CO2 Levels - Page 11 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pop Up Scenario: Dirty Bomb & Rad Levels Sean Hamilton Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Survival 9 02-09-2018 10:22 AM
Dead Wrong About CO2 Hick Industries Manmade and Natural Disasters 23 09-09-2017 07:11 PM
Diesel storage with Co2 flush? ryck Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 2 05-11-2017 11:11 AM
CO2 and PCP Pellet guns. nomadshooter Firearms General Discussion 9 04-13-2017 09:38 PM
Ducks Unlimited Recognizes Wade Bourne?s Conservation Efforts AllOutdoor.com AllOutdoor.com 0 03-13-2017 08:00 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-16-2018, 08:48 AM
tiberius's Avatar
tiberius tiberius is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Non Terrestrial
Posts: 3,849
Thanks: 1,162
Thanked 2,030 Times in 1,197 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

@WilliamAshley,
I hadn't thought about what happens when all the ice melts...
Not good.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-16-2018, 08:54 AM
tiberius's Avatar
tiberius tiberius is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Non Terrestrial
Posts: 3,849
Thanks: 1,162
Thanked 2,030 Times in 1,197 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
You know what is even better...actual regulatory data.

https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/tablez-1.html

8 hour approved OSHA limit for CO2 is 5000ppm for C02
STEL is 30,000ppm


400ppm is so super scary.
You will survive at 5000ppm for 8 hours but you won't be thinking clearly
or learning much. The limit for UK schools is 1500ppm.
tps://www.teachingtimes.com/articles/indoor-air-quality-in-schools.htm

Aircon with CO2 removal may be needed soon.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-16-2018, 11:10 AM
franklin franklin is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern US
Posts: 6,967
Thanks: 1,687
Thanked 13,030 Times in 4,515 Posts
Default

So now calculate how much heat is being sunk by the increasing ice mass in Antarctica.

If you really want to play with numbers calculate how much heat it took to melt off the glaciers from the last ice age. Using the same argument once they were melted the earth warmed up. Actually because the earth warmed up they were melted.

I'm sure there was a cave man around back then named Gore that blamed it on men roasting mammoth meat over peat fires.

We already know how much the water will rise if all the ice melts. A couple inches. And that in the areas that plates are sinking. Less to none in areas that plates are rising.

If you still want to play with numbers calculate how many BTUs the earth receives daily from the sun.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to franklin For This Useful Post:
Old 08-16-2018, 11:14 AM
Metcalf's Avatar
Metcalf Metcalf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southwest Comirado
Posts: 4,414
Thanks: 1,454
Thanked 7,076 Times in 2,800 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
You know what is even better...actual regulatory data.

https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/tablez-1.html

8 hour approved OSHA limit for CO2 is 5000ppm for C02
STEL is 30,000ppm
[IMG class=inlineimg]https://www.survivalistboards.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/IMG]

400ppm is so super scary.
You will survive at 5000ppm for 8 hours but you won't be thinking clearly
or learning much. The limit for UK schools is 1500ppm.
tps://www.teachingtimes.com/articles/indoor-air-quality-in-schools.htm

Aircon with CO2 removal may be needed soon.
Yeah, those scary numbers again....

Osha approved 5000ppm for 8 hour shifts every day. This is for people still doing critical work (you know....thinking) to perform their jobs.

The Beer Institute actually did a study at 10000 to 20000ppm and found little evidence of risk during an 8 hour shift. The ACGIH and NIOSH also disputed the OSHA limits as being too low. They did studies at 15000-30000ppm with continuous exposure.

The lowest co2 level at which human health has been documented to been detrimental, showing signs of acidosis, was 7000ppm in the confined space of a submarine after continuous exposure for several weeks.

So since we are at just over 400ppm now, we have a LOT of wiggle room.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Metcalf For This Useful Post:
Old 08-16-2018, 11:42 AM
Metcalf's Avatar
Metcalf Metcalf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southwest Comirado
Posts: 4,414
Thanks: 1,454
Thanked 7,076 Times in 2,800 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin View Post

If you still want to play with numbers calculate how many BTUs the earth receives daily from the sun.
100 % this!

Rough numbers. All the energy expended by man kind every year is about 18 terawatts.

The earth is constantly radiated with about 120,000 terawatts of enegy from the sun.

