Printable View
i have no doubt that the current congress and new president will try to force co2 capture. this will hurt the middle and lower classes by driving the cost of electricity up (probably by double at least).Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
and if this mythical new fuel is really less than $2 per gallon, then it will be because the u.s. government is subsidizing it, which will cause taxes to go up, which will hurt the middle and lower classes.
Yeah, man, let's just let the world go to hell in a handbasket. What the heck to we care anyway what happens in 50 years. Let's just grab all we can NOW and party like it's 1999.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
yeah, how do you get from that post, or any of my posts on this topic, that that is my attitude? I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY OF THE GLOBAL WARMING GARBAGE. the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. it has more to do with the people who are trying to convince us that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Hmmmm. I know that you sincerely believe that AGW is a hoax, that CO2 is not a pollutant. I just have a hard time believing that is what you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
i have a hard time believing that you think at all with some of the global warming junk science you post on this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
For example?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Knock, knock...anyone home?
It's the sun, stupid! The frickin sun causes temp changes on Earth. Of course, there is no way to parlay the sun into any type of extortion wrought from psuedo-science for those with political agendas. This scientific FACT is being buried by the communists attempting to hamstring the USA, and by those greedy types hoping to make a buck from the whole GW hoax.
But, it's been proven through real science that fluctuations in solar activity causes temp changes on Earth. And! this little tidbit, we need CO2 in our atmosphere else this planet will quickly become a giant ice cube! Even small reductions of CO2 will cause the next ice age, and elimination of CO2 will make this a dead planet.
Oh, what about too much CO2? Could Earth become another Venus? Not according to real science. Venus' thick atmosphere is not CO2. It is the opinion of real scientists that there is no scenario whereby the Earth's atmosphere could obtain/hold "too much" CO2. If every volcano erupted and every thing man could do to pump CO2 into the air all happened at the same time, the air would be unpleasant for awhile, but unless those volcanoes could continue to spew indefinitely, levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would drop and generally clear after a few years.
HOAX!!!
Oh yeah, man, it's the blooming Sun alright. <chuckle>Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Are you saying the sun doesn't affect our climate? Really? You going to take a stand on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Clearly, the Sun drives our weather and climate. But to say that the Sun is responsible for the global warming that has been taking place for the past 50+ years is patently not correct. The amount of solar energy that falls on the Earth changes very slowly and is primarily due to changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt, not big changes in the Sun's output. Of course, the planet needs some CO2 in its atmosphere but the NATURAL system controls the rise and fall of CO2 levels over very long time periods. What we have here is the UNNATURAL injection of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is a huge science experiment the consequences of which are predicted to be unfavorable to human civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
Probably the biggest danger from global warming is that it could seriously disrupt agricultural production around the world.
It is more likely to benefit ag production if anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
That's not what scientists predict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...arming-worsens
"In summer 2003, more than 52,000 Europeans died from heat-related ills, 30,000 in France alone, during an unrelenting heat wave that featured temperatures 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit (3.6 degrees Celsius) higher than normal. Crops also suffered, with corn production down by 30 percent and wheat by 21 percent, among other foodstuffs. And a similar hot spell in Ukraine in 1972 led to a wheat shortage that prompted that staple's prices to more than triple by 1974. But even without record-breaking heat, recent years have seen food riots from Bangladesh to Haiti as world agriculture was pushed to the breaking point by a combination of greater demand for food, biofuels and poor weather.
Such disruptions in the world's food supply may become even more the norm by the end of this century, according to a new analysis published today in Science. Climate modeler David Battisti of the University of Washington in Seattle and food security expert Rosamond Naylor of Stanford University used the results of 23 climate models to determine that there is a more than 90 percent chance—in other words, it is very likely—that the lowest growing season temperatures in the tropics and subtropics by the end of the century will be higher than the highest temperatures at present."
Optimum growing conditions
According to Dr Mendelsohn, previous climate impact studies focussing on agriculture were based on the fact that crops are generally grown in optimum places and conditions. For instance, farmers grow corn in climatic zones that are ideally suited to corn. It followed that any change in weather conditions — to warmer or colder temperatures — would have a negative impact on the corn crop, since it was a departure from ideal conditions. But new impact models used in his study assume that gradual warming will result in adaptive farming behaviours such as new tillage techniques, planting crops earlier, the introduction of more heat-tolerant species, and the northern migration of some crops. Under this scenario, global warming will benefit Canada, the United States, and Europe. The CO2 effect will outweigh any losses in the agricultural sector. Conceivably, the limits of Canada's rich agricultural prairies could be pushed further north.
Tropical countries will probably not fare as well. Increased temperatures could push tropical crops out of their ideal growing ranges. But there may be counterbalancing effects. For example, warmer temperatures in India are predicted to cause crop losses of 7-10%, but the higher CO2 levels are expected to increase crop productivity by 10-20%.
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5544-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Global warming might not be that bad for Canada and Russia since the northern parts of those countries have very low populations. However, Dr. Mendelsohn, an economist from Yale, made his predictions based on temperature alone. The other part of the equation is the change in the timing and pattern of rainfall around the globe which could have a huge impact on agriculture even if growing temperatures up north improved.
The historical example you cited is flawed because it is a seasonal variation example not a climate change example. As Mendelsohn points out, climate change is more gradual and allows for adaptation of farming methods (because you know what to expect).Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg