• 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!

Welcome to a much greener Earth!

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth' - BBC News

Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.

A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.

Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.

But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.

So they say that the positive effects get less better over time. OK. We'll just take the good and not expect it to get that much better than now but not go back to the bad old days.

Those negative effects though.. those would be the ones which show no signs of actually happening....
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,950
Reaction score
15,000
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But if the earth gets greener, the governments have less control over the world's food supply.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
49,913
Reaction score
32,827
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Makes me wonder if the Earth's climate has a very long lived CO2 cycle, on the order a millions of years, as I recall there was a time in the Earths' history were CO2 levels were far beyond what we have today.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,838
Reaction score
22,291
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am concerned about global warming for practical and personal reasons, not because I believe we are destroying the planet.

The planet will go on existing right up until the Sun goes nova or it is destroyed by some other cosmic catastrophe, even if every living thing on it dies off. Our planet has existed for billions of years before any life appeared, and will continue to exist after all life is expunged from it's surface.

Moreover, we know from the fossil record that life has changed many times since it first emerged on this planet and will likely continue to change until completely eradicated.

What we do will not destroy this planet. That is pretty clear.

However, what we do will have a direct effect on life as we know it and that is the concern expressed by Global Warming advocates. People who believe that we need to act on those things within our control that are clearly detrimental to the environment that maintains OUR continued existence on planet Earth.
 
Last edited:

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,769
Reaction score
7,409
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am concerned about global warming for practical and personal reasons, not because I believe we are destroying the planet.

The planet will go on existing right up until the Sun goes nova or it is destroyed by some other cosmic catastrophe, even if every living thing on it dies off. Our planet has existed for billions of years before any life appeared, and will continue to exist of all life is expunged from it's surface.

Moreover, we know from the fossil record that life has changed many times since it first emerged on this planet and will likely continue to change until completely eradicated.

What we do will not destroy this planet. That is pretty clear.

However, what we do will have a direct effect on life as we know it and that is the concern expressed by people who believe that we need to act on those things within our control that are detrimental to OUR continued existence on planet Earth.
What practical, scientific solutions are being promoted by AGW believers?
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am concerned about global warming for practical and personal reasons, not because I believe we are destroying the planet.

The planet will go on existing right up until the Sun goes nova or it is destroyed by some other cosmic catastrophe, even if every living thing on it dies off. Our planet has existed for billions of years before any life appeared, and will continue to exist of all life is expunged from it's surface.

Moreover, we know from the fossil record that life has changed many times since it first emerged on this planet and will likely continue to change until completely eradicated.

What we do will not destroy this planet. That is pretty clear.

However, what we do will have a direct effect on life as we know it and that is the concern expressed by people who believe that we need to act on those things within our control that are detrimental to OUR continued existence on planet Earth.

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
I am asking you what you think because you seem to be under the impression that the earth could boil or something.

The worst case scenario, as predicted by the IPCC, is for a 4.2c rise over pre-industrial temperatures by 2100. We already have had 0.8c and have not seen the 0.3c per decade rise needed to achieve this since the graph that predicted it came out 18 years ago.

So what do you think is so bad about it all?

This is the question I have asked another on this forum 8 times so far with no answer. I see that you do not expect the earth to boil but what negative effects do you think are going to result from a small increase in temperatures?


From the link in the OP;
The scientists say several factors play a part in the plant boom, including climate change (8%), more nitrogen in the environment (9%), and shifts in land management (4%).

But the main factor, they say, is plants using extra CO2 from human society to fertilise their growth (70%).

The main change so far seems to be a huge increase in plant fertility. 70% more plants (well, leaves) now due to CO2. I think that's a good thing.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
56,769
Reaction score
21,012
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Makes me wonder if the Earth's climate has a very long lived CO2 cycle, on the order a millions of years, as I recall there was a time in the Earths' history were CO2 levels were far beyond what we have today.

The "cycle" is caled CO2 sequestration and yes it took millions of years for plants to lock all that carbon up. We are releasing it all back into the atmosphere in a few hundred years. What could go wrong with that, right?

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.
As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate Central
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,838
Reaction score
22,291
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is the question I have asked another on this forum 8 times so far with no answer. I see that you do not expect the earth to boil but what negative effects do you think are going to result from a small increase in temperatures?


