"The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years,..."
Well that statement is certainly true. But that is because it only goes back 40 years to the low point in a global cooling trend. If you go back 65 years you see no net warming, so who cares.
"Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely."
Can we see the data? Becuase, if true, it would cettainly be a revelation, as this has not been true ever before. Which is why this article was released, it is basically just a retort from this article http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/src -ncc020905.php which was from those wacky Europeans that everyone here says all are in agreement with the current global warming theories. Current scientific evidence from records of tree ring growth, and and Ice samples actually show that a rise in atmospheric CO2 actually follows Global warming by about 400 years, not preceeds it, so of course anything that goes against historical data needs to be looked at closley
Actually there isn't much to retort in this article, as it is nothing but a bunch of claims and name calling, without any suporting data.
Actually the majority of SUVs sold, as with all automobiles, are the base model, which is a V-6, not a V-8. the sameholds true for Minivans. So wrong there.
Ride height (meaning eye level of driver, not bumper height) is the same +/- a couple of inches between so no difference there.
The original poster made the first comment, with no references, I mad a similarly unsubstantiated comment, complete wash.
Your links were for total gorss CO2 production, I don't argue those statements, but they say nothing about wheter or not the US is a Net Carbon sink, therefore they do not dispute my comment.
Do you deny that while we as a nation produce X amount of CO2, that we also consume Y amount of CO2, so that our impact on atmospheric CO2 is X-Y=Z Where Z is total CO2 released into the atmosphere? THerefore Gross CO2 production numbers are useless in the discusion of how US CO2 production effects the enviornment?
I think the person embarising himself is not me. What you have shown is gross CO2 production, not net.
Those show total CO2 emmisions, but do not take into account how much CO2 is used by those nations (mostly from plants re-absorbing it), so it shows nothing.
Now that you have data on how much CO2 is produced, we need to subtract how much CO2 is consumed by US plants and forests, as well as algae and the like. What is the data for that?
Combining the two will show wheter or not we have net CO2 production, or wheter we are a sink.
Just think if an accountant calculated a businsses net worth by how much they took in annually without subtracting expenditures. Would ou consider that good accounting practices?
In short there has been almost no peer review, and Michael Mann is working against peer review by not allowing his methods, data, or algorithims out, a thing unheard of in scientific research.
Unture, the majority of SUV's sold are sold with the EXACT SAME engine as their Minivan couunterparts.
Mnivans also have 4WD and it is not a useless feature.
A soccer mom hauls the same amount of people regardless of the type of vehicle, and agian it's not a difference in the vehicle, but of drivers habits. If we outlawed SUV's then that same peron driving around with just him/herself in the vehicle would do it in a minivan instead. And the minivan has the same fuel efficiency, gross vehicle weight etc etc etc. So there is no net gain.
Minivans and SUV's generally shar the exact same engines. True more SUV's have V-8's as an option, but that's irrelevant. And genraly only true of the larger SUV's. But regarless of the size of thee engine Fuel efficiency is approx the same (within 1 mpg) between SUV's and minivans, so it's a moot point.
Name one SUV that has a bumber height in line with yur window? I know of no Un-modified SUUV where this is true. In fact such a bumper height is illegal.
Aggresive/bad drivers are a reflection of the individual, they will be aggresive/bad regardless of what vehicle they drive, and regardless that's just a broad statement with no facts to back it up. In my opiion the majority of people with bumper stickers from crap pop rdio stations are the worse drivers, by your logic we should ban crap pop music stations.
Actually it is topic for debate outside of the US, more people, percentage wise, outside of the US argue that Global warming is not a reality, than in the US.
More newspapers outside of the US run articles critacal of global warming sicence, The effort against Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is being refuted by Canadians, the majority of science and peer reviewed articles against global warming comes from outside the US.
"i think the majority of scientists claim global warming is happening and it's likely to be caused by humans."
Actually not true, but it is true that the majority of people putting forth global warming are not scientists, but enviornementalists and politicians. If you boil it down to climatologists you'll find that there is honoest debate on the matter.
If you compare CO2 o goods produced we are lower than China.
We also produce more CO2 per person than Nairobi, but what does that mean.
