Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[sequoias]

That's a big if. New and growing forest are CO2 neutral due to composition and fallen branches etc, so not much aid there. It's some claims that forests can consume more CO2 than it pours out, but then it have to be old-growth forest, something that we are chopping down at a incredible fast rate.

I agree that CO and hydrocarbons contribute to our problems!

Yes, the old growth forests play a big role with CO2 to oxygen production...but sadly we are losing old growth forests at a fast rate....so that leaves smaller plants working as much as it can to produce oxygen. Some trees can produce it faster and other kind of trees can't produce it as fast. There are some kind of trees that can withstand polluted cities as well.

 

[sequoias]

heard new England will have more snow and icy storm this coming wintertime. I really hate to drive into the snow. Scary !

Yup, part of El Nino shifting the climate this year.

 

[kokonut]

"CO2 has never known to be a climate driver." = CO2 don't drive any changes in climate. 97 percent of climate scientists disagree strongly with that statement, making it illogical to write "never known".

It's quite apparent when one says "climate driver" is to mean to play as a major or even a large role in climate change. Hence, the key word is "driver."

It is quite baseless to come up with the oft repeated "97 percent of climate scientists disagree..." comment since it is misleading because not all scientists were questioned and that 97% doesn't convey accurately how many scientists (or "scientists" in this case) disagreed or agreed. What about the 31,478 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, who disagree with the notion that CO2 caused global warming? ( Global Warming Petition Project ). Or what about the over 700 dissenting scientists, which is more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers? ( .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. ). Or even the recent gathering of scientists at this year's International Conference on Climate Change where some "800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives attended the event, which took place at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel. Produced by The Heartland Institute and 60 co-sponsoring organizations, the conference is devoted to answering questions overlooked by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." What about that one?

The IPCC concluded global temperatures may already have reached crisis proportions, and that human activity was a key driver in raising temperatures, primarily because of the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But the 80 speakers at the Heartland conference presented a substantially different viewpoint. “The number of people registered for this event is nearly twice as many as attended the 2008 conference,” noted Heartland President Joseph Bast. “And the presenters at this year’s conference are the elite in the world among climate scientists. We will be delighted to demonstrate once again the breadth and high quality of support that the skeptical perspective on climate change enjoys.”

The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

So, perhaps you need to stop using this baseless "97% agree" consensus nonsense blather the next time around?


"CO2 increase cannot be the sole driver in climate change"=something else than above. Now CO2 can drive climate changes. Not according to numerous studies (I've gave out the references) that temperature rose first then a lag time going into hundreds of years CO2 followed upwards. Big difference. If you blame the word "increase" then you have a classic example of unclear statements, and it's illogical, because if the word increase is needed to be a climate driver, then nothing can drive the climate according to your first statement. Sun activities have to increase to drive the climate, else it's not a climate driver. CO2 have to increase, else it's not a climate driver. Ahem! "International Solar Cycle Studies: Sun as a Climate Driver" - http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/Pap.pdf

*sigh*....*shakes head*...

 

[kokonut]

CO2 NOT LIKELY A DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE - NIPCC REPORT


In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To read summary and download pdf (click on picture on right column "Climate Change Reconsidered" - an 868 page report:
Welcome to the Web Site of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

 

[flip]

It'd be awesome but terrifying to see such a big display of firework if your nuclear bombs go off all at once. Awesome for the fireworks but terrifying because it's going to have a profound impact on all of humankind.

I've always wanted to kill a bunch of players (on a scale of hundreds) on WoW on my warlock with bombs; there is no way you can commit mass murder via bombs on WoW right now. It's a good thing game isn't rl. :P

If WOW was rl, everyone would perhaps be dead from CO2 toxicity a long time ago due to CO2 emissions from corpses of monsters and players killed since the release.

 

[deafskeptic]

If WOW was rl, everyone would perhaps be dead from CO2 toxicity a long time ago due to CO2 emissions from corpses of monsters and players killed since the release.

