[tannerwaterbury]

Originally Posted by horatio

I have recently read something about certain US politicians who ridiculed the existance of Vulcan surveillance. So who knows, perhaps one day when they have run out of "ideas" they might indeed try to mothball firefighters.

I find it really sad that people who are labelled conservatives care little about conserving the planet or economic sound policies like reducing the costs of climate change via countermeasures and more about the money that comes in from certain interest groups.



Let's suppose you are correct. What is your point? That the extra CO2 emissions of man actually do something good for plants? I care little about plants, I care about humans.
That's why the only relevant question is how large the effect of CO2 upon average temperatures is. We already know that an increase of a few degrees in average temperatures will have devastating effects upon some ecosystems and if you wanna translate that into running costs, estimates are about 2-3% of GDP.

As I have already pointed out, if the quantitative effect of CO2 upon the climate is overestimated, efforts ro reduce man-made CO2 emissions have no negative effect. To address your point, ecological balance has existed before man emitted CO2, so plants should work fine without this tiny extra bit of man-made CO2 emissions.

To adress your other point, that man-made CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to the ones present in nature, that is irrelevant as the only question is to what degree that insignificant CO2 emissions cause climate heating.
I'd also like to add that your point is based on production of CO2 in nature. Yet plants also convert CO2 into oxygen, a big circle of life. We don't talk about the flow of CO2 in that circle, we talk about the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere which causes heating.
Flow and stock, big difference. If you need a picture, suppose you turn up the water for the bathtub such that the amount that flows in is the same as the amount that flows out. The stock of water in he tub remains constant. Add the water of a dripping tap which seems insignificant compared to the amounts that rush in and out of the tub, and earlier or later the tub will flow over.

Well lets put it this way, you say you care little for plants and more for humans, Well if there was an abundunt amount of CO2 within the atmosphere, AGRICULTURE WOULD FLOURISH, thereby creating more food for the human race to survive on. Also, what physical evidence is there that CO2 is causing heating? Even with EXCESSIVE amounts of CO2 in the air, we still wouldnt boil up. Matter of fact I believe that the planet MARS has a atmosphere made up of 95 PERCENT Carbon Dioxide, yet its average temperatures range somewhere close to -40 Degrees Celsius. There proves the point that CO2 has barely ANY effect whatsoever on ANY warming going on within our atmosphere. Also people tend to mistake that CO2 comes BEFORE temperature, when it should be the other way around. As a matter of fact, the CO2/Temperature charts show that the CO2 catches up to Present Temperature levels 800 YEARS later, not instantly. I believe that we need a good amount of CO2 in our air. Im not saying we should continue on Polluting EXCESSIVELY, but dont try and cut the emissions down when there is no need to at the present time. Hell there was even an blog in 2008 from one of my favorite websites, Watts up With That with information stating that the Biosphere is booming due to the amount of CO2 within our atmosphere. Matter of fact here it is: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/0...co2-the-cause/

[horatio]

First, we will of course not boil up because of an increase of a few degress in average temperatures, but the ensuing disruption of some ecosystems will cause massive damage.
Second, it's colder on Mars because its distance to the sun is larger.
Third, you claim that plants are able to "eat" extra amounts of CO2, convert it into oxygen (and flourish because of the positive effects CO2 seems to have upon them which I don't deny, you know more about biology than I do). This is wrong as CO2 levels in the atmosphere have constantly risen during the last decades. I am too lazy to search for decent data, so just take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...9;s_atmosphere

[TheTrekkie]

Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury

Matter of fact I believe that the planet MARS has a atmosphere made up of 95 PERCENT Carbon Dioxide, yet its average temperatures range somewhere close to -40 Degrees Celsius. There proves the point that CO2 has barely ANY effect whatsoever on ANY warming going on within our atmosphere.

1. The distance sun - mars is bigger than the distance sun - earth
2. The Mars atmosphere is quite thin, the distance between the molecules is around 120 times larger, the molecules in the Earth atmosphere are around 120 times closer to each other and therefore can absorb heat radiation a lot better.