From the link in the OP;


The main change so far seems to be a huge increase in plant fertility. 70% more plants (well, leaves) now due to CO2. I think that's a good thing.

Maybe for plants...

But recall, plants were the first things to successfully populate the surface of the earth filled with CO2 from vulcanization. While THEY thrive in a CO2 rich environment, WE don't.

Also, as we grow in population we also cut back on plant life to make more room for our homes and businesses. This growth is not a problem when the human population is small. But it becomes one when we reach a critical mass where there aren't enough plants to feed us or convert the production of CO2 to oxygen needed for our respiration. Killing off plankton does not help this situation either for the atmosphere balance or the maintenance of the ocean's food chain. What then?

Think "Soylant Green is people." Or imagine the hive cities in the "Warhammer 40K" series for you science fiction fans. ;)
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,769
Reaction score
7,409
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The "cycle" is caled CO2 sequestration and yes it took millions of years for plants to lock all that carbon up. We are releasing it all back into the atmosphere in a few hundred years. What could go wrong with that, right?

Increased crop yields and a greener planet. Oh the horror. :roll:
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,769
Reaction score
7,409
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe for plants...

But recall, plants were the first things to successfully populate the surface of the earth filled with CO2 from vulcanization. While THEY thrive in a CO2 rich environment, WE don't.

Also, as we grow in population we also cut back on plant life to make more room for our homes and businesses. This growth is not a problem when the human population is small. But it becomes one when we reach a critical mass where there aren't enough plants to feed us or convert the production of CO2 to oxygen needed for our respiration. Killing off plankton does not help this situation either for the atmosphere balance or the maintenance of the ocean's food chain. What then? Think "Soylant Green is people."

We were supposed to reach this "critical mass" of population decades ago. When is the new projection? Maybe we should adopt the Chinese, one child per family policy. :eek:
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,838
Reaction score
22,291
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We were supposed to reach this "critical mass" of population decades ago. When is the new projection? Maybe we should adopt the Chinese, one child per family policy. :eek:

Just because critical mass has not happened yet does not mean it won't ever happen. I'm not making any projections of a specific date. I am not that arrogant.

I just recognize that if we keep acting like there is no problem and there is nothing we can or need to do...then we are setting ourselves up for failure.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Maybe for plants...

But recall, plants were the first things to successfully populate the surface of the earth filled with CO2 from vulcanization. While THEY thrive in a CO2 rich environment, WE don't.

Also, as we grow in population we also cut back on plant life to make more room for our homes and businesses. This growth is not a problem when the human population is small. But it becomes one when we reach a critical mass where there aren't enough plants to feed us or convert the production of CO2 to oxygen needed for our respiration. Killing off plankton does not help this situation either for the atmosphere balance or the maintenance of the ocean's food chain. What then?

Think "Soylant Green is people." Or imagine the hive cities in the "Warhammer 40K" series for you science fiction fans. ;)

Eh?? Your thinking seems all over the place.

You do understand that the room you are in has vastly higher levels of CO2 in it than the general atmosphere just because you are in it breathing. CO2 is not harmful to humans untill you get to extremely high levels that are not at all possible unless you are locked in an air-tight room for too long.

That we can now grow more food from less land is surely a good thing and set to get better. Even more food from the same land. Good thing.

So for the second time [2];

I see that you do not expect the earth to boil but what negative effects do you think are going to result from a small increase in temperatures?
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
49,913
Reaction score
32,827
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The "cycle" is caled CO2 sequestration and yes it took millions of years for plants to lock all that carbon up. We are releasing it all back into the atmosphere in a few hundred years. What could go wrong with that, right?



The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate Central

The CO2 sequestration cycle that you've identified is something well beyond mankind's ability to significantly influence much less control, such as what the AGW movement is claiming needs to be done and can be done.
 

Fearandloathing

Just watchin'
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
22,346
Reaction score
18,962
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What practical, scientific solutions are being promoted by AGW believers?


So far all there has been is 1960's-like babbling about wind power and varying degrees of hysterical predictions all leading to "we need more research". In another forum I read an incredible excuse: "there hasn't been development of solutions because scientists have to fight off deniers"

That's right, the people who question their god state are to blame, never mind the fact not one solution or even protection has even been presented let alone discussed.

There are studies that suggest warming may not be a bad thing. As week speak Canadian farmers on the prairies have added several days to their growing year and can now grow better strains of wheat, canola etc.
 

Orly?

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
3,906
Reaction score
862
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We are just practicing out terraforming skillz for Mars..
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
56,769
Reaction score
21,012
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The CO2 sequestration cycle that you've identified is something well beyond mankind's ability to significantly influence much less control, such as what the AGW movement is claiming needs to be done and can be done.

If you mean we can't put the genie back in the bottle that is correct. But burning and releasing all the sequestered carbon is quite with in our reach and we can certianly send Earth back to the Carboniferous age as far a CO2 goes and once it is out we are stuck with it for millions of years. We also can choose to leave the bulk of sequestered carbon in the ground where it will not effect our climate or the oceans.
 
Last edited:

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you mean we can't put the genie back in the bottle that is correct. But burning and releasing all the sequestered carbon is quite with in our reach and we can certianly send Earth back to the Carboniferous age as far a CO2 goes and once it is out we are stuck with it for millions of years. We also can choose to leave the bulk of sequestered carbon in the ground where it will not effect our climate or the oceans.

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

So you don't want to have a boom in plant growth and a climate very similar to ours... OK.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
49,913
Reaction score
32,827
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you mean we can't put the genie back in the bottle that is correct. But burning and releasing all the sequestered carbon is quite with in our reach and we can certianly send Earth back to the Carboniferous age as far a CO2 goes and once it is out we are stuck with it for millions of years. We also can choose to leave the bulk of sequestered carbon in the ground where it will not effect our climate or the oceans.

Probably the greatest source of CO2 from the human race is in all the people breathing. Good luck with curbing that. :screwy:
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
31,036
Reaction score
7,706
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am concerned about global warming for practical and personal reasons, not because I believe we are destroying the planet.

The planet will go on existing right up until the Sun goes nova or it is destroyed by some other cosmic catastrophe, even if every living thing on it dies off. Our planet has existed for billions of years before any life appeared, and will continue to exist after all life is expunged from it's surface.

Moreover, we know from the fossil record that life has changed many times since it first emerged on this planet and will likely continue to change until completely eradicated.

What we do will not destroy this planet. That is pretty clear.

However, what we do will have a direct effect on life as we know it and that is the concern expressed by Global Warming advocates. People who believe that we need to act on those things within our control that are clearly detrimental to the environment that maintains OUR continued existence on planet Earth.

To be blunt, we can pollute the atmosphere and water and make the planet temporarily less safe to live on....for instance the smog in many large US cities, however we do not have the destructive power to alter the planet's climate cycles. The global warming alarmists are just coocoo for cocoa puffs.

 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Probably the greatest source of CO2 from the human race is in all the people breathing. Good luck with curbing that. :screwy:

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

DO.NOT.GIVE.THEM.ANY.IDEAS! :mrgreen:
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
40,563
Reaction score
22,011
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
So far all there has been is 1960's-like babbling about wind power and varying degrees of hysterical predictions all leading to "we need more research". In another forum I read an incredible excuse: "there hasn't been development of solutions because scientists have to fight off deniers"

That's right, the people who question their god state are to blame, never mind the fact not one solution or even protection has even been presented let alone discussed.

There are studies that suggest warming may not be a bad thing. As week speak Canadian farmers on the prairies have added several days to their growing year and can now grow better strains of wheat, canola etc.

All that carbon in the ground- coal, oil, whatever, used to be in the atmosphere. It was drawn out of the air by the enormously lush growth in the Mesozoic (or whatever) Era and those plants died and underwent some magical juju that I've forgotten since elementary school and became, yes, fossil fuels. All we're doing is returning that carbon to the atmosphere so the planet can warm up again. None of which is a problem except where we have a lot invested in the status quo and stand to lose big bucks if there's any basic changes.
Me, I could do with less winter, even the pseudo-winters we get here. So long as there's no dinosaurs in the deal.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
49,913
Reaction score
32,827
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

DO.NOT.GIVE.THEM.ANY.IDEAS! :mrgreen:

Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:

I'd have to insist that it apply to themselves first and then perhaps others. :mrgreen:
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:

I'd have to insist that it apply to themselves first and then perhaps others. :mrgreen:

:agree: Guaranteed to totally end the discussion! :lamo: It's good to keep in mind that there are some redeeming factors in suggesting that if it's such a great idea they should be the first to apply! We really should use it more often, IMO! :thumbs:
 
Top Bottom