CO2 levels at the highest level in Earth's history

First topic message reminder :

And yet there are still some dumb fuckers like Skunk Stenchbandit and Monkey brain who deny it.

https://mol.im/a/7024057

Tommy Monk wrote:The above article is centred around a claim of CO2 level in one location... ON TOP OF A VOLCANO IN HAWAII...!!!


Now... how much of this CO2 actually eminates from the volcano itself...!?


But either way... it is clearly shown in ice core data that any rise in CO2 is seen AFTER warner temperatures... as a result of warmer temperatures... not before and causing warmer temperatures ..!!!

anyone with even half a brain, I exclude the village idiots, village idiot there, not see that measurements from an active volcano may be somewhat skewed.

Jules wrote:@ title: 
We ain't seen nothing yet.


IF melting of the polar ice caps accelerates, the once-frozen organic debris (which is of course saturated with carbon) will start interacting with atmospheric oxygen, and then ........ oh boy!!  

Where's Veya these days? He'd agree heartily with me!

the arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2012 according to al gore. the only inconvenient truth is he has made billions from that lie.

Jules wrote:@ title: 
We ain't seen nothing yet.


IF melting of the polar ice caps accelerates, the once-frozen organic debris (which is of course saturated with carbon) will start interacting with atmospheric oxygen, and then ........ oh boy!!  

Where's Veya these days? He'd agree heartily with me!

as long as garbage goes in you will always get garbage out. The models are flawed.
the climate is changing, it has been every day since the planet got an atmosphere. that is not disputed. the thing that is not proved is the man made bit. IF it was then you can be sure that every penny raised in green taxes would have been ploughed back into finding a solution. The fact that bit hasn't should speak volumes. Green taxes are a way to make idiots feel good about being robbed by the government. the biggest con is that electric cars will be the saviour, they wont, they have to be charged and run on extremely damaging components that cause incredible damage to the environment. they also have to be charged, which in the UK would require a massive increase in generating capacity as we are already running at almost max capacity. Also as long as china and others get a free pass it does not matter how much we reduce our carbon footprint by.

Lets move onto plastics in the oceans. 90% comes from 10 rivers in africa and asia. 2 africa, and 8 asia. the fact that uk gives up straws and cotton buds will not make a jot of difference to the amount of plastic in the oceans.

Andy wrote:And now the far right extremist Nazi party the AfD are in climate change denial, calling  Greta Thunberg mentally disturbed.
guess our 2 resident cretins w/o be drilling in that party , if they haven't already done so.

IGermany’s AfD turns on Greta Thunberg as it embraces climate denial https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/14/germanys-afd-attacks-greta-thunberg-as-it-embraces-climate-denial?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

the far right extremist nazi party are run by a bloke called jeremy corbyn. they are being investigated by the EHCR, a 15000 page dossier was delivered to them showing labours antisemitism, the last party to be investigated by them was the BNP, coincidently Nick Griffin of the BNP has endorsed jeremy corbyn, as has David Duke of the KKK and this week holocaust denier David Irvine. I can see a pattern emerging.
the #NewNAtionalSocialists are the real danger to the country

Lurker wrote:Al Gore is billion times more intelligent than ignorant conservatives that believe in superstition over science.

well he has made a billion dollars more out of it.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:@ title: 
We ain't seen nothing yet.


IF melting of the polar ice caps accelerates, the once-frozen organic debris (which is of course saturated with carbon) will start interacting with atmospheric oxygen, and then ........ oh boy!!  

Where's Veya these days? He'd agree heartily with me!

the arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2012 according to al gore. the only inconvenient truth is he has made billions from that lie.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist

Show me any climate scientist that has claimed that or predicted that?

al gore claimed it. He claimed he was using science

The Devil, You Know wrote:al gore claimed it. He claimed he was using science

Since when was he an authority or ever studied climate science??

Its a poor argument to discount man made claimate change. If all you can do is use poor claims by a Politician.

How about actually looking at the data

You will be hard pressed to actually find predictions that have been wrong by scientists on this.

The Devil, You Know wrote:
al gore claimed it. He claimed he was using science

You're full of shit, DYKnose...

All that you have proven is that you have never seen any of Gore's documentaries nor read his book..

IF you had bothered, you would have known that what Gore was doing was promoting some environmental truths some 15 -->> 25 years ago, fronting a couple of climate activist groups, and reporting on what various scientists were doing -- Al Gore received his (shared/joint) Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Gore is not, was not, and never claimed to be any kind of 'scientist'.. The sad fact that both you and smelly' have to keep on referencing Al Gore simply shows how bereft of decent arguments you two anti-science dolts really are, and how ignorant you are of events unfolding out here in the real world...

