CO2 levels in exhaled breath,

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
And yet here we remain with the inconvenient fact of the US having reduced its CO2 more than anywhere else.
yes, the "inconvenient fact" that we remain with is -

the US has been more responsible than any other country for the historical CO2 emissions currently in the atmosphere, &
the US is the current leader (apart from a handful of insignificant, mainly oil producing countries) when it comes to emissions per capita,
& they have reneged under their commitments under Paris,
& the President of the US is a Denier.

surely there's enough "inconvenient facts" there, to satisfy even you ?
The Earth doesn't care how many people produced the CO2. Some leeway should be allowed for them to catch up - that's only fair but it underlies the lunacy of Ireland inflicting pain on itself.
correct - " The Earth doesn't care" - "the Earth can't care - it's people who care, & Deniers don't care,
& people do care "how many people produced the CO2"

as for your -
"Some leeway should be allowed for them to catch up" -
well, if the rest of the world are to "catch up" with the CO2 emissions of the USA, they have a lot of catching up to do.
on 2015 data, the US has 4.5% of the population of the planet, yet they produced 14.3% of the CO2 emissions.
if the rest of the world were, as you put it "to catch up" with the US in CO2 emissions, the total world emissions would be tripled !!!!!!
yet, you arrogantly claim that you're not a Denier ?

You're a real black and white person, aren't you. "DON'T LIKE MASSIVE REDUCTIONS THAT WILL HARM THE ECONOMY AND DO BUGGER ALL TO CHANGE ANYTHING? YOU'RE TRUMP'S POODLE!"
no need to shout - what I said was -

Britain has very ambitious targets for CO2 reduction, & all of the main political parties support these targets.
sadly however, Boris Johnson appears to be eager & willing to be Trump's poodle, so there must now be a large question mark over the UK CO2 targets.

Link? I've lost track.
the comment of mine that I accused you of "crawling" away from is comment #73 on this thread.
 


Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,218
Twitter
Deiscirt
yes, the "inconvenient fact" that we remain with is -

the US has been more responsible than any other country for the historical CO2 emissions currently in the atmosphere, &
the US is the current leader (apart from a handful of insignificant, mainly oil producing countries) when it comes to emissions per capita,
& they have reneged under their commitments under Paris,
& the President of the US is a Denier.

surely there's enough "inconvenient facts" there, to satisfy even you ?

correct - " The Earth doesn't care" - "the Earth can't care - it's people who care, & Deniers don't care,
& people do care "how many people produced the CO2"

as for your -
"Some leeway should be allowed for them to catch up" -
well, if the rest of the world are to "catch up" with the CO2 emissions of the USA, they have a lot of catching up to do.
on 2015 data, the US has 4.5% of the population of the planet, yet they produced 14.3% of the CO2 emissions.
if the rest of the world were, as you put it "to catch up" with the US in CO2 emissions, the total world emissions would be tripled !!!!!!
yet, you arrogantly claim that you're not a Denier ?


no need to shout - what I said was -

Britain has very ambitious targets for CO2 reduction, & all of the main political parties support these targets.
sadly however, Boris Johnson appears to be eager & willing to be Trump's poodle, so there must now be a large question mark over the UK CO2 targets.


the comment of mine that I accused you of "crawling" away from is comment #73 on this thread.
You can't seem to argue without willful misrepresentation and childish name-calling. I am not the canvas you seek on which to publicly paint your views. If you want to engage, try again without misrepresenting what I am saying and I'll respond in good faith. I'm not doing the above tho. That's boring.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
You can't seem to argue without willful misrepresentation and childish name-calling. I am not the canvas you seek on which to publicly paint your views. If you want to engage, try again without misrepresenting what I am saying and I'll respond in good faith. I'm not doing the above tho. That's boring.
I've argued the toss with you here.
I've responded with facts & evidence to just about every claim that you made.
you've thrown in the towel.
that's your right.
I have no problem with that.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
Haha, no, I'd made my point by, y'know, starting the thread.
yeah, you started the thread & it was a silly OP, so much so that I thought that it was a 'taking the piss' thread',
but you claimed that you were serious, & we'll take your word on that.
i'm happy though that a couple of other posters & myself were able to rid you of your delusions about "exhaled breath" & GW.

It seems that when we've dumped the church and various other vital wind-ups in our national life, some of us need to get wound up anyway, and climate change looks as trendy as anything.

In terms of Gaia theory, more CO2 is not a problem.

In terms of a political class staying in control of 7 billion, it could be a problem.
speak for yourself - I'm one of the "we" who've kept our religion.
maybe you might have kept yours too, instead of resorting to the hocus pocus of …….. ahem ……… "Gaia theory" in seeking to understand the role of CO2 regarding GW ?.

as i'm only vaguely familiar with the concept of "Gaia theory", I called on mr Google for assistance,
& it appears that you may be wrong ……. yet again !!!!!!!

well, it appears that -
'
James Lovelock, the man behind the Gaia theory, thinks that climate change will wipe out most of us this century' !!!!!!!

I sure hope that mr James Lovelock is being unduly Alarmist there.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,218
Twitter
Deiscirt
I've argued the toss with you here.
I've responded with facts & evidence to just about every claim that you made.
you've thrown in the towel.
that's your right.
I have no problem with that.
That's what probably happened in your head alright.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,403
Twitter
No
yeah, you started the thread & it was a silly OP, so much so that I thought that it was a 'taking the piss' thread',
but you claimed that you were serious, & we'll take your word on that.
//
Is 2,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 a year serious, or not serious?

I'll tell you how serious it is, it doesn't even get a mention on the green party website.

But if 2,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 cascaded into merrion square of a friday evening, we'd hear all about it.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
That's what probably happened in your head alright.
as you're here, I must correct your latest 'error'.
you accused me of 'misrepresenting what you were saying'
WRONG
that is ………....….... ahem ……………...…. untrue.

rather than 'misrepresenting what you were saying' -
in just about every response, I actually presented what you had posted, word for word, above my response.
you're correct - that's "in my head alright" & unfortunately for you it's here in P.ie in 'black & white'.
as is the fact that you "crawled" away from responding to my comment #73,
& threw in the towel in response to my comment #81.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,218
Twitter
Deiscirt
as you're here, I must correct your latest 'error'.
you accused me of 'misrepresenting what you were saying'
WRONG
that is ………....….... ahem ……………...…. untrue.

rather than 'misrepresenting what you were saying' -
in just about every response, I actually presented what you had posted, word for word, above my response.
you're correct - that's "in my head alright" & unfortunately for you it's here in P.ie in 'black & white'.
as is the fact that you "crawled" away from responding to my comment #73,
& threw in the towel in response to my comment #81.
I'll give you just one example. You said I was arrogantly denying I am a "Denier". This comes after me stating quite plainly that I do not deny AGW. So. Go back and try again.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
Is 2,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 a year serious, or not serious?

I'll tell you how serious it is, it doesn't even get a mention on the green party website.

But if 2,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 cascaded into merrion square of a friday evening, we'd hear all about it.
I had thought that we had rid you of your delusion re "exhaled breath" & GW.
never mind - if you have children or grandchildren, maybe they might put you right - they learn about carbon cycles at school, these days.

you put your foot in it again with your ................. ahem ..................."Gaia theory",
no wonder that you now appear to have taken a Vow of Silence' on it.
LOL !!!!!!!
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
I'll give you just one example. You said I was arrogantly denying I am a "Denier". This comes after me stating quite plainly that I do not deny AGW. So. Go back and try again.
i'm not going to engage with silly tit for tat with you..
if you're willing & able to respond to my comments #73 or #81, you're free to do so, & I will respond in my usual fact & evidence based manner [not tonight}

if you prefer to leave the towel thrown in, that's ok too.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,403
Twitter
No
I had thought that we had rid you of your delusion re "exhaled breath" & GW.
//

you put your foot in it again with your ................. ahem ..................."Gaia theory",
no wonder that you now appear to have taken a Vow of Silence' on it.
LOL !!!!!!!

Gaia theory is based on the earth surface's long term ability to go to extremes of cold and heat, and come back again.

In this process, we are small fry, and our activities are small. This interest on CO2 emissions made by us, that may affect us, will not impact on gaia.

So the whole process is a 100% self interested argument pretending to be for the "good of the planet".

And so it's not a huge surprise that our breath emissions of 2 billion tonnes a year are not mentioned. They are politically unmentionable. But they are there.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,893
The "logic" of you chaps is just depressing, considering we are supposed to be an evolved, intelligent species.

