Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation. Full Story
TruthBSpoken

Bradenton, FL

#15171 May 12, 2012
About damn time you got here Sagelia!
I have had a terrible time watching over them, or not watching over them as preferred, just doing the judged. With a few exceptions, most here are bots, the rest follow, as stated above there are a few exceptions, those exceptions...I don'[t know why they are here. Thank you with my eternal grace.
Good bye for now ;)

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#15172 May 13, 2012
SpamBot wrote:
You must be realy[sic] embarrassed.
Your turn to be embarrassed.
ֿ
Toby

Portland, OR

#15174 May 13, 2012
Well with so many fundamentalist Republicans like Michele Bachmann promoting the idea that there is no such thing as global warming no wonder so many credulous Americans believe that there is no global warming, they worship their demagogues.

Bachmann believed that the earths atmosphere is made up of 3 % carbon dioxide, she doesn't know the difference between 3 % and 0.039 %. You know 3 % carbon dioxide would be slightly over 75 times the amount of carbon dioxide that exist in earths atmosphere. This is blatant stupidity on Bachmann's part humans wouldn't survive 24 hours if the earths atmosphere was 3 % carbon dioxide.
Toby

Portland, OR

#15175 May 13, 2012
Carbon dioxide levels presently are 396.18 ppm, can you imagine the levels at 75 times that level? If a human is exposed to carbon dioxide at levels at 5,000 ppm just for several hours they will experience headaches and nausea can you imagine the detrimental effects at 30,000 ppm?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#15177 May 13, 2012
Toby wrote:
Carbon dioxide levels presently are 396.18 ppm, can you imagine the levels at 75 times that level? If a human is exposed to carbon dioxide at levels at 5,000 ppm just for several hours they will experience headaches and nausea can you imagine the detrimental effects at 30,000 ppm?
I don't think many alarmists would notice.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#15178 May 13, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Your turn ...
ֿ
Now you turn to correct tina.

Long overdue. You must be really embarrassed that you don't read her posts.

LOL.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#15179 May 13, 2012
SpamBot wrote:
Now you turn to correct tina.
No, I didn't "turn to correct tina."
RU Kidding

La Vergne, TN

#15180 May 13, 2012
Toby wrote:
Carbon dioxide levels presently are 396.18 ppm, can you imagine the levels at 75 times that level? If a human is exposed to carbon dioxide at levels at 5,000 ppm just for several hours they will experience headaches and nausea can you imagine the detrimental effects at 30,000 ppm?
Hysteria gone wild.

Imagine if we had no carbon dioxide?

Oh plants, animals and humans need it for survival.
RU Kidding

La Vergne, TN

#15181 May 13, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Where's your reference?
Without it, merely a cheap shot at the subject.
You must be realy embarrassed.
Thanks for playing!!!

Time Mag Flashback: 1974 Issue Warns of Man-Made 'Global Cooling' By Greg Sheffield | July 24, 2006 | 10:48

Do you want to know the real reason there is global warming now? It's because people in 1974 panicked about news that humans were actually causing "global cooling." To remedy the situation, countries upped their pollution and cut down more trees. But now it's gotten too hot again.

“Government breeds Poverty”

Since: Jan 11

Woodbury

#15182 May 13, 2012
Did the world have just the right concentration of carbon dioxide at the pre-industrial level of 270 parts per million? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 "pollution" and about minimising our "carbon footprints", one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2. Humans and most other animals would do fine in a world with no atmospheric CO2 - but most plants stop growing if CO2 levels drop much below 150 ppm, so we would starve to death without at least this minimal amount. We are probably better off with our current 390 ppm than with the preindustrial 270 ppm, and we would be better off with still more CO2. For example, there is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.

What atmospheric levels of CO2 would be a direct threat to health? Both the United States Navy and NASA have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the navy recommends an upper limit of about 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5,000 ppm for missions of 1,000 days.

