You’ve got NOTHING. You make inane claims and then try to tell us that I’M not being logical or changing the subject? YOU implied that people, and presumably animals, can derive oxygen FROM CO2. I said that CO2, Argon and water vapor are supposed to be “greenhouse gasses” (note the quotes). I did NOT say that “because men emit CO2, then men are responsible for greenhouse gas.” YOU did. Men “emit” CO2 JUST BY BREATHING. So do ALL animals and even plants, if allowed to decay. What’s your point? Because living creatures “emit” CO2, that automatically makes AMERICANS responsible for bogus “global warming?”
You constantly insinuate that others said things which were never said (or even implied):
Who said that volcanism is caused by men?
When did I say that?
Why should I believe this?
Which insane claims did I make?
No, no: You said:
Note: You said it is a “Fact”!
Note: You said vapor is “the greatest” not the only volume!
(remainig volume was explained with CO2 and Argon,… )
And you said:
Why would you try to argue that the rate of CO2 decrease, if you would not even believe that CO2 causes warming?
I’ve never “argued that the rate of CO2 decrease”–whatever that means. I’ll try to explain it again. Of all the so-called “greenhouse gasses” in the atmosphere, BY FAR the most prevalent is water vapor, accounting for 95% of the total. CO2 accounts for about 3% and the remaining 2% are methane, argon, xenon, CFCs and other minor contributors. If you want to reduce the EFFECT of “greenhouse gassing,” doesn’t it make more sense to “attack” the 95% than the 3%–assuming, of course, that the “greenhouse effect” is a BAD thing? Here you should note that WITHOUT the so-called “greenhouse effect” life itself could NOT survive on the planet–or would survive under extremely harsh conditions.
You said that there are factors that reduce CO2:
I already said: It is impossible to reduce water vapor in the atmosphere. If we would dry the air, the evaporation of ocean-water would increase (and it would rain less often). You can’t change the amount of vapor.
You already suggested to reduce vapor:
but two days later you said:
Why should we note this here? Obviously it has nothing to do with the actual topic. Nobody denies that CO2 is necessary for survival and nobody wants to eliminate it totally. We are talking about what effect minimum changes in its amount will have. So what has this to do with the topic? I think your motivation is to list positive effects of CO2 to divert form its potential negative effects.
In general I would recommend you a more reserved usage of the word “Fact”. It is very unserious when you claim that something is a fact, while the assertion is just an assumption.
For example you said:
But then you said:
O.K. Fine. Good statement.
You call something a fact, if it is supposed to be true.
This is not serious and it will destroy your credibility.
This is no fact. I already said three times:
Every plant is emitting the same amount of CO2 when it rots (decompose) as it had taken up form the atmosphere in its whole lifetime. Plants do NOT have a CO2 reducing NET effect.
CO2 is constantly being “reduced” by vegetation, while it is also constantly being “increased” by the breath of people and animals.
If, for example, a plant takes up let’s say one million CO2 molecules in its life - and then you eat this plant, you will emit these (same) one million CO2 molecules by breathing.
If nobody would eat the plant (e.g. a corncob) and the plant would rot on the compost pile: This plant would ALSO emit these (same) one million CO2 molecules back to the nature by rotting.
So a plant can only store CO2 over a certain time period. But the CO2 is still there - within the plant; It does not disappear. At the latest when the plant decomposes it starts emitting CO2.
Below the line plants do not reduce CO2, if the amount of growing plant-matter and the amount of harvested (or rotting) plant-matter are about the same.
How can you find out, if the world wide vegetation is emitting or taking up CO2 below the line? (I ask you)
And NOBODY has yet explained rationally what “negative effects” even ARE. Increasing CO2 MIGHT cause some minor increases in ambient temperatures. Note that I said MIGHT. Since around 1950, a time when man-generated CO2 has risen all around the planet, we HAVEN’T seen any temperature increases world-wide of much significance.
I mentioned some negative effects that COULD occur in a post above. More precisely I listed three things that worry me.
One thing is interesting
As I remember I never said that global warming is caused by human (I only said I do not know it and I take it into consideration), whereas you said – implicitly – more than one time that it were caused by men. But at the same time you argued very avid that global warming should not be seen as a threat.
So I said: I do not know it. But as long as we do not know we should be alert.
