OK Mr. Smartypants explain this

a reply to: 727Sky

I will post this video just for the incredible stories / pictures from around the world youtu.be...


A statistician explains why the world will be unable to exceed 11 billion people.... as many already know it will be Africa and parts of Asia that will continue to increase in population.. Increases in Asia IMO will be with Muslim countries ... We are already facing an ageing population in my part of Asia without the young to replace them.. youtu.be...

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Sorry but you are wrong... Atmospheric CO2 has not "remained in balance" with nature... If it did, there would be more atmospheric CO2 than there is now, because atmospheric CO2 is plant food, and a building block of life on Earth.

Not to mention the fact that CO2 levels have increased, and decreased regularly throughout the geological history of Earth.

BTW, who defines this "balance" anyways? You?... The AGW scientists who simply want to further the left-wing agenda?...

You haven't presented one iota of evidence or facts, you are only giving your opinion, which is wrong. More so when you are calling for "population control" as if humans were cattle, and you are even asking for sequestration of atmospheric CO2 which will cause a lack of "food" for all plant life on Earth.

In fact, it has been pointed out many times that the Earth has "greened" more than before because of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Rise in CO2 has greened planet Earth

...
Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.
...

www.nature.com...

More atmospheric CO2 is good for all life on Earth. A "greener" planet is a "better" planet for all life on Earth.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Sorry but you are wrong... Atmospheric CO2 has not "remained in balance" with nature... If it did, there would be more atmospheric CO2 than there is now, because atmospheric CO2 is plant food, and a building block of life on Earth.

Life dies. And when it does, all that CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere.

The only exception is when it dies without decomposing. And that is what "fossil fuels" are. They're just dead things that didn't properly decompose.

Not to mention the fact that CO2 levels have increased, and decreased regularly throughout the geological history of Earth.

Yes. They go up and down over very long periods of time. Not a single generation.

And they both go up, AND go down. Not just one of those.

BTW, who defines this "balance" anyways? You?... The AGW scientists who simply want to further the left-wing agenda?...

Balance is a word with a very specific definition.

A balanced equation is one that is equal on both sides.

In this context, "balance" essentially means to neither increase nor decrease. An extreme decrease in CO2 would do just as much harm as an extreme increase. Change is bad.

You haven't presented one iota of evidence or facts, you are only giving your opinion, which is wrong. More so when you are calling for "population control" as if humans were cattle, and you are even asking for sequestration of atmospheric CO2 which will cause a lack of "food" for all plant life on Earth.

Humans are animals. It's a fact, dude. We are.

Only the most arrogant among us think otherwise.

And you know what happens when people get really arrogant?

Every heard the saying "Pride goeth before the fall."?

In fact, it has been pointed out many times that the Earth has "greened" more than before because of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Rise in CO2 has greened planet Earth

...
Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.
...

www.nature.com...

More atmospheric CO2 is good for all life on Earth. A "greener" planet is a "better" planet for all life on Earth.

You may be right about this. It's possible that it is better in the long run. (The very long run.)

If you think about it, the dinosaurs came into being on a planet that (probably) had more CO2. A lot of the fossil fuels we have underground today came into being during and after their era.

Look how big they were. To get that big, there must have been truly abundant plant life.


However, getting there fast is a bad thing. If the transition happens fast, it will be very destructive. (And "fast" in this context means fewer than a thousand years or so.)

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Sorry but you are wrong... Atmospheric CO2 has not "remained in balance" with nature... If it did, there would be more atmospheric CO2 than there is now, because atmospheric CO2 is plant food, and a building block of life on Earth.

Life dies. And when it does, all that CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere.

The only exception is when it dies without decomposing. And that is what "fossil fuels" are. They're just dead things that didn't properly decompose.

Not to mention the fact that CO2 levels have increased, and decreased regularly throughout the geological history of Earth.

Yes. They go up and down over very long periods of time. Not a single generation.

And they both go up, AND go down. Not just one of those.

BTW, who defines this "balance" anyways? You?... The AGW scientists who simply want to further the left-wing agenda?...

Balance is a word with a very specific definition.

A balanced equation is one that is equal on both sides.

In this context, "balance" essentially means to neither increase nor decrease. An extreme decrease in CO2 would do just as much harm as an extreme increase. Change is bad.

