Global Warming. Part 3 - Man-made or natural? (2of2)

[x11115]

Problem is that the CO2 rate is reaching leavels that are equal to previous mass extintions that occured in earth's past. the rate that plants exsorb them is obviously not keeping up with mans output - if so there would not be a growing amount of CO2 in the evironment. this could easily be seen on co2 charts which show co2 growing since the industrial age.

[Sugardaddy501]

@x11115 graphs which resemble the manipulated hockey puck graph.

[x11115]

You can not judge the effects of co2 and temperature change on a chart very accurately because it has what's know as a lagging effect. For one to truely understand the effect of green house gases you must understand radiative forcing and it's effects.

[TRUMPHENT]

I wonder what Fred Palmer thinks of the USSC ruling about CO2? The EPA now has to regulate the stuff.

[seaplaneguy1]

Permanent CO2??? NONsense!!!. CO2 has been up to 550 ppm at least three times in the last 180 years. It goes up and down every 70 years. We are in an up trend from 1950's to now. In 1940's it was over 450 ppm, then dropped. Permanent...insanity of corrupt pols and "scientists" out for gov grants in a PC world. ICE core data is not valid...open celled...only 80 year average...CO2 goes up and down from 300-550 ppm in 70 years, therefore will always be 260-280 as it leaks out... Wake up.

[starrdreams]

@seaplaneguy1 CO2 is rising and not falling, if you look at the bigger scale.

[seaplaneguy1]

@starrdreams NO, that is NOT true. Look at the relationship of CO2 concentration to pressure. At 5 bar it titrates out and at a a 300 bar or so it goes from 380 to 280 or so. Ice cores are NOT a valid proxy. Read the data of pressure vs concentration. Any soda pop manufacturer knows this... Wake up...

[starrdreams]

@seaplaneguy1 So you want to say that all climate scientist and scientists who works with ice cores just don't know this, yes?

[seaplaneguy1]

Starrdreams,

No, they know this, but when you get your funding from the Church of GW, you have a choice...follow the doctrine, or loose funding....in short...Corruption...Money...b­linds people. Then there is the bovine effect...the herd and where it is going. Bovine that don't follow the herd get eaten...sooner than the other guy...but as climategate is showing, all bovine eventually get slaughtered.

[technatezin]

@seaplaneguy1 carbonic acidification of the ocean is not a good thing. Any soda pop manufacturer knows not to water plants with cola.

[seaplaneguy1]

Technatezin,

Come on big guy...can't you use Google and type in "ocean acidification hoax" and do some reading??? Wake up. Pull you head out of the GW hoax scam and turn your brain on. Use that noodle.

There is a reason the Ph of the ocean is 8.1 (basic) Have you heard of "limestone" and just how much "buffer" there is? CO2 has been many time higher and all ok.

Educated yourself before you drink the Kool-aid. Wake up for crying out loud....

[dareapa1]

@starrdreams if you pay attention you would notice you are missing something very important, it doesnt matter that it is rising, a rise of 0.001% of Co2 compared to the rest of the atmosphere will have no effect at all... right now the atmospher is about 0.037% Co2, before the industrial revolution it was 0.035-0.036%

[wanker4761]

liberal rubbish

[starrdreams]

@wanker4761 Read not just some blogs.

[moronpoliticsdotcom]

it improves plant growth. I don't like this use of the word, but people prefer a word to a phrase. Have a word for "plant growth accelerant"?

[starrdreams]

For plants it is good. Till certain amount.

[aacidpencils]

uuugghhh! Carbon Dioxide is not a 'fertilizer.' Yes, its needed for plant growth in balanced amounts, but too much Co2 causes the plants to grow larger (as stated) and become less nutrient dense. Dandilions growing beside the roads are larger, yet much less nutritious and much higher in heavy metals to the point that they are no longer healthy to consume in these areas.