Year 2024 Temperature Predicted To Be \"Off The Charts\"...

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:18:54 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
<soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
La Nina is very not likely to continue for a fourth consecutive year into 2024, which believe it or not, made 2022 much cooler than without it.

A super hot 2024 will happen because of record setting GHG emissions increasing the Earth energy imbalance without bound, reduction of human caused aerosols and their beneficial shading effect, and a rising phase of the solar irradiance cycle.

This plain English summary accessible to anyone with a high school education and intelligence level somewhat warmer than a rock is in the latest James Hansen communication.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf

As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.

CO2 increases are having one major effect: greening the planet,
feeding plants and making them more water efficient.

Too much CO2 has been sequestered in the last few hundred million
years. Plants were starving themselves to death.

Maybe a lot of CO2 will moderate the next ice age too.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:18:58 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
La Nina is very not likely to continue for a fourth consecutive year into 2024, which believe it or not, made 2022 much cooler than without it.

A super hot 2024 will happen because of record setting GHG emissions increasing the Earth energy imbalance without bound, reduction of human caused aerosols and their beneficial shading effect, and a rising phase of the solar irradiance cycle.

This plain English summary accessible to anyone with a high school education and intelligence level somewhat warmer than a rock is in the latest James Hansen communication.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf
As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.

You\'re saying that because you never read or study anything. All you know is a bunch deceptive climate denial verbiage you hear on the radio, and that verbiage is spouted by a bunch of low IQ types like Tucker Carlson who lack the ability to acquire an understanding of anything.

Read this and then explain to Usenet the error in its thesis:

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

 

[a a]

On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 18:58:01 UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:18:54 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
La Nina is very not likely to continue for a fourth consecutive year into 2024, which believe it or not, made 2022 much cooler than without it.

A super hot 2024 will happen because of record setting GHG emissions increasing the Earth energy imbalance without bound, reduction of human caused aerosols and their beneficial shading effect, and a rising phase of the solar irradiance cycle.

This plain English summary accessible to anyone with a high school education and intelligence level somewhat warmer than a rock is in the latest James Hansen communication.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf

As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.
CO2 increases are having one major effect: greening the planet,
feeding plants and making them more water efficient.

Too much CO2 has been sequestered in the last few hundred million
years. Plants were starving themselves to death.

Maybe a lot of CO2 will moderate the next ice age too.

exactly
We all love CO2, we all love carbon, plant\'s food

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:18:58 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
La Nina is very not likely to continue for a fourth consecutive year into 2024, which believe it or not, made 2022 much cooler than without it.

A super hot 2024 will happen because of record setting GHG emissions increasing the Earth energy imbalance without bound, reduction of human caused aerosols and their beneficial shading effect, and a rising phase of the solar irradiance cycle.

This plain English summary accessible to anyone with a high school education and intelligence level somewhat warmer than a rock is in the latest James Hansen communication.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf
As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.

You\'re saying that because you never read or study anything. All you know is a bunch deceptive climate denial verbiage you hear on the radio, and that verbiage is spouted by a bunch of low IQ types like Tucker Carlson who lack the ability to acquire an understanding of anything.

Read this and then explain to Usenet the error in its thesis:

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

Google half life co2 atmosphere

Sources cite half-lives of 5 years to \"infinite.\"

The annual down-slope at Mauna Loa is pretty steep.

China and India and Africa and Germany will burn all the coal they can
get. Get used to it. Design some electronics.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Too much CO2 has been sequestered in the last few hundred million
years.

That\'s an incomprehensible claim.

> Plants were starving themselves to death.

Huh? Evidence for this? Plants have a good idea how much
breathing they want to do, and at appropriate seasons grow leaves
to do that, and open pores when required. When they\'ve had
enough gas, they close the pores, and in winter typically discard leaves.

They\'d just breathe more if there was real deficiency in their \'diet\'.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 4:19:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:18:58 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
La Nina is very not likely to continue for a fourth consecutive year into 2024, which believe it or not, made 2022 much cooler than without it.

A super hot 2024 will happen because of record setting GHG emissions increasing the Earth energy imbalance without bound, reduction of human caused aerosols and their beneficial shading effect, and a rising phase of the solar irradiance cycle.

This plain English summary accessible to anyone with a high school education and intelligence level somewhat warmer than a rock is in the latest James Hansen communication.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf
As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.

You\'re saying that because you never read or study anything. All you know is a bunch deceptive climate denial verbiage you hear on the radio, and that verbiage is spouted by a bunch of low IQ types like Tucker Carlson who lack the ability to acquire an understanding of anything.

