Shovelling 'global warming'

[Avro]

I assume - just like everyone else - that if you double CO2 in, you have twice as much CO2 to get out. Now, bright boy, is that from CO2 being added to the atmosphere, or is the cancer called urban sprawl and rain forest harvests destroying vegetation which scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere?

Woof!

Yes, that is part of it bright boy, triple the population and remove half of the rainforest while pumping out out Carbon emmisions, that will also increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.....what's your point?

The question was what happens when you double the amount of CO2, nothing?

Surely and smart dog like you can answer that one.

 

[Avro]

Correction: Animals and INTELLIGENT people adapt.

Woof

They do by reducing emmisions, protecting the enviroment and moving forward with new technologies.

Cons are always slow to adapt, it is the very meaning of your nature.

 

[Avro]

Where's all the death you mentioned? People and animals adapt.

Sure, we can say that the animals that did not go extinct adapted. That's just like saying a smoker who dosen't get cancer adapted.

 

[Avro]

I missed that in the article.

The scientific "consensus" on climate change is simply that man-made greenhouse gas emissions, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas), are causing warming beyond what naturally occurs because of the greenhouse effect.
While the impact on climate, and thus on us, will be significant over time, there are substantial disagreements, and great unknowns, about what the precise impacts will be, how severe, where, when and most important, what we should do about it.


...not big enough for ya?

 

[Avro]

Damn! I musta forgot the trollbane. You mixing the Draino and Javax again? Congrats, Az.... You're the first living thing I've seen who can speak more intelligently from that end. Point was, we've known for over 40 years but they who said anything about pollution were all doomsayers then. As ususal, man has acted too late.

Do you ever debate without looking for a fight?

Woof!

Try making sense.

 

[lone wolf]

Try making sense.

Try growing up....

 

[Avro]

Try growing up....

Seriously, if your gonna avoid simple questions by spewing forth unintelligible crap then go play in the sandbox and don't pay attention to what the grown ups are doing.

 

[lone wolf]

Is it cage cleaning day in Oshawa again? Mommy let you play with the pooter huh?

Woof!

 

[Just the Facts]

Don't avoid the point, what happens when you double the amount of co2 in the atmosphere?

Nothing?

Plants start to grow faster.

 

[Just the Facts]

A 2°C World

We know that during the last interglacial period (approximately 125,000 years ago), on a 3°C warmer planet, it took Greenland approximately 120 years to melt, raising sea levels 4 to 6 meters.

:?: You mean it's happened before? 125,000 years ago? But...but...

 

[Avro]

Is it cage cleaning day in Oshawa again? Mommy let you play with the pooter huh?

Woof!

Awe....what's the matter? Can't come up with an answer so it's insult time.

Tee Hee.

 

[Avro]

Plants start to grow faster.

Why would they grow faster?

Go ahead, make my day.

 

[lone wolf]

:?: You mean it's happened before? 125,000 years ago? But...but...

See ... now that's the problem that too may like me have with this whole global warming thing. Anyone who's studied earth sciences knows that climate is not a stable thing. Though cycles are imperceptably slow on a human scale, climate is constantly changing. That's why we have ice ages and carboniferous periods. Our time is this interglacial period. Last one belonged to reptiles. Next? It might be insects if people don't smarten up. Then, you have man-can't-hurt-the-environment/man-is-killing-the-environment cycling about in flavour-of-the-year vollies being spouted by credible and crackpot alike. So, who do you believe?

Woof!

 

[Tonington]

Plant growth depends on more than just the CO2 supplied. Take this study of wheat, Effects of elevated CO2 concentration on growth, water use, yield and grain quality of wheat under two soil water levels. The authors found that :

The effects of CO2 enrichment on plants depend on the availability of soil moisture, and plants may benefit more from CO2 enrichment when sufficient water is supplied.

And that presents a problem for many agricultural areas. Water resources are tight in most grain producing regions, and if future yields are going to be dependent on more water availability, that is troubling.

Further, even when growth is supplemented with more water, the nutritional quality of the wheat suffers from increased growth. Nutrients like N,P,K, Zn, lysine and crude protein are found in lower concentrations. You end up needing to eat more of the same food grown in enriched conditions to get the same nutrients from that of non-enriched growth conditions. That presents a problem for the poor in the world, who as it stands now, are already malnourished, and that's provided they even have sufficient water to grow their crops.

 

[gopher]

``If your neighbour is a charter member of the Al Gore Nation, today would probably be a bad time to ask him how he's been enjoying shovelling all that "global warming" out of his driveway this winter. ``


If your neighbor is a Yank, a better question is how do you like paying taxes for the Pentagon's global warming defense program when we all 'know' GW is a myth?;-)

 

[Nuggler]

Jeebus!!

Why are we fighting over global warming?

It's there. Over the long haul, it's there. As long as "we" send more CO2 into the atmosphere, it's going to increase.

There is an opinion which states that the point of no return has actually been reached, and things are just going to get worse no matter what remedial action is taken now. I don't necessarily believe that, as that could be used as a reason not to do "anything". Our politicos would like that.

As soon as wind, water, tide, power become profitable to the multinationals, and we can be gored for the technology, it'll be put in place. Until then, suck up all them nice emissions. Num num.

 

[coldstream]

We are in the coldest winter well over a decade in the Northen hemisphere. The so called melting of the antarctic is a proven fraud, as the ice cap is in fact advancing in the southern hemisphere, where temperatures have been falling for 20 years. The expectation is the same has begun in the northern hemisphere and will last at least 30 years due to solar cycles. Yet the Global warming hysteria is accepted public policy now, a product of mindless hysteria, as in BCs regressive, destructive carbon tax.

 

[#juan]

Where's all the death you mentioned? People and animals adapt.

Hogwash!
Are the Polar Bears adapting now that they have to swim for days to reach the pack ice where there food is? Will the people in coastal countries like Bangladesh adapt when their country is under water? A two meter rise in sea level will drastically change the coastline of the whole world. "Where's all the death"? It's there if you look.

 

[Tonington]

We are in the coldest winter well over a decade in the Northen hemisphere. The so called melting of the antarctic is a proven fraud, as the ice cap is in fact advancing in the southern hemisphere, where temperatures have been falling for 20 years. The expectation is the same has begun in the northern hemisphere and will last at least 30 years due to solar cycles. Yet the Global warming hysteria is accepted public policy now, a product of mindless hysteria, as in BCs regressive, destructive carbon tax.

Funny that, the models have predicted that Antarctica would not be following the same pattern as the rest of the planet, for more than 20 years. It's a known consequence of thermodynamics. The Southern Hemisphere has more water, that's why it's cooler than the Northern Hemisphere which has more land mass. But, and a big but, it hasn't affected all of Antarctica equally, the western peninsula is the fastest warming region on our planet, and the glaciers have increased in their movement into the ocean.

 

[Walter]

...not big enough for ya?

Nowhere in the article does Mr. Goldstein says he agrees with the scientific "consensus". He even added the quotations.