We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5,000 ppm to avoid harming people.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#15183 May 13, 2012
Livinn Woodbury wrote:
Did the world have just the right concentration of carbon dioxide at the pre-industrial level of 270 parts per million? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 "pollution" and about minimising our "carbon footprints", one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2. Humans and most other animals would do fine in a world with no atmospheric CO2 - but most plants stop growing if CO2 levels drop much below 150 ppm, so we would starve to death without at least this minimal amount. We are probably better off with our current 390 ppm than with the preindustrial 270 ppm, and we would be better off with still more CO2. For example, there is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.
What atmospheric levels of CO2 would be a direct threat to health? Both the United States Navy and NASA have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the navy recommends an upper limit of about 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5,000 ppm for missions of 1,000 days.
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5,000 ppm to avoid harming people.
What you posted ought to be common knowledge, but our left wing media/educational system is seeing to it that it is not.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#15184 May 13, 2012
Livinn Woodbury wrote:
Did the world have just the right concentration of carbon dioxide at the pre-industrial level of 270 parts per million? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 "pollution" and about minimising our "carbon footprints", one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2. Humans and most other animals would do fine in a world with no atmospheric CO2 - but most plants stop growing if CO2 levels drop much below 150 ppm, so we would starve to death without at least this minimal amount. We are probably better off with our current 390 ppm than with the preindustrial 270 ppm, and we would be better off with still more CO2. For example, there is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.
What atmospheric levels of CO2 would be a direct threat to health? Both the United States Navy and NASA have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the navy recommends an upper limit of about 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5,000 ppm for missions of 1,000 days.
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5,000 ppm to avoid harming people.
You evidently haven't been paying attention to one of Topix's Glowbull warming gurus:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
On the contrary. I have never claimed that animal life on planet earth could not survive without CO2. In fact, I claim that this is TOTALLY BOGUS. Animal life can live quite well with NO CO2.
http://www.topix.com/forum/travel/T65UHQ01CVF...
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
While photosynthesis is required to RECYLCE CO2, nowhere is there evidence of CO2 itself being vital to ANY life.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Give it glucose, water and oxygen though. NO CO2 or sunlight and it will live to a ripe old age. You see, it is the Glucose and Oxygen that is required. Sunlight and CO2 can provide them from the 'detoxification' of the Chloroplasts but that is just how the carbon is recycled to produce what IS necessary for green plant life. Glucose and oxygen.

I agree. Water is also vital for life. In fact, it is vital for all life as far as I know, unlike oxygen which is only vital to SOME life.

Yes, but photosynthesis is NOT life. It is a means or recylcing carbon to produce the glucose and oxygen in a purely photochemical reaction. It is no more a requirement of 'life' than evaporation of pee to make water even if the detoxified results are. There is life requirments and then there is the long term recylcing of nutrients. Two separate issues.
http://www.topix.net/forum/us/democrat/TGGBRG...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#15185 May 13, 2012
RU Kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for playing!!!
Time Mag Flashback: 1974 Issue Warns of Man-Made 'Global Cooling' By Greg Sheffield | July 24, 2006 | 10:48
Do you want to know the real reason there is global warming now? It's because people in 1974 panicked about news that humans were actually causing "global cooling." To remedy the situation, countries upped their pollution and cut down more trees. But now it's gotten too hot again.
But I'm only telling the truth: you did copy/paste "Time Mag Flashback: 1974 Issue Warns of Man-Made 'Global Cooling' By Greg Sheffield | July 24, 2006 | 10:48"

from a blog:

http://newsbusters.org/node/6546

instead of Time magazine itself. Look what it says:

What's the problem? For starters, Levitt and Dubner begin their chapter on climate change by citing the concerns over the risk of global cooling, which were held briefly by some scientists in the early 1970s that's a common trope for climate contrarians, who say that if concerns over cooling turned out to be false, maybe the same thing will come of the current worries over global warming.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,859...

You are a climate contrarian aka a denier. Thus you possess no science but copy/paste from a denier blog.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#15186 May 13, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
What you posted ought to be common knowledge, but our left wing media/educational system is seeing to it that it is not.
Look at the thread title, Steve: Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say.

Wake up! It's already too much CO2 in your brain.

Do you also smoke like another denier?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#15187 May 13, 2012
Livinn Woodbury wrote:
Did the world have just the right concentration of carbon dioxide at the pre-industrial level of 270 parts per million? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 "pollution" and about minimising our "carbon footprints", one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2. Humans and most other animals would do fine in a world with no atmospheric CO2 - but most plants stop growing if CO2 levels drop much below 150 ppm, so we would starve to death without at least this minimal amount. We are probably better off with our current 390 ppm than with the preindustrial 270 ppm, and we would be better off with still more CO2. For example, there is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.
What atmospheric levels of CO2 would be a direct threat to health? Both the United States Navy and NASA have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the navy recommends an upper limit of about 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5,000 ppm for missions of 1,000 days.
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5,000 ppm to avoid harming people.
NASA says: Despite limited data, the flight surgeons have empirically lowered their threshold for action to 5 mm Hg
due to concern about headache and other symptoms being linked to CO2 levels.

Aso: Several investigations have begun to evaluate the association between CO2 levels and reports of CO2-related symptoms such as headache and lethargy. However, there are not enough data to conclude causality. Furthermore, although the literature supports the observation that certain individuals are more susceptible to the effects of CO2 and that adaptation to microgravity may potentiate the effects of CO2, it remains unclear whether CO2 sensitivity is indeed increased in microgravity, given temporal and spatial limitations in the CO2 data as well as crew symptom reports. Given our current knowledge about crew symptoms and revised occupational exposure limits and SMACs, it appears reasonable to maintain a lower ppCO2 limit than what is currently set for ISS operations while heeding flight constraints. More research is needed to expand the evidence base for CO2 exposures and symptoms in microgravity to optimize in-flight exposure limits on the ISS and future programs.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#15188 May 13, 2012
RU Kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Hysteria gone wild.
Imagine if we had no carbon dioxide?
Oh plants, animals and humans need it for survival.
NUTS!

