Ladiesu andu Gentlemansu, I present to you, "the experts".
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (10)
sorted by:
Gotta love that spineless drone behaviour where they all just copy the same wildly incorrect guess as the first guy, then the last couple seize the chance to be technically closer by guessing slightly above.
I don't get the point. Different chemicals have different effects at different parts per million.
For example, I don't want the Carbon Monoxide content in my room to go up by even 1 ppm. That's because I can't breathe it and it will kill me at much smaller PPMs than many other gasses that are in "air".
Even among Climatologists, CO2 is recognized as one of the weaker Greenhouse Gas emissions. There are plenty that are stronger and more damaging, but are much less common in the atmosphere and have a lessened effect.
Now, his point about shutting down the Nuclear plants, taking gas vehicles off the road. Then there's also his good point about not being able to locally source material because of permit bureaucracy, and how large scale transport is going to release even more CO2.
Those are much stronger arguments than "what percentage of the earth's atmosphere do X represent"
I see the point of the question itself. If you're demanding people slash CO2 levels because the current levels are too high, but then are shown to have no idea what the current levels even are, it should be incredibly damaging to your credibility. His followup rational is definitely incomplete, because yes different compounds have different potencies, but the question itself was still worth asking.
For the specific example of CO, your minimum value there is a bit extreme. You can be out in the middle of the Pacific or up the Himalayas and still be breathing 0.5ppm. A healthy adult will exhale about 2ppm of CO from normal respiration. Outdoors in urban areas you will be breathing in up to 3ppm. And commercial CO detectors are legally allowed to class anything under <30ppm as "no CO".
That said an increase of constant CO exposure from 3 -> 10ppm has been linked to a small statistical increase in health issues, but that 10ppm cadre is living in the midst of heavy industry with a host of other health hazards that are hard to completely account for in a simple statistical analysis.
He might have aired a self-own in a sense. His point seemed partially about maintaining the minimum atmospheric CO2 presence to sustain plant life, as though the transition to electric would take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Yeah, but there's almost no chance of us lowering to that low of CO2 emissions. Taking that much carbon out of the air would require lowering the population by 80% or more.
I'm just gonna stand over here and tug at my shirt collar in a nervous fashion.
you are the carbon they want to reduce!
Don't think of it as a grave. Think of it as a carbon sink.
It's 'radisu andu gentarumen', you fake weeb
Absolutely hilarious, though. The so-called experts don't know even the absolute basics. It's purely political.
OH YEAH?! I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA SAY "RAIDISU ANDU GENTURUMANKO"