quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium More CO2 - more oxygen because plants convert CO2 to oxygen. Higher levels of CO2 result in explosion of life, because CO2 is fuel for plants to live, their food. Life was abundant, diverse before dinosaurs were extinguished, because of abundance of CO2. Even spiders, bugs, trees WERE GINANTIC - because there was so much food for plants and animals ... However, today there are less trees every day, so not enough CO2 converters to do the job. CO2 makes up ONLY 0.4 percent of atmosphere. Is that too much? This number WILL DECREASE and has been decreasing over the hundreds of thousands of years up until recently, because plants store carbon in the ground, not all is released back for the cycle - there's a reason why millions of years ago there was a lot more CO2 in atmosphere and today, over the long period of time it is a small number now. Nitrogen is increasing in the atmosphere as a result, and oxygen is decreasing. Some scientists estimate that anywhere from 20 million years from now the drastically low levels of CO2 and dropping levels of oxygen will make our atmosphere unsustainable to life. If you are saying that high levels of CO2 is poisinous to life, what about the Kambrian explosion (sorry for bad spelling), what about the dinosaur era? There were higher amounts of BOTH CO2 AND oxygen it atmosphere. Plants loved, animals loved it because there was lots of plants. Cut off 0.4 percent of C02 to less and we'll see who will suffer.

You are just making this up aren't you?

Put forth some sources on your surmissions about CO2 levels decreasing.


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel You are just making this up aren't you? Put forth some sources on your surmissions about CO2 levels decreasing. MrS

First, read about how good oxygen was to early lifeforms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Catastrophe

That shows that its not about "poisoning", life evolves to sustain in CO2, oxygen, methane, nitrogen compositions. It is CO2 today that is in danger of decline - 0.4% (proof for this can be found anywhere, from high school biology books, to britannica and wikipedia) is a much smaller number than before, though not necessarily the smallest amount in the last million years.

"Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly 78% nitrogen,21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, in addition to water vapor. This mixture of gases is commonly known as air."

http://des.memphis.edu/lurbano/Geog...er_03/img7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...proportions.svg



BY MASS COMPOSITION:

75.523% nitrogen
23.133% oxygen
1.288% argon
0.053% carbon dioxide
0.001267% neon
0.00029% methane
0.00033% krypton
0.000724% helium
0.0000038 % hydrogen

I ACTUALLY LIED, THE ATMOSPHERE IS MADE NOT FROM 0.4% CO2, BUT ACTUALLY 0.04%!!!!! HAHAHA .... LOL

About the atmosphere of today:

"One of the earliest types of bacteria were the cyanobacteria. Fossil evidence indicates that bacteria shaped like these existed approximately 3.3 billion years ago and were the first oxygen-producing evolving phototropic organisms. They were responsible for the initial conversion of the earth's atmosphere from an anoxic state to an oxic state (that is, from a state without oxygen to a state with oxygen) during the period 2.7 to 2.2 billion years ago. Being the first to carry out oxygenic photosynthesis, they were able to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, playing a major role in oxygenating the atmosphere.

Photosynthesising plants would later evolve and convert more carbon dioxide into oxygen. Over time, excess carbon became locked in fossil fuels, sedimentary rocks (notably limestone), and animal shells. As oxygen was released, it reacted with ammonia to release nitrogen; in addition, bacteria would also convert ammonia into nitrogen. But most of the modern day level of nitrogen are due mostly to sunlight-powered photolysis of ammonia released steadily over the aeons from volcanoes.

As more plants appeared, the levels of oxygen increased significantly, while carbon dioxide levels dropped. At first the oxygen combined with various elements (such as iron), but eventually oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, resulting in mass extinctions and further evolution. With the appearance of an ozone layer (ozone is an allotrope of oxygen) lifeforms were better protected from ultraviolet radiation. This oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere is the "third atmosphere". 200 - 250 million years ago, up to 35 percent of the atmosphere was oxygen (bubbles of ancient atmosphere were found in an amber).

