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.

 

Global Warming tit-for-tat

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
...Continued


OK, not done yet... We still have to cover Gravitational Tidal Forces.

en.wikipedia.org...


Gravitational Tidal force is the effect of gravity on a large body.

Since the force of gravity lowers, as you increase the distance from the source of the gravity, the effect of the gravitational pull on any large object is not equal on all parts of it.

Now, this inequity of gravitational pull causes stress within the object being subject to the dissimilar forces of gravity that act upon it.

This force causes movement, and friction.

This causes heat, deep within large planetary bodies, and contributes to the overall heat input of the planet.

This effect is most prominent on Jupiter's Moon "Io"

www.planetaryexploration.net...



In addition to all of this "Local" influence on temperature... there is the effect of "Cosmic Radiation"

en.wikipedia.org...

This is an energetic particle (Typically protons or Hydrogen nuclei) that travel with ENORMOUS energy (Velocity) through interstellar space.

So energetic are these Subatomic particles, that one proton of cosmic radiation has the same energy as a tennis ball moving at 92 miles per hour.

And these particles are LEGION upon countless LEGION.


The main protection that the earth has from these interstellar particles is the Heliosphere.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Heliosphere is the effect of the Magnetic field of the sun, reaching out into space, pushed by the Stellar wind that issues forthe from the sun's surface.

upload.wikimedia.org...


When the Sun's magnetic field is weak (Low sunspot activity) it allows the cosmic radiation to permeate into the solar system more often than when the Sun's magnetic field is Strong.

kickthemallout.com...

isthereglobalcooling.com...

www.tcsdaily.com...



So, when you say "Climate Change", and you MEAN "Carbon Dioxide"... now you know why I laugh at you.


-Edrick




posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

Very fascinating. Again I say : go back and read it.
You would find most of what you said was actually stated within it.

(Edit)
I have to ask, after reading over the walls of text it seems like you didn't even look at the pic. At least what I imagine is you glancing at the first line, then a bunch of blood vessals bulging followed by a debate tactic I call "The screaming rant".

My quote from the picture was you claiming it did not say humans were exacerbating. You seem to have taken it as something else. After all: Essentially all the arguments you laid out either do not pertain to this thread at all, or are addressed within that pic.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by lordtyp0]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
bad taste, i know

[edit on 12/26/2009 by double_frick]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



Very fascinating. Again I say : go back and read it.


Already did, looked at the sources and everything.

it is CO2 Taxation Apologetics.


YOUR PIC DECONSTRUCTED: (Using the Green side only... the CONSENSUS stuff)


Earth's climate is rapidly warming. The cause is a thickening layer of carbon dioxide enhanced by humanity's activities. It traps heat in the atmosphere, creating a "Greenhouse effect" which heats the earth. A rise in global temperatures of 3 to 9 degrees centigrade will cause devastation


data.giss.nasa.gov...

At some point in the past, the temperatures have risen, this is true.

Recently (Past 10 years) they have not.

To claim that the climate change is from the "Greenhouse Effect", when the warming periods began without the greenhouse effect present, is quite mad.



Since the CO2 concentrations lag the temperature records that we have obtained from the Ice core samples, we cannot actually SAY that the "Greenhouse Effect" actually exists, because we have not observed a planetary climate change caused by "Greenhouse Gasses"

The entire premise is invalid, and based on correlation, and assumption, as opposed to direct evidence.


You can't draw conclusions about the warming of the entire planet just by looking at a small area. It's like comparing apples to pears.


I agree completely, which is why I don't buy the "Hockey Stick graph" that encompass such a meager slice of time.


It's difficult to tell what caused the warming of the arctic in the 1930's. Or whether it's the same mechanism that's causing global warming today.


Yeah, doesn't fit with the "CO2" model, so might as well completely disregard it.


We don't claim CO2 caused temperature rises in the past. We say, because of it's greenhouse effect, CO2 makes natural

temperature rises much worse in fact.


Much worse How exactly?

Balmy? Rocks falling from the sky?

No... by WORSE you mean "Increase in temperature" as it is ALL that you could possibly mean.

We know that CO2 does not cause the climate to WARM, because otherwise, the ice ages would have never began.