I wonder what the larger climate driver is....
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Metcalf For This Useful Post:
Old 08-16-2018, 11:59 AM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,141
Thanks: 2,661
Thanked 17,701 Times in 7,410 Posts
Default

Figuring CO2 over the earth's history is like figuring CO2 levels in a home before insulation and modern ways of sealing up a home that is heated by wood or burning some other carbon based fuel. Vs. Today with a tightly sealed home heated by a heat pump. One creates a lot of CO2 but traps less the other creates less but traps more. WHO KNOWS!

The idea is to keep insides free of air pollution. Keep outsides free of trash and water pollution. Worrying about outside CO2 is a pointless exercise but if you must go plant something.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Old 08-16-2018, 12:24 PM
franklin franklin is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern US
Posts: 6,967
Thanks: 1,687
Thanked 13,030 Times in 4,515 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
Figuring CO2 over the earth's history is like figuring CO2 levels in a home before insulation and modern ways of sealing up a home that is heated by wood or burning some other carbon based fuel. Vs. Today with a tightly sealed home heated by a heat pump. One creates a lot of CO2 but traps less the other creates less but traps more. WHO KNOWS!

The idea is to keep insides free of air pollution. Keep outsides free of trash and water pollution. Worrying about outside CO2 is a pointless exercise but if you must go plant something.
Even a well sealed house has a significant exchange of air over a 24 hour period. Which you really want due to all the synthetics cooking off in your house. And you want some exchange of CO2 and oxygen.

Even with a well sealed home every time that heat pumps comes on the pressure variances force an air exchange between inside and outside. For an interesting exercise calculate the volume of your house and then check online to see what a typical home exchange rate is per day.

I calculated mine last winter because I was humidifying my house and trying to keep the humidity at a given level. I couldn't believe the amount of water I was putting into the air to get my target. It made sense once I figured in the air exchange that was happening.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-16-2018, 12:34 PM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is offline
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern Oklahoma
Posts: 14,257
Thanks: 17,681
Thanked 34,711 Times in 9,732 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamAshley View Post
"Over the past 150 years, the climate has changed for the hotter, accelerated by human changes to the carbon cycle."
I pulled this one statement out of your incredible wall of text, because it is the foundation of your ignorant views of the climate.

150 yrs ago, the world was still in the little ice age. The climate had cooled in early 1300s AD, and glacial ice built up in northern Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia, and the mountains of Europe. This climate change destroyed the Viking civilization, and this was simply the latest in a series of little ice age events, that have been observed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

You are declaring that the return to normal climate conditions is caused by human activity. You are wrong. The real climate change was caused by variations in solar activity, and it happened 700 yrs ago.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0512.PNG
Views:	18
Size:	38.4 KB
ID:	276886  
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hick Industries For This Useful Post:
Old 08-16-2018, 08:20 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,141
Thanks: 2,661
Thanked 17,701 Times in 7,410 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin View Post
Even a well sealed house has a significant exchange of air over a 24 hour period. Which you really want due to all the synthetics cooking off in your house. And you want some exchange of CO2 and oxygen.

Even with a well sealed home every time that heat pumps comes on the pressure variances force an air exchange between inside and outside. For an interesting exercise calculate the volume of your house and then check online to see what a typical home exchange rate is per day.

I calculated mine last winter because I was humidifying my house and trying to keep the humidity at a given level. I couldn't believe the amount of water I was putting into the air to get my target. It made sense once I figured in the air exchange that was happening.
I am sure you have a better handle than I. I had not even thought about it until recently. Seems to be the new thing today measuring CO2 indoors.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-17-2018, 10:15 AM
franklin franklin is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern US
Posts: 6,967
Thanks: 1,687
Thanked 13,030 Times in 4,515 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
I am sure you have a better handle than I. I had not even thought about it until recently. Seems to be the new thing today measuring CO2 indoors.
I personally don't worry about CO2 inside my house. I think barometric pressure has more of an affect on CO2 in your blood stream than CO2 concentrations in your house. My father had some long illnesses where he spent months in the hospital connected to the full set of monitoring equipment. Being an engineer he noticed trends in his blood CO2 levels that correlated to the barometric pressure and weather fronts. He also noticed when his CO2 level went up he felt more lethargic. Not really much of a revelation as that's well known but he felt it was an interesting "test" as he had the data at hand and not much else to do.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to franklin For This Useful Post:
Old 08-17-2018, 07:04 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,141
Thanks: 2,661
Thanked 17,701 Times in 7,410 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin View Post
I personally don't worry about CO2 inside my house. I think barometric pressure has more of an affect on CO2 in your blood stream than CO2 concentrations in your house. My father had some long illnesses where he spent months in the hospital connected to the full set of monitoring equipment. Being an engineer he noticed trends in his blood CO2 levels that correlated to the barometric pressure and weather fronts. He also noticed when his CO2 level went up he felt more lethargic. Not really much of a revelation as that's well known but he felt it was an interesting "test" as he had the data at hand and not much else to do.
Hats off that is working the problem down to the foot cause. Few know to even try fewer try.

