Question for believers in man made climate change

[The Original Tree]

That article is completely bullshit and propaganda. Why in the Hell do you think greenhouses inject CO2 in to them to increase the number of blooms and the rate of growth of their plants?

Geez you Warmer Loons are Gullible.

Increased CO2 levels have helped to increase the production of food and prevent starvation. It has also caused deserts to recede and the grean areas of the world to expand.

Where does this information come from? What I found says just the opposite: High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious

 

[jc456]

Another one that doesn't know science or history , you don't know what a Maunder minimum is and what happened between 1645 and 1715?


A little ice age retardo..



.

The Maunder Minimum occurred in the middle of the “little ice age” and was not the cause of it. Solar minimums relate to solar activity, not the temperature of the sun itself.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Still trying to post facts from your butt?


Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia



Maunder Minimum

The Maunder Minimum shown in a 400-year history of sunspot numbers
The Maunder Minimum, also known as the "prolonged sunspot minimum", is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspotsbecame exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.

The term was introduced after John A. Eddy[1]published a landmark 1976 paper in Science.[2] Astronomers before Eddy had also named the period after the solar astronomers Annie Russell Maunder (1868–1947) and E. Walter Maunder (1851–1928), who studied how sunspot latitudes changed with time.[3]The period which the husband and wife team examined included the second half of the 17th century.

Two papers were published in Edward Maunder's name in 1890[4] and 1894,[5] and he cited earlier papers written by Gustav Spörer.[6] Because Annie Maunder had not received a university degree, due to restrictions at the time, her contribution was not then publicly recognized.[7]

Spörer noted that, during a 28-year period (1672–1699) within the Maunder Minimum, observations revealed fewer than 50 sunspots. This contrasts with the typical 40,000–50,000 sunspots seen in modern times.[8]

Like the Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average European temperatures.

Climate fakers have zero facts

They act like they can Bullshit us like even I know basic 2rd grade science, lol...

The problem is that you never went beyond 2nd grade

Two grades farther than you
T

 

[alang1216]

That article is completely bullshit and propaganda. Why in the Hell do you think greenhouses inject CO2 in to them to increase the number of blooms and the rate of growth of their plants?

Geez you Warmer Loons are Gullible.

Increased CO2 levels have helped to increase the production of food and prevent starvation. It has also caused deserts to recede and the grean areas of the world to expand.

Where does this information come from? What I found says just the opposite: High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious

Let me think should I take your word of it or should I go with Stanford University or Carnegie Science or a science web site? Tough call, what are your credentials?

 

[Redfish]

That article is completely bullshit and propaganda. Why in the Hell do you think greenhouses inject CO2 in to them to increase the number of blooms and the rate of growth of their plants?

Geez you Warmer Loons are Gullible.

Increased CO2 levels have helped to increase the production of food and prevent starvation. It has also caused deserts to recede and the grean areas of the world to expand.

Where does this information come from? What I found says just the opposite: High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious

Let me think should I take your word of it or should I go with Stanford University or Carnegie Science or a science web site? Tough call, what are your credentials?

and those guys are working with grants that require that they "scientifically" prove that man is destroying the earth by changing its climate. Follow the money, dude. If you pay enough you can get any answer you want.

 

[Redfish]

why wont any of you libs answer my question? Why isn't fighting pollution enough for you? Isn't your ultimate goal to stop humans from polluting? Or is it something else?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

Correlation is not the same thing as causation. That is a sound scientific principle.

If a study revealed that people who consume more bread scored higher on IQ tests would not mean that the bread had anything at all to do with a person's intelligence.

That smoke from a factory causes health problems for many who breathe that smoke does not extrapolate to the same smoke causing climate change.

CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas and there is a correlation between CO2 emissions and the last 40-50 years of weather conditions in various places on Earth. But the two things may actually have little, if any, connection as to why we have had 40-50 years of temperatures warmer than the last century.

Every year just here in my city alone we almost always have a day or two of record heat and/or record cold, and that happens all over the Earth. Not a day goes by that records in both directions aren't broken somewhere on Planet Earth. So is there a correlation between those record heat days and global warming? Possible but most probably not.

Correlation can be a clue in finding causation. But correlation in and of itself is not the same thing as causation.

Oh and CO2 is a naturally occurring substance in our soil, oceans, atmosphere. Excessive CO2 as would occur prior to a volcanic eruption can kill trees and wildlife. But reducing human CO2 emissions are unlikely to do a darn thing to remedy dirty air, water, soil.

 

[Wuwei]

Increased CO2 levels have helped to increase the production of food and prevent starvation. It has also caused deserts to recede and the grean areas of the world to expand.

Where does this information come from? What I found says just the opposite: High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious

I read about that quite awhile ago. The reason stated for less nutrition was that an increased speed of growth caused less time for minerals to be absorbed by the plant.

 

[IanC]

Increased CO2 levels have helped to increase the production of food and prevent starvation. It has also caused deserts to recede and the grean areas of the world to expand.

Where does this information come from? What I found says just the opposite: High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious

I read about that quite awhile ago. The reason stated for less nutrition was that an increased speed of growth caused less time for minerals to be absorbed by the plant.

Or perhaps, the same amount of minerals per time but spread over more plant bulk.

