Why are we here?

If you would read and possibly undertand paleoclimatic data, you would see that there is no "gradual" anything. Various atmospheric gases actually "SPIKE" and decline according to several poorly understood interactive occurences, such as locking off of ocean currents and streams , or tilt, wobble, precession, nd tectonic forces.

CO2, maured from ice cores and Paleozoic iron stone deposits, hs been fluctuating wildly waaay before a sentient ape was on the boards.

Youre heads still up yer ass spendi. The" Herald" dude is the one who brought up and was discussing "SATANIC CARBON"
Hes an idiot, as are you for not responding at idiocy xcept to challenge those responses that are reasonable

I wish you wouldn't quote that nasty **** Spurious. I have very frequently, in the past, criticized the Quran and the alleged teachings of Siddartha (the putative "Buddha"). If i talk about the "bible" here it's because we've got a christian **** peddling his nonsense.

Only Spurious could come up with something idiotic like "infantile pronouncement." Infants don't speak; they do not, therefore, make pronouncements.

Well, youre jut gonna have to live with it. Spendi knows hes fulla **** but loves to prattle on .

I can't concentrate on Herald's posts enough to make sense of them,

By "infantile pronoucements" I meant indignant noises from the play-pen.

Ludicrous fairy tales can hardly be avoided. And somebody who makes self-flattering references to Jane Austen should know that because ludicrous fairy tales are her principle theme.

Speaking about idiots, why don't you tell us everything you know about the CO2?
- What is the temperature of deconposition of CO2 into carbon and oxygen, for example?
- Is CO2 heavier than the air or not ... and what does that mean?
- How much ppm is the CO2 in the air right now, in Sept. 2013 ... and how much it was 50 years ago?
- Why is the CO2 in the air continuously increasing (what is driving the disbalance in the carbon cycles) ... and what does that mean?
- How much cu.m. or m.t. is 1 ppm over the volume of the Earth's atmosphere?
- How much energy will be needed to decrease the concentration of CO2 by 1 ppm?
- If something is increased along an exponent how far it may go without causing a disaster or catastrophy?
- How much acidification can withstand your body metabolism and blood?
- What will you do when the acidification of everything due to CO2 (and NO2 and SO2 and CH4) starts disbalancing the components of the biosphere?
- What will you do when the acidification of the water and of the air 'hits the jackpot'?
- When you are speaking about idiots do you have the math (of CO2), or you don't have anything?
etc.

You're going over the top a bit fm. I have my head up my arse, I'm full of **** and I prattle. Herald's an idiot and so am I.

The pejorative assertions are coming a bit thick and fast for a scientific sensibiility to consider appropriate. You're really saying very little. If such pejoratives mean anything the must mean the same everytime anybody is ignorant enough to use them unless you are a unique and special case. But everybody knows that too much exposure to the Briny and eating really exclusive baked beans addles the wits.

The scientists, in the main, seem to consider CO2 a problem. I don't use less energy than average in order to save the earth. It's because using more is something I can't be bothered with. It is more strenuous than work. The Night Shift Veblen called it. Except you have to pack a ******* suitcase and engage in a tangle of elaborate arrangements.

And we are steadily losing the ability to take it easy due to ludicrous fairy tales which present an illusion to us of life being endless, daily drama and action so that we find ordinary domestic life tame, insipid and boring causing us to become disenchanted with it and to seek remedy in bigger dramas and faster action.

And ordinary domestic life is, to those who look, not in the least boring and a great deal prettier than many have been persuaded it is these days.

The ludicrous fairy tales which suffocate us show the world in an unnaturally high relief and cause us, if we are off our guard, to see the actual world as disagreeable flat---and tame. Which it is not for those who have a modicum of imagination left.

And there are so many ludicrous fairy tales that there must be some special reason why Setanta singled out the Bible for his ridiculous strictures. Perhaps it is that he doesn't think there are any other ludicrous fairy tales.

But he doesn't read my posts so he is understandably absolved from telling us what his reason is. Not that I don't know of course.