Historically, global warming cycles have lasted around 5,000 years. The 800 year CO2 lag only shows that CO2 did not cause the first 16% of warming. The other 4,200 years were likely to have been caused by a CO2 greenhouse effect.


Exactly... because whatever STARTED the great thaw, must have gone back to sleep after the CO2 got working...

IT all makes sense!

(Not Buying it for a second)

But lets talk about atmospheric saturation temperatures, shall we?



Now, from this picture you can see, that Water vapor content of the atmosphere increases with temperature.

And from THIS GRAPH:




We can see that Water vapor has a rather HIGH spectral footprint, Dwarfing EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE GRAPH.

The concentration of Water vapor is a major component, CO2 is quite minor, and insignificant.



We do have accurate temperature records. Distortion of temperature records is a very real phenomenon. But it's one climate scientists are well aware of. Detailed filters are used to remove the effect from the records.


Yeah, We know... that is the entire PROBLEM.

The proxy temperature sets do not match up to their measured temperature readings, THAT is the decline, so they throw away the proxy data when it is no longer convenient, and still call it ACCURATE "Except when they don't want it to be Accurate"


In medieval times, it was hotter in some areas of the world and not others.

This was likely a local warming, rather than a global warming event - i.e. not equivalent to warming today.


*Likely* is the key word here... you will see this sort of assumption A LOT in this entire piece.

They never talk about "it's Just Local Temperature" when they are using data that they INCLUDE... just the medieval warm period... yeah, that's the *ONLY* skeptical part... right...


Ice cores show that there were periods of both cold and warmth around the world at the time.

And there's little evidence it affected the southern hemisphere (partly due to sparser southern data)


That's right... you heard it correctly...

The medieval warm period Was not widespread, because they *DON'T KNOW* if it was widespread or not... so they assume that it isn't


Result: not enough evidence to conclude that medieval temperatures reached 20th century levels.


You also forgot that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the medieval temperatures were cooler than 20th century levels GLOBALLY.

Because the data is TO SPARSE.

How very convenient for you.


Reworked, enhanced versions still show the "Hockey Stick" shape. The hockey stick is 8 years old. There are dozens of other newer, more detailed temperature reconstructions.


The Dow Jones Industrial Average went up .51% today... at this rate it will reach infinity by next summer.

All graphs have "Hockey stick" shaped bits if you zoom in enough, that does not mean that it will continue to go up forever.

That is stupid.


Each one is different due to different methods and data.


Correct.


But they all show similar striking patterns: the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record. And that warming is most dramatic after 1920 (When industrial activity started releasing CO2 into the atmosphere).


This is a blatant lie.

Go back to the Ice core sample... and you will see that the hottest periods in history are the interglacial periods.

And this has been the mildest one yet.


Ice records are reliable.

Ice core data is taken from many different samples to reduce errors. Also, other evidence (Temperature records, tree rings etc) back these readings up. All these results combined make the records very reliable.

The predictions of future global warming don't depend on ice cores.

But ice cores do show that the climate is sensitive to changes in cycles and that CO2 has a strong influence.


No, the ice core samples CANNOT show that CO2 has an influence on climate change... what is it, a Freaking Genie?

Ice core samples cannot tell us WHY it gets hot... only that it DOES, and how much CO2 is in the air also.

And the CO2 STILL LAGS THE WARMING BY 800 YEARS.


Overall, CO2 levels from different ice cores are remarkably similar.


Well, I should certainly hope so.


Scientists correct their results when new evidence comes to light.

No other ice core data in the world shows CO2 levels rising above 290 parts per million in the last 650,000 years. It's possible it might have happened for a year or a day. but consistently, no.


You still have not proven that this actually MEANS anything for the climate, other than bigger, healthier plants.


Some areas of ice are more porous than others. At Siple, the more recent shallow ice was quite porous. So new air was able to circulate quite far down. That affected the record.

We detected and compensated for this. That's why the data has been shifted.


Continued...

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
...Continued


Fossil Fuel CO2 in the atmosphere lasts a few centuries, plus 25% that essentially lasts "Forever".


That is hilarious.

Plants breathe that stuff...

IT goes away at the end of Warm periods.

This is ridiculous.


50% of CO2 is absorbed by the shallow ocean within 30 years.

CO2 in the shallow ocean however is prone to escaping back into the atmosphere. So CO2 often cycles in and out of the ocean

without being fully "captured".