You said: CO2 IS a “greenhouse gas” but we should not be concerned.
Which position is more reasonable?
The fact is, we don’t KNOW that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Global warming-ists insist that it IS, but if it were, someone would have decided to fill a greenhouse with nothing BUT CO2 in cold climates since CO2 is USED by plants to enhance their growth and it would protect those same plants from the cold by trapping heat. So far as I’ve ever heard, no one has ever done so.
At last. It was about time!
What’s that supposed to mean again?
If CO2 would function as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, does this mean it would have the same effect within a real greenhouse?
Why wouldn’t it? If CO2 captures and holds heat as the global warming congregation claims, why wouldn’t it do the same thing IN a real greenhouse, besides having the added benefit of providing food for growing green plants?
CO2 would probably enhance plant growth because plants need it to grow. But I think the warming effect wouldn’t appear in a glass house because the conditions are different. The atmosphere has a thickness of thousands of miles, while within a glass house you could only have a CO2 layer of 10 feet or so. I think the effect would be insignificant.
Since you asked:
I wrote something weeks ago:
Btw the text shows one more time that my position always had been: “I’m not convinced of men caused global warming, but concerned”. You just didn’t realize this because you was too obsessed arguing against it in general.
“Thousands of miles,” Gracie??? Where did you go to school? Earth’s atmosphere is, at most, about 80 miles thick, and the readily-breathable atmosphere only about 5 miles thick.
BS. World-wide temperatures have only risen about 0.8 degrees C. over a period of the last 100 years, and most of THAT prior to 1950. Where IS this “global warming” you keep harping about? I challenge you to sit in a room at 30 degrees C. and raise the temp by ONE degree. You’d not be able to NOTICE the difference. Please explain to us how raising Antarctic temperatures from -8 degrees C to -7.2 degrees C is going to cause the ice pack to melt?
I can’t remember where I heard/read it, nor do I have any idea where to look for it, but somewhere I read/heard that there was a period of extreme warmth worldwide long before the industrial revolution. Anecdotal info, of course. And I have to agree with AS on one thing - millenia ago the earth was known to be spherical. It was philosophers that came up with “the earth is flat.” There are indications in the Bible of a spherical earth. “It is He who sits on the circle of the earth” - one version translates that as “globe” instead of circle. Isaiah 40:22.
This was not the point! You always miss the point. Again and again and again.
No matter how thick it is, the point is: The atmosphere is thicker than the height of a real greenhouse.
Didn’t you see that?
You always search for irrelevant details that might be wrong – you pick them out although they have nothing to do with the actual question and hang up on them. What sense does this make? To pretend that you were right from the beginning?
- Are glaciers or polar ice caps melting now? (The question isn’t rhetoric, I don’t have the data)
- Do you know what “global average temperature” means (or “average” in general)?
SOME glaciers are retreating and others are GROWING.
Certainly I know what “average” means and again, in the past 150 years or so, GREEN “data” shows that it’s gone up 0.8 degrees C. What about that do you not understand?
BTW, CO2, being a bit heavier than either oxygen OR nitrogen alone, (most of the composition of our atmosphere) tends to stay CLOSE to the Earth’s surface for the most part. Want proof? There’s almost NO CO2 “pollution” on mountaintops. Look it up. Secondly, CO2 is NOT a “pollutant,” but it WILL kill you if that’s all that’s available for you to breathe. Raising the CO2 content of our atmosphere from 3% to 4% (if that were even possible) would have NO EFFECT on life as we know it on the planet other than providing more food for growing plants. Nor would raising it to 5%, 6% or even 10%…none of which is even POSSIBLE, regardless of how many SUV’s are driven or how many coal-burning power plants are built.
Everything published in favor of Global Climate Change, is suspect. Seriously.
We have record ice at the poles.
We have record snowfalls.
We have record cold.
Gore said Oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100 AD. We are on track for about a foot.
Polar Bears are thriving.
Moose are making a comeback.
Nature produces much more co2 than Man.
Hypocrisy of the main players.
If AGW was a true concern, why did the IOAA have ot lie to sell it?
If AGW is real, why do Gore and his cohorts act opposite their own recommendations?
If AGW was man based, why do uninhabited planets warm at the same rate?
Hoax? Of Course it is.