That estimation is from a Computer model and it was programed to show that an increase in CO2 increase the global temperature. No one should have been surprise when the model showed exactly what it was program to do.
Pollutants are "toxic" and if one is to add CO2 on that list then....? CO2 is misunderstood and was given a bad rap..Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist, ”I think you have to think about this stuff (CO2) as more like nuclear waste than acid rain: The more we add, the worse off we’ll be,” that statement is so absurd coming from someone who should know it is scary. How are plant to survive if we reducer CO2? at 380ppm plants are starving for food. Greenhouses operate between 800 to 1000ppm and is considered the best for plant grow.We must stop polluting by spending money at improving what we have now till a new form of energy is found.today's alternative energy is not efficient enough to be sustainable and is not environmentally friendly.

I think you're missing the point. Even oxygen is toxic in high levels. CO2 levels are higher now than they were 150 years ago, and we're adding to its level every hour of every day. If we were doing the same thing with oxygen, we'd need to reduce that too, but since it's not a greenhouse gas, we wouldn't have to worry until it approached toxic levels.

By the way, we know that CO2 is a green house gas because we can test it in controlled environments. That's what the computer models are modeled after! They didn't just pull numbers out of a hat.

I agree with Wilbert. What's always missing from these analyses is the balance between human, animal, decomposition, and industrial activity's CO2 (and C0) emissions and the biosphere as flora see it. Over the same time span in which industrial emissions have increased manyfold, forests have been decimated in some parts of the world, and droughts have decreased grasses. On the other side of the coin, the ocean absorbs CO2 (and becomes acidic), but not methane which is insoluble in water. If C02 levels were to decline a lot, the ocean would "breathe out" to maintain its equilibrium. It's an incredibly complex ecology we live in and I don't think we understand it by half.

Huh? :confused:
The oceans absorbing the CO2 that we produce is part of the problem! It's blamed for at least partly causing the deaths of coral, which threatens most (all?) of the fish we depend on. If we were to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, then the ocean's 'breathing' it out would be mean that the oceans were healing.

Blamed, yes; proven, no. For years now, climate change was blamed for the decline in the world's frog population, for example, and now it turns out that is a fungus infection of their skin that's decimating the frog and toad population. There's been a precipitous decline in the population of bats too, and that turns out to be an infection. Bees are dying off in droves and the cause of that infestation is still not known with certainty. Many of the effects we see and blame on climate change are naturally occurring shifts.

How do you know these infections aren't due to climate change? What else occurs on a global scale to cause them?

I find the idea that we don't know everything about the subject so we should wait to do something to be disingenuous for two reasons.

First, there are many examples where we don't know everything, but achieve great success. Humans to this day still don't know all there is to know about flying, but we've been doing it for over a hundred years!

Second, the conclusion is completely wrong, and far too late. We have never known how industrialization would affect our environment, so according to this logic, it shouldn't have been done at all. Even today, if you're not going to do something because you don't know its affects on the environment, the thing that you should not be doing is using anything that requires the mining or drilling for carbon based materials and spewing them into the atmosphere. This of course, isn't what the intended conclusion is. We're supposed to conclude that business as usual should be allowed until we have all the facts. That is illogical and irrational.

Well, given that I'm illogical and irrational, I guess, I'll withdraw from the discussion.

You are right. We should take care of the earth and our environment but the following is also ture.

Global warming is being used to launch a cap and trade market that will allow the bankers to steal more money from the industrialized world.

Let take care of the world because we want a nice place to live and lets not let rhetoric and politics lead us down a very dangerous path.

They've been stealing for a long time. What makes you think cap and trade has anything to do with it? Would not having cap and trade stop them from stealing? :confused:

Cap and Trade
 

You are right that the banks have been gouging us for a very long time in many markets. Just look at all of the bail out in the last year. All of that money will come from American tax payers.

The cap and trade rules will create the carbon equivalent to the stock market were companies and counties will be able to buy and sell carbon credits. If you emit more carbon than allowed you will have to buy additional credits. These credits will have a monetary value and industrial countries like ours will have to pay for the right to operate. As with any other market the banks will be involved as brokers and lenders which will expand the their control over our policies and our economy. Cap and Trade boils down to a tax on developed counties. There are other ways to promote green technologies and less pollution that will not put more power in to the hands of those that have proven themselves to be ineffective and damaging to the public good.

Don't get me wrong. I support the advancement of new and cleaner technology and I believe that keeping our environment clean is in our best interest regardless of the claim that Global warming is a threat. But, I think that much of what we are told exaggerated to sway public opinion to support new global economic mandates. This will be bad for our country and our livelihoods.

That's a huge leap of logic and I don't see where or how you make it.

I'm certain that large corporations, including banks, will find ways to screw us in any system we set up. How does that mean that cap and trade will be worse than any other? :confused:

Cap and trade is not needed. it is a politically motivated vote getter. AGW is base on Emotional science fear and the good old Guilt trip.
The father of the modern AGW theory is Dr Stephen Schneider
said in the 1970 a 800%, increase in CO2 would give very little warming. By the late 1980s, he promoted the UN view that a mere 100% increase in CO2 would be enough to raise temperature by +1.5 to +4 deg. and then he added.
"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest."

