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.
At least I tried. Hopefully, the no CO2 = frozen Earth concept will prove useful to others who haven't thought of it when debating the Walking Brain-Dead.
The Walking Brain-Dead are in my view those who use their hopelessly mediocre and overwrought interpretation of legitimate science to move forward their idiotic political policies.
I notice neither you nor the other one made any answer to my analysis of your foolish "No CO2=Frozen Earth" question. Usually I let it pass, taking the lack of answer as a compliment, but in this case I will call for an answer.
Defend the validity of such a question - defend how the theoretical result of an impossible state could be relevant to a real world problem. I doubt very much that you or sanspeur can do so, but I'm quite willing to be surprised.
Originally Posted by the fish For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
at 200ppm photosynthesis stops...
help trees, increase co2
On the other hand.... Too much CO2 is bad to the plants. Too high CO2 level lowers plants' transpiration during photosynthesis: without or with less transpiration less nutritive solution is drawn thru the plant, thus less food enters the plant and growth slows down. Under too high CO2 level, necrosis spots appear on leaves that may also roll into themselves. These dead tissue spots are a great food for bacteria and molds. Too much of a good thing, again, turns out bad results like a lower weighted yield per plant and a lower quality produce. CO2 concentration ppm and effect on plants for the greenhouses gardening or indoor garden
The science says that CO2 in small amounts regulates all the other heat-trapping gases (like water vapor) in such a way that 0.00% atmospheric CO2 would eliminate Earth's heat blanket, rendering our planet frozen and uninhabitable. Is the very existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect disputed by Republicans? I never heard them doubt it until CO2 regulation was first proposed. How many realize that global warming denial is no different than greenhouse effect denial?
A mere 0.028% atmospheric CO2 (before the fossil fuel age) was the difference between a livable and non-livable frozen planet. Does that strike anyone in the GOP as significant to our survival and happiness? Do they still want to dismiss it as a "trace gas" just because it's a small percentage in layman's terms?
Much of science is not common knowledge aka common sense, especially when it comes to volume vs. potency. Few would have guessed that a bomb the size of a small car could destroy an area millions of times larger, but "elitist" scientists knew it long before Joe Six Pack had a clue. In fact, Joe Six Pack would never have figured it out. Same goes for the physical properties of CO2 (outside of beer foam). The average Joe never studied CO2 but now sees himself as an expert because Rush Limbaugh planted taxation/regulation theories that have no bearing on physics.
For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
Why would anyone cry "hoax" about global warming concerns, given those facts? Why isn't this worth worrying about? Life isn't fair. The planet has been (per the 3-bears story) "just right" for our survival but now we're pushing it into unknown territory. Conservatism is ostensibly about maintaining a comfortable life and not disturbing what works, so why ignore a huge threat to that?
If you want to address this topic, you'll need to prove that CO2 isn't the main controller of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Offer evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth's habitability. Posting "the U.N. wants to control us!" or "Al Gore flies jets!" has no value in these discussions.
Not sure if serious. Maybe the electric cars are being powered by coal power plants? Is that what you're getting at?
No kidding here. In fact the electric car produces most of its carbon dioxide emissions before it is ever made. The batteries alone produce 30,000 pounds of Carbon-dioxide emissions in the manufacturing process for a single car. To compare a similar car produces 14,000 pounds to produce that car. You would need to drive at least 90,000 miles in the car to make up the difference and that is if none of your electric came from coal or any other fossil fuel. The savings that you will gain? About $44 in climate damage. Even the inventor of the Prius says that it is not a viable car to produce. Electric Car Manufacturing's Massive Carbon Footprint
On the other hand.... Too much CO2 is bad to the plants. Too high CO2 level lowers plants' transpiration during photosynthesis: without or with less transpiration less nutritive solution is drawn thru the plant, thus less food enters the plant and growth slows down. Under too high CO2 level, necrosis spots appear on leaves that may also roll into themselves. These dead tissue spots are a great food for bacteria and molds. Too much of a good thing, again, turns out bad results like a lower weighted yield per plant and a lower quality produce. CO2 concentration ppm and effect on plants for the greenhouses gardening or indoor garden
sigh, yes it is true that too much CO2 is bad for plants as well as humans, but read your own link again and note that they are talking about CO2 level ABOVE 1500ppm. we are not even close to that right now, nor will we be for centuries to come.
