Climate in the 21st Century

Will Humankind see the 22nd Century?

  • Not a fucking chance

    Votes: 45 28.1%

  • Maybe. if we get our act together

    Votes: 41 25.6%

  • Yes, we will survive

    Votes: 74 46.3%
  • Total voters
    160
ActionianJacksonian said:
What's the ideal saturation of CO2 in earth's atmosphere again?
Click to expand...
You know that the CO2 is causing the pH of the oceans to rise and it is making it more difficult for marine organisms to build shells and skeletons. These microorganisms are the basis of the food chain in the oceans. The coral reefs support 25% of the marine life. Lowering of the pH is known to harm the itty bitty creatures, what is the ideal pH for the oceans?
 
printer said:
You know that the CO2 is causing the pH of the oceans to rise and it is making it more difficult for marine organisms to build shells and skeletons. These microorganisms are the basis of the food chain in the oceans. The coral reefs support 25% of the marine life. Lowering of the pH is known to harm the itty bitty creatures, what is the ideal pH for the oceans?
Click to expand...
You’re arguing with someone fabricating bogus terminology.
 
ActionianJacksonian said:
I said about 400ppm. That's still accurate. It's less than 450. So what's the right number?
Click to expand...
I'm not a atmospheric scientist, nor am I like most you trolls that pretend that you actually have any clue what you are talking about, when I don't know.

As for your usual 'busy work' troll, I am not going to research this shit tonight because it is meaningless. If you are such a cuck that you still believe the lies that have been shown to have been pushed by the heavy polluting industries so much after they have been exposed in some lame ass attempt to 'own the libs', that is on you.

Less pollution is necessary, more trees and plant life to scrub the shit we have pumped into the atmosphere is also necessary. Any trolling spam saying otherwise is disingenuous.

Edit:

That being said, my guess it would be some extremely complex differential equation that would have several variables representing the many differences across our planet. And pretending that some magic number is actually representative of a 'ideal' is the same kind of magic thinking that allows trolls like yourself to keep your scams going on the people you conned into believing your lies.
 
Last edited:
hanimmal said:
I'm not a atmospheric scientist, nor am I like most you trolls that pretend that you actually have any clue what you are talking about.

As for your usual 'busy work' troll, I am not going to research this shit tonight because it is meaningless. If you are suck a cuck that you still believe the lies that have been shown to have been pushed by the heavy polluting industries so much after they have been exposed in some lame ass attempt to 'own the libs', that is on you.

Less pollution is necessary, more trees and plant life to scrub the shit we have pumped into the atmosphere is also necessary. Any trolling spam saying otherwise is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
More to the point, someone attempting to mount the sham of an empirical argument

who cannot be bothered to study the matter at the superficial level that deals with terminology

and then makes concepts up on the fly

should not get the level of attention you are giving s/h/it until it is brought to heel on its straw men.
 
cannabineer said:
More to the point, someone attempting to mount the sham of an empirical argument

who cannot be bothered to study the matter at the superficial level that deals with terminology

and then makes concepts up on the fly

should not get the level of attention you are giving s/h/it until it is brought to heel on its straw men.
Click to expand...
`I edited in a bit at the end of my post that basically agrees with what you are saying here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top