I really don't think any serious expert still negates the effects of CO2 anymore. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Even pure logic can help you further. Emitting a lot of greenhouse gas will cause a greenhouse effect.
The solar activity hasn't changed a lot in the last decades, in fact it even declined in the last years and reached a low point atm, so rising temperatures probably will be mainly caused by terrestrial changes.

[jerhanner]

Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury

Well lets put it this way, you say you care little for plants and more for humans, Well if there was an abundunt amount of CO2 within the atmosphere, AGRICULTURE WOULD FLOURISH, thereby creating more food for the human race to survive on. Also, what physical evidence is there that CO2 is causing heating? Even with EXCESSIVE amounts of CO2 in the air, we still wouldnt boil up. Matter of fact I believe that the planet MARS has a atmosphere made up of 95 PERCENT Carbon Dioxide, yet its average temperatures range somewhere close to -40 Degrees Celsius. There proves the point that CO2 has barely ANY effect whatsoever on ANY warming going on within our atmosphere. Also people tend to mistake that CO2 comes BEFORE temperature, when it should be the other way around. As a matter of fact, the CO2/Temperature charts show that the CO2 catches up to Present Temperature levels 800 YEARS later, not instantly. I believe that we need a good amount of CO2 in our air. Im not saying we should continue on Polluting EXCESSIVELY, but dont try and cut the emissions down when there is no need to at the present time. Hell there was even an blog in 2008 from one of my favorite websites, Watts up With That with information stating that the Biosphere is booming due to the amount of CO2 within our atmosphere. Matter of fact here it is: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/0...co2-the-cause/

So let me get this straight - you're getting your scientific ideas from a retired weatherman? Do you see where this might be a little.... sketchy? I mean, does he even have an advanced degree in a real science???

Anthony Watts is a weather presenter for KPAY-AM radio, described as a 'Chief Meteorologist' by the radio station[1] but listed as a retired Television Seal Holder by the American Meteorological Society.[2] He runs the climate-related blog Watts Up With That, owns ItWorks, a weather graphics company, and is founder of the SurfaceStations.org project which attempts to document the quality of weather stations.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by jerhanner

Anthony Watts is a weather presenter for KPAY-AM radio, described as a 'Chief Meteorologist' by the radio station[1] but listed as a retired Television Seal Holder by the American Meteorological Society.[2] He runs the climate-related blog Watts Up With That, owns ItWorks, a weather graphics company, and is founder of the SurfaceStations.org project which attempts to document the quality of weather stations.

You left out that KPAY-AM is an affiliate of Fox News. The same Fox News that uses to serve as the main channel for the self proclaimed experts of a certain Heritage Foundation. That is the think tank that was among the main sources for the policy of the Bush Administration on almost all fields. The Heritage Foundation is also a lobby group for major U.S. american oil companies. That are the companies that make their money from high oil prices. The less alternatives for oil there are on the market, the higher the demand, the higher the prizes, the higher the profits.

Yeah, I really can see why climate change doesnt exist and why alternative sources of fuel are completely unnecessary for the american economy - that is the profits of the shareholders of the oil industry, advocated by The Heritage Foundation, brought to you by Fox News and affiliates.

Oh, sorry, I wasnt supposed to tell you that. May I have your attention please?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoezvmZZ440

[FanWriter45]

Meteorology is NOT the same thing as a Climatologist. That's like saying your gym coach is just as good a doctor as a surgeon who specilizes in heart transplants.

Just to address one point of your rant. You asked what evidence there is of Co2 causing a runawy green house effect? (You then used the planet Mars as an example, ignoring the fact that Mars has a thin, whispy atmo, and gets about as much surface light as we do here on Earth, just after sunset) A better example of what CO2 can do is the planet Venus. It's atmosphere is also mostly composed of CO2, and is somewhat closer to the sun than Earth. Yet, even taking it's closer orbit into account, Venus is charbroiling its surface thanks to the trapped heat. The mean surface temperature there is about 800 degrees farenheight, when it should (if the atmo were the same as Earth) be closer to 250. Venus is actually hotter than many parts of Mercury!

