Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Interesting quote.

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 3:03:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is from Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth.

"Photosynthesis for the survival and growth of plants requires CO2. Animals require plants. A significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 would slow or even stop plant growth. The end result of green environmental political policies is not going green but going brown by reducing vegetation."

His book is pretty good. There is an interesting intro, a history section were he showed many times in which the temperature was warmer and colder than now that global warming was a time of prosperity, that we are currently coming out of a warming time, and times when there was a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature, though it did get a bit repetitive.

In the sections The Sun, Earth, Ice, Water, and Air he shows a bunch of reasons that have caused temperature fluctuations and how they may be influencing today's warming. That started to get old fast, so I skipped anything that looked boring.

In Et Moi, he showed things like the distortion of science by climate scientists, negative effects of attempting to stop global warming (making the poor poorer, less CO2, gateway to totalitarianism, etc.), similarities between Lysenko and climate change, and an "even if" section which was where he basically showed "even if I was wrong on this, there is still this" which I found amusing.

However, there is many inconsistencies and the like that climate change folks have shown, though I think it doesn't change the overall message of the book.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 3:14:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 3:03:35 PM, seraine wrote:
This is from Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth.

"Photosynthesis for the survival and growth of plants requires CO2. Animals require plants. A significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 would slow or even stop plant growth. The end result of green environmental political policies is not going green but going brown by reducing vegetation."

Fail. reducing CO2 to below normal conditions would be harmful to plants. Reducing CO2 to 1960 conditions would not be harmful to plants.

No one is talking about lowering CO2 to the anything like 100 ppm, but just going back to the 320 ppm range that we had less than 50 years ago.


His book is pretty good. There is an interesting intro, a history section were he showed many times in which the temperature was warmer and colder than now that global warming was a time of prosperity, that we are currently coming out of a warming time, and times when there was a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature, though it did get a bit repetitive.

Any negative correlations between CO2 and Temp would have another factor driving it. CO2 has already been independently proven (many times) to have an increasing effect on tempurature in isolated lab tests (meaning that there were no other variables to effect it). Unfortunately, the earth is full of countless variables, meaning that historically, there are likely times when CO2 would go up and temp would go down (or vise versa) because the other variables would be driving it.


In the sections The Sun, Earth, Ice, Water, and Air he shows a bunch of reasons that have caused temperature fluctuations and how they may be influencing today's warming. That started to get old fast, so I skipped anything that looked boring.

In Et Moi, he showed things like the distortion of science by climate scientists, negative effects of attempting to stop global warming (making the poor poorer, less CO2, gateway to totalitarianism, etc.), similarities between Lysenko and climate change, and an "even if" section which was where he basically showed "even if I was wrong on this, there is still this" which I found amusing.

Oddly enough, there is also similarities between Lysenkoism and climate change denial.


However, there is many inconsistencies and the like that climate change folks have shown, though I think it doesn't change the overall message of the book.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 3:24:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 3:03:35 PM, seraine wrote:
This is from Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth.

"Photosynthesis for the survival and growth of plants requires CO2. Animals require plants. A significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 would slow or even stop plant growth. The end result of green environmental political policies is not going green but going brown by reducing vegetation."

>.<

no one is advocating the reduction of CO2 levels to below those necessary to sustain plant life. this is one of the most pathetic strawmen i've ever encountered in the global warming debate. lol
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
DirkBergurk
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 8:19:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 3:24:25 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/28/2011 3:03:35 PM, seraine wrote:
This is from Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth.

"Photosynthesis for the survival and growth of plants requires CO2. Animals require plants. A significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 would slow or even stop plant growth. The end result of green environmental political policies is not going green but going brown by reducing vegetation."

>.<

no one is advocating the reduction of CO2 levels to below those necessary to sustain plant life. this is one of the most pathetic strawmen i've ever encountered in the global warming debate. lol

Agreed. Although I do wonder, and perhaps this is greatly oversimplifying the issue, is there an optimum CO_2 level for our planet and us? Such a number would be near impossible to nail down I am sure, but would geoengineering via adjusting CO_2 levels be a good idea? Or should we try to keep our planet the way it was in the past? Maybe it is not possible now, but in the future...
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:43:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 3:24:25 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/28/2011 3:03:35 PM, seraine wrote:
This is from Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth.

"Photosynthesis for the survival and growth of plants requires CO2. Animals require plants. A significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 would slow or even stop plant growth. The end result of green environmental political policies is not going green but going brown by reducing vegetation."