A further 30% of CO2 is mixed into the deep ocean over centuries where it stays. (But the more CO2 the ocean absorbs, the more "saturated" it becomes. So it can absorb less CO2).

The remaining 20% of CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for many, many thousands of years.


No, it doesn't... it becomes a part of the CARBON CYCLE, where it is turned to oxygen, back to carbon dioxide, etc....

It does not STAY... it cycles.



Hacked emails show no organized conspiracy, no collusion and no manipulation of data.

The "Trick" here means technique as in "Trick to solving a problem" or "Trick of the trade"

Yes our data ran out in 1960. So we reconstructed the remaining data from more recent records. The separate curves for the different sets of data were clearly labeled in the original scientific study (but not the IPCC report).


NO they did NOT run out of data... they found data that disagreed, so they tossed it.


The decline occurs in only certain type of tree-ring data (far northern trees). The reason is unknown. But a human cause such as air pollution is suspected. For this reason, Tree-ring data is considered unreliable from 1960 onwards.


Oh how very CONVENIENT for you.


And, overall this tree-ring data is just one of numerous records used to reconstruct past climate.



Consensus Conclusion

Man made CO2 emissions are driving climate change this time.


You have YET to prove that.


We don't claim that greenhouse gasses are the major cause of the ice ages and warming cycles. What drives climate change has long been believed to be variations int he earth's orbit around the sun over thousands of years.

In normal warming cycle, the sun heats the earth, the earth gets hotter. The oceans warm up, releasing huge amounts of CO2.

This creates a greenhouse effect that makes warming much, much more intense.

That's why humanity's release of CO2 is so perilous. We're out of step with the natural cycle. And we haven't even got to the stage where the oceans warm up.




This, as I said before, is nothing more than CO2 Tax, Cap and Trade apologetics.

It is crap.

-Edrick

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Though most of what you said is eloquent in as much-it is well thought out. It is mired in the same issues that you accuse the source of falling victim to: Presumption.

Almost all the evidence you supplied to act as a counter is correlation and a twist on the 'reducto ad absudum". (ie: The stock market is rapid change, making it a poor example and more over we know the maximum potential of changes due to the economic statuses.)

You double dip as well. The section regarding Middle ages temperature: You ignored the parts saying in the northen hemisphere ice data showed varied temperature all over, but because they did not have southern hemisphere data, you indicate they cannot make that claim because they cannot know.

The carbon cycle reference was fairly funny. You there will always be an imbalance in the levels of complementary aspects. To illustrate,

If the atmosphere naturally has 15% C(related gases, CO1, CO2 etc. etc.). It is this way because of the natural balance of plants absorbing and various animals releasing. If an outside force tampers and jacks the value to 40%... Do you really think the planet will suddenly start absorbing more? or will it simply continue it's previous maximum scrubbing while the rest floats around before eventually being stored and released (at reduced rates because of saturation and the chemistry principle of diffusion).

Note: The percentage values I used were arbitrary. Just used for the example of balance and saturation.

Because almost all of your evidence-I say almost all because I very may possibly have missed something-is correlation, presumption and base attack refutation in nature (it is wrong because I say so). I dare say you have not proven your case. Nor have you proven that the picture is addressing the common points in a balanced manner. Btw: I had nothing to do with the pic. I just thought it was interesting and posted. The "convenient for you" statements were cute.

The thesis statement of the pic is: CO2 does not cause GW, it exacerbates it. It also states GW cycles are related to planetary cycles etc. etc.
Everything within the pic is sound when comparing to the science. Nothing is sound when comparing to statistics or the blanket escapist statement of "We can't know that" or "how did they know this, they use magic powers?"

Do you have anything that offers direct evidence that is not circumstantial, oppinuendo or correlation in nature?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



Though most of what you said is eloquent in as much-it is well thought out. It is mired in the same issues that you accuse the source of falling victim to: Presumption.


Thank you... A Great deal of the presumptions I used were merely to illustrate the presumptions that the author jumped to.


Almost all the evidence you supplied to act as a counter is correlation and a twist on the 'reducto ad absudum". (ie: The stock market is rapid change, making it a poor example and more over we know the maximum potential of changes due to the economic statuses.)


Quite the opposite.... the stock market moves in the same up then down patterns as the weather.

