EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'

a reply to: Greven

Maybe dumb to you but NOT to those who have done the research and experiments.

That is one of the reasons why climate change cannot be discussed in any rational way; because anything that is presented against a well held almost fanatical view will be dismissed out of hand regardless of the scientifically repeatable facts.

Something is being done about pollution.

If you can find old photos, you can see just how much has already been done to make the planet a better place. More needs to be done.

Thing is, the biggest impacts have been made through individual behavioral augmentation. That is where the biggest leaps and strides will be made.

Has anybody here ever seen the government fix something?

Everything we can do will have almost no effect on global temperatures. You see, there is this huge flaming orb in the sky that has far more control over those mechanics.

There is one part of human caused climate change that needs much more scrutiny, regulation, and eventual elimination. That is the multiple ongoing nuclear disasters that are affecting the planet. They are not getting better, but CO2 is somehow the monster that gets all the airtime.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate.

The science is clear, we are changing the climate with our CO2 output. There is no debating this reality. Your only hope to hide the science is debate politics and economics in regards to the CO2 problem which are ultimately circular debates that accomplish nothing except cast doubt on the reality of human induced climate change.

I can say this for pretty much everyone here....blah, blah, and blah.

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Greven

Maybe dumb to you but NOT to those who have done the research and experiments.

That is one of the reasons why climate change cannot be discussed in any rational way; because anything that is presented against a well held almost fanatical view will be dismissed out of hand regardless of the scientifically repeatable facts.

What useless words.

Pop quiz: what is fertilizer made of?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The science is clear, we are changing the climate with our CO2 output. There is no debating this reality.

There is plenty room for debate, considering the earth emits more co2 than we could ever dream of. I don't believe the muppets that govern our country, nor will I believe you.

a reply to: 727Sky

What research and experiments?
Oh it is about plants being unlimited co2 sinks.
Guess they don't need nitrogen at all, how does bacteria do in higher co2?

originally posted by: Greven

This 'CO2 is plant food' talking point is dumb.

Do you think plants are made of only carbon and oxygen?

LOL... Obviously you have no idea that all lifeforms on Earth are carbon based...

Carbon forms the key component for all known life on Earth. Complex molecules are made up of carbon bonded with other elements, especially oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, and carbon is able to bond with all of these because of its four valence electrons. Carbon is abundant on earth. It is also lightweight and relatively small in size, making it easier for enzymes to manipulate carbon molecules.[citation needed] It is often[how often?] assumed in astrobiology that if life exists somewhere else in the universe, it will also be carbon based.[1][2] Critics refer to this assumption as carbon chauvinism.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Some people really need to brush up on their "science"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

LOL... Obviously you have no idea that all lifeforms on Earth are carbon based...

That was not an answer to this question:

Do you think plants are made of only carbon and oxygen?

a reply to: 727Sky

Maybe dumb to you but NOT to those who have done the research and experiments.

From those who actually did the research referred to by the political scientist who wrote the article you linked:

The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.

Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.

"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: DBCowboy

Lol you shouldnt label yourself as a denier. The true deniers are the ones buying this whole farce, people unable to make up their own mind without asking an "authority" what to think. This is a joke of epic proportions but the separation ignorance and confusion are so dense, people are unable to get over it. The bigger the lie, the easier it is accepted. 100monkeys anyone?

When you are on the side of Truth, in this case, climate change being something else than humanmade (although lets face it pollution is # and decrease the quality of life of everything) lets narrow it to a cosmic cycle, you are on the side of Truth, calling yourself denier is playing the game of the bots that want to instill confusion and doubt in your mind.

a reply to: _damon

Is it the Truth because you say so? You able to back up your truth?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Why should i? So you would feel comfortable trying to dismiss everything that doesnt follow the scientism agenda? I dont have to spoonfeed you.

I will end it by saying: did it ever occur to you that you didnt need science to tell you the sun shines light and warmth upon Earth?

