Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming Poll

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Global Warming Poll

    I know there is a sticky for this topic but I didn't know how to insert a poll. I would like to know how people stand on this just so I can get an idea of how it relates to how they feel about other issues. Keep in mind that there isn't a right or wrong position nor should it generate additional comments or criticism of anyone.
    21
    Extremely harmful
    9.52%
    2
    Modestly harmful
    19.05%
    4
    No noticeable harm
    61.90%
    13
    Benificial
    9.52%
    2
    We hunt the hunters

  • #2
    At this point, the two votes saying current CO2 levels are "toxic" haven't the balls to post how/why they think such. !!!

    I voted without seeing the OP post, hence did a blind vote. Waiting to see how this develops ...

    Looking from the "Exobiology" perspective, I'd have to say the Earth barely does a one-half to two-thirds potential of what it could do in supporting maximum load of Flora bio-mass. I've seen where about 250-300ppmv, dry, is needed for current Global Flora Biomass (GFB) to sustain existing Flora/plant life, and we 1% Fauna need that 99%+ to keep us living, so would seem an optimal scenario is to keep CO2 % increasing and match it with Flora Biomass Increase.

    Growth in human population and supporting industrial and tech. structure produce a slight CO2 increase, but currently that is about 1/3 over bare minimum needed, so even doubling over levels of the past several centuries fails to tax the "load" of what the planet can bare if Flora biomass is increased to absorb what some might call excess CO2. Seems a logical given that we should start with Natural Solutions, such as CO2 "eaters" as a path to "cabon footprint reduction" before the more expensive path of carbon emission reduction ...

    This is the sort of thing I learned in 9th grade (Middle School/Junior High School) Basic Science/Biology course required back-then. Maybe educational requirements have reduced since then, but looking at Earth from an E.T. Exobiologist perspective, we humans are far from the max Flora exploitation we could produce. Hence best "wealth" investment(bang for buck$) in planetary biosphere would be to make major increase in Flora biomass.

    Eagerly await a credible and viable counter argument ...
    Last edited by G David Bock; 02 Sep 15, 04:06.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
      At this point, the two votes saying current CO2 lvels are "toxic" haven't the balls to post how/why they think such. !!!

      I voted without seeing the OP post, hence did a blind vote. Waiting to see hoiw this develops ...

      Looking for the "Exobiology" perspective, I'd have to say the Earth barely does a one-half to two-thirds potential of what it could do in supporting maximum load of Flora bio-mass. I've seen where about 250-300ppmv, dry, is needed for current Global Flora Biomass (GFB) to sustain and we 1% Fauna need that 99%+ to kep us living, sop would seem an optimal scenario is to keep CO2 % increasing and match it with Flora Biomass Increase.

      This is the sort of thing I learned in 9th grade (Middle School/Junior High School) Basic Science/Biology course required back-then. Maybe educational requirements have reduced since then, but looking at Earth from an E.T. Exobioligist perspective, we humans are far from the max Flora exploitation we could produce. Hence best "wealth" investment(bang for buck$) in planetary biosphere would be to make major increase in Flora biomass.

      Eagerly await a credible and viable counter argument ...
      I didn't post this in the science section because the topic is well covered there.

      My vote is based on several assumptions first that rapid change is usually not good for ecosystems and that increased co2 will increase background temperatures a small amount bringing the total warming somewhere between 1 to 2 degrees in the next 50 years. This is just a guess on my part after reading a bit and considering various view points. I'm not prepared to get into the technical details.

      I happen to agree with you that the planet is co2 starved but it's like giving a patient too much oxygen too fast. Too much of a good thing idea but again it's just a guess.

      I was hoping everyone would be able to see how others voted?
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        Harmful/beneficial to what ?
        Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

        Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
          Harmful/beneficial to what ?
          It is necessarily a subjective question as harm and benefit even when defined is relative to who and where you are etc.

          I agree however that it needs to be part of the discussion so let's just say the general well being of mankind.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #6
            To the general well being of mankind it will prove insignificant imho.

            Let me look for a suitable poll option
            Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

            Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

            Comment


            • #7
              Expect a battery of graphs to appear in this thread shortly.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                I didn't post this in the science section because the topic is well covered there.

                My vote is based on several assumptions first that rapid change is usually not good for ecosystems and that increased co2 will increase background temperatures a small amount bringing the total warming somewhere between 1 to 2 degrees in the next 50 years. This is just a guess on my part after reading a bit and considering various view points. I'm not prepared to get into the technical details.