This modern atmosphere has a composition which is enforced by oceanic blue-green algae as well as geological processes. O2 does not remain naturally free in an atmosphere, but tends to be consumed (by inorganic chemical reactions, as well as by animals, bacteria, and even land plants at night), while CO2 tends to be produced by respiration and decomposition and oxidation of organic matter. Oxygen would vanish within a few million years due to chemical reactions and CO2 dissolves easily in water and would be gone in millennia if not replaced. Both are maintained by biological productivity and geological forces seemingly working hand-in-hand to maintain reasonably steady levels over millions of years."

REFERENCES:

Alfvén, Hannes; Gustaf Arrhenius (1976). “ORIGIN OF THE EARTH'S OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERE”,
Evolution of the Solar System. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.





"In 1953, University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller sent an electrical current through a chamber containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, yielding amino acids, considered to be the building blocks of life.

"I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again," Toon said. "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept."

In the new CU-Boulder and UW scenario, it is a hydrogen and CO2-dominated atmosphere that leads to the production of organic molecules, not the methane and ammonia atmosphere used in Miller's experiment, Toon said.

Tian and other team members said the collaborative research effort will continue. The duration of the hydrogen-rich atmosphere era on early Earth is still unknown, they said."

REFERENCE:
http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348
(Professors, Ph.D's doing experiments proving importance of CO2)

After all, plants came first. They needed CO2, not oxygen to live. CO2 is very important for life to exist. The main point of this report, well-referenced and detailed, is to show that CO2 is a positive aspect of current developments. Human destruction is not.

"Air pollution is a chemical, physical (e.g. particulate matter), or biological agent that modifies the natural characteristics of the atmosphere. Stratospheric ozone depletion due to air pollution has long been recognized as a threat to human health as well as to the earth's ecosystems.

Worldwide air pollution is responsible for large numbers of deaths and cases of respiratory disease. Enforced air quality standards, like the Clean Air Act in the United States, have reduced the presence of some pollutants. While major stationary sources are often identified with air pollution, the greatest source of emissions are actually mobile sources, principally the automobile. Gases such as carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming, have recently gained recognition as pollutants."

THERE'S THE PROBLEM, not C02. We need CO2. There's only 0.04 percent of it in atmosphere, and its been dropping in the last few million years, and eventually if the drop continues it will extinguish life, as stated by Ph.D's, scientists alike.

Hmmm, below article:

"If 10 years' growth of the Amazon rainforest were released in one year's fires this would add an additional 10 x 1.7 = 17 ppm C02 into the atmosphere in that year.

If the Amazon rainforest becomes savannah then 90% of the carbon currently locked up in bio-mass would be released. Can we estimate how much carbon this represents?

Assume trees at 20 metre spacing, therefore 5 x 5 = 25 trees per hectare. (100m x 100m)
Assume 10 tons of carbon per tree, therefore 25 x 10 = 250 tons of carbon per hectare.

1 square km = 100 hectares. Therefore weight of carbon = 25,000 tons / sq. km.

The total area of the Amazon rainforest = 4,000,000 sq. kms. approx.

Therefore weight of carbon in trees = 25,000 x 4,000,000 = 100 billion tons

If 90% of this carbon returns to the atmosphere as CO2 this would increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.9 x 100 x 0.85 (see (B) above) = 76 ppm.

The increases in atmospheric CO2 levels described above are significant increases when compared to historic levels (280 ppm in 1850 and 170ppm.in the recent geological past) and also the rate of change is accelerating. We are entering unknown territory. However we can project what might happen on the basis of what we do know and the possibilities are awesome. These possibilities will be described in future articles to be published soon."

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/jo...bal_warming.htm

YEAH, SURE, emissions cuts will stop CO2 increases, specially from deforestation (sarcasm) ... YEAH! AND RAINFORESTS ARE GETTING CUT DOWN RIGHT NOW, LOTS OF TREES!

