If climate change folks want to be taken more seriously, stop making stupid #$@ articles like this.

[Guy Threepwood]

A model of a communist family is one where division of labor is equal rather than gender-based, husbands do not get the majority power by default (nor do wives), and, obviously, China's one-kid policy has nothing to do with communism but the fact that they have a very large population. If Western families experience a reverse in trends, and the number of kids per family increases, such measures may become necessary here if the population gets too large.

That doesn't disprove global warming because the median Earth temperature is still increasing, and global warming does not predict that everywhere will warm, but rather that some will warm, some will cool, but the overall median for the whole planet will be going up, and it has been.

it disproves the whole melting ice caps - human caused sea level rise prediction- and in large any significant warming- which was largely dependent on the albedo effect of increasingly less ice and snow cover-

are there any other simulated catastrophes you were afraid of becoming real?

 

[muhammad_isa]

it disproves the whole melting ice caps - human caused sea level rise prediction- and in large any significant warming- which was largely dependent on the albedo effect of increasingly less ice and snow cover..

Are you suggesting that there's no connection between what mankind does on this planet, and future weather patterns? Do you really see our actions as insignificant?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you suggesting that there's no connection between what mankind does on this planet, and future weather patterns? Do you really see our actions as insignificant?

The Ordovician ice age had >4000 ppm CO2, 1000% more 'atmospheric pollution' than today

Vast ice sheets covered much of the globe and retreated again within merely thousands of years, without any help from SUVs

<2 molecules CO2 added to 10000 molecules of air is insignificant with regards to the weather yes

 

[dust1n]

so the two hour display of ....An Inconvenient Truth......is all a lie?

Yes. It was replaced with a series of claims from one with no accolades in climate science or meteorology nor any reference to any actual study, unless purposeful cherry-picked to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

Don't disagree in principle, but what's the out of pocket expenses and how much are people making off of environmental profiteering?

Just a thought. ;0)

I don't know, how much are people making off of environmental profiteering? As why does someone only profit from environmental profiteering count in your consideratoin, yet the BIGGEST MONEY MAKING COMPANIES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD are somehow immune from profiteering from any particular environmental policy?

 

[muhammad_isa]

...

You didn't really answer my question .. is it possible that mankind can affect future weather patterns with their activities? Yes or No?

 

[Valjean]

How do you explain the diminishing arctic ice and mountain snowpacks, the retreating glaciers and the lowering oceanic pH, Guy?
These changes are awfully fast for natural variation, plus there's a human created factor that would account for them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Ordovician ice age had >4000 ppm CO2, 1000% more 'atmospheric pollution' than today

It was actually much lower than it is today.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703712006862

Regardless of local biotic or oceanographic influences, a decline in εp values indicates photosynthesis was sensitive to carbon concentrations, and via analogy with modern taxa, constrains pCO2 to below ∼8× pre-industrial levels (PIL), or about half of previous estimates. In addition, the global, positive carbon isotope excursions expressed in a wide variety of sedimentary materials (carbonate, bulk organic matter, n-alkanes, acyclic and cyclic isoprenoid hydrocarbons), provide compelling evidence for perturbation of the global carbon cycle, and this was likely associated with a decrease in pCO2 approximately 10 million years prior to the Hirnantian glaciations. Isotopic records from deeper water settings suggest a complex interplay of carbon sources and sinks, with pCO2 increasing prior to and during the early stages of the GICE and then decreasing when organic carbon burial outpaced increased volcanic inputs.

 

[Thief]

The Ordovician ice age had >4000 ppm CO2, 1000% more 'atmospheric pollution' than today

Vast ice sheets covered much of the globe and retreated again within merely thousands of years, without any help from SUVs

<2 molecules CO2 added to 10000 molecules of air is insignificant with regards to the weather yes

there are pollen counts in the ice samples.
flowers that used to flourish are disappearing.

 

[Thief]

maybe there are two camps of scientists.....
one for eco control
another for the oil companies

 

[Thief]

When I was a boy (50 yrs ago) Christmas meant snow.
now we have temps that almost insure......mud.

