Why the planet continues to get hotter (illegal, suspect, economy)
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.
I'm sure that thoughtful response will change a lot of minds! No wonder the movement is imploding...
The "movement"? Thats what you call it, a "movement"? And then you say it is "imploding"?
Minds will be changed by those who believe in science, not politics, not Al Gore, and not "wealth redistribution" or whatever Rupert and the boys have your crowd believing.
Just good old fashioned science, divorced completely from politics.
For the denialist movement, most arguments make a scientific issue into an economic or political one, as it makes it much easier for low information types to understand, and get passionate about
The "movement"? Thats what you call it, a "movement"? And then you say it is "imploding"?
Minds will be changed by those who believe in science, not politics, not Al Gore, and not "wealth redistribution" or whatever Rupert and the boys have your crowd believing.
Just good old fashioned science, divorced completely from politics.
For the denialist movement, most arguments make a scientific issue into an economic or political one, as it makes it much easier for low information types to understand, and get passionate about
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 750-10000 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...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm
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
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 (SCIENCE) 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 250 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
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
NO-ONE is speaking against stopping 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
do we humans cause SOME 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 30-80 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.
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.
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 â€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.
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
The "movement"? Thats what you call it, a "movement"? And then you say it is "imploding"?
Minds will be changed by those who believe in science, not politics, not Al Gore, and not "wealth redistribution" or whatever Rupert and the boys have your crowd believing.
Just good old fashioned science, divorced completely from politics.
For the denialist movement, most arguments make a scientific issue into an economic or political one, as it makes it much easier for low information types to understand, and get passionate about
I didn't realize the word "movement" was offensive - does that also apply to civil rights movements? Or union movements? Please enlighten me on the latest politically correct terminology?
As far as minds being changed, that is apparent in the polls. Just not in the direction adherents might want.
Also I would be interested in hearing how the problem is going to be solved without political involvement?
I expect the weather will get more extreme as the energy retained in the atmosphere increases. I also expect the only people to notice will be the home insurance businesses that will try and shove their responsibilities for storm damage onto the Federal government as they did with flood insurance. I also do not foresee any government taking more than jingoistic measures to reduce the change.
Business and CO2 generation will continue at an increasing rate until much of the world becomes uninhabitable and the rest is ruined by wars of displaced people. The brewing War in the Ivory Coast is a good example. The desert is expanding and driving the nomads into the farmland. As if that hasn’t happened before.
The result will be Hell on Earth but I will not care because I will very likely be dead by that time.
I expect the weather will get more extreme as the energy retained in the atmosphere increases. I also expect the only people to notice will be the home insurance businesses that will try and shove their responsibilities for storm damage onto the Federal government as they did with flood insurance. I also do not foresee any government taking more than jingoistic measures to reduce the change.
Business and CO2 generation will continue at an increasing rate until much of the world becomes uninhabitable and the rest is ruined by wars of displaced people. The brewing War in the Ivory Coast is a good example. The desert is expanding and driving the nomads into the farmland. As if that hasn’t happened before.
The result will be Hell on Earth but I will not care because I will very likely be dead by that time.
you should read more. the weather is not getting more extreme.
the fact that you call it a "movement" indicates to me this is not about science it is about politics.
I'm the one who introduced the apparently offensive term "movement", not realizing that it was offensive. If you tell me the non-offensive term I will use it.
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.