 

[flip]

Again, we're talking about CO2. It's not that potent compared to other more dangerous compounds. Even pure Oxygen can kill you. If that were the case then I'm sure EPA would have by now banned workers from working in greenhouses because the CO2 concentration is much higher inside.

I see you still are lost somewhere out there in space, even after 200 posts in this thread.

It's silly to compare oxygen with CO2. Oxygen kills at 100 percent. CO2 kill at 5 percent and less. Big difference. It's becomes unhealthy and dangerous at .5 percent, no matter what you claim. Most people in the world belive what the universities and the industry tell us, not what you want some AD'ers to belive for some strange reasons. You asking for an episode where a person died from 5000 ppm of CO2 is beyond silly. People die from CO2 toxicity all the time, and you really expect people to jump in with a CO2 measurer once they find their friend dead from CO2? No one is gonna give you an example of this, it would be too morbid.

Greenhouses only have about 1000 ppm of CO2. Way below the 5000 ppm limit. Some greenhouses have even lower ppm, as not all plants like 1000 ppm of CO2 in the air. It's not just to pour it into the air like you claim according to the greenhouse industry and everyone is happy. Some plants performs worse at 1000 ppm of CO2, compared to 500 ppm.

But what truly show us your completely lacking of knowledge on CO2 in this reply, is when you claim
"Correct, again, CO2 is not that potent since it just takes up the volume space of air with increasing concentration. Put a block of dry ice in a large walk in freezer and you'll be dead before long in that confined space. Asphyxiation."

First, CO2 is not just a simple asphyxiant like you claim here, limited to reducing space where it should be oxygen, but has acute systemic effects and it's in most cases, the toxic properties of CO2 that is fatal.

How did you really get your degrees?

 

[flip]

*sigh*....*shakes head*...

Your english is still flawed. "never known to be a climate driver" is illogical when most people know that UN claim that CO2 plays as a major role in climate changes. Even more than 80 percents of scientists, regardless profession, belive this. It's not about how you want the world to look like, but what it looks like, and it definitely don't look like it's never known to be a climate driver. It's like writing "the ocean is not known to be pink". It's funny how you don't admit this, but okay.

I see you get pissed every time I come up with the 97 percent thing, but it was a good poll, done properly, sorry. Other sources and polls are not far from this number either, and confirms.

You keep on posting the same bogus science again from Heartland Institute. Running out of arguments?

Regarding the the petition with "30.000 scientist", thats just more faux-science. Only .1 percent of the signatures have scientific background in climatology and signers makes up for far less than 1 percent of people with degrees in USA. Many of the signers can't be verified, and weird results show up on googling their names making it even more fishy. To make it worse, it was funded by ExxonMobil..

 

[flip]

CO2 NOT LIKELY A DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE - NIPCC REPORT


In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To read summary and download pdf (click on picture on right column "Climate Change Reconsidered" - an 868 page report:
Welcome to the Web Site of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

You seriously asking me to read 868 pages of bogus science from Heartland Institute? If you want to prove that CO2 not likely is a driver of climate change, you have to say it with your own words, else no one is gonna belive that you know why it's not a driver.

Check my comments on stuff from the oil industry funded Heartland Institute that don't want to reveal it's sponsors, in post 81 in this thread: AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

 

[deafskeptic]

You seriously asking me to read 868 pages of bogus science from Heartland Institute? If you want to prove that CO2 not likely is a driver of climate change, you have to say it with your own words, else no one is gonna belive that you know why it's not a driver.

Check my comments on stuff from the oil industry funded Heartland Institute that don't want to reveal it's sponsors, in post 81 in this thread: AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

Posting bogus science from questionable sites which are funded by industries with interests that are negatively affected by scientific findings (ex. the tobacco industry and findings regarding smoking and lung cancer) is a surefire way to lose credibility with rational posters.

 

[Buffalo]

What are you suggesting? Should we relax our pollution controls to enable these companies to operate cheaper? Do you think, even if this were done, that one penny of that extra profit would find it's way to John Q Public? Or would it become another penny in the CEO's inflated salary? What about the health implications of increased pollution: fact or fiction? Feel free to research this and more.