You are a very uneducated poster.

Go back to elementary school.
RU Kidding

La Vergne, TN

#15189 May 13, 2012
Good info, I like bumper orange crops too.
Livinn Woodbury wrote:
Did the world have just the right concentration of carbon dioxide at the pre-industrial level of 270 parts per million? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 "pollution" and about minimising our "carbon footprints", one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2. Humans and most other animals would do fine in a world with no atmospheric CO2 - but most plants stop growing if CO2 levels drop much below 150 ppm, so we would starve to death without at least this minimal amount. We are probably better off with our current 390 ppm than with the preindustrial 270 ppm, and we would be better off with still more CO2. For example, there is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.
What atmospheric levels of CO2 would be a direct threat to health? Both the United States Navy and NASA have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the navy recommends an upper limit of about 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5,000 ppm for missions of 1,000 days.
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5,000 ppm to avoid harming people.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#15190 May 13, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
What you posted ought to be common knowledge, but our left wing media/educational system is seeing to it that it is not.
FYI:

The researchers said they now want to determine how human-generated carbon dioxide will affect the planet when there is not an ice age.

CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age, Shakun said,and it took about 10,000 years to do it. Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase in CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond.

While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming, Shakun added.

Source: redOrbit ( http://s.tt/18RyW )
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#15191 May 13, 2012
Livinn Woodbury wrote:
Did the world have just the right concentration of carbon dioxide at the pre-industrial level of 270 parts per million? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 "pollution" and about minimising our "carbon footprints", one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2. Humans and most other animals would do fine in a world with no atmospheric CO2 - but most plants stop growing if CO2 levels drop much below 150 ppm, so we would starve to death without at least this minimal amount. We are probably better off with our current 390 ppm than with the preindustrial 270 ppm, and we would be better off with still more CO2. For example, there is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.
What atmospheric levels of CO2 would be a direct threat to health? Both the United States Navy and NASA have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the navy recommends an upper limit of about 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5,000 ppm for missions of 1,000 days.
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5,000 ppm to avoid harming people.
I agree. What I'd like to add is that the 270ppm levels are local. The number used to justify the increase in CO2 is the antarctic ice core data. The CO2 ppm levels are the levels collected at antarctica.

CO2, like water vapor, is a well distibuted gas. And like water vapor varies by location. More CO2 at low elevations and low latitudes than at high elevations and high latitudes. Vostok, the most cited proxy study, is at 95*S latitude and 11,000 ft elevation.

Altho our measurements of CO2 are stated at .389ppm that's a calculated number derived from a chemical process. Paris, can have 900ppm during the summertime, with the surrounding countryside at 415ppm. Phoenix can have 600ppm in the summer. Daily CO2 varies, it's higher in the daytime than at night. Higher in summer, than winter.

If your interested, here's a paper on the Beck reconstructions of atmospheric CO2. Page 10 for a quick look, but read the paper to see how the different areas will have different CO2 values.

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#15192 May 13, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. What I'd like to add is that the 270ppm levels are local. The number used to justify the increase in CO2 is the antarctic ice core data. The CO2 ppm levels are the levels collected at antarctica.
CO2, like water vapor, is a well distibuted gas. And like water vapor varies by location. More CO2 at low elevations and low latitudes than at high elevations and high latitudes. Vostok, the most cited proxy study, is at 95*S latitude and 11,000 ft elevation.
Altho[sic] our measurements of CO2 are stated at .389ppm that's a calculated number derived from a chemical process. Paris, can have 900ppm during the summertime, with the surrounding countryside at 415ppm. Phoenix can have 600ppm in the summer. Daily CO2 varies, it's higher in the daytime than at night. Higher in summer, than winter.
If your[sic] interested, here's a paper on the Beck reconstructions of atmospheric CO2. Page 10 for a quick look, but read the paper to see how the different areas will have different CO2 values.
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2...
What! You posted: "Altho[sic] our measurements of CO2 are stated at .389ppm .."

You know you are not making any measurements. Once again, you are trying to give a fake impression when you are without any science.

So weird!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 39 min Cur n Paste 1,515
Global warming kooks sign petition to lower sun... (Mar '14) 44 min IBdaMann 4
U.S., EU want U.N. to stress low cost of climat... 1 hr IBdaMann 1
Busted: More global warming denial 'science' fo... 1 hr IBdaMann 2
Why Climate 'Uncertainty' Is No Excuse For Doin... 2 hr IBdaMann 1
5 Reasons why global warming also known as clim... 2 hr IBdaMann 37
Hottest September On Record 2 hr IBdaMann 11

Global Warming People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE