Isn't it amazing, that all these scientists are now running round screaming "Global Warming", "C02" and stuff like that?
Yesterday on the news I saw the latest report which said that amount of C02 in the atmosphere had increased from 368ppm (0.0368% of all the gas in the atmosphere...) to 380.7ppm (0.03807%...) in the past 25 years. It was only 349ppm (0.0349%.) in 1906.
Let's get this number right, and put it into perspective. It's about a third of a tenth of a single per cent.
And the increase in the amount of C02 in the atmosphere in a hundred years is less than 10%...
I mean, they've recently found whole cities burried under the deserts in the Middle east, and under the sea, and Who knows where else.
Why didn't the scientists and scaremongers start running around yelling about all that doomsday stuff 5,000 years ago, before those cities got burnt out and flooded and all those people died...? Surely someone should have told David after he killed Goliath not to ride his motorbike any more because of pollution. Instead, all it says in the bible is that he was carried away by the noise of his Triumph.
What's that?
They didn't have motorbikes back then?
Well what caused the desert to expand and the sea to rise all those thousands of years ago?
Originally posted by c99uxDon't crosspost.
Isn't it amazing, that all these scientists are now running round screaming "Global Warming", "C02" and stuff like that?
Yesterday on the news I saw the latest report which said that amount of C02 in the atmosphere had increased from 368ppm (0.0368% of all the gas in the atmosphere...) to 380.7ppm (0.03807%...) in the past 25 years. It was only 349ppm (0.0 hat caused the desert to expand and the sea to rise all those thousands of years ago?
EDIT: aka threadspam.
Originally posted by c99uxExcellent point.
Isn't it amazing, that all these scientists are now running round screaming "Global Warming", "C02" and stuff like that?
Yesterday on the news I saw the latest report which said that amount of C02 in the atmosphere had increased from 368ppm (0.0368% of all the gas in the atmosphere...) to 380.7ppm (0.03807%...) in the past 25 years. It was only 349ppm (0.0 ...[text shortened]... hat caused the desert to expand and the sea to rise all those thousands of years ago?
Originally posted by c99uxYes, 381ppm. It's only the highest it's been in the last 30 million years or so.
Isn't it amazing, that all these scientists are now running round screaming "Global Warming", "C02" and stuff like that?
Yesterday on the news I saw the latest report which said that amount of C02 in the atmosphere had increased from 368ppm (0.0368% of all the gas in the atmosphere...) to 380.7ppm (0.03807%...) in the past 25 years. It was only 349ppm (0.0 hat caused the desert to expand and the sea to rise all those thousands of years ago?
You seem, in the second part of your post to be confusing natural cycles with man made abberations in global climate. Change is normal, change at this rate is not.
and look at the entire pattern
from AD 800 to about 1850 the CO2 levels have stayed within a 20 PPM range, between 270 and 290 PPM. Since 1860 the growth has followed a clear exponential growth and after staying in a 20 PPM range for 1000 years it has suddenly jumped up 100 PPM in only 100 years. Raw change and percentages mean nothing if you don't look at a larger pattern.
Originally posted by HawaiianhomegrownSpot on. One rec for you sir!
and look at the entire pattern
from AD 800 to about 1850 the CO2 levels have stayed within a 20 PPM range, between 270 and 290 PPM. Since 1860 the growth has followed a clear exponential growth and after staying in a 20 PPM range for 1000 years it has suddenly jumped up 100 PPM in only 100 years. Raw change and percentages mean nothing if you don't look at a larger pattern.
Originally posted by HawaiianhomegrownIts already proven that rising temps add fuel to hurricanes. All you have to do to see that is look at the hurricanes in the last couple of years vs any timeframe in the last 1000. And we aint seen nuttin yet...
and look at the entire pattern
from AD 800 to about 1850 the CO2 levels have stayed within a 20 PPM range, between 270 and 290 PPM. Since 1860 the growth has followed a clear exponential growth and after staying in a 20 PPM range for 1000 years it has suddenly jumped up 100 PPM in only 100 years. Raw change and percentages mean nothing if you don't look at a larger pattern.
Originally posted by c99uxWorld climate does fluctuate, otherwise the term ice age wouldnt exist. The earth is currently warming up right now that is proven fact.
Well what caused the desert to expand and the sea to rise all those thousands of years ago?
The cause of the current warming is probably mostly man made.
The real question is how will more warming affect us and which is worse - doing something about it now or suffering the consequences.
The most negatively affected people will probably be people who live in costal regions, people who live in severe weather (storms) zones, and people who live in places that will experience severe climate change. It will also affect many other things on earth including loss of species but one must realise that man has been causing that for a long time already.
