Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Windguy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbacba
we lost a lot of plant species in that period of time that just couldn't survive with such low levels of co2. aren't you for biodiversity?
Of course you are assuming that 1) the warming is caused by ghgs and 2) that man has increased the amount of them. Considering that there isn't enough forcing to account for the change in temperature (not to mention other planets undergoing similar warming and not to mention that co2 concentration appears to lag historic records of warming) it would seem more plausible to accept the notion that co2 increases are in fact a symptom of the warming that is going on rather than the cause of it which means man may not be responsible for much of any of the added amounts. After all, as the temperature rises in the oceans, the amount of co2 present in them must decrease. Couple that with the realization that the number of unknown active subsea volcanoes could number in the millions, that's a lot of heat there. That's just one more factor in the growing list of unknowns that were ignored during the formulation of the ghg myth.
|
Well do you recognise CO2 is a GHG or not? if CO2 is a GHG and man is pumping it out, does that not mean man made GHG's has a positive forcing on temperature?
You keep on mentioning the past, well what was never in the past before? Man.
And if you think volcanoes are doing it now? (you'll grab onto anything) Try and prove they weren't there a hundred years ago.
CO2 has decreased which has lead to a change in plants, yes. There were mass extinctions, yes. But now is different as the plants are use to the CO2 levels of now, 1750's. Throw in a masive change and you'll see a massive die off of nearly everything. CO2 may have been the cause of extintion of plants in the past, but plants are now evolved into far better survivors with a far greater nutrition value, that the dinosaurs had to eat tonnes to get the same nutrition. (that's one of the reasons why the dinosaurs got so big).
Mass extinctions were caused by mainly temperature changes, as what is increasing now. GW will not lead to biodiversity, you can't pull that card out of the deck and hit me with it, because it's just not true. It will take millions of years just to recover from the greatest extinction event the world has ever seen, and that is just man walking the planet. Add GW and we'll see whole ecosystems just disappear. |
Swell, you haven't been around long enough to know anything about the past beyond your own lifespan. You presume things are different now because of man but you don't even know what the conditions were like even throughout recorded history except assumptions based on surrogates.
How do you know what the population of insects like termites has been, never mind bacteria? How do you know what the solar flux was 50 years ago, never mind 500 years ago or 500,000 years ago?
You still haven't figured out the energy balance, fundamental conservation of energy and evidently, haven't mastered understanding the Keihl and Trenberth basic balance example.
Rather you ignore science and start throwing around conjectures that violate what is known, claiming nonsense of tipping points and magical mystery forcings that are laying in wait just around the corner. It's the combination of sea monsters and the edge of the flat earth you're claiming that mankind is about to fall off of.
You're devoid of context as well.