Why manmade CO2 is the important bit
08-06-2009, 01:36 PM
#31
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
Good data. The action will take place at Copenhagen at the end of this year, when the nations of the world get together, and try to agree on a plan to address this. It's not a forgone conclusion how that will go. It's dawned on China that global warming will not be good for business. They're trying to make themselves the world's leader in solar cells and electric cars. I say we should go and eat their lunch, there's a lot of bucks to be made on those, worldwide.
India may be a tougher nut to crack, but credible surveys show that 90+% of their citizens think their government should do something about this.
India may be a tougher nut to crack, but credible surveys show that 90+% of their citizens think their government should do something about this.
Last edited by Redone; 08-06-2009 at 01:41 PM.
08-06-2009, 01:40 PM
#32
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,132
I am not optimistic for several reasons.. But I am optimistic for others. lol
I am optimistic for the planet, but not the average human.
I expect Obama and others to get regulations in place to charge us for CO2 (and don't say it's industry that will pay and not us, because any cost increases to a business get passed on to the customer).
And I expect the "Global disaster" will be avoided (because it wasn't coming in the first place). Al Gore will sit atop his ivory tower and proclaim victory (or his heir will).
And all of it will have in the end, done nothing but increase the size of Government, and the wealth of a few (the carbon traders).
CO2 is valuable.. the Algae biofuel generators need high levels of it to work well, plants grow best in CO2 enriched greenhouses (though usually only pot growers can afford this).. etc etc.
Industry that creates CO2 should be selling the stuff, or using it to make biofuel, not thinking of how to sequester it.
As for transportation, animal sourced Methane creates more "global warming" than all airplanes, trains, cars, boats, and motorcycles combined.. Should we put fartbags on all the deer in the forest? (we should put methane powered generators on manure creating farms.. that does make sense to me, as do TCP plants at turkey and chicken plants, but that is a side issue and more about economics than anything else)
I am optimistic for the planet, but not the average human.
I expect Obama and others to get regulations in place to charge us for CO2 (and don't say it's industry that will pay and not us, because any cost increases to a business get passed on to the customer).
And I expect the "Global disaster" will be avoided (because it wasn't coming in the first place). Al Gore will sit atop his ivory tower and proclaim victory (or his heir will).
And all of it will have in the end, done nothing but increase the size of Government, and the wealth of a few (the carbon traders).
CO2 is valuable.. the Algae biofuel generators need high levels of it to work well, plants grow best in CO2 enriched greenhouses (though usually only pot growers can afford this).. etc etc.
Industry that creates CO2 should be selling the stuff, or using it to make biofuel, not thinking of how to sequester it.
As for transportation, animal sourced Methane creates more "global warming" than all airplanes, trains, cars, boats, and motorcycles combined.. Should we put fartbags on all the deer in the forest? (we should put methane powered generators on manure creating farms.. that does make sense to me, as do TCP plants at turkey and chicken plants, but that is a side issue and more about economics than anything else)
08-06-2009, 01:52 PM
#33
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,804
Its an evolving science, in its infancy. trying to figure out global trends with such small amounts of data (time wise, relatively) is frought with problems. These are new theories. those that adopt them early are not more wrong than those that dismiss them as scare tactics and unfounded. Its good to be alive in a time when major theories are being batted around, we missed a lot of the good ones like the earths place in the solar system etc. I think even a little common sense would say the scope and acceleration of human activities leaves an effect. whether its depleting a resource which is finite, pollution or whatever effect on global warming. To say being concerned with those effects is pointless is beyond arrogance.
This is an agenda driven hoax.
08-06-2009, 01:57 PM
#34
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,132
To say that based on this woefully inexact science and computer modeling that has proven over and over to be inaccurate we should pass laws that allow governments to tax the living **** out of every human being on Earth and to radically reshape society because of something that might be is beyond stupid.
This is an agenda driven hoax.
This is an agenda driven hoax.
08-06-2009, 02:03 PM
#35
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
To say that based on this woefully inexact science and computer modeling that has proven over and over to be inaccurate we should pass laws that allow governments to tax the living **** out of every human being on Earth and to radically reshape society because of something that might be is beyond stupid.
This is an agenda driven hoax.
This is an agenda driven hoax.
What do you think of my earlier argument that just because there may be an agenda involved, doesn't necessarily make it a hoax?
08-06-2009, 02:05 PM
#36
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,132
But it isn't likely.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...n_swindle.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...g-profiteering
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carniv...es_inconv.html
Last edited by lazn; 08-06-2009 at 02:11 PM.
08-06-2009, 02:07 PM
#37
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii USA
Posts: 427
If the climate change theorists are right, we should stop riding our notoriously inefficient hydro-carbon furnaces with their huge carburetors...nah
With love from Hawaii, where the volcano in question is.
With love from Hawaii, where the volcano in question is.
08-06-2009, 02:11 PM
#38
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
My girl friend and I got a day off of high school and attended the very first Earth Day celebration in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia in April, 1970.
The topics were clean air, clean water, and most important by a wide margin: Voluntary reduction in population growth.
You see, that was before the movement sold its *** (cheaply) to the New World Order, New World Fascist Open Border Movement.
But for the America's New World Fascist Open borders policy, our population would have stabilized at about 210 million.
Because of the New World Fascist/ "Global Warming" shitbirds, we now have a population of 305 million. Projected to exceed 400 million within a generation. Due ENTIRELY to the rabbit hutch birthrates of the the fifth grade dropout, unskilled, turd world welfare dependent PARASITES welcomed into our nation by the tens of millions.
If you claim you care about the environment, but oppose closing the border and deporting 30 million illegal wetback parasites? You are a scum sucking lying bag of stinking feces.
The topics were clean air, clean water, and most important by a wide margin: Voluntary reduction in population growth.
You see, that was before the movement sold its *** (cheaply) to the New World Order, New World Fascist Open Border Movement.
But for the America's New World Fascist Open borders policy, our population would have stabilized at about 210 million.
Because of the New World Fascist/ "Global Warming" shitbirds, we now have a population of 305 million. Projected to exceed 400 million within a generation. Due ENTIRELY to the rabbit hutch birthrates of the the fifth grade dropout, unskilled, turd world welfare dependent PARASITES welcomed into our nation by the tens of millions.
If you claim you care about the environment, but oppose closing the border and deporting 30 million illegal wetback parasites? You are a scum sucking lying bag of stinking feces.
08-06-2009, 02:11 PM
#39
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
I am not optimistic for several reasons.. But I am optimistic for others. lol
I am optimistic for the planet, but not the average human.
I expect Obama and others to get regulations in place to charge us for CO2 (and don't say it's industry that will pay and not us, because any cost increases to a business get passed on to the customer).
And I expect the "Global disaster" will be avoided (because it wasn't coming in the first place). Al Gore will sit atop his ivory tower and proclaim victory (or his heir will).
And all of it will have in the end, done nothing but increase the size of Government, and the wealth of a few (the carbon traders).
CO2 is valuable.. the Algae biofuel generators need high levels of it to work well, plants grow best in CO2 enriched greenhouses (though usually only pot growers can afford this).. etc etc.
Industry that creates CO2 should be selling the stuff, or using it to make biofuel, not thinking of how to sequester it.
As for transportation, animal sourced Methane creates more "global warming" than all airplanes, trains, cars, boats, and motorcycles combined.. Should we put fartbags on all the deer in the forest? (we should put methane powered generators on manure creating farms.. that does make sense to me, as do TCP plants at turkey and chicken plants, but that is a side issue and more about economics than anything else)
I am optimistic for the planet, but not the average human.
I expect Obama and others to get regulations in place to charge us for CO2 (and don't say it's industry that will pay and not us, because any cost increases to a business get passed on to the customer).
And I expect the "Global disaster" will be avoided (because it wasn't coming in the first place). Al Gore will sit atop his ivory tower and proclaim victory (or his heir will).
And all of it will have in the end, done nothing but increase the size of Government, and the wealth of a few (the carbon traders).
CO2 is valuable.. the Algae biofuel generators need high levels of it to work well, plants grow best in CO2 enriched greenhouses (though usually only pot growers can afford this).. etc etc.
