It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
...
CO2 is actually plant life...
...
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Over abundance of CO2 SEEMS like a good thing for plants, but it is not.
One of the other things that plants need in most cases, is nitrogen, and the ability to take it from the environment around the plant. Unfortunately, too much CO2 in the atmosphere, while sounding like a buffet for the plants, actually inhibits nitrogen uptake, with pretty disastrous consequences.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Over abundance of CO2 SEEMS like a good thing for plants, but it is not.
One of the other things that plants need in most cases, is nitrogen, and the ability to take it from the environment around the plant. Unfortunately, too much CO2 in the atmosphere, while sounding like a buffet for the plants, actually inhibits nitrogen uptake, with pretty disastrous consequences.
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
originally posted by: Greven
Teikiatsu decided (because Teikiatsu feels like it) that there must be more variables and so disproving these foundations is not needed. Teikiatsu isn't committed to disproving AGW.
Well that's a false premise if I ever heard one. There is nothing to disprove, because nothing has been proven.
If we know all the variables, why are there so many models? Why are there models to begin with, why isn't there one ultimate equation? Why do the models not recreate the past when using modern data to retro-engineer, and why do the models fail even worse for the present when they are shoe-horned to meet the climate models of the past?
Think about it, and get back to me.
originally posted by: Greven
The physics - yes, physics - behind it are fairly straightforward and have been known about for over a century:
1) The Stefan-Boltzmann law explains how we calculate what temperature the Earth should be at, based on: its size, its distance from the Sun, and its reflectivity.
2) The Earth is warmer at the surface than it should be, but also cooler higher in the atmosphere than it should be.
3) There are gases known as greenhouse gases, which reduce outbound infrared radiation - effectively redistributing heating closer to the surface (satellite measurements from 1970):
4) Increasing any of these gases increases the reduction on outbound infrared radiation, which means surface warming and higher atmosphere cooling.
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Piece of cake: We don't know all the variables, and we probably never will. The models are wrong because the calculations are flawed. Earth is too complex to boil down to an equation, and that's before we start adding in solar and other external sources of radiation.
When have I denied it?
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven
Don't you tire of posting the same graph?
You get no response with it, why don't you try something new?
Like show the members how sea level is rising or something?
Oh, are you saying that you accept man-made climate change now?
originally posted by: allsee4eye
CO2 does not cause heating. If anything, CO2 causes cooling. Do you know what fire extinguishers are made of? Fire extinguishers are made of CO2.
originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee
Okay, so what's wrong with challenging those who do not?