maybe he thinks scientology and science are the same thing? wow...

Vocabulary is your friend?

CO2, is one of several greenhouse gasses at the foundation of climate change.

@MojoDave
Up near Mammoth Lakes, Kommiefornia, there's a place called Red's Meadow that has a stream running through it named Soda Springs. At Soda Springs, you can see bubbles coming up out of the ground. And what gas is coming up there, in that now benign volcanic area? Good ol' Carbon Dioxide!! Yes, friend to all plants large and small which rely upon photosynthesis to make sugars for growth, that nefarious gas CO2!! So are we supposed to find some way to stop, or at the least slow down this 24/7/365 onslaught upon the health of the planet?

Randy

@Logician Is it the natural CO2 that is affecting the atmosphere causing the temperatures to rise in the oceans?

I thought the greenhouse effect involved the concentration of this gas which is considerably higher due to manmade emmissions around the world.Those natural phenomenon that have produced CO2 have been factored into most of the studies and ruled out as having any causal effect and if so, minimal and as you correctly stated, needed.

I haven't read any reports that say plant photosynthesis is even a factor...that would be just bad science and silly to think that.

@thinktwice CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter one whit if it's coming from your mouth due to your breathing, a fire burning on your hearth or a car's exhaust pipe or coming out of the ground. In Africa, there is a low spot where CO2 accumulates to a depth of about 2 feet or so, and adults like me at 6' tall can walk right through it, but toddlers going in there have fallen over and died!
Plants with chlorophyll in them take in CO2 and put out Oxygen as a waste product. About 75% of Earth's Oxygen comes from the algae in our oceans, the rest is from land based plants.
The premise that CO2 and Methane keep heat due to solar radiation from being reradiated back into space has not been proven, so far as I have been able to find. It's just some cartoon drawings depicting what some think is going on, but I have not yet read of anyone doing any experiments with any kind of scientific apparatus where results were repeatable and accurate each time.

Randy

@Logician I am not questioning the chemical composition of CO2 and any distinction from man made or natural CO2 (although digging deeper into chemical make up, there are some nuanced differences that are not material to this conversation...)...I am asking if the quantity makes a difference...are there enough plants to absorb the carbon dioxide emitted from all sources? Should we be concerned if as you say, 75% of the oxygen comes from algae in our oceans and the oceans are warming to the point of not being able to live? Where will the oxygen come from if the algae dies or diminishes and will the CO2 then also continue to accumulate? And with what results ...it seems to me, and I am not a scientist so bear with me, that the cycle would breakdown...too much CO2, algae /plants dying, absorption rates dwindling, etc. etc.

This is not my chosen battle so other than popular sentiment, I have not done much research other than to watch documentaries from the scientific community, but I think it is popular and I am trying to understand it from all sides.

@thinktwice You know that CO2 levels are close to 400ppm, and they were over 2000ppm for hundreds of millions of years don't you?

@thinktwice Do you know the earth was (on average) 15-20 degrees C warmer than it is today during the Cambrian period, and the Cambrian period lasted for 53 million years.

@BD66 and where was man during this period?

@thinktwice The species of the Earth evolved rapidly during those 53 million years. No warm Cambrian period, no humans.

@BD66 I am just trying to understand why you felt those factoids were of relevance in current times...I understand changes that produced the current conditions and had they not changed, we and many other species would not be here...so with that thinking, will the changes we are seeing now mean that we are setting up for our own extinction for another species to evolve just as that period resulted in the death of the species of that time period?

@thinktwice
The amount of flora will INCREASE with more CO2 in the air, ergo the Carbon will be taken out of the Carbon cycle for a while. It's pretty much a steady state system.
The planetary temperature increases and decreases have been going on for many, many years, we see solid proof of ice ages coming and going again.
If the amount of free Oxygen in our air drops too low, that will mean meat bodies will die off, thus the problem will be corrected and the steady state system will remain so, for the most part anyway.

@Logician Where will it grow? And what about the algae? I am guessing that species of new algae can develop in the increasing heated ocean? So the corresponding trade off is that animals must die to balance off the lower oxygen levels until equilibrium is achieved...interesting...that would include man...

@Logician I was listening to Neal De Grasse Tyson's "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry", and he was talking about one of Einstein's theories that the Universe was fundamentally unstable and there was a constant "fudge factor" that kept everything in balance. Einstein himself knew the theory was flawed. It's a perfect analogy for the carbon dioxide hysteria. Over the past 600 million years, the Earth's carbon dioxide levels have ranged from 200ppm to 7000ppm, and life flourished at all those different levels. It's completely irrational to believe that there is some narrow range of CO2 levels (say 280 to 380ppm) where humans can survive, and if we go outside of that range everybody will perish. What's sad is the people on this site who don't buy the Jesus/Lucifer bullshit somehow believe the CO2 bullshit.

@BD66 I thank you both...as I said, I am trying to get on board a bit on this subject but it is not a priority for me since I have others that are more pressing...perhaps after I retire, I can do more reading and research of those who have spent their lifetime studying this and know more than me. I know there are conflicting views and I will look at those as well. Always learning and keeping an open mind as long as those who present information are not total looney birds...and there are plenty on both sides...

@BD66 Perhaps you have answered this already...but are either one of you scientist or in a related profession? How did you come by your personal knowledge? I don't mean this in any disrespectful or sarcastic way...

