[talaniman]

True science never stops refining itself as it gathers more facts, and usually its money that motivates others to deny, or hide facts. That's why I consider the source before I see it as fact. Dirty air kills people, and makes them sick, and the polar glaciers are melting.

No matter what the cause and effects are, we better deal with it no matter what you call it.

[paraclete]

So CO2 makes you sick? Take your head out of the canister. There is a big difference between CO2 and noxious chemicals and some people are unable to see that.

Glaciers have been melting for a long time, they once covered a large part of the world, do you really want a return to those times? The Earth is beginning to deal with over population and it can best do this through the water cycle. No water, no people, remarkable cause and effect

[talaniman]

so CO2 makes you sick? Take your head out of the canister. There is a big difference between CO2 and noxious chemicals and some people are unable to see that.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[7] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[8]

You obviously have lived in an unban industrial area, or had asthma.

Glaciers have been melting for a long time, they once covered a large part of the world, do you really want a return to those times?

And it took milions of years to melt.

The Earth is beginning to deal with over population and it can best do this through the water cycle. No water, no people, remarkable cause and effect

Wha?? There is more water when ice melts not less, and the water has to go somewhere, right??

[paraclete]

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you actually read the article or just nit pick to suit your argument?

You obviously have lived in an unban industrial area, or had asthma.

Yes I have lived in an industrial area and worked in heavy industry. Any of the gasses we had problems with were not carbon dioxide but sulphurous fumes and other pollutants. Yes I have had asthma and it has been caused by particulate pollution mostly pollens which can upset me from time to time. When does CO2 get into higher concentrations, only in enclosed spaces. At the moment we are talking about parts per million not parts per hundred.

And it took milions of years to melt.

Exactly and what we observe is just the tail end of an ongoing process

Wha?? There is more water when ice melts not less, and the water has to go somewhere, right??

There is more water in the ocean but places that depend on glacier melt will have less water so the high places run out first causing population drift, crop failure, etc. This is already happening

[talaniman]

Oh please Clete, Australia is a clean place on the Earth. Go to China, or come here if you want to see CO2 levels that are high in the wide open spaces. A closed space is not the only thing that spikes CO2 concentrations, and causes harm to humans, animals, just imagine a rush hour in an 95 degree day, and the traffic stalls for 30 minutes, and you live in a city with 50, 000 cars. Try continued exposure to those levels and come back and talk to me.

There is more water in the ocean but places that depend on glacier melt will have less water so the high places run out first causing population drift, crop failure, etc. This is already happening

Why speed up the process if you don't have too? Especially when you know you have fewer places to go?

Its not just one factor Clete, it's a combination of many bad habits by the growing human population.

[paraclete]

Oh please Clete, Australia is a clean place on the Earth. Go to China, or come here if you want to see CO2 levels that are high in the wide open spaces. A closed space is not the only thing that spikes CO2 concentrations, and causes harm to humans, animals, just imagine a rush hour in an 95 degree day, and the traffic stalls for 30 minutes, and you live in a city with 50, 000 cars. Try continued exposure to those levels and come back and talk to me.

A piece of misinformation Tal you are talking of carbon monoxide. I have lived in a city of a million cars and smelt the problem even at midnight but you can't smell CO2. On a good day your eyes would water at the top of a tower building but it was not CO2. I left that city when the smoke rose above the top of the tower. I have been to China and could not see the sun all the time I was there, but that was not CO2 but photo chemical smoke from industries that are unregulated. I have been to Pakistan where all the cars run on LPG and you cannot breathe but it is not CO2 that is the problem. Converting from gasoline to LPG doesn't make a car environmentally cleaner as the environmentalists would have us believe. So I suggest you try exposure at the levels I'm talking about and realise that what we have can be a lot better than the alternative

You like to think Australia is a clean place, well maybe you are right, we have one of the highest per capita emissions of CO2 and beautiful blue skys. I have said for a long time this is a northern hemisphere problem but someone wants to make us pay for it.

Why speed up the process if you don't have too? Especially when you know you have fewer places to go?

Which process are we speeding up Tal? As I said before glaciers have been melting for thousands of years, which rise in CO2 emissions caused the process to start, has that been researched and identified? No, because there is

an inconvenient truth

here, the process started with low concentrations of CO2. I suggest that what we have is normal variability between ice ages. Are we slowing down the growth of vegitation? No it would seem we might be speeding that up. CO2 is not detrimental to plant life

The process we are speeding up is the depletion of oil reserves and yet even that is subject to question

Its not just one factor Clete, it's a combination of many bad habits by the growing human population.

Exactly Tal and the worst habit is a newly acquired one, of rushing to judgement with insufficient data. Once science was sceptical and it took years for a theory to be adopted. Today some obscure researcher publishes a paper and overnight we have a panic. Do you know why this is so, too many acedemics having to justify their existence. Maybe CO2 will help us restore balance

[TUT317]

www.en.wikipedia/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Extensive article. Most of the time Wikipedia is pretty good.

Upon reading the article the thing that should concern most people is found under the sub-heading of : CO2 in Ocean.

The oceans have already taken up 1/3 of the CO2 emitted by humans.

This has resulted in a decline in the PH of the words oceans. This is detrimental to the most fragile of the oceans organisms, e.g. microorganisms.Unfortunately these types of organisms provide the basis of an important food chain.

Read it for yourself.