I should look into this for my own health.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-12-2019, 11:17 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,141
Thanks: 2,661
Thanked 17,701 Times in 7,410 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius View Post
You will survive at 5000ppm for 8 hours but you won't be thinking clearly
or learning much. The limit for UK schools is 1500ppm.
tps://www.teachingtimes.com/articles/indoor-air-quality-in-schools.htm

Aircon with CO2 removal may be needed soon.
"The U.S. EPA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure."

There is a limit at which given the amount of plant life necessary to feed global populations is required that CO2 levels can achieve. As CO2 levels move up from 400ppm both plant growth and CO2 turnover rates increase. Global CO2 lievls will not exceed 700ppm.

On the other hand with 1500ppm in UK schools this explains a lot about your and other's post.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-13-2019, 12:40 AM
William Ashley William Ashley is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 152
Thanks: 14
Thanked 72 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
"The U.S. EPA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure."

There is a limit at which given the amount of plant life necessary to feed global populations is required that CO2 levels can achieve. As CO2 levels move up from 400ppm both plant growth and CO2 turnover rates increase. Global CO2 lievls will not exceed 700ppm.

On the other hand with 1500ppm in UK schools this explains a lot about your and other's post.

Nah the plant CO2 concentration thing is misinformation. It doesn't take into consideration water depletion, and over cropping resulting in soil depletion. This is just another situation of slash and burn resulting in useless soil that has to be factory farmed by dumping minerals into the soil because it ceases to be usable for natural crop growing, and in addition groun water becomes depleted AND nutritional value of the crop goes down.
Further only specific crops benefit from higher CO2 concentrations while others don't AND what you are left with is more malnutrition because the crop is lower nutritional value, and unusuable farmland that relies on enviornmentally destructive agricultural practices that destroy cropland, that in the long run continue the trend of less usable us land for cropping, a trend that has seen reduction of US farmland reduce over 50% in the last 100 years.

Worse yet, if China's offer to buy 40 billion in US agri is true there is no doubt that even more US farmland will be ruined to allow china to build a supply of agricultural products so that it will have more of a strategic reserve of foods should they take actions that end US-China trade relations in the future allowing China to build a cushion in event of hostile relations between US and China or worse a strategic food reserve in event of war with the US, or nuclear destruction of the US resulting in contaminated US farmland... bear in mind China already owns a chunk of US agricultural lands.


LEARN THE TERM OVERPRODUCTION.

Overproduction ruins farmland, it isn't a good thing.

Its well known higher CO2 levels are resulting in weaker crops that depeltion ground water and yeild crops that are worse health wise - the the point of only having nutritional value of the minerals that are artificially added to soils beacuse natural nutritional value of the soils are being drained from the soil due to over production and bad agricultural practices relying on factory farming methods instead of methods that insure soil health.

Basically the US is ruining its soil health to feed the CHinese and proivide them with a stragetic food reserve so they can work with hostile relations with the US in the future.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/stor...nd-usda-000513

and this is just one angle to the issue it is far worse than this article alone

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504092936.htm

The main issue is that the crops that benefit from CO2 increase are getting worse for our health and are reliant on water where we have drought developing in US agricultural heartlands caused by depeletion of aquifers.

Quote:
The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 18, 2016 show some compensation for the adverse impacts of temperature extremes and water scarcity caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

For example
Quote:
Results show that maize suffers yield losses with doubled carbon dioxide levels, due in large part to the plant's already greater efficiency at using carbon dioxide for photosynthesis compared with the other crops. Maize yields fall by 15 percent in areas that use irrigation and by 8 percent in areas that rely on rain.
That said, what Palmetto should be saying is things would be a lot worse and crops would be suffering severe failure without increases in CO2, far worse than at lower CO2 levels if climate change were still happening.