The things Trump and his followers LOVE are: high CO2 levels, lead in their water, asbestos in their homes, radon exposure, coal waste in their water, dead American Indians, climate change, straight people, ultra oppressive Christians, killing gays, war, republican lies, flat earth, themselves, not wearing seat belts, beating up liberals, blowing up abortion clinics, raping women, and hating just about anything that contains logic.

Volcanoes emissions of CO2 have been measured and even dormant ones emit CO2 all the time, its now estimated that at least a quarter of a billion tons of the gas comes from volcanoes, the previous estimate was 300 tons.

Great post vintage!!!


The real inconvenient truth...!

I'v been saying that on here for years , only for the "experts" on here to scoff about it !

Somebody put a thread up a couple weeks ago that CO2 levels had been measured somewhere that were the highest ever recorded...


You know where this 'measuring station' was...?


On top of a volcano in Hawaii...!!!





And it was that idiot Andy... and it was this thread!!!

As one poster pointed out the UK and Nordic countries can get themselves toddler sized carbon footprints but while other huge countries continue with sasquatch size footprints, we are all going to suffer the consequences anyway.
Volcanoes pumping out industrial amounts of CO2 and we continue to allow the population to keep increasing at an alarming rate and all those people will want what we have and why shouldn't they. It looks to be unstoppable.

CO2 level in air is only 0.04%... and plants love it!

Looks like Andy has run away... again...!!!

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:@ title: 
We ain't seen nothing yet.


IF melting of the polar ice caps accelerates, the once-frozen organic debris (which is of course saturated with carbon) will start interacting with atmospheric oxygen, and then ........ oh boy!!  

Where's Veya these days? He'd agree heartily with me!

the arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2012 according to al gore. the only inconvenient truth is he has made billions from that lie.

"billions"  !!!!

More outright lies..

Where the fuck are those "$$billions$$" coming from, that you and your weasly chum Smelly' keep on falsely claiming  ???

A couple of documentary films and a couple of follow up books, more than a decade ago, plenty of publicity but none of them are in the top selling lists..

Tell us again where those supposed "billions" are coming from  ?

You work for one of the oil or mining companies, don't you DYKbrain..    Why else would you be so keen to keep on defending them  ???

The Devil, You Know wrote:al gore claimed it. He claimed he was using science

You're a liar, pure and simple...

You keep on making false claims on what various people supposedly said or wrote decades ago..

Yet not once have you given a verifiable reference to support your lies.

I blame the friggin' dinosaurs, flatulent sods.........

CO2 levels keep rising because of republican hot air lies....

It was much hotter than this at one time everywhere was practically tropical, what was the c02 level like then what else was causing this?.

It was farting Dinosaures !

nicko wrote:It was farting Dinosaures  !

Farting Dinosaurs....uh-huh, Republicans, like was just said.  

Vintage wrote:It was much hotter than this at one time everywhere was practically tropical, what was the c02 level like then what else was causing this?.

About three times what it is today. As it was about 55 million years ago, it's tough to investigate the causes, but there was about three times as much methane as well, which can prompt warming processes that release more CO2 as well.

I seem to recall that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way round.

Andy wrote:I did warn you, Ben.
There is no persuading morons.

yet Ben still tries to persuade you

Andy wrote:And now the far right extremist Nazi party the AfD are in climate change denial, calling  Greta Thunberg mentally disturbed.
guess our 2 resident cretins w/o be drilling in that party , if they haven't already done so.

IGermany’s AfD turns on Greta Thunberg as it embraces climate denial https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/14/germanys-afd-attacks-greta-thunberg-as-it-embraces-climate-denial?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

she has been indoctrinated by her parents. she is presented as the face of the new climate emergency, ( another new name because the bloody climate does not do what they predict) because to disagree with a little girl is seen as bullying. She has been used by her parents to further a political agenda she is not old enough to understand.

Tommy Monk wrote:I agree with SB about Al Gore...!

the inconvenient truth about gore is he made billions from this malarkey, and as I understand it has a very nice beach front property

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2012 according to al gore. the only inconvenient truth is he has made billions from that lie.

"billions"  !!!!

More outright lies..

Where the fuck are those "$$billions$$" coming from, that you and your weasly chum Smelly' keep on falsely claiming  ???

A couple of documentary films and a couple of follow up books, more than a decade ago, plenty of publicity but none of them are in the top selling lists..

Tell us again where those supposed "billions" are coming from  ?

You work for one of the oil or mining companies, don't you DYKbrain..    Why else would you be so keen to keep on defending them  ???

