• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Realities of Carbon Dioxide?

Do you believe this article?


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
Your plants love it because it raises the temperature in your greenhouse. I don't think people WANT to believe that Global Warming is real and that colors their ability to perceive objective analysis. Perhaps including yourself.

That betrays you, shows you don't know what you're talking about here. Generating and adding in extra CO2 to a greenhouse has nothing whatsoever to do with temperature. CO2 is one of the two ingredients for photosynthesis.
 
That betrays you, shows you don't know what you're talking about here. Generating and adding in extra CO2 to a greenhouse has nothing whatsoever to do with temperature. CO2 is one of the two ingredients for photosynthesis.

No it betrays you. Everyone knows plants breathe CO2. When you raise the CO2 levels in greenhouses, and do not change heat inputs, the temperature rises because of the transmittance changes for different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum from the sun caused by the increased CO2. It is assumed that atmospheric containment (you know, the nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and other gases) on our planet is just another large greenhouse and the effects will be the same. Only the size is different. The scale. Scale up, bubba.
 
I see. You conclude that if their are two obstacles in front of you, you will only see one. Very Texan of you. One big obstacle.

What are you taking about?

Global climate change people keep pointing to CO2 as the cause. If it was the sole cause, the the rise in one would directly correlate to the rise in the other. There would not be a 21% difference between the two. That 21% difference pretty much confirms that man-made CO2 is not the only factor, in fact, it pretty much proves that it may not even be the majority causal factor.

As to your greenhouse demonstration. It simply doesn't work that way. Because of the exchange between CO2 and O2 from the plants, you would have to, depending on the number of plants and their size, keep adding massive amounts of C02 to even keep a certain level of concentration because the plants would be continuously scrubbing CO2 from the air.

Further, you attempt to link the rise in CO2 to only corporate activities. Without consumer demand, the corporations wouldn't put out any CO2. Do corporations exist to make a profit, sure. They make that profit by providing products and services to the customers. No product, no consumers, no corporation. People drive cars, people heat their houses, people cook their food, hell, people breath in oxygen and breath out CO2, every animal on the planet does it. From 1960 to 2010, the worlds population has increased by 125.33%, that alone is going to cause some rise in CO2, just from them breathing, if of course we don't have a equal increase in CO2 use by plants.
 
Actually they grow better because the take in CO2 and give off O2. CO2 is the same to plants as Oxygen is to animals.

But what the heck, the ppm concentration of CO2 has risen by 26.06% from 1960 to present. The average temperature has risen by 5.07%. Why exactly are they not rising by the same amount if one is the direct result of the other?

A few potential reasons

The amount of energy that is being reflected back instead of escaping is not linear in nature regarding the effects of CO2 (I do not know if this is true)

The amount of particulate matter that has been introduced into the atmosphere has increased, reducing the amount of energy that is being transmitted into the earths atmosphere, causing the temperature to be lower. On a global level I do not know the answer but the particulate matter that China is producing is massive, NA and Europe have decreased the amount they produce, so I am unsure if the total level is higher or lower

The energy being emitted by the sun has decreased over that time frame.

If I am not mistaken no scientist denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that increased amounts of it will cause an increase in temperature. That of course is in relation to the other factors that could cause the temperature to increase or decrease
 
What are you taking about?

Global climate change people keep pointing to CO2 as the cause. If it was the sole cause, the the rise in one would directly correlate to the rise in the other. There would not be a 21% difference between the two. That 21% difference pretty much confirms that man-made CO2 is not the only factor, in fact, it pretty much proves that it may not even be the majority causal factor.

As to your greenhouse demonstration. It simply doesn't work that way. Because of the exchange between CO2 and O2 from the plants, you would have to, depending on the number of plants and their size, keep adding massive amounts of C02 to even keep a certain level of concentration because the plants would be continuously scrubbing CO2 from the air.

Further, you attempt to link the rise in CO2 to only corporate activities. Without consumer demand, the corporations wouldn't put out any CO2. Do corporations exist to make a profit, sure. They make that profit by providing products and services to the customers. No product, no consumers, no corporation. People drive cars, people heat their houses, people cook their food, hell, people breath in oxygen and breath out CO2, every animal on the planet does it. From 1960 to 2010, the worlds population has increased by 125.33%, that alone is going to cause some rise in CO2, just from them breathing, if of course we don't have a equal increase in CO2 use by plants.

No one said it was the only factor.
To test Greenhouse gases, one would control conditions such as the number and size of plants to give the data validity. As I stated, this was done in the 1800s and is not a new phenomena.
If you had read the link, you would know that the last paragraph is explained in the narrative. Blame is distributed accordingly, not criminally, and the fact that what must be done to rectify the problem with a heavy impact on corporations is acknowledged. Consumerism is the problem, even if it is the current lifeblood of world economies at this time. It's just about the recognition of realities, like it or not.
 