What is the temperature of deconposition of CO2 into carbon and oxygen, for example?CO2 undergos many chemical pathways. "decomposition" may be transpirative kinetics, etc. Mostly it is sequestered(That's why all the coneheads have been searching for CO2 "repositories
- Is CO2 heavier than the air or not ... and what does that mean?yes, what the **** does thatmean? With your head safely up your ass I doubt that any discussion of kinetics would even mean anything to you
- How much ppm is the CO2 in the air right now, in Sept. 2013 ... and how much it was 50 years ago?Obviously you are singly dimensional and have already looked up the data from Mauna Loa as designed by CS Keeting
- Why is the CO2 in the air continuously increasing (what is driving the disbalance in the carbon cycles) ... and what does that mean?It doe NOT work that way. It spikes and cycles. Weve hd times when CO2 was much higher tha it is today
- How much cu.m. or m.t. is 1 ppm over the volume of the Earth's atmosphere?You are comparing apples and cucumbers The factor of Tons per gallon or tons per (Pick out any unit) is calculated by using a factor (8.3 for ppm to pounds)
- How much energy will be needed to decrease the concentration of CO2 by 1 ppm?
- If something is increased along an exponent how far it may go without causing a disaster or catastrophy?I don't have a clue what youre even asking for
- How much acidification can withstand your body metabolism and blood? Ph of 6.5 is coincident with death unless all the alkali and alkali earth buffers from your blood begin in ernest to buffer like a madman
- What will you do when the acidification of everything due to CO2 (and NO2 and SO2 and CH4) starts disbalancing the components of the biosphere? I don't know. Maybe we could have a picnic to celebrate the new normal pH
- What will you do when the acidification of the water and of the air 'hits the jackpot'?cash in my ticket
- When you are speaking about idiots do you have the math (of CO2), or you don't have anything? I hve no idea what you are even saying here. When I called you an idiot I was speaking as a friend. You must just embrace your village status and stop trying to act like you hve any idea of what your speaking, cause its funny and you don't mean to be(that's whats sad)

Yet we still have our maple sugry donuts upon which to sup.
I am fairly certain that you are hammered again

So you give him a pass about SATANIC CARBON but give Set some **** for making sense eh?

You really have a serious anal/ cranial inversion

I gave up getting hammered many decades ago because the morning after was not worth the attractions of the previous evening.

But only being "fairly certain" does leave the door open for another explanation.

I am very certain you are a poseur. A dude farmer, a dude admiral, a dude scientist and a dude educator.

I have no idea what SATANIC CARBON is. It might be a job creation scheme in certain lines of work.

Setanta did not make the slightest sense and whatever my response to Herald is, which I did explain, something you are careful to avoid, it does not imply that he did.

Setanta is someone who, in order to continue with his delusions, is forced to Ignore anything which questions their validity in a manner which is not as easy to deal with compared to less scientific methods of challenging them which he uses to allow himself some scope for displaying his superior intellect.

then I submit that you missed the entire point that Herald was making about the element Crbon 12 (Its most popular isotope). He addressed it as Carbon 666, a purely Biblical reference or are you unaware? If you say you were indeed aware, then it was you who was merely deriding Set for making sense by calling attention to the silly asinine post made by Herld.

Yu aren't that dumb I know. You are always looking at ways to try to disparage your intellectual betters , so Im not surprised that you would try to strike out on Set. Its just that you didn't get away with it silly old moo that you are.

I do admit that I am a perfectionist in many areas.

Heavy is the head that wears the crown. We are here because this is where we are supposed to be.

Why don't you just answer the question. A number followed by degrees Centigrate would be enough.


... it means that if it is heavier than air (as it actually is) the pollution of the vehicles and of the TPPs remains mainly on the surface of the Earth ... and that we breathe much more CO2 than the concentrations measured at Mauna Loa.
BTW commenting the theme without referring to logical fallacies would be enough.

That would be true on a planet without wind and diffusion, but not on the planet we actually live on.

Not to mention cow farts . . . but i won't mention those . . .

Farmerman...a question:

Why are we not building plants (sorta hydro electric plants) capable of turning sea water into hydrogen and oxygen much more efficiently and expeditiously than trees can use CO2 to make oxygen...and then use the hydrogen as a fuel and allow the oxygen to replenish the oxygen needed in the environment?

The opportunity for using solar energy to fuel the plants at sea (or near the sea) seems reasonable.

We'd end up with needed oxygen replenishment (to compensate for deforestation); hydrogen as fuel; and actually help decrease sea levels.

Is the notion not feasible?

1. We don't have a problem of lack of O2, but of too much CO2, leading to global warming.

2. If you produce hydrogen out of water for fuel, you won't in the end build up O2 in the atmosphere, since oxiding the H consumes the same amount of O2 that you produced in the first place by reducing H:
2 * H2O --> 4 H + O2 --> 2 * H2O

3. You'd be loosing energy in the process