Regardless of whether global warming exists, it seems to me that by our
blowing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmostphere every
day with our car's tail pipes, that increased level of carbon dioxide
SHOULD manifest itself in some way.
One would expect that the result of engine exhaust fumes would be more
CO2 dissolving in the waters of our oceans, lakes and rivers. Algae are
green because they survive by creating their own food energy by
photosynthesis. If there's more CO2 in our air and waters, one would
expect large algae blooms as algae absorb more CO2 and H2O and sunlight
and combine them to produce sugar. The more food there is in the
environment for the algae, the more algae we would expect to see.
But, I really haven't heard of large algae blooms being a problem
Whenever we hear of large algae blooms, the finger is always pointed at
phosphorus enrichment in the water from fertilizer runoff from
agricultural land (farms, mostly), never as a result of increase CO2
levels in our air and water. Is there a reason why we're not seeing
huge algae blooms in our oceans as a result of the increased level of
CO2 in our atmosphere (and presumably rivers, lakes and oceans?
Why do you think this is on topic in AHR?
Personally, I have very little interest in your ignorance.
Algae blooms are on the rise,
oceans take up minimal amounts of C02 (26%),
and they take up less when the water warms up
and they take up less after absorbing C02.
Please, stick to home repair.
I think it's more a matter of average global temperature/heat than any
particular local experience.
Doesn't seem like that much of a stretch for warming-induced disruptions
to cause the jet stream (whatever *that* is.... but it seems to affect
our winters a lot) to sag south - and the jet stream sagging South
appears to correlate with much of our wintry weather here in
- Who wrote the piece you are so easily taking to heart?
- Who funds whoever wrote the piece?
- What are the interests of those who are doing the funding?
I have no clue what the answers are in this case... but before I took
something so important seriously, I would want those questions (and
other questions... but at the very least those three) answered.
On Monday, November 24, 2014 7:56:34 PM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
It hasn't gotten warmer for the last 17 years. The global average
temperature has been going sideways. Look at a graph and you'll see
that's the conclusions a reasonable person would come to.
Haven't you seen the global warming proponents all scrambling with
various explanations of why that might be? And note that if they know
so much, have such accurate models, etc, why is it that they are now
scrambling to put together various explanations, instead of telling us
10 or 15 years ago that global temp would be about the same for the
next two decades?
Typical alarmist headline is like the recent "warmest Oct on record".
Yeah, by a whopping .02 degrees. I'd say that's likely within the
error range and even if it isn't, if you looked at the actual numbers,
they have likely added more observation points over the last 20 years,
then massaged the data
to "blend" it all in. Of course they claim they do that in an unbiased
fashion, but we all know how that works.
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:00:28 -0500, Stormin Mormon
What kind of crap is that? Do you believe that the earth is getting
warmer or not? Do you believe that human activity is at least part of
I don't believe that the vast majority of scientists lie. I have
respect for scientists.
On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 9:32:35 AM UTC-5, dgk wrote:
40 years is now a "long term trend" when it comes to climate?
And the point is, if scientists know
so much about global warming, have the models right, then why is it that
they didn't tell us 17 years ago that global temperature will not be rising
for the next two decades because of X, Y, Z? Why is it only *now*, after
the fact, that they are coming up with various *theories* why the temperature
has been going sideways? And what's the big hurry? If global temps do
break out on the upside from this sideways movement in the next 5 years,
there will still be plenty of time to save the whales. Even Obama apparently
agrees. He just reached a big, historic agreement with the Chinese, where
they get to increase CO2 until 2030.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 05:42:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
Likely computers. Just like my little Commodore 64 has been made
obsolete, the computers are so much better now. Plus, more effort has
been expended to find out what is happening and why. It's sort of
important. If you folks are wrong, and I think you are, our children's
children are going to face some serious challenges.
On Friday, November 28, 2014 10:28:32 AM UTC-5, dgk wrote:
Obama likely signed the agreement with China because of computers?
Just like my little Commodore 64 has been made
That's what the scientists predicting global cooling in the 70s said
too. "Our computers today are so much better than those in the 50s and
Plus, more effort has
I personally more worried about the challenges kids will face from
a failed US as a country and world power, than I am of the global
warming problem. I think we can survive one, but not so sure about the
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.