>.<

no one is advocating the reduction of CO2 levels to below those necessary to sustain plant life. this is one of the most pathetic strawmen i've ever encountered in the global warming debate. lol

I know it isn't reduction to 100 ppm-ish. But I think that reducing CO2 would be bad for plants, though not death. Greenhouses pump CO2 into their in order to improve plant growth. More CO2=More Plants, correct? And More Plants=Good, correct?
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:57:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 3:14:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/28/2011 3:03:35 PM, seraine wrote:
This is from Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth.

"Photosynthesis for the survival and growth of plants requires CO2. Animals require plants. A significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 would slow or even stop plant growth. The end result of green environmental political policies is not going green but going brown by reducing vegetation."

Fail. reducing CO2 to below normal conditions would be harmful to plants. Reducing CO2 to 1960 conditions would not be harmful to plants.

No one is talking about lowering CO2 to the anything like 100 ppm, but just going back to the 320 ppm range that we had less than 50 years ago.

More CO2=More Plants, correct?



His book is pretty good. There is an interesting intro, a history section were he showed many times in which the temperature was warmer and colder than now that global warming was a time of prosperity, that we are currently coming out of a glacial (saw a typo) time, and times when there was a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature, though it did get a bit repetitive.

Any negative correlations between CO2 and Temp would have another factor driving it. CO2 has already been independently proven (many times) to have an increasing effect on tempurature in isolated lab tests (meaning that there were no other variables to effect it). Unfortunately, the earth is full of countless variables, meaning that historically, there are likely times when CO2 would go up and temp would go down (or vise versa) because the other variables would be driving it.

I know. However, he was mainly showing that it isn't wise to say that CO2 is driving climate change without being very sure that it isn't one of the other variables. I think the most important part was about how we are coming out of a glacial time.

Also, how much did they cause the temp to go up at about 400 ppm (because CO2 is present at low levels and in a lab experiment, they should go to projected levels causing climate change?? Isn't CO2 basically a trace gas? How could something like that drive climate change? Yes, it has some effect. But causing a significant problem? That seems a bit unlikely.



In the sections The Sun, Earth, Ice, Water, and Air he shows a bunch of reasons that have caused temperature fluctuations and how they may be influencing today's warming. That started to get old fast, so I skipped anything that looked boring.

In Et Moi, he showed things like the distortion of science by climate scientists, negative effects of attempting to stop global warming (making the poor poorer, less CO2, gateway to totalitarianism, etc.), similarities between Lysenko and climate change, and an "even if" section which was where he basically showed "even if I was wrong on this, there is still this" which I found amusing.

Oddly enough, there is also similarities between Lysenkoism and climate change denial.


However, there is many inconsistencies and the like that climate change folks have shown, though I think it doesn't change the overall message of the book.

I think one of the most significant things he said is a) global warming is actually good, b) attempting to stop global warming may be futile and c)attempting to stop global warming will have significant bad effects (hurt developing nations and the poor, similar to totalitarianism, bad for business).
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:58:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 9:43:47 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/28/2011 3:24:25 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/28/2011 3:03:35 PM, seraine wrote:
This is from Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth.

"Photosynthesis for the survival and growth of plants requires CO2. Animals require plants. A significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 would slow or even stop plant growth. The end result of green environmental political policies is not going green but going brown by reducing vegetation."

>.<

no one is advocating the reduction of CO2 levels to below those necessary to sustain plant life. this is one of the most pathetic strawmen i've ever encountered in the global warming debate. lol

I know it isn't reduction to 100 ppm-ish. But I think that reducing CO2 would be bad for plants, though not death. Greenhouses pump CO2 into their in order to improve plant growth. More CO2=More Plants, correct? And More Plants=Good, correct?

whats good for plants isn't categorically good for us. it is necessary to have some CO2 because we need some plants. it doesn't follow that more CO2= better for us. it may mean more plants, but it also means an increased greenhouse effect. the small benefit of increased plant growth doesn't seem balanced out by all the negatives, such as rising sea levels. focusing only on the plant issue is absurd in the extreme. its like saying "we need water to live, so the more surface area of the earth is covered in water the better". get water levels too high and we all drown. it would be nice if we could simplify the effects of CO2 down to a single thing, but its far more complex than you seem to be giving it credit for.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2011 10:46:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 9:58:15 PM, belle wrote:

whats good for plants isn't categorically good for us. it is necessary to have some CO2 because we need some plants. it doesn't follow that more CO2= better for us. it may mean more plants, but it also means an increased greenhouse effect. the small benefit of increased plant growth doesn't seem balanced out by all the negatives, such as rising sea levels. focusing only on the plant issue is absurd in the extreme. its like saying "we need water to live, so the more surface area of the earth is covered in water the better". get water levels too high and we all drown. it would be nice if we could simplify the effects of CO2 down to a single thing, but its far more complex than you seem to be giving it credit for.