My point in that, was that if you zoom in REALLY close to either graph, you will see exactly what you want to see.

Compare the hockey stick graph to the Vlastok Ice core samples, and you will see why the SLIGHT change of the upcurve, is trivial at BEST.


You double dip as well. The section regarding Middle ages temperature: You ignored the parts saying in the northen hemisphere ice data showed varied temperature all over, but because they did not have southern hemisphere data, you indicate they cannot make that claim because they cannot know.


Oh, you missed the point of that one.

They claimed that the middle age temperature rise was merely an anomaly, and justified throwing it out.

The author then goes on to say that they don't really KNOW whether it was an anomaly or not, because of the LACK of southern hemisphere data.

And so, because of the LACK of data, they CONCLUDE that the middle age temperature rise was JUST an anomaly.

They are making assumptions that they lack evidence for.

That was my point.


The carbon cycle reference was fairly funny. You there will always be an imbalance in the levels of complementary aspects. To illustrate,

If the atmosphere naturally has 15% C(related gases, CO1, CO2 etc. etc.). It is this way because of the natural balance of plants absorbing and various animals releasing. If an outside force tampers and jacks the value to 40%... Do you really think the planet will suddenly start absorbing more? or will it simply continue it's previous maximum scrubbing while the rest floats around before eventually being stored and released (at reduced rates because of saturation and the chemistry principle of diffusion).


Yes, plants grow faster and larger in increased CO2 environments.

Lets see, for sources we have...

"Carbon dioxide makes crops grow faster, German study says"
www.earthtimes.org...

The team, lead by Hans-Joachim Weigel, used the mixture of air expected to prevail on the planet in 2050, with 550 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide. The plants developed between 10 and 15 per cent more biomass at maturity....

The scientists said it appeared that the plants could employ water more efficiently when they had more carbon dioxide available.


You see... Photosynthesis is the process by which Plants use sunlight to convert Carbon Dioxide into simple sugars.

CO2 is quite literally... Plant Food.

More Food = More Plant Growth.


Because almost all of your evidence-I say almost all because I very may possibly have missed something-is correlation, presumption and base attack refutation in nature (it is wrong because I say so). I dare say you have not proven your case.


I was not attempting to prove a case, I was attempting to Disprove, that the Picture proves anything.

Which I accomplished.


Nor have you proven that the picture is addressing the common points in a balanced manner.


That was not my intention.

I think the picture is quite biased.


Btw: I had nothing to do with the pic. I just thought it was interesting and posted. The "convenient for you" statements were cute.


They were directed at the author of the picture, and not at you... so no offense intended.


The thesis statement of the pic is: CO2 does not cause GW, it exacerbates it.


My point was that this is wrong.

CO2 does not exacerbate climate change.

CO2's contributions to the temperature are complicated, minute, and ultimately, self defeating.

The premise that CO2 is the "Linchpin" of climate change is a red herring, has not been proven, ad it only being posited for political, and economic reasons.

FALLACIOUS.


Everything within the pic is sound when comparing to the science.


The conclusions are completely incorrect, and not at ALL inferred from the data.

Let me paint you a simple picture, that will help to explain:


The Pic Says:

Climate getting hotter!

CO2 is MORE when HOT!

CO2 is BAD, because makes HOT.

OR

CO2 is BAD because make MORE HOT!


The data says no such thing.

The conclusion is fallacious.


Nothing is sound when comparing to statistics or the blanket escapist statement of "We can't know that" or "how did they know this, they use magic powers?"

Do you have anything that offers direct evidence that is not circumstantial, oppinuendo or correlation in nature?


I'm not even going to attempt to disprove a negative.

You (Or the author of the article) must first attempt to PROVE that CO2 actually exaggerates temperature elevations before I can attempt to disprove it.

So far, that has not been done.

IT was merely implied, and then presented as Axiom.

en.wikipedia.org...

-Edrick



[edit on 27-12-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


Yea because it worked so horribly and we still have all that acid rain. oh yea....



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Yea that same sun that has been changing cycles since before the Earth existed but we are only noticing it now.

And your thing on the plants, don't forget we have eradicated a third of the rain forest, one of the major scrubbers, and countless trees all over the planet, among uncountable acres of land that have been developed.

