Oh Look - Warmists wrong...AGAIN! Kilimenjaro gets it snow cap back (cost, compare)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wow, lets see... liken your opponent to some nefarious purpose. Proclaim a consensus, that the science is settled and validated, and then jump to the solution phase.
*chuckle*
I think you pretty much hit all your talking points.
Do you DENY that Co2 IS the lifeblood of the planet?
they will never admit it
guess what our co2 levels are currently around 350ppm
co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal
guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for most plants is....700 ppm
As the air's CO2 content rises, most plants exhibit increased rates of net photosynthesis and biomass production. Moreover, on a per-unit-leaf-area basis, plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration, as they tend to display lower stomatal conductances. Hence, the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area - or water-use efficiency - should increase dramatically as the air's CO2 content rises. In the study of Serraj et al. (1999), soybeans grown at 700 ppm CO2 displayed 10 to 25% reductions in total water loss while simultaneously exhibiting increases in dry weight of as much as 33%. Thus, elevated CO2 significantly increased the water-use efficiencies of the studied plants.
In summary, it is clear that as the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, nearly all of earth's agricultural species will respond favorably by exhibiting increases in water-use efficiency. It is thus likely that food and fiber production will increase on a worldwide basis, even in areas where productivity is severely restricted due to limited availability of soil moisture. Therefore, one can expect global agricultural productivity to rise in tandem with future increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration.
so more co2 is actually GREENER...its not theroy, its scientific fact
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-800 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming people only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
then they use 'the sealevel will rise' lie
In 1842 the "Isle of the Dead" in SE Tasmania was selected for the site of a "Mean Sea Level" refernce mark by Capt. James Clark Ross. Today this mark can clearly be seen 35 cm ABOVE the current mean sea level.
the sea level has not risen
.......yet the global warming people only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
NO-ONE is speaking against pollution...NO-ONE is speaking against the fact that us humans waste and abuse
we all want clean air/land/water
do we humans pollute...yes
do we humans waste...yes
do we humans overdevelop and cut trees(a natural radiant cooler and co2 user/o2 PRODUCER)...yes
are we humans the cause of ENVIROMENTAL CHANGES.........YES
are we humans the cause of the earths CLIMATE changes........NO
In the 1800's direct air CO2 measurements were performed by various researchers. Interestingly, the CO2 levels reported by them were mostly in excess of 300 ppm.
CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm-- the average CO2 concentration across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 315 ppm.
Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm-- not the exception
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
or how about the plants
First a little Plant Science 101 - For a successful, productive garden, hydroponic, indoor and greenhouse growers must control six "essential elements" - air, light, nutrients, water, humidity and temperature. Remove or alter the ratio of only one of these elements, growth will slow, and plants could eventually die. In this article, we will review the air element, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), it's role in the most vital plant process - photosynthesis - and how to effectively implement CO2 systems.
Photosynthesis begins when stomata, pore-like openings on the undersides of leaves, are activated by light and begin breathing in carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. This CO2 is broken down into carbon (C) and oxygen (O). Some of the O is used for other plants processes, but most is expelled back into the air. The C is combined with water to form sugar molecules, which are then converted into carbohydrates. These carbohydrates (starches) combine with nutrients, such as nitrogen, to produce new plant tissues. CO2 is vital to plant growth and development, and yet is often the most overlooked element in indoor gardening.
Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.
Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.
Commercially available CO2 generators offer the most economical, practical and consistent method of enriching indoor gardens. Using atmospheric control systems in conjunction with CO2 generators, ensure the most effective production and use of CO2.
As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 200 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
The historical record tells us of many warming episodes - and subsequent cooling periods - that have bedevilled humans for thousands of years.
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who lived in 427-347 BC, wrote about major climate changes known in his day. In the dialogue, "Timaeus," he argued global warming occurs at regular intervals, often leading to great floods. Said Plato, "When... the gods purge the Earth with a deluge of water, the survivors... are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains. But those who... live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea."
In the dialogue, "Critias," Plato wrote about weather-related geological changes. He referred to "formidable deluges" that washed away all the top soil, turning the land into a "skeleton of a body wasted by disease." What were now plains had once been covered with rich soil, Plato said, and barren mountains were once covered with trees. The yearly "water from Zeus" had been lost, he went on, creating deserts where the land was once productive.
