The co2 levels in the capsule exceeded 20,000 ppm on the return to earth, no harm done to the astronauts. Levels on earth now apparently 400 ppm and all the alarmists are crying doom and gloom and the end is nigh. I don’t get it.
Apollo 13
- Thread starter masterblaster
- Start date
The last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm the earth was 2-3 degrees warmer than it is now and sea levels were 15-25 meters higher.
CO2 isn't about the direct threat to human life from CO2 poisoning (although increased CO2 does make people stupid).
All of human existence has occurred at lower levels. All of human civilization has developed within a 2 degree temperature band (which we have already broken out of in the last decade). Nearly 8 billion people depend on modern agriculture. Any significant disruption to that due to changing temperature or changing rainfall patterns is a massive threat.
Over 600 million people worldwide live within 10 meters of sea level. Rising oceans could destroy trillions of dollars of infrastructure.
None of which is to say that I think a carbon tax in Canada will make any difference to climate change. We need to adapt, because this is happening.
CO2 isn't about the direct threat to human life from CO2 poisoning (although increased CO2 does make people stupid).
All of human existence has occurred at lower levels. All of human civilization has developed within a 2 degree temperature band (which we have already broken out of in the last decade). Nearly 8 billion people depend on modern agriculture. Any significant disruption to that due to changing temperature or changing rainfall patterns is a massive threat.
Over 600 million people worldwide live within 10 meters of sea level. Rising oceans could destroy trillions of dollars of infrastructure.
None of which is to say that I think a carbon tax in Canada will make any difference to climate change. We need to adapt, because this is happening.
I would question that sea levels were 15-25 meters higher the last time co2 levels were over 400 ppm. Easy to say after the fact that a certain weather event is due to climate change global warming or whatever is in vogue these days. I don’t see any body saying there is going to be 6 months of drought or monsoon rains in future. Of course because that cannot be predicted due to climate change. It’s always aha that happened because of climate change, an opportunist situation as I see it.
Ok ...What was the pourcentage of oxygen in the Lem and capsule vs earth atmosphere ?
Oxygen level , nitrogen , argon and CO2
6th grade level answer ....
Once you have that recompute the effects on the human body. Afterwards we can have a conversation about the subject
A carbon tax is useless except of course for increasing govt revenue. Just a knee jerk reaction by dull wiited politicians who think its thing to do to get re-elected.
OK, these are two totally different issues: 3 astronauts risk suffocating inside a tiny space capsule due to acute CO2 toxicity, versus the whole world's atmosphere is warming up because the increasing CO2 level is causing it to trap too much heat.
The much promoted hockey stick graph of global temp change since 1900 was flawed due to incorrect statistical analysis and the reliance of on bristle cone pine tree rings for an estimation of historical temperatures before records existed.
Al Gore's specifically constructed hockey stick graph leaves out the warming period of the middle ages as well as the mini ice age.These time periods are left out as they destroy the credibility of the graph.As far as computer models go in predicting
climate change this is also rigged as every climate model specifically leaves out the effects of both cloud cover and water vapor.If cloud cover and water vapor were to be included in computer climate models they would not yield the results
that doom saying "Climatologists" want.
As for CO2 which is plant food really.It comprises 0.04% of the planets atmosphere and this is proven scientific fact.
As for dangerous sea level rises of 10-25 meters.If that were the case do you think a bank would give you a mortgage for a house in Vancouver's west end in Kitsilano/Point Grey etc?Or a mortgage for property in Florida?Do you think a billionaire
like Richard Branson would buy a tropical island of his own if it were going to be under water in the future?
The false predictions have been going on for decades and none of the predictions have proven true.As per climate change prediction in 2001 Canada's wheat/barley/canola crops were supposed to collapse yet they have increased in crop yields by 66% in that time frame.
According to the experts and alarmists the polar bear population in the arctic were going to die off yet the polar bear population in the Bearing Sea has increased by 23% and in Canada's arctic the polar bear population has increased
by 24%.
SR
This is disinformation. That critique was debunked years ago.
Here's 198 common "denier" arguments, all of them debunked. It has links to each specific one, for more detail:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Not that I think you'll actually think you'll look at it.
