longview Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: So we can be bad stewards because worse things are going to happen? 0.040% is a mimiscule amount of alcohol in the bloodstream but if you work in a safety sensitive transportation job and get that result you are pulled off the job. By small and simple things are great extinctions brought about. Letting nature take its course is NOT bad stewardship. If anyone is being a bad steward, it would be China and India. Their pollution is many times over the combination of Europe and North America. But the "social engineer" care not a whit about that. Their real desire is to impose further restriction on the quality of life by "taxing carbon" and to expand the power of a tyrannical government. 1
carbon dioxide Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 On 12/31/2015 at 9:43 AM, thesometimesaint said: At what temperature does ice melt? Melt that ice. RIght now there is a lot of water sitting idle in ice at the poles. Lets melt it so we can put it to good use.
carbon dioxide Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: So we can be bad stewards because worse things are going to happen? 0.040% is a mimiscule amount of alcohol in the bloodstream but if you work in a safety sensitive transportation job and get that result you are pulled off the job. By small and simple things are great extinctions brought about. The increase of alcohol from 0.028 to 0.040% is not going to cause that much of a change. The baseline is not zero when it comes to CO2 while it would be with a sober person who has not consumed alcohol yet. Edited January 2, 2016 by carbon dioxide
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 1 hour ago, longview said: Letting nature take its course is NOT bad stewardship. If anyone is being a bad steward, it would be China and India. Their pollution is many times over the combination of Europe and North America. But the "social engineer" care not a whit about that. Their real desire is to impose further restriction on the quality of life by "taxing carbon" and to expand the power of a tyrannical government. And because other people are worse that makes it okay. Not sure how well that rationale worked for the Nephites when they decided to genocide the Lamanites who were worse. And no, there is no conspiracy to destroy everyone's quality of life and turn over all power to the government in order to get clean air. Whoever invented that myth was probably laughed at but he has showed his scoffers up. People believe it for some reason.
thesometimesaint Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Melt that ice. RIght now there is a lot of water sitting idle in ice at the poles. Lets melt it so we can put it to good use. Ice is what keeps the globe reasonably cool. Also pour water into a glass of salty water. What do you get?
halconero Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 You Americans can be worse than Republican Rome at jumping the gun to accusations of "the sky is falling" tyranny. When they start calling for the suspension of elections, the outlawing of political parties, or the confiscation of subversive reading material then call me. Yes, C02 is what plants breath, and a tremendous amount can act as a carbon sink. Under certain circumstances they can also act as sources. Yes, we are putting to much GHG's in the atmosphere, and I don't know why there is such opposition to cutting back on that.
thesometimesaint Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 3 hours ago, halconero said: You Americans can be worse than Republican Rome at jumping the gun to accusations of "the sky is falling" tyranny. When they start calling for the suspension of elections, the outlawing of political parties, or the confiscation of subversive reading material then call me. Yes, C02 is what plants breath, and a tremendous amount can act as a carbon sink. Under certain circumstances they can also act as sources. Yes, we are putting to much GHG's in the atmosphere, and I don't know why there is such opposition to cutting back on that. Because there is many many billions of dollars to be made to keep pouring crap into our air. SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
TheSkepticChristian Posted January 2, 2016 Author Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) On 1/1/2016 at 8:51 PM, longview said: CO2 is only 0.036% of the air. and according the apostle Widtsoe that is enough to keep "all animals and plants warm" So your argument is completely irrelevant. It means it is not a good idea to add a lot of CO2. On 1/1/2016 at 8:51 PM, longview said: According to Jesus' prophecies and the Book of Revelation, the world is going to end with a whole raft of catastrophes. None of it having to do with minuscule percentage increase in the amount of a very trace element. but apostle Mcckonie he is open to that possibility. Read post 1 again. How is it a minuscule increase? Look at the graph Edited January 2, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted January 6, 2016 Author Posted January 6, 2016 On 1/2/2016 at 10:45 PM, carbon dioxide said: The increase of alcohol from 0.028 to 0.040% is not going to cause that much of a change. The baseline is not zero when it comes to CO2 while it would be with a sober person who has not consumed alcohol yet. Please see the previous post
Zakuska Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) Contrary to popular beleif... CO2 is plant food and good to Plant production. “This global study is a good foundation,” concludes Nemani. “It helps us decide where on the globe we should look more closely at what is happening with Earth’s vegetation. But as far as the whole carbon cycle goes, this is only part of the picture. We didn’t look at how climate changes might have influenced other ecosystem processes that release carbon dioxide back into the global system.” Warmer temperatures could increase the rate at which soil microbes decompose organic matter and release carbon dioxide. In the tropics, lack of cloud cover might temporarily increase productivity until the increased evaporation caused by all that extra sunlight makes water availability more important. Productivity could drop just as easily as it has risen. What this study does tell is that, so far, climate change is making the Earth’s vegetation more productive, but the impact is small compared to how quickly the human population is growing. This knowledge could be a key piece of information for societies around the world as they cultivate the global garden through agriculture, natural resource management and environmental policy. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/ Edited January 6, 2016 by Zakuska
halconero Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Your own quote acknowledges that increased C02 results in short-term plant production followed by long-term water shortages.
Zakuska Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, halconero said: Your own quote acknowledges that increased C02 results in short-term plant production followed by long-term water shortages. More ice melting and greater heat in the Atmosphere is going to result in greater amounts of precipitation and rain. Its not called the "Green House" effect for nothing. Edited January 6, 2016 by Zakuska
TheSkepticChristian Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Zakuska said: More ice melting and greater heat in the Atmosphere is going to result in greater amounts of precipitation and rain. Its not called the "Green House" effect for nothing. more rain in some areas and less rain in other areas, that is why it is also called climate change. So what ended snowball Earth when the sun was 4% weaker?
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: more rain in some areas and less rain in other areas, that is why it is also called climate change. So what ended snowball Earth when the sun was 4% weaker? numerous factors, but a slight change in the earths orbit is the proximal initial effect 6 hours ago, Zakuska said: Contrary to popular beleif... CO2 is plant food and good to Plant production. “This global study is a good foundation,” concludes Nemani. “It helps us decide where on the globe we should look more closely at what is happening with Earth’s vegetation. But as far as the whole carbon cycle goes, this is only part of the picture. We didn’t look at how climate changes might have influenced other ecosystem processes that release carbon dioxide back into the global system.” Warmer temperatures could increase the rate at which soil microbes decompose organic matter and release carbon dioxide. In the tropics, lack of cloud cover might temporarily increase productivity until the increased evaporation caused by all that extra sunlight makes water availability more important. Productivity could drop just as easily as it has risen. What this study does tell is that, so far, climate change is making the Earth’s vegetation more productive, but the impact is small compared to how quickly the human population is growing. This knowledge could be a key piece of information for societies around the world as they cultivate the global garden through agriculture, natural resource management and environmental policy. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/ This "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an older, wiser saying that goes, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." . SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html 1
Zakuska Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) Its intreresting to note that the green police want us to go green... but not TOO green. How much green is a bad thing? When you look out into the stars and realize that its the Green planets that are in the goldy-locks zones and the ones we are looking for. Id say there is too much ROCK and Mineral in the universe and there needs to be more Green everywhere. Edited January 7, 2016 by Zakuska
TheSkepticChristian Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 23 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Its intreresting to note that the green police want us to go green... but not TOO green. How much green is a bad thing? When you look out into the stars and realize that its the Green planets that are in the goldy-locks zones and the ones we are looking for. Id say there is too much ROCK and Mineral in the universe and there needs to be more Green everywhere. Did you know that Venus was once like Earth?