 

[Thief]

How do you explain the diminishing arctic ice and mountain snowpacks, the retreating glaciers and the lowering oceanic pH, Guy?
These changes are awfully fast for natural variation, plus there's a human created factor that would account for them.

I heard on the radio this past winter season.....some ski resorts are going out of business.

 

[dust1n]

Actually, given the nature of the article, it's actually quite shocking to me the news article isn't more alarmist.

What it does fail to mention though, is that warming the ocean is significantly harder than warming land. So, the human race will more or less be over way before the temperatures of the oceans get that hot.

AH, it turns out the reason there is no mention, is because it's basically wrong on my part. Turns out, a bit more complicated than I'd like to imagine.

 

[Midnight Rain]

http://news.yahoo.com/report-world-run-breathable-air-unless-carbon-cut-210604512.html



Give me a break!

When anti-climate change people stop banning solar power because they feel that it will use up all of the sun's light or that wind power would use up all the wind they can get the right to start criticizing articles.

The lack of produced oxygen is a legitimate concern. The secondary effect of killing many of the plants and other organisms that produce oxygen will eventually result in the lowered oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere. Just as the article says a 2 percent change is not drastically significant to life but a 4 percent change would be significant. I don't see how this is "bunk"

 

[Valjean]

Oxygen's a very reactive element. It doesn't last long in the atmosphere without binding to something. It needs to be continually regenerated -- by plants and phytoplankton. Anything threatening forests or phytoplankton is likely to have far ranging effects.

 

[idea]

Oxygen's a very reactive element. It doesn't last long in the atmosphere without binding to something. It needs to be continually regenerated -- by plants and phytoplankton. Anything threatening forests or phytoplankton is likely to have far ranging effects.

but CO2 is good for plants and forests - so more CO@ should produce more plants and forests.

 

[Valjean]

But it'll also acidify oceans and lakes -- probably not good for either phyto or zooplankton, definitely not good for corals or shellfish.

 

[Twilight Hue]

but CO2 is good for plants and forests - so more CO@ should produce more plants and forests.

Oxygen's a very reactive element. It doesn't last long in the atmosphere without binding to something. It needs to be continually regenerated -- by plants and phytoplankton. Anything threatening forests or phytoplankton is likely to have far ranging effects.

Wouldn't the phytoplankton just "relocate" and thrive in other areas? The ocean temps are not uniform globally, or is it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wouldn't the phytoplankton just "relocate" and thrive in other areas? The ocean temps are not uniform globally, or is it?

Ocean temperatures are environmental temperatures much in the same way land temperatures and environmental temperatures. Facing different temperatures in foreign environments is not survivable for many species in certain circumstances.

but CO2 is good for plants and forests - so more CO@ should produce more plants and forests.

CO2 does not produce plants and forests. Plants produce plants. Because of the nature of plants cells (the very reason they are plant cells and not animal cells), they can take in sunlight and CO2 and metabolize them as energy, and they produce oxygen as a bi-product of their metabolic process. And much like food for animals, only so much can be eaten and too much is not healthy.

 

[Thief]

but CO2 is good for plants and forests - so more CO@ should produce more plants and forests.

not if we keep cutting them down
I saw one report that Japan buys half of the teak wood coming from the tropical forests

chopsticks!

 

[Twilight Hue]

When anti-climate change people stop banning solar power because they feel that it will use up all of the sun's light or that wind power would use up all the wind they can get the right to start criticizing articles.

The lack of produced oxygen is a legitimate concern. The secondary effect of killing many of the plants and other organisms that produce oxygen will eventually result in the lowered oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere. Just as the article says a 2 percent change is not drastically significant to life but a 4 percent change would be significant. I don't see how this is "bunk"

I don't think it's the source that's the issue.

The viability, reliability, and effectiveness of green energy vs conventional means is an issue. Not to mention It's hideously expensive to implement alternative technology for which there is a decent return for all the trouble.

So far the only green contender imo is primarily geothermal, hydrothermal with limited areas for solar and wind where it's pracitability and profitability warrants the time and effort.

Nobody is going to actually care about green energy unless there is a return for which one benefits in a direct way. Like reduced costs and increased efficiency.

Incidently I haven't heard of anyone actually banning solar or wind. At least so in my area.