I'm not only focusing on the plant issue, I was just showing you that the plant issue is valid. I'm not attempting to reduce it to one simple issue.

Why is it that humans traditionally flourished during warm periods? This chart shows that the rate that human population grew is faster during warm periods and slower during cold periods[1] However, I am not sure exactly how accurate this chart is. I don't want to summarize Plimer's points, but get Heaven and Earth and read the chapter History. He successfully shows that global warming is good.

Global warming does not seem bad to me. At the very worst, I would read it as neutral. The bad parts are very minor- the sea level rises a few meters, ice sheets may melt- while humans have traditionally flourished during warm periods and died during cold periods. In addition, preventing global warming seems futile.

Even if the sun isn't driving global warming, how do you reduce carbon emissions? We haven't had any real success. China is not stopping soon, and contributes a ton of CO2. Are we supposed to invade China and India? Many natural processes (i.e. volcanoes) contribute to global warming. Are we supposed to nuke all the volcanoes? I realize this may sound a bit absurd, but I am trying to show that it would be extremely hard to reduce emissions.

Watching over everyone and counting their carbon emissions seems a bit too much totalitarian.

Conclusion

I think that global warming a) may not even be caused by humans, b) is probably good anyways and c) is not worth the vast amount of trouble and effort when other pressing problems like the economy, poverty, and starvation are still facing us.

[1] http://www.stanford.edu...
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 12:15:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/29/2011 10:46:06 PM, seraine wrote:
Global warming does not seem bad to me. At the very worst, I would read it as neutral. The bad parts are very minor- the sea level rises a few meters, ice sheets may melt- while humans have traditionally flourished during warm periods and died during cold periods. In addition, preventing global warming seems futile.

i don't want to be an alarmist because i think a lot of claims regarding this issue are overblown. however, if the sea levels rise by a few meters, then many areas currently inhabited by humans will be underwater. furthermore, even a few degrees temperature difference will wreak havok on many ecosystems. that is not to say that they need to be preserved in their own right, but it is well known that ecosystems are highly connected and interdependent. it pays to be cautious about any drastic changes that may take place, because we are dependent on most of those ecosystems ourselves. if they collapse then so do we.

also saying "it seems futile cause other people aren't doing enough" isn't an argument, its an excuse. lol. its like saying "oh well i am already obese i may as well keep binging" until you get so fat you can't get out of bed. or... "oh well i am already an alcoholic may as well keep drinking" until your liver is shot. yes things are bad, small actions aren't going to reverse them, but theres no point in making it worse if it can be prevented at little cost.

anyways i think we're arguing at cross purposes because i don't think big dramatic interventions are necessary but i just wanted to point out that your understanding of the facts is incomplete.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2011 12:05:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/30/2011 12:15:12 AM, belle wrote:
At 7/29/2011 10:46:06 PM, seraine wrote:
Global warming does not seem bad to me. At the very worst, I would read it as neutral. The bad parts are very minor- the sea level rises a few meters, ice sheets may melt- while humans have traditionally flourished during warm periods and died during cold periods. In addition, preventing global warming seems futile.

i don't want to be an alarmist because i think a lot of claims regarding this issue are overblown. however, if the sea levels rise by a few meters, then many areas currently inhabited by humans will be underwater. furthermore, even a few degrees temperature difference will wreak havok on many ecosystems. that is not to say that they need to be preserved in their own right, but it is well known that ecosystems are highly connected and interdependent. it pays to be cautious about any drastic changes that may take place, because we are dependent on most of those ecosystems ourselves. if they collapse then so do we.

It doesn't seem like it would destroy ecosystems... if anything, I think that ecosystems would "migrate". If there is a ecosystem that thrives in cold climates during global warming, then it would go north or to a colder climate. I do not think that a .5 C rise is going to destroy any ecosystem. That kind of claim is alarmist.

"if they collapse then so do we. "

Orly? Last I heard, humans are farmers, no hunter gatherers. Even if a .5 C rise doess destroy a ecosystem, it would barely effect humans. We would just move our farms to places with the correct climate.


also saying "it seems futile cause other people aren't doing enough" isn't an argument, its an excuse. lol. its like saying "oh well i am already obese i may as well keep binging" until you get so fat you can't get out of bed. or... "oh well i am already an alcoholic may as well keep drinking" until your liver is shot. yes things are bad, small actions aren't going to reverse them, but theres no point in making it worse if it can be prevented at little cost.

