How much can the Democrats actually fix the climate? (generation, lobby, dollar)
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.
We don’t have the technology to geoengineer the planet, so only options are to limit emissions. Dollar figures or not, this is a scientific reality and it needs to be addressed, one way or another.
Doesn’t help to bury your head in the sand and pretend everything is okay.
You don't have to worry about the planet warming - you have to worry about it cooling.
Yes, it will eventually cool. Could be too late for our kind.
There is always a reason why the temperature changes, it's not some kind of mystical thing. It's not just like the earth taking a long slow breath or something.
Perhaps a whole host of volcanoes or some big caldera will go off and shroud the planet in smoke, that would cool it. A good sized nuclear war would do it.
We have a very limited range for the earth to be inhabitable for humans, the atmosphere and the oceans are actually in quite a delicate balance, it really doesn't take a big change to knock us completely out of existence but just a few degrees, but the earth will go on and eventually cool again.
WHY BE SKEPTICAL?
The proponents of AGCC / AGW are con men or useful idiots.
If "the money" really believed that oceans would rise, they'd be selling off beachfront property or surrounding it with levees and dikes. Mountain retreats would be selling like hotcakes. Governments would be shifting subsidy from the automobile / petroleum / highway hegemony, to electric traction rail - the most efficient form of land transport. All housing would be built with superinsulation, thus minimizing the consumption of resources to maintain comfort. And to minimize the cost from natural disasters, construct disaster resistant resilient structures and homes, as a rule, not an exception.
. . .
But sequestering carbon and taxing air is going to fix everything. (wink, wink, nod, nod)
NOTE: Climate changes - always. The controversy is assuming that MANKIND is a driving force. . . which there is NO EVIDENCE in support thereof. That's why they keep chanting climate change denier without adding anthropogenic.
Perhaps a whole host of volcanoes or some big caldera will go off and shroud the planet in smoke, that would cool it. A good sized nuclear war would do it.
IMO it's the superbug that will solve these issues. If an airborne virus that is contagious an deadly as Ebola appears on the scene all bets are off. I think it's just a matter of time.
If we give most of our money to the democrats how much can they fix the climate in terms of degrees cooler in the next 75 years? 1 degree or is it more?
If they consumed the entire budget, it would not likely have a negligible impact on the climate.
15. scienceshows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER... .guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for most plants is....900-1500 ppm.......
15a. Scienceshows plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration, as they tend to display lower stomatal conductance.
15b. Scienceshows the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area - or water-use efficiency - should increase dramatically as the air's CO2 content rises.
15c. Scinece and the study of scienceshows In the study of Serraj et al. (1999), soybeans grown at 700 ppm CO2 displayed 10 to 25% reductions in total water loss while simultaneously exhibiting increases in dry weight of as much as 33%. So, elevated CO2 significantly increased the water-use efficiencies of the studied plants.
15d. scienceshows, that the typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2.
15e. Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. (this is why companys and governments SELL CO2 generators for greenhouses)
15f. scienceshows it is clear that as the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, nearly all of earth's agricultural species will respond favorably by exhibiting increases in water-use efficiency... which means, one can expect global agricultural productivity to rise in tandem with future increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration.
so more co2 is actually GREENER...its not theory, its scientific fact
..... snip ....
I guess that's all well and good for the plants if they are the only living things on Earth. Of course, if they were the only living things on Earth then there would be no agriculture and no need for it anyway.
But here are some serious questions for you, maybe you can get the answers from science and get back to us on this with proper citations.
What does science show about the effects of increasing CO2 on all the other living things that exist on the planet today - not things in the distant past - only things that exist today? Living things like humans, animals, fish, birds, other micro organisms, etc. .... you know, all those living things that depend on oxygen and that produce CO2 as a waste product and are not evolved to tolerate high levels of CO2? When does it become too much for them to thrive? How many PPM of CO2 does it take for it to kill them?
For that matter, how much CO2 is too much for plants? What does science show is the effect on plants if they get too much CO2? How much does it take to kill the plants?
If we give most of our money to the democrats how much can they fix the climate in terms of degrees cooler in the next 75 years? 1 degree or is it more?
They cannot do anything.
Historically, Inter-Glacial Periods are always 7.8°F to 15.3°F warmer than the present 58.4°F.
For example, during the previous Inter-Glacial Period, average global temperatures were 73.7°F and not 58.4°F, like it is now.
Note that C02 levels peaked at about 287 ppm CO2, and yet temperatures were still much higher than present.
Whether there's 1 Million people on Earth or 6.7 Billion and whether you burned fossil fuels or not makes no difference.
Temperatures are going to rise, the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet are going to melt, and possibly even the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet (depends on temperatures) and the sea levels are going to rise and there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Whatever you do or don't do doesn't make any difference regarding climate, but it could screw people economically.
Note that the IPCC's charter specifically states that it is to investigate man-made global warming and no other causes.
That would be like a cancer research center only investigating tobacco as the sole cause of cancer, in spite of the fact that x-rays, gamma rays, UV-A and UV-B, neutrons, protons, fission fragments, alpha and beta particles, a variety of chemicals, a number of virus and even bad DNA cause cancer.
Technology will address global warming. Politics will lag behind. That's the way it always works. It'll be renewable energy and "air scrubbers" that can remove carbon dioxide from the air.
Or maybe it's the opposite. Maybe those who believe in are being lied to by the politicians and companies and scientists who make $$ off of your fear.
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.