Industry that creates CO2 should be selling the stuff, or using it to make biofuel, not thinking of how to sequester it.
As for transportation, animal sourced Methane creates more "global warming" than all airplanes, trains, cars, boats, and motorcycles combined.. Should we put fartbags on all the deer in the forest? (we should put methane powered generators on manure creating farms.. that does make sense to me, as do TCP plants at turkey and chicken plants, but that is a side issue and more about economics than anything else)
And yes, methane from animals is having a huge effect on climate change, though I'm too lazy to pull up some good data right now. Fartbags on deer in the forests... lol. That's funny but it's looking right past the much larger problem staring up from our dinner plates: the meat industry. We eat huge amounts of meat in this country and so do the residents of many developed and developing nations. The methane produced from livestock animals because of this absolutely needs to be addressed if we're going to get serious about dealing with climate change. I have friends who don't eat meat purely because of how environmentally destructive the industry is, never mind the treatment of the animals.
Redone, do you happen to have any data comparing/contrasting the effects of CO2 and Methane on climate?
08-06-2009, 02:11 PM
#40
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Independence, Oregon
Posts: 367
Warming
Respectfully, BULLSHIT. You and all the other alarmists are utilizing this data to suggest, PREDICT, that if human CO2 production is not curbed then humans will impact and accelerate climate change.
Few are questioning the raw data. We are questioning the conclusions formed and then strongly questioning the suggested human behavioral changes your groups advocate
Few are questioning the raw data. We are questioning the conclusions formed and then strongly questioning the suggested human behavioral changes your groups advocate
08-06-2009, 02:12 PM
#41
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 987
It's been proven that investor speculation can double the price of homes and double the price of gas.
Now just imagine the same for carbon credits. Imagine the price of everything you purchase doubling or worse, within a 2 year period.
Now just imagine the same for carbon credits. Imagine the price of everything you purchase doubling or worse, within a 2 year period.
08-06-2009, 02:21 PM
#42
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Oil is just as pervasive in our economy now as Carbon would be - everything is somehow tied to the price of oil. This is because oil is the lifeblood of modern society. Looking at Carbon as something to be taxed is an initial first step towards a civilization that really values its long term existence. Another first step is properly funding alt fuels/alt energies. "Carbon neutral" is a silly marketing term that gets tossed around a lot, but the basic idea it comes from is that humans need to find a way to live in balance with the world.
Or maybe looking at carbon as something to be taxed is what so many here are afraid of - an initial step towards taxing us all to oblivion and controlling all human interactions. I know it wasn't you who said that, CC, but I have to ask everyone in general... WHO are the alarmists here, exactly? The climate change believers or the anti-big government folks? There's freaks on either side, and good people too.
08-06-2009, 02:24 PM
#43
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Man made carbon emissions have increased 2,700 PERCENT in the past 100 years. There is less CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperatures are lower than they were 1500 years ago. Care to explain?
Last edited by RK1; 08-06-2009 at 02:29 PM.
08-06-2009, 02:30 PM
#44
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
08-06-2009, 02:31 PM
#45
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
08-06-2009, 02:42 PM
#46
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
I might do your research for you when I get some time. For the interim, I'll go off the top of my head. About 1500 years ago a big island was settled by Norsemen. It was called "Greenland". You know why? Because it was warm, lush and green. They grew crops and raised livestock on this warm, lush and green GREENLAND. 1500 years later Greenland is 99% covered in glacier.
Why was it hospitable and lush 1500 years ago? Was it the wood burning cave fires? Was it the reindeer powered SUVs?
Why was it hospitable and lush 1500 years ago? Was it the wood burning cave fires? Was it the reindeer powered SUVs?
08-06-2009, 02:49 PM
#47
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
But for the America's New World Fascist Open borders policy, our population would have stabilized at about 210 million.
Because of the New World Fascist/ "Global Warming" shitbirds, we now have a population of 305 million. Projected to exceed 400 million within a generation. Due ENTIRELY to the rabbit hutch birthrates of the the fifth grade dropout, unskilled, turd world welfare dependent PARASITES welcomed into our nation by the tens of millions.