HOwever it is just a boiling frog situation as 1. climate change wouldn't be happening if CO2 levels were not increasing, and 2. things are still getting worse but we need higher co2 levels or else crop failures will be worse... this is why moving forward should we ever become carbon nuetral, there will be more complex calculations on how exactly to move forward with creating a working climate that doesn't end all life on the planet while still maintaining food supply for the population.

As we move to a planet with over 10 billion people agriclutral methods and the crops we choose will change.. however we can't really choose to eat high gluten foods because we know they are bad for our health. UNfortunately high gluten foods are also the ones that benefit from co2 increases ... so we are going to increase the amount of poison in our diet if we don't find other crops to grow that are low or 0 gluten but still benefit from higher co2 levels.


As again this is not a discussion about reducing co2 just the awareness that co2 is going to go up no matter what we do and we need to understand all the nasty stuff that is going to cause.

The real discussio is just how fast we allow it to go up based upon what we add to what nature is already doing, since the feedback loop has already started and we can't stop it without nuclear war and it will get far worse with nuclear war once the clouds settle.

That said it is important to understand that its just playing the clock we can't stop the clock.


We can help things by transforming out industrial system to one that sequesters CO2 instead of produces it, ideally to the point we actually use natures co2 to make products. Its more important to recognize how we can adapt, than trying to stop a feedback loop that we can't hope to stop due to how unorganized and chaotic a planet of 7 billion people is. Oil will run its course once oil runs its course we will be left with a new industrial system to replace it by need, we do need this technological development.


As far as how high co2 levels will go it depends on the timescale, bear in mind we are adding co2 to the planet from millions of years ago, so we are going to have levels as high as millions of years ago.. the thing is each age we tap on is we need to add that ages co2 levels to ours so the further we go back the more co2 we add from past levels. so its not that using oil to 2 million years ago makes our co2 levels the same as 2 million years ago, we have to add all co levels for the past 2 million years that were sequestered meaning it is additive the further back and the deeper deposits we use.

Since global CO2 output is rising co2 levels will continue to accelerate what was over 3ppm last year will end up being 4 or 5 percent in a decade. so 100ppm over the next 20 years bringing us abovee 500ppm is totally expected... its just a question of how much co2 production continues to increase... with feedback processes in effect freeing up natural sources of co2 increasing, that will also be a factor in causing the levels to exponentially increase. Human production is only one fact... also if there is continued deforestation that is another factor in the sink aspect.. oceans as the warm also release co2 so there are just so many souces as the planet heats up big oil is just one aspect.

Over 700ppm in 50 years is totally expected whether or not humans still exist on earth

I thin the only thing we probably agree on is that nature is more important than man made causes --- atleast at this stage, we need to create carbon sinks because we acellerated feedback loops meaning nature is in such a bad state that we sort of superheated the reactor , so it is already critical. Adding flame to the fire is just making it a worse fire but the whole place is going to burn unless we actually try to put out the fire rather than stopping adding fuel to the flame.

Humans simply arn't organized well enough because it costs money and people with money don't want to loose that money. So it will burn because they make money from the fire. It is a very simple situation to understand. Yes destruction of the environment makes people money, it is called resource aquistion, and capital generation. It is not good for the planet but it is good for people who destroy the planet. True consumers are to blame too but that is only because they arn't being offered alternatives or arn't willing to have less because they don't care about the future enough to use sustaiable products rather than driving around buying crap made from petrol products or worse yet the simple fact packaging etc... is all a what is cheapest value. People don't see the direct correlation from their consumer habits to the long term destruction of the planet and destruction of their and their families health and wellbeing and eventual death.

Its not just about big oil, big oil is just adding fuel to the flame... everyone would need to replant the deforested world, convert from agriculture to agriforestrey using permacultural growing methods in a sustainable way...

fact is there are too many humans and unless we invest in vertical farming a very large investment we can't convert the agricultural lands back to forests. We woud gain more by investing in veritical farming and allowing forests to regrow. Using sustainable haresting methods for wood ect.. getting off of woodpulp and onto harvested pulp crops like hemp.

It is total industrial realignment use of nano cellulose and nano carbon technologies rather than archaic technologies that are non sustainable.