Since I've gotten the usual parroted replies from GOPers (a species that hopefully goes extinct before it ruins us) I'll try another analogy that might sink in.
Let's say CO2 is equivalent to how your body regulates metabolism, and 0.00% "metabolic forcing" (analogous to CO2's radiative forcing) would render you a cold corpse.
Conversely, a large increase in that metabolic forcing would give you a very dangerous or lethal fever.
Would you be so reckless that you'd rather let that fever run its course while whining about the cost of preventative measures? Would you not at least try to prevent your own suffering or death?
Conservatives are supposedly risk-averse but they've become lousy at evaluating risks related to health or environmental problems. Thanks, Reagan, for kick-starting that trend in the 80s.
Yet another health analogy is the attitudes of cigarette smokers who keep puffing despite overwhelming evidence of smoking's dangers. Smokers are still roughly 20% of the U.S. population, even after decades of "elitist" Surgeon General warnings. "We don't need no guv'mint tellin' us to take care of our health!" (Same old blame the messenger and ignore the message attitude.)
People have long demonstrated their capability to commit prolonged suicide for the sake of temporary pleasures like a nicotine buzz, a heroin high or the rush of an overpowered, gas-guzzling engine. "Live for the moment!" is the usual excuse for things that turn on you later. If you drag others along on your reckless ride, you become a criminal.
Since I've gotten the usual parroted replies from GOPers (a species that hopefully goes extinct before it ruins us) I'll try another analogy that might sink in.
Let's say CO2 is equivalent to how your body regulates metabolism, and 0.00% "metabolic forcing" (analogous to CO2's radiative forcing) would render you a cold corpse.
Conversely, a large increase in that metabolic forcing would give you a very dangerous or lethal fever.
Would you be so reckless that you'd rather let that fever run its course while whining about the cost of preventative measures? Would you not at least try to prevent your own suffering or death?
Conservatives are supposedly risk-averse but they've become lousy at evaluating risks related to health or environmental problems. Thanks, Reagan, for kick-starting that trend in the 80s.
Yet another health analogy is the attitudes of cigarette smokers who keep puffing despite overwhelming evidence of smoking's dangers. Smokers are still roughly 20% of the U.S. population, even after decades of "elitist" Surgeon General warnings. "We don't need no guv'mint tellin' us to take care of our health!" (Same old blame the messenger and ignore the message attitude.)
People have long demonstrated their capability to commit prolonged suicide for the sake of temporary pleasures like a nicotine buzz, a heroin high or the rush of an overpowered, gas-guzzling engine. "Live for the moment!" is the usual excuse for things that turn on you later. If you drag others along on your reckless ride, you become a criminal.
Haven't you heard? The new biggest threat to life according to liberals is now Global Cooling, not Global Warming. Yep according to this new theory the Earth is actually getting colder, and it's only a matter of time before we get sent back into the next Ice Age and the sea-levels disappear entirely and we all die!
Haven't you heard? The new biggest threat to life according to liberals is now Global Cooling, not Global Warming. Yep according to this new theory the Earth is actually getting colder, and it's only a matter of time before we get sent back into the next Ice Age and the sea-levels disappear entirely and we all die!
So is the Earth getting colder or is it getting warmer? You can't have it both ways.
Don Easterbrook is a liberal? Who could have guessed?
Easterbrook is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change. Heartland Institute is a conservative organization funded by fossil fuel interests.
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.
If CO2 was your body's metabolism...