@thinktwice I straddled the fence between physics and electrical engineering for several years, then I chose electrical engineering. I completed my PhD in Electrical Engineering in 1993. I worked as a sonar systems engineer, communications engineer, and RF systems engineer for 18 years. I have 35 patents.

@thinktwice
Just look at algae that thrives near black smokers deep in the oceans. Pretty extreme conditions for life, wouldn't you say? There are hot springs where you would be scalded to death, but yet there are algae growths. Who can say that when one life form is pushed out of an area, another one won't come in to fill the void?
One of my hobbies is rockets and jet engines. I designed a jet engine that "tunes" itself via a computer feed back loop when transitioning from sub sonic to super sonic mode. And I built a liquid fueled (Propane and Nitrous Oxide) rocket engine in 1992 in a friend's garage where he had a small machine shop set up. I can work anywhere in the world as a mechanic, machinist, welder, electrician, plumber, carpenter and I'm a pretty good cook too!
I read all kinds of subjects and write on some of them. I am the only one that I know of, who has figured out the scam of the legal system/Matrix. And I did it by applying some simple logic to a bunch of facts. Go to Talkshoe and listen to my appearance on show 39904 last week.

Randy

@Logician Check out my late wife's first book:

[amazon.com]

@BD66 How awesome is that!

@BD66, @Logician I have great respect for people who continue to learn and explore various subjects...the amount of information is hard to sift through...I am finding the same thing in my pet project, nutrition. Common sense is needed to keep a cool head these days...

I am mostly confused by the lack of respect that people seem to have for experts in their fields...I know some are off base, but when the numbers are overwhelming and cover all fields from marine biology to volcanic studies and come from all over the world, how do you reconcile that? Are all of them wrong at the same time? And what would be their motivation...all of them can't be conspirators to send out incorrect findings...

I have an extensive background in science although my diploma says I am an business major...genetics is what I enjoy the most...chemistry next and of course, anatomy since it is important to nutrition...

Are you comfortable enough in your personal studies to be able to scientifically disprove or refute the current information? I look at stats and can see failures in most studies or bias, at least...I would never presume I could duplicate or even totally understand all of the methods and testing that was done...how do people even begin to question when there is so much that aligns with the conclusions?

Sorry for the long posts...I am in a pensive mood today...

@thinktwice Lots of content there so I will have to respond in-line:

You said: I have great respect for people who continue to learn and explore various subjects...the amount of information is hard to sift through...I am finding the same thing in my pet project, nutrition. Common sense is needed to keep a cool head these days.I am mostly confused by the lack of respect that people seem to have for experts in their fields..

My response: If you are focused on nutrition, that's a perfect example of the incompetence of government sponsored research. If you look at the US population in the 1950's, we were a thin healthy group of people, then the US Government (through nutritionists at the USDA) started promoting the "food pyramid" with grains at the bottom. They then implemented agricultural policies that encouraged farmers to grow huge amounts of low-nutrition corn, and corn sweetener started getting added to everything. Today, (60 years later) we have an epidemic of diabetes and obesity. This can be directly linked to the incompetence of the government scientists of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.

You said: .I know some are off base, but when the numbers are overwhelming and cover all fields from marine biology to volcanic studies and come from all over the world, how do you reconcile that? Are all of them wrong at the same time? And what would be their motivation...all of them can't be conspirators to send out incorrect findings...

My response: There is a big difference between "climate scientists" and other scientists such as astronomers, physicists, and even people like me who completed doctorates in science related fields like engineering. All those other sciences and technologies have been around for hundreds of years. To get a doctorate in those fields, you had to do well as an undergraduate, get accepted into a graduate program, do well academically in the graduate program, pass a qualifying exam, pass a preliminary exam, complete your thesis research, write a thesis, and do you final thesis defense. There were professors every step of the way who had been through the process themselves. They monitoring your progress, offering suggestions, and screened out many unqualified candidates. Climate science literally sprung up out of nowhere, and the US Government and other foreign governments started throwing large amounts of money at it. There were no established experts in the field, just lots of people chasing government grant money. Anyone who said "Yes, the earth is warming gradually. Yes humans are contributing to it, but it's a minor problem that requires no intervention" would get no grant money. Anyone who would come up with a doomsday scenario would get the attention of the government bureaucrats handing out the money, so there has always been a huge incentive to grossly exaggerate the problem of global warming.

I have an extensive background in science although my diploma says I am an business major...genetics is what I enjoy the most...chemistry next and of course, anatomy since it is important to nutrition...

You said: Are you comfortable enough in your personal studies to be able to scientifically disprove or refute the current information? I look at stats and can see failures in most studies or bias, at least...I would never presume I could duplicate or even totally understand all of the methods and testing that was done...how do people even begin to question when there is so much that aligns with the conclusions?

My response: Just start with wikipedia:

[en.wikipedia.org]

The earth is about 0.9C warmer today than it was in 1880. That was 139 years ago. That's nothing to be alarmed about.

Sorry for the long posts...I am in a pensive mood today...

@BD66 I have contributed to wikipedia...as have many of my colleagues...anyone can with simple citations that I am not positive is thoroughly verified...I support them monetarily in good faith, but sometimes I find articles that I know are blatantly incorrect and have asserted my clout to get it removed or corrected...it is a jumping off point for much more research...thank you for your response...I will weigh it with those of others in the same position as yours to come to my own, hopefully, reasonably accurate conclusion...

If the stupid will listen to you.