If you want to live like a third world country you'll need to stop doing some things. Get rid of the heaing/cooling in your house, refrigeration, your car (even if it's a hybrid, few people in third world countries can afford a Prius), most importantly, your computer.
We all do that, then we can live just like those people that produce les CO2
Yeah but last years hurricane (I assume you meant hurricanes and not tornados, which hit a lot more than three times last year) season stilll isn't as bad as it was 40 years ago, during a severe cooling trned.
Meaning we have not seen more severe weather, we've seen less severe weather. So it's not a catastrophe and we shouldn't be spending billions of dollars to avoid it since it is a non entity.
I don't exactly see what relevance that has. My little experiment was to show that exposure to high concentrations of CO2, and thus low concentrations of Oxygen is a temporary effect, and that you recover. You do not recover immediately from exposure to toxic gasses.
You are of course aware that the concetrations of atmospheric CO2 is so far away from the level it would take to knock you out that it is completely and totally irrelevant. you would have to have millions of times more than we have now. You also know that plants convert CO2 to oxygen right, so that it is required in the levels that we currently have it else all life on this planet will die. In other words your more likely to die from lack of C02 than too much. So Co2 is as neccesarry to life as oxygen is. It's life givng, not damaging.
Troll?, by any definiton you would get more troll points. And I'm prety sure not understanding the situation at all is a troll + Modifier.
Fine we can have an arguiement about feedback or we can discuss CO2 toxicity and the lack therof.
Nothing you have put forward shows CO2 to be toxic, so instead you choose to argue semantics and spelling. And saying I'm loosing the argument doesn't make it so, like saying Man made global warming doesn't make it so.
So now your argument is wrong because I capailized a letter in the wrong place?
Well at least it's an aruement that has 0 relevance.
Oh gee there is another element with a lowercase o. Fine I won't spell it that way anywmore. Does being a memebr of the grammar police pay well? Since you are a member can I ask a question, does anal Retenetive have a hyphen?
And why don't you use a superscript 2 when you spell it? I mean if we want to be technically correct here.
Yes Oxygen is toxic, yes water is toxic. C02 is not. In fact your link does not say it is. It says that oxygen in high concentrations can be toxic, what it doesn't say is that breathing high concentrations of Oxygen at high pressures is also toxic. Large intakes of water is also toxic.
But funny enough, they did not say that CO2 is toxic. They said that concentrations of up to 10% can lead to death. But they didn't say why. So again, I will tell you. Because it displaces oxygen, we need oxygen to breath, we need a certain concentration of oxygen to exist, without oxygen we die. High concentrations of argon will also kill you, but it is inert, and non-toxic.
CO2 fire extenguishers put out fires, they do this by.... Wait for it.... Displacing oxygen.
And again, they say that CO2 concentrations of 10% can lead to death. Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are approx 700 parts per million. Which is several orders of magnitude below 1%, much less 10%. So if we are going to get all anal about spelling, can we also get anal about science.
And is your arguement really that everything is toxic, because that also destroys the arguement about not realeasing C02 because it's toxic, since so is everything else.
Man I love how people who are so absolutely wrong get modded up.
Co2 is in no way, shape or form Toxic. The effect he describes is life saving, not toxic.
Lack of oxygen however is dangerous for your health.
Ummm I would consider it a negaive reaction. Whether it is a positive or negative feedback is based upon the result. Lowering oxygen content would be a negative result.
BTW. Thinking about it on my way home I realized something.
Your comment doesn't in anyway detract from what I said.
I said that Co2 Wasn't toxic, but that it can displace Oxygen, as can any other thing. What you said, is if the oxygen is displaced, you will breath faster (co2 is the mechanisim that triggers respiration, without it, we would die), thus inhaling more Co2 because it has displaced the Oxygen. So in other words you have not shown it to be toxic at all. You've shown that the lifesaving effect of Co2, triggering respiration, when it doesn't work due to the lack of oxygen it increases respiration in an attempt to raise oxygen levels.
But no, so long as you have a minumum concentraion of oxygen to keep you alive, you will pass out, and your hyperventilating will stop. Once oxygen levels rise high enough to revive you, you will be fine.
You will not die from Co2 Toxicity you will die from lack of oxygen. The EXACT same thing would happen if you had an excess of Nitrogen, argon, neon or anything else instead of Co2. There is absolutley no toxicity involved.
You can even test this for yourself. Set up a video camera to tape yourself. Hyperventialte into a paper bag (raising Co2 in your bloodstream) Eventually if you continue long enough you will pass out. The bag will no longer cover your mouth, you will imediately stop hyperventilating, oxygen levels will rise and you will regain conscousness.
I don't recomend doing it often. As such an experiment will kill brain cells (The weak ones). Do it often enough and Human cuased global warming will even start to make sense.
Until you pass out, at which point the negative feedbnack loop is interupted and you get back to normal.
The brewery workers more than likely had the CO2 displace the oxygen.
Regardless even if it were true, it's all in the dose, the atmosphere has a few hundred parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. What your talking about is in quantities of percentage points, about a few orders of magnituded above what's in the atmosphere.
"Also bear in mind that releasing toxic substance into our atmosphere regardless of the effects on climate is a really bad idea for our health"
CO2 is toxic?!?!?!!? Since when?
You might want to look into the plant life cycle.
CO2 Is NOT toxic in any way shape or form. Sure if it displaces all the oxygen in a room it's deadly, but that's true of any non oxygen substance. Displacing it with Nitrogen, lead, styrofoam or anything else.
CO2 is a needed part of our ecosystem. Unbelievably some of the global warmning charlatans have even said ANY CO2 is a problem.
Remove the CO2 plants die, when the plants die, we die.
I'm with Steve Milloy.
In celebration of the enactment of Kyoto if you think CO2 is a problem you should not exhale for the entire day.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly
c -ncc020905.php which was from those wacky Europeans that everyone here says all are in agreement with the current global warming theories. Current scientific evidence from records of tree ring growth, and and Ice samples actually show that a rise in atmospheric CO2 actually follows Global warming by about 400 years, not preceeds it, so of course anything that goes against historical data needs to be looked at closley
"The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years,..."
Well that statement is certainly true. But that is because it only goes back 40 years to the low point in a global cooling trend. If you go back 65 years you see no net warming, so who cares.
"Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely."
Can we see the data? Becuase, if true, it would cettainly be a revelation, as this has not been true ever before. Which is why this article was released, it is basically just a retort from this article http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/sr
Actually there isn't much to retort in this article, as it is nothing but a bunch of claims and name calling, without any suporting data.
Actually the majority of SUVs sold, as with all automobiles, are the base model, which is a V-6, not a V-8. the sameholds true for Minivans. So wrong there.
Ride height (meaning eye level of driver, not bumper height) is the same +/- a couple of inches between so no difference there.
Crash Tests are useless data.
The original poster made the first comment, with no references, I mad a similarly unsubstantiated comment, complete wash.
Your links were for total gorss CO2 production, I don't argue those statements, but they say nothing about wheter or not the US is a Net Carbon sink, therefore they do not dispute my comment.
Do you deny that while we as a nation produce X amount of CO2, that we also consume Y amount of CO2, so that our impact on atmospheric CO2 is X-Y=Z Where Z is total CO2 released into the atmosphere? THerefore Gross CO2 production numbers are useless in the discusion of how US CO2 production effects the enviornment?
I think the person embarising himself is not me. What you have shown is gross CO2 production, not net.
Those show total CO2 emmisions, but do not take into account how much CO2 is used by those nations (mostly from plants re-absorbing it), so it shows nothing.
Now that you have data on how much CO2 is produced, we need to subtract how much CO2 is consumed by US plants and forests, as well as algae and the like. What is the data for that?
Combining the two will show wheter or not we have net CO2 production, or wheter we are a sink.
Just think if an accountant calculated a businsses net worth by how much they took in annually without subtracting expenditures. Would ou consider that good accounting practices?
"How much peer review have these models been subjected to?"
n ists/story.html?id=b5aa21e0-098b-4609-b27a-d97c754 ddf2c
I realize your question was rhetorical, but since there is an answer I thought I would post it.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/colum
In short there has been almost no peer review, and Michael Mann is working against peer review by not allowing his methods, data, or algorithims out, a thing unheard of in scientific research.
