The climate’s in the very best of hands…
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”
Now, there’s a question for our AGW true believers – is airborne tundra entered into the climate models as earth warming “insulation” or earth cooling particulates? (Please show your math.)
A field of corn in full sunshine will deplete the available trace CO2 within a zone three feet above ground in under five minutes.
FIVE MINUTES !!
OUR FOOD PLANTS HAVE ONLY FIVE MINUTES TO LIVE !! CARBON DIOXIDE STARVATION COMING !! CALL BIG AL.
[ CO2 is the accepted limiting resource for the biosphere. At 350 ppm, the concentration of carbon dioxide is only a faint .03 percent — a mere trace gas. A field of corn in full sunshine will deplete the available trace CO2 within a zone three feet above ground in under five minutes. Even small increases in CO2 levels can boost biomass production significantly. Accordingly, says this hypothesis, wherever we aren’t cutting down forests, trees are putting on extra weight due to the 15 percent of additional CO2 “fertilizer” in the air, perhaps even at a rate greater than they are being destroyed elsewhere. ]
“It’s not a leftist plot, It’s a real scientific issue”
Taking the second part first – if it’s a scientific issue, why is Al Gore the face of AGW? Last I heard, he didn’t have any scientific background. What he did have was a leftist politician background, which brings me to the first part of the quote.
If it’s not a leftist plot, why is the D party in the US already planning on spending a good chunk of the $3900 per family that will be raised under cap and trade on health care? Why did Christine Stewart, Enviro Minister under Chretien, announce that Kyoto was “our best chance to spread wealth and justice around the world”? Continuing on with Stewart, why did she add “even if the science is wrong”?
Maybe the reason that so many think it’s a leftist plot is because so many leftists are plotting.
Waxman has long been a renaissance man – he’s omni-incompetent.
I can’t recall a single issue I’ve heard Waxman opine about where he hasn’t been either bone-headedly stupid or wearing such partisan blinders that he can’t even see straight ahead.
-20C at BHP’s Ekati Diamond mine last night, 200 miles north east of Yellowknife in the NWT.
“Please show your math ? ”
Warmongers don’t have to. (Even if there was some)
Most Journalists never ask for the math because they would never understand it anyways. Same for the Editors. They probably dropped math electives way back in high school – social engineering majors, ya see 🙂
This is what Waxman works on in Congress:
Committee on Energy and Commerce (Chairman)
* Subcommittee on Health
* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
* Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
So, since he knows so much about the polar cap melt, I wonder what he has in store for the above committees he working on.
ahh
ihh
ehhh
Nah, I got nothin’ for a statement THAT stupid.
Posted by: Justthinkin at April 27, 2009 2:19 PM
I actually had to do that a couple weeks back. The concept was just completely beyond this dingbat at my sister’s place that night.
Sad,isn’t it, AtlanticJim.I guess Archimedes ain’t taught in edchumacational skool anymore. Come to think of it…just WHAT do they supposedly teach nowadays???
I fear to ask.
I really wished he had a boat. I could tie it up to a floating dock and then tell him to make sure he adjusts the berthing lines as the tides go in and out.
Waxman … being the bright light and big mouth that he is… is a natural go to guy for the media.
It’s just like when Jack Laytoon opens up…. here in Canuckistan … guaranteed to appear on 5 or six national bylines and all the networks.
I kind of suspect that the man thinks that the arctic circle begins somewhere around North Dakota..
Simple intelligence test:
Do you believe CO2 is a pollutant?
a) yes
b) no
Anyone who answers “a) yes” is too stupid to be allowed to vote or debate climate in any forum
Comments, canuckguy?
I think, no I know, I would be scared to see a real poll done on that question Tanker.
To quote Beck, I results would probably make blood shoot out of my eyes.
The thing about Al Gore and people like him, is that they are working from a mechanical model.
A mechanical model, which pertains only to machines, i.e., man-made things, is a ‘steady-state model’. Things are made and are supposed to be kept and maintained by a Higher Power in that steady-state. If they change from that steady-state, they are becoming weak and require repairs. Or flinging on the trash.