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium blah blah blah kyoto protocol blah blah blah

I never said I believe in the kyoto protocol nor even support it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium "human misery means nothing to me considering how much misery WE, HUMANS, have inflicted on nature."

You're your own enemy but savor this knowledge:

quote:

Originally posted by LoneGunman (another forum) The powers that be have long been following various global depopulation agenda's - the general thinking being not that there should be an improvement in all lives, but that the world population itself, needs to be culled down in order to maintain life for the 'elite' populations. Despite the fact that Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea. It is commonly accepted that the entire world population could all fit into the state of Texas and each have an acre of their own land. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture....rchive%5C200212 %5CCUL20021206b.html Here's a page dedicated to Henry Kissinger's 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fo...sm_jb_1995.html Here's a report: The plan to poison S-E Asia http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...l?oneclick=true "World-famous microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet, the Nobel prize winner revered as Australia's greatest medical research scientist, secretly urged the government to develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other "overpopulated" countries of South-East Asia. The revelation is contained in top-secret files declassified by the National Archives of Australia, despite resistance from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases." Here's a 1991 quote from oceanographer Jacques Cousteau: "The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer....This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it." Against this backdrop of thinking, its not surprising that we read U.S. to create a bird flu virus mutation http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...30452-8400r.htm "Atlanta, GA, Mar. 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has begun a series of experiments to see how likely the bird flu virus could result in a human pandemic.. The six-month series of experiments seeks to simulate the mixing and matching of genes from the H5N1 avian flu virus that has plagued Asia and a common human flu virus that public-health experts fear could turn avian flu into a pandemic, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. CDC scientists inside an ultra-secure laboratory have started swapping the genes of the H5N1 avian virus with the genes of an H3N2 virus, the strain behind most recent human flu outbreaks." It's also not surprising that this current SA government seems to be not minding that 600 people a day are dying from AID's. (If they 'cared' we'd see emergency measures and major clampdowns and enforced testing) speeches of 'concern' while 600 deaths a day continue, indicate its exactly what they want in reality. A useful removal of 'excess people' - who'll never be needed to be employed, schooled, housed, fed. Good for the ANC budget projections. Callous, sure - but absolutely in keeping and in line with the overall global depopulation agenda.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 I never said I believe in the kyoto protocol nor even support it. You're your own enemy but savor this knowledge:

Thank you for that quote. I knew about the crazy Australian scientist and governments playing with diseases, and their dirty tricks using genocides and control ....

I was a little angry and harsh when said that I dont care about humans - well, I do care, not deeply, but I am a proud homosapien ... but there's little to be proud of, actually. We surround ourselves with destruction, oppression of others, destruction of nature, development and use of diseases (as you quoted), well ... you know, when you get to find all this and more, you just get very angry to be a human being. Shows how primitive we are. Shows how all accomplishment is mostly for nothing. We accomplish things for the richest of our kind, and disregard the lives and future of most of our own species. Its all about making your own living, living in ignorance ... there's hardly anything to look after. I just finished watching WHO KILLED ELECTRIC CAR, the DVD that I just bought, and it made me very angry. Very, very angry. Human race is doomed, the sooner the more likely nature will recover better. Thats why I said spiteful words against my own species.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium First, read about how good oxygen was to early lifeforms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Catastrophe That shows that its not about "poisoning", life evolves to sustain in CO2, oxygen, methane, nitrogen compositions. It is CO2 today that is in danger of decline - 0.4% (proof for this can be found anywhere, from high school biology books, to britannica and wikipedia) is a much smaller number than before, though not necessarily the smallest amount in the last million years. "Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly 78% nitrogen,21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, in addition to water vapor. This mixture of gases is commonly known as air." http://des.memphis.edu/lurbano/Geog...er_03/img7.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...proportions.svg BY MASS COMPOSITION: 75.523% nitrogen 23.133% oxygen 1.288% argon 0.053% carbon dioxide 0.001267% neon 0.00029% methane 0.00033% krypton 0.000724% helium 0.0000038 % hydrogen I ACTUALLY LIED, THE ATMOSPHERE IS MADE NOT FROM 0.4% CO2, BUT ACTUALLY 0.04%!!!!! HAHAHA .... LOL