It doesn't take a lot of temperature variation to make like miserable for humanity. Just a few degrees warmer already and the polar caps are shrinking, seas are rising, and climate patterns are shifting to the point of being unrecognizable. A few degrees more, and it'll be another dustbowl, only this time worldwide. Cities will starve, and people will revolt for food. Wars will be started, and the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

[Scribbler]

Perhaps some people aren't aware but the warming effects of CO2 on the atmosphere were verified experimentally 200 years ago. Some people are pretty slow to catch onto this piece of basic science. Ultimately, if you dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it gets warmer. It's not sunspots, it's not the communists and you can't blame it on the boogie.

[Livingston]

There is also the fact that this issue is so politically energized many who discuss it seem to not look at the situation and the facts through science and instead push forward political agendas.

[TGElder]

Carbon dioxide is not toxic, it occurs naturally. Plants that produce food require CO2 to create the food we need. We do need to be good stewards of our planet. We should do everything we can to make sure that we have clean air, clean water and clean soil. But we should not allow the indoctrination to believe one point of view solely because it is the populist opinion to continue. What happened to logic? What happened to critical thinking? What has happened to the scientific process? Should we not examine all the evidence with no preconceived notions? Go into the arena of ideas with no agenda? We should openly examine the evidence, weigh the results, the data, and see what conclusions we can draw! Too often I see it on both sides that those with the idea that man is solely responsible go into the scientific arena and selectively choose the data that supports their environmental agenda. And those who think that it's all bunk do the same.
What is called for is some sanity and some logic. There's way to much emotionalism involved!
Recently 640 scientists from around the globe gathered for a symposium in Sweden and these scientists did not find evidence to support man-caused global warming. I don't have all the facts, I just know what I see. Our children are not being taught to think, they are being taught to follow. People who run businesses and create jobs are being told they can not do business without first meeting higher and more intrusive levels of restrictions and regulations, all of which costs money. Money that cannot be funneled into payroll, so they cannot provide the same level of jobs they once did.
It's been more than 32 years since an oil company has built a refinery in the US. Why? It costs too much. Last year alone the oil industry spent 4.8 billion dollars just refitting their refineries to keep up with the newest levels of EPA regulations. And people wonder why gasoline is $3 and $4 a gallon.
CO2 emitted by volcanic activity, and from herds of wildebeasts, Bison, etc far exceeds all the CO2 put into the air by man. Sure we can stop some of it, but there's really no need to worry over CO2, just plant another tree, or 10, or 10,000. This is the best, and surest way to scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
So much of the data about global warming is collected in "heat island" areas. Densely populated regions with lots of concrete and asphalt. Asphalt absorbs and holds 95% of the suns heat, and is slow to release this heat so the area never cools as it should in the overnight. Trees and vegetation disapate heat and provide shade. Rather than holding the suns heat, they utilize the sun's energy and produce O2 and fruits and vegetables.
What do you want to do? Wait for some scientist to come up with a magic bullet that will solve the global warming crisis, or do something scientifically proven to work?
Plant something, and stop all this drivel about global warming until there is conclusive proof one way or the other.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by TGElder

It's been more than 32 years since an oil company has built a refinery in the US. Why? It costs too much. Last year alone the oil industry spent 4.8 billion dollars just refitting their refineries to keep up with the newest levels of EPA regulations. And people wonder why gasoline is $3 and $4 a gallon.

Wait, what?! Gasoline got so expensive because of regulations that protect drinking water for the population from pollution? Lets get rid of those silly regulations, I say! Government should'nt regulate the profits of the shareholders to death. Let those landless peasents who buy the gasoline drink polluted water, who cares. Yeeeeeehaaawww!!!!

You know why they take so much money for gasoline from you? Because they can. And as long as you cant buy cars using an alternative fuel, because there are no such cars on the market, for so long they will go on demand those prices from you. Yeeeeeehaaawww!!!!

So you want to take away the regulations? Have at it Hoss! But dont come and complain when you realize that this did not make the gasoline prizes drop one cent, whilst your children get eczemas from the drinking water out of a sudden.

PS: Paragraphs make it easier to read your posts. Try it! It works.