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.
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.
Because you are telling us we need to emit GREENHOUSE GASES for the plants?
Can any of the cult of denialists tell me what COME OUT OF THEIR TAILPIPE? Is it it JUST CO2?
KEEP DEFLECTING the CULT of DENIALISTS don't know OTHER WAY. KEEP BEING DISHONEST.
ARE WE IN DANGER OF DANGEROUSLY LOW CO2 LEVELS? YES OR NO? CAN ANY DENIALIST ANSWER THAT? OR CAN THEY JUST RUN AWAY LIKE A COWARD?
All based on a premise that hasn't been proven; that CO2 is what's driving global warming. There are just as many charts and graphs showing the opposite. It's nothing but a rich mans trick to extract money out of the economy...
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?
In general climate models are not good at predicting precipitation patterns
Quote:
According to a new study in Nature, the Northern Hemisphere has experienced considerably larger variations in precipitation during the past twelve centuries than in the twentieth century. Researchers from Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland have found that climate models overestimated the increase in wet and dry extremes as temperatures increased during the twentieth century.
Quote:
The temperature reconstruction presented, is in good agreement with the conclusions from the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contrarily, the new precipitation reconstruction suggests that it is much harder to predict precipitation changes than previously thought. However, it is concluded that these new results can eventually improve the ability of climate models to better predict future precipitation changes.
You don't seem to understand just how serious an 80 foot rise in sea level would be.
I do. That won't happen for centuries
Quote:
You also don't seem to understand just how much ecosystems have changed in the past 3 million years.
What makes you say this?
Quote:
And again, the pliocene climate was arrived at naturally, not brutally forced by a rapid emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The Pliocene did, but there are many other episodes of abrupt climate changes including the Younger Dryas of 12,000 BP where plants and animal species had to quickly adapt or perish. Some say that the Younger Dryas (which froze northern Europe over) made the Fertile Crescent wetter and allowed for early civilizations to take root there.
Quote:
This is why CO2 levels peaked around 400 at the hottest part of the era, and then dropped.
I don't dispute this.
Quote:
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.
They have absolutely no idea if the world will be drying or greening by 2100. Don't kid yourself.
Co2 levels will easily be above 550ppm by 2100, but that doesn't mean that global temps will be 3,4,5C above current levels as is suggest by climate models. There is lag in the climate system. And even if temps do reach that warm, that doesn't necessarily mean a global drought. Some areas will dry, some will become more lush.
Quote:
There is a certain hopelessness involved, yes... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize the damage.
Co2 levels aren't going to sop increasing anytime soon. Barring a major world war, pandemic, forced population control or some major technological breakthrough which would allow us to transition away from fossils very rapidly.
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?
You seem to be equating the level of CO2 with "thriving plant and animal life", but that is not the main issue with AGW. The main issue we face with AGW is a significant impact on global economy and likely geopolitical disruptions. Rising sea levels will wipe out low lying coastal cities and agricultural land. Economic activity in those areas will halt and people will be forced to move. Mass migrations are politically destabilizing. The costs will be huge to deal with this, and no doubt conflicts will arise as they are prone to do when things get chaotic.
The problem is not so much that the earth is warming, after all it has warmed and cooled a lot in the past, the problem is the time frame over which it is projected to occur. Natural interglacial warming is something that happens over 1000's of years. People who are born this year will likely see the displacement of many coastal communities in their lives, due to AGW.
So tell us, what do you think we should do about AGW? Or do you not believe AGW exists?
People don't like solving AGW because it is expensive. But we either pay now, or pay later. Paying later is a bet that it will cost less to be re-active rather than pro-active. We really don't know which will cost more but we do know that at some point we will run out of fossil fuel anyway and have to replace it. The cost of solving AGW now is the same as the cost of replacing fossil fuels with something green. So we may as well just bite the bullet and do it now.
All based on a premise that hasn't been proven; that CO2 is what's driving global warming. There are just as many charts and graphs showing the opposite. It's nothing but a rich mans trick to extract money out of the economy...
You mean greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is a part of.
Hahahaha. The cult of denialist can never tell you the full picture. The earth heats and cools abruptly and periodically.
You keep tryin champ!
Can't deny that it happens and will happen, you denier.
But keep promoting your Kool-Aid.
its entertaining.
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.