Read this and then explain to Usenet the error in its thesis:

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
Google half life co2 atmosphere

Sources cite half-lives of 5 years to \"infinite.\"

What difference does that make if the rate of replenishment exceeds it?

The annual down-slope at Mauna Loa is pretty steep.

Is that a play on words?

China and India and Africa and Germany will burn all the coal they can
get. Get used to it. Design some electronics.

China is a mixed bag. They lead the world in having actual operating SMRs ( small modular nuclear reactors ), I think at least two, producing some electricity for them, maybe 600MW. Their infrastructure is vast so it\'s going to take quite a while to change out. In the meanwhile they\'re building coal fired plants, lots of them, under their Belt and Road Initiative:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 4:10:07 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:

On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 18:58:01 UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:18:54 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
La Nina is very not likely to continue for a fourth consecutive year into 2024, which believe it or not, made 2022 much cooler than without it.

A super hot 2024 will happen because of record setting GHG emissions increasing the Earth energy imbalance without bound, reduction of human caused aerosols and their beneficial shading effect, and a rising phase of the solar irradiance cycle.

This plain English summary accessible to anyone with a high school education and intelligence level somewhat warmer than a rock is in the latest James Hansen communication.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf

As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.
CO2 increases are having one major effect: greening the planet,
feeding plants and making them more water efficient.

Too much CO2 has been sequestered in the last few hundred million
years. Plants were starving themselves to death.

Maybe a lot of CO2 will moderate the next ice age too.
exactly
We all love CO2, we all love carbon, plant\'s food

A recent global assay has found global warming has caused a significant loss of organic carbon content in the world\'s topsoil to a depth of about 12\". Didn\'t hear about that one, did you, simple minded fool.

 

[a a]

#globalwarming is old fake spread by fools
replaced 15 years ago by safe scientific term: Climate Changes

My input into UN climate agencies is called:

One-month/one-year Short-Term Climate Changes
as clocked by fluctuations in solar activity,
as verified by NOAA, NASA, ESA, Parker Solar Lab and 100+ others

We no more study secret sunspots, since each individual sunspot represents 3D volcano, so we study volcanic activity on the Sun, represented by powerful volcanoes, called in the past 2D sunspots, ejecting billions tones of plasma.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:59:00 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:

#globalwarming is old fake spread by fools
replaced 15 years ago by safe scientific term: Climate Changes

My input into UN climate agencies is called:

One-month/one-year Short-Term Climate Changes
as clocked by fluctuations in solar activity,
as verified by NOAA, NASA, ESA, Parker Solar Lab and 100+ others

We no more study secret sunspots, since each individual sunspot represents 3D volcano, so we study volcanic activity on the Sun, represented by powerful volcanoes, called in the past 2D sunspots, ejecting billions tones of plasma.

Not a single one of your sources agrees with a single thing you say or think...

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 2:58:01 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:18:54 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
La Nina is very not likely to continue for a fourth consecutive year into 2024, which believe it or not, made 2022 much cooler than without it.

A super hot 2024 will happen because of record setting GHG emissions increasing the Earth energy imbalance without bound, reduction of human caused aerosols and their beneficial shading effect, and a rising phase of the solar irradiance cycle.

This plain English summary accessible to anyone with a high school education and intelligence level somewhat warmer than a rock is in the latest James Hansen communication.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf

As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.

Gnatguy points out a lot of things that don\'t happen to be correct

> CO2 increases are having one major effect: greening the planet, feeding plants and making them more water efficient.

It is also making the surface of the planet warmer, which isn\'t helping the plants we rely on for our food. Feeding the weeds who compete with those plants doesn\'t do much for us.

> Too much CO2 has been sequestered in the last few hundred million years. Plants were starving themselves to death.

A bizarre claim. Plants are remarkably good at adapting to variations in CO2 levels. The CO2 level in the atmosphere drops to 180 ppm during ice ages, and every last plant that is growing now has ancestors that survived that. The standard interglacial CO2 level of 270 ppm hasn\'t produced any kind of extravagant rebound after every ice age either.

> Maybe a lot of CO2 will moderate the next ice age too.

Climate science has recently got a lot better at working out how the planet switches between interglacials and ice ages. The next ice age turns out to have always going to have been a long way off. We may want to keep a lot of fossil carbon safely buried until we need to stop the next flip.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Too much CO2 has been sequestered in the last few hundred million
years.

That\'s an incomprehensible claim.

Sorry you can\'t understand it. Try google.

Plants were starving themselves to death.

Huh? Evidence for this? Plants have a good idea how much
breathing they want to do, and at appropriate seasons grow leaves
to do that, and open pores when required. When they\'ve had
enough gas, they close the pores, and in winter typically discard leaves.