Last edited:
Never mind the posted links that make up your talking points....do you wish to dispute the FACTUAL numbers I have presented?You have responded to nothing I have said.Please list your facts with regards to "climate change" and how ALL life on this planet is going to be DEAD in exactly 12 YEARS....as per Extinction Revolution's cataclysmic outcome which is not based in actual "science" but based in Marxist Socialism.
Pretty please....with sugar on top....and some whipped cream....and a cherry at the very top....please explain your point of view.
SR
The "12 years" is not 12 years and then we promptly all die on year 13.
It's 12 years to change the trend so that global GHG emissions are going down, not up, or else the world will go past that that 2-degree mark (by 2100), into catastrophic levels of warming.
Others express it as a carbon budget - how much more net GHG emissions, in total & worldwide, can be put into the atmosphere before it will push us into catastrophic climate change. Usually they measure that in [CO2 equivalent] billions of tons.
So the "12 years" you could say was how many more years the world has using up the "carbon budget" at the current projected rate of emissions.
The climate scientists give their best estimates, revising them yearly as more and more evidence shows them where things are going. It's not fully known how much extra damage will result from various "feedbacks", such as when permafrost melts and releases massive amounts of methane. That affects the whole "carbon budget" / 12 years timeline.
At any rate, even if global GHG emissions drop or even went net-negative, what is in the atmosphere already would take a century (likely several) to naturally get scrubbed out. So they talk about the year 2100, because even 80 years down the road, we'll be feeling the effects of what was emitted today.
FYI: My "point of view" is neither left nor right, and environmentalism is truly neither of those. It's realism, aimed towards self-preservation. It's not the product of some made-up ideology, just the logical follow-through on what's made clear by physics, chemistry, and evolutionary biology. Ideologies should adapt to the facts; it does not work not the other way around.
It's 12 years to change the trend so that global GHG emissions are going down, not up, or else the world will go past that that 2-degree mark (by 2100), into catastrophic levels of warming.
Others express it as a carbon budget - how much more net GHG emissions, in total & worldwide, can be put into the atmosphere before it will push us into catastrophic climate change. Usually they measure that in [CO2 equivalent] billions of tons.
So the "12 years" you could say was how many more years the world has using up the "carbon budget" at the current projected rate of emissions.
The climate scientists give their best estimates, revising them yearly as more and more evidence shows them where things are going. It's not fully known how much extra damage will result from various "feedbacks", such as when permafrost melts and releases massive amounts of methane. That affects the whole "carbon budget" / 12 years timeline.
At any rate, even if global GHG emissions drop or even went net-negative, what is in the atmosphere already would take a century (likely several) to naturally get scrubbed out. So they talk about the year 2100, because even 80 years down the road, we'll be feeling the effects of what was emitted today.
FYI: My "point of view" is neither left nor right, and environmentalism is truly neither of those. It's realism, aimed towards self-preservation. It's not the product of some made-up ideology, just the logical follow-through on what's made clear by physics, chemistry, and evolutionary biology. Ideologies should adapt to the facts; it does not work not the other way around.
Self preservation? You think you’re going to be done in by green house gases and climate change? Give me a break. You’re drinking the kool aid like the rest of the gullible.
Nope. The people making the decisions today are likely to be dead by then, but kids, grandkids, etc. - life has to survive beyond just the next 10-20 years or so. Do deniers not give a fuck if their descendants are going to survive? What a great legacy that will be - ... "That's how your grandpa made sure you'd have to live in a bunker, with nothing but cockroaches and noxious weeds to eat. Welcome to to the 22nd century, kid."
That's why the Greta Thunberg's of the world are pissed off. They will live just long enough to see everything collapse. And those unfortunates born after them will never know a world that's not totally fucked. Their lives will be dismal, and much shorter than ours.
Last edited:
First you talk about self preservation then you shift gears to talk about kids in the 22nd century. Two different situations entirely. How about make up your mind where your next specious argument is grounded? Too bad the sheep of the world are incapable of thinking for themselves anymore. They just bleat along with the rest of the flock.
Self-preservation of families, of communities, of nations, and human civilization. Get it? No? I guess that concept's just beyond you.
self-preservation
[ˈˌself ˌprezərˈvāSHən]
NOUN
the protection of oneself from harm or death, especially regarded as a basic instinct in human beings and animals.
