Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » CO2 PPM and Global Warming denial (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: CO2 PPM and Global Warming denial
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1880
Petrol use

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
Why are you guys fixated on 1880?

Polar ice cores samples show that the last time we had similar levels of CO2 in the atmosphere was like 400,000 years ago

We can reliably measure CO2 levels over periods of thousands of years

can we pinpoint the point in history in which Co2 last spiked 25 percent within 135 year Period?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm not quite sure what you mean by "localized concentrations," but CO2 spreads very efficiently in our atmosphere. Except when you are very close to a CO2 exhaust (like the smoke stack at a power plant or a volcano), the CO2 level in the atmosphere is practically exactly the same, wherever you are. "...

If by "practically exactly" the same, you mean counted in ppm, then yes... except that this whole argument rests upon measurements on that order, and varying concentrations do in fact occur locally in latitudinal bands, and hemisperically, until "averaged".

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

"This was tested years ago, when the CO2 concentrations were measured simultaneously in various parts of the world. (Part of a certain 'geological year' celebration, IIRC.) From antarctica to hawaii and places in between, *all the measurements were within the expected error. They were all the same*. "...

There you go again. Did you really mean to say "within expected error", and "exactly the same", in a single paragraph? It is statements like this that convince me there is a belief system in operation, and not amateur science at play.

Let's all play believer for a moment, and test this thirty-year proof of concept trial countdown to Armageddon; what temperature should the world be (on average) in 2015, absent man's contribution, and how much warmer is it because of him since 1985? (Your referenced graphs do not answer this.)

Next question; what is the thermal tipping point (man's contribution only) triggering of the next Ice Age?

"Why are you guys fixated on 1880? "...

I suppose the industrial revolution is being brought into focus.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Petrol use."...

Pete, the only widespread use of petroleum during that period was kerosene... as a lighting source. The internal combustion engine did not see industrial application until John Rockefeller put his engineers to work on developing applications for a waste product called "gasoline" around the turn of the century, and it was still limited.

Is the fear of petroleum use the reason you are in favor of such high taxation at the fuel pump?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
Why are you guys fixated on 1880?

Global warming discussions tend to focus on that time frame as a starting point for the proof of the AGW theory because that's the end of the Little Ice Age. Arbitrarily picking a very cold starting point makes it very easy to show a warming trend.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi,

It seems that picking an abderationally cold starting point would guarantee an artificialiy high "warming" trend. Is that part of the public selling strategy of AGW theory proponents?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't researched 1880 but if you really want to track man-based Carbon you need to look at changes in the Carbon 14 ratios. If I remember correctly the ratios started to shift in the 1750s. My guess is that 1880 is used as representative of the full blown industrialization of the US and Europe.

Noel- I am curious about your request for a baseline as proof. Do you believe this is possible? I don't think it is in a dynamic system. But what about looking at changes in CO2 percentages vs time.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1880 is chosen as a starting point in some datasets because it is arguably the beginning of reliable instrumentation, measurement and continuous tracking on a globe-wide level,

It is interesting to see the different conspiracy theories proposed, however...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"Petrol use."...

Pete, the only widespread use of petroleum during that period was kerosene... as a lighting source. The internal combustion engine did not see industrial application until John Rockefeller put his engineers to work on developing applications for a waste product called "gasoline" around the turn of the century, and it was still limited.

Is the fear of petroleum use the reason you are in favor of such high taxation at the fuel pump?

only to the extent that petrol use enriches Saudi Arabia Isis and the terrorists.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Rafi,

It seems that picking an abderationally cold starting point would guarantee an artificialiy high "warming" trend. Is that part of the public selling strategy of AGW theory proponents?

It is part of the strategy. It conveniently coincides with the industrial revolution which allows the proponents of AGW to take correlation and make it into causation.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
1880 is chosen as a starting point in some datasets because it is arguably the beginning of reliable instrumentation, measurement and continuous tracking on a globe-wide level,

It is interesting to see the different conspiracy theories proposed, however...