If you claim you care about the environment, but oppose closing the border and deporting 30 million illegal wetback parasites? You are a scum sucking lying bag of stinking feces.
Because of the New World Fascist/ "Global Warming" shitbirds, we now have a population of 305 million. Projected to exceed 400 million within a generation. Due ENTIRELY to the rabbit hutch birthrates of the the fifth grade dropout, unskilled, turd world welfare dependent PARASITES welcomed into our nation by the tens of millions.
If you claim you care about the environment, but oppose closing the border and deporting 30 million illegal wetback parasites? You are a scum sucking lying bag of stinking feces.
You are wrong if you think US population growth has a snowball's chance in hell of making an impact on overall worldwide population growth. We could import all of Mexico and it wouldn't do a damn thing.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/...gkh1/chap1.htm
I'll quote the relevant section:
"Between now and the middle of the next century world population will most likely increase by some 3.68 billion people - all of these increases will be contributed by the developing countries (see Table C1_2). In fact, the population of the developed nations as a group will most likely decline by almost 10 million people between now and the year 2050 - according to the UN medium variant projections...
Comparing the centennial growth of developed and developing countries reveals a dramatic divergence: The population of the developed countries as a group will have increased by less than 350 million between 1950 and 2050. The developing countries, on the other hand, will have an estimated 6.8 billion people more - thus almost quintupling their 1950 population."
For those who are curious, here is the wikipedia entry on the IIASA, which is the source I just quoted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIASA
Sure, it's a wikipedia entry, but at least it isn't rightwingerswithshotgunsforjesus.com or bleedingheartdouchebagshumpingtrees.com. In any case, the IIASA seems pretty legit, so hopefully you'll find the above quote useful. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is all part of watching your references, if you're the kind of person that bothers to provide any.
Anyways, nice try at connecting climate change to US immigration problems. Also, good job at respecting our right to free speech by hijacking the thread with this nonsense and calling people lying sacks of ****. Very patriotic of you.
08-06-2009, 02:50 PM
#48
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 987
Or maybe looking at carbon as something to be taxed is what so many here are afraid of - an initial step towards taxing us all to oblivion and controlling all human interactions. I know it wasn't you who said that, CC, but I have to ask everyone in general... WHO are the alarmists here, exactly? The climate change believers or the anti-big government folks? There's freaks on either side, and good people too.
When is the last time any tax was eliminated?
08-06-2009, 02:59 PM
#49
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
You are right in that population growth is an important factor to consider when looking at data concerning climate change, such as CO2 levels.
You are wrong if you think US population growth has a snowball's chance in hell of making an impact on overall worldwide population growth. We could import all of Mexico and it wouldn't do a damn thing.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/...gkh1/chap1.htm
I'll quote the relevant section:
"Between now and the middle of the next century world population will most likely increase by some 3.68 billion people - all of these increases will be contributed by the developing countries (see Table C1_2). In fact, the population of the developed nations as a group will most likely decline by almost 10 million people between now and the year 2050 - according to the UN medium variant projections...
Comparing the centennial growth of developed and developing countries reveals a dramatic divergence: The population of the developed countries as a group will have increased by less than 350 million between 1950 and 2050. The developing countries, on the other hand, will have an estimated 6.8 billion people more - thus almost quintupling their 1950 population."
For those who are curious, here is the wikipedia entry on the IIASA, which is the source I just quoted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIASA
Sure, it's a wikipedia entry, but at least it isn't rightwingerswithshotgunsforjesus.com or bleedingheartdouchebagshumpingtrees.com. In any case, the IIASA seems pretty legit, so hopefully you'll find the above quote useful. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is all part of watching your references, if you're the kind of person that bothers to provide any.
Anyways, nice try at connecting climate change to US immigration problems. Also, good job at respecting our right to free speech by hijacking the thread with this nonsense and calling people lying sacks of ****. Very patriotic of you.
