GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

10 scientists does not a consensus of the scientific community make, not even close. 

Technology has far more to do with crop yields and population growth than CO2.

Did you know oxygen levels have been falling during this glorious period of CO2 and population growth?

It is almost as if CO2 and O2 levels are negatively correlated...hmmmm

Reduce CO2 levels and you get even less Oxygen....simple equation. All the more reason to increase CO2.

Reduce CO2 and you get  less plants and crops, causing lower Oxygen levels. Deforestation and degrassification play a role in less Oxygen, reduced acreage in plant life.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Ecocharger

[surrept33 + 609]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Reduce CO2 levels and you get even less Oxygen....simple equation. All the more reason to increase CO2.

Reduce CO2 and you get  less plants and crops, causing lower Oxygen levels. Deforestation and degrassification play a role in less Oxygen, reduced acreage in plant life.

Does the biosphere work based on a simple stoichiometric relation? 

I have a universal wavefunction to sell you.

[turbguy + 1,543]

28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Reduce CO2 levels and you get even less Oxygen....simple equation. All the more reason to increase CO2.

Reduce CO2 and you get  less plants and crops, causing lower Oxygen levels. Deforestation and degrassification play a role in less Oxygen, reduced acreage in plant life.

May I have a reference to that equation?  Hopefully no tensor analysis is required.

[turbguy + 1,543]

28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Reduce CO2 levels and you get even less Oxygen....simple equation. All the more reason to increase CO2.

Reduce CO2 and you get  less plants and crops, causing lower Oxygen levels. Deforestation and degrassification play a role in less Oxygen, reduced acreage in plant life.

May I have a reference to that equation?  Hopefully no tensor analysis is required.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

37 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Does the biosphere work based on a simple stoichiometric relation? 

I have a universal wavefunction to sell you.

If you destroy the biosphere, it will not work. Guaranteed.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

16 minutes ago, turbguy said:

May I have a reference to that equation?  Hopefully no tensor analysis is required.

I gave the link already.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

17 minutes ago, turbguy said:

May I have a reference to that equation?  Hopefully no tensor analysis is required.

I gave the link already. In duplicate.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

Here is a straightforward projection to full oil demand recovery.

Much easier to project than EV growth.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/When-Will-Oil-Demand-Fully-Recover.html

Edited May 2, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Reduce CO2 levels and you get even less Oxygen....simple equation. All the more reason to increase CO2.

Reduce CO2 and you get  less plants and crops, causing lower Oxygen levels. Deforestation and degrassification play a role in less Oxygen, reduced acreage in plant life.

CO2 levels have been increasing over the past 30 years while O2 levels have been decreasing. It follows that more CO2 does NOT lead to increased O2. Your statement is wrong.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

On 5/2/2021 at 12:14 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

CO2 levels have been increasing over the past 30 years while O2 levels have been decreasing. It follows that more CO2 does NOT lead to increased O2. Your statement is wrong.

No, the CO2 provides an offset to the loss of O2 due to deforestation, degrassification, encroaching desert areas, encroaching urban areas. Simple. Without CO2 we would have a less vibrant plant world and less oxygen to breathe.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

On 5/1/2021 at 5:07 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

10 scientists does not a consensus of the scientific community make, not even close. 

Technology has far more to do with crop yields and population growth than CO2.

Did you know oxygen levels have been falling during this glorious period of CO2 and population growth?

It is almost as if CO2 and O2 levels are negatively correlated...hmmmm

Show us the graph for CO2 levels over the same time period.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

Atmospheric oxygen has declined by 0.7% over the past 800,000 years, and it has fluctuated according to cooling periods.

Not a big deal.

"Fortunately, the 0.7% decline is not something that will or has caused significant problems for life on Earth. "

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2016/09/27/earths-oxygen-levels-declining-scientists/?sh=47ca73587e4d

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Atmospheric oxygen has declined by 0.7% over the past 800,000 years, and it has fluctuated according to cooling periods.

Not a big deal.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2016/09/27/earths-oxygen-levels-declining-scientists/?sh=47ca73587e4d

It is still inversely proportional to CO2 which negates your claim.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is still inversely proportional to CO2 which negates your claim.

Show us the graph. Read the link I gave you above, this is nothing to worry about.

Atmospheric oxygen has declined by 0.7% over the past 800,000 years, and it has fluctuated according to cooling periods.

Not a big deal.

"Fortunately, the 0.7% decline is not something that will or has caused significant problems for life on Earth. "

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Show us the graph.

Seriously? you can't find a CO2 graph? I already posted it somewhere.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Seriously? you can't find a CO2 graph? I already posted it somewhere.

Look above.

 

 

Atmospheric oxygen has declined by 0.7% over the past 800,000 years, and it has fluctuated according to cooling periods.

Not a big deal.

"Fortunately, the 0.7% decline is not something that will or has caused significant problems for life on Earth. "

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Look above.

I've used up my forbes. If it has a CO2 graph in it then why do you need me to post one?

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

Here is some recent work on this subject, Jay, Read and learn.

See how the process works, less CO2 leads to less O2, less oxygen...just like I claimed above, Jay.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/tu-hml030221.php

"For many years, the lifespan of Earth's biosphere has been discussed based on scientific knowledge about the steadily brightening of the sun and global carbonate-silicate geochemical cycle. One of the corollaries of such a theoretical framework is a continuous decline in atmospheric CO2 levels and global warming on geological timescales. Indeed, it is generally thought that Earth's biosphere will come to an end in the next 2 billion years due to the combination of overheating and CO2 scarcity for photosynthesis. If true, one can expect that atmospheric O2 levels will also eventually decreases in the distant future. However, it remains unclear exactly when and how this will occur," says Kazumi Ozaki, Assistant Professor at Toho University.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Atmospheric oxygen has declined by 0.7% over the past 800,000 years, and it has fluctuated according to cooling periods.

Not a big deal.

"Fortunately, the 0.7% decline is not something that will or has caused significant problems for life on Earth. "

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2016/09/27/earths-oxygen-levels-declining-scientists/?sh=47ca73587e4d

Here is the section from the Forbes article which reinforces the relationship between CO2 and Oxygen, more of CO2 leads to more Oxygen, just like I told you, Jay. You don't have to be Einstein to figure this one out.

"As carbon dioxide levels fall, photosynthetic organisms, like algae in the sea and higher plants on land, will begin to suffer, resulting in reduced production of oxygen. Over a period of just 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels will drop so much that plant life would go extinct. Without plant life, oxygen levels will also drop, causing a mass extinction event among animals."

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the section from the Forbes article which reinforces the relationship between CO2 and Oxygen, more of CO2 leads to more Oxygen, just like I told you, Jay. You don't have to be Einstein to figure this one out.

"As carbon dioxide levels fall, photosynthetic organisms, like algae in the sea and higher plants on land, will begin to suffer, resulting in reduced production of oxygen. Over a period of just 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels will drop so much that plant life would go extinct. Without plant life, oxygen levels will also drop, causing a mass extinction event among animals."

 Your claim that more CO2 always leads to more O2 is simply false. CO2 levels have been rising for a long time but O2 has been falling, even if it isn't by very much. 

Too little CO2 will cause a die off which is bad for O2 and there is strong evidence that too much CO2 also causes a die off which is the same bad for O2 levels. 

Chart plots all the mass extinction events of the last 500 million years against the best estimate of carbon dioxide levels (CO2) at the time. According to his analysis all major extinctions occurred when CO2 levels exceeded a thousand parts per million (ppm).

at the current rate CO2 will increase one hundred ppm in approximately 40 years. During past periods of abrupt change — the most recent one occurring approximately 50 million years ago — it took roughly a million years for CO2 to change by one hundred ppm. Thus it is now changing about 25,000 times faster than in known geologic history.

Here is a CO2 chart for you. 

So at current rates we are about 200 years from the mass extinction level. However the rate of CO2 increase is accelerating as we burn more fossil fuels every year. So we will hit the extinction level considerably sooner.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

22 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 Your claim that more CO2 always leads to more O2 is simply false. CO2 levels have been rising for a long time but O2 has been falling, even if it isn't by very much. 