So planting some heads of lettuce isn't going to help.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Yes, I do realise that.

We have a global change of weather which is going to kill some species.

Among those species are humans, birds, butterflies, bees, therefore plants.
the Arctic creatures and who knows what else.

Trees are probably immune.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaraLou
reply to post by munkey66
 


Yes, I do realise that.

We have a global change of weather which is going to kill some species.

Among those species are humans, birds, butterflies, bees, therefore plants.
the Arctic creatures and who knows what else.

Trees are probably immune.

A big assumption there, or do you have a crystal ball which can tell us exactly which animals are going to become extinct by climate change,

I really think you are giving nature no credit at all, the Australian aboriginal lives in the Australian outback with 40+ celcius temperatures and other cultures have survived in complete snow and ice.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


OK, munkey, you tell me who will survive. But a lot of those creatures will not survive.

Let us think about our melting icecaps - penguins, polar bears and who knows what else - are dying.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TaraLou
 


do a little search for extinct animals, you will see that a lot of animals have become extinct since the start from back when animals started to walk the earth till now.
Melting ice caps may cause the extinction of some animals, that is called evolution. but it does not mean the extinction of all.
One animals demise can be the advantage of another animal, no snow on the ice caps means more plants which opens it up to the grazing animals which in turn opens it up to preditors which helps the insects from dung beetles to flies.

you can look at natural climate change as a catastrophy, but the climate changes constanly and will reguarless of if man walks the earth or not, life will survive, always has and always will.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0

If the atmosphere naturally has 15% C(related gases, CO1, CO2 etc. etc.). It is this way because of the natural balance of plants absorbing and various animals releasing. If an outside force tampers and jacks the value to 40%... Do you really think the planet will suddenly start absorbing more? or will it simply continue it's previous maximum scrubbing while the rest floats around before eventually being stored and released (at reduced rates because of saturation and the chemistry principle of diffusion).

OK, I keep reading you say this in different ways, and I simply can't let it go...

Have you ever heard of the Goldilock's Principle? It simply states that for some unknown and unfathomable reason, the climate of the planet has remained in that particular zone of temperature and humidity that benefits (or at least allows) life for a very long time... much longer than scientists using climate models can account for. One large aspect of this is our distance from the sun, but it also applies to atmospheric and biospheric influences as well.

It is impossible for this to happen by accident. In order for the planet to have remained habitable for the period of time it has, there have to be mechanisms that work together to keep the planet in that climatic zone. If temperature goes up too far, something has to work to bring it down. If temperature drops too far, something must work to bring it up.

In electronics, we call this negative feedback. A simple voltage regulator works on this principle. If the output voltage starts to rise, it causes the regulator to make it harder for electricity to flow, dropping the output voltage in response. If the output voltage tries to drop, then the regulator makes it easier for electricity to flow through it, raising the output voltage in response. Should the feedback be positive, i.e. the opposite feedback activity as was just described, the regulator would soon either stop conducting or burn itself up within microseconds.

On the Earth, should the feedback mechanisms be positive, we simply would not be here. The very fact that we are typing is an indisputable piece of evidence that the planetary feedback mechanisms are negative.

You say the system will not adapt to counter additional CO2. I say it will. My proof is every greenhouse in operation in the USA today. They typically use CO2 levels at much higher levels than we have ever dreamed of having in the atmosphere, 1500 ppmv or more. The reason is that plants grow faster when in an environment with higher levels of CO2. The carbon that makes up the plant's cells comes from CO2, so it is obvious that their increased growth uses more CO2. That, good sir, is called negative feedback and serves to regulate rather than compound changes.

The ocean does not in itself sink CO2. The ocean absorbs a small amount of CO2 on a regular basis, creating carbonic acid. As this carbonic acid decomposes naturally, it releases carbon dioxide into the water which oceanic plants then sink into organic matter. Increase the amount of CO2 in the oceans and you increase the amount of plant matter in the ocean. Increase the amount of plant matter in the ocean and more CO2 is absorbed. As this absorption and usage is regular, it tends to have a quite large impact on the overall CO2 absorption. Again, a negative feedback.

More plant life also tends to cool the atmosphere through evaporative cooling, a side effect of the photosynthetic process. Strangely enough, warmer temperatures tend to increase this cooling temperature since warmer air can hold more water vapor. And finally, plant life also tends to grow faster when the temperatures are warmer. Want proof? Drive around a farming area and see just how many fields are growing in the dead of winter, then repeat the observation in the summer.