You are wrong if you think US population growth has a snowball's chance in hell of making an impact on overall worldwide population growth. We could import all of Mexico and it wouldn't do a damn thing.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/...gkh1/chap1.htm
I'll quote the relevant section:
"Between now and the middle of the next century world population will most likely increase by some 3.68 billion people - all of these increases will be contributed by the developing countries (see Table C1_2). In fact, the population of the developed nations as a group will most likely decline by almost 10 million people between now and the year 2050 - according to the UN medium variant projections...
Comparing the centennial growth of developed and developing countries reveals a dramatic divergence: The population of the developed countries as a group will have increased by less than 350 million between 1950 and 2050. The developing countries, on the other hand, will have an estimated 6.8 billion people more - thus almost quintupling their 1950 population."
For those who are curious, here is the wikipedia entry on the IIASA, which is the source I just quoted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIASA
Sure, it's a wikipedia entry, but at least it isn't rightwingerswithshotgunsforjesus.com or bleedingheartdouchebagshumpingtrees.com. In any case, the IIASA seems pretty legit, so hopefully you'll find the above quote useful. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is all part of watching your references, if you're the kind of person that bothers to provide any.
Anyways, nice try at connecting climate change to US immigration problems. Also, good job at respecting our right to free speech by hijacking the thread with this nonsense and calling people lying sacks of ****. Very patriotic of you.
It's worse than that. America's elites have forced America to be the "safety valve" for Mexico and other turd world **** holes. Allowed them to continue their corrupt and dysfuntional policies, provided welfare, food stamps, section eight housing vouchers, WIC coupons, "earned" income tax credits etc., subsidized their insane rabbit hutch birthrates and rewarded them for it.
If you don't understand the relation between the environment, the population bomb and open border immigration, you are a brain dead ******* moron!
You claim you're concerned about energy consumption? What is difference in energy needs between a nation of 210 million vs. a nation of 400 million?
What is the incentive for Mexicans to stop having 10 or 12 children when America will accept all the millions of 5th grade dropouts needing welfare, food stamps and a housing voucher?
You are not an environmentalist, you're a bullshitter and a fraud.
Last edited by RK1; 08-06-2009 at 03:06 PM.
08-06-2009, 03:07 PM
#50
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: South Lake Tahoe, CA, USA
Posts: 1,689
65 degrees and it looks like rain today. Highly unusual weather in recent times.
I'm getting ready for some long, cold winters here in the west. The snowpack in the sierra is normally completely gone this time of year. But not for the last couple.
The pacific ocean is going into the cold phase of its cycle. The pine trees are heavy with cones this year.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wash...ersaddress.pdf
I'm getting ready for some long, cold winters here in the west. The snowpack in the sierra is normally completely gone this time of year. But not for the last couple.
The pacific ocean is going into the cold phase of its cycle. The pine trees are heavy with cones this year.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wash...ersaddress.pdf
08-06-2009, 03:13 PM
#51
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
I do believe that living in a state of balance with the world we live in means emitting far less carbon than we do currently. If we actually develop a lifestyle or set of technologies that enable us to emit less, (which is what the tax is ostensibly supposed to encourage,) then the tax will be a moot point.
We're getting off-track, anyways. This thread isn't really supposed to be about the political ramifications of CO2 so much as the science of it. An important distinction, I think, even if the two might be inseparable in actual practice.
08-06-2009, 03:29 PM
#52
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Frankly, I don't give a **** about the "world". I care about my people, culture and country. If you did you'd be outraged about America's de facto open border policy for the past 20 years.
...
If you don't understand the relation between the environment, the population bomb and open border immigration, you are a brain dead ******* moron!
You claim you're concerned about energy consumption? What is difference in energy needs between a nation of 210 million vs. a nation of 400 million?
...
You are not an environmentalist, you're a bullshitter and a fraud.
...
If you don't understand the relation between the environment, the population bomb and open border immigration, you are a brain dead ******* moron!
You claim you're concerned about energy consumption? What is difference in energy needs between a nation of 210 million vs. a nation of 400 million?
...
You are not an environmentalist, you're a bullshitter and a fraud.
Do you understand that a couple hundred million is a small fraction of 3.68 billion? Basic math? Hello? Anybody in there? THERE IS NO POPULATION BOMB IN AMERICA.
