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.
Since somewhere around 1950 carbon dioxide levels have risen to levels never known in the history of man. ........................... The oceans (global sea level) have risen almost 7 inches in the last century due to polar ice melting. ..
the problem here is that people are using BAD FALSEIFIED SCIENCE to scare people about warming or cooling and they are using c02 as a scapegoat
guess what our co2 levels are currently around 350ppm
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 most plants 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
then they use 'the sealevel will rise' lie
In 1842 the "Isle of the Dead" in SE Tasmania was selected for the site of a "Mean Sea Level" refernce mark by Capt. James Clark Ross. Today this mark can clearly be seen 35 cm ABOVE the current mean sea level.
the sea level has not risen
.......yet the global warming people only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
NO-ONE is speaking against pollution...NO-ONE is speaking against the fact that us humans waste and abuse
we all want clean air/land/water
do we humans pollute...yes
do we humans waste...yes
do we humans overdevelop and cut trees(a natural radiant cooler and co2 user/o2 PRODUCER)...yes
are we humans the cause of ENVIROMENTAL CHANGES.........YES
are we humans the cause of the earths CLIMATE changes........NO
Since somewhere around 1950 carbon dioxide levels have risen to levels never known in the history of man. .
huh???
In the 1800's direct air CO2 measurements were performed by various researchers. Interestingly, the CO2 levels reported by them were mostly in excess of 300 ppm.
CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm-- the average CO2 concentration across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 315 ppm.
Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm-- not the exception
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
or how about the plants
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 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 200 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
But the IPCC have since admitted it was based on a report written in a science journal and even the scientist who was the subject of the original story admits it was not based on fact.
The article, in the New Scientist, was not even based on a research paper - it evolved from a short telephone interview with the academic.
Dr Syed Hasnain, an Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped.
Score a point for the truth.
Hmm, all I read was that the speculation wasn't around them melting, but the date they would "all melt" by.
Sounds like someone stated a date when they would be gone that doesn't make sense at the current melting rate.
However, they said that the glaciers are still melting 2-3 feet in thickness a year still, which is the main concern of climatologists.
I don't see any hoax here other then someone doesn't know how to do math (3 feet a year times glacier thickness=???)
NOAA and other sources have been taking measurements for some time, some dating back to the mid 1800's. Some areas are going down but most have upward trend. What every station I've looked at does indicate is a slow, steady and predictable pace no matter which way it is going.
It looks like CA. has had monsterous increase in sea levels over the past 90 years that brought the level up by .25"(1/4") were as Sweeden has lost over 1 foot (12") of sea level over a similar time frame.
Hmm, all I read was that the speculation wasn't around them melting, but the date they would "all melt" by.
Sounds like someone stated a date when they would be gone that doesn't make sense at the current melting rate.
However, they said that the glaciers are still melting 2-3 feet in thickness a year still, which is the main concern of climatologists.
I don't see any hoax here other then someone doesn't know how to do math (3 feet a year times glacier thickness=???)
Once more with feeling....
Glaciers have been in steady retreat since about 1880. that rate is not larger now than it was then.
How can this retreat be caused by AGW forces when all the climatologists who believe in AGW tell us that the period of AGW didnt begin until around 1950?
Glaciers have been in steady retreat since about 1880. that rate is not larger now than it was then.
How can this retreat be caused by AGW forces when all the climatologists who believe in AGW tell us that the period of AGW didnt begin until around 1950?
Neither of us study GW, but I do know statistics and history and know how easy anyone can make their case seem factual.
I am not arguring either way but if there is data showing an "increase" in the melting rate, then an approriate question is "why?"
And who said 1950 is the date? Why not 1940? 20? Industrial Revolution?
Hell lets say GW is true for the heck of it. The cause may not be a fossil fuel/CO2 problem caused by our factories and vehicles, but it may be caused by the massive deforestation in third world countries of some of the planet's "CO2 sinks." There is data showing mass deforestation and we know it absorbs CO2, and if we have less then we did 100 years ago, could that be a reason? I don't know but I just made a claim!
There are a lot of "whys?" still in this debate, but claiming it is a hoax is as short sighted as saying the "world will melt in 30 years." Just remember that the next time you argue its a hoax, that you are acting just like the people you claim made up the hoax, so why believe you either?
From a risk analysis stand point (and this may make sense if you know decision tree analysis or similar), what is the the "cost" of Global Warming be correct and not doing anything about it. After you try an honest assessment, what is the chance of this scenario being true (and it can't be 0%, just like something can't be 100%). Compare that to the cost tree of doing "something" about it, and give it the same probabilities of GW being true. I won't tell you the answer because everyone has different assumptions in "cost" but to me, I put it at 5% being true(global warming) and would still support doing something about as the it makes economic/risk adversion sense in my math.
And that is why a lot of companies (politics aside) are looking at going "green" due to long term cost savings (main reason) and analysis similar to the one above analysis done by their own executives.
The problem with the IPCC is not only did they rely on "grey literature", but they attributed the records from the wrong places as support.
Even when the original records are evaluated, they are limited in quantity and also lack complete cycles to establish proper trend.
It really is unfortunate and it is one of the reasons the IPCC is currently being hammered from every direction. The deeper they look into the issue, the more errors and to be honest, amateur dealings with their work.
So either they are incompetent, or they are motivated by some other means. Personally, I think it to be a little bit of both.
Neither of us study GW, but I do know statistics and history and know how easy anyone can make their case seem factual.
I am not arguring either way but if there is data showing an "increase" in the melting rate, then an approriate question is "why?"
And who said 1950 is the date? Why not 1940? 20? Industrial Revolution?
Hell lets say GW is true for the heck of it. The cause may not be a fossil fuel/CO2 problem caused by our factories and vehicles, but it may be caused by the massive deforestation in third world countries of some of the planet's "CO2 sinks." There is data showing mass deforestation and we know it absorbs CO2, and if we have less then we did 100 years ago, could that be a reason? I don't know but I just made a claim!
There are a lot of "whys?" still in this debate, but claiming it is a hoax is as short sighted as saying the "world will melt in 30 years." Just remember that the next time you argue its a hoax, that you are acting just like the people you claim made up the hoax, so why believe you either?
From a risk analysis stand point (and this may make sense if you know decision tree analysis or similar), what is the the "cost" of Global Warming be correct and not doing anything about it. After you try an honest assessment, what is the chance of this scenario being true (and it can't be 0%, just like something can't be 100%). Compare that to the cost tree of doing "something" about it, and give it the same probabilities of GW being true. I won't tell you the answer because everyone has different assumptions in "cost" but to me, I put it at 5% being true(global warming) and would still support doing something about as the it makes economic/risk adversion sense in my math.
And that is why a lot of companies (politics aside) are looking at going "green" due to long term cost savings (main reason) and analysis similar to the one above analysis done by their own executives.
Well there goes any chance at a substantive discussion. I really had high hopes…
If you don’t want to discuss actual science why come on and blather about things you wont even read about? Rate of retreat is important. Understanding where the glaciers were in 1200AD is important. Because it tells us some things about climate that are vital to understanding why we are seeing the warming trend we see now.
It would be nice to discuss reality instead of issuing our political mantras. I am not suggesting climage is not changing. And I have never used the word Hoax as it relates to climate change. I have argued that the warming is vastly overstated as is sea level rise and I have argued that C02 is not nearly as dangerous as we have been led to believe because the physics say it isnt.
(you have to run down the “Forcing theory” to get danger out of CO2)
But if you want platitudes have at it. I am not interested.
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.