A few potential reasons

The amount of energy that is being reflected back instead of escaping is not linear in nature regarding the effects of CO2 (I do not know if this is true)

The amount of particulate matter that has been introduced into the atmosphere has increased, reducing the amount of energy that is being transmitted into the earths atmosphere, causing the temperature to be lower. On a global level I do not know the answer but the particulate matter that China is producing is massive, NA and Europe have decreased the amount they produce, so I am unsure if the total level is higher or lower

The energy being emitted by the sun has decreased over that time frame.

If I am not mistaken no scientist denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that increased amounts of it will cause an increase in temperature. That of course is in relation to the other factors that could cause the temperature to increase or decrease

Unfortunately, when the press releases all this stuff, and people like Al Gore start squawking, they either don't know those other factors or choose to leave them out. It's like the articles in the OP. Where is the mention of any other interactions?

You are correct about no scientist arguing about the interaction of between sunlight and CO2, the problem with alarmist and most environmentalist it that it is the only thing they present and never model after all factors.
 
I appreciate the comments. Eyeball to eyeball with ostriches. A good optical acupuncturist might be able to cure that sand in the eye problem. I want to watch.
LOL - I really appreciated this gem from the article: "This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on Earth in the course of a routine business day."

Frankly, this is what ought to happen with the planet's kooky anti-capitalists:

ostrich 2.jpg

"Optical acupuncturist?" :thinking
 
No one said it was the only factor.
To test Greenhouse gases, one would control conditions such as the number and size of plants to give the data validity. As I stated, this was done in the 1800s and is not a new phenomena.
If you had read the link, you would know that the last paragraph is explained in the narrative. Blame is distributed accordingly, not criminally, and the fact that what must be done to rectify the problem with a heavy impact on corporations is acknowledged. Consumerism is the problem, even if it is the current lifeblood of world economies at this time. It's just about the recognition of realities, like it or not.

No one did? When was the last time you read any article concerning global climate change that ever mentions, other than in passing (if it even does), anything but man-made CO2. The few that do bury anything else amongst a ton of unreadable mish-mash to hide it.

Your own articles focus on two things, CO2 is killing the world, and Capitalism is the evil emitter of those CO2 emission.
 
LOL - I really appreciated this gem from the article: "This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on Earth in the course of a routine business day."

Frankly, this is what ought to happen with the planet's kooky anti-capitalists:

View attachment 67156540

"Optical acupuncturist?" :thinking

Sharp stick in the eye.
 
On an only slightly related note, I passed a semi-tanker which was apparently carrying liquid CO2 on the way to work today.
 
On an only slightly related note, I passed a semi-tanker which was apparently carrying liquid CO2 on the way to work today.
...on its way to wiping out life on earth as a matter of course in another mundane day of business. ;)
 
Sharp stick in the eye.

:funny: My money is on the bird unless the guy knows to lie down so the bird can't see him! :mrgreen:

Greetings, DaveFagan. :2wave:
 
I read a long time ago a mathematical model that accurately predicts carbon dioxide emissions. The strongest component to this model, as it is an integer, is population. Population has the most influence on emitting carbon dioxide. Damn I wish I remembered the equation. Anyways, another numerator to the equation was GDP.

Since GDP is part of a fraction, it does not have near as much influence as population. But I will say, that GDP has an influence. And, considering The United States is all about economic growth and GDP, this leads to more CO2 emissions. I am sorry for forgetting the model, but I read it three years ago. I wish I could lay out the entire equation. It was quite simple and elegant.

I think there is scientific evidence that shows that GDP affects CO2 emissions. If you don't like that truth, then deny it.
 
Frankly...I have yet to be convinced that CO2 is an issue - but then, I haven't looked for evidence either, so...
 
:funny: My money is on the bird unless the guy knows to lie down so the bird can't see him! :mrgreen:
Greetings, DaveFagan. :2wave:

Sand in the eye is a reference to the ostrich with its' head in the sand. Eyeball to eyeball with your head in the sand. Only way to commune with that ostrich. I have a phone link and it is slow to load photos, so I didn't load that photo. I should have. Read back a few posts and it will be more clear. #17
 
Last edited:


Sand in the eye is a reference to the ostrich with its' head in the sand. Eyeball to eyeball with your head in the sand. Only way to commune with that ostrich. I have a phone link and it is slow to load photos, so I didn't load that photo. I should have. Read back a few posts and it will be more clear. #17​


It sounds like I missed an interesting photo. I have heard that an ostrich cannot see you if you stay close to the ground, and don't move. Is that true?

Greetings, DaveFagan. :2wave:​
 
Does the problem seem insurmountable?
If as stated, perhaps so. I might go so far as to say we have evolved with capitalism, to the point we will have a seriously difficult time changing, if it's even possible.

Do you believe it?
Not sure.

Can you help?
Maybe.

Do you want to help?
Not really. See above.

Was this worth reading?
Yes...kinda.
 
Long, tedious read, but necessary to form opinion to answer the OP question. Thank you.

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans

"In the early 1960s, CO2ppm concentrations in the atmosphere grew by 0.7ppm per year. In recent decades, especially as China has industrialized, the growth rate has tripled to 2.1ppm per year. In just the first 17 weeks of 2013, CO2 levels jumped by 2.74ppm compared to last year -- "the biggest increase since benchmark monitoring stations high on the Hawaiian volcano of Mauna Loa began taking measurements in 1958."[1] Carbon concentrations have not been this high since the Pliocene period, between 3 million and 5 million years ago, when global average temperatures were 3 degrees or 4 degrees Centigrade hotter than today, the Arctic was ice-free, sea levels were about 40 meters higher, jungles covered northern Canada and Florida was under water - along with coastal locations we now call New York City, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sydney and many others.
Crossing this threshold has fueled fears that we are fast approaching "tipping points" - melting of the subarctic tundra or thawing and releasing the vast quantities of methane in the Arctic sea bottom - that will accelerate global warming beyond any human capacity to stop it: "I wish it weren't true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400-ppm level without losing a beat," said Scripps Institute geochemist Ralph Keeling, whose father, Charles, set up the first monitoring stations in 1958: "At this pace, we'll hit 450 ppm within a few decades.""

"
1. CAPITALISM IS, OVERWHELMINGLY, THE MAIN DRIVER OF PLANETARY ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE
From climate change to resource overconsumption to pollution, the engine that has powered three centuries of accelerating economic development revolutionizing technology, science, culture and human life itself is today a roaring, out-of-control locomotive mowing down continents of forests, sweeping oceans of life, clawing out mountains of minerals, drilling, pumping out lakes of fuels, devouring the planet's last accessible resources to turn them all into "product" while destroying fragile global ecologies built up over eons.
Between 1950 and 2000 the global human population more than doubled from 2.5 billion to 6 billion. But in these same decades, consumption of major natural resources soared more than sixfold on average, some much more. Natural gas consumption grew nearly twelvefold, bauxite (aluminum ore) fifteenfold. And so on.[3]
At current rates, Harvard biologist E.O Wilson says, "half the world's great forests have already been leveled, and half the world's plant and animal species may be gone by the end of this century." Corporations aren't necessarily evil - although plenty are diabolically evil - but they can't help themselves. They're just doing what they're supposed to do for the benefit of their shareholders. Shell Oil can't help but loot Nigeria and the Arctic and cook the climate. That's what shareholders demand.[4] BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and other mining giants can't resist mining Australia's abundant coal and exporting it to China and India. Mining accounts for 19 percent of Australia's gross domestic product and substantial employment even as coal combustion is the worst driver of global warming. IKEA can't help but level the forests of Siberia and Malaysia to feed the Chinese mills building its flimsy, disposable furniture (IKEA is the third-largest consumer of lumber in the world). Apple can't help it if the cost of extracting the "rare earths" it needs to make millions of new iThings each year is the destruction of the eastern Congo - violence, rape, slavery, forced induction of child soldiers, along with poisoning local waterways. [5] Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science have no choice but to wipe out bees, butterflies, birds and small farmers and extinguish crop diversity to secure their grip on the world's food supply while drenching the planet with their Roundups and Atrazines and neonicotinoids. [6] This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on Earth in the course of a routine business day. And the bigger the corporations grow, the worse the problems become.""

"SOLUTIONS TO THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS ARE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, BUT WE CAN'T TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO PREVENT ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE BECAUSE, SO LONG AS WE LIVE UNDER CAPITALISM, ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS TO TAKE PRIORITY OVER ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS OR THE ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE AND MASS UNEMPLOYMENT WILL BE THE RESULT
We all know what we have to do: suppress greenhouse gas emissions. Stop overconsuming natural resources. Stop the senseless pollution of the Earth, its waters and its atmosphere with toxic chemicals. Stop producing waste that can't be recycled by nature. Stop the destruction of biological diversity and ensure the rights of other species to flourish. We don't need any new technological breakthroughs to solve these problems. Mostly, we just stop doing what we're doing. But we can't stop because we're all locked into an economic system in which companies have to grow to compete and reward their shareholders and because we all need the jobs."

Does the problem seem insurmountable?

Do you believe it?

Can you help?

Do you want to help?

Was this worth reading?


No, I don't believe it, but it certainly lends support to my suspicions about anthropogenic global warming alarmists.
 
No I do not believe it but many politicians on the left side are using it to destroy jobs in energy and other industries.
 
Back
Top Bottom