Posted by: ET at April 27, 2009 10:46 AM
Indeed, ET, I experienced this first hand just yesterday. I had a friend of mine and her husband over for dinner. Now, my friend, is an AGW believer, so of course we got into a conversation about it.
But, it got to the point where we started discussed the models, and I posited that we cannot trust the models, since it’s obvious we don’t know enough about the variables that move climate to create a reliable model. My friend came back saying computer modeling is getting getting better, and asked if I trusted my car’s seat belt, since seat belt safety is tested (in part) and predicated upon computer models.
I shut the discussion down at that point, since it was clear it was moving in a direction where, in my opinion, my good friend was embarrassing herself. I graciously exited the debate by suggesting we obviously were not going to convince one another.
I genuinely like this friend of mine, and have much respect for her…..but I must admit, I am deeply troubled today by her inability to see past the politics of AGW hysteria. I just don’t get it. I don’t get the implicit trust otherwise intelligent and educated people have in what is obviously corrupted, and politicized science.
I think, no I know, I would be scared to see a real poll done on that question Tanker.
To quote Beck, I results would probably make blood shoot out of my eyes.
Posted by: AtlanticJim at April 27, 2009 9:14 PM
Drives me absolutely crazy when I listen to the radio and hear CO2 referred to as a pollutant.
On this issue
I’ll be back
In 5 years, serving crow.
You want fries with that?
It’s late now, past my beddy time too tired to reply to the direct questions. I definitely noticed a lack of allies in my corner, now I know a bit what a lone bomber caught in the spot lights over Germany felt like.
Canuckguy,try a lone Heinkel over London. You and your fellow travellers are so wrong it’s ridiculous. And like every believer, you sidestepped the question. Is CO2 a pollutant in your world?
How do you like your crow? BBQ’d or boiled?
canuckguy – no, your departing comments aren’t an argument.
After all, all you are saying is: “I’m right, so there! But your statements have all been shown to be factually invalid. So, that’s hardly an intelligent response.
And no, don’t move into the ‘I’m a poor victim” mode, with your self-definition of yourself as a heroic Allied pilot over, gasp, enemy Germany in the war. You aren’t heroic or ‘in the right camp’. Your camp of AGW has been shown to be scientifically invalid and without evidence.
And threatening us – that if we don’t believe you – we’ll end up suffering apocalpytic results – is hardly an argument. And it’s not heroic.
I suggest, by the way, that you read a few books on basic biology, in particular, on botany and photosynthesis – and check out the ecology of, for example, meadows and how they thrive, how different species move in and take up habitation. That’s what will happen when/if the permafrost soil warms up and releases CO2 for the use of millions of plants.
That’s a bit rich ET.
Almost everything you’ve posted on this topic is pure nonsense. You obviously are not qualified to lecture anybody on the biological process.
Perhaps you should read some books on these subjects yourself and learn some facts instead of trying to “reason” your way through.
Unless, of course, you’re auditioning to be a ghost writer for the likes of Gore, Suzuki, et al. Your “science” is every bit as wonky as theirs. And you’re just providing fodder for the climate change morons to come here and generalize about everyone being just as clueless about science as they are…
Pd – no, that’s not an argument. You see, you have to SUBSTANTIATE your opinions. It’s useless just to assert something, especially a qualitative and subjective opinion.
So, you say that almost everything I’ve posted here is ‘sheer nonsense’. So – prove it. Prove that ‘everything’ is ‘sheer nonsense’.
Oh, and prove that I’m ‘obiously not qualified ‘with regard to ‘the biological process’.
Try again.
Speaking of cold – these people really know cold and ice when they see it!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25347937-30417,00.html
Colin from Mission wrote:
I don’t get the implicit trust otherwise intelligent and educated people have in what is obviously corrupted, and politicized science.
Try a moron on. Yesterday a rather mild retort of mine to the walmart greeter’s warm praise of OBAMA…..elicited him throwing a yelling swinging hissy fit. Maniac—-explain such an emotional investment in a foreign politician..
