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.
co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal
guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for plant life is....700 ppm
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
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 750-800 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
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
there are plenty of other benefits to the planet from global warming. Because warming is concentrated at the poles, large sections of the continental landmasses in the Northern Hemisphere that are currently too cold to be used for productive agriculture would become usable. Current agricultural lands would be warmed, but not as seriously impacted as warming closer to the equator is less severe. Also, warming is supposedly more prevalent during the winter months, lessening the length and severity of cold months leading to longer growing and allowing us to spend less of our resources on heating (wood, fossil fuels, electricity). Furthermore, warming would increase air temperature near and water temperature in the oceans, leading to increased evaporation and moisture in the atmosphere. This moisture would then fall as rain on the continents, further increasing the land's agricultural carrying capacity, thus allowing us to grow more food (and lessen the severity of current water shortages).
so more co2 is actually GREENER
The most recent glaciation began about 125,000 years ago and climaxed about 21,000 years ago. At this time, over 30% of the earth’s surface was covered by ice, and sea level was at least 125 meters lower than present
here is some history for you
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
May I remind everyone of CLIMATEGATE. The world's leading climatologists, advising the UN no less, caught discussing at length (in their email correspondence) how best to manipulate the data to serve their global warming agenda in a way that other scientists would not detect. Come on, what else would a person need to hear to be convinced that this is scheme to collect an astronomical amount of money globally on Cap and Trade taxes and install a control grid on the people in the name of saving the planet. In light of the Climategate scandal, at best, at best, that would mean that all the data has been compromised and that they cannot even say if it is happening or not. No self-respecting scientist would ever draw a conclusion from tainted research.
Last edited by Sights_Set; 01-17-2011 at 08:13 PM..
Reason: grammar
LOL. I cant believe people are listening to someone posting on a forum who is not qualified at all to be telling other people about global warming. Unless your a climatologist who went to collage to stucy climate you have no buisiness telling people that global warming doesnt exist. The greenhouse effect has been accepted by the scientific comunity since 1860! And the FACT that the release of CO2 gas effects the climate due to the greenhouse effect has been accepted since 1896! And since we have been dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each and every year its only logical to conclude that global warming is occuring. Of course to accept this you would first have to become as intelligent as someone in the 1800's, and since many people arent even that, arguing this is pointless. And another thing, you state that global warming has "reached a plateau" but who is to say that it will start dropping? What if it remains stable for a year and then starts to climb again? And besides, I would like too see one way that the release of CO2 and other toxic gases into the air could possibly be a good thing? People in China can hardly breath because of it. And yet there are uninformed, ignorant people like you running around saying that its NOT a bad thing.
Sincerly,
Someone who will laugh at all the ignorant, misinformed people who have no buisness in this deabte when it blows up in their faces 40 years from now.
co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal
guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for plant life is....700 ppm
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
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 750-800 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
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
there are plenty of other benefits to the planet from global warming. Because warming is concentrated at the poles, large sections of the continental landmasses in the Northern Hemisphere that are currently too cold to be used for productive agriculture would become usable. Current agricultural lands would be warmed, but not as seriously impacted as warming closer to the equator is less severe. Also, warming is supposedly more prevalent during the winter months, lessening the length and severity of cold months leading to longer growing and allowing us to spend less of our resources on heating (wood, fossil fuels, electricity). Furthermore, warming would increase air temperature near and water temperature in the oceans, leading to increased evaporation and moisture in the atmosphere. This moisture would then fall as rain on the continents, further increasing the land's agricultural carrying capacity, thus allowing us to grow more food (and lessen the severity of current water shortages).