I'm not arguing because I'm lazy. I'm arguing with a cost benefit analysis. Cost: spend hundred's of millions of dollars to reduce CO2 levels by a tiny amount (or invade China, nuke all volcanoes, etc.). Like it or not, a few extra solar panels and trees is not going to reduce CO2 by a few ppm. There would need to be very drastic changes, costing billions of dollars, just to reduce CO2 by a couple ppm.

CO2 that we can reduce is very low. Volcanoes, China, cows, geysers, and many more things produce a lot more CO2 than we could reduce. Replacing just one small coal powered power plant would require tons of effort while going green.

In addition, spending all of our money on replacing a few power plants is very impractical. We have much more drastic problems than a sea level rise a 3 meters. The economy is going down the drain, children are still starving in Africa, poverty and crime are very high, cancer and heart disease cause millions of deaths, and you're suggesting we focus billions of dollars because we think the sea level might rise?!

More and more government intervention and totalitarianism is hardly good. You're suggesting that government watch over our shoulders constantly, punish people for burning wood and making electricity in order to attempt to stop the sea level from rising.

Going green would require much less electricity and much more expensive electricity, and subsequently a lower quality of life, and for what? Attempting to stop the sea from rising.

Contrary to what many environmentalists are suggesting, you cannot reduce CO2 by a few ppm by just recycling and buying a solar panel. We will need to make very drastic changes in order to reduce CO2 ppm. And is it worth it?

Cost:Billions (possibly trillions)of dollars wasted, reduced quality of life, a more totalitarian govt, ignoring much more important problems, drastic changes for the worse, etc.

Benefit: Possibly prevent the sea from rising a few meters, maybe stop a few polar bears from dying, maybe save an ecosystem or two.

Totally not worth it.

anyways i think we're arguing at cross purposes because i don't think big dramatic interventions are necessary but i just wanted to point out that your understanding of the facts is incomplete.

Big dramatic interventions are necessary. What do you propose? Reduce, reuse, recycle? A few extra solar panels? Plant a tree on earth day? Tons of tiny changes would have a tiny effect. Humans do not rule the climate, and what we could reduce without having a bad effect on our quality of life is minimal. We can not suddenly decide "Oh, I feel like reducing CO2 by a few ppm."
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:43:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?

Normal=Levels that nature would be at without human industry/ technology.

Last time I checked plants were doing fine before global warming.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:41:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:43:26 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?

Normal=Levels that nature would be at without human industry/ technology.

Last time I checked plants were doing fine before global warming.

Nature has never had normal levels of CO2. About 500 million years ago, CO2 was 10 times higher than now[1]. Perhaps we should burn more coal? There is a lot of oscillation in CO2 levels, even without humans.

And plants may do fine before global warming, but they'd certainly do better during it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 11:29:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:41:13 AM, seraine wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:43:26 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?

Normal=Levels that nature would be at without human industry/ technology.

Last time I checked plants were doing fine before global warming.

Nature has never had normal levels of CO2. About 500 million years ago, CO2 was 10 times higher than now[1]. Perhaps we should burn more coal? There is a lot of oscillation in CO2 levels, even without humans.

And plants may do fine before global warming, but they'd certainly do better during it.

[1]

In respect to carbon levels, sure. It would be a feast for them. In respect to climate change, it would be a plant holocaust. Changing climate would either kill the plants outright, let insects feast on the plants at abnormal rates, or make the land uninhabitable (Sahara Desert Expansion)
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 12:25:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?

"Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone?"

I agree. What pompous arrogance decided that 350 PPM was good? It is completely arbitrary. It's like the Senator who said "The current PH of the water is 7.0, we need to get that down to 0"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:36:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 12:25:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
It's like the Senator who said "The current PH of the water is 7.0, we need to get that down to 0"

LMFAO!!!

please tell me thats a true story
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 8:38:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 11:29:17 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:41:13 AM, seraine wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:43:26 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?

Normal=Levels that nature would be at without human industry/ technology.

Last time I checked plants were doing fine before global warming.

Nature has never had normal levels of CO2. About 500 million years ago, CO2 was 10 times higher than now[1]. Perhaps we should burn more coal? There is a lot of oscillation in CO2 levels, even without humans.

And plants may do fine before global warming, but they'd certainly do better during it.

[1]

In respect to carbon levels, sure. It would be a feast for them. In respect to climate change, it would be a plant holocaust. Changing climate would either kill the plants outright, let insects feast on the plants at abnormal rates, or make the land uninhabitable (Sahara Desert Expansion)

How, how, and how?