Irrelevant, your confusing effect size with volume. There does not need to be an incredible amount of volume to produce an incredible effect, you're using false logic. Also it would serve you well in your arguments to stop thinking that we are at the beginning of the earth when single cellular organisms thrived with CO2. Humans, i.e. us, do not thrive on CO2. Don't believe me? Go lock yourself in the garage with your car on and see how that goes.
About the atmosphere of today:

quote:

"One of the earliest types of bacteria were the cyanobacteria. Fossil evidence indicates that bacteria shaped like these existed approximately 3.3 billion years ago and were the first oxygen-producing evolving phototropic organisms. They were responsible for the initial conversion of the earth's atmosphere from an anoxic state to an oxic state (that is, from a state without oxygen to a state with oxygen) during the period 2.7 to 2.2 billion years ago. Being the first to carry out oxygenic photosynthesis, they were able to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, playing a major role in oxygenating the atmosphere. Photosynthesising plants would later evolve and convert more carbon dioxide into oxygen. Over time, excess carbon became locked in fossil fuels, sedimentary rocks (notably limestone), and animal shells. As oxygen was released, it reacted with ammonia to release nitrogen; in addition, bacteria would also convert ammonia into nitrogen. But most of the modern day level of nitrogen are due mostly to sunlight-powered photolysis of ammonia released steadily over the aeons from volcanoes. As more plants appeared, the levels of oxygen increased significantly, while carbon dioxide levels dropped. At first the oxygen combined with various elements (such as iron), but eventually oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, resulting in mass extinctions and further evolution. With the appearance of an ozone layer (ozone is an allotrope of oxygen) lifeforms were better protected from ultraviolet radiation. This oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere is the "third atmosphere". 200 - 250 million years ago, up to 35 percent of the atmosphere was oxygen (bubbles of ancient atmosphere were found in an amber). This modern atmosphere has a composition which is enforced by oceanic blue-green algae as well as geological processes. O2 does not remain naturally free in an atmosphere, but tends to be consumed (by inorganic chemical reactions, as well as by animals, bacteria, and even land plants at night), while CO2 tends to be produced by respiration and decomposition and oxidation of organic matter. Oxygen would vanish within a few million years due to chemical reactions and CO2 dissolves easily in water and would be gone in millennia if not replaced. Both are maintained by biological productivity and geological forces seemingly working hand-in-hand to maintain reasonably steady levels over millions of years." REFERENCES: Alfvén, Hannes; Gustaf Arrhenius (1976). “ORIGIN OF THE EARTH'S OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERE”, Evolution of the Solar System. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Again, this is irrelevant to the effect CO2 is having NOW on our climate. The earths biological composition is not the same as it was millions of years ago. We don't have the same cyanobacteria, we don't have the same abundance of trees and other CO2 absorbing organisms. Get over these old models. There is a reason why newer models and contemporary scientists don't use models from the earths inception to predict future weather patterns.

quote:

"In 1953, University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller sent an electrical current through a chamber containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, yielding amino acids, considered to be the building blocks of life. "I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again," Toon said. "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept." In the new CU-Boulder and UW scenario, it is a hydrogen and CO2-dominated atmosphere that leads to the production of organic molecules, not the methane and ammonia atmosphere used in Miller's experiment, Toon said. Tian and other team members said the collaborative research effort will continue. The duration of the hydrogen-rich atmosphere era on early Earth is still unknown, they said." REFERENCE: http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348 (Professors, Ph.D's doing experiments proving importance of CO2)

This is also irrelevant. Why do you insist on quoting things that are meaningless to the actual discussion?

quote:

