielded from it?

 

I find this embarrassing. Some Americans refusing to accept the findings of years of work by nearly all of the world's scientists, while the rest of the world accepts reality and looks on us in disbelief.
The fossil fuel industry has gotten their money's worth for their misinformation campaign. It reminds me of cigarette advertising years ago.

 

Clearly I hit the nerve of the alarmists posting here.

I could fire back questions and stick to your tactics.

The issue here is the danger of Carbon Dioxide. I am not persuaded global climate cares much about the level, be it 1 ppm or 400 or 4,000. I share that concern with other scientists. I want to prove Carbon Dioxide is not evil. That plants consume copious amounts of it. Seeing how the alarmists specialize in the polar region of Earth, and specifically the pole over water, the North Pole, as their canary in the mine, I find my canary is the deserts.

The use of the submarine environment was to find what the Government allows for closed areas full of Carbon Dioxide. They allow a lot more than the low figures tossed around on forums by those who so far as I can tell have no real experience with climate.

They tried the hurricane tricks. That failed. They tried the tornado tricks. Huge failure. They tried the El Nino and La Nina tricks, failed. I wonder what is up the alarmist sleeves now that their concepts are proven to be pure politics?

 

If you got told your vision would improve if you could hold a bull to lick your eye, would you do it? If science told you that? What makes this a serious problem is it became political. And science gets lied about too. Dr. Lindzen explained some of it to me via e mail and I picked up a lot more from climate scientists.

 

I will happily give you my bona fides if you share yours too. I keep reading you and asking myself this fundamental question. Do I believe Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen and many other Ph.d. scientists who study this or do i take your word.

I stick with them thanks.

 

Who is we? Are you rushing to take blame?

From what I have learned, the oceans can take a lot more CO2 than happens now.

I wonder who wants to live in a world with no airplanes, no ships on the seas, etc. and etc?

 

I think the issue is what sort of danger, with what concentrations, and over what time period

Yes, climate cares about nothing

Right, co2 is not evil... but I challenge you to find a single scientific paper that says that it is
And if no scientists say co2 is evil.... what is your point

Yes they do... how much co2 do you consume... or maybe you are not a plant
Again, I ask for the scientific paper that denies that plants use co2

So basically you are responding to alarmists... and not to the facts...

kinda like telling coal miners that they should keep their canaries out of coal mines

But Robert, lets return to what your previous point
You pointed out that co2 is not evil because plants use copious quantities of it.
And now you provide an illustration of one animal who is more sensitive to a gas them another animal
Because presumably the whole point of putting a canary in a coal mine is that the canary will die before the people do. So clearly you must understand the concept that what is bad for one life form is not necessarily bad for another life form. I.e. Canaries vs people. And just because plants use co2 does not prove co2 to be a universal good

Who is "they"
Oh yeah... the alarmists

 

I have seen a bit of your posting. Do you plan to one day post in a fashion that causes progress in arguments?

It looks very personal the way you do things.

 

Carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment because the effects it has on climate.

Submarines are climate controlled environments. How is it even remotely comparable?

 

And it's a good thing the entire Earth has a nuclear powered air conditioning system like submarines do, right?

 

Submarines don't have a biosphere and don't have a climate that responds to CO2 because they are CLIMATE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS.

 

I do not accept your premise on the climate
I do accept it about Submarines. However that is, inside Submarines they tolerate very high levels of carbon dioxide.

 

Submarines tolerate high levels of CO2 because they are climate controlled and don't have a CO2-reactive biosphere.

 

Examine all or any of Earth's deserts. You will not find record heats that could actually prove your claims.

Death Valley, CA for instance recorded a, extreme heat wave and record heat in 1913. Carbon dioxide levels were then lower.