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.
It's silly to think we wouldn't change the environment by burning fossil fuels.
This may be an "unscientific" viewpoint, but for plants, all that CO2 is like oxygen to us. A warmer, higher Co2 atmosphere would ultimately lead to more forests and greenery. I'd be more worried about all the toxic crap that comes with pollution than the Co2.
It would change climate patterns, making deserts out of some areas, but other current desert areas would get more water and more vegetation. Coastal zones would get flooded out, but the poles would be more viable for settlement and the exploitation of resources.
In other words, this whole thing means change, not the end of the world.
Anyway, it seems we're past the point of no return anway, so perhaps we should focus our efforts on dealing with the change.
exactly...stomping on Co2 is just a ruse for them, to install a new tax
the volcano in iceland spewed more co2 into the air, than EVERY car has since Ford invented the assembly line
now if they wanted to talk about sulphur dioxide..then they MIGHT have a small point
did you know that silver didnt tarnish until the industrail revolution.....yep the sulphur dioxide(from coal...not oil) in the air tarnishes silver
in the link provided, there is a graph (I cant post it here because i have posted it elsewhere) that shows CO2 levels going back more than 600 Million Years. For almost all of that time the CO2 level has been above 1000 ppm.
If the "experts" came up with a viable plan to stop the destruction of 5 million acres of rain forest per year, I might start taking them seriously.
A credible spokesman would help too - that twit Al do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Gore is about as believable as Daffy Duck.
Obama? Sure, global warming will destroy the planet. But first things first - it's far more important to create a health care reform boondoggle with my name on it. If there isn't any money left over for global warming you can blame Bush for that.
Oh, and maybe if the "experts" stop flying to the global warming conferences in private jets people would take them a little more seriously.
As it is, we in the US can sacrifice every penny of our wealth to reduce "greenhouse gas emissions" to zero and it won't make a damn bit of difference in the long run.
How about Al Gore buying ocean front property in CA when his own propaganda claims rising sea levels will make it uninhabitable.
Oh gee, the weather has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years, so why worry?
We DO have ways of "measuring what is going on", it's a scary word called "science", one that Republicans and their spokespersons on FOX News have told you to ignore, to pretend that scientific consensus is a "conspiracy" and to ignore man made climate change the results of this taking place at an alarming rate. And these models have a certain level of accuracy, and when combining scientific measurements with long terms forecasts you get a near unanimous agreement this planet is in for some big changes, and not one of them is beneficial. Even any short term "gains" from a warmer planet will be erased quickly by calamitous consequences somewhere else. That's reality.
And reality backed by measurable science is hard to dispute, at least those of us in the reality based community
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere won't accelerate plant growth?
Oceans release CO2 when they warm and collect it when they cool.
Yea, I know that. Means a little bit of warming means more green house gas is released thus warming the earth further.
Quote:
BTW 400 ppm is 0.04%, or 4% of 1%.
Yes, I also know that. I'm not sure what your point is. You've made two statements I agree with; I don't see what you are trying to argue.
CO_2 (I've noticed I'm the only one who writes it with a "_" here?) causes drowsiness at 1% and unconsciousness at 8%.
Quote:
Water vapor is the only green house gas of any consequence.
Huh? How'd you figure that out. The concentration of water vapor is dependent on the temperature; it settles to whatever the temperature is in about 60 days. CO_2 reaches takes hundreds of years to reach equilibrium. Water can only amplify the warming.
Vostok Ice Core has provided a nice temp reconstuction with a CO2 chart. when you overlay these two, you do find coorilation. however, what is very clear in looking at the overlay, is that temperature rises BEFORE CO2 rise. sometimes by as much as 800 years.
the following linke provides some detail as well as a graph. however, googling vostok temprature and CO2 will return dozens (if not thousands) of examples of this same graph.
Vostok Ice Core has provided a nice temp reconstuction with a CO2 chart. when you overlay these two, you do find coorilation. however, what is very clear in looking at the overlay, is that temperature rises BEFORE CO2 rise. sometimes by as much as 800 years.
Yes, the initial warming in ice ages was not triggered by CO_2 (generally thought to be orbital changes). However, once you warm the planet, CO_2 gets released (for many different reasons, for example, the oceans hold less CO_2 when warmer). The CO_2 then causes additional warming and then amplifies the warming.
Oh gee, the weather has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years, so why worry?
We DO have ways of "measuring what is going on", it's a scary word called "science", one that Republicans and their spokespersons on FOX News have told you to ignore, to pretend that scientific consensus is a "conspiracy" and to ignore man made climate change the results of this taking place at an alarming rate. And these models have a certain level of accuracy, and when combining scientific measurements with long terms forecasts you get a near unanimous agreement this planet is in for some big changes, and not one of them is beneficial. Even any short term "gains" from a warmer planet will be erased quickly by calamitous consequences somewhere else. That's reality.
And reality backed by measurable science is hard to dispute, at least those of us in the reality based community
which mesurable science are you talking about? it would help to define the discussion.
would you like to discuss the measurable lag between temp. rise and co2 rise?
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.