Unture, the majority of SUV's sold are sold with the EXACT SAME engine as their Minivan couunterparts.
Mnivans also have 4WD and it is not a useless feature.
A soccer mom hauls the same amount of people regardless of the type of vehicle, and agian it's not a difference in the vehicle, but of drivers habits. If we outlawed SUV's then that same peron driving around with just him/herself in the vehicle would do it in a minivan instead. And the minivan has the same fuel efficiency, gross vehicle weight etc etc etc. So there is no net gain.
Minivans and SUV's generally shar the exact same engines. True more SUV's have V-8's as an option, but that's irrelevant. And genraly only true of the larger SUV's. But regarless of the size of thee engine Fuel efficiency is approx the same (within 1 mpg) between SUV's and minivans, so it's a moot point.
Name one SUV that has a bumber height in line with yur window? I know of no Un-modified SUUV where this is true. In fact such a bumper height is illegal.
Aggresive/bad drivers are a reflection of the individual, they will be aggresive/bad regardless of what vehicle they drive, and regardless that's just a broad statement with no facts to back it up. In my opiion the majority of people with bumper stickers from crap pop rdio stations are the worse drivers, by your logic we should ban crap pop music stations.
Are CO2 per good produced is well below the median level.
Can you bck up your comments that were are the #1 CO2 Producer.
I saw no reference, just the repeating of "Common knowledge" or lack thereof.
Actually I think you've got it reversed there.
Actually it is topic for debate outside of the US, more people, percentage wise, outside of the US argue that Global warming is not a reality, than in the US.
More newspapers outside of the US run articles critacal of global warming sicence, The effort against Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is being refuted by Canadians, the majority of science and peer reviewed articles against global warming comes from outside the US.
In short your comment has no validity.
Can I ask if there is a signifigant differennce between an SUV and a minivan, particularly in realtion to being bad for the enviornement?
And if none, why do people rally against SUV's but not against minivans?
"i think the majority of scientists claim global warming is happening and it's likely to be caused by humans."
Actually not true, but it is true that the majority of people putting forth global warming are not scientists, but enviornementalists and politicians. If you boil it down to climatologists you'll find that there is honoest debate on the matter.
If you compare CO2 o goods produced we are lower than China.
We also produce more CO2 per person than Nairobi, but what does that mean.
If you want to live like a third world country you'll need to stop doing some things. Get rid of the heaing/cooling in your house, refrigeration, your car (even if it's a hybrid, few people in third world countries can afford a Prius), most importantly, your computer.
We all do that, then we can live just like those people that produce les CO2
Actually there was a vote. It was 95-0 to not ratify the treaty.
But you are right that there was not enough support to ratify the treaty.
Yes but we are a net Carbon sink, so we do not add to atmospheric CO2, therefore we are not the problem.
Yeah but last years hurricane (I assume you meant hurricanes and not tornados, which hit a lot more than three times last year) season stilll isn't as bad as it was 40 years ago, during a severe cooling trned.
Meaning we have not seen more severe weather, we've seen less severe weather. So it's not a catastrophe and we shouldn't be spending billions of dollars to avoid it since it is a non entity.
I don't exactly see what relevance that has. My little experiment was to show that exposure to high concentrations of CO2, and thus low concentrations of Oxygen is a temporary effect, and that you recover. You do not recover immediately from exposure to toxic gasses.
You are of course aware that the concetrations of atmospheric CO2 is so far away from the level it would take to knock you out that it is completely and totally irrelevant. you would have to have millions of times more than we have now. You also know that plants convert CO2 to oxygen right, so that it is required in the levels that we currently have it else all life on this planet will die. In other words your more likely to die from lack of C02 than too much. So Co2 is as neccesarry to life as oxygen is. It's life givng, not damaging.
Troll?, by any definiton you would get more troll points. And I'm prety sure not understanding the situation at all is a troll + Modifier.
Fine we can have an arguiement about feedback or we can discuss CO2 toxicity and the lack therof.
Nothing you have put forward shows CO2 to be toxic, so instead you choose to argue semantics and spelling. And saying I'm loosing the argument doesn't make it so, like saying Man made global warming doesn't make it so.
So now your argument is wrong because I capailized a letter in the wrong place?
