[sceptic]

When the ice caps finally melt and all the galaciers are gone, greenland is about 5 sq km of prime farm land.all of this due to excess farting by bovines, which is much more serious than car polution and the increase in polution from aeroplanes.

What the hell are we going to put in our drinks to cool us down

[Al_U_Card]

At the current rate of CO2 accumulation, we will hit 1000 ppm around 2150. At that point, the chemiclines in the oceans will invert and H2S producing microorganisms will suffocate the land surfaces....relegating us to dinosaur status so don't worry about it.....you might, however, want to mention this to your kids for your grandchildren's sake...

[DrTodd13]

530 million years ago, CO2 was at 7000ppm and the average global temp was 22c. 150 million years ago, CO2 was at 2000 ppm. If your statement were true then I don't see how we could have had the vibrant ecologies that were present in these eras. 150 million years ago, average global temp was 17c. 100 million years ago CO2 had fallen to 1000 ppm yet average temperature had risen to 22c.

Raise the temperature and the gulf stream shuts down which decreases temps in the arctic which allows ice to accumulate which increases albedo which reduces temperatures. Today there was an article by a "mainstream" global warming proponent who was warning his peers that they were overstating their case and thereby diminishing their reputations and influence.

[Winstonm]

How to make ice from fire: See "The Mosquito Coast".

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 22 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

How to make ice from fire: See "The Mosquito Coast".

One of the all time worst movies ever....really really bad...

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 22 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 22 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

How to make ice from fire: See "The Mosquito Coast".

One of the all time worst movies ever....really really bad...

I know. But the book wasn't all that bad.

[Al_U_Card]

DrTodd13, on Jan 22 2007, 06:11 PM, said:

530 million years ago, CO2 was at 7000ppm and the average global temp was 22c. 150 million years ago, CO2 was at 2000 ppm. If your statement were true then I don't see how we could have had the vibrant ecologies that were present in these eras. 150 million years ago, average global temp was 17c. 100 million years ago CO2 had fallen to 1000 ppm yet average temperature had risen to 22c.

Raise the temperature and the gulf stream shuts down which decreases temps in the arctic which allows ice to accumulate which increases albedo which reduces temperatures. Today there was an article by a "mainstream" global warming proponent who was warning his peers that they were overstating their case and thereby diminishing their reputations and influence.

Mass extinctions coincide with all of these "spikes" in the atmospheric CO2 levels. Regardless of the source (volcanism, algae blooms etc) the net effect is the same. H2S is the net result and death for land animal occurs. Last time I looked, that included us.

[mike777]

hmmm CO2 breathing implants anyone?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 23 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

hmmm CO2 breathing implants anyone?

Those have been available for millions of years. Ask our friend Slothy what his experience is.

[DrTodd13]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 23 2007, 05:25 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Jan 22 2007, 06:11 PM, said:

530 million years ago, CO2 was at 7000ppm and the average global temp was 22c.  150 million years ago, CO2 was at 2000 ppm.  If your statement were true then I don't see how we could have had the vibrant ecologies that were present in these eras.  150 million years ago, average global temp was 17c.  100 million years ago CO2 had fallen to 1000 ppm yet average temperature had risen to 22c.

Raise the temperature and the gulf stream shuts down which decreases temps in the arctic which allows ice to accumulate which increases albedo which reduces temperatures.  Today there was an article by a "mainstream" global warming proponent who was warning his peers that they were overstating their case and thereby diminishing their reputations and influence.

Mass extinctions coincide with all of these "spikes" in the atmospheric CO2 levels. Regardless of the source (volcanism, algae blooms etc) the net effect is the same. H2S is the net result and death for land animal occurs. Last time I looked, that included us.

The point of the data I was showing is that on geologic timescales, CO2 has never been so low as it is now. From 100 million years ago back to 600 million years ago, CO2 has never been lower than 1000 ppm. It appears there has been a roughly linear decrease in CO2 from 6000 ppm 600 million years ago down to what it is today. Sure, the graph is not smooth, there are spikes and dips but your point seems to be that nothing can exist with CO2 this high due to something happening in the oceans and the data does not seem to bear this out. If your statement were true then there wouldn't be any animal life today because we've had consistently and much higher CO2 levels in the past.

[Al_U_Card]

The recent article in Scientific American about this topic might be of interest. It was last fall sometime. The things I read on the Stairmaster....they should call them scaremasters...

[Winstonm]

Quote

they should call them scaremasters... 

Naw, Bush and Cheney already got the copyright on that one.

[mike777]

BTW what is the specific goal of those worried about global warming? Save the planet and kill off the economy or do they have something more helpful?

[pbleighton]

"BTW what is the specific goal of those worried about global warming? Save the planet and kill off the economy or do they have something more helpful?"

Save the planet without killing off the economy.

Failure to succumb to scare tactics of right wing hacks, who have consistently predicted economic disaster from environmental regulation, and who have been consistently been proven wrong.

Peter

[mike777]

ohh well that is not too specific but I vote for saving the planet too
Even some right wing hacks vote for not killing off the grandkids.

[pbleighton]

"Even some right wing hacks vote for not killing off the grandkids."

Very few in Congress (or the White House) feel (vote) this way.

Why do you presume that environmental regulation will kill off the economy,
when history shows it doesn't?

You're not too specific

Peter

[mike777]

By definition a regulation has the power to kill off any industry. Government is the power to destroy.

[pbleighton]

"By definition a regulation has the power to kill off any industry. Government is the power to destroy."

Whose definition?

This is "drink the Kool Aid" stuff.

Again, not too specific.

We've had environmental regulations for a long time, and they haven't hurt.

BTW, the economy performs better under Democratic presidents than
under Republicans. You can look it up

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

The problem with logic and reason is that they are not common or usual. What should be normal is hardly ever typical. People are so used to defacating into the immediate environment and not suffering the consequences that they believe this to be a right and not a mistake.

If by "the economy" you mean diverting cash from sensible and best for the majority endeavors to enriching a few avaricious and unscrupulous individuals.....then regulations seem to be the wrong way to go......their "drive" runs right over most of us (with the usual results).

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 24 2007, 04:53 PM, said:

By definition a regulation has the power to kill off any industry. Government is the power to destroy.

The real power of government is the right to strip personal freedoms - as in put you in jail for not paying taxes.