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.
You mean various models offer different outcomes! I didn't know this?!
You said that the models didn't predict greening, so I drew my conclusion based on that statement.
If you knew there were other models, why didn't you say so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
As for the Pliocene, most climate scientists say that this is our future. So yes, a greener warmer earth (with higher sea levels)
You don't seem to understand just how serious an 80 foot rise in sea level would be.
You also don't seem to understand just how much ecosystems have changed in the past 3 million years.
And again, the pliocene climate was arrived at naturally, not brutally forced by a rapid emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.
This is why CO2 levels peaked around 400 at the hottest part of the era, and then dropped.
But this isn't the same thing, because we're intentionally taking CO2 out of the ground and putting it into the air, so we're looking at MUCH higher levels in the future if no action is taken. We're looking at a best-case scenario of 550 ppm by 2100, which is exactly why the predictions are so dire, and exactly why the greening is said to be temporary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Interesting observation is that co2 levels then estimated between 365-415ppm. We now are at 407ppm. The earth was 3C warmer. So assuming Co2 sensitivity is high, then we already have 3C additional warming in the pipe line even if we stopped all emission today.
There is a certain hopelessness involved, yes... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize the damage.
So you can't correctly answer then & it makes you mad that he's pointing it out?
Do you know what contextually means? I can't help it if many folks are trying to be clever by asking "how much CO2 is right" and they end up falling on their face.
You know I always laugh because they want to institute a Carbon Tax so that people who use more will use less (so they say)... and then they say they want to give credits to 90% of the population... excuse me? So you want 10% of the population to pay a Carbon Tax and 90% of the population to pollute as much as they want... funny how they want to control CO2 levels but only affects 10% of the population... particularly the population with more money... hehehe... that must of been an incidental on their part... it just happens to be on them... and then where does the money go? Does it go to fight CO2? No? Oh.... it goes to companies promising to be "green" and vetted by the DEMOCRATS... amazing these companies contribute millions to the DNC and other liberal groups who help elect democrats... so they essentially want you to pay them so that the Democrats will stay in power... I am sure this is all coincidental... I am sure (wink, wink)...
You know I always laugh because they want to institute a Carbon Tax so that people who use more will use less (so they say)... and then they say they want to give credits to 90% of the population... excuse me? So you want 10% of the population to pay a Carbon Tax and 90% of the population to pollute as much as they want... funny how they want to control CO2 levels but only affects 10% of the population... particularly the population with more money... hehehe... that must of been an incidental on their part... it just happens to be on them... and then where does the money go? Does it go to fight CO2? No? Oh.... it goes to companies promising to be "green" and vetted by the DEMOCRATS... amazing these companies contribute millions to the DNC and other liberal groups who help elect democrats... so they essentially want you to pay them so that the Democrats will stay in power... I am sure this is all coincidental... I am sure (wink, wink)...
You have no clue how a carbon tax works do you?
British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in North America with an appreciable, economy-wide price on global warming emissions.
1. Pricing carbon has reduced carbon pollution.
2. The carbon tax shift has not hurt the economy.
3. Pricing carbon has not caused inflation.
4. The carbon tax shift has been revenue neutral. By law, all carbon tax revenue must go back to citizens and companies as tax cuts.
The AGW crowd is constantly demanding that the world reduce CO2 emissions to "save the planet". Yet, througout the course of history on earth, we have had CO2 levels which are 30X what they are today in which plant and animal life thrived.
So................. if today's CO2 level is too high (as it must be, as it is contributing to "global warming"), what is the "correct" or appropriate level of CO2 that WE SHOULD HAVE in our atmosphere?
In a recent study, it was admitted that higher CO2 levels lead to better plant growth, but more importantly, it requires less water with higher CO2.
In a recent study, it was admitted that higher CO2 levels lead to better plant growth, but more importantly, it requires less water with higher CO2.
True-
Higher CO2 levels have tremendous benefits for the planet, however, liberals are hell bent on DECREASING CO2!
1. More CO2 = more plant life
2. More plant life= more food
3. More plant life = more Oxygen
4. More plant life= cooler planet
5. More plant life = smaller land mass of deserts
6. More plant life= more animal life
7. More plant life = less soil erosion
8. More plant life = less contaminated water
Libs immediately assume that higher CO2 levels are "evil" and really do not know why. Sadly, higher CO2 levels are very beneficial to the planet.
I really don't understand how anyone, except liberals, could be opposed to more food, more oxygen, fewer deserts, and purer water. In opposing increased CO2 levels, the AGW crowd are indeed eco-terrorists, hell bent on destroying the planet.
I don't understand how someone can be proven wrong over and over and yet still go strong with their assertation. Anyway, here is an article on the study. The OP's alter ego posted it without reading it or without understanding it. I suggest reading the whole article and not just the headline!!!
Do you know what contextually means? I can't help it if many folks are trying to be clever by asking "how much CO2 is right" and they end up falling on their face.
The fact of the matter is on one, not you, nor a scientist in the world, is doing anything but guessing. Guessing at whether or not humans are causing the climate to change, guessing to what extent, guessing how much Co2 would be healthy for us and guessing at whether or not we can alter the climate course we already committed to.
Taxing the poor via cap 'n' trade is not going to solve this. Giving free carbon credits to the richest of the 1% isn't going to solve this. Carbon trading so Democratic politicians and their corporate partners can make trillions isn't going to solve this. Creating a global banking structure to handle all the new money isn't going to solve it. Expanding the role of a world government to oversee it all isn't going to solve it. There simply are no solutions being proposed, only ways to expand the power of government and the wealth of the 1%, all at the expense of the poor and middle classes.
In a recent study, it was admitted that higher CO2 levels lead to better plant growth, but more importantly, it requires less water with higher CO2.
So we need to keep emitting greenhouse gases????
Moar coal power plants!?!?!?1/1/1/1/!?
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.