Plato's student, Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC, also recorded evidence of global warming in his work, "Meteorologica." He noted that in the time of the Trojan War, the land of Argos was marshy and unarable, while that of Mycenae was temperate and fertile. "But now the opposite is the case," Aristotle wrote. "The land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren, owing to the water has now become fruitful." He observed the same phenomenon elsewhere covering large regions and nations.
Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle who lived 374-287 BC, discussed climate change in his work, "De ventis," which means "The Wind." He observed that in Crete, "nowadays the winters are more severe and more snow falls." In earlier times, he said, the mountains there bore grain and fruit, and the island was more populous. But when the climate changed, the land became infertile. In his book, "De causis plantarum," Theophrastus noted the Greek city of Larissa once had plentiful olive trees but that falling temperatures killed them all.
In the first century AD, an ancient Roman named Columella wrote an agricultural treatise called, "De re rustica." In it, he discussed global warming that had turned areas once too cold for agriculture into thriving farm communities. Columella cites an authority named Saserna who recorded many such cases. According to Saserna, "regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus [wine] in greatest abundance."
In the Middle Ages, people began recording the temperature and climate-related phenomena, such as the dates when plants began to blossom annually. They were aware of a warming trend that began around 900 and a cooling trend that began around 1300. We know that during the warm period, the Vikings established settlements in Greenland where perpetual ice had previously covered the land. Ancient Norse records tell us these settlements were abandoned after 1250 when falling temperatures made farming less viable and spreading ice in the sea made transportation more difficult.
The cooling trend led to heavy rains in 14th century Europe that were too much for the crops, leading to reduced agricultural output and numerous famines. In the 15th century, a warming trend returned, which lasted until the middle of the 16th century when temperatures again started to fall. By the 17th century, it was clearly apparent that a cooling trend was altering sea routes, changing the kinds of crops farmers could grow, fishing patterns and so on. Glaciers began to advance rapidly in many places and rivers that had long been ice-free year round started to freeze in the winter. This "little ice age" continued well into the 19th century.
Since then, we have been in a warming cycle that appears to have accelerated around 1950. The point is that we know a great deal about climate changes from the historical record and need not rely solely on scientific studies of core samples, tree rings and so on. These changes occurred long before industrialization and could not possibly have been man-made in any way. They don't prove man is not now affecting the climate through carbon dioxide emissions, but they do tell us temporary warming trends are common in human history. It may only be a matter of time before another cooling trend comes along.
you see the problem,,we are not saying that there is no such thing as global warming/cooling...we are saying that it is a NATURAL OCCURANCE.....The simple FACT is, to say its 'man-made' is just a LIE...do we humans help/hinder it...certainly..but we are not the CAUSE
In the 1800's direct air CO2 measurements were performed by various researchers. Interestingly, the CO2 levels reported by them were mostly in excess of 300 ppm.
CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm-- the average CO2 concentration across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 315 ppm.
Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm-- not the exception
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
or how about the plants
First a little Plant Science 101 - For a successful, productive garden, hydroponic, indoor and greenhouse growers must control six "essential elements" - air, light, nutrients, water, humidity and temperature. Remove or alter the ratio of only one of these elements, growth will slow, and plants could eventually die. In this article, we will review the air element, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), it's role in the most vital plant process - photosynthesis - and how to effectively implement CO2 systems.
Photosynthesis begins when stomata, pore-like openings on the undersides of leaves, are activated by light and begin breathing in carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. This CO2 is broken down into carbon (C) and oxygen (O). Some of the O is used for other plants processes, but most is expelled back into the air. The C is combined with water to form sugar molecules, which are then converted into carbohydrates. These carbohydrates (starches) combine with nutrients, such as nitrogen, to produce new plant tissues. CO2 is vital to plant growth and development, and yet is often the most overlooked element in indoor gardening.
Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.
Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.
Commercially available CO2 generators offer the most economical, practical and consistent method of enriching indoor gardens. Using atmospheric control systems in conjunction with CO2 generators, ensure the most effective production and use of CO2.
As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 200 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
fact Co2 is GREEN
What is GREEN is BALANCE.
What is happening is IMBALANCE.
Nature doesn't like imbalance. Nature will attempt to find a NEW balance.