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/6496196/Al-Gore-profiting-from-climate-change-agenda.html

"billions..."

You and Smelly' keep on claiming "$$billions$$"..

Still unsubstantiated  --  you will be lucky if you find a couple of hundred million $$ in there, at the very most --  a long, long way from your slight exaggerations.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"billions..."

You and Smelly' keep on claiming "$$billions$$"..

Still unsubstantiated  --  you will be lucky if you find a couple of hundred million $$ in there, at the very most  --  a long, long way from your slight exaggerations.

literally in the post before yours I posted a link

In the link you posted, it said Gore had made $60 million from investing in green technology firms. That's a lot of money but certainly not billions.

He also says he donates all the profits to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection.

I wouldn't give two shits, nay, not even one, if he kept all the money. That's the idea, actually -- that investment in clean energy and other green technology should be ramped up a thousand-fold. And if you invest in a successful company, should you be ashamed if it turns you a profit?

I don't think that Gore making money from fighting climate change in any way proves he doesn't believe in it. He's been speaking out on the dangers of climate change for more than four decades, after all.

If you want a politician who's been hypocritical on climate change, you really want Trump -- who says he denies climate change, but uses it in an application to build a seawall at one of his golf courses: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

I’m not sure anyone should make a profit out of climate change.
It sounds shady to me.

And how is it fair for oil companies to make billions in profits while denying climate change, but not fair for Gore to make millions while fighting climate change?

This is what happens to every person who says we need to change the way we do things in order to fight global warming -- they say we need new, cleaner technology, and critics pounce upon them for relying on the same old, dirty technology that we all have to use because the new, cleaner technology isn't being adopted quickly enough.

eddie wrote:I’m not sure anyone should make a profit out of climate change.
It sounds shady to me.

Better to make a profit from fighting it than to make a profit from causing it.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I’m not sure anyone should make a profit out of climate change.
It sounds shady to me.

Better to make a profit from fighting it than to make a profit from causing it.

Still sounds shady to me.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I’m not sure anyone should make a profit out of climate change.
It sounds shady to me.

Better to make a profit from fighting it than to make a profit from causing it.

Still sounds shady to me.

If, motivated by my hatred of violence against women, I started a company that sells self-defense products for women, and made money from it, would that be shady?

Then there’s the matter of that estimated $70 million net he received for his 20 percent stake in the January sale of the Current TV network, to the Qatari-owned al -Jazeera Satellite Network. Given that Al Gore is so green and all, it struck many people that buying into the Big Oil-drenched deal might be somewhat hypocritical for someone who for years has inveighed against dreaded fossil-fueled global warming. Yup, this is the very same Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. who said, regarding the proposed Keystone XL pipeline: “there is no such thing as ethical oil”, there’s “only dirty oil and dirtier oil”.

Daily Show television host Jon Stewart once questioned, “Can mogul Al Gore coexist with activist Al Gore?” And perhaps another question which was highlighted on the screen at the conclusion of his 2006 An Inconvenient Truth science fiction movie is warranted as well.

Mr. Gore, “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

Blood and Gore: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#5601cd3632dc

I guess it depends upon how one decides to look at it?

Still sounds shady to me.
That is all.

Volcanoes produce all the greenhouse gases if the current estimate is a quarter of a million tons of C02, how much sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, etc is being produced and as volcanic activity seems to be increasing, there a very large volcano apparently becoming active in Russia, it hasn't been active for a thousand years plus but there is activity, whether it'll get to explode no one knows - yet
At the end of the last ice age, for various reasons, including the ice melting all over the continents, the volcanic activity increased so its a bit of a viscous cycle.
For so many reasons we must take control of human population.

Ben Reilly wrote:In the link you posted, it said Gore had made $60 million from investing in green technology firms. That's a lot of money but certainly not billions.

He also says he donates all the profits to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection.

I wouldn't give two shits, nay, not even one, if he kept all the money. That's the idea, actually -- that investment in clean energy and other green technology should be ramped up a thousand-fold. And if you invest in a successful company, should you be ashamed if it turns you a profit?

I don't think that Gore making money from fighting climate change in any way proves he doesn't believe in it. He's been speaking out on the dangers of climate change for more than four decades, after all.

If you want a politician who's been hypocritical on climate change, you really want Trump -- who says he denies climate change, but uses it in an application to build a seawall at one of his golf courses: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

how did he make billions after leaving office, he was never particularly bright.

Ben Reilly wrote:In the link you posted, it said Gore had made $60 million from investing in green technology firms. That's a lot of money but certainly not billions.

He also says he donates all the profits to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection.