You haven't presented one iota of evidence or facts, you are only giving your opinion, which is wrong. More so when you are calling for "population control" as if humans were cattle, and you are even asking for sequestration of atmospheric CO2 which will cause a lack of "food" for all plant life on Earth.

Humans are animals. It's a fact, dude. We are.

Only the most arrogant among us think otherwise.

And you know what happens when people get really arrogant?

Every heard the saying "Pride goeth before the fall."?

In fact, it has been pointed out many times that the Earth has "greened" more than before because of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Rise in CO2 has greened planet Earth

...
Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.
...

www.nature.com...

More atmospheric CO2 is good for all life on Earth. A "greener" planet is a "better" planet for all life on Earth.

You may be right about this. It's possible that it is better in the long run. (The very long run.)

If you think about it, the dinosaurs came into being on a planet that (probably) had more CO2. A lot of the fossil fuels we have underground today came into being during and after their era.

Look how big they were. To get that big, there must have been truly abundant plant life.


However, getting there fast is a bad thing. If the transition happens fast, it will be very destructive. (And "fast" in this context means fewer than a thousand years or so.)

Just localized from the states but there are several other countries that could claim the same thing if one has access to the countries news articles. Considering it is only the month of November you have to wonder what December and January will be like.. In another thread one of our respected members who appears to believe the IPCC and NOAA posted a map showing how the forecast for the next several months was for a warm (above normal) winter with temps slightly above normal.. I figured the forecast was wrong then but decided to wait and see.. The Alarmist computer models do not instill much confidence and have not for the last 30 years at least for me..

It's already one of the coldest and snowiest starts to the winter season in parts of the Northeast, Midwest and Plains, and we haven't finished November yet.
According to the Accumulated Winter Season Severity Index (AWSSI) from the Midwest Regional Climate Center, 74 cities from New England to the Plains and Rockies have seen an extreme season-to-date of cold and snow as of Nov. 27.

The Western USA has so far had a mild and almost no snow or freezing temperatures.. I remember watching a video about the last ice age where they were saying Alaska was warmer than many places in Canada and the USA.. So far that seems to be true for the start of this winter season.
weather.com...

Global cooling not warming youtu.be...

originally posted by: 727Sky

Mars has warmed faster than during the same time period the global warming crowd has been saying we are doomed unless we send them money and stop using petroleum based fuels..

I just wanted to say that the internal combustion engine and its fuel are finite and pollutants and this is known. Diving head first into renewable energy systems is not a conspiracy but a necessary step forward.

originally posted by: CajunMetal

originally posted by: 727Sky

Mars has warmed faster than during the same time period the global warming crowd has been saying we are doomed unless we send them money and stop using petroleum based fuels..

I just wanted to say that the internal combustion engine and its fuel are finite and pollutants and this is known. Diving head first into renewable energy systems is not a conspiracy but a necessary step forward.

If they would only build this car that I have been sharing for 10 years here on ATS

archive.knoxnews.com...

I met the Car's designer at an EPA "Clean Air Event" and have been following the car ever since.

www.businesswire.com...

People have to ask themselves why we don't use this for fuel instead of oil since this is now proven beyond a shadow of doubt to work. Horrible to say the prototype car has been built and running for about 30 years, THIRTY!

www.researchgate.net... el-Research.pdf

www.wgnsradio.com...

Now google hydrogen car and you will see we may finally get them!!! Only we won't be able to afford one for a long time.

There are 31 different climate models all funded by some government.. The only model that reflects reality is the RUSSIAN model ! The western climate models have been parameterized, which is a nice way of saying they fudged/fiddled the numbers, to come out with their desired alarmist figures to perpetuate the scam.

Don't take my word for it but listen to the video by a PHD who was the president of the State Climatologist and a chairman of the American Meteorological Society.. In the USA most of the real alarmist stuff got a big kick start by the EPA under Obama's presidency.. The supreme court ruled in 2007 that if the EPA could prove CO2 was a danger they could regulate it under the clean air act... Low and behold, the "Endangerment Finding" was produced in 2009 which gave the EPA the power to regulate CO2 via the clean air act. The endangerment findings are based 100% off the faulty climate models.

One of the reasons the models are so far off is they plugged in numbers that predicted that in the tropics, as you went up the rising air columns, (evaporation) the temperatures would increase by 7x over what is actually observed and measured. Wrong data entry gives wrong data output.At least we now know why the models are so far off from reality !

youtu.be...

originally posted by: 727Sky
Global cooling not warming youtu.be...

