It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pieman
the evidence is on the house of lords website but the evidence doesn't discount climate change, it discounts the projected effect of climate change on mosquito. for instance, you place a quote above that in full reads
you seem to present it as if the man is discounting climate change rather than a particular aspect of it. there seems to be quite a lot of spin in your posts.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
-- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) contributes to plant growth as part of the miracle of nature known as photosynthesis. This enables plants to combine Carbon Dioxide and water with the aid of light energy to form sugar. Some of these sugars are converted into complex compounds that increase dry solid plant substances for continued growth to final maturity. However, when the supply of carbon dioxide is cut off, or reduced, the complex plant cell structure cannot utilize the sun's energy fully and growth or development is curtailed.
CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
IMPROVES PLANT GROWTH AND QUALITY
Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.
The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.
Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.
SAMPLE RESULTS FROM CO2 ENRICHMENT STUDIES
By adding CO2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was achieved. Whereas previous crops averaged 22 heads per basket, lettuce grown in the increased CO2 atmosphere (550 ppm) averaged 16 heads of better quality per basket.
CO2 levels to 550 ppm produced an obvious increase in yield (over 30%), but the greatest benefits were earlier flowering (up to 2 weeks) with an increased percentage of dry matter.
The addition of controlled carbon dioxide provided a remarkable improvement in blossom quality, number and yield. Plants consistently produced many more flowers with 24 to 30 inch stems. Average yield was increased by 39.7%.
Work in experimental stations has shown that crop increases of as much as 29% have been obtained by increasing the CO2 concentration. More desirable firmness and more uniform ripening are also observed.
Why you get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with Johnson CO2.
Plants must absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight to produce the sugars vital for growth. A shortage of any of these requirements will retard the growing process. Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1 ,000 ppm, results are higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1,500 ppm per unit in an average 24' x 200' greenhouse or an equivalent 50,000 cu. ft. volume based on one air change per hour.
Originally posted by chiron613
1. The scientists are challenging the editorial, not necessarily the science behind the editor's beliefs. They objected to the editor's use of an insulting name (Climate Change Deniers), which was a way to lump up everyone who disagrees into a single, easily-attacked group. These so-called "deniers" run the spectrum from lunatic fringe to highly informed, thoughtful, concerned experts. You can't cram them all into a single group.
The tone of the editor's article was arrogant and offensive, whether the science was valid or not. This is what was objectionable.
2. These scientists are chemists and engineers, not climatologists, geologists, or others whose specialties would be more likely to have facts about global warming. They may belong to the world's largest science group, but they were individuals expressing their opinion on an editorial page.
3. This is NOT the American Chemical Society issuing an official statement. It is nothing more than a few scientists taking issue with the editor's comments.
4. Consider who advertises in Chemical and Engineering News. That's where the money comes from. Those are the people you want to keep happy, if you hope for your publication to succeed. Hint: It's not Greenpeace or the EPA.
A Brief History of the Study of Gas Chemistry.
If we were to greatly simplify the history of chemistry so that each century were defined by a single major field of discovery, the twentieth century would be remembered as the Century of Nuclear Chemistry during which our considerable understanding of the subject was developed from earlier theories. Then moving backwards in time, the nineteenth century would be remembered as the Century of Organic Chemistry during which period most of the concepts and principles of organic chemistry were discovered.
The eighteenth century would be the Century of Gas Chemistry, marked by the discovery of most of the common gases. Ingenious techniques with which to generate, collect and study gases were invented at that time . Entire laboratories were dedicated to the study of the new discipline of 'pneumatics'. Their discoverers gave the gases names such as 'fixed air', 'dephogisticated air', and 'inflammable air'. Despite these substantial laboratory accomplishments, the actual chemical identities of these gases remained complete mysteries until the very end of the century. The story of the early days of gas chemistry is interesting and important. It spans the entire century and serves as an example of how an erroneous theory can shape and misguide understanding and investigation. It is a story in which the chemical behavior of the gases eventually allowed the genius of one man, Antoine Lavoisier, to first postulate the precepts of modern chemistry as we know them even to this day.
I am always intrigued by claims that science is settled, especially when it comes to something as complex as climate. Rudy Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded?
Precisely why do you claim that the "scientific consensus of climate change has become increasingly hard to challenge," when nobody in the world claims that climate does not change?
Do you refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?
Have you made the switch from "global warming" to "climate change" because any data whatsoever can be taken, however illogically, as evidence that man is changing the climate?
Pueblo West, Colo.
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Thanks for clearing that up for us!
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Sorry but that is BS, you have to be a chemistry scientist in order to be part of this scientific organization.
Can you show PROOF that mankind is causing Climate Change with anthropogenic CO2?...
So stop using your computer, and stop using your car, and stop using anything and everything that has plastic, but don't demand the rest of the world to do so based on the AGW religion...
Oh but wait, i still see you using your computer....
How in the heck do you stop the Sun from changing activity?....
How do you stop the Earth from rotating around the Sun?....
How do you stop the Solar System from moving through space and entering different regions of space which affect the dynamics of the Solar System, and which also do affect Climate change on Earth?...
There is no solution to Climate change, there is only preparation for the changes.
If reducing emissions does not help with warming so what, it makes for a healthy environment who would not want that!?
I could show you evidence, not proof. Just like you do for it not being caused by man. But what is the point as I wasn't trying to make that argument in the first place.
Climate change will occur. Always has. Always will. Does that make me a "purveyor of nonsense" or a "climate-change denier?" Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind's contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Perhaps those people who keep claiming that CO2 is bad for the environment now might understand why when Earth's atmosphere has had 7 and up to 12 times as much CO2 as now there was MORE green biomass, as in more trees, and more plants, not less, and life also flourished on land and in the oceans with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now...