Tut

[tomder55]

And it took milions of years to melt.

More like 15,000 years . But who's counting... I think we are still coming out of the last glacial maximum.

[paraclete]

more like 15,000 years . But who's counting ... I think we are still coming out of the last glacial maximum.

I agree with you Tom and we have insufficient data to tell us when ithe process stops or what started the process, but we do have some natural indicators like Glaciers. One thing is certain, humans did not start the process and they have no ability to stop it.

[talaniman]

Breathe dirty air, and drink dirty water, now that's a formula for survival.

[paraclete]

Breathe dirty air, and drink dirty water, now thats a formula for survival.

Oddly enough people do it everyday we are very adaptable these things are a modern concept from a society that has become soft and lazy

[tomder55]

Breathe dirty air, and drink dirty water, now thats a formula for survival.

Strawman argument to the issue. The question is ONLY if humans are contributing to global warming.

[talaniman]

Its already a proven scientific fact that we have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. You say its safe to do so, I say its not. Now maybe its doesn't change the temprature of the earth by a drastic enough for humans to notice a big change, but it also fact that one degree per year is a significant change. Not only is this a measureable event, but can be measured by other methods that can actually give data from years ago, before the industrial revolution.

You cannot talk about the facts of global warming/climate change without addressing the effect on vegetation, and wildlife also, as that is a factor of the human footprint on this earth and yes we are definitely changing the environment globally. To think otherwise is to join those flat earthers of yester year.

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]

[tomder55]

You cannot talk about the facts of global warming/climate change without addressing the effect on vegetation,

You mean it makes vegetation grow ? Trying to find the negative in that .

The most successful commercial nurseries pump C02 into their greenhouses to enhance growth.

[paraclete]

Its already a proven scientific fact that we have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. You say its safe to do so, I say its not. Now maybe its doesn't change the temprature of the earth by a drastic enough for humans to notice a big change, but it also fact that one degree per year is a significant change. Not only is this a measureable event, but can be measured by other methods that can actually give data from years ago, before the industrial revolution.

You cannot talk about the facts of global warming/climate change without addressing the effect on vegetation, and wildlife also, as that is a factor of the human footprint on this earth and yes we are definitely changing the environment globally. To think otherwise is to join those flat earthers of yester year.

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where on Earth do you get this B/S Tal the Earth's temperature has not changed by one degree a year, so far we are maybe talking about one degree in a hundred years and perhaps 2 degrees this century.

Here are some facts for you.
Global warming was invented by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a political ploy to get the nuclear program approved. A program they are now abandoning
Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions worldwide immediately the effects that already exist will persist for at least a century, face it we are already past the point of no return
Vegetation is not adversly affected by CO2 and in fact grows more virorously in an elevated CO2 environment. There may be some effects because of shifting weather patterns
Long term climate observations show repeated ice ages with short interglacial periods. We are in an interglacial period right nowhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
This article points out that CO2 concentrations were 10 times what they are today without a runaway greenhouse effect.

In consequence of these several observations, the role of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change on earth would appear to be going, going, gone; while the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.

The human footprint is unsustainable but not because of CO2 but because of uncontrolled population growth. The idea that an increasing population should be sustained at the level of a highly industralised society is ridiculous. The norm is not what you and I enjoy but something closer to subsistence level

You worship at The AGW alter if you want to but don't expect the rest of us to join you

[tomder55]

Got to love them Malthusians . They have already imposed a draconian solution to what they claim is unsustainable human population growth. The truth is that the world population will peak early in the 21st century and a rapid depopulation will be the concern.

Russia is leading the charge losing 700,000 people a year due to non-replacement and fertility rates have declined below replacement rates in many countries. Even in the US where,millions of children have been snuffed ,the birth rate barely keeps up with the replacement rate. Meanwhile around the world the population ages. In Pittsburgh, deaths now outnumber births and hospitals are closing obstetrics wards or converting them to acute care for the elderly. Pittsburgh's public school enrollment was 70,000 in the 1980s. It is 30,000 today - and falling.

By mid-century there will be 248 million fewer children than there are now.
Well done Malthusians ! Your policies of infanticide is paying off. It will be a demographic nightmare the will justly hit our generation hard as there will be no replacement workers to service our needs in our old age.

[paraclete]

Well Tom I don't know how long you expect to live but my generation will not face the problem you outline.

Yes population is declining in some nations and we should ask what part our wars have played in setting us up for a decline, but irrespective, there is still growth enough to push us to nine billion and if that is an aging population then we get our finger out and postpone retirement, something that has only existed for a century in developed societies anyway.

The culture of youth has shot itself in the foot and it will need all those it cast aside.

[tomder55]

The population crisis at the end of the 21st century will be the decline of human population .

[paraclete]

the population crisis at the end of the 21st century will be the decline of human population .

Quite probabally, if we don't get involved in some more stupid wars first and shed a few billions in the process, but water stress will bring population under control. Of course we could solve the problem by increasing the serving age in the military. If wars were fought by old codgers there would be less of them

[tomder55]

There is an abundance of water , even the AGW people think that the oceans will rise. Potable water is a matter of technology. You could take a glass of water, safe to drink ,right out of the discharge of the sewer treatment plant by my home. It leaves the plant purer and safer to drink than the water in the wells and reservoirs .This issues of water availability will be the ability to transport it to where it is needed . In that sense it is just another challenge we have with other resources and commodities.