                I happen to agree with you that the planet is co2 starved but it's like giving a patient too much oxygen too fast. Too much of a good thing idea but again it's just a guess.

                I was hoping everyone would be able to see how others voted?
                The ratio of CO2 to everything else in the atmosphere is 1 to 2500 OR about 0.04%! This is usually beyond "statistical error percentages", a.k.a. beyond the amount of number crunching goof factor, i.e. "insignificant"....

                Meanwhile, yet to be Proven that the slight increase in CO2 is the "Major Cause" of Climate Change/Global Warming (Natural of Human-caused) ...

                Other factors/causes look to be more in play as major factors, and Human solutions/fixes may not be possible to current conditions ...

                Lots of "wheel spinning" coming out of this ...
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                  The ratio of CO2 to everything else in the atmosphere is 1 to 2500 OR about 0.04%! This is usually beyond "statistical error percentages", a.k.a. beyond the amount of number crunching goof factor, i.e. "insignificant"....

                  Meanwhile, yet to be Proven that the slight increase in CO2 is the "Major Cause" of Climate Change/Global Warming (Natural of Human-caused) ...

                  Other factors/causes look to be more in play as major factors, and Human solutions/fixes may not be possible to current conditions ...

                  Lots of "wheel spinning" coming out of this ...
                  I understand your position that the increase in co2 due to humans is perhaps insignificant and the data does suggest that co2 varies according to natural causes. I wouldn't call a doubling a small amount however.

                  Where I'm most in agreement with conservatives is that the cost of the "solutions" are likely to exceed the benefits making the scientific arguments almost irrelevant. That is why I'm not inclined to spend hundreds of hours studying the data in detail.

                  The major scientific impact is likely to be the loss of faith in science as the predicted warming fails to materialize. I have from the beginning argued for caution in making predictions and have considerable disdain for those who would not follow that advise. This loss of faith in science is coming at a time when population pressure and economic instability makes faith in technology particularly important.

                  The hysteria and false information provided by the alarmist is shocking especially the constant references to severe weather which even the white house has engaged in. It is true however that some small degree of international cooperation has emerged giving us hope that planetary concerns can out weigh regional politics.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                    Expect a battery of graphs to appear in this thread shortly.
                    How about a graph of batteries?



                    Or The Battery...

                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      How about a graph of batteries?



                      Or The Battery...


                      I really wanted to vote beneficial but that would have been dishonest. I still think 1 or 2 year regional cooling is the biggest worry related to climate.
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                        To the general well being of mankind it will prove insignificant imho.

                        Let me look for a suitable poll option
                        For reference...

                        The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO 2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure.

                        [...]

                        OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO 2 (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 0.3% (30,000 ppm) average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure [we discuss and define "short term exposure limits" STEL below], and 4% (40,000 ppm) as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health. All three of these exposure limit conditions must be satisfied, always and together.

                        http://m.inspectapedia.com/?url=http...referrer=#2724






                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          I really wanted to vote beneficial but that would have been dishonest. I still think 1 or 2 year regional cooling is the biggest worry related to climate.
                          Since there's no way to differentiate anthropogenic from natural CO2, there's no way to know.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            I understand your position that the increase in co2 due to humans is perhaps insignificant and the data does suggest that co2 varies according to natural causes. I wouldn't call a doubling a small amount however.

                            Where I'm most in agreement with conservatives is that the cost of the "solutions" are likely to exceed the benefits making the scientific arguments almost irrelevant. That is why I'm not inclined to spend hundreds of hours studying the data in detail.

                            The major scientific impact is likely to be the loss of faith in science as the predicted warming fails to materialize. I have from the beginning argued for caution in making predictions and have considerable disdain for those who would not follow that advise. This loss of faith in science is coming at a time when population pressure and economic instability makes faith in technology particularly important.

                            The hysteria and false information provided by the alarmist is shocking especially the constant references to severe weather which even the white house has engaged in. It is true however that some small degree of international cooperation has emerged giving us hope that planetary concerns can out weigh regional politics.
                            The really sad thing is that most of the science is actually very good.

                            The tragic thing is that the trillions of dollars that will likely be spent on efforts to decarbonize the global economy, will not be available for real problems which man can actually solve...
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don’t believe that CO2 is harmful for the atmosphere in its current rate of concentration. How can 300 pts per million going to 400 pts per million affect much of anything?Percentage of concentration has hardly changed at all.

                              I believe that climate change is a natural process—how else do you explain the glacier ages and then the melting of the glaciers? Those all occurred when we humans were not around or just barely here. There was some other cause for sure than us.
                              Homo homini lupus

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X