What a lot of people forget is that, when Ice melts, it gives off lots of cold. (Technically what it does is absorb heat.)

This works in both directions. For example, orange farmers have been known to pour water over their oranges when there is about to be a freeze, because as the water coating the orange freezes, it gives off a small amount of heat and prevents the orange from freezing.

The Earth is like a giant orange with ice gathered at its top and bottom. If it heats up enough to melt the ice, there will be huge cold shocks that come down every time a section of ice melts (or just goes from deep frost to slightly less deep frost.)

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: 727Sky
Global cooling not warming youtu.be...

What a lot of people forget is that, when Ice melts, it gives off lots of cold. (Technically what it does is absorb heat.)

This works in both directions. For example, orange farmers have been known to pour water over their oranges when there is about to be a freeze, because as the water coating the orange freezes, it gives off a small amount of heat and prevents the orange from freezing.

The Earth is like a giant orange with ice gathered at its top and bottom. If it heats up enough to melt the ice, there will be huge cold shocks that come down every time a section of ice melts (or just goes from deep frost to slightly less deep frost.)

Only sea ice is being reported both growing by the Danish Scientists and not growing by the Globalist scientists who keep getting it wrong on paper at least. I side with the ones who haven't been getting it wrong.
realclimatescience.com...

The jury is in, man made global warming is real. Those who deny this are dumber than hoe handles or liars with and agenda. Seriously the science is so simple even a rwnj should be able to understand it. a reply to: 727Sky

originally posted by: soundguy
The jury is in, man made global warming is real. Those who deny this are dumber than hoe handles or liars with and agenda. Seriously the science is so simple even a rwnj should be able to understand it. a reply to: 727Sky

The jury is in it is the Sun and the Sun's magnetic field. End of story.

a reply to: Justoneman

Or your siding with the ones that confirm your own prejudice.

I have to kick myself every time I fall into the trap: debating whether world temperature is on the rise or not. Obviously nobody can prove that. And if you could prove a rise, you couldn't prove the cause not to be external.

It's like trying to prove God exists, or doesn't.



But we all know CO2 is on the rise. Nobody can credibly debate against that claim. The fossil fuels are huge deposits of sequestered CO2.

There now actually exists a coal burning process that emits no CO2 at all, and is still highly efficient. Called the "Allam Power Cycle."

en.wikipedia.org...

So if we have the ability to get the full benefit of those fossil fuels, but not increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, then what kind of madness would motivate us not to use it?

Everyone says they want technology to save us.

Then when it does, are they willing to use it?

originally posted by: soundguy
The jury is in, man made global warming is real. Those who deny this are dumber than hoe handles or liars with and agenda. Seriously the science is so simple even a rwnj should be able to understand it. a reply to: 727Sky

Since your mind is made up do not listen to the following video which rebuts your stance. youtu.be...

Just a couple of things I might add... If the Arctic ice caps melt the oceans will not rise as the ice there is floating on water.. Put an ice cube in a glass of water and wait for it to melt.. simple to see the Arctic if melted will not raise the water level.. Now the Antarctic is a different matter as most of the ice is on land.. But still no worries and it is gaining ice just like Greenland is in spite of the dramatic pictures of rivers in the ice.. During WW2 there were some P-38s who where going to fly to England from the USA.. They had a refueling stop in Iceland.. They refueled and took off but hit a really big bad storm that forced them to ditch on the ice cap of Greenland.. The Crews were later rescued but he aircraft remained..

Some historians knew of the downed P-38s and went to see if they could dig them up.. using some high tech instruments they we able to locate one of the birds after 11 seasonal attempts... They had to dig through 160 feet of snow to get the bird out.. 160 since the 1940s.. Think about that...

Glacier Girl is famous in the war bird circles as she has been restored and is back to flying condition..
youtu.be...

youtu.be...

You have to be careful with anecdotes. In a situation where a statistical increase is what we are worried about, anecdotes (or exceptions to the rule) are going to be quite common.

It's sort of like if you analyze population groups and find, for example, that one group on average commits more crime. That doesn't therefore imply that each and every member of the group is a criminal.

Similarly, if the average ice cap is decreasing, that doesn't mean each and every ice cap must therefore be decreasing.