More CO2 will cause the planet to indeed sink more of the CO2. The only way we can reach that 'saturation point' you mention is to remove the plant life on the planet, in which case a few degrees of warmer temperatures will not be a big deal anymore... we'll be too busy starving to notice.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


But we are removing the plant life. Not just the rain forest. Across the Pacific NW miles and miles of trees are removed. New ones planted however they are not growing faster even given the proximity to the freeway.

One point about the whole debacle: CO2 is not the only thing being released. Toxins that destroy plants (let alone mammalian health).

Cycles rely on a natural balance. We can see in chemistry through the principles of diffusion and saturation that there is a cap to the amount that can be 'scrubbed' given the act of scrubbing relies on chemical conversion such as Carbon to various fibers and starches used in plants. Currently there are millions if not billions of tons locked in the permafrost of the taiga. If that thaws it could set the stage for a cascade failure.

Hypothetically as the carbon levels increase they will interact more with various organic molecules we use (pesticides, fertilizers etc.). I can only imagine that occurring en masse after saturation though.

Point being: the natural cycle is at it's levels because it is what is can sustain. Humans have increased pollution (as defined by chemicals which ought not be there) by dumping millions of tons a day into the atmosphere. You can view the direct effect on the plant life around the factories. In conjuntion we are killing the ocean (massive dead zones) and destroying forests constantly.

I did find this interesting, one of the earliest accounts of CO2 with GW impacts.

Anyway;
How is the planet going to scrub in short enough time to spare the life of it's inhabitants? The CO2, carcinogens, man made death in land, sea and air. It all adds up and compounds the others. Chemical catalysts which could be laying dormant to gems like: "GW is false because God would not allow that!" (Someone told me that the other day).

The boat has tipped. Problem is most the people are staying on the falling side because it costs money to balance the ship.

This is a sad footnote on humanity, hopefully it isn't the gravemarker.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



But we are removing the plant life. Not just the rain forest. Across the Pacific NW miles and miles of trees are removed. New ones planted however they are not growing faster even given the proximity to the freeway.


So, you are saying that because humans are killing plants, that somehow causes new plants to stop growing?


One point about the whole debacle: CO2 is not the only thing being released. Toxins that destroy plants (let alone mammalian health).


Tell that to the Carbon Credit / Cap and Trade Group... they seem to be focused on Carbon Dioxide ALONE.

With their Taxes and control schemes.

Regardless, I think the topic at hand was CO2, vis-a-vis, Anthropogenic Climate Change.

If you are moving the goalpost to other "Pollutants" that have no relation to the AGW debate, you would be advised to concede that you are no longer arguing about climate change, but about pollution.


Cycles rely on a natural balance. We can see in chemistry through the principles of diffusion and saturation that there is a cap to the amount that can be 'scrubbed' given the act of scrubbing relies on chemical conversion such as Carbon to various fibers and starches used in plants.


First off... Plants do not "Scrub" carbon Dioxide... they INGEST IT.

Their celular resperation processes DEPEND upon Carbon Dioxide to facilitate Photosynthesis.

Plants EAT Carbon Dioxide, and Excrete Oxygen.

Furthermore, The effects of Enriched CO2 environments has been well documented on plant life, as it boosts their growth, Ergo, they consume more Carbon Dioxide.
www.sciencedaily.com...


Hypothetically as the carbon levels increase they will interact more with various organic molecules we use (pesticides, fertilizers etc.). I can only imagine that occurring en masse after saturation though.


This is not an argument for AGW...

Concurrently, it is also not substantiated by any basis other than your "Imagination" (As you yourself plainly said.)


Point being: the natural cycle is at it's levels because it is what is can sustain.


As it will always be... it could not be otherwise.

You are attempting to make the argument that the a biological population will not increase with an abundance of the materials that sustain its life.


Humans have increased pollution (as defined by chemicals which ought not be there) by dumping millions of tons a day into the atmosphere.


Are you saying that Carbon Dioxide is not a naturally occurring Gas?


You can view the direct effect on the plant life around the factories.


Are you ATTRIBUTING this to Carbon Dioxide?

