Posted on 02/09/2017 5:57:55 PM PST by Trteamer
You shouldn't. The taller your lawn grows the more CO2 it will use up. Don't trim your shrubs or trees either for the same reason and above all don't do any weeding. If your spousal unit or neighbors who believe in AGW complain, tell them you're doing this for them because you love them.
But the grass is supposed to DIE!
THE DIOXIDE TAX
This proposal is to pass the Dioxide Tax. Identify all executives and politicians who have pushed the Carbon tax for the past recent years.
Subject each member to a 10% wealth tax, per annum, to offset their arrogance.
The Dioxide will offset the Carbon hot air.
You are oversimplifying the math and understating the human contribution to co2 levels. But you are on the right side of the issue. Humans have certainly caused a higher concentration of co2 to be in the air. Happily, the only signifigant effect is increased plant growth.
Nice graphic. Cant read where to get it on my phone though.
“All life forms adapt to the environment, or go extinct.”
I do not know how accurate the following quote is but for some reason it has always stuck in the back of my mind:
Carl Sagan — ‘Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.’
I don’t know if a change from 1,700 ppm CO2 to 380 ppm is a “minor” change. Further back, in the Cambrian period CO2 was 7,000 ppm. As someone else pointed out, if CO2 drops below 150 ppm all plant life dies.
Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can
Here is the context:
"4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can
Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference.
The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light, and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.
Graph of Additional Absorbance of CO2 showing that extra CO2 makes less and less difference.
The natural greenhouse effect is real, and it does keep us warm, but it’s already reached its peak performance.
Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just “unemployed” molecules.
This graph shows the additional warming effect of each extra 20ppm of atmospheric CO2.
AGW says: The climate models are well aware of the logarithmic absorption curve, and use it already.
Skeptics say: The models make brutal estimates and many assumptions (guesses). “Lab-warming” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”: Test tubes don’t have ocean currents, clouds, or rain. The “clouds and humidity” factor is bogglingly complex. For example, high clouds tend to warm the planet, but low clouds tend to cool it. So which effect rules? Models don’t know, but they assume clouds are net-warming. This is not a minor point: The feedback from clouds and humidity accounts for more than half of carbon’s alleged effect. E’Gad.
AGW says: It’s not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that’s already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it’s unmeasureable."
Do you think that CO2 concentration is the same, all over the planet ?
What does that have to do with CO2 levels 18 times higher in the ancient past than it is now?
AND the point being ingored by Global Warming Alarmists is that CO2 is not a pollutant.
These people aren't wearing masks to keep out CO2
99.9% of all SPECIES that have existed on the Earth have gone EXTINCT.
It was to question the argument that the CO2 level , now or 10 million years ago, was consistent around the planet.
The argument that CO2 was at such a high level in what we believe was a heavily overgrown tropical jungle, and therefore it was the same everyone on Earth, seems questionable.
Outside, it can be 50 degrees. A cloud passes by and the temperature drops to 40 degrees.
This happens in two minutes. What was the temperature, then, 40 or 50 ?
If you take a measurement of CO2 over a dense Amazonian forest, and take a measurement of CO2 at the side of a backed up interstate highway, will the measurement be the same ?
I was speaking to figures for 130 mya and 500 mya not 10 mya. There were no interstates then. At a given altitude the CO2 levels would be relatively the same. Certainly not 18X higher than in other places.
I think I have drug us way off base and we are arguing minutiae which cannot even accurately be assessed.
If one argues that 130mya the amount of CO2 was exactly xxx parts per million, then surely we know exactly how many parts per million the nitrogen content was. We should know exactly how many parts per million the oxygen content was.
Do we ? Wouldn’t a difference in nitrogen/oxygen content have an effect on the ability of the CO2 to affect the ‘climate’ (on the assumption that CO2 causes changes in climate) ?
I really think this climate change debate is hinged on a push-pull scenario. Does the CO2 ‘push’ the climate, or is CO2 ‘pulled’ by the climate ?
I agree. As for O2 and nitrogen, yes, I think they have a good idea what past levels were and, no, I don't think either one is considered a greenhouse gas.
All the long term data available, that isn't tainted, shows temperature leading CO2, that is true.
You mean GW alarmists don't consider those to be greenhouse gases , right ?
Who else would?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.