No B.C. Fruit This Year

[fjlip]

What we must do is think and reason, NOT swallow some theory that's not even provable.

This applies to Canada almost 100%.

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1726935239384043963

If the 3% of 0.04% of the air is causing catastrophic climate changes....WTF does the other 97% natural C02 do? That's the problem!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What we must do is think and reason, NOT swallow some theory that's not even provable.

This applies to Canada almost 100%.

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1726935239384043963

If the 3% of 0.04% of the air is causing catastrophic climate changes....WTF does the other 97% natural C02 do? That's the problem!

That question actually has a valid answer. CO2 effectiveness as a greenhouse gas is not linear. It declines exponentially. Doubling it from 50 to 100 PPM has a measurable effect. By the time it reached 400 ppm, the emissions spectrum was fully saturated, and any further additions have virtually no effect. We could double it and double it again and the only effect will be healthier more drought tolerant faster growing plants covering increasingly large areas of the Earth.
This of course is why all of the models have been so drastically wrong.

[chuckChuck]

The science that proves increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause the greenhouse effect is not disputed by any credible scientist.

If it is, show us the link Einstein! Start running away now from that question Jethro!

No doubt A5, the anti science climate change denier will tell us more CO2 is good for us! And that we will run out of CO2 if we don't keep burning fossil fuels!

He doesn't even seem to know there is a carbon cycle!

[redleaf]

Not here for any name calling and I am not actually a scientist myself. To be honest I’m not very good at math even, however by my calculations saying the level of CO2 is .04% is wrong. .04% X 1,000,000 = 40,000 PPM. If the actual content of earths atmosphere is 427 Parts per million the percentage works out to be 427 / 1,000,000 = .000427% not .0427%.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Redleaf, you need to multiply your answer by 100 to get percent. Cent being 100. Per 100. Your answer is per one

[redleaf]

What I find annoying and confusing is the way .04% is easily thrown around and considered as the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is actually .04% of 1% or .0004% of the earth’s atmosphere.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, I will try to explain the law of diminishing returns to you with an example you might be able to understand, since science and math don't seem to be your strong suits.

Let's assume that agriville trolls get paid $1 for the first smiley face emoji or LOL of the day.
Half as much for the second one, and half as much again for the third one etc.
You derive a huge benefit from posting one smiley face per day, some benefit from the second one small amount from the third, by the time you posted four or five, you aren't gaining much more, you might as well take the rest of the day off and start again tomorrow morning.

By the time you have posted your 7th smiley face of the day, you are only being paid fractions of a cent per smiley face. Posting any more smiley faces that day won't even pay for the electricity your computer consumes when you click the emoji.
That is where we are at with co2 in the atmosphere. Earth enjoyed significant benefits from increasing CO2 when it was in the double digits. Increasing it from 400 PPM does not improve the weather anymore then you would get paid more for posting your 100th emoji of the day.
But the plants still appreciate the extra CO2. Unlike agriville readers who do not appreciate the redundant emojis.

[ajl]

The hits just keep on coming for shitholistan. Then upchuck goes and posts the propaganda from the dumbasses at mcmaster university (need to closes that place)that canuckistan is somehow not going to be a basket case. Seeding just wrapping up in this area putting to bed a nasty spring. Hopefully there will be enough heat to get these late crops to maturity.

[chuckChuck]

I see as I predicted, Jethro from AB came up empty handed when asked to produce a credible scientist who say greenhouse gases and specifically CO2 do not cause the greenhouse effect......crickets!

All we get is brainless comments on emojis.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I acknowledge that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. But at these levels adding anymore is like making water wetter. It's already saturated.

At these concentration, CO2 has already done all the good it can do as a greenhouse gas.

[fjlip]

"If the 3% of 0.04% of the air is causing catastrophic climate changes....WTF does the other 97% natural C02 do? "

Answer chucky!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I think I succeeded in explaining diminishing returns to chuck. In the previous post he wasted three emojis. After reading my explanation he cut back to a single emoji. Well done.

[agstar77]

What does that have to do with the fruit industry disaster?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What does ungodly cold have to do with global warming?

[jazz]

chuck how much carbon tax do we need to pay in order have have fresh fruit every year.