100 monkeys, but with 7billions humans, nugh said. When they can make you believe any crap even children would recognize as wrong, what does it make of you?

a reply to: DBCowboy

You could shoot every man man woman and child. But it won't make any difference.

originally posted by: Greven
This 'CO2 is plant food' talking point is dumb.

Do you think plants are made of only carbon and oxygen?

There's a cute little animated movie called "The Lorax" based on the Dr. Seuss children's book. During one scene there's a debate over whether to plant a tree in the middle of town. The bad guy, Mr. O'Hare, who sells bottled air, is complaining about how useless trees are and the pro-tree girl replies they make clean air for free.

O'Hare: They do not!
Girl: Yes they do. It's called photosynthesis.
O'Hare: Photo... she's making that up! That's not a real word!

For some reason that movie came to mind... anyway...

CO2 is not just 'plant food' but it is also 'plant air.' Photosynthesis uses the instability of chlorine (why plants are green) to convert CO2 into oxygen and simple sugars used for growth in the presence of certain wavelengths of sunlight. We, along with other animal life, use the oxygen to fuel our chemical processes and release the resultant CO2. It's called symbiosis; each depends on the other.

Plant growth rates are a function of 3 variables: amount of sunlight (in the proper radiation band), temperature (within a certain range), and availability of CO2. Decrease any of these and growth rates will decrease; increase them and growth rates will increase. Greenhouse operators have known and used this information for a very long time.

Plants do not have to be made solely of carbon and oxygen for this to be true. What you have done in this post is try to disprove a scientific theory which has existed for centuries on the basis of a completely unrelated scientific observation. That is in itself unscientific. It's like saying the speed of light is not constant because your house is painted blue.

Incidentally, I do not believe "dumb" is a scientific term either...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Well those paid IPCC scientist are just using models that are wrong and can't predict anything

Do you know which report that was or just gonna take his word for it? I can't for the life of me find it anywhere besides that video. I guess I should just trust him? No reason for a politician to lie or stretch the truth right.

And you have a fair point about the jobs, I don't have that answer. That would have to be part of the plan to be able to retrain those folks. That is the same question I always have for the people that want to cut the gov and screw those people out of a job.

Well, you should know that a lot of those "IPCC scientists" have come forward to state that the IPCC doesn't really care about science. Yes, scientists who participated in the IPCC reports have said/written this.

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea.

Dear Colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
...

www.tsaugust.org...


46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

Former IPCC member from Argentina doubts man-made climate change

Like the above there are others, and of course that's not counting all the other scientists that are not with the IPCC and disagree with their claims.

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?


Not to mention the fact that the IPCC also has a lot of "experts" who are not really experts in "Climate Change"

...
Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.
...

The above can be found at the end of page 10 and beginning of page 11. Although on overall it is a good read.
www.probeinternational.org...

One of the many examples is the testimony of Prof Reiter to the UK parliamentary committee in 2005 that the IPCC claimed there were many experts in Climate Change but in fact many of those "experts' were either environmental activists, policymakers, and experts on other fields not associated with Climate Change or what could happen during such changes.

...
13. Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Niño, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motor cycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cell phones).


14. The amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge of the 22 authors. Much of the emphasis was on "changes in geographic range (latitude and altitude) and incidence (intensity and seasonality) of many vector-borne diseases" as "predicted" by computer models. Extensive coverage was given to these models, although they were all based on a highly simplistic model originally developed as an aid to malaria control campaigns. The authors acknowledged that the models did not take into account "the influence of local demographic, socioeconomic, and technical circumstances".


15. Glaring indicators of the ignorance of the authors included the statement that "although anopheline mosquito species that transmit malaria do not usually survive where the mean winter temperature drops below 16-18ºC, some higher latitude species are able to hibernate in sheltered sites". In truth, many tropical species must survive in temperature below this limit, and many temperate species can survive temperatures of -25ºC, even in "relatively exposed" places.


16. The authors also claimed that climate change was already causing malaria to move to higher altitudes (eg in Rwanda). They quoted information published by non-specialists that had been roundly denounced in the scientific literature. In the years that followed, these claims have repeatedly been made by environmental activists, despite rigorous investigation and overwhelming counter-evidence by some of the world's top malaria specialists. [85]Moreover, climate models suggest that temperature changes will be relatively small in the tropics, and carefully recorded meteorological data—eg in the Brook-Bond tea estates in Kenya—shows no demonstrable warming since the 1920s. The IPCC authors even claimed that "a relatively small increase in winter temperature" in Kenya (!) "could extend mosquito habitat and enable . . . malaria to reach beyond the usual altitude limit of around 2,500m to the large malaria free urban highland populations, eg Nairobi. This despite the fact that in the 1960s the mosquitoes were present above 3,000m and Nairobi is at only 1,600m!
...

www.publications.parliament.uk...

originally posted by: Phage

LOL... Obviously you have no idea that all lifeforms on Earth are carbon based...

That was not an answer to this question:

Do you think plants are made of only carbon and oxygen?

Humm, a response showing that all life on Earth is carbon based is proof that carbon is vital for all lifeforms to exist... Hence why CO2 is food for plants...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Hence why CO2 is food for plants...

It takes more than CO2 to grow plants.

Is oxygen food for animals?

a reply to: Phage

Oh, and Phage... I just noticed another one of your claims which once again is wrong...

In this thread you tried to claim that the Earth's magnetic field is now stronger than it has been for the past 50,000 years... Obviously a failed attempt by you to use a graph I have shown in the past to try to poke holes in my argument. But it is obvious you didn't notice a few things about that graph...

First of all, that graph was used in a peer-reviewed research paper published on May 1999...
"Global changes in intensity of the Earth's magnetic field during the past 800 kyr
Yohan Guyodo and Jean-Pierre Valet
Nature 399, 249-252(20 May 1999)"

Second, you didn't seem to notice that the latest data point posted in that graph was...



Perhaps you can see this better using this graph.



Third, and not last, since the 1990s the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening more, and it's now weakening 10 times faster than it was doing during the 1990s...

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now
By Kelly Dickerson, Staff Writer | July 8, 2014 11:29am ET

Earth's magnetic field, which protects the planet from huge blasts of deadly solar radiation, has been weakening over the past six months, according to data collected by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite array called Swarm.

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.
...

www.livescience.com...

Silly Phage... lol...

Oh, and one more thing, there is also peer-reviewed research which shows that magnetic reversals have occurred in the past within a human lifetime, as in full reversals occurring within 100 years.

Earth's Magnetic Field Could Flip in Our Lifetime
By Kelly Dickerson, Staff Writer | October 17, 2014 01:20pm ET
...
A magnetic field shift is old news. Around 800,000 years ago, magnetic north hovered over Antarctica and reindeer lived in magnetic south. The poles have flipped several times throughout Earth's history. Scientists have estimated that a flip cycle starts with the magnetic field weakening over the span of a few thousand years, then the poles flip and the field springs back up to full strength again. However, a new study shows that the last time the Earth's poles flipped, it only took 100 years for the reversal to happen.

The Earth's magnetic field is in a weakening stage right now. Data collected this summer by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite suggests the field is weakening 10 times faster than scientists originally thought. They predicted a flip could come within the next couple thousand years. It turns out that might be a very liberal estimate, scientists now say. [Infographic: Explore Earth's Atmosphere Top to Bottom]

"We don't know whether the next reversal will occur as suddenly as this [previous] one did, but we also don't know that it won't," Paul Renne, director of the Geochronology Center at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement.
...

www.livescience.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Plant growth rates are a function of 3 variables: amount of sunlight (in the proper radiation band), temperature (within a certain range), and availability of CO2.

Only three?

Reduced water; no effect?
Reduced or increased phosphates; no effect?
Reduced or increased nitrates; no effect?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

In this thread you tried to claim that the Earth's magnetic field is now stronger than it has been for the past 50,000 years...

You probably should have replied in that thread.
But tell me, what is the current field strength?