Co2

F

Fridgeman

Active member
Co2 currently makes up 0.04 percent of our atmosphere

Two decades ago that figure was 0.03

And at 0.02 percentage plant life dies

Are we being manipulated

Below is the title from a YouTube video

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) questioned witnesses at a House Transportation Committee about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act late last month
 
Fridgeman said:
Co2 currently makes up 0.04 percent of our atmosphere

Two decades ago that figure was 0.03

And at 0.02 percentage plant life dies

Are we being manipulated

Below is the title from a YouTube video

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) questioned witnesses at a House Transportation Committee about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act late last month
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what point this is trying to make.

Legislators not understanding the science to the point they can answer questions on-the-spot isn't a new thing. It's why they have advisors. If they'd had a scientist on the panel would that scientist giving the correct figure as a response have been enough to prove climate-change?

All it actually shows is that Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) doesn't understand the volume of various gases in the atmosphere and how humanity has (possibly!) affected their levels.
 
I was totally unaware of the percentages too , I am over fifty now if I am honest I haven’t seen any real change in our seasons in my lifetime sure if you turn on the news you would have a freak weather event happening somewhere in the world but the world is monitored and reported on now more than ever .
I not not closed minded I would say I have doubts about the legitimacy of some forward forecasts and predictions but I am not alone even some very well respected scientists have changed their views on exactly what is happening with the climate and why, one thing I have wondered about is the effect of housing /road building and development on brownfield and natural floodplains has on river levels because there are vast areas of tarmac and concrete where it was once fields or woodlands.
I do worry that it’s now becoming frowned upon to question the science because if it’s not questioned we will be taxed and restricted at every opportunity just look at Sadiq Kahn and the ULEZ fiasco
 
There is evidence that the earth has gone through cycles of massive climate change before mankind had any influence. In the past, the uk has been subtropical as demonstrated by fossilised plant remains and then in the last ice age we had glaciers/ice fields as far south as the midlands as demonstrated by geographical evidence.
40 years ago the concern was that a possible shift in ocean currents would cause another ice age.
Climate change clearly happens but is it naturally inevitable and does mankind have any significant effect? I don’t know and I am not sure if anyone else does but there have been many examples of those in a position of authority generating fear in the population and exerting control while getting it badly wrong.
 
Fridgeman said:
I was totally unaware of the percentages too , I am over fifty now if I am honest I haven’t seen any real change in our seasons in my lifetime sure if you turn on the news you would have a freak weather event happening somewhere in the world but the world is monitored and reported on now more than ever .
I not not closed minded I would say I have doubts about the legitimacy of some forward forecasts and predictions but I am not alone even some very well respected scientists have changed their views on exactly what is happening with the climate and why, one thing I have wondered about is the effect of housing /road building and development on brownfield and natural floodplains has on river levels because there are vast areas of tarmac and concrete where it was once fields or woodlands.
I do worry that it’s now becoming frowned upon to question the science because if it’s not questioned we will be taxed and restricted at every opportunity just look at Sadiq Kahn and the ULEZ fiasco
Click to expand...
I think you're conflating a number of different issues here.

Building on flood plains causes localised issues with water run-off and hence leads to flooding.

Freak weather events happen all over the place but the regularity and severity of non-freak but extreme events is increasing.

Other events that are caused by secondary effects of climate (e.g. fires in Australia) are also more regular and more severe.

Forecasting is never exact but the trends themselves are monitored. If it's not questioned then it's not science, by definition, but not all questioning is scientific.
 
Exhaled human breath will add 4% Co2 to the mix in exchange for the oxygen it removes . So intake Oxygen is 21 ish and exhaled out is about 17 ish
In 1950 , World population was considered to be 2.5 Bil and now today 7.5 Bil

1950​
2,556,000,053​
18.9%​
1960​
3,039,451,023​
22.0​
1970​
3,706,618,163​
20.2​
1980​
4,453,831,714​
18.5​
1990​
5,278,639,789​
15.2​
2000​
6,082,966,429​
12.6​
20101​
6,848,932,929​
10.7​
20201​
7,584,821,144​
8.7​

🤔
 
I was reading an article the other day on climate change and was shocked to read that cement production is responsible for 2% of the worlds Co2
 
Boro_Interlinked said:
Exhaled human breath will add 4% Co2 to the mix in exchange for the oxygen it removes . So intake Oxygen is 21 ish and exhaled out is about 17 ish
In 1950 , World population was considered to be 2.5 Bil and now today 7.5 Bil

1950​
2,556,000,053​
18.9%​
1960​
3,039,451,023​
22.0​
1970​
3,706,618,163​
20.2​
1980​
4,453,831,714​
18.5​
1990​
5,278,639,789​
15.2​
2000​
6,082,966,429​
12.6​
20101​
6,848,932,929​
10.7​
20201​
7,584,821,144​
8.7​

🤔
Click to expand...
What is that third column representing?
 
earth_temperature_timeline.png
 
I good reply again I do understand what you are saying but my examples were broad take the building on fields and flood plains which means less water soaked natural sending more down river which eventually may cause flooding, I completely understand that flooding down stream may be the result of either or even both but when reported on it feels like climate change is always the reason and my point being if you push that narrative without question it sets a dangerous president for taxation or restrictions

I don’t know what the difference between 0.03 and 0.04 percentage point increase will make it maybe the case that rise is enough to tip us over the edge but that in itself poses more questions like in the two decades it’s taken to rise 0.01 percent the population of the earth has increased enormously and we all contribute naturally to co2 as well as deforestation and industry what would be the breakdown of that 0.01 percent if only a fraction of the 0.01 percent was the fuel we burn could we even stop it rising?

One more thing that bothers me is the industrialisation of the world has been happening for decades but this generation is paying the price if we tax people now to save the people of the future and the people of the past were lucky enough not to have it effect them then aren’t we just passing the buck to our children ? Who already have the highest tax burden post war and may never own a home of their own it feels like a downward slope of living standards justified by climate change but even the science behind it isn’t agreed (Jordan Peterson)
 
Someone seems to have composed a chart showing that the earth has warmed since the last ice age. That’s great, but can we go back in time from that starting point?
 
Fridgeman said:
Jordan Peterson
Click to expand...
The psychologist? Or is there a less famous Jordan Peterson who has decades of climate science research under his belt?

If we don't pay now then we pass the debt to our grand-children. Is that any better or worse?

What if it really is too late then and we don't get to even have great-grand-children?
 
Scrote said:
The psychologist? Or is there a less famous Jordan Peterson who has decades of climate science research under his belt?

If we don't pay now then we pass the debt to our grand-children. Is that any better or worse?

What if it really is too late then and we don't get to even have great-grand-children?
Click to expand...
I am making reference to his interviews on the subject of climate change sorry for the confusion but if you watch them you will see some prominent scientists some who have made a full 180 in their beliefs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top