Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists [GW caused by sun]

Standard Freeholder (Cornwall, Canada) ^ | April 26, 2007 | Stephanie Stein

[PeterPrinciple]

If you removed every CO2 expelling animal on this planet, every car, every industrial plant, you couldn`t even measure the difference unless you counted in parts per million, and even then, the difference would be literally a few molecules here and there.

I am waiting until they add carbonated drinks to the list of things to solve. Of course pepsi and coke are probably financial supporters of the greens.

[PeterPrinciple]

At 0.02%...When the air has less that 0.02% CO2, photosynthesis basically ends.

If I remember correctly from botany, there are two carbon pathways in photosynthesis. One path is more efficient with low amounts of Co2. But all plants are Co2 starved with either carbon pathway.

[since 1854]

“one-to-one correlation” — there’s no proof of that, which your analysis assumes.

[cogitator]

Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food.

It still works as a plant food if there's half as much of it in the atmosphere as present.

[cogitator]

Go have another look at the full temperature vs time graphs. We are not in uncharted territory.

We actually are, in terms of rate-of-change during a stable interglacial period.

[cogitator]

Manmade contributions may have doubled in the last 150 years but they only make up a very small percentage of total CO2.

Doesn't matter. Anthropogenic influences: land-use change and fossil fuel emissions -- are the reason CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. If these two sources were removed, land and oceans would actually be a small net sink for atmospheric CO2.

[SteamShovel]

"I'm a man that's difficult to convince," he said. "What convinces me is the large body of evidence, and highly reputable people promoting global warming, who are not lobbyists, but only seeking truth in science. They say the the earth is warming up faster and greater now than in the past."

I would say he is too easy to convince if he has already fallen for this crap coming from a lot of people who ARE LOBBYISTS ... SEEKING ONE ANSWER ONLY AND NOT THE TRUTH.

I ask him, why is he skeptical of the skeptics but going "hook, line, and sinker" for the man caused global warming theory? Where is his balance and intellect?

[PeterPrinciple]

It still works as a plant food if there’s half as much of it in the atmosphere as present.

Basic biology is plants are co2 starved. They will capture excess c02. There is a self correcting mechanism.

Your comment makes no sense to me. Might we suggest that you might survive on half th 02 level?

[TigersEye]

As usual you ignore the facts laid at your feet.

Anthropogenic contributions of CO2 are beyond insignificant. They don't even come close to increases in natural contributions which are also insignificant.

Never mind that CO2 makes up only 3.618% of ALL greenhouse gases.

[TigersEye]

I messed up my link to the page itself in that post. Let me make up for that...

The page those charts came from.

The main Global Warming page it came from.

The home page of the website. To find the Global Warming page from here click on "other."

[TigersEye]

I had a feeling, in terms of a number, that it would be very close to the average level. Obviously CO2 has never fallen to 0.02% or lower or there would have been a catastrophic loss, or end, to life. That would have been one of the easiest explanations of past mass extinctions but no scientist has ever put that up. Not even as part of another theory like asteroid impact.

Obviously the various gas levels are pretty doggone stable having remained within fairly small ranges of concentration for a billion years of life on the planet.

[AFPhys]

Complying with ONLY Kyoto [not the 30x times measure that the alarmists really want us to take] will cost the US _AT LEAST_ 100B$-400B$ PER YEAR!!! (Gore’s spokesman) ... to alleviate our share of 0.07C temp increase in 2050.

NO THANKS!

[AFPhys]

Not necessarily true.

Aerosols and other factors probably masked and delayed the “natural rise” in temperatures that would have occurred as a result of the Sun’s increased radiance.

The Solar graphs are extremely convincing as is new plasma physics research describing solar cycling.

[AFPhys]

If that “scientist” was not a “physical science” specialist of some kind, or has not seriously studied the data, or has not had substantial experience with the monstrous type of “computer models” that are used in “climate science”, he is unqualified to state himself as “scientist” in this conversation. You can tell him that you know a “scientist” who has all that - me - and that I agree with you, not him, on the basis of the actual evidence.

[Ole Okie]

Supreme Court Declares Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant

If the Supreme Court declares CO2 a pollutant, then the Supreme Court is a ass.

[Designer II]

"Do you get a headache holding your CO2 in overnight?"

LOL! I meant the vacuum cleaner, silly.

Realistically? I presume since the growers are paying for the CO2, they would naturally want to minimize the leakage, so make their greenhouses fairly snug.

Thereby "saving the planet".

ps; I wonder what they do with all the excess oxygen that is released by the plants?

Sell the oxygen to purchase carbon credits, no doubt.

[cogitator]

Anthropogenic contributions of CO2 are beyond insignificant. They don't even come close to increases in natural contributions which are also insignificant.

You do not even have the merest inkling of how the climate/carbon system works. The figure below diagrams it nicely. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have, but I'll be unavailable next week.

[mc5cents]

I’m not even sure the “issue” is what’s causing it. The big issue, as I see it, is what to do about it.

I've got it!

[lilylangtree]

Thank you and God bless!

Lily

[TigersEye]

Sure thing, Algore.