After all, plants came first. They needed CO2, not oxygen to live. CO2 is very important for life to exist. The main point of this report, well-referenced and detailed, is to show that CO2 is a positive aspect of current developments. Human destruction is not. "Air pollution is a chemical, physical (e.g. particulate matter), or biological agent that modifies the natural characteristics of the atmosphere. Stratospheric ozone depletion due to air pollution has long been recognized as a threat to human health as well as to the earth's ecosystems. Worldwide air pollution is responsible for large numbers of deaths and cases of respiratory disease. Enforced air quality standards, like the Clean Air Act in the United States, have reduced the presence of some pollutants. While major stationary sources are often identified with air pollution, the greatest source of emissions are actually mobile sources, principally the automobile. Gases such as carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming, have recently gained recognition as pollutants." THERE'S THE PROBLEM, not C02. We need CO2. There's only 0.04 percent of it in atmosphere, and its been dropping in the last few million years, and eventually if the drop continues it will extinguish life, as stated by Ph.D's, scientists alike.

How does the above paragraph prove that CO2 is not the problem?

quote:

Hmmm, below article: "If 10 years' growth of the Amazon rainforest were released in one year's fires this would add an additional 10 x 1.7 = 17 ppm C02 into the atmosphere in that year. If the Amazon rainforest becomes savannah then 90% of the carbon currently locked up in bio-mass would be released. Can we estimate how much carbon this represents? Assume trees at 20 metre spacing, therefore 5 x 5 = 25 trees per hectare. (100m x 100m) Assume 10 tons of carbon per tree, therefore 25 x 10 = 250 tons of carbon per hectare. 1 square km = 100 hectares. Therefore weight of carbon = 25,000 tons / sq. km. The total area of the Amazon rainforest = 4,000,000 sq. kms. approx. Therefore weight of carbon in trees = 25,000 x 4,000,000 = 100 billion tons If 90% of this carbon returns to the atmosphere as CO2 this would increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.9 x 100 x 0.85 (see (B) above) = 76 ppm. The increases in atmospheric CO2 levels described above are significant increases when compared to historic levels (280 ppm in 1850 and 170ppm.in the recent geological past) and also the rate of change is accelerating. We are entering unknown territory. However we can project what might happen on the basis of what we do know and the possibilities are awesome. These possibilities will be described in future articles to be published soon." http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/jo...bal_warming.htm YEAH, SURE, emissions cuts will stop CO2 increases, specially from deforestation (sarcasm) ... YEAH! AND RAINFORESTS ARE GETTING CUT DOWN RIGHT NOW, LOTS OF TREES!

You are an idiot if you think this is not a multiple step solution process. I've told you before, we don't just need to stop cutting down trees, we need to do multiple things. Cutting down emissions is one of them. Why can't you just highlight the importance of other measures to complement this one instead of just trying to deny something that is actually happening? You're damn posts and information contradict your stupid whinnying about CO2 not causing warming. Yes there are other important things and maybe even more important but you won't enlighten anyone by trying to deny something so basic.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Irrelevant, your confusing effect size with volume. There does not need to be an incredible amount of volume to produce an incredible effect, you're using false logic. Also it would serve you well in your arguments to stop thinking that we are at the beginning of the earth when single cellular organisms thrived with CO2. Humans, i.e. us, do not thrive on CO2. Don't believe me? Go lock yourself in the garage with your car on and see how that goes. About the atmosphere of today: Again, this is irrelevant to the effect CO2 is having NOW on our climate. The earths biological composition is not the same as it was millions of years ago. We don't have the same cyanobacteria, we don't have the same abundance of trees and other CO2 absorbing organisms. Get over these old models. There is a reason why newer models and contemporary scientists don't use models from the earths inception to predict future weather patterns. This is also irrelevant. Why do you insist on quoting things that are meaningless to the actual discussion? How does the above paragraph prove that CO2 is not the problem? You are an idiot if you think this is not a multiple step solution process. I've told you before, we don't just need to stop cutting down trees, we need to do multiple things. Cutting down emissions is one of them. Why can't you just highlight the importance of other measures to complement this one instead of just trying to deny something that is actually happening? You're damn posts and information contradict your stupid whinnying about CO2 not causing warming. Yes there are other important things and maybe even more important but you won't enlighten anyone by trying to deny something so basic.

