Is Modern CO2 just different?

[Crick]

It's good to hear someone on your side of the argument admit that its possible for humans to affect the Earth's climate. A population of 8 or 9 billion people, burning fossil fuels to run their millions of cars and to power their world are having a far greater and completely different impact on the climate than a few tens of thousands of nomadic hunters spearing wooly mammoths.

The human race's ideal climate is the climate in which we evolved and one which will allow us to continue to prosper without requiring massive changes. It's entirely possible that soybeans might grow 5% better were CO2 levels to rise to 1,000 ppm, but that improvement is not worth the impacts that change will bring to drinking water supplies, failures of crops in marginal environs, damage from weather extremes, seasonal timing changes and rising sea levels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's good to hear someone on your side of the argument admit that its possible for humans to affect the Earth's climate. A population of 8 or 9 billion people, burning fossil fuels to run their millions of cars and to power their world are having a far greater and completely different impact on the climate than a few tens of thousands of nomadic hunters spearing wooly mammoths.

The human race's ideal climate is the climate in which we evolved and one which will allow us to continue to prosper without requiring massive changes. It's entirely possible that soybeans might grow 5% better were CO2 levels to rise to 1,000 ppm, but that improvement is not worth the impacts that change will bring to drinking water supplies, failures of crops in marginal environs, damage from weather extremes, seasonal timing changes and rising sea levels.

The human race's ideal climate is the climate in which we evolved and one which will allow us to continue to prosper without requiring massive changes.

Over the last million years, it has been much warmer and much colder.
When it's warmer, life flourishes.
When it's colder, there is starvation and plague. Famine and failure.

Warmer is better.

 

[mamooth]

Northern Europe benefited from warming, but northern Europe is a tiny portion of the globe.

Large swaths of the warmer parts of the globe were devastated by warming. North Africa was once the bread basket of Rome, but it's desert now. Civilizations in southwest North America and Africa, gone. Arabia, now far more of a desert than it used to be.

That is, "warmer is better" is just plain false.

 

[westwall]

Northern Europe benefited from warming, but northern Europe is a tiny portion of the globe.

Large swaths of the warmer parts of the globe were devastated by warming. North Africa was once the bread basket of Rome, but it's desert now. Civilizations in southwest North America and Africa, gone. Arabia, now far more of a desert than it used to be.

That is, "warmer is better" is just plain false.

Really now.... Here is an interesting article from NATGEO that presents evidence that the current warming cycle has been contributing to the re greening of the Sahara.


"Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass," said Kröpelin, who has studied the region for two decades.
In 2008 Kröpelin—not involved in the new satellite research—visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory controlled by Morocco.
"The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years," Kröpelin said. "They have never seen so much grazing land."
"Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass," he said.
"Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back," he said.
"The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable."




Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

 

[Old Rocks]

One small area. Is it as big as our Southwest?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's good to hear someone on your side of the argument admit that its possible for humans to affect the Earth's climate. A population of 8 or 9 billion people, burning fossil fuels to run their millions of cars and to power their world are having a far greater and completely different impact on the climate than a few tens of thousands of nomadic hunters spearing wooly mammoths.

The human race's ideal climate is the climate in which we evolved and one which will allow us to continue to prosper without requiring massive changes. It's entirely possible that soybeans might grow 5% better were CO2 levels to rise to 1,000 ppm, but that improvement is not worth the impacts that change will bring to drinking water supplies, failures of crops in marginal environs, damage from weather extremes, seasonal timing changes and rising sea levels.

Hey lying fucking scumbag, you ever going to post your "CO2 affects temperature" experiment?

Hmmm

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Northern Europe benefited from warming, but northern Europe is a tiny portion of the globe.

Large swaths of the warmer parts of the globe were devastated by warming. North Africa was once the bread basket of Rome, but it's desert now. Civilizations in southwest North America and Africa, gone. Arabia, now far more of a desert than it used to be.