OOhhhhh, yeah! I am with you on this. This is no brainer. It is very easy to see how pollution can hurt us now and in the future.

 

[Buffalo]

And nearly half of them are Conservatives.

Good point!

 

[Hwy99]

Our sun is a star. We call it "the sun" in order to make clear which star we're talking about. Again, sun = star.

For now, it's the star, but someday it will not be the same.

Today. Sun remains a main sequence star, continually growing warmer and brighter by ~10% every 10,9 years.[86]

Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the link, it will show more of the timeline for the Sun or the stars with description. As for the sun's size, that is MUCH for us, even though the sun grow just a little bit.

It has nothing to do with Ozone. A completely different chemical reaction. CO2 play no role in the chemical reaction in the ozone layer.

No...not common sense but rather highly misinformed on your part. Please take a moment to learn how the ozone works in the stratosphere.

Ozone does get the hole from the damages.

By the way, if you want to debate that much, please use this quote system by adding [quote*] blah blah blah [/quote*] and just remove the stars, or you can highlight the paragraph and click one of icon on the top of the box

 

[kokonut]

Posting bogus science from questionable sites which are funded by industries with interests that are negatively affected by scientific findings (ex. the tobacco industry and findings regarding smoking and lung cancer) is a surefire way to lose credibility with rational posters.

So, in other words, despite the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journals that document scientific or historical facts that contradicts global warming (i.e. man caused) claims those who support these findings by compiling them for the public consumption are not be taken seriously? So, which is it now? That peer-reviewed science is now unacceptable after you gave a speil recently about the lack of providing peer-reviewed articles? I've laid out my own findings based on peer-reviewed articles by attaching references (e.g. time lag findings and differences between temp rise and CO2 rise). So, what are you saying?

This is a simple matter where policy should be based on demonstrable and repeatable science and not about using fear alone as a policy justification to literally push an agenda. That's a red flag right there. Or haven't you noticed? Probably not.

I continue to read this piece since last month. Very informative and a rich source of peer review articles that I can tap into.

 

[Buffalo]

mother nature wants those five legged frogs :p


this topic give me a headache, it must be the co2

lol!

 

[kokonut]

For now, it's the star, but someday it will not be the same. Koko - Our sun is a star. Our star is called the sun. They're the same thing.

In the link, it will show more of the timeline for the Sun or the stars with description. As for the sun's size, that is MUCH for us, even though the sun grow just a little bit. Koko - Uh, it grows in size by 10 percent every 1,000,000,000 (billion) years. So, every 100 years the sun expand by .00000001 percent in size. From a historical perspective speaking sun's size hasn't changed nor expanded from our perspective. It's on a geological time scale to notice those changes.

Ozone does get the hole from the damages. Koko - There is no hole, just a thinning of the ozone layer in the stratosphere. The word "hole" is a misnomer.

My quote is in red after yours.

 

[kokonut]

OOhhhhh, yeah! I am with you on this. This is no brainer. It is very easy to see how pollution can hurt us now and in the future.

I agree. I'm in the pollution reducing business, literally. Problem is, CO2 is not a pollutant.

 

[Buffalo]

Greenhouses only have about 1000 ppm of CO2. Way below the 5000 ppm limit. Some greenhouses have even lower ppm, as not all plants like 1000 ppm of CO2 in the air. It's not just to pour it into the air like you claim according to the greenhouse industry and everyone is happy. Some plants performs worse at 1000 ppm of CO2, compared to 500 ppm.

Now your statement got me interested. If I remember my elementary science, we breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2. The plants do it in reverse. In that case, I would expect the greenhouses to be far less in CO2. Could you please explain that?

 

[Buffalo]

I agree. I'm in the pollution reducing business, literally. Problem is, CO2 is not a pollutant.

What really is the problem, then?

 

[Jiro]

What really is the problem, then?

problem is - we're wasting billions and billions of dollars on misunderstood problem regarding CO2. In other word - applying a costly solution to non-existent problem when that money is better spent on pollution control and researching green technology.