Or perhaps, are you implying that ANOTHER pollutant is responsible?

(which would be the truth)


In conjuntion we are killing the ocean (massive dead zones) and destroying forests constantly.


Carbon Dioxide is not responsible for Oceanic Dead Zones... that would be Synthetic plastic patches that kill off oceanic life.

Concurrently, Deforestation is not an EFFECT of Carbon Dioxide... and using that as an argument for AGW is puerile.


I did find this interesting, one of the earliest accounts of CO2 with GW impacts.


I did find *THIS* interesting:

arxiv.org...

A research paper that spells out exactly WHY the "Greenhouse" theory is complete garbage.


How is the planet going to scrub in short enough time to spare the life of it's inhabitants?


Plants will grow faster, and in doing so, contain more Carbon Dioxide... what part of this are you not able to understand?


The CO2, carcinogens, man made death in land, sea and air. It all adds up and compounds the others. Chemical catalysts which could be laying dormant to gems like: "GW is false because God would not allow that!" (Someone told me that the other day).


Ah, of course... a good old fashion "Appeal to Ridicule"

en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly, How did you come about the belief that "carcinogens, man made death in land, sea and air." actually COMPOUND Global Warming?

Do you have a Source?

Facts?

Anything?


The boat has tipped. Problem is most the people are staying on the falling side because it costs money to balance the ship.


Once again... the earth is not a Boat.

The Ecosystem, and the Self regulating thermodynamics of the earth system are just a *TAD* bit more complicated than an analogy of "Balance on Displacement" can ever hope to encapsulate.

-Edrick

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


One of two things is true here: Either you are completely ignoring the context of the discussion, or are just pulling random things out of said context and trying to make some universal argument.

What you replied to was of course myself replying to someone else who was discussing the optimal environment of a greenhouse and how CO2 levels are good for that environment.

What I was addressing was: The world is not that lab-like greenhouse.
Plants cannot pull the carbon out at sufficient levels-because CO2 is not the only pollutant. Obviously I said nothing about other chemicals causing GW. I simply said the other chemicals would impact the ability to recover.

Also: please reign in your walls of text a bit. One cannot quote them without violating the length requirements, so it makes it impossible to accurately address points.

Unless of course, that is your intent.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0

But we are removing the plant life. Not just the rain forest. Across the Pacific NW miles and miles of trees are removed. New ones planted however they are not growing faster even given the proximity to the freeway.

I have to ask this: are you measuring their growth? Or is this a subjective observation?

At the risk of repeating Edrick above, the effects of increased concentrations of CO2 on plant photosynthesis are well-documented and have been used commercially for decades in commercial greenhouses... with concentrations of 1500ppmv and higher increasing both plant health and growth rates consistently.

I have also stated many times in these forums that I am an advocate of controls to clearcutting, especially in the equatorial regions, as well as an advocate to individuals planting trees. Do you think that because I do not think CO2 levels are dangerous that it means I am in favor of clearcutting?


CO2 is not the only thing being released.

No, no, no. We're not going to go there. Just because I don't believe CO2 is a problem, it does not follow that I believe the same thing about HCl, SO2, NOx, etc.

I am discussing CO2 and CO2 only. That's what is being claimed to be causing Global Warming.


Cycles rely on a natural balance. We can see in chemistry through the principles of diffusion and saturation that there is a cap to the amount that can be 'scrubbed' given the act of scrubbing relies on chemical conversion such as Carbon to various fibers and starches used in plants.

In laboratories, one has an exact amount of material to interact. Plants, however, grow and respond to increased CO2 levels. As the amount of biomass increases, the amount of CO2 which can be utilized increases to compensate. That is a self-correcting system.


Currently there are millions if not billions of tons locked in the permafrost of the taiga. If that thaws it could set the stage for a cascade failure.

That could well explain why higher CO2 levels in the historical record trail rising temperatures.


Hypothetically as the carbon levels increase they will interact more with various organic molecules we use (pesticides, fertilizers etc.). I can only imagine that occurring en masse after saturation though.

I assume you mean carbon dioxide levels.

You are aware that CO2 is pretty inert, right? It really doesn't combine with many other materials except through photosynthesis. There is calcium carbonate (CaCO3, rock), magnesium carbonate (MgCO3, more rock), and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3, baking soda), but so far as I know these are not exactly hazardous materials. Exactly what compounds are you worrying about?