The american government appears to think that doing something about it now would be the more costly option which is probably true if you are talking about political costs. Nearly everyone else on the planet thinks that a long term plan is better.
Originally posted by twhiteheadit has been very easy to deny that humans have had any sort of significant effect on the global climate. especially for those of us not involved in the research directly, who only get their information from some second hand source on the news or something. i think that it will become harder and harder to deny it in the future. even the pentagon broke with the bush administration in publishing a report about increased tensions in certain areas due to global climate change. only time will tell, and even given any extreme circumstances there will still be people who deny what reason forces upon them. some skeptics (the non-idealogical kind) can be convinced by research and data, and will be eventually. other skeptics, well, it may be a long time but eventually they will see also.
World climate does fluctuate, otherwise the term ice age wouldnt exist. The earth is currently warming up right now that is proven fact.
The cause of the current warming is probably mostly man made.
The real question is how will more warming affect us and which is worse - doing something about it now or suffering the consequences.
The most negatively a ...[text shortened]... bout political costs. Nearly everyone else on the planet thinks that a long term plan is better.
Originally posted by c99uxI saw the same TV program.
[b]Isn't it amazing, that all these scientists are now running round screaming "Global Warming", "C02" and stuff like that?
Yesterday on the news I saw the latest report which said that amount of C02 in the atmosphere had increased from 368ppm (0.0368% of all the gas in the atmosphere...) to 380.7ppm (0.03807%...) in the past 25 years. It was only 349ppm (0.0 ...[text shortened]... nd scaremongers start running around yelling about all that doomsday stuff 5,000 years ago,
Unfortunately, neither the commentator and many others are familiar with a recently completed British study on the effects of this CO2 increase on plants. It was found that even this tiny increase is causing an increase in pollen production up to 50%. This shows where the dranatic increase in lung problems (asthma) and especially allergies are coming from. I wonder what will happen if we have just a tiny bit more increase in CO2.
Originally posted by caissad4Cool, I wasn't aware of that.
I saw the same TV program.
Unfortunately, neither the commentator and many others are familiar with a recently completed British study on the effects of this CO2 increase on plants. It was found that even this tiny increase is causing an increase in pollen production up to 50%. This shows where the dranatic increase in lung problems (asthma) and especially ...[text shortened]... gies are coming from. I wonder what will happen if we have just a tiny bit more increase in CO2.
About 10 years ago, everyone thought that plants (particularly what we call C3 plants, which comprise about 90% of species) would just absorb the extra CO2. The only problem is that the CO2 increases the temperature, the transpiration rate, which causes drought stress. Drought stress decreases the photosynthetic rate. C4 plants are more efficient at using water, but can't photosynthesis as efficiently at high CO2. Coupled to this, increased CO2 conc. backs up photosynthesis, and increases root respiration rates. Temperature increase, of course, increases respiration rate.
Plants ain't going to fix things, at least not in the short term. Not as long as we keep screwing things up the way we are...
Originally posted by HawaiianhomegrownNo, we wouldn't want to look at the percentages like in 2005 the CO2 increase was .00026%. I don't know why they only use ppm when ppb (parts per billion) would sound more extreme.
...Raw change and percentages mean nothing if you don't look at a larger pattern.
Originally posted by WajomaSource of your figure for CO2 increase?
No, we wouldn't want to look at the percentages like in 2005 the CO2 increase was .00026%. I don't know why they only use ppm when ppb (parts per billion) would sound more extreme.
ppm is the correct use of precision. You could use ppb, but it'd be like measuring the distance from Auckland to Wellington in millimetres - there's just no point, it's obfuscatory.
[edit; I just found the NOAA figure - your 0.00026% one. The 0.00026% would be an increase in CO2 as a percentage of the total volume of the atmosphere. During 2005 the CO2 conc. went up by 2.6ppm. It currently sits at around 381ppm, so the sum you should have done was this
(2.6 / (381 -2.6))*100 = 0.687% increase.
That is to say that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere went up by over half a percent. 0.7% may not be much in a single year, but since it's going up by about that much every year it will become a problem.]
Originally posted by scottishinnz[/i]Stop using math and science when debating against loonies, you know it's just not fair.
Source of your figure for CO2 increase?
ppm is the correct use of precision. You could use ppb, but it'd be like measuring the distance from Auckland to Wellington in millimetres - there's just no point, it's obfuscatory.
[edit; I just found the NOAA figure - your 0.00026% one. The 0.00026% would be an increase in CO2 as a percentage of the [i] ...[text shortened]... ingle year, but since it's going up by about that much every year it will become a problem.]