That NEW balance may or may not be beneficial to US. However considering all the cost invested in the infrastructure we've already built up, any significant change in the climate patterns is likely to come with a very HIGH cost for us to adjust to the new climate patterns (assuming they even stabilize within a reasonable time). If we can avoid or minimize any changes in the climate by spending money up front NOW (by making changes in the way we produce energy) it's likely to cause us a LOT less disruption (and a LOT lower cost) than significant change in our climate patterns will do down the road.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 03-24-2011 at 09:13 AM..
you see the problem,,we are not saying that there is no such thing as global warming/cooling...we are saying that it is a NATURAL OCCURANCE.....The simple FACT is, to say its 'man-made' is just a LIE...do we humans help/hinder it...certainly..but we are not the CAUSE
REALLY POOR LOGIC.
The fact there ARE natural cycles does NOT mean that MAN is not impacting the climate ALSO.
If the climate was simply changing and we were NOT increasing the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses AND it was NOT shown that increases in those gasses CAN and HAS resulted in higher overall temps, THEN you would have a point. However, that's simply NOT the case.
You didn't shoot anything down, just expressed your opinion, which is wrong of course. If you're going to declare something as "truth", mind putting up some evidence?
I would have thought this last one you would know about - the IPCC doomsayers were taken to task over their report about the glaciers....THAT TURNED OUT TO BE COMPLETELY FALSE.
one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the dramatic levels that the globalwarming community scream about are nearly impossible.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
•For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told'
In 1842 the "Isle of the Dead" in SE Tasmania was selected for the site of a "Mean Sea Level" refernce mark by Capt. James Clark Ross. Today this mark can clearly be seen 35 cm ABOVE the current mean sea level.
The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the ‘Isle of the Dead’, Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004. Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre.
Let’s read that again and consider four things:
#1) - the mark was placed at mean sea level. The word “mean” in this use denotes the “mathematical average”. The sea rose above it and set below it by an equal amount during the tidal cycle.
#2) - The mark was made in the middle of the tidal range in 1841 and it was photographed 163 years later at the bottom of the tidal cycle.
#3) - the tidal cycle is one meter and the mark is 50 centimeters or one-half meter long.
#4) - the mark is sitting about 30 or 40 centimeters above the water in the photograph. Given that there is some wave surge, it looks like the level of the ocean has not changed one bit in 163 years.
one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the dramatic levels that the globalwarming community scream about are nearly impossible.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
•For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told'
In 1842 the "Isle of the Dead" in SE Tasmania was selected for the site of a "Mean Sea Level" refernce mark by Capt. James Clark Ross. Today this mark can clearly be seen 35 cm ABOVE the current mean sea level.
The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the ‘Isle of the Dead’, Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004. Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre.
Let’s read that again and consider four things:
#1) - the mark was placed at mean sea level. The word “mean” in this use denotes the “mathematical average”. The sea rose above it and set below it by an equal amount during the tidal cycle.
#2) - The mark was made in the middle of the tidal range in 1841 and it was photographed 163 years later at the bottom of the tidal cycle.
#3) - the tidal cycle is one meter and the mark is 50 centimeters or one-half meter long.
#4) - the mark is sitting about 30 or 40 centimeters above the water in the photograph. Given that there is some wave surge, it looks like the level of the ocean has not changed one bit in 163 years.
Sorry, but Morner is not credible. So who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?
Well, in addition to his activities “debunking” climate change, Mörner is also an enthusiast of dowsing and water witching. And it gets worse; in 2004 Mörner misrepresented his professional position in a presentation to the Russian Academy of Sciences:
Quote:
Dear Dr. Osipov:
It has come to my attention that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner gave presentations at the seminar on climate change organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the request of President Vladimir Putin earlier this month. Dr. Mörner attacked the science of climate change, while claiming that he is President of the Commission on Sea Level Change of INQUA.
I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA. Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.
Sorry, but Morner is not credible. So who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?
Well, in addition to his activities “debunking” climate change, Mörner is also an enthusiast of dowsing and water witching. And it gets worse; in 2004 Mörner misrepresented his professional position in a presentation to the Russian Academy of Sciences:
you want to bash a messenger fine..you cant refute the facts of the pictures and the fact that the sea level has not changed in the last 160 years
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
