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.
We've seen the extent of the impact chemicals have on giant waterways and the health of people living nearby these plants and factories. Why is it so hard to believe that all these plants pumping those same poisons into the air is going to be harmful?
It's not hard to believe at all. Everybody agrees that pumping poisons into the air or the water or the ground is not good.
BTW, CO2 is not poison.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and the global warming debate has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current global warming debate is about - greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.
They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life.
In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today.
More to the point...the federal government doesn't hand out research grants to individuals and institutions that might seek to question the CACA dogma.
The word in academic circles has been out for nearly thirty years...if you want climate research dollars from the Feds, you won't get any by challenging the CACA orthodoxy. The Feds will pay handsomely for research confirming the CACA hypothesis, but will not pay for any research that challenges the theory.
It's a modern version of Lysenkoism tinged with a healthy dose of confirmation bias.
Experts have funded institutions for decades from everything from Biology to Geology, they don't get their funding based on a preconceived outcome. If you don't want to believe their conclusions that's fine but let's not make up conspiracy theories because you don't want to believe the outcome.
It's not hard to believe at all. Everybody agrees that pumping poisons into the air or the water or the ground is not good.
BTW, CO2 is not poison.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and the global warming debate has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current global warming debate is about - greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.
They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life.
In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today.
Pollution is absolutely one of the foundations of the climate change debate. How are you going to argue that carbon and chemical emissions are harming the environment w/o labeling those things pollutants?
Of course CO2 is natural, but like things natural, there's a balance that needs to be maintained to keep the system working. We had vast swaths of forest and the ocean to act as the natural balance. Now we've cut down much more of that forest while dramatically increasing our output. How is that going to be negligible?
We've been pumping out more CO2 every day since the industrial revolution, and we know that the ocean absorbs it, and we know that leads to acidification, so at some point there IS going to be an imbalance. So how much more absorption are you willing to take before you're willing to deal with that impending imbalance?
It's not hard to believe at all. Everybody agrees that pumping poisons into the air or the water or the ground is not good.
BTW, CO2 is not poison.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and the global warming debate has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current global warming debate is about - greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.
They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life.
In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today.
C02 does not have an adverse impact in the correct amount, neither does oxygen but creating an imbalance in either can have disastrous effects. CO2 is not the only by product transmitted when you burn fossil fuels, many other carcinogens are given off. Releasing gases that have been stored over millions of years in a few seconds is dangerous, we are seeing the impact.
I don't know where you get your information on ocean acidity but they are in fact becoming more acidic, particularly in the North West US. They don't know enough to predict the rate at this point but the oceans are definitely consuming more CO2. Increased CO2 has caused warming and that has damaged many reefs, they are particularly sensitive to temperature increases, the Australian Reefs have significant damage.
CO2 is a necessary component of our atmosphere, but too much or too little is not a good thing. With no CO2 the global average temperature would be 0 degrees F, and no plant life on land. Since the beginning of human civilization CO2 averaged about 275 ppm...Today it is over 400 ppm.
We've been pumping out more CO2 every day since the industrial revolution, and we know that the ocean absorbs it, and we know that leads to acidification, so at some point there IS going to be an imbalance. So how much more absorption are you willing to take before you're willing to deal with that impending imbalance?
Impending imbalance?
It's out of balance right now. Even if man stopped all carbon emmissions tomorrow the damage to the environment will continue for another 1000 years. That's how long it would take for the earth's carbon cycle to return to equilibrium. We're screwed. Doesn't matter what we try to do.
It's out of balance right now. Even if man stopped all carbon emmissions tomorrow the damage to the environment will continue for another 1000 years. That's how long it would take for the earth's carbon cycle to return to equilibrium. We're screwed. Doesn't matter what we try to do.
So, are you suggesting that we should just give up and throw another log on the proverbial fire?
CO2 is a necessary component of our atmosphere, but too much or too little is not a good thing. With no CO2 the global average temperature would be 0 degrees F, and no plant life on land. Since the beginning of human civilization CO2 averaged about 275 ppm...Today it is over 400 ppm.
Totally incorrect conclusion.
- - - DATA - - -
Earth max : (134.33 F)
Space station max : (250 F)
Lunar surface max : ( 242.33 F)
Zero atmosphere = higher temperature than with atmosphere. Ergo, there is no "heating up" or trapping of heat by the atmosphere when it is COOLING the planet. And since there is no conduction nor convection of heat in a vacuum, that leaves RADIATION. The atmosphere is radiating / reflecting back energy, that COOLS the planet.
Facts in support - - -
Earth Albedo : 0.3
Moon Albedo : 0.11
- - - - - - - -
What the ALARMISTS are preaching is total NONSENSE.
There is no "trapping of heat" unless heat really is a code word for cold.
The Earth, Moon, and Space station are each receiving the same intensity of solar radiation.
But the Earth is COOLER.
COOLER means NOT TRAPPING HEAT.
NOT HEATING UP.
COOLER.
FWIW, "greenhouse gases" have higher emissivity and cool the planet even more.
My argument does not need me to post predictive models so I will not do that.
There's no proof of AGW without accurate predictive models. When even the models were wrong, AGW is nothing more than a junk theory based only on "feelings."
- - - DATA - - -
Earth max : (134.33 F)
Space station max : (250 F)
Lunar surface max : ( 242.33 F)
Zero atmosphere = higher temperature than with atmosphere. Ergo, there is no "heating up" or trapping of heat by the atmosphere when it is COOLING the planet. And since there is no conduction nor convection of heat in a vacuum, that leaves RADIATION. The atmosphere is radiating / reflecting back energy, that COOLS the planet.
Facts in support - - -
Earth Albedo : 0.3
Moon Albedo : 0.11
- - - - - - - -
What the ALARMISTS are preaching is total NONSENSE.
There is no "trapping of heat" unless heat really is a code word for cold.
The Earth, Moon, and Space station are each receiving the same intensity of solar radiation.
But the Earth is COOLER.
COOLER means NOT TRAPPING HEAT.
NOT HEATING UP.
COOLER.
FWIW, "greenhouse gases" have higher emissivity and cool the planet even more.
We see extreme cherry picking here.....You know nothing about climate science.....The moon has no atmosphere to regulate it's temperature, so on the side the sun shines the moon's temperature can reach 253 F, but you failed to mention that on the dark side the temperature can dip to minus 243 F. Could you survive there? What is the Temperature on the Moon?
The globally averaged surface temperature for the Earth is approximately 15 C. A decrease in the earth's average temperature of about 10 C would cause a glaciation period, as it has in the past.
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.
