How about some actual science

[727Sky]

[video=youtube]<iframe width="315" height="560" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/07IYzhwAzuI" title="The Extreme Climate of Ancient North America" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/video]

[Ninurta]

It appears that the video is a "YouTube Short", which is having trouble embedding on an external page, maybe because the aspect ratio is different from regular videos. I'll try it from here:



Doesn't look like it's working for me, either.

A summary:

The presenter claims that the climate of North America, 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, was like the climate of Antarctica is now. While not strictly true - the climate of CANADA and some of the northern US was Antarctic, entirely covered in ice, but the US, from about half way down in Ohio and southward of that line was more like Canada or Siberia is now - it's close enough for his premise.

He says that folks have some weird notion that there is a steady state for climate, and that is utterly wrong, which is a true statement. The one constant of climate is that it is always changing due to a plethora of variable interacting with one another.

He also says that the heat capture ability of CO2 is limited, and that most of the thermal capture is accomplished in the first 100 parts per million, which is also true. Beyond that, you reach a point of diminishing returns, where simply adding more CO2 does not capture the same amount of heat, but falls off. It's not a linear 1 for 1 capture for each new unit of CO2.

During the carboniferous period, our atmosphere had about 4 times the current level of CO2. If heat were captured in a linear fashion, all life on Earth would have ended other than extremophiles, because Earth's surface temperature would have been well over the boiling point - hotter at the equator, somewhat cooler at the poles. But, to the contrary, life flourished, and the Earth was a jungle-covered mess, which is why we have coal deposits now. Insects, amphibians, and fish nearly overpopulated, and the first reptiles came into existence.

Here's an attempt at posting just the link, so you can watch it on YouTube if it works:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/07IYzhwAzuI

.

[Michigan Swamp Buck]

They probably didn't mention the O2 expelled by all the new robust plant growth or that water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas when compared to CO2.

[BIAD]

The real problem is that if your livelihood, your social-setting with good benefits and ensuring your
family's future shouldn't be burdened with the normal fiscal issues many of those living alongside
you on this planet... would you blow an easy well-funded ride for the sake of telling the truth?

Remember, the established media have gone along with this scam and other powerful elements
that could break anyone who shunned the oodles of cash for informing a species that they're not
changing the weather with their breath and anything they purchase that is for sale.

The other creatures here that inhale and exhale don't seem to be worried about this so-called
crisis and that might be a bit strange to some, until you recall that out of everything alive on
this planet, we're the only species that uses money.

Odd isn't it? The simplest thing would be to have stopped companies from selling anything bound
in plastic, halt any Hollywood movies that require big-smoky explosions, bung the cows asses up,
kill the fashion industry off, destroy any vehicle that doesn't move by wind-power and close down
the use of building materials.

Er... wait a minute, the majority of those constantly accused of being bad by the established media
and investing business moguls, don't actually own any of these industries.

[Ninurta]

They probably didn't mention the O2 expelled by all the new robust plant growth or that water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas when compared to CO2.

Indeed. During the Carboniferous that I mentioned in my post, O2 levels were at 35% or so of the atmosphere, as opposed to the current 21% - almost 175% of current oxygen levels. One result of that was that wildfires were more common,and more volatile and dangerous, due to the increase in oxygen. Another result was that insects got much larger, with cockroaches between 8" and a foot long, dragonflies with 3 foot wingspans, and a centipede or millipede named "Arthropleura" that reached lengths of 8 feet or so.

The "carbon crew" can't make any money on water vapor, because it is so volatile that it can disappear into either water or ice, negating it's value to them as a taxable commodity. That is a disability that CO2 doesn't have, since it sticks around a little longer. In other words, they cannot fear monger well enough on water vapor, but they can on CO2, despite the stronger greenhouse effect of water vapor.

.

[F2d5thCav]

The other creatures here that inhale and exhale don't seem to be worried about this so-called
crisis and that might be a bit strange to some, until you recall that out of everything alive on
this planet, we're the only species that uses money.

One wonders if that is the reason that chimps seem to delight in ripping off the faces of humans when they get a chance to maul them.

Or, perhaps, they're just insane.


  beer.jpg (Size: 2.19 KB / Downloads: 46)

[OmegaLogos]

Explanation: Science and CO2 eh?

This Solar-Powered Reactor Sucks CO2 From the Air and Turns It Into Fuel Researchers have created a solar-powered reactor that collects CO2 by night and turns it into a useful gas by day.

Researchers at the University of Cambridge have built a solar-powered reactor that converts atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into a gas that could one day fuel vehicles, power off-the-grid dwellings, and even produce pharmaceutical products.

The researchers say were inspired by photosynthesis and claim that their technology can be scaled up more easily than earlier solar-powered devices. The team’s research was published today in the journal Nature Energy.
Carbon capture and storage (which is exactly what it sounds like) is a possible means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that most carbon capture technologies are themselves powered by burning fossil fuels—not to mention the fact that the CO2 captured in the process needs to be stored somewhere, such as deep underground. But a new reactor could solve all of that.

“What if instead of pumping the carbon dioxide underground, we made something useful from it?” Sayan Kar, a chemist at the University of Cambridge and first author on the study, said in a university statement. “CO2 is a harmful greenhouse gas, but it can also be turned into useful chemicals without contributing to global warming.”
Kar and his colleagues’ new reactor is completely solar-powered, meaning it requires no cables or batteries. At night, it filters CO2 from the air—similar to how a sponge soaks up water, according to the researchers. During the day, sunlight heats up the collected CO2, which absorbs the Sun’s infrared radiation while a semiconductor powder absorbs the ultraviolet radiation. A mirror on the reactor concentrates the sunlight for greater efficiency in the system.
The absorption initiates a chemical reaction in the reactor that converts the CO2 into synthesis gas, or syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) that is an important ingredient in the production of many fuels and chemicals. The team is currently researching how to convert this solar syngas into liquid fuels that could one day sustainably power vehicles like cars and planes.
“If we made these devices at scale, they could solve two problems at once: removing CO2 from the atmosphere and creating a clean alternative to fossil fuels,” said Kar. “CO2 is seen as a harmful waste product, but it is also an opportunity.”
The researchers claim that a solar reactor of this kind could even be used by individuals (as opposed to powering an entire neighborhood or town) to provide energy for remote locations. Furthermore, because of syngas’ prevalence in the production of chemicals, solar syngas could also lessen the carbon footprint of the chemical sector.
“Instead of continuing to dig up and burn fossil fuels to produce the products we have come to rely on, we can get all the CO2 we need directly from the air and reuse it,” said Erwin Reisner, a chemist at the University of Cambridge who led the study. “We can build a circular, sustainable economy—if we have the political will to do it.”
Here’s hoping that we’ll be seeing solar-carbon-capture-reactor-powered cars on the market sooner than we think.

Personal Disclosure: Problem solved!

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Here's the video:

[727Sky]

[727Sky]

[SomeJackleg]

Indeed. During the Carboniferous that I mentioned in my post, O2 levels were at 35% or so of the atmosphere, as opposed to the current 21% - almost 175% of current oxygen levels.

O2 levels were also higher during the Triassic when the first dinosaurs appeared O2 was at about 12 to 15%, middle of the Jurassic is when the big ass plant eaters showed up and O2 was at about 26-28% the giant plant eaters  short fat ones  and long neck ones, near the end of the Cretaceous the bad ass meat eaters showed both the big ass ones and the little ones.

they say that the the loss of O2 levels was part of the reason lager dinosaurs died out it was harder for the to breath. and the little ones turned into birds.