Too little CO2 will cause a die off which is bad for O2 and there is strong evidence that too much CO2 also causes a die off which is the same bad for O2 levels. 

Chart plots all the mass extinction events of the last 500 million years against the best estimate of carbon dioxide levels (CO2) at the time. According to his analysis all major extinctions occurred when CO2 levels exceeded a thousand parts per million (ppm).

at the current rate CO2 will increase one hundred ppm in approximately 40 years. During past periods of abrupt change — the most recent one occurring approximately 50 million years ago — it took roughly a million years for CO2 to change by one hundred ppm. Thus it is now changing about 25,000 times faster than in known geologic history.

Here is a CO2 chart for you. 

So at current rates we are about 200 years from the mass extinction level. However the rate of CO2 increase is accelerating as we burn more fossil fuels every year. So we will hit the extinction level considerably sooner.

 

Read what the scientists say above...less CO2 means less Oxygen. The scientists have CO2 and Oxygen going downward together, the drop in oxygen caused by less CO2 for logical reasons.

Your own curve above shows CO2 on a DOWNWARD trend until today, to an all-time low, then a fanciful projection IN THE FUTURE going upward. The two charts appear to contradict each other.

You give no source for the mass extinctions or the CO2 curve. Who is "his"?

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

18 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Read what the scientists say above...less CO2 means less Oxygen.

You read them again. They do not say that. They say that if CO2 gets to a very low level THEN O2 will rapidly decrease.  They say CO2 can increase and decrease by large amounts without correlation to O2. Which is what I just said.

"a continuous decline in atmospheric CO2 levels and global warming on geological timescales. one can expect that atmospheric O2 levels will also eventually decreases in the distant future, The atmosphere after the great deoxygenation is characterized by an elevated methane, low-levels of CO2" 

When all the CO2 is almost gone then O2 will decrease, but not before.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You read them again. They do not say that. They say that if CO2 gets to a very low level THEN O2 will rapidly decrease.  They say CO2 can increase and decrease by large amounts without correlation to O2. Which is what I just said.

"a continuous decline in atmospheric CO2 levels and global warming on geological timescales. one can expect that atmospheric O2 levels will also eventually decreases in the distant future, The atmosphere after the great deoxygenation is characterized by an elevated methane, low-levels of CO2" 

When all the CO2 is almost gone then O2 will decrease, but not before.

No, they describe how CO2 causes photosynthesis in sea-based and land-based plant life and this produces Oxygen....read it again.

"As carbon dioxide levels fall, photosynthetic organisms, like algae in the sea and higher plants on land, will begin to suffer, resulting in reduced production of oxygen. Over a period of just 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels will drop so much that plant life would go extinct. Without plant life, oxygen levels will also drop, causing a mass extinction event among animals."

Thus the crucial role for CO2. CO2 causes Oxygen to be created.

You have apparently misread "DEoxygenation" in your quote. It means the opposite of oxygenation.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

14 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No, they describe how CO2 causes photosynthesis in sea-based and land-based plant life and this produces Oxygen....read it again.

"As carbon dioxide levels fall, photosynthetic organisms, like algae in the sea and higher plants on land, will begin to suffer, resulting in reduced production of oxygen. Over a period of just 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels will drop so much that plant life would go extinct. Without plant life, oxygen levels will also drop, causing a mass extinction event among animals."

Thus the crucial role for CO2. CO2 causes Oxygen to be created.

You have apparently misread "DEoxygenation" in your quote. It means the opposite of oxygenation.

No, they used the phrase "great deoxygenation" indicating a sudden event that occurred after a long slow decrease of CO2 and it eventually passing the minimum threshold. Your problem is that this paper is about the Sun expanding and burning off all the CO2. No one is suggesting we eliminate so much CO2 that plants and their O2 production suffer. Plants and animals were doing just fine 300 years ago. 

However too much CO2 causes ocean acidification which is correlated to mass extinctions. Corals are already beginning to die because of this acidification. They were doing much better 300 years ago!!

More CO2 does not always increase O2 as proven by the charts below. 

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,243]

Maybe Thanos was onto something 😂