The IPCC’s Latest Climate Hysteria (lawyers, activist, Canada, how much)
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.
Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms. Plant photosynthesis discriminates against carbon 13 isotopes. In other words, plant carbon tends to to have less 13C than the CO2 from which it is formed.
First of all, with this statement you are actually acknowledging my fact that fossil fuels (which are plant based) have a different isotope than naturally background CO2. So yes, while it is true what you state, the amount of CO2 released by forest fires is a tiny fraction of that released by burning fossil fuels.
In other words, the CO2 we release is causing the greenhouse gases that are the primary cause of global warming. Proof, not speculation.
LOL! The CO2 isn't causing the greenhouse gas... it IS the greenhouse gas.
Plants (and fossil fuels) don't have different isotopes, they have different isotope ratios.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this Earth and has been at higher levels than it is now many times and for very long periods since the Earth was formed.
It has also not been clearly established that the Earth warms as a result of increased carbon dioxide.
Correlation is not causation. In other words, if the planet had been proven to have warmed in lockstep with increasing carbon dioxide levels, it would not automatically follow that the increased carbon dioxide levels were the cause of that.
But the inconvenient truth here is that not even a correlation has been proven by these "scientists". The Earth has not warmed as predicted by these people. In fact, it appears that global temperatures have been lower than expected even as carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase.
Clearly, this is a matter of trust and faith for many of the believers in this politically derived secular progressive religion. Perhaps it would be best for everyone if all of you who fall into that category would just come clean about that.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this Earth and has been at higher levels than it is now many times and for very long periods since the Earth was formed.
It has also not been clearly established that the Earth warms as a result of increased carbon dioxide.
Correlation is not causation. In other words, if the planet had been proven to have warmed in lockstep with increasing carbon dioxide levels, it would not automatically follow that the increased carbon dioxide levels were the cause of that.
But the inconvenient truth here is that not even a correlation has been proven by these "scientists". The Earth has not warmed as predicted by these people. In fact, it appears that global temperatures have been lower than expected even as carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase.
Clearly, this is a matter of trust and faith for many of the believers in this politically derived secular progressive religion. Perhaps it would be best for everyone if all of you who fall into that category would just come clean about that.
Let me guess, next you're going to tell us that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more plants thrive, right?
Without CO2, virtually all life on Earth will perish, starting with plants, and everything that is dependent on plants for food. Then everything that depends on those creatures will die, and so on.
Human beings would certainly die as well without CO2 on Earth. All of them. CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life on Earth as we know it.
Without CO2, virtually all life on Earth will perish, starting with plants, and everything that is dependent on plants for food. Then everything that depends on those creatures will die, and so on.
Human beings would certainly die as well without CO2 on Earth. All of them. CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life on Earth as we know it.
You obviously didn't read the link, hence your sidetracking.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this Earth and has been at higher levels than it is now many times and for very long periods since the Earth was formed.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now stands at over 410 ppm - the earth has not had so high a concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere since a period roughly 50 million years ago known as the Eocene, a period when the world was completely different than the present due to extreme heat and oceans that covered a wide swath of currently dry land. Palm trees and crocodiles will be living in the Canadian Arctic. The Climate Could Hit a State Unseen in 50 Million Years | Climate Central
Quote:
It has also not been clearly established that the Earth warms as a result of increased carbon dioxide.
As far back as the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Then a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.
Correlation is not causation. In other words, if the planet had been proven to have warmed in lockstep with increasing carbon dioxide levels, it would not automatically follow that the increased carbon dioxide levels were the cause of that.
The late Stephen Hawking beat you to it:
"What does it mean when someone says “correlation does not prove causation?” It’s a common phrase uttered by individuals who deny that climate change is happening, that it is dominated by the industrial emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), and that the changes will be disruptive to both ecosystems and human society (aka industrial climate disruption, global warming, or climate change)." Discussion Here
Quote:
But the inconvenient truth here is that not even a correlation has been proven by these "scientists". The Earth has not warmed as predicted by these people. In fact, it appears that global temperatures have been lower than expected even as carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase.
This statement is just plain wrong. I don't know where you get it from, but it's simply propaganda. The science shows nothing of the sort. According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
Clearly, this is a matter of trust and faith for many of the believers in this politically derived secular progressive religion. Perhaps it would be best for everyone if all of you who fall into that category would just come clean about that.
Much as you may wish it so, science is not a religion. Only a person who has no knowledge of science what-so-ever could maintain a stance such as yours. Apparently these days, a republican must give up their ability to use their brain in order to register with the party.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now stands at over 410 ppm - the earth has not had so high a concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere since a period roughly 50 million years ago known as the Eocene, a period when the world was completely different than the present due to extreme heat and oceans that covered a wide swath of currently dry land. Palm trees and crocodiles will be living in the Canadian Arctic. The Climate Could Hit a State Unseen in 50 Million Years | Climate Central
As far back as the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Then a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.
"What does it mean when someone says “correlation does not prove causation?” It’s a common phrase uttered by individuals who deny that climate change is happening, that it is dominated by the industrial emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), and that the changes will be disruptive to both ecosystems and human society (aka industrial climate disruption, global warming, or climate change)." Discussion Here
This statement is just plain wrong. I don't know where you get it from, but it's simply propaganda. The science shows nothing of the sort. According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
Much as you may wish it so, science is not a religion. Only a person who has no knowledge of science what-so-ever could maintain a stance such as yours. Apparently these days, a republican must give up their ability to use their brain in order to register with the party.
Good post.
The only ones who deny the science are the ones who don't have a clue about what science is, the multiple disciplines of science involved nor can't even begin to understand what the scientific method is. The dumification of America.
If you think Asia is beating you in trade, wait until you see that they are beating you in science, have more advanced weapons, better medicine, and a healthier environment.
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.