Oh, and prove that I’m ‘obiously not qualified ‘with regard to ‘the biological process’
LOL You’ve already done that for me. Go back and read anything you’ve written on this thread.
You’re the one making false assertions. Perhaps you would like to provide some “proof”.
Pd, ET asked you to provide proof that what she said was not correct. Either provide it or admit that because you can’t provide it that you have no response to a valid question which would lead me to conclude you are a lefty who relies solely on emotion and not facts. Therefore not worth reading your posts as they are not intelligent debate but just comments.
PD:
–Thanks for the support. Don’t expect to be able to change their minds.
ET:
–CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen which is a necessary ingredient of the atmosphere and soil. But you can have too much of a good thing. That is what is happening with CO2.
–And I am certainly not comparing myself to a heroic pilot. I was just comparing the responses as so much flak you and your buddies were firing. I have too much respect for the WWII vets to compare myself to them.
–And BTW, there is no doubt the tundra area will change with global warming, for one thing, the tree line will move further north. But over all, if it comes to that, glabal warming will be a bad thing for human societies. There will be great localized disruptions and somehow we have to adapt. Our comfortable world that we currently enjoy will change for the worse.
Indiana Homez asked “What do you think is going to actually happen in five years”
Ans: I don’t expect to have to relocate due to the rising sea yet but what I am sure is that within 5 years, the evidence will be much clearer and you deniers will be ordering crow.
canuck- first – who ever said that CO2 is a pollutant????
And you are thinking in a mechanical manner, i.e., a steady state manner where, eg, CO2 must remain static. But that’s not how biological processes operate; they don’t operate as machines. They have the capacity to adapt, and so, if more CO2 is released, the result will be more plants that use and store the CO2. And more animals, birds, insects, that live within this new plant ecology.
Your conclusions are without evidence…i.e. great localized disruptions and so on. They are just your imagination but you have no evidence; and again, your lack of knowledge about biomes and ecological processes…and your reliance on a steady-state mechanical model – means that you don’t understand biological adaptation.
“Do you believe CO2 is a pollutant?
a) yes
b) no ”
That was asked by Tanker, my mistake ET.
Now, back to you ET and your misinformation. Let’s take one of you statements that made PD chuckle
“At the moment, because of the low carbon availability in these areas, the number of plant and animal species is very low. Release that vital carbon requirement and the tundra, which is now akin to a desert, will explose with new life and will make extensive use of carbon.”
(‘because of the low carbon availability in these areas’) – Good Grief!! The CO2 in the tundra is about the same as elsewhere in the world as various atmospheric gases will diffuse to equalize their concentrations at any particular elvation.. An exception is smog(a mixture of engine emmissions, moisture and suspended particulates) and in cities which do not disperse readily.
(‘because of the low carbon availability in these areas, the number of plant and animal species is very low’) -Double Good Grief – The number of plant and animal is low because of the long frigging cold winters and lack of sun. You need warmer climes to get the tree line moving north.
Anyway, that’s enough humulation for your reasoning. Methinks your science training stopped in high school but continued on this site. If you did go to university, you must have taken arts and avoided all science and engineering courses because you cannot think logically when confronted by data and study results.
“The number of plant and animal is low because of the long frigging cold winters and lack of sun” – by me
Before somebody jumps all over me to explain the Sahara because there is lots of sun and warmth there but little life, well you need water as well. (I really should not have to say that but on this site, it is necessary)
canuckguy – well, I see you’ve finally looked up the definition of photosynthesis.
And no, you are quite incorrect, the carbon stored in the permafrost is not available to plant life; release it – and it will be taken up with an explosion of plant life making use of this, and also, enabling a massive increase of birds, insects and mammals that live in that plant-rich area.
Of course temperature is vital; that’s understood in the term ‘permafrost’. As for light – plants can deal with that.
But CO2 and water both flux over terrestrial ecosystems; they aren’t the same in different ecosystems and they fluctuate according to the plant and animal life. So, you’ll get sparse vegetation in areas where there is little CO2 stored (eg, in the mass of plants), where there is little expressed by a high number of animals in the ecosystem. An area rich in CO2 enables a rich biosystem.
As for your attempts to personally insult me, don’t bother; that’s juvenile. And I have no intention of informing you about my intellectual and scientific background.
ET, don’t take all this seriously.
Blogging is all about rants, feints, jabs, sarcasm, put downs, wit, snarky remarks etc.
It’s just a hi-tech soapbox.
But back to you. Your understanding of eco-systems is mucked up. I already explained how.
But here is another off course line from you:
“So, you’ll get sparse vegetation in areas where there is little CO2 stored (eg, in the mass of plants) – ET,
Well duh. If you have sparse vegetation, naturally you have little Carbon stored in plants. That statement is meaningless. No plants, no stored Carbon. ie; the Sahara(except for any oil stored below the surface.)
You can have all the CO2 you want but if you don’t have the proper soil conditions(nitrogen, moisture, whatever, you won’t get much vegetation.
Or how about this one “release it – and it will be taken up with an explosion of plant life making use of this,’ –
Again, how many times do you have to be told. You still need warmth and sunlight and moisture. CO2 popping out of the ground is not going to creat an Amazon out of the tundra. The CO2 will first go to atmosphere, play a role in heating up the planet and only then will the tree line will advance north into the vast tundra. That will take time, no explosion there.
You got any other zingers?
Asked by Justhinkin: “Canukguy…simple test for you…put 6 ounces of H20 into a 8 oz glass.Now add 4 ice cubes.Let the ice cubes melt.Does the cup overflow??? Try it,and get back to us.”
I am puzzled by this question. Is it me or is the question just a meaningless stupidity?.
BTW, if you have concrete numbers in a question, it would make sense in this case to specify the size of the ice cubes. Even then the question does not have any bearing on this thread.
canuckguy – no, I don’t agree with your definition of blogging. It doesn’t include insults, rants, put-downs and rank ignorance asserted as knowledge.
Yes, you now have some understanding of photosynthesis – a movement away from your first assertion about ‘carbon sinks’. That means that if/when the tundra loses that permafrost situation, the area will burst alive with a massive increase in plants, insects and animals. Remember, plants use CO2. No, the CO2 will NOT go ‘free into the atmosphere’. It will be rapidly grabbed by these new plants.
The fact that you don’t recognize this – well, that’s your problem.
Canuckguy, as I expected, you didn’t get what I was putting across with my question – not surprising with a true believer. The point I was making was that
a) all too many believers think CO2 is a pollutant – check the EPA’s latest pronouncements
b) seeing that the CO2 levels were much, much higher in the past when the earth was a lush tropical paradise (without human intervention, might I add) that saying too much CO2 is a bad thing is disineguous – look up CO2 levels in the past and compare to today and finally
c) water vapour is a much more effective and wide-spread greenhouse gas than CO2 can and will ever be, yet no AGW believers even mention it
When your side starts talking facts instead of offering to serve crow in 5 years is when I’m willing to debate. Until then, have fun playing at intellectual discourse, son
It doesn’t include insults, rants, put-downs and rank ignorance asserted as knowledge.
Wow. Too much ET. Seems to me that that pretty much describes you to a T. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone try so hard to make a total and utter fool of themselves. Even the guy who believes the planet is melting understands more science than you. You just make things up. And you wouldn’t be able to substantiate any of your drivel if you tried.
But here’s a couple of clues for you anyway:
1. There is no CO2 in the permafrost. The carbon that would allegedly be released by melting would be contained in methane gas
2. Plants do not store CO2
3. Plants do not add nutrients to the soil. They deplete the soil of nutrients. That’s why we use fertilizers.
4. Your definition of photosynthesis would have gotten you failed in public school.
Incidently, there is an explosion of life in the Arctic every summer. Spectacular flora. Birds migrate from South America to nest there. And it’s probably the worst place on the planet for bugs. Perhaps we should drop you into a canoe in the middle of the Mackenzie river at the end of June and let you experience a little of the real world.
Rank ignorance asserted as knowledge. Talk about projection! You’re the queen ET.
pd- I think your comments ought to stand, as they are, in all their glory. Incredible.