 

[Foxfyre]

Further I have read scientific opinion that our CO2 levels have been dangerously low for optimum health and growth of plants and wild life. CO2 is after all one of the essential building blocks for life on Earth--both plant and animal. To classify it as a pollutant was one of the more egregious rulings by the Supreme Court in this century. That's like declaring Vitamin A and Vitamin D, both essential for human health, to be poisons because if you take a huge amount that nobody would, they become poisonous to our systems.

I ran across this article recently that includes an interesting short video clip showing a comparison of the C02 generated by 7 billion people on Earth compared to that naturally occurring. I don't know anything about the source itself or how credible it is, but it does provide food for thought.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Life

 

[Foxfyre]

Too late to prevent it, we just need to prepare for the coming changes

Okay. By doing what?

Sorry for the delay, this post got hidden by all the other response.

To use the examples that I gave in my first post, Cali needs to re-engineer their water control system. It was designed to gather water from the melting snow in a slow process. It was designed this way because that is what their climate was till not very long ago.
The mountains are having less snow and more of their water is coming to them via torrential downpours. Their dams and spillways were not designed to handle large influxes of water so they need to be updated and the spillways made stronger to deal with the climate.

In the mid-west farmers are starting to adapt as more of them are installing irrigation now even if they do not need it all of the time yet. In Illinois for example the number of irrigated acres almost doubled between the 2007 and the 2012 Census of Agriculture and I suspect when the results of the 2017 COA are published next year you will see the same trend continuing.

The military has contingency plans for all sorts of things related to climate change and have been putting them into place since even before I got out 9 years ago.

All is to say that climate changes. It always has and it always will. To assume that we will be having the same weather patterns 100 years from now that we have now is simply not realistic. When I was a kid growing up in little Texas on the Texas, New Mexico border we had some intermittant snow in winter and sometimes torrential downpours in the summer. That still occurs but on different patterns these days.

And we had terrible, really terrible sand storms back then--the dirt in the air was so thick it was almost like a haboob, it got into your eyes and mouth, cars, houses, and everything. These days those sand storms are really rare for reasons nobody can explain much except that farming practices have changed to reduce soil erosion. But according to friends/family who still live in that area, the wind storms themselves are not so common and usually not so fierce these days? Why? probably something to do with climate change or just an anomaly. It really is too soon to draw a firm conclusion about that.

We know that New Mexico had extreme droughts long ago. It is widely accepted that severe, prolonged drought is what drove the Anazazi from the cliff dwellings as all seem to have been abandoned within a relatively short period of time. And that was long before the industrial revolution so AGW can't be cited as the probable cause for that. All of the west is currently in a prolonged dry period sometimes moving into the extreme drought category even as blips in the weather pattern can trigger severe snow storms or torrential rainfall that help but do not break the pattern.

I am one who thinks that instead of pouring trillions of dollars into efforts to stop climate change which is most likely futile and foolish, we would be much more wise to put the same resources into adapting to and making the most of climate change that is occurring.

 

[IanC]

Too late to prevent it, we just need to prepare for the coming changes

Okay. By doing what?

Sorry for the delay, this post got hidden by all the other response.

To use the examples that I gave in my first post, Cali needs to re-engineer their water control system. It was designed to gather water from the melting snow in a slow process. It was designed this way because that is what their climate was till not very long ago.
The mountains are having less snow and more of their water is coming to them via torrential downpours. Their dams and spillways were not designed to handle large influxes of water so they need to be updated and the spillways made stronger to deal with the climate.

In the mid-west farmers are starting to adapt as more of them are installing irrigation now even if they do not need it all of the time yet. In Illinois for example the number of irrigated acres almost doubled between the 2007 and the 2012 Census of Agriculture and I suspect when the results of the 2017 COA are published next year you will see the same trend continuing.

The military has contingency plans for all sorts of things related to climate change and have been putting them into place since even before I got out 9 years ago.

All is to say that climate changes. It always has and it always will. To assume that we will be having the same weather patterns 100 years from now that we have now is simply not realistic. When I was a kid growing up in little Texas on the Texas, New Mexico border we had some intermittant snow in winter and sometimes torrential downpours in the summer. That still occurs but on different patterns these days.

And we had terrible, really terrible sand storms back then--the dirt in the air was so thick it was almost like a haboob, it got into your eyes and mouth, cars, houses, and everything. These days those sand storms are really rare for reasons nobody can explain much except that farming practices have changed to reduce soil erosion. But according to friends/family who still live in that area, the wind storms themselves are not so common and usually not so fierce these days? Why? probably something to do with climate change or just an anomaly. It really is too soon to draw a firm conclusion about that.

We know that New Mexico had extreme droughts long ago. It is widely accepted that severe, prolonged drought is what drove the Anazazi from the cliff dwellings as all seem to have been abandoned within a relatively short period of time. And that was long before the industrial revolution so AGW can't be cited as the probable cause for that. All of the west is currently in a prolonged dry period sometimes moving into the extreme drought category even as blips in the weather pattern can trigger severe snow storms or torrential rainfall that help but do not break the pattern.

I am one who thinks that instead of pouring trillions of dollars into efforts to stop climate change which is most likely futile and foolish, we would be much more wise to put the same resources into adapting to and making the most of climate change that is occurring.

Yup. Your last two comments have been pretty close to spot on.