That is, "warmer is better" is just plain false.

Moron.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's good to hear someone on your side of the argument admit that its possible for humans to affect the Earth's climate. A population of 8 or 9 billion people, burning fossil fuels to run their millions of cars and to power their world are having a far greater and completely different impact on the climate than a few tens of thousands of nomadic hunters spearing wooly mammoths.

The human race's ideal climate is the climate in which we evolved and one which will allow us to continue to prosper without requiring massive changes. It's entirely possible that soybeans might grow 5% better were CO2 levels to rise to 1,000 ppm, but that improvement is not worth the impacts that change will bring to drinking water supplies, failures of crops in marginal environs, damage from weather extremes, seasonal timing changes and rising sea levels.

Atmospheric Experiments Genesis Park

"One long-lived tomato plant (shown right) was grown in a special nutrient-rich solution to be exhibited at the Japan Expo ‘85. Under piped sunlight and controlled atmosphere, this tomato tree grew over 30 ft high and yielded more than 13,000 ripe tomatoes during the six months of the Expo!"

 

[Old Rocks]

Genesis Park. Lordy, lordy, what an absolutely credible source. LOL!

 

[westwall]

Genesis Park. Lordy, lordy, what an absolutely credible source. LOL!

Here's a video experiment showing the beneficial effect of CO2 on plant growth. Of course your scientists dispute this evidence.....with computer models!

 

[Crick]

I'm certain that'll make up for a 6 meter rise in sea level.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm certain that'll make up for a 6 meter rise in sea level.

6 meters

What a clown.

Why not 60 or 600 since there's not a shred of science that shows how CO2 will do any of it

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Genesis Park. Lordy, lordy, what an absolutely credible source. LOL!

Tell us again how CO2, angry CO2, is melting lead on Venus.



Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[westwall]

I'm certain that'll make up for a 6 meter rise in sea level.

When is that supposed to happen? Exactly?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm certain that'll make up for a 6 meter rise in sea level.

When is that supposed to happen? Exactly?

According to Al Gore the whore it was to all ready of happened, like 10 years ago..

 

[Crick]

Hardly. An Inconvenient Truth was only released in 2006. But now with the irreversible, unstoppable destabilization of the WAIS, it's guaranteed.

 

[westwall]

Hardly. An Inconvenient Truth was only released in 2006. But now with the irreversible, unstoppable destabilization of the WAIS, it's guaranteed.

When? Give us a date. I guarantee you that the oceans will certainly rise again, but in 100 years? 1000? 1,000,000? That is the question.

 

[Crick]

March 11th, 2015 in Dayton, Ohio.

 

[Old Rocks]

During the last interglacial, the CO2 level was 300 ppm. 20 ppm above that we had until the industrial revolution. And the sea level was 2 to 3 meters above what it is today. CO2 level is presently is 397 ppm, will be 400+ ppm by late spring. Over time, we will see a very large increase in sea level. What amount of time? Well now, we really do not know. We hope, over centuries, or at least decades. But things in nature do not usually happen in a nice linear fashion, rather in spurts and jerks on our time scale. So a sudden 'minor' increase of only a 2/3 meter could wreak havoc with our sea ports.

 

[SSDD]

During the last interglacial, the CO2 level was 300 ppm. 20 ppm above that we had until the industrial revolution. And the sea level was 2 to 3 meters above what it is today. CO2 level is presently is 397 ppm, will be 400+ ppm by late spring. Over time, we will see a very large increase in sea level. What amount of time? Well now, we really do not know. We hope, over centuries, or at least decades. But things in nature do not usually happen in a nice linear fashion, rather in spurts and jerks on our time scale. So a sudden 'minor' increase of only a 2/3 meter could wreak havoc with our sea ports.

At the time the present ice age began, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm and it will eventually get back to the normal as we continue to exit the ice age. Normal is in excess of 1000ppm.