Point being: the natural cycle is at it's levels because it is what is can sustain.

And it adjusts that level based on the composition of chemicals in the environment. That's called "life".


Humans have increased pollution (as defined by chemicals which ought not be there) by dumping millions of tons a day into the atmosphere.

Which have, over the space of 60 years, changed 0.01% of the atmosphere.


You can view the direct effect on the plant life around the factories.

Which is caused by sulfuric acid (H2SO4, created from emitted SO2) and hydrochloric acid (emitted HCl)... NOT from CO2. CO2 increases plant growth.


In conjuntion we are killing the ocean (massive dead zones) and destroying forests constantly.

Oceans: more sulfuric acid and some nitric acid.
Forests: sulfuric and hydrochloric acid.

How about we fix the problem instead of looking to something else?


How is the planet going to scrub in short enough time to spare the life of it's inhabitants? The CO2, carcinogens, man made death in land, sea and air.

Again, you do not seem to understand what CO2 is. It is not 'pollution'. It does not kill plants or make areas uninhabitable. It keeps plants alive, just as oxygen keeps us alive.


The boat has tipped. Problem is most the people are staying on the falling side because it costs money to balance the ship.

No, the boat rocked slightly and everyone is running to the other side. THAT is what will tip the boat.


This is a sad footnote on humanity, hopefully it isn't the gravemarker.

If one wanted to kill off humanity, the easiest way would be to remove all the CO2 in the atmosphere. All plant life, every green leaf or blade or stem, would instantly wither and die within days. No food. Herbivores (cows, deer, elk, moose, antelope, elephants, etc.) would die from a lack of food. Humans could hang on a bit by becoming strictly carnivorous, but the animals would run out soon since there would be no more breeding. Then we would get to die of starvation as well, with the added benefit of seeing the Earth becoming a barren lifeless wasteland.

There's you a eulogy for that tombstone.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12/30/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



One of two things is true here: Either you are completely ignoring the context of the discussion, or are just pulling random things out of said context and trying to make some universal argument.


It's always black or white with you, isn't it?

No, I am not taking this out of context... I am using YOUR context.


What you replied to was of course myself replying to someone else who was discussing the optimal environment of a greenhouse and how CO2 levels are good for that environment.


What I replied to, way your poorly thrown together information that in no way refuted TheRedneck's Point, did not further the topic of the Thread that YOU made, and attempted to compose a strawman argument by linking CO2 with things that it is NOT responsible for.


What I was addressing was: The world is not that lab-like greenhouse.
Plants cannot pull the carbon out at sufficient levels-because CO2 is not the only pollutant. Obviously I said nothing about other chemicals causing GW. I simply said the other chemicals would impact the ability to recover.


No, you didn't

You never even implied that in your attempted rebuttal.

All you said was... AND I QUOTE:


Cycles rely on a natural balance. We can see in chemistry through the principles of diffusion and saturation that there is a cap to the amount that can be 'scrubbed' given the act of scrubbing relies on chemical conversion such as Carbon to various fibers and starches used in plants.


Now, if in that text you MEANT, that other chemicals would prevent the absorption of Carbon Dioxide... you would do well to actually ENUNCIATE this, as opposed to attempting to save your own argument via Red Herrings.


Also: please reign in your walls of text a bit. One cannot quote them without violating the length requirements, so it makes it impossible to accurately address points.

Unless of course, that is your intent.


I compose my arguments in this fashion in order to keep ambiguity and misunderstanding to a MINIMUM.

I compose my arguments in this fashion in order to address each and every one of your points, with my rebuttal.

I compose my arguments in this fashion so that WHAT I am refuting, commenting on, or making reference to, is CLEAR.

If you want to refute a single point of mine, all you have to do is copy/paste it, and surround it with the quote boxes in the reply field.


-Edrick

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Right...
All the talk of additional chemicals, and dead ocean etc...
What I was talking about was Humanities seemingly concerted effort to kill all the things that would come riding in the 'calvary'. Killing plants and the ocean more and more everyday.

In this idea of "the earth will save us!". How does equilibrium of atmosphere occur when all the helping factors are crippled or dead? Yet, we still crank out the gases millions of tons a day.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by lordtyp0]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join