As was shown up thread, measurements are readily available for prior eras. So your little snarky dig is very, very, wrong.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion,

"I haven't researched 1880 but if you really want to track man-based Carbon you need to look at changes in the Carbon 14 ratios. If I remember correctly the ratios started to shift in the 1750s. My guess is that 1880 is used as representative of the full blown industrialization of the US and Europe.

Noel- I am curious about your request for a baseline as proof. Do you believe this is possible? I don't think it is in a dynamic system. But what about looking at changes in CO2 percentages vs time. "...

If concrete arguments are going to be proffered regarding the human impact upon a dynamic system, such as climate, then I need something a little better than average historical atmospheric CO2 concentrations. To answer your question about the possibility of reconstructing a climatic baseline from 1880, no... I think it is a pipe dream. According to the reference material linked by WS however, a thirty year span is adequate to demonstrate the AGW theory which is why I suggested 1985 as a starting point.

DD,

"1880 is chosen as a starting point in some datasets because it is arguably the beginning of reliable instrumentation, measurement and continuous tracking on a globe-wide level... "...

Anyone making that argument would lose... badly.

"It is interesting to see the different conspiracy theories proposed, however... "....

"Informed" ignorance needs no coordination, which is why the UFO fad will probably outlive mankind.

Pete,

"... only to the extent that petrol use enriches Saudi Arabia Isis and the terrorists. "...

It would seem, then, that the solution would be to elect an administration that supports the domestic U.S. fracking industry which has forced Saudi profits into the toilet.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
administration that supports the domestic U.S. fracking industry which has forced Saudi profits into the toilet.

Noel, i was under the impression that the Saudis were deliberately not cutting back supply in order to drive prices to a point where fracking &oilsands are not profitable/sustainable (which is what's happening now). Kind of like when United used to offer ridiculously low regional flights for 6-12 months that the small local airlines couldn't match. Then once the small guys were dead because of the artificially low prices, the jack the fares back up.
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott,

"Noel, i was under the impression that the Saudis were deliberately not cutting back supply in order to drive prices to a point where fracking &oilsands are not profitable/sustainable (which is what's happening now). Kind of like when United used to offer ridiculously low regional flights for 6-12 months that the small local airlines couldn't match. "...

You are absolutely correct. The last thing that the Saudis want is an established competitor in the U.S., and privately developed lands have forced the hand of OPEC into a price war inspite of federal impediments.

"Then once the small guys were dead because of the artificially low prices, the jack the fares back up. "...

Only Barry can do that, and to the extent he can, he will. Small fracking operators are already closing down.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure what Effect little ice ages would have on co2 levels.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, unless a little ice age has been defined as being caused by some very specific effects, such as a convention of cosmic ice fairies, I'm not sure that the end of the Little Ice Age would rule out human effects.

[ February 14, 2015, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ice ages generally correlate with low atmospheric CO2 levels, but I think Rafi's point was that arbitrary selection of this particular period as a demarcation point for later climatic comparisons stacks the deck in the polemic of AGW believers.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Raffi, what was mentioned up thread was that CO2 levels can be extrapolated via ice cores. This has nothing to do with the temperature measurements to which I was referring.

Regarding the temperature datasets - the 1880 starting point is explicitly mentioned by the organizations providing temperature anomaly analysis as is why that starting point is used. This shouldn't come as some kind of surprise.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Regarding the temperature datasets - the 1880 starting point is explicitly mentioned by the organizations providing temperature anomaly analysis as is why that starting point is used. This shouldn't come as some kind of surprise. "...