Plants do better with more CO2 and I fail to see how more warmth=bad. In As for the Sahara desert, climate predictions predict the Sahara desert will be greener[1]. I think every one of your worries comes from fear mongering. I certainly think the planet will be greener, and apparently computer model simulations say the same thing.

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 11:39:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 8:38:13 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:29:17 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:41:13 AM, seraine wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:43:26 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?

Normal=Levels that nature would be at without human industry/ technology.

Last time I checked plants were doing fine before global warming.

Nature has never had normal levels of CO2. About 500 million years ago, CO2 was 10 times higher than now[1]. Perhaps we should burn more coal? There is a lot of oscillation in CO2 levels, even without humans.

And plants may do fine before global warming, but they'd certainly do better during it.

[1]

In respect to carbon levels, sure. It would be a feast for them. In respect to climate change, it would be a plant holocaust. Changing climate would either kill the plants outright, let insects feast on the plants at abnormal rates, or make the land uninhabitable (Sahara Desert Expansion)

How, how, and how?

Plants do better with more CO2 and I fail to see how more warmth=bad.

It doesnt take a botanist to know plants have a certain (uusually small) degree of temperature they can live in.

In As for the Sahara desert, climate predictions predict the Sahara desert will be greener[1].

Your source is 3 years old. This source (recent) places the expansion of the Sahara at almost 50km a year.

I think every one of your worries comes from fear mongering.

mmmhm

I certainly think the planet will be greener, and apparently computer model simulations say the same thing.

[1]

Yes, computer model simulations are always right, like the ones who predicted the ice age to have wiped us out by now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 1:42:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:41:13 AM, seraine wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:43:26 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?

Normal=Levels that nature would be at without human industry/ technology.

Last time I checked plants were doing fine before global warming.

Nature has never had normal levels of CO2. About 500 million years ago, CO2 was 10 times higher than now[1]. Perhaps we should burn more coal? There is a lot of oscillation in CO2 levels, even without humans.

And plants may do fine before global warming, but they'd certainly do better during it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is highly selective data. The change in CO2 from 500 million years ago to now is not some oscillation that goes back and forth, but a 1 time change due to the changing life on earth (a rise of plants that consume the CO2, bringing it down, to a natural balance).

There is a "natural" level to everything in the environment, as there is an equilibrium where things are in balance. These are often depicted with differential equation charts.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 10:48:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 11:39:25 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
In respect to carbon levels, sure. It would be a feast for them. In respect to climate change, it would be a plant holocaust. Changing climate would either kill the plants outright, let insects feast on the plants at abnormal rates, or make the land uninhabitable (Sahara Desert Expansion)

How, how, and how?

Plants do better with more CO2 and I fail to see how more warmth=bad.

It doesnt take a botanist to know plants have a certain (uusually small) degree of temperature they can live in.

Yep. And how much exactly will climate change? I thought that animals can adapt, but apparently I was wrong. Plants can migrate, and if some migrate at faster rates than others, so what? I though there is things like adaptation and evolution. A temperature change of .5 C is not going to end the world or lead to a plant holocaust.

And you've only halfway answered one of three questions.


In As for the Sahara desert, climate predictions predict the Sahara desert will be greener[1].

Your source is 3 years old. This source (recent) places the expansion of the Sahara at almost 50km a year.

Different climate predictions lead to different results. Whose is right?


I think every one of your worries comes from fear mongering.

mmmhm


Seriously, many of those seem like grasping at straws. More warmth=???=Plant holocaust? More Warmth=????=More Insects=Plant Holocaust? More Warmth=???=Sahara desertification?

It certainly seems like more warmth would lead to a Sahara desert expansion.

More Warmth=More evaporation=Armageddon=More Rain=More Plants?

I certainly think the planet will be greener, and apparently computer model simulations say the same thing.

[1]

Yes, computer model simulations are always right, like the ones who predicted the ice age to have wiped us out by now.

And like the ones that predict global warming during a global cooling?
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 10:53:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 1:42:20 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:41:13 AM, seraine wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:43:26 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?

Normal=Levels that nature would be at without human industry/ technology.

Last time I checked plants were doing fine before global warming.

Nature has never had normal levels of CO2. About 500 million years ago, CO2 was 10 times higher than now[1]. Perhaps we should burn more coal? There is a lot of oscillation in CO2 levels, even without humans.

And plants may do fine before global warming, but they'd certainly do better during it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is highly selective data. The change in CO2 from 500 million years ago to now is not some oscillation that goes back and forth, but a 1 time change due to the changing life on earth (a rise of plants that consume the CO2, bringing it down, to a natural balance).

There is a "natural" level to everything in the environment, as there is an equilibrium where things are in balance. These are often depicted with differential equation charts.

I dunno. It certainly seems like there's a lot of oscillation[1].

And how are we exactly supposed to know if the "natural" state is the best state? What if 500 ppm leads to more prosperity? What arrogance does it take to decide what's right with limited observation?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 10:58:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Please respond to my cost benefit analysis.

I'm not arguing because I'm lazy. I'm arguing with a cost benefit analysis. Cost: spend hundred's of millions of dollars to reduce CO2 levels by a tiny amount (or invade China, nuke all volcanoes, etc.). Like it or not, a few extra solar panels and trees is not going to reduce CO2 by a few ppm. There would need to be very drastic changes, costing billions of dollars, just to reduce CO2 by a couple ppm.

CO2 that we can reduce is very low. Volcanoes, China, cows, geysers, and many more things produce a lot more CO2 than we could reduce. Replacing just one small coal powered power plant would require tons of effort while going green.

In addition, spending all of our money on replacing a few power plants is very impractical. We have much more drastic problems than a sea level rise a 3 meters. The economy is going down the drain, children are still starving in Africa, poverty and crime are very high, cancer and heart disease cause millions of deaths, and you're suggesting we focus billions of dollars because we think the sea level might rise?!

More and more government intervention and totalitarianism is hardly good. You're suggesting that government watch over our shoulders constantly, punish people for burning wood and making electricity in order to attempt to stop the sea level from rising.

Going green would require much less electricity and much more expensive electricity, and subsequently a lower quality of life, and for what? Attempting to stop the sea from rising.

Contrary to what many environmentalists are suggesting, you cannot reduce CO2 by a few ppm by just recycling and buying a solar panel. We will need to make very drastic changes in order to reduce CO2 ppm. And is it worth it?

Cost:Billions (possibly trillions)of dollars wasted, reduced quality of life, a more totalitarian govt, ignoring much more important problems, drastic changes for the worse, if we succeed we lose a time of prosperity, etc.

Benefit: Possibly prevent the sea from rising a few meters, maybe stop a few polar bears from dying, maybe save an ecosystem or two.

Totally not worth it.

In addition, how do we know with certainty that a) global warming is bad b) that it's anthropogenic and c) that we can have any discernible effect on it?

We seem to have prospered during global warming, even when it was 5 F higher! And in fact, the higher it was , the better we did[1].

[1] http://www.stanford.edu...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 11:34:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 10:53:53 AM, seraine wrote:
At 8/2/2011 1:42:20 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:41:13 AM, seraine wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:43:26 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/29/2011 10:50:05 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:22:38 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
I cant tell if that quote is trollin. Its an epic fail. Green policies lower CO2 (which, btw, is not the only pollutant) to normal levels. Another green policy is stopping deforistation. Go figure.

This is not "CO2=Plants=Global Warming Myth Broken". I was just showing (with the quote and defense thereof) that CO2 does lead to more plants, not trying to show global warming is false.

Also, how can we know what normal levels are? What if having 500 ppm leads to much more prosperity for everyone? Humans didn't not face extinction during warm periods. They faced them during cold periods. During some glaciations, CO2 was many times higher than now? What is "normal" and what is "good"?

Normal=Levels that nature would be at without human industry/ technology.

Last time I checked plants were doing fine before global warming.

Nature has never had normal levels of CO2. About 500 million years ago, CO2 was 10 times higher than now[1]. Perhaps we should burn more coal? There is a lot of oscillation in CO2 levels, even without humans.

And plants may do fine before global warming, but they'd certainly do better during it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is highly selective data. The change in CO2 from 500 million years ago to now is not some oscillation that goes back and forth, but a 1 time change due to the changing life on earth (a rise of plants that consume the CO2, bringing it down, to a natural balance).

There is a "natural" level to everything in the environment, as there is an equilibrium where things are in balance. These are often depicted with differential equation charts.

I dunno. It certainly seems like there's a lot of oscillation[1].

Really? Because I see 5 different models and measurements that all show completely different things, in many cases with error ranges of over 80%.

Imagine a political poll that said "42% of Americans will vote for Bugs Bunny in 2012, plus or minus 40%."


And how are we exactly supposed to know if the "natural" state is the best state? What if 500 ppm leads to more prosperity? What arrogance does it take to decide what's right with limited observation?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Best is subjective, so nothing can objectively be claimed as the best. What you say is "best" is not the same that I say is "best." If "best" cannot be agreed upon, we must default back to something. We know that previous levels of CO2 were safe and we could easily survive and prosper within those, so they seem like the natural choice to fall back on.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 11:39:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 11:34:19 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/2/2011 10:53:53 AM, seraine wrote:
I dunno. It certainly seems like there's a lot of oscillation[1].

Really? Because I see 5 different models and measurements that all show completely different things, in many cases with error ranges of over 80%.

Imagine a political poll that said "42% of Americans will vote for Bugs Bunny in 2012, plus or minus 40%."

Notice how the measurements pretty much agree, while the models don't.


And how are we exactly supposed to know if the "natural" state is the best state? What if 500 ppm leads to more prosperity? What arrogance does it take to decide what's right with limited observation?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Best is subjective, so nothing can objectively be claimed as the best. What you say is "best" is not the same that I say is "best." If "best" cannot be agreed upon, we must default back to something. We know that previous levels of CO2 were safe and we could easily survive and prosper within those, so they seem like the natural choice to fall back on.

But imagine the drastic changes we'd have to make. Billions, maybe trillions of dollars, declining economy and quality of life, etc. What about the proper temp? If we look back, we easily survived and prospered in warm periods, but not so for cold periods.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:18:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 11:39:20 AM, seraine wrote:
At 8/2/2011 11:34:19 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/2/2011 10:53:53 AM, seraine wrote:
I dunno. It certainly seems like there's a lot of oscillation[1].

Really? Because I see 5 different models and measurements that all show completely different things, in many cases with error ranges of over 80%.

Imagine a political poll that said "42% of Americans will vote for Bugs Bunny in 2012, plus or minus 40%."

Notice how the measurements pretty much agree, while the models don't.

Actually, they only "argee" in the greater than 300 million years ago section, which shows no oscillation at all.



And how are we exactly supposed to know if the "natural" state is the best state? What if 500 ppm leads to more prosperity? What arrogance does it take to decide what's right with limited observation?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Best is subjective, so nothing can objectively be claimed as the best. What you say is "best" is not the same that I say is "best." If "best" cannot be agreed upon, we must default back to something. We know that previous levels of CO2 were safe and we could easily survive and prosper within those, so they seem like the natural choice to fall back on.

But imagine the drastic changes we'd have to make. Billions, maybe trillions of dollars, declining economy and quality of life, etc. What about the proper temp? If we look back, we easily survived and prospered in warm periods, but not so for cold periods.

1) "Billions, maybe trillions of dollars" is just another month in congress, lol.
2) It wouldn't be hard at all (given proper leadership) to make changes (I disagree that they'd be "drastic") that would not hurt our economy at all.
3) If by "we" you mean modern humans, then no, we've only prospered in the last 100 years. If by "life," then no because the life that is currently on Earth is adapted for the current climates.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 3:41:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 10:18:41 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/2/2011 11:39:20 AM, seraine wrote:
At 8/2/2011 11:34:19 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/2/2011 10:53:53 AM, seraine wrote:
I dunno. It certainly seems like there's a lot of oscillation[1].

Really? Because I see 5 different models and measurements that all show completely different things, in many cases with error ranges of over 80%.

Imagine a political poll that said "42% of Americans will vote for Bugs Bunny in 2012, plus or minus 40%."

Notice how the measurements pretty much agree, while the models don't.

Actually, they only "argee" in the greater than 300 million years ago section, which shows no oscillation at all.



And how are we exactly supposed to know if the "natural" state is the best state? What if 500 ppm leads to more prosperity? What arrogance does it take to decide what's right with limited observation?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Best is subjective, so nothing can objectively be claimed as the best. What you say is "best" is not the same that I say is "best." If "best" cannot be agreed upon, we must default back to something. We know that previous levels of CO2 were safe and we could easily survive and prosper within those, so they seem like the natural choice to fall back on.

But imagine the drastic changes we'd have to make. Billions, maybe trillions of dollars, declining economy and quality of life, etc. What about the proper temp? If we look back, we easily survived and prospered in warm periods, but not so for cold periods.

1) "Billions, maybe trillions of dollars" is just another month in congress, lol.

Still could be spent a lot better.

2) It wouldn't be hard at all (given proper leadership) to make changes (I disagree that they'd be "drastic") that would not hurt our economy at all.

It would be hard because a lot of CO2 emissions are from a) nature and b) countries like China. So that means climate change countries will have to make a lot of changes. Most things like buying solar panels and stuff won't really make much of a difference.

3) If by "we" you mean modern humans, then no, we've only prospered in the last 100 years. If by "life," then no because the life that is currently on Earth is adapted for the current climates.

