What is the RIGHT amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
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.
Lol. Let me know when we can separate out the CO2 from the SOX, NOX, and particulate matter in a commercially affordable way so that we can use the CO2 in a beneficial way.
This is as ass-backwards as your climate science; and an utterly absurd way of avoiding admitting you were wrong.
Wouldn't it be more sciency to scrub the SOX, NOX and particulate matter... you know, the things that actually cause smog???
The inability to admit to the tiniest of errors is the sign of a cultist.
(and one of the chief reasons climatologists are considered the used car salesmen of the science world.)
While it is true that trees (and other plants) love CO2, it is not likely that we can plant sufficient numbers of trees to make up for the amount of CO2 that we add to the atmosphere. Trees hold on to CO2 only until they die, then it is released. They bank it but never get rid of it. Banking it is fine if the bank is growing. But humans have a voracious appetite for land without trees. The bank is shrinking.
Of course we can't plant enough because we currently remove football field's of trees a day.
Earth has never remained the same. Animals evolve, animals die, it's the way it has worked for billions of years. Global warming is a good thing. We are on the cusp of an ecological explosion in life.
This past summer and winter was the most pleasant I can remember. Cool summer, warm winter, easy life for the woodland deer and creatures. Hunting's good, ducks everywhere, turkey everywhere, rabbits and pheasant everywhere.
Really? So what's coming out the power plants and car exhaust?
China is greening? In the sense of renewable energy, otherwise China is undergoing some pretty bad desertification.
Desertification in China is not a result of climate change, but land use change.
As for China's renewable energy... They have made some strides, but have a LONG way to go. With all this talk of China going solar, is solar electricity generation even noticeable?
This is as ass-backwards as your climate science; and an utterly absurd way of avoiding admitting you were wrong.
Wouldn't it be more sciency to scrub the SOX, NOX and particulate matter... you know, the things that actually cause smog???
The inability to admit to the tiniest of errors is the sign of a cultist.
(and one of the chief reasons climatologists are considered the used car salesmen of the science world.)
Then why haven't China and India done so? Why hasn't America done so with their entire fleet?
That's the absurdity of sticking to the "CO2 ain't that bad schtick" and those who say we need it for the plants. It's stupid. We are in no danger of reaching CO2 levels that are too low.
In the real world, fossil fuels contributes to short term pollution like smog and the greenhouse gases contribute to the long term issue of climate change.
Desertification in China is not a result of climate change, but land use change.
I never claimed what it was a result of. It's a result of both with land use being the major factor.
Quote:
As for China's renewable energy... They have made some strides, but have a LONG way to go. With all this talk of China going solar, is solar electricity generation even noticeable?
Earth has never remained the same. Animals evolve, animals die, it's the way it has worked for billions of years. Global warming is a good thing. We are on the cusp of an ecological explosion in life.
Because it will likely be very costly for humanity. I am not talking about the cost of preventing it, but the cost of dealing with the consequences. There will be economic costs because farming and agriculture will be displaced to different regions as well as costs that rising sea levels will have on low lying cities that need to build dikes, or just be relocated. But there will be lots of displaced people which is politically destabilizing. Poor countries do not have the ability to deal with these issues.
There will be aesthetic costs as life as we know it will change. There have been several books and articles written about the number of species which will go extinct. Some estimates are as high as 25%. It will be a very different world and that makes a lot of people sad even though this has happened several times in the life time of the earth.
But you are right - if we look at the earth in geologic time scales, AGW will just be a blip in say, 100,000 years. And in 10 million years, new species will likely have evolved to replace the ones that went extinct. Life will go on. But it will be a big change for humans to deal with over the next century or two.
Personally I think AGW is real but nevertheless I think the die is cast and it is too late to do anything about it. So we just need to take our medicine and live with it. It is not the end of life, but things will be very different than they are now.
CO2, like anything, has some influence on the weather and climate, probably relative to its relationship with water vapour, that is most likely affected by the best store of heat (energy) to your system (as well as its also the greatest store of CO2) – the oceans. But can you measure it resistant to the natural cyclical reactions driven by much greater forces and even stochastic events? Can you assign a value when every single point brought up by the AGW side can easily be countered by anyone who knows and understands what has happened in weather and climate in the past?
CO2, like anything, has some influence on the weather and climate, probably relative to its relationship with water vapour, that is most likely affected by the best store of heat (energy) to your system (as well as its also the greatest store of CO2) – the oceans. But can you measure it resistant to the natural cyclical reactions driven by much greater forces and even stochastic events? Can you assign a value when every single point brought up by the AGW side can easily be countered by anyone who knows and understands what has happened in weather and climate in the past?
Nice one.
How can we tell that our current climate changing addition isn't the correct one to counter a bigger problem some where else in the system?
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.