Just like I thought. You just brushed my points aside, because I wasnt giving you the article you wanted to see. You dont want to believe, you dont have to. Have fun waving your Kyoto Protocol, but you should know full well that it will not slow down increase of CO2 levels in atmosphere. Human damage is not covered by Kyoto. I am just using logic here. You dont believe it, well thats your problem. Dont cry about environmental damage then, and if you dont think its happening then you are ignorant.

All those articles I posted are important to do with current situation: history, importance of CO2 (life depends on it), the real problems like destruction of rainforest and its effects on levels, and you even dispute the SMALL amount of CO2 in atmosphere!!! I GAVE YOU TWO approches on it, BY VOLUME and BY MASS. What else you want to know - its composition by AREA???? and you still think its dubious. Man oh man, well well ... thats what I call ignorance!

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Just like I thought. You just brushed my points aside, because I wasnt giving you the article you wanted to see. You dont want to believe, you dont have to. Have fun waving your Kyoto Protocol, but you should know full well that it will not slow down increase of CO2 levels in atmosphere. Human damage is not covered by Kyoto. I am just using logic here. You dont believe it, well thats your problem. Dont cry about environmental damage then, and if you dont think its happening then you are ignorant. All those articles I posted are important to do with current situation: history, importance of CO2 (life depends on it), the real problems like destruction of rainforest and its effects on levels, and you even dispute the SMALL amount of CO2 in atmosphere!!! I GAVE YOU TWO approches on it, BY VOLUME and BY MASS. and you still think its dubious. Man oh man, well well ... thats what I call ignorance!

Kyoto protocol calls for less CO2 emissions. I do believe this would have an effect on CO2 in the atmosphere no?

No one on earth is disputing the importance of CO2, not sure why you keep bringing that up. CO2 can be comparable to fat-soluable vitamins in humans. It is needed in very small doses. If you increase the dosage, even so that its still a tiny dose, it will kill you.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Kyoto protocol calls for less CO2 emissions. I do believe this would have an effect on CO2 in the atmosphere no? No one on earth is disputing the importance of CO2, not sure why you keep bringing that up. CO2 can be comparable to fat-soluable vitamins in humans. It is needed in very small doses. If you increase the dosage, even so that its still a tiny dose, it will kill you.

Well, a lot of things can kill you. The nitrogen in the atmosphere is bad for you. Oxygen is bad for you, too!

http://www.ccmtutorials.com/rs/oxygen/page16.htm

So what? At least CO2 promotes life, its life for plants. And trust me, at current 0.04 percent its hardly harmful. Its the pollution and CFC's / chlorine that pose threat, sulfurs. Leave the CO2 alone!

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Exactly, anything is harmful is unnatural doses. So when carbon levels in the atmosphere increase 70%, things are going to get fucked up.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Just like I thought. You just brushed my points aside, because I wasnt giving you the article you wanted to see. You dont want to believe, you dont have to. Have fun waving your Kyoto Protocol, but you should know full well that it will not slow down increase of CO2 levels in atmosphere. Human damage is not covered by Kyoto. I am just using logic here. You dont believe it, well thats your problem. Dont cry about environmental damage then, and if you dont think its happening then you are ignorant. All those articles I posted are important to do with current situation: history, importance of CO2 (life depends on it), the real problems like destruction of rainforest and its effects on levels, and you even dispute the SMALL amount of CO2 in atmosphere!!! I GAVE YOU TWO approches on it, BY VOLUME and BY MASS. What else you want to know - its composition by AREA???? and you still think its dubious. Man oh man, well well ... thats what I call ignorance!