Well at least it's an aruement that has 0 relevance.
Oh gee there is another element with a lowercase o. Fine I won't spell it that way anywmore. Does being a memebr of the grammar police pay well? Since you are a member can I ask a question, does anal Retenetive have a hyphen?
And why don't you use a superscript 2 when you spell it? I mean if we want to be technically correct here.
Yes Oxygen is toxic, yes water is toxic. C02 is not. In fact your link does not say it is. It says that oxygen in high concentrations can be toxic, what it doesn't say is that breathing high concentrations of Oxygen at high pressures is also toxic. Large intakes of water is also toxic.
But funny enough, they did not say that CO2 is toxic. They said that concentrations of up to 10% can lead to death. But they didn't say why. So again, I will tell you. Because it displaces oxygen, we need oxygen to breath, we need a certain concentration of oxygen to exist, without oxygen we die. High concentrations of argon will also kill you, but it is inert, and non-toxic.
CO2 fire extenguishers put out fires, they do this by.... Wait for it.... Displacing oxygen.
And again, they say that CO2 concentrations of 10% can lead to death. Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are approx 700 parts per million. Which is several orders of magnitude below 1%, much less 10%. So if we are going to get all anal about spelling, can we also get anal about science.
And is your arguement really that everything is toxic, because that also destroys the arguement about not realeasing C02 because it's toxic, since so is everything else.
Man I love how people who are so absolutely wrong get modded up. Co2 is in no way, shape or form Toxic. The effect he describes is life saving, not toxic. Lack of oxygen however is dangerous for your health.
Ummm I would consider it a negaive reaction. Whether it is a positive or negative feedback is based upon the result. Lowering oxygen content would be a negative result.
BTW. Thinking about it on my way home I realized something.
Your comment doesn't in anyway detract from what I said.
I said that Co2 Wasn't toxic, but that it can displace Oxygen, as can any other thing. What you said, is if the oxygen is displaced, you will breath faster (co2 is the mechanisim that triggers respiration, without it, we would die), thus inhaling more Co2 because it has displaced the Oxygen. So in other words you have not shown it to be toxic at all. You've shown that the lifesaving effect of Co2, triggering respiration, when it doesn't work due to the lack of oxygen it increases respiration in an attempt to raise oxygen levels.
But no, so long as you have a minumum concentraion of oxygen to keep you alive, you will pass out, and your hyperventilating will stop. Once oxygen levels rise high enough to revive you, you will be fine.
You will not die from Co2 Toxicity you will die from lack of oxygen. The EXACT same thing would happen if you had an excess of Nitrogen, argon, neon or anything else instead of Co2. There is absolutley no toxicity involved.
You can even test this for yourself. Set up a video camera to tape yourself. Hyperventialte into a paper bag (raising Co2 in your bloodstream) Eventually if you continue long enough you will pass out. The bag will no longer cover your mouth, you will imediately stop hyperventilating, oxygen levels will rise and you will regain conscousness.
I don't recomend doing it often. As such an experiment will kill brain cells (The weak ones). Do it often enough and Human cuased global warming will even start to make sense.
Until you pass out, at which point the negative feedbnack loop is interupted and you get back to normal.
The brewery workers more than likely had the CO2 displace the oxygen.
Regardless even if it were true, it's all in the dose, the atmosphere has a few hundred parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. What your talking about is in quantities of percentage points, about a few orders of magnituded above what's in the atmosphere.
"Also bear in mind that releasing toxic substance into our atmosphere regardless of the effects on climate is a really bad idea for our health" CO2 is toxic?!?!?!!? Since when? You might want to look into the plant life cycle. CO2 Is NOT toxic in any way shape or form. Sure if it displaces all the oxygen in a room it's deadly, but that's true of any non oxygen substance. Displacing it with Nitrogen, lead, styrofoam or anything else. CO2 is a needed part of our ecosystem. Unbelievably some of the global warmning charlatans have even said ANY CO2 is a problem. Remove the CO2 plants die, when the plants die, we die. I'm with Steve Milloy. In celebration of the enactment of Kyoto if you think CO2 is a problem you should not exhale for the entire day.
Damnit is that why the supermarkets have crappy tomatoes now.