so more co2 is actually GREENER
There are many errors that can be fround in this post. Lets start at the top. It is stated that 700ppm of CO2 would be "ideal". This is true, but only for PLANTS not people, it would be much harder to breath in an enviroment with 700ppm then 300ppm. Besides if we contine the way we are CO2 levels could go WAY beyond 700ppm. You also state that science shows that the Earth has warmed and cooled many time, this is true but Earth's CO2 and tempurature have never risen this fast without the assistance of a supervolcano eruption that released BILLIONS of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And even those eruptions undid themselves due to the ash released blocking out sunlight. However CO2 alone will not allow the Earth to cool and will continually make it hotter. And the world would not be greener with excess CO2 we are putting out much more CO2 then plants can convert, and besides with all the rainforests bieng cut down soon there wont be many plants left to absorb this CO2. Next, lets talk about Greenland and Antarctica, you state that both these places once were green and had vegitation everwhere. This is off topic. The reason plants grew in abundance on Greenland and Iceland was due to continental drift, or in simpler terms the movement of the continents. Both of these places used to be thousands of miles closer to the equator and this is why life grew. What do glaciers have to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere? If more Co2 was in the atmosphere there would be no glaciers... that part made no sense. Back to the plant thing... now your just running out of bad evidence. And now your trying to say that we need excess CO2 to support our population? Well if things keep going to way they are it will get TOO hot for plants and there will be none to support us, next falsehood please! Now your saying that a tempurature increase would free up more land for farming... only one problem extreame storms caused by a large increase in oceanic tempurature would destroy farmland, homes, cities, towns, and much more. You also say we would need to spend less resources on heating during the winter. But there are 2 sides to this. Less heating in the winter means you would need to crank up the AC ALL SUMMER! So really, it doesnt matter. I already adressed this next topic. Warmer oceans= MUCH MORE VIOLENT STORMS. Your right about one thing, the moisture would fall on the continents, a lot of it, so much in fact it would flood farmland all around the world.
No matter how you try to make global warming look, theres only one thing it is BAD.
Clearly this issue is not fully understood, despite rising CO2 levels for many years and the last few years are no different, we have many years of no warming, years which goes beyond explaining it by a rare anomaly.
"Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.
At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.
Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations. Reached a Plateau
The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."
Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.
"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."
Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill." Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
and the TOTAL temp change from 1880-2008 a wopping 1/3 a degree farentheight
Wrong... Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005. Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
Quote:
global warming is a farce
Not at all...
Quote:
Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009 « But Now You Know
Know what, that you spread false info?
From your other long post, more false info...
Quote:
co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal
There are many errors that can be fround in this post. Lets start at the top. It is stated that 700ppm of CO2 would be "ideal". This is true, but only for PLANTS not people, it would be much harder to breath in an enviroment with 700ppm then 300ppm. Besides if we contine the way we are CO2 levels could go WAY beyond 700ppm. You also state that science shows that the Earth has warmed and cooled many time, this is true but Earth's CO2 and tempurature have never risen this fast without the assistance of a supervolcano eruption that released BILLIONS of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And even those eruptions undid themselves due to the ash released blocking out sunlight. However CO2 alone will not allow the Earth to cool and will continually make it hotter. And the world would not be greener with excess CO2 we are putting out much more CO2 then plants can convert, and besides with all the rainforests bieng cut down soon there wont be many plants left to absorb this CO2. Next, lets talk about Greenland and Antarctica, you state that both these places once were green and had vegitation everwhere. This is off topic. The reason plants grew in abundance on Greenland and Iceland was due to continental drift, or in simpler terms the movement of the continents. Both of these places used to be thousands of miles closer to the equator and this is why life grew. What do glaciers have to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere? If more Co2 was in the atmosphere there would be no glaciers... that part made no sense. Back to the plant thing... now your just running out of bad evidence. And now your trying to say that we need excess CO2 to support our population? Well if things keep going to way they are it will get TOO hot for plants and there will be none to support us, next falsehood please! Now your saying that a tempurature increase would free up more land for farming... only one problem extreame storms caused by a large increase in oceanic tempurature would destroy farmland, homes, cities, towns, and much more. You also say we would need to spend less resources on heating during the winter. But there are 2 sides to this. Less heating in the winter means you would need to crank up the AC ALL SUMMER! So really, it doesnt matter. I already adressed this next topic. Warmer oceans= MUCH MORE VIOLENT STORMS. Your right about one thing, the moisture would fall on the continents, a lot of it, so much in fact it would flood farmland all around the world.
No matter how you try to make global warming look, theres only one thing it is BAD.
The only thing that is bad is if there were no warming or greenhouse effect because then we wouldn't be here. Some of you warming lunatics think that would be fine too though.
Wrong... Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005. Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
Wrong... Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005. Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
Yup they had a definite way to record those temps back then.
Infallible proof beyond dispute
I'm glad they have this all figured out and cleared up!!
Thanks for that REPORT - ! you get an F for a GRADE in FANTASY SCIENCE
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.
700ppm is ideal... NOT