I wouldn't give two shits, nay, not even one, if he kept all the money. That's the idea, actually -- that investment in clean energy and other green technology should be ramped up a thousand-fold. And if you invest in a successful company, should you be ashamed if it turns you a profit?

I don't think that Gore making money from fighting climate change in any way proves he doesn't believe in it. He's been speaking out on the dangers of climate change for more than four decades, after all.

If you want a politician who's been hypocritical on climate change, you really want Trump -- who says he denies climate change, but uses it in an application to build a seawall at one of his golf courses: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

buying a beachfront property would suggest he stupid or doesn't believe his own spin

Ben Reilly wrote:And how is it fair for oil companies to make billions in profits while denying climate change, but not fair for Gore to make millions while fighting climate change?

This is what happens to every person who says we need to change the way we do things in order to fight global warming -- they say we need new, cleaner technology, and critics pounce upon them for relying on the same old, dirty technology that we all have to use because the new, cleaner technology isn't being adopted quickly enough.

oil companies are business's that keep people like you and me living in comfort rather than mud huts

@eddie: Loads of companies make money from fighting global warming and protecting the environment. If they're all shady, then nobody should buy environmentally-friendly products, no?

@Vintage: Volcanoes are only responsible for a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere. For that matter, human activity is only responsible for a small fraction of it, as well (though we contribute 60 times the amount that volcanoes do).

The vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from dead leaves rotting and releasing the gas into the atmosphere. The problem is that there is a natural carbon cycle in which new vegetation absorbs that CO2. There's no way for new vegetation to absorb all the extra CO2 that we add through burning fossil fuels.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Better to make a profit from fighting it than to make a profit from causing it.

Still sounds shady to me.

if you dont like oil companies get rid of all your electrical appliances, the internet, your cars, stop working in offices and go and live in a mud hut off the land.

Certainly you should throw that ipad away, made in china, a massive polluter.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And how is it fair for oil companies to make billions in profits while denying climate change, but not fair for Gore to make millions while fighting climate change?

This is what happens to every person who says we need to change the way we do things in order to fight global warming -- they say we need new, cleaner technology, and critics pounce upon them for relying on the same old, dirty technology that we all have to use because the new, cleaner technology isn't being adopted quickly enough.

oil companies are business's that keep people like you and me living in comfort rather than mud huts

Actually, we use Octopus Energy, one of the UK's leading providers of clean energy.

Burning fossil fuels might have afforded us more comfort than we had back in the olden days, but that's no reason to stick with it when we now have viable, cleaner alternatives.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Better to make a profit from fighting it than to make a profit from causing it.

Still sounds shady to me.

if you dont like oil companies get rid of all your electrical appliances, the internet, your cars, stop working in offices and go and live in a mud hut off the land.

Certainly you should throw that ipad away, made in china, a massive polluter.

Here we go again ... just because it's not currently possible to live a totally carbon-free lifestyle in today's world, if you say we should reduce pollution and CO2 emissions, you're somehow a hypocrite.

Ben Reilly wrote:@eddie: Loads of companies make money from fighting global warming and protecting the environment. If they're all shady, then nobody should buy environmentally-friendly products, no?

@Vintage: Volcanoes are only responsible for a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere. For that matter, human activity is only responsible for a small fraction of it, as well (though we contribute 60 times the amount that volcanoes do).

The vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from dead leaves rotting and releasing the gas into the atmosphere. The problem is that there is a natural carbon cycle in which new vegetation absorbs that CO2. There's no way for new vegetation to absorb all the extra CO2 that we add through burning fossil fuels.

volcanos are responsible for massive amounts of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere.
there are hundreds of active volcanoes all over the world, many of them deep under the sea so we dont see them. They all pump out gasses constantly. CO2 is a vital gas for life, plants grow faster when there is more of it. the main driver of climate change is that huge ball of hydrogen in the sky.

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
oil companies are business's that keep people like you and me living in comfort rather than mud huts

Actually, we use Octopus Energy, one of the UK's leading providers of clean energy.

Burning fossil fuels might have afforded us more comfort than we had back in the olden days, but that's no reason to stick with it when we now have viable, cleaner alternatives.

are you on the national grid? If so you dont choose what is squirted down your wires, you seem to think they have a separate system for each company. Wow are you in for a surprise.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Better to make a profit from fighting it than to make a profit from causing it.

Still sounds shady to me.

if you dont like oil companies get rid of all your electrical appliances, the internet, your cars, stop working in offices and go and live in a mud hut off the land.

Certainly you should throw that ipad away, made in china, a massive polluter.

Who said I was against oil companies? I try to be green but I’m not stupid and I’m no hypocrite.
I said Al Gore sounded shady.