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.
On the other hand, climate change due to Man's industrial activity is a belief, and not a fact, because prior to the last hundred years, there was no industrial activity that could have accounted for those changes seen before. Therefore it is logical to assume that something else caused those changes, other than industrial activity. And just as logical to assume what ever change may take place in the future will be caused by the same mechanisms that caused all of the other changes to occur.
It's impossible to take someone seriously when they repeat 'man-made CO2' endlessly with no mention of other contributing gases. SOXs, NOXs? How about particulates and their contribution? No mention of the increasing levels of methane releases as the Arctic continues to lose permafrost and glaciers around the globe continue to recede.
And that is only a tiny fraction of the discussion.
My guess is they focus on CO2 because that is what the right wing talking heads mention most often.
You're absolutely right, it is impossible to take anyone seriously that continues to repeat man-made CO2 caused global warming like a broken freaking record, which has been the ENTIRE ARGUMENT of the pseudo-scientist frauds and UN bureaucrat pimps from DAY ONE. Carbon Tax, Carbon Footprint, Carbon Credits, Carbon, Carbon, Carbon for 10 non-stop years. If we had a dollar for every time one of the global warming clowns said "CO2" or Carbon Footprint", we could pay off the 14 Trillion national debt, and have change left over.
And the only thing exceeding the level of dishonesty of this global warming scam is for someone to come along NOW, after all of these years of incessant CO2 crap, claiming that CO2 was "only a tiny fraction of the discussion". Tiny fraction my butt ... who do you think is going to buy this load of nonsense? CO2 has been the ENTIRE ARGUMENT all along. Human generated CO2 created by industrial activity and burning fossil fuels. And it was a fraud in the beginning, and it's a proven fraud now ... and now that it's a proven scam, you can't scam your way out of it. Nobody is going to buy such a ridiculously false re-write of history, so why even try??
On the other hand, climate change due to Man's industrial activity is a belief, and not a fact, because prior to the last hundred years, there was no industrial activity that could have accounted for those changes seen before.
And that is an example of a logical fallacy. That the earth warmed before due to natural causes does not invalidate anthropogenic global warming theory; it simply means that natural causes have to be ruled out, and according to scientists calculations, natural climatic causes could not account for the significant changes in the earth's mean surface temperature over such a short period of time.
I would grant you that there is still probably a lot that they don't know about the degree to which man-made forces have impacted the climate, and what the consequences are, but there is little denying the fact that humans have greatly impacted the climate already. The earth's warming trend began in or around 1860, and has continued ever since, particularly since about 1978. Moreover, as I pointed out to you before, this warming trend was predicted.
Quote:
Therefore it is logical to assume that something else caused those changes, other than industrial activity.
Yes, something caused those changes, but that in no way precludes the fact that humans are changing the environment. Volcanoes and fires can, and have, destroyed large swaths of forests in the past; that doesn't mean that humans can't do the exact same thing. It is well within our capacity to do so, and we have. Bad logic, mate.
Quote:
And just as logical to assume what ever change may take place in the future will be caused by the same mechanisms that caused all of the other changes to occur.
That could happen, but again, you have to look at the evidence. Again, we could blame the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on meteorites - after all, meteorites have struck the earth before, and it's logical to assume that they'll do so again. The problem is, all of the evidence that we know of speaks to the contrary, that it was man who unleashed the great ball of fire on those days. And the same is now true of global warming. It's not nature, it's us. Follow the evidence, not your assumptions.
Quote:
Climate is measure in thousands of years, not in decades. Decade to decade measurements of temperature are just that ... temperature fluctuations, not changes in climate.
Yes, and no. The problem with your hypothesis is that temperatures have largely not fluctuated; they have constantly been moving upward since about 1860, with the exception of a 30 year trend, but even then, the temperatures began moving upward after a precipitous drop in the late 1940s. After that point, with the exception of a year here and there, the temperatures have been rising and rising. This has been predicted. Even when it was easier for scientists to remain skeptical during the global temperature plateau, most credible scientists understood that the crap we were digging up and belching into the atmosphere by the millions of tons would have a major impact on climate. And they were right, and you're not.
Quote:
The regions of the earth still maintain the same climate they've had for hundreds of years ... the tropics are still tropical, and the Arctic is still Arctic. Your morning orange juice still comes from oranges grown in California and Florida, not Maine and Wisconsin. It's still dreary in England still cloudy in Seattle ... and Sunny and pleasant in Hawaii. They still grow tobacco and roll cigars in Cuba .... and they still Sky in the Swiss Alps.
This is the one flimsy piece of evidence that you have in defense of your position -- the fact that it's not 90 degrees in Boston in winter. The point is, we don't want to wait to find out what that reality would be like.
And that is an example of a logical fallacy. That the earth warmed before due to natural causes does not invalidate anthropogenic global warming theory; it simply means that natural causes have to be ruled out, and according to scientists calculations, natural climatic causes could not account for the significant changes in the earth's mean surface temperature over such a short period of time.
I would grant you that there is still probably a lot that they don't know about the degree to which man-made forces have impacted the climate, and what the consequences are, but there is little denying the fact that humans have greatly impacted the climate already. The earth's warming trend began in or around 1860, and has continued ever since, particularly since about 1978. Moreover, as I pointed out to you before, this warming trend was predicted.
Yes, something caused those changes, but that in no way precludes the fact that humans are changing the environment. Volcanoes and fires can, and have, destroyed large swaths of forests in the past; that doesn't mean that humans can't do the exact same thing. It is well within our capacity to do so, and we have. Bad logic, mate.
That could happen, but again, you have to look at the evidence. Again, we could blame the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on meteorites - after all, meteorites have struck the earth before, and it's logical to assume that they'll do so again. The problem is, all of the evidence that we know of speaks to the contrary, that it was man who unleashed the great ball of fire on those days. And the same is now true of global warming. It's not nature, it's us. Follow the evidence, not your assumptions.
Yes, and no. The problem with your hypothesis is that temperatures have largely not fluctuated; they have constantly been moving upward since about 1860, with the exception of a 30 year trend, but even then, the temperatures began moving upward after a precipitous drop in the late 1940s. After that point, with the exception of a year here and there, the temperatures have been rising and rising. This has been predicted. Even when it was easier for scientists to remain skeptical during the global temperature plateau, most credible scientists understood that the crap we were digging up and belching into the atmosphere by the millions of tons would have a major impact on climate. And they were right, and you're not.
This is the one flimsy piece of evidence that you have in defense of your position -- the fact that it's not 90 degrees in Boston in winter. The point is, we don't want to wait to find out what that reality would be like.
Perhaps there is enough inadequacy in the state of our knowledge about AGW that we should not destroy the economy and impoverish the world? The proposed solutions to AGW, in totality, would wipe out billions due to poverty. I think we should take our chances, maintain prosperity, so we have the wealth to adapt to climate change--from whatever cause. If we're broke, we're dead.
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 225 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
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 liberals ( like odanny) only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
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
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.
