Climate in the 21st Century

Will Humankind see the 22nd Century?

  • Not a fucking chance

    Votes: 44 28.0%

  • Maybe. if we get our act together

    Votes: 41 26.1%

  • Yes, we will survive

    Votes: 72 45.9%
  • Total voters
    157
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
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, 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.
Click to expand...
You want less CO2 and more plants. This is a quite tenuous grasp on reality.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
hanimmal said:
`I edited in a bit at the end of my post that basically agrees with what you are saying here.
Click to expand...
Not really. Several posters have since legitimized the troll’s bad terminology, and your edit does not address that apparent concession that acts to the detriment of the issues. You allowed the troll to control the narrative this time with the shockingly primitive gambit of pseudoterms.
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Not really. Several posters have since legitimized the troll’s bad terminology, and your edit does not address that apparent concession that acts to the detriment of the issues. You allowed the troll to control the narrative this time with the shockingly primitive gambit of pseudoterms.
Click to expand...
If saturation is not the correct term then correct it. Then state the right number for CO2.

NOAA says 420ppm right now. The irony ATM is simply astounding.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ActionianJacksonian said:
If saturation is not the correct term then correct it. Then state the right number for CO2.

NOAA says 420ppm right now. The irony ATM is simply astounding.
Click to expand...
asking me to do your work! Self-reliance GQP style (wipes tear)

Republicans are, after all, Socialist in some regards.

Republicans pledge allegiance to fossil fuels like it’s still the 1950s | US news | The Guardian

Republican-led states are threatening retaliation against banks that refuse to lend to coal, oil and gas companies in effort to delay transition to clean energy
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com

1659921259788.jpeg

1659921370078.gif
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
asking me to do your work! Self-reliance GQP style (wipes tear)

Republicans are, after all, Socialist in some regards.

Republicans pledge allegiance to fossil fuels like it’s still the 1950s | US news | The Guardian

Republican-led states are threatening retaliation against banks that refuse to lend to coal, oil and gas companies in effort to delay transition to clean energy
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com

View attachment 5176807

View attachment 5176808
Click to expand...
I asked nothing but what is the correct level of CO2 in our atmosphere. And you have done no work.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ActionianJacksonian said:
I asked nothing but what is the correct level of CO2 in our atmosphere. And you have done no work.
Click to expand...
You must first meet the minimal standard and demonstrate correct terminology with associated units.

Until then, stop asking me to do your work*. I already have my degrees, so step up or heave off.

*even though this is a signature symptom of the current Republican ethos
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
You must first meet the minimal standard and demonstrate correct terminology with associated units.

Until then, stop asking me to do your work*. I already have my degrees, so step up or heave off.

*even though this is a signature symptom of the current Republican ethos
Click to expand...
Can't hear you because you're not saying anything.

What's the ideal saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere?
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
CO2 is plant fertilizer, true or false.
Click to expand...
lmao to your stupid question, true.

Now, are you saying that say 500 years ago there was not less CO2 in the atmosphere?

(ps unlike these propaganda trolls trying to pretend otherwise, I am aware that our current pollution problem is not due to just one particle we are pumping into the air with all of our burning of the shit we dig up or chop down for the last couple centuries)
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
Read very slowly.


Currently there is 420ppm of CO2 and you are sounding an alarm that is starving countries and getting Dutch farmers skulls cracked.

What

Is

The

Correct

Ppm.
Click to expand...
Your trolling is so damn weak.

You should really not keep to your stupid loop like a good telemarketer if you want to have any shred of dignity. But I guess if that is not your goal, which by the spam you produce it is not, it really is all you can do at the end of the day.


So back to the question I asked after you trolled me for saying we need more plants and less CO2, are you saying that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere 400 years ago?

Because there was certainly more vegetation on the planet. So again, why is having more plants/trees and less CO2 a laughable goal in your esteemed (lol) opinion?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
hanimmal said:
Your trolling is so damn weak.

You should really not keep to your stupid loop like a good telemarketer if you want to have any shred of dignity. But I guess if that is not your goal, which by the spam you produce it is not, it really is all you can do at the end of the day.


So back to the question I asked after you trolled me for saying we need more plants and less CO2, are you saying that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere 400 years ago?

Because there was certainly more vegetation on the planet. So again, why is having more plants/trees and less CO2 a laughable goal in your esteemed (lol) opinion?
Click to expand...
It reminds me of more innocent days when a campaigning B-movie actor said trees pollute more than cars.

Tree

A tree is a large plant with a woody stem. There is no clear definition of what constitutes a tree, and they do not form a distinctive biological group or clade, as angiosperm trees like maples are more closely related to grass than gynmosperm trees like pines,[1] and there are other trees like...
rationalwiki.org rationalwiki.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top