Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On 16 Mar 2006 08:50:26 -0800, in a place far, far away, "bill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"George" wrote in message

He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.

I don't think plants will complain.

How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.

800 ppm?

800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.

increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
desert.

Not to mention the fact that it would probably accelerate plant growth
rates (and in fact such acceleration would prevent the levels from
ever getting that high).

I remember reading a study somewhere that plant growth doesn't
accelerate that much with increasing CO2 concentration. It is a factor
that can slow down global warming slightly, but not much. I don't have
references.

Also, 1-3.5 degrees C is equal to 150 to 550 kilometers of distance
towards the equator - trees can have trouble adjusting and might
get massive disease outbreaks. This has happened somewhat in northern
areas when some parasites' larvae don't die anymore since the
winters tend to be warmer than before.

Actually, I've read that human activity is causing the sixth mass
extinction as we speak.

"bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 16 Mar 2006 08:50:26 -0800, in a place far, far away, "bill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"George" wrote in message

He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could
sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
assumption.

I don't think plants will complain.

How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.

800 ppm?

800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.

increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
desert.

Not to mention the fact that it would probably accelerate plant growth
rates (and in fact such acceleration would prevent the levels from
ever getting that high).

Valid point. I read somewhere that the equalization point is
around 600 ppm. Still not a good number though.
Another interesting poing is that I keep seeing people whine about
methane. They say that it is something stupid like 40x as potent a
ghg. Methane in the atmosphere has a 5 year half-life. so in order to
keep the levels high, you have to continually release.

Methane has a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere, but is more potent at
retaining heat in the atmosphere than is CO2. In addition, it breaks down
to CO2, and so increases the CO2 levels as well.

George

"bill" wrote in message
oups.com...
Methane in the atmosphere has a 5 year half-life.

Don't listen to the borg, get the facts :

"Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 +/- 3 years and a GWP of 62
over 20 years, 23 over 100 years and 7 over 500 years. The decrease in
GWP associated with longer times is associated with the fact that the
methane is degraded to water and CO2 by chemical reactions in the
atmosphere."

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Okay, I was wrong by a small amount in my half-life statement, I
read it last year.
However, Your citation is also wrong. the proportion of the
methane which degrades to co2 remains in the atmosphere for milennia,
correct, but the water vapor precipitates out.

And then evaporates back into the atmosphere. The call it the hydrologic
cycle. It is a continuous cycle.

George

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On 16 Mar 2006 08:50:26 -0800, in a place far, far away, "bill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"George" wrote in message

He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could
sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
assumption.

I don't think plants will complain.

How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.

800 ppm?

800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.

increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
desert.

Not to mention the fact that it would probably accelerate plant growth
rates (and in fact such acceleration would prevent the levels from
ever getting that high).

But don't confuse Elifritz with reality.

Then why hasn't the current level caused accelerated plant growth and kept
the
level from growing?

LLLLLLoyd, Read and be enlightened!
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...arthgreen.html

It's no coincidence that AGW'er and eco-nut Coby Beck is apparently a
racist ("All the general depictions of poor black people as dangerous
animals were wrong" [trying ironically to be sarcastic, but exposing
his racism).

It's no coincidence because AGW'ers, like CB and NobodyYouKnow, are in
fact camouflaged racists, intent on stopping human growth, for such
trivial things as keeping their property values high (as if letting it
a little colour into their neighborhood would diminish property
values--it would not in fact), and maintaining their uncongested views.

Yep, this is the ugly face of the GW agenda.

RL

Well said Bill. I live and travel in Europe as well as the US, and
they are definitely more energy efficient. Increasing the price of
fossil fuels will indeed stimulate alternative fuels and help balance
the federal budget deficit. But I am against caving in to the Eco-Nuts
and to signing hapless Kyoto treaty.

RL

"Joe Jared" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:17:15 -0500, Scott Nudds wrote:


On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:32:31 +0000, George wrote:
He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could
sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
assumption.


"Joe Jared" wrote
I don't think plants will complain.

Oh, I think the plants and 100,000 head of cattle that have just dies
in
the Texas wildfires would complain.

You forgot to mention 11 humans. The plant life will naturally recover,
and the life of cattle is usually cut short anyway and seen as t-bones,
rump roasts or on special occasions, as cow tongue. Naturally, there
could
also be a loose association with many of the meteorological disasters
over
the past 20 years, but still it's a small price to pay compared to the
benefits. More obvious would be a temporary increase in cost of beef due
to the sheer loss. Harsher weather than we've already seen is
inevitable,
but it's temporary and will settle into calmer weather once temperatures
stabilize from north to south.

--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/


I'll let the Polar bears know. They'll be glad to hear it. :-)

George

On Thu, 16 Mar 06 16:37:28 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Good point, Scott. "Katrina" was a classic case of mass hysteria.

Actually, it was a classic case of press hysteria. Most of the
reporting turned out to be wrong.
So all those people weren't trapped in the Superdome of Convention Center?
Half of the population isn't still displaced?

I didn't say it was all wrong. Go get a dictionary, and look up the
words "most" and "all."

So what parts were right, in your view?

That there was a hurricane, with a lot of destruction, and that some
people died and many were left homeless.

On 16 Mar 2006 15:57:55 -0800, in a place far, far away, "raylopez99"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Well said Bill. I live and travel in Europe as well as the US, and
they are definitely more energy efficient. Increasing the price of
fossil fuels will indeed stimulate alternative fuels and help balance
the federal budget deficit. But I am against caving in to the Eco-Nuts
and to signing hapless Kyoto treaty.

Kyoto is dead. Even the Europeans admit it.

Hello,

These high levels may be survivable but the "escape" reflex occurs at a much
much lower level. A feeling of suffocation and the desire to escape to
"fresh air" occus at around 400 ppm and I feel like that all the time and
there is no fresh air.

My respiration frequency has increased to double previously and I feel I
cannot get my breath, I've noticed quite a lot of older people are having
the same difficulty.

I have not been diagnosed with lung disease or reduced lung area.

Some days are better than others, today it is like that, called
"oppressive".

I think the whole human race is close to suffocation.

My own opinion is that government agencies need to build nuclear powered
carbon dioxide splitters to take in atmospheric carbon dioxide and spit out
soot and oxygen.

We must all give up burning carbon based fuels and transfer to other forms
of power and a business must develop fusion power as quickly as posible. My
suggestion is in my web site at http://www.newelectricity.co.uk/

Recently a friend announced success of her fusion reactor and was quickly
captured and within a week or two she was publicly "executed" by removal of
her frontal lobe.

She had plenty of capital and was already running a succesful business and I
cannot understand why she was assaulted it seems the world is mad.

The psychiatrists said her ideas were "Sky High" and had no understanding of
her machines although she had a PhD. I mean, what has happened to the
world, don't the people in power want the stuff? She also had a plan for a
"thinking" computer (they just said "computers can't think!").

Now she just sits and stares.
--
Chris