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 23 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Its intreresting to note that the green police want us to go green... but not TOO green. How much green is a bad thing? When you look out into the stars and realize that its the Green planets that are in the goldy-locks zones and the ones we are looking for. Id say there is too much ROCK and Mineral in the universe and there needs to be more Green everywhere. I'm more into the wise use of resources we have here on earth. Also southern California Chaperral has an appeal to me that I just don't get from places like Alabama. SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=southern+california+chaparral&tbm=isch&imgil=cLrjlo8Jj7-SmM%253A%253BuAHe1OtxfE7w6M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.laspilitas.com%25252Fnature-of-california%25252Fcommunities%25252Fchaparral&source=iu&pf=m&fir=cLrjlo8Jj7-SmM%253A%252CuAHe1OtxfE7w6M%252C_&biw=1366&bih=659&usg=__0KVarqnKs-wXf5rgd26inoTRh74%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjIuvSsypjKAhVS6WMKHa2nBiUQyjcISg&ei=BNCOVsioMNLSjwOtz5qoAg#imgrc=WODOxYgbQBVfKM%3A&usg=__0KVarqnKs-wXf5rgd26inoTRh74%3D
Zakuska Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Did you know that Venus was once like Earth? So was Mars. 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: I'm more into the wise use of resources we have here on earth. Also southern California Chaperral has an appeal to me that I just don't get from places like Alabama. My wife is from Brazil. Give me the Amazon any day! Edited January 7, 2016 by Zakuska
TheSkepticChristian Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, Zakuska said: So was Mars. Excellent point too. Mars and Venus used to be like Earth. What happened to Venus? and What happened to Mars? and why?
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 31 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Excellent point too. Mars and Venus used to be like Earth. What happened to Venus? and What happened to Mars? and why? Venus had/has no mechanism to control its CO2 from its volcanoes. Mars doesn't have the gravity, continental drift, or the Ozone layer that the earth does.
Zakuska Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Neither one has a Magnetosphere http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/
TheSkepticChristian Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Venus had/has no mechanism to control its CO2 from its volcanoes. Mars doesn't have the gravity, continental drift, or the Ozone layer that the earth does.
Avatar4321 Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 What temperature is the planet supposed to be?
carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 On 1/2/2016 at 7:58 AM, halconero said: You Americans can be worse than Republican Rome at jumping the gun to accusations of "the sky is falling" tyranny. When they start calling for the suspension of elections, the outlawing of political parties, or the confiscation of subversive reading material then call me. Yes, C02 is what plants breath, and a tremendous amount can act as a carbon sink. Under certain circumstances they can also act as sources. Yes, we are putting to much GHG's in the atmosphere, and I don't know why there is such opposition to cutting back on that. I do believe that there is an effect on the climate with CO2. What I don't accept is this view that before the 19th century, the earth was in a perfect, stable climate for thousands and millions of years and then suddenly man has messed up the climate up by burning fossile fuels. Our actions may influence things but the earth is constantly in a state of change. There are periods of cooling and warming. Perhaps we are warming up a little bit more because of burning fossil fuels but there i no reason to believe we would not have warming even if we had not burned them over the last 100 years. My main opposition is not on cutting back but government forcing things on the people without the people being involved in the process. Since the people will be paying the cost, they should have a direct say on what happens. That does not happen by presidential executive orders or people in the EPA that were not elected by the people. Regulation without representation is just as anti-democratic as taxation without representation. Then we have the whole Paris crap where world leaders attempt to make decisions and declarations that does not reflect the will of the people they are over. The reality is a tiny group of people on the earth are trying to make decisions for everyone else on what needs to be done. Why would I not be upset?
TheSkepticChristian Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I do believe that there is an effect on the climate with CO2. What I don't accept is this view that before the 19th century, the earth was in a perfect, stable climate for thousands and millions of years and then suddenly man has messed up the climate up by burning fossile fuels. Our actions may influence things but the earth is constantly in a state of change. There are periods of cooling and warming. Perhaps we are warming up a little bit more because of burning fossil fuels but there i no reason to believe we would not have warming even if we had not burned them over the last 100 years. See the graph Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).
Recommended Posts