The Landsat program began in 1972. Don't even bother attempting serious climatic analysis prior to that.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahem.
this thread is about co2.

co2 is an aspect of climate that we can measure going back Thousands of years

[ February 14, 2015, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oxygen depletion is a related problem:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

I understood the thread to be about human atmospheric CO2 production ("petrol" use as you characterized it), and its relation to global warming.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From your link:

"In a second study, atmospheric O2 and CO2 data collected from two European coastal stations between 2000 and 2005 were analyzed [2]. Mace Head Ireland (53o20’N 9o54’W, 35 m above sea level), which serves as the marine background, relatively free from local fossil fuel consumption, and Station Lutjewad (53o24’N, 6o21’E) on the northern coast of The Netherlands 30 km to the northwest of the city of Groningen, which serves as a continental station receiving continental air with northerly winds. Similar trends were detected. Over the entire period at Lutjewad, CO2 increased by 1.7+0.2 ppm/y while oxygen decreased at -4.2+0.3 ppm/y; the corresponding figures for Mace Head were 1.7+0.1 ppm/y and -4.0+0.3 ppm/y. O2 is decreasing faster than can be accounted for by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, the decrease is not uniform throughout the entire period; instead it is much steeper between 2002 and 2005 at both stations, and is not accompanied by any change in the trend of CO2 increase. This sharp acceleration in the downward trend of atmospheric O2 from 2002-2003 onwards in Ireland and The Netherlands is in accord with the findings in Switzerland and France [1]. And this cannot be explained by a realistic increase in fossil fuel use, or oxygen uptake by cooler ocean waters; if anything, oxygen level in the oceans has also been falling [4]. So where and what is this oxygen sink that is soaking up oxygen?"

The culprit in the missing O2 mystery may be destruction of rain forests. How would Kyoto solve that?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Human Or Natural. If do you have a natural explanation for co2 increase since 1880, I.e. Other Than human deforestation and human consumption, I think that would be very relevant


if I remember correctly, there was a higher co2 during the time of the dinosaurs but there was also Multiple times the current oxygen level

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" The culprit in the missing O2 mystery may be destruction of rain forests. How would Kyoto solve that?"

are you addressing me?

did you read what I said about Kyoto in the OP?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Human Or Natural. If do you have a natural explanation for co2 increase since 1880, I.e. Other Than human deforestation and human consumption, I think that would be very relevant... "...

It is not only "relevant", it is central. That is what I have been asking since my first post. Without a baseline, you have nothing.

"if I remember correctly, there was a higher co2 during the time of the dinosaurs but there was also Multiple times the current oxygen level "...

I would guess the same, which illustrates the importance of the complexity involved in intelligent interpretation of data... which is not going to happen in this thread.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the international community has proved itself a grand failure as far as deforestation is concerned.

both sides of this stupid argument or quibbling over cars and factories, as the human race continues to Raze the forest, and to poison the oceans, effectively destroying the Earth's ability to maintain homeostasis.

the Kyoto treaty only addresses this issue in the margins.

Too Little Too Late.

the only solution I see at this point, is for some wealthy group that actually cares about the planet, to spike every old growth forest, and to arm every oppressed native group that lives in the forest, With Guns And Land Mines. draw a red line around the old growth that remains, then start replanting.

Kyoto it's a plan to cope with a dead planet. a living planet could deal with our carbon emissions. maybe we should stop killing our planet.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Don't get me wrong, I'm not an antiindustrialist; I think Kyoto's made some things worse, giving Brazil even more motive to chop down rain forest to grow biofuel plants on. [Eek!] [DOH] My personal belief for years has been that the primary human contribution to global warming has been deforestation and destruction of marine ecosystems that act as carbon sinks. "...

I forgot what you said, and was criticizing the most common remedy from the AGW lobby.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Kyoto it's a plan to cope with a dead planet. a living planet could deal with our carbon emissions. maybe we should stop killing our planet. "...

Agreed.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, while I believe O2 levels were probably higher 400 million years ago due to the preceeding Devonian crisis, it was not "multiple times" higher. Hydrocarbons can combust spontaneously at greater than 25% O2 concentrations.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Atmospheric hyperoxia, with pO2 in excess of 30%, has long been hypothesized to account for late Paleozoic (360–250 million years ago) gigantism in numerous higher taxa."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01626.x/abstract

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly!

and gIant plants allowed homeostasis Despite Massive volcanic emissions.