Take a look..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/3...on-and-corals/

The Difference
 

The difference is that this is a completely new market. A new way for those controlling the money to get more of it. And wilbert thanks you for bringing up a good point. There has been an effort in many political circles to use the chance of climate change as tool of fear in order to get the public to support moves toward globalization.

The fact is that there is not a consensus among the scientist that study this and there is distinct and hard scientific evidence that show a direct correlation between solar activity and global temps.

Please, do some homework and don't take everything that the talking heads on CNN or Fox tell you. Every one that gets in front of a camera has an agenda or are being paid to be there. Look at the research!

this is another link that may be of interest. I found another study that details all of these points but I'll have to search again to find it. I'll post it when I do.

Geeez! :rolleyes: Are we supposed to believe that coral reefs haven't evolved at all in 500 million years?
Once again, you beg the question: How does this provide evidence that it's not real?

Not only that, but if you're concerned about 'the money', then why aren't you looking critically at the largest, most profitable corporations in the world: Big Oil/Coal?

It isn't the talking heads on any channel that have me convinced that Global Climate Change is real and man-made. It's the fact that Big Oil and Big Coal are against it, and that they're working so hard in the background to discredit it.

ok here we go...
 

1. Big oil and coal are against these regulations because it is bad for there business. This does not in any way prove or disprove the existence of man-made global warming. I did not know that every post had to explain my position on every aspect of every industry but see my views on these companies below.

2. I have never and will never state of take a position that these corporations are the "good guys" or that they are not participant in a lot of what is wrong with the economy. Also, there products are pollutant and as I have said many times in this thread...I support green technology which includes finding renewable and sustainable energy sources. The Oil industry along with GM are responsible for killing a model of an electric car that was tested in California over a decade ago. There have been many designs for fuel efficient cars that have been bought and shelved over the years because these companies do not want to loose business. They do, however, provide a product that this country is dependent on which is why we need to develop other ways to power our country. Are they bad/evil...sure! Does this mean that those that oppose them are by default right/good...NO! I am not a stuart any industry and I hold everyone responsible for their actions.

3. The evolutionary process of any species of animal is not in dispute here. Of course, they have evolve because evolution is a constant and process that responds to a changing environment. It is what allows life to survive despite many changes in environmental conditions. If you acknowledge that the coral have evolved to survive in current conditions than what is to say that they won't evolve to survive in future conditions. Either way, this is not the point of our conversation.

4. There is a natural ebb and flow to the Temperature of this planet, and others, that is directly related to solar activity. This is indisputable scientific fact. All that I am proposing is that we accept this and that we question those that are telling us that say we are the primary cause for what we have seen in the last 20 years.

5. In the 1970's it was widely reported that global cooling was threat and that we may be on the verge of a new ice age. This did not happen and that was the definitive scientific opinion. There is much that we can not predict and we must not relinquish even a small part of our country's ability to govern its self as a sovereign nation to any international organization because of this non-substantiated theory.

6. You claim that there is a consensus amongst the scientific community but that is not the case. There are thousands of scientists that do not support the theory of Man Made Global Warming. There are also many cases of researchers being fired for expressing their views.

7. One final point goes back to the money. Many scientist are paid through grants or by private companies and if their money depends on finding evidence that something does exist then they are bias and must be suspect. Let me acknowledge that there are some scientist that abide by the scientific method and do so without sacrificing the integrity of the work they do. Unfortunately, as in any industry you are paid for results and if you don't deliver you are gone.

All I ask again is that we all question the information that we are getting and that we don't blindly follow. This is not an attack...this is a plea...our world depends on free tought...and this goes for all issue not just this one. There is at least enough evidence, if you look for it, to prove the lack of a consensus...if nothing else.

A bit of moderation, please!
 

.
Uhm, I think we can safely conclude that this discussion has gotten vituperative. Please step back. I feel the need to remind you of NovaScotian’s original posts. Some of the more intense posts we’ve seen are better suited for Private Message exchanges. :rolleyes:

That was an excellent source! The author requests that response be well-founded in fact, and be sufficiently large in scale to make an impression. One of David J.C. MacKay’s key points is that most of the stuff being done, even in sum, is woefully inadequate.

Ok, let us return to the question: What is a reasonable response to the challenge of Global Climate Change? Specifically: What is your solution? What alternatives do you see that are big enough to make an impact?

And, please, lower the invective a few notches! :)

-- ArcticStones

.

No Problem
 

Of course. I did not intend to cross any lines and I hope that nothing I have posted is considered insulting, abusive, or highly critical. I only wanted to make a case against a cap and trade model. I have posted some interesting research an I welcome everyone to look at it.

I will leave this thread after this post and respond to the question posed by saying that we should use an incentives based approach. Give tax credits to companies that use green technologies. Also fund research whose goal is creating the viable alternatives to the existing methods of powering this country. All corporations are driven my the desire to be more profitable and by giving companies a financial upside to care about the environment we will achieve the overall goal.

Incentive rather than punitive.

If anyone cares to discuss the topic with me further I will respond to private messages.

.
Wheelerb, I believe your very last post is precisely the sort of constructive, solution-oriented proposal that I think also NovaScotian was hoping to see put on the table.

Please note that my comment was a general request to cool the temperature of the thread, and not aimed at you specifically. I think the thread would benefit from your continued participation. :)

Anyone else have some good concrete suggestions?

-- ArcticStones


PS. Duels can be handled through PM or at twenty paces. :cool:
.