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.
sigh, yes it is true that too much CO2 is bad for plants as well as humans, but read your own link again and note that they are talking about CO2 level ABOVE 1500ppm. we are not even close to that right now, nor will we be for centuries to come.
I know that, but I also know that much of the planet would be mostly unlivable for humans long before CO2 reached those levels.
At least I tried. Hopefully, the no CO2 = frozen Earth concept will prove useful to others who haven't thought of it when debating the Walking Brain-Dead.
Since I've gotten the usual parroted replies from GOPers (a species that hopefully goes extinct before it ruins us) I'll try another analogy that might sink in.
Let's say CO2 is equivalent to how your body regulates metabolism, and 0.00% "metabolic forcing" (analogous to CO2's radiative forcing) would render you a cold corpse.
Conversely, a large increase in that metabolic forcing would give you a very dangerous or lethal fever.
Would you be so reckless that you'd rather let that fever run its course while whining about the cost of preventative measures? Would you not at least try to prevent your own suffering or death?
Conservatives are supposedly risk-averse but they've become lousy at evaluating risks related to health or environmental problems. Thanks, Reagan, for kick-starting that trend in the 80s.
Yet another health analogy is the attitudes of cigarette smokers who keep puffing despite overwhelming evidence of smoking's dangers. Smokers are still roughly 20% of the U.S. population, even after decades of "elitist" Surgeon General warnings. "We don't need no guv'mint tellin' us to take care of our health!" (Same old blame the messenger and ignore the message attitude.)
People have long demonstrated their capability to commit prolonged suicide for the sake of temporary pleasures like a nicotine buzz, a heroin high or the rush of an overpowered, gas-guzzling engine. "Live for the moment!" is the usual excuse for things that turn on you later. If you drag others along on your reckless ride, you become a criminal.
Yeah, see, if you knew much about science there is a ready made analogy that would have worked - one you don't seem to know about
Your misunderstanding of conservatism is almost as profound as your misunderstanding of the scientific method!
Yeah, see, if you knew much about science there is a ready made analogy that would have worked - one you don't seem to know about
Your misunderstanding of conservatism is almost as profound as your misunderstanding of the scientific method!
the OP doesnt care about any of that, all he cares about is slamming conservatives and republicans even if he has to lie about it, just like a lot of the liberals on the board.
No kidding here. In fact the electric car produces most of its carbon dioxide emissions before it is ever made. The batteries alone produce 30,000 pounds of Carbon-dioxide emissions in the manufacturing process for a single car. To compare a similar car produces 14,000 pounds to produce that car. You would need to drive at least 90,000 miles in the car to make up the difference and that is if none of your electric came from coal or any other fossil fuel. The savings that you will gain? About $44 in climate damage. Even the inventor of the Prius says that it is not a viable car to produce. Electric Car Manufacturing's Massive Carbon Footprint
Perhaps you should convert these figures into Hiroshimas per second, as the OP presented in another thread. Maybe then it would sink through his head.
sigh, yes it is true that too much CO2 is bad for plants as well as humans, but read your own link again and note that they are talking about CO2 level ABOVE 1500ppm. we are not even close to that right now, nor will we be for centuries to come.
Idle curiousity. What is the highest estimated CO2 PPM in geological history?
BTW I see from my Google inquiry that the AGW crowd is panicked about the fact that we are at 400 PPM, the "highest in 800,000 years"
The science says that CO2 in small amounts regulates all the other heat-trapping gases (like water vapor) in such a way that 0.00% atmospheric CO2 would eliminate Earth's heat blanket, rendering our planet frozen and uninhabitable. Is the very existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect disputed by Republicans? I never heard them doubt it until CO2 regulation was first proposed. How many realize that global warming denial is no different than greenhouse effect denial?
A mere 0.028% atmospheric CO2 (before the fossil fuel age) was the difference between a livable and non-livable frozen planet. Does that strike anyone in the GOP as significant to our survival and happiness? Do they still want to dismiss it as a "trace gas" just because it's a small percentage in layman's terms?
Much of science is not common knowledge aka common sense, especially when it comes to volume vs. potency. Few would have guessed that a bomb the size of a small car could destroy an area millions of times larger, but "elitist" scientists knew it long before Joe Six Pack had a clue. In fact, Joe Six Pack would never have figured it out. Same goes for the physical properties of CO2 (outside of beer foam). The average Joe never studied CO2 but now sees himself as an expert because Rush Limbaugh planted taxation/regulation theories that have no bearing on physics.
For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
Why would anyone cry "hoax" about global warming concerns, given those facts? Why isn't this worth worrying about? Life isn't fair. The planet has been (per the 3-bears story) "just right" for our survival but now we're pushing it into unknown territory. Conservatism is ostensibly about maintaining a comfortable life and not disturbing what works, so why ignore a huge threat to that?
If you want to address this topic, you'll need to prove that CO2 isn't the main controller of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Offer evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth's habitability. Posting "the U.N. wants to control us!" or "Al Gore flies jets!" has no value in these discussions.
Out of the blue, it suddenly occurs to me to ask.
What was the CO2 level during the period of SNOWBALL EARTH, some 650 million years ago?
Answering that question might give you an answer to your speculation.
If other planets had Earth's carbon cycle and intelligent life evolved and started burning stored carbon, they'd end up in the same boat.
Um... you have peer reviewed studies proving this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
CO2 levels were higher on Earth in the past for natural reasons (e.g. far more volcanic activity) but this is the present and Man is the main driver now. Why argue against evidence? Human-created CO2 has a signature isotope so we can tell it from natural sources.
Um... you have peer reviewed studies proving this?
The only way this could be proven is that human produced CO2 were of a different isotope than naturally occurring CO2
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
We also create smog and cut down trees and wipe out ocean life. You could say "Lightning causes forest fires so how can Man be blamed for any destruction of trees?" or "Sharks kill tuna so how can people be overfishing tuna?" It's like a kid blaming his little brother for everything. "Neener, neener! China is burning more coal so why can't America?"
Smog reflects solar radiance, hence cools the earth. One effect of more successful cleaning of the air has been warming. I'll bet you and your AGW fellow bots deny this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
AGW is just one realm of human impact that became "controversial" because oil, gas and coal money was involved. People have lied throughout history to protect nature-pillaging industries that produce huge profits. And they have the gall to blame scientists for needing grant money to do research (only when they don't like the findings of said research).
Oh dont worry. Demographers expect that human population will fall into a long decline by the end of this century. Then the problem will have been solved.
Scrambling to figure out why atmospheric temps have not risen in nearly 18 years even though co2 emissions are through the roof.... First they blame the Pacific...
Well now it's maybe over in the Atlantic that's causing the "haitus"
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.