We prosper in global warming in the way that our rate of growth goes up.

See: http://www.stanford.edu....

Life: why can't life adapt? It's adapted before and it will adapt again. A change of a few C over a few centuries is not extremely sudden (and I think I'm guessing high).

There has been more sudden changes and there is no real reason to think that this warming will be unprecedented.

Also, what's harder? Adapting to a slight sea level rise or preventing it?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 6:45:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 3:41:36 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:18:41 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/2/2011 11:39:20 AM, seraine wrote:
At 8/2/2011 11:34:19 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/2/2011 10:53:53 AM, seraine wrote:
I dunno. It certainly seems like there's a lot of oscillation[1].

Really? Because I see 5 different models and measurements that all show completely different things, in many cases with error ranges of over 80%.

Imagine a political poll that said "42% of Americans will vote for Bugs Bunny in 2012, plus or minus 40%."

Notice how the measurements pretty much agree, while the models don't.

Actually, they only "argee" in the greater than 300 million years ago section, which shows no oscillation at all.



And how are we exactly supposed to know if the "natural" state is the best state? What if 500 ppm leads to more prosperity? What arrogance does it take to decide what's right with limited observation?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Best is subjective, so nothing can objectively be claimed as the best. What you say is "best" is not the same that I say is "best." If "best" cannot be agreed upon, we must default back to something. We know that previous levels of CO2 were safe and we could easily survive and prosper within those, so they seem like the natural choice to fall back on.

But imagine the drastic changes we'd have to make. Billions, maybe trillions of dollars, declining economy and quality of life, etc. What about the proper temp? If we look back, we easily survived and prospered in warm periods, but not so for cold periods.

1) "Billions, maybe trillions of dollars" is just another month in congress, lol.

Still could be spent a lot better.

2) It wouldn't be hard at all (given proper leadership) to make changes (I disagree that they'd be "drastic") that would not hurt our economy at all.

It would be hard because a lot of CO2 emissions are from a) nature and b) countries like China. So that means climate change countries will have to make a lot of changes. Most things like buying solar panels and stuff won't really make much of a difference.

The more people that get involved, the less each individual needs to do.


3) If by "we" you mean modern humans, then no, we've only prospered in the last 100 years. If by "life," then no because the life that is currently on Earth is adapted for the current climates.

We prosper in global warming in the way that our rate of growth goes up.

See: http://www.stanford.edu....

I got a page not found for that.


Life: why can't life adapt? It's adapted before and it will adapt again. A change of a few C over a few centuries is not extremely sudden (and I think I'm guessing high).

Life adapts better to slow changes, not fast ones. We are currently looking at 1 degree over 1 century, but we are also putting out a lot more CO2 now than we were 100 years ago. Adaption and evolution has to occur over many generations, meaning that for it to work, the environment has to change at a slower rate.


There has been more sudden changes and there is no real reason to think that this warming will be unprecedented.

Also, what's harder? Adapting to a slight sea level rise or preventing it?

Adapting. Since we are going to have to move off of fossil fuels anyway (they are very limited), there isn't much real harm in doing so sooner than later. China is expanding nuclear power, so that their CO2 emissions are minimized.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:54:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 11:39:20 AM, seraine wrote:
But imagine the drastic changes we'd have to make. Billions, maybe trillions of dollars, declining economy and quality of life, etc. What about the proper temp? If we look back, we easily survived and prospered in warm periods, but not so for cold periods.

Sorry, I didn't see this thread until after I had started another thread on cost-benefit analysis. I also did a debate on the subject. According to the EPA, $7 trillion over 90 years will get us 0.00375 degree. I figured, separately, that $25 trillion could save 0.026 degree. The US has $300 trillion of fossil fuels that will be kept from development as well.

The IPCC reports the consensus of scientists who really believe in CO2 climate crisis. They project that sea levels will rise by 9 inches in the next hundred years if nothing is done. Most of the ice is in Antarctica, where if temperatures rise from -45 to -40, nothing melts. In fact, it may snow more at the warmer temperature.

Pilmer's point is that CO2 is not a pollutant. It's not toxic and increased levels do not harm plants or animals. There are literally hundreds of studies to show plants grow faster with more CO2. Pilmer was not claiming that anyone is trying to lower CO2 to below sustainable levels; reading the book shows that he made no such claim. His only point was that CO2 is not some toxic pollutant that ought to be banished.

Pilmer's book is encyclopedic. The way crisis-believer's try to get rid of it is find something they thing they can falsely attack, then dismiss the whole thing. That technique can be used with most of science.