They\'d just breathe more if there was real deficiency in their \'diet\'.

At 150 PPM most plants would die. Greenhouses commonly add CO2
generators to get up around 1000 PPM. You can google that too.

If I allowed you 1000 calories per day, would you just open your mouth
wider and be happy?

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 16:39:27 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 4:10:07 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 18:58:01 UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:18:54 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
La Nina is very not likely to continue for a fourth consecutive year into 2024, which believe it or not, made 2022 much cooler than without it.

A super hot 2024 will happen because of record setting GHG emissions increasing the Earth energy imbalance without bound, reduction of human caused aerosols and their beneficial shading effect, and a rising phase of the solar irradiance cycle.

This plain English summary accessible to anyone with a high school education and intelligence level somewhat warmer than a rock is in the latest James Hansen communication.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf

As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.
CO2 increases are having one major effect: greening the planet,
feeding plants and making them more water efficient.

Too much CO2 has been sequestered in the last few hundred million
years. Plants were starving themselves to death.

Maybe a lot of CO2 will moderate the next ice age too.
exactly
We all love CO2, we all love carbon, plant\'s food

A recent global assay has found global warming has caused a significant loss of organic carbon content in the world\'s topsoil to a depth of about 12\". Didn\'t hear about that one, did you, simple minded fool.

Post the link.

Do plants get their carbon from the soil?

Your social skills could use some work.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 16:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 4:19:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:18:58 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
La Nina is very not likely to continue for a fourth consecutive year into 2024, which believe it or not, made 2022 much cooler than without it.

A super hot 2024 will happen because of record setting GHG emissions increasing the Earth energy imbalance without bound, reduction of human caused aerosols and their beneficial shading effect, and a rising phase of the solar irradiance cycle.

This plain English summary accessible to anyone with a high school education and intelligence level somewhat warmer than a rock is in the latest James Hansen communication.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf
As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.

You\'re saying that because you never read or study anything. All you know is a bunch deceptive climate denial verbiage you hear on the radio, and that verbiage is spouted by a bunch of low IQ types like Tucker Carlson who lack the ability to acquire an understanding of anything.

Read this and then explain to Usenet the error in its thesis:

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
Google half life co2 atmosphere

Sources cite half-lives of 5 years to \"infinite.\"

What difference does that make if the rate of replenishment exceeds it?

We will eventually run out of cheap fossil fuels and have to go all
nuke or something. CO2 will then, unfortunately, decline. Meanwhile a
lot of people will be a lot better off for having food and energy.

The annual down-slope at Mauna Loa is pretty steep.

Is that a play on words?

Certainly. But zoom up on the CO2 graphs.

China and India and Africa and Germany will burn all the coal they can
get. Get used to it. Design some electronics.

China is a mixed bag. They lead the world in having actual operating SMRs ( small modular nuclear reactors ), I think at least two, producing some electricity for them, maybe 600MW. Their infrastructure is vast so it\'s going to take quite a while to change out. In the meanwhile they\'re building coal fired plants, lots of them, under their Belt and Road Initiative:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative

100% electric cars in California, or in the USA, will be noise on the
graph of China\'s CO2 production, in China and in Africa. People in
India want lights and water pumps and cars and tractors too.

Get used to it. Learn to love CO2.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 10:12:52 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Too much CO2 has been sequestered in the last few hundred million
years.

That\'s an incomprehensible claim.
Sorry you can\'t understand it. Try google.

Plants were starving themselves to death.

Huh? Evidence for this? Plants have a good idea how much
breathing they want to do, and at appropriate seasons grow leaves
to do that, and open pores when required. When they\'ve had
enough gas, they close the pores, and in winter typically discard leaves..

They\'d just breathe more if there was real deficiency in their \'diet\'.

At 150 PPM most plants would die.

The atmospheric CO2 level during ice ages is about 180 ppm. Every plant alive today had ancestors who survived through that. If you dropped the CO2 level gradually enough, plants would evolve to cope with 150 ppm. There may be a lower limit that they can\'t cope with, but wsho\'d bother finding out.

> Greenhouses commonly add CO2 generators to get up around 1000 PPM. You can google that too.

But they also water their plants whenever the plants need it and add nitrogen, phosphorus and a whole lot of elements in the fertiliser they spread around.

It\'s not a natural environment, and farmers don\'t put as much effort into open field crops.

> If I allowed you 1000 calories per day, would you just open your mouth wider and be happy?