The only argument you can make in the face of these figures is that argument that people in the US, regardless of their origin, use more energy than people in developing countries. But of course, you didn't make that argument. I had to make it for you. What's next, I have to wipe your *** for you too?
This'll be the last time I acknowledge you in this thread and maybe any others. If you understand nothing of what I say to you, understand this: I pity you.
08-06-2009, 03:46 PM
#54
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Did you bother to read ANY OF MY POST? AT ALL?
Do you understand that a couple hundred million is a small fraction of 3.68 billion? Basic math? Hello? Anybody in there? THERE IS NO POPULATION BOMB IN AMERICA.
The only argument you can make in the face of these figures is that argument that people in the US, regardless of their origin, use more energy than people in developing countries. But of course, you didn't make that argument. I had to make it for you. What's next, I have to wipe your *** for you too?
This'll be the last time I acknowledge you in this thread and maybe any others. If you understand nothing of what I say to you, understand this: I pity you.
Do you understand that a couple hundred million is a small fraction of 3.68 billion? Basic math? Hello? Anybody in there? THERE IS NO POPULATION BOMB IN AMERICA.
The only argument you can make in the face of these figures is that argument that people in the US, regardless of their origin, use more energy than people in developing countries. But of course, you didn't make that argument. I had to make it for you. What's next, I have to wipe your *** for you too?
This'll be the last time I acknowledge you in this thread and maybe any others. If you understand nothing of what I say to you, understand this: I pity you.
Americans and Western Europeans achieved voluntary native born zero population growth 30+ years ago.
It's ******** like you who have fucked it all up. Instead of demanding turd world countries figure out what first world nations knew 40 years ago, you insist we accept the excess population of the turd world and reward them for having babies. Environmentalism and zero growth population are the same thing. If you had a brain and a pair of *****, you'd know that already.
08-06-2009, 03:50 PM
#56
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
For this time, nature has limited CO2 fluctuations to between 200 and 300ppm or so. But we've managed to exceed the speed limit.
Ditto temperatures for the last 12,000.
About 1500 years ago a big island was settled by Norsemen. It was called "Greenland". You know why? Because it was warm, lush and green. They grew crops and raised livestock on this warm, lush and green GREENLAND. 1500 years later Greenland is 99% covered in glacier.
Why was it hospitable and lush 1500 years ago?
Why was it hospitable and lush 1500 years ago?
A guy named Eric the Red got into trouble in Iceland and was forced to flee, in about 1200. He named the place Greenland to attract settlers. An early case of real estate fraud. Eric would have been quite comfortable as a Florida swampland seller. In about 1400 the temperature cooled very slightly (as I said, that was the natural trend, and you can see the dip in the graph above, it's sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and everyone fled.
Iceland was named Iceland for the reverse reason. It had nowhere near as much ice, and the inhabitants wanted to keep people away.
Last edited by Redone; 08-06-2009 at 03:57 PM.
08-06-2009, 03:53 PM
#57
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
08-06-2009, 04:17 PM
#58
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,132
The problem is the conclusions reached from the data is rhetoric, and the data itself is arguable.
I have a theory that if the sky turns blue we will all sprout wings.
Look the sky is blue, and I can prove it a billion times over!
We are all going to have wings soon, and if you argue with me I will just prove to you again that the sky IS BLUE!
edit: whoa ninja edit! lol
I have a theory that if the sky turns blue we will all sprout wings.
Look the sky is blue, and I can prove it a billion times over!
We are all going to have wings soon, and if you argue with me I will just prove to you again that the sky IS BLUE!
edit: whoa ninja edit! lol
Last edited by lazn; 08-06-2009 at 05:58 PM.
08-06-2009, 04:27 PM
#59
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Really? If CO2 levels are the highest in "thousands of years", and C02 elevates temps via "global warming" why aren't ambient temps the highest in "thousands of years"? Please explain.
08-06-2009, 05:05 PM
#60
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
But not by much. This isn't a linear deal. Doubling CO2 does not double temperature. CO2 just raises temperature enough to be annoying. Right now, mildly annoying. Eventually, though, it will be REALLY annoying.
Last edited by Redone; 08-06-2009 at 05:08 PM.