Deocygenation & deforestation have broken earth's Ability to cope with emissions.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"Regarding the temperature datasets - the 1880 starting point is explicitly mentioned by the organizations providing temperature anomaly analysis as is why that starting point is used. This shouldn't come as some kind of surprise. "...

The Landsat program began in 1972. Don't even bother attempting serious climatic analysis prior to that.

You can certainly make such an argument. The fact remains that the 1880 time frame was questioned above, a silly conjecture about the year was hypothesized, notwithstanding that whenever this time frame is used by the organizations that track temperature, they almost invariable make reference to why they use the year 1880 as a starting point.

Other organizations can and do use other data set starting points, and they explain their rationales for doing so; but you do not need to guess why a particular starting point is used; it is explicitly explained ad nauseum.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... a silly conjecture about the year was hypothesized, notwithstanding that whenever this time frame is used by the organizations that track temperature, they almost invariable make reference to why they use the year 1880 as a starting point. "...

What is "silly" about calling attention to the fact that this benchmark happens to coincide with the end of an aberationally cold 300 year deep-freeze? It will obviously distort the result, and was a poor selection in making a bid for credibility.

The best assumption that could be made of the study designer is ignorance.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"aberationally cold 300 year deep-freeze? It will obviously distort the result,"

Will it? What if what put us into the "deep freeze" isn't the same thing that took us out of it?

or to look at it a more chilling way (pardon the inapt pun), what if the "baseline" is the "ice age" that began 300 years ago, and when we come out of it, that's going to come on top of the changes we've wrought with the additional unabsorbed CO2?

More importantly -- if we set aside all conjecture:

we all agree that the Earth has undergone climactic states in the past that WERE NOT caused by humans, but that if they were to occur today, could render us extinct or at least wipe out most of our civilization, right?

In that case, it behooves us to maximize the earth's homeostatic capabilities. Have the maximum amount of old growth forests, and the maximum possible amount of plankton thriving in a well oxygenated ocean.

That's the kind of earth that can best survive and adapt to pressures and changes, whether man-made or geological or stellar.

So that's where I think we should start.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What if what put us into the 'deep freeze' isn't the same thing that took us out of it? "...

Whether it is the same thing, or not (I believe it is), does not change the propagandist nature of associating human generated "carbon emissions" to the subsequent temperature rise of the late nineteenth century. If this was really contrived by a climatologist, it was not climatology being practicing in the creation of AGW theory.

"We all agree that the Earth has undergone climactic states in the past that WERE NOT caused by humans, but that if they were to occur today, could render us extinct or at least wipe out most of our civilization, right? "...

It was one of those events that actually set mammals on the path to dominance within the animal kingdom.

"It behooves us to maximize the earth's homeostatic capabilities. Have the maximum amount of old growth forests, and the maximum possible amount of plankton thriving in a well oxygenated ocean. "...

The natural order is benignly violent in the shifts affecting mother earth, and climatic disaster has always paved the way for rebirth. In the words of Gandalf; "It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."

"So that's where I think we should start. "...

Yes, without the hubris inherent in the notion that ours is the ultimate power to make a difference one way, or the other.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I is pretty short sighted to believe we don't make an impact. We use DDT and nearly wipe out a number of bird species. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing and can be traced directly to human activity. This can be directly traced to Carbon 14 releases from fossil fuels. To believe a 25% increase would not have a direct impact in some form defies logic.

No one is claiming that we are the ultimate power. A tiny little virus can kill millions. Does that make it the ultimate power?

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know,"
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... to believe a 25% increase would not have a direct impact in some form defies logic. "..

A 25% increase over what?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This thread is based on the 25% increase CO2 since 1880.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1