I\'m not a plant. John Larkin wants to treat us as mushrooms and cover us with organic waste, but we have ways of reacting that mushrooms don\'t.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 10:24:25 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 16:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 4:19:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 10:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 12:18:58 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:35:48 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

China is a mixed bag. They lead the world in having actual operating SMRs ( small modular nuclear reactors ), I think at least two, producing some electricity for them, maybe 600MW. Their infrastructure is vast so it\'s going to take quite a while to change out. In the meanwhile they\'re building coal fired plants, lots of them, under their Belt and Road Initiative:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative

100% electric cars in California, or in the USA, will be noise on the graph of China\'s CO2 production, in China and in Africa. People in India want lights and water pumps and cars and tractors too.

And they\'ll get them, and power them from cheap solar cells and wind turbines via big batteries.

John Larkin can\'t get his head around the fact that renewable source generate electricity more cheaply than nuclear reactors or burning fossil carbon.

> Get used to it. Learn to love CO2.

Not a good idea. John Larkin needs to learn to love cheap renewable electricity generation, and graduate to being CO2 neutral. He\'ll have to ween himself off climate change denial propaganda which seems to come with an addictive dose of personal flattery - they praise him for being clever enough see through climate science, when he\'s being too dumb to take it on board.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
news:q1prihpu44hu9or9khpemrbb4d4ltl2sal@4ax.com:

CO2 increases are having one major effect: greening the planet,
feeding plants and making them more water efficient.

You are an idiot. Deforestation means there is a lot less green
around to soak up your inane claim.

Too much CO2 has been sequestered in the last few hundred million
years. Plants were starving themselves to death.

More stupidity. If anything, it appears to have been
\"sequestered\" between your ears... and it shows.

> Maybe a lot of CO2 will moderate the next ice age too.

The next ice age will come sooner if we do not get a handle on
things, and the next time, the planet will remain frozen forever, not
for an age, but for the rest of the planet\'s existence until the sun
starts shedding a couple billion years later.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2022-09-23, Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

China is a mixed bag. They lead the world in having actual operating
SMRs ( small modular nuclear reactors ), I think at least two,
producing some electricity for them, maybe 600MW. Their infrastructure
is vast so it\'s going to take quite a while to change out. In the
meanwhile they\'re building coal fired plants, lots of them, under
their Belt and Road Initiative:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative

Belt and Road is economic warfare, China puts a cooperating country
into debt with a bad investment, and when they can\'t repay China
claims land.

They are externalising coal-fueled power in other countries, but
before the plants are clear of debt they\'ll find their market has
evaporated.

--
Jasen.

 

[server]

Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4e8ea5b0-ce5b-4606-abd5-f7cc955264fdn@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:59:00 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
#globalwarming is old fake spread by fools
replaced 15 years ago by safe scientific term: Climate Changes

My input into UN climate agencies is called:

One-month/one-year Short-Term Climate Changes
as clocked by fluctuations in solar activity,
as verified by NOAA, NASA, ESA, Parker Solar Lab and 100+ others

We no more study secret sunspots, since each individual sunspot
represents 3D volcano, so we study volcanic activity on the Sun,
represented by powerful volcanoes, called in the past 2D
sunspots, ejecting billions tones of plasma.

Not a single one of your sources agrees with a single thing you
say or think...

He is a fucking joke. \"secret sunspots\". His brain got consumed by
staring at them.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:12:52 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Plants were starving themselves to death.

Huh? Evidence for this? Plants have a good idea how much
breathing they want to do, and at appropriate seasons grow leaves
to do that, and open pores when required. When they\'ve had
enough gas, they close the pores, and in winter typically discard leaves.

They\'d just breathe more if there was real deficiency in their \'diet\'.

At 150 PPM most plants would die. Greenhouses commonly add CO2
generators to get up around 1000 PPM. You can google that too.

False, of course; thet \'150 ppm\' CO2 concentration is equivalent to mountaintop
air, and plants do grow on mountains.

If I allowed you 1000 calories per day, would you just open your mouth
wider and be happy?

I do indeed open my mouth to eat. When I\'m done eating, sometimes
I close that mouth. Plants in greenhouses aren\'t growing normally,
any more than feeding-tube ingestion is normal for humans.

There\'s no per-day limitation on plants, they only use CO2 during their hours
of photosynthesis, and that\'s when they open. The greenhouse gas mix is ineffective
overnight, unless there\'s 24-hour artificial lighting, other than acidifying the soil.

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:18:58 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

As I have already pointed out, GHG emissions have a negligible effect on global temperatures.
For one person, during one hour or year, that\'s true. Billions of persons and centuries, different
answer.

No, that is true on a global scale.