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.
-Climate is complicated and effected by many factors other than human produced CO2.
-Human produced CO2 was not yet much of a factor in the '20s and '30s anyway.
-During the depression, the rate of increase in CO2 would have slowed but the total amount in the atmosphere would not have been reduced. It takes a very long time for CO2 to cycle out of the atmosphere. Even if we totally stopped adding CO2 now, it would take hundreds of years to return to pre-industrial levels.
Oh really?
Does it take "hundreds of years" to eliminate CO2 from the atmposhere? WRONG! The assumptions range from 5-33 years with the higher end of 33 years making some rather far fetched assumptions based on modeling and not verified in nature.
So if reducing output by 60% does not reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (as was the case in the Depression), why would reducing it 20% make any difference?
WAKE UP
Remove yourself from your "global warming trance" and just think for a minute. If you do so (and continue to do so), you will understand that the whole concept of man-made CO2 increasing temperatures is a farce.
We all throw a lot of rhetoric around on here, some true some just joking or to rib the other side.
But common sense says we have to be affecting things somewhat. We are converting millions of tons of fossil fuels from liquid and solid form back into gaseous form. Eons ago it took plankton and other small plants millions of years to turn the poisonous atmosphere of the Earth into something that we could live in.
But now these little animals called humans are busy pumping the oil to the surface and turning it back into gas, possibly poisonous to us in the long run. It's hard to tell. The conditions are not the same. The planet is covered in plant life that needs the CO2 to survive and thrive. Maybe the Earth is warming A LITTLE because of it, no one knows for sure. It's a theory.
But like many things, people have a tendency to jump to conclusions that are way off base. This entire GW thing has been nothing but a big overreaction.
The GW scientist have poisoned their own waters with hyperbole and unproven conclusions and flawed outcomes. Nothing is happening that they predicted with CERTAINTY 20 years ago. Not even close.
There is probably much truth in what they are saying, but their conclusions from their data is completely wrong. They should go back to square one and leave the politics out.
We all throw a lot of rhetoric around on here, some true some just joking or to rib the other side.
But common sense says we have to be affecting things somewhat. We are converting millions of tons of fossil fuels from liquid and solid form back into gaseous form. Eons ago it took plankton and other small plants millions of years to turn the poisonous atmosphere of the Earth into something that we could live in.
But now these little animals called humans are busy pumping the oil to the surface and turning it back into gas, possibly poisonous to us in the long run. It's hard to tell. The conditions are not the same. The planet is covered in plant life that needs the CO2 to survive and thrive. Maybe the Earth is warming A LITTLE because of it, no one knows for sure. It's a theory.
But like many things, people have a tendency to jump to conclusions that are way off base. This entire GW thing has been nothing but a big overreaction.
The GW scientist have poisoned their own waters with hyperbole and unproven conclusions and flawed outcomes. Nothing is happening that they predicted with CERTAINTY 20 years ago. Not even close.
There is probably much truth in what they are saying, but their conclusions from their data is completely wrong. They should go back to square one and leave the politics out.
The evidence is overwhelming. The canaries in the coal mines are dying but they want to wait until there is no doubt -- presumably after the tipping point is reached.
The evidence is overwhelming. The canaries in the coal mines are dying but they want to wait until there is no doubt -- presumably after the tipping point is reached.
I agree, they think the evidence points to their conclusions, all of which have been overblown from day 1.
Does it take "hundreds of years" to eliminate CO2 from the atmposhere? WRONG! The assumptions range from 5-33 years with the higher end of 33 years making some rather far fetched assumptions based on modeling and not verified in nature.
So if reducing output by 60% does not reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (as was the case in the Depression), why would reducing it 20% make any difference?
WAKE UP
Remove yourself from your "global warming trance" and just think for a minute. If you do so (and continue to do so), you will understand that the whole concept of man-made CO2 increasing temperatures is a farce.
The evidence is overwhelming. The canaries in the coal mines are dying but they want to wait until there is no doubt -- presumably after the tipping point is reached.
Evidence? What evidence?
1. The fossil record and ice core data tends to refute the concept of man-made global warming.
2. Could you please explain to me how and why a 60% fall in industrial output in the 1930s resulted in an increase in temperatures if the global warming theory is true?
3. Global warming is a tenuous hypothesis and is not "proven". Tell me another aspect of science that is "proven" and villifies contrary data.
4. Industrial output has increased over the last 20 years, yet there has been no increase in temps.
5. CO2 levels rise AFTER temp increases, not the other way around.
6. Water vapor is the greatest green house gas
7. CO2 levels are LOW compared to historic averages over geological time.
Again- Tell me why temps increased in the Great Depression (with reduced industrial output), yet temps ahve not increased over the last 20 years, despite increased industrial output?
Saying something that is false (the issue is settled) over and over again does not make it true. A wise, open minded scientist is open to new information and data- a cult member is not.
I read your link. It says nothing about how and why temps rose in the 1930s, despite MARKED industrial output. It (like every other global warming article) completely ignores this "anomoly".
Again, if your goal is to reduce CO2 levels to reduce temps, why in the hell did 11 years of reduced CO2 output from 1929-1940 result in INCREASED temperatures?
Was 11 years not long enough (kind of like when people say Obama just needs more time to improve the economy), yet the ice core and fossil record is too long?
Did CO2 levels fall during the 1930s? Of course they did! Industrial production fell by 60%. This is the whole contention of the global warming crowd- industrial production produces increased levels of CO2 which causes temperature increases. About the Great Depression
Now do you think that CO2 production will ever be reduced by 60% again? Even with that reduction, temperatures rose! Perhaps your theory is wrong; perhaps, just perhaps, there are other factors that influence temperature far more than CO2.
Despite all your claims of your knowledge of science you still seem to be unaware that CO2 is not the only thing that influences climate....Is it too complicated for you? Perhaps these links will help educate you.
Despite all your claims of your knowledge of science you still seem to be unaware that CO2 is not the only thing that influences climate....Is it too complicated for you? Perhaps these links will help educate you.
OF COURSE CO2 IS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT INFLUENCES CLIMATE!!!!!
As a matter of fact, the "other things" that influence climate the most have nothing to do with man!
That is why the whole concept of "global warming" and cutting CO2 emissions is totally bunk. We cannot influence solar activity, volcanic activity and the orbit of the earth around the sun.
So when we have ELEVEN YEARS OF SHOWING INCREASES IN TEMP, DESPITE 11 YEARS OF CO2 REDUCTION IN THE GREAT DEPRESSION, WHY IS EVERY "GLOBAL WARMING" PROMOTER ADVOCATING CUTTING CO2 EMISSIONS AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION?????
Again- Because you believe in man-made global warming and the influence of CO2 on temperature, tell us all why temps increased during the Great Depression while CO2 levels markedly dropped. It is a simple question. It is quite simple, yet is totally contrary to the false premise of "man-made global warming".
Let's say that you are right- that CO2 does increase temps. How in the world would there ever be a 60% reduction in CO2 that could be initiated (without destroying the world economy) to achieve such levels. Why would we WANT to do this when such reductions OVER A DECADE did NOTHING!!!????
THINK- JUST DON'T REGURGITATE THE GLOBAL WARMING MANTRA. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, AS IT IS CONTRARY TO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND COMMON SENSE.
If the OP is so sure it isn't true, why not just ignore it?
Why the continued appeals for dissenting opinions?
Retirement is hard for some people.
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.