It is about being smart rather than wholesale rape of the environment.

I'll likely be dead long before that happens but there is only one solution and that is an industrial revolution to smart technology.

Technology that uses carbon to produce sequestered products. Use of sugars to replace petrol plastics and other reasonable processes that replace heat producing processes like metalurgy with superior products like carbon fibre and cellulose composite..


It plays into a very interesting nexus of industrial development, agriclutral land use and a failure to repair harms of deforestation. There is so much we can do and the answer isn't to attack the oil industry, we need to transform that industry to be a source of reducing CO2 levels through technological development... the same is true with turning cars into not net 0 producers of co2 but actually being a source to reduce co2 through their air intake systems.



Its not just about industry
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/ <--- YOU MUST READ THIS LINK IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY POSITION ON CO2 RESULTING IN OVERPRODUCTION.

We are loosing sight of a solution due to people that want to move the goal posts to a point that what is happening doesn't matter when it really does matter.


YOU ALSO NEED TO GET that agricultural land use has dropped by 50%..... deforestation continues to rise... this is an important nexus to understand and ties into one of the prongs of the solution in sustainable land use policies and rehabilitation of global forests. Far more important than attacking big oil and us industry.


At the end of the day we still need sinks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

We must also understand the temperature to chemical reaction issue, every degree we add or every part of a degree we add speeds up chemical processes everything ages faster as a result. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486781/


Yes climate change will cause people not only to die faster but enter reproductive stages faster.

https://biology.stackexchange.com/qu...dy-temperature

2 degree increase may not seem like a lot BUT IT IS... even more importantly how does that effect human core temperature thus how much faster will humans die due to increases temperature they are exposed to.

Thats right it is killing you.

Quote:
One of the factors known to affect thermodynamics is temperature, and therefore it has been long speculated that it may influence the ageing process with organisms ageing faster at higher temperatures due to more molecular damage being generated (Conti 2008; Liu and Walford 1972; Rikke and Johnson 2004).
Why kill yourself if all you got to do is live a green lifestyle.

And its not just the rising global temeparture

CO2 causes aging too in humans... so while plants grow and get harvest humans just die when they are ready to be cropped.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-causes-aging/ <--- a must read if you have any hope of understanding this post.

CO2 causes accelerated death in humans and is a carcinogen.

That is right CO2 kills people.


faster.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-13-2019, 09:05 AM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,141
Thanks: 2,661
Thanked 17,701 Times in 7,410 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
Nah the plant CO2 concentration thing is misinformation. It doesn't take into consideration water depletion, and over cropping resulting in soil depletion. This is just another situation of slash and burn resulting in useless soil that has to be factory farmed by dumping minerals into the soil because it ceases to be usable for natural crop growing, and in addition groun water becomes depleted AND nutritional value of the crop goes down.
Further only specific crops benefit from higher CO2 concentrations while others don't AND what you are left with is more malnutrition because the crop is lower nutritional value, and unusuable farmland that relies on enviornmentally destructive agricultural practices that destroy cropland, that in the long run continue the trend of less usable us land for cropping, a trend that has seen reduction of US farmland reduce over 50% in the last 100 years.

Worse yet, if China's offer to buy 40 billion in US agri is true there is no doubt that even more US farmland will be ruined to allow china to build a supply of agricultural products so that it will have more of a strategic reserve of foods should they take actions that end US-China trade relations in the future allowing China to build a cushion in event of hostile relations between US and China or worse a strategic food reserve in event of war with the US, or nuclear destruction of the US resulting in contaminated US farmland... bear in mind China already owns a chunk of US agricultural lands.

LEARN THE TERM OVERPRODUCTION.

Overproduction ruins farmland, it isn't a good thing.

Its well known higher CO2 levels are resulting in weaker crops that depeltion ground water and yeild crops that are worse health wise - the the point of only having nutritional value of the minerals that are artificially added to soils beacuse natural nutritional value of the soils are being drained from the soil due to over production and bad agricultural practices relying on factory farming methods instead of methods that insure soil health.

Basically the US is ruining its soil health to feed the CHinese and proivide them with a stragetic food reserve so they can work with hostile relations with the US in the future.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/stor...nd-usda-000513

and this is just one angle to the issue it is far worse than this article alone

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504092936.htm

The main issue is that the crops that benefit from CO2 increase are getting worse for our health and are reliant on water where we have drought developing in US agricultural heartlands caused by depeletion of aquifers.

