The Global Warming Hoax continued:

[husker]

From my perspective, the rising levels of CO2 are a serious concern and while the effects seem to be a controversial political topic, there is mounting evidence that these levels are correlated to changes in climate around the world. For me, I'd rather not test how far we can take this thing.

rising co2 levels are good for plant growth. there have been many times in the past history of the earth that co2 levels have been MUCH higher than they are now. there is no proof that it effects anything!

[flarendep1]

Save the Ice Caps!!! LOL

Stop the Earth Quakes

Stop the Hurricanes

Stop Mother Nature

Please Al Gore save us

[husker]

this is a long story buy very interesting. it supports my ice cubes in a glass melting (the glass doesn't overflow) and the follow the money theory's.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/C...rinterview.pdf

[ctt8410]

rising co2 levels are good for plant growth. there have been many times in the past history of the earth that co2 levels have been MUCH higher than they are now. there is no proof that it effects anything!

You are correct that atmospheric CO2 levels have been as high as they are right now. The last time this occurred appears to be 20 million years ago. Earth was a very different place 20 million years ago.

You are also correct that CO2 is an important component to photosynthesis, but too much of a good thing isn't a good thing. We're talking about plants that have evolved at atmospheric rates of CO2 around 250ppm that will take hundreds of years before they can adjust. In fact most of the flora that benefit from a spike in CO2 are weeds and vines.

The most basic proof that it "effects anything" is the UV and visible absorption spectrum of CO2. CO2 transmits visible radiation and absorbs infrared radiation of longer wavelengths. This causes warming. The only question is how much warming and what effect this warming has.

[ctt8410]

this is a long story buy very interesting. it supports my ice cubes in a glass melting (the glass doesn't overflow) and the follow the money theory's.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/C...rinterview.pdf

Dr. Morner doesn't reference a single altimeter study in his work because there haven't been any that support his claims that there has been no change in global mean sea level. He gives no details about his raw data nor how he processed the data. There's a reason that he's been criticized so heavily by the scientific community and it's because he makes sensationalistic claims without providing data to back it up.

[BigWeiner]

These are the same people that called the adler planetarium an overhead projector.

[husker]

You are correct that atmospheric CO2 levels have been as high as they are right now. The last time this occurred appears to be 20 million years ago. Earth was a very different place 20 million years ago.

You are also correct that CO2 is an important component to photosynthesis, but too much of a good thing isn't a good thing. We're talking about plants that have evolved at atmospheric rates of CO2 around 250ppm that will take hundreds of years before they can adjust. In fact most of the flora that benefit from a spike in CO2 are weeds and vines.

The most basic proof that it "effects anything" is the UV and visible absorption spectrum of CO2. CO2 transmits visible radiation and absorbs infrared radiation of longer wavelengths. This causes warming. The only question is how much warming and what effect this warming has.

The most common graphical representation of a plants photosynthetic capacity seen in peer reviewed literature is what is called an A/Ci curve or Assimilation/Internal CO2. These data are acquired by attaching an airtight cuvette to a leaf and keeping light levels steady while increasing CO2 concentrations from 50ppm up to 800ppm and higher. Assimilation (or carbon fixation) increases rapidly from 50 to about 300ppm and then begins to slow and levels off somewhere between 600 and 800ppm.

So according to this, CO2 concentrations much higher than the current atmospheric level of 385ppm results in higher photosynthetic rates.

[husker]

there are things that back up both sides of this question. i doubt anyone is going to change anyone's mind, just like politics.

[grandmama]

there are things that back up both sides of this question. i doubt anyone is going to change anyone's mind, just like politics.

Agree with you on the notion above Husker. I'm tired of feeling helpless in regards to everything I hear in the news today. I have a book I think you'll enjoy. it's called amusing ourselves to death. check it out...its not that long, and a quick read.

[ctt8410]

The most common graphical representation of a plants photosynthetic capacity seen in peer reviewed literature is what is called an A/Ci curve or Assimilation/Internal CO2. These data are acquired by attaching an airtight cuvette to a leaf and keeping light levels steady while increasing CO2 concentrations from 50ppm up to 800ppm and higher. Assimilation (or carbon fixation) increases rapidly from 50 to about 300ppm and then begins to slow and levels off somewhere between 600 and 800ppm.

So according to this, CO2 concentrations much higher than the current atmospheric level of 385ppm results in higher photosynthetic rates.

If you're going to copy and paste from Yahoo! Answers then the least you could do is include the entire answer and acknowledge me with your own thoughts. What you left out (and the answer glossed over) was the wealth of data from FACE studies that clearly show the feedback inhibition loop that results from increased levels of CO2 causing photosynthesis to slow down as concentrations of phosphorylated intermediates increase. These studies are open-air environments over long periods of time as compared to a short-term study in a closed environment with a "small cuvette". Look you're not going to walk outside one day and find all your plants dead, but it's silly at this point to suggest that these increasing CO2 levels are somehow a good thing.

Instead maybe you can argue why they aren't a bad thing. Maybe they just are what they are. If so, knowing what we know about the greenhouse effect and rising CO2. What would be a logical explanation as to why temperatures wouldn't increase?

And as for the "melting ice doesn't overflow the glass" argument, do you realize how much of this ice is actually sitting on top of land? If I melt a glass full of ice cubes and then pour it into a full glass, does that glass overflow?

[BigWeiner]

If you're going to copy and paste from Yahoo! Answers

It's not from FoxNews at least, so that's good

[jordanrules23]

It's not from FoxNews at least, so that's good

what news outlet do you watch?

[BigWeiner]

what news outlet do you watch?

I mix it up, like everyone should, I take Faux for what it is. What about you?

[Meg30]

The Great Global Warming Swindle [2007] | Free News Videos - Watch News Videos Online | Veoh


I watched this a while back and it was pretty convincing to me…If you’ve seen it and disagree with it I would love to hear the reasoning..

[insidethe8thpol]

Why is it that all of the places that they say are really being affected by "Global Warming" are places that you need to be dropped in by a helicopter ??