The very, very basic first point in this whole question is that before the industrial age, sources of CO2 were effectively balanced by sinks.

I.e. Natural CO2 emissions were usually balanced by natural absorptions.

But the problem is that the added CO2 from humanity burning carbon deposits that were laid down in the earth millions of years ago is upsetting an environmental balance.

Ok? Anyone? Does that register at all with any of you?

Is there much carbon dioxide in a fart?
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
Gaia theory is based on the earth surface's long term ability to go to extremes of cold and heat, and come back again.

In this process, we are small fry, and our activities are small. This interest on CO2 emissions made by us, that may affect us, will not impact on gaia.

So the whole process is a 100% self interested argument pretending to be for the "good of the planet".

And so it's not a huge surprise that our breath emissions of 2 billion tonnes a year are not mentioned. They are politically unmentionable. But they are there.
well, unlike mr Kevin Parlon, you don't deny that you're a Denier - you appear to wear it as a badge of honour.
& you're still deluded by your 'exhaled breath' raiméis.
I don't recall any other Denier, either here or in the many Denier sites that I have visited backing up your claim
as I said earlier, you should have held on the whatever religion you were born with, instead of adopting this Denier religion & your …..… ahem …..….. Gaia hocus pocus. LOL !!!!!

there's no problem with the planet - it has been around for c. 4.5 billion years & it will be around for a few billion more.
in a couple of billion years time, it will get so hot that all the oceans will boil off & there will be no liquid water left.
neither your Gaia or CO2 can stop that.
at least that's the scientific consensus - of course Deniers don't like scientific consensus.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,893
well, unlike mr Kevin Parlon, you don't deny that you're a Denier - you appear to wear it as a badge of honour.
& you're still deluded by your 'exhaled breath' raiméis.
I don't recall any other Denier, either here or in the many Denier sites that I have visited backing up your claim
as I said earlier, you should have held on the whatever religion you were born with, instead of adopting this Denier religion & your …..… ahem …..….. Gaia hocus pocus. LOL !!!!!

there's no problem with the planet - it has been around for c. 4.5 billion years & it will be around for a few billion more.
in a couple of billion years time, it will get so hot that all the oceans will boil off & there will be no liquid water left.
neither your Gaia or CO2 can stop that.
at least that's the scientific consensus - of course Deniers don't like scientific consensus.

We’re leaving and taking our environmentally unfriendly carcasses with us:
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,403
Twitter
No
//
neither your Gaia or CO2 can stop that.
at least that's the scientific consensus - of course Deniers don't like scientific consensus.

Of course. I'm looking for scientific consensus on how much of the recent warming is caused by us.

When I point out that we've been very warm before, with no ice at both poles many times,I'm cast as a "denier".

Our breath contributes 2 billion tons to CO2. I didn't know that. I find it interesting that even the green party doesn't mention it.

We have form at being aisy wound up about a story, and we buy into it, and it ends up costing us a lot of money. The contradictions in the green message suggest that it is happening again, and I don't want the nation self flagellating more than is healthy.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,190
Just breath on a tree.
It balances out.

Digging up dinosaur juice and converting it into a gas which you spew into the atmosphere doesn't balance out.
How do you know it doesn't balance out?
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,190
No, it doesn't balance out but interestingly, scientists have discovered that increased CO2 has had an impact on the growth of biomass. We all know plants take co2, photosyntesize and produce water, oxygen and biomass. A potential problem is, the co2 rises we've seen to date have been mitigated by increased biomass growth but there may be a limit to the degree to which plants can increase their "metabolism" in response to higher co2 which - if it that limit is reached - would see a sudden rise.
Another point about co2 is that at 150ppm you will starve all plant life on earth and everything goes extinct.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,893
Of course. I'm looking for scientific consensus on how much of the recent warming is caused by us.

When I point out that we've been very warm before, with no ice at both poles many times,I'm cast as a "denier".

Our breath contributes 2 billion tons to CO2. I didn't know that. I find it interesting that even the green party doesn't mention it.

We have form at being aisy wound up about a story, and we buy into it, and it ends up costing us a lot of money. The contradictions in the green message suggest that it is happening again, and I don't want the nation self flagellating more than is healthy.
If we just got rid of humans that would do it. Andromeda isn't THAT far.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,403
Twitter
No


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top