For example

That said, what Palmetto should be saying is things would be a lot worse and crops would be suffering severe failure without increases in CO2, far worse than at lower CO2 levels if climate change were still happening.

HOwever it is just a boiling frog situation as 1. climate change wouldn't be happening if CO2 levels were not increasing, and 2. things are still getting worse but we need higher co2 levels or else crop failures will be worse... this is why moving forward should we ever become carbon nuetral, there will be more complex calculations on how exactly to move forward with creating a working climate that doesn't end all life on the planet while still maintaining food supply for the population.

As we move to a planet with over 10 billion people agriclutral methods and the crops we choose will change.. however we can't really choose to eat high gluten foods because we know they are bad for our health. UNfortunately high gluten foods are also the ones that benefit from co2 increases ... so we are going to increase the amount of poison in our diet if we don't find other crops to grow that are low or 0 gluten but still benefit from higher co2 levels.

As again this is not a discussion about reducing co2 just the awareness that co2 is going to go up no matter what we do and we need to understand all the nasty stuff that is going to cause.

The real discussio is just how fast we allow it to go up based upon what we add to what nature is already doing, since the feedback loop has already started and we can't stop it without nuclear war and it will get far worse with nuclear war once the clouds settle.

That said it is important to understand that its just playing the clock we can't stop the clock.

We can help things by transforming out industrial system to one that sequesters CO2 instead of produces it, ideally to the point we actually use natures co2 to make products. Its more important to recognize how we can adapt, than trying to stop a feedback loop that we can't hope to stop due to how unorganized and chaotic a planet of 7 billion people is. Oil will run its course once oil runs its course we will be left with a new industrial system to replace it by need, we do need this technological development.

As far as how high co2 levels will go it depends on the timescale, bear in mind we are adding co2 to the planet from millions of years ago, so we are going to have levels as high as millions of years ago.. the thing is each age we tap on is we need to add that ages co2 levels to ours so the further we go back the more co2 we add from past levels. so its not that using oil to 2 million years ago makes our co2 levels the same as 2 million years ago, we have to add all co levels for the past 2 million years that were sequestered meaning it is additive the further back and the deeper deposits we use.

Since global CO2 output is rising co2 levels will continue to accelerate what was over 3ppm last year will end up being 4 or 5 percent in a decade. so 100ppm over the next 20 years bringing us abovee 500ppm is totally expected... its just a question of how much co2 production continues to increase... with feedback processes in effect freeing up natural sources of co2 increasing, that will also be a factor in causing the levels to exponentially increase. Human production is only one fact... also if there is continued deforestation that is another factor in the sink aspect.. oceans as the warm also release co2 so there are just so many souces as the planet heats up big oil is just one aspect.

Over 700ppm in 50 years is totally expected whether or not humans still exist on earth

I thin the only thing we probably agree on is that nature is more important than man made causes --- atleast at this stage, we need to create carbon sinks because we acellerated feedback loops meaning nature is in such a bad state that we sort of superheated the reactor , so it is already critical. Adding flame to the fire is just making it a worse fire but the whole place is going to burn unless we actually try to put out the fire rather than stopping adding fuel to the flame.

Humans simply arn't organized well enough because it costs money and people with money don't want to loose that money. So it will burn because they make money from the fire. It is a very simple situation to understand. Yes destruction of the environment makes people money, it is called resource aquistion, and capital generation. It is not good for the planet but it is good for people who destroy the planet. True consumers are to blame too but that is only because they arn't being offered alternatives or arn't willing to have less because they don't care about the future enough to use sustaiable products rather than driving around buying crap made from petrol products or worse yet the simple fact packaging etc... is all a what is cheapest value. People don't see the direct correlation from their consumer habits to the long term destruction of the planet and destruction of their and their families health and wellbeing and eventual death.

Its not just about big oil, big oil is just adding fuel to the flame... everyone would need to replant the deforested world, convert from agriculture to agriforestrey using permacultural growing methods in a sustainable way...

fact is there are too many humans and unless we invest in vertical farming a very large investment we can't convert the agricultural lands back to forests. We woud gain more by investing in veritical farming and allowing forests to regrow. Using sustainable haresting methods for wood ect.. getting off of woodpulp and onto harvested pulp crops like hemp.