I did not contradict, or imply that those articles are untruthful, I do contend that they are not very relevant to future weather patterns and the effect on us humans. Humans did not develop with high levels of CO2 present, we can't handle CO2. You're making inferences from facts but you have no data to support you're inferences, that's my beef. It's perfectly fine that CO2 is important for life, and it's obviously true that it contributed to the beginning of life on earth. The problem is that even at 0.04% in the atmosphere it's causing change, and that change is noxious for us humans. What i did say was that you are confusing actual volume with the effect size of that volume. You do not need to have a great volume to have a significant effect. Case in point: CFC's and the Ozone layer. What i also said was that you are confusing past conditions that are not relevant to us humans because we didnt live in them, and present conditions that are different than those in the past and more relevant for our future. Now, if you wouldnt mind addressing those points and getting off your high horse we could actually get pass this silly stalemate of you claiming that because CO2 was important in the past it is important now, and hence the small levels of CO2 are not significant enough to cause global warming.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I did not contradict, or imply that those articles are untruthful, I do contend that they are not very relevant to future weather patterns and the effect on us humans. Humans did not develop with high levels of CO2 present, we can't handle CO2. You're making inferences from facts but you have no data to support you're inferences, that's my beef. It's perfectly fine that CO2 is important for life, and it's obviously true that it contributed to the beginning of life on earth. The problem is that even at 0.04% in the atmosphere it's causing change, and that change is noxious for us humans. What i did say was that you are confusing actual volume with the effect size of that volume. You do not need to have a great volume to have a significant effect. Case in point: CFC's and the Ozone layer. What i also said was that you are confusing past conditions that are not relevant to us humans because we didnt live in them, and present conditions that are different than those in the past and more relevant for our future. Now, if you wouldnt mind addressing those points and getting off your high horse we could actually get pass this silly stalemate of you claiming that because CO2 was important in the past it is important now, and hence the small levels of CO2 are not significant enough to cause global warming.

I personally dont see melting ice caps right now as a threat to environment, other than a threat to our coastal cities. Sea shells have been found everywhere around the world, suggesting that water used to cover most if not every part of the globe at some point (according to Tim Flannery's WEATHER MAKERS, the book). How many species of life can be found in lets say a tropical rainforest compared to lets say a glacier? Global warming will in my view cause the expansion of life. However, pollution, CFC's, damage to the environment is the big problem. The whole issue on global warming its very obvious not to protect the environment, as seen in Kyoto's main goal to cut emissions (little on protecting the environment) - but the goal is to protect OUR LIFESTYLES. Thats the problem. And Kyoto is a facemask to cover the real problem to pretend its getting fixed.

Plus, with Kyoto's power it will be easy to convince teh major pollutors to just sign the treaty. Does it have the power to enforce the protocols? Some countries like for example USA dont plan to sign Kyoto anytime soon.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Anyhow, I noticed I have been very pushy on this topic, so to conclude this well, I am not saying that I am right you are wrong hail to me blabla (I go to great deals to present my point sometimes), it could be either way. This field is very debatable, but one thing is for sure - environmental damage is the main concern. Kyoto treaty has some positive aspects, but main issues are still to be tackled.

Though if I consider, for example, that in my opinion its not a cataclysmic disaster that glaciers are melting, doesnt mean I am not environmentalist (glaciers melted and retreated many times before). I do think CO2 is playing a role, its just the sources of these CO2 emissions is my issue here.

The main concern should be the protection of environment, the halt to its destruction. And thats what I was stressing here. Please alter your ideology to include some soft of alarm or warning sign in your mind that things need to be done quickly soon to prevent a major ecological disaster. Climate change and human-caused destruction, when joined together can create massive damage to the environment.

For example, if rainforests are cut down, and CO2 levels increase, this could actually result in desertification, violent climate change and other problems. I have not concluded on my views on this point, once serious evidence presents itself to state that indeed emissions play the major role in this global warming, then I'll heed. Until then I'll just simply look and see the trail of human-caused destruction to observe the causes.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture