We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

Actually Al Gore wants everyone to pony up trillions and him and his elite group will work on the problem, they didn't say fix though.

 

wow 10 deg? so i guess the 22 deg increase im going to see wed is going to start killing off all the plants! lol

just out of curiosity we have shown warming but the lack of doomsday weather kind of ruins your whole point..

and lets not forget all the reports of increased plant growth..

 

This can't possibly be an important issue.

Gore isn't a scientist - he's a politician and a businessman.

We should be looking to serious sources of information.

 

Plants don't work like that. They can survive serious problems for short periods of time - in fact, problems far worse than you point out.

However, they will not thrive (or possibly even survive) in such conditions if those conditions are present too frequently or for periods that are too long.

Also, such changes allow for threats to survive. For example, when winters get short and mild, invading species of insects, plants, fungus, bacteria, etc. can survive and thus bring down the type of plant you were hoping to survive.

As for plant growth, keep in mind that plants always have a variety of requirements. And, those requirements can't just be substituted for each other. That is, providing more co2 doesn't help if there isn't enough water.

So for example, the multi-year drought in Syria is considered to be consistent with and quite possibly a result of warming. The agricultural failure then forced millions of farmers into cities in search of food - which wasn't available. Assad had no answer, and used his military to suppress the hungry population.

Without the needed water, NO amount of co2 was going to slow that sequence. Agriculture needed water. Period.

Think about it in human terms - if you can't get water, getting more oxygen isn't going to help. In fact, even more food is not going to solve the problem.

 

droughts have happened before the industrial age and will happen after.. there is no evidence that droughts have increased due to the rise of co2.. just more end of world scare tactics..

and what happens if the solar output drops down say 1% or so and we get thrown into an ice age? now your talking bad times for plant life on this planet.. It only took a drop of 4% to put the earth into a 35 million year iceage.. and that was with 4500ppm co2.. we dont have much of a safety net now so just a small change can be catastrophic..

you need to do your part and pump as much co2 into the atmosphere to help protect us from the next ice age.. if not for the children then do it for the plants!

 

OK man, if you really think your simplistic analysis just disproves the conclusions of actual climatologists, I can't help you.

 

You're trying to be funny on a topic that climatologists the world over are projecting as very real.

So, I'm losing interest.

 

Wasn't 400 the endless feedback loop of doom point?
Past that what's the point, by your own beliefs?
Climate change occurs. People have some form of effect on it but not that much.
The scam is where they tell you "and if you let me tax the piss out of you and control your life I can fix it!" It's a confidence play. Most political issues are. (In before you say " but but bush/reagan/trump/republicans...". Not a Republican and my statement is not limited to climate change)

 

Just because you are ignorant of the repercussions of climate change - (Snow in Texas for example)- does not mean others are.

 

No, Al Gore's, a con man.

 

Actually their food import bill is around $2 bln and the textiles exports are $20+bln. But they have an ongoing trade deficit overall.

I'm not proffering solutions, I'm merely saying the loss of trading infrastructure is a bigger problem than the loss of housing or even arable land.

 

I would think that biologists and Botanists would be the experts you listen to in regards to what conditions plaint life thrives in..

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/02/15/flowers-love-co2/

"Norikane et al. grew orchids in glass bottles with atmospheric CO2 concentrations maintained at ambient levels of CO2 (around 380 ppm), 3,000 ppm, and 10,000 ppm to explore what would happen with “super-elevated” levels of CO2; they used cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFL’s) to light the plants throughout the experiment. There is a lot of information in the article, but the plantlets absolutely loved the high levels of CO2. When comparing ambient to 10,000 ppm CO2, the young plantlets increased the number of leaves by 29%, they more than tripled the number of roots, they nearly doubled plant height, root length increased by a factor of six, stem diameter increased by 50%, fresh and dry weight of the shoots nearly tripled, and fresh and dry weight of the roots increased by a factor of 20! They transferred the plantlets and after another 30 days, the goodness kept right on going with benefits to every part of the plants (including the chlorophyll content). In their abstract, Norikane et al. note “growth of plantlets, in particular the roots, was remarkably enhanced” (it is very rare to see scientists referring to their results as remarkable). They state at the very end of the article “we will expect that super-elevated CO2 enrichment under CCFL make possible more efficient and higher quality commercial production of clonal orchid plantlets.”

 

This would provide you much more cover is the climatologists actually had defensible conclusions to begin with.... And because you cannot actually substantively prove the conclusions yourself... well... you seem unable to help your own comments.

 

Actual evidence based science not model based projections and not peer review papers which most often do not stand the test of time. So far

Which climatologists, the ones you agree with or the ones you don't?

 

real and exaggerated would be a better description. And although I posted in a humorous manner it doesn't change the facts. That what I said was true.. we are historically in a co2 famine. If we get tossed into another ice age then you are looking at real catastrophic scenario. Humans and life on this planet can deal with the planet warming up. but freezing will trigger another mass extinction event.. thats the truth
so stop trying to freeze our planet!

 

If you want to live on a Planet with a 10,000 CO2 ppm Concentration, that's your choice. I don't.

 

The 97% of climatologists.

 

I don't care to respond to your trolling comments. Take up the debate with NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and EVERY recognized group of national or international scientists - ALL of whom maintain a non-dissenting opinion. I'm sure that they would love to engage with you for a few minutes at least.

 

The truly funny part about the faithful is that when approached by actual scientific review, they aren't able to actually understand the science they so attack others for "fearing, or denying", and like this particular case, they will deny the existence of this type of analysis because it undermines their dogmatic faith.

 

Just be honest. You have no ability to respond, so even though you actually responded, you did so without effect. Typical.

Your comment is reflexive. It's like those struggling in the middle ages always referring to the church for their intellect. Astonishing.

 

Communism requires the institution of force. I do believe you are willfully conflating such ideologies with charity or social responsibility.

Behaviour engaged by choice cannot be, by any measure considered 'communism'. It can be considered 'communalism' if you wish - but you didn't wish.

Thanks for explaining why leftists' charitable contributions lag so far behind that of conservatives.

I don't contribute to charity because of what I'll receive. I do so because of the benefits given. You've derailed the point because you willfully do not want to acknowledge the truth of what I said.

 

You had better stay with legal issues. One Celsius degree equals precisely 1.8 Fahrenheit degrees.

"Rapid" increase in temperature. Hilarious. Really, MrT"Legal".

Psychopathic predictions of catastrophes haven't come to pass yet, so keep making these ridiculous predictions.
It's SO VERY "scientific," this fearmongering.

 

Very much so, but also because charity doesn't provide rights nor adequate consistency / reliability to work out of the problem. Charity can only ever be a band-aid, never a solution.

I'm sure many people do, but that's obviously insufficient motivation to remove world hunger, so its hardly going to be sufficient to reduce carbon emissions.

 

Bangladesh has a huge problem with starvation, and that is NOT measured by their food imports or other trade numbers - other that to point out the insufficiency of that direction.

You mentioned a harbor. Harbor's can be built. We know how to do that and there is huge money available to cover the cost, since trade is lucrative.

Solutions for people who are trying to escape starvation is far more difficult and costs way more lives. People movement is a national security concern, due to the high likelihood of revolution or failed state status.

Even the few million who are leaving Syria are a serious problem.

 

You have zip to support this crazy idea of a potentially freezing planet.

Let's get back to discussing reality based on evidence,.