It is total industrial realignment use of nano cellulose and nano carbon technologies rather than archaic technologies that are non sustainable.

It is about being smart rather than wholesale rape of the environment.

I'll likely be dead long before that happens but there is only one solution and that is an industrial revolution to smart technology.

Technology that uses carbon to produce sequestered products. Use of sugars to replace petrol plastics and other reasonable processes that replace heat producing processes like metalurgy with superior products like carbon fibre and cellulose composite..

It plays into a very interesting nexus of industrial development, agriclutral land use and a failure to repair harms of deforestation. There is so much we can do and the answer isn't to attack the oil industry, we need to transform that industry to be a source of reducing CO2 levels through technological development... the same is true with turning cars into not net 0 producers of co2 but actually being a source to reduce co2 through their air intake systems.



Its not just about industry
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/ <--- YOU MUST READ THIS LINK IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY POSITION ON CO2 RESULTING IN OVERPRODUCTION.

We are loosing sight of a solution due to people that want to move the goal posts to a point that what is happening doesn't matter when it really does matter.

YOU ALSO NEED TO GET that agricultural land use has dropped by 50%..... deforestation continues to rise... this is an important nexus to understand and ties into one of the prongs of the solution in sustainable land use policies and rehabilitation of global forests. Far more important than attacking big oil and us industry.

At the end of the day we still need sinks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

We must also understand the temperature to chemical reaction issue, every degree we add or every part of a degree we add speeds up chemical processes everything ages faster as a result. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486781/

Yes climate change will cause people not only to die faster but enter reproductive stages faster.

https://biology.stackexchange.com/qu...dy-temperature

2 degree increase may not seem like a lot BUT IT IS... even more importantly how does that effect human core temperature thus how much faster will humans die due to increases temperature they are exposed to.

Thats right it is killing you.

Why kill yourself if all you got to do is live a green lifestyle.

And its not just the rising global temeparture

CO2 causes aging too in humans... so while plants grow and get harvest humans just die when they are ready to be cropped.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-causes-aging/ <--- a must read if you have any hope of understanding this post.

CO2 causes accelerated death in humans and is a carcinogen.

That is right CO2 kills people.

faster.
The above has been factually proven wrong.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Old 10-13-2019, 01:20 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is offline
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 16,363
Thanks: 11,653
Thanked 29,879 Times in 10,453 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
The above has been factually proven wrong.
Facts don't matter ... It's not the evidence but the seriousness of the charge.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PeterEnergy For This Useful Post:
Old 10-13-2019, 01:41 PM
rtbanger rtbanger is offline
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 409
Thanks: 50
Thanked 675 Times in 264 Posts
Default

I seriously don't think William Ashley has ever worked on a farm?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to rtbanger For This Useful Post:
Old 10-13-2019, 02:05 PM
HomeDefense's Avatar
HomeDefense HomeDefense is online now
Bad Dog
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hellfire, Arizona
Posts: 4,113
Thanks: 2,465
Thanked 16,646 Times in 3,539 Posts
Default

I'm still waiting for the Arctic to be ice-free by 2015. It has to happen. Al Gore said so.

Massive Arctic Ice Gain Over The Past Five Years

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
CO2 causes aging too in humans... so while plants grow and get harvest humans just die when they are ready to be cropped.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-causes-aging/ <--- a must read if you have any hope of understanding this post.

CO2 causes accelerated death in humans and is a carcinogen.

That is right CO2 kills people.
The simple solution is to just stop breathing. If you hold your breath long enough, you will never get older.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HomeDefense For This Useful Post:
Old 10-13-2019, 02:28 PM
alv7722's Avatar
alv7722 alv7722 is offline
Come and Take Them!
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Where I Am Now
Posts: 2,806
Thanks: 14,955
Thanked 7,339 Times in 2,118 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius View Post
CO2 levels before the industion revolution where about 280 parts per million.

We starting testing them atmospherically in 1958 and now test them all over
the world daily and even via satellites.

Currently CO2 levels are 410 parts per million and we will go through an
interesting milestone within 5 years.
When we reach 420 parts per million we will have an atmosphere with 50%
more CO2 in it then before we started our exciting planetary scale fossil fuel
experiment.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

https://www.co2.earth/
The figures are from Hawaii, which has volcanic activity that skews the numbers.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to alv7722 For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net