Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ]
04 Jul 2011, 9:47 pm
05 Jul 2011, 3:04 am
05 Jul 2011, 4:13 am
oldmantime wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704
buncha crap. they already know that there were times in earth's history where CO2 was FAR higher in the atmosphere than it is today while the temperature was the same, and also periods where the earth was warmer even before we could have a significant effect on it, yet they still push this BS tax scheme.
buncha crap. they already know that there were times in earth's history where CO2 was FAR higher in the atmosphere than it is today while the temperature was the same, and also periods where the earth was warmer even before we could have a significant effect on it, yet they still push this BS tax scheme.
The "BS tax scheme" you're referring to isn't just because of global warming. Global warming is the "omg we r doomed" argument for the masses, which is getting debunked many times per year in scientific journals, and was more of a hypothesis to start with.
The real problem is what we do with that CO2 that we keep outputting. As you rightly said, at a few points in history, the Earth had a bigger molar concentration of CO2 in the air. However, the Earth also had a lot more forests at the time. Quick bio course - there are essentially two ways to get rid of CO2:
- Photosynthesis (only overnight) by green plants - coniferous species don't seem to count for much
- Storage by osmosis in the sea
The first one is an actual CO2 conversion process - CO2 is metabolized by plants into living materials. It's slow, and requires a lot of plants. The second's perfect metaphor is that of a battery: the ocean naturally absorbs CO2 and dissolves it in the water. Temperature makes this absorption effect more potent, as does the amount of surface water. It is in no way a process that deals with the output - the ocean just keeps it there. Leads to a hypothesized equilibrium if global warming is right: earth cools - ocean can absorb more CO2 - more CO2 goes in the water - earth cools down slightly. However, that's not proven (neither is CO2's dominant effect, by the way).
Assume the warm Earth scenario is correct. You then have more CO2 being outputted, and less trees around to metabolize it into something useful. What happens?
By the way, if there is a problem, taxes are the last thing that will solve it
05 Jul 2011, 11:21 am
jojobean
Veteran
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
06 Jul 2011, 11:41 pm
Anamnesis wrote:
oldmantime wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704
buncha crap. they already know that there were times in earth's history where CO2 was FAR higher in the atmosphere than it is today while the temperature was the same, and also periods where the earth was warmer even before we could have a significant effect on it, yet they still push this BS tax scheme.
buncha crap. they already know that there were times in earth's history where CO2 was FAR higher in the atmosphere than it is today while the temperature was the same, and also periods where the earth was warmer even before we could have a significant effect on it, yet they still push this BS tax scheme.
The "BS tax scheme" you're referring to isn't just because of global warming. Global warming is the "omg we r doomed" argument for the masses, which is getting debunked many times per year in scientific journals, and was more of a hypothesis to start with.
The real problem is what we do with that CO2 that we keep outputting. As you rightly said, at a few points in history, the Earth had a bigger molar concentration of CO2 in the air. However, the Earth also had a lot more forests at the time. Quick bio course - there are essentially two ways to get rid of CO2:
- Photosynthesis (only overnight) by green plants - coniferous species don't seem to count for much
- Storage by osmosis in the sea
The first one is an actual CO2 conversion process - CO2 is metabolized by plants into living materials. It's slow, and requires a lot of plants. The second's perfect metaphor is that of a battery: the ocean naturally absorbs CO2 and dissolves it in the water. Temperature makes this absorption effect more potent, as does the amount of surface water. It is in no way a process that deals with the output - the ocean just keeps it there. Leads to a hypothesized equilibrium if global warming is right: earth cools - ocean can absorb more CO2 - more CO2 goes in the water - earth cools down slightly. However, that's not proven (neither is CO2's dominant effect, by the way).
Assume the warm Earth scenario is correct. You then have more CO2 being outputted, and less trees around to metabolize it into something useful. What happens?
By the way, if there is a problem, taxes are the last thing that will solve it
Well based on your estemations, we will slowly sufficate...am I right??
and no taxes wont fix it. Thats like a car mechanic getting paid to perform open heart surgery...results about the same too.
Inventor once suggested that for each child born, 10 trees to be planted....I think this is a real good grassroots idea that might actually work.
As far as the article goes.... I dont think Asia is to blame for the greenhouse gas "theory" not going as planned. Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas anyway. I think as far as temps go...they seem to fluctuate with solar maxiums and solar minimums, study after study confirms this corelation.
Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ]
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Stanford Medical Professor says Aliens are here on Earth |
02 Apr 2025, 4:41 pm |
